Region 10 Priorities
2006 Annual Report
A Report on the Goals, Objectives and Accomplishments in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
EPA910-R-06-005
-------
Seven Priorities for Region 10
. . -
-------
A Message to the Residents of
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
For 35 years,EPA's mission has been, "To protect public health and the
environment." Since the creation of EPA on December 2,1970, much
has been accomplished. As Administrator Johnson has said, "Over our
35 years, EPA has not just changed the way our environment looks, EPA
has changed the way we look at our environment."
While I only arrived to this position in August, 2005,1 am proud of the
Region and the accomplishments we have made over the last year. It is
also incredibly exciting to participate in the work that is currently under-
way, and that which lies ahead. The issues are enormously challenging,
resources often in short supply, and the deadlines frequently impossible
to comprehend.
President Bush and Administrator Johnson have directed us to acceler-
ate the pace of environmental protection while maintaining the Nation's
economic competitiveness. It is also clear that we need to be results
oriented and accountable to the public. The Region is well-positioned to
fulfill this charge with risk-sharing, collaboration, and innovation. EPA is
forging new State, federal, and Tribal partnerships to pool resources,
talents, and dollars. It is through these partnerships that we can achieve
environmental outcomes not otherwise attainable.
This annual report is a description of our current environmental priorities
for the coming year. I hope you find it illuminating.
L. Michael Bogert,
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 10
-------
Introduction
This document describes the seven
environmental priorities established
by EPA Region 10 for its work in the
Pacific Northwest. It outlines our
reasons for their selection, what we
hope to accomplish, what we plan to
do, and how we will measure our
progress.
It would be fair to ask why we have
bothered to establish priorities at all.
Priorities are necessary. The de-
mands of modern life require all of us
to set priorities of one sort or another
in our everyday lives. EPA is no
different. The challenges we regu-
larly face in protecting human health
and the environment and in providing
assistance and value to the public we
serve, frequently outstrip our capacity
to respond with a satisfying level of
quality or timeliness. At their core,
the priorities we select are the
product of increasingly hard choices
calculated to deliver the greatest
positive difference in the safety and
quality of the environment in which
our citizens live.
Priorities are provocative. For
instance, should one always choose
protecting human health over restor-
ing and maintaining the environment?
Does one opt for protecting more
people who are moderately at risk or
fewer people exposed to more
profound hazards? We are rarely
confronted with issues sharply cast in
black or white, and we reject the
impulse to make 'either/or' choices.
We are responsible for both respect-
ing the abundant complexity of the
issues spread out before us and
focusing on those where we can and
must make the greatest difference.
Priorities are useful. Priorities not
only naturally mass resources to get
work done, they attract the sort of
notice that opens doors to new
sources of capacity and capability. In
committing to sustained and active
purpose, priorities can also protect an
organization against the whipsawing
effects that volatile, short-term issues
and events can induce. Finally,
priorities affect the way organizations
perceive and exploit opportunity by
viewing the wide field of information
through a more focused lens.
Background
In 2002, Region 10 established six
regional priorities. Since that time,
we have made significant progress in
achieving the various objectives we
originally set out (see "Region 10
Priorities 2004 Annual Report"- EPA
910-R-04-007). We also fulfilled our
commitment to periodically re-visit
our priorities when, in 2005, we
evaluated whether they were still
relevant, on target, or substantially
complete, and identified new and
emerging areas of concern. During
this process, we decided to remove
"Clean-Up of Contaminated Sites"
from the list of Regional priorities.
This priority had served its purpose in
bringing greater focus and coordina-
tion to our ongoing cleanup work. At
this same time, we augmented our
remaining priorities by identifying
Puget Sound-Hood Canal, Spokane
River Basin, and Grants Manage-
ment as areas deserving of special
emphasis.
The Region's priorities share a
number of attributes in common. It is
no coincidence that most of our
priorities are closely aligned with
those of our state, local, and Tribal
partners. We recognize that the most
effective way to achieve our goals
and objectives is through interagency
collaboration. Our priorities empha-
size environmental results over
process. They are multi-dimensional
in character, involving restoration,
preservation, and prevention efforts.
The geographic reach of our priorities
is broad, often spanning interstate
and international boundaries. And
they invariably entail complex techni-
cal and policy issues, requiring
innovative problem-solving and
coordinated multi-media approaches.
In all, our priorities meet head-on
many of the most difficult, high-profile
environmental issues confronting the
citizens of the Pacific Northwest.
Region 10 priorities...
Columbia River Basin - The
Columbia River Basin provides
great environmental, economic,
and social benefit to many public
and private interests. However,
hydro-electric power generation,
agriculture, and other human
activities have disrupted natural
processes and impaired water
quality in some areas to the point
where human health is at risk and
historic salmon stocks are threat-
ened or extinct. This priority
provides a sharper focus on
reducing toxics contamination in
the Columbia River Basin by
enhancements in information
sharing and leveraging resources
in existing programs and initiatives
with our many partners.
Tribal Environmental Health -
Members of Pacific Northwest and
Alaska Tribes are beset by some
of the worst environmental condi-
tions in the Region. Solid waste
disposal, sanitation, and polluted
drinking and surface water top the
list of problems. Complex inter-
governmental relations, rural or
isolated communities, and limited
capacity all hinder an effective
response. This priority focuses on
bolstering the capabilities and
capacities of Tribal governments to
address environmental issues by
providing active technical, pro-
grammatic, and financial assis-
tance. The priority also guides the
Region's direct delivery of environ-
mental programs when a Tribe
lacks the capability or authority.
Oil & Gas in Alaska and Mining
in Region 10 - The Region is rich
in natural resources and their
development is a high priority for
states, Tribes, and the Nation.
Alaska boasts vast oil, gas and
mineral resources. Mining is an
important industry in our other
states, primarily Idaho. Environ-
mental degradation, regulatory
requirements, transportation
issues, and tribal trust responsibili-
ties are only a few of the elements
that we must address in fulfilling
our mission. The goal of this
priority is to maximize protection of
public health and the environment
while expediting environmental
-------
decision-making using a proactive,
interdisciplinary, and coordinated
approach with our state, Tribal,
and federal partners.
