Integrating Water and Waste
Programs to Restore
Watersheds A
A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Acknowledgments
The Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project
Managers manual was developed under the direction of Charles Sutfin of the United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
(OSRTI). The manual was prepared by Kathryn Hernandez of Region 8, with assistance from Jan
Christner of URS Operating Services, Inc., under EPA Contract Numbers 68-W-00-118 and 68-C-01-
022. The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments and assistance of reviewers from
within EPA and other federal and state environmental agencies. Regina Scheibner, Emily Faalasli, Kris-
ta Carlson, Omar Capers, Jacqueline Johnson, Carolyn Ellison, Kristin Schatmeyer, Jeff Strong, and
Courtney Colvin from Tetra Tech, Inc., provided editorial review, graphic design, and layout. Funding
for this manual was provided by the EPA Land Revitalization Office, the Office of Water (OW) and
the OSRTI.
Cover photo of the Snake River, Teton National Park, Wyoming, by Bruce Zander.
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2007. Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore
Watersheds, A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers. EPA540K07001, Office of Water and Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, DC. 179 pages.
To obtain a copy of the Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds, A Guide for
Federal and State Project Managers manual (free of charge), contact:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
Phone: 1-800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
www.epa.gov/ncepihom
This EPA document is available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/documents.htm
DISCLAIMER: While this manual includes a review of a number of federal programs administered by EPA, it is not a
substitute for the federal laws which EPA implements, or their implementing regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.
Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community. In addition, the
manual is not intended to modify or affect in any way existing statutory or regulatory requirements or Agency policies;
it is simply intended to summarize those requirements and policies in aid of suggesting opportunities for better coor-
dinating the cleanup of watersheds. If there is any unintended variation between any statements in this manual and
existing EPA requirements or policy statements, the requirements or policy statements are preeminent.
Mention of organizations or products in this resource book does not constitute an endorsement by EPA, but is in-
tended to provide information, resources, or assistance the users may then evaluate in terms of their own needs.
-------
Preface
The concept for the manual came from the January 27, 2004, joint EPA Office of Water
and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Division Directors meeting held in
Tampa, Florida. Discussion at the meeting indicated that although geographic opportuni-
ties exist for water and waste program coordination, a framework was needed to improve
collaboration and make it more routine. Division Directors agreed that the first step in
developing a framework would be to create a compendium of success stories and to use
these successes to create conceptual collaboration models. The models would be applied
to other projects and afford guidance in similar, future situations.
To implement the Division Directors' agreement, EPA Region 8 was asked to develop a
manual for watershed cleanup that would help regional water and waste program man-
agers collaborate in implementing watershed cleanup projects. The resulting manual,
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds, was based on several regional
success stories.
User feedback on the manual indicated that a version for state and local staff was neces-
sary. The purpose of this document is to enhance, strengthen, and increase the effective-
ness of working relationships among EPA, state and local managers working in water and
waste programs.
-------
Executive Summary.
AcnonpList
Chapter 1
Introduction i
Purpose i
Target Audience l
Organization 2
Background 2
Programs that Address Waterbody Contamination 3
Using a Watershed Approach 3
Developing a Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan 4
Elements of an Effective Watershed Cleanup Process 4
Community Outreach/Involvement 8
Role of the Watershed Project Manager 8
Identifying Priority Watersheds 9
Case Study—Developing a Watershed Management Plan, Cross Bayou Watershed,
Pinellas County, Florida 10
Case Study—Criteria Used to Identify Priority Watersheds for Cleanup, State of Oregon ll
Chapter 2
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders 13
Watershed Cleanup Team 13
Regulatory Authorities 14
Introduction 14
Clean Water Act 19
Water Quality Standards 19
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 20
Water Quality Reporting 21
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 24
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 26
Clean Watersheds Need Survey (CWNS) 29
Nonpoint Sources 29
Wetlands 31
Oil and Hazardous Substances 31
Clean Water Act Enforcement 32
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 32
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Drinking Water Standards 32
Source Water Protection 32
Emergency Powers 33
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 33
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 34
RCRA Solid Waste Program (Subtitle D) 34
RCRA Hazardous Waste Program (Subtitle C) 34
RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program (Subtitle I) 36
RCRA Enforcement Authorities 36
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 37
CERCLA Removal Program 39
CERCLA Site Assessment Program 40
CERCLA Remedial Program 41
CERCLA Enforcement Authorities 43
Federal Facility Issues 44
Case Study—American Fork Canyon Home Rivers "Good Samaritan"
America Canyon, Utah 45
Natural Resource Issues 46
Natural Resource Damage Assessment 47
Brownfields 49
Toxic Substances Control Act 50
Stakeholders 51
Federal Government Stakeholders 51
State and Tribal Government Stakeholders 51
Local Government Stakeholders 51
Case Study—Park City Soil Cover Ordinance, Park City, Utah 52
Case Study—New Hampshire Builds Local Capacity to Reduce NPS, New Hampshire 52
Establishing Local Ordinances to Protect Resources 53
Nongovernment Stakeholders 53
Community Action or Watershed Groups 53
Industry 53
Educational Institutions 54
Environmental Action Groups 54
Volunteer Water Monitoring Programs 55
Landowners/Citizens 55
Case Study—Integrated Watershed Assessment and Cleanup Integration,
Left Hand Watershed, Colorado 56
Case Study—Water and Waste Program Coordinated Cleanup,
Columbia Slough Sediment Project, Portland, Oregon 62
Chapter 3
Resources 65
Leveraging Funding 65
Funding Opportunities 66
Contents
-------
Water Program Funding Resources 66
Water Program Loans 66
Water Program Grants 67
Assessment and Watershed Protection Program Grants and Cooperative Agreements 68
Water Quality Pollution Control Grants 68
Total Maximum Daily Load Program Funds 68
Wetland Program Development Cooperative Agreements and Grants 68
Regional Geographic Initiative 69
NFS Funds 69
Additional Water Program Support 70
Case Study—Grassroots Watershed Cleanup, Middle Fork Holston, Virginia 71
Case Study—Regional Priorities Grants Program (RPGP) Region 8, Region 8 2006 Criteria
to Assist in Selecting Potential Funding Opportunities for Watershed Projects 72
RCRA Funding Resources 79
UST/LUST Funds 79
CERCLA Funding Resources 80
Pre-Remedial Program 80
Remedial Program 80
Removal/Emergency Response Program 80
Natural Resource Damage Assessment 81
Superfund Community Involvement Resources 81
EPA Internal CERCLA Resources 81
EPA CERCLA Contract Resources 83
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 83
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) 83
Regional Laboratories 83
EPIC—Remote Sensing and Mapping Support Contract 84
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) 84
Response Action Contracts (RACs) 84
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) 84
Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC) 84
Brownfields Resources 85
Brownfields Grants 85
Brownfields Assessment Grants 85
Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants 86
Brownfields Cleanup Grants 86
Brownfields Job Training and Workforce Development Grants 86
The Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities Program 86
Targeted Brownfields Assessments and State and Tribal Response Program Grants 86
EPAs TBA Funds 86
Case Study—Combining NPS and Brownfields Resources for Cleanup and Redevelopment
Allis Chalmers Utility Corridor, West Allis, Wisconsin 87
State/Tribal Response Program Grants 88
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
EPA Superfund Redevelopment Initiative 88
Brownfields Federal Partnerships 89
Additional EPA Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 89
Targeted Watershed Grants 89
OSWER Innovations Pilot Projects 89
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Grants 90
Five Star Restoration Program 90
Environmental Finance Program 90
Environmental Justice 91
Case Study—Making Funding Accessible for Coordinated Watershed
Programs: Region 10 Serves as a Model 91
Department of Interior Assessment and Cleanup Resources 92
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 92
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 92
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 93
Office of Surface Mining (OSM) 94
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 94
National Park Service 94
Department of Agriculture Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 95
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 95
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 96
Farm Service Agency (FSA) 96
Agricultural Research Service 97
Department of Commerce Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 97
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 97
Other Federal Funding Resources 97
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) 97
Case Study—EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Team Up to
Restore Contaminated Rivers 100
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 100
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 101
Nongovernmental Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 101
Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCP) 101
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) 102
Volunteer Monitoring Groups 102
River Network 102
Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) 102
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) 103
National Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP) 103
Case Study—Multiagency, Multiprogram Funding Resources and Cooperation,
Dolores Watershed, Colorado ill
Case Study—Stakeholders Combine Resources for Cleanup, Swatara Creek, Pennsylvania 113
Contents
-------
Chapter 4
ASSESSMENT AND DATA INTEGRATION 117
Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment 120
Additional Watershed Data Collection 122
Cooperative Data Collection 122
Collaborative Data Collection 122
Biological Data Collection 123
Data Quality and Evaluation 123
Data Quality Objectives 123
Data Evaluation 124
Benchmarks 125
Data Col lection Strategies 126
Triad Approach 126
Data Management 127
STORE! Water Quality Exchange (WQX) 127
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) 128
Case Study—Region 8 Using Web Tools for Data Management 129
Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS) 129
Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) 129
Envirofacts 130
Cleanups in My Community 130
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 130
National Water Information System (NWIS) 130
Program Studies 130
CWA State Water Quality Monitoring Programs 131
Water Quality Standards—Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) 133
TMDL 134
TMDL Tasks Related to Assessment 134
Case Study—Delaware River Watershed PCB TMDL—
Multiprogram Assessment and Implementation, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 135
TMDL Sample Collection 139
Laboratory Analysis: Samples are analyzed for the TMDL pollutant
and associated indicators 140
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) 140
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) 140
CERCLA Site Assessment 141
Preliminary Assessment (PA) 141
Unified Phase Assessment (UFA) 142
Site Inspection (SI) 142
CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 144
Site Characterization 144
CERCLA Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment 146
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) 148
DOINRDA Process 148
NOAA NRDA Process 148
Removal Assessment and Cleanup 149
Brownfields Assessments 150
Abandoned Mine Land Initiative Assessment 151
Chapter 5
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 153
Integrating Watershed Cleanup 153
Case Study—Using Dollars Wisely, Utah DEQ: Prioritizing 319 Spending 153
Watershed Feasibility Assessment 154
Case Study—Little James Creek Feasibility Assessment,
How a Subbasin Study Can Lead to Watershed-wide Cleanup 155
Remediation + Restoration + Reuse = Revitalization 156
Superfund-Restoration Integration 156
Case Study—Using Alternative Techniques to Save Dollars and Riparian Habitat,
Stabilizing Streambanks on the Upper Arkansas River 157
TMDL Restoration Integration—Water Quality Trading 158
Case Study—Water Quality Trading Permits Exceed Expectations,
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative 159
Supplemental Environmental Projects 160
Case Study—A SEP Improves Health and Revitalizes Granite City, Illinois 161
Identification of Implementation Resources and Assignment to Programs/Stakeholders 161
Cross-Programmatic Cleanup Plan 161
Integrated Watershed Monitoring 162
Program Cleanup Processes 163
TMDL 163
RCRA 164
RCRA Corrective Measures Study (CMS) 165
RCRA Corrective Action 165
CERCLA Removal Actions 165
CERCLA Remedial Alternatives 166
Feasibility Study 166
CERCLA Removal Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) 168
Case Study—Cooperatively Working in the Left Hand Watershed 168
Proposed Plan, Public Comment, and Record of Decision 169
Remedial Design/Remedial Action 169
Operation and Maintenance 169
NRDA 170
Brownfields 171
Additional Topics Related to Watershed Cleanup and Monitoring 171
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS) 171
Contents
-------
Case Study—Setting Site-Specific Water Quality Standards, Eagle River and French Gulch 172
Wetlands Protection 173
Case Study—Working Together for Remediation, Habitat Restoration and
Reuse, Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah 173
Case Study—Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit, Milltown River/Clark
Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana 176
TABLES
Table 2-1 EPA Programs Using a Watershed Approach 17
Table 2-2 Most Commonly Used CERCLA Enforcement Authorities 44
Table 2-3 Federal Natural Resource Trustees 47
Table CS-1 Description of Funding Programs and Eligibility 78
Table 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary 103
Table 3-2 EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview 109
Table 4-1 Comparison of Surface Water Related Data Collection and Analysis
Requirements for Mining Watersheds 119
Table 4-2 Benchmarks for Data Comparison 125
Table 4-3 Sample Data Requirements 128
Table 4-4 Recommended Core and Supplemental Indicators 132
Table 4-5 Typical PA/SI Benchmarks 143
Table 5-1 Left Hand Watershed Implementation Draft Worksheet 162
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Watershed Cleanup Process 5
Figure 2-1 Program Flow Chart 15
Figure 2-2 CERCLA Removal Process 38
Figure 2-3 CERCLA Remedial Process 42
Figure 4-1 Assessment Flow Chart and Overview 118
Figure 4-2 Site Conceptual Model, Anacostia River Watershed, Maryland,
and Washington, DC 121
Figure 4-3 PA/SI Decision Tree 141
APPENDICES
NOTE: These appendices are available via www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/integrating
Appendix A Left Hand Watershed Collaborative Sampling Documents
Al Sampling and Analysis Plan
A2 Quality Assurance Project Plan
A3 Agency Sampling Worksheet
Appendix B Standard Guidance to Format Sample Results,
Field Measurements, and Associated Metadata
Appendix C Left Hand Watershed Fact Sheet
Appendix D USFS/EPA Memorandum of Understanding
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Executive Summary
The goal of this manual is to enhance coordination across United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), state and local waste and water programs to streamline requirements, satisfy
multiple objectives, tap into a variety of funding sources and implement restoration activities more
efficiently, showing measurable results. It provides a road map to conducting cross-programmatic
watershed assessments and cleanups in watersheds with both water and waste program issues
and presents innovative tools to enhance program integration. Water and waste programs typi-
cally work independently to accomplish their goals; however, given the overlap in activities and
limited resources, it benefits both programs to work together to develop project funding, perform
necessary assessments and studies, prioritize projects, conduct cleanups and monitor results. This
manual provides guidance on how to integrate assessment and cleanup activities to optimize avail-
able tools and resources and help restore contaminated waters efficiently and effectively.
This manual is targeted primarily at federal and state project managers in water and waste pro-
grams who are working on assessment or cleanup projects in watersheds contaminated by hazard-
ous materials or waste. The manual is also a helpful reference document for stakeholders involved
in the watershed. This manual complements other watershed assessment, cleanup and community
involvement guidance documents by presenting the authorities, resources, and processes used in
hazardous materials and waste contaminated watersheds.
This manual describes the interrelationships between programs and agencies involved in water-
shed assessment and cleanup and suggests potential opportunities for program integration. It uses
case studies to illustrate important points.
Chapter 1 presents a brief background on cleanup programs, elements of a successful watershed
cleanup and the potential roles of the watershed cleanup project manager. The remainder of the
document reviews these steps in greater detail to demonstrate how to develop and implement an
effective watershed cleanup program.
Chapter 2 lists the primary programs and stakeholders likely to have lead roles in watershed
cleanup and summarizes regulatory roles, authorities, and processes. Identifying programs and
agencies with interests in the watershed is essential to the process of building a multiprogram
Watershed Cleanup Team (WCT) with a holistic approach.
Chapter 3 presents the resources available for watershed assessment and cleanup and includes
an expanded list of agencies, programs and other stakeholders that might be involved in water-
shed cleanup. Watershed-based cleanups can be accomplished through a variety of funding and
other resources available for investigation, cleanup, monitoring and community involvement. This
chapter specifically addresses applicability of funds, accessing the funds and project requirements
for using the funds. It also discusses nonfinancial resources available through government and
nongovernmental agencies, such as scientific resources, contracting resources, facility and staffing
resources and analytical resources.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Chapter 4 discusses issues related to data integration and watershed assessment. This chapter dis-
cusses two primary opportunities for coordination—preliminary data compilation and streamlined
collection of additional data. The Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment is presented
as a tool for preliminary data compilation. This tool focuses the efforts of the WCT on the most
important watershed issues and helps identify the primary stakeholders and watershed cleanup
goals. It is an effective tool that will help project managers understand watershed conditions and
develop a preliminary watershed conceptual model.
Streamlining watershed assessment involves coordinated and collaborative data collection. To
ensure that all opportunities for integration are used to save resources while reducing the waste
of duplicative sampling efforts, coordinated assessment activities are performed independently
by programs, agencies and stakeholders. The WCT reviews in advance the sampling and analysis
plans (SAPs), which include the field sampling plan (FSP) and the quality assurance project plan
(QAPP). Collaborative assessment is conducted when WCT partners combine efforts to perform
additional assessment and sampling. Collaborative assessment requires developing common ap-
proaches and consistent methods that consider the multiple programs involved.
To integrate data compilation and collection, managers must consider the data requirements of the
various programs. Chapter 4 presents issues that involve compiling existing data and collecting ad-
ditional data, such as data quality, data evaluation, data management and the benchmarks against
which the data are compared. It also presents the Triad approach to sampling used by several EPA
programs. To provide personnel from different programs with an understanding of other program
efforts, the chapter ends with a summary of typical program-specific assessment procedures and
requirements.
Chapter 5 discusses integrated watershed cleanup topics such as the Watershed Feasibility Assess-
ment (WFA), "Three-Rs" approach, Superfund-Restoration integration, total maximum daily load
(TMDL)-Restoration integration using water quality trading, Supplemental Environmental Projects
and WCT task assignments. It also discusses integrated monitoring. The chapter continues with a
summary of program requirements for determining remediation and restoration actions and for
long-term monitoring of watershed conditions. It concludes with additional topics that managers
should consider in watershed cleanup such as wetlands and other applicable or relevant and ap-
propriate requirements (ARARs).
This document proposes that federal and state programs and local watershed groups use the WFA
to review and prioritize cross-programmatic cleanup opportunities. The WFA provides critical
information regarding significant point and nonpoint sources (NFS) that have been identified and
quantifies their associated loads to surface water. The analysis suggests potential remediation al-
ternatives and assigns costs associated with specific load reductions. The WFA might not fulfill all
the requirements of the various programs (such as a Superfund Feasibility Study (FS), Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), or TMDL allocated loads), but it would provide the framework
for these documents. To facilitate cleanup at each individual location, managers would perform
fine-tuned assessment and design in subsequent steps according to specific program requirements.
The "Three-Rs" are remediation, restoration and reuse. The WCT should cooperatively set remedi-
ation, restoration and reuse goals and ensure the goals are met by project implementation by using
applicable authorities and available funding mechanisms.
In summary, coordinating the efforts of agencies and programs yields significant opportunities for
streamlining and reducing the final cost of watershed cleanup, restoration, and redevelopment,
resulting in cleaner watersheds for beneficial use.
11
Executive Summary
-------
List of Acronyms
ACRT Allis Chalmers Reorganization Trust
AEA Atomic Energy Act
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
AML Abandoned Mine Land
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AWPPG Assessment and Watershed Protection Program
AWRC Anacostia Watershed Restoration Commission
BASINS Better Assessment Science Integrating Point & Nonpoint Sources
BCHD Boulder County Health Department
BEAP Brownfield Environmental Assessment Program
BEDI Brownfields Economic Development Initiative
BFPP Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment Closure and Health
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
BOM Bureau of Mines
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group
CA Cooperative Agreement
CAA Clean Air Act
CARE Community Action for a Renewed Environment
CBOD5 carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation
CDC Center for Disease Control
CDF Confined Disposal Facilities
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP EPA Contract Laboratory Program
CLU-IN Clean-Up Information
CMD Coal Mining Drainage
111
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
CMI Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS Corrective Measures Study
CNPCP Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
CRDL Contract Required Detection Limit
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CSP Conservation Security Program
CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center
CU University of Colorado
CWA Clean Water Act
CWI Clean Water Initiative
CWNS Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
CWRP Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DCNR Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
DelTRiP Delaware River Toxics Reduction Program
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DDT Dichlor-Diphenyl Trichlorethane
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DNREQ Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality
DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission
DOC Department of Commerce
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
DQA Data Quality Assessment
DQI Data Quality Indicators
DQO Data Quality Objectives
DU Designated Use
DWQ Division of Water Quality
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECARP Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EFC Environmental Finance Center
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act
EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program
ERAMS Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
ERRS Emergency and Rapid Response Services
ERT Environmental Response Team
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESAT Environmental Services Assistance Team
iv
List of Acronyms
-------
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FISRWG Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
FLM Federal Land Management Agency
FPQA Food Quality Protection Act
FRP Federal Response Plan
FS Feasibility Study
FSA Farm Service Agency
FSP Field Sampling Plan
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
CRTS Grants Reporting and Tracking System
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSI Habitat Suitability Indices
HUD Housing and Urban Development
I AC Implementation Advisory Council
IAG Interagency Agreement
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IRS Internal Revenue Service
LA Load Allocation
LERRDs Lands, Easements, Rights-of-way Relocations, and Disposal Sites
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
LWTF Left Hand Watershed Task Force
LWOG Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDN Mercury Deposition Network
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MNR Monitored Natural Recovery
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOS Margin of Safety
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
NAD National Assessment Database
NAGPRA Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environm ental Policy Act
NFS National Forest Service
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
V
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NLFWA National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NFS Nonpoint Source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRDA National Resources Damage Assessment
NTCRA Non-Time Critical Removal Action
NTTS National Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking System
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NWIS National Water Information System
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSM Office of Surface Mining
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU Operable Unit
PA Preliminary Assessment
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCS Permit Compliance System
PMP Pollutant Minimization Plan
PP Proposed Plan
PPM Parts per Million
PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RA Remedial Action
RACs Response Action Contracts
RAMS Restoration of Abandoned Mine Sites
RAS Routine Analytical Services
RBCs Risk Based Concentrations
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
REAC Response Engineering and Analytical Contract
RFA RCRA Facility Assessment
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RFP Request for Proposals
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RNRF Renewable Natural Resources Foundation
ROD Record of Decision
vi
List of Acronyms
-------
RPGP Regional Priorities Grants Program
RPM Remedial Project Manager, also Regional Project Managers
RTDF Remediation Technologies Development Forum
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SAS Special Analytical Services
SCDM Superfund Chemical Data Matrix
S CWA Swatara Creek Watershed Association
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SI Site Inspection
SMBSC Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative
SMIC Surface Water and Water Quality Models Information Clearinghouse
SMOA Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
SRF State Revolving Fund
SRI Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
SSAs Site-Specific Assessments
SSC State Superfund Contract
SSLs Soil Screening Levels
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSRC Superfund Sediment Resource Center
STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grant
START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
STORET Storage and Retrieval of Water-Related Data
SWP Source Water Protection
SWPPP Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAG Toxics Advisory Committee
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TEA Targeted Brownfields Assessments
TBC To-Be-Considered
TCRA Time Critical Removal Action
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for Communities
TSC Technical Support Center
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
UAA Use Attainability Analyses
UIC Underground Injection Control
UFA Unified Phase Assessment
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
• •
Vll
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Vlll
List of Acronyms
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USNPS U.S. National Park Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WATERS Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
WCT Watershed Cleanup Team
WFA Watershed Feasibility Assessment
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WPDG Wetlands Program Development Grants
WQBELs Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
WQLS Water Quality Limited Segments
WQS Water Quality Standards
WQSDB Water Quality Standards Database
WQX Water Quality Exchange
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
-------
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this manual is to help better integrate assessment and cleanup
activities when addressing the unique challenges presented by contaminated
watersheds. The contamination in a watershed typically comes from many sources,
differing geographically and over time. Although many federal and state programs
address such contamination, they often operate independently and with little interaction.
EPA's principal regulatory programs that control ongoing source activity—the Clean
Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Air
Act (CAA)—are media-centric, as are most states' authorized versions of those programs.
EPA's response programs for addressing past contamination—principally the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution
Act (OPA)—are project-specific and often consult with their regulatory counterparts only at
discrete points in the cleanup process as required by regulations. These communication and
coordination difficulties can be especially acute when trying to clean up a contaminated
watershed, the sources of which often include ongoing point source and nonpoint
source (NFS) discharges as well as historical disposal activities. Moreover, the cleanup
of contaminated watersheds typically involves many stakeholders, including private and
commercial interests, various federal and state government agencies acting in their roles as
land managers or trustees as well as regulators and local land use planning and redevelopment
authorities.
The goal of this manual is to draw together the many resources within the varied programs and to
describe ways to integrate the use of available tools and resources. This approach will likely result
in more efficient and effective cleanup and restoration of contaminated watersheds.
A
• Target Audience
This manual is written primarily for project managers in water and waste programs who are
working on assessment or cleanup projects in watersheds contaminated by hazardous substances
(broadly defined). The manual is intended to complement and summarize other watershed assess-
ment, cleanup and community involvement guidance documents, not to replace them.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
• Organization
This manual describes the interrelationships between programs and agencies involved in water-
shed assessment and cleanup, and it suggests potential opportunities for program integration. This
introductory chapter presents a brief background on cleanup programs, elements of a successful
watershed cleanup and potential roles of the watershed cleanup project manager. The remain-
der of the document reviews each step in greater detail to show how to develop and implement
an effective watershed cleanup program. Chapter 2 lists the programs and stakeholders likely to
have lead roles in watershed cleanup and summarizes regulatory roles, authorities and processes.
Chapter 3 presents the resources available for watershed assessment and cleanup; it also includes
an expanded list of agencies, programs and other stakeholders that might be involved in a wa-
tershed cleanup. A summary of the resources and their applicability is provided in a table at the
end of the chapter. Chapters 4 and 5 summarize the assessment and cleanup studies performed,
processes used and approaches applied by each of the major EPA and state programs and point out
opportunities for integration. Two tools, the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment
and the Watershed Feasibility Assessment (WFA), are explained in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively,
to help managers who might develop the watershed conceptual model and the watershed cleanup
plan. Case studies are interspersed throughout the manual to highlight key concepts. For example,
the Left Hand Watershed case study at the end of Chapter 2 demonstrates a multiprogrammatic
approach to watershed cleanup during the assessment, cleanup and funding stages.
• Background
Federal Programs that Address
Waterbody Contamination Over the past 30 years the country has made great
(See Chapters 2 and 3) strides toward reducinS the amount of pollution in our
waters through regulatory controls and improved waste-
> Water Quality Monitoring and w&tef treatment M of our waterways, however,
Assessment
are still contaminated as a result of ongoing industrial
» National Pollutant Discharge activities, polluted runoff and the remains from histori-
Elimination System (NPDES) Program , ,. , .„_. T jj-^- ^i <_• c.
cal disposal activities. In addition, the time frames as-
> TMDL Program sociated with cleanup at some contaminated sites span
» CWA section 404 Dredge and Fill decades, hampering the overall success of watershed
restoration. Specific water and waste programs often
become involved in a watershed on a sequential or loca-
» Source Water Protection tion-specific basis rather than following a coordinated
> Superfund approach. This lack of integration can waste resources
t Brownfields and ^ead to conflictrng site-specific results in a water-
shed that are difficult to redress after a particular agen-
h RCRA
cy decision is reached, such as issuance of a CERCLA
» Abandoned Mine Lands record of decision (ROD) or finalization of a TMDL.
> Farm Bill For example, conflict might occur when one regulatory
program office allocates loads within a watershed in
> Natural Resource Damage ^ IT^T ,. , , _..__. , .,
Assessment (NRDA) a ™DL to meet water quality standards (WQS) while
another regulatory program office waives WQS when
selecting a site remedy under CERCLA within the same
watershed. Other potential conflicts can arise when trying to appropriately coordinate schedules
for taking action to address releases from different sources within a watershed under different
regulatory authorities.
Although there are numerous potential pitfalls in attempting to coordinate various programs in a
watershed cleanup, agencies can complement and reinforce each other's activities, avoid duplica-
tion and leverage resources to achieve greater results through integration.
Introduction
-------
Programs that Address Waterbody Contamination
Various federal and state programs address the assessment, cleanup and restoration of
contaminated waterbodies. These programs are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
Because Superfund and RCRA sites are often in watersheds where TMDLs are
being developed, the chapter summarizes three of the most prominent programs:
the CERCLA Program, the RCRA Corrective Action Program, and the TMDL
Program.
The CERCLA Program identifies sites from which hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants have been released or have the potential to be released, posing a
threat to human health or the environment. If a site has been deemed sufficiently
hazardous, it is placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) to receive funding and
priority for cleanup. In general, EPA carries out the Superfund Program at most Demands
Superfund sites, either directly or by supervising work being performed by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). States can have the lead role at sites within their jurisdiction after devel-
oping a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA), State-Superfund Contract (SSC), and/or
a Cooperative Agreement (CA) with EPA. Other federal agencies carry out CERCLA cleanups (using
separately appropriated funds) at facilities under their respective jurisdiction, custody or control.
Accidents or other activities at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities have sometimes
released contamination into soil, ground water, surface water and air. The RCRA Corrective Action
Program allows these facilities to address the investigation and cleanup of such releases them-
selves, under governmental supervision. The RCRA Corrective Action Program differs from Super-
fund in that it deals with sites that have viable operators and ongoing operations.
Under the CWA's TMDL Program, states are required to identify waterbodies that do not meet
WQS. Such impaired waterbodies are placed on the state's CWA section 303(d) list if a TMDL has
not yet been completed. For each waterbody on a state's 303 (d) list, the state must calculate how
much of a particular pollutant (contributing to the impairment) can enter the waterbody without
exceeding the WQS. The calculation, called a TMDL, must be submitted to EPA for approval.
If the watershed includes 303 (d)-listed waters or has a TMDL, the waste and water programs
should be encouraged to work together to ensure that assessment and cleanup activities are coor-
dinated so that the requirements of all the programs are addressed.
Historically, the restoration of contaminated waterbodies has been approached from the perspec-
tive of individual federal and state programs. With shrinking budgets and increased demands on
our time, we need to approach the cleanup of waterbodies in a holistic and integrated manner,
using all the programmatic resources available. In many cases, the data collected to satisfy re-
quirements under one program also can be used to meet requirements under other programs. For
example, a tracer study performed to determine contaminant fate and transport for a Remedial
Investigation (RI) at an NPL site could also be used to determine contaminant loading for a TMDL.
Water quality and flow information used to develop or refine a state WQS could be used to help
meet Superfund Site Inspection, RI, Risk Assessment, NRDA, and state water quality assessment
requirements if sample collection and analysis procedures are agreed upon in advance. TMDL tar-
gets are often used as one of the remediation endpoints for RCRA sites that affect water quality.
Using a Watershed Approach
In the past 15 years, more and more organizations and agencies have moved away from individual
efforts and more toward managing water resources using a watershed approach. A watershed
approach is a flexible framework for managing water resource quality holistically within speci-
fied drainage areas. This approach includes stakeholder involvement and activities supported by
sound science and appropriate level of management. The watershed planning and cleanup process
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
works within this framework by following a series of cooperative, iterative steps to assess existing
conditions, identify and prioritize problems, develop goals and cleanup strategies and monitor the
effectiveness of cleanup efforts.
Developing a Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
Use of a watershed approach begins with the development of a watershed management plan. EPA
Nonpoint Source (CWA section 319) funds, which are administered by the states, can be used
to support the development of watershed plans by local stakeholder groups. A watershed plan is
a strategy that provides assessment and management information for a geographically defined
watershed, including the analyses, action, participants and resources relating to developing and
implementing the plan. A successful plan should have monitoring and evaluation components to
document progress and support adaptive management processes to address new opportunities as
well as emerging problems previously undocumented.
The watershed activities described in this manual, although similar to watershed plans frequently
developed with 319 funds, are focused on watersheds contaminated with hazardous or toxic mate-
rials. Efforts to address toxic substances in the watershed might be a subset of a larger watershed
management plan and should complement that plan. The Pinellas County case study at the end of
this chapter demonstrates multiple agencies cooperating to prepare a watershed management plan.
To build the capacity of state and local practitioners in developing integrated watershed plans, EPA
has created several new tools and resources. The Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters (EPA 841-B-05-005), available via www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
watershed_handbook, is intended to help communities, watershed organizations, and agen-
cies develop and implement watershed plans to meet water quality standards and protect water
resources. The handbook helps practitioners quantify pollutant loads, determine estimates of load
reductions required to meet water quality standards, develop effective management measures,
track progress, and conduct community outreach. In January 2006, EPA hosted a two-hour Web-
cast on the handbook, and the archived seminar can be downloaded at www.epa.gov/
watershedwebcasts.
A Watershed Plan Builder Tool is also available, which complements the handbook. This interactive,
web-based tool is designed to help local watershed organizations develop integrated watershed
plans to meet state and EPA requirements and promote water quality improvement. The tool walks
practitioners through the key planning steps and produces a customized watershed plan that is tai-
lored for a particular watershed and populated with relevant links to EPA, other federal agencies,
and state water programs. The tool is available at www.epa.gov/owow/watershedplanning.
Another tool, the Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox, is intended for use by state and local agen-
cies and other organizations interested in educating the public on nonpoint source pollution or
stormwater runoff. The toolbox contains a variety of resources to help develop an effective and
targeted outreach campaign, including a searchable catalog of nearly 800 print, radio and TV ads
and outreach materials. The toolbox is available at www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox.
EPA's Watershed Academy hosts monthly Webcasts and provides both live and Web-based training
for federal agencies, states, local governments, watershed groups and others on implementing a
watershed approach and other aspects of watershed management, www.epa.gov/owow/
watershed/wacademy
• Elements of an Effective Watershed Cleanup Process
Several elements are essential for successful watershed cleanups. The steps presented in Figure 1-1
and described below apply to most projects. However, when the watershed approach is initiated
Introduction
-------
Identify driving forces and scale
of watershed effort
Compile existing data
(See Comprehensive Preliminary Assessment)
Form a watershed cleanup team
Identify problems and set goals
Collect additional data if needed
Identify significant sources
of contamination
Prioritize cleanup sites and methods;
identify funding sources and
technical assistance needed
Conduct the cleanup
Monitor performance; evaluate
results and make changes as needed
Figure 1-1. Watershed Cleanup Process
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
the extent and importance of the elements are likely to vary depending on the scope, location and
complexity of the problem and the status of any existing program activities in the watershed. Com-
munity involvement is encouraged throughout the process and, indeed, is a required part of any
CERCLA cleanup or TMDL development. Although, ideally, progress through these steps will be
iterative, the key point is to ensure that they are accomplished, drawing on all possible resources
available from all the stakeholders.
1. Identify driving forces and scale of watershed effort. The identification of an affected
watershed often begins with a CWA 303 (d) or NPL listing. These actions spur public interest
and trigger funding support for public and agency involvement. The geographic scale of the
project area will vary with the scope of the problem and the location of sources that contribute
to the problem. If subwatersheds are designated, an additive approach can be taken to allow
integration with downstream subwatersheds. The scale of the effort can also be defined by the
impacts that will be addressed. The hydrologically defined geographic area should include all
potential sources that can contribute to the impairment of the waterbody.
2. Compile existing data. To conduct an initial assessment, the Watershed Cleanup Team (WCT)
collects and evaluates all existing water chemistry and flow, sediment, geological, soils, biologi-
cal and source data. Special care should be taken to ensure that each stakeholder contributes
existing data for use in a watershed-wide database. Often individual members of large orga-
nizations, including federal and state agencies as well as large, multi-location businesses, are
unaware of all the information resources available to them. In addition to regulatory and water
resource agencies, colleges and universities are often an untapped source of information. Data
should be compiled so that all participants can access and use it. Issues related to data integra-
tion are discussed in Chapter 4. Data should also be validated by field reconnaissance. A useful
tool to accomplish preliminary data integration and field validation on a watershed-wide basis
is the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment, presented in Chapter 4. The assess-
ment can be used to develop a site conceptual model, examples of which are also included in
Chapter 4.
3. Analyze data. On the basis of existing data, the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed As-
sessment, data analysis and the site conceptual model, stakeholders will determine whether
additional data are needed and, if so, how they will be collected. Data needs will depend on
specific programmatic requirements. The studies conducted for the major assessment and
cleanup programs are described in Chapter 4, along with potential opportunities for integra-
tion, but participants should also consider additional areas for integration that might apply to
the contaminants, watershed, and participants in the specific watershed project. After carefully
considering the types of additional data required for each agency or program and evaluat-
ing opportunities to consolidate data collection, managers can determine the methods and
mechanisms for collecting the data. The data can be collected independently by stakeholders
with available authorities and resources (as long as it is collected according to an agreed-upon
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan, as described below), or a collaborative data
collection effort can be launched.
Form, a WCT. A variety of stakeholders might play significant roles in the watershed cleanup,
including local, state and federal governments; private corporations; nonprofit organizations;
and concerned citizens. Many impaired waterways already have one or more nongovernmen-
tal organizations working on restoration activities. A key component of an effective watershed
approach is ensuring communication and cooperation among the various community, local,
state and federal stakeholders. The effort can be facilitated by a designated watershed project
manager from a waste or water program. The project manager should identify regulatory pro-
grams that have potential involvement in assessment or cleanup efforts in the watershed and
examine opportunities to coordinate resources in the watershed. Additional stakeholders might
be identified later as additional land ownership or regulatory issues arise. The effort should
Introduction
-------
promote a holistic approach in both a programmatic and geographic sense to ensure coordina-
tion in establishing and achieving cleanup goals.
5. Identify problems and set goals. The WCT identifies . f.
the problems and expected results or outcomes ^laWrsnf inuP 'fia/jj
of assessment and cleanup. Each program or
stakeholder group will identify its priorities corporations
and goals, provide available data and com- Nonprofit \Jt H Cltliens
Organizations b. 1^ A &.
mit to a level of involvement in the process.
Involvement can include in-kind services,
contract support, funding and data acquisition
or management; the possibilities should not be
limited. The WCT establishes common endpoints
or, if necessary, agrees to do so on the basis of the
findings of additional studies. Often one of the most
difficult issues is prioritizing sites for cleanup—a determination that is the product of both
regulatory and response program requirements, as well as stakeholder input. Also, a CERCLA
removal, a CERCLA remedial action and a natural resource restoration protection project each
might result in a different degree of cleanup because of the respective programs' differing
goals. Although some objectives will be unique to specific stakeholders, information gathered
as part of work in the watershed should be shared with the stakeholder group and at least
summarized for the public, ideally through a regularly updated Web site. (See the discussion
of Community Outreach and Involvement below.) This might be a contentious process, but all
stakeholder interests should be considered. Recognize that while regulatory agencies typically
have responsibilities that must be carried out, any of the stakeholders might suggest ideas for
carrying them out creatively.
6. Collect additional data, if needed. Identify potential sampling and analysis resources. Such
resources can include EPA regional labs, access to existing CERCLA lab contracts and grants
to stakeholders or local universities. For collaborative sampling efforts, a joint sampling and
analysis plan (SAP) should be prepared, and agency staff and stakeholders participating in
fieldwork should be provided training to ensure that data collection is performed according
to Agency protocol. Additional data collection will be determined as additional sources are
identified and priorities are set. The process can be iterative. Any agencies collecting data
independently of the collaborative efforts should agree to abide by the SAP, or the absence of
adherence should be duly noted. In any event, independently collected data should be charac-
terized by consistent naming conventions and data format to allow all data to be compiled and
shared through a single database.
7. Identify significant sources of contamination. Determine the significant sources of contami-
nation and the associated contaminant loads on the basis of data from the Comprehensive
Preliminary Watershed Assessment and additional data collected. This is part of the TMDL
development, but it will also help other participants to prioritize sites. Identification and quan-
tification of all significant sources provides the necessary data to assess the cumulative impacts
from the watershed to the impaired waterbody. Identify seasonal variations in loads and load-
ing contributions from the various sources. Identify resources for cleanup priorities and any
additional assessments that will be necessary at significant source locations.
8. Prioritize cleanup sites and methods. The WCT identifies priority cleanup sites and potential
cleanup alternatives. A tool it can use to evaluate cleanup options and their applicability to
various situations is the WFA, described in Chapter 5. Many factors can affect the choice of
priority cleanup locations, including contribution to contaminant loading, authority to require
cleanup, willingness of property owners to participate, funding mechanisms, complexity of
the site and available technologies. Estimates of load reductions that would result from the
7
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
cleanup of selected sites require supporting technical analysis demonstrating that the cleanup
will attain and maintain the water quality defined by individual program standards.
9. Conduct the cleanup. Cleanup can be accomplished through CERCLA or RCRA actions, vol-
untary cleanups, brownfields cleanups, and implementation of NPDES permits, TMDLs, best
management practices (BMPs) or any other available methods. Each of these cleanup methods
typically requires the participation of the affected site owner and other PRP, voluntarily or
pursuant to enforceable requirements. In addition, EPA might have resources to fund CERCLA
cleanups, to facilitate brownfields cleanups and to otherwise aid the effort. To avoid potential
conflicts that can arise when trying to coordinate schedules and appropriate levels of cleanup
for taking action to address releases from different sources within a watershed under different
regulatory authorities, a document can be developed in which stakeholders delineate a clear
process and line of authority for managing cleanup actions. The document need not itself be
legally binding but can reference regulations or other agreements.
10. Monitor performance. The watershed project manager develops a monitoring plan to de-
termine the effectiveness of the implementation or cleanup actions and determine whether
load reductions are being achieved and endpoints met. Effective long-term monitoring should
include parameters of interest to all stakeholders and can include involvement of federal,
state, tribal and local agencies; community groups; volunteer organizations; and educational
institutions.
Community Outreach/Involvement
Although the stakeholders should represent a cross section of the community or communities
affected by the watershed cleanup, the WCT will likely need to communicate directly with those
affected by its work. CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contin-
gency Plan (NCP) require extensive outreach to affected communities, and cleanups proposed at
NPL sites must be presented to the public for their review and comment. EPA has issued several
useful guidance documents supporting such activities, including the Superfimd Community Involve-
ment Handbook, www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/involvework.htm. EPA is developing
an additional resource for creating and operating a WCT, Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, EPA 841-B-05-005, October 2005, www.epa.gov/
owow/nps/watershed_handbook. EPA maintains a searchable, online directory of watershed
organizations at wwiv.epa.gov/adopt that lists more than 4,000 groups involved in watershed
protection activities across the country. This can serve as a useful resource in reaching out to key
community groups.
• Role of the Watershed Project Manager
The project manager is responsible for forming the WCT or interacting with the group in a manner
that will allow programs, agencies and communities to work together. The level of effort required
and specific tasks will vary significantly depending on the size and complexity of the project and
the number of participating agencies and stakeholders. Initial tasks the project manager might
perform or arrange include the following:
> Identify stakeholders
> Initiate contact with all relevant stakeholders for the purpose of getting project buy-in
> Inform stakeholders of the ten elements of an effective watershed cleanup process
> Prepare an initial problem statement and maps summarizing existing data for use at the
initial stakeholder meeting
8
Introduction
-------
> Identify potential funding for stakeholder groups and assist in funding acquisition, as
necessary
> Continue communication with all participants throughout the process
> Organize and arrange meetings
> Prepare information sheets for use throughout the project, including a draft information
sheet for use by participants in enlisting support for watershed cleanup efforts
> Prepare Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment
> Prepare statements of work for grants and contractors
If the WCT determines that a consolidated sampling effort will be conducted, the project manager
might also perform or arrange for the following tasks:
> Perform initial site reconnaissance
» Prepare SAP
> Identify sampling locations
> Organize sampling responsibilities
> Arrange for training on sampling and sample-handling methods
> Develop maps showing sampling sites, potential sources and waterbody names and points
of access to sampling sites
> Use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to identify sampling sites
> Facilitate agreement on sampling methods, analytes, timing and priorities
> Enlist assistance with field support, funding support, and public participation support
> Enlist regional, state or contract laboratory support
> Synchronize sampling events
> Arrange multiprogram/multiagency sampling teams
> Review and assess sampling results and provide data summaries
• Identifying Priority Watersheds
Cross-coordination between waste and water programs on individual waterbodies and in water-
sheds should be examined for all sites that have the potential to involve multiple programs. Often
determinations are made in the EPA Regions and states to focus significant resources on certain
priority watersheds. Numerous environmental and human health factors, resource availability,
stakeholder interests, and any specific legal requirements should be considered in the process
of determining which watersheds will be designated as priorities. Water quality is clearly an
important consideration but so are soil contamination, pesticide runoff, endangered species, loss of
wetlands (acreage and condition), miles of impaired streams, air pollution deposition, wildlife im-
pacts, natural vegetation impacts, human health concerns and many other factors. The second case
study in this chapter presents Oregon's prioritization of its 303 (d) list of impaired waters for TMDL
development, which takes into account the severity of the pollution and the uses of such waters.
9
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Developing a Watershed Management Plan
10
Cross Bayou Watershed, Pinellas County, Florida
Multiple stakeholders are preparing a watershed management plan for the Cross Bayou watershed
in Pinellas County, the most densely populated county in Florida.
Background
The overall watershed management plan will
address flooding, erosion, sedimentation,
and stormwater pollution in the watershed
through management strategies that iden-
tify and address sensitive and degraded
uplands, wetland and open-water habitats,
and sources of known or potential contami-
nation. The plan will focus on the 10.5-mile-
long Cross Bayou Canal, which has very poor
water quality relative to other waterbodies in
Pinellas County. CrossBayou> Fiorida
Hundreds of regulated sites within the pilot target area affect water quality in the Cross Bayou
Canal and across the watershed. Pinellas County has created an inventory of sites of concern
within the area. The county is establishing a brownfields program as the Cross Bayou watershed
management plan is developed. The primary goal of the pilot is to integrate and implement Brown-
fields, One Cleanup, and Land Revitalization principles within the watershed area.
The watershed management plan's objectives and the wide diversity of the federal, state, and
local partnership involved in the Watershed Management Taskforce provide an optimum frame-
work for a successful One Cleanup/Land Revitalization pilot project.
Stakeholders
EPA programs involved in the area-wide pilot include the One Cleanup and Land Revitalization,
Brownfields, Underground Storage Tank, RCRA, CERCLA, Federal Facilities, Pollution Prevention,
Watershed Management, NPDES, NPS, Smart Growth, and National Estuary programs. Other fed-
eral partners include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department
of Energy (DOE), Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Federal Aviation
Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and federal brownfields partners. Partners within the Florida De-
partment of Environmental Protection include the Brownfields, Underground Storage Tank (UST),
RCRA, CERCLA, Federal Facilities, Waste Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. The Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission also is a partner. Regional partners include the Southwest
Florida Water Management District and Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Local government
partners include Pinellas County at the head of the Watershed Management Taskforce and the cit-
ies of Pinellas Park, Largo and Seminole. Stakeholder involvement of local citizens and businesses
will be covered by the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Watershed Management Taskforce.
Key Activities
The pilot project will coordinate water quality improvements with cleanup and redevelopment
priorities.
I The watershed management plan will provide information online to the public about regulated
sites in the watershed. Detailed information on sites that are remediated under the watershed
management plan and pilot project will be provided through GIS and Web-based applications.
I The nexus of environmental cleanup and water quality assurance under the pilot project
provides opportunities for federal and state regulators to integrate cross-program performance
measures and results.
I Brownfields and other underutilized properties will be evaluated for productive reuse, including
evaluation for inclusion in the implementation strategy for the Cross Bayou watershed
management plan.
Introduction
-------
DY
Criteria Used to Identify Priority Watersheds for Cleanup
State of Oregon
Background
Oregon developed a list of criteria to help prioritize its 303(d) list of impaired waters for TMDL
development. The four levels of priority take into account the severity of the pollution and the
anticipated uses for each waterbody.
Priority 1
> Endangered Fish Species: Spawning and rearing waterbodies for federally listed threatened or
endangered species or species addressed under the Oregon Plan.
• Parameters of Concern: Biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
I Health Advisories: Streams and lakes where the Oregon Health Division has issued a fish con-
sumption advisory.
• Parameters of Concern: Toxics (tissue)
I Drinking Water: Public and private domestic water supply where standard pretreatment tech-
nology (filtration and disinfection) is inadequate to meet drinking standards.
• Parameters of Concern: Total dissolved solids, toxics (water column)
Priority 2
I Candidate Fish Species: Spawning and rearing waterbodies for fish species that are candi-
dates or proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered species or listed as critical
on the Oregon sensitive species list.
• Parameters of Concern: Biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
I Shellfish: Waterbodies that experience periodic closures for not meeting standards for shell-
fish growing waters.
• Parameters of Concern: bacteria, toxics
> Water Contact Recreation: Waterbodies that experience chronic, dry-weather exceedances
that correspond with higher recreational usage (generally June through September).
• Parameters of Concern: Bacteria
Priority 3
I Salmonid habitat: Waterbodies designated for salmonid spawning and rearing that do not
meet appropriate WQS.
• Parameters of Concern: Biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
> Water Contact Recreation: Waterbodies that experience chronic wet weather exceedances
that correspond with lower recreational usage (generally October through May) or nonhealth-
related (aesthetic) concerns.
• Parameters of Concern: Bacteria, aquatic weeds or algae, chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity
> Wild and Scenic Rivers and State Scenic Waterways: Federally or state-designated wild and
scenic waters not meeting WQS that relate to aesthetics or other recreational water use.
• Parameters of Concern: Aquatic weeds or algae, chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity
11
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
State of Oregon
12
I Industrial Water Supply: Waters designated for industrial water supply where standard
pretreatment technology is inadequate to meet standards.
• Parameters of Concern: Total dissolved solids, turbidity
Priority 4
I Livestock Watering: Waters designated for livestock watering that do not meet appropriate
WQS.
• Parameters of Concern: Chlorophyll a or algae
I Other Resident Fish and Aquatic Life: Waterbodies not designated for salmonid spawning and
rearing that do not meet appropriate WQS
• Parameters of Concern: biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
I Aesthetics: Other waters (not federally or state-designated wild and scenic waters) not meeting
WQS that relate to aesthetics or other recreational water use.
• Parameters of Concern: Aquatic weeds or algae, chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity
Introduction
-------
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
Federal, state and local environmental agencies often have an interest in site assessment and
cleanup and might be able to contribute to the watershed remediation process. This chapter
describes the potential roles, authorities and interests of each of these agencies. The level of
participation of a program will vary from project to project. The watershed project manager should
ensure that respective parties' roles in a specific watershed project are discussed and identified at
the initial meetings, while allowing for adjustment during subsequent meetings according to the
projects. This chapter describes the agencies that operate under major environmental authorities,
and then describes other stakeholders and the roles each can play in watershed investigation and
cleanup. Additional entities that can provide resources for watershed cleanup are described in
Chapter 3.
• Watershed Cleanup Team
Coordination starts by identifying WCT participants that have a regulatory, financial, trustee/land
manager, aesthetic or other interest in watershed cleanup. Typical participants include the following:
I U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
» U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
» U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
» uses
I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
> National Park Service
» Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
I USAGE
> State environment and health departments
> Community action groups
> Water allocation and other cross-jurisdictional agencies (e.g., port authorities)
I Drinking water and wastewater treatment providers
> County, local health or environmental departments
> Local and regional land use planning agencies
> Soil conservation districts
> Industry, landowners and educational institutions
The potential roles of these agencies and stakeholders are described below. For the purposes of this
manual, communities is used to refer to municipalities and related local agencies and established
13
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
stakeholder groups. Additional information describing these groups can be found at the end of this
chapter.
The authorities under which these participants can act include:
> EPA and state Superfund Programs (Preliminary Assessment (PA)/Site Inspection (SI),
Removal, and Remedial Programs)
» EPA and state RCRA programs
» EPA and state Clean Water Act programs (NPDES, NFS, TMDL)
> EPA and state Clean Air Act (CAA) programs
» EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Program
> EPA Pesticide and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) programs
» EPA and state Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) programs
> EPA's Brownfields Program
> Natural Resource Trustees (Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration)
• Regulatory Authorities
Introduction
Depending on watershed location, contaminants, land use and ownership and the type of resourc-
es impacted, a variety of regulatory and response authorities may be used to conduct studies, force
cleanup actions, facilitate public participation, and otherwise contribute to cleanup of watersheds
contaminated with hazardous substances and wastes. Sometimes, state and federal agencies are
empowered to act within the same regulatory framework. This section describes regulatory and
response authorities and the agencies and programs tasked with those authorities. Table 2-1 sum-
marizes the benefits and contributions of programs in cross-programmatic watershed cleanup.
Figure 2-1 provides a visual presentation of how the primary watershed cleanup programs fit to-
gether. For brevity, these descriptions use the term states for roles that may also be filled by tribes
and territories, as applicable.
When considering the various regulatory and response programs, several of their common, as
well as distinguishing, characteristics should be kept in mind by the watershed team as it looks for
the best cleanup strategy. For example, some programs such as the CWA and RCRA are primarily
(but not exclusively) regulatory programs. They apply most easily to facilities (and categories of
industry) with ongoing business operations and impose a detailed set
°f regulations that are carried out in part in a required operating
permit. Other programs, such as CERCLA, authorize actions
that respond to discrete environmental contamination
wherever it is located and regardless of whether it comes
from one or many different sources. While the CERCLA
Program looks first to enforcement mechanisms in
carrying out its mission, it does include resources that
can fund cleanups where liable parties are (at least
initially) unwilling to participate or cannot be found.
While CERCLA has a careful process for considering
the ARARs of other regulatory authorities, it does not
require federal, state or environmental permits for its
14
Develop
monitoring
objectives
Design
monitoring
program
Convey
results and
findings
Collect
field and
lab data
Assess
and interpret
data
Compile
and manage
data
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Table 2-1. EPA Programs Using a Watershed Approach
Program Contributions
Program Benefits
WATER PROGRAMS
Water Quality Standards Program
> Provides water quality goals for specific water bodies in the
watershed
> Provides designated water uses and water quality criteria to
protect the uses, for each waterbody
Provides state/tribal antidegradation policy
Standards provide specific goals for watershed
planning and are a basis for regulatory
requirements
> Standards can be adapted to reflect holistic,
watershed approach
States/tribes must consider input from the
public regarding appropriate WQS revisions
Provides water quality data
Identification of impacted waters
Ongoing water quality monitoring
Monitoring and Assessment Program
Assistance with ongoing water quality monitoring
Water quality data
Access to EPA regional laboratories
NPDES Program
Effluent quality data from dischargers
Identification of point sources
Implementation of TMDL source allocations by permit restrictions
Report ongoing discharge monitoring results (pollutant loads)
Enforceable permit limits to meet Water Quality Standards
Watershed approach will assist the NPDES
Program in setting appropriate discharge
limitations
Coordinated ongoing monitoring
Water quality data, including ambient condition
data
TMDL Program
Identification of impaired waters
Development of TMDLs, which identify the loads needed to attain
water quality standards
Plan and participate in data collection
Identification of sources in watershed
Identification of impaired waters
Quantification of significant source loads
Public participation process
Coordinated data collection
Coordinated long-term monitoring
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Program
Identification of current and projected point sources and nonpoint
sources
Current and projected wastewater treatment plant populations
served and outflows
Projects needed to meet NPDES requirements, water quality
standards, and TMDL allocations
Estimated project costs
Supports watershed-based decisions by
providing project and cost information for point
source and nonpoint source projects
319 NPS Program
Funding for cleanup
> Funding for assessment
Funding for public participation
Funding for developing and implementing watershed plans
Local contacts
Coordinated relationships with agencies and
community in assessment and implementation
Assistance in prioritizing NPS cleanup
Coordination on federal lands
Coordinated long-term monitoring
Drinking Water and Source Water Protection
Identify water sources used by public water systems
Data on water quality and potential sources of contamination
Analysis of contamination risks
Funding for assessment, protection, planning and implementation
Improved public health
Strong public support to maintain clean drinking
water
Sustainable water infrastructure: reduced
drinking water treatment costs
> Coordinated stakeholder approach
RCRA PROGRAMS
Identification of contaminant sources
Authority for assessment and cleanup
Data
> Long-term monitoring and management
> Problem site identification and prioritization
Community involvement process
> Collaborative monitoring
17
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Table 2-1. EPA Programs Using a Watershed Approach (continued)
Program Contributio
Program Benefits
CERCLA PROGRAMS
> Contract support for watershed assessment activities
> Funding for Community Involvement
> Sample collection
> Laboratory analysis
Immediate action at sites causing unacceptable threat to human
health or the environment
> Data from Site Assessment, Removal Assessment, Remedial
Investigation
> Authority to conduct cleanup at sites
Contract support for database development
> Training
Ongoing monitoring (state or PRP funded)
Risk assessment studies
Watershed program manager
Contributions to watershed database
Community involvement process
Assistance with ongoing monitoring
Coordinated interagency efforts
Additional information for five-year reviews
Site identification
Site prioritization
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAMS
> Funding for community involvement and assessment support
> Authority and funding for cleanup actions
> Site Identification
> Community involvement process
> Site prioritization
on-site response actions. Under some CWA and RCRA Programs (as well as the CAA) states may be
authorized to administer the federal programs under state law upon approval by EPA, sometimes
imposing stricter standards than are required in the base federal program. CERCLA is not a del-
egated program (although EPA funds states to carry out certain CERCLA activities for the Agency).
However, a number of states have mini Superfunds that are similar to CERCLA; many states also
have brownfields cleanup programs that have set state cleanup standards, to which EPA's CERCLA
Program may give some deference under memoranda of agreement.
Another way in which the various regulatory and response programs vary is through their use of
terminology that can be sometimes confusing. Typically, the principal federal and state environ-
mental laws applicable to watershed cleanup can be triggered by a broad range of substances, a
subset of which have been deemed especially hazardous or toxic and are made subject to stricter
controls and authorities. Understanding which kind of substances are impacting a watershed and
how they fit into federal and state regulatory programs, will make it easier for the watershed
project manager to develop the most efficient response strategy. This issue is complicated by the
fact that key terms often sound similar from one program to another, and yet can have different
meanings and indeed might not be consistent. Solid waste, hazardous waste, hazardous substance,
pollutant and toxic pollutant are each used in various federal environmental programs, sometimes
referring to the same, and sometimes different, substances.
Finally, the WCT should be aware that different regulatory and response programs may result in
different degrees of pollution control or cleanup. Indeed, this can be the case in a single program.
For example, as explained in more detail below, a CERCLA response action in the removal program
may be designed to abate a threat to human health and the environment. While many CERCLA
response actions conducted by the removal program will complete the cleanup at the site, some
may leave behind contaminants at a level that will require further measures to complete a CERCLA
remedial action. Note also that still further cleanup might be necessary to achieve restoration of
natural resources under CERCLA. Different regulatory and response programs can also result in
different cleanup standards in different media. For example, copper standards are typically much
lower in surface water than in ground water, while the reverse is true for most volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
18
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Clean Water Act
Perhaps the most important programs for consideration by the WCT are found in the CWA, which
establishes several means to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the nation's waters.1 The 1972 Act set forth a goal of achieving zero discharge of pollutants by
1985 and, as an interim goal, wherever attainable, achieving water quality that provides for pro-
tection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water by mid-
1983. These goals remain today. Under the CWA, a pollutant is broadly defined to include indus-
trial, municipal or agricultural waste discharged into water, subject to certain exceptions. The term
pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge,
munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharged into
water. (Note that, as discussed below, certain categories of activities involving pollutants may nev-
ertheless be exempt from regulation under the CWA.)
The Water Quality Standards and Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Programs provide
the foundations for the CWA water quality programs. Once water quality conditions and goals
have been established, the CWA includes various programs, including TMDL, NFS, and NPDES for
achieving those water quality conditions and goals. EPA and state environment departments ad-
minister all CWA programs except for the CWA section 404 Dredge and Fill Program (see Chapter
5 of this manual), which the USAGE jointly administers with EPA and authorized states.
The Clean Water Act requires point source discharges to receive NPDES permits (see further
discussion below). Permits must consider both technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limitations. All dischargers must meet industry-specific effluent limitations based on the technol-
ogy available to control pollution. Where NPDES permit authorities (states and EPA) determine
that these technology-based effluent limitations are inadequate to attain or maintain water quality
standards, the CWA requires dischargers to comply with additional water quality-based effluent
limitations. In impaired water bodies, states and EPA develop pollution loading budgets called
"total maximum daily loads" or TMDLs. TMDLs not only guide the water quality-based effluent
limitations in NPDES permits, but also establish specific goals for addressing nonpoint sources of
pollution. EPA and states have been increasingly emphasizing TMDLs because nonpoint sources
account for the majority of remaining impairments to water quality.
Water Quality Standards
CWA section 303(c) establishes the basis for a WQS Program. WQS consist of three elements:
> Designated (beneficial) uses
> Numeric and/or narrative criteria
> Antidegradation policies and procedures
States are required to specify appropriate water uses to be achieved and protected, taking into
consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies; protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife; recreation in and on the water; and agricultural, industrial and other
purposes including navigation. Typical designated water uses include recreational (primary—with
human contact, and secondary—incidental human contact), agriculture (crop irrigation and
livestock drinking), aquatic life (cold water aquatic life, warm water aquatic life, wetlands), and
domestic water supply. Section 101 (a) (2) of the CWA established as a national goal water qual-
ity, wherever attainable, that" provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, and recreation in and on the water." WQS are developed by states, but must be approved
by EPA. www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards
1 Similar to RCRA and the CAA, the 1977 Clean Water Act actually comprised amendments to existing federal water pollu-
tion control legislation, the most important of which was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
(Pub. L. 92500) (FWPCA), which established the NPDES permit system. -i Q
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
EPA develops National Recommended Water Quality Criteria which are expressed as levels of
individual pollutants, water quality characteristics, or descriptions of conditions of the waterbody
that, if met, will generally protect the designated use of the water. Criteria are expressed in either
narrative or numeric formats and may be developed to apply generally or to site-specific situa-
tions. EPA's compilation of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria contains recommended
water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water for
approximately 150 pollutants. These criteria are published pursuant to section 304(a) of the CWA
and provide guidance for states and tribes to use in adopting WQS. EPA's National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship be-
tween pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects. In adopting criteria,
states and tribes may do the following:
> Adopt the criteria that EPA publishes under section 304(a) of the CWA
> Modify the section 304(a) criteria to reflect site-specific conditions
> Adopt criteria on the basis of other scientifically defensible methods
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria
Numeric water quality criteria generally contain three components: magnitude, duration and
frequency. The magnitude is the acceptable amount of pollutant or other indicator in the sur-
face water. Most criterion magnitudes are expressed as concentrations (e.g., milligrams per liter
(mg/1)). Duration refers to to the time period over which exposure is to be averaged. For example,
some criteria for protection of aquatic life are expressed, in part, as 4-day average concentrations
of a particular pollutant (i.e., the duration is 4 days). Frequency describes how often waterbody
conditions can surpass the combined magnitude and duration components (e.g., once every three
years). Antidegradation policies are established to protect existing uses and high quality waters.
States are required to adopt an antidegradation policy consistent with the WQS regulation (40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 131).
WQS provide the regulatory basis for effluent limits beyond technology-based levels of treatment
for NPDES permits. WQS also provide the basis for allocations in TMDLs. State WQS for waterbod-
ies may be obtained from EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/
wqslibrary/index.html or on EPA's WATERS database at www.epa.gov/waters.
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
EPA and states need comprehensive water quality monitoring and assessment information on envi-
ronmental conditions and changes over time to help set levels of protection in WQS and to identify
problem areas that are emerging or that need additional regulatory and nonregulatory actions to
support water quality management decisions such as TMDLs, NPDES permits, enforcement and
NFS management. This information also informs EPA and state decision makers, the Congress, the
public and other stakeholders of the progress that the Agency and state partners are making in
protecting human health and the environment.
The CWA gives states and territories the primary responsibility for implementing programs to pro-
tect and restore water quality, including monitoring and assessing the nation's waters and report-
ing on their quality. CWA section 106(e)(l) requires EPA to determine that a state is monitoring
the quality of navigable waters; compiling and analyzing data on water quality; and including it in
the state's section 305 (b) report prior to the award of section 106 grant funds. Elements of a State
Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (EPA 2003: EPA 841-B-03-003) (see the boxes on pages
22 and 23) recommends the basic elements of a state water monitoring program and serves as a
tool to help EPA and the states determine whether a monitoring program meets the prerequisites
of CWA section 106(e)(l).
20
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
While state agencies have the lead in implementing monitoring programs and assessing the condi-
tion of those waters as required by the CWA, other federal agencies are also involved in water
quality monitoring to meet their own agency and program objectives. The state should consider
data from these sources (on the basis of data quality, accessibility and applicability) when mak-
ing an impairment decision for an individual waterbody (i.e., healthy or impaired). For example,
the USGS conducts extensive chemical monitoring through its National Stream Quality Account-
ing Network (NASQAN) at fixed locations on large rivers around the country. Its National Water
Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) uses a regional focus to study status and trends in water,
sediment and biota. The USFWS, NOAA and the USAGE are other examples of federal agencies
that conduct water quality monitoring to support their programs and activities.
State agencies, such as game and fish agencies, and private entities such as universities, watershed
associations, environmental groups and industries also perform water quality monitoring. They
might collect water quality data for their own purposes, as well as to share with government deci-
sion makers. Volunteer monitors—private citizens who volunteer to regularly collect and analyze
water samples, conduct visual assessments of physical conditions, and measure the biological
health of waters—can be of great assistance in collecting data and assessing the biological condi-
tion (health) of that waterbody. Before implementing any locally based monitoring effort, the WCT
should review the state's monitoring strategy, list of core indicators and assessment methodology.
Before conducting any monitoring in a cleanup area, the monitoring objectives should be estab-
lished and indicators selected that ensure the predetermined objectives will be achieved.
To assess the conditions of their waters, states employ assessment methodologies to make WQS
attainment determinations. The assessment methodology should be consistent with the state's
WQS and include a description of how the state identifies, considers and evaluates all existing and
readily available data and information. The assessment methodology may also include a descrip-
tion of how the state interprets their narrative WQS for making water quality attainment deter-
minations. In addition to ambient monitoring data, other sources of data and information states
use to make WQS attainment status determinations may include results from predictive model-
ing, remote sensing data, land use analysis, knowledge about pollutant sources and loadings and
observed effects.
Additional information on development and implementation of state assessment methodologies is
available in EPA's Guidance for Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the CWA (commonly referred to as the Integrated Reporting Guidance
[www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl]) and EPA's Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology
(EPA, July 2002).
In 2005, EPA designed a new interactive National Assessment Database (NAD), an on-line data-
base of state water quality information. The NAD allows users to electronically view assessment
findings for individual states, specific waterbodies, and watersheds in a user friendly format.
www.epa.gov/waters/305b
Water Quality Reporting
States are required to report on the water quality status of their waters every 2 years under sec-
tions 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the CWA. A summary of states' reporting requirements for each
of these sections and corresponding regulations is provided below.
> Section 303(d) - by April 1 of all even-numbered years, the state must publish a list
of impaired and threatened waters still requiring TMDLs; identification of the impairing
pollutant(s); and priority ranking of these waters, including waters targeted for TMDL de-
velopment within the next 2 years. The list of waters impaired or threatened by a pollutant
and still requiring a TMDL is commonly referred to as a state's section 303 (d) list. Impaired
waters are those waters not meeting one or more of their WQS. Threatened waters are
21
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
22
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/elements.html
The recommended 10 elements of a state water monitoring and assessment program are the following:
1. Monitoring Program Strategy
The state has a comprehensive monitoring program strategy that serves its water quality management
needs and addresses all state waters, including streams, rivers, lakes, the Great Lakes, reservoirs, estuaries,
coastal areas, wetlands and ground water. The strategy should contain or reference a description of how the
state plans to address each of the remaining nine elements. The monitoring program strategy is a long-term
implementation plan and should include a timeline, not to exceed 10 years for completing implementation
of the strategy. EPA believes that state monitoring programs can be upgraded to include all the elements
described below within the next 10 years. It is important that the strategy be comprehensive in scope and
identify the technical issues and resource needs that are impediments to an adequate monitoring program.
2. Monitoring Objectives
The state has identified monitoring objectives critical to the design of a monitoring program that is efficient
and effective in generating data that serve management decision needs. EPA expects the state to develop
a strategy and implement a monitoring program that reflects a full range of state water quality management
objectives including, but not limited to, CWA goals. For example, monitoring objectives could include helping
establish WQS, determining water quality status and trends, identifying impaired waters, identifying causes
and sources of water quality problems, implementing water quality management programs, and evaluating
program effectiveness. Consistent with the CWA, monitoring objectives should reflect the decision needs
relevant to all types of state waters.
3. Monitoring Design
The state has an approach and rationale for selecting monitoring designs and sample sites that best serve its
monitoring objectives. The state monitoring program will likely integrate several monitoring designs (e.g., fixed
station, intensive and screening-level monitoring, rotating basin, judgmental and probability design) to meet
the full range of decision needs. The state monitoring design should include a probability-based network for
making statistically valid inferences about the condition of all state water types, over time. EPA expects the
state to use the most efficient combination of monitoring designs to meet its objectives.
4. Core and Supplemental Water Quality Indicators
The state uses a tiered approach to monitoring that includes core indicators selected to represent each
applicable designated use, plus supplemental indicators selected according to site-specific or project-specific
decision criteria. Core indicators for each water resource type include physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological
and biological/ecological endpoints as appropriate and can be used routinely to assess attainment with
applicable WQS throughout the state. Supplemental indicators are used when there is a reasonable
expectation that a specific pollutant might be present in a watershed, when core indicators indicate
impairment, or to support a special study such as screening for potential pollutants of concern.
(continued)
those waters that are currently attaining WQS but are expected to exceed WQS by the next
303 (d) list reporting cycle.
Section 305(b) - by April 1 of all even-numbered years, the state must list a description
of the water quality of all waters of the state (including rivers/streams, lakes, estuaries/
oceans and wetlands). States may also include in their section 305(b) submittal a descrip-
tion of the nature and extent of ground water pollution and recommendations of state plans
or programs needed to maintain or improve ground water quality. This reporting require-
ment is commonly referred to as a state's 305(b) report.
Section 314 - in each section 305(b) submittal, the state must provide an assessment of
status and trends of significant publicly owned lakes including extent of point source and
NFS impacts due to toxics, conventional pollutants and acidification.
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (continued)
5. Quality Assurance
Quality management plans and quality assurance prog ram/project plans are established, maintained and
peer reviewed according to EPA policy to ensure the scientific validity of monitoring and laboratory activities
and to ensure that state reporting requirements are met.
6. Data Management
The state uses an accessible electronic data system for water quality, fish tissue, toxicity, sediment chemistry,
habitat, biological data, with timely data entry (following appropriate metadata and state/federal geo-
locational standards) and public access. In the future, EPA will require all states to directly or indirectly
make their monitoring data available through the new Storage and Retrieval (STORE!) system. For states
that do not currently operate STORET, their monitoring strategies should provide for use of STORE! as soon
as is practicable. For the 305(b) reports and 303(d) lists, EPA strongly recommends that all states store
assessment information using the EPA Assessment Database or an equivalent relational database and define
the geographic location of assessment units using the National Hydrography Dataset(NHD).
7. Data Ana/ys/s/Assessment
The state has a methodology for assessing attainment of WQS based on analysis of various types of data
(chemical, physical, biological, land use) from various sources, for all waterbody types and all state waters.
The methodology includes criteria for compiling, analyzing and integrating all readily available and existing
information (e.g., volunteer monitoring data, discharge monitoring reports).
8. Reporting
The state produces timely and complete water quality reports and lists called for under sections 305(b),
303(d), 314, and 319 of the CWA and section 406 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000. EPA issued Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act (2006 Integrated Report
Guidance) to provide a recommended reporting format and suggested content to be used in developing a
single document that integrates the reporting requirements of the CWA sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314.
