United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water/WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
March 1991
A Guide to
the Office of Water
Accountability System
and Regional Evaluations
Fiscal Year 1992

-------
A GUIDE TO THE
OFFICE OF WATER
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
AND
REGIONAL EVALUATIONS
FY 1992
OFFICE OF WATER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20460

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
NUEER
I.	INTRODUCTION	1
II.	THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM	2
III.THE	OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM	7
APPENDIX A (PERFORMANCE MEASURES)
PROGRAM THEMES
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK	A-l
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE	A-36
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION	A-41
IN RISK
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING	A-44
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL	A-59
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY	A-86
APPENDIX B (DEFINITIONS/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS)
PROGRAM THEMES
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK	B-l
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE	B-34
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION	B-40
IN RISK
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING	B-44
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL	B-54
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY	B-64

-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In FY 1992, the Office of Water will continue to conduct
evaluations of Regional water programs. The purpose of these
reviews is to assess Regional success at achieving National program
objectives for the year, and to help ensure National consistency in
implementation of Federal laws and regulations.
This guide contains the accountability measures that the
Office of Water will use to monitor Regional performance in FY
1992. The guide should be used in conjunction with the Agency's FY
1992 Operating Guidance, which sets forth the National objectives
for water programs.
1

-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System (OWAS) consists of
a set of qualitative and quantitative measures that provide the
basis for evaluating Regional Office performance against National
program objectives. The measures in the system include all
measures included in the Agency's Strategic Targeted Activities for
Results System (STARS) as well as additional qualitative and
quantitative measures which are needed to evaluate fully
performance against the Office of Water's FY 1992 National program
objectives. In general, the measures from the STARS relate to
selected areas of the Agency's Priority List and are among the
highest priority program activities. They are not intended to
provide a comprehensive picture of every program area and are
supplemented by the additional measures contained in this guide.
The following is a brief description of the accountability
system, which is presented fully in Appendices A and B.
A. Appendix A: The Measures
Appendix A presents the measures which comprise the OWAS. The
Appendix is organized by major program theme. For FY 1992, an
introductory narrative has been added at the beginning of each
program theme to highlight the major points. The charts contain
the following categories of information:
Program Areas: Within each theme these are the high priority areas
for which performance measures are proposed. The Office of Water
does not expect the Regions to address every area. Rather, each
Region should identify its key program areas, and should focus on
those activities that are relevant to its particular circumstances.
At the time of the Regional evaluations, however, the Region will
be asked to identify the activity areas that are not considered to
be priorities and to explain how the Region arrived at its
decision.
Reporting Measures: The reporting measures are designed to
generate the key data and information that the Office of Water
needs to evaluate Regional progress towards achieving National
program objectives. There are two kinds of reporting measures:
2

-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
•	Qualitative measures are the specific questions that
Regions are expected to address during the Office of
Water Regional evaluations. The measures relate
primarily to program accomplishments and effectiveness,
and generally do not involve pre-negotiated commitments.
•	Quantitative measures provide the kinds of information
that the Office of Water needs for program management and
reporting purposes and for responding to Congressional
inquiries. These measures include all measures included
in the STARS, as well as some that are unique to the
OWAS. A number of these measures involve pre-negotiated
commitments with the Regions (see Section below).
In STARS/Commitments; This column refers to the quantitative
measures only. It designates (1) those measures that appear in the
FY 1992 STARS and (2) those measures involving a pre-negotiated
commitment between the Office of Water and the Regions. "Yes" as
the first entry in this column indicates that the measure also
appears in STARS; if not, the word "No" appears. A pre-negotiated
commitment may exist for measures which appear either in the
Agency's STARS or in the OWAS only. "STARS" as the second entry in
this column indicates a pre-negotiated commitment under STARS;
"OWAS" indicates a pre-negotiated commitment under OW's
accountability system; "No" indicates that no commitment is
involved, and the measure is solely for reporting purposes.
Reporting FrequencytSunset Dates This column indicates the planned
reporting schedule and sunset date for quantitative measures.
The measures in the accountability system will provide the
Office of Water with much of the information necessary to monitor
Regional performance in water programs. The accountability system
is not intended to provide all information that the Office of Water
needs during the year, nor to limit the kinds of information that
Regions may need for oversight of State water programs. As part of
its oversight function, the Region is expected to gather the basic
information to prepare its Regional self evaluation and to
participate effectively in the Office of Water Regional
3

-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
evaluations. However, Regions may seek additional information from
States through program audits or other activities, and may choose
to evaluate State management of water program activities that are
not covered in the Agency Operating Guidance or the OWAS.
B. Appendix B; The Definitions
Appendix B contains detailed, technical information that more
clearly defines some of the quantitative measures contained in
Appendix A. These definitions explain the manner in which the
Region is expected to report the required information to the Office
of Water. For some measures, they also establish a specific target
level of performance that each Region is expected to achieve during
the quarter/fiscal year, and explain how the Office of Water plans
to evaluate performance in these areas.
The following is a brief description of the ways in which the
Office of Water plans to collect information and to evaluate
Regional performance.
A. Pre-neaotiated Commitments and Quarterly Reporting
Many quantitative measures in the accountability system
require pre-negotiated commitments. The commitment setting process
will be carried out in conjunction with that of the STARS and will
follow the same schedule. In July and August of 1991, the Office
of Water programs negotiate with the Regions to set specific target
levels of activity for the quantitative measures in the
accountability system. The Regions and the Office of Water use the
following process to reach agreement on all pre-negotiated
commitments.
•	Program offices will negotiate commitments based on the
quantitative measures in the FY 1992 accountability
system; the Assistant Administrator must personally
approve any requests for pre-negotiated commitments
beyond those included in the final FY 1992 system.
•	Program Office Directors will initiate the original data
requests which will be addressed to the Regional Water
Management Division Directors.
4

-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
•	Program office data requests will identify significant
program assumptions, reporting frequency, and reporting
mode; each data requests should cross-reference the
pertinent measure in the FY 1992 OWAS.
•	Program offices will negotiate commitments based on
specific target levels of performance that take workload
and output projections into account. Negotiations will
start from zero based, with Regions developing the
initial commitment levels; the program offices will
analyze the Regions' output estimates to assure that they
are consistent with performance expectations, and will
accept the Region's estimates unless there is practical
evidence or other valid reason to suggest that an
alternative output estimate is more appropriate. Several
measures include commitments from States. In these
instances, Regions will negotiate commitments with their
States to support national priorities and performance
expectations and submit State commitments to the program
offices.
•	Once staff level negotiations are complete, the Assistant
Administrator will certify agreed upon commitments for
those measures included in the STARS to the Office of
Strategic Planning and Management Systems Division
(SPMD). Regional Administrators will also be asked to
certify the STARS commitments to SPMD. The Assistant
Administrator will send the commitments for those
measures included only in the OWAS to the Water
Management Division Director for verification and request
that the Region confirm the commitments to the Assistant
Administrator through the Regional Administrator.
SPMD will provide specific instructions on the schedule to be
followed in submitting STARS commitments. Briefly, both the
Regional Administrators and the Office of Water will be required to
submit STARS commitments, and any disagreements between the Regions
and the Office of Water are to be discussed personally between the
Assistant Administrator and the Regional Administrator. Then any
differences that remain unresolved are to be mediated by SPMD or
OECM and, if necessary, ultimately resolved by the Deputy
Administrator.
STARS quarterly reports are completed by the Office of Water
on the fifteenth day after the quarter's end. Copies of these
reports are available to the Regions through the computerized
system maintained by SPMD. To meet the reporting deadline, each
5

-------
II. OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
program office works with the Regions to obtain the requisite
information, generally within 10 days after the quarter's end. The
program office will establish pull dates for the information which
will form the basis of the report. These pull dates are sent to
the Water Management Division Directors and 404 Coordinators
(Regions III, VI, and VII) on an annual basis prior to the end of
the first quarter, and any changes are provided prior to the end of
the quarter in which they are effective.
6

-------
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM
B. Regional Initiatives
Each Region may propose to the Office of Water for discussion
environmental initiatives which the Region would like to carry out
in FY 1992. These initiatives should offer specific solutions or
approaches for achieving the environmental goals and results
outlined in the Office of Water Strategic Plan.
For each initiative that anticipates an adjustment, by mutual
agreement, to the commitment for a STARS measure, the Region should
describe how such adjustment is expected to improve water quality,
and indicate that it lacks the flexibility to pursue the initiative
within its operating plan resource levels. We plan to accommodate
this new flexibility in our FY 1992 STARS commitment negotiation
process.
C.	Regional Evaluations
In FY 1989 and FY 1990, in conjunction with the Regions, the Office
of Water piloted new approaches to Regional evaluations. Based on
those experiences, a revised process will be developed that meets
the needs enumerated during the pilot process. Guidance for 1992
Regional evaluations will be issued separately.
D.	Other Office of Water Information Collection Activities
While the accountability system and the Regional evaluations will
provide the Office of Water with much of the critical information
necessary to oversee Regional water programs, these reviews are not
intended to provide all the data that program offices need to
monitor ongoing activities in the Regions and States and to respond
to special requests from the Congress, the Administrator or the
Assistant Administrator. Consequently, there will be a need for
program offices to collect data and information from the Regions
outside the formal accountability system. The Office of Water
remains committed to keeping these information requests to a
minimum, and to coordinate activities between the program offices
to the extent possible.
The following are the main, ongoing information collection
activities that the Office of Water anticipates during FY 1992.
• Budget; The Office of Water will ask the Regions to
provide the information necessary to prepare the annual
budget request. Regions will also participate in the
7

-------
workload analysis that serves as the basis for
distributing resources among the Regions. Regions may
also periodically be asked to provide incidental
information related to the budget process.
Data Retrieval; The Office of Water will retrieve
quantitative data from existing management information
systems, such as the Permits Compliance System (PCS), the
Grants Information Control System (GICS) , and the Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS).
Quarterly Reporting: Regions will submit quarterly,
semiannual or annual reports to the Office of Water
program offices to monitor pre-negotiated commitments and
measures without commitments where such data cannot be
tracked through National data retrieval systems (see
above). The Office of Water will supply the appropriate
information for the STARS to SPMD.
Annual Work Programs/Strategies: The Office of Water
will review Regional documents that are submitted on a
routine basis, such as the section 106/205(j) work
programs, the State section 305(b) reports, and the
annual plans and evaluation results from section 205(g)
delegation agreements. The Office of Water will also
review any Regional and State strategies called for in
the FY 1992 OWAS.
Program Audits: The Office of Water will continue to
conduct selected program audits and case studies on an as
needed basis to track critical activities. Examples
include staff level audits of the construction grants and
permits and compliance programs. The program offices
will plan and negotiate these essential activities with
the Regions, and will conduct these activities jointly to
the extent possible.
Self Evaluation Reports; Regions will submit Regional
self evaluations that summarize their progress-to-date as
it relates to the Office of Water's National program
objectives.
state Mlfl-mr EvaluaUgn jtepgrtfri upon request, Regions
will submit a copy of the mid-year evaluation report for
each State. This report will include findings, follow-up
activities, and state comments on the report's findings.
Regional	Initiatives: Regional progress on the
initiatives and constraints will be reviewed annually.
8

-------
The information produced by these activities will be used for
ongoing program management purposes, and may also be used to help
identify issues and concerns that will be discussed during the
Regional evaluations.
9

-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MEASURES

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Over the past two decades water quality has improved dramatically,
but our success has also brought forth new challenges and unmet
needs. In FY 92, the water program will move forward to strengthen
our base program, and address new complex issues we face. EPA will
cohtinue to ensure that statutory mandates are fulfilled and that
national programs maintain an effective enforcement presence to
deter violators of environmental protection requirements. EPA will
work with States to ensure a high national level of technical
expertise and consistent application of national policies.
The major program highlights in this section are:
•	Maintaining strong NPDES permitting, enforcement, and
pretreatment programs as cornerstones of our regulatory
framework.
•	Focusing Agency resources on activities which will result in
the maximum environmental benefit, including CSO and Storm
water permitting, toxic pollutant controls and aggressively
enforcing program requirements.
•	Continuing a strong regulatory presence in the 404 program as
an essential element of wetlands protection activities.
•	Continuing the Near Coastal Waters Program focus on enhancing
EPA base programs to address the problems being experienced by
the Nation's coasts, thus providing the context under which
coastal regulatory programs such as 301(h), 403(c), and ocean
dumping are integrated.
•	Addressing the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program
priorities of: ensuring the mechanical integrity of injection
wells as a strong measure of pollution prevention, evaluating
deep injection wells that dispose of hazardous waste for
compliance with RCRA land ban requirements, eliminating the
disposal of waste that exceeds maximum contaminant levels into
shallow injection wells where the injectated may enter an
underground source of drinking water (USDW) and ensuring a
timely and appropriate enforcement response to significant
noncompliance.
•	Reducing risks to public health through the continued
implementation and enforcement of new drinking water
regulations. The Regions will work with all the States to
meet all primacy requirements and effectively implement the
new regulations. Where necessary, the Regions will implement
the new requirements in the absence of an acceptable State
Program.
A-l

-------
• Reducing the risks to public health posed by water systems
with violations of the NPDWRs by strategically targeting
enforcement actions against the most serious violators.
States and Regions will focus attention on significant
noncompliers, those systems serving the largest populations,
and those systems which have been criminally negligent — such
as falsification of monitoring reports.
The following quantitative and qualitative performance measures are
designed to be used as the basis to measure our progress in these
areas.

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA
1. NPDES
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A)	Have Region/State
expired major permit
backlogs increased
significantly over the
last two years? Has
the Region assessed the
reasons? How will the
Region/States address
the problem?
(B)	Are there major
common issues being
raised in permit
appeals? What are
they?
(a) Track, against
targets, the number of
permits reissued to
major facilities during
FY 92. (Report NPDES
States and non-NPDES
States separately.)
(b) Identify the number
of final permits
reissued and the number
modified during FY 92
that include water
quality-based limits
for toxics. (Report
NPDES and non-NPDES
States; majors and
minors separately.)
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
Yes/STARS Quarterly
WQ-12	FY 93
Yes/No	Quarterly
WQ-13	FY 93
A-3

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA OTTAT.TTATTVE MEASURES
(C) Which parameters
are required to be
monitored for sludge?
Do monitoring
requirements follow
recommendations in the
Interim Strategy?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) List the permits
identified in (b) which
include water quality
based WET limits.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
(D)	Discuss the
Region's strategy for
achieving authorization
of State sludge
permitting programs.
(E)	What action has the
Region taken to make
sure State delegation
agreements are current
and accurate?
(d) Track the number of
municipal permits
reissued/modified to
include comprehensive
pretreatment
implementation
requirements, including
DSS and PIRT. (NPDES
States; non-NPDES
States)
No/No
Quarterly
FY 93
A-4

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e)	Track number of
general permits
issued/reissued:
—# OCS (NPDES States)
—# other than OCS
(non-NPDES States)
(f)	Identify, by
Region, the number of
pending evidentiary
hearing reguests and
track, by the Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for
evidentiary hearing
requests for major
permits pending at the
beginning of FY 92
resolved by EPA and for
the number resolved by
NPDES States.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
A-5

-------
COMPLETING AMD MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(g)	Identify by Region,
the number of permits
for which EPA has
objected to, for which
final resolution is
pending as of 10/1/91.
Report in second and
fourth quarters:
-	number of permits
objected to;
-	number of permits
transferred to EPA;
-	number of permits
issued by EPA.
(h)	Track, against
targets, total number
of permits issued to
priority sludge
facilities containing
sludge conditions
necessary to meet the
requirements of CWA
Section 405.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
Yes/STARS
WQ-15
Quarterly
FY 93
A-6

-------
COMPLETING AMD MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
(i) Track total number No/No	Quarterly
of permits (NPDES and	FY 93
non-NPDES; major and
minor separately)
issued containing
standard sludge
conditions including
monitoring.
(j) Track, the number No/No	Second and
of State program	Fourth
approvals in accordance	Quarters
with established	FY 93
schedules:
—full/partial NPDES
programs;
—pretreatment program;
—Federal facility;
—general permit
authority;
--sludge program.
A-7

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(k) How many
assessments of State
programs have been
preformed? Indicate
the program elements
evaluated.
(1) Track, by Region
and NPDES State, the
number of baseline
general permits issued
for industrial
stormwater activity.
(m) Track, by Region
and State, the number
of Part One stormwater
applications submitted
for large and medium
cities and counties
(population greater
than 100,000).
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/No
Yes/No
WQ-16
Yes/No
WQ-17
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
A—8

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
2. Pretreat-
ment
(A)	What is the
Region's strategy for
targeting additional
POTWs for local
pretreatment program
development?
(B)	How are Regional/
State oversight
activities of POTW
programs timed and
completed with regard
to reissuance of NPDES
permit?
C) What is the Region/
State strategy for
assuring POTWs develop/
implement technically
based local limits?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Identify the local
pretreatment programs
requiring approval but
not yet approved at the
beginning of the fiscal
year and distinguish
between those newly
identified in FY 92 and
those previously
required. (List
separately: non-
pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
(b)	Report the number
of EPA and State
pretreatment
inspections of IUs
where EPA or the State
is the control
authority (Report
separately: EPA, State)
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
10/31/91
FY 92
No/No
Quarterly
FY 92
A-9

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c)	Report, by Region,
the number of State
pretreatment civil and
criminal referrals sent
to State Attorneys
General and the number
of State civil and
criminal cases filed.
(d)	Track, by Region,
against quarterly
targets, for approved
local pretreatment
programs: 1) the number
audited by EPA and by
approved pretreatment
States; and 2) the
number inspected by EPA
and by approved
pretreatment States.
(e)	Identify the number
of POTWs that need to
conduct local limits
headwords analysis,
(unapproved States;
approved States)
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/STARS
WQ/E-10
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
FY 92
Yes /STARS
WQ-14
Quarterly
FY 92
No/No
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 92
A—10

-------
COMPLETING AMD MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(f)	Identify the number
of categorical IUs
(CIUs) in
nonpretreatment cities
(report non-
pretreatment States and
pretreatment States
separately.)
(g)	Report the percent
of significant
noncompliance by
categorical IUs in non-
pretreatment cities
where EPA is the
control authority and
where the State is the
control authority.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 92
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 92
A—11

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
3. NPDES
Enforcement
(A) Have the Region/
States completed and
filed enforcement cases
against major POTWs?
If not, what is
delaying action?
(B) Have the Region and
approved States
negotiated a basis for
Regional evaluation of
the States penalty
program including
identification of
sanctions which might
be used in lieu of
penalties and the
documentation which
must be maintained by
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Report, by Region
and State, the number
of major permittees.
Of these, track by
Region and State the
number and percent in
SNC.
(b)	Report, by Region
and State, the number
of approved
pretreatment programs.
Of these, track by
Region and state the
number and percent in
SNC.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/STARS
WQ/E-4
Yes/STARS
WQ/E-5
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
(Data
lagged
on quarter)
FY 94
Quarterly
(Data
lagged on
quarter)
FY 94
A-12