Diesel Emissions - Diesel
engines power much of the
economy of the Pacific Northwest,
from marine and land-based
transportation to agricultural
production. However, diesel
emissions have been associated
with significant adverse health
effects, particularly in urban
environments. This priority is
aimed at accelerating diesel
emissions reductions to yield
improvements in public health
using a voluntary, market-based
approach. A wide array of initia-
tives will be implemented to
achieve this goal, including: anti-
idling programs, clean exhaust
technologies, engine replacement,
and alternative fuels.
^"Regional Office
Operations Offices & Lab
/\ Place-based Personnel
Coeur d'Alene and Spokane
River Basins - The Coeur d'Alene
and Spokane River Basins in
northern Idaho and eastern
Washington are home to diverse
ecosystems and natural resource
and tourist industries. However,
more than 100 years of mining
activities discharged nearly 100
million tons of pollutants into the
air, water, and land. The resultant
contamination over a vast land-
scape continues to pose threats to
human health and the environ-
ment. A comprehensive, multi-
disciplinary, and collaborative
approach, employing a carefully
crafted blend of voluntary initia-
tives and regulatory tools, is
needed to achieve short- and long-
range progress in restoring these
Basins to a healthful, productive
state.
The Puget Sound Basin - The
fjords, archipelagos and river
basins of Puget Sound, Hood
Canal and the Northwest Straits,
are home to an abundant number
of aquatic species, remarkable
recreational pursuits, and diverse
commercial interests. The level
and effect of current development,
coupled with robust projected
population growth, exert enormous
pressures on the natural pro-
cesses and biological integrity of
resources in the Basin, and its
economic productivity. The goal of
this priority is to renew and
enhance the Region's collabora-
tive efforts with state, Tribal, local,
and federal agencies on restoring
and protecting Puget Sound.
Grants Management - The
American people expect that their
government is a responsible
steward of the mission, authorities,
and enabling resources that have
been entrusted to its care. Ap-
proximately 65% of Region 10's
annual budget goes to our part-
ners in the form of grants and
other financial agreements. This
priority is intended to ensure that
the Region achieves the highest
level of fiduciary integrity and
efficiency possible while yielding
desired environmental outcomes.
This will be accomplished by
focusing - internally and externally
- on steadily improving the com-
petitiveness of our grant pro-
cesses, regularly reviewing
performance, and continuously
promoting accountability.
Juneau
iester_A_ Seattle
LabU^Regional
Office
Spokane
A Coeur
d'Alene
Lacey £gakima WDOE
Prosser/\
wsu
Hanford
Portland
ACorvaflfe
EPA Lab
A Eueen
ODEQ
A
La Grande
Oregon
Department
of Forestry
-------
The Columbia River Basin (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho)
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
At 1,214 miles in length, boasting a
260,000 square mile drainage basin,
the Columbia River spans portions of
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyo-
ming, Nevada, Utah, Montana, and a
substantial portion of British Colum-
bia. The Columbia River Basin is
comprised of ecosystems that are
home to a diverse array of biologi-
cally significant plants and animals.
The Basin is also a dynamic eco-
nomic engine driving many industries
vital to the Pacific Northwest, includ-
ing sport and commercial fisheries,
agriculture, transportation, recreation,
and, with 55 hydropower dams,
electrical power generation.
Columbia River salmon and steel-
head runsonce the largest on
earthare now a fraction of their
original size. EPA studies and state
monitoring programs have found
significant levels of toxins in fish and
the waters they inhabit, including
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT), PCBs, and dieldrin. EPA and
its partners adopted a three-dimen-
sional approach to the problem of
toxins in the Columbia River system,
emphasizing remediation, prevention,
and protection efforts. Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Columbia Basin
tribal governments, the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership,
local governments, citizen groups,
industry, and other federal agencies
are actively engaged in efforts to
remove contaminated sediments,
bring back native anadromous fish,
restore water quality, and preserve,
protect, and restore habitat, as
illustrated below:
Working locally with agriculture
producers to reduce pesticide use
through the Pesticide Stewardship
Partnership,
Providing an anonymous opportu-
nity to collect banned toxics and
pesticides,
Implementing total maximum daily
loads through sediment reductions
and riparian restoration,
Cleaning up the Portland Harbor
Superfund site and PCB contami-
nation in the Columbia River at
Bradford Island,
Restoring wetlands and habitats at
Mirror Lake and Ridgefield through
the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership with Targeted Water-
shed Program funding.
Goals and Objectives...
What are the desired long-term
outcomes?
Our goal is to protect public health
and the environment by:
Reducing toxic loads in the
Columbia River Basin,
Reducing toxics in fish that people
eat.
Strategy and approach...
How do we anticipate achieving
our desired goals and objectives?
EPA, state and Tribal partners, and
the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership have launched a Colum-
bia River toxics strategy to identify
and clean up contaminated sedi-
ments, restore critical wetlands, and
reduce toxics in water, land, and fish.
Under this strategy, EPA, states, and
Tribes are systematically expanding
key actions in the Columbia River
Basin based on available resources,
such as fish, water, and sediment
monitoring; pesticide stewardship
partnerships; targeted pesticide/toxic
collections; precision agriculture; and
related activities. The National
Estuary Program also plays a key
role in addressing toxics and restora-
tion of critical wetlands in the Lower
Columbia River estuary.
Previous accomplishments include:
A data gathering effort in Lake
Roosevelt above Grand Coulee
Dam was completed in the Spring
and Fall of 2005. This effort
included collection and analysis of
over 400 sediment samples and
200 fish composites. The fish
tissue work was accomplished
through a joint effort with the
Spokane Tribe of Indians, the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Indian Reservation, the Washing-
ton Department of Ecology, the
U.S. Geological Survey and EPA.