EPA will continue to support the use of this integrated reporting framework for future reporting cycles.
Under current regulations, section 303(d) lists and section 305(b) reports are due no later than April 1 of
even-numbered years. To remain eligible for section 106 grants, the state also must submit annual updates
of water quality information. This requirement may be satisfied by annually updating 305(b) assessment
information or by annually uploading monitoring data to the national STORET warehouse.
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG, www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html
9. Programmatic Evaluation
The state, in consultation with its EPA Region, conducts periodic reviews of each aspect of its monitoring
program to determine how well the program serves its water quality decision needs for all state waters,
including all waterbody types. This should involve evaluating the monitoring program to determine how well
each of the elements is addressed and determining how needed changes and additions are incorporated into
future monitoring cycles.
10. General Support and Infrastructure Planning
The state identifies current and future resource needs it requires to fully implement its monitoring program
strategy. This needs assessment should describe funding, staff, training, laboratory resources and upcoming
improvements.
EPA encourages states to prepare a single report (the Integrated Report) that satisfies the reporting
requirements of sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314, and describes the state's assessment methodol-
ogy for making water quality attainment determinations (see EPA's Integrated Reporting Guidance
at www.epa.gov/owow/TMDL). As part of EPA's guidance to states for preparing Integrated
Reports, EPA recommends that states use the following five reporting categories to report on the
water quality status of all waters in their state:
Category 1: All designated uses (DU) are supported, no use is threatened
Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all the DUs are
supported
Category 3: There is insufficient available data and/or information to make a DU support
determination
23
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one DU is not being
supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not needed
Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one DU is not being
supported or is threatened, and a TMDL is needed
In classifying the status of their waters, states may report each waterbody in one or more of the
reporting categories listed on page 23.
As these categories show, waters assigned to Category 4 and 5 are impaired or threatened; how-
ever, waters assigned to Category 5 represent waters on a state's section 303 (d) list. A state's sec-
tion 303 (d) list is composed of waters impaired or threatened by a pollutant and needing a TMDL.
Similar to Category 5, waters in Category 4 are also impaired or threatened; however, other
conditions exist that no longer require them to be included on a state's section 303 (d) list. These
conditions, which are referred to as subcategories of Category 4, are described below:
Category 4a: TMDL has been completed.
Category 4b: TMDL is not needed because other required controls are expected to result in
the attainment of an applicable WQS in a reasonable period of time.
Category 4c: The nonattainment of any applicable WQS for the waterbody is not caused
by a pollutant. Examples of circumstances where an impaired segment may
be placed in Category 4c include waterbodies impaired solely due to lack of
adequate flow or to stream channelization.
In addition to subcategories presented above, some states may choose to establish new or addi-
tional subcategories in addition to the proposed five major categories. For example, a state may
decide to divide Category 3 into two subcategories to distinguish between those segments for
which no data or information exist from those segments for which some data or information exist,
but the data are insufficient to make a determination whether the segment is attaining applicable
standards. A state may also choose to use subcategories for segments placed into Category 3 when
establishing monitoring priorities. For example, the state may place its segments into different
subcategories depending on whether the segment is high, medium or low priority for follow-up
monitoring based on information from probability-based monitoring, landscape or water quality
models, land use data or limited site-specific monitoring.
States are required to submit their section 303 (d) lists and section 305 (b) reports to EPA by April 1
of every even-numbered year. Under section 303(d), EPA approves or disapproves the state's sec-
tion 303(d) lists (Category 5 of an Integrated Report) or establishes the list if the state's submis-
sion is inadequate. EPA is not required to approve or disapprove states' reporting requirements
under section 305(b). However, as discussed above, states are required to submit their section
305 (b) reports to be eligible for section 106 grant funds.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The CWA generally prohibits point source discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States without an NPDES permit. A point source is
any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, discrete fissure or container. It also includes ves-
sels or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. By
law, the term point source also includes concentrated animal feeding operations, which are places
where animals are confined and fed. Significantly, Congress exempted agricultural stormwater
discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture from the definition of point sources, even
when it is collected and discharged from a pipe, ditch or other discrete conveyance. Discharge of
storm water from municipal separate storm sewer systems require an NPDES permit.
24
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
The CWA's NPDES Program recognizes three categories of pollutants:
> Conventional pollutants include biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), coliform, pH, and oil and grease.
> Toxic pollutants are designated by EPA as those pollutants or combination of pollutants,
including disease-causing agents, "which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,
inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or
indirectly by ingestion through food chains" will "cause death, disease, behavioral abnor-
malities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in
reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring." Thus far, EPA
has designated 65 categories of toxic pollutants under the CWA.
> Nontoxic nonconventional include any pollutants not included in the first two categories
but that still might pose a threat (e.g., ammonia and heat).
NPDES permits include discharge limits and monitoring requirements. Discharge limits are based
on technology and on WQS, and may be based on the mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged,
the concentration of the pollutants in the effluent, indicator concentrations, effluent toxicity efflu-
ent flow rate or visual observations (e.g., sheen, foam, or floating solids). To find out if a discharge
is covered by an NPDES permit, call the EPA Regional office or the state office responsible for issu-
ing NPDES permits.
A state must calculate a water quality-based limitation for a NPDES discharger where there is
a reasonable potential that a discharger will cause or contribute to an exceedance of WQS. The
determination of reasonable potential must account for existing controls, variability of the pol-
lutant in the effluent and, if appropriate, dilution of the effluent in the receiving water. Water
quality-based effluent limits are often based on a TMDL with the wasteload allocation component
of the TMDL applicable to point source discharges. The calculation of water quality-based limits
includes a loading analysis to determine the level of control needed to achieve WQS at the point
of compliance in the waterbody. In the watershed approach, the permit writer should consider the
cumulative effects from multiple discharges in a basin. Section 301(b)(l)(C) requires that limits
be included in NPDES permits that are as stringent as necessary to meet WQS.
Stormwater management is also included in the NPDES Program. The NPDES Stormwater Pro-
gram addresses nonagricultural sources of Stormwater discharges that adversely affect the quality
of the nation's waters. The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the imple-
mentation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed by Stormwater
runoff into local waterbodies. The NPDES Stormwater permit regulations promulgated by EPA
cover the following classes of Stormwater discharges:
Operators of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4s) in urbanized areas as delineated
by the Bureau of the Census.
Industrial facilities in any of the 11 categories
that discharge to an MS4 or to waters of the
United States; all categories of industrial activity
(except construction) may certify to a condition
of no exposure if their industrial materials and
operations are not exposed to Stormwater, thus
eliminating the need to obtain Stormwater per-
mit coverage.
Operators of construction activity that disturbs
one or more acres of land; construction sites less
than one acre are covered if part of a larger plan
of development.
Opportunity for Integration
> CERCLA decision documents may include
BMPs for Stormwater management when
they are related to the Superfund response
and support the protectiveness of the
remedy. The EPA site http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm
provides a menu of construction and post-
construction BMPs based on the Stormwater
Phase II Rules as a resource for additional
information.
» In EPA Region 10, all CERCLA RODs
for mining sites include Stormwater
management plans.
25
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
26
The regulated entities must obtain an NPDES stormwater permit and implement stormwater pol-
lution prevention plans (SWPPPs) or stormwater management programs (both using BMPs) that
effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters.
The NPDES program occupies a unique position within the overall water program, because it is
both a key customer and an essential partner in supporting other Office of Water program activi-
ties and achieving many of the broader water quality goals. For example, NPDES permits imple-
ment portions of TMDLs and other watershed plans; water quality standards decisions affect the
content of NPDES permits and decisions that point sources must make about treatment or process
changes; point source discharges may impact the hydrology of a stream and the structure of an
aquatic community; sources of pollutants are either subject to NPDES program requirements (e.g.,
municipal and industrial stormwater) or represent potential nonpoint source trading partners for
point sources in a water quality trading program; and NPDES permit conditions may be written
specifically to protect sources of drinking water.
Since 1994, EPA issued policy and technical guidance on how to implement NPDES permitting
activities on a watershed basis. In December 2003, the Office of Water issued the Watershed-based
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance that
describes the concept of and the process for developing and issuing NPDES permits on a watershed
basis. In the summer of 2007, EPA will have released its Watershed-based NPDES Permitting Techni-
cal Guidance.
Integrating NPDES permits into a watershed approach means developing and using a water-
shed-based analysis as part of the permitting process. The result of a watershed-based analysis is
identifying a range of NPDES implementation options and, potentially, related program options to
achieve watershed goals. These options extend beyond the traditional approach of developing and
issuing a single NPDES permit to an individual point source discharger or using general permits
for multiple dischargers. Stakeholders may then set priorities for implementation of some or all of
these options. This set of priority options constitutes an NPDES watershed framework. Visit
www.epa.gov/npdes/watersheds for detailed information on this topic.
Information about NPDES permits for major sources that discharge greater than one million
gallons of water per day is available on EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database and
from EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERS) database
(www.epa.gov/waters). Data about smaller NPDES permitted dischargers may be listed in
PCS but are also available from state discharge permitting agencies and EPA Regions.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Load is the total mass of pollutant that
flows through the waterbody over a given When pollutants adversely affect the use of a waterbody
period of time. even after implementation of effluent limits for point
source dischargers under the NPDES Program, the CWA
Load = Concentration x Flow
requires a study to be conducted and a plan developed
whereby the impaired segment of that waterbody will
be restored. Both this study and the actual numeric load that the stream can bear and still meet
WQS are commonly called the TMDL. The TMDL establishes the amount of a pollutant allowed in
the relevant waterbody. Section 303(d) requires that states develop a list of waterbodies that need
additional work beyond existing controls to achieve or maintain WQS. The additional work necess-
ary includes the establishment of TMDLs to determine the reductions in load needed to meet
WQS. The TMDL should do the following:
> Identify the sources and causes of the pollutant responsible for impairment.
> Identify the water quality goal. How much does the pollutant need to be reduced to meet
water quality objectives?
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
> Quantify the total amount of pollutant that can be allowed into the water and what reduc-
tions are needed to achieve that amount. Surrogate endpoints may be established that are
directly linked to the impairment to ensure the achievement of the water quality goals.
The following two elements are not required but may be included with a TMDL submission.
> Identify and implement the practices needed to reduce excess pollutants.
> Monitor the waterbodies to ensure the goals are being met, and modify the plan if needed.
TMDL documents are measured against the following review criteria:
1. Water Quality Impairment Status
TMDL documents should include a description of the listed water quality impairments (pol-
lutants). While the 303(d) list identifies probable causes and sources of water quality im-
pairments, the information contained in the 303 (d) list is generally not sufficiently detailed
to provide an adequate understanding of the impairments. TMDL documents should include
a thorough description or summary of all available water quality data such that the water
quality impairments are clearly defined and linked to the impaired beneficial uses (e.g.,
aquatic life, drinking water) and/or appropriate WQS.
2. Water Quality Standards
The TMDL document should include a description of all applicable WQS for all affected ju-
risdictions. TMDLs should result in attaining and maintaining WQS. WQS are the basis from
which TMDLs are established and the TMDL targets are derived, including the numeric,
narrative, use classification and antidegradation components of the standards.
3. Water Quality Targets
Quantified targets or endpoints (e.g., numeric standards, macroinvertebrate diversity)
should be provided to address each listed pollutant/waterbody combination. Target values
should represent achievement of applicable WQS and support of associated beneficial uses.
For pollutants with numeric WQS, the numeric standards are generally used as the TMDL
target. For pollutants with narrative standards, the narrative standard is translated into a
measurable value. At a minimum, one target is identified for each pollutant/waterbody
combination. It is generally desirable, however, to include several targets that represent
achievement of the standard and support of beneficial uses (e.g., for a sediment impairment
issue, it might be appropriate to include targets representing water column sediment such as
TSS, embeddedness, stream morphology, up-slope conditions and a measure of biota).
4. Significant Sources
TMDLs should consider all significant sources of the stressor of concern. All sources or
causes of the stressor should be identified or accounted for in some manner. The detail pro-
vided in the source assessment step drives the rigor of the allocation step. In other words, it
is only possible to specifically allocate quantifiable loads or load reductions to each sig-
nificant source when the relative load contribution from each source has been estimated.
Ideally, therefore, the pollutant load from each significant source should be quantified. This
can be accomplished using site-specific monitoring data, modeling or applying other assess-
ment techniques.
5. Total Maximum Daily Load
TMDLs include a quantified pollutant reduction target. According to EPA regulation
(40 CFR 130.2(i)), TMDLs can be expressed as mass per unit of time, toxicity percent load
reduction or other measure. TMDLs should address, either singly or in combination, each
listed pollutant/waterbody combination.
27
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
6. Allocation
TMDLs apportion responsibility for taking actions or allocating the available assimilative ca-
pacity among the various point, nonpoint and natural pollutant sources. Allocations may be
expressed in a variety of ways, such as by individual discharger, by tributary watershed, by
source or land use category, by land parcel or other appropriate scale or division of respon-
sibility. A performance-based allocation approach, where a detailed strategy is articulated
for the application of BMPs, may also be appropriate for NFS.
7. Margin of Safety/Seasonality
A margin of safety (MOS) is a component of the TMDL that accounts for the uncer-
tainty about the relationship between the pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving
waterbody (303(d)(l)(c)). The MOS can be implicitly expressed by incorporating an MOS
into conservative assumptions used to develop the TMDL. In other cases, the MOS can be
built in as a separate component of the TMDL (in this case, quantitatively, a TMDL = Waste-
load Allocation + Load Allocation + Margin of Safety).
Seasonal considerations, such as critical flow periods (high flow, low flow), should also be
considered when establishing TMDLs, targets and allocations.
8. Monitoring Strategy
Depending on the amount of data and information available to develop the TMDL, a certain
level of uncertainty is associated with one or more elements of the plan (e.g., estimates
of source loadings and assimilative capacity). Although not a required element of a TMDL
submittal, a monitoring plan is recommended to address any uncertainties that may exist
when the document is prepared and evaluate the extent to which implementation measures
are succeeding in attaining water quality standards. A monitoring plan may include the
following:
> Articulate the monitoring hypothesis and explain how the monitoring plan will test it;
> Address the relationships between the monitoring plan and the various components of
the TMDL (targets, sources, allocations, etc.); and
> Explain any assumptions used.
9. Public Participation
The fundamental requirement for public participation is that all stakeholders have an
opportunity to be part of the process, and EPA will take into account comments and
information submitted by interested parties at the time of making TMDL decisions. Public
participation should fit the needs of the TMDL.
10. Restoration Strategy
At a minimum, sufficient information should be provided in the TMDL document to dem-
onstrate that if the TMDL were implemented, WQS would be attained or maintained.
Adding detail regarding the proposed approach for the restoration of water quality is not a
regulatory requirement but is considered a value added component of a TMDL document.
11. Technical Analysis
TMDLs should be supported by an appropriate level of technical analysis. It applies to all
of the components of a TMDL document. It is vitally important that the technical basis for
all conclusions be articulated in a manner that is easily understandable and readily appar-
ent to the reader. Of special importance, the cause and effect relationship between the pol-
lutant and impairment and between the selected targets, sources, TMDLs, and allocations
must be supported by an appropriate level of technical analysis.
The state develops the TMDL in cooperation with interested parties prior to formal submission for
public comment. After incorporating comments, the state submits the TMDL to EPA for approval.
EPA either approves or disapproves the TMDL. www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
28
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
The TMDL is implemented using a variety of authorities and strategies. CWA Programs that may be
used to accomplish solutions to watershed pollution include the NPDES Program, CWA section 319
NFS Program, CWA section 401 Authority, CWA section 404 Program, and the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Using the watershed approach, CERCLA, RCRA, Brownfields, Farm Bill
Act and other authorities and funding mechanisms may be used to affect cleanup and achieve WQS.
In 2005, EPA's Watershed Academy sponsored a two-hour Webcast on the ABC's ofTMDLsfor
Stakeholders. The archived version of the seminar can be downloaded at: www.epa.gov/
watershedwebcasts.
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS)
The CWNS, a joint effort between states and EPA, is conducted in response to Sections 205(a) and
516 of the Clean Water Act. The CWNS has information on publicly owned wastewater collection
and treatment facilities, facilities for control of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), stormwater control activities, nonpoint source abatement projects, and
programs designed to protect the nation's estuaries. Information obtained from the survey is main-
tained in the CWNS database. The collected data are used to produce a Report to Congress, which
provides an estimate of clean water needs for the United States.
CWNS contains the following types of data:
> Facility Description: Name, location, permit, effluent, and discharge data.
> Needs Categories: Costs for various types of wastewater, stormwater, and nonpoint source
[NFS) projects.
> Natures/Types: Describes the basic functions of a CWNS facility or NFS projects.
> Unit Process/BMP: Describes the unit processes or best management practices (BMPs) pres-
ent or proposed for a facility or project.
> Population Data: Describes the number of people present or planned to be present in a
facility's service area.
> Flow Data: Describes the quantity of wastewater moving through a facility.
Each facility or project in CWNS is substantiated by one or more official documents. Documents
include:
> Engineering reports
> Capital improvement plans
> CWSRF program documents
> CSO long-term control plans
> Stormwater management plans
> Source water assessment/protection plans
> TMDL program documents
> 319 NFS program documents
> State approved area-wide or regional basin plans
www.epa.gov/cwns
Nonpoint Sources
Congress enacted section 319 of the CWA in 1987, establishing a national program to reduce NFS
water pollution. NFS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the
ground and carrying natural and anthropogenic pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands,
29
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
estuaries, other coastal waters and ground water. Atmospheric deposition and hydrologic modifica-
tion are also NFS of pollution.
Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to states and territories (hereinafter
referred to as states) for the purpose of assisting them in implementing approved NFS manage-
ment programs developed pursuant to section 319(b). The primary goal of the NFS Program is to
control NFS pollution by implementing of management measures and practices to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of NFS identified in the state's NFS assess-
ment report developed pursuant to section 319(a). Section 319 grants are also awarded to eligible
Indian Tribes that have approved NFS assessments, approved NFS management programs and also
have treatment-as-a-state status.
Section 319 grants are awarded to state NFS agencies in two categories: base funds and incremen-
tal funds. States may use the base funds for the full range of activities addressed in their approved
NFS management programs. For example, the funds may be used for protection of unimpaired
waters, restoration of impaired waters, education and training and staffing or support to manage
and implement their NFS management Programs. In general, states have great flexibility as to how
to use these base funds. States must use $100 million of section 319 funds, referred to as incremen-
tal funds, to develop and implement watershed-based plans that address NFS impairments in water-
sheds that contain section 303 (d)-listed waters. Up to 20 percent of the base and incremental funds
may be used to develop NFS TMDLs and watershed-based plans to implement NFS TMDLs.
EPA emphasizes watershed-based planning as a means for resolving and preventing NFS pollu-
tion problems and threats. Watershed-based plans provide a coordinating framework for solving
water quality problems by providing a specific geographic focus, integrating strong partnerships,
integrating strong science and data and coordinating priority setting and integrated solutions. The
following information must be included in watershed-based plans to restore waters impaired by
NFS pollution using incremental section 319 funds:
> An identification of the causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar
sources that need to be controlled to achieve load reductions and any other goals identified
in the watershed-based plan
> An estimate of the load reductions expected from the implementation of management mea-
sures
> A description of the NFS management measures needed to achieve load reduction and iden-
tification of the critical areas in which the measures will be needed to implement the plan
> An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs,
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan
> An information and education component that the state will use to enhance public un-
derstanding of the project and encourage public involvement in selecting, designing, and
implementing the NFS management measures
> A schedule for implementing the NFS management measures identified in the plan that is
reasonably expeditious
> A description of interim, measurable milestones that can be used to determine whether NFS
management measures or other control actions are being implemented
> A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward the WQS and for de-
termining whether the plan needs to be revised or, if an NFS TMDL has been established,
whether the NFS TMDL needs to be revised
> A monitoring component to evaluate how effective the implementation efforts are as mea-
sured against the set of criteria developed as described previously
30
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
> EPA has published a draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect
Our Waters (October 2005, EPA 841-B-05-005) intended to help communities; watershed
organizations; and state, local, tribal and federal environmental agencies develop and
implement watershed plans to meet WQS and protect water resources. The Handbook is
available online at: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook.
Wetlands
Wetlands are protected under CWA sections 401 and 402 as waters of the United States as well
as under CWA section 404. CWA section 404 states that dredged or fill material cannot be depos-
ited into waters of the United States if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the
aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. A permit is required
for all construction within the nation's wetlands and other aquatic resources. EPA sets environ-
mental criteria that must be satisfied to obtain a permit and retains other section 404 authority;
the USAGE reviews applications and issues permits. To apply for a permit, one must show that he
or she has: taken steps to avoid wetland impacts where practicable, minimized potential impacts
to wetlands and provided compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activi-
ties to restore or create wetlands. Projects with potentially significant impacts to aquatic resources,
including wetlands, typically require an individual permit; however, USAGE is authorized to issue
categorical general permits, permitting certain types of activities for which it determines that the
activities in such a category are similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental
effects when performed separately and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the
environment. General permits may be issued on a nationwide, regional or state basis for catego-
ries of activities (for example, minor road crossings, utility line backfill and bedding) as a means
to expedite the permitting process. During the permitting process, the USAGE considers the views
of other federal, state and local agencies; interest groups; and the general public. Any adverse
impacts to the aquatic environment from a permitted activity must be offset by mitigation require-
ments, which may include restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving aquatic functions and
values, www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/sec404.html
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Section 311 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), titled Oil and Hazardous
Substance Liability, provides federal authority to respond to spills of oil or hazardous substances
"into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the
waters of the contiguous zone..." Oil is defined broadly under this section and includes "oil of any
kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil
mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." Section 311(b) of the FWPCA further charges EPA
with the task of developing regulations designating hazardous substances other than oil that in
any quantity could result in imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare if
discharged and to develop methods for addressing such discharges.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) established new requirements and extensively amended sec-
tion 311 to provide, in part, enhanced capabilities for oil spill response and natural resource dam-
age assessment by a federal trustee, www.epa.gov/oilspill/opaover.htm
An owner or operator may be held liable for all actual costs of response incurred under 33 U.S.C.
section 1321 (c), subject to certain limitations. Costs of removal may include any expenses incurred
by the federal or state government in the restoration or replacement of natural resources damaged
by an oil spill discharge. The 311 Program is a response program that operates similar to CERCLA;
indeed, the CERCLA NCP was first created under section 311.
Responsibilities under section 311 are shared primarily by EPA and the United States Coast Guard
(USCG). Generally EPA is the lead federal response agency for oil spills occurring in inland waters,
and the USCG is the lead response agency for spills in coastal waters and deepwater ports.
31
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Clean Water Act Enforcement
EPA or the state may issue an order to any person or company who violates the CWA. The order
may impose a civil penalty plus recovery of any economic benefit of noncompliance and may re-
quire correction of the violation. Any person discharging a pollutant into the waters of the United
States is subject to the enforcement provisions of the CWA. A person is defined as an individual,
corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission or political subdivision of a
state, or any interstate body. Under section 309 of the CWA, penalties for discharging a pollutant
without having a permit into the waters of the United States may be up to $27,500 per violation per
day. Under section 311, a Class 1 penalty may be assessed in an amount of up to $10,000 per viola-
tion, not to exceed $25,000; a Class II penalty may be assessed in an amount of up to $10,000 per
day per violation, but not to exceed $125,000.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA protects public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. The
SDWA authorizes EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water supplied to the
public to protect against naturally occurring and anthropogenic contaminants that may be found
in drinking water. SDWA focuses on treatment of drinking water, on operator training to support
that treatment, source water assessment and protection, funding for water system improvements
and public information to provide safe drinking water at the tap. EPA and states administer SDWA
programs, www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/index.html
Drinking Water Standards
EPA sets drinking water standards to control the level of contaminants in the nation's publicly sup-
plied drinking water. The SDWA requires EPA to set these standards, which public water systems
must meet. EPA has developed national primary drinking water regulations for 90 chemical, micro-
biological, radiological and physical contaminants in drinking water. EPA also conducts research
and collects information to determine when currently unregulated contaminants might pose a
significant widespread public health risk and should therefore be regulated in the future.
Under the SDWA, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is the level of a contaminant
in drinking water below which there is no known or expected health risk, allowing for a margin
of safety. These goals are set without consideration for whether the technology is available to
meet them, and, therefore, are sometimes set at levels lower than public water systems can meet.
MCLGs are not enforceable.
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is the maximum amount of a contaminant allowed in
water delivered to a user of any public water system or a treatment technique set at levels as close
to MCLGs as feasible, considering available technology and cost. MCLs are enforceable standards.
While under the SDWA, compliance with drinking water standards is usually at the entrance to
the distribution system, with compliance for some rules requiring monitoring in the distribution
system or at the tap. CERCLA typically requires that ground water cleanups achieve MCLs and
non-zero MCLGs. (See the discussion of CERCLA below.)
EPA also sets secondary drinking water regulations, which are nonenforceable guidelines for
contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin and tooth discoloration) or aesthetic
effects (such as taste or odor). EPA does not require water systesm to adopt these secondary stan-
dards, but states may choose to adopt and enforce them.
Source Water Protection
The Source Water Protection Program focuses on preventing contamination of both ground water
and surface water sources of public drinking water. The Source Water Protection Program has two
32
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
primary parts: Source Water Assessment and local Source Water Protection planning and imple-
mentation. The state conducts a Source Water Assessment and identifies the area of the water-
shed or aquifer serving one or more public water systems and assesses potential point and NPSs
of contamination to determine the relative risk or level of concern they could pose to the public
water system's sources of drinking water to provide a platform for local protection planning. Each
assessment must include four major elements:
1. Delineating (or mapping) the source water assessment area
2. Providing an inventory of potential sources of contamination in the delineated area
3. Determining the susceptibility of the water supply to those contamination sources
4. Releasing the results of the determinations to the public
Planning includes designing contaminant source management plans and contingency/emergency
plans. Although some states are providing a regulatory structure for protection, under the SDWA,
Source Water Protection is voluntary and uses the results of the Source Water Assessment with
additional, local information as needed, to prevent and remediate contamination of the public
water system's source waters. Wellhead Protection Programs protect underground-based sources of
drinking water by protecting the area surrounding drinking water wells—the wellhead protection
area. Source Water and Wellhead Protection Programs are statutory programs and have no associ-
ated regulations. The Sole Source Aquifer Program may also be used to help protect an aquifer
serving as a drinking water source.
Emergency Powers
Section 1431 of the SDWA authorizes EPA to take actions necessary to protect the health of
persons where, because of the threatened or actual presence of contaminants in a drinking water
system or an underground source of drinking water or because of an intentional act designed to
disrupt the provision of safe drinking water, an imminent and substantial endangerment may exist.
This authority can be used whether or not a violation of any statute resulted in the imminent and
substantial endangerment. The Emergency Powers provision of the SDWA does not authorize pen-
alties as part of Administrative Orders issued under this authority, but it does allow penalties for
failure to comply with such order. EPA uses section 1431 to address public drinking water systems
where finished water presents a threat to the public health. However, EPA can also use this provi-
sion of the SDWA to address ground water contamination when an aquifer serving as source water
becomes polluted or when drinking water that is supplied by private domestic wells becomes con-
taminated and poses a threat to human health.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
Injection wells have the potential to cause contamination of underground drinking water sources.
The UIC Program seeks to prevent such contamination by setting minimum requirements for state
programs regulating underground injection. The goals of EPA's UIC Program are to prevent con-
tamination by keeping injected fluids within the well and the intended injection zone, or, when
injecting fluids directly or indirectly into or above underground sources of drinking water, to
require that injected fluids not endanger underground sources of drinking water. These minimum
requirements affect the siting of an injection well and the construction, operation, maintenance,
monitoring, testing and, finally, the closure of the well. All injection wells require authorization
under general rules or specific permits.
33
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
34
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA governs the management of solid waste and its subset, hazardous waste, as well as USTs.2
To achieve these goals, RCRA established three distinct yet interrelated programs whose differ-
ent characteristics the WCT must consider when looking at both sources of contamination and
resources for cleanup. RCRA Subtitle D, the solid waste program, encourages states to develop
comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous industrial solid waste and municipal solid waste,
sets criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) and other solid waste disposal facilities
and prohibits the open dumping of solid waste. RCRA Subtitle C, the hazardous waste program,
establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate
disposal—in effect, from cradle to grave. RCRA Subtitle I, the UST Program, regulates USTs storing
hazardous substances and petroleum products. RCRA also encourages resource recovery and waste
minimization. EPA and authorized states administer RCRA. Funding for assessment, cleanup, and
monitoring activities is the responsibility of the facility owner.
Following is a brief summary of those provisions of RCRA likely to be most relevant to a watershed
cleanup; more detailed information is available in the RCRA Orientation Manual 2006,
EPA 530-R-06-003 (March 2006). www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/rom.pdf
RCRA Solid Waste Program (Subtitle D)
Under EPA's RCRA, a solid waste is defined as any solid, semisolid, liquid,
or contained gaseous material discarded from industrial, commercial, min-
ing, or agricultural operations, and from community activities. Solid waste
can include garbage, construction debris, commercial refuse, sludge from
water supply or waste treatment plants, or air pollution control facilities,
and other discarded materials. EPA's regulatory definition of solid waste,
found in 40 CFR section 261.2, is narrower than the statutory defini-
tion, and defines discarded material as (1) materials that are abandoned,
(2) materials that are recycled, (3) materials that are inherently wastelike,
and (4) waste military munitions.3 Each of these terms is further defined in RCRA's
regulations. Exclusions from the definition of solid waste are listed at 40 CFR section 261.4(a).
Key exclusions include solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; industrial discharges
that are point sources subject to a NPDES permit under the CWA; and source, special nuclear or
byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
Unlike the extensive regulatory system that governs hazardous waste management (discussed be-
low), solid waste is primarily regulated by states and municipalities and managed on the local lev-
el. EPA's role in implementing solid waste management programs includes setting national goals,
providing technical assistance, and developing educational materials.4 (One of RCRA's enforcement
tools—7003 orders—applies to solid, not only hazardous, wastes, and is discussed below as part of
the discussion of RCRA enforcement authorities.)
RCRA Hazardous Waste Program (Subtitle C)
A RCRA hazardous waste is a RCRA solid waste that EPA determines poses substantial or potential
threats to public health or the environment. For a hazardous waste to be regulated as a hazardous
waste, it must first fall under the regulatory definition of solid waste and then within the definition
2 Typically, the term RCRA is used to refer to both the statute itself (including amendments) and the regulations
implementing it.
3 For example, EPA has long struggled with defining which types of recycled materials should not be deemed discarded
and thus excluded from the definition of solid wastes. However, this issue typically comes up only in the context of solid
wastes that are also hazardous waste.
4 Two important exceptions are 40 CFR Part 257 federal solid waste disposal facility criteria for nonhazardous, non-
municipal landfills, and Part 258 municipal solid waste disposal facility criteria. However, the states generally carry out
enforcement of these programs
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
of hazardous waste, both of which are described in 40 CFR section 261, Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste. There are two types of RCRA hazardous wastes: those that have been specifically
listed as a hazardous waste by EPA (e.g., F001 wastes, comprised of certain halogenated solvents
that have been used in degreasing activities) and those that exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics of hazardous wastes (corrosiveness, ignitability reactivity, or toxicity).
> Corrosive Waste. A corrosive material can wear away (corrode) or destroy a
substance. For example, most acids are corrosives that can eat through metal,
burn skin on contact and give off vapors that burn the eyes.
> Ignitable Waste. An ignitable material can burst into flames easily. It poses a
fire hazard; can irritate the skin, eyes and lungs; and could give off harmful
vapors. Gasoline, paint and furniture polish are ignitable.
> Reactive Waste. A reactive material can explode or create poisonous
gas when combined with other chemicals. For example, chlorine
bleach and ammonia are reactive and create a poisonous gas when
they come into contact with each other.
> Toxic Waste. Toxic materials or substances can poison people and other life.
Toxic substances can cause illness and even death if swallowed or absorbed
through the skin. Pesticides, weed killers and many household cleaners are toxic
Additionally, RCRA hazardous wastes generally include materials generated by the treatment of
hazardous waste (the derived from rule), or that are contained in a hazardous waste (the mixture
rule).
RCRA Subtitle C establishes an extensive management system that regulates hazardous waste from
the moment it is generated until its ultimate disposal, in effect from "cradle to grave." EPA's Subti-
tle C Program establishes various administrative requirements applicable to the three categories of
hazardous waste handlers: generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage
and disposal facilities (TSDFs). The regulations applicable to RCRA TSDFs are the most extensive;
therefore, facilities that only generate hazardous wastes typically take steps to ship such wastes to
TSDFs before they trigger the TSDF regulations. Additional information regarding the Subtitle C
Program is at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/rom3.pdf.
Of special interest to the WCT, TSDFs are required to assess all their solid
waste management units, regardless of when the wastes were disposed of,
and to perform corrective action for all releases of hazardous waste and
hazardous constituents. Facilities must implement corrective action when
necessary to protect human health and the environment, plus perform off-site
corrective action when necessary. EPA estimates that at least 3,700 facilities are
undergoing corrective action.
RCRA corrective action follows several steps, which are largely analogous to the
CERCLA cleanup process.
1. RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). An RFA is performed to determine
evidence of a release and includes desktop review of available
information, visual inspection and, occasionally, confirmatory sampling.
After the RFA is completed, a schedule of compliance is developed for
additional steps, if necessary.
Solid
Wastes Hazardous Hazardous
Waste Substances
RCRA RCRA
§1004(27) §3001
§101(14)
Relationship
between CERCLA
hazardous
substances and
RCRA hazardous
wastes.
35
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
2. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). An RFI is a detailed characterization of the nature,
extent, direction, rate, movement and concentration of released contaminants. This may be
performed in stages to minimize analytical costs. A corrective measures study is required if
the RFI shows that action levels, determined on a site-specific basis, are exceeded. Action
levels may be derived from state WQS, SDWA MCLs or other appropriate standards.
3. Corrective Measures Study (CMS). A CMS is used to determine the appropriate corrective
measure. EPA selects the remedy, and the facility owner/operator implements the remedy
with EPA and/or state oversight. EPA or the state may administer the remedy under various
administrative mechanisms including permits, enforcement orders, or other agreements.
4. Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI). The remedy is designed, constructed, and
operated and maintained.
Interim measures are short-term measures that can be required at any time to respond to immedi-
ate threats. Similar to the EPA CERCLA Removal Program, interim measures do not require an RFI
or CMS.
Additional information regarding the corrective action program is at www.epa.gov/OUST.
RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program (Subtitle I)
The UST Program regulates USTs containing CERCLA hazardous substances and petroleum prod-
ucts. The RCRA UST Program does not cover certain categories of tanks.
RCRA's UST Program includes technical performance standards for all USTs and regulations to
require petroleum UST owners and operators to have the financial means to pay for cleanups and
to compensate third parties. The program also includes a detailed corrective action procedure.
EPA is authorized to undertake corrective action in response to a petroleum release from a UST
only if such action is necessary to protect human health and the environment and one or more of
the following situations exist:
1. No owner or operator can be found within 90 days to carry out the corrective action.
2. A situation exists that requires prompt action.
3. Corrective action costs at a facility exceed the requisite financial responsibility amounts.
4. The owner or operator had failed or refused to comply with a corrective action order.
When a UST owner or operator fails to start or complete an appropriate cleanup following a UST
release, EPA may issue a corrective action order. RCRA section 9003 (h) authorizes EPA to issue ad-
ministrative orders to compel owner/operators of leaking UST to take specific corrective actions to
> Carry out investigative studies
> Take action to fix the tank and clean up what was leaked
» Close the UST
Additional information on RCRA's UST program is at www.epa.gov/OUST.
RCRA Enforcement Authorities
RCRA has several cleanup enforcement authorities available to compel cleanup, both at RCRA-reg-
ulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as well as any place where RCRA solid waste has
been handled that has created an imminent and substantial endangerment. Cleanup enforcement
under RCRA generally means that EPA or the authorized state closely monitors the hazardous
waste handler (e.g., generator, transporter and TSDF) activities, provides compliance incentives
36
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
and assistance and takes legal action when a facility does not comply with the regulation. Facility
inspections by federal and state officials are the primary tool for monitoring compliance.
The federal RCRA cleanup enforcement authorities listed below can be valuable tools for accom-
plishing cleanup of a contaminated watershed:
> RCRA section 3013. EPA has the authority to issue an order requiring the owner or opera-
tor of a RCRA hazardous waste TSDF to conduct monitoring, testing, analysis and reporting
to ascertain the nature and extent of a hazard.
> RCRA section 3007. Allows EPA to request information regarding hazardous waste prac-
tices and events at a facility and to gain access to a facility to collect waste samples.
> RCRA section 3008(a). EPA uses its general RCRA enforcement authority to compel compli-
ance with any violation of Subtitle C, as well as to assess penalties.
> RCRA section 3008(h). Allows EPA to issue an order requiring corrective action at an in-
terim status facility when there is evidence of a release of a hazardous waste or a hazardous
constituent into the environment.
> RCRA section 7003. EPA uses this authority to address situations that may present an immi-
nent and substantial endangerment. It is important to note that section 7003 applies to the
management of any solid waste that may present an imminent and substantial endanger-
ment, not merely RCRA hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
CERCLA, frequently referred to as Superfund, provides federal authority to respond to releases or
threatened releases to the environment of hazardous substances or of any pollutant or contami-
nants that might present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare.
While both CERCLA and RCRA address land contamination and have overlapping provisions, their
underlying focus is different. CERCLA is a response program designed to remedy poorly made past
waste management decisions wherever contamination has come to be located, whereas the RCRA
waste management standards comprise a largely regulatory, prescriptive set of rules that are gen-
erally applicable to operating facilities and are designed to prevent such mistakes in the present
and future.
The NCP provides the framework for response to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants under CERCLA as well as oil and hazardous substances
under the CWA section 311 and 40 CFR Part 300.
Several important terms are common to all aspects of CERCLA.
Hazardous substances: A hazardous substance under CERCLA is any substance that has
been designated under specific sections of several other federal environmental statutes,
including the Clean Air Act (CAA) (section 112 toxics), the CWA (section 1317(a) toxic
pollutants), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (section 2606 imminently hazardous
chemical), and any RCRA hazardous waste. In addition, EPA may designate additional sub-
stances as hazardous substances under CERCLA. Hazardous substances under CERCLA do
not include "petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, which is not otherwise
specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance." EPA maintains a list of hazard-
ous substances at 40 CFR Part 302.
Pollutant or contaminant: The phrase pollutant or contaminant is broadly defined under
CERCLA to include essentially any substance that may cause "death, disease, behavioral ab-
normalities, cancer," or other physical injuries. Petroleum products are also excluded from
the definition of pollutants or contaminants. Although broader than hazardous substances,
37
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
CO
00
Removal Process
PRP Search/Involvement
Community Involvement
Yes
{Less than 6
Months Planning)
Yes
(more than 6
Months Planning)
Figure 2-2. CERCLA Removal Process
-------
pollutants or contaminants are generally not subject to EPA's enforcement authorities under
sections 106 and 107.
Release: The term release is also defined broadly under CERCLA to include "any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping or disposing into the environment."
Facility: The term facility under CERCLA essentially means any place where a hazardous
substance, pollutant or contaminant has come to be located.
Environment: The term environment under CERCLA includes surface water, ground water,
land surface or subsurface strata or ambient air, as well as the navigable waters and ocean
waters within the United States or under jurisdiction of the United States.
The release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants can be de-
termined in several ways: notification of EPA by a state or local government, or a private party, as
well EPA's own efforts. The six basic steps in the CERCLA response process include: discovery or no-
tification, assessment, response alternative consideration, cleanup decision, cleanup and closeout.
CERCLA cleanups may be performed by EPA, other federal agencies, states, innocent parties or
parties responsible for the contamination. However, only EPA is authorized to spend CERCLA
funds. Additionally, CERCLA bars the expenditure of CERCLA remedial action funds on federal
facilities. EPA first tries to get responsible parties to undertake response work themselves, either
through consensual agreements or by taking other enforcement actions. If necessary, EPA will per-
form response actions and seek cost recovery from those responsible for the release.
EPA's CERCLA activities include the Removal Program, which generally responds to immediate,
short-term threats; the Site Assessment Program, which considers whether a site should be placed
on the NPL comprising the nation's most serious sites; and the Remedial Program, which addresses
NPL sites and governs the necessary assessment, planning and response actions. The following
discussion also addresses CERCLA enforcement issues, federal facilities and EPA's involvement with
natural resources damage assessments and restoration.
CERCLA Removal Program
The Removal Program (Figure 2-2) typically responds to situations where a release or threatened
release of a hazardous substance poses an immediate, unacceptable threat to the public health
or environment. Removal actions are often short-term federal responses to prevent, minimize or
mitigate the effects of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that have been released
into the environment or where there is a substantial threat of a release. Removal actions may be
conducted at non-NPL sites or in conjunction with the Remedial Program at an NPL site. Removal
actions may include, for example, stabilization of an impoundment, removal of sediment hotspots,
installation of a security fence or removal of drums and transportation to a RCRA TSDE
A CERCLA removal may be conducted during any step of the response process at an NPL site, as
well as at non-NPL sites. In most cases, an on-scene coordinator (OSC) designated by the lead
agency (generally EPA at privately owned sites; the relevant federal agency at federally owned
facilities) directs a removal action, and the work is done by emergency response contractors.
When a removal takes place at an NPL site, it may be directed by a remedial project manager and
performed by remedial contractors.
EPA differentiates among three types of removal actions depending on the urgency of the situa-
tion. The type of removal action at issue can also affect who conducts or otherwise supervises the
response. All removal actions require preparation of an action memorandum, which documents the
basis for taking the action.
39
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
> A classic emergency requires actions within minutes or hours of discovery. Actions are taken
under the authority of the NCP and with the guidance of Regional and Area Contingency
Plans to take the necessary actions to ensure an efficient, coordinated and effective re-
sponse to discharges of hazardous substances. The Superfund Emergency Response Pro-
gram maintains a response system ready for virtually any emergency wherever it occurs.
EPA may undertake (or supervise) emergency removal actions at privately owned sites and
on lands owned by federal land managers (FLM) [FLMs such as DOI or USDA]. The Depart-
ment of Defense (DoD) and DOE undertake emergency removal actions on their lands.
> A time-critical removal action (TCRA) may be done if fewer than 6 months are available
before site activities must be initiated to protect human health. A removal assessment is
performed and alternatives to correct the problem are considered. EPA may undertake
(or supervise) TCRAs at privately owned sites. The FLMs, DoD, and DOE undertake time-
critical removal actions on their lands.
> A non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA) is generally called for if more than 6 months
are available before site activities must be initiated. A removal assessment is performed
to determine the extent and nature of contamination, and an EE/CA is prepared to
document site characteristics, identify removal action objectives, identify ARARs, identify
and analyze potential removal action alternatives and provide a recommended removal
action alternative. After public comment, the removal action is selected and performed.
EPA undertakes (or supervises) NTCRAs at privately owned sites. The FLMs, DoD, and DOE
undertake NTCRAs on their lands.
CERCLA Site Assessment Program
The CERCLA Site Assessment Program conducts screening investigations to evaluate potential
threats to human health and the environment associated with a specific site. The Program helps
^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^_ identify and prioritize sites that should be on the NPL.
The following site assessment steps generally are taken
prior to NPL listing:
There are three mechanisms for placing
sites on the NPL:
2.
3.
1. EPA's MRS. 1. Site Identification or Discovery. Anyone can dis-
cover a site. However, concerned citizens are the
ones who frequently call the local or state health
department or EPA to report a release (or the threat
of a release) of a hazardous substance to the environ-
ment. Once identified, EPA enters information about
the site into the CERCLA Information System (CER-
CLIS) database that tracks all sites investigated using
funds from CERCLA.
2. Preliminary Assessment (PA). The PA typically is
a limited-scope investigation in which available
information about a site and its surrounding area
is compiled. The PA is designed to distinguish
between sites that pose little or no threat to human
health and the environment and sites that might
require further investigation. If the PA results in a
recommendation for further investigation, an SI is
performed.
3. Site Inspection (SI). The SI normally involves collecting on-site characterization samples and
off-site ground water, surface water/sediments, soil, air or fish tissue samples to determine if
substances at the site are being released to the environment and to assess if they pose a threat
Each state or territory may designate one top
priority site regardless of score.
The third mechanism allows listing a site if it
meets all three of these requirements:
> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health
Service has issued a health advisory that
recommends removing people from the site.
> EPA determines that the site poses a
significant threat to public health.
> EPA anticipates that it will be more cost
effective to use its remedial authority
(available only at NPL sites) than to use its
removal authority to respond to the site.
40
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
to nearby targets (such as water intakes). The SI can be conducted in one stage or two. The
first stage, or focused SI, typically tests hypotheses developed during the PA and can yield
information sufficient to prepare a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring package. If further
information is necessary to document an HRS score, an expanded SI generally is conducted.
To save time and money, the PA and SI phases may be completed at once. Often EPA funds
states to undertake PAs and Sis.
4. Hazard Ranking System Scoring. The HRS is a numerical screening system used to prioritize
sites for listing on the basis of data from the PA and SI and that is used to decide which sites
should be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Scoring is done using three factors related to risk
and four pathways of exposure. The three risk factors are likelihood of release, characteristics
of the waste and the people or sensitive environments affected by the release. To determine
an HRS score for a site, EPA looks at migration pathways—how contamination moves in the
environment. EPA examines four migration pathways:
• Ground water that may be used for drinking water
• Surface water (like rivers and lakes) used for drinking water and for plant and
animal habitats
• Soil that people may come in contact with or that can be absorbed lower in the
food chain
• Air that carries contaminants
A site can score high on the HRS even if only one pathway score is high. Sites with a preliminary
HRS score of 28.50 or greater are eligible for listing on the NPL. EPA may then propose sites that
rank high enough on the HRS for listing on the NPL. Each state may also nominate a site for the
NPL. Contaminated sites placed on the NPL may require long-term response under the CERCLA
Remedial Program. Note that not all sites with a preliminary HRS score of 28.50 or above will be
placed on the NPL.
HRS scores do not determine the priority for funding of
remedial investigations, because the information collected to
develop HRS scores is not sufficient to determine either the
extent of contamination or the appropriate response (if any)
for a site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not
necessarily come to EPA's attention first. EPA relies on more
detailed studies in the RI/FS, which typically follows listing.
NPL sites may be as small as a few thousand square feet
or thousands of acres. Some are complex and highly
contaminated, requiring many years to fully study the
problem, develop a remedy and complete the cleanup.
CERCLA Remedial Program
Once a site is listed on the NPL, the EPA Remedial Program (Figure 2-3) (or the responsible party
with oversight by EPA), typically conducts an RI/FS designed to define the extent of contamina-
tion, estimate the risk to human health and the environment and evaluate effective remedial alter-
natives to address the problem, consistent with the NCR Federal agencies normally conduct their
own RI/FSs at facilities under their jurisdiction, custody or control. A ROD normally is prepared
describing the selected action to clean up the site and documenting the remedy selection decision.
The remedial action is generally undertaken, according to the remedial design. Long-term opera-
tions and maintenance (O&M) are conducted as necessary. After cleanup is complete at all sites at
which hazardous substances remain at levels that do not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited
exposure, EPA reviews the remedy every 5 years to ensure the remedy remains protective.
Air deposition
41
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
ISO
Remedial Process
P Search/lnvolveme
Community Involvement
Figure 2-3. CERCLA Remedial Process
-------
The CERCLA Remedial Process
1. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Consistent with the NCR the Rl typically is conducted to
determine the risk to human health and the environment posed by the site and to gain information
required to evaluate the feasibility of remedial alternatives. The RI/FS generally includes baseline risk
assessments (human health and ecological), hydrologic studies, ground water studies, treatability studies
and any other studies required to determine site conditions, threats to human health and the environment
and determine appropriate and cost effective actions to clean up the site. The short- and long-term
aspects of three criteria (i.e., effectiveness, implementability, cost), normally will guide the development
and screening of alternatives as appropriate. Alternatives that remain after the initial screening generally
undergo a detailed analysis that consists of an assessment of individual alternatives against each of nine
evaluation criteria. The RI/FS typically considers all known or identified ARARs.
2. Proposed Plan (PP). The lead federal agency under CERCLA (normally EPA at privately owned sites or the
ELM, DoD, or DOE at sites under their jurisdiction, custody, or control) typically issues a PP, summarizing
the RI/FS and presenting a recommended alternative. The public (including potentially responsible
parties— PRPs) normally is given 30 days to comment on PPs, which may be extended upon request for an
additional 30 days (or longer, if appropriate).
3. Record of Decision. Consistent with the NCP, on the basis of the findings of the RI/FS, the Agency issues
a decision describing appropriate actions to be taken to protect human health and the environment. The
ROD generally explains the selection of the final remedy based on relevant facts, analyses and policy
considerations.
4. Remedial Design/Remedial Action. The selected remedy may be designed by a potentially responsible
party and then submitted to EPA for approval. Generally, the remedy is implemented or constructed
according to the selected remedial design. The remedial design and remedial action may be financed and
performed by the PRP and/or EPA.
5. Maintenance/Monitoring. The remedy is maintained for as long as is deemed necessary for protection
of human health and the environment. Routine monitoring often is conducted to ensure the remedy is
operating according to plan and that risks are being reduced.
6. Five-Vear Reviews. Where hazardous substances are left at a site at levels that do not allow unrestricted
use of the property, the Agency conducts an evaluation of the remedy no less often than every 5 years
to determine its effectiveness and to determine if it continues to be protective of human health and the
environment. The community is encouraged to provide input, and the results are presented to the public.
CERCLA Enforcement Authorities
A key element of CERCLA is its emphasis on enforcement. CERCLA provides EPA with enforcement
authorities to get PRPs to implement removal or remedial actions at sites, either through consen-
sual settlements or unilateral enforcement orders. CERCLA also provides EPA (as well as state
and local governments and even private parties) the authority to seek reimbursement of its costs
from PRPs. EPA's guiding philosophy in implementing the Superfund Program is to pursue enforce-
ment first throughout the process. In this way, EPA seeks to compel those who are responsible for
hazardous waste sites to undertake the cleanup and to conserve the resources of the trust fund for
those sites where no PRPs can be found.
Under CERCLA, a person (which can include a corporation, a governmental entity and a variety of
other organizations, as well as individuals) can be liable for response costs where:
I There is a release or a threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility into the
environment that causes incurrence of response costs, and
I The person is included in at least one class of PRPs
43
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Section 107(a) of CERCLA identified four categories of PRPs:
> Owners or operators of a site. As passed in 1980, CERCLA imposed potential liability on
virtually any current owner of contaminated property. In 2002 Congress passed amend-
ments to CERCLA that, among other provisions, allowed those who acquired property
after January 11, 2002, and who met and maintained certain conditions (conducted due
diligence before acquiring the property and cooperated with government cleanup agencies
after acquisition, and so on) to avoid liability. Such parties are termed bona fide prospective
purchasers (BFPPs).
> Owners or operators of a site at the time of disposal. Courts have differed as to whether
passive migration during one's ownership of a site constitutes disposal.
> Those who arranged for disposal. Generators are by far the largest category of PRPs and
can include virtually anyone who participated in the chain of disposal of hazardous sub-
stances—from the business that generated the wastes, the hauler who removed them and
the site owner or operator that moved them around at the site.
> Transporters that selected disposal sites. This category includes transporters who also
substantially participated in the selection of a disposal site.
CERCLA provides EPA with multiple authorities to achieve cleanup and payment for cleanup.
Table 2-2 lists those most commonly used.
Table 2-2. Most Commonly used CERCLA Enforcement Authorities
CERCLA
Enforcement Authority
Section 104 While much of section 104 addresses the President's authority to take removal and remedial
actions, section 104(e) authorizes EPA to gather information and get access to a site from others
and assess penalties for noncompliance.
Section 106 EPA can order, or ask a court to order, PRPs to clean up a site or take other necessary response
action when an imminent or substantial endangerment may exist at a site. This section also au-
thorizes penalties for failure to comply with such orders and sets forth procedures whereby a PRP
that complies with such an order, yet believes it is not exclusively responsible for the contamina-
tion, or that the response action ordered was arbitrary and capricious, can seek reimbursement
from the CERCLA Trust fund.
Section 107 Commonly referred to as EPA's cost recovery authority, this section describes the four categories
of PRPs from whom EPA (and other parties) can recover cleanup costs. This section (in conjunc-
tion with other provisions of CERCLA) also describes certain defenses and exemptions to liability,
including the BFPP provisions.
Section 120
Provides that federal facilities must achieve the same degree of cleanup as private facilities, and
sets forth the requirements and procedures under which EPA and/or the states supervise such
cleanups.
Section 122
Sets forth procedures whereby EPA can negotiate cleanup agreements with PRPs.
44
Federal Facility Issues
Watersheds typically contain land owned by a variety of private and public owners. EPA's role under
CERCLA varies depending on who owns the land. On privately owned lands, EPA may undertake or
supervises all response actions. EPA shares CERCLA response authority with the FLMs on land that
is under their jurisdiction, custody or control. Thus, EPA generally has CERCLA emergency removal
authority on such lands, while the FLMs have nonemergency removal and remedial CERCLA author-
ity. (Note that on federal lands not on the NPL, the state, not EPA, is typically the lead regulator.)
At NPL sites, DoD and the DOE typically carry out response actions with EPA oversight, pursuant to
CERCLA section 120. EPA also can use authorities other than CERCLA, such as RCRA and the SDWA,
to compel DoD and DOE to undertake cleanups on their lands.
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Federal facilities, particularly those belonging to DoD and DOE, often pose challenging cleanup
issues for various reasons including a broad range of hazardous substances, pollutants or contami-
nants, facility size and reuse potential. CERCLA generally limits the spending of Superfund money
on the cleanup of federal lands, so funding for cleanup typically comes from from DoD, DOE and
FLM appropriations. Increasingly, FLMs are taking enforcement actions themselves under CERCLA.
CERCLA section 120(a) does provide that federal facilities are subject to, and must comply with,
CERCLA in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively as any
nongovernmental entity. Mixed ownership sites (part federal land, part private ownership), often
found in watersheds, provide opportunities for EPA and the FLMs to develop creative working
relationships. An MOU may be used, but is not required, to define specific roles and responsibili-
ties. Because many federal facilities are also subject to RCRA regulations, a federal RCRA/CERCLA
Coordination Policy was developed to reduce duplicative efforts to meet regulatory requirements.
Pacific Mine Site, American Fork Canyon
American Fork Canyon Home Rivers "Good Samaritan"
American Canyon, Utah
Background
It is estimated that there are more than 500,000
abandoned hard rock mine sites in the West that
adversely impact approximately 40 percent of stream
headwaters. Federal land management agencies have
engaged in efforts to reclaim the most problematic mine
sites on federal lands, but there is no federal program
or funding directed at the hundreds of thousands of
abandoned mines on privately owned lands.
The American Fork, like many other western watersheds,
has been severely impacted over time by a legacy of
abandoned mines on both federal and private lands
that still threaten fish and wildlife and human health.
The watershed is on the Utah list of impaired waters (CWA 303(d) list). The tailings deposits
impinging on the North Fork of the American Fork River contain an abundance of heavy metals,
including lead at an average concentration of 17,000 parts per million (ppm), cadmium 44 ppm,
copper 335 ppm, zinc 6,000 ppm and arsenic at 165 ppm. The potential exists to protect both
the fragile population of native Bonneville cutthroat trout that persists in the American Fork and
the approximately 1.2 million people who visit this area annually, primarily from the major nearby
population centers of Provo and Salt Lake City.
Remediation/Restoration Goals
As part of a Good Samaritan cleanup effort, Trout Unlimited reclaimed four abandoned mine and
mill sites in American Fork Canyon, Utah, all on privately owned lands. The waste rock deposits
from the four sites were consolidated at one location and a repository was built there with an
impervious composite liner to prevent water seepage. The repository was capped with 3 feet of
clean, glaciated soils. An interceptor ditch was constructed along the hillside interface to collect
and transport any overland flow. All the disturbed sites have been revegetated using a native seed
mix, fertilizer and mulch. Project funding was provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Ser-
vice (NRCS). Additional funding was provided by various sources including foundations, interested
parties, land owners, industry, and so on. The estimated total cost was $300,000.
45
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
46
(continued)
Innovation
As a Good Samaritan, Trout Unlimited voluntarily completed the American Fork Canyon cleanup
on land owned or managed by Snowbird Ski Resort. The organization took the lead in developing
and implementing the mine reclamation project under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with Snowbird Corporation. Additionally, Trout Unlimited entered into an administrative order on
consent with EPA to perform the cleanup. This order was entered into under the authority in sec-
tions 106(a), 107(a), and 122(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. sections 9606(a), 9607(a), and 9622(a), as
amended. The American Fork Canyon demonstration project has the potential to serve as a model
for future mine restoration projects throughout the western United States involving the cleanup
of waste material from abandoned or inactive mines. However, Trout Unlimited's decision not to
voluntarily address the draining adit at same time it addressed the waste material is illustrative
of ongoing Good Samaritan potential liability concerns under the CWA in managing and treating
contaminated water from adits, tunnels and seeps.
Stakeholders
» Federal agencies - USFS, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), USDA NRCS, EPA
I State agencies - Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UTDEQ)
I Local government - Salt Lake County
I Environmental groups - Trout Unlimited, True North Foundation
> Industry - Tiffany & Company, Foundation, Snowbird Ski Resort
I Academia - University of Wyoming, Utah State University
More information about the cleanup of federal facilities is available at EPA's Federal Facilities Restora-
tion and Reuse office, www.epa.gov/swerffrr, and www.fedcenter.gov. The Yellow Book: Guide
to Environmental Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities, EPA 315-B-98-011 (Feb. 1999),
offers a comprehensive summary of the principal federal environmental statutes, and how they apply
at federal facilities. (Available at www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/yellowbk.pdf.)
Natural Resource Issues
By Executive Order 12580 and the NCP, the President has designated the Secretaries of Defense,
Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, and Energy as Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) for vari-
ous federal natural resources. Trust resources that are assigned to each Trustee are identified in
Table 2-3. State Trustees are assigned by the state governor for state resources and are typically
the directors of state departments having related responsibilities (i.e., health, environmental pro-
tection, natural resources, parks and recreation). States commonly have more than one Trustee.
Trustees for tribal lands are the tribal chair or his/her designee.
Under CERCLA, if Trustees determine that remedial or removal actions are insufficient to restore
the natural resources injured by releases from a Superfund site or if use of the resource is lost or
curtailed, the Trustees may seek to collect damages from CERCLA responsible parties. Damages
may be assessed against a responsible party, but Superfund money may not be used for restoration.
Executive Order 13112, February 3, 1999, does support alternative, beneficial approaches using
native species for required revegetation as part of the overall remediation at some sites. NRDA is
the responsibility of Trustees, not EPA; however, CERCLA and the NCP require that EPA notify and
coordinate with Trustees throughout the Superfund process. Because it relates to both CERCLA
and the CWA, the NRDA process is described in more detail below.
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Additional support for CERCLA assessment and cleanup is available from a variety of agencies,
including: USAGE, U.S. Coast Guard Strike Force, USFS, DOI (USFWS, BOR, BLM), Department of
Labor, and Trustees.
Table 2-3. Federal Natural Resource Trustees
Trustee
Resources
Department of Interior (DOI)
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Bureau of Mines (BOM)
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service (USNPS)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Certain anadromousfish (fish that spend a portion of their lifetime in
both fresh and salt water, e.g., salmon)
> Certain endangered species
Certain marine mammals
Federally owned minerals
Migratory birds
National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
National Parks and Monuments
Tribal resources, in cases where the United States acts on behalf of
the Indian Tribe
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service (USFS)
Federal rangeland
Federally managed fisheries
Federally owned or managed farmland
Land enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program
National forest land
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Coastal environments, including salt marshes, tidal flats, estuaries,
or other tidal wetlands
> Designated Estuarine Research Reserves or Marine Sanctuaries
Endangered marine species
Marine mammals
Rivers or tributaries to rivers which historically support or presently
support anadromous fish (For cases involving resources in coastal
waters and anadromous fish streams, DOC acts as a co-Trustee with
the DOI.)
Department of Defense (DoD)
Lands owned by DoD or the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense
Logistics Agency. These lands include military bases, training
facilities, research and development facilities, and munitions plants.
May share responsibility with other federal trustees.
Department of Energy (DOE)
DOE's land-holdings include national research and development
laboratories, facilities, and offices. May share responsibility with
other federal trustees.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Watersheds often include lands held in trust for use by the public. CERCLA and OPA (passed as
amendments to the CWA) allow Natural Resource Trustees to assess injuries to such public natu-
ral resources, determine damages and require responsible parties (CERCLA PRPs) to provide for
restoration of resources injured due to the release of oil and hazardous substances. Natural re-
sources are broadly defined to include "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking
water supplies, and other such resources." The statutes recognize that when oil or hazardous sub-
stances (the term does not include pollutants or other contaminants) enter the environment, they
can harm natural resources, reduce the public's use or enjoyment of them or degrade an ecological
function that they provide. When the changes to the resource are adverse and measurable, the
affected resource is said to be injured. Injury to natural resources serves as the basis for a damage
claim under CERCLA and OPA.
NRDA may be performed by Trustees concurrently with other CERCLA actions, including emergen-
cy response, removal, PA/SI, and remedial actions, though this is not always the case in practice.
Although EPA guidance encourages NRDA activities to occur concurrently with CERCLA or OPA
response actions, NRDA can begin after remedial action is underway, or even complete. Addition-
ally, Trustees may pursue compensation for injuries to natural resources even if they are not going
47
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
to be addressed by CERCLA or OPA response actions. For sites located where cross-programmatic
watershed cleanup may be implemented, NRDA may be coordinated with other aspects of water-
shed assessment and cleanup.
NRDA is described at 43 CFR 11, and additional information is available at www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/nrd. The elements of a NRDA include the following:
1. Preassessment Screen. Readily available data is reviewed to determine whether a release
justifies an NRDA. Five questions must be answered affirmatively to proceed with an NRDA:
• Has a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance occurred?
• Have natural resources for which the federal or state agency or tribe may assert trustee-
ship under CERCLA been, or are they likely to be, adversely affected by the discharge or
release?
• Is the quantity and concentration of the discharged oil or released hazardous substance
sufficient to potentially cause injury to those natural resources?
• Is data sufficient to pursue an assessment readily available or likely to be obtained at
reasonable cost?
• Will response actions, if any, not sufficiently remedy the injury to natural resources with-
out further action?
2. Assessment Plan. Planning, coordination and involvement of the public, PRPs, and Trustees
are used to identify and document the methodologies that will be used in the assessment. A
preliminary estimate of damages and a Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan are
developed to ensure that assessment costs are reasonable compared to the estimated damage.
3. Assessment. Actual damage assessment is performed in three steps: Injury Determination,
Quantification of Service Effects and Damage Determination. The Injury Determination estab-
lishes that the resource has been injured as the result of a hazardous substance release. The
Quantification of Service Effects quantifies the reduction in natural resource services resulting
from the injuries attributed to the hazardous substance release. The Damage Determination
values the natural resource damages as the sum of restoration costs, diminution in value of
natural resource services between the release and restoration and damage assessment costs.
4. Post-Assessment. An assessment report is prepared, the claim for damages is presented to
responsible parties and a restoration account is set up with the damage payment. A restora-
tion plan is prepared documenting actions that will be taken to restore, rehabilitate, replace
or acquire equivalent resources and how the loss of services will be addressed consistent
with the damage award.
Similar regulations (15 CFR Part 990) have been prepared by NOAA for NRDAs related to coastal
releases of oil and hazardous materials under the CWA, OPA, CERCLA and the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. The NOAA NRDA is performed in three steps:
1. Preliminary Assessment. The Trustees determine whether injury to public trust resources
has occurred. Their work includes collecting time-sensitive data and reviewing scientific
literature about the released substance and its impact on trust resources to determine the
extent and severity of injury. If resources are injured, Trustees proceed to the next step.
2. Injury Assessment/Restoration Planning. Trustees quantify injuries and identify possible
restoration projects. Economic and scientific studies assess the injuries to natural resources
and the loss of services. These studies are also used to develop a restoration plan that out-
lines alternative approaches to speed the recovery of injured resources and compensate for
their loss or impairment from the time of injury to recovery.
48
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
3. Restoration Implementation. The final step is to implement restoration and monitor its
effectiveness. Trustees work with the public to select and implement restoration projects.
Examples of restoration include replanting wetlands, improving fishing access sites and re-
storing salmon streams. The responsible party pays the costs of assessment and restoration
and is often a key participant in implementing the restoration.
Brownfields
EPA's Brownfields Program is designed to empower states, communities and other stakeholders
in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean
up and sustainably reuse brownfields. The program began as an administrative effort within the
CERCLA Program and was then formalized under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brown-
fields Revitalization Act, (Public Law 107-118), enacted as amendments to CERCLA in 2002. EPA's
Brownfields Program provides financial and technical assistance for brownfields activities through
an approach based on four main goals: protecting the environment, promoting partnerships,
strengthening the marketplace and sustaining reuse.
The law defines a Brownfields site as "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant." The term includes abandoned, idled, or underused industrial or commercial facilities,
agricultural and residential land, among other types of uses but does not apply to federal lands,
NPL sites or land subject to enforcement actions or certain response actions under CERCLA.
The Brownfields process is tailored to the specific end use of
the property. Cleanup standards generally are determined
according to the expected property use. Property owners
may be able to obtain funding from public programs and
private banks and institutions. Sampling plans are flex-
ible and dynamic and allow for adjustments in the field.
Generally EPA-funded Brownfields cleanups go through
state cleanup programs. While the Brownfields process is
flexible, it includes the following general steps:
1. Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence. Obtain background information to determine
the extent of contamination and legal and financial risks.
2. Phase II Site Investigation. Sample the site to identify the type, quantity and extent of
contamination.
3. Evaluate Remedial Options. Compile and assess possible remedial alternatives.
4. Develop Remedy Implementation Plan. Coordinate with stakeholders to design a remedy
implementation plan.
5. Remedy Implementation. Perform necessary actions to reduce health or environmental risk.
6. Begin Redevelopment.
While EPA provides funding opportunities, state or local redevelopment agencies or private parties
typically undertake brownfields investigations and cleanups. EPA Brownfields grants are available
to eligible entities5 to perform site assessments, community involvement, cleanup, job training and
workforce development; for capitalization of revolving loan funds; and as state/tribal grants to
help in developing state response programs.
e.g., State and local governments
49
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Another program with criteria similar to the Brownfields Program is EPA's Superfund Redevelop-
ment Initiative (SRI). As part of the Superfund Redevelopment Program, EPA has developed a pilot
program to help local governments participate in the cleanup and reuse of Superfund sites. Reuse
of sites is integrated into the Superfund risk assessment and cleanup. Under the pilot program,
EPA provides, or seeks to have PRPs provide, up to $100,000 in financial assistance or services
to local governments for specified activities to help determine the future use of their sites. This
program also encourages partnerships with states, local government agencies, citizen groups and
other federal agencies to restore previously contaminated properties to beneficial use.
Similarly, RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative focuses on RCRA facilities not in full use where
there is redevelopment potential but reuse or redevelopment is slowed because of real or per-
ceived concerns about contamination, liability or RCRA requirements. The initiative has funded
projects that illustrate how innovations and reforms under RCRA can reduce barriers to reuse and
redevelopment of RCRA Brownfields sites. The RCRA Brownfields Prevention Targeted Site Efforts
Initiative provides support to sites where cleanup has been delayed to prevent them from becom-
ing Brownfields sites. Funding is applicable to sites with significant redevelopment potential and
limited EPA support to complete the project.
EPA's UST Fields Initiative was created to encourage the cleanup and reuse of abandoned proper-
ties contaminated with petroleum from USTs. UST fields are abandoned or underused industrial
and commercial properties where revitalization is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination from USTs.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.) was enacted in 1976 to give EPA the authority to track
chemicals produced in or imported into the United States. EPA
tracks the thousands of new chemicals developed each year and
repeatedly screens all chemicals. EPA can require reporting or
testing of chemicals that might pose environmental risks or human
health hazards and ban the manufacture or importation of any
chemicals that could pose unreasonable risks. TSCA supplements
the CAA and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). In addition,
TSCA regulations in the United States (40 CFR Part 761) dictate
restrictions on the manufacture, sale, use, disposal, import and
export of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). TSCA also includes provisions for
allowable uses of PCBs.
TSCA regulations establish a concentration-based hierarchy that governs all aspects of PCB use and dis-
posal and dictates specific behaviors that are necessary for compliance. Regulations and policy specify:
> How PCBs may be used, processed, distributed, manufactured, exported, and/or imported
> Acceptable storage and disposal conditions
> Spill cleanup requirements
> Recordkeeping and reporting requirements
EPA has developed a policy to clarify the implementation of TSCA's PCB Disposal Regulations at
Superfund sediment sites.
50
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
• Stakeholders
The following stakeholders may be part of the WCT.
Federal Government Stakeholders
» EPA
• Water Programs
• RCRA
• Superfund
• Brownfields
> Natural Resource Trustees (see Table 2-3)
> Land/Resource Management Agencies
• Department of Interior (BLM, BIA, BOR)
• Department of Agriculture (USFS, Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS],
Farm Service Agency [FSA])
• Department of Commerce (DOC)
» USAGE
> Other federal facilities, including DoD and DOE
> Federally established interstate or international coalitions
Federal agencies may provide regulatory authority and responsibility, financial resources, contract-
ing resources and scientific resources. Additional federal agencies that provide invaluable resourc-
es for watershed assessment and cleanup are presented in Chapter 3.
State and Tribal Government Stakeholders
State agencies may provide regulatory authority, resources and technical assistance for watershed
planning, assessment and cleanup.
> Environment Departments (Water, RCRA, state Mini Superfunds, and other programs)
> Watershed Management Groups
> Water Engineers/Water Authorities
> Health Departments
> Fish and Wildlife Agencies
> Natural Resource Agencies (as designated by state governor/tribal leader)
Local Government Stakeholders
The roles of local government stakeholders will vary depending on the watershed issues and local
interest. Roles may include implementation of zoning and land use restrictions, accessing funding,
encouraging participation and funding from federal and state agencies, lobbying for action and
establishing special districts for watershed protection or redevelopment.
> Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Districts
> City and County Health/Environment Departments
> City and County Planning Departments
> Soil and Water Conservation Districts
> City and County Officials
> Special Districts (e.g., water allocation agencies)
51
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Park City Soil Cover Ordinance
Park City, Utah
The Park City Landscaping and Maintenance of Soil Cover Ordinance (Park City Municipal Code)
regulates the handling, disposal and capping of mine tailings in a large portion of the city. The
city's Building Department enforces the ordinance pursuant to an agreement between Park City,
EPA, and the Utah DEQ. These agencies, in cooperation with other stakeholders and the commu-
nity, are also exploring opportunities for addressing water quality concerns in addition to the mine
tailings issues.