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
the State for review?
Are States complying
with provisions of the
agreement on penalties?
To what extent sure
States calculating and
obtaining economic
benefit? Are States
seeking penalties in
the majority of cases?
Are States getting the
penalty amounts they
are seeking?
(D)	Have the Region/
States considered use
of pollution prevention
offsets in settlement
agreements? If so, how
has this worked?
(E)	Does each approved
State have written EMS
procedures? If not,
what is being done to
get these procedures in
place?
(c) Report, by Region,
the total number of (a)
EPA Administrative
Compliance Orders and
total number of State
equivalent actions
issued; of these report
the number issued to
POTWs for not
implementing
Yes/No	Quarterly
WQ/E-8	FY 94
A-13

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
pretreatment; (b) Class
I and Class II proposed
administrative penalty
orders issued by EPA
for:
—NPDES violations;
—pretreatment
violations; and (c)
Administrative penalty
orders issued by States
for NPDES violations
and pretreatment
violations.
(d) REFERRALS
(1) Report, by Region,
the active State civil
case docket, the number
of civil referrals sent
to the State Attorneys
General, the number of
civil cases filed, the
number of civil cases
concluded, and the
number of criminal
referrals filed in
State courts.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Yes/No
WQ/E-9
Quarterly
FY 94
A—14

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(2)	Provide the number
of 309 referrals
generated:
—civil referrals sent
to HQ/DOJ;
—civil referrals
filed;
(3)	Track by permit
name and NPDES number
State judicial cases
with penalties
assessed.
(e) Track, by Region,
against targets, the
number of major
permittees inspected at
least once (combine EPA
and State inspections
and report as one
number).
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
FY 94
No/No
Quarterly
FY 94
Yes/STARS
WQ/E-11
Quarterly
FY 94
A—15

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(f) EXCEPTION LIST
UNIVERSE
(1) Identify, by Region
and State, the number
of major permittees in
significant
noncompliance on two
or more consecutive
QNCRs without
returning to
compliance or being
addressed by a formal
enforcement action
(persistent violators).
Identify how many
quarters they have been
in SNC.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ/E-6
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
(Data
lagged one
quarter)
FY 94
(2) Identify by name
and NPDES number major
permittees appearing on
two or more consecutive
QNCRs as being in
significant
No/No
Quarterly
(Data
lagged one
quarter)
FY 94
A—16

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SNC) without being
returned to compliance
or addressed with a
formal enforcement
action.
(g) EXCEPTION LIST
TRACKING
(1) Report, by State
and Region, the number
of major permittees
(including those for
pretreatment SNC) that
are on the previous
exception list which
have returned to
compliance during the
quarter, the number not
yet in compliance but
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Yes/No
WQ/E-7
Quarterly
(Data
lagged one
quarter)
FY 94
A-17

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
addressed by a formal
enforcement action by
the QNCR completion
date, and the number
that were unresolved
(not returned to
compliance during the
quarter or addressed by
a formal enforcement
action by the QNCR
completion date).
(2) Identify by name
major permittees listed
on the Exception List
universe for the
previous quarter for
which the following has
occurred:
—f returned to
compliance;
—/ not yet in
compliance but
addressed with a formal
enforcement action;
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
No/No
Quarterly
(Data
lagged one
quarter)
FY 94
A-18

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
—# that are unresolved
as the end of the
quarter; and the number
consecutive quarters
each facility has
appeared on the QNCR.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
4. Wetlands
Permitting
A.Describe the Region's
most significant
activities under §404
B. Address
effectiveness of $404
working relationships
with each Corps
district, FWS Region
and Field Office, and
NMFS Region
(a)	Number of §404	No/No
permit application
public notice reviews
initiated during the
quarter
(b)	Number of §404	No/No
resolutions during the
quarter
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
A-19

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
5. Wetlands
Enforcement
A. Describe the
Region's §404
enforcement program
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Number of
administrative
compliance orders
issued this quarter
(STARS)
(b)	Number of
administrative penalty
complaints issued this
quarter (STARS)
(c)	Number of civil
cases referred to DOJ
this quarter (STARS)
(d)	Number of criminal
cases referred to DOJ
this quarter(STARS)
(e)Total	number of
enforcement cases
resolved this quarter
(STARS)
(el) Number of
compliance orders where
the violator has
complied with order
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
A-20

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA ODAT.TTATTVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e2) Number of final
administrative penalty
orders
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
FY 93
(e3) Number of civil
judicial referrals
resulting in final
court order.
Yes/No
Quarterly
FY 93
(e4) Number of criminal
judicial referrals
resulting in final
court order.
Yes/No
Quarterly
FY 93
6. HCW--
Develop and
Implement
Regional
(A) How is the Region
supporting HQ in the
integration of NCW
initiatives into
(e5) Number of cases Yes/No
resolved through
voluntary
compliance/informal
processes
(a) Development of NCW No/No
management strategy by
Regions.
Quarterly
FY 93
Q 4
FY 95
A—21

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Near Coastal
Haters (NCW)
Management
Strategies
ongoing water programs
and in the recognition
of NCW priorities in
targeting water
programs?
(B) How are NCW
management strategies
and demonstration
projects being
integrated with the
national demonstration
effort?
(A) How has the Region
increased its role in
EIS development?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
(b) #NCW demonstration
projects implemented,
evaluated, and
transferred/applied to
other parts of the
coasts.
No/No
Q 4
FY 95
7. Ocean
Site
Designation
-Increase
Role in
a) Track, by Region
against quarterly
targets, # draft EISs.
No/OW
Q 1,2,3,4
A-22

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Preparation
of Environ-
mental
Impact
Statements
(EIS) and
Continue
Preparing
Rule Making
Packages for
Ocean
Dumping Site
Designation
8, Ocean
Dispoal
Permits -
Issue Ocean
Disposal
Permits
Increase
Enforcement
Activities,
Conduct
Monitoring
Surveys for
Site
(A)	What procedures
does the Region
following permit
issuance or review?
Are all criteria
evaluated and applied
consistently among the
permit applications?
(B)	How is the Region
conducting compliance,
monitoring, and
enforcement of EPA
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(b)	Track, by Region,
against quarterly
targets # final EISs.
(c)	Track, by Region,
against quarterly
targets # ocean dumping
final actions.
(a)	/ and type of ocean
disposal permit
applications received
and issued.
(b)	# of administrative
penalty complaints
issued this quarter
(c)	statute, case name,
and amount of penalties
assessed for
violations.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
Yes/STARS
WQ-1
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 1,2,3,4
Q 1/2,3,4
NO/NO
No/OW
No/No
Q 1,2,3,4
Q,4
Q,4
A—23

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Designation
and
Managment
permits or other
Federal requirements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
9. 301(h) -
Review Sec.
301(h)
Applica-
tions , Issue
Permits,
and/or
Reissue
Permits
10. UIC —
Ensure that
injection
wells
maintain
mechanical
integrity
and are
inspected
regularly
(A) How do permits
ensure that monitoring
provisions of Sec.
301(h) decisions are
reflected in
enforceable
requirements which can
be used in assessing
compliance with Sec.
301(h) criteria?
(a) # final permits
issued/reissued.
(b) # secondary
equivalency
determinations.
(a) Report, by Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for
the number of wells
that have mechanical
integrity tests
performed by operators
and verified by EPA,
States and Indian
Tribes with primacy.
Yes/STARS Q 2,4
WQ-1
No/No
Q 2,4
Yes/Yes
DW-2
Q 1/2,3,4
A-24

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
11.	UIC —
Protect
health and
environment
from
hazardous
waste
injection
12.	UIC —
Identify
significant
violations
to ensure
early action
to correct
non-
compliance
(A) How do the States
and Regions identify
and implement land ban
requirements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by Region,
the number of Class I
hazardous waste
injection wells for
which land ban
petitions have been
received and processed.
(a) Report, by Region,
for EPA, States and
Indian Tribes with
primacy the number of
Class I, II, III, IV
and V wells found in
SNC.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Annually
(Mid-Year)
Yes/No
DW/E-6
Q 1,2,3,4
A-25

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
13. UIC —
Achieve and
maintain
high level
of
compliance
(A) List and provide
the status of any
federal enforcement
action(s) in primacy
States. Include
actions taken in the
last year and those
planned for the near
future.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by Region,
for EPA, States and
Indian Tribes with
primacy wells that
appear on the
Exceptions List from
the date the violation
becomes an exception
through the date the
violation is resolved,
noting the date formal
enforcement action was
taken, if any.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-8
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 1/2,3,4
(B) List and provide
the status of any civil
and criminal referrals
to the State Attorney
General by primacy
States.
(b) Report, by Region,
for EPA, States and
Indian Tribes with
primacy, the number of
administrative orders
and equivalent actions
and the total number of
§1431 emergency orders
issued by well class.
Yes/No	Q 1,2,3,4
DW/E-9
A—26