Results from this sampling are
expected in September 2006,
Fifteen thousand cubic yards of
pure tar were removed from the
Willamette River at the former
Gasco site. This site, located
between the St. Johns and Rail-
road bridges on the southwest side
of the Willamette River, was a
former manufactured gas plant
which deposited wastes into
upland tar ponds,
A collaborative effort was initiated
involving the states of Oregon,
Washington and Idaho; Columbia
River Tribes, and others to ad-
dress toxics reduction in the
Columbia River Basin. This toxics
reduction effort will initially focus
on the area below Grand Coulee
Dam. The Lower Columbia River
Estuary Partnership will lead the
toxics reduction efforts below
Bonneville Dam. EPA will take the
lead for the area from Bonneville
Dam to Grand Coulee Dam
including the Snake River and
major tributaries.
The following actions are identified
for 2005 - 2008:
In the next three years, we anticipate
the following achievements:
Identify contaminants of concern,
Share information on toxics
monitoring, and toxics reduction
actions, and establish baseline
data to measure improvements,
Establish new monitoring efforts to
fill data gaps for understanding
toxics in water, fish, and sediment,
-------
Identify and implement agricultural
best management actions includ-
ing pesticide stewardship partner-
ships, erosion reduction and
precision agriculture,
Work with industry on demonstra-
tion projects to design, develop
and implement stormwater man-
agement control,
Continue to support and coordi-
nate priority activities identified by
EPA in 2003:
- Decommission PCB-laden
electric transformers,
- Study contaminated sediment
and risk above the Grand
Coulee Dam,
- Oversee clean-up at the
Hanford site,
- Develop state water clean-up
plans (Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs)) for water
bodies in the Basin,
- Restore habitat in the lower
Columbia River estuary,
- Support salmon recovery in the
Basin.
Who else is working in this area?
To engage others, EPA has divided
the river into three geographic areas
and is meeting with partners to reach
agreement on priority actions.
federal, state, local, and Tribal
governments and other partners have
all indicated a willingness to develop
common goals, identify and specify
roles and responsibilities, and
develop a joint toxics reductions
workplan for each geographic area.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success when we get
there?
We have identified the following
measures of success for our toxics
reductions efforts. We will track:
The clean up of contaminated
sediments in the Lower Willamette
and Columbia River,
The protection, restoration, and
enhancement of wetland and
upland habitat in the Columbia
River Basin,
The reduction of contaminants of
concern including PCBs, mercury,
dioxin, furans, arsenic and DDE in
fish and water of the Columbia
River Basin.
-------
Tribal Environmental Protection
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
There are 271 federally recognized
Tribal governments in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. Region 10
serves more than 47% of the total
number of Tribes within the United
States. The environmental health
challenges facing Tribes in Region 10
are as complex and unique as the
Tribes themselves.
For the 229 Alaska Native Villages,
health and resource issues are basic
and severe. Solid waste disposal,
sanitation, and contaminated surface
waters lead the list of problems.
Beyond these immediate threats to
human health, climate change and
pollution jeopardize the availability
and safety of subsistence foods so
critical to both the health and culture
of Tribal members. The limited
jurisdictional authority and scarce
economic resources of most Tribal
governments in Alaska, combined
with the logistical challenges posed
by climate and geography, compli-
cates the task of finding and applying
appropriate solutions to these
pressing issues.
For the 42 Tribes with reservation
and trust land within the borders of
Idaho, Oregon and Washington, a
stronger legal and economic base
has allowed some of the Tribal
governments to develop effective
environmental protection programs.
However, much work remains to
address ongoing threats to health
and natural resources. Solid and
hazardous waste, unsafe drinking
water, habitat and contamination
threats to fish and seafood, and air
quality concerns lead the list of
Pacific Northwest concerns. As in
Alaska, finding appropriate ap-
proaches and leveraging available
resources are critical elements for
long-term success.
Goals and Objectives...
What are the desired long-term
outcomes?
Our goal in this priority is to ensure
that the natural resources on
which tribal communities rely for
their physical, cultural and eco-
nomic well-being are fully pro-
tected, and
Respect and support the sover-
eignty of Tribes as they develop
and operate their own environmen-
tal programs, or choose to partner
with other entities to manage
natural resources.
Strategy and Approach...
How do we anticipate achieving
our desired goals and objectives?
Recognizing its government-to-
government relationship and its trust
responsibility to each of these 271
Tribes, EPA Region 10 addresses
environmental protection needs
through a number of complementary
routes. Where necessary, the Region
exercises federal authority directly
over businesses operating in Indian
Country. At the same time, it sup-
ports Tribes' growing capacity to
implement their own programs.
Finally, the Region also fosters multi-
partner collaborative approaches
where appropriate.
Current projects illustrating the use of
all three approaches include:
The Federal Air Rules for Reserva-
tions, which became effective in
June of 2005, put into place for the
first time federally-enforceable air
quality regulations applicable to 39
reservations in Idaho, Oregon and
Washington. This direct imple-
mentation effort involves signifi-
cant partnering with Northwest
Tribes, who participate in educa-
tion and outreach, monitoring, and
enforcement. In these roles,
partner Tribes also build capacity
to assume the parts of an air
quality management program they
choose,
Region 10 is developing technical
tools, such as fish consumption
risk evaluators and watershed
maps with highlighted areas of
Tribal interest, to assist Tribes in
either proposing approvable water
quality standards or more effec-
tively advocating for stronger
measures protecting aquatic
resources,
Yakama Reservation Burn Ban Call
402 S 4th Avenue, Yakima
50
40
,30
J20
10
Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups
Burn Ban
Called
Pm 2.5 Nephelometer - |ig/m3 24hr
Good
Burn Ban
Lifted
11/16
11/17
11/18
11/19 11/20
2005
11/21 11/22 11/23
© 2005 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Because of an air stagnation and build up of pollutants, EPA in coordination
with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority both issued a burn ban for the area on
November 17, 2005. Actions were taken to reduce emissions and air quality
began to improve. The burn ban was lifted on November 23, 2005.