In 1985 Park City proactively developed a strategy to isolate mine tailings from human contact by
installing a 6-inch clean topsoil cap on all lots within the soils ordinance boundary. The ordinance
made capping mandatory for all residential properties with elevated levels of lead. It also estab-
lished an action level for capping a lot at 1,000 ppm (lead) for existing development and 200 ppm
for new landscaping and imported fill. In addition, the ordinance also required that all landscaping,
as well as an established vegetation layer on the property, be maintained. With these standards
in place, the city's goal is to maintain and have a barrier between residences and the underlying
impacted soils.
It should be noted that property owners must pay for the installation of topsoil caps and have a
vested interest in their maintenance and integrity. Working with regulatory agencies, Park City
closely monitors the progress of capping projects. To support the city in this effort, Jeff Schoen-
bacher, Park City's environmental coordinator, implemented ArcGIS to track and manage the com-
pliance activities of all properties within the soils ordinance boundary. Such a system was needed
for tracking cap compliance, plotting lead levels, planning utility installations, establishing cleanup
levels for development, contacting residents and defining the ordinance boundary.
New Hampshire Builds Local Capacity to Reduce NPS
New Hampshire
Many New Hampshire planning initiatives and regulatory measures are developed and imple-
mented at the local level. Although municipal officials are often aware of NPS pollution issues in
their communities, few have the capacity to implement measures to reduce NPS at the planning
and regulatory stages without direct technical assistance and educational support. To address this
issue, New Hampshire's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) is working with two
regional planning commissions (covering 45 municipalities) to develop and support a technical
assistance program to address NPS at the local level through municipal land use planning, regula-
tory review and development and education. The programs are specifically tailored to address NPS
issues unique to each region.
Regional planning staff work one-on-one with town Conservation Commission and Planning Boards
to review existing land use regulations relative to NPS, discuss NPS sources at the local level and
recommend changes to local land use regulations. Discussed and proposed regulations often
address stormwater management, shoreland protection, wetland setbacks, conservation subdivi-
sions and site plan design.
As of Spring 2006, local voters approved eight recommended regulations covering erosion and
sediment control, road design standards, wetland and shoreland buffers, aquifer protection,
impervious surfaces and stormwater management.
52
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Establishing Local Ordinances to Protect Resources
Many communities across the nation face challenges associated with natural resource degradation.
Local governments need to have legal authorities in place to shape development and to protect
resources. EPA's Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources Web site (www.epa.gov/owow/
nps/ordinance) helps local governments by providing the information needed to develop ef-
fective resource protection ordinances. Local governments can implement a variety of ordinances
including ones that reduce developments on steep slopes, minimize erosion, reduce NFS pollution,
control litter, reduce storm water impacts and protect wetland and riparian buffers.
The Web site includes model ordinances to serve as a template for those charged with making
decisions concerning growth and environmental protection. Each model ordinance listed is
accompanied by several real-life examples of ordinances used by local and state governments
around the nation. The ordinances address matters that are often forgotten in many local codes,
including riparian buffers, erosion and sediment control, open space development, stormwater
control operation and maintenance, illicit discharges and post-construction controls. The site also
features a miscellaneous category containing ordinances that do not fall into the other categories.
Finally, the Web site has materials that support particular ordinances, such as maintenance
agreements and inspection checklists.
Other resources include: Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth, an EPA publication that
discusses 75 water specific model codes (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/
waterresources_with_sg.pdf) and Using Smart Growth Techniques as Stormwater Best Man-
agement Practices (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/stormwater.htm) that includes model
stormwater codes. The American Planning Association has also researched Smart Growth codes
under an EPA grant (www.planning.org/smartgrowthcodes). The Center for Watershed
Protection intends to produce an outline of the key elements of an effective ordinance to protect
existing wetlands from the direct and indirect impacts of land development (www.cwp.org/
wetlands/articles.htm).
Nongovernment Stakeholders
A variety of nonregulatory stakeholders may have an interest in and contribute to the watershed
cleanup process. Individuals might also be interested in participating in the watershed cleanup
process, so citizens should be notified of the watershed effort at key points in the process. The
participation of local and nongovernment stakeholders can positively influence funding decisions
of state and federal agencies and can attract funding from a wide range of sources.
Community Action or Watershed Groups
Community action groups have a vital interest in and intimate knowledge of the area. They repre-
sent the people who have to live with the problems and solutions and are most concerned about
watershed contamination and the issues associated with watershed cleanup. They offer knowledge
of local information, community issues and acceptable and unacceptable alternatives. The most
effective community action groups will be balanced and represent a wide range of interests in the
community. Organizations with a limited focus or perspective should be represented in the primary
watershed group but should not dominate the group. Community action groups might pre-exist
the watershed effort or can be formed to directly address the watershed issues. EPA maintains a
searchable, on-line directory of watershed organizations at www.epa.gov/adopt that lists more
than 4,000 groups involved in watershed protection activities across the country. This can serve as
a useful resource in reaching out to key community groups.
Industry
Industry associations and individual industries may help develop solutions to common problems.
The TMDL Program addresses both point and NPSs of pollution; however, the regulatory
53
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
requirements for implementation fall only on point source dischargers (NPDES permits are
required to be consistent with wasteload allocations). These regulated point sources are frequently
interested in the development, and implementation of TMDLs and can provide significant resources.
Revitalized land can also interest various industry groups.
Educational Institutions
Universities can provide assistance for communities in assessment and cleanup of watersheds and
often have previously undertaken relevant research. Cooperative efforts benefit both the university
and the community. Universities can provide a high level of expertise at low cost. University stud-
ies are often seen in the community as unbiased. The university benefits from community outreach
and opportunities for student education. The university also develops relationships with agencies
and is seen as a positive influence on the community. Studies and pilot projects can be performed
by students under the guidance of experienced faculty and financed by grants from federal envi-
ronmental programs, the National Science Foundation and other sources. Universities can provide
expertise in a wide range of areas including but not limited to study design, sampling, assessment,
monitoring, modeling, physical and biological waterbody assessments, volunteer training, mapping
and group facilitation.
Environmental Action Groups
Numerous environmental action groups, such as Trout Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy
might have an interest in watershed issues such as habitat and resource management. The groups
can be a powerful advocate in lobbying for grants and funding. The listed groups are for illustra-
tion only. Many of the groups have local chapters that could partner in the actual watershed effort.
American Rivers
Thriving By Nature
American Rivers is a national organization standing up for healthy
rivers so our communities can thrive. Through national advocacy,
innovative solutions and our growing network of strategic partners,
American Rivers protects and promotes our rivers as valuable
community assets that are vital to our health, safety and quality
of life. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has more than 65,000
members and online supporters nationwide, with offices in
Washington, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast,
California and Northwest regions. www.AmericanRivers.org
R.NR.F
The Renewable Natural Resources Foundation (RNRF) is a nonprofit,
public, tax-exempt, operating foundation established to advance sciences
and public education in renewable natural resources; promote the
application of sound, scientific practices in managing and conserving
renewable natural resources; foster coordination and cooperation
among professional, scientific and educational organizations having
leadership responsibilities for renewable natural resources; and develop
a Renewable Natural Resources Center, www.rnrf.org
Restore America's Estuaries is a national nonprofit organization estab-
lished to preserve the nation's network of estuaries by protecting and
restoring the lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of
coastal life. Work includes on-the-ground restoration projects and produc-
tion of collaborative tools and resources to guide the restoration process,
including A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat,
Funding for Habitat Restoration Projects: A Citizen's Guide, and Principles of
Estuarine Habitat Restoration, www.estuaries.org
54
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
TROUT
UNLIMITED
Trout Unlimited is a grassroots network formed to conserve, protect and
restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Trout
Unlimited promotes coldwater conservation and protects rivers and fisheries.
Trout Unlimited accomplishes this mission on local, state and national levels
with an extensive and dedicated volunteer network. The organization employs
professionals who testify before Congress, publish a quarterly magazine,
intervene in federal legal proceedings and work with the organization's
volunteers to keep them active and involved in conservation issues.
www.tu.org
^Nature
Conservancy
Protecting nature. Preserving life
The Nature Conservancy preserves the plants,animals and
natural communities that represent the diversity of life onEarth by
protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The approach
is to identify the highest priority places and protect and manage
them to ensure their survival. The Nature Conservancy has five
priority conservation initiatives to address the principal threats to
conservation at the sites where it works, focusing on fire, climate
change, freshwater, marine and invasive species. The organization
promotes conservation and the participation of communities, businesses, governments, partner
organizations, indigenous people, communities and individuals to preserve the world's lands and
waters, http://nature.org
Other partners might include Ducks Unlimited, the National Association of Service and
Conservation Corps, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society and the
Wildlife Habitat Council.
Volunteer Water Monitoring Programs
Data gathered by River Watch volunteers have been used by state
water quality agencies, regional planning commissions, local planning
commissions, departments of public works, conservation districts, USFS,
EPA, and nonprofit conservation agencies, (www.rivernetwork.org) EPA
also maintains a national directory of volunteer monitoring organizations
at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer. In October 2006,
EPA's Watershed Academy sponsored a Webcast on Getting Started in Water
Quality Monitoring. The archived seminar can be downloaded at
www.epa.gov/watershedwebcasts.
Landowners/Citizens
Landowners have a vested interest in cleanup of their watersheds and can be the best source of
information regarding the problems that need to be addressed and solutions that will be effective
and acceptable to the community.
55
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Integrated Watershed Assessment and Cleanup
Left Hand Watershed, Colorado
LEFT HAND CREEK WATERSHED LOCATION IN BOULDER COUNTY,
30 MILES NW FROM DENVER,
COLORADO
101:} Miles
Left Hand Watershed—Problem Identification and First Steps
The Left Hand Watershed encompasses approximately 85 square miles in northcentral Colorado
on the east slope of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains northwest of the city of Boulder. The
Left Hand Watershed is listed on Colorado's 1998 303(d) list as impaired for not supporting the
aquatic life use classification due to metal contamination from historical mining wastes. In May
2002, the Boulder County Board of Health sent a letter to the Colorado Governor's office request-
ing support for the NPL designation for the Captain Jack Mill site. The site was listed on the NPL in
September 2003.
When approached by EPA about the possibility
of NPL designation for the Golden Age Mining
District and the Slide Mine site to fund cleanup
activities within the Left Hand watershed
outside the Captain Jack Mill NPL site, the
community showed little public support. In
response, EPA provided funding to Colorado,
which issued a Superfund Block Cooperative
Agreement for prelisting activities to the
Boulder County Health Department (BCHD)
to provide community involvement support
and for subcontract work from the Western
Center for Environmental Decision-Making, a
nonprofit organization. This allowed BCHD to
create a community-based task force to explore
alternatives to the NPL designation and inform
Subsidence pit pond at Burlington Mine
56
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
DY
(continued)
the impacted communities about Superfund and other cleanup options. In 2001 the BCHD helped
form the Left Hand Watershed Task Force to assess existing environmental and health data
related to the watershed, determine if a cleanup action was necessary and, if necessary, evaluate
cleanup options and recommend the preferred options. EPA's Technical Outreach Services to
Communities (TOSC) provided an independent study summary to identify the size and levels of
impacts and possible pros and cons of cleanup under Superfund. The 2002 Left Hand Watershed
Task Force Report indicated that despite numerous individual studies of the watershed, no
comprehensive, systematic study of the entire watershed could conclusively establish the exact
extent of potential risks to aquatic life and human health, the potential effects to water quality
from a catastrophic storm or similar event, the source(s) of contaminants or the appropriate
remediation strategies to remove contaminants. As a result of the study, the Left Hand Watershed
Oversight Group (LWOG) was formed to direct future efforts at cleaning up mine wastes.
Left Hand Watershed Project Funding
RCRA37%
Water Programs 2.49%
/ Superfund 12.20%
Industry 12%
BrownfieldsS.20%
Stakeholders 1.75%
Program Integration
The Left Hand Watershed was selected as a pilot project
of EPA's One Cleanup program in 2003 because of its
potential for cross-programmatic watershed assess-
ment and cleanup. The Left Hand Watershed pilot is a
cross-programmatic, multiagency approach to address-
ing pollution problems found in a watershed impacted
by abandoned mines. The goal of the watershed-based
approach was to provide a transparent and efficient
cleanup in partnership with the community and local,
state and federal agencies. A TMDL specialist within EPA's
Water Program was assigned as the program manager for
the effort. Key contacts were identified, preliminary data was
consolidated and mapped, a fact sheet was prepared and a meeting was held for participants to
discuss their interests in the watershed and the resources available to conduct work. Early in the
process, commitments were obtained to design and coordinate a novel environmental assess-
ment and cleanup program for this watershed, adhering to a specific plan of action that capital-
ized on the multiple funding mechanisms and program priorities of all participants. The Left Hand
Watershed cross-programmatic effort showed an innovative cooperation strategy among EPA
program personnel from the CERCLA Remedial, Removal
and Assessment Programs; CWA NPS, and TMDL Programs;
SDWA Programs; Brownfields Program; RCRA Program; and
the Federal Facilities Program. The initiative also brought
together notable non-EPA stakeholder groups including
BCHD, University of Colorado (CU), the James Creek Water-
shed Initiative, Colorado River Watch, Trout Unlimited, USFS
Abandoned Mines and Watershed Programs and USFWS.
The coordinated efforts eliminated duplication by combining
resources to conduct collaborative watershed-wide charac-
terization activities and feasibility assessment. The results
were used to prioritize sources of contaminant loading to the
watershed and designate responsibility for implementation of
cleanup activities at those sites. The resources identified and
used for assessment, cleanup and community involvement
in Left Hand Watershed activities as of May 2005 are shown
on the table at the end of this case study. Contribution of
^H **?T^E!^^M financial resources is shown in the pie chart above.
Region 8 Lab field sampling team
USFS 29%
57
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
Collaborative Assessment and Feasibility Analysis
A collaborative watershed assessment program was implemented to allow multiple agencies and
programs to gather data to meet the needs of all stakeholders. The EPA Left Hand Watershed
program manager worked with state and federal participants to prepare an SAP that incorporated
the data quality objectives of all participants and clearly stated the project goals and methods to
accomplish those goals. (Appendix A includes the Left Hand Watershed collaborative sampling
documents, including the SAP, quality assurance project plan, and sampling worksheet.) Sampling,
equipment, training and technical resources were identified, and participating programs and
agencies were assigned specific tasks. Key state and federal program participants worked side by
side to perform field sampling, with training and oversight provided by the EPA Region 8 labora-
tory. The sampling campaign was executed by field teams consisting of 15 people per day for an
entire week each season. Analysis for metals was provided by the Superfund Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP) contract. The EPA Region 8 lab conducted the analysis for sediment, nutrients
and macroinvertebrates and measured particle size distributions. The Region 8 NPDES program
provided a water quality grant to the LWOG and CU for salt-injection studies and macroinvertebrate
tissue analysis. The combined stream flow and metals concentration data provided the informa-
tion needed to calculate metal loads and apportion source contributions for the TMDL. A database
with a spatial interface was developed for the project by the Superfund Technical Assessment and
Response Team (START) contractor using EPA Site Assessment funding and provided a tool to dis-
play data to allow collaborative decision making among the cleanup team. Evaluation of alterna-
tives for cleanup were streamlined by conducting a site-wide feasibility assessment that included
surveying and cost estimation of cleanup alternatives for all significant loading sources in the Little
James Creek subbasin. The feasibility assessment was funded by the EPA TMDL contract. The re-
sults of these efforts were used to prepare program-specific assessments of cleanup alternatives
throughout the basin by the Water, CERCLA, and Brownfields Programs.
Leveraged Resources for Remediation, Restoration, and Reuse
Cross program collaboration has expedited and expanded cleanup, restoration and revitalization
within the watershed. This has been most evident in the areas of public participation, assessment
and revitalization. Examples of program coordination in revitalization include the state Voluntary
Cleanup Program (VCP) coordination with the TMDL program to design the Burlington Mine remedia-
tion using the estimated load reductions required to meet WQS. The Brownfields program expanded
its Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) support from the initial scope of a single site at the Argo
Mine on property purchased by Boulder County for Open Space to include a ground water impact
assessment for the entire upper Little James Creek subbasin. The 319 NPS Program provided the
community with grants for the development of a watershed management plan and for implementing
NPS controls in the watershed and may be a source of cleanup/implementation funding. A TMDL is
being developed for the entire Left Hand Watershed that will identify all significant loading sources
in the watershed and quantify load reductions necessary to meet WQS. The combined efforts of EPA
and USFS expedited assessment and cleanup planning for the Streamside Tailings and Bueno Mine
(mixed private/federal ownership) sites. An MOU between EPA Region 8 and USFS Region 2 was
developed for the Left Hand Watershed project to describe the roles each program will play in as-
sessment and cleanup of mixed ownership sites (see Appendix D). The MOU will apply to other mixed
ownership sites within the regions. One lead agency will be designated for each site, but work will be
cooperative unless the agencies prepare an Interagency Agreement to transfer funding for a single
agency to perform the cleanup.
Enhanced Community Participation
The BCHD, LWOG, Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE), USFS and EPA's
Region 8 have effectively engaged citizens in the affected communities. CERCLA provided support
through the TOSC Program and a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). When the Left Hand Watershed
58
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
DY
(continued)
Left Hand Watershed stakeholder meeting
Task Force (LWTF) Report recommenda-
tions from the LWTF called for further
assessment and remediation under
the auspices of the Superfund Captain
Jack Mill NPLsite and further assess-
ment using alternatives to Superfund
throughout the remainder of the Left
Hand Watershed, the agencies worked
with the community to determine a plan
of action. As part of the additional as-
sessment work, Boulder County Open
Space requested a TBAfrom Colorado's
Brownfields program and EPA Region
8 Brownfields program leveraged the
state's effort to complete and expand
the assessment when resources limited
its completion. Colorado River Watch
Network contributed to the effort with 10
years of monitoring data, using support
from the state's water quality program
and Colorado Division of Wildlife. River Watch volunteers perform monthly surface water sampling
at 13 sampling locations and annual macroinvertebrate and habitat analysis, allowing a continual
picture of watershed health. Public interest spurred the USFSto prioritize funding for this project.
The USFS proposed the Left Hand Watershed as its priority watershed for the USGS Central Colorado
Assessment Project (biological and water chemistry assessment) of the Roosevelt National Forest, in
part, because of high community interest in the watershed.
The agencies and programs worked together in public education and participation efforts. For
example, program coordinators designed a fact sheet tailored for the Left Hand communities
describing the watershed process. The fact sheet was unique in that it did not simply describe the
site activity but provided brief descriptions of the various programs, existing and upcoming activi-
ties, potential funding opportunities and key contact information. The fact sheet provided stake-
holders with a reference document to simplify the myriad of agencies and programs involved in the
watershed.
Well-attended community meetings solicited input regarding sampling design and remediation al-
ternatives from across the various programs. Field training was provided for the multiple sampling
events. Community members and water district personnel helped with all sampling. A critical com-
ponent of community outreach was education on the various programs involved in the cleanup.
This included meetings to explain the ramifications and opportunities related to such programs as
Superfund, Brownfields and TMDL. In addition, a workshop was provided to describe the funding
restrictions and opportunities. The LWOG provided suggestions and comments on the sampling
plan and site selection, and the LWOG coordinator was a participant in all of the planning meet-
ings and has been a great liaison with the community.
Success of Cross-Programmatic Watershed Cleanup
Synchronizing multiple agencies and programs has streamlined complicated interagency bound-
aries, provided for timely assessments and interpretation of results, investigation of a range of
potential remedies and focus of resources on collaborative cleanup. All the involved programs
expanded beyond their typical site/program boundaries to contribute resources to this compre-
hensive watershed approach. By working together, assessment information will be used across
programs rather than being program-specific, which is the more traditional way of doing work at
EPA and the state. (Appendix C includes a Left Hand Watershed Fact Sheet.)
59
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
60
Left Hand Watershed Funding
Partner
Assessment/Cleanup Activity
Funds/
Assistance
Water Program Resources
Regional Geographic
Initiative Funds
TMDL Contract EPA R8
319 NPS Grant EPA R8
319 NPS Funds CDPHE
319 NPS Base Funds
Water Quality Cooperative
Agreement
Source Water Assessment
Salt-injection study and macroinvertebrate analysis for high
and low flow loading analysis by CU.
Little James Creek TMDL (complete). Left Hand Watershed
TMDL (in progress). Little James Creek Subbasin Feasibility
Analysis.
From CDPHE to James Creek Watershed Initiative for CU off-
road vehicle recreation study. Phase 1 2001.
James Creek Restoration Project, Phase II. Reclamation of
James Creek's riparian corridor.
From CDPHE to LWOG for Watershed Management Plan Devel-
opment
Water quality monitoring (synoptic sampling) to characterize all
source areas and load contributors within watershed.
CDPHE source water assessment of raw water sources for
each public water system.
$20K
$100K
$18K
$66K
$25K
$20K
$10K
CERCLA Resources
Superfund Block Community
Agreement
EPA One Cleanup Program
EPA One Cleanup Program
CERCLA USFS/EPA
EPA Region 8 Laboratory
CERCLA Remedial
CERCLA Remedial EPA R8
CERCLA Site Assessment
CERCLA Site Assessment
Grant from CERCLA to CDPHE Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division to Boulder County for task force to
review existing data and make recommendation on NPL listing
and alternatives analysis.
Preparation of a multiagency, multiprogram watershed clean-
up manual.
Watershed-wide feasibility analysis offering cleanup options to
multiple agencies and programs (coordinated with TMDL).
Golden Age, Bueno Mine and Streamside Tailings Cleanup.
Little James Creek Assessment and Feasibility Analysis.
Laboratory analysis. Personnel for water quality, fish tissue
and macroinvertebrate sampling support.
Captain Jack RI/FS. Before NPL designation, two Sis were
performed.
CLP sample analysis of surface water, sediment and fish tis-
sue samples during collaborative sampling events.
EPA R8 START Contractor for site-wide database with spatial
component. Map development.
To EPA R8 START Contractor for HRS package development for
Slide Mine.
$25K
$38K
$38K
$500K
_
$780K
$75K
$35K
$10K
Brownfields Resources
Targeted Brownfields
Assessment
Brownfields
Cleanup Grants and Loans
From EPA and CDPHE for surface water and ground water
assessment at Argo, Orphan Johnny and Evening Starr mines
(owned by Boulder County Open Space) within the Little James
Subbasin.
Boulder County Open Space has applied for a Brownfields
Cleanup Grant to perform cleanup on three Open Space prop-
erties within the Little James Subbasin.
$30K EPA
$10K CDPHE
Application is
for $200K per
site.
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
DY
(continued)
Left Hand Watershed Funding
Partner
Assessment/Cleanup Activity
Funds/
Assistance
RCRA Program
Raytheon
RCRA RFIs, Interim Remedial Measures, ground water
sampling, ground water pumping, vapor extraction and water
treatment.
$4.5 Million
DOI Resources
USFWS, USGS, USFS
USFS-Watersheds Program
and Volunteer groups
USFS-Abandoned Mines
Program
USFS-Abandoned Mines
Personnel for watershed high and low-flow sampling and
macroinvertebrate collection and assessment. Loading assess-
ment.
Revegetate off-road vehicle area impacting James Creek east
of Castle Gulch. Equipment and supplies were funded by
a grant from the Colorado State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle
program. Volunteers from four wheel drive groups.
EE/CA for Golden Age was completed this year through AML
funds. $600K has been designated for cleanup within the Left
Hand watershed. Proposed $2.6M. $600K approved as of
5/05.
PA/SI and Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
for Fairday Mine. Planned Removal Action Implementation.
Field support
$600K
$405K
Local/Industry Resources
Honeywell— Voluntary
Cleanup
Left Hand Water District
Stakeholder Matching Funds
Stakeholder Matching Funds
Stakeholder CU
Colorado River Watch
Colorado Division of Wildlife/
Colorado River Watch
Voluntary cleanup to prevent water from contacting waste rock
at Burlington Mine, Jamestown.
Mitigate impacts of sediment in James Creek. Support for
Watershed Coordinator.
From CU Outreach Committee, REU, Honeywell and in-kind
technical advising for water quality assessments.
Watershed Management Plan Development ($20K from
CDMG, BCHD, LHWD, landowners), Seacresttoxicity study
($30K).
Study the effect of off-road vehicle recreation. Undergraduate
Research Opportunity Grant, NSF Grant. Plus 50 volunteers.
Monthly volunteer surface water sampling at 13 locations. An-
nual macroinvertebrate and micro/macro habitat analysis.
Analysis of monthly surface water samples collected by James
Creek Watershed Initiative Stakeholders.
Monthly Laboratory metals and Total Dissolved Solids (IDS)
analysis of 13 samples. High- and low-flow nutrient analysis.
$1.5 Million
$103.5K
$53K
$50K
$7K
_
61
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Water and Waste Program Coordinated Cleanup,
Columbia Slough Sediment Project
Portland, Oregon
Portland
Columbia Slough
In the early 1990s, the Oregon DEQ and city of Portland initiated a project to evaluate and cleanup,
as necessary, contaminated sediments in the Columbia Slough. These sediments are a concern
because they can adversely impact aquatic life and accumulate in fish tissue to levels that could
be harmful to people who eat the fish. Over time, the project has evolved into a more watershed-fo-
cused effort.
Project overview
There are three primary components of the slough sediment project:
1. Pollutant source reduction
2. Specific site cleanup
3. Long-term monitoring
The city tied three components together in an FS it prepared for the slough. The FS provided back-
ground on previously completed investigations and identified and evaluated measures that could
be implemented to reduce sediment contaminant levels. The evaluation provided the basis for a
long-term slough cleanup plan.
The proposed approach included activities occurring slough-wide as well as evaluations of each
major slough segment: Upper Slough, Middle Slough, Lower Slough, Whitaker Slough, Peninsula
Drainage Canal and Buffalo Slough.
Pollutant source reduction
Several efforts are underway or planned to reduce contaminant inputs to the slough. The city
removed combined sewer/storm outfalls to the slough in 2001. The city has also installed several
pollution reduction facilities at stormwater outfalls to reduce particulate input to the slough. These
facilities are typically engineered ponds that allow sediments to settle from stormwater before dis-
charging into the slough. Most contaminants of concern tend to adhere to soil particles, so particu-
late removal should reduce contaminant inputs.
The DEQ Site Assessment Program continues to identify potential contaminated sites in the slough
watershed and refer them to the DEQ Cleanup Program as necessary. Sites are identified using
62
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
DY
(continued)
available information indicating a contaminant release occurred on or from the site. This infor-
mation can include documented waste disposal practices, detections of contaminants on site
property, stormwater discharge data and correlated elevated contaminant concentrations in slough
sediment.
As resources allowed, the DEQ Hazardous Waste Program developed a plan to inspect and provide
technical assistance to industries in the watershed. This ensures that industrial hazardous wastes
were being managed protectively.
Coordination between the DEQ Cleanup and Water Quality Programs will ensure that the reduc-
tion of pollutants entering the slough via municipal and private outfalls is effectively addressed.
DEQ has developed TMDLs designed to meet state WQS and should ensure that sediment
cleanup sites are not recontaminated in the future. Because many pollutants enter the slough via
stormwater runoff, the TMDL limits were incorporated into a slough-specific industrial stormwater
permit. They are also expected to be addressed in the municipal stormwater permits for the slough
watershed.
Specific site cleanup
Sites referred to the DEQ Cleanup Program are assigned to a cleanup project manager as resourc-
es are available. Depending on the issues identified by the site assessment review, DEQ requires
site owners or operators to conduct a PA or Rl. Cleanup is required if contamination is identified
at levels that pose or are predicted to pose a risk above acceptable levels. In some cases this can
involve direct cleanup of contaminated sediment. An example of such a cleanup is provided in the
Feature section below.
Long-term monitoring
The city has prepared a long-term monitoring plan outline for which DEQ provided comments.
Monitoring will include periodic sediment and fish tissue sampling, as well as regular stormwater
discharge monitoring.
Database
Slough sediment, water and fish tissue data have been collected by the city, USAGE, Multnomah
County Drainage District #1, Metro (a regional government agency) and private parties. DEQ and
the city initiated a project to create a geographically oriented database containing all existing data
and into which future data will be placed. The database plots contaminant concentration data for
sections of the slough. It also evaluates trends as long-term monitoring generates data over time.
Feature: Wagner Mining Site Cleanup
In August 2002, Atlas Copco Wagner, Inc. (Wagner), completed sediment and ground water
cleanup measures at its site in the Upper Columbia Slough. This was the first private-party sedi-
ment cleanup action to be completed there.
Wagner manufactures and tests heavy equipment for the mining industry and has operated at
the site since 1961. Under a February 2000 Consent Order, Wagner began working with DEQ to
address elevated metals concentrations in slough sediment adjacent to the facility and elevated
solvent concentrations in site groundwater. In 2000-2001, Wagner completed an Rl of the site,
which included the collection and analysis of 32 slough sediment samples.
The investigation found that concentrations of metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and
zinc), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments
adjacent to the Wagner site exceeded general baseline contaminant levels found throughout the
slough. Several of these contaminants can enter the food chain and bioaccumulate in fish at
63
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
levels that present a concern for people or wildlife who eat the fish. The contamination was also
determined to pose a potential threat to sediment-dwelling aquatic life.
In August 2002, Wagner paid the Multnomah County Drainage District to remove contaminated
sediments associated with their site. Approximately 300 tons were removed and disposed of at the
Hillsboro Landfill, and an additional 1,500 cubic yards of clean sediment were removed for flood
control. Confirmation samples indicated that metals no longer pose a toxicity threat to sediment-
dwelling organisms. They also showed that, with the exception of one isolated area, PAH and PCB
concentrations had been reduced to below analytical detection limits or risk-based screening lev-
els. The remaining area was believed to be contaminated as a result of spillage during the removal
activities. Wagner conducted additional removal of approximately 20 cubic yards of sediment from
this area in April 2003.
64
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Resources
Watershed-based cleanups can be accomplished through various funding and other resources
available for investigation, cleanup, monitoring and community involvement. This section presents
government funding opportunities available to various stakeholders, applicability of funds,
accessing the funds and project requirements in use of the funds. Additional sources of funding
could be available through state programs and government appropriations. A thorough review of
grants and other funding available for specific projects should be conducted to determine potential
assistance. A summary of assessment and cleanup financial resources is provided in Table 3-1 at
the end of this chapter. One Web site that can help you find federal grants for a variety of tasks
and grantees is www.grants.gov.
This section also presents nonfinancial resources available through government and nongovern-
mental agencies, such as scientific resources, contracting resources, facility and manpower re-
sources and analytical resources.
• Leveraging Funding
Environmental partnerships enable agencies working together and with
communities to face complex environmental challenges on a scale that
cannot easily be secured when an environmental program acts alone.
Targeting problems at a watershed scale, which include reducing the
effects of toxic substances on human health and ecosystems often require
leveraging resources across programs, agencies and community-based organizations. Most grant
programs encourage collaboration and partnerships. Combining multiple external sources for
project support can be a very successful strategy. This can result in a multiplier effect, as the
different funding sources can provide the match for each other. Multiple objective projects are
particularly suited to this practice. Reviewers for grant awards often view this strategy favorably,
because it also enhances their leveraging (getting more for their money). Different funding sources
can be used at a variety of sites; activities supported by different federal programs at otherwise
independent sites within a watershed can be coordinated for the benefit of the entire watershed.
Funds should be selected on the basis of project objectives (e.g., wetland creation, education,
recreation, stream restoration) with multiple compatible objectives increasing the number of
potential sources and, thus, potential available funds. Federal sources typically do not allow
other federal sources to be used as match. A unique exception includes the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF and DWSRF). The SRFs are made up of federal
capitalization grants, state match, loan repayments, interest earnings and leverage bond proceeds.
The SRFs allow loans made from funds other than the federal capitalization grants and associated
state match to match other federal programs, if allowed by the other federal programs. The
following scenario is an illustration of how leveraged funding can work.
65
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Demonstration Scenario: Project for stream restoration with erosion control and wetlands creation
and restoration.
Funding opportunities:
1. $3M SRF loan at 4 percent requires $221,000 payment per year for 20 years with no down
payment.
2. The $3M is split into three increments:
» $1M to support a $2M USAGE project = $3M
> $1M to support a $2M Urban Drainage project = $3M
I $1M to support a $2M state Wetlands Program grant = $3M
This scenario is simplified and hypothetical, but it illustrates how a $3M loan can be leveraged
into $9M for a project (or projects). Integrating other objectives or funding sources into this sce-
nario could increase leveraging further. Match requirements can also be fulfilled through in-kind
support, which is frequently used in 319 NFS grants and CERCLA community support funds.
Paying attention to the applicability of funds can also maximize available funding resources.
Superfund can only be used to fund cleanups necessary to eliminate unacceptable risks to human
health and the environment; they cannot otherwise address ecological restoration activities, such
as natural resource damage claims and riparian corridor restoration. However, CWA section 319
NFS water program, Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), and CWSRF funding may sup-
port restoration activities that the Superfund program cannot. Put another way, if restoration is an
objective of the Watershed Cleanup Team, Superfund dollars could be used for contaminant assess-
ment and remediation, and NRDA, CWA section 319 NFS, and CWSRF funding, if available, could
be used to complete restoration. Attempts should be made to coordinate the remediation activities
with the restoration goals.
• Water Program Funding Resources
Funding is available from EPA and states through EPA's water programs. Loans with advantageous
terms can be issued through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) or the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), subject to state priorities and eligibility under the CWA and
SDWA, respectively. Grants and cooperative agreements are also available. The SRF is a permanent
revolving fund to provide loans and other assistance (40 CFR section 35.3115). In addition to
using the CWSRF loans for cleanup and watershed restoration, communities may use the money
borrowed from the CWSRF as matching funds to meet grant requirements, thus multiplying the
value of the funds borrowed. However, communities may use the money borrowed from the SRF
as matching funds to meet grant requirements, thus multiplying the value of the funds borrowed.
CFDA 66.458. www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance
Water Program Loans
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is managed largely by the states, and
makes loans to communities, municipalities, individuals, citizens' groups, and non-profit organiza-
tions for high priority water quality activities. Funds are then repaid to the CWSRF over terms as
long as twenty years. Funds are typically used to finance large municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, but may also be used to help manage NFS pollution, runoff control, wet weather flow
control, alternative treatment technologies, and water reuse and conservation projects. Funds may
also be used to fund wetland and estuary restoration and creation activities, Brownfields remedia-
tion, and polluted runoff abatement projects or implement Comprehensive Coastal Management
Plans developed through EPA's National Estuary Program. Brownfield sites that suffer from water
quality impairment can use the CWSRF as a powerful financial instrument for planned corrective
O O action.
Resources
-------
Brownfield projects that may be eligible for CWSRF funding includes, but is not limited to the
list below:
> Excavation and disposal of USTs
> Constructed wetlands (filtering mechanism)
> Capping wells
> Excavation, removal and disposal of contaminated soil or sediments
> Tunnel demolition
> Well abandonment
> Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III assessments
Some potential repayment sources include the following:
> Fees paid by developers on other lands
> Recreational fees (fishing licenses, entrance fees)
> Dedicated portions of local, county, or state taxes or fees
> Property owner ability to pay (determined during loan application)
> Donations or dues made to nonprofit groups
> Stormwater management fees
> Wastewater user charges
Loan eligibility and funding priorities vary from state to state. Typical applicants for wastewater
and stormwater projects are municipalities and other public organizations, but nonprofit organi-
zations or private entities can also apply for NFS and estuary protection projects. The loans offer
advantageous interest rates and repayment periods. States set funding priorities.
The DWSRF is used to issue loans to communities for drinking water systems improvements. States
can customize loan terms to meet the needs of small and disadvantaged communities and for
programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. Loans are
available to both publicly and privately owned community water systems, and nonprofit non-com-
munity water systems are also eligible for funding. However, some states allow only public facilities
to receive funds. Loans made under the program can have interest rates between 0 and market
rate and repayment terms of up to 20 years. For communities that qualify for disadvantaged as-
sistance, loans can include principal forgiveness and terms up to 30 years.
States may also reserve a portion of their funds to finance various management tools for source
water protection. For example, states may use funds to establish and implement a wellhead pro-
tection program to protect ground water. States can also provide loans to water systems for land
acquisition, conservation easements, and voluntary, incentive-based source water protection mea-
sures. Eligible source water protection measures include capping wells, fencing, restoring riparian
buffers, conducting public outreach, applying agricultural best management practices (BMPs), and
implementing erosion control practices. Loans provided for source water protection must go to
water systems, but communities, individuals, nonprofit organizations, and conservation districts
can be co-signatories to the loans to further increase access to funds.
Water Program Grants
Research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and studies relating to
the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution are eligible
for water program grants. Activities that are not eligible for water program grants are routine
program implementation, implementing routine water quality protection or restoration measures,
regulatory compliance or mitigation, land acquisition, recreational features such as hiking trails,
67
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
68
Resources
purchase of vehicles or completion of work that was to have been completed under a prior grant.
Region 8 criteria for their Consolidated Funding Process are summarized at the end of this section.
Projects are funded from $10,000 to $200,000 with an average of $45,000.
EPA national or regional priorities, funding levels, current specifications and review criteria for
proposals will be identified in the competitive funding announcements. To identify potential com-
petitive funding opportunities for water program funding, see www.grants.gov. The competitive
announcements will identify proposal/application specifications and evaluation criteria.
To see examples of grants that have been awarded and the types of work they are funding, see the
Left Hand Watershed Case Study in Chapter 2.
The Water Program funding sources listed below are managed differently in the various EPA Re-
gions. Because of the regional differences in the management of these funds, a review of regional
procedures and priorities should be performed to determine what resources are most useful for a
watershed.
Assessment and Watershed Protection Program Grants (AWPPG) and Cooperative Agreements
(CWA section 104(b)(3), CFDA 66.480). The AWPPGs provide eligible applicants an opportu-
nity to carry out projects to develop effective, comprehensive programs for watershed protection,
restoration and management. The projects that eligible applicants can undertake are diverse.
Projects should be innovative or demonstrative in design and contribute to overall development
and improvement of watershed programs. In the past, award recipients have pursued a wide range
of activities, such as developing management tools, advancing scientific and technical tools for
protecting watershed health, improving availability of data and information about watersheds
and training watershed managers and the public about watershed management. No cost share or
match is required; however, projects with matching funding, in-kind services or other support are
favored.
These grants may not be used solely for the operational support of specific watershed projects, for
example, support for implementing individual watershed projects or developing TMDLs for specific
waterbodies (normally funded under section 106/319 grants) or for in-depth monitoring (be-
yond traditional volunteer monitoring programs) for individual waterbodies. All projects funded
through this program must contribute to the overall development and improvement of watershed
programs. Project funding ranges from $5,000 to $80,000.
Water Quality Pollution Control Grants. (CWA section 106) States and interstate agencies are
eligible for grants to establish and implement ongoing water pollution control programs. This pro-
gram takes a watershed protection approach at the state level by looking at water quality problems
holistically and targeting the use of limited finances available for effective program management.
Total Maximum Daily Load Program Funds. (CWA section 104(b)(3), CFDA 66.436, Surveys,
Studies, Investigations Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Water Quality Projects) EPA funds
are available for projects that lead to the completion of a TMDL or contribute toward the develop-
ment of a TMDL or multiple TMDLs. These funds are referred to as extramural funds and can be
used for contract support, grants to states or tribes or interagency agreements (lAGs) with other
federal agencies (i.e., USFS, USGS, USFWS). State, tribal and interstate agencies interested in using
these funds may not receive grants for routine TMDL development purposes normally funded with
section 106 or 319 funds. In these cases, projects must be innovative or demonstrative in nature
consistent with section 104(b)(3) of the CWA. Reuse of contract funds by state, tribal or interstate
agencies may also be restricted in some cases.
Wetland Program Development Cooperative Agreements and Grants. (Clean Water Act, Sec-
tion 104(b)(3), as amended; Public Law 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3), CFDA 66.461) States,
tribes, and local governments are eligible for wetlands program grants to aid in developing and
enhancing comprehensive wetland programs. Projects must demonstrate environmental outputs
-------
and outcomes, must result in products/deliverables, should address national and regional priori-
ties, and must demonstrate a 25 percent nonfederal match. While grants can be used to build and
refine any element of a comprehensive wetland program, priority is currently given to projects that
address the following two priority areas identified by EPA: enhancing wetlands protection/regula-
tions and developing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program.
Regional Geographic Initiative. (RGI) (CFDA 66.034, 66.424, 66.436, and 66.716) Most RGI
grants are awarded under the authorities of section 103 (b) (3) of the CAA or section 104 (b) (3)
of the CWA and, therefore, must qualify as a "survey, study, research, investigation, experiment,
training, or demonstration." RGI is not a grant program but a pot of funds that the regions receive
annually to address high priorities identified each year. The money can be used to fund grants, but
there are other funding vehicles used for this money (includes funding contracts, and the like).
Each Region has full authority to determine its own priorities for using this money; there are no
set dollar amounts identified for water, watershed or waste projects. Grants, cooperative agree-
ments and lAGs can be made available to state water pollution control agencies, interstate agen-
cies and other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations and individuals to fund
unique, geographically based projects that fill critical gaps in EPA's ability to protect human health
and the environment. RGI projects
> Address places, sectors, or innovative projects
> Are based on a regional, state, tribal or other strategic plan
> Address problems that are multimedia in nature or fill a critical gap in the protection of hu-
man health and the environment
> Demonstrate state, local or other stakeholder participation
> Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding
Projects may receive funding for one or more years but generally will not receive RGI funds for
more than 4 years. Each EPA Regional office is responsible for executing the RGI Program within
its states. To obtain information about the availability of funds for a project, contact the appropri-
ate Regional RGI coordinator.
NPS Funds. (CWA 319(h)) section 319 grants are awarded to states and territories (referred to as
states) for the purpose of helping them implement NPS management programs. Section 319 grants
are awarded to state NPS agencies in two categories: base funds and incremental funds. States
may use the base funds for the full range of activities addressed in their approved NPS manage-
ment programs. For example, the funds may be used for protection of unimpaired waters, restora-
tion of impaired waters, education and training and staffing or support to manage and implement
their NPS management programs. In general, states have great flexibility as to how to use these
base funds. States must use $100 million of section 319 funds, referred to as incremental funds, to
develop and implement watershed-based plans that address NPS impairments in watersheds that
contain section 303(d)-listed waters. The watershed-based plan must be designed to achieve the
load reductions called for in the NPS TMDL. If a TMDL has not yet been developed, the plan must
be designed to reduce NPS pollutant loadings that are contributing to water quality threats and
impairments. Up to 20 percent of the base and incremental funds may be used to develop NPS TM-
DLs and watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs.
The NPS grant to the state requires a nonfederal match of 40 percent. The federal share of the cost
of each management program implemented with federal assistance may not exceed 60 percent of
the cost incurred by the state in implementing such management program and must be made on
the condition that the nonfederal share is provided from nonfederal sources. The nonfederal match
can be provided by individuals, organizations, local governments, or state agencies. In-kind dona-
tions can also be used for the match—this might involve the use of equipment or space, a donation
of time or volunteer services.
69
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Approved state NFS management programs provide the framework for determining what activi-
ties are eligible for funding under section 319(h). Examples of previously funded projects include
the installation of BMPs to control animal waste from animal feeding operations (not subject to
NPDES permit requirements), streambank stabilization and shoreline restoration projects, forest
road decommissioning to reduce erosion and sedimentation, basinwide landowner education pro-
grams and wetlands restoration projects. Section 319 funds may also be used to fund abandoned
mine land reclamations projects and urban storm water activities that are not specifically required
by a draft AML or final NPDES permit. Additional details regarding these types of projects are
given below:
> Updating and refocusing the state NFS Management Program and NFS Assessments to
improve program effectiveness. States may use up to 20 percent of their base section 319
allocation for this purpose. States should refine their programs to reflect their most press-
ing needs and highest-priority water quality problems. Activities and analyses that may be
funded include establishing indicators and milestones, developing TMDLs and watershed
plans and improving assessment efforts.
> Implementing ground water protection activities. Ground water activities are eligible for
section 319 grants if they are identified in the state's NFS Management Program, Ground
Water Protection Strategy or Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program.
> Funding urban storm water runoff activities if those activities meet the following condi-
tions: (1) the activities are not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit, and
(2) the activities do not directly implement a draft or final NPDES permit. Activities that
might meet the above requirements include technical assistance; monitoring to address
implementation strategies; BMPs; information and education programs; technology transfer
and training; and development and implementation of regulations, policies and local ordi-
nances to address storm water runoff.
> Funding AML reclamation projects designed to protect water quality if those activities meet
both of the following conditions: (1) the activities are not specifically required by a draft or
final NPDES permit, and (2) the activities do not directly implement a draft or final NPDES
permit. Activities that might meet the above requirements include remediation of water
pollution from abandoned mines or portions of abandoned mines, mapping and planning of
remediation, monitoring, technical assistance, information and education programs, tech-
nology transfer and training and development and implementation of policies addressing
AMLs.
> Implementing lake protection and restoration activities except for in-lake work such as
aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging unless the sources of pollution have been ad-
dressed sufficiently to ensure that the pollution being remediated will not recur. States are
encouraged to use section 319 funding for eligible activities that might have been funded in
previous years under CWA section 314 (Clean Lakes Program).
Additional Water Program Support
The Watershed and Water Quality Modeling Technical Support Center (Center) provides assis-
tance to EPA Regions, state and local governments and their contractors in implementing the CWA.
The Center, which is part of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), is committed to
providing access to technically defensible tools and approaches that can be used to develop TMDLs,
wasteload allocations (WLA) and watershed protection plans. The Center reaches out to experts
throughout EPA and states to bring technical experts together. www.epa.gov/ATHENS/wwqtsc
70
Resources
-------
DY
Middle Fork Holston, Virginia
Grassroots Watershed Cleanup
The Middle Fork Holston begins near Marion, Virginia, and flows toward Abingdon, Virginia, provid-
ing a source of water to these communities. In 1984 a grassroots watershed group known as the
Middle Fork Holston Water Quality Committee formed in response to citizen concerns about the
taste and odor of their drinking water.
The group's first action was to seek the advice of state water resource management agencies.
They learned that little was known about the river, so with the state's encouragement, they asked
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management group to help them review the river's condi-
tion. In response, TVA joined an interagency team to evaluate and assess resource conditions. TVA
also collected monitoring information and conducted aerial inventories of land use and nonpoint
pollution sources.
The Water Quality Committee's primary tasks were to draw public attention to TVA's results and
work on convincing landowners of the benefits of agricultural BMPs. The group focused on involv-
ing all local stakeholders in setting long-term goals. In the Hutton Creek subwatershed, for exam-
ple, improving the fishery became a meaningful community goal, because local streams are used
more for fishing than for swimming.
Over 16 years, the Middle Fork Holston Water Quality Committee engaged in activities such as
river cleanup days, school art and slogan contests and numerous field days to promote BMPs. The
group also hosted three community seminars, pilot tested cost-effective streambank stabilization
techniques and sponsored an innovative "Adopt-A-Watershed" program that paired high school
students and state agencies in activities aimed at solving local water quality problems.
Funding and technical support for their projects came from many areas. State funds and federal
section 319 grants contributed more than $750,000. The USDA provided more than $2.5 million
for agricultural BMP assistance, and TVA invested approximately $750,000 in technical assistance
and seed money for the initial water quality demonstration.
The Watershed Funding Web site provides a comprehensive look at funding tools, databases and
information about sources of funding to protect and restore watersheds.
www.epa.gov/owow/funding.html
EPA Central Geographic Information System (GIS) support programs are available in every
Region and are usually found in the EPA Regional Information Technology Support Program. They
can provide an array of mapping and GIS support, including aerial photography and satellite
images access via TerraServer and GlobeXplorer Web services tools within their ArcGIS systems.
TerraServer image services include panchromatic Digital Orthophoto Quads down to one-meter
resolution. GlobeXplorer image services include both panchromatic and color images, satellite
and aerial photos, down to sub-meter resolution. Both image Web services are available to all EPA
employees running the ArcGIS software.
Watershed Funding Web site—EPA has created a new Web site, www.epa.gov/owow/
funding.html, to provide tools, training, databases, and information about sources of funding to
practitioners and funders that serve to protect watersheds. The site links to the Catalog of Federal
Funding for Watershed Protection as well as other useful information from both the public and
private sectors.
71
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Regional Priorities Grants Program (RPGP) Region 8
Region 8 2006 Criteria to Assist in Selecting Potential Funding
Opportunities for Watershed Projects
Region 8 combines their discretionary program grants under one Request for Proposals (RFP),
called the Regional Priorities Grants Program (RPGP). The description of the funding programs and
the review criteria for the 2006 RFP are summarized below. The Region 8 criteria are based on
EPA program-specific guidelines. The priorities and criteria vary in each Region. EPA national and
regional priorities and funding levels change over time; the current RFP specifications and criteria
should be reviewed before submission of any proposal.
General requirements for outcomes and outputs are outlined in all RFPs. The 2006 guidelines
include the following:
In compliance with EPA Order 5700.7 on environmental results, applicants are required to address
outcome and output environmental measurements in their proposals. The term outcome means
the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or
activity. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related or programmatic in nature
but must be quantitative. There are two major types of outcomes—end outcomes and intermediate
outcomes. End outcomes are the desired end or ultimate results of a project or program. They rep-
resent results that lead to environmental or public health improvement. A change in water quality
and resultant change in human health or environmental impacts are examples of end outcomes.
Intermediate outcomes are outcomes that are expected to lead to end outcomes but are not them-
selves ends. For example, for an air pollution project, reductions in emissions may be viewed as
an intermediate outcome to measure progress toward meeting or contributing to end outcomes of
improved ambient air quality and reduced illness from air pollution.
The term output refers to an environmental activity or effort and associated work product that will
be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative
or qualitative but must be measurable during the funding period. Examples of outputs include, but
are not limited to, the number of stakeholder groups involved in the process, the number of facili-
ties participating in a demonstration, the development of a report or training manual, increased
monitoring, the number of workshops or training courses conducted and the number of people
trained.
Description of Funding Programs
Below are the funding programs for which awards are expected to be made under the Region 8
2006 RPGP. Each of these programs and their expectations for outcomes and outputs is described
below.
1. Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI): RGI funds support projects that have been identified as a high
priority by the region, states, tribes, localities or citizen groups due to high or potentially high hu-
man health or ecosystem risk, or due to significant potential for risk reduction or avoidance. Two
types of projects will be considered for RGI:
Projects that protect and restore water quality on a watershed basis: Projects must contribute
directly to the achievement of the watershed and water body restoration measures under this stra-
tegic goal (for more information on the strategic goal, refer to EPA's website atwww.epa.gov/water/
waterplan/documents/FYOGNPGNarrative.pdf). Projects may contribute to meeting the measures
by conducting restoration of impacted waters to achieve measurable improvement, or by improving
the states' and/or tribes' capacity to target, achieve, measure and report water quality improve-
ment on a watershed basis. Note that RGI funds cannot be used by states or tribes to carry out
activities that would normally be funded under water quality (section 106) or non-point source
(section 319) State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Projects funded under this program support
progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 4, Sub-objective 4.2.1 (Healthy Communities).
72
Resources
-------
DY
(continued)
a. Examples of outcomes for RGI watershed projects include but are not limited to:
i. Implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) and restoration projects that improve
riparian and in-stream physical, chemical or biological health. Some examples include
miles of stream channel restored, miles of riparian vegetative buffer installed, and pounds
of pollutant loading reduced or eliminated as a result of improved practices or restoration
activities.
ii. Improved water quality as measured by pre- and post-project monitoring of water chem-
istry, physical habitat or biological indicators. EPA recognizes that for most water quality
restoration activities, measurable responses in water quality are likely to take longer than
the project period.
ill. Improved capability by a state or tribe to conduct assessment activities that measure ef-
fectiveness and environmental results of actions conducted as part of the nonpoint source
or other restoration programs, or assistance provided by the state to local partners in
measuring environmental results.
b. Examples of outputs for RGI watershed projects include but are not limited to:
i. A comprehensive characterization of all sources and causes of water quality impairment
within a watershed that will allow recipients to develop a restoration plan
ii. Development of a comprehensive watershed management plan that establishes priority
restoration actions needed to address water quality impairments watershed-wide
ill. A final project report that documents and quantifies BMPs and restoration activities
implemented
iv. Enhanced multi-sector partnerships that are capable of leveraging resources from multiple
sources to implement planned restoration actions
Applicants seeking funds from the RGI programs to protect and restore water quality on a water-
shed basis must address the general and program specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
Projects that address community-based air toxics: For air toxics projects, proposals must support
and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, demon-
strations, surveys and studies relating to local air toxics assessment, reduction, and/or elimination
projects; however, priority would be given to proposals where the majority of federal dollars go to
education and outreach activities related to air toxics and/or demonstration projects which imple-
ment mitigation activities. For more information on EPA's community air toxics program go to the
websitewww.epa.gov/air/toxicair/community.html. Projects funded under this program support
progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1 (Healthier Outdoor Air).
a. Anticipated outcomes for air toxics projects include but are not limited to:
i. Reducing risks from exposure to air pollutants through collaborative action at the local
level
ii. Developing a comprehensive understanding of sources of risk from air toxics and setting
priorities for effective action
ill. Creating multi-faceted partnerships at the local level to improve local air toxics conditions
b. Anticipated outputs for air toxics projects include but are not limited to:
i. Creation of multi-stakeholder partnerships
ii. Promotion and establishment of multi-stakeholder partnerships/collaborations
ill. Knowledge of refined risk information on the local level (improved inventories, modeling)
iv. Understanding of local areas of highest risk
73
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
v. Localized risk information to supplement the National Air Toxics Assessment
vi. Integrating efforts to understand mobile, indoor and stationary sources
vii. Integrating relevant health information
viii. Development of federal/state/local capacities in air toxics assessment
ix. Implementation of air toxics reduction activities
x. Development of means to measure results
xi. Development of outreach and education materials addressing air toxics
xii. Development and conduct of training courses addressing air toxics
Applicants seeking funds from the RGI program to address community-based air toxics must ad-
dress the general and program specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
2. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: This program will evaluate projects for TMDL devel-
opment for water bodies that have been identified on an EPA approved Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list. States and tribes that receive section 106 grant funding are not eligible to receive
TMDL grant funding. Projects funded under this program support progress toward EPA Strategic
Plan Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water), Objective 2 (Conserve and Enhance Nation's Waters), Sub-Ob-
jective 1 (Restore and Protect Watersheds).
a. Anticipated outcomes for TMDL projects include but are not limited to:
i. Restore and maintain watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health
and support recreational activities and provide healthy habitat for fish and wildlife
ii. Improve the quality of water and sediments to allow the safe consumption of fish
ill. Restore water quality to allow swimming safe from waterborne diseases
iv. Attain water quality standards in waters previously identified as not attaining standards;
v. Improve water quality in Indian country
vi. Reduce levels of phosphorous contamination in rivers, streams and lakes
b. Anticipated outputs for TMDL projects include but are not limited to:
i. Development of TMDLs necessary to protect and improve water quality on a watershed
basis
ii. Completion of assessments that characterize water quality and pollutant loading in order
identify waters that need TMDLs, or to develop TMDLs for waters already listed on a state
section 303(d) list.
Applicants seeking funds from the TMDL program must address the general and program specific
criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
3. Source Reduction Assistance (Pollution Prevention) Program: The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 defines "source reduction" to mean any practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal, and reduces
the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. Source reduction practices may include equipment or technology
modifications, process procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitu-
tion of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory
control.
74
Resources
-------
DY
(continued)
The term "pollution prevention" means source reduction, as defined under the Pollution Preven-
tion Act, and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through increased
efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources or protection of natural
resources through conservation.
The applicant will have the flexibility of scaling up prior source reduction or pollution prevention
projects to generate greater environmental impact. Projects that have the potential to be scaled up
must include activities that align with one of the regional priorities.
Projects relating to ENERGY STAR* and renewable energy, and projects that support the Resource
Conservation Challenge would be considered under this funding source. Information about the
ENERGY STAR* program can be found at www.energystar.gov and information about the Resource
Conservation Challenge can be found atwww.epa.gov/rcc.
Projects funded under this program support progress toward the following goals in EPA's Strategic
Plan:
> Goal 1, Objective 1.5 (Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity)
> Goal 3, Sub-Objective 3.1.1 (Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling)
> Goal 5, Objective 5.2 (Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation)
a. Anticipated outcomes for the Pollution Prevention Program include but are not limited to:
i. Pounds of pollution reduced
ii. BTUs of energy conserved
ill. Carbon reductions
iv. Pounds of waste reduced, recycled, or put to beneficial use
v. Gallons of water saved
vi. Dollars saved through pollution prevention efforts
b. Anticipated outputs for the Pollution Prevention Program include but are not limited to:
i. Number of stakeholder groups involved in a process
ii. Number of workshops, training, and courses conducted
Applicants seeking funds from the Source Reduction Assistance program must address the gen-
eral and program specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
4. Strategic Agriculture Initiative: The purpose of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Strategic Ag-
ricultural Initiative (SAI) Grant Program is to help implement FQPA and support "transition" efforts
by growers to more environmentally-sound pest management practices. The program supports
grants for education, extension, demonstration, and implementation projects for FQPA transition
and reduced-risk practices for pest management in agriculture. Priority is placed on project propos-
als that include a "whole systems" approach by integrating pest, soil, and crop management prac-
tices; address an array of commodities; focus on sustainable agriculture; incorporate conservation
planning; and are submitted by applicants that have a proven track record of grower participation
and adoption of sustainable pest management practices. Successful applicants will also have an
outreach and extension component to their program. "Sustainable" agriculture refers to farming
practices that are environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. FQPA/SAI
funds are not intended to support basic research; however, proposals may include a component
75
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
for applied on-farm research, as long as they also have demonstration, education, and/or out-
reach activities. Proposals that maximize the use of resources for "on-the-ground" activities will be
viewed more favorably than those proposals with high administrative costs. Measures of success
should be linked to reduction of pesticide use/risks, implementation of alternative agricultural
practices, and/or similar impacts. For assistance with measuring results of projects, see the SAI
Toolboxwww.aftresearch.org/sai (SAI Grant Applicants, Performance Measures). Projects funded
under the SAI will support progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 4 - Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems; Objective 4.1 - Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risk; Program/Project 92 - Field
Programs.
a. Anticipated outcomes for SAI projects include but are not limited to:
i. Increased number of growers using reduced-risk/lntegrated Pest Management (IPM) tools
and techniques
ii. Quantitative and qualitative benefits to human health, the environment, and communities
ill. Partnerships between crop producers, EPA, other federal/state/local agencies, and other
interested stakeholders to implement reduced-risk/IPM programs and to leverage funds
from other sources to increase the scope of the FQPA/SAI program
b. Anticipated outputs for SAI projects include but are not limited to:
i. Educational and outreach materials for growers
ii. Conservation plans for growers that include reduced-risk pest management
ill. Conferences, seminars, and on-site field training
iv. Partnerships established between federal and non-federal programs to provide reduced-
risk/IPM programs for crop producers
Applicants seeking funds from the SAI must address the general and program specific criteria in
Section V of this solicitation.
Types of Award Agreements
Awards will be in the form of grants, cooperative agreements, or interagency agreements, depend-
ing on the source of funds. Interagency agreements are made between two federal agencies for
projects that meet the needs and interests of both agencies. Grants have minimal EPA oversight.
Cooperative agreements permit substantial involvement between the EPA project officer and
the selected applicants in the performance of the work supported. EPA sees its role as providing
training, tools, technical assistance and other support. Although EPA will negotiate precise terms
and conditions relating to substantial involvement as part of the award process, the anticipated
substantial federal involvement for projects selected may include:
> Close monitoring of the recipient's performance
> Collaboration during the performance of the scope of work
> In accordance with 40 CFR Part 31.36(g), review of proposed procurements
> Approving qualifications of key personnel (EPA does not have authority to select employees or
contractors employed by the recipient)
> Review and comment on content of publications (printed or electronic) prepared under the
cooperative agreement (the final decision on the content of reports rests with the recipient)
76
Resources
-------
DY
(continued)
Dollar Range of Awards
The estimated dollar range of awards will be between approximately $10,000 and $200,000 de-
pending on the project type, but we anticipate that most projects awarded will be in the $25,000-
$75,000 range.
Eligibility Information
-4. Eligible Applicants: The types of entities eligible to receive EPA funding vary according to the
requirements of each grant program and Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number.
Table CS-1 specifies eligibility requirements for each of the funding programs and CFDAs. Note
that for most funding programs, private individuals and for-profit organizations are not eligible to
apply directly to EPA for funding; however, they may be able to participate in a project voluntarily or
through a contract mechanism as described below. The only exception is that individual farmers
can apply directly for funding under the SAI.
B. Eligible Uses of Funds: RGI and TMDL Program funds may not be used for any activities that
the Congress funds from the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) account. This includes all
categorical grant programs, with two exceptions for RGI and only the second exception for TMDL:
(1) These funds may be used for section 103 Clean Air Act grants, /fthe purpose of the project is
to conduct investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training to support
program implementation and the recipient is either an air pollution control agency or a non-profit
organization; (2) These funds may be used for certain activities under section 104(b)(3) of the
CWA. (Any submissions that fall in this category will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.)
In general, EPA funds may be used to pay for personnel, fringe benefits, travel expenses, outreach
materials, supplies and equipment (though there are typically limitations on equipment). Awardees
cannot use federal funds to purchase land, vehicles or other capital equipment and cannot use
federal funds to lobby or to complete work that was to have been done under a prior grant. Fund-
ing may be used to contract for services, provided the recipient follows procurement and subaward
or subgrant procedures contained at 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as applicable. Successful appli-
cants must complete contracts for services and products and conduct cost and price analyses to
the extent required by these regulations. The regulations also contain limitations on consultant
compensation. Applicants are not required to identify contractors or consultants in their proposal.
Moreover, the fact that a successful applicant has named a specific contractor or consultant in
the proposal EPA approves does not relieve it of its obligations to comply with competitive procure-
ment requirements. Contracts must follow procurement guidelines.
C. Match Requirements: The Source Reduction Assistance program requires a match of 5 percent.
To calculate the appropriate dollar match, divide the amount of EPA funds being requested by .95
for the total, then subtract the requested amount to get the match. For example, $25,000 of EPA
funds divided by .95 equals $26,316. Subtract $25,000 from $26,316 and the match required
will be $1,316.
For the other programs listed, the match is optional. Leveraging funds from other sources will
be considered in the evaluation of proposals. For more information on match requirements, see
Table CS-1.
77
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
Table CS-1. Description of Funding Programs and Eligibility
Funding
Program
1. Regional
Geographic
Initiative (RGI)
2. Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL)
3. Source Reduction
Assistance
(Pollution
Prevention)
4. Strategic
Agriculture
Initiative
CFDA1
66.436 or
66.034
66.436
66.717
66.716
Number
Matching
Optional
Optional
5%
Optional
Funds/
Type of Award
Grant, Cooperative
Agreement, or
Interagency
Agreement
Grant, Cooperative
Agreement,
Interagency
Agreement, or
contract support
Grant or Cooperative
Agreement
Grants
Mechanism/
Eligible
Applicants
States, tribes, local
government, federal
agencies, institutions
of higher education,
community-based
environmental and
nonprofit organizations.
States, tribes, local
government, nonprofits,
federal agencies
States, tribes, local
government, school
district and higher
education, nonprofits,
community-based
grassroots organizations
States, tribes, local
government, institutions
of higher education,
nonprofits including
commodity groups/
associations, farmers
groups and individual
farmers.
1 The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) can be viewed on the Web site at www.cfda.gov.
2 EPAs 2003-2008 Strategic Plan goals, objectives and subobjectives can be viewed on the Web site
at www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
78
Resources
-------
EPA's Watershed Academy and Watershed Webcasts—The Watershed Academy is a focal point in
EPA's Office of Water for providing training and information on implementing watershed approach-
es. The Academy sponsors live classroom training, online distance learning modules through the
Watershed Academy Web at www.epa.gov/watertrain, and most recently, Webcasts on various
watershed planning and restoration topics. Topics covered to date include: Sustainable Financ-
ing for Watershed Groups, Low Impact Development, Social Marketing, Brownfields, Stormwater
Phase II, and Integrating Wetlands into Watershed Planning. For more information, visit:
www.epa.gov/watershedacademy.
Plan2Fund™ is a Watershed Planning Tool that helps organizations determine their funding needs
to meet the goals and objectives of their Watershed Program Plan. Plan2Fund walks users through
estimating the costs of their Watershed Program Plan's goals and objective, assessing any local
matches and determining funding needs. The results from Plan2Fund can be used to search for
funding sources using the Environmental Finance Center's Internet-based Directory of Watershed
Resources. http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/Tools_Services/Plan2Fund/plan2fund.htin
The Volunteer Monitoring Program helps volunteer water monitors build awareness of pollution
problems, become trained in pollution prevention, help clean up problem sites, provide data for
waters that may otherwise be unassessed and increase the amount of water quality information
available to decision makers at all levels of government. Volunteer data provide delineation and
characterization of watersheds, screening level assessments for water quality problems and measure
baseline conditions and trends. EPA sponsors national conferences that bring together volunteer
organizers and agency representatives, manages an e-mail list for volunteer monitoring program
coordinators, supports a national newsletter for volunteer monitors, maintains a directory of volun-
teer monitoring programs and publishes manuals on volunteer monitoring methods and on plan-
ning and implementing volunteer programs. Information is at http://yosemite.epa.gov/
water/volmon.nsf. Regional EPA offices provide technical assistance related to data quality con-
trol, serve as contacts for volunteer programs, manage grants to state agencies that include provi-
sions for volunteer water monitoring and public participation, and provide information exchange
services for volunteers.
• RCRA Funding Resources
Resources for conducting RCRA assessment and cleanup activities come from business or property
owners. RCRA-related Brownfields projects may be funded as described below.
UST/LUST Funds
The 1986 amendment created the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to
provide federal funds for corrective actions and pay for cleanup at UST sites where the owner or
operator is unknown, unwilling or unable to respond or that require emergency action. Revenues
for the trust fund are derived from a gasoline tax.
The 2002 Brownfields law authorized EPA to grant funds to states and local governments so they
can inventory, assess and clean up low-risk, petroleum-contaminated brownfields. In 2003 EPA
provided almost $23 million to state and local governments to help them assess, clean up, and
reuse petroleum brownfields. This program complements the USTfields Initiative of 2000 and
2001 for the reuse of abandoned gas stations. A total of 50 USTfields Pilots were awarded up to
$100,000 each from the LUST Trust Fund to assess, clean up and ready for reuse high-priority,
petroleum-impacted sites.
79
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
• CERCLA Funding Resources
Funds for assessment and cleanup of CERCLA sites
may be provided by EPA CERCLA allocations from
Congress or PRPs (the special taxes that Congress
enacted to fund the dedicated Hazardous Substance
Superfund expired on December 31, 1995, and have
not been renewed). EPA's CERCLA Site Assessment
Program funds work (its own and states' under co-
operative agreements) to assess possible releases at
sites. Once EPA has determined that there is a need
for CERCLA response action(s), it first considers its
enforcement options. Ideally, one or more PRPs agree to perform the work under EPA supervision.
(As noted above, federal facilities generally undertake cleanup work under CERCLA at their own
facilities, using separately authorized funds.) Where PRPs contribute only money, and EPA per-
forms the work, funds from the PRPs are generally placed in a special account that is used only for
work at that site. The NRDA aspect of CERCLA is funded by the Trustees and PRPs.
EPA, states and FLM agencies each manage certain CERCLA activities, but only EPA is empowered
to disburse CERCLA funds. CERCLA grants to fund site-specific activities are not available to other
agencies to conduct activities except for funding available for communities to meet the commu-
nity involvement requirements of CERCLA. (Grants under the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act are discussed separately.) This section describes assessment and
cleanup resources available through CERCLA.
Pre-Remedial Program
Pre-remedial program funds are used to perform tasks required for site assessment and listing on
the NPL. Funding for a specific project is on the basis of annual allocations and priorities of EPA
Regions. Projects with high interest from the community or state or federal agencies are often
given priority for resources. The amount of funding allocated for a PA or SI at a site is based on the
complexity of the site, nature of contaminants, regional priorities and Regional funding available,
but is limited by the nature of the studies.
Remedial Program
Remedial activities are funded through the Superfund as supplemented by congressional appro-
priations as well as by PRPs. For remedial actions funded by Superfund and congressional appro-
priations, EPA Regions prioritize their sites and then negotiate with EPA headquarters and other
Regions to determine what projects will be funded. For remedial actions funded by PRPs, EPA
encourages site cleanup teams to establish special accounts at each site, allowing payments by PRPs
to be used at the site. Additionally, the remedial program may draw on the many CERCLA re-
sources described below, including EPA Regional Laboratories, the CLP, the Environmental Services
Assistance Team (ESAT) and the Response Action Contracts (RACs).
Removal/Emergency Response Program
There are three tiers to Removal/Emergency Response funding according to the urgency of the
problem.
> Emergency Response: OSCs have a $200,000 warrant to respond to situations that pose an
immediate risk to public health. An action memo must be prepared after the action to docu-
ment decisions. For expenditures beyond $200,000 in an emergency situation or after the
site moves from an emergency to time-critical removal status, the OSC documents the con-
tinued threat in an Action Memo (including revised upward budget) and obtains emergency
80
Resources
-------
response management and assistant regional administrator approval and enforcement
concurrence.
> Time-Critical Removal: TCRAs may be taken to protect public health. Generally as much
as $2 million may be spent after consultation with EPA's Enforcement Program. Additional
approval is required for spending above $2 million, or if the removal action will exceed 12
months, and EPA headquarters must approve certain expenditures over $6 million. An ac-
tion memo must be prepared before project implementation.
> Non-Time Critical Removal: NTCRAs may be implemented at sites that pose a health or
environmental threat for which more than 6 months are available for planning. An EE/CA
must be performed to compare removal options. Funding is limited by Regional allocations
for the Removal/Emergency Response Program.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Under CERCLA and OPA, Trustees assess injuries to public natural resources, determine dam-
ages and require PRPs to provide for restoration of resources injured due to the release of oil and
hazardous substances. Natural Resource Damages are recovered from PRPs and may be used for
assessment and restoration activities.
Funds deposited into the DOI's NRDA and Restoration Fund may be used as nonfederal match-
ing funds for federal grants if the money is deposited pursuant to a joint and indivisible recovery
by the DOI and a nonfederal Trustee and the money is transferred to the nonfederal Trustee. The
money may not be used for nonfederal matching funds if it is transferred to the federal Trustee
agency then distributed to a nonfederal agency.