-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA
14. PWSS
Implementa-
tion -
Assure
Federal and
State
implemen-
tation of
the
requirements
established
through
existing,
and new, EPA
drinking
water
regulations
and conduct
regulations
and conduct
oversight of
State
programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Did you conduct
evaluations of each
State's PWSS program
within the last 12
months? What were your
major findings?
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
(C) SWTR & TCR — Are
the States which have
adopted SWT and/or TC
regulations fully
implementing those
regulations? If not,
what is not being
implemented? What is
the Region's strategy
for dealing with these
shortcomings? Which
States are currently
operating under
extensions for the SWT
and TC regulations?
Are States meeting the
agreements of the
extensions? Is the
Region implementing its
portion of the
agreements? Are SWT
and TC violations being
reported to FRDS? Are
A-28
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
the violations,
particularly the SNCs
being enforced? What
is the status of
unfiltered water
systems — total
number, number which
must install
filtration, the status
of these (on a
schedule), number of
system where state
still needs to make a
decision?
(D) LEAD & COPPER —
What is the status of
State adoption of the
Lead & Copper
regulations? How many
States will require
extensions? What is
the Region's strategy
for implementation of
the regulations during
any extension?
IN STARS/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT?
A—29
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
(E)	PHASE II — What is
the status of State
adoption of the Phase
II regulations? How
many States will
require extensions?
What is the Region*s
strategy for
implementation of the
regulations during any
extension? How are the
States implementing the
Standardized Monitoring
Framework?
(F)	Does the Region
have a formal strategy
for evaluating each
State*s ability to
maintain Primacy, for
escalating concerns
about State program
weaknesses, and for
considering and
initiating Primacy
withdrawal? Has the
Region made its
A—30
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
position known to each
State? How?
15. PWSS—
Enforce the
Safe
Drinking
Water Act
and the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations.
(A)	Describe how each
State is enforcing the
lead ban? What basis
did the Region use for
determining that each
State is adeguately
enforcing the lead ban?
(B)	Describe the
Region•s progress in
implementing current
enforcement initiatives
— such as data
falsification.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Negotiate, with
each State, annual
targets for the number
of SNCs and the number
of exceptions that will
be appropriately
addressed or returned
to compliance by June
1, 1992, and reported
to ODW by June 22, 1992
for each of the two
categories listed
below. The target
numbers will be based
on the number of SNCs
occurring as of the
compliance period
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/Yes
DW/E-1
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 3
A-31
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(C) Describe the
Region's strategy for
upgrading the
enforcement component
of each of the State's
programs.
(D)	How well is the
Region meeting its
targets established
under the enforcement
workload model? Will
the targets be met at
end of the year?
(E)	Has the Region
reviewed its State's
enforcement authorities
and processes for
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ending March 31, 1991,
and the number of
exceptions existing as
of June 1, 1991. (both
will be contained on
the July 1991
SNC/Exception report).
1) micro/turbidity/TTHM
SNCs and exceptions 2)
chem/rad SNCs and
exceptions (Note: data
are lagged one
quarter.)
(b) Report, using the
SNC/Exception Report
format, against all
SNCs, those systems
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Yes/No
DW/E-2
Q 1,2,3,4
A-32
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
issuing AOs and
referring civil cases?
What is the average
time for issuing AOs,
for filing a case once
it has been referred,
and for concluding a
case? What is the
Region's opinion on the
effectiveness of the
State authorities?
(F) Are all formal
enforcement actions
being reported to FRDS?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
that: returned to
compliance; had an
appropriate enforcement
action taken against
them; rema ined
unresolved; or became
exceptions this
quarter. Report
separately for each of
the following two
groups: (Note: Date
are lagged one
quarter.)
1)	micro/turbidity/TTHM
SNCs
2)	chem/rad SNCs
(c) Report using the
SNC/Exception Report
format those systems
identified as
exceptions through the
prior quarter which
have since returned to
compliance, had an
appropriate enforcement
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Yes/No
DW/E-3
Q 1,2,3,4
A-33
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
action taken against
them, or remained
exceptions as of this
quarter. Report
separately for each of
the following two
groups:
1)	micro/turbidity/TTHM
exceptions
2)	chem/rad exceptions
(Note: data are lagged
one quarter)
(d) Report, State by
State: (1) the total
number of EPA NOVs,
proposed administrative
orders, final
administrative orders,
complaints for penalty,
civil referrals,
criminal filings, and
§1431 emergency orders
issued, and the amount
of each
administratively
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Yes/No
DW/E-4
Q 1,2,3,4
A-34
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
assessed/co1lected
penalty, during the
quarter. (2) the number
of State administrative
orders; bilateral
compliance agreements;
civil cases referred to
State Attorneys General
(AGs), filed, and
concluded; and the
number of criminal
cases filed by the AGs
and concluded. (OECM
will report the same
data for EPA
referrals.) Note: State
data are lagged 1
quarter)
A-35
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
In FY 1992 EPA will emphasize improving our scientific knowledge
and tools to effectively address today's water quality problems and
develop the national primary drinking water regulations. We will
also reflect priorities in the Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
Report, "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection" with emphasis on reduction of ecological
risk in critical surface waterbodies and protection of public
health through improved drinking water quality.
The major program highlights in this section are:
•	Completing the FY 1991 - 1993 triennium, which requires States
to adopt: (1) narrative biological criteria, (2) salt water
criteria, as appropriate, (3) antidegradation policies and
implementation methods, (4) water quality standards for
wetlands and (5) water quality standards for coastal/estuarine
waters. These requirements are designed to enhance the
ability of States and qualified Indian tribes to adopt water
quality standards that will serve as the foundation for
programs to reduce the ecological risks facing our critical
aquatic resources from the expanded universe of permittees,
including combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff
dischargers.
•	Continuing implementation of Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA,
as amended, which requires that whenever a State reviews water
quality standards in accordance with Section 303(c)(1), the
State must adopt numeric criteria into water quality standards
for section 307(a) priority pollutants that could be
reasonably expected to interfere with designated uses. Where
the Regions disapproved water quality standards or portions of
those standards because the Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements
were not met, the Agency initiated action to propose Federal
standards. If a State adopts sufficient criteria to fully
comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B), EPA will not promulgate
Federal standards for that State.
•	Implementing effluent guidelines regulations to serve as
performance standards in identifying industrial wastewater
treatment technologies that may be used to achieve the
mandated levels of pollutant removal from effluents. The
regulations reduce risk to human health and the environment by
providing the basis for NPDES permits and pretreatment
agreements. Increasingly, the thrust of the technology
assessments is to determine these new technologies and changes
to existing technologies that minimize or eliminate pollutant
generation in the first place.
A-3 6
-------
•	Ensuring that States have the capability to accurately assess
and reduce risks from toxic effluent through the NPDES
permitting program.
•	Completing the remaining drinking water standards identified
for regulation in the 1986 SDWA amendments, with emphasis on
balancing the reduced acute risks to the public from microbial
contamination of ground and surface water with the chronic
risks from disinfection by-products. The final regulations
for radionuclides will also be completed by the end of FY
1992.
The following quantitative and qualitative performance measures are
designed to be used as the basis to measure our progress in these
areas.
A-37
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
1. WQS -
Triennial
Reviews
(A)Describe in detail:
(1) the barriers that
exist as States develop
and adopt the elements
included in the
quantitative measure;
and (2) the actions
that the RO is taking
to assist States/Tribes
overcome the barriers,
including workshops or
other types of meetings
the RO sponsors.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)Identify, against
targets, the States/
Tribes completing a
Section 303(c)(1)
triennial review that
includes, biological
criteria and salt water
criteria, where
appropriate, antidegra-
dation policies and
implementation methods
and water quality
standards for wetlands
and coastal/estuarine
waters; and for which
EPA takes formal action
(approval, or
disapproval and request
for promulgation).
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/Yes
WQ-3
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 2,4
FY 93
A—38
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
2. WQS -
Standards
for Toxic
Pollutants
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)Identify, against
targets, the States for
which Regions approve
the numeric criteria
adopted by the States
that are necessary to
bring the States into
full compliance with
Section 303(c)(2)(B).
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/Yes
WQ-4
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 2,4
FY 93
3. HQS -
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity.
4. Effluent
Guidelines -
Publish Two
Regulations
(a)Report the number of
States that adopt
numeric procedures to
implement standards for
whole effluent
toxicity.
(a) Publish two
regulations in the
Federal Register: final
amendments for the
Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers Industry
Categories; and final
rule for the Offshore
Oil and Gas extraction
Subcategory.
No/No
Yes/No
WQ-11
Q 4
FY 93
Q 4
FY 93
A-39
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
5. NPDES
Permits
(A) Discuss the
Region's approach to
controlling
bioaccumulative and
persistent toxicants,
especially toxicants
contaminating fish
tissues and sediments.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
(B)	Have the States
developed similar
strategies/approaches?
Describe actions taken
to focus State
attention on persistent
and/or bioaccumulative
pollutants?
(C)	Discuss the
Region's approach to
implementing pollution
prevention through
municipal and
industrial permits.
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
A-4 0
-------
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RI8K
A key theme in the Science Advisory Board's Report, "Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection,"
and the Office of Water's strategic plan is to reduce ecological
risks facing critical aguatic resources. In order to address
ecological risks, we need to view the integrity of the water
environment holistically — the sum total of the complex
biological, chemical and physical dynamics necessary to sustain
long-term processes — ecological integrity — of a healthy
ecosystem.
Over time, criteria guidance will provide a comprehensive basis on
which to design programs that prevent and control pollution and
habitat alteration and destruction and loss of species,
particularly from nonpoint sources, combined sewer overflows and
stormwater runoff. Chemical-specific sediment criteria to protect
aquatic life and numeric biological criteria for streams, rivers,
lakes, wetlands, and estuaries.
Water programs will focus on measuring the ecological
improvements/reductions in risk brought about by EPA and State
activities. These monitoring efforts will reveal the extent to
which EPA and states are able to prevent targeted pollutants from
being released.
The major program highlights in this section are:
•	Continuing work on an action plan for Federal assistance to
the States to help them develop risk assessment-based fish
consumption advisories and bans where fish are contaminated to
a level that poses a human health risk. As part of this
action plan, OW will develop national guidance on how to
develop protective advisories and will evaluate the
appropriateness of using fish consumption advisories as an
ecological indicator.
•	Continuing work on eliminating on-going sources of sediment
contamination so that clean sediment can cover contaminated
areas. Sediment contamination has been documented as posing
both ecological and human health risks through contamination
of the aquatic life food chain. Sediment controls provide a
good measure of progress in cleaning-up sediment contamination
and reducing/eliminating associated risks to human health and
the environment.
The following quantitative and qualitative performance measures are
designed to be used as the basis to measure our progress in these
areas.
A-41
-------
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RISK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
1. NPDES
Permits
(A) How have
concentrations of
persistent
bioaccumulat ive
pollutants in fish
tissue changed over the
last year? (Based on
EPA National
Bioaccumulative Study,
Fish and Wildlife
Service National
Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program
and NOAA National
Standards and Trends
Report.)
2. Sedi-
ments —
Establish
Sediment WQ
based limits
(a) Report, by State
and by name,
waterbodies that have:
(1) sediment monitoring
for point source; (2)
sediment quality-based
limits for point
Yes/No
WQ-8
Q 4
FY 94
A-42
-------
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RISK
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
sources; and/or (3)
sediment quality-based
targets for nonpoint
sources.
3.	Risk
Assess-
ment—
Fish
Monitoring/
Advisories
4.	WQS -
Ecological
Criteria
Guidance
(A) Describe in detail
the activities that
will be conducted
(i.e., workshops) to
facilitate use of the
criteria guidance by
States/Tribes in the
adoption of ecological
standards.
(a) Report, by State Yes/No
and by name,	WQ-9
waterbodies with fish
tissue monitoring and
waterbodies with fish
consumption advisories.
(a) Identify, against Yes/Yes
targets, the ecological WQ-6
criteria guidance HQ
will publish.
Q 4
FY 94
Q 4
FY 93
A—43
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Our geographically targeted approach will ensure that the tools
used are the most effective, are applied to priority areas, are
used to respond to defined needs and accomplish measurable gains.
In concert with the base programs, EPA and States will integrate
risk analyses with program operations to identify specific program
needs in targeted geographic watersheds. Regions will develop and
implement projects designed to address areas of highest priority.
The major program highlights in this section are:
•	Implementing Wetlands initiatives that include; focused
enforcement projects in areas of high vulnerability or
historical noncompliance; targeted public outreach campaigns;
advance identifications; and other geographically-oriented
initiatives.
•	Reducing risks through concentrating efforts on specific
permitting, pretreatment, and enforcement decisions in
selected geographic areas. In many cases we expect that
nontraditional approaches, such as storm water, CSO's and
nonpoint source will be included in geographic initiatives.
•	Continuing to promote the concept of geographic targeting as
the most effective way to address NPS pollution. Geographic
targeting enables other State and Federal agencies to direct
their water-quality related technical and financial resources
to clearly identified priority waters. In the final Section
319 grant guidance (January 1991), EPA has again encouraged
States to rank their waters requiring NPS controls and
indicated that such rankings should be the basis for funding
watershed projects under Section 319. In FY 1992, EPA will
begin tracking the percentage of NPS priority waterbodies
(identified by the State) which have watershed programs to
control or prevent NPS pollution actively underway. These
actions provide further incentive for geographic targeting and
support the watershed initiative.
•	Overseeing and tracking through performance measures the
implementation of the Watershed Initiative. The focus of the
Initiative is to conduct restoration and protection activities
in targeted watersheds selected during FY 1991. These
measures would have the States and Regions identify the
actions they will undertake for each of the targeted
watersheds, and, at the end of the year, to report on the
actions completed. This reporting will help ensure that the
goal of the Watershed Initiative, achieving risk reduction
through action in targeted watersheds, is realized.
•	Targeting our water quality monitoring measures for FY 1992
geographically. Specifically, the identification of impaired
A-44
-------
waters needing TMDLs that the States will submit by April 1,
1992, and the assessment of targeted waterbodies support the
watershed initiative objectives for setting priorities. This
information will be used as a baseline for measuring changes
in the total size (e.g., lake acres and stream miles) of
impaired and threatened waters. In addition, Regions will be
responsible for reporting information on the status of water
quality in individual targeted waterbodies using either the
Waterbody System or other independent information systems.
Assessing lake water quality and implementing pollution
prevention and restoration measures to protect and enhance
lake resources. Projects will be conducted in a holistic
manner, considering all the biological, chemical, and physical
factors necessary to sustain a healthy lake-specific
ecosystem. Geographic targeting in high priority lake
watersheds will be emphasized to protect critical habitats,
such as wetlands, and reduce the health, ecological, and
aesthetic risk to a given lake whether these risks are caused
by point or nonpoint sources of pollution.
Reducing the public health risk posed by contamination of
underground sources of drinking water (USDA) through
geographically targeting Class IV and endangering Class V
wells for closure. States and Regions, working with local
municipalities, will focus closure efforts on shallow wells in
vulnerable watershed areas, unsewered locations, and those
close to drinking water wells. Where the risk of USDW
endangerment is well documented, as in the case of some
industrial drainage and automobile service station wells, a
variety of approaches will be used to ensure USDW protection.
These include: informal and formal enforcement, permit
call-ins, public-private partnerships, and community outreach
and education.
Tracking the development and implementation of Comprehensive
Ground-Water Protection Programs which have been recommended
by the EPA Ground-Water Task Force. Regions will continue to
track efforts to fully implement the Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Program, as a key component of Comprehensive Programs. WHP
Programs are an effective means of targeting and safeguarding
ground water serving as drinking water supplies and, hence,
reduce health risks from contaminated drinking water. Regions
will also promote the use of geographic information systems as
a tool to assist decision makers in targeting ground-water
protection activities.
Recognizing the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Programs are
ongoing examples of how EPA is using the concept of geographic
targeting to reduce risks in coastal areas. Both programs are
working to integrate resources at the Federal, State, Local
A-45
-------
and in the case of the Great Lakes Program, international
levels^ to address ecological and health risks in a
comprehensive fashion. This approach starts with the
identification of risks that are posed within a given
geographic area, and then applying whatever tools are
available for reducing those risks.
•	Developing, with States and other Federal agencies a
comprehensive strategy for reducing risks in the Gulf of
Mexico EPA acts as facilitator m this process, drawing
together the various interests that have a stake in protecting
the Gulf.
•	Convening Management Conferences for estuaries of national
sianificance to develop comprehensive conservation and
management plans (CCMPs) that identify the priority problems
of the estuary, as well as management actions that will be
implemented to address those problems. By focusing on a
geographic area the various agency and local interests are
drawn together around a common cause: the reduction of risk
to the estuary.
The following quantitative and qualitative performance measures are
designed to be used as the basis to measure our progress in these
areas.
A-46
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
1. Wet-
lands
Wetlands
Strategic
Initiative
A. Describe the
strategic initiatives
undertaken or planned
to achieve this
objective.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of Advance
Identifications
completed (STARS)
(b)	Number of major
public education and
outreach initiatives
completed (STARS)
(c)	Number of
geographically targeted
Section 404 enforcement
initiatives completed
(STARS)
(d)	Number of
comprehens ive
management and planning
initiatives completed,
e.g., greenways/river
corridor management
plans, special area
management plans, etc.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ-2
Yes/No
WQ-2
Yes/No
WQ-2
Yes/No
WQ-2
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
Quarterly
FY 93
A—47
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
2. NPDES
Permits
(A)	Are States issuing
permits to
mar ine/estuarine
dischargers which
follow EPA's near
coastal waters strategy
efforts? What special
conditions, if any, are
included in
mar ine/estuarine
discharge permits?
(B)	How does the Region
use general permits for
storm water discharges?
For unpermitted
discharges?
To reduce minor permit
backlog?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Identify the number
of permits reissued in
near coastal waters
(report separately
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(b)	Identify the number
of permits issued which
include limits and
appropriate monitoring
requirements for CSOs.
Of these, how may are
in geographically
targeted areas?
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
FY 93
No/No
Quarterly
FY 93
A-48
-------
REDUCING RISK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
3. Implement
Targeted
Strategy for
conducting
Section
403(c)
Assessments
(C)	What is the Region
doing, to facilitate
approval of state
General Permit
programs?
(D)	Where occurring,
discuss Regional
activities for working
with States to
transition to basinwide
or watershed specific
water quality based
permit issuance.
(E)	Have final permits
been issued to all
304(1) C list
facilities?
(A) How is the Region
implementing the
targeted strategy?
HROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(d) How many
geographically targeted
basins or watersheds
were identified for
targeted permit
issuance?
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
(c) How many permits No/No
have been issued due to
designation under
402(p)(2)(E)?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 93
(a) # final Section
403(c) assessments
prepared.
Yes/OW	Q 2,4
FY 95
A—49
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASirRF.fi
4. Pretreat-
ment
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
(A)	What is the
Region/States process
for identifying
pretreatment POTWs
which need pretreatment
performance evaluations
(PPEs)
(B)	How successful have
these PPEs been at
identifying
implementation
problems? What action
is the Region/State
taking to ensure
appropriate follow-up
action is taken?
5. NPDES
Enforcement
(A) Are there any
special enforcement
needs identified in
selected geographic
areas above the base
enforcement program?
What particular
activities are
involved?
(a) List specific
projects in each Region
which involve
geographic targeting.
For each project
identified, discuss
enforcement components
and success to date.
No/No
Quarterly
A-50
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(B) What rationale is
used to select
permittees for multi-
media inspections?
Have these inspections
been beneficial?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
6.NPS -
Implementa-
tion in
Priority
Watersheds
(C) Is the Region
undertaking any special
efforts to identify
unpermitted discharges
in geographically
targeted areas? If so,
what?
(a) Identify, by State,
against targets, the
percentage of priority
waterbodies identified
in approved State NPS
management programs
with watershed control
programs actively
underway.
Yes/Yes
WQ-7
Q 2,4
FY 94
A-51
-------
REDUCING RISK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
7. Lakes
Management -
Lake Water
Quality
Assessments
(A) Describe how the
results of the lake
water quality
assessment will be
shared with other
programs and used to
prepare the 1994 305(b)
Report.
8. Lakes
Management -
Site Visits
to Active
Clean Lakes
Projects
(A) Describe for each
project visited the
restoration,
protect ion, and
pollution prevention
measures underway and
their potential for
success.
[ROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) (1) Report the
number of States/
qualified Indian Tribes
that conducted lake
water quality
assessments. (2) List
the percentage of lakes
for which assessments
are conducted by each
State/Tribe.
(a) Report the number
of active Clean Lakes
projects, the number of
projects which were
visited and the number
not visited during the
year.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q,2
FY 95
Q,2
FY 95
A-52
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
9. Monitor-
ing - 303(d)
Lists
10. Monitor-
ing -