-------
The Region 10 Integrated Waste
Management Strategy combines
the efforts of EPA, Tribes, and
other federal agencies such as the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian
Health Service, and the Depart-
ment Housing and Urban Develop-
ment. This coordinated approach
promises notable results in closing
and cleaning up open dumps,
increasing waste minimization and
pollution prevention, and decreas-
ing the health hazards from
improperly managed solid and
hazardous waste (toxics inhala-
tion, ground water contamination,
and contamination of subsistence
foods),
Region 10 is issuing inspector
credentials to Tribal staff trained by
E PA to enforce a variety of the
laws the Agency implements within
Indian Country. Having Tribal staff
conducting education and enforce-
ment activities within their own
jurisdictions not only supports
Tribal sovereignty and builds Tribal
capacity, but also more effectively
educates tribal communities and
increases compliance levels.
Foothills Disposal Site, March 2005
Who else is working in this area?
EPA Region 10's primary partners in
the protection of Tribal health and
resources are of course the 271
Tribal governments themselves. In
addition to formal government-to-
government consultation, we engage
in joint planning through workgroups,
Regional Tribal Operations Commit-
tee meetings, the annual Tribal
Leaders Summit, and discussions
held in conjunction with conferences
and trainings. We also share infor-
mation about work that we do with
other partners.
EPA and Tribes also work coopera-
tively with numerous organizations to
create and implement workable
approaches to environmental protec-
tion. A variety of other federal agen-
cies share trust responsibility with
EPA, such as the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Indian Health Service,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Army Corp of Engi-
neers, and Forest Service. In many
instances, state and local govern-
ments play an important role in
managing resources of interest to
Tribes. Finally, non-governmental
organizations, such as watershed
councils and community redevelop-
ment associations contribute to
planning and management efforts.
The more EPA Region 10 is able to
identify and coordinate with all
appropriate partners to collaboratively
pursue solutions to shared environ-
mental problems, the more effective
each partner's contributions become.
While each partner plays a valuable
role, the Region remains mindful that
the most appropriate advocates for
Tribal interests are the Tribal govern-
ments themselves.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success?
All Tribal governments will have
assessed and prioritized their
environmental concerns, and will
have developed programs or
partnerships to address them,
Air quality outdoors and within
Tribal homes will be improved,
reducing the incidence of respira-
tory illness within tribal communi-
ties,
Traditional resources and subsis-
tence foods will remain available to
and be safe for consumption by
Tribal members,
All homes within Tribal communi-
ties will have access to safe
drinking water,
Baseline data on contaminants in
traditional and subsistence foods
will be complete, and used to set
appropriate standards and mea-
sure progress in decreasing
concentrations of known pollut-
ants,
All solid waste disposal within
Tribal communities will be handled
in a safe and legal manner through
integrated waste management
plans that emphasize prevention.
Sub-standard sanitation methods
in Alaska Native Villages will have
been replaced with safe, appropri-
ate technologies, reducing illness
and water contamination.
Same site along Nooksack River,
September 2005
-------
Oil and Gas in Alaska and Mining in Region 10
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
Extraction of oil, gas, and mineral
resources in Alaska and development
of mineral resources in the Pacific
Northwest are important economic
activities in Region 10 and the Nation
as part of the National Energy Plan.
Changing technologies, coupled with
market value, have increased explo-
ration, extraction, production and
processing. As projects proceed
from identification through develop-
ment, EPA is responsible for the
implementation of regulatory and
permit requirements to protect public
and environmental health and to fulfill
the federal government's Tribal trust
responsibility.
EPA Region 10's task is to keep pace
with the accelerating and expanding
efforts of industry and its regulatory
partners. The Agency is responsible
for reviewing proposed projects,
issuing permits, and enforcing
compliance with environmental law,
policy, and executive orders.
Large projects pose unique technical
and regulatory challenges for federal
and state agencies and a necessity
to coordinate our actions. Major
projects typically include large areas
of land disturbance, loss of habitat,
changes in water quality and quantity,
potential air quality concerns and a
variety of secondary and tertiary
impacts, including the need for
significant new infrastructure to
support proposed activities. Addition-
ally, for mining projects where
financial assurance is inadequate or
companies go bankrupt, remediating
impacts is left to state and federal
agencies, including EPA.
Goals and Objectives...
What are the desired long-term
outcomes?
Our goal is to maximize protection of
public health and the environment
while expediting environmental
decision making through an interdis-
ciplinary approach and coordination
with other state, federal and Tribal
partners. The outcome of this goal
will be minimized habitat disturbance,
protected water and air resources,
and preserved subsistence re-
sources.
Strategy and Approach...
How do we anticipate achieving
our desired goals and objectives?
Region 10 has a cadre of staff with
specialized oil, gas, and mining
expertise, along with the responsibil-
ity and authority to fulfill EPA obliga-
tions. We will complete the review of
environmental impact statements,
prepare comprehensive NEPA
documents, and exercise regulatory
and permit obligations in a timely
manner. Communication, coordina-
tion, and understanding of regulatory
requirements will be enhanced by
identifying a single point of contact for
each major project and engaging with
industry, Tribes, other federal and
state agencies at the earliest possible
opportunity. We will also coordinate
permit and NEPA schedules to the
extent possible, identify and resolve
issues early in the process with a
single voice, and make consistent
decisions.
Accomplishments for 2005 include:
Inspection of 53 facilities for
compliance with federal air,
wastewater and UIC permits and
with spill/facility response plans,
including necessary follow-up
enforcement actions,
Continued development of off-
shore oil and gas permits for
wastewater management and
groundwater protection, and
determination of appropriate air
pollution control technology for
facilities. Developed and issued
NPDES permits for management
and discharge of wastewater for
mining operations in Alaska and
Idaho,
Completed NEPA and permitting
training for Tribal governments and
communities to support capacity
development and participation in
environmental decision-making,
EPA and other concerned parties are working to ensure the coexistence of
Alaska's abundant wildlife with oil and gas extraction efforts.