Superfund Community Involvement Resources
TAGs are awarded by EPA to community groups to contract with independent technical advisors
to interpret and help the community understand technical information about the NPL site or pro-
posed site in their community. Groups eligible to receive grants under the TAG Program are those
whose members might be affected by a release or threatened release of toxic wastes at any facility
listed or proposed for listing on the NPL and where preliminary site work has begun. In general,
eligible groups are those groups of individuals who live near the site and whose health, economic
well-being or enjoyment of the environment are directly threatened. A group applying for a TAG
must be incorporated as a nonprofit (or working toward incorporation). PRPs, academic institu-
tions, local governments or groups established or supported by the government are not eligible for
TAG awards. If more than one group applies for a TAG, they are encouraged to form a coalition to
apply for the grant (because only one TAG may be awarded). Up to $50,000 is available for the
community to participate in decision making at their site. A 20 percent match, which may include
donated or in-kind services, must be contributed by the community group, www.epa.gov/
superfimd/community/tag/index.htm
The TOSC Program provides free, independent, nonadvocate technical assistance about contami-
nated sites. Services and products may include explanation and review of technical documents,
help to understand health risks and environmental issues, learning experiences to explain basic sci-
ence and environmental policy, information about existing technical assistance materials, training
for community leaders in facilitation and conflict resolution and assistance to help communities
participate in the cleanup decision-making process, www.toscprogram.org
EPA Internal CERCLA Resources
The Environmental Response Team (ERT) is a group of EPA technical professionals who provide
EPA regional and headquarters offices; USCG district offices; federal, state and local agencies; and
foreign governments experienced technical and logistical assistance in responding to environmen-
tal emergencies such as oil or hazardous materials spills. The staff serve as in-house consultants
81
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
on innovative and emerging technologies and are recognized experts in several fields of science.
In addition to its emergency response tasks, the ERT provides remedy recommendations/imple-
mentation, technology efficacy/cost-effectiveness, and emerging technology evaluation through
bench, pilot and full-scale studies promoting the One Cleanup Program. Members are involved in
land revitalization efforts and ecological risk assessment, including ground water to surface water
interaction studies as part of ecological risk assessment, as well as revegetation of sites fostering
implementation, resulting in a more robust solution. The ERT is also active in policy development,
evaluation and implementation in areas such as soil and ground water indoor air vapor intrusion,
ecological risk assessment, contaminated sediment remediation and counterterrorism and home-
land security.
The ERT can provide a limited amount of technical assistance but requires site funding for large ef-
forts. The ERT operates through EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
(OSRTI) but is available for assistance on Brownfields, RCRA, water or other EPA projects.
EPA's Office of Research and Development supports Technical Support Centers (TSCs) funded by
the OSRTI and the Technical Support Project. Site-specific assistance and technical support is avail-
able to EPA Regions and to EPA program offices, www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/tscs.htm
Technical Support Centers are operated through National Risk Management Research Labora-
tory offices in Ada, Oklahoma, and Cincinnati, Ohio. The Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration
Division in Ada conducts research and offers technical assistance to provide the scientific basis to
support the development of strategies and technologies to protect and restore ground water, sur-
face water and ecosystems impacted by man-made and natural processes. The Land Remediation
and Pollution Control Division in Cincinnati, Ohio, conducts research, development and demonstra-
tion projects on management of hazardous wastes and contaminated media.
www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL
Technical Support Centers are also provided through National Exposure Research Laboratory of-
fices in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Las Vegas, Nevada. The Microbial and Chemical Exposure Assessment
Research Division in Cincinnati performs research to measure, characterize and predict the expo-
sure of humans to chemical and microbial hazards. The Environmental Sciences Division in Las Ve-
gas operates the TSC for Monitoring and Site Characterization and provides technical support and
assistance to regional staff including analytical chemistry; statistical analysis/consultation; ground
water/soils modeling, monitoring and fingerprinting; air modeling and monitoring; and reviewing
documents. This group works with the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and OSCs throughout
a site characterization event (i.e., from planning and design to analysis and data interpretation).
When on-site work is required, the Las Vegas TSC mobilizes specialized teams of field scientists
equipped with portable or deployable instruments to help the Regions with screening-level assess-
ments and site characterization, www.epa.gov/nerl
The National Air & Radiation Environmental Lab performs analyses on samples for a number of
radionuclides and hazardous materials. Typical samples include air, water, soil, vegetation, human
tissue and food. The laboratory routinely provides analytical and technical support for the charac-
terization and cleanup of Superfund and federal facility sites. It also operates the Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS). The system consists of sampling stations in each
state that regularly collect air particulate, surface water, drinking water, precipitation and milk
samples for radioactivity analyses. The system can also track airborne radioactivity from any ac-
cidental release. If necessary, the ERAMS sampling frequency can be increased to meet the needs
of any radiological emergency response, wwiv.epa.gov/narel
The Radiation and Indoor Environment National Lab specializes in developing, demonstrating
and employing field technologies. Technical staff support the cleanup of contaminated sites using
state-of-the-art fixed and mobile laboratories, monitoring vehicles and an extensive collection of
calibrated field instruments. They also conduct field studies in radiation-contaminated areas and
82
Resources
-------
provide site-specific computer modeling and dose assessments. The laboratory also provides ana-
lytical services for testing and monitoring indoor environments for both radiological and chemical
contaminants, www.epa.gov/radiation/rienl
The Superfund Sediment Resource Center (SSRC) helps EPA staff on technical issues related to
the cleanup of contaminated sediment sites. The center focuses on providing timely and helpful
input on site-specific issues for topics related to sediment site characterization, such as data col-
lection and evaluation; sediment stability; modeling (e.g., hydrodynamic, contaminant fate and
transport and food chain); ecological and human health risks; and the efficacy of remedies such as
capping, dredging, monitored natural recovery (MNR) and treatment technologies.
www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/ssrc.htm
The Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Web site provides information about
innovative treatment and site characterization technologies to the hazardous waste remediation
community. It describes programs, organizations, publications and other tools drawn from various
federal and private organizations to be used by federal and state personnel, consulting engineers,
technology developers and vendors, remediation contractors, researchers, community groups and
individual citizens. EPA developed the site but it is intended as a forum for all waste remediation
stakeholders, http://clu-in.org
EPA CERCLA Contract Resources
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
The CLP provides analytical services for CERCLA-related projects through a nationwide network of
laboratories under contract to EPA. The CLP provides a range of state-of-the-art chemical analyti-
cal services of known and documented quality on a high-volume, cost-effective basis to support
ongoing Superfund enforcement, emergency response and remedial actions, site investigations and
state-lead assessments. The CLP provides flexible analytical services to support Superfund field
activities from a preliminary site inspection to more complex, large-scale remedial, monitoring and
enforcement actions. Routine Analytical Services (RAS) are used for standardized services. Special-
ized analyses may be performed by the Special Analytical Services Program (SAS). Samples that
require lower than standard detection limits or for different media and analytes than typical could
require analysis by an independent laboratory using a standard bidding procedure. Funding for the
CLP is generally not allocated to individual projects.
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT)
The ESAT contract was developed to expand EPA's existing capabilities for providing hazardous
waste sample analysis and related support to Superfund sites. Although primarily a Superfund
vehicle, ESAT also supports EPA's RCRA Program and other non-Superfund analytical efforts. ESAT
contractors provide multidisciplinary technical teams to each Region within their respective areas.
The teams perform chemical and biological analysis; field analytical screen project activities, spe-
cialized analytical services support and data validation/data review support; review of site-specific
quality assurance, site investigation and sampling plans; support for the development of new ana-
lytical methods; and logistical and administrative functions. The ESAT contractor may also provide
GIS/mapping support.
Regional Laboratories
The Regional laboratories provide a full range of routine and specialized chemical and biologi-
cal testing of air, water, soil, sediment, tissue, and hazardous waste for ambient and compliance
monitoring as well as criminal and civil enforcement activities. The analytical capacity of the labo-
ratories is enhanced by the presence of the ESAT, a dedicated Superfund contractor. In addition
to fixed laboratory analytical support, the Regional laboratories provide significant field sampling
and training and field analytical support.
83
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
EPIC—Remote Sensing and Mapping Support Contract
EPA's ORD has established a nationwide contract program to provide remote sensing and aerial
imagery acquisition and interpretation support to the Program Offices and each of the 10 Regional
Offices of EPA. The Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) provides support for
site-specific to regional environmental characterization and change analyses, emergency response
to hazardous developments, waste site inventories for large geographical areas and topographic
mapping of sites.
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START)
The START contracts provide technical support for EPA's site assessment, response, prevention and
preparedness activities. This support includes gathering and analyzing technical information, pre-
paring technical reports on oil and hazardous substance investigations and technical support for
cleanup efforts. The scope of the contract involves all types of scientific, engineering and technical
support such as sampling and field analysis, mapping and CIS support, EE/CA preparation, PA/SI/
HRS support and Homeland Security preparedness and readiness activities.
Response Action Contracts (RACs)
The RACs provide professional architect/engineering services to EPA to support response planning
and oversight of activities under CERCLA. Services provided by RACs include program manage-
ment, RI/FS preparation, remedial action design, EE/CA preparation, issuing and managing sub-
contracts for construction of selected remedies and engineering services for construction oversight.
RACs services also include enforcement support, community relations, sampling and analytical
support and predesign investigations. RAC contractors may also provide oversight of remedial
activities performed by a state, the USAGE, or PRPs identified in enforcement actions.
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS)
The ERRS contracts provide emergency, time-critical removal and quick remedial response cleanup
services for the CERCLA, OPA and UST programs. ERRS contractors may also provide cleanup
support for natural disasters, such as floods, pursuant to the National Response Plan, and conduct
international/transboundary responses. Regionally based contracts are awarded to provide clean-
up personnel, equipment and materials to contain, recover or dispose of hazardous substances,
analyze samples and provide site restoration.
Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC)
The REAC provides scientific support to EPA's ERT. The primary task is to respond to releases of
hazardous materials at spills and abandoned waste sites. Response activities include field investi-
gations and report writing for the following types of studies: multimedia extent of contamination,
bioassessment, treatability, contaminant transport, engineering/feasibility and risk assessment.
These studies are conducted to support EPA OSCs and RPMs for removal and remedial actions,
respectively. The REAC contractor also performs evaluation or engineering design studies of in-
novative, commercially available technologies to confirm and document their performance. The
contractor performs air-monitoring studies at hazardous waste sites and incidents of deliberate
release of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups. To support field and engineering stud-
ies, the REAC contractor provides on-site and mobile analytical services, conducts rapid analyses
of complex waste mixtures and environmental samples and develops analytical methodologies for
on-site and field laboratory equipment.
84
Resources
-------
• Brownfields Resources
EPA provides funding to eligible entities (e.g., state and local governments) in the form of assess-
ment grants, revolving loan fund grants for cleanups, direct cleanup grants and job training grants.
Additional funds are provided to states and tribes for the establishing or enhancing state and tribal
response programs, as well as to perform Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs). Brownfields
funding priorities vary from year to year, so community, industry, local, state and federal stake-
holders should investigate current priorities, www.epa.gov/brownfields/applicat.htm
Brownfields Grants
Brownfields grants or loans may not be used to pay response costs at a
brownfield site for which the recipient of the grant or loan is potentially
liable under CERCLA section 107. This means that applicants are not
eligible for grants or loans at sites for which they are liable parties under
CERCLA. Note, however, that CERCLA section 107 does not apply to pe-
troleum sites. In addition, CERCLA provides certain liability protections
for owners and prospective purchasers of contaminated properties who
are not responsible for the contamination (and not affiliated with a responsible
party) and comply with certain specific conditions provided in the statute.
The Brownfields Law clarified the innocent landowner provision and established liability protec-
tions for contiguous property owners and bona fide prospective purchasers of contaminated land.
Applicants that own or plan to purchase a contaminated site may qualify for one of these landown-
er liability protections and be eligible for funding. To qualify for the liability protections, landown-
ers must comply with certain obligations to take appropriate care after purchasing a property, and
prospective landowners must conduct all appropriate inquiries before purchasing a property. For
more information on these liability protections, see the Brownfields Law and the March 6, 2003,
EPA guidance titled, Interim Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Must Meet in Order to Qualify
for Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent Landowner Limitations
on CERCLA ("Common Elements"), www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/
cleanup/superfund/common-elem-guide.pdf
To summarize the available Brownfields grant types, criteria, and funding priorities, the 2005
Region 8 Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview is provided in Table 3-2 on
page 109. Please consult the latest proposal guidelines for current information regarding Brown-
fields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Grants, www.epa.gov/brownfields/
applicat.htm
Brownfields Assessment Grants (CFDA 66.818) are provided on a site-specific or community-
wide basis to conduct inventories, characterization, assessment and cleanup planning. Assessment
grants are available to states, local governments, land clearance authorities or similar quasi-
governmental agencies under control of local government, government entities created by state
legislatures, regional councils and redevelopment agencies chartered by states and tribes (other
than in Alaska). Up to $200,000 may be granted for a site with hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants and up to $200,000 for sites with petroleum-only contamination. A waiver may
be granted to allow up to $350,000 per site. No matching funds are required.
Priorities for Brownfields assessment grants, revolving loan grants and direct cleanup grants
include the following:
> Projects that stimulate the availability of other assessment and cleanup funding6
> Projects that stimulate economic development and address or reduce threats to human
health and the environment
The list of entities eligible for Brownfields assessment, cleanup and revolving loan fund grants are at CERCLA section
104(k)(l). Nonprofit organizations are also eligible for cleanup grants.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
> Projects that facilitate the reuse of existing infrastructure or create/preserve a park, green-
way, undeveloped property, recreational property or other property for nonprofit purposes
> Projects in small or low-income communities without other resources
> Projects that allow for the fair distribution of funds between urban and nonurban areas and
provides for community involvement
> Projects that identify and reduce threats to the health and welfare of children, pregnant
women, minority or low-income communities or other sensitive populations
Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants (CERCLA section 101(39), section 104(k)(3)(A)(i) and
104(k)(3)(b), CFDA 66.818) are available to states, local governments, land clearance authorities
or similar quasi-governmental agencies under control of local government, government entities
created by state legislatures, regional councils, redevelopment agencies chartered by states and
tribes (other than in Alaska). The funds may be used to capitalize a revolving loan fund or to
award subgrants to eligible entities or loans to private entities. Up to $1,000,000 may be available
per eligible entity. A 20 percent match is required unless a hardship waiver is granted.
Brownfields Cleanup Grants (CERCLA section 101(39), section 104(k)(3)(A)(ii), CFDA 66.818)
are available to states, local governments, land clearance authorities or similar quasi-governmen-
tal agencies under control of local government, government entities created by state legislatures,
regional councils and redevelopment agencies chartered by states, tribes (other than in Alaska),
and nonprofit organizations. Cleanup grants are used to perform cleanup activities on brownfields
sites owned by the grant recipient at the time of award. Up to $200,000 is available per site for a
maximum of three sites. A 20 percent match is required unless a hardship waiver is granted.
Brownfields Job Training and Workforce Development Grants section 101(39), section
104(k)(6), CFDA 66.815) are available to colleges, universities and nonprofit training centers
to bring together affected parties to provide training for residents in communities impacted by
brownfields. Projects that facilitate cleanup of brownfields sites contaminated with hazardous
materials and prepare trainees for environmental employment are preferred. Up to $200,000 is
available with no matching share required.
The Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities Program helps communities clean and re-
develop properties that have been damaged or undervalued by environmental contamination. The
purpose is to create better jobs, increase the local tax base, improve neighborhood environments
and enhance the overall quality of life. The program provides training regarding leadership, risk
assessment, brownfields processes, site assessment, and cleanup alternatives. Technical assistance
is provided to stakeholders through Hazardous Substance Research Centers, the Interstate Tech-
nology Regulatory Council and the Technology Innovation Program.
Targeted Brownfields Assessments and State and Tribal Response Program Grants
Federal Brownfields funds are also available for TBAs and state and tribal response program
grants. States may allocate the funds for site-specific assessments, cleanups of Brownfields, for a
revolving fund or for insurance, www.epa.gov/brownfields/tba.htm
EPA's TBA Funds (CERCLA section 101(39), section 104(k)(2)(A)(ii), CFDA 66.818) are available
through EPA Regional Brownfields offices for federally led environmental assessments. TBA funds
may be used for Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments and establishing cleanup options
and cost estimates from future uses and redevelopment plans. Priority is given to properties that
are abandoned or publicly owned, have low to moderate contamination, include issues of environ-
mental justice, suffer from the stigma of liability, have high potential for cleanup and redevelop-
ment, have strong municipal commitment of resources and community support and for projects
that align with other EPA/federal agency initiatives.
86
Resources
-------
DY
Combining NPS and Brownfields Resources
for Cleanup and Redevelopment
Demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings
Allis Chalmers Utility Corridor, West Allis, Wisconsin
The Allis Chalmers Utility Corridor is in West Allis, Wisconsin. The Allis Chalmers Company thrived
in the first half of the 20th century manufacturing large steel equipment such as turbines and
tractors but went bankrupt in the mid 1980s. The Allis Chalmers bankruptcy left behind a large
industrial site, a portion of which has been dubbed the "Utility Corridor." The Utility Corridor was
historically used as a cooling tower and reservoir, as well as a substation and various utilities as-
sociated with the Allis Chalmers operations.
The Allis Chalmers Reorganization Trust (ACRT) approached
the city with a proposal to create a stormwater quality basin
out of the cooling tower reservoir. The city agreed to this
proposal and coordinated with the Wisconsin DNR as the
official applicant for a 50 percent cost share NPS Grant
(6217 Coastal NPS Programs), which would cover only costs
associated with the design and construction of the water
quality basin (not including environmental remediation). ACRT
consultants Natural Resources Technology, Inc., (Pewaukee,
Wisconsin) and Montgomery Associates: Resource Solutions,
LLC, (Madison, Wisconsin) wrote the grant application to the
Wisconsin DNR for $518,000 (total project cost of slightly
more than $1 million) to provide water quality improvements.
The discharge from the site impacts the Menomonee River,
which was identified as impaired on the Wisconsin 303(d)
list for contaminated sediments. ACRT set up an escrow
account for the anticipated project budget including hiring a consultant for the city for review and
construction-time monitoring, environmental remediation costs and construction costs associated
with the water quality basin construction.
Before beginning construction on the water quality basin, environmental investigation and reme-
diation had to occur. A grant of approximately $50,000 through the Brownfield
Environmental Assessment Program (BEAP) was used to fund the environmental
investigation on the site to characterize the nature and extent of contaminants.
The contaminants that were a concern on the site included the following:
> Lead, oil and grease, and PAHs within the sediment at the bottom of the
former cooling tower
I PCBs with abandoned transformers
I Asbestos, lead, oil and grease within abandoned structures on site
> Foundry sand Used historically as general fill on the Site Sediment stabilization mixing operation
Contaminants within structures and transformers were remedi-
ated before starting demolition, with the reservoir sediment
stabilization as construction progressed, to provide general fill
on the site.
Construction of water quality basin began in 2003. First, exist-
ing storm sewer lines that emptied into the reservoir had to be
temporarily diverted around the basin. Next, the former cooling
tower reservoir was dewatered, which involved discharging 6
million gallons of water to the storm sewer system under an
NPDES general permit along with 120,000 gallons discharged
to the sanitary sewer system when contaminants reached
Retrofitting new storm sewers with old storm
87
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
unacceptable levels for discharge to the storm sewer system. Following the dewatering process,
demolition of the existing infrastructure began. Because the basin was already essentially exca-
vated, a trade-off between demolition and burying existing structures with imported fill to minimize
overall construction costs was a unique aspect of the project.
The primary technical issue with the sediment stabilization approach was developing an economi-
cal sediment mixing design to prevent contaminant leaching, as well as being suitable for future
redevelopment potential. The selected mix design consisted of mixing the reservoir sediment with
general fill at a 4:1 ratio (soil:sediment) along with 4 percent lime kiln dust. The stabilized sedi-
ment was placed as general fill for the embankments of the water quality basin. Approximately
6,500 cubic yards of raw sediment were stabilized. The potential for leaching into surface waters
was minimized by burying the sediment by 2 feet of clean general fill in areas subject to inunda-
tion. The existing concrete floor from the former cooling tower reservoir was still in adequate condi-
tion to provide a barrier to prevent leaching into the ground water.
The storm sewer system on the site was then retrofitted to maximize water quality improvement
for the contributing area. Where possible, existing storm sewers were used. Although decades-old
schematic utility drawings were available outlining where existing underground infrastructure was,
field engineering played an important role in the as-built project.
The performance of the system was
analyzed in XP-SWMM, WinDetpond
and WinSLAMM. The TSS removal
for the project exceeds 80 percent.
The basin also meets the stringent
detention criteria for additional
redevelopment that would occur in
the watershed. Meeting the detention
criteria helps control peak flows to the
storm sewer system and the receiving
waters, thereby helping to reduce
stream channel erosion and other
negative impacts associated with the
release of high volumes of storm water
during and after storms. The project
was completed in 2004. Basin compieted
State/Tribal Response Program Grants (CERCLA section 128(a)) are available to states and
federally recognized tribes to establish or enhance the state and tribal Response Program cleanup
capacity. CERCLA 128 funds may also be used for assessments conducted by states or tribes. States
and tribes may also use these grants to capitalize revolving loan funds. Matching funds are re-
quired only if the money is to be used for a Revolving Loan Fund, CFDA 66.817. A variety of infor-
mation to help tribal governments regarding environmentally related financial assistance programs
within EPA is available at this EPA Web page: www.epa.gov/indian/tgrant.htm.
EPA Superfund Redevelopment Initiative provides eligible local governments as much as
$100,000 in funds or services to support assessment and public outreach to help determine the
future use of a site. This program also encourages partnerships with states, local government agen-
cies, citizen groups and other federal agencies to restore previously contaminated properties to
beneficial use. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.htm
88
Resources
-------
Brownfields Federal Partnerships
The Brownfields Federal Partnership was formed by EPA and other agencies working together to
help communities more effectively prevent, assess, safely clean up and sustainably reuse brown-
fields. EPA's Brownfields Program has developed a guide describing the brownfields efforts with
many other federal agencies: www.epa.gov/brownfields/partners/
federal_programs_guide.pdf. In addition to EPA's funding of the above programs, the follow-
ing agreements have been made by participants in the Brownfields Federal Partnership:
> Agreements by the U.S. Economic Development Administration, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DOI, U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), and U.S. Department of Labor to offer
funding priority to brownfields communities through their respective grant
mechanisms.
> NOAA leads the Interagency Portsfields Partnership addressing brownfields cleanup and
revitilization in port communities. Portfields pilots are underway in Bellingham, Washing-
ton, New Bedford, Massachussetts, and Tampa, Florida, and technical assistance is being
provided to additional port communities, http://brownfields.noaa.gov/htmls/
portfields/portfields.html
> The Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative is a multiagency partnership including DOI, USDA,
USAGE and other agencies, helping communities cleanup and revitalize abandoned mine
lands. The initiative includes six demonstration projects providing collaborative support ad-
dressing land and water issues of mine-scarred lands, www.epa.gov/brownfields/
policy/initiatives_sb.htm#msl
> USAGE'S announcement of eight new pilots under its Urban Rivers Initiative to address res-
toration in and around urban rivers, www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/partners/
federal_partnerships.htm
• Additional EPA Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources
Targeted Watershed Grants (CWA section 104(b)(3), CFDA 66.439)
Targeted Watershed Grants are available for groups ready to implement actions to protect
critical watersheds valued for drinking water, fisheries, recreation and other important uses.
Grants are awarded to watershed organizations and coalitions that are
in the best position to make on-the-ground improvements to water ^f^ /*DAMTC
quality. Grants range from $600,000 to $900,000, with a 25 percent Pf/tRO^'
nonfederal match required and are subject to an appropriation. -~^^^^^^™
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative
OSWER Innovations Pilot Projects (CEPP, Technical Assistance Grants Program,
CFDA 66.810, 66.611)
Innovative Pilot Projects Grants are available to implement creative proposals testing innovative
and collaborative approaches to restore contaminated properties to environmental and economic
vitality; increase America's homeland security; promote stewardship and resource conservation
consistent with the Agency's Resource Conservation Challenge and; encourage voluntary efforts to
clean up sites. The assistance agreements awarded will range in value to a maximum of $100,000.
The Web site for the Innovations Initiative is www.epa.gov/oswer/iwg/index.html.
89
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Grants
(CAA, section 103(b)(3) as amended; CWA, section 104(b)(3), as amended; Solid Waste Disposal
Act, section 8001, as amended; TSCA, section 10, as amended; FIFRA, sections 18 and 20, as
amended; SDWA, sections 1442(a), and (c)(A), as amended; and Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, section 203, as amended, CFDA 66.035)
The CARE Program, which began in 2005, helps to build broad-based local partnerships for reduc-
ing risks from toxic pollutants that come from numerous sources. Under Level I, communities may
receive up to $75,000 to establish collaborative partnerships for reducing toxic releases in their
environment. Level II offers up to $300,000 to communities that have a broad-based collaborative
partnership in place and are ready to implement risk reduction strategies. A range of community
groups may apply for funding, including county and local governments, tribes, nonprofit organiza-
tions and universities. For additional information on this collaboration between the Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR) and OSWER, contact Stacy Swartwood at (202) 566-1391 or e-mail her at
swartwood.stacy@epa.gov. For additional information about CARE, projects awarded in 2005 and
2006 or how to apply for the cooperative agreements, visit EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/care.
Five Star Restoration Program
The Five Star Restoration Program of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds brings to-
gether students, conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups, corporations, landowners
and government agencies in locally driven, on-the-ground habitat restoration projects that address
important habitat issues within communities. The program emphasizes a grass-roots, bottom-up
approach to provide environmental education and training through projects that restore wetlands,
estuaries, and streams. The program provides challenge grants, technical support and opportuni-
ties for information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects. EPA funding levels
are modest, from $5,000 to $20,000, with $10,000 as the average amount awarded per project.
When combined with the contributions of partners, projects that make a meaningful contribution
to communities become possible, www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star
Environmental Finance Program
The Environmental Finance Program was developed by EPA to assist communities in their search
for creative approaches to funding environmental projects. Resources of the Environmental
Finance Program include the following:
The Environmental Financial Advisory Board focuses on environmental finance issues at all levels
of government, particularly with regard to impact on local governments and small communities.
The Board seeks to increase the total investment in environmental protection by facilitating great-
er leverage of public and private environmental resources, www.epa.gov/efinpage/efab.htm
The Environmental Finance Center (EFC) Network is a university-based program that provides
financial outreach services to regulated communities. Nonregulated community groups such as
watershed groups may qualify for assistance in certain circumstances. EFCs educate state and local
officials and small businesses on lowering costs of compliance and pollution prevention, increasing
investments in environmental protection, improving financial capacity to own/operate environ-
mental systems, encouraging the full-cost pricing of environmental services and identifying and
evaluating financing tools and options, www.epa.gov/efinpage/efcreg.htm
The Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection Web site is a searchable
database of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of
watershed protection projects. The Web site provides searches on the type of assistance, eligible or-
ganizations, required matching funds and keywords for the type of problem/project. The database
does not contain significant information about small, site-specific federal sources or most nonfed-
eral sources, http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund
90
Resources
-------
DY
Region 10 Serves as a Model
Making Funding Accessible
for Coordinated Watershed Programs
The Region participates in the national Sustainable Finance Workgroup and has a cooperative
agreement with the EFC at Boise State University. This agreement includes Web-based and on-the-
ground technical assistance on the following projects:
> Online newsletter that describes current funding issues and related topics, which is found at:
http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/News/NewsWinter2004.html.
I Online funding workshop to be used for Alaska; advanced workshop in Anchorage, Alaska.
I Directory of Watershed Resources, a searchable database of funding sources in Region 10
states. States from Regions 3 and 4 are also starting to build the directory. This database
includes information from federal, state and private funding sources.
I Plan2 Fund, a tool to create a strategic financial plan to fund watershed plans from start to
finish.
I Prioritization Tool—Piloted with the Chehalis Basin Partnership, the EFC moved the group
closer to implementation by offering a process and Web-based tool to identify decision rule to
prioritize plan objectives.
I Agricultural BMP Cost Analysis—Developed with the partnership of various state and federal
agricultural agencies, this tool will add a financial cost component to the Idaho One Plan to
help landowners identify the cost of conservation practices and how to fund implementation
of these practices.
The Guidebook of Financial Tools is a basic financial reference document for public and private
officials with environmental responsibilities and describes financing tools that federal, state and
local governments and the private sector can use to pay for environmental programs, systems and
activities.
Environmental Justice
In many communities, there are individuals and groups of persons who are dispropor-
tionately affected by an environmental burden, but who do not know that they have a
right to express themselves or are reluctant to make their concerns known for a variety
of historical or cultural reasons. The Environmental Justice (EJ) Program in EPA
was created to address such circumstances. The program was formally created in
1994 with the signing of Executive Order 12898, titled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The
order directs federal agencies to develop EJ strategies to aid federal agencies
identify and address adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and policies on the nation's populations.
The EJ Program operates to assure that no group of persons bear a dispro-
portionate burden of environmental impacts resulting from the execution of
environmental programs. EPA considers EJ while setting standards, permitting facilities, making
grants, issuing licenses or regulations and reviewing proposed actions of other federal agencies
under the authority of EPA's various programs (e.g., CERCLA, RCRA, CAA, National Environmental
Policy Act [NEPA]). To help with this process, EPA supports a staff of environmental profession-
als who work with staff from all the programs and also engage directly with communities. Call-
ing on this staff simplifies the process of identifying strongly held, but unvoiced, concerns that, if
91
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
unaddressed, can have a significant impact on the effective cleanup of target watersheds. EJ staff
can help identify community concerns early and begin to build trust among what may be disinter-
ested or disaffected members of the community.
The EJ Program offers grants annually to communities for addressing environmental problems
from an EJ perspective. In addition, the program works with EPA's operating programs to identify
technical, human, and financial resources that might be made available to communities interested
in addressing environmental injustices. www.epa.gov/Compliance/environmentaljustice/
index.html
• Department of Interior Assessment and Cleanup Resources
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
The BOR stores and supplies water for irrigation and for use in homes and industry. The BOR
generates hydroelectric power, provides flood control and helps meet fish and wildlife needs and
compliance with WQS. The BOR can assist in watershed cleanups by providing historical and pro-
jected stream flow data and by using BMPs during releases to minimize streambank erosion and
habitat disruption.
The Water Resources Research Laboratory performs research to improve BOR efforts, including
fish protection/screening, fish passage, reservoir release water quality, river restoration and wet-
land creation/restoration projects. River restoration is an important component of enhancing en-
vironmental compatibility of the many BOR structures and activities affecting streams and rivers.
Mining, flood protection, land use channelization and many other factors have altered, to some
degree, most of America's rivers. In some cases, these activities have greatly degraded the natural
riverine environment. The laboratory is working with other federal, state and local organizations
to revitalize rivers that have been severely impacted. www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab
The Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group provides many levels of analysis ranging from
simple technical advice or a field trip, through a multiyear study integrating with other disciplines
and project needs. This group provides hydrologic modeling, including dam removal or modifica-
tion, sediment studies, integrated geomorphic and sediment studies, river restoration analysis and
design, river and reservoir surveys, multiple scope analysis, channel maintenance and stability,
hazard classification, flood inundation mapping, flood warning and evacuation time, hydraulic
modeling (ID, 2D, 3D), sediment transport modeling and riparian vegetation modeling. The group
also performs sediment transport analysis, development of computer models, manuals and guide-
lines, geomorphic studies and river restoration plans, reservoir sediment management plans and
flood inundation mapping and emergency planning, www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS provides scientific information and performs scientific studies in many fields, includ-
ing geologic mapping, contaminant biology, pollution, water quality, wetlands and environmental
studies. Departments that might be useful for watershed cleanup include Contaminant Biology;
Cooperative Water Program; Geographic Analysis and Monitoring; Fisheries and Aquatic Resourc-
es; Hydrologic Networks and Analysis; Hydrologic Research and Development; Mineral Resources;
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping; National Streamflow Information; National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA); State Water Resources Research Institute; Toxic Substances Hydrology; Ter-
restrial, Freshwater, and Marine Ecosystems; and Wildlife and Terrestrial Resources. USGS science
provides comprehensive, high-quality and timely scientific information about the quantity, quality
and availability of natural resources to decision makers and the public. Because it has no regula-
tory or management mandate, the USGS provides impartial scientific expertise. USGS scientific
92
Resources
-------
efforts include long-term data collection, monitoring, analysis and predictive modeling. USGS
scientists cover a range of disciplines, including hydrology, geology, geophysics, biology, geography
and statistics. Projects within a specific watershed may be funded by grants, interagency agree-
ments, congressional appropriation or occasionally from internal program funding. Water-quality
studies may be initiated with the USGS by contacting a state representative to discuss the USGS
cooperative funding program.
Through the National Water Information System (NWIS), USGS provides water data, including
real-time water data, surface water flow measurements, ground water measurements and water
quality measurements, from more than 1.5 million sites throughout the nation. Since 1991, USGS
scientists with the NAWQA Program have been collecting and analyzing data and information in
more than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the nation to develop long-term consistent
and comparable information on streams, ground water and aquatic ecosystems to support sound
management and policy decisions. USGS is available to support development of TMDLs.
www.usgs.gov, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/FS-130-01,
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis, http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
In support of the National Forest Plan revisions, which occur every 5 years, the USGS and U.S For-
est Service (USFS) coordinate on an assessment of geological resources on USFS lands.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS is tasked to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and plants and their habi-
tats for the continuing benefit of the American people. USFWS is the designated Natural Resource
Trustee for certain anadromous fish, certain endangered species, certain marine mammals and
migratory birds. Funding to support efforts related to protection of trust resources affected by
contamination is available under the Contaminants Program. USFWS has a wide range of technical
expertise and has many agreements in place to support ecological assessment and cleanup efforts.
One example is preapproved permits for support of fish shocking or other wildlife collection and
evaluation efforts.
Through a national agreement between USFWS and EPA, USFWS supports
CERCLA and OPA response, removal and remedial programs by reviewing
documents and plans and providing technical assistance to the regional
Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) or other designated ecologi-
cal risk assessment program personnel. Coordinating USFWS and EPA risk
assessment efforts can allow issues to be resolved in advance and reduce
the time and effort required for site remediation and restoration. NRDAs
are conducted under CERCLA authority but are not funded by the inter-
agency agreement. USFWS provides scientific expertise and authority for
preparation of NRDAs and conducts species and habitat-related research.
USFWS may initiate NRDA efforts on behalf of trust resources. USFWS
may access funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for work related
to oil spills.
In addition to CERCLA and OPA responsibilities, USFWS has the authority to act under the ESA,
the Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program provides matching grants to
organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation
projects in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The Standard Grants Program provides funds
to Canadian and U.S. partners for projects that focus on protecting, restoring or enhancing critical
habitat. Projects must support long-term wetlands acquisition, restoration or enhancement, and
partners must minimally match the grant request at a one-to-one ratio. Mexican partners may also
develop training and management programs and conduct studies on sustainable use. The Small
93
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Grants Program supports the same kinds of activities as Standard Grants but usually involves
fewer project dollars. Except that grant requests may not exceed $50,000 and that funding priority
is given to projects that have a grantee or partners that have not participated in an Act-supported
project before, criteria for funding a project are the same as for Standard Grants.
www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/nawca/grants.htm
Partners for Fish and Wildlife is a USFWS Program that provides technical and financial assis-
tance for habitat restoration projects on lands not owned by a state or federal government. State,
federal, tribal and private conservation organizations use Partners for Fish and Wildlife to provide
watershed management, conservation easements and river restoration in cooperation with volun-
tary landowners. Priority is given to projects that most benefit USFWS trust resources. The USFWS
develops a cost-sharing agreement with the partner; typically a 50 percent cost share is required,
and funding from the program is provided after completion of the project. Technical assistance is
available. Typically the NRCS, the state fish and game agency or other conservation agencies par-
ticipate in project planning, www.fws.gov/partners
Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
The OSM regulates coal mining facilities. The Surface Mining Law provides for the restoration of
lands mined and abandoned or left inadequately restored before August 3,1977. The Abandoned
Mine Reclamation Fund is used to pay the reclamation costs of AML projects.
AML Grants are provided to states with an approved program, or specific Indian tribes, and are
funded from fees paid by active coal mine operators on each ton of coal mined. Funds are used to
operate a state AML Program, perform construction to reclaim abandoned mine sites and estab-
lish trust funds that may be spent by the state for specific targeted purposes. AML grants are 100
percent federally funded, www.osm.gov/grantsprograms.htm
The Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program awards cooperative agreements to nonprofit
organizations, especially small watershed groups, that undertake local acid mine drainage (AMD)
reclamation projects. These funds are available as part of the Appalachian Clean Streams Initia-
tive. The maximum award amount for each cooperative agreement will normally be $100,000
to help as many groups as possible to undertake actual construction projects to clean streams
impacted by AMD.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The BLM is responsible for the management of federal lands under the auspices of the DOI. The
BLM engages in hazardous material emergency response actions, site evaluations and prioritiza-
tion of cleanups in accordance with laws and regulations. This involves working with EPA, state
environmental quality departments, counties, and PRPs (both public and private) to fund and
expedite the cleanup of hazardous sites, www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm
National Park Service
The National Park Service aims to protect and restore natural resources. The Fisheries Program
provides guidance and support in the implementation of the recreational fisheries program, A
Heritage of Fishing; develops policy and guidance for the protection of aquatic biological resources;
coordinates policy review of the fisheries and aquatic resources-related aspects of environmental
compliance documents; provides program guidance and technical support for fish population/
habitat restoration; provides guidance and technical assistance in the development of fishery
management plans; and coordinates with other agencies on fisheries and aquatic resources-related
regulatory matters.
94
Resources
-------
The National Park Service monitors water quality vital signs in parks.
Concerns include the use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles in
parks, source and NFS contaminants, land rezoning and identifying
impairment thresholds.
Through the Natural Resource Challenge, the Water Resources Division
conducts Watershed Condition Assessments systemwide. Watershed
Condition Assessment involves applying a set of descriptive or quantita-
tive technical methods to describe the ecosystem health of a watershed.
Typically, these methods develop and integrate assessments of discrete
ecosystem components at a variety of landscape scales. Researchers
and managers have developed numerous assessment methods for use
in various ecosystems and for a wide range of purposes.
The Wetlands Program provides policy and guidance pertaining to park wetlands protection and
restoration, identifies and assesses existing and potential threats to park wetland and riparian
resources, provides technical assistance to parks for wetland and riparian zone restoration and
protection, provides wetland regulatory compliance and review and coordinates with other agen-
cies on wetland-related regulatory matters.
• Department of Agriculture Assessment and Cleanup
Funding Resources
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
The USFS performs watershed assessment and cleanup efforts related to USFS managed lands.
Assessment and cleanup may be conducted under CERCLA authority/responsibility or as part of
enhancing and maintaining healthy watersheds and habitat.
The Watershed Forestry Assistance Program is focused on maintaining healthy watersheds. Data
are collected to determine if a watershed within USFS property is impacted, and project imple-
mentation is conducted where necessary to ensure watershed health. The Watershed Forestry As-
sistance Program is allocated a set budget, and this funding is split among the individual national
forests. Funding priorities for watershed program activities are determined by the individual forest
managers.
The USFS has established an AML Program to support the Watershed Forestry Assistance Pro-
gram to clean up and reclaim abandoned mine sites on USFS lands. USFS has CERCLA authority
for investigations and remediation on nonemergency hazardous waste sites on lands that they
manage. The USFS AML Program conducts CERCLA assessment, removal, and remedial actions
following the NCR CERCLA funding is allocated to USFS each year. Funding for specific projects is
designated on a case-by-case basis—sites compete for funding of each phase of CERCLA action. In
addition to the USFS CERCLA allocation, USDA has an allocated budget each year for hazardous-
waste removal. All USDA agencies compete for that allocation to fund AML and other hazardous-
waste cleanups. Projects with widespread interest, such as watershed cleanups with a high level of
community involvement, are given priority for funding. Community benefits family benefits, and
ecological benefits are all factors considered in funding decisions.
The USFS Fisheries and Wildlife Programs perform fisheries improvement and wildlife habitat
improvement within national forests, www.fs.fed.us
95
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
96
Resources
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Under the 1996 Farm Bill, the NRCS provides assistance for landowners seeking to preserve soil
and other natural resources. The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)
authorizes the secretary of agriculture to designate watersheds, multistate areas, or regions of spe-
cial environmental sensitivity as conservation priority areas that are eligible for enhanced federal
assistance. Assistance in priority areas is to be used to help agricultural producers comply with
NFS pollution requirements of environmental laws, www.nrcs.usda.gov
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides as-
sistance to farmers and ranchers who face threats to soil, water, air and related natural resources
on their land. Through EQIP, the NRCS provides assistance to agricultural producers to promote
agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals, optimize environmental
benefits and help farmers and ranchers meet federal, state, tribal and local environmental require-
ments. EQIP is reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill).
Funding for EQIP comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Optimizing environmen-
tal benefits is achieved through a process that begins with the definition of national priorities.
The national priorities are as follows:
> Reduction of NFS pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides or excess salinity in
impaired watersheds, consistent with TMDLs where available, as well as reduction of
ground water contamination and conservation of ground and surface water resources
> Reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, VOCs and ozone precur-
sors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
> Reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land
> Promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program provides funding to conservation dis-
tricts, local governments and state/territorial/tribal agencies for projects in watersheds containing
less than 250,000 acres. Up to $10 million is available per project; cost sharing is required.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program that supports
ongoing stewardship of private agricultural lands by providing payments for maintaining and en-
hancing natural resources. CSP identifies and rewards those farmers and ranchers who are meet-
ing the highest standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations.
CSP provides financial and technical assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of
soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life and other conservation purposes on tribal and private
working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture and
range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental part of an agriculture operation.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
The FSA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program for agricultural landown-
ers who can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term,
resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC makes annual rental payments on the
basis of the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50
percent of the participant's costs in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants en-
roll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The program is administered by the CCC through the FSA,
and program support is provided by NRCS, Cooperative State Research and Education Extension
Service, state forestry agencies and local soil and water conservation districts.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp
-------
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA's main in-house scientific research agency. They find
solutions to agricultural problems, including sustaining soils and other natural resources, and pro-
vide research support to other federal agencies.
• Department of Commerce Assessment and Cleanup Funding
Resources
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA conducts research and gathers data about the global oceans, atmosphere, space and sun and
applies this knowledge to science and service. NOAA Fisheries is the federal agency responsible for
the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their habitat, www.noaa.gov,
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/funding_opportunities/funding.htinl
The Community Based Restoration Program provides funding to regional
governmental bodies and public or private organizations including business,
community/watershed groups, nonprofit groups, educational institutions, con-
servation districts, local governments and state/territorial/tribal agencies to
restore fishery habitat around the coastal United States. The required 1:1 cost
match may be cash, salary, equipment, supplies, in-kind services or labor.
The NOAA Fisheries/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Habitat
Restoration Partnership funds restoration and educational efforts. The fund-
ing is distributed nationally and regionally through a series of NFWF funding
initiatives including Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program, Living
Shorelines Initiative, Pinellas County Environmental Foundation (directed
appropriation), Delaware Estuary Program, North Gulf Coast Initiative and the
Pacific Grassroots Salmon Initiative.
• Other Federal Funding Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
The USAGE carries out environmental and natural resource management programs at its projects,
managing thousands of square miles as forest and wildlife habitat, monitoring water quality at
its dams, operating fish hatcheries in cooperation with state wildlife agencies and, in some cases,
restoring the environment at projects built in earlier days. The USAGE has significant expertise and
experience with water-resource-related projects such as planning, designing, building, operating
and maintaining projects that provide river and harbor navigation, flood control, water quality and
supply, hydroelectric power, environmental restoration, wildlife protection and recreation.
The USAGE has regulatory authority under the Rivers and Harbors Acts for regulating construc-
tion, excavation or deposition of materials in, over or under navigable waters, or any work that
would affect the course, location, condition or capacity of those waters. USAGE also has regulatory
authority for permitting construction activities that occur in the nation's waters, including wet-
lands according to CWA section 404(d). For more details see Chapter 5.
The Water Resources Program provides several resources for watershed assessment and cleanup.
The Institute for Water Resources examines water resources problems and offers practical solu-
tions through a wide variety of technology transfer mechanisms. In addition to hosting and lead-
ing USAGE participation in national forums, technology transfer mechanisms include producing
97
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
98
white papers, reports, training sessions, and manuals; developing new planning
and decision-support methodologies, improved hydrologic engineering methods
and software tools; and managing national waterborne commerce statistics and
other information systems. Water resources projects include ecosystem restoration
to reestablish the attributes of a natural, functioning and self-regulating system.
Over the past 10 years, small ecosystem restoration projects have grown increas-
ingly popular throughout the country. In one of the largest restoration projects ever
attempted, the USAGE and the National Park Service are cooperating on restoring
the hydrologic regime for the Everglades in Florida with funds provided by both
agencies. Collaboration has allowed the USAGE to expand traditional environmen-
tal activities and enhance or restore natural resources at their projects.
The USAGE Restoration of Abandoned Mine Sites (RAMS) Program, under authority of section
560 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), provides technical, planning and design
assistance to federal and nonfederal interests in carrying out projects to address water quality
problems caused by drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive non-coal mines.
Applied engineering and scientific support may be provided to allow the efficient and cost-effec-
tive performance of projects intended to manage drainage; restore and protect streams, rivers,
wetlands, other waterbodies and riparian areas; and demonstrate management practices and
innovative and alternative treatment technologies to minimize or eliminate adverse environmen-
tal effects. Support also includes the development and population of a database of remediation
technologies. RAMS projects have included developing a stakeholder design and planning manual,
watershed-based cleanup, including prioritization, design and implementation; evaluating tech-
nologies and successes/failures and lessons learned; and partnering with other federal agencies to
combine resources to collectively address pollution created by AMD.
The USAGE Floodplain Management Services Program, under the authority of section 206 of the
Flood Control Act of 1960 as amended, provides a full range of information, technical services, and
planning guidance needed to support and promote effective floodplain management. The USAGE
provides technical services and planning assistance such as flood and floodplain data development
and interpretation on all aspects of floodplain management planning. This program can also devel-
op or supply guides and pamphlets associated with floodplain management. All program services to
state, regional or local governments or other nonfederal public agencies are free of charge, within
program funding limits. Program services can also be provided with 100 percent of the funds com-
ing from the requesting entity. Federal agencies and private entities are required to provide funds
to cover 100 percent of the cost of services provided.
The USAGE Planning Assistance to States Program, under the authority of section 22 of the
WRDA of 1974 as amended, can provide technical planning assistance in all areas related to water
resources development in which the USAGE has expertise. These areas include, but are not neces-
sarily limited to flood damage reduction; bank stabilization; sedimentation; dredging; hazardous,
toxic and radioactive wastes; navigation; water conservation; water quality; surface water recre-
ation; hydrologic analysis; hydraulic analysis; hydropower; flood hazard mitigation; environmental
preservation and enhancement; fish and wildlife; cultural resources; floodplain information; ecosys-
tem and watershed planning; and stream bed degradation. Assistance is available to states, public
entities within states and federally recognized tribes for preparing plans for the development, use
and conservation of water and related land resources. Assistance is limited to $500,000 in federal
funds per state or tribe per year, on the basis of available appropriations. The assistance is recon-
naissance level in detail. Most studies are completed within 12 months. Study costs are shared on a
50-50 basis with one (or more) nonfederal sponsors (a state, a public entity within a state or tribe).
The USAGE Project Modifications for Improvement of Environment Program, under section
1135 of the WRDA of 1986 as amended, may modify the structures or operations of previously
constructed USAGE water resources projects to improve the quality of the environment in the
Resources
-------
public interest. The types of work that can be undertaken under this program are structural or
operational changes to existing projects for restoration or enhancement of environmental values,
especially fish and wildlife values. Any modifications for environmental improvement must be both
feasible and consistent with the authorized project purposes. The USAGE coordinates with the ap-
propriate federal, state and local agencies on any actions taken.
If a nonfederal sponsor is interested in sharing the costs of a project, the USAGE will pay all the
cost to prepare a study proposal. If the study proposal is approved, the subsequent feasibility study,
plans and specifications and construction costs are cost shared. The sponsor's share is 25 percent
of these costs but is not payable unless and until the project enters the construction phase. In-kind
services provided during design or construction can be credited toward a sponsor's share. Sponsors
are usually public agencies; however, tribes and national nonprofit organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation might also qualify as sponsors. A private interest
can qualify as a nonfederal sponsor if the proposed modifications do not require future opera-
tion and maintenance. A sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way relocations
and disposal sites (LERRDs) for required implementation of the proposed modifications. Costs to
acquire the LERRDs are credited toward the sponsor's 25 percent share of total costs. The sponsor
is responsible for all operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement costs required
for the project, although, by subagreement, a third party can provide these responsibilities for the
sponsor. Modification costs cannot exceed $5 million (federal costs) per project, unless specifically
approved by USAGE headquarters. No minimum cost per project has been established; however,
the planning and design costs should not exceed the costs of the project modifications.
The USAGE Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program, under authority of section 206 of the
WRDA of 1996, restores historic habitat conditions (aquatic ecosystems) at any location to benefit
fish and wildlife resources. The types of work that can be done under this program are structural
or operational changes to improve the environment. This includes projects that would reconnect
old river channels and backwaters, create wetland subimpoundments on the perimeters of res-
ervoirs, improve water quality through the reduction of erosion and sedimentation, manipulate
wetlands and vegetation in shallow headwaters of reservoirs and involve planting woody vegeta-
tion in floodplains.
If a nonfederal sponsor is interested in sharing the costs of a project, the USAGE will pay all the
cost to prepare a study proposal. If the study proposal is approved, the subsequent feasibility study,
plans and specifications and construction costs are cost shared. The sponsor's share is 35 percent
of these costs but is not payable unless and until the project enters the construction phase. In-kind
services provided during design or construction can be credited toward a sponsor's share. Sponsors
are usually public agencies; however, tribes and national nonprofit organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation might also qualify as sponsors. A private interest
can qualify as a nonfederal sponsor if the proposed modifications do not require future operation
and maintenance. A sponsor must provide all LERRDs for required implementation of the pro-
posed modifications. Costs to acquire the LERRDs are credited toward the sponsor's 35 percent
share of total costs. The sponsor is responsible for all operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilita-
tion and replacement costs required for the project, although, by subagreement, a third party can
provide these services for the sponsor. Modification costs cannot exceed $5 million (federal costs)
per project, unless specifically approved by USAGE headquarters. No minimum cost per project
has been established; however, the planning and design costs should not exceed the costs of the
project modifications.
The USAGE Support for Others Program, under authority of the Economy Act and the Inter-
governmental Cooperation Act, provides the USAGE with opportunities to serve the nation and
enhance its capability to accomplish its assigned missions. Any work performed must be consistent
with USAGE organizational purposes and capability. Work under this program is done generally
to provide environmental protection and restoration or to provide facilities and infrastructure.
99
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
CASE STUDY
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Team Up to Restore
Contaminated Rivers
EPA and the USAGE signed an MOU, in July 2002, committing them to a partnership for restoring
degraded urban rivers. As part of this agreement, EPA and USAGE jointly selected eight demon-
stration pilot projects. A new MOU was signed in 2005 to continue monitoring these projects.
In partnership with state and local governments, tribal authorities and private organizations, the
projects focused on improving water quality, cleaning up contaminated sediments and restoring
human and animal habitat. The projects demonstrated how coordinated government and private
sector efforts can not only restore contaminated rivers, but also revitalize urban environments.
The MOU aimed to improve coordination of hazardous-waste cleanup, water quality improve-
ments, and environmental restoration activities under the CWA, Superfund, RCRA and the vari-
ous WRDA authorities. (The WRDA is a federal statute that addresses watershed environmental
restoration activities under the authority of the USAGE.) The original MOU, signed in 2002 is at
this Website:
www.epa.gov/oswer/la ndrevitalization/download/epa-usace_urban_water_mou.pdf.
EPA and the USAGE also signed an MOU in 2004 titled, Watershed Management Partnership
Agreement which provides a useful tool in promoting agency integration: www.epa.gov/
owow/wetlands/pdf/Watershed_Management_Pa rtnership_Agreement.pdf.
Work varies from employing one or several of the USACE's skills to using the whole range of the
USAGE'S planning, engineering, real estate, contracting, construction management and legal skills.
USACE's capabilities include, but are not limited to, the following areas: environmental planning
and compliance, economic and financial analyses, floodplain management, cultural resources man-
agement and evaluation and general planning.
Before the USAGE can support state and local governments, the requesting government must cer-
tify that it cannot obtain the services reasonably and expeditiously from private firms. The techni-
cal services that may be provided include studies and planning activities, engineering and design
(including plans and specifications), construction management assistance and training. Construc-
tion management assistance is limited to technical advice to improve state or local management
capability in contract preparation, negotiation and evaluation; contract administration; quality
assurance; and supervision and inspection. The USAGE may not acquire real estate nor can it serve
as the contracting officer for project construction for a state or local government. All USAGE costs
must be provided by the customer agency. Under the program, the customer retains responsibility
for program planning, development, and budgeting, www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwe,
www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=landing
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
HUD offers a variety of funding opportunities for projects that involve urban area renewal and
economic development. The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) is a key com-
petitive grant program that HUD administers to stimulate and promote economic and community
development. BEDI funds are used for local governments and private sector parties to commence
redevelopment or continue phased redevelopment efforts on brownfields sites where either poten-
tial or actual environmental contamination are known and redevelopment plans exist.
www.hud.gov/grants/index.cfm
100
Resources
-------
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group is an interagency group that has
developed a publication (referenced below) to be used as a common technical reference for stream
corridor restoration technology.
Participating agencies include the following:
> USDA—Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service, USFS, NRCS
> DOC—NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
» DoD—USAGE
» HUD
» DOI—BLM, BOR, USFWS, National Biological Service, National Park Service,
USGS Biological Resources Discipline and Water Resources Division
» EPA
> Federal Emergency Management Agency
» TVA
Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Interagency Stream
Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the U.S. government). ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration
• Nongovernmental Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources
Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCP)
Many states have established VCPs to help address properties where the contamination level is low
enough that the chance of state or federal enforcement is not as great as with other sites (such as
NPLs), but whose site owners (or prospective owners) want to assess and cleanup a site to facili-
tate property sale, foster redevelopment, or improve value. While each of these programs is differ-
ent, the following principles generally apply.
A state's VCP typically requires an applicant to submit Phase I and Phase II site studies, which
the state reviews and must approve. The applicant then makes a cleanup proposal, which (upon
approval) is carried out. The VCP often allows the applicant to choose one of several alternative
cleanup standards, which often include meeting statewide established cleanup standards, site-spe-
cific risk-based standards, or background. Upon successful completion of the cleanup, the state is-
sues a certificate of completion, or similar document, that gives owners and lenders some assurance
that no further cleanup will be needed.
A key issue is the extent to which EPA will defer to a state's VCP Program in carrying out its own
response authorities under federal cleanup statutes. Typically, EPA enters into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with a state in which both governments set forth their expectations with respect
to VCP sites. MOAs typically provide that EPA does not expect to undertake response or enforce-
ment action at sites that have successfully gone through a state's VCP Program, subject to several
reservations. For example, such MOAs typically provide that the following categories of sites are
not immune from action by EPA, regardless of their status under a state's VCP: property listed or
proposed for the NPL, facilities that do or should fall under RCRA regulation (though certain sites
may be allowed under certain circumstances), property subject to corrective action under RCRA,
property subject to an order under water quality regulations and property subject to UST rules.
Additionally, EPA typically reserves its right to take action where new information or changed site
conditions necessitate its use of authorities to address imminent and substantial endangerments.
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/reforms/2-10.htm
101
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
102
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
The NFWF is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife
and plants and the habitat on which they depend. The Foundation meets these goals by creating
partnerships between the public and private sectors and strategically invests in conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources. The Foundation does not support lobbying, political advocacy
or litigation. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grants fund projects to conserve and restore
fish, wildlife and native plants through matching grant programs. The foundation awards match-
ing grants to projects that address priority actions promoting fish and wildlife conservation and
the habitats on which they depend, work proactively to involve other conservation and community
interests, leverage Foundation-provided funding and evaluate project outcomes. Federal, state and
local governments; educational institutions; and nonprofit organizations are welcome to apply
for general matching grants throughout the year. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Special
Grants are available with specific guidelines and timelines, www.nfwf.org
Volunteer Monitoring Groups
Volunteer Monitoring Groups work under a variety of names including River Watch, River Net-
work, and Watershed Network. Groups have a wide range of involvement in water assessment and
monitoring all the way from providing samplers for a single-sampling event under direction of
state agency personnel to recruiting, sampling, laboratory analysis and data validation and main-
tenance of databases and laboratories. Some groups receive state funding through contracts with
state agencies, while others must depend on grants. Funding for coordination, laboratory analysis,
and supplies may come from state or federal agency grants and allocations.
River Network
River Network helps people establish strong and enduring watershed conservation organizations
and programs and provides tools and training they need to be effective. Assistance comes in the
form of training and consultation. River Network Programs include the following: Partnership
Program, Organizational Development, River Watch, River Protection and Restoration, Health and
Environmental Justice, RiverSmart, River Rally and River Heroes. River Network's River Watch
Program helps volunteers understand, protect and restore their local rivers, streams, lakes, wet-
lands, and estuaries. Community-based monitoring programs are carried out by schools, nonprofit
organizations, government agencies, and Native American Tribes. They monitor local waters, de-
termine conditions and trends, identify problems and their sources, and develop effective and cre-
ative ways to solve existing problems and prevent new ones. River Network's River Watch Program
provides guidance and support by helping these groups plan and
carry out their programs and work closely with national, regional
and state service providers—including other nonprofit organiza-
tions, government agencies and academic institutions—to assess the
needs of monitoring groups and find the best ways to work together
to meet them, www.rivernetwork.org
Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)
The RTDF was established by EPA to foster collaboration between
the public and private sectors in developing innovative solutions to
mutual hazardous waste problems. The RTDF has grown to include
partners from industry, several government agencies and academia
who share the common goal of developing more effective, less costly
hazardous waste characterization and treatment technologies. The
RTDF is designed to foster public-private partnerships to conduct laboratory and applied research
to develop, test and evaluate innovative remediation technologies. Through the RTDF, companies,
government agencies and universities voluntarily share knowledge, experience, equipment, facili-
ties, and even proprietary technology to address mutual remediation problems, www.rtdf.org
Resources
-------
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)
The CTIC is a nonprofit, public-private partnership working to equip agriculture with realistic,
affordable and integrated solutions to environmental concerns, www.ctic.purdue.edu
National Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP)
The CWRP is a public-private partnership between the federal government, state governments
and private corporations to restore wetlands and other aquatic habitats. The CWRP's objective is
to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands and other aquatic habitats by partnering to leverage the
collective resources, skills and processes of the private and public sectors. The CWRP is facilitated
by the Coastal America Partnership in Washington, DC Corporations contribute funds to a partici-
pating private foundation or state trust fund. Funds are matched by federal and state agencies to
undertake aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, www.coastalamerica.gov/text/cwrp.html
Table 3-1. Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary
Resource
Assessment— (A)/
Cleanup-(C)/
Community
Involvement— (Cl)
Eligibility
Resources
WATER PROGRAM RESOURCES
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking
Water State
Revolving Fund
Discretionary
Set- As ides
Water Quality
Cooperative
Agreements
Assessment
and Watershed
Protection
Program Grants
and Cooperative
Agreements
Water Quality
Pollution Control
Grants
A/C
C
A/C/CI
A
A/C
A/C
Water Program Loans and F
Varies by state priority list.
Generally municipalities and
other public organizations.
Can be nonprofit
organizations or private entity.
Publicly and privately owned
community water systems
and nonprofit non-community
water systems
State agencies, public water
systems, and communities
Water Program Gram
State water pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions,
organizations and individuals.
States, local government,
tribes, interstate associations,
intertribal consortia, public
or private nonprofit groups,
nongovernmental institutions
and individuals.
States, interstate agencies.
inancing
Loans for projects that promote water
quality. Generally for wastewater treatment
facilities, but also for NPS pollution, runoff
control, wet-weather control, alternative
treatment technologies, and water reuse
and conservation projects. May also be used
to fund Wetlands, Estuaries, Brownfields
Remediation and polluted runoff abatement
projects or implement comprehensive coastal
management plans.
Loans for drinking water system improvements
Grants and loans for projects and activities that
protect drinking water sources
us
$10K-$200K for projects related to clean
water programs, including the NPDES
program, for research, investigations,
experiments, training, environmental technology
demonstrations, surveys, and studies related to
the causes, effects, extent, and prevention of
pollution.
$5K— $80K to develop and implement effective,
comprehensive programs for watershed
protection, restoration, and management.
Up to $200K to establish and implement
ongoing water pollution control programs.
103
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
104
Table 3-1. Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Resource
Total Maximum
Daily Load
Program Grants
and Cooperative
Agreements
Wetland Program
Development
Cooperative
Agreements and
Grants
Assessment—(A)/
Cleanup-(C)/
Community
Involvement—(Cl)
A/C
A/C/CI
NPS Funds
A/C
Regional
Geographic
Initiative
A/C
Watershed and
Water Quality
Modeling
Technical
Support Center
Volunteer
Monitoring
Program
A/C/CI
Pre-Remedial
Program
Remedial
Program
Removal/
Emergency
Response
Program
A/C
A/C
Technical
Outreach
Support to
Communities
Technical
Assistance
Grants
Cl
Cl
Eligibility
State water pollution control
agencies, Indian Tribes,
interstate agencies, other
public or nonprofit agencies,
institutions, organizations and
individuals.
States, tribes local governments.
State NPS agencies.
Resources
Up to $100K to assist in development of
TMDLs, support implementation, or provide
additional support in reach ing settlements.
NOTE: State, tribal or interstate agencies
may not use these funds for routine TMDL
developmental activities.
Projects must be used to develop and refine any
aspect of a comprehensive wetland program
and must demonstrate environmental results. A
25 percent nonfederal match is required.
Incremental funds: $100 million to develop and
implement watershed-based plans and TMDLs
for impaired waters. Base funds: staffing and
support to manage and implement state NPS
Management Program, or support for projects
that identify and address NPS problems. Up to
20 percent may be used to develop NPS TMDLs
and watershed-based plans to implement NPS
TMDLs.
Multi-Media Funds
State water pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies
and other public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions,
organizations and individuals.
Up to $200K to fund unique geographically
based projects that fill critical gaps in EPA's
ability to protect human health and the
environment.
Additional Water Program Support
EPA Regions, state and Technical assistance to support development of
local governments and their
contractors.
Volunteer water monitoring
groups.
TMDLs, WLAs and watershed protection plans.
Technical assistance to organize and operate
effective volunteer water monitoring networks.
EPA CERCLA RESOURCES
Program Resources
EPA.
EPA NPL sites.
Sites with hazardous
substances, pollutants or
contaminants that pose a
threat to public health.
Funding and resources for assessment.
Funding and a wide array of technical and
contracting resources to assess and clean up
N PL sites.
Up to $2 million in EPA/PRP funding to perform
assessment and cleanup. More funds if
additional findings are made.
Superfund Community Involvement Support
Communities.
Nonprofit community groups
in communities with an NPL
site or proposed NPL site.
Technical assistance about contaminated sites.
Assist community participation in cleanup
decision-making process.
Up to $50K for community groups to hire
technical advisors to help the community
understand technical information about
the NPL site or proposed NPL site in their
community. A 20 percent match is required,
may include donated or in-kind services.
but
Resources
-------
Table 3-1. Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Resource
Environmental
Response Team
National
Laboratories
Abandoned Mine
Land Program
Contract
Laboratory
Program
Environmental
Services
Assistance Team
Regional
Superfund
Laboratory
Remote Sensing
and Mapping
Support Contract
Superfund
Technical
Assessment and
Response Team
Response Action
Contracts
Emergency and
Rapid Response
Services
Response
Engineering
and Analytical
Contract
Assessment— (A)/
Cleanup-(C)/
Community
Involvement— (Cl)
A/C
A/C
A/C
A
A
A
A
A
A/C
C
A/C
Eligibility
Internal Support Resoui
Superfund programs.
Superfund programs,
sometimes other EPA
programs.
Superfund programs, federal
land management agencies,
states, tribes, mine owners
and operators and community
stakeholders.
Contracting Resource
Superfund programs.
Superfund programs.
Superfund programs.
Superfund programs.
Superfund programs.
Superfund programs.
Superfund removal programs.
EPA Environmental Response
Team.
Resources
•ces
Technical assistance on innovative
technologies, land revitalization, revegetation,
technology evaluation, and response to
environmental emergencies.
Technical assistance on assessment,
engineering, and implementation.
Technical expertise in abandoned mine site
issues. Coordination with stakeholders on
mine research, characterization, cleanup, and
redevelopment.
'S
Laboratory analytical services.
Contractor for analytical services and GIS
mapping.
Laboratory analytical services.
Remote sensing, GIS support.
Technical support for site assessment,
engineering, planning and preparedness and
emergency response.
Architect/engineering services, RI/FS, remedial
design (RD)and actions, EE/CA, construction
oversight and enforcement support.
Emergency, time-critical removal and quick
remedial response cleanup services. Personnel,
equipment, and materials for cleanup and
restoration.
Scientific and emergency response expertise.
105
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Table 3-1. Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Resource
Assessment— (A)/
Cleanup-(C)/
Community
Involvement— (Cl)
Eligibility
Resources
EPA BROWNFIELDS RESOURCES
Brownfields
Assessment
Grants
Brownfields
Revolving Loan
Fund Grants
Brownfields
Cleanup Grants
Brownfields
Job Training
& Workforce
Development
Grants
Technical
Assistance to
Brownfields
Communities
Targeted
Brownfields
Assessments
State and Tribal
Response
Program Grants
Brownfields
Federal
Partnerships
A
A/C
C
A/C
Cl
A
A/C
A/C
Brownfields Grants
Local governments, land
clearance authorities, or
similar quasi-governmental
agencies under control of
local government, government
entities created by state
legislatures, regional councils,
redevelopment agencies
charted by states and tribes.
See above.
See above.
Colleges, universities, and
nonprofit training centers.
Communities.
EPA Regional Brownfields
Offices.
States, tribes.
Various stakeholders.
Up to $200K to conduct inventories,
characterization, assessment, and cleanup
planning.
Funding to capitalize a revolving loan fund or
to award sub-grants to eligible entities. Up to
$1 million per eligible entity with a 20 percent
match required unless a hardship waiver is
granted.
Up to $200K to perform cleanup activities on
property owned by the grant recipient at the
time of award, for a maximum of five sites per
owner. A 20 percent match is required unless a
hardship waiver is granted.
Up to $200K to provide training for residents in
communities affected by brownfields. Projects
should facilitate cleanup of brownfields sites
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Training and technical assistance to
stakeholders.
EPA Brownfields Program performs or directs
assessment.
Up to $200K per site to supplement state/tribal
response programs' cleanup capacity. May be
used for site-specific assessment and cleanup.
Grants and other resources from federal
agencies to provide support for brownfields
assessments and cleanups.
ADDITIONAL EPA ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP RESOURCES
Environmental
Finance Program
Targeted
Watershed
Grants
Community
Action
for a Renewed
Environment
Grants
Five Star
Restoration
Program Grants
A/C/CI
C
A/C/CI
C/CI
Communities, agencies.
Watershed organizations and
coalitions ready to make on-
the-ground improvements to
water quality.
Communities.
Students, conservation
corps, other youth groups,
citizen groups, corporations,
landowners, and government
agencies.
Resources to find creative approaches to
funding environmental projects
$600K-$900K to implement actions to protect
critical watersheds
Level 1— Up to $75Kto establish collaborative
partnerships to reduce toxic releases. Level II—
Up to $300K for communities with collaborative
partnerships to implement risk reduction
strategies.
Technical support, education, and up to $20K
to complete projects that restore wetlands and
streams.
106
Resources
-------
Table 3-1. Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Resource
Assessment— (A)/
Cleanup-(C)/
Community
Involvement— (Cl)
Eligibility
Resources
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP RESOURCES
Bureau of
Reclamation
Water Resources
Research
laboratory
Sedimentation
and River
Hydraulics Group
Watershed
Protection and
Flood Prevention
Program
U.S. Geological
Survey
U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
Partners for Fish
and Wildlife
North American
Wetlands
Conservation Act
Grants Program
Office of Surface
Mining
Abandoned Mine
Land Grants
Watershed
Cooperative
Agreement
Program
A/C
C
C
A/C
A
A/C
C
A/C
N/A
A/C
A/C
Local, state and other federal
agencies.
Federal, state, and local
stakeholders.
Federal, state, and local
stakeholders.
Conservation districts, local
governments, and state/tribal
agencies. For watersheds of
less than 250,000 acres.
N/A
Government, public, private
organizations, groups and
individuals.
Federal, state and local
stakeholders.
Organizations and individuals.
States with approved
programs and specific Indian
Tribes, nonprofit organizations
States/tribes with approved
programs.
Nonprofit organizations,
especially small watershed
groups.
Technical assistance includes field sampling,
analytical testing and data interpretation.
Assistance in river restoration.
Scientific and engineering expertise regarding
riverine studies and modeling.
Up to $10 million per project, with cost sharing
for watershed protection.
Scientific information and expertise in many
natural science fields. Data collection,
monitoring, analysis and predictive modeling.
Water flow and water quality databases.
Natural Resource Assistance Grant
(www.fws.gov/grants). Staff performs
contaminated-related studies, frequently in
collaboration with other federal agencies.
For habitat restoration on lands not owned
by state or federal government. Typically a 50
percent cost share. Technical support available.
Funding for wetlands conservation projects that
focus on protecting, restoring, or enhancing
critical habitat. 1:1 matching funds required. Up
to $50K for the Small Grants Program. Higher
funding for larger projects.
Regulated coal mining operations. AML
Grants for states with approved programs and
specific Indian Tribes, Watershed Cooperative
Agreement Program for nonprofit organizations
that undertake local AMD reclamation projects,
maximum award typically $100,000.
(www.osmre.gov/grantsprograms.htm)
To operate a state coal mining AML Program,
perform reclamation and establish trust funds.
Up to $200K for local coal mining AMD
reclamation actions.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP RESOURCES
Watershed
Forestry
Assistance
Program
Abandoned Mine
Land Initiative
Environmental
Conservation
Acreage Reserve
Program
A/C
A/C
N
C
U.S. Forest Service
State foresters and
communities, nonprofit
groups and owners of
nonindustrial private forest
land.
Mining sites with hazardous
waste on USDA/FS land.
atfona/ Resources Conservat
Landowners.
Technical assistance on watershed issues on
nonfederal forested and potentially forested
land.
CERCLA assessment and cleanup.
'on Service
Assistance in compliance with NPS pollution
requirements.
107
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Table 3-1. Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Resource
Conservation
Security Program
Emergency
Watershed
Program
Assessment— (A)/
Cleanup-(C)/
Community
Involvement— (Cl)
C
C
Eligibility
Landowners, communities.
Landowners.
Resources
Grants to restore fishery habitat. Requires a 1:1
cost share that may be cash, salary, equipment,
supplies, in-kind services, or labor.
Cleanup from natural disasters.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RESOURCES
Community
Based
Restoration
Program
C
NOAA
Regional government bodies,
business, community/
watershed group, nonprofit
groups, educational
institutions, conservation
districts, local government,
and state/territorial/tribal
agencies.
Grants to restore fishery habitat. Requires a 1:1
cost share that may be cash, salary, equipment,
supplies, in-kind services or labor.
OTHER FEDERAL RESOURCES
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
(USAGE)
Restoration of
Abandoned Mine
Sites (RAMS)
Program
U.S. Department
of Housing
and Urban
Development
(HUD)
A/C
C
A/C
Nonfederal agencies.