Targeted
TMDL
Deve1opment
(A)	What steps have the
Regions taken to ensure
submittal of Section
303(d) lists including
targeted waterbodies?
(B)	To what extent was
public participation
used to identify
targeted waterbodies?
(A) What steps have the
Regions taken to ensure
periodic reassessment
at these sites?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by Region:
(1) the number of
States submitting
Section 303(d) lists;
and (2) number of
disapproval actions.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
(a) Report, by State:
(1) the number of
waterbodies targeted
for TMDL development in
the 1992 Section 303(d)
submittal; (2) the
total size impaired and
total size threatened
within these
waterbodies; and (3)
the number of complex
and non-complex TMDLs
anticipated.
Yes/No
WQ-5
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q,4
FY 94
Q 4
FY 94
A—53
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA
11. UIC ~
Reduce
Public
Health Risk
by closing
Class IV and
endangering
Class V
injection
wells
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A)	What are the major
initiative and outreach
efforts which have
resulted in Class IV or
endangering Class V
well closures through
voluntary compliance?
(B)	What type of
enforcement activities
has resulted in Class
IV and endangering
Class V injection well
closures (for example,
permit calls-ins,
formal enforcement,
geographic targeting,
or other to include
ground-water
remediation.
(C)	Describe the steps
taken to assess risk to
health or the
environment at Class IV
and endangering Class V
sites, and how the risk
has been reduced
through remediation.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by Region,
for EPA, States and
Indian Tribes with
primacy the number of
Class IV and
endangering Class V
injection well closures
(by well type) achieved
under UIC authority or
in conjunction with
other regulatory
programs such as RCRA,
UST, CERCLA, for
example, or under well-
head protection
efforts.
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
Yes/No	Q 1,2,3,4
DW-3
A-54
-------
REDUCING RISK
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
12. Ground-
Water
Protection:
Assist
States in
implementing
wellhead
protection
programs and
activities
as a key
component of
Compre-
hensive
Programs
(A) Describe the
technical assistance,
and outreach efforts.
States and other
governmental entities
to promote
implementation of HHP
programs or activities
(B)	Describe progress
on HHP data management
demonstration projects
selected during FY 1990
(C)	Describe progress
on HHP demonstration
projects selected
during FY 1991
13. Chesa-
peake Bay -
Work with
the Regions
and States
to Implement
CWA Programs
and the 1987
(A) How do the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office (CBLO), and the
Region ensure that
States implement
activities specified in
the CWA and the 1987
Agreement?
GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of States
with Wellhead
Protection Programs
approved during FY 1992
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
Yes/STARS Quarterly
GW-2
Mid-Year
Review
(a) Track against
targets the cumulative
number of commitments
in the 1987 CB
Agreement that are
completed.
A-55
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
IN STARS/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT?
Water
Quality
Agreement in
the
Chesapeake
Bav (CB1
Basin
14. GLNPO —
Work with
GLNPO and
the States
to implement
CWA programs
and the
Great Lakes
Water
Quality
Agreement
(GLWQA)
(A) How do the Regions
ensure that GL States
implement activities
specified in the CWA
and GLWQA?
(a)	Track against
targets the cumulative
number of commitments
that have been
completed.
(b)	Track targets by
category: the number of
Remedial Action Plans,
Lakewide Management
Plans, and Assessment
and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment
demonstration projects
(1) in progress and (2)
completed.
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
A—56
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
15. NEP —
Work with
other
federal
agencies,
the Regions
and the
States to
implement
CWA and
MPRSA in the
GULF OF
MEXICO and
its drainage
basins to
implement
the Gulf of
Mexico
Program
Five-Year
Strategy.
(A) How do the Gulf of
Mexico Program Office
and Regions IV and VI
ensure that the States
implement activities in
the CWA and MPRSA and
the five year strategy?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track against
cummulative number of
commitments in the 1988
five year strategy that
are completed.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
A-57
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
16. NEP —
Management
Conferences
Convened for
Seventeen
Estuaries to
Implement
the
Provisions
of State/EPA
Conference
Agreements
by
Completing
Major
Milestones
to Achieve
the Seven
Purposes of
the
Conference
as Provided
in the Clean
Water Act
(A) What is the status
of commitments under
EPA /State Conference
Agreements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, by Regional
Project, completion of
the Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan, as
scheduled in the
state/EPA Conference.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/STARS
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 4
FY 95
A-58
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG
ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
We will continue to promote strong, effective State and Indian
programs which fully implement water programs to reduce human and
ecological risks and prevent pollution. Through our mobilization
initiative, we will work to strengthen State and local capacity to
implement the expanding public water system supervision program.
Technical assistance, training, and outreach to support State and
Indian programs and to maintain the Federal investment in municipal
wastewater treatment will remain priorities. We will work to
leverage other Federal, State and local agencies to provide the
expertise and resources to address the multifaceted problems and
solutions we need today.
The major program highlights in this section are:
•	Building State, Tribal, and local government capacity to
implement a strong permitting, pretreatment, and enforcement
program, including delegation where possible.
•	Continuing the partnerships between the States and Federal
government that have served as the basis for building the
construction grants and SRF programs. To assist the States,
community outreach programs will continue to assist in
technology transfer to promote low cost systems and to provide
up-to-date information on new treatment technologies and
assistance and information on financial management. The
efforts to implement a comprehensive and effective operation
and maintenance program for wastewater treatment facilities
and a Municipal Water Pollution Prevention program are aimed
at controlling and preventing the degradation of the existing
water quality. These efforts go towards avoiding end-of-pipe
problems and the goal is to institutionalize the gains the
program has made to date.
•	Maintaining State, tribal, and local government participation
in wetlands protection activities is crucial to making
progress toward the national no net loss goal. Measures
involve monitoring and encouraging both formal assumption of
the 404 program and equally important State and locally
initiated wetlands protection programs.
•	Building State, Tribal and local governments' capacity to
implement an effective UIC regulatory program through grants,
technical assistance, public outreach and demonstration
projects. The effectiveness of such assistance will be
periodically evaluated and strengthened by on-site visits from
the Regions and Headquarters.
•	Emphasizing through Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection
Program measures (contained in the Geographical Targeting
A-59
-------
Section) Regional efforts to build State capacity to protect
ground-water and to better coordinate the various Federal
Programs with ground-water responsibilities. States and
Regions will jointly develop workplans that eventually lead to
the implementation of State Comprehensive Programs. Regional
ground-water offices will also work with other Federal
Programs to ensure State priorities and approaches to
ground-water protection are used to coordinate Federal
ground-water protection efforts.
Continuing, expanding and accelerating nonpoint sources (NPS)
management activity at all levels of government and within the
private sector, including landowners and land managers, is
highly dependent upon the building of effective partnerships
and alliances between and among all levels of government and
both institutions and individuals in the private sector. The
NPS program continues to encourage and support such
partnerships and alliances and to fund, through the Section
319 program to States, activities that foster and sustain
them.
Continuing to negotiate annual grant work programs with
Regions, States, and Qualified Indian Tribes based on
priorities outlined in this guidance, the office of Water
Strategic Plan, and State Water Quality Management (WQM) plans
and Continuing Planning Process (CPP) documents. The Regions
will negotiate work programs with their States and qualified
Indian Tribes based on funding targets provided by
Headquarters. States and qualified Indian Tribes (as
appropriate) are reguired to meet basic eligibility
requirements under the various CWA grant programs, e.g.,
Section 106 "level of effort." Through formal evaluations,
the Regions will monitor the performance of State and Indian
Tribes to ensure that activities are leading to expected water
quality improvements, and to ensure management accountability
and coordination of Federal funds.
Ensuring water quality assessments under Section 305(b) by
State, Federal and other agencies will support integration of
water program management activities These assessments will
also provide information on waterbodies assessed which over
time can be used for evaluating trends in water quality. The
Regions will provide training to States and qualified Indian
Tribes in watershed assessment methodologies to ensure that
State/local personnel have the capability to apply watershed
improvement methodologies.
Encouraging and supporting maximum collaboration between State
coastal zone management agencies and lead NPS agencies in
implementing Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
A-60
-------
•	Emphasizing that an important component of the Near Coastal
Waters Program is outreach to State and Federal agencies. The
purpose of this outreach is to expand the integration of
coastal programs beyond the limits of EPA capabilities and
develop cooperative linkages to address Regional problems.
•	Continuing the mobilization initiative to strengthen the State
and local capacity to implement the public water system
supervision (PWSS) program, focusing on activities in the
Regions, in the States, and through third party coalitions.
Areas of emphasis will continue to be public education,
building State capacity, strengthening the role of local
environmental officials, restructuring to strengthen local
capacities, training and low cost technology, and assistance
to nontransient water systems.
The following quantitative and qualitative performance measures are
designed to be used as the basis to measure our progress in these
areas.
A-61
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
1. NPDES
Permits
(A)	What is the status
of POTW corrective
action determinations
and efforts of POTWs to
implement such actions?
How does the
Region/State update
their information on
POTWs who receive
hazardous wastes by
dedicated pipe or
manifested hazardous
waste delivered by
truck or rail?
(B)	How are the
Regions, States, POTWs
coordinating with
RCRA/CERCLA staff in
evaluating off-site
removal of RCRA/CERCLA
wastes into POTW
collection systems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) List RCRA and
CERCLA clean up
projects in which a
decision is made to
discharge to a POTW.
Identify the POTW and
specify control
measure(s) or
pretreatment
reguirements in place.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
FY 93
A-62
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
(C)	What actions have
the Regions/States
taken to identify major
and water quality minor
discharges on Federal
Indian reservations and
assure they are
permitted?
(D)	What outreach and
technical assistance
has been provided to
States and Indian
tribes toward
assumption of NPDES,
pretreatment general
permits, Federa1
facilities, and sludge
programs?
2. Pretreat- (A) What efforts have
ment	you undertaken to get
non-pretreatment POTWs
to take on some of the
pretreatment
responsibilities?
Describe the successes
or failures you have
had with these efforts.
IN STARS/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT?
A—63
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND AT.T.TANCT5S AMONG AT.T. T.TOFLS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
3. Municipal
Water
Pollution
Prevention
(A) What actions has
the Region taken to
promote strong
Municipal Water
Pollution Prevention
programs in States?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) How many States
have developed
Municipal Water
Pollution Prevention
programs?
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
FY 94
4. Municipal
community
Outreach —
Enable
municipal-
ities to
plan,
design,
f inance,
construct,
operate and
maintain
affordable
wastewater
facilities
through
implement-
ation of
National
community
outreach
(A)	How are the Regions
and States progressing
in implementing the
Municipal Water
Pollution Prevention
Program? What further
actions are planned for
both NPDES and non-
NPDES States?
(B)	What are the
States doing to
implement comprehensive
and effective operation
and maintenance (O&M)
and operator training
programs? What is the
Region doing to assist
and oversee State
programs in these
areas? How are these
(a) Number of small
POTWs and Tribal
facilities that have 1)
returned to compliance,
2) maintained
compliance, or 3)
significantly improved
performance as a result
of onsite operator
training/technical
assistance through the
No/No
Q 2,4
A-64
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
programs being used by
States and Region to
support community
outreach objectives?
(C)	To what extent
have States adopted
active Small Community
Outreach and Education
(SCORE) programs
consistent with
National guidance and
State strategies?
(D)	What actions have
States taken to promote
adequate financial
management of
wastewater utilities
(including review of
EPA approved user fee
system implementation
by grantees)? How are
financial management
activities incorporated
into States' community
outreach programs?
AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
Onsite Assistance
Program [104(g)].
A-65
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND AT.T.TANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
(E)	What Region/state
technology transfer
efforts have been taken
to promote low-cost
and/or recycling/reuse
technologies, to
provide designers with
up-to-date information
on new treatment
technologies and
corrective actions on
existing technologies?
Taking into account the
expanding universe
(stormwater, CSOs and
sludge).
(F)	What action has
the Region undertaken
to distribute
information to the
States regarding
financing alternatives
for water quality
management projects and
activities regarding
IN STARS/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT?
A-66
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
options strategies,
including
public/private
partnerships?
(G)	What action(s) has
the Region taken to
inform States about the
Municipal Water Use
Efficiency Program?
How has each State
incorporated water use
efficiency into their
State community
outreach programs?
(H)	What Region/State
initiatives are in
place or planned to
increase public
awareness of the need
for efficient use of
water and cost-
effective wastewater
treatment?
Have the States
established a
centralized point for
dissemination of water
IN STARS/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT?
A—67
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ATT. T.FVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
and wastewater public
education materials?
If not, describe plans
to encourage the States
to establish a conduit
for distributing these
materials to the
public.
(I) How are community
outreach efforts being
coordinated between the
public water supply,
wastewater and solid
waste units?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
5. SRF —
State
Revolving
Fund
Implemen-
tation.
(A) Has the Region
conducted comprehensive
annual reviews
consistent with the SRF
annual review guidance?
What are the findings
of the annual reviews
conducted? Provide a
summary of issues and
achievements on a
State-by-State basis.
What is the Region's
assessment of the
(a)	Number of SRF
Annual Reports
submitted.
(b)	Number of SRF
Annual Reviews
completed.
No/No
No/OW
Q 2,4
Q 2,4
A—68
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AWn AT.T.TANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
financial health of the
SRFs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
6. Wet-
lands —
State/Local
Wetlands
Support
7. UIC —
Oversee
States and
Indian
Tribes with
primacy
(B) Have the States
exercised their option
to address geographi-
cally targeted high
priority watersheds in
their IUP goals and
objectives?
A. Describe major
activities for
promoting State,
Tribal, and local
programs and assisting
in their development.
Identify major
constraints.
(A) For each primacy
agency, how many formal
evaluations were
conducted this fiscal
year? (A formal
evaluation should
(a) Report number of No/No
States or Tribes to
whom EPA is providing
grant funding for
development of Section
404/wetlands protection
programs
(a) Submit separately No/No
for States and Indian
Tribes with primacy a
financial status report
on the use of grant
funds.
Second
Quarter
Annually
A-69
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG AT.T. T.EVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
include a file audit,
analysis and discussion
of performance issues
and progress towards
work plan goals.)
(B)	Other than formal
evaluations, what other
means are used to
assess the
effectiveness of the
primacy agency?
(C)	Describe any major
unresolved issues that
are affecting the
primacy agencies
ability to carry out an
effective program?
(D)	Describe specific
problems that primacy
agencies are
encountering that merit
Regional assistance?
(E)	List and describe
any training sessions
provided to primacy
agency staff.
IN STARS/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT?
A—70
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(F) List the primacy
agencies that have a
UlC-specific
enforcement response
strategy. (This
strategy should
include: timely and
appropriate criteria
and a penalty policy.)
For those that do not,
how does the Region
evaluate the adequacy
of the agency's
enforcement response?
8. UIC —
Develop
Indian Tribe
programs
List all primacy and
Treatment as a State
applications under
review by the Region
and the status of each.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
A—71
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA
9. Ground-
Water
Protection:
Assist
States in
Developing
and
Implementing
Compre-
hensive
Ground-Water
Protection
Programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A)	Report:
-	activities supporting
DRA measures to
provide Regional
cross-program
integration in
support Comprehensive
Ground-Water
Protection Programs.
-	State progress in
moving toward the
development and
implementation of
Comprehensive Ground-
Water Protection
Programs.
(B)	Describe technical
assistance efforts to:
-	assist States in
identifying valuable
and vulnerable ground-
waters , including
wellhead protection
areas
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/STARS
GW-1
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Quarterly
Mid-Year
Review
A-72
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND AT.T.TAWPES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
- assist States in
evaluating or ranking
high priority sources
of contamination
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Mid-Year
Review
(C) Describe outreach
to States, other than
technical, promoting
the development and
implementation of
Comprehensive Programs
(a) List date and type
of outreach effort
(workshop, conference)
as well as State and
local attendees;
identify any outside
groups sponsoring event
No/No
Mid-Year
Review
(D) Describe efforts to
initiate and manage
coordination and
integration efforts
between Comprehensive
Programs and other
programs.
Specifically:
Mid-Year
Review
A-73
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
- Describe efforts to	Mid-Year
assist each State in	Review
establishing a formal
mechanism for
coordinating
authorities and
programs under
various federal
statutes
- Describe, in specific
terms, efforts by
regional ground-water
protection staff and
pesticide program
staff to make
Comprehens i ve
Programs and
Pesticides Management
Plans mutually
supportive and
integrated
(a) Number of
Pesticides Management
Plans reviewed to
ensure coordination
with Comprehensive
Programs
No/No	Mid-Year
Review
A-74
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
-	Describe efforts by
Regional ground-water
protection staff and
Non-Point Source
Program staff to
provide States with
assistance to
prioritize and
address non-point
sources of ground-
water contamination.
-	Describe efforts by
regional ground-water
staff and RCRA staff
to assist States in
conducting ground-
water resource
assessments/classific
ations in support of
hazardous waste and
solid waste
facilities decision-
making regarding
siting, design,
monitoring,
corrective action,
closure/post-closure
care and enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(b) Number of 319 grant
funded activities
addressing non-point
sources of ground-water
contamination
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
No/No	Mid-Year
Review
Mid-Year
Review
A-75
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ATJ. LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
and other program
operation priorities
-	Describe efforts by
regional ground-water
staff and CWA Sludge
Management Program
staff to ensure that
quality standards and
wellhead protection
factors are
appropriately applied
in the location and
operation of sludge
disposal and
management
activities.
-	Describe work with	Mid-Year
USDA (ES,SCS) to Review
ensure State ground-
water agency input in
implementing water
quality provisions of
the 1990 Farm Bill.
A—76
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
10. Ground-
water
Protection:
Strengthen
States•
ability to
collect and
utilize
ground-water
data
11. NPS -
Federal/
local
Support for
Imple-
menting
Approved NPS
Management
Programs
(A) Describe technical
assistance provided to
States to:
-	implement minimum
data element set
-	use Geographic
Information Systems
in ground-water
decision making
-	share data with EPA,
other Federal, State
and local entities
(A) Describe, by State,
the outreach efforts
either by the State or
jointly by the Region
and State for
implementation of the
approved NPS Management
Program.
FIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Number of State
using minimum data
element set for
groundwater
(b)	Number of Regions
implementing a Regional
Order for groundwater
decision-making
(c)	Number of States
using groundwater
indicators
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Mid-Year
Review
Mid-Year
Review
Mid-Year
Review
(a) Report the number
of technology transfer
workshops, meetings,
conferences and
consultations conducted
by the Region to
support implementation
of approved NPS
Management Programs.
No/No
Q 4
FY 94
A-77
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(B) Describe the
actions the Region has
taken this year to
obtain support of State
NPS Management Programs
by Federal agencies
other than EPA.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
12. NPS -
Collabora-
tion with
Related
Programs
(A) What actions did
the Region take to
ensure that the
implementation of State
NPS Management Programs
has been integrated
with the activities of
related EPA programs
such as estuaries,
ground-water and
wetlands protection?
A-78
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(B) Describe the
actions taken by the
Regions to assist State
lead NPS agencies,
where applicable, in
collaborating with
their coastal zone
management counterparts
to implement Section
6217 of the CZMA
Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990.
13. Monitor-
ing - water-
bodies
Assessed
Under
Section
305(b)
(A)	Describe Regional
efforts to improve
coordination of
monitoring by Federal,
State, and other
Agencies.
(B)	Describe level of
support of the
Waterbody System in
each State.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by State:
(1) total size of
waterbodies assessed;
and (2) total size of
waterbodies fully,
partially and not
supporting designated
uses, and the total
size threatened.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Yes/Env.
Ind.
Q 4
FY 94
A-79
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND AT.T.TATJCES AMONG AT.T. T.BVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
14. Monitor-
ing -
Oversight of
State and
Indian Tribe
Programs
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
(A)	Describe efforts by
Regions to provide
technical assistance
for State and qualified
Indian Tribe monitoring
programs and to conduct
assessment/assistance
projects.
(B)	Assess the status
of State and qualified
Indian Tribe
implementation of EPA
guidance for QA/QC
programs and for data
entry into EPA data
systems.
(C)	Describe efforts to
increase the use of
biological and habitat
assessment methods with
the Region.
A-80
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
15. Monitor-
ing -
Technical
Assistance
to Assess
Watersheds
(D) Describe efforts to
assist States to use
GIS and other
analytical tools for
geographic targeting.
(A) Describe, by
Region, plans to
provide for technical
assistance to States
and Indian Tribes in
assessing watershed
conditions and
identifying controls
watershed improvements.
Include the extent
Regions established and
conducted training in
assessing watersheds
including geographic
targeting, use of
existing data systems,
and integrating
available information
from other agencies.
LLIANCES AMONG AT.T. LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
(a) Report, by Region,
the number of
assessment
methodologies available
to States/qualified
Indian Tribes for: (1)
targeting; (2)
identifying WQ
conditions; and (3)
development control
strategies.
No/No