8
-------
Completed review and comment
on federal agency NEPA docu-
ments for onshore and offshore
leasing, coastal management and
for sequestration of carbon dioxide
by underground injection. Re-
viewed and commented on federal
agency NEPA documents for new
mining operations in Alaska, Idaho,
and Washington,
Updated the Region 10 mining
strategy that describes EPA's
regulatory program obligations
over the next three years and
identifies actions to support
meeting these obligations and
guiding mining program improve-
ments. A draft of the updated
strategy was shared with the state
and federal agencies, Tribes,
industry, and organizations that we
work with on mining issues and
EPA met with many of these
groups to discuss the strategy.
Who else is working in this area?
The Oil and Gas Sector in Alaska and
Regional Mining Sector work with
every major EPA program, multiple
state and federal agencies, Tribes,
industry, and other stakeholders. The
following is a brief description of how
these groups relate.
Region 10 Offices: Air, water,
waste, ecosystems and Tribal
programs coordinate and leverage
their respective efforts to maximize
implementation of programs and
environmental decision-making.
Federal and State Agency partner-
ships: EPA staff and programs work
closely with other federal and state
resource management and environ-
mental agencies involved in oil and
gas and mining. Coordinating with
other agencies enhances efforts,
leverages resources and streamlines
decision-making processes where
appropriate.
Tribal governments: We work with
Tribes to understand their issues and
concerns and collect traditional
ecological knowledge for use in EPA
decision-making. Through this
process and the investment in
capacity building it represents, Tribal
governments will have greater
opportunity to participate in future
environmental decisions.
Other stakeholders: Non-govern-
ment organizations, industry and
industry groups, and Regional
Citizens Advisory Councils provide a
unique opportunity to EPA to leverage
knowledge and expertise to assist in
Agency decisions.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success?
Effective and timely Agency
actions including issuance of UIC,
NPDES and air permits and EIS
and 404 permit reviews,
Meaningful consultation with Tribal
governments,
Enforcement of permit provisions
and other Agency actions which
minimize environmental damage,
Environmental resources pro-
tected to the maximum extent of
the law and environmental regula-
tions,
No unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment,
EPA efforts complement rather
than duplicate those of other
regulatory agencies.
*.
Oil extraction in the fragile arctic conditions of Alaska's north slope presents unique challenges.
-------
Diesel Emissions
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
Diesel engines contribute to un-
healthy levels of fine particles, ozone
(or "smog") and air toxics. Fine
particles are associated with in-
creased risk of premature death,
increased hospital admissions,
increased respiratory symptoms such
as asthma, and other adverse health
effects. Long-term exposure to diesel
exhaust may pose a lung cancer
hazard to humans. Children are
more susceptible to air pollution than
healthy adults because their respira-
tory systems are still developing and
they have a faster breathing rate.
Recurrent childhood respiratory
illness is a risk factor for increased
susceptibility to lung disease later in
life. The elderly and individuals with
existing conditions are also suscep-
tible to adverse health effects from air
pollution.
Even though most of the Pacific
Northwest meets the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), including standards for
paniculate matter, until recently there
has been little evaluation on the
residual risk from ambient air toxics
even after attaining the NAAQS. Our
National Air Toxics Assessments
(NATA) of 1996 and 1999 indicate
levels of concern for excess cancer
risk from a number of ambient
pollutants. Similar assessments by
state and local agencies in Oregon
and Washington indicated that
projected cancer risk from diesel was
much greater than for any other air
toxic or combination of air toxics.
Goals and Objectives...
What are the desired long-term
outcomes?
Our goal is to protect public health by
ensuring the maintenance of the
NAAQS and achieving our States'
self-identified air toxics goals.
Washington and Oregon have set
goals of 1 to 10 in a million lifetime
cancer risk as their goal for 2015.
Strategy and Approach...
How do we anticipate achieving
our desired goals and objectives?
A variety of tools and processes will
be used to advance cleaner diesel
technologies and fuels in the Pacific
Northwest. E PA supports the Na-
tional Clean Diesel Campaign (http://
www. epa.gov/cleandiesel/) that
includes both voluntary and regula-
tory approaches.
Region 10 uses regional and local
partnerships to motivate early action,
share information, provide incentives,
track progress, supply technical
expertise and leverage outside
resources. The primary vehicle for
this effort is the West Coast Collabo-
rative. In addition, the Federal
Network for Sustainability, the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin Partnership,
Clean Cities Coalitions (Puget Sound,
Willamette/Columbia, Treasure
Valley), State Performance Partner-
ship Agreements and other regional/
local collaborations will contribute to
overall success.
Region 10 plans to use a "clean
diesel" approach to reducing diesel
emissions, which is regarded as the
most cost-effective strategy available.
It requires the use of a fuel with much
lower sulfur contamination than is
found in currently available highway
fuel. This ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
provides some emission reduction
benefit by itself but, more importantly,
enables the installation of advanced
exhaust after-treatment devices,
even on existing in-use vehicles.
This clean fuel-retrofit combination is
effective in reducing the most harmful
pollutants found in diesel exhaust by
upwards of 95 percent. Bio-diesel, a
fuel refined from vegetable oils and
recycled animal fats, is also an
environmentally attractive ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel. Typically blended
with petroleum diesel because of cost
and operational considerations, it can
be used to complement other clean
diesel technology.
One of the biggest challenges in
addressing diesel paniculate risk is
EPA's limited regulatory authority
over the primary contributors: on-
road and non-road diesel powered
vehicles. While clean diesel efforts
have been promoted by the Puget
Sound Clean Air Agency, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality,
and other state and local agencies
throughout the region, the focus has
been on voluntary efforts supported
by incentives. Several notable
successes have already been
achieved, but widespread accep-
tance will require additional financial
assistance, to make "clean diesel" a
cultural expectation for fleet operators
and the public.
10
-------
Who else is working in this area?
West Coast Collaborative
(www.westcoastcollaborative.org)
The main mechanism for both
Regions 9 and 10 to achieve diesel
emission reductions is through the
West Coast Collaborative (Collabora-
tive). Convened in April 2004, the
Collaborative's vision is to build an
ambitious partnership between
leaders from federal, state, and local
government, the private sector, and
environmental groups in California,
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Arizona,
Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Canada and
Mexico committed to reducing diesel
emissions along the West Coast. The
Collaborative is part of the National
Clean Diesel Campaign.