Communities/agencies.
Urban communities.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Technical, planning, and design assistance
for projects to address water quality problems
caused by drainage and related activities from
abandoned and inactive non-coal mines.
Funding for urban renewal and economic
development.
NONGOVERNMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP RESOURCES
Voluntary
Cleanup
Programs
National Fish
and Wildlife
Foundation
Volunteer Water
Monitoring
Groups
River Network
Remediation
Technologies
Development
Forum
Conservation
Technology
Information
Center
National
Corporate
Wetlands
Restoration
Partnership
A/C
A/C
A
A/CI
C
C
Landowners.
Federal, state, and local
governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit
organizations.
Communities, agencies.
Communities.
Public and private
stakeholders.
Agriculture stakeholders.
Federal and state agencies
and private corporations
partner to leverage collective
resources, skills and
processes.
Program allows owner to voluntarily assess
and clean up property to facilitate sale or
redevelopment or to improve value.
Various grants and assistance to conserve and
restore fish, wildlife, and native plants.
Water monitoring
Assistance in developing water monitoring
networks.
Assists communities in developing innovative
solutions to mutual hazardous waste problems.
Voluntary sharing of knowledge, experience,
equipment, facilities, and technologies to
address common problems.
Assistance in finding affordable and integrated
solutions to environmental concerns.
Funds to perform aquatic ecosystem restoration
projects.
108
Resources
-------
Table 3-2. EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview
Grant
Program
Purpose &
Brownfields
Site
Definition
Eligible
Applicants
Grant
Objectives
Award
Amount
Matching
Share
Call for
Proposals
Applications
Deadline
Selections
Announced
Brownfields
Assessment
Grants
Brownfields
Revolving
Loan Fund
Grants
Brownfields
Cleanup
Grants
Job Training
& Workforce
Development
Grants
State/Tribal
Response
Programs Grants
Purpose: To promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields and to provide financial assistance
for brownfields revitalization. To establish or enhance state and tribal brownfields response
programs.
Definition: Brownfields are real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant as defined in Public Law 107-118.
Local governments, land
clearance authorities or similar
quasi-governmental agencies
under control of local government,
government entities created
by state legislatures, regional
councils, redevelopment agencies
chartered by the state, states and
federally recognized tribes.
In addition to the above, nonprofit
organizations are also eligible for
cleanup grant funding only and
all eligible entities must own the
property to qualify for a cleanup
grant.
To assess
brownfields
sites and to test
clean up and
redevelopment
models
(assessments
to be done
according
to American
Society for
Testing and
Materials
(ASTM)
Standards).
Up to
$200,000 per
hazardous
substance site;
$200,000 per
petroleum site.
No matching
share required.
Annually (Fall)
Annually
(Winter)
Annually
(Spring)
To capitalize a
Revolving Loan
Fund. Also,
can be used to
award sub-
grants to eligible
entities.
Up to
$1,000,000 per
eligible entity.
20 percent
matching
share required
(hardship waiver
available)
Annually (Fall)
Annually
(Winter)
Annually
(Spring)
Colleges, universities, nonprofit
training centers exempt from
taxation under 26 U.S.C.
501(c)(3), communityjob training
organizations, states, cities,
towns, counties, U.S. territories
and federally recognized tribes
are eligible.
To perform
cleanup
activities on
a property/
properties
owned by the
grant recipient
at the time of
award.
Up to
$200,000
per site for a
maximum of
five sites.
20 percent
matching
share required
(hardship
waiver
available)
Annually (Fall)
Annually
(Winter)
Annually
(Spring)
To provide
training for
residents of
communities
affected by
brownfields
to facilitate
cleanup and
prepare trainees
for future
employment
in the
environmental
field.
Up to
$200,000.
Additional
funding
possible.
No matching
share required.
Annually (Fall)
Annually
(Winter)
Annually
(Spring)
States and federally
recognized tribes,
Alaska Native
Regional/Village
Corporation and the
Metlakatla Indian
Community
To supplement state
and tribal response
programs' cleanup
capacity.
Approximately $50
million is awarded
annually to states and
tribes.
Matching share
required if money
is to be used for a
Revolving Loan Fund;
otherwise no matching
share.
States and tribes
can do some limited
site-specific work such
as assessments and
cleanups of eligible
brownfields.
Contact EPA Region
for more information.
(contact information
can be found on Web
site listed below)
109
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Table 3-2. EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview (continued)
Grant
Program
Priorities
Prohibitions
Web site
Brownfields Brownfields
Assessment Revolving
Grants Loan Fund
Grants
> Projects that stimulate the
Brownfields Job Training
Cleanup & Workforce
Grants Development
Grants
t Projects that bring together
State/Tribal
Response
Programs Grants
t States and tribes
availability of other funding community groups, job training 1 with a Voluntary
for assessment, cleanup and organizations, educators, Cleanup MOA.
reuse. investors, lenders, developers | t qtat<= and tribal
> Projects that stimulate
economic development;
address, identify or reduce
and other affected parties programs w/out
to address issue of providing MOA neecj to
training for residents in
threats to human health and communities impacted by
the environment.
t Projects that facilitate the
reuse of existing infrastructure;
create/preserve a park,
greenway, undeveloped
property, recreational property
or other property for nonprofit
purposes.
t Projects that meet the needs of
a community unable to draw on
brownfields.
t Projects that facilitate
cleanup of brownfields sites
contaminated with hazardous
substances and prepare
trainees for future employment
in the environmental field.
other resources because of the
small population or low income
of the community.
t Projects that allow for the
fair distribution of funds
between urban and nonurban
areas; provide for community
involvement.
t Projects that identify and
reduce threats to the health
and welfare of children,
pregnant women, minority or
low-income communities or
other sensitive populations.
No part of a grant or loan may be used for the payment of
t A penalty or fine
t A federal cost-share requirement
t An administrative cost
t A response cost at a brownfields site for which the recipient of the
grant or loan is potentially liable under CERCLA section 107
A cost of compliance with any federal law (including a federal law
specified in section 101 (39)(B)), excluding the cost of compliance
with laws applicable to the cleanup
establish or
enhance the
following elements:
Timely survey
and inventory
of brownfields
sites.
Oversight and
enforcement
authorities
or other
mechanisms
and resources.
• Mechanisms
and resources
to provide
meaningful
opportunities
for public
participation.
Mechanisms
for approval of
a cleanup plan
and verification
and certification
that cleanup is
complete.
t States or tribes
need to establish
a public record &
update annually.
Prohibitions do not
apply to section 128
grants unless recipient
uses funding for
Revolving Loan Fund
activities or if site-
specific activities are
completed on sites
owned by the recipient
National Web site: www.epa.gov/brownfields
110
Resources
-------
Muff/agency, Multiprogram Funding Resources and Cooperation
Dolores Watershed, Colorado
La Plata Miri rg District
The presence of surrounding mining districts and air deposition of mercury from powerplants
throughout southwestern Colorado have potentially affected hundreds of square miles of the
Dolores River watershed extending from the San Juan Mountains at an elevation of 14,000 feet in
the southwestern part of the state down to McPhee Reservoir. Impacts
include residential soil contamination with lead concentrations up to
50,000 ppm, AMD from numerous mines and mercury contamination
resulting in a fish consumption advisory. The watershed is on the
Colorado list of impaired waters (CWA 303(d) list). A TMDL was
completed in 2004 for mercury in McPhee and Narraguinnep
Reservoirs. A second TMDL is under development for Silver Creek for
cadmium and zinc.
Multifaceted problems and issues have lead the town of Rico, the state
of Colorado and multiple federal agencies to use nontraditional solu-
tions including community-based decision making and cross-program
coordination to assess the various impacts.
> Voluntary cleanup in Silver Creek
> Site Assessment and the TMDL program conducted ultra-clean
sampling for mercury throughout the watershed to determine
sources and develop a TMDL
Four Corners Power Plant
111
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
^ . X
Sampling of the Dolores River
> Colorado modified its Performance Partnership Agreement to encourage coordination between
the state Water Quality Division and Air Pollution Control
> USFWS and EPA provided funding for a Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) station at Mesa
Verde National Park
> State Air Quality program and TMDL program provided funding to USGS for sampling seasonal
snowpack
> USGS collected a core sample from Narraguinnep Reservoir to study the historical pattern of
mercury deposition
> USGS, under an IAG from the TMDL program, conducted a source-receptor study
> Superfund Emergency Response has responded to the potential failure of treatment ponds
and an abandoned cyanide heap leach area
> Targeted Brownfields Assessment by the state for facilitating cleanup and potential reuse of
contaminated properties
> Water monitoring by local participants through an EJ grant
> Mercury sampling conducted by EPA
National Laboratory at both high and low
flows—joint SAP with TMDL program.
> Air Modeling based on MDN, snowpack
and source receptor data funded by the
TMDL Program and designed by USGS,
Colorado Air Pollution Control and EPA Air
Program
Sampling in Silver Creek
112
Resources
-------
DY
Stakeholders Combine Resources for Cleanup
Northern Swatara Creek Basin:
Treatment Options and USGS Monitoring Stations
Swatara Creek, Pennsylvania
Water Quality Concern:
Coal mine drainage (CMD) from abandoned mines
has affected more than 2,400 miles of streams
and associated groundwater in Pennsylvania.
Approximately half of the discharges from bitumi-
nous and anthracite coal mines in Pennsylvania
are acidic, having pH < 5.0. Acidic CMD typically
contains elevated concentrations of dissolved
sulfate, dissolved and particulate iron and other
metals produced by the oxidation of pyrite. Such
conditions make the water in mine drainage and
receiving streams unfit for most uses.
Project Description:
In the northern portion of the 576-square-mile Swatara Creek Basin, surface water losses and
CMD from abandoned anthracite mines degrade the aquatic ecosystem and impair uses of
Swatara Creek to its mouth at the Susquehanna River 70 miles downstream. To neutralize the
acidic CMD and reduce the transport of dissolved metals in the Swatara Creek watershed, innova-
tive passive treatment systems are being implemented and monitored. These treatment systems
include limestone-sand dosing, open limestone channels, anoxic and oxic limestone drains, lime-
stone diversion wells and limestone-based wetlands. The performance of these treatment systems
is being evaluated using upstream/downstream and before/after monitoring schemes.
Community Outreach:
In March of 1996, a local citizens' group called Citizens Coordinated for Clean Water—now the
Swatara Creek Watershed Association (SCWA)—hosted an exposition to highlight activities of vari-
ous groups throughout the watershed. The exposition resulted in the formation of several commit-
tees tasked with pursuing high-priority remediation projects.
Outreach has been a common thread throughout the restoration effort. Pennsylvania (PA)
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) helped to plan the exposition and continue to participate in follow-up activities.
For example, the agencies continue to meet with their board and regional Conservation Districts
to provide information and assistance. The PA DEP Office of Mining also worked with residents
in the upper watershed to establish and maintain AMD remediation projects. An Upper Swatara
Watershed group has rallied around the effort, providing volunteer labor, equipment and
limestone. This group and SCWA have started to look to the future coordination of watershed
efforts.
Anoxic Limestone Drain + Overlying Limestone Channel
Key Successes and Lessons Learned:
> An anoxic limestone drain near the headwaters of Swata-
ra Creek has shown the greatest benefit to water quality,
producing significant improvements in pH and alkalinity
that are measurable several miles downstream.
I Diversion wells show great potential to treat stormflow,
which generally is more acidic than baseflow. Wetlands
attenuated dissolved and particulate metals but had
negligible effects on pH, alkalinity and sulfate.
AsiJic
hlk.nl
{total 400 torn = 1 £ ton* yd"1 x 270 yd7}
113
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
I Alkalinity-producing systems, such as
limestone diversion wells or limestone
drains combined with wetlands or
settling basins, generally were needed to
attenuate metals transport.
> Open limestone channel and limestone
sand dosing had negligible effect on water
quality.
I The precipitation process has a
detrimental side effect of putting sludge
with high metal content in the bottom of
the creeks.
Financial Resources:
Efforts to improve the water quality of Swatara
Creek will continue for years to come. Several
sample remediation and reclamation projects are
described below.
Limestone Diversion Well
Number of Fish Species
24
15
6
21
III
1994-
1996
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Observed increase in fish species since BMP
2000
1994-1996: Stumps Run reclamation project
Three reclamation projects of coal sediment
pollution were conducted in lieu Of $132,000 in Civil implementation (Swatara Creek, Pennsylvania)
penalties and fines assessed by PA DEP's Pottsville
District Mining Office. These three projects regraded
and removed silt, revegetated affected areas and installed erosion and sediment controls on 24.4
acres.
1995: Swatara Creek diversion wells
Two diversion wells were installed on Swatara Creek 3 miles from the creek's origin. A local busi-
nessman offered to fund the project in honor of his father, who was an avid fisherman. Since the
project began, it has turned into a community effort involving more than 50 citizens, businesses
and agencies. This project paved the way for the formation of the Northern Swatara Creek Water-
shed Association.
1996: Diversion well on Martin Run
A diversion well was installed to address two abandoned mine discharges. The work was complet-
ed with EPA CWA section 319 funds and volunteer efforts from the Pennsylvania National Guard
and local citizens.
1996: Study of treatment plants and current water quality of Swatara Creek
(USGS) and PA DEP engaged in a cooperative effort to evaluate the effectiveness of various lime-
stone treatment devices installed on Swatara Creek. This project received funding through EPA
CWA section 104 for 1996, 1997, and 1998.
114
Resources
-------
DY
(continued)
1997: Limestone channel on Swatara Creek
To increase Swatara Creek pH upstream of the diversion wells, a limestone channel was
constructed. EPA CWA section 319 funds supported the project.
1997: Anoxic limestone drain on tributary to Swatara Creek
An anoxic drain was constructed on an unnamed AMD discharge at the headwaters of Swatara
Creek. The drain was constructed using EPA section 319 funds and donated assistance and ma-
terials. USGS designed the project and added numerous testing features to allow monitoring and
maintenance. The project has shown a marked improvement in water quality at the discharge and
3 miles downstream at the diversion wells. This project seems to be very effective and the most
maintenance-free of all the passive treatment systems.
1997: Pollys Run project
This project, supported by EPA section 319 funds, involved streambank stabilization and
rechanneling work on Swatara Creek.
1997: Lorberry Junction wetland project
Two shallow-water impoundments were constructed to provide aerobic wetland treatment of CMD
on Lower Rausch Creek. This project was funded partially by EPA CWA section 104 funds and with
fines that were assessed against a landfill by the PA DEP Bureau of Waste Management. All of the
construction work was completed by the PA DEP Bureau of Abandoned Reclamation. Local indus-
tries donated additional materials and equipment. This project is very visible to the public, and it
will serve as an educational area as well as a treatment facility.
1998: Development of treatment for Rowe Tunnel discharge, Lorberry Creek
This project was a cooperative effort between the DOE, USGS, PA DEP, and the Schuylkill County
Conservation District to develop a treatment system on the Rowe Tunnel discharge, which has an
average flow of more than 3,000 gallons per minute. The work is being funded by an EPA CWA sec-
tion 319 grant and matching USGS and DOE funds.
1998: Swatara Creek designated as an EPA section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
This effort was the first National Monitoring Program Project in the country that focused on mine
drainage and the land treatment practices needed to restore water quality. The project will contin-
ue some of the aforementioned water monitoring efforts. The data evaluation and the cumulative
efforts of the various treatments will be very useful in developing treatment strategies for several
streams in the region.
1998: Reconstruction of a stream channel near the John Behm Tunnel
EPA CWA section 104 funds supported this project.
1999: Construction of the Swatara Cooperative Trout Nursery
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission provided approximately 2,000 brook trout, 1,300
rainbow trout and 100 golden trout to the facility.
115
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
116
Resources
-------
Assessment and Data Integration
This chapter presents certain fundamental aspects of water and waste programs—what data
are collected and why—and presents opportunities for program integration. It begins with two
primary opportunities for integration during watershed assessment: coordinating preliminary data
compilation and streamlining additional data collection. A tool for preliminary data compilation,
the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment, is presented first because of its value in
the early stages of cross-programmatic watershed cleanup. Coordinated and collaborative data
collection saves agencies and programs time and money while reducing the waste of duplicative
sampling efforts. A discussion of strategies for collecting additional watershed data follows.
Figure 4-1 presents a guide to initial watershed assessment activities.
To integrate data compilation and collection, the WCT must consider the data requirements of
the various programs. Background information is provided about data quality, data evaluation,
benchmarks, and data collection strategies. For the data to be useful, it must be available and
accessible to all participants and organized in a consistent manner. Therefore, data management
issues that must be considered at the onset of a collaborative watershed
effort are presented. This chapter ends with a brief summary of
typical program-specific data collection efforts and suggests potential
opportunities for integration. An example that compares TMDL,
Brownfields, CERCLA Site Assessment,
Remedial and Removal Program data
requirements for water samples collected
in a typical mining watershed is presented
in Table 4-1. Similar comparisons may
be appropriate to help evaluate data
integration issues with other pollutants,
in other types of watersheds or between
other programs.
117
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
1
Identify
waterbody
status
303(d) Listing
www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl
NPL Listing—CERCLIS
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
2
Retrieve existing
watershed data
USGS WQ Data
http://water.usgs.gov/data.html
Superfund Records
EPA Regional Offices
3 Identify existing
uses and ^
benchmarks
WQS& Beneficial Uses I STORET I MCLs
www.epa.gov/watersdence/standards I www.epa.gov/storet II www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html
4 Evaluate
existing data
Review temporal and spatial variability I Calculate metal(s) WQS using hardness based equation
Review adequacy of QA/QC | Evaluate listing potential with HRS Quickscore
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/npLhrs/quickscore.htm
T Develop
•J Comprehensive ^
Preliminary
Watershed
Assessment
Existing NPDES permits, RCRA permits,
Clean Watersheds Needs
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/po_query.html
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/rcris_queryJava.html
www.epa.gov/cwns
Data, maps of property ownership, geology,
hydrology, aerial photography from county
offices, city engineers, or USGS
Identify public water sources
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html
Envirofacts
www.epa.gov/enviro/
ICISwww.epa.gov/Compliance/data/systems/
modernization/index.html
6ldenfrfty
additional
data needs
Conduct a review of data and II Determine whether new
determine if data gaps exist I data collection is needed
7 Program/agency
coordination
Set priorities I Identify resource I Obtain commitments and
availability | coordinate field crews
Q Conduct
reconnaissance
9 Sampling ^l
and analysis
Collect field chemistry (e.g., pH, conductivity), qualitative
surveys of macroinvertebrates, document GPS locations
Define data I Write multi-program SAP/QAPP (e.g., I Finalize sampling locations,
quality objectives J analyze total metals, dissolved metals I provide field training and prepare
and collect flow data at all sites) I chain of custody and labels
Figure 4-1. Assessment Flow Chart and Overview
118
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of Surface Water Related Data Collection and Analysis Requirements for Mining
Watersheds
Sample
Purpose
Sample
Analysis
Detection
Limits/
Bench-
marks
Data
quality
TMDL
Program
> Identifying
all significant
sources.
Describe
watershed
characteristics.
» Dissolved
metals, total
recoverable
metals, pH,
conductivity,
hardness.
Depends
on WQS.
Water quality
criteria may
be expressed
as dissolved,
total, or total
recoverable.
Must have
associated flow
data.
» Below WQS.
> Based on state
requirements.
Brownfields
> Determination of
site risk.
Site
characterization.
» Depends on
pathway and
receptor.
Typically metal
concentrations,
pH.
> Dependent on
receptors and
exposure path-
way. Based on
Superfund
PA/SI
> Only those
samples
necessary for
rrinr"! i I^IVP
\j\J\ \\j\ Uol VC
determination
of whether site
scores above
28.5 on MRS.
Background
samples are
required to
establish a
release and
establish ambient
conditions.
> Depends on
pathway and
Superfund
Remedial
» Site
characterization.
> Risk assessment.
» Flow, pH,
temperature,
receptor being TSS, suspended
evaluated. Total sediment, salinity
metals if values
will be compared
to human food
chain or environ-
mental threat
values. Dissolved
metals if values
will be compared
to standards for
drinking water
threat values.
> Depends on
rationale for
and metal
concentration.
> Varies by
factor being
Superfund
Removal
> Identifying human
health threat.
Site
characterization.
> Determine
removal
alternative
feasibility.
» Metal
concentrations, pH.
> Based on stan-
dard risk values
sample. Must evaluated. For such as SCDMs,
be adequate to Risk Assessment Region 3 RBCs,
standard values compare results samples, Region 9 PRGs or
for comparison to values in detection limits other published
such as Super- SCDMs. (Samples will depend on values indicating
fund Chemical with high toxicity of the toxicity.
Data Matricies concentrations do contaminant.
(SCDM), Region
3 RBCs, Region
9 Preliminary Re-
mediation Goals
(PRGs).
> Screening
data for most
samples.
Definitive data
for critical
samples.
not require a low
detection limit.)
> Legally defensible
data is required
> Definitive data
with high level
for samples used of QA/QC for
to defend MRS risk assessment
score.
samples. Variable
for other samples
> Varies.
119
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
• Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment
The Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment (see box below) is an effective tool that as-
sists in understanding watershed conditions and the development of a preliminary watershed con-
ceptual model. The conceptual model will be used to help identify interested parties and focus the
WCT on important issues. The Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment should include,
at a minimum maps and aerial photographs depicting the entire watershed and displaying any
property ownership/zoning; identification of WQS for each waterbody within the watershed and
current waterbody status in meeting the standards; readily available data (including summaries/
references to monitoring data reports collected through various regulatory programs, identifica-
tion of potential human and environmental receptors [e.g., humans, fish, birds, soil community]);
location of historical and current sources of contamination; key findings of previous geological,
hydrological, and hydrology studies; NPDES permits (with identification numbers); RCRA facilities
^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_ and CERCLA/CERCLIS sites within the
watershed; Clean Watersheds Needs;
and documentation of past, current
or planned cleanup activities. The as-
sessment may also include preliminary
scoping studies such as a qualitative
macroinvertebrate study or watershed-
wide contaminant loading study. A
reconnaissance field trip may be the
Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment
If a cross-programmatic cleanup approach is indicated,
the following information should be collected for the entire
watershed (or as much as is practical):
Aerial photographs
Property ownership/zoning
Watershed topographic mapping
GIS mapping of available data
Identification of WQS
Determination of waterbody impacts (i.e., exceedance of
WQS, NPL scoring)
Identification of potential receptors
Key findings of previous studies
Available data, with GPS locations for all sampling locations
Relevant background information from previous studies
(including all existing data that meets criteria and citing of
any other data such as watershed geology or hydrogeology
for both a watershed-wide and site-specific basis)
Hydrologic information (flow data from previous sampling
events, and data and associated hydrographs from long term
gauging stations)
Documentation of past, current, or planned cleanup
activities by the various agencies/programs
If the information is not already available, a watershed-wide
loading study is essential to determine major contributors to
stream contamination.
Results of field reconnaissance:
Confirm preliminary data (e.g., land use, source
locations, aerial photography)
Collect basic field chemistry (pH, conductivity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen)
Conduct bioassessment such as qualitative
macroinvertebrate surveys, where applicable
Identify potential sample locations (GPS and directions
to sample locations)
Identify additional potential sources
120
culmination of the assessment and
provide information to assist in scop-
ing the need for future study.
Potential sources of information
for the Comprehensive Preliminary
Watershed Assessment include EPA
PA/SIs, Removal Assessments, Remov-
al Actions, RI/FSs, TBAs, Emergency
Response Actions, water quality agen-
cies and databases, state permitting
authorities, county/local health/envi-
ronmental departments, educational
institutions, USGS, federal and tribal
land management agencies, existing
databases such as STORET, WATERS,
NWIS and other potential sources
discussed in Chapter 3.
The Comprehensive Preliminary
Watershed Assessment should average
between 15 and 30 pages, including
maps, photos, aerial photography and
land ownership. The Comprehensive
Preliminary Watershed Assessment may
assist in development of a site con-
ceptual model. Figure 4-2 provides an
example of a site conceptual model that
was developed for a cross-program-
matic watershed cleanup effort in the
Anacostia River Watershed in Maryland
and the District of Columbia.
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Volatilization
I
Precipitation
I
Permitted
1 Facility Discharge
1
Uncharacterued
Point Discharge:
Non-Point
Surface Run-Off
Erosion
1
Tidal Mixing/
Potomic River
Surface Water
Downstream
Flow
Suspended Particles
*\
Adsorption V
Desorption
Upstrean
Flow
Bioaccumulation
Resuspension
Ground Water
Recharge
Deposition
Burial
Surface Sediment
Deep Sediment
\
Bed Load
Transport
Ground Water
Discharge
3
O.
£
I
Figure 4-2. Site Conceptual Model, Anacostia River Watershed, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
From: Charting a Course Toward Restoration: A Toxic Chemical Management Strategy for the Anacostia River, prepared by member organizations of the Anacostia
Watershed Toxics Alliance and the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Commission (AWRC).
TO
8
h-»
ISO
I—»
-------
• Additional Watershed Data Collection
To save time and money, the WCT might want to consolidate future data collection efforts. De-
pending on the participants, overlap of data needs, funding, and other considerations, additional
data can be collected by individual programs/agencies (cooperative sampling) or a multiagency/
stakeholder sampling effort (collaborative sampling). It is likely that a combination of approaches
will be used. No matter how data collection is structured, cooperation between WCT programs/
agencies will save time and precious resources despite the additional initial planning efforts.
Cooperative Data Collection
In some cases, the WCT may decide that individual agencies/programs will conduct future data
collection efforts separately. In that case, the SAP should be available for review by the WCT in
advance to maximize integration. An example of the benefit of sharing plans in advance might be
at an NPL site where the RI contractor will be collecting quarterly surface water samples at three
locations to assess seasonal stream gains from a contaminated aquifer. Because surface water qual-
ity and stream flow data are important to most programs involved in watershed cleanup, the plan
should be reviewed to determine the applicability of the data to the state water quality data set,
the NRDA and the TMDL programs. It might mean that the data collection techniques or analyti-
cal parameters are adjusted slightly (i.e., adding flow rate to the field measurements, or collecting
samples for both total and dissolved metals concentrations) to accommodate other program needs
but might also prevent unnecessary and wasteful duplicative sampling efforts by another program.
Collaborative Data Collection
The WCT may decide to collaborate on some data collection efforts. A common approach and
consistent methods should be used to accommodate the needs of the multiple programs involved.
A multiagency SAP will be necessary to guide the sampling. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) will
provide the focus for preparing these documents. The SAP should include consensus among stake-
holders on site naming conventions, sampling locations, media collected, protocols for sampling
and analysis, and detection levels. Preparation of a consolidated SAP may be performed by the
Watershed Program Manager if support is not available elsewhere.
Information may need to be gathered on the differences in cost between collecting lower- and
higher-level quality data. Discussion will need to occur among all watershed participants who will
use the data to be collected regarding what data quality each participant desires and requires, who
will pay for higher quality data and when such data needs to be collected.
Before the final selection of sampling locations, a thorough reconnaissance of the watershed
should be conducted using the information summarized in the Comprehensive Preliminary Water-
shed Assessment. The reconnaissance may include stream measurements for conductivity, pH, dis-
solved oxygen, qualitative macroinvertebrate analysis and GPS readings for all potential sampling
locations (including any other appropriate field measurements that will indicate potential sources
of the pollutants of concern).
Integrating data types and quality assurance requirements can be challenging, both in determin-
ing protocols and in obtaining funding for field work and laboratory analysis. Again, a cooperative
approach can provide solutions to some of these problems. Given the example of the RI contrac-
tor collecting surface water samples in the cooperative sampling section, the TMDL and NRDA
programs could send personnel to assist in sampling in exchange for additional sample analysis or
lower laboratory detection limits.
While sampling performed by individual programs is often conducted by contractors, collaborative
data collection may be performed by program personnel from several programs and agencies to re-
duce costs. Such an effort will require planning and the acquisition of field measurement devices,
122
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
sample containers and preservatives, vehicles, and other site-specific tools. EPA Regional Labora-
tories may be able to provide some of the necessary items and technical support. Before sampling,
all sampling team members must be trained for the activities they will be expected to perform. For
example, personnel doing pebble counts should be instructed on the appropriate methodology, and
personnel conducting macroinvertebrate surveys should be taught the method and provided with
sketches of the organisms that should be present in that geographical location at that time of year.
In general, surface water sampling designs must include flow measurements to provide calcula-
tions to quantify loads and help prioritize sites. Water samples should be analyzed for both total
and dissolved metals with detection levels below WQS. Sampling should also consider seasonal
variations in flow and contaminant loading to determine critical conditions.
Biological Data Collection
In preliminary and subsequent data collection (including Sis and RIs), the importance of biological
data collection must be strongly emphasized. Bioassessments can be good indicators of water qual-
ity and watershed health. As a preliminary data collection strategy, qualitative macroinvertebrate
assessments are simple and quick and may guide selection of potential sampling locations that
should be investigated further. Sketches of macroinvertebrate species expected to be found in
similar unimpacted sites can be used to rapidly identify the species composition in the study area.
Bioassessments may include macroinvertebrate, fish and aquatic vegetation surveys. Rapid Bioas-
sessment Protocols may be used to direct the work. Habitat quality should be evaluated concur-
rently to determine if any perceived degradation in species number or diversity may be due to
habitat limitations rather than contamination.
For more information on this subject, see Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wade-
able Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002.
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/download.html
• Data Quality and Evaluation
When integrating data from various sources or when planning additional data acquisition, data
quality is an important issue that can greatly influence the usability of data by the various pro-
grams. This is one aspect of a cross-programmatic watershed effort that can cause divisions if not
carefully addressed, because the various programs often collect data for different purposes. When
planning additional data acquisition within the watershed, a QAPP should be prepared specifying
all the procedures that will be used to ensure adequate data quality. Development of DQOs is part
the QAPR Development and use of DQOs will help ensure that the data are of the type, quantity
and quality useful for all watershed participants. For cooperative data collection, the QAPP should
be reviewed by the WCT along with the FSR For consolidated data collection efforts, the FSP and
QAPP will be prepared collaboratively. As noted earlier, watershed participants should agree on
what data quality is needed for the various purposes of the data, the schedule for data collection
and who will pay for the collection of such data.
After the field and laboratory data are available, they should be compared against the DQOs to en-
sure it meets these objectives. The reviewed and validated data are analyzed for trends, compared
against benchmarks or used to make program decisions.
Data Quality Objectives
The DQO process is a series of planning steps using scientific methods that ensure that the type,
quantity and quality of environmental data used in decision making are appropriate for the
123
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
intended purpose. EPA has issued guidelines to help data users develop site-specific DQOs. The
DQO process is intended to
> Clarify the study objective
> Define the most appropriate type of data to collect
> Determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the data
> Specify acceptable levels of decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the
quantity and quality of data needed to support the design
The DQO process specifies project decisions, the data quality required to support those decisions,
specific data types needed and data collection requirements and ensures that analytical techniques
are used that will generate the specified data quality. The process also ensures that the resources re-
quired to generate the data are justified. The DQO process consists of seven steps; the output from
each step influences the choices that will be made later in the process. These steps are
Step 1: State the problem
Step 2: Identify the decision
Step 3: Identify the inputs to the decision
Step 4: Define the study boundaries
Step 5: Develop a decision rule
Step 6: Specify tolerable limits on decision errors
Step 7: Optimize the design
During the first six steps of the process, the planning team develops decision performance criteria
that will be used to develop the data collection design. The final step of the process involves refin-
ing the data collection design on the basis of DQOs.
For more information on this subject see Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality
Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240/B-06-001. February 2006. www.epa.gov/quality/
qs-docs/g4-final.pdf
Data Evaluation
During data evaluation, laboratory data are reviewed and validated to determine their useful-
ness and applicability for further evaluation (site models, statistical analyses) or decision-making.
The reviewer examines sampling dates, locations, depths and descriptions; sample collection and
preparation techniques; laboratory preparation techniques; analytical methods and analytical re-
sults; method detection limits or sample quantitation limits; QA/QC samples; and documentation.
The data reviewer reviews data reports for transcription and typographical errors, determines if
sampling protocols were appropriate, compares data against field and trip blanks to detect cross-
contamination, compares field replicate sample results, reviews laboratory QC (laboratory blanks,
method standards, spike recovery, duplicates), reviews detection limits, deletes unusable data,
attaches qualifiers to usable data and explains limitations of qualified data. Laboratory analytical
packages are validated by a chemist and the laboratory. Validation compares the QA objectives of
the user against the laboratory data package. Validation may include evaluation of sample hold-
ing times, initial and continuing calibration verification, interference check samples for inorgan-
ics, determination of bias (percent recovery), precision (from replicate analyses), detection limits
and field conditions that may have modified sampling procedures. A summary of the review and
validation processes is preferably provided to the project manager.
124
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
After the data are validated, data that meets the requirements may be used to evaluate site condi-
tions. Various numerical and graphical analytical methods may be used to evaluate the data on the
basis of the study objectives. For example, the user might need to know if data support statistical
assumptions regarding the presence or absence of contamination or biological response to the
contamination. At other times, the user might want to determine if there is a trend to the data or
correlation between two variables. For some studies, mean or median values and standard devia-
tion or another determination of variance are adequate for the purposes of the study. Environmen-
tal data may require transformation before statistical analysis.
The flow and water chemistry loading data should also be reviewed to ensure that they provide
enough spatial and temporal variability with regard to high and low flow to determine critical
conditions within the watershed.
• Benchmarks
Data should be compared against appropriate standards such as those provided in the following ta-
ble. Values used for comparison will depend on the sample matrix, the contaminant of interest, the
contaminant pathway being evaluated, and program requirements. One screening concentration's
benchmark of note in the table below is the SCDM—a compilation of values for use in the HRS.
Many of the values listed on the SCDM are derived from or applicable to other program bench-
marks, so this document is valuable for determining benchmarks that will be used by a variety
of programs involved in the watershed cleanup. Criteria and standards for dissolved metals are
hardness-based and are typically presented as a hardness-based formula. Table 4-2 presents typical
benchmarks for comparison.
Table 4-2. Benchmarks for Data Comparison
Benchmark
State and tribal WQS under
the CWA (designated uses,
water quality criteria, antideg-
radation policies)
MCLsand MCLGs
Screening Concentrations
Food and Drug Administration
Action Levels
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Media
Surface water (some states
have also issued ground
water standards under state
law).
Ground water, surface water,
drinking water.
Ground water, surface water,
drinking water, air, soil, biota.
Biota
Air
Air
Reference
State, tribal and territorial water quality
standards.
www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/
states
National Primary Drinking Water Standards.
www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html
> Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. EPA.
January 2004. www.epa.gov/superfund/
sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm
> Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations. EPA.
April 2005.www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/
risk/human/index, htm
> Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals
www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/
prg/index.htm
> Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide.
EPA540/R-96/018. July 1996.
Supplemental Guidance for Developing
Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.
OSWER 9355.4-24. December 2002.
Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious
Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CFR Part 50.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants. 40 CFR Part 61.
125
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
126
• Data Collection Strategies
Triad Approach
EPA often uses the Triad approach for planning site assessment activities. The Triad approach al-
lows the field work to be conducted cost-effectively and logically. The Triad approach is a three-
step process that includes systematic planning, dynamic work strategies and real-time measure-
ment technologies.
t Systematic planning includes developing a conceptual site model that shows sources,
pathways, and receptors. The planning team uses the seven-step DQO process to ensure
that project decisions meet the requirements of the project. Stakeholders are identified in a
project organization diagram and can include multiple agencies, community groups, tribal
organizations and appropriate experts required for the project, such as a risk assessor. The
results of this planning process are documented in the FSP and the QAPK
> Dynamic work strategies means using field analytical data generated on-site to determine
the direction of subsequent field work, thereby reducing the overall time and cost of site
activities and allowing better discretion in sample selection. A combination of less expen-
sive field analytical data and collaborative laboratory analytical data allows for a more
cost-effective way to more fully address all of the Data Quality Indicators (DQIs). The three
DQIs—precision, accuracy, and sensitivity—must be established to ensure that the data
used in decision making are of acceptable quality by quantifying the acceptable amount of
error in the data collection and analytical process. Data Quality Assessment (DQA) crite-
ria are defined as part of the DQO process and documented in the SAP The results of the
inspection/assessment, including qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the DQIs, are
documented in the Analytical Results Report.
> Real-time measurement technologies and tools are used to manage data in the field and
provide the information, including statistics, to make real-time decisions in the field where
applicable, www.clu-in.org/triad
The Triad
Systematic Dynamic
Project ^ Work
Planning Strategies
Uncertainty
Management
Real-time
Measurement
Technologies
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
• Data Management
Organizing data so it can be easily compiled and retrieved is one of the big challenges for multi-
program, multiagency cleanup efforts. The Watershed Project Manager must ensure that data are
collected, compiled and managed to allow participants to easily access, query and view important
site information. A data management plan may be prepared with the assistance of Regional EPA
data management specialists and other WCT members. The following issues are some that should
be considered in developing a data management plan:
> Who will manage data and who will map data (internal EPA data management, community
action group, contractor, USGS, USAGE, others)
> Select single data repository (single point of contact)
> Funding for database development and mapping
> Platform for data management (STORET, other database)
> Standard data submission requirements and tools for all groups submitting data (see Table 4-3)
> Level of effort allowable for existing data compilation
> Mapping platform (hard copy maps only, mapping application, query and view requirements)
> Data display requirements
> Mapped coverages (e.g., roads, streams, towns, topographic features, aerial photos, site
features, data points)
> Sampling location naming conventions
Frequently, data will be available from previous monitoring, assessment and remediation efforts in
the watershed. In the best case, all participants will readily contribute all available data, but the
data may be provided in a variety of formats with varying degrees of usefulness for the project.
The level of effort to compile existing data will depend on the format (text tables, spreadsheet
data, laboratory electronic deliverables and databases) and completeness of data provided by par-
ticipants. Clear communication of data formatting needs may reduce the cost of data management.
It will often be necessary for the Watershed Project Manager to compile the existing data early in
the process.
Data collected after the formation of the WCT should be provided in the standard format decided
upon by the project team to ensure funds are not wasted on unnecessary data conversions and
time-intensive discussions between data collection groups and GIS or data conversion specialists. A
consistent sample-naming convention should be determined in advance and used by all participants.
STORET Water Quality Exchange (WQX)
Data mapping may be provided by EPA personnel or contractors or may be performed by other
WCT members or contractors, depending on funding, agency capability and data viewing require-
ments. In some cases, a hard copy of the maps may be provided to participants at the beginning of
the projects and at important milestones. In other cases, an easily viewable, queryable GIS applica-
tion may be needed. Mapping support for Superfund projects is available through EPA personnel
and the ESAT contract. Water programs and other programs may access internal GIS personnel
or find a mechanism to fund a mapping contractor. Enviromapper is EPA's standard for mapping,
however, the program might not provide all the features desirable for the WCT. EPA Region 10 has
developed an Arc Internet Mapping Solution (ArcIMS) application for use with STORET. Each EPA
Region has standardized coverages available for use in mapping applications.
While a variety of platforms can be used to manage data, EPA's standard is the STORET database.
STORET is being redesigned into a new system called the WQX to facilitate easier flow of data into
the data warehouse, and ultimately, greater access to the data. The other major national database
127
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
of water quality information is the USGS NWIS. Other databases are available with regional or lo-
cal data. These might be useful but should be compatible with STORET. Table 4-3 presents typical
data requirements for using sampling data in a site database.
The STORET database is EPAs repository for water quality, biological, physical, soil, sediment, air
habitat assessment and field measurement metadata collected by a variety of sources—from state and
federal agencies to volunteer monitors. STORET is primarily used by states to report required water
data to EPA; however, it may be used to manage all types of data from a variety of sources. Potential
data sources include EPA programs such as Superfund, RCRA, and Brownfields; other federal agen-
cies; tribes; state water and environmental agencies; and local/regional groups such as communities,
municipalities, watershed councils and volunteer monitoring organizations.
STORET is an ideal way to manage data in a multiprogrammatic watershed cleanup effort for sev-
eral reasons. STORET's data retrieval functions are Web-enabled so the public can use the Internet
to query and download data. Data providers can submit data to STORET via data entry modules
that operate on personal computers and are available free of charge to monitoring organizations.
Web tools are also available to data providers who would like to submit data to STORET but do
not want to use the standard STORET software. See the Region 8 case study on managing data
and Web tools below. Data in STORET are available to all in a consistent format that allows map-
ping, sample location identification and data viewing, www.epa.gov/storet
Table 4-3. Sample Data Requirements
Sample Data Requirements
Project Information
Project name
Project or watershed ID
Who collected data
Why data were collected
How data were collected
Location Information
Location ID
Latitude/longitude
Datum
Method to determine lat/long
Results
Sample ID
Data type (water, soil, sediment, air, biota, field data, laboratory data)
Date
Parameter name
Parameter value
Sample fraction (dissolved or total)
Lab and/or validator qualifiers
Analytical method
Detection limit
Sampling method
Additional information might be necessary for specific watersheds and
pollutants. The project manager and WCT must set up data requirements
according to the particular project.
128
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)
ICIS integrates data that is currently located in several separate data systems. The Web-based
system enables individuals from states and EPA to access integrated enforcement and compliance
and NPDES data from any desktop connected to the Internet. EPAs ability to target the most criti-
cal environmental problems will improve as the system integrates data from all media. The public
can access some of the federal enforcement and compliance information in ICIS by using the EPA
Enforcement Cases Search or the EPA Enforcement SEP Search.
www.epa.gov/Compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
CASE STUDY
Region 8 Using Web Tools for Data Management
Region 8 requires that data from all samples collected or analyzed using EPA funds be provided in a
standardized format for use in STORET. Formatting requirements are presented in Standard Guidance
to Form at Sam pie Results, Field Measurements, and Associated Metadata. EPA Region 8. December 1,
2003. (See Appendix B.) Region 8 states use the STORET database to meet CWA requirements. Other
EPA programs, including Superfund, RCRA and Brownfields programs, also provide site data to STORET.
Data collected by other organizations using EPA funding must also be reported to STORET.
Several projects are underway or have been completed to simplify data reporting requirements. A Web
STORET Interface Module (SIM) tool to simplify tribal data submission has been developed. CWA section
319 funds were used to create a Web tool and training to facilitate data entry from local groups submit-
ting data from NPS projects. Funding for a Web site to host the Web SIM Tool along with the STORET da-
tabase and an ArclMS (Arclnternet Map Server) application and to provide training on the tool has been
approved for the Colorado Water Quality Monitoring Council. Through this project, all watershed groups
in Colorado will have access to the Web site and receive training for data input and viewing.
Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS)
WATERS is an integrated information system for the nation's surface waters. Water quality infor-
mation must be gathered to fulfill the requirements of the CWA and the SDWA, the two main fed-
eral laws that protect our nation's waters. The EPA Office of Water has various programs that store
data in associated databases. These databases are separately managed, but under WATERS, the
program databases are connected to a larger framework. This framework is a digital network of
surface water features known as the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). By linking to the NHD,
one program database can reach another, and information can be shared across programs. Data-
bases linked to WATERS include Water Quality Standards Database (WQSDB), National Assess-
ment Database (NAD), National Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking System (NTTS), STORET,
NPDES PCS, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Database, SDWIS, National Listing of Fish and Wild-
life Advisories (NLFWA) database, Nutrient Criteria Database, CWA section 319 Grants Report-
ing and Tracking System (CRTS), and the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure & Health
(BEACH) Watch database. WATERS provides a Web-based mapping tool, known as EnviroMapper
for Water, for viewing where these data are located and generating associated reports. WATERS
also provides a Web-based query tool, known
as AskWATERS, that produces summary and
detailed data reports for watersheds and other Opportunities for Integration
areas of interest, www.epa.gov/waters > A combined or coordinated database is a crucial
tool to ensure coordinated assessment, cleanup
Better Assessment Science Integrating and monitoring. AN relevant site information
Point & NonpOint Sources (BASINS) Sh°Uld be available to each stakeholder so
assessment needs and priorities can be readily
BASINS is a multipurpose environmental evaluated. The combined effort will require
analysis system designed for use by regional, less effort than the development of individual
state and local agencies in performing wa- databases for each program. The combined
, , , i- i j j- T database will have a more complete dataset,
tershed- and water quality-based studies. It ... ..... .. , .. , , . .
M ' providing additional information for decision
integrates a geographical information system making
(CIS), national watershed data and state-of-
the-art environmental assessment and model- > G'S matphping t°f ifj>™ationfin the database
allows the watershed team to evaluate
mg tools into one convenient package. This data needs determine focus areas for
system makes it possible to quickly assess additional study, see the relationships
large amounts of point source and NPS data between sources and stream loads, evaluate
in a format that is easy to use and understand. cleanup/implementation/restoration
Installed on a personal computer, BASINS al- alternatives, discuss priorities for site cleanup/
lows the user to assess water quality at selected implementation/restoration and develop a
, , . . . comprehensive monitoring plan.
stream sites or throughout an entire watershed.
129
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
This invaluable tool integrates environmental data, analytical tools and modeling programs to
support development of cost-effective approaches to watershed management and environmental
protection, including TMDLs. www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins
Envirofacts
Envirofacts is a single point of access to select EPA environmental data, providing access to several
EPA databases and supplying information about environmental activities that may affect air, water,
and land anywhere in the United States. Enviromapper for Envirofacts also provides mapping
capabilities for the Web site's queries, www.epa.gov/enviro/
Cleanups in My Community
Cleanups in My Community is a mapping and listing tool that shows sites where pollution is being
or has been cleaned up throughout the United States. It maps, lists and provides cleanup progress
profiles for
> Sites, facilities and properties that have been contaminated by hazardous materials and are
being, or have been, cleaned up under EPA's Superfund, RCRA and/or Brownfields cleanup
programs
t Federal facilities that have been contaminated by hazardous materials and are being, or
have been, cleaned up under EPA's Superfund or RCRA cleanup programs
www.epa.gov/enviro/cleanups
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
SDWIS is used to meet the requirements of the SDWA. SDWIS is a database designed and imple-
mented by EPA to meet its needs in the oversight and management of the SDWA. The database
contains data submitted by states and EPA Regions in conformance with reporting requirements es-
tablished by statute, regulation and guidance. A sister system, SDWIS/State is a database designed
by EPA and the states to help states (and EPA Regions) run their drinking water programs and fulfill
EPA reporting requirements, www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
National Water Information System (NWIS)
NWIS is a database of surface water and ground water data from 1.5 million sites around the
country. Current and historical surface water characteristics such as streamflow and stage, plus
water quality data such as temperature, specific conductance, pH, nutrients, pesticides and VOCs
are included in the database, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
• Program Studies
Various programs and agencies conduct studies within contaminated watersheds and of contami-
nated waterbodies. Primary studies include Surface Water Monitoring, Use Attainability Analyses
(UAA), and TMDLs, PAs, Sis, RI/FSs, Risk Assessments and NRDA, RFA, Facility Investigations,
CMSs and Brownfields Assessments. This section describes the objectives and focus of each of the
major studies and the typical data collected. It suggests opportunities for integration. Because
some of these studies are directed at assessment, cleanup, or monitoring the portions of the stud-
ies related to cleanup are presented in Chapter 5, where possible.
A variety of other studies might have been or should be conducted within any specific watershed.
This section does not intend to be a comprehensive description of all useful studies that can be
performed within a watershed.
130
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
CWA State Water Quality Monitoring Programs
Water quality monitoring approaches vary from state to state. Degrees of sampling effort and densi-
ty, and the chemical/physical/biological analyses performed on the samples can vary widely. Efforts
are being made to make state monitoring programs more consistent, and states are now required to
begin implementation of the strategy described in the recommended Elements of a State Monitoring
Program. This section describes state water quality monitoring on the basis of this document.
The ten elements of a state monitoring program include:
> Monitoring program strategy
> Monitoring objectives
> Monitoring design
> Core indicators of water quality
> Quality assurance
> Data management
> Data analysis and assessment
> Reporting
> Program evaluation
> General support and infrastructure
Sampling Objective. Monitor state waters to
meet state monitoring and assessment objec-
tives.
Sampling Strategy. The most efficient com-
bination of monitoring designs (e.g., fixed
station, intensive and screening-level moni-
toring, rotating basin, judgmental and prob-
ability design) to meet state monitoring and
assessment objectives are preferred. The state
monitoring design should support statistically
valid inferences about the condition of all state
water types over time.
Opportunities for Integration
t State water monitoring data may be directly
incorporated into the combined watershed
database.
> The state program may be integrated with TMDL,
NPDES, CERCLA and other long-term monitoring
efforts. For example, surface water monitoring
data collected as part of monitoring an NPL
site remedy may be used in the state water
assessment program, or data from state surface
water monitoring may be used to determine the
effectiveness of the remedy if the data collected
for each sample meets the needs of each
agency.
> The watershed effort generally stimulates
community interest. Volunteer monitoring
programs, when well-managed, may provide
data to meet the needs of state and federal
assessment and cleanup agencies.
> Monitoring information will be used for
assessing the status of the states' waters;
determining trends in water quality and
contaminant loadings; implementing pollution
control strategies, such as TMDLs and NPDES
permits; identifying emerging issues; and
developing policies and standards.
Samples and Analysis. A core set of indicators (e.g., water quality parameters) should be designated
for each water resource type that include physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological and biological/
ecological endpoints as appropriate; that reflect designated uses; and that can be used routinely to
assess attainment with applicable WQS throughout the state. This core set of indicators is monitored
to provide statewide or basin/watershed level information on the fundamental attributes of the
aquatic environment and to assess WQS attainment/impairment status. Previously, chemical and
physical indicators were emphasized; however, biological monitoring and assessment should assume
a more prominent role in state monitoring, www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2004/g2-12.pdf
Supplemental indicators are used when there is a reasonable expectation that a specific pollutant
could be present in a watershed, when core indicators indicate impairment or to support a special
study such as screening for potential pollutants of concern. Supplemental indicators are often key
to identifying causes and sources of impairments and targeting appropriate source controls. These
supplemental indicators may include each water quality criteria in the state's WQS, any pollutants
controlled by the NPDES and any other constituents or indicators of concern. Table 4-4 lists recom-
mended core and supplemental indicators.
131
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Table 4-4. Recommended Core and Supplemental Indicators
Recommended
Core Indicators
Supplemental
Indicators
Aquatic life &
wildlife
> Condition
of biological
communities (EPA
recommends the
use of at least two
assemblages)
> Dissolved oxygen
> Temperature
> Conductivity
» pH
» Habitat
assessment
» Flow
> Nutrients
> Landscape
conditions (e.g., %
Recreation
> Pathogen
indicators (E. coli,
enterococci)
> Nuisance plants
Flow
> Nutrients
» Chlorophyll
> Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
Additional indicators
for lakes:
> Secchi depth
Additional indicators
for wetlands:
cover of land uses) Wetland
Additional indicators hydrogeomorphic
for lakes: settings and
Eutrophic condition
Additional indicators
for wetlands:
» Wetland
hydrogeomorphic
settings and
functions
> Water column
toxicity
> Sediment toxicity
> Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
» Health of
organisms
functions
> Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
^ Hazardous
chemicals
> Aesthetics
Drinking water
> Trace metals
> Pathogens
t Nitrates
» Salinity
» Sediments/TDS
> Flow
> Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
» VOCs(in
reservoirs)
> Hydrophyllic
pesticides
> Nutrients
> Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
> Algae
Fish/shellfish
consumption
> Pathogens
Mercury
> Chlordane
> Dichlor-Diphenyl
Trichlorethane
(DDT)
» PCBs
> Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
> Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
Data Quality. Data may be screening or definitive depending on compliance with QA/QC proto-
cols and the sampling objective. States report data in STORET and also maintain the data in their
own database. States also provide appropriate geospatial data to enable the use of current CIS
tools. The Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act (www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG) asks
states to define the geographic location of assessment units using the NHD.
www.fgdc.gov/metadata/geospatial-metadata-tools
Data Uses. Data are used to meet the needs of the State Water Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram as required by the CWA. Data are used to compile the section 305 (b) water quality inven-
tory report and the section 303(d) list and provide information on monitoring and notification
programs for coastal recreation waters. Data may also be used for preparing triennial reviews,
UAAs, standards revisions, water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in permits, TMDLs, NFS
programs and watershed plans.
For more information, see Elements of a State Monitoring Program. EPA 841-B-03-003. March
2003. www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/elements03_14_03.pdf
132
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Water Quality Standards—Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
A UAA is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of a use that can
include physical, chemical, biological and economic factors. The factors are evaluated through a
waterbody survey and assessment. They address the current uses, causes of impairment and uses
that can be attained on the basis of physical, chemical and biological characteristics.
A UAA is performed by states to determine if the waterbody is able to support quality when the des-
ignated use is not included in CWA section 101 (a) (2), to remove a designated use that is specified
in section 101 (a) (2) or to adopt subcategories of a section 101 (a) (2) use that require less stringent
criteria. A generic UAA may also be performed for groups of similar waterbody segments to deter-
mine attainable uses.
Sampling Objective. UAA data collection is conducted to determine factors that limit designated
uses, determine if waterbody integrity can be restored, determine the feasibility of modifying the
physical habitat and determine if the use can be obtained given the existing limitations.
Sampling Strategy. The sampling approach may be adapted to the waterbody and other state-deter-
mined priorities. Available information is evaluated first, then field testing or surveys should be con-
ducted to fill in for lacking or incomplete information and to confirm the existing data. Assessment
of factors limiting waterbody use may be simple or complex, depending on the amount of available
data, the degree of accuracy and precision required, the importance of the resource, site-specific con-
ditions and controversy associated with the site. The sampling strategy could be to provide a general
survey of conditions, to focus on site-specific problem areas, to assist in evaluating trends or to deter-
mine a cause-effect relationship between factors. Characteristics that may be evaluated include
> Physical Factors such as in-stream characteristics (channel size, flow/velocity annual hy-
drology, total volume, re-aeration rates, gradient/pools/riffles, temperature, sedimentation,
channel modifications, and channel stability), substrate composition and characteristics,
channel debris, sludge deposits, riparian characteristics and downstream characteristics.
Field measurements and analysis, modeling, and existing information may be used to
determine physical factors affecting use. USFWS habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) and
habitat suitability indices (HSI) are sometimes used for habitat evaluation;
> Chemical Factors such as dissolved oxygen, toxicants, suspended solids, nutrients (nitro-
gen, phosphorus), sediment oxygen demand, salinity, hardness, alkalinity, pH, dissolved
solids. Available data, water and sediment samples, or modeling may be used to determine
chemical factors affecting use; and
> Biological Factors such as biological inventory for existing use analysis (fish, macroinver-
tebrates, microinvertebrates, phytoplankton, periphyton, macrophytes), biological poten-
tial analysis (diversity indices, habitat suitability indices, models, tissue analyses, recovery
index, intolerant species analyses, omnivore-car-
nivore analyses) and biological potential compari-
, . , Opportunities for Integration
sons with reference reach.
> Biological information exchange
Data quality. Data quality requirements should be based on between UAA, Risk Assessment
the site-specific topics being addressed by sampling. and NRDA efforts can benefit al1
programs.
Benchmarks. Data should be compared to existing WQS, , Resu|ts of UM cap jmpact RCRA
scientific references and data from reference waterbodies. CERCLA and Brownfields cleanup
priorities and remedies and TMDL
Data Use. Data should be used directly for assessing the ap- endpoints and Implementation
plicability of existing water quality criteria and designated strategy. Partners should work
uses and to determine if designated uses can be attained by together to align cleanup priorities
feasible waterbody improvements. and ensure cleanup actions
complement the UAA.
133
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
For more information, see
> Water Quality Standards page on EPAs Web site, www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards
» Water Quality Standards Handbook. Second Edition. EPA 823-B-94-005a. August 1994.
www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/wqstandards/handbook.pdf
> Technical Support Manual. Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume I. EPA. 1983.
> Technical Support Manual. Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume II, Estuarine Systems. EPA. 1984.
> Technical Support Manual. Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume III, Lake Systems. EPA. 1984.
TMDL
A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and
still attain WQS and an allocation of that amount among the pollutant's sources. In other words,
it is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and NPSs. The
calculation includes a margin of safety and accounts for seasonal variation in water quality. TMDLs
are prepared for impaired waterbodies identified on the state's 303 (d) list of waterbodies not at-
taining WQS.
This section describes the assessment portion of the TMDL. Load allocation, implementation and
monitoring are discussed in Chapter 5. Cross-programmatic assessment and implementation of
PCB load reductions is demonstrated in the Delaware Estuary case study at the end of this chapter.
TMDL Tasks Related to Assessment
Problem Identification.
1. Identify the applicable WQS (designated/existing use(s) and the numeric/narrative criteria)
for the impaired waterbody listed on the state's 303 (d) list. (Existing uses are defined as
those uses that have occurred on or after November 28, 1975.)
2.
Opportunities for Integration
t The Problem Identification portion
of the TMDL is closely related to
the CERCLA PA. Development of
the Comprehensive Preliminary
Watershed Assessment and the
Targeted Brownfields Assessment
described in Chapter 3 will assist in
problem identification.
3.
Collect all readily available water quality data for
the impaired waterbody.
Conduct necessary sampling to determine sources
of pollutant(s) and to calculate pollutant loads
(flow multiplied by concentration equals pollutant
load or mass of pollutant per time).
4. Document waterbody characteristics (geology, hy-
drology, land use).
5. Identify pollutant(s) preventing the attainment of
designated use.
134
Target Analysis. Determine benchmarks that will be used to measure success and state how the
measure will be used to track progress. This depends on whether the TMDL goal is to meet a nu-
meric water quality criterion, comply with an interpretation of a narrative water quality criterion
or attain a desired condition that supports meeting the designated use. Identify the waterbody's
critical conditions such as peak loading seasons or events or critical low flows. Identify appropri-
ate ways to measure progress toward achieving the stated goals. Tie the measures to pollutant
loading.
Source Identification and Assessment. List and characterize individual pollutant sources, catego-
ries of sources, or subcategories of sources responsible for waterbody impairment. Identify the ex-
tent to which each source contributes to the problem: source type, relative location, magnitude of
loading, transport mechanisms of concern and duration and frequency of pollutant loading. Many
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
tools are used including existing monitoring information, air photography analysis, simple calcula-
tions, spreadsheet analysis using empirical methods and computer modeling. Selection of analysis
is made on the basis of the complexity of the problem, availability of resources, time constraints,
availability of monitoring data and the management objectives under consideration. Sources can
be grouped into categories if appropriate.
Linking Water Quality Targets and Sources. Compare water quality targets (benchmarks) to
pollutant loads. If long-term water quality data are available, it is used to associate waterbody
responses to flow and loading conditions. When long-term monitoring data are not available,
synoptic sampling is used with analytical tools, including models and qualitative information to
define such characteristics as baseline water quality conditions, pollutant source loading rates and
waterbody system dynamics.
DY
Delaware River Watershed PCB TMDL—
Multiprogram Assessment and Implementation
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
The Delaware River presents a set of
issues common to many watersheds in
the industrialized northeast of the United
States: a river bordered by many different
communities; a long history of residential
and industrial uses whose legacy remains
in contaminated sediments and runoff;
and a myriad of local, state and regional
authorities that share various jurisdictions
over it. In response to high levels of PCBs
found in fish throughout tidal portions of the
river, a tight time frame for development of
a PCB TMDL, and a diverse range of PCB
sources, a broad coalition of governments
and nongovernmental agencies (NGO)
has come together to seek innovative,
cross-programmatic, collaborative ways
to address the problem as efficiently as
possible.
Delaware Estuary
3 States
2 EPA Regions
1 Interstate Compact
134 miles long
6 million people
162 industries
300 CSOs
Bay
j Ealuary Boundrv
The Delaware River is the longest undammed river east of the Mississippi, extending 330 miles
from Hancock, New York, to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. The basin covers 13,539 square
miles, draining parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware in 236 individual wa-
tersheds, including the Schuylkill and Lehigh Rivers in Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction over the basin is
shared by 42 different counties, 838 municipalities, 25 congressional districts, two EPA Regions,
the USAGE, and 5 USGS offices. The Delaware Bay itself covers 782 square miles. Nearly 15 mil-
lion people (approximately 5 percent of the nation's population) rely on the waters of the Delaware
River Basin for drinking and industrial use, but the watershed drains only 0.4 percent of the total
continental U.S. land area.
Much progress has been made under the CWA to reduce the loading of conventional pollutants in
the Delaware River, and dissolved oxygen levels rose appreciably throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
But some pollutants remain a problem, particularly PCBs. [PCBs are a class of synthetic com-
pounds that were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including electrical,
heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics and rubber products; in
pigments, dyes and carbonless copy paper and many other applications. Although banned from
135
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Delaware River Zone Locations
(continued)
manufacture since the late 1970s, PCBs are still in use because
of the extended life span of equipment in which they were used.
Additionally, PCBs are hydrophobic and thus tend to bind to organic
particles in sediment and soils. Because of their chemical stability,
PCBs tend to persist in the environment. PCBs enter fish and other
wildlife through absorption or ingestion and accumulate in their
tissues at levels many times higher than in the surrounding water
and at levels unsuitable for human consumption. EPA has deter-
mined PCBs to be a probable human carcinogen; they also have
been shown to have an adverse impact on human reproductive
and immune systems and might act as an endocrine disrupter.]
In the late 1980s, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (through its
Pennsylvania DEP), and the states of Delaware (Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control [DNREC]),
and New Jersey (New Jersey DEP), began issuing fish-consumption
advisories for portions of the Delaware Estuary because of elevated
concentrations of PCBs measured in fish tissue. In 1996 water quality criteria for toxic pollutants in-
cluding PCBs were adopted for Zones 2-5 of the river. The criteria generally decrease as one moves
down the river, from 44.4 picograms per liter in Zones 2 and 3, down to 7.9 picograms per liter in
lower Zone 5. (The criteria in Zone 6 is higher.) The more stringent criterion in the lower estuary
reflects the different water uses that are made within the different zones, particularly with respect
to fish consumption. As a result, achieving the necessary reductions in the lower zones will require
much larger reductions in the upper zones than would otherwise be necessary. Significant reduc-
tions are required throughout the estuary because ambient concentrations of PCBs in the waterbody
exceed the criteria by two to three orders of magnitude. In 1998 all three states included Zones 2-5
on the lists of 303(d) impaired waters under the CWA, requiring establishment of a TMDL for PCBs.
Today, the states' fish consumption advisories cover the entire estuary and bay, ranging from a
no-consumption recommendation for all species taken between the C&D Canal and the Delaware-
Pennsylvania border to consumption of no more than one meal per month of striped bass or white
perch in Zones 2 through 4.
Given the variety of government agencies with jurisdiction over the river,
in 2000 the re levant states and EPA Regions 2 and 3 agreed that the
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) should take the lead in devel-
oping the PCB TMDL. The DRBC is a federal-interstate compact agency
created by the United States and the states of Delaware, New Jersey and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to jointly manage water resources
within the basin. The DRBC, under its independent authority, had issued
water quality criteria for toxic pollutants that have been largely adopted
by the states. To aid its work the DRBC formed a Toxics Advisory Com-
mittee (TAG), a 13-member group composed of representatives from
the States, the two EPA Regions, municipal and industrial dischargers,
academia, agriculture, public health, environmental organizations and fish and wildlife interests.
The DRBC also initiated an extensive program of scientific investigations and data collection efforts.
Additionally, several coalitions of NPDES permitted dischargers were formed, one of which provided
technical support in the development of the water quality model.
A number of factors made the preparation of a PCB TMDL for the Delaware River difficult,
including the different types of PCBs present in the river with varying characteristics (209 PCB
compounds can exist, depending on the distribution of chlorine atoms); differences in fish
consumption advisories among the states; the large, widely dispersed source load of PCBs in
runoff, contaminated ground water, sediments, air and other sources; the particularly diverse
group of affected stakeholders (industrial and municipal point and NPSs, most of whom also relied
Hybrid striped boss
136
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
DY
(continued)
on the basin's waters); extremely low detection limits for PCBs and the ubiquity of PCBs at these
levels; the fact that the original sources of PCBs are often not the same as the Loading Source
categories; and questions over the dynamics of tributary loading and sediment redistribution.
Two aspects of the PCB problem in the Delaware River made a cross-programmatic, multistake-
holder approach particularly useful: the short timeframe that was required to develop the TMDL,
and the predominance of nonpoint discharge sources of PCBs in the river.
PMPs Rely on Adaptive
Management
• While PMPs must be detailed and
cover specific topics, the PMP Rule
is not prescriptive.
• Premise: dischargers know their
facilities better than regulators
• Ensures that each facility takes a
thorough look at its operations and
conditions
• Wide flexibility for achieving
reductions
• Different facilities will have different
approaches
• What works for one may not work for
another
• Encourage creative solutions
• Periodically reevaluate measures
being implemented and advances
• PCB reduction strategies and
technologies
couraged other agencies such as the
using their independent authorities.
Short Time Frame for TMDL Development
Pursuant to provisions of a 1997 consent decree, the
states (or EPA) were required to establish a PCB TMDL
by December, 2003. Given the short time frame, a two-
phase approach was adopted. In the first stage, TMDLs
(for the different zones) were established, comprising
individual WLAsfor 142 potential PCB point sources; a
load allocation (LA) for NPSs; and an MOS, on the basis a
simplified methodology and extrapolations from data and
model simulations for one category (or congener) of PCBs.
Because of the predominance of NPSs of PCBs in the river
(discussed below) as well as uncertainties associated with
the loading calculations, EPA agreed with the NPDES per-
mitting authorities that it was appropriate for the potential
PCB point sources to receive nonnumeric WQBELs, to be
implemented at their 5-year NPDES permit renewal point.
Stage 2 TMDLs, which will include additional individual
WLAs (including numeric or nonnumeric limits for NPDES
permit holders) and LAs for NPSs, will be developed in the
future and will be based on all the PCB groups. The Stage I
PCB TMDL was the product of extensive collaboration with
a number of stakeholders, which resolved conflicts over
competing loading models and avoided undue adversarial
processes. The December 2003 Stage I PCB TMDL did not
specify how its allocations were to be achieved and en-
DRBC and the states to implement PCB reduction strategies
To help implement the PCB TMDL, a TMDL Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) was es-
tablished by the DRBC. This unique group, again composed of representatives from a variety of
governmental and nongovernmental agencies and interests, was tasked with developing creative
and cost-effective strategies for reducing PCB loadings from all sources to help achieve the PCB
TMDLs. The lAC's recommendations are submitted to the DRBC, which considers them in consulta-
tion with all regulatory agencies whose approval is required to implement them. Each regulatory
agency is also represented on the IAC.
As a result of the lAC's work, in May 2005, the DRBC issued regulations requiring the preparation
of Pollutant Minimization Plans (PMP) for toxic pollutants, and also announced a goal that point
and NPS PCB loads be reduced by 50 percent within the next 5 years. Under the PMP Rule, an
identified potential source of PCB discharges is required to describe its facility, identify known and
potential sources of PCBs, identify procedures for tracking down unknown sources of the pollut-
ant and identify and implement strategies for minimizing or preventing releases from all identified
sources. Dischargers will measure and periodically report progress made in reducing loadings. A
PMP must also contain a good faith commitment by a high-ranking official to implement the PMP.
Initially, 60 point source dischargers will be required to develop and implement PMPs and to moni-
tor their PCB discharges. Recognizing the importance of contributions of PCBs from NPSs, the rule
137
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
allows the DRBC to require PMPs for contaminated sites where releases are not being addressed
entirely through other state or federal regulatory programs.
The PMP Rule embodies the principle of adaptive management, which encourages experimenta-
tion, measurement, and readjustment depending on the results of the actions taken. It reflects an
awareness that while dramatic reductions in loadings from all source categories will be required to
achieve the PCB TMDLs over several decades, uncertainty as to the effectiveness of any reduction
activity currently remains.
The PMP Rule states that as individual NPDES permits come up for renewal on their five year
cycle, the requirements of the rule will be incorporated by the various state permitting authorities.
The DRBC's PMP Rule also provided that a peer review advisory committee would be established
to evaluate the PMPs and advise regulators on their anticipated effectiveness. The committee will
also provide advice on additional measures that might be practicable.
There are early signs that the PMP adap-
tive management approach can work.
In Wilmington, Delaware, a rail facility
demonstrated an approximate 90 per-
cent reduction in PCBs in surface runoff
after implementing erosion control; and
a chemical company demonstrated an
initial 22 to 32 percent load reduction
by making changes in its handling of
raw materials, processes, and settling
and sand filtration, with significantly
more reductions expected by 2007. A
Identifying NPS PCB Loading to the Delaware
River: Major Collaborative Steps to DelTRiP
Implementation
Step 1:
DelTRiP will identify contaminated sites in each
State within the basin using EPA and state
databases, including but not limited to Superfund
listings (NPL and CERCLIS), RCRA, EPCRA TRI
and state brownfield and hazardous-waste sites.
Other listings, such as those developed by fire
departments or building inspectors or through
municipal wastewater treatment plant trackdown
programs, might also be used to identify sites.
Step 2: Sites identified from other listings will be referred
to the appropriate federal/state agencies for
consideration.
Step 3: DRBC will locate and incorporate identified sites
into GIS.
Step 4: State and federal agencies will quantify the PCB
loads being released or that have the potential to
be released from contaminated sites identified
above.
Step 5: DelTRiP will develop criteria to rank each site (i.e.,
to determine its significance and to decide if it is to
be prioritized for tracking and reporting).
Step 6: DelTRiP will prioritize the contaminated sites that
significantly contribute, or have the potential to
significantly contribute, to the PCB load to the basin.
Step 7: DRBC will assemble status information for each
prioritized site and track the remediation progress
and other actions taken to reduce the releases to
the Basin from the contaminated waste sites.
Step 8: DRBC will publish an annual report detailing
measurable reductions and the status of
implementation activities at each prioritized
contaminated site, highlighting key milestones and
accomplishments.
refinery in southeast Pennsylvania had
removed PCB equipment years ago, but
after developing a PMP, identified and
removed contaminated sediments in a
stormwater drainage ditch.
NPSs of PCBs
The second aspect of the Delaware
River PCB TMDL that made a cross-pro-
grammatic, multistakeholder approach
important was the fact that much of
the PCB load comes from NPSs. Cur-
rent data suggest that NPSs, including
contaminated sites and stormwater
discharges, are the largest categories of
PCB loadings in the Delaware River. The
CWA's NPDES and TMDL programs fall
most directly on point discharges; NPSs
are typically more difficult to measure
and address. There is often a wealth
of data that EPA and state programs
gathered as part of their assessments of
and responses to contaminated lands,
yet historically it has been difficult to
feed this information into those same
governments' water protection programs
for use in restoring waterbodies.
138
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
DY
(continued)
To help identify and prioritize for re-
sponse contaminated sites and other
NPSs that are contributing PCBs and
other toxics to the Delaware River, the
Delaware River Toxics Reduction Pro-
gram (DelTRiP) was created in 2004 as
a joint effort of DNREC, New Jersey DEP,
Pennsylvania DEP, EPA and the DRBC.