Q 4
FY 93
(b) Report, by State,
the number of Stat that
have received training
in watershed
assessments. Identify
formal RO training
sessions and visits by
RO Staff to State
offices.
No/No
Q 4
FY 93
A-81
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG AT/L T.EVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
16. WQM -
Targeting
Resources
17. WQM -
Grants
Management
(A) Describe how each
State and qualified
Indian Tribe determines
water quality
priorities and targets
resources on critical
water quality problems.
(A) What procedures are
used to negotiate,
track and evaluate
grant work programs and
performance? Describe
problems encountered in
applying these
procedures. What
sanctions were imposed
for non-performance or
incentives given for
superior performance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by State
and qualified Indian
Tribe, for FY91 and for
FY92 through second
quarter, the amount of
funds identified in
Section 106 work
programs for selected
national water quality
program elements.
(a)	Complete the FY91
budget matrix for each
State and qualified
Indian Tribe so that
the uses of available
funds can be
determined.
(b)	Report, by State,
for FY 1991 and for FY
1992 through the second
quarter, the percentage
of 205(j)(2) awards
from Sections 205(j)(1)
and 604(b) funds
passed-thru to RPCPOs
and IOs in accordance
with 205(j) (3) .
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ-10
NO/NO
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 2
FY 95
Q 1
FY 95
Q 2
FY 95
A-82
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
18. WQM -
Grants to
Qualified
Indian
Tribes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report the names of
Indian Tribes that
during FY92 receive
"treatment as a State"
(TAS) status; Tribes
receiving WQM grants;
and the amount, purpose
and funding sources of
the grants.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Q 4
FY 95
19. NCW —
Develop and
Implement
Regional
Near Coastal
Waters (NCW)
Management
Strategies
(C) How are the NCW
management Strategies
being incorporated into
State water quality
management work plans?
(D) How are NCW
strategies and
demonstrations
involving other federal
agencies and/or state
and local governments?
(c) # of projects
undertaken in NCWs by
Region cooperatively
w/other federal
agencies, the States,
and local government.
No/No
No/No
Q 4
FY 95
Q 4
FY 95
A—83
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND AT.T.TANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
20. PWSS —
Implement
ODW's
mobilization
initiative.
21. PWSS—
Support and
oversee
development
of primacy
programs for
Indian
Tribes.
(A) Briefly describe
the Region's and
State's mobilization
activities and
accomp1ishments. What
progress have you/they
made in using the
mobilization strategy,
fostering compliance
and leveraging
resources? Describe
current plans, progress
to date, and future
plans for each of the
subinitiatives.
(A) Have any Tribes
applied, or are any in
the process of
applying, for Treatment
as a State or for
development grants?
Describe your program
to promote primacy
among Indian Lands.
A-84
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(B) What is the status
of your Indian land
grants — to which
Tribes have you avarded
grants —- amounts,
purposes, etc?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
22. PWSS—
Manage the
PWSS State
Grant
Program.
(A)	Have you made
timely grant awards to
States? Were there any
delays, and if so,
describe.
(B)	Have you used any
State grant funds to
implement a federal
program in absence of
any portion of a State
program? If yes,
describe.
(C) Have you withheld
5% of any State's grant
funds because of an
inadequate lead ban or
inadequate enforcement
of a lead ban?
A-85
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
In FY 1992, we will strive to improve data management, including
better access and use of existing data systems, and expansion of
systems where necessary to allow for collection of additional data
mandated by new statutory requirements. This data management
effort should improve our ability to conduct national assessments
and provide more complete data from which to make decisions.
The major program highlights in this section are:
•	Expanding the ability of PCS to more accurately report on the
entire universe of permittees and improving our ability to
link data from PCS to other data systems to provide more
complete data from which to make recommendations/decisions.
•	Ensuring effective management of on-going projects to close
out the construction grants program in an effective manner, as
the multi-billion dollar Federal investment in the nation's
wastewater treatment facilities winds down.
•	Improving Uic program management by implementing improved data
management and enforcement tracking. By the end of FY 1992,
the UIC program expects all Class II primacy agency
information management systems to include a standard set of
minimum data elements and definitions. This well-specific
data base will greatly enhance regulatory and management
decision making and encourage cross-program USDW protection
initiatives. This system will also significantly improve the
UIC program's ability to effectively track administrative
orders to completion and report on the incidence and
resolution of Class II wells on the Exceptions List.
•	Expanding the current federal information system to allow for
analyses of compliance with the requirements of the new
drinking water regulations. In addition, the PWSS program
will expand its efforts to assist States in upgrading and
improving their data systems to maximize the quality of
compliance and enforcement data at both the State and the
Federal levels.
The following quantitative and qualitative performance measures are
designed to be used as the basis to measure our progress in these
areas.
A-86
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
1. NPDES
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
(A)	What kind of
quality assurance is
used to ensure adequacy
of data entry into PCS?
(B)	How have you linked
the data in PCS through
latitude/longitude to
other data systems?
How has this impacted
decision making?
2. Municipal
Pollution
Control —
Outlays
(a) Track, by Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for
net outlays for
combined construction
grants and State
Revolving Fund (SRF).
Yes/STARS
WQ-18
Monthly/
Quarterly
A-87
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
3.Construc-
tion Grants
Closeout —
Manage
completion/
closeout of
the
construc-
tion grants
program.
(A)	How are the Region
and States implementing
the State strategies
for managing the
program to completion,
including approval of
205(g) workplans and
the use of acceleration
initiatives?
(B)	Is the Region
maintaining an
integrated and
comprehensive overview
and follow-up program
which covers both the
Corps and States for
like activities?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Number of Step 3,
Step 2+3, Marine CSO
and PL 84-660 projects
beginning to achieve
environmental results.
(b)	Track, by Regions,
guarterly targets for
the number of Step 3,
Step 2+3, Marine CSO
and PL 84-660 projects
administratively
completed.
(c)	Track, by Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for
the number of Step 3,
Step 2+3, Marine CSO
and PL 84-660 project
closeouts.
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
Yes/STARS
WQ-21
Quarterly
Yes/STARS
WQ-19
Quarterly
Yes/STARS
WQ-20
Quarterly
(d) The number of	No/OW	Quarterly
Step 1 and Step 2
project closeouts.
A-88
-------
ENSURING
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
4. Construc-
tion Grants
Dispute
Resolution -
Manage
Region/State
CG dispute
resolution
and tracking
systems to
monitor
States.
(A) How does the
Region ensure that high
quality dispute
decisions are issued,
i.e.. Regional
decisions that are not
overturned or remanded
by the AA when appealed
to Headquarters?
REPORT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e)	Percent of Corps
utilization versus
workplans.
(f)	Number of final
construction
inspections conducted
by the COE.
(aJ Number of disputes
arising under 40 CFR,
Part 30, Subpart L and
Part 31, Subpart F
which have decisions
issued by the RA, or
are settled or
withdrawn.
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
No/No	Quarterly
No/OW	Quarterly
No/OW	Quarterly
A-89
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
5. Construc-
tion
Safety -
Maintain a
program to
ensure
quality
construct i on
and safety.
(A) How are the Region
and the States
addressing project
safety?
6. GICS —
Effectively
manage GICS
to improve
usage for
program
management.
(A) Is the Region
managing GICS so that
it is reliable and
accurate, supportive of
priorities, readily
available to end-users
and utilized as an
effective tool by the
delegated States?
A-90
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES
7. Improve
data quality
and provide
timely and
accurate
information
(A) For each Class II
primacy agency,
indicate the progress
made toward meeting the
requirements
established in UIC
Guidance #68, Data
Management.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report by well
class and operating
status, an update of
injection well
inventories on an
annual basis. Report
separately for EPA,
States and Indian
Tribes with primacy.
IN STARS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORT
FREQUENCY/
SUNSET DATE
Annually
(Nov. 30)
8. PWSS—
Improve data
systems and
data
quality.
(A)	Is the Region
assisting States with
upgrading and improving
their data management
systems? Briefly
describe activities.
(B)	In which States has
the Region conducted a
violation 6 enforcement
data audit during the
last 2 years? Did your
A—91
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
REPORT
IN STARS/ FREQUENCY/
PROGRAM AREA QUALITATIVE MEASURES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? SUNSET DATE
audit include a check
for system data
falsification? In
summary, what were the
results? What actions
are the Regions taking
to follow up on these
results? Have States
modified their data
systems to accommodate
the new rules?
(C) Have all States
converted to DTF? If
not, how is Region
getting data in?
A—92
-------
APPENDIX B
DEFINITIONS
AND
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
FOR
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
1. NPDES PERMITS:
1(a) Track, against targets,
the number of permits reissued
to major facilities during FY92
(NPDES States and non-NPDES
States).
1(b) Identify the number of
final permits reissued and the
number modified during FY92 that
include water quality-based
limits for toxics. (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States; report
majors and minors separately).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The universe for measure WQ-12 is the total number of
major permits that have or will expire by the end of
FY 92. Measure WQ-12 is the total number of major
permits issued with dates (i.e., date signed by permit
authority) during FY 92. Status as of the close of
each quarter will be taken from PCS on the 10th of the
month following the end of the quarter (e.g. the
second FY 92 data will be pulled from PCS on April
10).
Measure WQ-13 is all permits (major and minor) that
include water quality based limits on specific
chemicals or whole effluent toxicity and with issuance
(modification) dates (i.e., date signed by EPA or
State permit authority) during FY 92. WQ-13 is
specifically designed to count water quality-based
permits issued in FY 1992. Since "limit" is
specifically designed to exclude permits which only
include monitoring requirements, permits with only
monitoring requirements will not be counted.
B-l
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION SPERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A water quality-based permit limit is a limit that has
been developed to ensure a discharge does not violate
State water quality standards. Such limits are
expressed as maximum daily and average monthly values
in Part I of the NPDES permit. They can be expressed
as concentration values for individual chemicals
and/or pollutant parameters such as effluent toxicity.
Effluent toxicity can also be expressed in toxic
limits. Limits should be reflective of data available
through water quality-based assessments and should
protect against impacts to aquatic life and human
health.
As a matter of policy, EPA regards the 2/4/87
statutory requirements to control point sources as a
component of the ongoing national program for toxics
control. In the national toxics control program, all
known problems due to any pollutant are to be
controlled (using both new and existing statutory
authorities) as soon as possible, giving the same
priority to these controls as for controls where only
307(a) pollutants are involved. Known toxicity
problems include violations of any applicable State
numeric criteria or violations of any applicable state
narrative water quality standard due to any pollutant
(including chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent
toxicity), based upon ambient or effluent analysis.
States and Regions will continue to issue all
remaining permits, including those requiring the
collection of new water quality data where existing
data are inadequate to assess WQ conditions.
B-2
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Performance Expectation: The goal of the State and
EPA NPDES program is to have reissued permits in
effect on the date the prior permit expires. In cases
where unusual, complex and difficult issues prevent
timely permit reissuance, Headquarters is offering
alternative approaches to address the increasing
backlog. We will work with Regions and States to
adopt a more flexible performance expectation that
allows for reduction of risk, targeting of watersheds
and a better approach for balancing the workload
facing the Regions and States. While our overall goal
is to eliminate the permit backlog, there are
different options for achieving this goal. The
Regions and States could retain the usual commitment
to reissue 100% of all expired or expiring permits.
Where the backlog is large, we would encourage the
State to look at a five year strategy. No less than
20% of the universe would be targeted for each year
(unless the State has a year in which there are less
than 20% expired or expiring). This would allow the
Regions to focus the strategy in either of the
following situations—the strategy can be developed to
even out the workload or it could be tied to specific
geographic areas. These strategies are to be
initiated on a State-by-State basis and must include
Headquarters in the approval process.
Regional quarterly reports for these measures will be
reported to the Director of the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits.
B-3
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
1(d) Track the number of
municipal permits
reissued/modified to include
comprehensive pretreatment
implementation requirements,
including PIRT and DSS. (NPDES
States; non-NPDES States)
1(f) Identify, by Region, the
number of pending evidentiary
hearing requests and track, by
Region, for the evidentiary
requests for major permit
pending at the beginning of FY
92 resolved by EPA and for the
number resolved by NPDES States.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
In FY 92, Regions and States will continue to focus
municipal permit reissuance on improving the quality
of permits by enumerating the minimum requirements and
expectations of the approved program, including
compliance with DSS and PIRT rules, and appropriate
follow up to findings contained in audits and PCIs.
The term "evidentiary hearing" is meant to encompass
not only EPA issued permit appeals pursuant to 40CFR
124 but also any NPDES State issued permit appeals
(whether adjudicatory or non-adjudicatory in nature).
The meaning includes any and all administrative
appeals to permit conditions for major facilities,
whether the appeals stay or do not stay permit
conditions. Evidentiary hearings for EPA issued
permits are not considered to be pending if they are
on appeal to the Administrator as of the beginning of
FY 1992.
An evidentiary hearing should be regarded as resolved
once an ALJ decision has been issued, a negotiated
settlement has been reached, or the evidentiary
hearing request has been denied or withdrawn.
B-4
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Evidentiary hearings should be resolved as
expeditiously as possible. The target should reflect
resolution of all pending hearings. Although the
measure is intended to reduce the backlog of pending
hearings, consideration should be given to new hearing
requests made during FY 92 that have priority over
pending requests. Such requests may be counted
against commitments where they are priority cases
(based on Regional/State evaluation).
1(g) Identify by Region, the
number of permits for which EPA
has objected to, for which final
resolution is pending as of
10/1/91. Report in second and
fourth quarters: number of
permits objected to; number of
permits transferred to EPA; and
number of permits issued by EPA.
Permit objections refer to the specific objections
provided under 40 CFR section 123.44. It is not our
intention to track general objections or other
comments provided by EPA that are not specific
objections.
B-5
-------
COMPLETING AMD MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITIONiPERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1(h) Track, against targets, the
total number of permits issued
•to priority sludge facilities
containing sludge conditions
necessary to meet requirements
of CWA section 405.
Priority sludge facilities or "Class I Sludge
Management Facilities" are: 1) pretreatment POTWs; 2)
POTWs that incinerate their sludge; and 3) any other
POTWs with known or suspected problems with their
sludge quality or disposal practices. Non-
pretreatment POTWs that incinerate sewage sludge may
be considered non-priority if such decision is
supported by information showing no cause for concern
(i.e., existing controls adequately implement existing
federal requirements and otherwise protect public
health and the environment). The sludge conditions
are to be included in permits as the NPDES permit
expires and is reissued- The sludge conditions may be
in another permit (such as a permit issued under the
Clean Air Act, or a State permit) and incorporated by
reference in the NPDES permit. NPDES permits issued
by a State may be counted if pursuant to an EPA/State
agreement and the Region has certified the permit as
meeting CWA requirements. "Sludge conditions
necessary to meet CWA section 405" are those
conditions required by the sludge permitting and state
program regulations (May 2, 1989), adequate monitoring
requirements; existing federal regulations, where
applicable (e.g., 40 CFR Part 257 and after
B-6
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
1(j) Track the number of State
program approvals in accordance
with established schedules:
—full/partial NPDES program;
—pretreatment program;
—federal facility program;
—general permit authority; and
—sludge program.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
promulgation, 40 CFR, Part 503) and any additional
case-by-case conditions necessary to protect the
public health and environment.
Performance Expectation: The universe from which
targets should be calculated is the number of priority
sludge facilities found in the Region. The targets
should be a minimum of 20% of the universe of priority
sludge facilities. Report NPDES States and EPA
together as one number.
Acceptable Regional performance is having and
effectively pursuing a current written strategy for
each State to achieve full NPDES program
administration. In some cases, under provisions of
the 87 WQA, when full program approval is not
achievable, partial program approval may be a
desirable alternative and should be included in the
strategy. The strategy was to have been prepared by
the Region in consultation with the State, identifying
obstacles to full program approval and setting forth
B-7
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1(1) Track, by Region and NPDES
State the number of baseline
general permits issued for
industrial stormwater activity.
work plans for overcoming obstacles. The work plan
should describe what needs to be done, make
recommendations on how it can be accomplished and
provide needed and reasonable estimates of time
required. Regions will approve remaining State
pretreatment/Federal facility programs and will
condition FY 92 grants as necessary, and may begin
program withdrawal if States fail to seek full program
authority. Sludge, either as part of NPDES program
approvals or separately, would be tracked under this
item.
While there are some States who have not received
general permitting authority, this measure will begin
to assess the activities of those States who have
taken the incentive to begin working on their storm
water issues. A baseline general permit is a permit
issued focusing on regulating storm water discharges
associated with industrial activities. Report general
permits issued by NPDES States and EPA issued for non-
NPDES States.
B-8
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
l(m) Track, by Region and State,
the number of Part One
stormwater applications
submitted for large and medium
cities and counties (population
greater than 100,000)
One year from date of notice in the Federal Register
(i.e., November 18, 1991), all large cities and
counties (population greater than 250,000) are
required to submit a Part One application for a storm
water permit. One year and six months from date of
notice in the Federal Register (i.e., May 18, 1992)
all medium cities (population between 100,000 and
250,000) are required to submit Part One application
for storm water permit. This is the first step in a
process that has a significant environmental result of
controlling and cleaning up storm water. The element
of pollution prevention plays a large role in the
whole process. The entire universe of large cities
and counties would be the commitment in the first
quarter (Federally mandated deadline) and the entire
universe of medium cities and counties would be the
commitment for the third quarter, and progress in
meeting these deadlines would be monitored throughout
the year. Report EPA, NPDES States separately.
2. PRETREATMENT
2(c) Report, by Region, the
number of State pretreatment
civil and criminal referrals
sent to State Attorneys General
and the number of State civil
and criminal cases filed.
The active case docket consists of all referrals
currently with the State Attorney General and the
number of referrals filed in State Courts. OE will
report the same data for Federal referrals; State
referrals will be reported to the Regions.
B-9
-------
COMPLETING AMD MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2(d) Track, by Region, against
quarterly targets, for approved
local pretreatment programs: l)
the number audited by EPA and by
approved pretreatment States;
and 2) the number inspected by
EPA and by approved pretreatment
States.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A local pretreatment program audit is a detailed on-
site review of an approved program to determine its
adequacy. The audit report identifies needed
modifications to the approved local program and/or the
POTW's NPDES permit to address any problems. The
audit includes a review of the substantive
requirements of the program, including local limits,
to ensure protection against pass through and
interference with treatment works and the methods of
sludge disposal. The audit reviews the procedures
used by the POTW to ensure effective implementation
and reviews the quality of local permits and
determinations (such as implementation of the combined
wastestream formula). In addition, the audit
includes, as one component, all the elements of a
pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI).
In certain cases, non-pretreatment States will be
allowed to conduct audits for EPA. If a non-
pretreatment State has the experience, training,
resources and capabilities to effectively conduct
audits, these audits could be counted. A
determination of whether a non-pretreatment State
could conduct the audit for EPA will be worked out
between EPA HQ and the Region during the commitment
negotiation process on a case-by-case basis.
B-10
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI) assesses
POTW compliance with its approved pretreatment program
and its NPDES permit requirements for implementation
of that program. The checklist to be used in
conducting a PCI assess the POTW's compliance
monitoring and enforcement program, as well as the
status of issuance of control mechanisms and program
modifications. A PCI must include a file review of a
sample of industrial user files. Note that this
measure tracks "coverage" of approved pretreatment
programs, not the number of audits or inspections
conducted, which may be greater than the number of
programs since some programs may be inspected/audited
more than once a year.
Performance Expectation: At a minimum, audits should
be performed at least once during the term of the
POTW's permit. Although an audit includes all the
elements of a PCI, as one component, the activity
should not be counted as both an audit and a PCI; it
should be counted as an audit. In any given year, all
POTWs that are not audited should have a PCI as part
of the routine NPDES inspection at that facility, i.e.
audits plus inspections should equal 100 percent of
approved POTWs, except where mitigating circumstances
prevent this. Mitigating circumstances will be
B—11
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2(e) Identify the number of
POTW1s that need to conduct
local limits headworks analysis,
(unapproved States; approved
States)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
approved during negotiation process and could include
the need to target audits to support watershed
initiatives or to conduct an in-depth audit. For
purposes of reporting, both audits and pretreatment
compliance inspections should be lagged by one
quarter, i.e. same NPDES inspections. Also, where
both an audit and an inspection are conducted for a
POTW, for purposes of coverage, only that audit will
be counted. There should be one number for EPA plus
pretreatment States for audits and one number for EPA
plus pretreatment States for inspections.
Local limits are periodically reevaluated to reflect
conditions such as new or revised water quality based
NPDES permit limits, new sludge requirements and
changes in industrial contributions. The need for
POTWs to conduct a local limit headworks analysis may
also be prompted by POTW audits or revisions to the
NPDES permit. For whichever reason, the number of
POTWs needing to conduct a local limit headworks