The Collaborative has focused on the
following sectors:
Agriculture,
Marine vessels and ports,
Locomotive/rail,
Construction,
Trucking,
Cleaner fuels, and
School buses.
The Collaborative will:
Raise public awareness of the
need for diesel emission reduc-
tions and promote the many highly
successful state, Tribal, local, and
regional voluntary projects,
Create a forum for information-
sharing among diesel emissions
reduction advocates,
Implement regional projects,
leverage funds from a variety of
sources, achieve measurable
emissions reductions, and create
momentum for future diesel
emissions mitigation efforts.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success?
We will 'touch' every legacy diesel
engine with cleaner technologies
by 2015 (except large marine and
locomotive),
Virtual elimination of idling on the
interstate corridors by 2015,
Truck Stop Electrification (TSE) of
all spaces in Oregon, Idaho and
Washington by 2015,
Full implementation of the national
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and Low
Sulfur Diesel fuel requirements on
or before mandated dates,
Use of bio-diesel and other
alternative fuels will increase every
year,
Amount of biofuel produced
regionally/locally will increase,
Amount of biofuel feedstock grown
regionally/locally will increase,
Number of retail sites will increase.
This measure tracks alternative
fueling sites, covering compressed
natural gas (CNG), 85% ethanol
(E85), liquefied petroleum.
Washington
State Clean
School Bus
Program
a
EPA grants help provide newer, cleaner schoolbuses for children like these
from Purdy Elementary in Gig Harbor, Washington. Pictured are Purdy
Elementary students. Peninsula School District Superintendent Jim Coolican,
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Director Dennis McLerran, U.S. Congressman
Norm Dicks, Region 10 EPA official Tom Eaton, Purdy Elementary's Principal
Jim Rudsit, and Annie Bell, who initiated the grant process.
Older schoolbuses can be a source of
significant diesel emissions.
Cooperative efforts from EPA and
local partners can help replace older
buses with cleaner ones.
11
-------
The Coeur d'Alene-Spokane River Basin
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
The Coeur d'Alene-Spokane River
Basin is located in northern Idaho
and eastern Washington. It has been
severely impacted by more than 100
years of mining, logging, and nutrient
enrichment activities from agriculture,
urban development, and municipal
waste-water treatment plants. Mining
contamination has affected more than
166 river miles of the Coeur d'Alene
River corridor, adjacent floodplains,
downstream water bodies, tributaries
and fill areas. Significant measurable
risks currently exist to humans (e.g.,
children with blood lead levels above
the national CDC standards) and the
environment (e.g., major tributaries
devoid of aquatic life, yearly die-off of
migrating waterfowl, such as swans
and ducks). The contaminants are
primarily metals, and the affected
media are soil, sediment, surface
water, and groundwater.
Contamination in surface water
exceeds applicable criteria in the
South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
basin by up to 200 times for dis-
solved cadmium and as much as 90
times for dissolved lead and zinc.
The most heavily impacted areas,
such as lower Canyon Creek, are
devoid of aquatic life, while other
areas provide only partial support for
fish and other aquatic species (e.g.,
suitable for migration but not spawn-
ing and rearing).
In the North Fork Coeur d'Alene River
watershed, land use has impacted
the health, habitat and abundance of
salmonids and other aquatic life,
primarily because of excess sediment
loading and hydrological changes to
the system.
In the Spokane River, nutrients from
human activity cause severe algae
blooms and depressed dissolved
oxygen levels in Long Lake. The
Washington State Department of
Ecology has determined that loading
of nutrients, especially phosphorus,
must be dramatically reduced if these
water quality conditions are to
improve. The overwhelming source
of pollutant loading during the critical
warm, low flow summer months are
the discharges into the river from
municipal wastewater treatment
plants in Washington and Idaho.
Also, a health advisory has been
issued for consumption of fish in the
Spokane River because of contami-
nation by PCBs and heavy metals.
Location Map for the Coeur d'Alene - Spokane River Basin
Goals and Objectives...
What are the desired long-term
outcomes?
EPA, in collaboration with state, local,
and Tribal partners, will reduce
human exposure to lead and other
metals, attain water quality criteria,
reduce wildlife exposure to lead in
floodplain soil and sediment, reduce
paniculate lead in surface water and
downstream migration of contami-
nated sediment. TMDLs will be
established for nutrients for Black
Lake and the Black Lake Watershed,
dissolved oxygen (nutrients) and
PCBs in the Spokane River and for
sediment and temperature in Hang-
man Creek and the Little Spokane
River.
Strategy and Approach...
How do we anticipate achieving
our desired goals and objectives?
EPA Region 10 is a member of the
Basin Environmental Improvement
Project Commission. The Commis-
sion was established by the State of
Idaho to direct and oversee clean-up
efforts. It includes commissioners
from Idaho and Washington, the
Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the Federal
Government, and Shoshone,
Benewah, and Kootenai counties. A
Memorandum of Agreement outlines
the decision making process and
implementation of cleanup. A
Citizen's Coordinating Council
provides community input to the
Commission. The areas affected by
mining have been designated as the
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical
Complex National Priorities List
(NPL) facility. In addition, EPA has
undertaken a number of actions to
protect water quality in the Spokane
River. We will continue to address
protection of human health, the
beneficial uses of Coeur d'Alene-
Spokane River Basin waters (e.g.,
drinking water and aquatic life
support), and long-term cleanup of
the environment.
12
-------
There are three priorities for the
environmental cleanup to address;
dissolved metals in surface water
(particularly zinc and cadmium), lead
in floodplain soil and sediment, and
paniculate lead in surface water.
Previous accomplishments include:
Human Health Cleanup: The 2005
construction season marked
another successful year of on-the-
ground cleanup work in the Basin.
About 530 residential properties
were cleaned up. More than 3,800
residential properties have been
cleaned up in the site since 1989.
In addition, mine and mill site
cleanups moved forward in 2005.