DelTRiP's goal is to cull information held
by federal, state and local programs
(CERCLA, RCRA, EPCRATRI, Brownfields
programs, and so on) regarding contami-
nated sites, and then identify, prioritize,
track and report the status of such
sites within the basin that do or could
significantly contribute toxic loadings to
the Delaware River Basin. EPA and the
various state programs each play a role
in ensuring that the information held by
one program gets to others.
Difficult issues remain with respect to NPSs of PCBs in the Delaware River, because the different
EPA, state and regional environmental programs do not always use the same approaches to
achieve their common goals.
Delaware River
TMDL Sample Collection
The preferred method for TMDL development is to use long-term monitoring data; however, ad-
equate data are not always available, especially in watersheds with primarily NFS and background
pollutant loading. When data are not available, sampling may be conducted to support any aspect of
the TMDL, including determination of benchmarks, loading estimates, loading allocations and moni-
toring. Examples of data that may be collected for the TMDL are flow rates, water chemistry/toxicity,
physical habitat evaluation, biological community structure, source loading studies such as tracer
studies and qualitative macroinvertebrate studies.
Sampling Objective. Sampling is conducted to determine concentrations of contaminants in the
waterbody seasonal variation in contamination and acceptable pollutant loading that protects
designated uses; identify sources of pollution and the amount of pollutant each source contributes;
and determine mass loading from various sources so pollutant loads may be allocated to sources
and limited to achieve water cleanup goals. Samples may be collected to monitor progress toward
meeting WQS.
Sampling Strategy for Monitoring. Episodic samples are collected to ensure the waterbody is
meeting or is making progress toward meeting water quality criteria. Water quality samples are
collected, and the flow rate is measured at each sampling point within the watershed. Samples are
analyzed for contaminant(s) of interest (dissolved analysis for metals), and the analyses from the
sample data and the water flow rate are used to calculate pollutant loads. Samples are collected at
appropriate times of the year to determine the seasonal variation in pollutant loading and seasonal
TMDL requirements. Physical and biological samples and data may also be collected as necessary
to relate TMDL activities to WQS.
139
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Laboratory Analysis: Samples are analyzed for the TMDL pollutant and associated indicators
Data Quality. Data must be shown to be reliable and in accordance with applicable data collection
or QA/QC program requirements. Data quality requirements are variable; for example, samples
collected for water quality analysis generally have a high-level of QA/QC, while samples collected
for source identification and assessment may have lesser data quality requirements.
Data Uses. Data are used to determine acceptable pollutant loads on the basis of the designated
water use, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet WQS
on a seasonal basis, where and how pollutant loading must be reduced and if the TMDL is achiev-
ing the desired goals.
For more information, see
» Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440-4-91-001. April
1991. www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/decisions
> Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). EPA-540-R-05-012. OSWER 9355.0-85. Decem-
ber 2005. www.epa.gov/superfund/health/coninedia/sediinent/guidance.htm
» Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001.
PB91-127415. March 1991. www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/det/faca/
mtg2 00512 08/excerpt-detectionlimits .html
» Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development. EPA841-B-97-006.
1997.www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/comptool.html
» Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs, First Edition. EPA 841-B-99-004. October 1999.
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/sediment/pdf/sediment.pdf
» Stressor Identification Guidance. EPA 822-F-00-012. December 2000.
www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
RCRA studies are performed at sites that actively manage hazardous wastes. The RCRA process is
similar to the CERCLA process, but the responsible party performs the work under EPA and state
supervision. To facilitate expeditious site evaluation and cleanup, the assessment requirements are
procedurally flexible and only the elements required to make good cleanup decisions are required.
The following are elements common to most contaminated RCRA facilities.
Opportunities for Integration
t Developing combined assessment and
monitoring programs with consistent
sampling and analysis protocols can be
useful to multiple programs and agencies.
> Multiple programs and agencies can
conduct seasonal basin loading studies
to assist in source identification and
prioritization, wasteload and load
allocations and appropriate cleanup/
implementation strategies.
> Source identification may identify sites that
are subject to CERCLA, RCRA or Brownfields
authorities. Conversely, sites already
investigated by those programs may be
included in the TMDL.
Similar to a CERCLA PA, the RFA is performed to de-
termine the existence of continuous or non-continuous
releases of hazardous wastes. Information is gathered on
solid waste management units and other areas of con-
cern. The information is evaluated to determine the need
to proceed to a RFI. The RFA does not generally include
sampling and analysis.
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Similar to a CERCLA RI, the purpose of the RFI is to
gather data to fully characterize the nature, extent and
rate of migration of hazardous wastes. The agency(s)
conducting the investigation uses the data to determine
the need for corrective measures and to help select and
implement the measures.
140
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
CERCLA Site Assessment
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Objective. The purpose of the PA generally is to determine if a site has the potential to pose a threat
to human health and the environment. Information normally is collected also to determine whether
an SI is warranted. Figure 4-3 illustrates the usual decision-making process for conducting a PA/SI.
Data Collected. PA data collection may be limited to desktop research but often includes a brief
site visit. Data collected for the PA usually includes the following:
> General Site Information. Location, ownership, type of facility, years of operation
> Source and Waste Characteristics. Source types and locations, size of sources, waste types
and quantities, hazardous substances present, plant processes
> Ground Water Use and Characteristics. General geology, aquifer characteristics, locations
of private, municipal, and drinking water wells, wellhead protection area, blended systems
> Surface Water Use and Characteristics. Nearest waterbody and other surface waterbodies
within 15 miles downstream, flood frequency, sensitive environments, wetlands, fisheries,
surface water flow characteristics and surface water intakes
> Soil Exposure Characteristics. Populations, schools, facility workers, sensitive environments
Information normally is gathered from searches of federal, state or local records, site sketches, in-
spection reports, aerial photographs, databases and any other available source. Data generally are
used to calculate a preliminary HRS score to determine the need for further investigation.
Site Identification/Initiation
of PA/SI
Impaired
Water?
• YES
Contact TMDL
Program
Program
Integration
Indicated?
YES
NO
Perform
traditional PA/SI
NO
Comprehensive Preliminary
Watershed Assessment
Watershed-wide reconnaissance.
Loading study/synchronized sampling.
Identify potential sources.
Coordinate PA/SI with TMDL
Ideal sampling: low detection dissolved
metals or organic samples, waterbody
flow measurements, qualitative
macroinvertebrate sampling, sediment
samples, GPS locations for all samples,
consistent sample IDs
Figure 4-3. PA/SI Decision Tree
141
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Opportunities for Integration
t An amended approach to the
UPA may be appropriate for sites
within a contaminated watershed.
Proposed additions to the Region
3 UPA requirements may include
identification of existing water
flow and water quality data and
identification of the CWA 303(d)
status of the watershed (available in
EPA databases). If the site is within
an impaired or potentially impaired
watershed and has a potential
pathway to surface water, additional
data collection should be specified,
including collecting land use and
ownership data, maps and aerial
photography for the entire watershed.
Unified Phase Assessment (UPA)
EPA Region 3 has developed and tested an initial en-
vironmental assessment tool, the UPA, to organize
information about a site in a way that can be used for
purposes of CERCLA, RCRA and USTs, (Unified Phase
Assessment Guidance Manual, EPA Region 3. Hazardous
Sites Cleanup Division, September 15, 2004). Under the
UPA process, a site may be referred to the most appropri-
ate program without repeating the PA process, thereby
increasing the speed and effectiveness of SI and cleanup.
Typically, the UPA contains three parts:
1. A single page quick reference
2. The primary assessment containing elements com-
mon to all initial assessments
3. Program-specific data including QC information, large
maps and other data and background information
Data applicable to individual programs are included in program-specific attachments. The UPA can
be completed in two phases, similarly to the PA method: UPA I is an initial assessment of the site,
and UPA II delineates on-site contamination, possible off-site impact of the contamination and the
impact of contamination migrating onto the site from off-site sources. Additional information is
developed for potential purchasers/stakeholders in making further decisions concerning the de-
velopment potential of the property. UPA II may involve site sampling and possible limited off-site
sampling. A limited hydrogeologic investigation may be included in the UPA II.
Site Inspection (SI)
Sampling Objective. The objective of an SI generally is to gather site-specific information to
support a decision about the need for further Superfund attention. Data usually are collected to
determine the nature of contamination, investigate the exposure of potential targets, establish
background concentrations and establish a pathway between the contamination and targets on the
basis of data gaps identified during the PA. The full extent of contamination at the site normally
is not investigated, and a risk assessment usually is not performed. Pathways investigated can
include ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. Targets can include wells and surface
water intakes supplying drinking water, populations, human food chain organisms, sensitive envi-
ronments, wellhead protection areas and resources.
Sampling Strategy. The Triad approach can be used to direct sampling activities. Soil, source
material, surface water, ground water, sediment and air may be sampled, depending on the nature
of the site, contaminants and pathways. Generally, all media are not sampled for each SI, only
those that the PA indicates might be needed to provide a decisive HRS scoring package. Additional
sampling can be performed when, for example, it could help establish a link of the contamination
to the site or to support the HRS scoring package. Background samples can be needed to establish
a release of a hazardous substance or representative ambient concentrations.
Samples. Water samples may be filtered or non-filtered, depending on the contaminant and the
HRS factor being evaluated. Filtered samples can allow comparison to drinking water benchmarks
and unfiltered samples typically are used to compare with surface water environmental bench-
marks. Ground water sampling should be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbance
and turbidity so that filtering is not necessary unless it is specifically required for geochemical
speciation modeling.
142
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Laboratory Analysis. Analytical parameters vary significantly depending on source materials
and the potential threats of those materials to the identified receptors. Detection levels for each
sample/analyte are dependent on the specific HRS factor being evaluated and the benchmark that
will be used for comparison. The detection levels might not match the Contract Required Quantita-
tion Limits (CRQL) or the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDL).
Data Quality. The minimum data quality requirements for each analysis depend on the chemical
and the specific HRS factor being evaluated. Data used to document the site HRS score should be
included in the administrative record and be legally defensible. Data used for determining source
dimensions, for example, may be screening level data. The following describes the typical process
used. Proper sample collection and handling procedures are used and quality control samples are
collected, including field duplicate, field blank, trip blank and field rinsate samples. Samples are sent
to CLP laboratories or non-CLP laboratory services. Data are validated. Field screening data are used
only for discrete source samples that do not require a background sample in the HRS.
Data Uses. Data generally are used in the HRS models to determine if the site should proceed to a
potential NPL listing. Listed sites may then move to the remedial stage where more thorough site
investigation is performed (RI) and solutions determined (FS).
Table 4-5 indicates the benchmarks for each exposure pathway threat.
For more information, see:
» A Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA EPA/540/G-91/013,
September 1991.
» A Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA EPA 540-R-92-021, Directive
9345.1-05, September 1992.
» Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual. EPA 540-R-92-026. November 1992.
> Unified Phased Assessment Guidance Manual, E.S. EPA Region 3—Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Division. September 15, 2004.
Table 4-5. Typical PA/SI Benchmarks
HRS pathway/threat
Ground Water
Surface Water
Soil Exposure
Air
Benchmarks
MCLs
MCLGs
Screening concentrations
Drinking water threat
» MCLs
» MCLGs
> Screening concentrations
Human food chain threat
> Food and Drug Administration action levels
> Screening concentrations
Environmental threat
Ambient water quality criteria
> Ambient aquatic life advisory concentrations
Screening concentrations
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
Screening concentrations
143
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
144
CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The RI/FS generally is conducted to characterize the nature and extent of risks posed by NPL sites
and to evaluate potential remedial options. The objective of the RI/FS process typically is to gather
information sufficient to support an informed risk management decision regarding which remedy
(combination of treatments) appears to be most appropriate for a site. The RI normally includes
site characterization and risk assessment. The FS usually provides an evaluation of potential reme-
dial alternatives. The following discussion presents the typical site characterization portion of the
RI/FS. Risk Assessment is discussed in the following section, and the FS is discussed in Chapter 5.
Site Characterization
The site characterization portion of the RI/FS normally includes collecting of a wide range of
information regarding the site, setting, contaminants, source areas and contaminant fate and
transport. Treatability studies may be performed to help select and evaluate remedial alternatives.
Developing the RI/FS may be an iterative process, and data collection may be performed through-
out the process, becoming increasingly refined as the understanding of the site conceptual model
is refined. The following data may be collected, depending on site-specific conditions:
> Site Geology Information includes unconsolidated soil/sediment and bedrock geology,
including the influence on aquifers and contaminant fate and transport. Data are collected
from available information, site reconnaissance mapping and subsurface explorations.
> Soil and Vadose Zone Information consists of soil characteristics (type, holding capacity,
temperature, biological activity and engineering properties), soil chemistry characteristics
(solubility, ion speciation, adsorption coefficients, leachability cation exchange capacity,
mineral partition coefficients and chemical and sorptive properties) and vadose zone char-
acteristics (permeability, variability, porosity, moisture content, chemical characteristics and
extent of contamination). Data are collected from existing information, borehole sampling,
laboratory analysis and measurements, aquifer tests, tracer tests, leaching tests, laboratory
experiments and other specialized testing.
> Surface Water and Sediment Information refers to drainage patterns (overland flow,
topography, channel flow pattern, tributary relationships, soil erosion, and sediment trans-
port and deposition), surface waterbody information (flow, channel width, water depths,
channel elevations, flooding tendencies and physical dimensions of surface water impound-
ments), water structures, surface water/ground water relationships and surface water
quality (pH, temperature, TSS, suspended sediment, salinity and specific contaminant
concentrations). Numerous samples of surface water and sediment are generally collected
directly downgradient of the site as well as upstream to evaluate the site's impact on the
surface waterbody. In tidally-influenced sites, sampling should be conducted at different
stages of the tidal cycle. The number of samples collected should be enough to calculate the
background concentration with a specified Upper Confidence Limit (e.g., 90 percent). Data
are collected from existing information including aerial maps, ground surveys, topographic
maps, data from public agencies, water level measurements and modeling.
> Ground Water Information includes data on occurrence (aquifer boundaries, locations, and
ability to transmit water), ground water movement (direction and rate of flow), recharge/
discharge (locations and rates), and ground water quality (pH, TDS, salinity, and contami-
nant concentrations). Data are collected from existing literature, pumping and injection
tests, monitoring well installation and testing, water level measurements, geophysical stud-
ies, modeling, slug tests, tracer tests, pump tests, calculations from soil and geological data
and field mapping.
> Atmospheric Information describes local climate (precipitation, temperature, wind speed
and direction, and presence of inversion layers), weather extremes (storms, floods, and
winds), release characteristics (direction and speed of plume movement; rate, amount and
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
temperature of release; and relative densities). Data are collected from existing information
and on-site measurements.
> Ecological Information consists of land use characteristics, water use characteristics, eco-
system components and characteristics, critical habitats and biocontamination. Data can be
collected from existing information, agency reports, ground and aerial surveys and sample
collection.
> Source Information refers to facility characteristics (source location, type of waste/chemi-
cal containment, integrity of waste/chemical containment, drainage control, engineered
structures, site security, known discharge points, mapping and surveying) and waste char-
acteristics (type, quantities, chemical and physical properties and concentrations). Data
can be collected from existing information, previous studies, site surveys, remote sensing,
surveying and sampling and analysis).
Additional data can be collected to evaluate potential remedial actions. Treatability studies often
are conducted to provide sufficient data to allow complete evaluation of treatment alternatives
and to reduce the cost and performance uncertainties of a specific treatment alternative.
Sampling Strategy. Samples generally are collected for a variety of purposes, and the strategy
used to determine the type, quantity and locations of samples will vary accordingly. For example,
the location of samples collected to determine the nature of source material may be determined
judgmentally while the locations of samples collected to determine the extent of ground water
contamination may be determined using a stratified random approach. Data may be collected in
multiple sampling efforts to use resources efficiently—the level of accuracy may increase as the
focus of sampling is narrowed and depends on the use of the data.
Laboratory Analysis. Chemical analysis normally will include contaminants of potential concern
and degradation products plus characteristics that may affect contaminant fate and transport or
potential remedial alternatives.
Benchmarks. Remediation goals generally are media-
specific, site-specific and developed either in conjunction
with, or following completion of, the Risk Assessment.
Standardized criteria, such as those listed in the SCDM,
Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) or Region 3 RBCs, may also
be used.
Data Quality. Data quality requirements for RI sample
analysis may vary according to data uses. Data that will
be used to support enforcement or cost-recovery actions
or establish risk could require a higher level of confi-
dence than data collected for planning, monitoring or
implementation activities. The DQO process should be
followed for all samples collected to ensure the sam-
pling and analysis protocols meet the data use require-
ments. DQOs can be revised as the site model is refined.
Opportunities for Integration
t Data linking ground water and surface
water interactions normally will be helpful
to identify and assess sources and to link
sources to loads in the TMDL.
> The RI/FS may provide mapping and
aerial photography that includes the site
plus areas upgradient and downgradient
of the site.
> Integration between programs and
agencies can streamline collection
of the extensive site characterization
information required for the RI.
Conversely, RI data can be useful for
several aspects of TMDL development.
For more information, see
t A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy
Selection Decision Documents. EPA 540-R-98-031. July 1999.
> Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA—
Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. October 1988.
> Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) Web site www.clu-in.org
» Superfund Policies and Guidance, www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/guidance.htin
145
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
CERCLA Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments typically are part of the RI; they typi-
cally are used to determine how threatening a hazardous-waste site is to human health and the
environment and can help determine appropriate cleanup strategies. Risk assessment generally is
performed to facilitate and support defensible, site-specific risk management decisions, including
identification and characterization of current and potential threats from a hazardous substance
and identification of cleanup levels that would protect human health and the environment. Risk
assessors generally seek to determine a safe level for each potentially dangerous contaminant pres-
ent. For humans, this typically is a level at which health effects are unlikely and the probability of
cancer is very small. For ecological receptors, determining the level of risk can be more complicat-
ed and is normally a function of the receptors of concern, the nature of the adverse effects caused
by the contaminants and the desired condition of the ecological resources.
Risk Assessments are conducted on a site-by-site basis. The process is typically conducted in four
steps: data collection and analysis, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment and risk characteriza-
tion. The exposure assessment typically includes analysis of contaminant releases, identification of
exposed populations, identification of potential exposure pathways estimation of exposure concen-
trations for each pathway, and estimation of contaminant intakes for each pathway. The toxicity
assessment normally includes collection of qualitative and quantitative toxicity information and
determination of appropriate toxicity values. Risk characterization generally investigates the po-
tential for adverse effects and the related uncertainty.
^^^^^^^^^^^~^^^^^^^^^^^~ Standardized assumptions may be used to streamline
the assessment. These can be very conservative assump-
tions and may not be applicable to every site, so site-
specific information is often useful to provide the most
reasonable estimation of risk to determine the most
appropriate cleanup strategy.
Opportunities for Integration
I
Risk Assessment personnel should
be included in RI/FS scoping
meetings to ensure integrated data
collection and reduce duplication of
effort.
Ecological Risk Assessments
and NRDA have several common
components. A Risk Assessment
does not complete the requirements
of a NRDA, but it might establish
the causal link between site
contaminants and specific adverse
effects on ecological receptors,
and thereby might be useful in
the NRDA process. If a NRDA can
be performed at the site, NRDA
personnel should be included in Risk
Assessment site decisions to prevent
duplicative efforts. For an example
of integrating Risk Assessment and
NRDA efforts, see Integrating Natural
Resource Damage Assessment
and Environmental Restoration
Activities at DOE Facilities, Office of
Environmental Guidance, Washington,
DC, October 1993.
Risk Assessment and TMDL may
integrate efforts for water sampling,
toxicity testing, accumulation
and tissue residue studies and
population/community evaluations.
Note: The Risk Assessment process requires experienced
personnel with specialized knowledge and a thorough
understanding of contaminant fate and transport,
ecosystem structure, receptor biology, risk evalua-
tion methods and many other topics. For the purposes
of this manual, only portions of the Risk Assessment
process directly related to the watershed assessment
and cleanup efforts of other programs and agencies are
presented. For more detailed presentation of the Risk
Assessment process, please see references from this sec-
tion. Regional BTAGs are available to provide guidance
and support to RPMs. The BTAG will communicate with
Trustees to ensure continuity between the remedial and
restoration processes.
Sampling Objective. Samples typically are collected
to identify and characterize the toxicity and levels
of hazardous substances present in relevant media;
environmental fate and transport mechanisms within
specific environmental media; potential human and
environmental receptors, potential exposure routes and
extent of actual or expected exposure, extent of expect-
ed impact or threat and the likelihood of such impact of
threat occurring; and the level of uncertainty associated
with each element.
146
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Sampling Strategy. A site conceptual model normally is prepared and used to identify which points
or assumptions in the risk assessment include the greatest degree of conservatism or uncertainty.
Field sampling typically is performed to quantify the risk model parameters that have the most im-
portant effects on the risk estimates. Samples may be collected to establish a pathway to the recep-
tor (determine exposure) or to determine effects of exposure on specific populations; therefore, soil,
water, air, sediments or biota samples may be collected from on-site, upgradient and downgradient
locations. The number, type and locations of samples usually are determined using the type and
duration of possible exposures, potential exposure routes and key exposure points for each me-
dium and the relative importance of each. Sample quantity generally is determined by the size and
complexity of the site and the need to perform a statistical evaluation of risk. The Ecological Risk
Assessment frequently includes field studies for bioaccumulation and tissue residue studies, popula-
tion/community evaluations and toxicity testing.
Laboratory Analysis. In addition to analysis of physical and chemical characteristics such as tem-
perature, pH and chemical concentrations, field sampling or laboratory analysis can be performed
to determine such information as biological community structure, toxicity to various organisms
and impacts on growth or reproduction. Laboratory detection limits generally must be low enough
for comparison with toxicity reference values. Required detection limits are generally based on the
SCDM but could also need to account for additive values and carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
effects. Reference values can be lower than CRDLs or CRQLs, so pre-planning for the appropriate
level of analysis normally is essential. Field screening techniques typically are used only to stream-
line the sampling and risk assessment process by indicating if and where more detailed sampling
should be performed.
Data Quality. Data collection and analysis techniques are usually very specific. Definitive data
generally are required for use in the risk assessment. QC samples are collected. Data normally are
validated using strict criteria.
Benchmarks. Benchmarks or measurement endpoints typically are specific to the site contami-
nants, potential receptors, and likelihood of exposure. Risk assessment endpoints usually are based
on statutory mandates and are specific to the receptor, contaminant and other site-specific criteria.
Typical benchmarks are from the SCDM, SSLs, Region 9 TMDL or Region 3 RBCs.
Data Uses. Data normally are used to determine the statistical risk to human health and environ-
mental receptors. The results of the risk assessment typically are used to determine what level of
cleanup is required to achieve an acceptable level of risk from the site.
For more information, see
> Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I—Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A. EPA/540/1 - 89/002. December 1999.
www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/index.htm
> Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I—Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals. EPA/540/R -
92/003. December 1991. www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsb/index.htm
> Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I—Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part C, Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives. OSWER/9285.7-01C. October
1991. www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsc/index.htm
> Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I—Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting and Review of Superfund Risk
Assessments. OSWER/9285.7-47. December 2001.
www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsd/index.htm
> Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I—Human Health Evaluation
Manual, PartE, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. EPA/540/R/99/005.
September 2001. www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragse/index.htm
147
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
» Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. OSWER/9285.7-53. December
2003. www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/hhmemo.pdf
> Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting
Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006. June 1997. www.epa.gov/oswer/
riskassessment/ecorisk/ecorisk.htm
» Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment. EPA/540/G-90/008. September 1990.
www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/datause/index.htm
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
Under the CWA, OPA, CERCLA and other environmental laws, Trustees perform an NRDA to deter-
mine compensation for injuries to natural resources that have not been nor are expected to be ad-
dressed by response actions conducted pursuant to the NCR As stated in Chapter 2, DOI and NOAA
each have regulations for NRDA preparation.
DOI NRDA Process
DOI's regulations provide a framework and standards for the NRDA process in coastal and marine
environments (Type A) and other environments (Type B). The Type A process involves using a com-
puter model to assess damages in a standard and simplified manner that result from chemical or oil
discharges in coastal and marine environments. The Type B process is used in situations that require
an individual approach. Because the Type A process does not include additional site assessment
activities, the following descriptions are for Type B NRDAs. The regulations require Trustees to coor-
dinate the assessment efforts, including the pre-assessment screen, with the lead response agency
in any situation where response activity is planned or underway at a site [40 CFR 11.23(f)].
Data collected in the pre-assessment screen determine whether an injury has occurred and a
pathway of exposure exists. This determination is often made using existing information. The
Assessment Plan/Implementation Phases include data collection necessary to quantify injuries
and determine damages. Laboratory and field studies are used to quantify injuries by identifying
the functions or services provided by the resource, determining the baseline level of such services,
and quantifying the reduction in service levels that result from the impacts. In the post-assess-
ment phase, the results of the assessment are presented, and a reasonable number of restoration
alternatives, including natural attenuation, are proposed. A preferred alternative is selected on the
basis of technical feasibility, relationship of costs to benefits and consistency with response actions.
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/nrda2.htm
NOAA NRDA Process
In the preliminary assessment, the Trustees determine whether injury to public trust resources
has occurred. Their work includes collecting time-sensitive data and reviewing scientific literature
about the released substance and its impact on trust resources to determine the extent and severity
of injury. If resources are injured, Trustees proceed to the next step. During Injury Assessment/Res-
toration Planning, Trustees quantify injuries and identify possible restoration projects. Economic
and scientific studies assess the injuries to natural resources and the loss of services. These stud-
ies are also used to develop a restoration plan that outlines alternative approaches to speed the
recovery of injured resources and compensate for their loss or impairment from the time of injury
to recover. The final step, Restoration Implementation, is to implement restoration and monitor its
effectiveness. Trustees work with the public to select and implement restoration projects. Examples
of restoration include replanting wetlands, improving fishing access sites and restoring salmon
streams. The responsible party pays the costs of assessment and restoration and is often a key par-
ticipant in implementing the restoration.
Although the concept of assessing injuries may sound simple, understanding complex ecosystems,
the services these ecosystems provide and the injuries caused by oil and hazardous substances
148
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
takes time—often years. The season the resource was
injured, the type of oil or hazardous substance, and the
amount and duration of the release are among the fac-
tors that affect how quickly resources are assessed and
restoration and recovery occurs. The rigorous scientific
studies that are necessary to prove injury to resources and
services—and withstand scrutiny in a court of law—can
also take years to implement and complete. But the NRDA
process described above helps to ensure an objective and
cost-effective assessment of injuries and that the public's
concerns and resources are fully considered.
Opportunities for Integration
t Integration example: Whenever
possible, NOAA works cooperatively with
the parties responsible for the injury.
By working with responsible parties
and co-Trustees to collect data, conduct
assessments and identify restoration
projects, NOAA avoids lengthy litigation
and achieves restoration of injured
resources more efficiently.
www. darrp. noaa.gov
Removal Assessment and Cleanup
A removal site evaluation consists of a removal preliminary assessment and, if necessary, a re-
moval site inspection. Provided that there is a substantial threat at a site and a removal action is
necessary, the PA and the SI may be combined into a removal site evaluation. The removal PA is
done using readily available information such as source identification, nature of the release or
threatened release and an assessment of the threat to public health including the magnitude of the
threat and the factors necessary to determine the need for a removal action. The PA determines
if there is a need for additional data. A removal preliminary assessment of releases from hazard-
ous waste management facilities can include collection or review of data such as site management
practices, information from generators, photographs, analysis of historical photographs, literature
searches and personal interviews, as appropriate.
If there is a need for additional information, a removal SI is performed to help determine the need
for and urgency of response. The evaluation determines if a release has occurred. If such a release
of a hazardous substance has occurred, the OSC shall determine whether the release results in a
substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States. Factors to be considered
by the OSC in making this determination include, but are not limited to, the size of the release,
the character of the release and the nature of the threat to public health or welfare of the United
States. Upon obtaining relevant elements of such information, the OSC will conduct an evaluation
of the threat posed, on the basis of the OSC's experience in assessing other releases, and consulta-
tion with senior lead agency officials and readily available authorities on issues outside the OSC's
technical expertise.
The following are examples of information presented at the conclusion of a removal site evaluation:
> Identification of the nature and source of the release
> Evaluation of the threat to public health
> Evaluation of the magnitude of the threat
> Evaluation of factors necessary to make a determination of whether a removal is necessary
> Determination of whether a nonfederal party is undertaking a proper response
If the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate, action begins as soon as pos-
sible. Not all actions considered to be removal actions will be equally urgent. For example, situa-
tions involving risk of fire or explosion or contamination of a drinking water reservoir may require
more prompt and expeditious attention than certain drum removals or cleanups of surface im-
poundments. The three categories of removals are classic emergencies, TCRAs and NTCRAs.
Removal Assessment Sampling Objectives. Samples may be collected to determine site charac-
teristics, nature and extent of contamination, contaminant properties, targets affected by site and
information required for risk evaluation. In some cases, a treatability study may be performed to
149
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
evaluate one or more treatment alternatives. In that case, samples may be collected to test the
ability of the technology to meet treatment objectives.
Sampling Strategy. Samples are collected to meet sampling objectives; this might not provide a
comprehensive evaluation of all site characteristics.
Data Quality. DQOs should be established to ensure that the data provide the information neces-
sary for effective site decisions. Data that may be used in subsequent site studies or evaluations
should be of a quality that sampling and analysis need not be duplicated.
Data Uses. Data are used to evaluate site risk, determine removal objectives, and evaluate treat-
ment alternatives.
For more information, see Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under
CERCLA. OSWER 9360.0-32FS. EPA/540/F-94/009. December 1993.
Brownfields Assessments
Brownfields assessments focus on evaluation of a property to determine the needed actions to
allow redevelopment and reuse without unacceptable risk to the community.
Phase I Site Assessment. A Phase I site assessment is the process of evaluating a property's en-
vironmental conditions and assessing potential liability for any contamination. EPA's Final Rule
on All Appropriate Inquiries, effective November 1, 2006, establishes standards and practices for
conducting Phase I Site Assessments that satisfy CERCLA liability protections. The updated ASTM
E 1527-2005 standard, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Process, may be used to comply with the provisions of the rule.
www.epa.gov/brownfields/aai/assessappr.htm
Phase II Assessment Site Investigation. A Phase II assessment site investigation is performed
to confirm if contamination exists at the site, locate the contamination, characterize the nature
and extent of contamination and determine if there are unacceptable environmental conditions
at the site that would be cost-prohibitive to eradicate. Possible threats to the environment or to
any people living or working nearby are important. The results can be used to determine cleanup
goals, quantify risks, determine acceptable and unacceptable risk and develop effective cleanup
plans. The investigation takes into account any issues the community has raised regarding site
contamination or reuse. If contamination is found that may pose significant threat to local resi-
dents, compliance with other programs such as RCRA or CERCLA may be required if the site is not
cleaned up voluntarily by the site owner.
Sampling Strategy. Samples are collected to determine the nature, extent, source and significance
of contamination and to assess physical, geophysical and ecological site conditions. Samples may
also be collected for a site-specific risk assessment. Efficient, innovative sampling and analysis
methods are encouraged. The Triad approach to sampling is preferred but is not always applied at
brownfields sites.
Typical Samples. These include soil, soil gas, ground water, surface water, sediment and air. Mi-
gration pathways are examined. A baseline risk assessment may be performed. Samples collected
depend on the site-specific DQOs.
Sample Analysis. Alternative analytical technologies that expedite field work are encouraged
but should meet the site-specific data quality requirements. Screening level data are collected to
facilitate site decisions. Collaborative samples are collected and submitted for definitive analysis to
confirm the results of screening level data for critical samples.
Benchmarks. Data are compared against an accepted source of cleanup standards such as the
Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations, or the Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals are used in
the site-specific risk assessment to determine site-specific goals.
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Data Quality. DQOs are site-specific—the DQO process is a key component of the systematic plan-
ning portion of the Triad assessment approach to brownfield investigations. High-quality screening
level data are generally acceptable for the intended use, and real-time analysis or field testing is
performed where appropriate to streamline field sampling. The type of data collected is dependent
upon the conceptual site model developed and planned end uses for the site.
Data Uses. Data are used to identify and evaluate the applicability of various site assessment and
cleanup technologies and to help determine whether the property can be cleaned up to the level
necessary for the intended reuse. Samples collected for a site-specific risk assessment may be used
to identify site-specific cleanup levels if there are no existing standards or alternative cleanup
standards also may be appropriate. Also, each state has developed VCPs where specific cleanup
standards may be designated, and to eliminate any future risks, property owners may receive
assurance from the state that the site has been cleaned up.
For more information, see
> Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup.
EPA 542-B-01-001. www.clu-in.org/products/toolkit99/pages/middle.htrn
» Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide. EPA540/R-96/018. July 1996.
www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm
> Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24.
December 2002. www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm
> Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. EPA. January 2004.
www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm
> Region 3 Human Health Risk Assessment: Risk-Based Concentration Table. EPA. October 2006.
www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/index.htm
> Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals
www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm
Abandoned Mine Land Initiative Assessment
An interagency task force of federal land management agencies (BLM, NFS and USFS) and the
Interior Science Bureaus (USGS and staff of the former BOM) has developed a risk-based water-
shed approach to achieve mitigation of water quality problems from AMLs on federal lands. The
watershed approach fosters collaborative work across federal and state government administrative
boundaries, facilitates solutions to the problem of mixed ownership of sites within watersheds, ad-
dresses important problem sites first and greatly reduces the total cost of mitigation compared to
cleaning up every mine site. The watershed approach focuses on cooperation among federal land
managers in partnership with the science bureaus; prioritizes, watershed by watershed, specific
waterbodies within each state that are affected by discharges from AMLs; and allows cleanup to
proceed on a risk-based priority.
The land management agencies provide overall program management, determine land status,
coordinate with state and federal agencies, facilitate public participation and ensure compliance
with environmental laws. Land management agencies coordinate efforts with other federal agen-
cies and states. The science bureaus provide technical support to land management agencies,
develop technology and apply engineering principles and perform risk/economic benefit analyses
in support of water quality improvement. A description of tasks performed in each phase of the
watershed process is provided below.
Statewide Analysis/Watershed Prioritization. Land management agencies collect information rel-
evant to the risk prioritization of watersheds with support from science agencies and states and set
priorities for characterization of watersheds. The science bureaus compile and analyze existing data
on statewide AML sites, stream sediment and mine dump geochemistry, mineral deposit locations
151
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
152
and water quality; develop a regional environmental geology map portraying units with varying
acid neutralization and acid generation potentials; and with state and federal agencies, develop a
statewide GIS including locations of mineral districts, AML sites, mineral deposit types, environ-
mental geology features, precipitation and storm event data and water quality characteristics.
Watershed Characterization. The land management agencies set objectives, protocols and per-
formance criteria for watershed characterization in cooperation with science agencies; provide
oversight of the watershed characterization work performed by science agencies; on completion of
watershed characterization, select sites for mitigation with input from other federal land manag-
ers and science agencies; and develop mitigation plans with support in research and engineering
performed by science agencies. The science bureaus conduct total watershed monitoring to iden-
tify contaminant sources and sinks, relative source contributions and contaminant budgets on the
basis of ambient, storm and seasonal events; conduct remote sensing surveys of the watershed to
characterize contaminant sources and their distribution and to identify stressed ecosystems; con-
duct AML site-specific field analyses including geochemical, geophysical and hydrologic surveys of
sources and pathways to identify environmental impacts; conduct site-specific geologic mapping
and subsurface geophysical and mineralogical characterization of host and waste rock materials;
identify technologically feasible options for site-specific water quality improvement, including
the possibility of re-mining; and develop benefit and cost analyses of options. These analyses will
identify the potential environmental and economic benefits of the mitigation options on the basis
of environmental risk technical feasibility and cost.
Site Characterization and Mitigation. The land management agencies implement AML mitiga-
tion with technical assistance from science bureaus. The science bureaus prepare mineral-related
scientific, engineering and economic information to meet the land management agencies' requests
for proposals and assist in technical monitoring of mitigation contracts. Where economically or
technically feasible mitigation options do not exist, the science bureaus define the research that
might result in such options and include an evaluation of the potential benefits and costs of the
research. In consultation with the federal land managers and states, they mitigate various sites to
demonstrate mitigation options and new technologies. Where appropriate, the science of bureaus
identify and evaluate potential re-mining sites; participate in the review of the scientific, engi-
neering, economic and policy efficacy of the watershed permitting approach; and model ambient
chemical conditions and effects of mitigation efforts on surface water quality in the watershed.
Monitoring. The land management agencies monitor the post-construction site and, in coopera-
tion with the state and with technical assistance from science agencies, monitor the effectiveness
of site-specific mitigation and watershed quality improvement. The science bureaus help land
management agencies develop technically sufficient and cost-effective monitoring plans, provide
monitoring training and provide analytical support for interpretation of monitoring results.
Table 4-1 on page 119 provides a comparison of surface water data collection and analysis require-
ments in mining watersheds for the TMDL Program, Brownfields Assessments and several Super-
fund actions.
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Implementation and Monitoring
This chapter describes a cross-programmatic approach to selecting and implementing watershed
remediation/restoration activities and providing long-term monitoring. It discusses integrated
watershed cleanup topics such as WFAs, the 3-Rs Approach and WCT task assignments. It also
discusses integrated monitoring and program requirements for determining remediation and
restoration actions and for long-term monitoring of watershed conditions and concludes by
addressing additional topics that should be considered in a watershed cleanup. Three case studies
demonstrate the use of integrated remediation, restoration, reuse and monitoring.
• Integrating Watershed Cleanup
Integrating cleanup efforts requires both cross-program cooperation and careful allocations of
funding. Coordination between agencies and programs provides the potential for streamlining and
reducing the cost of watershed cleanup, restoration and, where appropriate, redevelopment. This
section discusses some of the practical aspects of integrating cleanup implementation and post-re-
mediation monitoring. Because Regions and states operate with different priorities and program-
matic tools, the ideas presented here might not work for all watersheds, but similar coordination
and careful planning can allow the stakeholders to use various programs, laws and resources
to successfully fulfill program requirements and achieve efficient, effective and comprehensive
results.
The WCT should cooperatively set remediation, restoration, and reuse goals. If feasible, the team
should ensure that the goals are met by project implementation by using applicable authorities and
available funding mechanisms within the various schedule, budget and other constraints of the
programs that will address the watershed contamination. Goals should be consistent with the overall
Watershed Management Plan, where applicable.
CASE STUDY
Using Dollars Wisely
Utah DEQ: Prioritizing 319 Spending
The Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ), part of the DEQ, ad ministers the TMDL Program in
conjunction with its Watershed Planning Program. Utah uses CWA section 106 funding to provide
contractual support in the development of the CWA section 319 watershed management plan and
the TMDL, which includes an implementation plan. Utah then prioritizes the expenditure of its 319
NPS funds toward implementation projects or activities identified in the TMDLs. In addition, DWQ
has used 319 NPS funding to support establishment of locally sponsored watershed coordinators
to not only enhance the planning effort, but to initiate and implement projects identified in the
approved TMDLs or 319 plans.
153
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Watershed Feasibility Assessment
Cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA, as well as TMDL allocations and implementation plans, share
a common element: an evaluation of alternative strategies for reducing pollutant loading and risks
to human health and the environment. In the watershed approach, it will be beneficial to all pro-
grams if a WFA is conducted to accomplish this same goal. EPA Region 8 developed a WFA protocol
as part of its coordinated watershed restoration efforts that is proving to be broadly applicable.
The WFA can be a natural part of an NFS Watershed Management Plan; it can also be conducted
during the development of the TMDL. TMDL Program funds and NFS funds may all be potential
sources of funding for a WFA.
The WFA uses the three screening criteria used by the Superfund Program to assess remedial alter-
natives: effectiveness, implementability, and cost. For each source category, potential cleanup al-
ternatives are evaluated and compared according to feasibility, cost, anticipated reduction in load,
and a rough cost/benefit analysis. The WFA might not fulfill all the requirements of the various
programs (i.e., a CERCLA FS or EE/CA, TMDL WLA, or a 319 NFS implementation plan) but could
provide an initial, common framework to guide the data needs for each of these documents. Fine-
tuned assessment and design would be performed in subsequent steps according to the processes
of the program facilitating cleanup/implementation at each location. For example, Superfund rem-
edies within the watershed will need to be chosen on the basis of a detailed alternatives analysis
under each of the nine Superfund remedial action selection criteria described in Chapter 2.
A WFA provides critical information regarding significant sources that have been identified and
quantifies their associated loads to surface water. The analysis suggests remediation alternatives
and assigns costs associated with specific load reductions. Typically, an FS conducted under CER-
CLA applies only to individual sites or operable units (OU). Thus, a WFA can cover a much broader
geographic area and includes alternatives for all categories of sources.
Significant value can be leveraged by applying various programs' funds to conduct a WFA. With
this approach, the WCT will be able to effectively rank sources by their contribution of contami-
nant loadings on a scale much larger than is typically accomplished under individual programs.
Quantitative comparisons can then be made of the potential effectiveness of the proposed cleanup
alternatives for sites throughout the watershed.
The WFA provides a tool that federal and state programs and local watershed groups can use to
review and prioritize cross-programmatic cleanup opportunities in the watershed. The assessment
would be used by the WCT to help determine which organization could be best suited to address
the contamination from each source and to set priorities for the allocation of cleanup resources.
For example, if the necessary estimated load reduction to meet WQS is 12 tons per year, and
Project A costs $100,000 and reduces loading by 5 tons per year, Project B costs $1.1 million and
reduces loading by 5.1 tons per year, and Project C costs $200,000 and reduces loading by 7 tons
per year, the cleanup priorities might be Project A and Project C. Such watershed-wide consider-
ations are often more difficult to undertake using other, more facility-specific programs such as
RCRA and CERCLA.
The WFA can also be used to maximize available funding sources. The ability to implement proj-
ects concurrently to reduce contaminant loading would increase as the cost is shared by several
applicable programs/agencies, and funding sources would be maximized by spreading the cost
over several programs and agencies and by collaborating to provide documentation required to
access funding. Additionally, if cleanup activities in the basin are coordinated, there is potential
for consolidating waste, establishing joint waste repositories and minimizing the disturbance
154
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
to the community by accelerating the cleanup. The
WFA can also be the basis for TMDL load allocations.
The study can be used to prepare grant applications
(Brownfields and 319 NFS) and as the framework for
programmatic documentation requirements (TMDL
allocations and implementation plan, CERCLA EE/CA
or FS, RCRA CMS), thus streamlining the efforts of
all programs. Projects that are supported by a variety
of stakeholders and agencies and implement TMDLs
frequently receive priority for grant and program fund-
ing. The WFA and subsequent prioritization of projects
by the WCT requires the participation and concurrence
of the stakeholders, which will improve the likelihood
that a project will be funded. This can also increase the
level of technical support provided by agencies such
as USGS, BOR and USAGE and help identify nontradi-
tional funding sources.
Opportunity for Integration
> The WFA can provide the preliminary
costs and alternatives for a variety of
programs and agencies to estimate
remedial costs and prepare grant
applications for funding. The analysis
provides the necessary data to allow
program managers to prioritize and
coordinate cleanup activity.
Littie James Creek Feasibility Assessment
How a Subbasin Study Can Lead to Watershed-wide Cleanup
A WFA was conducted for Little James Creek Subbasin of the Left Hand Watershed in Colorado as
part of the TMDL development. The study included surveying, mapping and evaluating a limited
set of alternatives to remediate specific sources in the watershed. Specifically, the assessment
included the following elements:
1. A description of the individual sites (e.g., mine waste volume and surface area, topo-graphic
mapping showing relationship of mine waste piles, adits and other features).
2. Feasibility level plans illustrating the application of the alternatives at each site.
3. Cost sheets providing feasibility level estimates (+50 percent to -30 percent) for each
alternative. Costs included capital costs and long-term O&M costs, where applicable.
The Little James Creek feasibility assessment has already been used to
> Prioritize sites for coordinated USFS/EPA removal projects and to expand the previously
identified scope of work
I Apply for Brownfields cleanup grants for Argo and Evening Star Mine sites
> Assist the Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group in making decisions regarding cleanup
priority and approach
I Develop the TMDL Implementation Plan
The findings may be used to develop a cleanup/implementation approach for the entire
watershed, not only the Little James Creek Subbasin.
155
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Remediation + Restoration + Reuse = Revitalization
Watershed cleanup can be summarized by the 3-Rs: Remediation, Restoration and Reuse. These 3
Rs were coined for EPA Region 8's Land and Water Revitalization Initiative, but they also fit with
national EPA priorities and are applicable to watersheds throughout the nation. Under the 3-Rs, a
set of criteria guides resource decisions and identifies the most important steps to fully realizing
revitalization goals. They include the following:
> Early, planned multiprogram integration of cleanup activities
> Innovative approaches for revitalizing sites, communities, water-
sheds and ecosystems
> Planning for reuse at the beginning of projects
> Measurable environmental and human health benefits
Programs most likely to be included are NPDES, Wetlands, Superfund,
Brownfields, RCRA, UST, Federal Facilities (including Base Realignment
and Closure and Formerly Used Defense Sites), One Cleanup Program, Urban
Rivers Restoration and Ecosystem Protection. Each of these programs has
its own specific roles and responsibilities, but the actions conducted under
the individual programs can be tailored to meet the needs of cooperating
programs in a watershed cleanup. Some examples of integrated site activities
are presented in the following paragraphs. These are examples only and should
not be considered a comprehensive listing. With a little planning and cooperation
between programs and agencies, watershed remediation, restoration and reuse can be accomplished
in innovative ways.
Opportunity for Integration
> While integrating the concepts of
cleanup, revitalization and reuse of
abandoned, inactive and formerly
contaminated waste sites, RPMs can
incorporate the use of sustainable
redevelopment in their cleanup
and redevelopment activities.
Green requirements can include
stormwater management, energy
efficiencies, native vegetation,
recycling, preservation or creation of
open space, and such, that reduce
the environmental footprint of the
development. For more information
about "green" redevelopment, visit
www.epa.gov/greenbuilding
Superfund-Restoration Integration
One of Superfund's goals is to conduct response
actions that reduce contamination to levels that are
protective of human health and the environment
(which might or might not be background or a pris-
tine condition). EPA's response actions are distinct
from restoration activities associated with natural
resource damages, which generally are handled by
trustee agencies; nonetheless, EPA's CERCLA re-
sponse actions should be carried out in a manner
that is consistent with any restoration activities. The
following discussion reviews opportunities for ensur-
ing that CERCLA response and restoration activities
are consistent, from data gathering through cleanup
implementation.
Reviewing the status of the watershed assessment
early in the CERCLA process at a site within the
watershed can identify opportunities for sharing
information. For example, the WCT can collect in-
formation in the area of the CERCLA cleanup that can help identify additional sources. Also, early
coordination during CERCLA's Site Assessment and RI efforts (especially with regard to ecological
impacts) can often make it possible for the resulting data to be useful for subsequent watershed
restoration efforts.
156
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
EPA guidance provides that reasonably anticipated
future land use should be considered at various stages
of the remedy selection process, including the risk
assessment phase of the RI/FS, which analyzes site-spe-
cific human health and ecological risks. Thus, it might
be appropriate to consider prospective reuse plans as
part of the RI/FS. The remedial action must meet or
waive ARARs, and if WQS are considered ARARs for the
selected remedy, the remedial action generally should be
designed to support the designated use (i.e., recreation-
al use, aquatic life, industrial). Toward this end, reme-
dial actions should normally be selected and described
in the ROD that are consistent with the designated use
and can also provide, for example, land use restric-
tions that are consistent with the designated controls.
For example, wildlife easements, measures designed
to ensure BMPs, and monitoring to assure compliance
with particular zoning classification may be appropriate
components of a remedial action that is consistent with
ecological recovery or community revitalization within
the bounds of Superfund.
Opportunity for Integration
t Watersheds with Superfund activities
often include waters listed as
impaired due to parameters not
related to the Superfund site. Typical
pollutants found include dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, or sediment. The
remedy selected at a Superfund
site can potentially be consistent
with the instream restoration of the
waterbodies necessary to achieve
WQS. For example, alternatives
to achieve bank stabilization
can include reestablishment of
riparian geomorphology or riprap.
The first alternative will provide
habitat; the other will take it away.
Coordinating remediation with the
TMDL implementation activities
often will not increase costs but
can complement the watershed
activities, provide ecological
restoration and reduce the overall
cost of the project, resulting in a
value added to the overall watershed
revitalization.
Prior to NTCRAs or remedial actions, the EE/CA or FS
must evaluate ARARs, and the ROD or Action Memo
should state how they will be met or waived. To assure
protectiveness and comply compliance with ARARs,
Superfund dollars may be used to remediate ecological
resources. For example, compliance with ARARs like CWA section 404 can lead to mitigation of
wetlands and riparian buffers.
Tasks that the WCT determines are appropriate but that are not required under CERCLA (i.e., not
required to achieve protectiveness or meet ARARs) that are nevertheless restoration could be con-
ducted with Brownfields (at qualifying sites), 319 NFS, and NRDA funding. Tasks that are neces-
sary to promote redevelopment may be left for actions funded by local redevelopment agencies,
private developers and Brownfields loans and state grants. Note that identifying proposed resto-
ration and redevelopment tasks during the RI/FS stage can allow for synchronization of NRDA
restoration activities and remedial tasks.
CASE STUDY
Using Alternative Techniques to Save Dollars and Riparian Habitat
Stabilizing Streambanks on the Upper Arkansas River
Fluvially deposited tailings from historic mining operations were capped using soil amendments
and revegetation as part of a Superfund removal action in the Upper Arkansas River. The project
required streambank stabilization in some locations to prevent erosion of the existing banks that
might expose tailings that could then be washed downstream. State Division of Wildlife person-
nel were concerned that the projects would do more to reduce riparian habitat than improve it
because of the planned riprap bank stabilization designs. Division of Wildlife personnel suggested
alternative techniques that were then incorporated into the designs used for bank construction.
Root wads were used in one location to redirect flow away from the bank. At another location,
bendway weirs were used to stabilize the banks. These methods improved aquatic habitat and
were less expensive to implement than the proposed riprap methods.
157
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Finally, consistent with the NCP's nine criteria for evaluating alternatives, it might be appropriate
to consider use of ecologically friendly remedial alternatives when determining the technology
that will be used for remediation. Ecologically friendly remediation can often result in lower O&M
costs. With careful thought and communication with specific WCT members and other scientific re-
sources, including the NRCS and the BTAG, the RPM could coordinate the Superfund cleanup with
other in-stream and riparian zone restoration activities while still meeting program requirements.
The selection of removal or remedial alternatives that result in a restored natural habitat can ben-
efit both the remedial and restoration goals, protect the environment by cleaning up natural habitat
and can also be consistent with restoration activities, especially for riparian zones. Remediation that
leaves natural soil and vegetation habitat in riparian zones can mitigate flooding, be cost-effective,
generate and preserve soils, create self-sustaining ecosystems, meet Executive Order 13112 to use
native species and control invasive species and minimize management needs and costs. Soils at con-
taminated sites are often of poor quality. If remediation includes capping, the soil quality above the
cap is a critical first step to establishing a natural habitat. Using composted biosolids can increase
fertility and reduce metal toxicity. Recycled wastes such as municipal biosolids and wood ash are
readily available at low or no cost and can provide a fertile barrier. The NRCS office of the USDA
and the Cooperative Extension can provide information on soil profiles, native plants, and the like,
to help achieve ecological restoration. Remediation that protects or enhances in-stream habitat can
also benefit both remediation and restoration processes. Bank stabilization or in-stream structures
required for other remedy components can be designed to enhance fisheries or reduce pollutants
downstream. An example of this approach is shown in the Upper Arkansas River case study. The
possibilities of conducting remedial actions in ways that enhance or facilitate restoration are nu-
merous and should be considered when selecting remedial actions within a watershed.
TMDL Restoration Integration—Water Quality Trading
Water quality trading may be used to integrate TMDL requirements for NPDES facilities and
nonpoint sources and assist in watershed restoration. EPA's current trading policy is focused on
nutrients and sediments and allows cross-pollutant trading between these and other oxygen
demanding pollutants. Other pollutants may be considered on a case-by-case basis, in accordance
with a permit and watershed restoration plans. Trading programs for bioaccumulative and other
toxics, however, are not supported under the current policy because of their potential to create
exceedances in water quality standards. Limited pilots of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
(PBT) chemical trading may be considered where trading achieves a substantial
reduction of the PBT and where trading does not cause an exceedance of an
aquatic life or human health criterion.
TMDL development or the establishment of a pollutant cap often
serves as the driver for point sources to get involved in trading.
Therefore, water quality trading provisions included in NPDES
permits often will address impaired waters where a TMDL
or similar pollutant loading cap has been established. In
these cases, the water quality requirement for a par-
ticular point source is specified by a wasteload al-
location (WLA) in the TMDL and expressed in the
point source's NPDES permit as a water quality-
based effluent limit (WQBEL) that is consistent
with the WLA. A point source's required pollutant
reduction is the difference between the discharg-
er's current pollutant load and the load generated
when the WQBEL is met.
158
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
DY
Water Quality Trading Permits Exceed Expectations
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative
Background
Minnesota has established a formal policy for trading in
watersheds. Trading is allowed through issuance of permits
to companies/facilities; however, this wasn't always the case.
The Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative (SMBSC)
is a farmer-owned cooperative with a beet-processing facility
located in southern Minnesota. The processing facility
treated process wastewater, storing it in lagoons during the
processing season and spray-irrigating over 500 acres of
alfalfa and grassland during the growing season. The SMBSC
wanted to build a wastewater treatment plant to serve the
facility. This would allow SMBSC to expand sugar production
and resolve odor problems; however, regulations already in
place created specific barriers to this resolution.
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative's Sugar
Beet Processing Facility
A carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) WLA
had been developed and approved on the lower Minnesota
River in 1988. This WLA prohibited the additional loading
that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) wastewater treatment plant would produce.
The MPCA allowed SMBSC to obtain a permit for the proposed wastewater treatment plant pro-
vided they offset all of the additional loading through NPS projects that reduced total phosphorus.
The permit required SMBSC to establish a $300,000 trust fund to finance the projects, which was
overseen by a trade board made up of a processing plant official, SMBSC's consultant, a Soil and
Water Conservation District official, the Hawk Creek watershed coordinator, and an environmental
advocacy representative. The permit addresses chronic rather than acute problems and promotes
a nondegradation policy. In other words, there is no "backsliding" allowed.
SMBSC's permit also requires that the needed NPS reduction be based on the actual discharge.
To accomplish this, the actual discharge is grouped into categories, which create thresholds for the
actual NPS reduction needed and these requirements reflect the 2.6 to 1 trade ratio. The largest
category or tier of NPS trade offsets requires 13,000 Ibs total phosphorus/yr. To date, the facility
is achieving nearly 2.5 times the permit's required NPS reductions.
Number of Trades to Date
SMBSC contracts for sugar beet cover-cropping BMPs in the spring. In 2005, SMBSC had con-
tracts on 579 sites totaling 58,832 acres yielding 14,292.5 Ibs total phosphorus reduction/yr.
One contract was established for cattle exclusion and bluff/channel stabilization BMPs yielding
1475 Ibs total phosphorus reduction/yr. SMBSC's total approved credit count is 15,767.5 Ibs
total phosphorus/yr.
159
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
If a discharger installs a control technology that results in pollutant reductions greater than those
required by the WQBEL, the discharger can generate credits. The number of credits generated is
the difference between the wasteload allocated to that discharger (as expressed by the WQBEL in
its permit) and the pollutant load actually discharged after installation of treatment processes or
other pollutant reduction measures.
Point sources may find it more cost-effective to trade with nonpoint sources. Also, point-nonpoint
source trading may have additional benefits to the environment other than specific pollutant re-
duction. The installation of nonpoint source best management practices could result in additional
environmental benefits such as habitat restoration, flood control through wetlands creation, or
control of additional pollutants. For more information on water quality trading please go to
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading.htm.
Supplemental Environmental Projects
A supplemental environmental project (SEP) is an environmen-
tally beneficial project that a respondent in an enforcement
action voluntarily agrees to perform as part of a settlement of
the matter. In return, EPA or the state may agree to reduce the
monetary penalty that it would otherwise seek as a result of the
violation(s). Most enforcement actions against businesses or
individuals for failure to comply with the environmental laws
are resolved through settlement agreements. SEPs are designed
to give companies charged with environmental violations an
alternative to standard fines. These projects can provide a posi-
tive outcome for the company and the community. Acceptable
SEP categories may include public health, pollution prevention,
pollution reduction, environmental restoration and protection,
emergency planning and preparedness, assessments and audits,
environmental compliance promotion and other approved
projects that might benefit human health or the environment.
Restoration SEPs may involve restoring natural environments
(ecosystems) or creating conservation land (e.g., transforming
a former landfill into wilderness land). Within certain legal con-
straints, EPA has broad discretion to settle environmental en-
forcement cases including discretion as to the level of penalties the Agency will accept and whether
to include SEPs as an appropriate part of a settlement. Under EPA policy and guidance, the amount
of penalty mitigation EPA may consider is based on a number of factors. These include the cost of
the SEP and whether or how effectively the SEP
I Benefited the public or the environment
> Was innovative
I Considered input from the affected community
> Factored in environmental justice issues
I Reduced emissions to more than one media (e.g., air, land, water)
> Implemented pollution prevention program techniques and practices
Generally, the value of the SEP should be greater than the amount of fine forgiven. The actual
percentage of penalty mitigation granted is within EPA's discretion; however, EPA policy suggests
that generally it should not exceed 80 percent of the cost of the SEP unless the violator is a small
160
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
DY
A SEP Improves Health and Revitalizes Granite City, Illinois
For nearly 70 years, the NL/Taracorp facility in Granite City, Illinois, was a secondary lead smelter
that exhausted lead, deposited crushed battery casings in the community and created a 250,000-
ton slag/waste mountain on-site. This Superfund facility operated next to a residential community
where, in 1991, the blood lead concentrations of one in four children exceeded the Centers for
Disease Control's (CDC) health-based threshold.
The NL/Taracorp Team successfully negotiated three major consent decrees valued at more
than $63,000,000 and assured the cleanup of 1,600 lead-contaminated residential yards.
The decrees also called for the defendants to fund a $2 million lead-paint abatement program
in homes near the site through an SEP. The defendants were not legally liable for lead paint or
responsible for hiring of trained workers, but the NL/Taracorp team creatively addressed the
overall problem of lead contamination in the area, including the need for street sweeping. The
lead-paint abatement SEP program was established through outreach in the community. Early on,
the Madison County Community Development Agency showed interest in managing the program
and eventually received SEP funding to manage the lead paint program. Madison County was
then able to leverage additional funding through grants and by using a revolving fund program to
start a comprehensive lead abatement and education program in the various EJ communities that
suffered from numerous environmental impacts, including the NL/Taracorp site and others. This
collaboration was very successful.
The settlements achieved penalties amounting to approximately $3.5 million for failure to comply
with a CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Order, including the $2 million SEP. The cleanup activities
increased the value of area properties that will help the region redevelop, created job opportuni-
ties in an EJ community and required that the responsible parties fund a community lead-paint
abatement program.
business, a government agency/entity or a nonprofit organization or the SEP implements pollution
prevention. Furthermore, in all cases, the final settlement penalty should equal or exceed: (a) the
economic benefit of noncompliance plus at least 10 percent of the gravity component; or (b) 25
percent of the gravity component only, whichever is greater, regardless of the cost or environmen-
tal value of the SEE For more information about EPA's SEP policy, see http://cfpub.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/policies/civil/seps. For examples of potential SEPs, see
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/seps/potentialproject-seps0607.pdf
• Identification of Implementation Resources and Assignment to
Programs/Stakeholders
Cross-Programmatic Cleanup Plan
The WCT should identify the existing and potential sources of funding available to perform each
implementation task and assign responsibilities for the high priority tasks, including voluntary,
mandatory and educational efforts that will help attain and maintain goals. This information should
be documented in the Cross-Programmatic Cleanup Plan. This decision document should include a
clearly laid out plan for action including a list of the tasks required to complete each project and the
milestones that will be used to measure progress. During the implementation phase, communication
between participants should remain high and include frequent status updates, sharing of work plans,
remedial designs and recommended BMPs. The plan should include an annual schedule that will
allow the team to revisit milestones and make any necessary revisions.
161
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Preparing a worksheet similar to the Left Hand Watershed example in Table 5-1 and a Watershed
Cleanup Fact Sheet (See Appendix C) that clearly states project background, cleanup goals and
objectives, the plan for action, progress to date and a high level of interest in the project will allow
cleanup partners to demonstrate to their agencies or grant sources the high level of support and
priority being given to the project by others. This could increase the amount of funding that will
be allocated to the project by government regulatory and support agencies, industry, communities
and environmental action groups. A public outreach program is a critical component to the success
of the project. Stakeholders should participate in the selection of cleanup alternatives and imple-
mentation of the NFS controls.
The results of this planning effort should be included in the TMDL Implementation Plan and in the
larger 319 NFS Watershed Management Plan.
Table 5-1. Left Hand Watershed Implementation Draft Worksheet
Activity
Evening Star Remediation
Argo Remediation
Streamside Tailings
Cleanup
Bueno Tails Cleanup
Burlington Mine Cleanup
JRT Tailings
Funding source
Brownfield cleanup grants
Brownfields cleanup
grants
USFS and EPA removal
USES and EPA removal
PRP— voluntary cleanup
CWA section 319 N PS
funds
Estimated
costs
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$300,000
$1,500,000
$100,000
Indicator
Improved macroinvertebrate
diversity
Improved macroinvertebrate
diversity
Improved macroinvertebrate
diversity
Turbidity less than 100 Nephelo-
metric Turbidity Units (NTU)
Reduced zinc and manganese load
Improved macroinvertebrate
diversity
162
• Integrated Watershed Monitoring
Under the CWA section 106(e), states, territories and authorized tribes implement monitoring pro-
grams that allow them to report on the attainment of WQS and to identify and prioritize waters not
attaining standards. Monitoring can also be an element of NPDES permits, TMDL assessments and
confirmation sampling. Cleanup programs such as RCRA and CERCLA typically require monitoring
as an integral part of their implementation. State game and fish agencies perform stream monitor-
ing and assessment as part of their programs. Local environmental groups also have an interest in
tracking the health of their local ecosystems and often organize ongoing stream monitoring proj-
ects. Some watersheds will have other parties (e.g., owners of lakefront or streambank property,
local schools and universities) interested in regular monitoring. The WCT should ensure that a com-
prehensive watershed monitoring plan is prepared and implemented to coordinate these efforts,
where appropriate, and to ensure that interested parties have access to all the data that can affect
their interests. Typically sampling undertaken for individual programs or facilities addresses specific
sites rather than cumulative impacts across the watershed. By coordinating the sampling efforts
across multiple programs, the data will provide a more complete picture of the significant sources
of pollutants in the watershed and will streamline resources to allow for more extensive field work.
A comprehensive watershed monitoring plan and QAPP should be prepared as part of the Water-
shed Management Plan or other regulatory requirements. The watershed monitoring plan should
identify the following:
> Monitoring locations
> Monitoring parameters
> Field and laboratory analyses/evaluation
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
> Benchmarks/detection limits
> Standard operating procedures for sample/data collection and evaluations
> Data quality requirements
> Monitoring frequency
> Monitoring responsibilities (who, where, for what period of time)
> Data management and distribution
> Funding for all aspects of monitoring
The WCT should go through the DQO procedure to ensure the requirements of all programs are met.
Developing a watershed monitoring plan can present challenges. Key questions include what data
are essential and to what degree of precision, what are the indicators of success, who will do the
work, and who will pay for it? Cleanup programs such as RCRA and CERCLA frequently require
only limited water quality monitoring with respect to both location and time. NRDA restoration ef-
forts are monitored, but the timespan and scope of monitoring will depend on the type and scope
of restoration efforts and Trustee priorities. State water quality assessments are ongoing but often
have limited funding. TMDLs that include a monitoring plan are generally carried out by the state
monitoring program. Even if more samples are collected or more analyses performed than an indi-
vidual program requires, overall cost savings are realized by reducing the field effort required.
• Program Cleanup Processes
TMDL
TMDL components related to implementation and monitoring are described here.
Allocating Pollutant Loads: TMDL allocations should account for point sources, NPSs and
background sources of pollution. The allocation should demonstrate that WQS will be met and
maintained and that the load reductions are technically achievable. Factors such as technical and
programmatic feasibility, cost-effectiveness, relative source contributions, equity and the likelihood
of implementation can be considered. Allowable loads may be expressed in many ways and may
divide up the allowable total load by percent removal, concentrations at points of compliance,
total mass per time, reduction of load or percent removal proportional to raw load. The process
quantifies the necessary reductions in pollutant loads to meet the in-stream water quality target.
The technical analysis should demonstrate a reasonable assurance that the WLA and LA in the
TMDL will achieve WQS when implemented. When determining TMDL allocations the following
factors should be considered:
Wasteload Allocation: Allocations assigned to
point sources are frequently expressed as numeric
effluent load or concentration. These allocations
are generally implemented by using the NPDES
Program with numeric standards that are incor-
porated into individual NPDES permits. States
developing WLAs should look at the cumulative
affects of multiple dischargers.
Load Allocation: LAs include NPSs, stormwater
sources for which NPDES permits are not required,
atmospheric deposition, ground water and back-
ground sources of pollution. NFS LAs are imple-
mented through a combination of federal, state,
Opportunity for Integration
t Studies and assessments performed by
all cleanup programs can help determine
reasonable load allocations for TMDLs.
CERCLA RI/FS and EE/CA documents
often provide the information required
to make reasonable estimates of load
reduction expected from planned cleanup
efforts.
> The evaluation of cleanup technologies
identified for a site could be applicable to
similar sites in the watershed.
163
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
and local programs that include regulatory, nonregulatory, and voluntary efforts. The TMDL
should include a description of the pollution control BMPs that must be implemented to
achieve the specified load reductions. They may be expressed as numeric maximum allow-
able load, numeric reductions in pollutant load, or narrative statements of desired condi-
tions regarding habitat or biology.
Margin of Safety: The MOS is assigned and depends on the uncertainty in load, waterbody
response and reduction feasibility.
Seasonality: Seasonality is considered in the TMDL to ensure that WQS will be met and
maintained throughout the year. Variations occur due to variations in the waterbody (as-
similative capacity caused by seasonal changes in temperature and flow or sensitive periods
for aquatic biota) and variations in loading (seasonal industries, snowmelt, precipitation
events).
Future Growth: Future growth or changes in land use can impact threatened or impaired
waters. A reasonably foreseeable allocation may be allotted to future growth. If so, the
TMDL should explain how evaluation of future growth was made and the implications for
local planning processes and landowners.
^^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^— > Implementation Plan: The Implementation Plan
may be developed for one or multiple TMDLs in the
watershed. The plan should include a description of
the implementation actions or management measures
required to meet the allocations and a description of
the effectiveness of the actions; a timeline of when
activities will occur including interim milestones;
reasonable assurance that the activities will occur;
legal or regulatory controls; the time required to at-
tain WQS (by source or source category); a monitor-
ing plan (including interim milestones); a description
of milestones for attaining WQS; and TMDL revision
procedures and triggers for revisions.
> Monitoring Plan: A Monitoring Plan is prepared
to determine the effectiveness of control measures,
whether the TMDL is working and a procedure for
TMDL revision if standards are not being met. The
plan should be based on DQOs and should include
sampling parameters, locations, frequency, methods,
schedule and who is responsible for implementing it.
Watershed stakeholders can participate in developing
and carrying out the Monitoring Plan.
Opportunity for Integration
> The TMDL Implementation Plan may
adopt documentation from other
programs to provide reasonable
assurance that the designated load
reductions will occur.
Opportunity for Integration
> For Watershed-based cleanup, the
Monitoring Plan should describe a
comprehensive monitoring effort that
meets the needs of all stakeholders.
The plan should describe what will
be performed to ensure WQS are
being met and that specific cleanup
actions (Superfund cleanups, RCRA
Cleanup Actions) are performing
to the standards set in decision
documents.
164
RCRA
EPA's goal is to facilitate timely, efficient and effective cleanups focused on results. Recent guidance
encourages RCRA project managers to use a flexible approach that allows innovative technical ap-
proaches and focused data collection to speed the RCRA process while still ensuring that a remedy
that will protect human health and the environment, prevent future releases and properly manage
waste. The flexible approach can allow the following steps to be conducted in a less formal atmo-
sphere. Public participation in decision making is still required, so it is recommended that public
opinion be sought early and often when using the results-based approach.
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
RCRA Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
A CMS is performed when the potential need for corrective measures is verified by an RFI. EPA sets
action levels that may be based on existing standards such as those found in the SCDM, Region
3 Risk Based Concentrations or Region 9 PRGs, state Water Quality Criteria or other appropriate
levels. The facility may request that no further action be required on the basis of a determination
that no release poses a threat to human health and the environment. If EPA requires further action,
the CMS is prepared to analyze potential remedies. The number of remedies evaluated can vary
from site to site. Potential remedies are evaluated for performance, reliability, ease of implementa-
tion and potential adverse impacts. The effectiveness, time required for implementation, estimated
costs, and administrative or institutional requirements are also considered. EPA sets target cleanup
levels against which the alternatives are measured. The final media cleanup standards may be more
stringent than the target cleanup levels.
EPA has determined presumptive remedies applicable to specific categories of sites. EPA has already
compared these alternatives against other alternative remedies generally applicable to that type of
site, reducing the number of alternatives that must be considered in the CMS.
RCRA Corrective Action
Site-specific media cleanup standards are set that depend on reducing risk to an acceptable level
for the current and anticipated future land use. Points of compliance are set that determine at
what location the cleanup standards must be met. For example, for ground water, the point of
compliance might be where the release enters surface water or the nearest well used for drinking
water. Using the CMS, the remedy is selected that is protective of human health and the envi-
ronment, achieves media cleanup standards set by EPA, controls the source of the release and
prevents further releases to the extent practicable and properly manages wastes generated by
the remediation. EPA also considers the long-term reliability and effectiveness of the remedy, the
effectiveness of the remedy in reducing the toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants; the short-
term effectiveness of the remedy; ease of implementation; and cost. A compliance schedule is set,
and the facility proceeds to implement the remedy. Corrective action may be conducted as a result
of permit requirements, a corrective action order or voluntary corrective action. Long-term moni-
toring may or may not be required.
Interim measures may be required to address immediate threats to human health and the
environment.
For more information, see Results-Based Approaches and Tailored Oversight Guidance for Facilities
Subject to Corrective Action Under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
EPA 530-R-03-012. September 2003.
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/resource/guidance/gen_ca/reslt-bse.pdf
CERCLA Removal Actions
EPA conducts or supervises Removal actions at sites where there are releases or threatened re-
leases to the environment of hazardous substances or any pollutant or contaminant that could
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare or to the environment.
Removals are classified as emergency, time-critical, or non-time-critical, depending on the time in
which a response can be taken. Generally, the more time available, the more detailed the analysis
of alternatives can be.
165
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
CERCLA Remedial Alternatives
The processes related to selection and implementation of remedial alternatives are described gen-
erally below.