analysis is reported.
B-12
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3. NPDES ENFORCEMENT
3(a) Report, by Region and
State, the number of major
permittees. Of these track by
track by Region and State the
number and percentage in SNC.
3(b) Report, by Region and
State, the number of approved
pretreatment programs. Of
these, track by Region and State
the number and percentage in
SNC.
3(c) Report, by Region, the
total number of: (a) EPA
administrative compliance orders
and the total number of State
equivalent actions issued; of
these, report the number issued
to POTWs for not implementing
pretreatment; (b) Class I and
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A facility is reported to be in significant
noncompliance SNC for failure to comply with NPDES
permit requirements if it meets the criteria in the
QNCR Guidance Manual, 1985. An approved pretreatment
program should be identified as in significant
noncompliance when it meets the criteria for SNC
identified in the FY 1990 Reporting an Evaluating POTW
noncompliance with Pretreatment Requirements, issued
September 27, 1989.
Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Compliance
Orders (AOs) and State equivalent actions from PCS.
All AOs must be entered into PCS by the 2nd update of
the new quarter to be counted in the report. For
pretreatment, only AOs issued to POTWs should be
counted here. AOs issued to industrial users are
counted in OWAS. Where an AO or APO includes both
pretreatment and NPDES violations, the A0/AP0 should
B-13
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
Class II proposed administrative
penalty orders issued by EPA for
NPDES violations and
pretreatment violations; and (c)
administrative penalty orders
issued by States for NPDES
violations and pretreatment
violations.
3(d) Report, by Region, the
active State civil case docket,
the number of civil referrals
sent to the State Attorneys
General, the number of civil
cases filed, the number of civil
cases concluded, and the number
of criminal referrals filed in
State courts.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
be counted once and considered a pretreatment AO/APO.
For purposes of counting State penalty orders, any
order which proposes the assessment of a cash penalty
against a violator may be counted. Where the State
has a two step process (similar to EPA's process) the
proposed order should be counted.
The active case docket consists of all referrals
currently at the State Attorney General and the number
of referrals filed in State Court. A case is
concluded when a signed consent decree is filed with
the State Court; the case is dismissed by the State
Court; the case is withdrawn by the State Attorney
General after it is filed in a State Court; or the
State Attorney General declines to file the case. OE
will report the same data for Federal referrals; State
referrals will be reported to the Regions.
B-14
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3(e) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of major
permittees inspected at least
once (combine EPA and State
inspections and report as one
number).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
As the inspections strategy states, all major
facilities should receive the appropriate type of
inspection each year by either EPA or the State.
Individual inspection programs developed on a State
specific basis to target inspections and produce
better compliance would be considered as meeting this
definition if approved by Headquarters. As part of
the NPDES inspection, verification of sludge
management practices as defined in guidance and
training should be conducted as appropriate. EPA and
States collectively commit to the number of major
permitees inspected each year with a Compliance
Evaluation Inspection (CEI), Compliance Sampling
Inspection (CSI), Toxic Inspection (TOX),
Biomonitoring Inspection (BIO), Performance Audit
Inspection (PAI), Diagnostic Inspection (DIAG), or
Reconnaissance Inspection (RI)~ Reconnaissance
Inspections will only count toward the commitment for
majors coverage when they are done on facilities that
meet the following criteria:
B—15
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMATIVE! EXPECTATIONS
(1)	The facility has not been in SNC any of the four
quarters prior to the inspection.
(2)	The facility is not a primary industry as defined
by 40 CFR, Part 122, Appendix A.
(3)	The facility is not a municipal facility with a
pretreatment program.
Commitments for major permittee inspections should be
quarterly targets and are to reflect the number of
major permittees inspected at least once, unless an
alternative approach has been agreed to with
Headquarters. The universe of major permittees to be
inspected is defined as those listed as majors in PCS.
Multiple inspections of one major permittee will count
only as one major permittee inspected (however, all
multiple NPDES inspections will be included in the
count for the measure that tracks the total number of
all inspections, see next paragraph).
The measure for tracking total inspection activity
will not have a commitment. CEI, CSI, TOX, BIO, PAI,
RI, and DIAG of major and minor permittees will be
counted. Pretreatment inspections for lUs and POTWs
will be counted only toward pretreatment inspection
commitments. Multiple inspections of one permittee
will be counted as separate inspections;
Reconnaissance Inspections will be counted. It is
expected that up to 10% of EPA resources will be set
aside for neutral inspections of minor facilities.
B-16
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
When conducting inspections of POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs, a pretreatment inspection
component (PCI) should be added, using the established
PCI checklist. An NPDES inspection with a
pretreatment component will be counted toward the
commitments for majors, and the PCI will count toward
the commitment for POTW pretreatment inspections.
(This will be automatically calculated by PCS.)
Regions are encouraged to continue CSI inspections of
POTWs where appropriate. Industrial user (iu)
inspections done in conjunction with audits or PCls or
those done independent of POTW inspections will be
counted as IU inspections. Tracking of inspections
will be done at Headquarters based on retrievals from
the Permit Compliance System (PCS) according to the
following schedule:
INSPECTIONS
Inspections may not be entered into PCS until the
inspection report with all necessary lab results has
RETRIEVAL DATE
The First Working Day after the
second update in:
July 1,	1991	- Sept. 30,	1991
July 1,	1991	- Dec. 31,	1991
July 1,	1991	- March 31,	1992
July 1,	1991	- June 30, 1992
Jan. 1992
April 1992
July 1992
Oct. 1992
B—17
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
been completed and the inspector's reviewer or
supervisor has signed the complted 3560-3 form.
Note: STARS only tracks the number of major permittees
inspected. OWAS tracks the number of inspections.
Regional and State inspection plans should be
established by FY 1992 in accordance with guidance on
inspection plans.
3(f)(9) Exceptions List	Note: For STARS report the number only. As part of
OWAS, report both the number and the name and the
number of quarters the facility has been in SNC.
Also, the name list must be submitted with the
numbers; only the fact sheet, with justification, will
be reported by the 15th day of the beginning of the
next quarter.
In regard to all major permittees listed in
significant noncompliance on the Quarterly
Noncompliance Report (QNCR) for any quarter,
Regions/NPDES States are expected to ensure that these
facilities have returned to compliance or have been
addressed with a formal enforcement action by the
permit authority within the following quarter
(generally within 60 days of the end of that quarter).
In the rare circumstances where formal enforcement
action is not taken, the administering Agency is
B—18
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
expected to have a written record that clearly
justifies why the alternative action (e.g.,
enforcement action, permit modification in process,
etc.) was more appropriate. Where it is apparent that
the State will not take appropriate formal enforcement
action before the end of the following quarter, the
States should expect the Regions to do so. This
translates for Exceptions List reporting as follows:
Exceptions List reporting involves tracking the
compliance status of major permittees listed in
significant noncompliance on two or more consecutive
QNCRs without being addressed with a formal
enforcement action. Reporting begins on January 1,
1992 based on permitees in SNC for the quarters ending
June 30, and September 30, that have not been
addressed with a formal enforcement action by November
30. Regions are also expected to complete and submit
with their Exceptions List a fact sheet which provides
adequate justification for a facility on the
Exceptions List. The fact sheet should be submitted
by the 15th day of the beginning of the next quarter.
After a permittee has been reported to compliance or
addressed by a formal enforcement action, it should be
dropped from subsequent lists.
Reporting is to be based on the quarter reported in
the QNCR (one quarter lag).
B-19
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Returned to compliance (refer to QNCR Guidance for a
more detailed discussion of SNC and SNC resolution)
for Exceptions List facilities refers to compliance
with the permit, order, or decree requirement for
which the permittee was placed on the Exceptions List
(e.g., same outfall, same parameter). Compliance with
the conditions of a formal enforcement action taken in
response to an Exception List violation counts as an
enforcement action (rather than return to compliance)
unless the requirements of the action are completely
fulfilled and the permittee achieves absolute
compliance with permit limitations. The Exceptions
List includes pretreatment SNC.
Formal enforcement actions against non-federal
permittees include any statutory remedy such as
Federal Administrative Order or State equivalent
action, a judicial referral (sent to HQ/DOJ/SAG), or a
court approved consent decree. A section 309(g)
penalty administrative Order (AO) will not, by itself,
count as a formal enforcement action since it only
assesses penalties for past violations and does not
establish remedies for continuing noncompliance.
Unless the facility has returned to compliance, a
309(a) compliance order should accompany the 309(g)
penalty order. Formal enforcement actions against
federal permittees include Federal Facility Compliance
Agreements, documenting the dispute and forwarding it
to Headquarters for resolution, or granting them
Presidential exemption.
B-20
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
4. WETLANDS PERMITTING
4(a) Number of §404 permit
resolutions.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Total number of resolutions of permits reviewed by
EPA. Resolutions include permit issuance, denial, or
withdrawal, and can include either acceptance or
rejection of EPA's comments by the Corps or applicant.
5. WETLANDS ENFORCEMENT
5(a) Number of administrative	§309(a) administrative compliance orders issued by
compliance orders issued this	EPA. As a general rule, such orders should require
quarter	the violator not only to stop the illegal discharge,
but also where feasible to take affirmative action to
remove the fill/or restore the site.
5(b) Number of administrative
penalty complaints issued this
quarter (STARS)
§309(g) administrative penalty complaints issued by
EPA.
5(c) Number of civil cases
referred to DOJ this quarter
(STARS)
Civil §404 cases that a Region refers, either
independently or jointly with the Corps, to DOJ for
judicial action.
5(d) Number of criminal cases
referred to DOJ this quarter
Criminal §404 cases that a Region refers to DOJ for
prosecution.
B-21
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
5(e) Total number of enforcement
cases resolved this quarter
(STARS)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Number of cases resolved through voluntary compliance,
which occurs where the Region has not initiated any
formal enforcement action against an illegal
discharger, but instead achieves compliance through
informal processes.
Number of §309(a) compliance orders where the violator
has complied with the terms of the order.
Number of §309(g) administrative penalty actions in
which the respondent has paid the penalty to the
Region or, in those situations where payment is due
and not forthcoming, where a federal district court
has issued a final order requiring payment of the
assessed penalty.
Number of civil judicial referrals which have resulted
in a federal district court entering a final order in
the case.
Number of criminal judicial referrals which have
resulted in a federal district court entering a final
order in the case.
B-22
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
10 UIC — (a) Report, by Region,
progress against quarterly
targets for the number of wells
that have had mechanical
integrity tests performed by
operators and verified by EPA,
States and Indian tribes with
primacy. (See STARS DW-2)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A complete MIT is composed of a test for significant
leaks in the casing, tubing or packer and a test for
significant fluid migration into a USDW through
vertical channels adjacent to the well bore. An MIT
consists of a field test on a well or an evaluation of
a well's monitoring records (i.e., annulus pressure,
etc.) or cement records. At a minimum, the mechanical
integrity of a Class I, II, or III (solution mining)
well should be demonstrated at least once every five
years during the life of the well.
11 UIC — (a) Report, by Region,
the number of Class I hazardous
waste injection wells for which
land ban petitions have been
received and processed.
This measure provides indication of how well EPA,
States and Indian Tribes with primacy are identifying
operators of hazardous waste wells and ensuring that
there is minimal impact on USDWs from the operation of
these wells. To carry out the land ban petition
process Headquarters will supply the latest
information to the Regions, and they in turn will use
this work one-on-one with the operators of hazardous
waste injection wells. The objectives are to have the
operators ready to submit their petitions at the
earliest possible time, and the Regions ready to act
on those petitions in a timely manner. The
expectation is that the Regions will carry this out so
that petition reviews are completed when the ban takes
effect.
B-23
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
12 UIC — (a) Report, by Region,
for EPA, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy, the number
of Class I, II, III, IV and V
wells found in SNC. (See STARS
DW/E-6)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Definition of SNC: The term "significant
noncompliance" means: (a) any violation by the
owner/operator of a Class I or a Class IV well, (b)
the following violations by the owner/operator of a
Class II, III or V well: (1) any unauthorized
emplacement of fluids (where formal authorization is
required); (2) well operation without mechanical
integrity which causes the movement of fluid outside
the authorized zone of injection if such movement may
have the potential for endangering a USDW; (3) well
operation at an injection pressure that exceeds the
permitted or authorized injection pressure and causes
the movement of fluid outside the authorized zone of
injection if such movement may have the potential for
endangering a USDW; (4) failure to perform an MIT when
requested; (5) the plugging and abandonment of an
injection well in an unauthorized manner; (6) any
violation of a formal enforcement action, including an
administrative or judicial order, consent agreement,
judgement or equivalent State or Indian Tribe action;
(7) the knowing submission or use of any false
information in a permit application, periodic report
or special request for information about a well.
NOTE: In the absence of information to the contrary,
MIT failures and pressure exceedences are presumed to
be SNCs.
B-24
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
13 (a) Report, by Region, for
EPA, States and Indian Tribes
with primacy all wells that
appear on the Exceptions List
from the date the violation
becomes an exception through the
date the violation is resolved,
noting the date formal
enforcement action was taken, if
any. (See STARS DW/E-8)
13 (b) Report, by Region, for
EPA, States and Indian Tribes
with primacy the number of
administrative orders and
equivalent actions and the total
number of §1431 emergency orders
issued by well class. (See
STARS DW/E-9)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure focuses on injection well
owners/operators who have remained in SNC for 90 or
more consecutive days and who have not been subject to
formal enforcement action. The primacy agency will
track the owner/operator on the Exceptions List until
the owner/operator returns to compliance, or the
primacy agency transfers the enforcement
responsibility to the civil or criminal justice system
or out of the UIC program.
This measure provides an indication of how many and
what types of enforcement actions EPA, States and
Indian Tribes with primacy are taking when violations
are discovered. Report, the number of proposed AOs,
equivalent actions by States and Indian Tribes with
primacy, and the total number of Sect. 1431 emergency
orders issued by well class (list separately EPA,
States and Indian Tribes with primacy.) Since many
Class V wells present high contamination risks to
ground water, EPA, States and Indian Tribes with
primacy should place an increased emphasis on issuing
AOs for this Class. When counting proposed AOs, only
those proposed orders that have been signed and sent
to operators should be included. Draft information
type orders performance for the number of AOs is
expected to be roughly equivalent to the benchmark
targets derived in the FY 1991 Enforcement Workload
Model.
B-25
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
14 (a) Report by State those
which have adopted new
regulations, States which have
received EPA approval of a
primacy revision application,
and States which have received
approvals for an extension.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Regions will report those States which have adopted
newly promulgated drinking water regulations and the
date these rules were adopted. Regions will also
report those States which have received EPA approval
of their primacy program revision application and the
States which have received approval of any extension.
Note: ODW will provide the form for this report.
15 (a) Negotiate, with each
State, annual targets for the
number of SNCs occurring as of
the compliance period ending
March 31, 1991 and the number of
exceptions existing as of June
1, 1991 [both will be contained
on the July 1991 SNC/Exception
Report] that will be
appropriately addressed or
returned to compliance by June
1, 1992, and reported to ODW by
June 22, 1992 for each of the
two categories listed below.
1) micro/turbidity/TTHM SNCs and
exceptions 2) chem/rad SNCs and
exceptions (Note: data are
lagged one quarter.)
Each Region shall negotiate with each State, annual
targets for the number of SNCs and the number of
exceptions that will be appropriately addressed or
returned to compliance by June 1, 1992. States shall
set two targets, one for the microbiological/
turbidity/TTHM SNCs and exceptions, and one for the
chemical and radiological SNCs & exceptions. The
baseline for the targets shall be the number of
systems contained on the July 1991 SNC/Exception
Report which will be provided by ODW to the Regions in
mid to late July 1991. This report will include the
systems identified as SNCs for the first time as of
the compliance period ending March 31, 1991 those
previously identified for which "timely and
appropriate" has not expired and the systems
identified by the Regions as exceptions as of June 1,
1991. Targets shall be set based on the number of
those SNCs and exceptions that will be appropriately
B-26
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
addressed or returned to compliance by June l, 1992.
Regions are to negotiate each State's target based
upon the State's current compliance statistics and
capabilities for violation reduction.
An SNC is a public water system which meets any of the
following criteria:
1. Microbiological/Turbidity:
(a)	Systems on monthly monitoring:
-	4 or more violations of the microbiological or
turbidity MCL during any 12 consecutive months.
-	6 or more combined "major"* violations of the
microbiological or turbidity monitoring/reporting
requirements and/or violations of the microbiological
or turbidity MCL during any 12 consecutive months.
-	10 or more combined microbiological or turbidity
monitoring/reporting ("major" or "minor"**) and/or MCL
violations during any 12 consecutive months.
(b)	Systems on quarterly monitoring:
-	2 or more violations of the microbiological MCL
during any 4 consecutive quarters.
-	3 or more combined "major" violations of the
microbiological monitoring/reporting requirements
and/or MCLs during any 4 consecutive quarters.
B—27
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
(c) Systems on annual monitoring:
- 2 or more combined "major" violations of the
microbiological monitoring/reporting requirements
and/or MCLs during any 2 consecutive one-year periods.
2. Chemical/Radiological
(a)	Exceeds the unreasonable risk to health level
identified for that contaminant (Unreasonable risk to
health guidance/criteria will be distributed under
separate cover.)
(b)	Fails to monitor for or report the results of any
of the currently regulated contaminants for 2
consecutive compliance periods.
* A "major" monitoring/reporting violation is one
where no samples were taken or results reported during
a compliance period.
** A "minor" monitoring/reporting violation is one
where an insufficient number of samples were taken or
results reported during a compliance period.
B—28
-------
COMPLETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
15 (b) Report, using the
SNC/Exception Report format,
against all SNCs, those systems
that: returned to compliance;
had an appropriate enforcement
action taken against them;
remained unresolved; or became
exceptions this quarter. Report
separately for each of the
following two groups: (Note:
Date are lagged one quarter.)
1)	micro/turbidity/TTHM SNCs
2)	chem/rad SNCs
MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
(Note: At the time the FY 1992 OWAS was being
developed, the SNC definition for the new Total
Coliform (TC) and Surface Water Treatment (SWT) rules
was under discussion. The SNC definition is being
revised to include these rules, and will be further
revised to include the Phase II and Lead & Copper
rules. The SNC definition for the TC and SWT rules
will be issued under separate cover prior to April 1,
1991.
This measure will report those systems, which met any
of the SNC criteria, which returned to compliance, had
an appropriate enforcement action taken against them,
remain unresolved, or became an exception for the
first time this quarter. In addition to reporting
system by system follow-up information, Regions are to
report two summary numbers, one for each of the
following categories: 1) micro/turbidity/TTHM SNCs,
and 2} chemical/radiological SNCs.
"Returned to Compliance" for SNCs of a microbiological
MCL and/or M/R requirement, a turbidity MCL and/or M/R
requirement, or a TTHM M/R requirement, is having no
months of violation (either MCL or M/R), of the same
contaminant which caused the system to become a SNC,
during the six month period after the system was
identified as a SNC.
B—29
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
"Returned to Compliance" for SNCs of a chemical or
radiological analytical level is conducting analyses
that demonstrates that the system no longer exceeds
the MCL.
"Returned to Compliance" for SNCs of a chemical (other
than TTHM) or radiological monitoring requirement is
conducting the required monitoring and determining
that the system does not exceed the MCL.
An "appropriate enforcement action" for SNCs is any of
the following:
(a)	the issuance of a bilateral, written compliance
agreement signed by both parties, which includes a
compliance schedule. (only appropriate for use by
States)
(b)	the issuance of a State or final Federal
Administrative Order, or Compliance Order.
(c)	the referral of a civil judicial case to the
State Attorney General, or DOJ.
(d)	the filing of a criminal case in an appropriate
State or U.S. District court.
Timeliness for SNCs is eight months after the system
became an SNC. (Two months for the State to
determine, and become aware of, the system's SNC
status and six months in which to complete the
follow-up/enforcement action).
B-30
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
15 (c) Report using the
SNC/Exception Report format
those systems identified as
exceptions through the prior
quarter which have since
returned to compliance, had an
appropriate enforcement action
taken against them, or remained
exceptions as of this quarter.
Report separately for each of
the following two groups:
1)	micro/turbidity/TTHM
exceptions
2)	chem/rad exceptions (Note:
data are lagged one quarter)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
An "exception" is a system which was: a) a SNC which
has not returned to compliance or was not addressed
timely and/or appropriately, b) a SNC previously
addressed appropriately which fails by more than 60
days to meet a milestone of a compliance schedule, or
c) a SNC system appropriately addressed by referring a
civil or criminal case to the State AG but which has
not been filed within 120 days of the referral.
This measure will report those systems which
previously became exceptions, which have returned to
compliance, had an appropriate enforcement action
taken against them, or remained exceptions during the
past quarter. In addition to reporting system by
system follow-up information, Regions are to report
two summary numbers, one for each of the following
categories: 1) micro/turbidity/TTHM exceptions, and 2)
chemical/radiological exceptions. The definitions of
returned to compliance and appropriate enforcement
actions are contained in the previous section on
DW/E-2.
B-31
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
15 (d) Report, State by State:
(1) the total number of EPA NOVs
proposed administrative orders,
final administrative orders,
complaints for penalty, civil
referrals, criminal filings, and
§1431 emergency orders issued,
and the amount of each
administratively
assessed/collected penalty,
during the quarter. (2) the
number of State administrative