EPA and the State of Idaho worked
together to complete the design
and construction of the Sisters
mine cleanup, and EPA and the
Bureau of Land Management
initiated the cleanup of the Consti-
tution mine site,
Ag to Wetland Conversion: After
several years of planning and
months of negotiations EPA and
the Schlepps, a private landowner,
have reached agreement on EPA's
purchase of an agricultural to
wetland conservation easement.
Approximately 400 acres are very
desirable for a conservation
easement. The area is relatively
low in metals concentrations, close
to high waterfowl use areas, and
has low potential for recontamina-
tion,
Box Consent Decree: On Decem-
ber 5, 2005, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed a Judge
Lodge decision modifying the 1994
Consent Decree with the Up-
stream Mining Group (UMG). The
Decree identifies UMG's obliga-
tions, which include residential soil
cleanup and funding for the
Institutional Controls Program. In
2001, UMG indicated they would
not comply with the Decree work
obligations. While these issues
were being disputed, EPA and the
State of Idaho proceeded with a
partial work takeover of the
residential soil cleanup during the
2002-2004 construction.
In the next three years we expect to:
Implement mine water manage-
ment remedy and resolve long-
term funding for continued opera-
tions to prevent contaminated
minewater discharges into the
South Fork,
Complete work in the populated
and non-populated areas of the
Bunker Hill Box,
Identify priority environmental pilot
studies for water treatment,
wetlands cleanup, and sediment
removal, and
Identify, in support of State of
Idaho efforts, appropriate site-
specific water quality criteria that
are protective of resident aquatic
life.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success?
Community properties and recre-
ational areas are cleaned up to safe
levels of lead in soils. Metals loading
to streams is reduced. Waterfowl
feeding habitat areas are safe.
Results from North Fork Coeur
d'Alene River watershed assessment
will support the TMDL Implementation
Plan.
Black Lake annual measurements of
total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and
Secchi Depth will provide a baseline
of trophic state for trend analysis over
time. Total phosphorus concentra-
tions in all inlets to the lake are
reduced. Effluent and receiving
water monitoring requirements and
effluent limits for nutrients in NPDES
permits for Idaho and Washington will
be met for the Spokane River.
Construction crews removing lead-contaminated soil from properties in the Coeur d'Alene Basin
13
-------
The Puget Sound Basin
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
The Puget Sound Basin includes the
sub-basins and archipelagos of the
Straits of Georgia and Juan DeFuca
and the Hood Canal. The Basin is
home to over 200 fish species, 26
kinds of marine mammals, 100 sea
bird species, and thousands of
marine invertebrates and plants.
Puget Sound is a cornerstone of the
region's quality of life and economy.
Salmon fisheries, sport fishing,
shellfish production, tourism, and
other endeavors rely on a healthy
Sound. However, this uniquely
valuable estuary faces increasing
pressure from growth and develop-
ment.
From the top of the food chain to the
bottom, the Sound's living resources
are in decline, both in diversity and
quantity. While recent declines in
salmon and Orca have received
particular attention, concurrent
declines in forage fish, ground fish,
and shore birds signal broad ecosys-
tem problems. Healthy habitat and
undeveloped shoreline are key to
maintaining robust fish, marine
mammal, and marine bird popula-
tions. However, since the late 1800's
over half of the shallow water habitats
in Puget Sound have been lost to
development, including the loss of
75% of intertidal salt marsh habitat
and upwards of 90% loss of aquatic
habitat in the major urbanized
estuaries.
Low flushing rates and poor mixing
make Puget Sound waters vulnerable
to build up of pollutants. Nutrient
overloading threatens both Hood
Canal and southern Puget Sound.
Central Puget Sound still has many
areas with toxic-contaminated
sediments and groundwater.
Goals and Objectives...
What are the desired long-term
outcomes?
The goal of this priority is conserva-
tion and recovery of orca, salmon,
forage fish, and groundfish popula-
tions through protective water quality
and habitat management, reduction
of harm from stormwater runoff, and
clean-up of contaminated sites and
sediments. We will protect shorelines
and other critical areas that provide
important ecological functions,
restore degraded nearshore and
freshwater habitat, and prevent
nutrient and pathogen pollution
caused by human and animal waste.
Strategy and Approach...
How do we anticipate achieving
our desired goals and objectives?
The 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conser-
vation and Recovery Plan is an
ambitious workplan crafted by the
Puget Sound Action Team, a partner-
ship of state, Tribal, local, and federal
governments. The Plan focuses on
the work of state agency partners. To
supplement the Action Team's plan,
EPA is developing its own comple-
mentary action plan organized
around the same priorities to support
state and local programs and inter-
agency priority teams.
In addition, EPA has agreed to help
coordinate and align federal re-
sources into a coherent interagency
workplan. This integrated federal
workplan would parallel the state's
interagency biennial work plan and
budget priorities for Puget Sound and
will help integrate EPA activities with
other important federal, tribal and
state programs and actions.
As in many EPA efforts, we provide
our partners financial support. Work
in the Puget Sound Basin follows that
tradition. In 2005, EPA awarded
Residents and visitors to the Puget Sound area should be able to expect a clean and beautiful marine environment.
14
-------
approximately $6 million to Puget
Sound Tribes to build the technical
and administrative capacity to
identify, manage, and correct environ-
mental problems. Puget Sound
communities received a number of
EPA grants that support environmen-
tal education and public participation
in local projects and initiatives. EPA
has promoted the incorporation of
evolving technical and scientific
understanding into environmental
decision making. Approximately 47
million federal dollars have been
provided to a variety of Puget Sound
agencies to implement various
portions of the conservation and
recovery plan. We will continue
diligent management oversight of
these grant funds to assure environ-
mental results.
EPA will work with other agencies in
Puget Sound to identify gaps in the
overall management of stormwater,
particularly in the areas where land
use is changing from rural agricultural
and forest to urban. EPA will promote
development and implementation of
smart growth and low-impact devel-
opment strategies.
Superfund Site and sediment cleanup
investigations continue in Com-
mencement Bay and Eagle Harbor,
throughout the Lower Duwamish
Waterway, and at the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard. Investigations and
cleanup are also under way at the
remaining upland National Priority
List sites not already addressed.