Feasibility Study
The FS generally is conducted to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. FS activities typically
are fully integrated with the RI. FSs can include an alternatives screening step to select a reason-
able number of alternatives for detailed analysis. To develop and screen alternatives, RPMs nor-
mally identify remedial action objectives that specify contaminants of concern, potential exposure
pathways and remediation goals. Remediation goals generally establish the extent to which the
site should be cleaned up to protect human health and the environment. The NCP and Superfund
guidance documents for remedial actions address several factors that are considered in developing
remedial action objectives, including the following:
> For known or suspected carcinogens, the remedial action normally achieves an upper-bound
lifetime cancer risk level of between 10"4 and 10"6 for high-end receptors.
> For noncarcinogenic hazardous substances, a safe exposure level generally is established.
This level normally represents a dose below which no adverse health effects are expected.
> For ground water, MCLs and nonzero MCLGs established under the SDWA (applicable to
certain public water supplies) are potential ARARs.
> Ecological risks should be reduced to levels that are acceptable, with special attention
paid to sensitive habitats and critical habitats of species protected under the ESA.
> Other ARARs must be met or waived.
As addressed in the NCP, remedial alternatives are developed and screened. EPA considers alterna-
tives that reduce toxicity mobility or volume of contaminated material through treatment; gener-
ally, alternatives that call for off-site transport and disposal or containment without treatment are
the least-favored. EPA also considers a no-action (or no further action) alternative to provide a
baseline for comparison. For categories of treatment options, a representative process option often
is chosen for detailed analysis.
Remedial alternatives generally are screened to reduce the number of alternatives that will un-
dergo detailed analysis and ensure that the most promising alternatives are considered. In general,
the NCP's screening criteria include the following:
> Effectiveness. Generally, this includes the degree to which an alternative reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment; minimizes risks and provides long-term protection;
complies with ARARs; minimizes short-term impacts; and achieves protection quickly.
> Implementdbility. Generally, this includes the technical feasibility and availability of the
technologies each alternative would employ.
> Cost. Generally, alternatives providing effectiveness and implementability similar to that of
another alternative, but at a greater cost, may be eliminated.
Under the NCP, the alternatives retained after the screening process are subjected to detailed
analysis and comparison to nine criteria:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
5. Short-term effectiveness
166
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State acceptance
9. Community acceptance
Generally, the purpose of the comparative analysis is to identify the advantages and disadvantages
of each alternative relative to the others. These nine criteria can be categorized into three groups:
threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria and modifying criteria.
Threshold criteria (which are the first two and based on statutory requirements) must be satisfied
for a remedial alternative to be eligible for selection. Primary balancing criteria generally are used
to weigh trade-offs between alternatives. State acceptance and community acceptance are modify-
ing criteria that are taken into account after public comments are received on the proposed plan.
CERCLA Criteria for Selecting Remedial Action
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment generally addresses whether a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls or institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs generally addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all federal and state envi-
ronmental requirements, standards, criteria and limitations that are applicable or relevant and appropriate.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence generally refers to expected residual risk and the ability of the
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup
levels have been met. This criterion often includes the consideration of residual risk that will remain on-
site following remediation and the adequacy and reliability of the management controls (e.g., institutional
controls).
Reduction ofToxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment generally addresses the degree to which treat-
ment will be used to reduce the mobility, toxicity or volume of contaminants causing site risks.
Short-Term Effectiveness generally addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
operation of the remedy until cleanup goals are achieved.
/mp/ementab///ty generally addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed for a particular option.
Cost generally includes estimated capital (construction), O&M and net present worth costs. (The present
worth analysis normally is used to evaluate expenditures that occur over different time periods by discount-
ing all future costs to a common base year—usually the current year. This analysis allows the cost of the
remedial action alternatives to be compared on the basis of a single figure representing the amount of
money that, if invested in the basis year and disbursed as needed, would be sufficient to cover all costs
associated with the remedial action over its planned life.)
Modifying Criteria
State /Acceptance generally indicates whether the state/Commonwealth concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance considers whether the state/community agrees with the proposed remedy. This of-
ten is assessed in detail in the ROD responsiveness summary, which addresses public comments received
on the Administrative Record and the PP.
167
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
A variety of alternatives may be considered for a site. For example, remedial alternatives for a site
containing soil contaminated with solvents might include excavation and on-site or off-site treat-
ment, capping combined with ground water pumping and treatment and in-situ treatment. Special
rules can apply to sites where off-site transport and disposal are the selected alternative, to ensure
hat the ultimate waste repository is in compliance with applicable laws. Generally, an alternative
that does not allow unlimited use of a site after the remedial action is implemented, includes insti-
tutional controls to restrict land usage.
CERCLA Removal Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
For NTCRAs, the lead agency normally conducts an EE/CA, which is an analysis of removal al-
ternatives for a site. The EE/CA should present definitive information on the source, nature and
extent of contamination and risks presented by the site. The EE/CA also presents an analysis of
removal alternatives. If an RI has been completed (because the removal is related to an NPL site),
risk assessment data from the RI may be used to support the removal action objectives and only
limited data collection will be required. The goal of the EE/CA is to identify the objectives of the
removal action and to analyze the effectiveness, ability to implement and cost of various alterna-
tives that may satisfy the objectives. For TCRAs, a similar but less formal process is conducted.
The EE/CA contains the following:
> Site characterization includes the site description and background (location, type of
facility and operational status, structures/topography geology/soil/aquifer information,
surrounding land use and populations, sensitive ecosystems and meteorology); previous
removal actions; source, nature and extent of contamination (locations of contaminants,
magnitude of contamination, physical and chemical properties of the contaminant and
targets potentially affected by the site); analytical data (existing data and data collected
during the EE/CA); and streamlined risk evaluation (focused on the source of contamina-
tion the removal action will address).
> Identification of Removal Action Objectives requires a review of statutory limits on removal
actions, determination of removal scope, determination of removal schedule and planned
remedial activities.
> Identification and Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives involves the determination of
the effectiveness (protection of human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs
and other criteria; long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity mobility,
or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness), implementability (technical feasi-
bility, administrative feasibility, availability, state acceptance, and community acceptance);
and cost (direct capital costs, indirect capital costs and post-removal site control costs) of an
alternative. Presumptive remedies may be used to speed selection of an alternative.
> Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives is a comparison of the alternatives.
> Recommended Removal Action Alternative is the treatment that is preferred over contain-
ment or land disposal, and permanent solutions are preferred over temporary.
CASE STUDY
Cooperatively Working in the Left Hand Watershed
An MOU between EPA Region 8 and USFS Region 2 (see Appendix D) was developed for the Left
Hand Watershed project in Colorado to describe the roles each program will play in assessment
and cleanup of mixed ownership sites. The MOU will apply to other mixed-ownership sites within
the Regions. One lead agency will be designated for each site, but work will be cooperative unless
the agencies prepare an IAG to transfer funding for a single agency to perform the cleanup. (For
more information about the Lefthand Watershed, see the case study in Chapter 2.
168
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
The state and the public are given the opportunity to comment on the EE/CA and recommended
removal action. An action memo is prepared that documents the need for a removal response, the
proposed action, the rationale for the proposed action and how state and public comments were
considered. The action memo must be approved before work begins.
Proposed Plan, Public Comment, and Record of Decision
The selection of the remedial action generally is a two-step process; first the Region develops a PP
that is put out for public comment, and second, the Region issues a ROD. The state, community
and other stakeholders are given several opportunities to participate in the remedy selection activi-
ties. The remedy selection process may be initiated at one OU at a site while other OUs are still
undergoing investigation or are in other stages of the cleanup process.
The lead agency (typically EPA at private sites; the owning federal agency at federal facilities)
often works closely with the support agency to prepare a PP that summarizes the remedial
alternatives that were analyzed, proposes a preferred remedial alternative and summarizes the
information used to determine the preferred alternative.
The PP is presented to the public and may be revised in ^^^^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^^^—
response to state and public comments as appropriate. Opportunity for Integration
After evaluating all comments received on the PP, the
lead agency makes the final remedy selection decision.
This decision is documented in the ROD, which may be
signed by the Regional Administrator for sites where EPA
is the lead agency. The ROD typically contains significant
facts, analysis of facts and site-specific policy determina-
tions considered in the remedy selection process and
explains how the nine evaluation criteria were used to
select the remedy. Generally, the ROD is based on an ad-
ministrative record and is made available for public in-
spection. RODs for Superfund-financed actions normally
include a formal written concurrence from the state.
When appropriate, the ROD should
address the watershed cleanup goals
and objectives to the extent possible.
For example, when determining ground
water cleanup levels for the ROD, it
may be appropriate to pay special
attention to assessing the site's impact
on surface water quality and drinking
water sources in the entire watershed.
Extra efforts also may be appropriate
to ensure that the proposed remedy
is congruent with restoration and
redevelopment actions that will be
conducted by other WCT partners.
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
The RD generally is the engineering plan used to guide implementation of the selected remedy.
Remedial action (RA) generally is the physical implementation of the ROD and RD. RD/RA
activities generally conform to the remedy set forth in the ROD and other decision documents. The
NCP addresses mechanisms through which changes can be made to remedies specified in ROD.
If the lead agency determines that some changes should be made to the selected remedy, but the
changes do not fundamentally alter the remedial selection analysis set forth in the ROD, it may be
appropriate to publish an explanation of significant differences (BSD). Fundamental changes to a
ROD normally are documented in an amended ROD.
Operation and Maintenance
Many RAs will require O&M measures to continue at the site to ensure effective remedy implemen-
tation. O&M measures generally are initiated after the remedy is constructed and is determined to
be operational and functional. At Fund-lead sites, in general EPA pays 90 percent of CERCLA reme-
dial activities, and the state pays a 10 percent cost share. Typically one year after the commence-
ment of O&M measures, the state assumes 100 percent of O&M. Federal funding (90 percent) of
certain actions involving measures to restore ground water to beneficial use may continue for up
to 10 years after the remedy becomes operational and functional.
Five-year reviews are performed at many CERCLA sites to ensure the remedy continues to be
protective of human health and the environment.
169
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
NRDA
The NRDA process is described earlier in Chapters 2 and 4. The goal of the NRDA process is to
restore resources—those actions undertaken to return an injured resource to its prerelease condi-
tion as measured in terms of the injured resource's physical, chemical or biological properties or
the services it would have provided.
During settlement negotiations or after a settlement is reached, a Restoration and Compensation
Determination Plan (restoration plan) is developed. The restoration plan specifies the necessary
actions to restore the injured resources. The restoration plan documents the process to select
restoration/replacement actions and assign costs. It lists a reasonable number of possible alterna-
tives for restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of equivalent resources and the
related services lost to the public associated with each; selects one of the alternatives and the ac-
tions required to implement that alternative; gives the rationale for selecting that alternative; and
identifies the methodologies that will be used to determine the costs of the selected alternative
and the compensable value of the services lost to the public associated with the selected alterna-
tive. Possible alternatives are limited to those actions that restore, rehabilitate, replace or acquire
the equivalent of the injured resources and services to no more than their baseline. The restoration
plan may be expanded to incorporate requirements from procedures required under other portions
of CERCLA or the CWA or from other federal, state or tribal laws applicable to restoration, rehabil-
itation, replacement or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured resources or may be combined
with other plans for related purposes as long as the requirements of this section are fulfilled. The
actions can be carried out on the lands where the contamination occurred or, if appropriate, at an
alternate site that, when restored, provides a suitable replacement for the injured or lost resources.
When selecting the alternative to pursue, the Trustee considers the following factors:
> Technical feasibility
> The relationship of the expected costs of the proposed actions to the expected benefits from
the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources
> Cost-effectiveness
> The results of any actual or planned response actions
Opportunity for Integration
> Coordination among Trustees and
between Trustees and other agencies
participating in the NRDA process is
designed to help all agencies present
reasonable, consistent, cleanup
alternatives to the community.
Consistent with CERCLA, Regions
also should coordinate with other
agencies, including trustee agencies,
throughout the cleanup process. This
approach should improve community
participation and support and reduce
the potential for confusion that
can occur when several agencies
present conflicting solutions to the
contamination problems in their
community.
> Monitoring may also be integrated
between TMDL, CERCLA Remedial,
CERCLA Removal and NRDA
programs.
170
> Potential for additional injury to the injured resources
or other resources resulting from the proposed ac-
tions, including long-term and indirect impacts
> The natural recovery period
> Ability of the resources to recover with or without
alternative actions
> Potential effects of the action on human health and
safety
> Consistency with relevant federal, state and tribal
policies
> Compliance with applicable federal, state and tribal
laws
The public is provided the opportunity to comment on
the restoration plan during a public comment period.
Once a settlement is reached with the responsible party,
the restoration plan is implemented by the Trustees or
the responsible party under the supervision of the Trust-
ees. The Trustees monitor restoration projects to assure
that they continue to be properly operated and to deter-
mine whether the efforts are successful over the long run
in restoring the injured resources.
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Brownfields
Brownfields cleanups must protect human health and the environment and be conducted in accor-
dance with federal and state laws. Cleanup levels that protect human health and the environment
are determined by EPA and state agencies and may be based on existing standards such as those
found in the SCDM, Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations or Region 9 PRGs, state Water Quality
Criteria or other appropriate levels. Cleanup levels depend on the intended use of the property.
The approach to selecting a cleanup alternative that will meet the cleanup levels is flexible. In-
novative cleanup technologies are encouraged but must meet the site-specific cleanup standards.
Public participation is required beofre implementing the remedy.
• Additional Topics Related to Watershed Cleanup and Monitoring
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS)
In general, CERCLA requires that on-site remedial actions attain or waive federal and more
stringent state ARARs upon completion of a remedial action. The NCP addresses compliance with
ARARs during removal actions to the extent practicable. ARARs normally are identified during the
EE/CA and RI/FS studies and are considered in the selection of alternatives. ARARs may be chemi-
cal-specific (such as WQS), action-specific (such as subtitle C landfill requirements) or location-
specific (such as wetlands regulations). In general, the six circumstances provided in CERCLA sec-
tion 121 (d) under which ARARs may be waived are as follows: the action is an interim measure,
the action would cause greater risk to human health and environment, technical impracticability,
equivalent standard of performance, inconsistent application of state requirements and fund-bal-
ancing. As part of the ARARs analysis, project managers, in consultation with the site attorney,
should consider appropriate requirements promulgated under the CWA. Federal water quality
criteria as well as state-promulgated regulations including state WQS may be potential ARARs for
surface water when water is discharged from dewatering or treatment areas or as effluent from
confined disposal facilities (CDFs). Furthermore, some states may have their own promulgated
sediment quality standards that may be potential ARARs for sediment.
TMDLs established or approved by the EPA under the CWA are planning tools designed to reduce
contributing point and NFS of pollutants in water quality limited segments (WQLS). TMDLs cal-
culate the greatest amount of loading of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive without exceed-
ing CWA WQS. TMDLs are usually established by the states, territories or authorized tribes and
Opportunity for Integration
t In an effective watershed cleanup effort, non-CERCLA programs should clearly identify their requirements
to CERCLA participants; this approach should help programs work together to ensure that effective,
economical remedies are implemented to meet the goals of all participating programs in a manner that
is consistent with CERCLA and the NCP. Early and frequent communication between programs is key to
identifying and addressing ARARs.
> When a waiver from ARARs is necessary for on-site remedial action, the WQS program and the Trustees
can help the RPM develop targets that may still protect the existing use.
> The target for the TMDL represents the existing numeric standard or a translation of the narrative criteria/
use classification into a quantifiable criterion that is relevant to the specific sites and applies to a specific
point of compliance on a stream/segment/reach. These standards or translation of standards may be
ARARs in appropriate circumstances.
> Collaboration between CERCLA and TMDL programs should help to quantify the needed load reductions on
a source-by-source basis within the watershed to achieve the desired TMDL targets. This should include an
analysis linking the controls to the environmental indicators (e.g., WQS).
171
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
approved by the EPA. Effluent limits for point sources in NPDES permits should be consistent with
the assumptions and requirements in a WLA in an approved TMDL.
TMDLs established by states, territories or authorized Indian tribes, may or may not be promul-
gated as rules. EPA-established TMDLs are not promulgated as rules, are not enforceable and,
therefore, are not ARARs. TMDLs established by states, territories or authorized tribes should be
evaluated on a regulation-specific and site-specific basis. Even if a TMDL is not an ARAR, it may
aid in setting protective cleanup levels and may be appropriately a to-be-considered (TBC) guid-
ance. Project managers should work closely with regional EPA Water Program and state personnel
to coordinate matters relating to TMDLs. The project manager should remember that even when
a TMDL or WLA is not enforceable, the WQS on which they are based may be ARARs. TMDLs can
also be useful in helping project managers evaluate the impacts of continuing sources, contami-
nant transport and fate and effects. Similarly, Superfund's RI/FS may provide useful information
and analysis to the federal and state water programs charged with developing TMDLs. For more
information, see EPA Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste, OSER
9355.0-85, December 2005, page 3-8, www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/
sediment/guidance.htm.
CASE STUDY
Setting Site-Specific Water Quality Standards
Eagle River and French Gulch
Eagle River
At the Eagle Mine Superfund Site in Colorado, it was technically impracticable to achieve the
existing state WQS, so the RPM worked with EPA and state WQS programs and the community to
determine appropriate biological metrics to support a brown trout fishery. The biological criteria
were used to define a healthy biological community. When compliance with the biological criteria
is achieved, the water quality will be measured and used to define new WQS for the Eagle River.
French Gulch
At the Wellington Oro Superfund site, metal-laden water from abandoned mine workings was dis-
charged both at a discrete seep and through dispersed subsurface flow into ground water. Most of
the water was discharged at the on-site seep so it could be treated and released to the Blue River;
however, it was suspected that additional mine pool water was being discharged at unknown loca-
tions within the alluvial aquifer. Despite several hydrogeological studies, the underground dis-
charge locations were difficult to identify because of the complexity of the mine workings and the
dredge mining-disturbed streambed. UAA was conducted for the Blue River to determine (1) appro-
priate water quality criteria downstream of the mine and (2) if additional costly investigations that
might allow for capture and treatment of this water were necessary. The UAA provided documenta-
tion for site-specific WQS in the Blue River and concluded that the aquatic habitat in the Blue River
was severely impacted by historic dredge mining and, despite restoration of portions of the river,
habitat is limited to supporting adult brown trout. The WQS for the Blue River 2 miles downstream
of the French Gulch inflow were adjusted to reflect the adult brown trout criteria. The revisions to
the WQS were approved by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and used in the final
determination of the final remediation alternative. Working together, both Water and Superfund
Program goals were met, plus the property was available for reuse. A subsequent consent decree,
agreed to by the DOJ, DOI, EPA, state of Colorado and B&B Mines, provided the level of comfort
needed to allow the sale of the property to Summit County and the Town of Breckenridge for use
as open space.
172
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Wetlands Protection
At CERCLA sites containing wetlands, wetlands protection and restoration issues should be consid-
ered during the PA/SI, EE/CA, RI/FS studies and during RD/RA. Wetlands typically are considered
in the ecological risk assessment and the FS where the response action may impact the wetlands.
Where possible, impacts to wetlands from remedial actions should be avoided or minimized. Even
though actual CWA section 404 permits are not required for on-site Superfund actions in wetlands,
the substantive requirements of the section 404 regulations are met and unavoidable impacts to
wetlands are mitigated. Before initiating any action that might impact wetlands, regional wetlands
staff and the BTAG should be contacted for advice on CWA section 404 compliance and watershed
protection priorities.
STUDY
Map of South Jordan City Wildlife Enhancement Project,
USFWS
Working Together for Remediation, Habitat Restoration, and Reuse
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
The Jordan River, in Salt Lake County, Utah, is a highly urban-
ized and degraded river that has been dewatered, channel-
ized and polluted. Five Superfund sites on the Jordan River
have been or are in the process of being remediated. In
1991 the USFWS received a $2.3 million settlement from the
responsible parties of one of the Superfund sites known as
the Sharon Steel Superfund site. The funds were for restoring
threatened and endangered species, migratory birds and wet-
lands affected by the release of heavy metals from the site.
In 1997 the USFWS embarked on three long-term projects
to restore damaged natural resources and restore 274 acres
of habitat on the Jordan River. Other federal, state, munici-
pal and nonprofit organizations including Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission, EPA, USAGE, Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources, West Jordan City, the city of
South Jordan, National Audubon Society, Great Salt Lake Audubon Society, Tree Utah and Trust
for Public Lands have contributed both funds and in-kind services to match the $2.3 million with
$7.4 million for a total of $9.7 million. This partnership of state and federal agencies and local
organizations has begun work on properties that have been acquired for the restoration project.
Efforts are underway to contour highly erodible banks, remove nonnative invasive vegetation and
to plant trees and shrubs that are native and provide quality habitats for migratory birds. As prop-
erty values continue to rise, it becomes a race to acquire the remaining acreage with the secured
funds, and the USFWS is now looking for new partners to join the effort to preserve and protect a
riparian corridor on the Jordan River. These projects represent immense planning, negotiating and
vision from many agencies of various jurisdictions as well as nonprofit organizations, municipali-
ties and private citizens that have come together to make these projects a reality.
The Jordan River is listed as impaired on the Utah 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen and TDS. In
early 2005, work began on a TMDL for the Jordan River from Utah Lake to Great Salt Lake. Utah
DEQ, Salt Lake County, and the towns along the Jordan River are working together to coordinate
the TMDL development, CERCLA remediation and revitalization activities along the river. At the
request of the Utah DEQ, EPA and other agencies are consolidating efforts to develop the Jordan
River TMDL, identify opportunities for cross-program collaboration and coordinate the various
implementation projects. The EPA TMDL coordinator will work with the group by examining ecologi-
cal issues in a broader scale and reestablishing communication with the primary stakeholders
173
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
(continued)
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
regarding riparian restoration. This project is expected to be one of the most complex TMDLs that
Utah will develop with a significant component for permitting, stormwater and wetlands, which will
provide opportunities for instream mitigation.
An initial scoping meeting was held with USFWS, Salt Lake County, Utah DEQ, Utah Division of Wa-
ter Quality and EPA about compiling existing data, current and upcoming activities, TMDL assess-
ment and the benefits of coordination. The parties agreed to expand the TMDL assessment from
the lower segment of the Jordan River to the entire reach. Additionally, work at the MidvaleSlagNPL
site where a consent decree has recently been signed and cleanup work initiated, will be modified
to ensure that it fits with multiagency and community objectives. EPA Superfund contractors will
provide modifications of stream restoration renditions to include hydraulic and hydrologic modeling.
On-site contractors will delay the bank stabilization project until after high flow, which will allow for
potentially more significant restoration. Midvale has agreed to review the renditions and consider
more extensive in-stream restoration that may extend beyond the existing 50-foot open space.
The following projects are ongoing along the Jordan River:
I USFWS—Natural Resource Damage Award from Sharon Steele—three projects are on hold
(Audubon Society, Tree Utah, USAGE Water Resources Redevelopment)
» USACE-2004 Water Resources Redevelopment Project for the Jordan River $7,000,000
redirected to Iraq, so activities are on hold; lobbying through legislature for restoration of funds
> TMDL development is now extended to the entire Jordan River:
• Dissolved oxygen, phosphorus
• TDS
• Fecal coliform
I Current TMDL development for Utah Lake, which contributes significant TDS loading to the
Jordan River
I CERCLA-Midvale Slag NPL Site activities continue
• Erosion control, April-June
• Additional remediation/restoration requires more funding. Any Superfund dollars require
10 percent match from state
• Removal of sheet pile
I 50 feet along stream bank have been donated by the owner to cities for open space
The following items are considered the next steps to collaborative cleanup:
I Collection of all existing data to be shared by contractors:
• Historical data—two long-term monitoring sites (Narrows, Lower End)
• USGS NAWQA data, 2000-2005 (Kid Wadell)
• EMAP/REMAP data
I Superfund remediation plans will include the following:
• Geomorphic analysis
• Data acquisition
174
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
DY
(continued)
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
• Site reconnaissance
• Hydraulic/hydrologic analysis—model high and low flows
• Geomorphic analysis—channel stability, sediment transport
• Habitat analysis—structural enhancement, riparian corridor enhancement
• Implementation plan (phasing plan/schedule)
• Passive re-aeration, wetlands, and such
• Water quality modeling—metals, sediment, perchloroethylene
I Jurisdictional Wetlands on OU-1 between slag piles are not on redevelopment plans; potential
restoration proposed by Salt Lake County for Midvale (significant financial benefits)
• NRCS—wetland habitat improvement project funding
• Engage Midvale and Salt Lake in discussion
I Salt Lake County is providing engineering support for removal of sheet pile and potential
installation of cascading dissolved oxygen structure to be funded by Superfund
I Investigate Brownfields funding opportunities (restoration/revitalization in Midvale and
West Jordan)
> Investigate EJ funding opportunities
I Light Rail Crossing draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), possible mitigation funds
I Stormwater Part II permit Sandy City
I Midvale and West Jordan
redevelopment plans are in
development
Jordan River
175
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
Mi //town Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit
Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana
Artist's rendition of the future restored Blackfoot and Clark River confluence
The Milltown Reservoir Sediments Site (Milltown Site) is an OU within the larger Milltown Reser-
voir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund site. There are Superfund cleanup activities ongoing
throughout the Clark Fork Basin. The Milltown Dam and Reservoir are at the confluence of the Clark
Fork and Blackfoot Rivers, a few miles upstream of Missoula, in western Montana. Behind the dam
are approximately 6.6 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments, the result of historical min-
ing operations upstream in Butte. Arsenic in the sediments has polluted the local drinking water
aquifer and release of copper in the sediments threatens downstream fish and other aquatic life.
EPA issued a ROD calling for removal of the Milltown Dam and the most highly contaminated sedi-
ments. There is broad public support for this cleanup plan—98 percent of the nearly 5,000 com-
ments received during the public comment periods supported EPA's proposed plans.
The Milltown Site is adjacent to the unincorporated communities of Milltown and Bonner. Missou-
la, 6 miles west of the site, is home to the University of Montana and is one of the fastest-growing
areas of Montana, boasting world-class Whitewater, fly-fishing and other recreational opportunities.
People in the Milltown area are proud of their community, school and families and want to main-
tain their quality of life. A couple dozen community members are participating in a Redevelopment
Community Action Group (funded by a Superfund Redevelopment Initiative award) and their aim is
to provide EPA with a vision of what the community would like to see in terms of future site devel-
opment. EPA and the natural resource Trustees are working to integrate remediation and restora-
tion so they are compatible with desired local future land use.
Remediation and Restoration Goals
Remediation goals (Remedial Action Objectives) are
I Restore the ground water to its beneficial use within a reasonable time period using monitored
natural recovery
I Protect downstream fish and macroinvertebrate populations from releases of contaminated
reservoir sediments, which occur with ice scour and high-low events
I Provide permanent protection against dam failure and the subsequent catastrophic release of
contaminated sediments
> Provide compliance with the ESA (bull trout fish passage) and wetland protection through con-
sultation with USFWS, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and state agencies
176
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
DY
(continued)
Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana
Restoration goals are
I Restore the confluence area of the Blackfoot and Clark Fork
Rivers to be naturally functioning and self-maintaining
> Use natural, native materials, to the extent practicable, for
stabilizing channels, banks and floodplain
I Improve water quality by reducing the rate of release of
contaminated sediments through bank erosion outside the
area covered by the remediation plan
I Provide high-quality fish and wildlife habitat
I Improve aesthetic values in the area by creating a diverse,
natural setting
Milltown Dam and Reservoir
I Provide recreational opportunities such as river boating, fishing and trail access for hiking and
biking in addition to the remedial and restoration goals set as part of the Superfund process.
The community-based redevelopment group has the following goals, believing the cleanup
efforts should
• Contribute to redevelopment of a desirable community where people of all ages and in-
come levels can and want to live
• Build on current community character and strengthen the roots and sense of community
pride
• Protect a riparian buffer area and community open spaces that enhance community appeal
• Be compatible with and promote a stable, mixed economy with opportunities for commer-
cial, industrial, retail and service interests
• Foster diverse, free, public river access and recreational opportunities compatible with the
natural environment of the area
• Promote infrastructure necessary for community development, maintenance and growth
• Maintain and enhance the quality of the existing school district
• Provide educational opportunities and facilities that allow people of all ages to learn about
the history of the area and redevelopment efforts
Streamlined Remediation and Restoration
EPA, the state of Montana, the Trustees and the responsible parties (Atlantic Richfield Company/
BP and Northwestern Energy) have worked together, negotiating how the remediation and restora-
tion would be integrated. The idea is that if the remedial program is going to move dirt, it should
be put back in a way that literally lays the groundwork for planned restoration activities. Restora-
tion and remediation have been streamlined in many ways, including
I Modifying the remedial design process to accommodate restoration elements (e.g., wetlands,
natural channel, floodplain and vegetation designs)
I Integrating restoration construction activities into the remedial process (e.g., removing the
powerhouse, radial gate and right abutment associated with the Milltown Dam; channel, flood-
plain and wetland construction)
177
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
178
(continued)
Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana
Remedial and Restoration Funding
The Superfund remediation costs, estimated by EPA to be approximately $106 million, are being
borne by the responsible parties. The details of the cleanup costs and activities will be finalized
in the Consent Decree among the various parties (DOJ, EPA, the State of Montana, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes and USFWS).
Restoration funds are being provided by Northwestern Energy ($23.9 million in cash and land
donations) and Montana's Natural Resource Damages program. The courts approved Montana's
Natural Resource Damages claim against Atlantic Richfield Company in 1999 for $135 million.
The settlement provides funds to be used for restoration of natural resources in the Clark Fork
River Basin (not only for the Milltown Reservoir area). Accordingly, the state will spend about $5
million from this fund.
Montana and the other Trustees will collectively contribute approximately $8 million for restoration
of the Milltown Reservoir area. There has been substantial cost-savings by integrating remediation
and restoration. Through close coordination and careful planning, around $2.5 million in remedia-
tion costs will have been saved. The responsible parties have agreed to perform about this same
amount for restoration activities. In addition, by keeping in mind the community's vision for the
area, remediation and restoration activities were coordinated to allow for planned community
uses such as wildlife observation points, additional fishing and boating access points, a swimming
beach, skating pond and interpretive center.
Milltown Reservoir, looking up towards the Blackfoot River
Milltown Reservoir after drawdown
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
There are four appendices in this document:
Appendix A: Left Hand Watershed Collaborative Sampling Documents
Appendix B: Standard Guidance to Format Sample Results, Field Measurements,
and Associated Metadata
Appendix C: Left Hand Watershed Fact Sheet
Appendix D: USFS/EPA Memorandum of Understanding used in the Left Hand
Watershed
Because of their size, they are available only online at
www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/documents.htm
179
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: A Guide for Federal and State Project Managers
-------
APPENDIX A
Lefthand Watershed
Collaborative Sampling Documents
Contents
-------
APPENDIX A-l
Sampling and Analysis Plan
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
LEFTHAND WATERSHED
Sampling and Analysis Plan
March 23, 2004
Primary Contributors:
Kathryn Hernandez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stanley Christensen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sabrina Forrest, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contents
-------
APPROVALS:
William C. Schroeder, Biologist Date
Technical and Management Services - Laboratory
8-TMS-L
Kathryn Hernandez, Project Manager Date
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Ecosystems Protection Office
8-EPR-EP
Stan Christensen, RPM Date
Ecosystems Protections and Remediation
Superfund Remedial Office
Angus Campbell, Project Manager Date
Remedial Programs
Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
CONTENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION 1
2.1 Lefthand Watershed 1
3.0 Project Objectives 3
4.0 Lefthand Creek 3
4.1 Summary of Available Data 3
4.2 Proposed Monitoring Strategy for the Left Hand Creek 4
5.0 James Creek 4
5.1 Summary of Available Data 4
5.2 Proposed Monitoring Strategy for James Creek 4
5.3 Summary of Available Data for Little James Creek 5
5.4 Proposed Monitoring Strategy for Little James Creek 5
6.0 Summary of Monitoring Activities and Sampling Frequencies 5
6.0 Sampling Procedures 5
6.1 Flow Measurements and Field Parameters 6
6.2 Biological Parameters - Macroinvertebrates (species composition and tissue analysis 6
6.3 Macroinvertebrate Sorting and Analysis and DOC 7
6.4 Pebble Counts 7
6.5 Simple Field Leach Test for Rapid Screening 8
6.6 Sample Handling and Custody 8
6.7 Calibration Procedures and Frequency 8
6.8 Analytical Procedures 8
7.0 QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 9
7.1 Decontamination Procedures 9
7.2 Disposal of Investigation-Derived Wastes 9
8.0 Data Quality Objectives Process 9
8.1 Criteria for Measurement Data 10
8.2 Data Quality Assessment - 10
9.0 Data Validation and Usability 11
9.1 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting 11
9.2 Validation and Verification Methods 11
9.3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 12
10.0 Documentation and Reporting 12
10.1 Sample Location Documentation 12
10.2 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting 12
10.3 Internal QC Checks and Frequency 12
10.4 Preventative Maintenance 13
10.5 Schedule 13
10.6 Health and Safety Plan 13
Contents iii
-------
TABLES
Table 6-1. Proposed Lefthand Watershed Monitoring Sites 10
Table 6-2a General Description of Analytical Services Requested for May 2004 15
Table 6-2b General Description of Analytical Services Requested for November 2004 15
Table 6-3 Site Specific sampling for May and November 2004 17
Table 6-4 ESAT MDLs - ICP/MS 26
Table 6-5 ESAT MDLs - ICP/OE 27
Table 6-6 EPA Region VIII Laboratory MDLs 28
Table 7.0 Metals QC Check Protocol
-------
Lefthand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Sampling and Analysis Plan SAP describes the sampling, analysis and assessment methods that will
be used for the following listed segments:
• Little James Creek
• James Creek and tributaries
• Lefthand Creek and tributaries
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) will coordinate environmental and water quality assessments and funding efforts
within the Lefthand Watershed. This effort will promote a holistic approach to assure coordination in
establishing and achieving environmental cleanup and water quality goals. A key component of this
effort will be assuring participation between local, state and federal stakeholders.
There were synoptic surface water quality studies and data collection efforts focused on metals in the
Lefthand Watershed by University of Colorado in 2002 and 2003. Under a current 319 EPA grant, a
water quality assessment report of the Lefthand Watershed is being written by the Lefthand Watershed
Oversight Group (LWOG). The focus will be to summarize the most relevant current and historic water
quality work on-going in the Lefthand watershed. Sampling and analysis activities in 2004 will be
conducted by the USFS, USGS, CDPHE and EPA with assistance from University of Colorado.
2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1 Lefthand Watershed
The Left Hand Creek watershed lies in north central Colorado on the east slope of the Front Range of the
Rocky Mountains north west of the city of Boulder. It drains about 85 square miles of an area ranging in
elevation from nearly 14,000 feet at the Continental Divide east to about 4800 feet on the Plains where it
discharges to St. Vrain Creek in Longmont, Colorado. Left Hand Creek, James Creek and Little James
Creek are the only perennial streams in the watershed, however, there are numerous intermittent stream
channels. The basin discharges an average of about 28,840 acre feet annually. Left Hand Creek and
James and Little James Creeks are part of the Colorado Headwaters Hydrologic Unit Code 10190005.
Left Hand Creek and James Creek are located in Boulder County just north of Boulder, Colorado. Little
James Creek flows into James Creek, which flows into Left Hand Creek.
Left Hand Creek and Little James Creek are listed on the State of Colorado's 1998 303(d) list as impaired
for not supporting the aquatic life use classification. Both waters are listed-with a high priority for Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. The listing specified that the numeric standards for
cadmium, iron, manganese, zinc and pH, were not being attained. Additional dissolved metals data have
shown that standards for copper and lead are also exceeded. The water quality in Left Hand Creek, James
Creek and Little James Creek is affected by discharges from various mines and waste rock and mine
tailings in the area. The drainage area encompasses the historical Captain Jack and Golden Age mining
districts and receives runoff from a number of rock dumps, mill tailings and abandoned mining sites.
These areas were mined for gold, lead, silver, fluorspar (calcium fluoride) and uranium.
Although there are numerous mines throughout the watershed, only one mine is currently on the National
Priorities List. This is the Captain Jack Mine and Mill, located in the upper portion Left Hand Creek. A
remedial investigation is planned to begin at the Captain Jack Mine in FY 2004. The EPA and CDPHE
under CERCLA have investigated two others. They are the Golden Age Mine located in Little James
Introduction
-------
and James Creek, and the Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel, located in the middle portion of Left Hand Creek
The site investigation for the Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel was conducted during FY 2003 EPA, State, and
local partners are currently developing a strategy to address the Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel site.
The James Creek watershed covers approximately 36 square miles from its source near Ward to its
confluence with Left Hand Creek. The Little James Creek watershed area only encompasses about three
square miles.
The Jamestown's water supply intake is located in James Creek upstream of the inflow from Little James
Creek. The Left Hand Water District serves drinking water to between 11,000 to 16,000 people in rural
Boulder and Weld Counties. Left Hand Creek supplies water to Boulder Reservoir via Left Hand
Reservoir. Twenty to sixty percent of the water in Boulder Reservoir, a water supply for the City of
Boulder, can come from this source. The City of Boulder system supplies drinking water to 105,000
people.
Introduction
-------
Lefthand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
3.0 Project Objectives
The primary goals of this investigation are to:
• Evaluate water quality in the various drainages within the Land Hand Creek Watershed;
• Conduct habitat studies to determine how well the waterbodies are functioning as habitat for fish,
and other aquatic organisms;
• Conduct flow measurements to aid in evaluating existing metals loads to the watershed and
potential sources of metals loading to the watershed;
• Use the data to assist in making feasibility and remedial cleanup decisions for the watershed in an
effort to meet existing water quality standards that adequately protect human health and the
environment in the watershed.
4.0 Lefthand Creek
4.1 Summary of Available Data
UOS (URS Operating Services) conducted field work at the Captain Jack Mill (CJM) site on June 25 and
26th, 1997. The CJM site is located about 1.5 miles south of Ward. The investigation involved the
collection of 26 samples for laboratory analysis and the collection of non-site specific information.
Surface water and sediment samples collected along Left Hand Creek and its tributaries on June 25 and
26, 1997, indicated elevated concentrations of aluminum, calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium,
manganese and zinc. Furthermore, calculations indicated a sizable amount of metals loading to Left Hand
Creek that is attributed to the Big Five Mine adit discharge. Left Hand Creek exhibited evidence of
contamination from both the CJM site and the Big Five Mine adit. Evidence of contaminant migration
from the CJM site was exhibited by fine grained materials (possibly tailings) present along the stream
bank immediately adjacent to the mill site. Additional evidence of contamination took the form of an
orange precipitate lining the bottom of portions of Left Hand Creek and the channel of the Big Five Mine
adit drainage.
The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), conducted a Combined Assessment if the Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel area in
Fall 2002 and Spring 2003. The CA called for the collection of 24 field samples consisting of 4 solid
source, 2 aqueous source/adit, 5 surface water. 5 sediment samples and 5 aqueous QA/QC samples. The
Slide Mine site covers an area of approximately 12 acres near the town of Rowena. The mine is situated
0.65 miles west of Rowena along Lefthand Creek Road at an elevation of 8,200 feet. The Slide mine is
located on the south side of Lefthand Creek on the hillslope overlooking the Left Hand Creek drainage.
The mine is situated on the hill terrace approximately 1000 feet above Left Hand Creek. Analysis of
surface water samples collected from Left Hand Creek did not indicate a release of contaminants to the
stream from the mine adit and during periods when site conditions are steady. However, sediment
samples collected from Left Hand Creek downstream of the probable point of entry for site contaminants
indicate that pile materials are migrating from the site to the drainage and are present at elevated
concentrations in sediments 0.3 miles downstream of the site. CDPHE also performed a high-flow
sampling event on April 18, 2003. Field observations made on this sampling date indicated that the site
was discharging to Left Hand Creek.
Surface water and sediment data was collected by University of Colorado in 2002 and 2003 and the
results indicated exceedances of the State of Colorado acute and chronic criteria for dissolved metals for
copper and zinc.
Summary of Modeling Activities and Sampling Frequencies
-------
Sediment
The Left Hand Water District experiences ongoing problems with sediment deposition at their intake on
Lefthand Creek. This District has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars recently in efforts to mitigate
the impact of these sediments. The District spends many man and equipment hours each year removing
sediment from their intake structures.
Nutrients
There are potential nutrient loading concerns from the cumulative impact of Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems (ISDS). The nutrient of concern for this effort is Total Phosphorus.
4.2 Proposed Monitoring Strategy for the Left Hand Creek
Tracer studies will be conducted by University of Colorado in March 2004 to determine metal loading
throughout the basin. A synoptic study will be conducted in May and November, 2004 to characterize
nutrient, sediment, metals and flow conditions on James Creek. Biological samples will be collected
following protocols recommended by Will Clemens at CSU and described in section 6.0. The following
parameters will be collected at various sites:
• Field Parameters - Temperature, flow, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity
• Laboratory Parameters - total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), total and dissolved
metals, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), turbidity and hardness
• Physical Habitat Parameters - Particle size analysis, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour, et
al. 1999), pebble counts
• Biological Parameters - Macroinvertebrates (species composition and tissue analysis for metals)
5.0 James Creek
5.1 Summary of Available Data
The Golden Age Mining district contributes runoff to James Creek. Jenks Gulch, Castle Gulch, Hill
Gulch and other drainages may be contributing additional metals to James Creek. Indications are that
metals are not impacting James Creek upstream of Little James Creek. Metals concentrations at these
sites were often below detection. An ecological investigation of the water quality of the upper James
Creek (Duren, 2001) found that roads and off road vehicle activity may have had a negative affect on the
ecosystem health of James Creek.
Data collected by the University of Colorado in July of 2002 indicated exceedances of the acute criteria
for zinc in upper James Creek and exceedances of the acute criteria for copper and zinc at the point of
confluence with Little James Creek. Data collected by RiverWatch indicate exceedance of acute criteria
for copper in Upper James near Chipmunk Gulch and below Overland Mountain.
5.2 Proposed Monitoring Strategy for James Creek
A tracer study will be conducted in March 2004 by the University of Colorado to assess metal loading in
the watershed. A synoptic study will be conducted in May and October, 2004 to characterize nutrient,
sediment, and flow conditions on James Creek. Biological samples will be collected following Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols. The following parameters will be collected at each site:
• Field Parameters - Temperature, flow, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Laboratory Parameters - total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), total and dissolved
metals, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), turbidity and hardness
Physical Habitat Parameters - Particle size analysis, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour, et
al. 1999), pebble counts
Biological Parameters - Macroinvertebrates (species composition and tissue analysis for metals)
5.3 Summary of Available Data for Little James Creek
The Little James Creek/ James Creek watershed drains numerous adits, shafts, and tailings piles within a
part of the Jamestown Mining District, including the Burlington, Emmit, and Golden Age Mines. The
area was primarily developed for its lead-silver, fluorspar, and uranium deposits. URS Operating
Services, Inc. was tasked by the USEPA Region VIII, to conduct an Expanded Site Inspection under the
Superfund program at the Golden Age Mine site in Jamestown, Boulder County, Colorado. The second
field sampling event was conducted June 1 through 3, 1998. Aqueous samples collected that were
collected from Little James Creek show elevated concentrations of the following total and dissolved
metals; beryllium, lead, manganese, sodium, thallium, and zinc.
5.4 Proposed Monitoring Strategy for Little James Creek
A tracer study will be conducted in March 2004 by the University of Colorado to assess metal loading in
the watershed. A synoptic study will be conducted in May and November, 2004 to characterize nutrient,
sediment, and flow conditions on Little James Creek. Biological samples will be collected following RB
Protocols. The following parameters will be collected at each site:
• Field Parameters - Temperature, flow, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, turbidity
• Laboratory Parameters - total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), total and dissolved
metals, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), turbidity and hardness
• Physical Habitat Parameters - Particle size analysis, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour, et
al. 1999), pebble counts
• Biological Parameters - Macroinvertebrates (species composition and tissue analysis for metals)
6.0 Summary of Monitoring Activities and Sampling Frequencies
6.0 Sampling Procedures
A listing of all of the proposed monitoring sites is presented in Table 6-1. An overall summary of the
proposed sampling activities is presented in Table 6-2. The laboratory will provide training to any
volunteers that may assist with this sampling project. Field measurements including pH, conductivity,
dissolved oxygen, and temperature will be taken at each sampling location listed in Table 1 All meters
will be calibrated before use in the field. All field measurements and notations will be recorded in the
field notebook.
A team led by Dr. Joe Ryan, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, and
Alice Wood, a Master's student in the Department of Environmental Studies, will conduct metal loading
tracer tests to locate the major sources of metals and acidity in the James Creek watershed. The metal
loading tracer tests will be conducted during high- and low-flow stream conditions from April 2003 to
August 2004 to investigate the effects of abandoned mines and mill sites on the water quality James
Creek Additionally, a mass-balance approach will be used to assess the fate of metals entering the creeks
as dissolved and colloidal fractions by measuring the metal content of the stream bed sediments. The
-------
results of the metal loading tracer tests will be disseminated to the various stakeholders concerned about
water quality in the James Creek watershed to aid in decisions related to abandoned mine and mill site
remediation.
Church et al. (1997) and Kimball et al. (2001) demonstrated the utility of tracer injections and synoptic
sampling for the determination of metal loadings in stream systems. This study will incorporate tracer
tests (the injection of a salt tracer to a stream and subsequent measurement of tracer dilution as it flows
downstream), to precisely gauge stream discharge. Synoptic sampling involves collection of stream water
samples at regular downstream intervals during the tracer test. Tracer experiment discharge data paired
with laboratory analysis (ICP-AES and ICP-MS) of the stream water samples will allow the development
of a stream profile of total and dissolved metal loadings.
Personnel from the U.S. EPA Region VIII Office of Technical and Management Services-Laboratory will
conduct field measurements, habitat analysis and collect water and macroinvertebrate samples for
laboratory analyses of those parameters identified in Tables 6-1 of this sampling plan. All parties
involved in this sampling effort will be responsible for the collection and preservation of all samples and
their appropriate chain-of-custody requirements. Surface water flow measurements and field parameters
will be taken at the same approximate time that water samples are collected following procedures outlined
in "Minimum Requirements for Field Sampling Activities" (EPA 1996). The laboratory will provide
training to any volunteers that may assist with this sampling project.
Personnel from the CLP laboratory and ESAT team will analyze the sediment, groundwater and surface
water samples for metals. The Region 8 EPA lab will analyze select samples for TDS, turbidity, DOC
and total phosphorus. Samples will be collected into separate polypropylene containers and chilled for
transport to the laboratories. Personnel from the EPA Region 8 lab will supervise the collection,
preservation, labeling and shipment, including the appropriate chain-of-custody requirements for all
samples they collect for chemical analysis. Sampling station locations for field parameters, habitat
analysis, chemical analyses, and macroinvertebrates are presented in Table 6-1. Samples will be collected
from the furthest downstream location to the upstream locations in order to minimize cross-
contamination.
6.1 Flow Measurements and Field Parameters
Surface water flow measurements and field parameters, including temperature, flow, dissolved oxygen,
pH, conductivity will be taken at the same approximate time that water samples are collected following
procedures outlined in "Minimum Requirements for Field Sampling Activities" (EPA 1996). Flow
measurements will be taken at the same approximate time that the water column and sediment samples
are collected. Flow measurements will be made with a Marsh McBirney flow meter and a top-setting
wading rod.
6.2 Biological Parameters - Macroinvertebrates (species composition and tissue analysis for
metals)
Personnel from the EPA Region VIII lab will collect qualitative and quantitative aquatic
macroinvertebrate samples. Replicate benthic macroinvertebrate samples («=3) will be collected using a
0.1-m2 Surber sampler (500-(im mesh net) from shallow riffle areas (<0.5 m) at selected sites. Substrate
will be disturbed to a depth of approximately 10 cm and materials will be sieved using a 500-(im mesh
sieve. All organisms retained will be preserved in 70% ethanol in the field. In the laboratory, samples will
be sorted and organisms will be identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (genus or species for
most taxa; subfamily for chironomids).
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
We will measure bioavailability of heavy metals in the field using the filter-feeding caddisfly Arctopsyche
grandis (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Arctopsyche is a relatively large, widely-distributed caddisfly
found in many Rocky Mountain streams. Because Arctopsyche is highly tolerant of heavy metals, this
species can be collected from both reference and metal-contaminated sites. Caddisflies will be collected
from field sites, placed in 20 mL acid-rinsed vials and immediately placed on ice. Where possible,
replicate samples («=3) will be collected from field sites. Where available, heptageniid mayflies, a grazer,
will also be collected. Metals analysis will be done by the CLP lab using ICP-MS.
Metal bioavailability to aquatic organisms is greatly influenced by levels of dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) in water. DOC will be measured at all field sites where macroinvertebrates and periphyton are
collected. Water samples will be collected using a 60 mL syringe fitted with a collection tube and glass
filter (0.7 mm pore size). Samples will be were preserved with hydrochloric acid (pH = 2.0) and stored at
4°C. DOC will be analyzed at the EPA Region VIII laboratory.
Personnel from the EPA Region 8 Lab will be responsible for picking, sorting and identifying the
macroinvetebrate to species level at selected sites. All macroinvertebrates will be identified to the lowest
taxonomic level possible. All specimens and debris will be returned to the EPA Region VIII for final
disposition. EPA Region VII lab will also be tasked to produce a final report on results from the
macroinvertebrate sampling.
6.3 Macroinvertebrate Sorting and Analysis and DOC
In the laboratory, samples will be sorted and organisms will be identified to the lowest practical
taxonomic level ( genus or species for most taxa; subfamily for chironimids).
Bioavailibility of heavy metals in the field will be measured using the fiter-feeding caddisfly Arctopsyche
Grandis (Trichoptera: Hydropsy chidae). Arctopsyche is a relatively large, widely-distributed caddisfly
found in many Rocky Mountain streams. Because Arctopsyche is highly tolerant of heavy metals, this
species can be collected from both reference and metal-contaminated sites. Caddisflies will be collected
from field sites, placed in 20 mL acid-rinced vials and immediately placed on ice. Where possible,
replicate samples (n=3) will be collected from field sites. Where available, heptageniid mayflies, a
grazer, will also be collected. Metal analysis will done using ICP-MS.
Metal bioavailability to aquatic organisms is greatly influenced by levels of dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) is water. DOC will be measured at all field sites where macroinvertebrates are collected. Samples
will be preserved with hydrochloric acid (pH = 2.0) and stored at 4° C.
6.4 Pebble Counts
The Zig-Zag Pebble Count Analyzer was developed by Greg Bevenger, Forest Hydrologist, Shoshone
National Forest, and Rudy King, Station Statistician, Rocky Mountain Research Station, to help users
properly implement the zig-zag pebble count procedure (Bevenger and King, 1995, A pebble count
procedure for assessing cumulative watershed effects. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station Research Paper RM-RP-319, 17 pages). The zig-zag method is a pebble count procedure using a
zig-zag sampling pattern along a longitudinal stream reach such that a stream is sampled along a
continuum instead of an individual site, reach, or cross-section. By doing this, numerous meander bends
and all associated habitat features are sampled as an integrated unit rather than as individual cross-
sections.
-------
Macro enabled worksheets are provided to help users: (1) estimate sample size, (2) enter field data, (3)
produce tables and graphs, (4) perform statistical analysis using contingency tables and the Pearson chi-
squared statistic, and (5) make notes. The spreadsheet-workbooks also contain case studies to illustrate
typical application of the procedure and provides examples of typical analysis scenarios. The intent is to
assist users with the development of study plans and to help them interpret results. The thrust of each
analysis is to identify shifts in the fine gravel and smaller portions of the distribution, rather than the
median.
6.5 Simple Field Leach Test for Rapid Screening
A field leach test will be used to assess the abandoned mine waste piles. The protocol is based on the
paper published by U.S. Geological Survey, 2000 "A Simple Field Leach Test for Rapid Screening and
Qualitative Characterization of Mine Waste Dump Material on Abandoned Mine Lands", Hageman,
Philip L., Briggs, Paul H.
6.6 Sample Handling and Custody
Bill Schroeder, of the T&MS Laboratory, will be the field sample custodian and will keep records of all
samples delivered to the EPA Region VIII laboratory for analyses. Chain of custody procedures will
follow those listed in Region VIII's Minimum Requirements for Field Sampling Activities (September
1996).
A chain of custody record will accompany all chemistry samples and will be checked by the appropriate
sample custodian. All samples will be tagged with pre-numbered and recorded samples tags.
The tentative types and numbers of analytical samples to be collected (exclusive of QC samples) are listed
in Table 6-1).
6.7 Calibration Procedures and Frequency
All meter and laboratory calibration procedures will be conducted according to USEPA requirements and
follow the EPA Laboratory's standard operating procedures and the manufacturer's instruction manuals.
Electrodes for pH and conductivity determinations will be calibrated with appropriate buffers each day
before samples are collected. The dissolved oxygen probe will be calibrated to saturated air prior to use in
the field. Thermometer calibration is factory set by the manufacturer and is not required prior to use in the
field. In the event that problems are discovered with instruments in the field, maintenance procedures
described in the Region VIII Laboratory's SOPs (found on 8-net Intranet) and the manufacturer's
instruction manuals will be performed as needed to assure the integrity field measurements.
6.8 Analytical Procedures
All procedures for metals analyses will follow USEPA's "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Waste," 1983. All procedures for macroinvertebrate collection and identification will follow "Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers", Second Edition, 1999. Methods for
field measurements of pH, conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen will follow EPA's "Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1983, APHA Standard Methods 16th Edition, the Region
VIII SOP for Field Samplers, and the manufacturer's instruction manuals.
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Special Instructions:
"Total Recoverable Analyte" means the concentration of analyte determined to be in either a solid sample
or an unfiltered aqueous sample following treatment by refluxing with hot dilute mineral acid as defined
in Method 200.2 (Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples, Supplement 1,
EPA/600/R-94/111, May 1994.)
"Dissolved Analyte" means the concentration of analyte in an aqueous sample that will pass through a
0.45-micron membrane filter assembly prior to acidification as defined in Method 200.7 Determination of
Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission
Spectrometry, Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples, Supplement 1,
EPA/600/R-94/111, May 1994.
7.0 QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
One quality control sample set for chemical analyses, including a container blank, filter blank and
preservative blank, will be collected for every 10 locations sampled in the field. Samplers will also
prepare VOC trip blanks in the EPA regional laboratory prior to the initiation of fieldwork. Quality
control samples will be used to determine whether or not sampling procedures introduce contaminants in
the field. Field duplicates for chemical analyses will also be collected to determine whether or not the
data is reproducible.
If QC samples reveal a sampling or analytical problem, field and laboratory personnel will troubleshoot
the problem and attempt to identify the source of contamination. Upon working out a plausible solution,
personnel will take necessary steps to assure that similar problems will not arise during future sampling
events. Data may need to be flagged and qualified depending upon the nature and extent of the
contamination.
Quality control checks to be performed by the Region VIII Laboratory, CLP and ESAT are listed in Table
7.0. The precision and accuracy for each chemical parameter will be determined according to the
laboratory's SOPs and the EPA methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Laboratory
personnel will include a QA/QC report in their final data package to the project manager. Chemical
analytical results outside the limits for acceptability prescribed by the T&MS-Laboratory will be reported
to William Schroeder and EPA Region 8 RPM Stan Christensen. Corrective action, including instrument
recalibration and reanalysis of the sample will be pursued.
7.1 Decontamination Procedures
All sampling equipment will be acid rinsed and rinsed with deionized water between sampling stations.
Prior to collecting samples at each new station, the equipment is rinsed three times with native water to
further ensure no contaminant carryover. Equipment blanks will also be taken to ensure that the
equipment decontamination process is adequate.
7.2 Disposal of Investigation-Derived Wastes
This field effort will involved the collection of minimal Investigation-Derived Wastes (IDW). Equipment
rinsate wastes, disposable sampling equipment and personal protective equipment will be collected,
contained, or bagged, as appropriate by each field team for proper disposal at the EPA Region VIII
Golden, Colorado laboratory.
-------
8.0 Data Quality Objectives Process
The EPA Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process is a seven step systematic planning approach to
develop acceptance or performance criteria for EPA-funded projects. Data quality objectives define the
level of scientific rigor required for sample collection, sample analysis and data analysis. The DQOs for
the Left Hand Creek Watershed effort are presented in the QAPP, (or see the example Table format I
added at the end of this SAP.) The Seven steps of the process are:
1. The Problem Statement
2. Identifying the Decisions
3. Identifying the Decision Inputs
4. Defining the Study Boundaries
5. Developing Decision Rules
6. Defining Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors
7. Optimizing the Sample Design - I don't think all these have been fully addressed in the QAPP
yet.
8.1 Criteria for Measurement Data
(See pages 18-21 of the EPA QA/G-5, December 2002.). These measurement performance and
acceptance criteria are often expressed in terms of data quality indicators. The seven principle indicators
are:
1. Precision - the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same characteristic,
or parameter, and gives information about the consistency (reproducibility) of the method.
2. Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in
one direction.
3. Accuracy - a measure of confidence that describes how close a measurement is to its "true"
value.
4. Representativeness -the extent to which measurements actually represent the "true"
environmental conditions.
5. Comparability - the degree to which data can be compared directly to similar studies and that
one data set can be compared to another and combined for the decision(s) to be made.
6.Completeness - the comparison between the amount of data you planned to collect and analyze
versus how much usable data was collected and analyzed. Normally expressed as a percentage.
7. Sensitivity - The capability of a method or instrument to discriminate between measurement
responses representing different levels of the variables of interest.
Precision and accuracy for chemical measurements such as pH, temperature, conductivity and dissolved
oxygen will be determined according to the EPA Chemical Methods Manual, EPA Region VIII's Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) for Field Samplers, or the manufacturers specifications. Macroinvertebrate
data will be analyzed according to the procedures outlined in the EPA RBP Methods Manual. Data
acceptability for macroinvertebrate identification may be determined by an outside source such as
Colorado State University, or USGS. For this set of samples, precision will be based on one or two
stations with a field duplicate for chemical analyses.
10
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
8.2 Data Quality Assessment -
Data Quality Assessments (DQA) are prepared to document the overall quality of data collected in terms
of the established DQOs. The data assessment parameters calculated from the results of the field
measurements and laboratory analyses are reviewed to ensure that all data used in subsequent evaluations
are scientifically valid, or known and documented quality, and where appropriate, legally defensible. The
goal of the DQA is to present the findings in terms of data usability.
The major components of a DQA are presented below and show the progression of the assessment leading
to determination of data usability.
• A QA/QC review of field generated data and observations;
• Individual data validation reports for all sample delivery groups;
• Description of the procedures used to further quality data generated from samples run via
dilution, reanalysis, and duplicate analysis;
• Evaluation of QC samples such as, field blanks, trip blanks(N/A), equipment rinsates, field
replicates, and laboratory control samples to assess the quality of the field activities and
laboratory procedures;
• Assessment of the quality of data measured and generated in terms of accuracy, precision, and
completeness throughout the examination of laboratory and field control samples in relation to
established objectives and correct application of statistical methods( if applicable); and
• Summary of the usability of the data, any qualifiers and any biases, based on the assessment of
data conducted during the previous steps. Sample results for each analytical method will be
qualified as acceptable, rejected, or estimated.
9.0 Data Validation and Usability
9.1 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting
Upon completion of chemical analysis, the laboratory will use the peer review process to detect errors in
the analytical data package. All Lefthand field and analytical data will then be reviewed by the field team
leader, the QA officer, and the laboratory senior chemist before it is presented to the EPA project
manager. Decisions to reject or qualify data will be made by the senior chemist or QA officer.
Region VIII standard report forms will be used for all analyses. All data and significant observations
during analyses will be noted in the final data package and will be kept on file at the EPA Region 8
Laboratory. Any deviations from the required analytical procedures will also be documented. Stream
flow measurements will occur during the same general time period that the surface water samples are
collected only if conditions allow safe access.
9.2 Validation and Verification Methods
Procedures to be used for validating and verifying data are as follows: comparing computer entries to
field data log sheets, looking for data gaps, analyzing quality control data such as chain of custody
information, spikes, equipment calibration, checking calculations, examining raw data for outliers,
reviewing graphs and tables. If any of the data are found outside the QC limits identified in Table 7.0, re-
analysis of the samples may be requested. Laboratory QC data will be reviewed to ensure that all data are
useable.
Errors in data entry will be corrected. Outliers and inconsistencies will be flagged for further review, or
discarded. Problems with data quality will be discussed in the draft and final reports.
11
-------
9.3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
As soon as possible after this sampling event, calculation and determinations for precision, completeness,
and accuracy will be made and corrective action implemented if needed. If data quality indicators do not
meet this project's specifications, data may be discarded and resampling may occur. The cause of failure
will be evaluated. If the cause is found to be equipment failure, calibration/maintenance techniques will
be reassessed and improved. If the problem is found to be sampling team error, team members will be
retrained. Any limitation on data use will be detailed in both draft and final reports.
If failure to meet project specifications is found to be unrelated to equipment, methods, or sample error,
specifications may be revised for future sampling events.
10.0 Documentation and Reporting
Field Notes
Field notes will include a chronological record of daily sampling events and sampling information to
document the critical project information. This may include:
• Project Team Members and responsibilities
• Arrival time to location(s)
• Weather conditions
• Sample identification, location, and description;
• Sampler's name;
• Date and time of collection;
• Field instrument readings;
• Physical characteristics of the samples or the area from which collected;
• Field observations and details related to integrity of samples or laboratory analysis
• Deviations from sampling plan and why;
• Applicable health and safety information or issues
10.1 Sample Location Documentation
Records of actual sampling locations and procedures will be documented through keeping a field
logbook, photographs, and use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument. Locations will also be
mapped. Due to unanticipated conditions, site locations or procedures may change. Any deviations in
locations or procedures will be documented in the field logbook and discussed with the team members at
the conclusion of each day's activities.
10.2 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting
The results of the analyses conducted by Region VIII's laboratory, including raw data sheets, QA/QC
report, and a summary of the data, will be forwarded to Kathryn Hernandez, Project Manager, Region 8
EPA. The laboratory will also provide the data in electronic format to Kathryn Hernandez in the form of
a Excel spreadsheet. If any laboratory QA/QC does not meet the EPA Region VIII Laboratory
acceptance criteria, Bill Schroeder will be immediately notified for further instructions. The results of the
water chemistry and flow data will be evaluated and summarized by TMS personnel. Data validation for
chemical analyses conducted by Region VIII will follow standard operating procedures
12
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
10.3 Internal QC Checks and Frequency
Duplicate sample(s) will be collected from surface water and sent to the laboratory for metals and anion
analyses. Set(s) of field blanks (container, preservation and filter) from a surface water sampling location
will also be collected to check on the sample container, filtration apparatus and acids used in preservation.
Blanks will be prepared from ultra-pure deionized water that has been brought into the field from the
laboratory. Blanks will be prepared in the same manner as typical samples under the same environmental
conditions
10.4 Preventative Maintenance
Field meter supplies including filling and buffer solutions will be changed prior to the sampling event.
All field meters will be checked in the laboratory prior to the sampling event and maintenance procedures
will be followed when problems are noted. In the event that maintenance procedures are unable to fix the
problem, probes or parts will be replaced as needed
10.5 Schedule
The following is a preliminary schedule for this field event. The schedule will be flexible and may
change by events that occur in the field.
May 171) Travel from the EPA Golden Laboratory to the Boulder, Colorado. EPA Laboratory
personnel will provide two pickup trucks that can seat the 2 laboratory personnel plus 3
volunteers. If you desire to ride in either of the two vehicles, please contact Bill Schroeder at
303-312-7755. Each vehicle will be gassed and equipped with maps and walkie talkies.
Planned departure from the EPA Lab will be 8:00 AM.
2) Unload personal gear, prepare personal field gear, brief the field team, ready trucks for
field sampling, calibrate meters.
May 181) Calibrate field meters, load personal field gear, meet USFS parking lot at 28th and Yarmouth.
Divide into teams. Team leaders will be as follows:
TEAM 1: TBD
TEAM 2: Bill Schroeder (team lead)
TEAM 3: TBD
2) Sample sites. The sites each team is responsible for sampling are listed in Table 1 of this
sampling plan.
3) Debrief the field team at the end of the day. Discuss problems encountered, sites not
sampled, etc.
May 191) Same tasks as April 18. Sample remaining sites.
10.6 Health and Safety Plan
All personnel involved in this study have current health and safety training certifications and are
participating in the EPA medical monitoring program. All personnel have been trained in field safety,
first aid, CPR, and laboratory safety. It is anticipated that all fieldwork can be conducted in Level D
personal protective equipment (PPE). A project-specific Health and Safety Plan will be developed and
reviewed by all team members prior to mobilization. Each field team will carry a copy of the project-
specific Health and Safety Plan throughout the duration of the project.
13
-------
Table 6-1. Proposed Lefthand Watershed Monitoring Sites
Site ID#
Description
Latitude/Longitude Rationale Notes
Lefthand Creek and tributaries
5560*
5560*
5560*
5560A1
5560A6
5560A-TC
5560A8
5560A12
5560A13
5560 ABF1
5560A14
5560A17
5560A21
5560A-PU
5560A54
5560A-IN
5560A56
Nugget Hill Mine
Shneider Propery -
mine opening into
garage
Gale Mine and Up
Gulch
Lefthand Creek at
Peak-to-Peak Hwy
Upstream of
unnamed trib that
drains mine across
P-to-P Hwy
Tributary C below
Dew Drop tails
Downstream of
unnamed trib that
drains mine across
P-to-P Hwy
Upstream of Big
Five Tunnel site
Upstream of Big
Five Tunnel
drainage confluence
Big Five Tunnel
drainage
Downstream of Big
Five Tunnel
drainage confluence
Upstream of White
Raven site
Downstream of
White Raven site
Puzzler Gulch
Downstream of
Puzzler Gulch
confluence
Indiana Gulch
Downstream of
Indiana Gulch
confluence at
Sawmill Road.
40 04 09.27
1053100.66
40.06527 N
105.51326 W
40 03 52.77
1053055.95
40.06476 N
105.51185 W
40.06288 N
105.51053 W
40.06228 N
105.50967 W
40.06185 N
105.50899 W
40.06192 N
105.50876 W
40.06068 N
105.50694 W
40.05885 N
105.50609 W
40.05562 N
105.50183 W
40.05551 N
105.50160 W
400321.74
1053004.37
400320.81
105 30 02.47
Drainage from mine
Water drainage
Mine drainage
Background reference
Metals from mine site
(unknown name)
Metals from mine site
(unknown name)
Metals from Big Five
Tunnel site
Metals from Big Five
Tunnel site
Metals from Big Five
Tunnel Site
Metals from Big Five
Tunnel site
Metals from White Raven
site
Metals from White Raven
site
Major tributary to
Lefthand
Potential for dilution from
Puzzler
Major tributary to
Lefthand, drains Ward
mine workings
Metals from Indiana
Gulch
Gully west of
Nugget Gulch
Near Glendale
Gulch
Only flows before
July
ACU sample site 1.
Benthic/sediment
sample site, also.
At CU sample site 6
At CU sample site 8
At CU sample site 12
At CU sample site 13
At Big Five Tunnel
discharge confluence
with Lefthand Creek
At CU sample site 14
At CU sample site 17
At CU sample site 21
CU sampling showed
this trib to be clean
At CU sample site 29
CU sampling showed
some elevated metals
in this trib
At CU sample site
30. Benthic/sediment
sample site, also.
14
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
5560ASPRI
5560A92
5560ALI
5560A-95-1
5560A96
5560A101
5560A-SL-1
5560A-SL-2
5560A103
5560A113
5560A???
5560AGG
5560A???
5560A???
5560ANG
5560A123
5560A???
5560ALE
Spring Gulch
Downstream of
Spring Gulch
Lick Skillet Gulch
Above Lick Skillet
and below tailings
Below Lick Skillet
Above Slide Mine
Upstream Slide
Mine discharge
Downstream Slide
Mine discharge
Below Slide Mine
Below Rowena
Above Glendale
Gulch
Glendale Gulch
Below Glendale
Gulch
Above Nugget
Gulch
Nugget Gulch
Below Nugget Gulch
Above "Lee Hill
Gulch"
"Lee Hill Gulch"
40 04 29.32
105 25 10.52
40 04 28.54
105 25 07.80
40 04 27.27
105 24 46.66
40 04 27.77
1052447.33
40 04 27.69
1052443.82
40 04 28.60
105 24 02.98
400428.17
1052359.39
40 04 28.02
1052359.39
40 04 29.70
1052353.08
400443.50
1052301.54
40.08124 N
105.36906 W
40.0806288 N*
105.3660441 W*
40.08263 N
105.36595 W
40.08816 N
105.36378 W
40 05 19.73
1052148.84
40 05 20.04
1052146.95
40.09233 N
105.35279 W
400536.13
1052103.94
Tributary to Lefthand
Effects of Spring Gulch
Effects of Lick Skillet
Gulch
Metals from Lick Skillet
Gulch
Metals from Slide Mine
Metals from Slide Mine
Metals from old workings
near Rowena
Metals from workings
along Glendale Gulch
Tributary to Lefthand
Metals from workings
along Glendale Gulch
Metals from workings
along Nugget Gulch
Tributary to Lefthand
Metals from workings
along Nugget Gulch
Metals from Lee Hill
Gulch
Tributary to Lefthand
CU sample site LH2
C
CU sample site 15.
Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
CU sample site LH2
21 Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
CU sample site LH2
22. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
CU sample site LH3
4
CU sample site LH3
8
Approximate
coordinates. Not
previously sampled
by CU (dry in 2003)
CU sample site LH3
10
CU sample site LH3
13
Approximate
coordinates. Not
previously sampled
by CU (dry in 2003)
CU sample site LH3
14
CU sample site LH3
19. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
15
-------
5560A129
5560A???
5560A???
5560ATI
5560A???
5560AJE
5560A127
5560A136-2
5560ASI
5560A???
5560A???
5560ASPRU
5560A???
5560A184
Site Id
Below "Lee Hill
Gulch"
Above James Creek
confluence
Below James Creek
confluence
Tributary between
LH410andLH411
sample sites.
"Unnamed Trib I"
Downstream of
10/11 tributary
"Jeep trail" tributary
Downstream of
"Jeep trail" tributary
!/2 upstream of
Carnage Canyon
Sixmile Creek
Downstream of
Sixmile Creek
At Buckingham Park
Spruce Gulch
Downstream of
Spruce Gulch
At Haldi Headgate
James Creek Site
400535.69
1052102.18
40.10053
105.34277
40. 10282 N
105.34033 W
40. 1087646 N*
105.3354900 W*
40.10883 N
105.33517 W
40. 10656 N
105.32175 W
400631.77
105 1905.67
4006 15.61
10520 16.19
40.1 1087 N
105.30696 W
40.11014 N
105.30635 W
40.11113 N
105.30704 W
40. 12448 N
105.30508 W
40.12491 N
105.30467 W
400753.07
105 1733.11
Metals from Lee Hill
Gulch
Metals from James Creek
Metals from James Creek
Ephemeral tributary to
Lefthand
Effects of 10/11 trib
Effects of "Jeep trail"
tributary
Effects of "Jeep trail"
tributary
Effects of Sixmile Creek
Effects of Sixmile Creek
Downstream of major
known metal and
sediment inputs
tributary to Lefthand
Effects of Spruce Gulch
Downstream of major
known metal and
sediment inputs
Latitude/Longitude Rationale
CU sample site LH3
20. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site
CU sample site LH3
27. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site
CU sample site LH3
32. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
*approximate
coordinates. Not
previously sampled
by CU (dry in 2003)
CU sample site LH4
11
CU sample site LH4
22
CU sample site LH4
32
CU sample site LH4
33. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
CU sample site LH5
11
CU sample site LH5
18. Also a
benthic/sediment
sample site.