orders; bilateral compliance
agreements; civil cases referred
to State Attorneys General
(AGs), filed, and concluded; and
the number of criminal cases
filed by the AGs and concluded.
(OECM will report the same data
for EPA referrals.) (Note:
State data are lagged 1 quarter)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure is intended to identify the level of
effort of enforcement activity occurring at the State
and Federal levels. The measure is to include actions
taken against any system (regardless of whether it is
classified as an SNC, or non-SNC. Only those State
actions that are against violators of "SDWA
requirements" should be counted. Actions against
violators of non-SDWA requirements (e.g., violations
of State operator certification requirements) should
not be counted. For State actions report the number
of bilateral compliance agreements; administrative
orders; civil cases referred, filed, and concluded;
and criminal cases filed and concluded. For Federal
actions, report by State, the number of NOVs, proposed
AOs, final AOs, complaints for penalty, §1431
emergency actions, each administrative penalty amount
assessed and collected, and the numbers of civil
referrals, and criminal filings.
The information should include all the actions
occurring during the quarter. This measure will be
compiled all four quarters during FY '92. AO actions
"in the works" should not be counted. These will
likely be completed in the subsequent three months and
States and Regions will get "credit" for them in the
following reporting period.
B-32
-------
COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The performance expectations for individual Regions
for the number of proposed and final AOs should be
roughly equivalent to the actions predicted as being
achievable in the FY '92 Enforcement Resources Model.
Criminal charges filed by the AGs include criminal
indictments and criminal information.
B-33
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
1(a) Identify, against targets,
the States/Tribes completing a
Section 303(c)(1) triennial
review that includes, biological
criteria and salt water
criteria, where appropriate,
antidegradation policies and
implementation methods and water
quality standards for wetlands
and coastal/ estuarine waters;
and for which EPA takes formal
action (approval, or disapproval
and request for promulgation).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The water quality standards program requirements
reflect priorities in the Science Advisory Board
Report, "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
Strategies for Environmental Protection" and the
Office of Water's "Strategic Plan." The emphasis of
these documents and of the water quality standards
program is on the reduction of ecological risk in
critical surface waterbodies.
The water quality standards program requirements for
the FY 1991 - 1993 triennium were published in the FY
1991 Agency Operating Guidance. States are to adopt
narrative biological criteria, salt water criteria, as
appropriate, and antidegradation policies and
implementation methods into water quality standards to
further protect the nation's waterbodies. The
critical waterbodies that must be addressed include
wetlands and coastal/estuarine waters, but also may
include lakes, streams and rivers. The requirements
are designed to enhance the ability of States to adopt
water quality standards that will serve as the
foundation for programs to reduce the ecological risks
facing our critical aquatic resources, particularly
from nonpoint sources, combined sewer overflows and
stormwater runoff.
B—34
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
In particular, the requirements include:
o By September 30, 1993, States and qualified Indian
Tribes must adopt narrative biological criteria. The
biological criteria shall be developed in accordance
with either the Biological Criteria Program Guidance
Document (April, 1990) or some other scientifically
valid method. Criteria shall be developed that define
the structure and function of the waterbody, including
species richness, diversity, trophic composition, and
abundance and/or biomass, that relate to the
designated uses in the water quality standards. Such
criteria may be used in refining the uses of the
waters and in determining if the designated uses have
been attained.
o By September 30, 1993, water quality standards must
contain salt water criteria, as appropriate. These
criteria are for pollutants for which EPA has
published Section 304(a) criteria guidance.
o Also, by September 30, 1993, water quality standards
must contain an acceptable antidegradation policy and
implementation methods. This requirement is
discussed in the FY 1988 national water quality
standards program guidance and in proposed revisions
to the Water Quality Standards Regulation.
B-35
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
o In addition, by September 30, 1993, States and
qualified Indian Tribes must adopt narrative water
quality standards that apply directly to wetlands.
Wetland water quality standards shall be established
in accordance with either the National Guidance. Water
Quality Standards of Wetlands (July, 1990) or some
other scientifically valid method. In adopting water
quality standards for wetlands, States and qualified
Indian Tribes, as a minimum, shall: (l) define
wetlands as "State waters"; (2) designate uses that
protect the structure and function of the wetlands;
(3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free
froms") and appropriate numeric criteria in the
standards to protect the designated uses; (4) adopt
narrative biological criteria into the standards; and
(5) extend the antidegradation policy and
implementation methods to wetlands. Unless results of
a use attainability analysis show
that the Section 101(a) goals can not be achieved,
States and qualified Indian Tribes shall designate
uses for wetlands that provide for the protection of
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. When
extending the antidegradation policy and
implementation methods to wetlands, consideration
should be given to designating critical wetlands as
Outstanding National Resource Waters. As necessary,
the antidegradation policy and implementation methods
should be revised to reflect the unique
characteristics of wetlands.
B-36
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
2(a) Identify, against targets,
the States for which Regions
approve the numeric criteria
o Finally, by September 30, 1993, State and qualified
Indian Tribe water quality standards must apply
directly to estuaries, as appropriate. In accordance
with existing regulations and guidance, water quality
standards for estuaries shall include designated uses,
salt water criteria for pollutants for which EPA has
published Section 304(a) criteria guidance, narrative
biological criteria to protect the designated uses of
the estuaries, and an antidegradation policy and
implementation methods. When including the
antidegradation policy and implementation methods in
water quality standards for estuaries, consideration
also should be given to designating the estuaries as
Outstanding National Resource Waters.
For States and qualified Indian Tribes included in the
targets for this measure in FY 1992, the State or
qualified Indian Tribe must complete a triennial
review of water quality standards and EPA must take
formal action by September 30, 1992. Formal action
includes approval, or disapproval and a request that
the Administrator promulgate Federal standards.
Targets for this measure have to be developed for the
second and fourth quarters of FY 1992.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA, as amended, requires
that whenever a State reviews water quality standards
in accordance with Section 303(c)(1), the State must
B-37
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
adopted by the States that are
necessary to bring the States
into full compliance with
Section 303(c)(2)(B).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
adopt numeric criteria into water quality standards
for Section 307(a) priority pollutants that could be
reasonably expected to interfere with designated uses.
This measure tracks the States for which the Regions
approve the numeric criteria adopted by the States
that are necessary to bring the States into full
compliance with Section 303(c)(2)(B).
Not all States have complied fully with the
requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(B). Where the
Regions disapproved water quality standards or
portions of those standards because the Section
303(c)(2)(B) requirements were not met, the Agency
initiated action to propose Federal standards. If a
State adopts sufficient criteria to fully comply with
Section 303(c)(2)(B), EPA will not promulgate Federal
standards for that State. Targets for this measure
have to be developed for the second and fourth
quarters of FY 1992.
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
4. (a) Publish two regulations
in the Federal Register: final
amendments for the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and
This measure tracks the development of two regulatory
projects that will enhance the control of wastewater
discharges to surface waters and municipal wastewater
treatment systems. The majority of Organic Chemicals,
B-38
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH IMPROVED SCIENCE
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
Synthetic Fibers Industry
Categories; and final rule for
the Offshore Oil and Gas
Extraction Subcategory.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) manufacturing
facilities are located in the industrialized, highly-
populated areas that typically coincide with the
geographically targeted areas of the U.S. Many
Offshore oil and gas platforms are located in or near
sensitive marine environments. The current schedules
call for promulgation of the OCPSF amendments in April
1992 and promulgation of the Offshore Oil and Gas
regulation in June 1992.
B—39
-------
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RISK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SEDIMENTS/RISK ASSESSMENT
2(a) Report, by State, the
number of waterbodies that
include sediment quality-based
limits for point sources and
sediment quality-based targets
for nonpoint sources.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure reflects the Agency's increased emphasis
on water quality impaired by contaminated sediments
and begins to measure progress toward controlling
sources of sediment contamination. The first step
needed is an assessment of sediment quality. Sediment
monitoring should be performed whenever known fish
contamination exists. Regions should work with the
States to ensure that in each State, where
contamination is suspected, sediments at three or more
locations are sampled for metals, persistent organic
pollutants, total organic carbon (TOC), acid-volatile
sulfides (AVS) and toxicity. Where organic or metal
contaminants, normalized by TOC and AVS respectively,
are found at levels greater than promulgated, proposed
or draft chemical-specific sediment quality criteria,
Regions should reasonably assure that States begin
adoption of Section 303 sediment quality standards for
those contaminants found at levels above criteria.
(Six non-ionic organic chemical criteria for sediments
will be published in the Federal Register by the end
of FY 91.) Based on EPA's sediment criteria and
bioaccumulation policy, Regions should work with the
States to reasonably assure that where a State has
adopted sediment criteria and sediment quality-based
control procedures, the State implements sediment-
quality based permit limits for point sources during
B—4 0
-------
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RISK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
permit reissuance (unless conditions warrant an
immediate reopening), and sediment-quality based
targets for nonpoint sources. Where the Region
administers the NPDES program, and where EPA adopts
sediment criteria and sediment quality-based control
procedures, the Region should develop sediment
quality-based permit limits for the contributing
sources whose permits reissued.
In reporting on this measure, Regions should indicate
by waterbody any and all of the three activities
listed, i.e., sediment monitoring for point sources,
sediment quality-based limits for point sources,
and/or sediment quality-based targets for nonpoint
sources. FY 92 will be a transition year and will
demonstrate progress States are making in addressing
this important pollution problem.
Environmental agencies and health departments at the
State level are responsible for protecting the public
from the risks of consuming contaminated fish that are
harvested locally by issuing consumption advisories or
bans when necessary. The public health advisory is a
management tool available to regulators to warn the
public of high levels of toxic substances in fish.
EPA will develop guidance to promote the use of risk
assessments in determining the potential risk to
3(a) Report, by State, and by
name, waterbodies with fish
tissue monitoring and
waterbodies with fish
consumption advisories.
B-41
-------
OSING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RISK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
humans from the consumption of contaminated fish and
will encourage the States to generate fish tissue
monitoring data for this purpose. This data can then
be used for a risk assessment to determine if a fish
advisory is necessary. Initially, States will be
required to:
1.	Report in the Waterbody system the names of
waterbodies with fish tissue monitoring data. In the
STORET system store information on the pollutants
analyzed in fish and the type of analysis that was
performed, i.e., whole body, fillet, etc.
2.	Report in the Waterbody system the names of
waterbodies for which fish consumption advisories have
been issued. The Section 305(b) report should
indicate the pollutants covered in the advisory, the
type of advisory issued (i.e., fish consumption ban, a
consumption ban only for pregnant women and
children, a fish advisory which recommends so many
meals/ounces of fish per month), the risk assessment
approach used in the determination to issue a fish
advisory (i.e., EPA risk assessment methodology, FDA
action level, etc.), the extent of the advisory, and
the common name of the fish covered by the advisory.
B-42
-------
USING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE REDUCTION IN RISK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
4(a) Identify, against targets,
the ecological criteria guidance
HQ will publish.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A key theme in the Science Advisory Board Report,
"Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection," and the Office of Water's
••Strategic Plan" is to reduce ecological risks facing
critical aquatic resources. We also need to view the
integrity of the water environment holistically — the
stun total of the complex biological, chemical and
physical dynamics necessary to sustain long-term
processes — ecological integrity — of a healthy
aquatic ecosystem. Over time, criteria guidance will
provide a comprehensive basis on which to design
programs that prevent and control pollution and
habitat alteration and destruction and loss of
species, particularly from nonpoint sources, combined
sewer overflows and stormwater runoff. Chemical-
specific sediment criteria to protect aquatic life and
numeric biological criteria for streams, rivers,
lakes, wetlands and estuaries are the most pressing
priority needs. Then, as resources allow, criteria
will be published to protect habitat in critical
waterbodies.
B-43
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1. WETLANDS STRATEGIC	The following four WQ-2 measures represent specific
INITIATIVES	categories of activities that have historically been
combined under the title "Strategic Initiative (SI),"
which can continue to be used as a blanket descriptor.
The SI encompasses a fairly wide range of strategic
activities undertaken by a Region to improve
protection of wetlands and/or other critical aguatic
habitats on a broad (temporal/spatial) scale. An SI
may be extensive involving increased EPA action on a
broad geographic scale in a major program activity
area (e.g. increasing public outreach throughout a
State). Alternatively, it may be intensive in being
targeted to a more limited geographical area (e.g.
enforcement in that area). At a minimum, an SI must
include problem analysis, identification of goals for
the target wetlands, evaluation of options to achieve
the goals, an action plan, implementation, and
evaluation of results. An SI should be a non-
recurring project that is beyond the scope of what are
generally considered to be "normal," day-to-day
activities. As a guide, an SI should constitute a
program component that represents one-tenth or more of
the Region's wetlands program resources. To
"complete" an initiative means to have (1) implemented
all components of the action plan, with no more than
the evaluation of results remaining to be done; and
B-44
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1(a) Number of Advance
Identifications completed
(STARS)
1(b) Number of major pubic
education and outreach
initiatives completed (STARS)
(2) submitted to Headquarters a brief (e.g., one-page)
summary of the project, including start- and end-
dates, approximate resources expended, activities
undertaken, and anticipated benefits of the
initiative. These summaries will provide useful data
to Headquarters on Regional activities and can serve
as valuable information-transfer vehicles among
Regions.
It is understood that specific projects can cut across
the definitions below, e.g., an Advance Identification
can, and should, involve a substantial public outreach
component. Regions are requested to avoid "double-
counting" by choosing the most appropriate category
under which to report the completion of an initiative.
Completion of an Advance Identification as defined in
40 CFR Part 230.80 of the CWA §404(b)(1) Guidelines
and further described in the 1989 "Guidance to EPA
Regional Offices on the Use of Advance Identification
Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act."
Completion of a major educational effort directed
either to a specific sector of the regulated community
(e.g., agricultural community, fishing industry) or to
residents of a particular geographic area (e.g.,
communities in prairie pothole regions.)
B-45
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
1(c) Number of geographically
targeted §404 enforcement
initiatives completed (STARS)
1(d) Number of comprehensive
management and planning
initiatives completed, e.g.,
greenways/river corridor
management plans, special area
management plans, etc.
2(a) Identify the number of
permits reissued in near coastal
waters (report separately NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Completion of an intensive §404 enforcement/compliance
effort in a specific geographic area. Enforcement
Initiatives are generally undertaken for their
deterrent value in areas with histories of
particularly poor compliance or with particularly
vulnerable resources.
Completion of a management or planning initiative
designed to provide the Region with a comprehensive
strategy for addressing a variety of wetlands
protection issues. Examples include development of
greenway/river corridor management plans and special
area management plans, development of water quality
standards for wetlands, and development of strategies
for improved interaction with State, Tribal, local,
and/or other federal government bodies.
In accordance with EPA's near coastal waters
initiative and the EPA Coastal and Marine Policy,
Regions with coastal dischargers will accelerate
actions for reissuing permits to these facilities. A
near coastal water is one with measurable salinity and
tidal influences, including discharges in an estuary
drainage areas and Great Lakes dischargers. Permits
should contain water quality based limits based on
available wasteload allocations and should be analyzed
for conventional pollutants and persistent, bio-
concentratable toxicants.
B—46
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2(b) Identify the number of
permits issued which include
limits and appropriate
monitoring requirements for
CSOs. Of these, how many are in
geographically targeted areas?
2(c) How many permits have been
issued due to designation under
402(p) (2)(E)?
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Monitoring requirements for all combined sewer systems
should be developed to achieve the following three
objectives: characterize the hydraulic relationships
between the POTW, the collection system, and CSOs;
characterize the CSO discharge itself; and, evaluate
the water quality impacts of CSO discharges. The
initial phase of monitoring should include in-system
flow monitoring as well as overflow monitoring. The
second essential part of a monitoring program is CSO
discharge sampling. Overflow discharges must be
sampled to determine the volume, frequency, and
duration, as well as pollutant loadings discharged to
receiving waters. For a definition of a
geographically targeted area, please see (E).
Although EPA has recently amended regulatory
requirements for permit applications for industrial
and municipal storm water discharges, some storm water
discharges had previously had been identified as
representing significant sources of pollutants with
discernable adverse effects on water quality.
Regional Offices and States can designate those storm
water dischargers for permitting under the authority
of Section 402(p)(2)(E) as soon as possible after
their impact is documented. Under this provision,
B-47
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2(d) How many geographically
targeted basins or watersheds
were identified for targeted
permit issuance?
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
permitting can occur for "a discharge which the
Regional Administrator or the State Director, as the
case may be, determines that the storm water discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quality standard
or is a significant contributor of pollutants to the
waters of the United States."
Geographically targeted permit issuance is defined as
the designation of a water body, drainage basin,
hydrologically similar area, or geographic location in
which all permits, mostly requiring water quality
based limits, are issued in a comprehensive planned
manner. The area selected would be considered as a
unit for which permit issuance would occur at an
identical or closely timed period. TMDLs/WLAs would
form the basis of the limits, where available.
MARINE DISCHARGE WAIVERS AND
OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA
EVALUATIONS
3(a) # of final 403(c)
assessment activities.
For each point source subject to 403 requirements, the
Regions will issue a final permit based on an
evaluation of ocean discharge criteria and
determination of either unreasonable degradation or
irreparable harm. It is expected that the Region will
review monitoring data of dischargers who permits will
be considered for renewal in the next fiscal year.
B-48
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
4(a) What is the Regions/States
process for identifying
pretreatment POTWs which need
pretreatment performance
evaluations (PPE)?
NONPOINT SOURCES:
6(a) Identify, by State, against
targets, the percentage of
priority waterbodies identified
in their approved State NPS
management programs with
watershed control programs
actively underway.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The PPE is an additional tool for assessing the
compliance of a pretreatment POTW and IUs within that
POTW. It includes a more comprehensive review of the
compliance status of IUs within a POTW and the
effectiveness of the enforcement program conducted by
the POTW than is now provided for in the PCI or audit.
While the concept is still under development, it is
likely to be modeled on the approach used by Region IX
and described at the Pretreatment Coordinator's
meeting in Seattle in May 1991.
This measure tracks the degree of which States are
actively implementing NPS management practices in the
watersheds of the priority waterbodies which they have
identified in their approved NPS management programs
as needing protection from or abatement of NPS
pollution. All States have approved NPS management
programs which identify priority waterbodies requiring
actions to abate or prevent NPS pollution. States
have had available to them two Section 319 grant
awards, technical and financial support from other EPA
programs such as the National Estuaries program, and
from other Federal agencies such as the Soil
Conservation Service and Forest Service of the U.S.
B-49
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land
Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior, as
well as funding and technical support from State and
local sources to assist them in initiating and
expanding the needed actions. This measure identifies
the percentage of its priority watersheds in which
each State is actively implementing such activities.
In reporting on this measure, Regions should use as a
base the number of priority waterbodies identified by
each State in its approved NPS management program.
For the purposes of this measure, "active
implementation" means that: landowners/land managers
within the watershed have adopted or have formally
committed to adopting approved BMPs and/or BMP control
systems; regulations/ordinances requiring approved
BMPs within the watershed exist or are being actively
developed; or outreach/technology
transfer/demonstration programs targeted to obtaining
adoption of approved BMPs by specific categories of
landowners/land managers within the watershed are
being actively conducted.
B—50
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
MONITORING:
10(a) Report, by State: (1) the
number of waterbodies targeted
for TMDL development in the 1992
Section 303(d) submittal; (2)
the total size impaired and the
total size threatened within
these waterbodies; and (3) the
number of complex and non-
complex TMDLs anticipated.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Report, in the fourth quarter, by State: (1) the
number of waterbodies targeted for Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) development in the 1992 303(d) submittal;
(2) the total size impaired and the total size
threatened within these waterbodies; and (3) the
number of complex and non-complex TMDLs anticipated.
The measure begins a process for measuring
environmental results in a subset of the impaired and
threatened waterbodies. Pursuant to CWA Section
303(d) and Office of Water program guidance issued in