Investigations and cleanups are also
ongoing at many sites in Puget
Sound managed by EPA's RCRA
program, which works with hazard-
ous waste facilities. EPA will partici-
pate on interagency toxics assess-
ment, monitoring, and source control
strategy teams for mid-scale estuar-
ies. We will make substantial contri-
butions to restore an additional 3,500
acres of wetland and nearshore
habitat by 2011. EPA's future efforts
The Puget Sound Basin
Pacific
Ocean
will involve work with the state, local
jurisdictions, and Tribes in sensitive
and high value estuaries to reduce
pathogen and nutrient contamination.
EPA will make substantial contribu-
tions in recovering the use of shellfish
bed growing areas through improved
waste management and controlling
pathogen and nutrient pollution
sources.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success?
Habitat destruction is stopped and
trends are reversed,
Declines in natural resources are
reversed and numbers begin to
increase,
Water quality improves.
15
-------
Grants Management
Description of the
Challenge...
Why is it a priority?
EPA's Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) identified several deficient
areas in the management of our
financial assistance programs.
These deficiencies include: lack of
grant competition, poor oversight of
grantee procurement, failure to
identify and achieve environmental
results, and EPA's weak oversight
controls. Similar criticisms have
been voiced by the General Account-
ing Office (GAO) and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). In
response, EPA has taken steps to
strengthen management oversight of
its financial assistance programs.
Why is grants management a 'big
deal' in Region 10? Over half of
EPA's budget is awarded to state,
local, Tribal, educational and non-
profit partners. In Region 10, finan-
cial assistance to our partners in
fiscal year 2005 was just under $330
million, which accounts for 65% of
our annual budget.
EPA should spend tax money to
achieve the greatest return on our
investment - environmental results.
We cannot afford to fund activities or
organizations that do not show
results. Our work in this priority area
will focus on improved competition in
award of grants as well as compli-
ance review and monitoring of grant
outputs and products. EPA and our
partners must be able to demonstrate
to management and more impor-
tantly, to the public, that we wisely
spend each tax dollar.
Goals and Objectives... Strategy and Approach...
What are the desired long-term How do we anticipate achieving
outcomes? our desired goals and objectives?
Region 10 is committed to ensure
that its grant programs meet the
highest management and fiduciary
responsibilities and further the
Agency's mission of protecting
human health and the environment.
Region 10 embraces EPA's national
goals identified in the 2003-2006
National Grants Management Plan:
Enhance the skills of EPA person-
nel involved in grants manage-
ment,
Promote competition in the award
of grants,
Leverage technology to improve
program performance,
Strengthen E PA oversight of
grants,
Identify and achieve environmental
outcomes.
Region 10 will continue to provide
training for all new Project Officers
and managers of Project Officers.
Each quarter, Region 10 will provide
Post-Award Monitoring training.
Training is mandatory for all Project
Officers.
Many grants are awarded to state,
local, and Tribal governments to
support their ongoing programs to
meet federal requirements. Competi-
tion for these grant monies may not
be appropriate since EPA relies on
state, local, and Tribal governments
to carry out their legal obligations.
Achievement of environmental
outcomes for these grants will entail
greater oversight and ultimately, may
entail reducing future grant awards or
withholding of grant money for non-
performance.
Information technology will be used to
speed administrative processing of
grant application, award, and pay-
ment. Region 10 will provide training
to project officers in The Integrated
Grants Management System (IGMS).
This system is used to process grant
EPA's Grants Management specialists have a responsiblity to taxpayers to
make sure that grant dollars are used wisely and correctly.
16
-------
awards and amendments, as well as
post-award compliance monitoring.
IGMS can also provide information on
grant projects to Congress and the
public. We anticipate the expansion
of system capabilities to receive and
respond to electronic applications via
"Grants.gov." Region 10 will pilot "on-
line" application procedures for
financial assistance application and
award processing.
Region 10 will emphasize oversight
and compliance. By identifying
grantees having difficulties in achiev-
ing and maintaining compliance with
agreement terms and conditions and/
or the regulations governing the
management of assistance agree-
ment funds, we can provide the
assistance needed to bring the
grantee into compliance.
When recipients are not responsive,
remain in non-compliance, and when
post-award monitoring fails, Region
10 can limit its financial liabilities and
take appropriate enforcement action.
We will ensure that continuity be-
tween post-award monitoring and
compliance enforcement will receive
greater emphasis than in the past.
Region 10 will expedite close-out of
expired grant agreements. Timely
close-out will speed return of unex-
pended grant funds to program
budgets for future projects.
The Region 10 Grants Management
Officer has presented a Consolidated
Post-Award Monitoring Plan to the
Office of Grants and Debarment
(OGD). The goals of this plan fall into
two categories:
All active assistance agreements
will be monitored for basic compli-
ance with terms and conditions,
Advanced Post-Award Monitoring
(APAM) of a minimum 10% of the
baseline monitoring assistance
agreements. APAM provides
greater scrutiny of performance
and involves either a detailed
telephone interview or on-site
review.
Post-Award Monitoring Activities
200 i-
150
100
50
Technical Assistance/Training
Program Office
Grants Office
_i
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Who else is working in this area?
The work is primarily within EPA
Region 10. It will involve the Grants
Management Office as lead with
program office support throughout the
Region. The results of this work,
however, will be felt throughout the
Region's state, local, and Tribal
governments as well as the educa-
tional, non-profit, and for-profit
organizations that receive financial
assistance from EPA.
Measures of Success...
How will we know we have
achieved success?
Success will be measured by the
number of timely close outs. We plan
to reduce the number of grants open
past the 90-day deadline. In addition,
we will reduce the number of A-133
audits referred for action by the OIG.
The number of problems divulged by
Advanced Post-Award Monitoring
reviews will be reduced and the
response time for follow-up by EPA
staff and resolution by the grantee
will be shortened.
Environmental Indicators: Each
program office will be required to
establish criteria for reporting envi-
ronmental results. The measure of
success will be the establishment of
concrete environmental results for
each financial assistance agreement
and documented achievement of
those results.
17
-------
------- |