1990, every two years starting in April 1992, States
will identify water-quality limited waterbodies and
the subset of these waterbodies for which TMDLs will
be developed during subsequent two years. States
should use the Waterbody System (WBS) Waterbody
Identification Number to identify the Section 303(d)
targeted waterbodies. The total size impaired is the
sum of the portions of these waterbodies partially and
not supporting uses as reported under Section 305(b).
The total size threatened is the sum of the portions
of these waterbodies threatened under Section 305(b).
Regions will ensure that they can determine the status
of water quality in the individual targeted
waterbodies using either the WBS or an independent
information system. This information collected in
B-51
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1992 will be used as a baseline for measuring changes
in the total size impaired and threatened. We
anticipate using a four year cycle for comparison. In
1994, a different set of targeted waterbodies will be
identified and similarly evaluated on a four year
cycle.
11(a) Report, by Region, for
EPA, States and Indian Tribes
with primacy the number of Class
IV and endangering Class V
injection well closures (by well
type) achieved under UIC
authority or in conjunction with
other regulatory programs such
as RCRA, UST, CERCLA, for
example, or under wellhead
protection efforts.
Class IV includes any unauthorized hazardous waste
(defined under RCRA) injection practice that typically
discharges directly into or above a USDW or violates
CFR 144.13.
Endangering Class V well types ranked by priority for
permit and enforcement actions include industrial
drainage, industrial waste disposal, motor vehicle
facility waste disposal and any other Class V well(s)
that the Region has identified as special problems.
B—52
-------
REDUCING RISK THROUGH GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
12 (A)(a) Number of States with
Wellhead Protection Programs
approved during FY 1992
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Well closure describes a process to permanently
discontinue injection of an unauthorized and
endangering fluid contaminant which is in violation of
RCRA or SDWA or applicable regulations. At this time,
closure must include immediate cessation of injection
of unauthorized waste stream to satisfy SDWA
requirements. To satisfy both SDWA and RCRA, well
closure may require additional action:
—	Remove injection fluids deposited in well, sludge
and any visibly contaminated soil.
—	Segregate hazardous waste streams from sanitary
waste streams (septic system) and redirect HW to
holding tank.
—	Restrict injection to authorized waste stream.
Seal floor drain.
—	Obtain authorized sewer hook-up.
Remove well, injectate and contaminated soil;
dispose in authorized facility.
—	Imminent threat to USDW may require monitoring
and ground-water remediation.
This measure reflects the national objective of having
all States with approved Wellhead Protection Programs.
Performance Expectation:
It is expected that each Region will work to ensure
the implementation of Wellhead Protection Programs so
that 100% of States have an approved program in place
by the close of FY 1992.
B—53
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
4. MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY OUTREACH
4 (a) Number of small POTWs and.
Tribal facilities that have l)
returned to compliance, 2)
maintained compliance, or 3)
significantly improved
performance as a result of
onsite operator
training/technical assistance
through the Onsite Assistance
Program [104(g)].
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The Onsite Assistance Program (OAP) is a problem
diagnostic and on-site assistance program to assist
small (up to 5 mgd) POTWs and Tribal facilities
improve performance and attain and/or maintain
compliance. The Region and States should emphasize
facilities in noncompliance with NPDES effluent
reguirements, although facilities with performance
problems which would soon result in noncompliance may
also be addressed. Candidate POTWs are identified
through DMR, on-site, or Quality Assurance/Quality
Control sample reviews.
The Region and States are expected to provide on-site
assistance to an extent consistent with FY 1991
resource allocations. At the start of each fiscal
year, the Regions/States should report the number of
minor POTWs with expected new training and technical
assistance starts in the fiscal year and the number of
carryover OMEs from the previous fiscal year. At mid-
year and end-of-year, the Regions should report (1)
actual new OAP starts; (2) the number of minor POTWs
and Tribal facilities attaining and/or maintaining
B-54
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG AT.T. T,EVET,S OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
compliance for at least three consecutive months
during the fiscal year as a result of the OAP,
regardless of when the training was initiated; and (3)
the number not yet in compliance but which have
significantly improved performance. Reports should
distinguish Regional and State performance. Federal
and State funded onsite assistance meeting the above
definition should be counted.
Each State which has received a SRF Capitalization
Grant is required to submit an annual report on
activities under SRF. The Report must be submitted to
the Region within 90 days from the end of the year.*
* The year referred to here is the State or Federal
fiscal year as agreed to by the State and Regional
office.
5 A (a) Track, by Region,
progress against quarterly
Regional-Headquarters targets
for the number of annual reports
on SRF.
Performance Expectation: The Region is expected to
receive annual reports from SRF States within the 90
day time frame.
B-55
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
5 A (b) Number of annual
reviews completed
7 (a) Submit separately for
States and Indian Tribes with
primacy a financial status
report on the use of grant
funds.
9 (A) Report:
activities supporting DRA
measures to provide
Regional cross-program
integration in support of
Comprehensive Ground-Water
Protection Programs
State progress in moving
toward the implementation
of Comprehensive Ground-
Water Protection Programs
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
An annual review should generally be conducted within
60 days of receipt of the Annual Report. Regions are
to commit to the number of reviews conducted by mid-
year and end-of-year.
Performance Expectation: States and Indian Tribes with
primacy are expected to report the use of UIC grants
to program activity and object class in accordance
with UIC program guidance.
Identifies Regional ground-water office contribution
to DRA efforts improving both coordination among
EPA/State grant programs workplans and consistency in
implementation of regulations related to ground-water
protection.
For each State, describe state efforts to: (1)
complete self-assessment of ground-water protection
programs and (2) identify and prioritize gaps in
current ground-water protection efforts which need to
be filled in order to develop a fully Comprehensive
Ground-Water Protection Program. Self-assessments
should also specify those Federal regulations and
programs needing modification on further integration
to ensure the development of a Comprehensive Program.
B-56
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
9 (C)(a) List date and type of
outreach effort (workshop,
conference) as well as State and
local attendees; identify any
outside groups sponsoring event
9 (D)(a) Number of Pesticides
Management Plans reviewed to
ensure coordination with
Comprehensive Programs
9	(D)(b) Number of 319 grant
funded activities addressing
non-point sources of ground-
water contamination
10	(A)(a) Number of States using
minimum data element set for
ground-water
10 (A)(b) Number of Regions
implementing a Regional order
for ground-water data management
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure identifies formal contacts aimed at
encouraging support of Comprehensive Programs with
State and local executive decision makers, citizens,
and environmental and industry groups.
This measure focuses on the extent to which the
Regions* Office of Ground-Water participates in the
decision making processes of other programs concerned
with ground-water issues.
This measure focuses on the extent to which the
Regions' Office of Ground-Water participates in the
decision making processes of other programs concerned
with ground-water issues.
This measure focuses on the need for consistency in
ground-water data collection so that data can be
shared among users.
This measure focuses on the need to have a data
management strategy in each Region concerning the
collection, storage, use, and sharing of ground-water
data across all programs (wellhead protection, PWSS,
UIC, RCRA, Superfund, Pesticides).
B-57
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
10 (A)(c) Number of states using
ground-water indicators
11 (a) Report the number of
technology transfer workshops,
meetings, conferences, and
consultations conducted by the
Region to support implementation
of approved NPS management
programs.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure focuses on the need for the States to
report in their submittal to EPA for the 305(b) report
to Congress ground-water indicators. These indicators
provide the States and trends of the Nation's ground-
water quality.
This measure tracks the amount of technical assistance
and support provided by the Region to assist States in
implementing NPS Management Programs. Workshops,
meeting and conferences are self-explanatory.
Consultations are technical exchanges
between State or project staff and EPA Regional/EPA
contractor or other Federal/State agency experts to
resolve a specific issue or problem.
13 (a) Report, by State: (1)
total size of water-bodies
assessed; and (2) total size of
waterbodies fully, partially and
not supporting designated uses,
and the total size threatened.
Report, in the fourth quarter: (a) the total size of
waterbodies assessed by the States either through
monitoring or evaluation, according to EPA Guidance
for Section 305(b) reports; and (b) the total size of
waterbodies fully, partially and not supporting
designated uses, and the total size threatened.
B-58
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure requires that the total size of stream
miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, coastal
miles, and Great Lakes shoreline miles assessed by the
States, Territories, Interstate Commissions, and
qualified Indian Tribes be reported in the fourth
quarter. In addition, the water quality status of the
waters (i.e., whether designated uses are fully,
partially, or not supported, or whether the waters are
fully supporting uses but threatened) should also be
reported for this measure.
The Section 305(b) guidelines establish two categories
of assessed waters: monitored waters for which
current site-specific monitoring data exist, and
evaluated water for which there are other types of
data such as land use information and ambient data
older than five years. These two categories provide a
general level of confidence for most of the water
quality data. A waterbody is defined as a fixed
hydrologic unit as designated by the State.
Waterbodies are limited to one type of water (e.g.,
river, lake estuary). Consult the WBS User's Guide
for additional guidance. [DATA SOURCE: Guidelines for
B—59
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND AT.T.TANCES AMONG AT.T. T.EVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality
Assessment and future editions. Relevant data
contained in State NPS Management Programs and
Assessments and Section 106/604(b) Work Programs.]
15 (a) Report, by Region, the
number of assessment
methodologies available to State
and Indian Tribe for (1)
targeting; (2) identifying WQ
conditions, and (3) development
of control strategies.
This measure reguires Regions to make watershed
assessment methods available to States and Indian
Tribes. It includes at least one method each for:
(1) geographic targeting to identify potential
problems; (2) analysis/modeIs to determine the extent
of the problem(s); and (3) selection of optimum
control of alternatives to improve the guality of
ground-water and surface water in the watershed.
Regions are expected to find methods using information
from as many EPA programs and other Agency programs as
possible.
Automated methods are preferred if States have the
computer hardware to handle them. EPA HQ will provide
technical assistance on use of PC and mainframe
systems to obtain and analyze information. Regions
should have methodologies and their uses clearly
defined for States and Indian Tribes, including
computer hardware/software requirements and when/whom
to call to obtain information and for technical
assistance.
B-60
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
16. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
16 (a) Report, by State and
qualified Indian Tribe, for FY91
and for FY92 through second
quarter, the amount of funds
identified in Section 106 work
programs for selected national
water quality program elements.
17 (a) Complete the FY91 budget
matrix for each State and
qualified Indian Tribe so that
the uses of available funds can
be determined.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
This measure provides Headquarters with the best
available information on distribution of Section 106
surface water grant funds among selected national
water quality program elements. In addition, this
information will enable EPA to better justify and
defend future Section 106 budget requests before
Congress and OMB. More detailed data related to all
WQM funding sources and activities are reported
annually under quantitative measure 17(a).
This measure requires that the amount of funds
identified in Section 106 work programs for the
following national water quality program elements be
reported in the second quarter: permits/enforcement;
source and ambient monitoring and laboratory costs
(combined); water quality standards; and NPS
implementation.
The budget matrix columns include ten funding sources
while the rows include 15 national program elements.
Column and row totals are also included in the matrix
format. Completing the budget matrix requires
entering the dollar amount for each available funding
source committed in a work program for the activities
in each program element.
The ten funding sources in the matrix are: (l) State
(the sum of all required and voluntary contributions
included in grant work programs); (2) the sum of
B-61
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
17 (b) Report, by State for FY91
and for FY92 through the second
quarter, the percentage of
205(j)(2) awards from Sections
2°5(j)(1) and 604(b) funds
passed-thru to RPCPOs and IOs in
accordance with 205(j)(3).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Wetlands; (4) 205(g); (5) 205(j)(2) [from 604(b) and
205(j)(1) reserves]; (6) 205(j)(5); (7) 201(g)(1)(B);
(8) 314; (9) 319; and (10) other Federal and non-
Federal sources. The national program elements are:
(1) CMAG/O&M; (2) PERMITS; (3) PRETREATMENT; (4)
ENFORCEMENT; (5) SOURCE MONITORING; (6) AMBIENT
MONITORING; (7) LAB COSTS; (8) WQ STANDARDS; (9) WQ
PLANNING; (10) NPS IMPLEMENTATION; (11) GROUND WATER;
(12) SLUDGE MANAGEMENT; (13) EMERGENCY RESPONSE; (14)
ADMINISTRATION; and (15) OTHER. [A copy of the matrix
is available from the Office of Water.]
Section 205(j)(3) requires that each State pass-thru a
minimum of 40 percent of funds awarded under 205(j)(2)
from Section 205(j)(1) and 604(b) reserves to Regional
Public Comprehensive Planning Organizations (RPCPOs)
and Interstate Organizations (IOs). This requirement
can be waived only if a Governor determines, after
consultation with RPCPOs and IOs, that these funds
will not contribute significantly to the development
or implementation of the State's WQM plan and the
Regional Administrator approves these findings. A
Governor's determination and EPA approval are limited
to funds awarded in a single fiscal year. Regions
must ensure that the proper funding amounts are
passed-thru from each year's reserve of planning
funds.
B-62
-------
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES AMONG ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
For each State, list the pass-thru percentage from.
-	FY 1990 205(j)(1) and 604(b) funds awarded in FY
1991.
-	FY 1991 604(b) funds awarded in FY 1991 and thru
second
quarter FY 1992.
-	FY 1992 604(b) funds awarded thru second quarter FY
1992.
18 (a)Report the names of Indian
Tribes that during FY 92 receive
"treatment as a State" (TAS)
status; Tribes receiving WQM
grants; and the amount, purpose
and funding sources of the
grants.
This measure assesses Agency progress in awarding CWA
program grants to qualified Indian Tribes as required
by the Act. Specifically, it requires a listing of
Indian Tribes qualified to be treated as States and
the names of qualified Indian Tribes that receive CWA
program grants (including major activities and funding
sources).
B-63
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2. OUTLAYS/OBLIGATIONS
2 (a) Track, by Region,
progress against quarterly
targets for net outlays for
combined construction grants and
State Revolving Fund (SRF).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Percents of cumulative net outlays for construction
grants and State Revolving Fund (SRF) to program
commitment - The net sum of payments made and
recovered from PL 84-660 projects,	PL 92-500
contract authority projects, as well as projects
funded with Talmadge/Nunn, FY 1977 supplemental, FY
1978 through FY 1990 budget authority, Section 205(g)
funds, Section 205(m) funds, 604(b) funds, including
all Title VI funds appropriated expressly of SRF.
Performance Expectation; The cumulative Regional
commitment will be a combined construction grants and
SRF component. The performance expectation for the
commitment will be + 5%.
3 (a) Number of Step 3, Step
2+3, Marine CSO and PL 84-660
projects beginning to achieve
environmental results.
A Step 3, Step 2+3, Marine CSO or PL 84-660 project is
considered to have begun to achieve environmental
results when the project initiates operations, i.e.,
when one of the following occurs:
o For projects awarded after 12/29/81, the date of
"Initiation of Operation": N7 = "Ab1 or "Bb" or
"Fb".
o For projects awarded before 12/29/81, the date of
"Physical Completion": N5 = "Ab" or "Bb" or "Fb".
B-64
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Performance Expectation; An acceptable commitment
would be 85% or greater of the number of projects
projected to begin operations during FY 1992.
3 (b) Track, by Region,
quarterly targets for the number
of Step 3, Step 2+3, Marine CSO
and PL 84-660 projects
administratively completed.
Performance Expectation: The goal will be to begin FY
1993 with no backlogged projects. An acceptable
commitment would be the number of projects that must
be completed in FY 1992 in order to enter FY 1993 with
no backlogged projects, minus those projects the
Region and Headquarters mutually agree are not able to
be administratively completed during FY 1992. If a
State's FY 1992 administrative completion commitment,
in its approved completion/closeout strategy, is less
than this goal but commits to virtually all
administrative completions by the end of FY 1995, the
strategy's commitment should be recognized as part of
this performance expectation.
Number of Step 3, Step 2+3, Marine CSO, and PL 84-660
projects administratively completed - A project is
considered administratively complete when a final
audit is requested; or, for projects that cannot be
sent to the OIG because of related ongoing projects,
when all of the administrative completion requirements
have been satisfied.
B-65
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3 (c) Track, by Region,
progress against quarterly
targets for the number of Step
3, Step 2+3, Marine CSO and PL
84-660 project closeouts.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A "backlogged" project is defined as:
o A Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660 project
awarded before 1/29/81 which has been physically
complete for more than 12 months, but has not yet been
administratively completed.
o A Step 3, Step 2+3, or Marine CSO project
awarded after 12/29/81 which has initiated operations
for more than 18 months, but has not yet been
administratively completed.
Number of Step 3, Step 2+3. Marine CSO and PL 84-660
project closeouts - A closeout occurs after: (1) An
audit has been resolved or a determination has been
made by OIG that an audit will not be performed; (2)
Funds owed the Government by the grantee (or vice
versa) have been recovered (or paid); and (3) A
closeout letter has been issued to the grantee; or (4)
Any disputes filed under 40 CFR, Parts 30 and 31 have
been resolved.
Performance Expectation: Project closeout is expected
to occur within 6 months of final audit resolution,
project "screenout" or, for projects under $1 million,
within 6 months of administrative completion.
However, the time-based goal does not apply when:
B-66
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
o The grantee appeals a final decision in
accordance with 40 CFR, Parts 30 and 31;
or
o The action official has referred the
project to the servicing finance office to establish
an accounts receivable based on the audit findings.
The estimated number of Step 3, Step 2+3, Marine CSO
and PL 84-660 projects awaiting closeout or awaiting
audit resolution at the beginning of the fiscal year
or any project planned for "screen out" by OIG during
the fiscal year should be planned for closeout by the
end of the fiscal year.
3 (d) The number of Step 1 and Number of Step 1 and Step 2 project closeouts - A
Step 2 project closeouts.	closeout occurs after: (1) An audit has been
resolved or a determination has been made by OIG that
an audit will not be performed; (2) Funds owed the
Government by the grantee (or vice versa) have been
recovered (or paid); and (3) A closeout letter has
been issued to the grantee; or (4) Any disputes filed
under 40 CFR, Parts 30 and 31 have been resolved.
Performance Expectation: Project closeout is expected
to occur within 6 months of final audit resolution;
or, for project "screenout", within 6 months after the
project is returned by the OIG; or for projects under
$1 million, within six months of administrative
completion, unless they will be audited together with
B-67
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
another Step 3 or Step 4. However, the time-based
goal does not apply if:
o The grantee appeals a final decision in
accordance with 40 CFR, Parts 30 and 31;
or
o The action official has referred the
project to the servicing finance office to establish
an accounts receivable based on the audit findings.
An acceptable commitment would be the number of Step 1
and Step 2 projects that will be closed out in
conjunction with the FY 1992 STARS commitment for Step
3, Step 2+3, Marine CSO, and PL 84-660 closeouts,
plus all Step 1 and Step 2 projects awaiting closeout
at the beginning of the fiscal year that are not
associated with an ongoing Step 3 or Step 2+3 project.
3 (e) Percent of Corps	Although this is not regarded as a Regional
utilization vs workplans.	commitment, Headquarters does intend to track and
evaluate how well the Region integrates Corps work
planning and State planning and management. Both
State and Corps performance should be evaluated on the
same standard. Where outputs require input/output
from both, evaluation must consider joint planning and
execution.
B-68
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3 (f) Number of final
construction inspections
conducted by the CoE.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Final construction inspections determine whether
construction of a project has been completed. A
determination is made that:
o	All construction associated with the last
contract under that grant is completed in accordance
with the approved plans, specifications, and change
orders (except for minor components such as
landscaping;
o All equipment is operational;
o Laboratory facilities, if part of the approved
plans and specifications, are available to conduct
tests in certain States;
o The facilities are operational as designed (note
that the Corps may not be responsible for this in
certain States).
Performance Expectation: A final construction
inspection will be conducted on all grant projects
approximately at the time of initiation of operations
or physical completion. Accordingly, the commitment
will be reviewed against the related OWAS commitment
for those States where CoE final construction
inspection is performed.
B—69
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
4 (a) Number of disputes arising
under 40 CFR, Part 30, Subpart L
and Part 31, Subpart F, for
which decisions are issued by
the RA, or are settled or
withdrawn.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
The commitment for this measure is comprised of two
parts:
(a)	a commitment for the first two quarters, based on
disputes "in house" as of 9/30/91; and
(b)	a second commitment at mid-year for disputes
received during the first half of FY 1992.
Note: The commitment includes only construction
grants/OMAG assistance disputes arising under Subparts
F and L.
Performance expectation: Since FY 1986, the Region
has been required to incorporate time-based goals into
the steps of the Regional dispute resolution process
(i.e., date of formal conference, dates of
program/legal conferences, dates when program/legal
reviews were completed, and date RA decision was
issued). Accordingly, these goals may vary according
to the level of difficulty (simple, moderate or
difficult). The target performance expectation is
that timely decisions are issued for all disputes that
are submitted to the RA. Based on the Region's FY
1991 year-end commitments, the Headquarters goal is to
substantially reduce the number of pending RA
decisions. The Region is strongly encouraged to
resolve or otherwise conclude by year's end 90% of the
disputes that were in-house at mid-year. This
requires that each Region's year-end commitment be
calculated/adjusted to reduce the overall backlog.
B—70
-------
ENSURING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
7 (a) Report by well Class and
operating status, an update of
injection well inventories on an
annual basis. Report separately
for EPA, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
EPA, States and Indian Tribes with primacy should
develop and maintain injection well inventories in an
automated data system. Headquarters will allocate
Regional/State resources based on updated inventory
data as of November 30 of each year (fourth quarter
report).
B-71
-------