Notes
James Creek
5561A62
5561AT1
5561AT2
James Creek
upstream of
Lefthand
James Creek at
Peak-to-Peak Hwy
Below Co. Rd. 100
crossing over James
Creek
40 06 07.94
1052033.31
400521.33
105 29 46.75
400531.25
1052909.56
Major tributary to Lefthand
Colleen has done
„ . , - pebble counts here*
Background reference r^ , . , ,
CU has not sampled
here.
„ ,. . .. - ... Colleen has done
Sedimentation from vehicle counts here
travel £TTi, * i j
CU has not sampled
16
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
5561AT3
5561AT4
5561A-1
5561A10
5561AT5
5561A16
5561A28
5561A29
5561A30-
582
5561A37
5561A52
5561A53
5561A-CU
5561A55a
5561AHI
5561ACG
5561A56
Above Forget-Me-
Not meadow
Above the Creek
Crossing
Below the Creek
Crossing
Below the Fairday
Mine Site
Above Gary's
campsite
Above Treatment
Plant where gullies
from Bueno Mt.
enter stream
Jamestown Water
Treatment Plant
Immediately
upstream of Little
James confluence
Immediately
downstream of Little
James confluence
At Town Park
Upstream of Curie
Springs
Just downstream of
Curie Springs
Curry Springs
Upstream of Castle
Gulch
Hill Gulch
Castle Gulch
downstream of
Castle Gulch
105 25 59.3
40 05 57.57
40 06 04.78
105 25 47.83
40 0607.77
105 2546.42
40 0638.40
1052514.35
40 06.704 N
105 24.802 W
1052403.13
40 06 50.24
40 06 54.86
1052331.55
4006.981
10523.461
40 06 55.75
105 23 18.86
40 06.799
105 22.840
40 06.590
10521.529
40 06 34.34
1052129.95
40 06 34.53
1052133.40
40 0628.45
1052222.16
40 06 46.76
105 22 46.47
40 06 26.36
10521 11.79
40 06.435
10521.119
Background reference site #
2
Sedimentation from vehicle
travel (reference)
Sedimentation from vehicle
travel
Metals, sedimentation from
Fairday mine workings
Metals, sedimentation from
Bueno Mt. mine workings
Metals, sedimentation from
Little James
Metals, sedimentation from
Little James
Metals (particularly Pb)
Metals
Metals
Metals, sedimentation from
Castle Gulch
Metals, sedimentation from
Castle Gulch
Metals, sedimentation from
Castle Gulch
here.
Colleen has done
pebble counts and
benthic studies
here. CU has not
sampled here.
Colleen has done
pebble counts here.
CU has not sampled
here.
Colleen has done
pebble counts and
benthic studies
here. This is also
upstream of the
Fairday.
Colleen has done
pebble counts and
benthic studies
here. USFS has
also done pebble
counts here.
Colleen has done
pebble counts
here*.
Colleen has done
pebble counts here*
*approximate
coordinates
17
-------
5561A62
James Creek@
Buckingham Park
Little James Creek
Site
40 06 07.94
1052033.31
Rationale
Major tributary to Lefthand
Notes
Little James Creek
5562A-0
5562A-6
5562A-8
5562A10
5562A15
5562A14
5562AEM
5562A15
5562ABA
5562A16
5562A18-1
5562A-21
5562A28
5562A29
5562A32
5562A35
5562A38
Little James Creek
background
Upstream of Argo
and small tailings
Upstream of Argo
below small tailings
Downstream of Argo
discharge, upstream
of Emmit
Upstream of
Burlington Mine,
downstream of
Emmit
Just upstream of
Emmit Adit
Emmit Adit
Just upstream of
Balarat Creek
confluence
Balarat Creek
Just downstream of
Balarat Creek
confluence
upstream of JRT
TAILINGS
Downstream of JRT
tailings
Upstream of
Streamside Tailings
Along Streamside
Tailings
Downstream of
Streamside Tailings
Bottom of Waterfall
Just above
confluence with
Little James
4008 12.19
1052441.57
40 07 44.75
105 24 06.99
40 07 42.02
1052401.91
40 07 34.91
1052355.13
40.12665
105.39925
40 07 35.30
105 23 56.97
40 07 34.91
1052355.13
400735.32
1052354.41
40 07 33.74
1052354.61
40 07 27.03
1052352.35
40 07 24.99
105 23 50.84
4007 11.52
1052339.14
40.11941
105.39414
40 07 04.02
105 23 38.08
40.11674
105.39215
40 06 58.41
1052328.35
Background reference
Metals, sedimentation
from Emmit Adit and
Balarat Creek (reference)
Metals, sedimentation
from Emmit Adit and
Balarat Creek
Metals, sedimentation
from Emmit Adit and
Balarat Creek
Metals, sedimentation
from Emmit Adit and
Balarat Creek
Metals from undetermined
source (tailings, also
ephemeral trib)
Metals, sedimentation
from Streamside Tailings,
Bueno Mt.
Metals, sedimentation
from Streamside Tailings,
Bueno Mt.
Metals, sedimentation
from Streamside Tailings,
Bueno Mt.
18
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Table 6-2a: General description of analytical services requested for May 2004 sampling
MATRIX
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Sediment
Water
Sediment
ANALYSIS
(method)
Field Parameters: pH, DO, conductivity,
temperature, flow, and GPS, turbidity
Total Recoverable Metals (EPA 200.7)
Dissolved Metals (EPA 200.7)
Lithium (EPA 200. 8)
Anions: TP, SO4 (EPA 300)
TSS, DOC, TUR
Total Recoverable Metals
Macroinvertebrates (Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols)
Habitat Assessment (Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol) and particle distribution
NO. OF
SAMPLES
(without QC)
78
78
78
150
39
39
78
10
10
QC
SAMPLES
4
4
6
2
2
4
Table 6-2b: General description of analytical services requested for November 2004
sampling
MATRIX
Water
Water
Water
Sediment
Macroinv.
Fish Tissue
ANALYSIS
(method)
Field Parameters: pH, DO, conductivity,
temperature, flow, and GPS, turbidity
Total Recoverable Metals (EPA 200.7)
Dissolved Metals (EPA 200.7)
Total Recoverable Metals
Tissue Analysis - TR Metals
Tissue Analysis - TR Metals
NO. OF
SAMPLES
(without QC)
78
78
78
78
50
25
QC
SAMPLES
4
4
4
19
-------
Lefthand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Site ID#
5560A-1
5560A-TC
5560A-PU
5560 A-51
5560A-54
5560 AIN
5560A-56
i A on\
\i\^.j )
5560A-69-1
5560A-63a
f A A 1 *\
V vt i • _j
5560A-SPRI
5560A-92
t \^/i\
V vut_j
5560A-95-1
5560ALI
Description
Lefthand Creek at
Peak-to-Peak Hwy
Trib C off the peak to
peak turn off right
before
Puzzler Gulch
Lefthand above
Puzzler confl
Lefthand below
Puzzler above Ind
Indiana Gulch
Downstream of
Indiana Gulch
confluence at
Sawmill Road.
Directly below
Loader Smelter in LH
Downstream of
Tuscarora Gulch
Below Loader
Smelter
Spring Gulch
Downstream of
Spring Gulch
Above Lickskillet
below tailings
Lick Skillet Gulch
Field
Measurement
Flow, pH, DO,
temp
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
Chemical Samples
Water
DOC
5
5
5
5
Tur,
TSS,
S04
5
5
5
5
5
Total
Metals
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Diss.
Metals
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
TP,
5
5
5
5
5
Sediment
Total
Metals (#)
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
Biological sampling
Tissue
Analysis
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Species
Comp.
5
5
Habitat analysis
RBA protocols +
Beringer / King,
Particle size distr
5(ref)
USFS bugs site
above Indiana.
Almost sterile.
(particle size
distribution only)
USFS bugs site -
by picnic site (near
69)
Good population -
diversity ?
5
References
21
-------
Site ID#
5560A-96
5560A-101
( \H1\
Vv/ J)
5560ASL1
5560ASL2
5560A-103
( A7/n
V ^ ' ' /
5560A-113
f A Q/n
V^° '>
5560ANG
5560A123
f A O/n
V'vv V
5560ALE
5560A-129
5560A-127
5560A-136-
2
5560A-184
f A 1 g/l\
^'YUt^
5561A-T1
Description
Below Lick Skillet
Rd.
Above Slide Mine
At Slide Mine
downstream
discharge
At slide Mine upper
discharge
Below Slide Mine
Below Rowena
Nugget Gulch
Below Nugget Gulch
"Lee Hill Gulch"
Below "Lee Hill
Gulch"
Below 4WD at
Carnage Canyon
Below James Creek
confluence
At Haldi Headgate
James Creek at Peak-
to-Peak Hwy
Field
Measurement
Flow, pH, DO,
temp
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5,11
Chemical Samples
Water
DOC
5
5
5
Tur,
TSS,
S04
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
Metals
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Diss.
Metals
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
TP,
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Sediment
Total
Metals (#)
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Biological sampling
Tissue
Analysis
11
11
11
11
Species
Comp.
no
5
5
Habitat analysis
RBA protocols +
Beringer / King,
Particle size distr
Particle size
distribution only
USFS site
(UofC#156)
5
5(ref)
22
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Site ID#
5561A-T2
5561A-T3
5561A-T4
5561A-1
5561A-10
5561A-FD
5561A-16
5561A-28
5561A-30-
582
5561A-HI
5561A-55A
5561A-53
5561A-CU
5561ACG
Description
Below Co. Rd. 100
crossing over James
Creek
Above Forget-Me-
Not meadow
Above the Creek
Crossing
Below the Creek
Crossing
Below the Fairday
Mine Site
Trib from Fairday
Above Treatment
Plant where gullies
from Bueno Mt. enter
stream
Jamestown Water
Treatment Plant
downstream of Little
James confluence
Hill Gulch above
Elsian Park
James Creek below
Jenks Gulch
Just downstream of
Curie Springs
Curie Gulch Adit
(small bldg)
Castle Gulch
Field
Measurement
Flow, pH, DO,
temp
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
PHonly
5,11
Chemical Samples
Water
DOC
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Tur,
TSS,
S04
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
Metals
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Diss.
Metals
5,11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
TP,
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Sediment
Total
Metals (#)
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Biological sampling
Tissue
Analysis
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Species
Comp.
5
5
5
5
5
Habitat analysis
RBA protocols +
Beringer / King,
Particle size distr
5
5(ref)
5
Above John Jay
5
5 - Riverwatch
site
USFS site
23
-------
Site ID#
5561A-62
5562A-0
5562A-6
5562A-8
5562A-10
5562A-EM
5562A-15
5562ABA
5562A-16
5562A18-1
5562A-21
I A T")\
V-1 ^-i-*-)
5562A-28
/ A Qg\
\L \.±*J )
5562A-32
f A 1 1\
VVJ1,J
Description
downstream of Castle
Gulch
Little James Creek
above the Argo Mine
Little James above
small tailings & Argo
(green gate) at road
Above Argo Mine
below tailings
Upstream of
Burlington Mine
below Argo
Emmit Adit
upstream of Balarat
Creek below Emmit
Balarat Creek
downstream of
Balarat Creek
confluence
Above JRT tailings
after Fork
Below JRT tailings in
Little James
Upstream of
Streamside Tailings
Downstream of
Streamside Tailings
Field
Measurement
Flow, pH, DO,
temp
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Chemical Samples
Water
DOC
5
Tur,
TSS,
S04
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
Metals
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
Diss.
Metals
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
TP,
5
5
5
Sediment
Total
Metals (#)
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5,11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5, 11
5,11
5, 11
5,11
Biological sampling
Tissue
Analysis
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Species
Comp.
5
Habitat analysis
RBA protocols +
Beringer / King,
Particle size distr
5ref
NOT GPSd
Source sedm
samples
Source and
sediment samples
@adit
Source and
sediment samples
24
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Site ID#
5562A-38
Totals
Description
Just above
confluence with
James
55 sites
Field
Measurement
Flow, pH, DO,
temp
5,11
Chemical Samples
Water
DOC
5
20
sampl
es
Tur,
TSS,
S04
5
37
samples
Total
Metals
5, 11
85 (incl
source
samples
Diss.
Metals
5,11
85 (incl
source
samples
TP,
5
30
sampl
es
Sediment
Total
Metals (#)
5, 11
85 sedm
samples
(incl
source)
Biological sampling
Tissue
Analysis
11
Species
Comp.
5
Species
compositi
on- 10
Habitat analysis
RBA protocols +
Beringer / King,
Particle size distr
5 (sterile)
Habitat ass = 10
Particle size =11
Source Analysis
Site Name
Argo
Bueno
Emmit
Fairday
Golden Age Mine
Grand Central
JRT
Loader
Burlington Tails
Lick Skillet
Dew Drop
Totals
Background Soils
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
11
11
5-8 sites
Source Tails
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
11
11
Elutriation
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
11
11
25
-------
TABLE 6-4 ESAT MDL - ICP MS
2004
Be 9
AI27
V51
Cr52
Mn55
Co 59
NJ60
Cu65
Zn66
As 75
Se82
Mo 98
Ag 107
Cd 114
Sb121
Ba135
Hg202
TI205
Pb208
Th232
U238
MDL
1
10
3
2
2
0.2
0.4
5
3
1
1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
ccv
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2.5
50
50
50
50
ICV
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
250
50
50
50
50
50
0
50
50
50
50
ICSA
0.0
10000
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ICSAB
0.0
10000
0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CRA
2
20
12
10
2
1
1.5
10
10
5
5
1
1
1
10
2
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
Spike
50
2000
200
200
200
200
200
200
500
100
50
0
50
50
200
500
0
50
100
0
0
LCS
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
250
1000
2000
1000
0
5000
2000
0
0
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MDL Determined: 1/13/2004
26
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Table 6-5 ESATMDL ICP-OE
2004
AI3961
As1890
As1937
Ba4554
Ba4934
Be3130
Ca3158
Ca3179
Co2286
Cr2677
Fe2382
Fe2599
K_7664
Mg2790
Mn2605
M 02020
Na5889
NJ2216
Sb2068
Se1960
SIO2-2516
TI1908
V_2924
MDL
0.02
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.001
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.005
0.002
0.1
0.002
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.005
ICV
0.500
1.000
1.000
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
2.500
0.500
0.500
2.500
2.500
5.000
2.500
0.500
0.500
2.500
0.500
1.000
0.500
2.500
2.500
0.500
ccv
5.00
2.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
10.00
0.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
0.50
10.00
2.50
1.00
2.50
5.00
2.50
1.00
Spike
2.0
0.80
0.80
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.0
0.20
0.40
3.0
3.0
10
2.0
0.20
0.4
3.0
0.50
0.80
2
2
2
0.3
ICSA
60.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
0
0
250
250
0
150
0
0
50.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ICSAB
60.0
1.0
1.0
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.10
300
0.30
0.30
250
250
20.0
150
0.20
0.3
50.0
0.30
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.3
CRA
0.050
0.025
0.025
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.250
0.250
0.005
0.005
0.150
0.150
1.000
0.500
0.025
0.010
0.500
0.010
0.025
0.040
0.250
0.050
0.015
LCS
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
Cal Std
10.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
20.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
Range
250
10
10
10
10
10
1000
1000
10
10
600
600
330
1000
400
50
1000
50
5
10
50
10
10
all units = mg/L
Method = IntStdS
MDL determined 1-12-04
27
-------
Table 6-6. EPA Region 8 Laboratory Analyses:
Analyte (Specific)
Prep/
Analytical
Methods
Reporting
Limits
(RL)
Container
Preservative
Hold Time
Anions
Sulfate (SO4)
EPA 300.0
SOP 310
1 .0 mg/L
1 L HOPE
cubitainers
ChilK4°C
28 days
Wet Chemistry Inorganics
Turbidity (Tur)
EPA 180.1
SOP 307
N/A
1 LHDPE
cubitainers
Chill<4 °C
48 hours
Solids
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total suspended solids
(TSS)
EPA 160.1
SOP 304
EPA 160.2
SOP 303
4 mg/L
4 mg/L
1 L HOPE
cubitainers
1 L HOPE
cubitainers
ChilK4°C
Chill<4 °C
7 days
7 days
Nutrients
Total phosphorous (TP)
I-4600-85
SOP 320
0.02 mg/L
1 LHDPE
cubitainers
Chill<4 °C,
H2S04, pH <
2
28 days
28
-------
Left hand Watershed Sampling and Analysis Plan
Table 7: Metals QC Check Protocol for ICP, ICP-MS, and GFAA (Each Run)
QC Check (Symbol)
Quality Control Sample (ICV)
Continuing Calibration Verification
(CCV)
Spectral/Mass Interference Check for
ICP/ICP-MS (SIC/ICS)
Calibration Blank (CB)
Preparation Blank (PB)
Matrix Spike (SPK)
Lab Fortified Blank (LFB)
Duplicate Sample (DUP)
Lab Control Sample (LCS)
Serial Dilution (L) for ICP
& ICP-MS
Detection Limit Standard (DET)
Explanation
Preferably out-of-house, critiqued
standard or else standard from different
lot than calibration standards
Approximate mid-range std made from
working stds stock
Challenge each channel or line with a
potential spectral or mass interferent
Blank with same acid content as working
stds; i.e. zero point on curve
Digested or extracted blank with same
reagents as prepared unknowns
Unknown sample fortified at 10-100 X
MDL for each analyte; for high cone.
samples (spike <20% analyte cone.), no
calc. required
Spike of CB at same level as SPK
Either a field split or lab aliquot of
previous sample
For solid & liquid digested matrices, a
well-characterized known prepared same
as unknowns and of similar matrix
Unknown whose cone. >50 MDL diluted
5X
Low level standard ~ 2-5 MDL cone.
Run Frequency
Beginning of run to
verify calibration; it
may also take place of
last CCV
Every 10 samples and
at end
Once/run beginning or
end
Beginning, end and
after each CCV
Once/run or 5% -
whichever greatest
Every 10th sample for
drinking waters (DW),
otherwise 1 per 20
unknown
Once/run for DW
samples
1 per 20 unknown
1 per batch
1 per batch
Once/batch prior to
unknowns; run only
when sens criteria failed
during standardization
e.g. Mo or IR's
Acceptance Criteria
Published limits or 90-1 10%
of "true" (ICP & DW AA);
85-1 15% (AA) otherwise
90- 110% expected
For SIC's with analytes (100
±20% expected); otherwise
<±PQLforSIC&ICS
<±PQL
< PQL
Spike recovered at: 75-125%
(AA) 80-120% (ICP & ICP-
MS) waters, 65-135% (both)
solids
85-1 15% expected
<20% RSD for cone, >PQL
except for solid matrices
(<35%)
80-120% of "true" value or
published limits, waters 70-
130% of "true" value, solids
Dilution value 90-1 10% of
original for waters, 80-120%
solids
50- 150% of expected
Corrective Action
Restandardize & rerun ICV
Restandardize & rerun all samples from last
"acceptable" QC or check sample
Recalculate lEC's & rerun SIC or use an
alternate wave-length
Recalc mass eqns for ICS & rerun
Restandardize on So
Redigest all samples <10 times PQL value
Check for instrument drift. Compose 1
post-digest spike & retest. If still not
acceptable, see corrective action for L.
Same as for Matrix Spike
Check for instrument drift, noise, sample in
homogenity or contamination prior to re-
preparation
Check for corresponding high or low
results in pre-digest spikes, if similar,
redigest all samples
Dilute all samples not near RL or run by
std. additions
Correct instrument's sens, problem or else
need to redetermine & raise reporting limits
NOTE: Calibration is to be performed daily; corr. coeff. must be > 0.995. When sample values >PQL, replicate RSD must be < 20%. MDLs and linear ranges are to be redetermined annually.
A PE sample must be passed yearly. (1) Additional acceptance requirements for tuning soln. and I.S. drift
29
-------
APPENDIX A2
Lefthand Watershed Collaborative Sampling
Quality Assurance Project Plan
-------
Quality Assurance Project Plan
for the
Chemical and Biological Assessment of the Left Hand Watershed
Spring high flow and Fall low flow 2004-2005
Prepared By:
Kathryn Hernandez
EPA Region VII
999 18* Street
Denver, CO 80202
March 5, 2004
-------
APPROVALS:
Angus Campbell, Project Manager Date
Remedial Programs
Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Kathryn Hernandez, Proj ect Manager Date
Environmental Scientist
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
EP Office
Stan Christensen, RPM Date
Ecosystems Protections and Remediation
Superfund Remedial Office
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND OBJECTIVES 5
1.1 Project Task Organization 5
1.1.1 EPA Project Managers 5
1.1.2 EPA Region VIII Laboratory 6
1.1.2.1 CLP Laboratory 6
1.1.3 University of Colorado 6
1.1.4 EPA Region VIII field group 7
1.1.5 CDPHE Contractor 7
1.1.6 Quality Assurance Organization 8
1.1.7 Report Organization 8
1.2 Background and Purpose 9
1.3 Project Goal 10
1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement 10
1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives 11
1.4.1.1 Step 1: State the Problem 11
1.4.1.2 Step 2: Identify the Decision 12
1.4.1.3 Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision 13
1.4.1.4 Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries 14
1.4.1.5 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule 14
1.4.1.6 Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors 14
1.4.1.7 Step 7: Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data 15
1.4.2 Data Measurement Objectives 16
1.4.2.1 Quality Assurance Guidance 16
1.4.2.2 Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Completeness, Comparability 16
1.4.2.3 Field Measurements 18
1.4.2.4 Laboratory Analysis 18
1.5 Special Training Requirements 20
1.6 Documentation and Records 20
2 MEASUREMENT and DATA ACQUISITION 21
2.1 Sampling Process Design 21
2.2 Sampling Methods Requirements 21
2.2.1 Sampling Equipment and Preparations 21
2.2.2 Sample Containers 22
2.2.3 Samples Collection, Handling and Shipments 22
2.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements 22
2.3.1 Field Samples Custody and Documentation 22
2.3.1.1 Samples Labeling and Identification 22
2.3.1.2 Chaing of Custody Requirements 22
2.3.1.3 Sample Packaging and Shipping 23
-------
2.3.1.4 Field Logbooks and Records 23
2.3.2 Laboratory Custody 24
2.3.3 Corrections to and Deviations from Documentation 24
2.4 Analytical Methods Requirments 24
2.4.1 Laboratory QAP 24
2.4.2 Methods 24
2.5 Quality Control Requirments 25
2.5.1 Field Quality Control Samples 25
2.5.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples 25
2.5.2.1 Internal Quality Control Samples 25
2.5.2.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks 26
2.5.3 Internal Quality Control Checks 26
2.6 Equipment Maintenance Procedures 26
2.7 Instrument Calibration 26
2.7.1 Field Instruments 26
2.7.2 Laboratory Equipment 26
2.8 Acceptance Requirments 27
2.9 Non-Direct Measurement Data Acquisition 27
2.10 Data Management 27
3 ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT 27
3.1 Assessment and Response Actions 28
3.1.1 Assessments 28
3.1.2 Response Actions 28
3.2 Reports to Management 28
4 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY 28
4.1 Validations and Verification 28
4.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 29
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Quality Assurance Project PLan(QAPP) and any
subsequent revision will be distributed to the following individuals and organizations listed
below as well as anyone upon request of this document.
• Stan Christensen - Region 8 EPA - RPM
• Sabrina Forrest - Region 8 EPA - Site Assessment
• University of Colorado - Professor Joseph Ryan
• Lefthand Watershed Oversight Group (LWOG)
• Bill Schroeder - Region 8 EPA Laboratory
Section 1
Project Management and Objectives
This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) supports the surface water, groundwater, biological
and sediment sampling programs for Left Hand Watershed in Boulder, Colorado. This QAPP
was prepared in accordance with EPA QA/R-5 EPA Requirements for QAPPs, Final (EPA 2001)
and EPA's QA/G-5 guidance for QAPPs (EPA 1998). Section 1.0 presents project management
and introductory information. Section 2.0 provides guidance for measurement and data
acquisition. Section 3.0 describes assessment and oversight aspects of the project, and Section
4.0 describes data validation and usability issues. References are provided in Section 5.0.
1.1 Project/Task Organization
This section covers the basic area of project management, including project organization,
background and purpose, project description, quality objectives and criteria, roles and
responsibilities of participants, special training, documentation and records. . The surface water,
groundwater and sediment sampling program will be implemented by, Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
(CDPHE) and their consultant Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers (Walsh) and EPA
Region VIII. University of Colorado will provide assistance collecting samples. Specific QA
and sampling plans are in place for the surface water, groundwater and sediment sampling for
these programs. Analytical services for the Captain Jack Superfund site will be provided by the
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) contract at the EPA Region VIII laboratory,
and the EPA Region VIII laboratory located at 16194 W. 45th Drive, Golden, Colorado 80403.
Dr. John Gillis is the contract manager and can be reached at (303) 312-7824 or 303-312-7708.
The laboratory's main number is 303-312-7700. Analytical services for the watershed wide
samples will be provided Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) contract. Carol Beard is the
Technical Project Officer (TPO) and can be reached at 303-312-6687. Additional analytical
services to anions, TSS and turbidity will be provided by the EPA Region VIII laboratory.
1.1.1 EPA Project Managers
-------
The EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Captain Jack Superfund site is Mr. Stan
Christensen (303) 312-6694. The EPA Project Manager for the Left Hand Watershed is Kathryn
Hernandez (303) 312-6101). They have overall responsibility for the surface water and sediment
sampling investigation. Mr. Christensen and Ms. Hernandez are responsible for:
• Defining project objectives
• Establishing project policy and procedures to address the specific needs of the overall
project and of each task
• Granting final approval of project plans and reports generated by contractors
• Assuring that plans are implemented according to schedule
• Committing the resources necessary to meet project objectives and requirements
• Evaluating project staffing requirements and acquiring EPA or contractor resources as
needed to ensure performance within budget and schedule constraints
• Informing contractor personnel concerning special considerations associated with the
project
• Providing site access (if necessary)
• Reviewing work progress for each task to ensure that budgets and schedules are met
• Reviewing and analyzing overall performance with respect to goals and objectives
• Ensuring that EPA field sampling teams have the supplies and equipment needed
• Maintaining communication with the EPA Region VIII laboratory with regards to the
sampling schedule, delivery orders, and sample analysis
• Maintaining communication with the EPA Region VIII laboratory about receipt of
analytical results.
1.1.2 EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Dr. John Gillis is responsible for the ESAT contract and related QA/QC issues and keeping the
analytical service uninterrupted. Dave Ostrander of the EPA Region VIII laboratory is
responsible for the laboratory and related QA/QC issues and keeping the analytical service
uninterrupted. Additional responsibilities include:
• Scheduling laboratory personnel and material resources
• Maintaining proper chain-of-custody and performing all designed analytical services
• Preparing and delivering analytical reports to the EPA RPM
• Identifying problems, resolving difficulties in consultation with QA staff, implementing
and documenting corrective action procedures
• Maintaining QA/QC for the laboratory.
1.1.2.1 CLP Laboratory
• Scheduling laboratory personnel and material resources
• Maintaining proper chain-of-custody and performing all designed analytical services
• Preparing and delivering analytical reports to the EPA RPM
-------
• Identifying problems, resolving difficulties in consultation with QA staff, implementing
and documenting corrective action procedures
• Maintaining QA/QC for the laboratory.
1.1.3 University of Colorado
The U of C field team leader for activities to be performed in March, 2004 at the Left Hand
Watershed Site is Dr. Joseph Ryan (303-492-0772). Alice Wood is the overall manager for the
field sample collection effort and is responsible for coordination of the following activities:
• Maintaining communications with EPA regarding University of Colorado work
• Assembling and supervising University of Colorado field sampling teams
• Supervising production and review of deliverables
• Tracking work progress against planned budgets and schedules
• Scheduling personnel and material resources
• Implementing field aspects of the investigation, including this QAPP, the monitoring
plan, and other project documents.
The University of Colorado field sampling team is responsible for the following:
• Notifying the EPA RPM of the delivery of samples
• Gathering sampling equipment and field logbook(s)
• Obtaining sample containers, preservatives, and forms
• Ensuring that the quantity and location of all samples meet the requirements of
appropriate work plans.
• Identifying problems, resolving difficulties in consultation with QA staff, implementing
and documenting corrective action procedures.
• Maintaining proper chain-of-custody forms during sampling events.
1.1.4 EPA Region VIII Field Group
EPA Region VIII Laboratory field group is responsible for:
• Organizing surface water, biological and sediment sample collection
• Working with University of Colorado and EPA staff field teams to make sure samples are
collected properly and that field and chain of custody documentation is correctly
performed
• Validation of project data
• Communicating with EPA RPM, CDPHE regarding project status.
• Notifying the EPA RPM of the delivery of samples
• Gathering sampling equipment and field logbook(s)
• Obtaining sample containers, preservatives, and forms
• Ensuring that the quantity and location of all samples meet the requirements of
-------
appropriate work plans.
• Identifying problems, resolving difficulties in consultation with QA staff, implementing
and documenting corrective action procedures.
• Maintaining proper chain-of-custody forms during sampling events
1.1.5 CDPHE Project Manager
The CDPHE Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Captain Jack Superfund site is Mr. Angus
Campbell (303) 692-3385. He has overall responsibility for the surface water, groundwater and
sediment sampling investigation at the Captain Jack site. Mr. Campbell is responsible for:
• Defining proj ect obj ectives
• Establishing project policy and procedures to address the specific needs of the overall
project and of each task
• Granting final approval of project plans and reports generated by consultants
• Assuring that plans are implemented according to schedule
• Committing the available resources that are necessary to meet project objectives and
requirements
• Evaluating project staffing requirements and consultants resources as needed to ensure
performance within budget and schedule constraints
• Informing consultants personnel concerning special considerations associated with the
project
• Providing site access (if necessary)
• Reviewing work progress for each task to ensure that budgets and schedules are met
• Reviewing and analyzing overall performance with respect to goals and objectives
• Maintaining communication with the ESAT laboratory with regards to the sampling
schedule, delivery orders, and sample analysis
• Maintaining communication with the ESAT laboratory about receipt of analytical results.
1.1.5.1 CDPHE Contractor
Walsh has been selected as the CDPHE contractor. Walsh's project manager will be determined
prior to mobilization into the field. This person is responsible for the overall management and
coordination of collecting surface water, sediment and biological samples from the Captain Jack
area and performing all appropriate procedures for sample collection. The Walsh project
manager will be responsible for:
• Maintaining communications with CDPHE regarding the site work
• Assembling and supervising project team
• Production and review of deliverables
• Tracking work progress against planned budgets and schedules
• Scheduling personnel and material resources
-------
Implementing all aspects of the RI/FS work plans and applicable guidance documents,
including this QAPP, the monitoring plan, and other project documents.
Notifying the CDPHE of the field work activities
Gathering sampling equipment and field logbook(s)
Ensuring that the quantity and location of all samples meet the requirements of
appropriate work plans.
Identifying problems, resolving difficulties in consultation with QA staff, implementing
and documenting corrective action procedures.
Maintaining proper chain-of-custody forms during sampling events.
1.1.6 Quality Assurance Organization
Responsibility for Quality Assurance for the project lies with each member of the team.
However, EPA Project Coordinator, Kathryn Hernandez and RPM's Stan Christensen and Angus
Campbell remains responsible for these overall project quality objectives:
• Implementing corrective actions resulting from staff observations, QA/QC surveillance,
and/or QA audits
• Reviewing and approving project-specific plans
• Directing the overall project QA program
• Maintaining Q A oversight of the proj ect
• Reviewing QA sections in project reports as applicable
• Reviewing QA/QC procedures applicable to this project
• Initiating, reviewing, and following up on response actions, as necessary
• Arranging performance audits of measurement activities, as necessary.
1.1.7 Report Organization
This QAPP is organized in accordance with EPA's QA/R-5 guidance for preparing QAPPs. This
section (Section 1.0) presents project management and introductory information. Section 2.0
provides guidance for measurement and data acquisition. Section 3.0 describes assessment and
oversight aspects of the project, and Section 4.0 describes data validation and usability issues.
Appendix I, describes the site specific details for the Captain Jack superfund site RI/FS as they
differ from this QAPP.
1.2 Background and Purpose
The Left Hand Creek Watershed covers about 85 square miles and lies in north central Colorado
on the eastern slope of the front range of the Rocky Mountains, northwest of Boulder, Colorado.
Many intermittent streams exist throughout the watershed; however, Left Hand, James, and Little
James are the only perennial streams. The James Creek watershed covers approximately 36
10
-------
square miles from its source near Ward to its confluence with Left Hand Creek. The Little James
Creek watershed area only encompasses about three square miles. Little James Creek flows into
James Creek, which flows drains into Left Hand Creek. Combined, the basin discharges about
28,840 acre-feet annually (EPA 2003) Over 100 years of mining in this region have resulted in
heavy metal and other mining-related contamination throughout the Left Hand Creek Watershed
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE will coordinate environmental and water quality assessments and funding
efforts within the Left Hand Watershed. This effort will promote a holistic approach to assure
stakeholder coordination in establishing and achieving environmental cleanup and water quality
goals. A key component of this effort will be assuring participation between local, state and
federal stakeholders. Several stakeholders have collected mine waste, surface water/sediment,
and ground water samples.
There were synoptic surface water quality studies and data collection efforts focused on metals in
the Left Hand Watershed by University of Colorado in 2002 and 2003. The surface water quality
indicated exceedances of the acute standard for zinc and copper in section of Left Hand Creek,
James Creek and Little James Creek. Data collected in Little James Creek indicated exceedances
of aluminum, copper, lead and zinc. Under a current 319 EPA grant, a water quality assessment
report of the Left Hand Watershed is being written by the Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group
(LWOG). The focus will be to summarize the most relevant current and historic water quality
work in the Left Hand watershed in order to determine data needs and future sampling strategies.
Sampling and analysis activities in 2004 will be conducted by the USFS, USGS, CDPHE and
EPA with assistance from University of Colorado.
Left Hand Creek and Little James Creek are listed on the State of Colorado's 1998 303(d) list as
impaired for not supporting the aquatic life use classification. Both waters are listed and have a
high priority for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. The listing specified that
the numeric standards for cadmium, iron, manganese, zinc and pH, were not being attained.
Additional dissolved metals data have shown that collected by the Division of Water Quality at
CDPHE indicated that the Colorado Acute standards for copper and lead are also exceeded. The
water quality in Left Hand Creek, James Creek and Little James Creek is affected by discharges
from various mines and waste rock and mine tailings in the area. The drainage area encompasses
the historical Captain Jack and Golden Age mining districts and receives runoff from a number
of rock dumps, mill tailings and abandoned mining sites. These areas were mined for gold, lead,
silver, fluorspar (calcium fluoride) and uranium.
The EPA has conducted several Superfund Pre-remedial investigations in the Left Hand
Watershed. Although there are numerous mines throughout the watershed, only one mine is
presently on the National Priorities List. This is the Captain Jack Mill site (CERCLIS ID
COD981551427) located in the upper portion Left Hand Creek. Other mines that have been
investigated through the EPA PA/SI program are the Golden Age Mine (CERCLIS ID
CO0000023077), located in Little James and James=Creek, the , and the Slide Mine/Corning
Tunnel (CERCLIS ID CON000801995), located in the middle portion of Left Hand Creek. Site
11
-------
investigations have been completed at the Captain Jack, Golden Age, and the Slide Mines within
the district. A remedial investigation is planned to begin at the Captain Jack Mine in FY 2004.
The purpose of the watershed sampling and analysis program is to quantify the existing load of
dissolved metals, total metals in the surface water and metals concentration in sediments to assist
in determining the potential sources and their contributions to the watershed.
The purpose of this QAPP is to provide guidance to ensure that all environmentally-related data
collection procedures and measurements are scientifically sound and of known, acceptable, and
documented quality and the sampling activities are conducted in accordance with the
requirements of this project.
1.3 Project Goal
Receptors in the watershed include fisheries, wetlands, and the Left Hand Water District
drinking water intake located near the mouth of Left Hand Canyon and residents that live near
mine waste rock and tailings piles. The overall purpose of this sampling plan is to collect
additional surface water and sediment samples at high and low flows throughout the basin in
order to identify the significant loading sources of metals and to allow the stakeholders to
evaluate water quality in the various drainages of the Left Hand Canyon Watershed which
includes Left Hand Creek, Little James Creek and James Creek and their tributaries. This data
will assist in making feasibility and remedial cleanup decisions for the watershed in an effort to
meet existing water quality standards that adequately protect human health and the environment
in the Left Hand Watershed
1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement
This section provides a means for control and review of the project so that environmentally-
related measurements and data collected by the field sampling teams are of known and
acceptable quality. The subsections below describe the data quality objectives (DQOs) (Section
1.4.1) and data measurement objectives (Section 1.4.2) for the project.
1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives
The DQO process is a series of planning steps based on the scientific methods that are designed
to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data used in decision-making are
appropriate for the intended purpose. The EPA has issued guidelines to help data users develop
Left Hand Watershed Site-specific DQOs (QA/G-4; August 2000). The DQO process is
intended to:
• Clarify the study objective
• Define the most appropriate type of data to collect
12
-------
• Determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the data
• Specify acceptable levels of decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing
the quantity and quality of data needed to support the design.
The DQO process specifies project decisions, the data quality required to support those
decisions, specific data types needed, data collection requirements, and ensures that analytical
techniques are used that will generate the specified data quality. The process also ensures that the
resources required to generate the data are justified. The DQO process consists of seven steps of
which the output from each step influences the choices that will be made later in the process.
These steps are as follows:
Step 1: State the problem.
Step 2: Identify the decision.
Step 3: Identify the inputs to the decision.
Step 4: Define the study boundaries.
Step 5: Develop a decision rule.
Step 6: Specify tolerable limits on decision errors.
Step 7: Optimize the design.
During the first six steps of the process, the planning team develops decision performance
criteria (i.e., DQOs) that will be used to develop the data collection design. The final step of the
process involves refining the data collection design based on the DQOs. A brief discussion of
these steps and their application to this QAPP is provided below.
1.4.1.1 Step 1: State the Problem
Sampling by the University of Colorado and RiverWatch in 2002 and 2003 found concentration
of copper and zinc in Left Hand Creek, James Creek and Little James Creek that exceed State
water quality standards for dissolved metals.
Left Hand Creek
UOS (URS Operating Services) conducted field work at the Captain Jack Mill (CJM) site on
June 25 and 26th, 1997. Surface water and sediment samples collected along Left Hand Creek
and its tributaries on June 25 and 26, 1997, indicated elevated concentrations of aluminum,
calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese and zinc. The Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division (HMWMD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), conducted a Combined Assessment if the Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel area in Fall
2003. Sediment sampled collected from Left Hand Creek downstream of the PPE for site
contaminants indicate that pile materials are migrating from the site to the drainage and are
present at elevated concentrations in sediments 0.3 miles downstream of the site. CDPHE also
performed a high-flow sampling event on April 18, 2003. Field observations made on this
sampling date indicated that the site was discharging to Left Hand Creek.
13
-------
The Left Hand Water District experiences ongoing problems with sediment deposition related to
several off road vehicle areas, at their intake on Left Hand Creek. This District has spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars recently in efforts to mitigate the impact of these sediments.
The District spends many man and equipment hours each year removing sediment from their
intake structures.
There are potential nutrient loading concerns from the cumulative impact of Individual Sewage
Disposal Systems (ISDS).
James Creek
The Golden Age Mining district contributes runoff to James Creek. Jenks Gulch, Castle Gulch,
Hill Gulch and other drainages may be contributing additional metals to James Creek. Flat
Creek may be impaired due to excessive nutrient and sediment levels. Additional data are needed
to further diagnose these potential impairments. Indications are that metals are not impacting
James Creek upstream of Little James Creek. Metals concentrations at these sites were often
below detection. An ecological investigation of the water quality of the upper James Creek
(Duren, 2001) found that roads and off road vehicle activity may have had a negative affect on
the ecosystem health of James Creek.
Little James Creek
The Little James Creek/ James Creek watershed drains numerous adits, shafts, and tailings piles
within a part of the Jamestown Mining District, including the Burlington, Emmit, and Golden
Age Mines. The area was primarily developed for its lead-silver, fluorspar, and uranium
deposits. Aqueous samples collected 6/98 from Little James Creek show elevated concentrations
of the following total and dissolved metals; beryllium, lead, manganese, sodium, thallium, and
zinc.
1.4.1.2 Step 2: Identify the Decision
This step identifies the principal study question, defines alternative actions, and develops a
decision statement. To accomplish the objective of the investigation (i.e., whether or not water
quality meets established standards and to quantify the existing load), study questions must be
developed. For this investigation, the study questions are as follows:
What are the load contributions of the various sources in the watershed for the metals of
concern? What reductions are needed to meet water quality standards?
Are concentrations of metals of concern in waters of the Left Hand Watershed meeting
established water quality standards?
Are concentrations of site-related contaminants in sediments of the Left Hand Watershed
acceptable for maintaining a healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community and cold
water fishery?
Are concentrations of site-related contaminants in aquatic prey species safe for predatory
14
-------
species?
Are physical habitat alterations contributing to reduced aquatic life in the Left Hand
Watershed?
Are the sediment loads from Off Road Vehicle affecting the biological community in the
watershed?
Are nutrient concentrations in the watershed elevated indicating potential leakage of
individual septic systems?
If the answer is yes, the following actions may be taken:
• Complete additional investigations to determine what areas within the watershed require
and the feasibility of identified remedial actions.
1.4.1.3 Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision
The purpose of this step is to identify the information that needs to be obtained and the
measurements that need to be taken to resolve the decision statements discussed in Step 2. Since
the objective of this investigation is to determine a the current water quality, quantify the load
and assess the population of aquatic organisms both the species composition and tissue
concentration, the following data are needed and will be collected through field study and
sampling.:
• Current site-related chemical concentrations in surface water, groundwater, and sediment
with paired flow measurements in the watershed.
• Current population demographics and tissue concentrations of representative aquatic
organisms in the Left Hand Watershed.
• Current nutrient concentrations of surface water.
• Current riparian and in-stream habitat condition and physical sediment composition.
Historic data will drive decisions too - should add as applicable
• Historical surface water and sediment data in the watershed.
• Historical and new data for other parameters
• Cleanup levels or other benchmarks and standards used for comparison
The information collected during this investigation will enable the stakeholder group to make
informed choices regarding additional study needs and remedial actions.
1.4.1.4 Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries
15
-------
The spatial and temporal boundaries of the proposed investigation are described in Step 4 of the
DQO process. Step 4 defines when and where data are to be collected. Section 4.0 of the
project-specific Field Sampling Plan describes the proposed sampling design for this
investigation. In general terms, the geographic limits of the study area include:
• The Little James Creek, James Creek and tributaries, and Left Hand Creek and
tributaries
The temporal boundary for the water quality investigation is controlled by the most appropriate
times of the year to collect surface water/sediment, macroinvertebrate, source/soil data. The
schedule for the sampling events will be decided based on review of existing monitoring data
collected by other stakeholders and from local observations regarding stream flow in the
watershed.
1.4.1.5 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule
The decision rule for this project depends on whether the water quality in the Left Hand
Watershed has met identified water quality standards for what analytes at what standards. Could
add a table to show the benchmarks/stds we're using. If those standards are not met, the decision
will be either to determine what sources contribute the greatest load and prioritize those sites for
clean up actions.
If water quality standards are met, then no further action will be needed. If not, then the
frequency and duration of standards exceedence and the effects to aquatic life will be evaluated
to determine what if any actions are needed. Additional investigations may be undertaken to
determine the nature and practicality of possible source removal/remedial alternatives.
1.4.1.6 Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors
Decision maker's tolerable limits on decision errors, which are established performance goals for
the data collection design, are specified in this step. Decision makers are interested in knowing
the true value of the constituent concentrations. Since analytical data can only estimate these
values, decisions that are based on measurement data could be in error. These errors are:
(1) Concentrations may vary over time and space. Limited sampling may miss some
features of this natural variation because it is usually impossible or impractical to
measure every point of a population. Sampling design errors occur when the sampling
design is unable to capture the complete extent of natural variability that exists in the
true state of the environment.
(2) Analytical methods and instruments are never absolutely perfect, hence a measurement
16
-------
can only estimate the true value of an environmental sample. Measurement error refers
to a combination of random and systematic errors that inevitably arise during the
various steps to the measurement process.
The combination of sampling design and measurement error is the total study error. Since it is
impossible to completely eliminate total study error, basing decisions on sample concentrations
may lead to a decision error. The probability of decision error is controlled by adopting a
scientific approach in which the data are used to select between one condition (the null
hypothesis) and another (the alternative hypothesis). The null hypothesis is presumed to be true
in the absence of evidence to the contrary. For this project the null hypothesis is that the true
value of the constituents are above the water quality standards. The alternative hypothesis is that
the true values of the constituents are below the water quality standards.
A false positive or "Type I" decision error refers to the type of error made when the null
hypothesis is rejected when it is true and a false negative or "Type II" decision error refers to the
type of error made when the null hypothesis is accepted when it is false. For this project, a Type
I decision error would result in deciding that the inorganic constituent concentrations are below
the action levels when they are not. A Type II decision error would result in deciding that the
inorganic constituent concentrations are not below the standards action levels when they are.
For this project, a Type I error is less acceptable (worse case) than a Type II error because a
Type I error could result in ecological and/or human harm whereas, a Type II error could result
in remediation and further improvement in water quality.
Due to the complexity of the site and seasonal variations of contaminant levels in various sources
throughout the site, several years of sampling effort, measured at critical time periods should
decrease the amount of error involved in this project. By taking many measurements over a long
period of time, overall improvements in water quality and trends aquatic life should be
accurately measured and the impact of errors from a single sample or sampling event should be
minimized. It is anticipated that the overall trend of water quality and biological life will be of
critical importance in the final decision on water quality and the need for any further remedial
action.
1.4.1.7 Step 7: Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data
EPA with the approval of CDPHE designed the surface water, sediment, and biological sampling
program and habitat assessment. If additional sampling locations need to be dropped, added,
changed or the schedule of sampling needs to be altered to improve sampling design, they will
be. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the sampling program will be performed on a continuous
basis.
1.4.2 Data Measurement Objectives
Every reasonable attempt will be made to obtain a quality and acceptable set of usable field
measurements and analytical data. If a measurement cannot be obtained or is unusable for any
17
-------
reason, the effect of the missing or invalid data will be evaluated. In order to determine data
usability, data quality indicators consisting of precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness, comparability, and sensitivity (PARCCS) will be evaluated, as described in
Section 1.4.2.2
1.4.2.1 Quality Assurance Guidance
The field QA program has been designed in accordance with EPA's guidance for the Data
Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G4 ( August 2000), and EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans, QA/R-5 (EPA 2001).
1.4.2.2 Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Completeness,
Comparability and Sensitivity Parameters
PARCCS are indicators of data quality, PARCCS goals are established to aid in assessing data
quality. The following paragraphs define PARCCS parameters associated with this project.
Precision. The precision of a measurement is an expression of mutual agreement among
individual measurements of the same property taken under prescribed similar conditions.
Precision is quantitative and most often expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD).
Precision of the laboratory analysis will be assessed by comparing original and duplicate results.
The RPD will be calculated for each pair of duplicate analyses using the following equation:
RPD= |S - D x 100/((S+D) 12}
Where:
S = First sample value (original Value)
D = Second sample value (duplicate value)
Precision of reported results is a function of inherent field-related variability plus laboratory
analytical variability, depending on the type of QC sample. Various measures of precision exist
depending upon "prescribed similar condition." Field duplicate samples will be collected to
provide a measure of the contribution to overall variability of field-related sources. Acceptable
RPD limits for field duplicate measurements will be less than or equal to < 20% for aqueous
matrices. Contribution of laboratory-related sources to overall variability is measured through
various laboratory QC samples. Acceptable RPD limits for laboratory measurements are
provided in Table 1-1.
Accuracy. Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or
true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Accuracy is quantitative and usually
expressed as the percent recovery (%R) of a sample result. The %R is calculated as follows:
% Recovery = (SSR -SR / DA) xlOO
18
-------
Where:
SSR = Spiked Sample Result
SR = Sample Result
SA = Spike Added
Ideally, it is desirable for the reported concentration to equal the actual concentration present in
the sample. Analytical data will be evaluated for accuracy. Matrix spikes (MS) and / or
laboratory control samples/laboratory control sample duplicates (LCS/LCSDs) will be used,
whichever is applicable. Acceptable % R for analytical data associated with this investigation are
provided in Table 1-1.
Representativeness. Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately
and precisely represent the following:
• The characteristic being measured
• Parameter variations at a sampling point
• An environmental condition.
Representativeness is a qualitative and quantitative parameter that is most concerned with the
proper design of the sample plan and the absence of cross-contamination of samples. Acceptable
representativeness will be achieved through (1) careful, informed selection of sampling
locations, (2) selection of testing parameters and methods that adequately define and characterize
the extent of possible contamination and meeting the required parameter reporting limits, (3)
proper gathering and handling of samples to avoid interferences and prevent contamination and
loss, and (4) use of uncontaminated sample containers as the sample collection tool, eliminating
the need for decontamination of sampling equipment and possible cross contamination of
samples.
Representativeness is a consideration that will be employed during all sample location and
collection efforts. The representativeness will be assessed qualitatively by reviewing the
procedures and design of the sampling event and quantitatively by reviewing the laboratory
blank samples. If an analyte is detected in a laboratory blank, any associated positive result less
than five times the detected concentration of the blank may be considered undetected. Field
blanks will not be collected during this investigation.
Completeness. Completeness is a measure of the amount of usable data obtained from a
measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct
normal conditions. Usability will be determined by evaluation of the PARCCs parameters
excluding completeness. Those data that are reviewed and need no qualification or are qualified
as estimate or undetected are considered usable. Rejected data are not considered usable.
Completeness will be calculated following data evaluation. A completeness goal of 90% is
projected for the data set collected for this investigation. If the completeness goal of 90% is not
met, additional sampling may be necessary to adequately achieve project objectives.
19
-------
Completeness is calculated using the following equation:
% Completeness = (DO/DP) x 100
Where:
DO = Data Obtained and usable
DP = Data Planned to be obtained
Comparability. Comparability is a qualitative parameter. Consistency in the acquisition,
handling, and analysis of samples is necessary for comparison of results. Data developed under
this investigation will be collected and analyzed using standard EPA analytical methods and QC
procedures to ensure comparability of results with other analyses performed in a similar manner.
Data resulting from this field investigation may subsequently be compared to other data sets.
Sensitivity. Sensitivity is the achievement of method detection limits and depends on instrument
sensitivity and sample matrix effects. Therefore, it is important to monitor the sensitivity of data-
gathering instruments to ensure that data quality is met through constant instrument performance.
Instrument sensitivity will be monitored through the analysis of blanks. Reporting limits are
presented in Tablel-1.
1.4.2.3. Field Measurements
Field data will be collected as outlined in the surface water, biological, sediment monitoring and
habitat assessment sampling plan.
1.4.2.4 Laboratory Analysis
Guidelines for analytical methods, reporting limits, holding times, and QC analyses are discussed
below. The sampling and analysis plan provides laboratory analytical methods and reporting
limits applicable to that study.
Analytical Methods
Laboratory analysis will be conducted at the EPA Region VIII Laboratory by the Region Lab
and ESAT contract and at CLP. Surface water, sediment and biological samples collected under
this QAPP will be analyzed for the following parameters using analytical methods identified
below:
EPA Region 8 Lab Analytical Methods:
Dissolved Organic Carbon (EPA Method 415.1)
Sulfate (EPA Method 375.1-4)
Total phophorus (1-4600-85)
Total suspended solids (EPA Method 160.2)
Turbidity (EPA Method 180.1)
20
-------
ESAT Analytical Methods:
For metals 200.7 and 200.8.
Anions 300.0
IDS 160.1
TSS 160.2
Hardness 2340B
Alkalinity 310.1 or 310.2
ESAT are on the prep for total versus total recoverable metals. ESAT will follow SW846 method
3015 for total metals. The SOP is in progress now.
CLP Analytical Methods:
Soils/water ILMO5.2AEF
For dissolved/total metals ILM O 5.3 MS
ESAT Target Analyte List - ICP/MS
2004
Be 9
AI27
V51
Cr52
Mn55
Co 59
Ni60
Cu65
Zn66
As 75
Se82
Mo 98
Ag 107
Cd 114
Sb121
Ba 135
Hg202
TI205
Pb208
Th232
U238
MDL CCV
1
10
3
2
2
0.2
0.4
5
3
1
1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2.5
50
50
50
50
ICV
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
250
50
50
50
50
50
0
50
50
50
50
ICSA ICSAB CRA Spike
0.
.0
10000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0.
.0
10000
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
0.
0.
20.
20.
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
20
12
10
2
1
1.5
10
10
5
5
1
1
1
10
2
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
50
2000
200
200
200
200
200
200
500
100
50
0
50
50
200
500
0
50
100
0
0
LCS Units
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
1000ug/L
2000 ug/L
1000ug/L
1 000 ug/L
250 ug/L
1000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
1000 ug/L
Oug/L
5000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
Oug/L
Oug/L
MDL Determined: 1/13/2004
Reporting Limits
The reporting limits are presented in the sampling plan. If the result is between the instrument
detection limit (IDL) and the reporting limit, the value will be reported as an estimated
concentration and qualified by the laboratory. The achievement of the IDL depends on
21
-------
instrument sensitivity. It is therefore important for the laboratory to monitor the sensitivity of
data-gathering instruments to ensure data quality through constant instrument performance
checks.
Holding Times
Holding times are storage times allowed between sample collection and sample analysis when
the designated preservation and storage techniques are employed. Required holding times must
be considered when determining the method of shipment. Holding times and preservation for
each analytical method used in specific investigations are provided in the surface water and
sediment sampling plans.
Quality Control Analyses
To provide an external check of the quality of the field procedures and laboratory analytical data,
field duplicate samples will be collected at a rate of 5% per media/event and submitted to the
each laboratory, in accordance with standard QA protocol. Duplicate samples provide a check
for sampling and analytical error. The frequency of duplicate sample collection that will be
analyzed for the surface water investigation are discussed in Section 5.0 of the FSP of the surface
water work plan. If disposable equipment is used to collect samples (eliminating the need for
decontamination), equipment rinsate blanks may be omitted.
In addition to the external QA/QC controls, internal QA procedures are maintained by the
laboratory. Internal QC samples may include laboratory blanks (i.e., method blanks, preparation
blanks), laboratory duplications, matrix spikes, and laboratory control samples (known
standards). Double volume samples will be collected for water samples at a rate of 5% and
submitted for MS analysis. To ensure the laboratory analyzes MS's, designated samples will be
labeled and noted on the chain-of-custody forms as extra volume sample for MS analyses.
1.5 Special Training Requirements
EPA and CDPHE, will ensure that qualified, experienced, and trained staff perform or oversee
all data collection and sampling tasks. Each entity involved in this project is responsible for the
safely of its employees.
1.6 Documentation and Records
Each laboratory will submit their standard analytical data reports to the either the EPA RPM or
state project officer. Each data report will contain a case narrative that briefly describes the
number of samples, the analyses, and any noteworthy analytical difficulties or QA/QC issues
associated with the submitted samples. The data report will also include signed chain-of-custody
forms, cooler receipt forms, analytical data, and a QC package. The CLP will provide both hard
copy of the raw analytical data and a validated electronic spreadsheet of the final individual
sample results. ESAT and the EPA laboratory will provide a paper hard copy and an electronic
22
-------
data deliverable with samples and quality assurance results. A PDF file of all data will be
provided. The analytical data will be formatted to be compatible with CDPHE's EQUIS database
and EPA's STORET database. The state project officer will be responsible for entering all data
provided by the laboratories into their EQUIS database system, which will then be transferred
into EPA STORET.
A record of samples, analyses, and field events will be kept in a field logbook.
Section 2
Measurement and Data Acquisition
This section covers sample process design and implementation, sampling methods requirements,
handing and custody, analytical methods, QC, equipment maintenance, instrument calibration,
supply acceptance, non-direct measurements, and data management. The field procedures are
designed so that the following occurs:
• Sample collection is consistent with project objectives
• Samples are collected in a manner so that data represent actual Left Hand Watershed
site conditions.
2.1 Sample Process Design
The general goal of the field investigation is to obtain surface water quality and sediment and
biological data.. The number, types, and locations of samples are outlined in the surface water,
sediment, biological and habitat sampling plan.
2.2 Sampling Methods Requirements
Sampling equipment, containers, and overall field management for the sampling and assessment
is described below.
2.2.1 Sampling Equipment and Preparation
Equipment required for sampling, health and safety, documentation, and field parameter
monitoring is presented in the sample plan.
Field preparatory activities include, procurement of field equipment, laboratory coordination,
confirmation of site access (if necessary), as well as a field planning meeting that includes field
personnel and QA staff.
2.2.2 Sample Containers
Clean polyethylene sample containers (or cubitainers) will be pre-rinsed with an aliquot of the
water to be sampled, and then emptied before collecting and preserving (as required) samples in
the field. The containers will be provided by the Region VIII Laboratory.
23
-------
2.2.3 Sample Collection, Handling, and Shipment
Samples collected during this investigation consist of surface water, sediment, biological, and
duplicate samples. Surface water sample collection procedures are outlined in the sampling and
analysis plan and the Compendium of Standard Operating Procedures (EPA, 1996).
2.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
Custody and documentation for field and laboratory work are described below, followed by a
discussion of corrections to documentation.
2.3.1 Field Sample Custody and Documentation
The information contained on the sample label and the chain-of-custody record will match. The
purpose and description of the sample label and the chain-of-custody record is discussed in the
following sections.
2.3.1.1 Sample Labeling and Identification
An numeric coding system will identify each sample collected during sampling events. The
coding system will provide a tracking record to allow retrieval of information about a particular
sample and to ensure that each sample is uniquely identified. Sample numbers will correlate with
locations to be sampled. The nomenclature that has been decided on was based on existing
naming conventions established for this watershed in STORET.
Sample labels or tags will be completed and affixed to the appropriate sample containers.
Preprinted labels may be used. These labels will be secured with waterproof tape and will
include the sample identification number, the parameter (s) to be analyzed, the sampler's initials,
and the preservative used. At the time of sample collection, a member of the field team will add
the date and time of sample collection.
2.3.1.2 Chain-of-Custody Requirements
Chain-of-custody procedures and sample shipment will follow the requirements stated of the
individual laboratories. CLP requires Forms II Lite. . The chain-of-custody record is employed
as physical evidence of sample custody and control. This record system provides the means to
identify, track, and monitor each individual sample from the point of collection through final
data reporting. A complete chain-of-custody record is required to accompany each shipment of
samples.
2.3.1.3 Sample Packaging and Shipping
24
-------
Samples will be packaged and shipped in accordance with SOP No. 10 Sampling Handling,
Documentation and Analysis. Samples will be placed in a cooler with ice. Custody seals will be
placed over the cooler, then secured by tape. Samples collected by CDPHE, and /^ of the
biological samples collected for species diversity will be shipped or delivered to:
John Gillis
EPA Region VIII laboratory
16194 W. 45th Drive
Golden, CO 80403
(303) 312-7700 (main lab)
(303) 312-7824 John's Downtown Denver Office
(303) 312-7708 John's Lab Office
Sediment, surface water and biological samples collected for total and dissolved metals analysis
and will be shipped or delivered to:
Contract Laboratory Services
Xxxx
Xxxx
Xxxx
Surface water samples collected for TSS, turbidity, total phosphorus and dissolved organic
carbon; sediment samples for particle size analysis and the biological samples collected for
species diversity analysis will be shipped or delivered to:
EPA Region VIII laboratory
16194 W. 45th Drive
Golden, CO 80403
(303) 312-7700 (main lab)
2.3.1.4 Field Logbooks and Records
Field logbooks will be maintained by each field team. The log is an accounting of the
accomplishment of scheduled activities, and will duly note problems or deviations from the
governing plan and observations relating to the field program. The EPA RPM will be provided
copies of the logbooks to include in the official project files.
2.3.2 Laboratory Custody Procedures and Documentation
EPA and ESAT Laboratory custody procedures are provided in the laboratory's QA management
plan. Upon receipt at the laboratory, each sample shipment will be inspected to assess the
condition of the shipping cooler and the individual samples. This inspection will include
measuring the temperature of the temperature blank within the cooler to document that the
temperature of the samples is within the acceptable criteria (4+2 degrees Celsius), if samples are
25
-------
cooled, and verifying sample integrity. The pH of the samples will also be measured, if preserved
with an acid or base. The enclosed chain-of-custody records will be cross-referenced with all of
the samples in the shipment. These records will then be signed by the laboratory sample
custodian and copies provided to the EPA. The sample custodian will continue the chain-of-
custody record process by assigning a unique laboratory number to each sample on receipt. This
number will identify the sample through all further handling. It is the laboratory's responsibility
to maintain internal logbooks and records throughout sample preparation, analysis, data
reporting, and disposal. CLP uses its own SOPs.
2.3.3 Corrections to and Deviations from Documentation
For the logbooks, a single strikeout initialed and dated is required for documentation charges.
The correct information should be entered in close proximity to the erroneous entry. All
deviations from the guiding documents will be recorded in the field logbook (s). Any
modifications to chain-of-custody forms will be made on all copies, The EPA RPM will be
notified of any major changes or deviations.
2.4 Analytical Methods Requirements
The laboratory QA program and analytical methods are addressed below.
2.4.1 Laboratory Quality Assurance Program
EPA Region VIII laboratory, ESAT and CLP will be used as the laboratory for this investigation.
Samples collected during this project for the EPA Lab and ESAT will be analyzed in accordance
with methods determined by the EPA (see laboratory Quality Management Plan). CLP uses its
own methods.
2.4.2 Methods
The methods to be used for chemical analysis will be determined by the EPA. The holding time
requirements for each analytical method are determined by the analytical methods.
Macroinvertebrate Sorting and Analysis and DOC
In the laboratory, samples will be sorted and organisms will be identified to the lowest practical
taxonomic level ( genus or species for most taxa; subfamily for chironimids).
Bioavailibility of heavy metals in the field will be measured using the fiter-feeding caddisfly
Arctopsyche Grandis (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Arctopsyche is a relatively large, widely-
distributed caddisfly found in many Rocky Mountain streams. Because Arctopsyche is highly
tolerant of heavy metals, this species can be collected from both reference and metal-
contaminated sites. Caddisflies will be collected from field sites, placed in 20 mL acid-rinced
vials and immediately placed on ice. Where possible, replicate samples (n=3) will be collected
26
-------
from field sites. Where available, heptageniid mayflies, a grazer, will also be collected. Metal
analysis will done using ICP-MS.
2.5 Quality Control Requirements
Field, laboratory, and internal office QC are discussed below.
2.5.1 Field Quality Control Samples
Each field duplicate will be collected at a single sampling location and collected identically and
consecutively over a minimum period of time. This type of field duplicate measures the total
system variability (field and laboratory variance), including the variability component resulting
from the inherent heterogeneity of the medium. Field duplicates will be collected at a minimum
frequency of one per 20 samples per media/event.
2.5.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples
EPA Region VIII, ESAT and CLP laboratories will follow all laboratory QC checks, which may
include matrix spikes, laboratory control samples, laboratory duplicates and laboratory blanks
(i.e., method blanks, preparation blanks).
2.5.2.1 Internal Quality Control Samples
QC data are necessary to determine precision and accuracy and to demonstrate the absence of
interferences and/or contamination of glassware and reagents. Each type of laboratory-based QC
sample will be analyzed at a rate of 5% or one per batch (batch is a group of up to 20 samples
analyzed together), whichever is more frequent. Results of the QC will be included in the data
package and QC samples will consist of laboratory duplicates, laboratory blanks, MSs, and
LCS/LCSDs, whichever is applicable, and any other method-required QC samples.
Laboratory blank samples will be analyzed to assess possible contamination so that corrective
measures may be taken, if necessary. Laboratory duplicate samples are aliquots of a single
sample that are split on arrival at the laboratory or upon analysis. Results obtained for two
replicates that are split in a controlled laboratory environment will be used to assess laboratory
precision of the analysis. MS and LCS analyses may be used to determine both precision and
accuracy.
2.5.2.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks
A calibration standard is prepared in the laboratory by dissolving a known amount of a
standardized compound in an appropriate matrix or dilution. The final concentration calculated
from the known quantities is the true value of the standard. Where applicable, reference standard
solutions will be traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology or other
nationally recognized source. The analysis results obtained from these standards are used to
27
-------
prepare a standard curve and, thereby, quantify the compounds found in the environment
samples.
The number of calibration standards is prescribed by each individual analytical method
procedure.
2.5.3 Internal Quality Control Checks
Internal QC checks will be conducted throughout the project to evaluate the performance of the
project team during data generation. All internal QC will be conducted in accordance with the
applicable procedures listed below:
• All project deliverables will receive technical and QA reviews prior to being issued.
Completed review forms will be maintained in the project files
• Corrective action of any deficiencies is the responsibility of the ESAT/EPA/CLP
manager.
2.6 Equipment Maintenance Procedures
All laboratory equipment will be maintained in accordance with the laboratory's SOPs.
2.7 Instrument Calibration Procedures and Frequency
Calibration of field and laboratory instruments is addressed in the following subsections.
2.7.1 Field Instruments
Field instruments used to measure data will be used during this investigation. Field
measurements will include flow measurements and surface water pH, temperature, and specific
conductance. Portable meters will be used to obtain field measurements. The instrument will be
calibrated prior to use each day and as often as needed to maintain calibration in accordance with
the manufacturer's instruction.
2.7.2 Laboratory Equipment
Calibration of laboratory equipment will be based on written procedures approved by laboratory
management. Instruments and equipment will be initially calibrated and continuously calibrated
at required intervals as specified by either the manufacturer or more updated requirements (e.g.,
methodology requirements).
Records of initial calibration, continuing calibration and verification, repair and replacement will
be filed and maintained by the laboratory. Calibration records will be filed and maintained at the
laboratory location where the work is performed and may be required to be included in
evaluation data reporting packages.
28
-------
2.8 Acceptance Requirements for Supplies
Prior to acceptance, all supplies and consumables will be inspected by the EPA, CDPHE
contractor or University of Colorado student field sampling team or other contractors to ensure
that they are in satisfactory condition and free of defects.
2.9 Non-direct Measurement Data Acquisition Requirements
Sampling locations within the site have been established prior to this investigation. No non-direct
measurement data acquisition requirements exist at this time.
2.10 Data Management
Each laboratory will submit their standard analytical data reports to the either the EPA RPM or
state project officer. Each data report will contain a case narrative that briefly describes the
number of samples, the analyses, and any noteworthy analytical difficulties or QA/QC issues
associated with the submitted samples. The data report will also include signed chain-of-custody
forms, cooler receipt forms, analytical data, and a QC package. The CLP will provide both hard
copy of the raw analytical data and a validated electronic spreadsheet of the final individual
sample results. ESAT and the EPA laboratory will provide a paper hard copy and an electronic
data deliverable with samples and quality assurance results. A PDF file of all data will be
provided. The analytical data will be formatted to be compatible with CDPHE's EQUIS database
and EPA's STORET database. The state project officer will be responsible for entering all data
provided by the laboratories into their EQUIS database system, which will then be transferred
into EPA STORET.
After validation by CDPHE, data will be made available to EPA, University of Colorado on
CD's updated quarterly and other parties through the STORET website. .
Section 3
Assessment and Oversight
Assessments and oversight reports are necessary to ensure that procedures are followed as
required and that deviations from procedures are documented. These reports also address
activities for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of the project and associated QA
and QC activities and serve to keep management current on field activities.
3.1 Assessments and Response Actions
3.1.1 Assessments
29
-------
Performance assessments are quantitative checks on the quality of measurement systems.
Performance assessments for the laboratory can include "blind" reference samples, samples of
known concentration. The samples may be included in the sampling stream to evaluation
laboratory performance.
System assessments are qualitative reviews of different aspects of project work to check on the
use of appropriate QC measures and the functioning of the QA system. System assessments
include field and office audits. EPA and CDPHE will each be responsible for overseeing the
quality control aspects of each of their contractors. EPA is responsible for the overall Quality
Control assessment of the project and may perform system audits at any time.
3.1.2 Response Actions
Response Actions will be implemented on a case-by-case basis to correct quality problems.
Minor response actions taken in the field to immediately correct a quality problem will be
documented in the applicable field logbook and verbally reported to the EPA RPM. Major
response actions taken in the field will be approved by the EPA RPM prior to implementation of
the change. Such actions may include revising field procedures, re-sampling and/or retesting,
changing sampling frequency, etc. Quality control problems that cannot be corrected quickly
through routine procedures require implementation of a corrective action request (see figure 3-1).
This action can be initiated by the RPM or field personnel if the need arises.
3.2 Reports to Management
QA reports to the RPM will be provided whenever quality problems are encountered. Field
teams will note any quality problems in the applicable logbook or other form of documentation.
Section 4 Data Validation and Usability
Laboratory results will be reviewed for compliance with project objectives. The EPA Laboratory
and ESAT contractors will be responsible for validation of their surface water laboratory data
4.1 Validation and Verification Methods
Data validation consists of examining the data packages against pre-determined standardized
requirements set forth in this QAPP and referenced methods. The validator examines the
reported results, QC summaries, case narrative, instrument calibration runs, chain-of-custody
information, raw data, QC samples, calibration, blank results, and other information as
appropriate to the data package. The validator checks to determine if project quality objectives
were met in the analysis of the data and qualifies data according the National Functional
Guidelines for data review.
30
-------
4.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
The analytical data will be provided to all interested parties and decision makers. The data will
be examined to determine compliance with water quality standards and quantification of
potential sources. In addition, the data collected for this project will be used to help proritize
cleanup sites.
-------
Left Hand Watershed QA Corrective Action Request
Project:
Requested by: Date:
Condition noted:
Is condition adverse to Quality of proj ect? Yes No_
Person/organization responsible
Requested Change:
Corrective Action(s) taken to correct problem (to be filled out by person responsible, use
additional pages if needed).
Corrective Action Plan Accepted Date:
Verified by: Date:_
Corrective Action Accepted Date:
32
-------
APPENDIX A3
Agency Sampling Worksheet
-------
LEFTHAND WATERSHED
Agency Sampling Worksheet
Area/Segment
Media
Sample#/ Locations
Timing / Freq.
Needed
eg 1 yr, 2yr, 12yr
When Sampling
Planned/ Wanted
Analyses Needed
Analyzed by Who
EPA Capacity
Lead Time needed
Program/Stakeholder
LWOG/CU
Little James (above
Argo to James Cr)
Water
Tracer dilution/ metal
loading test
-30 sample
locations
-end of "local"
snowmelt
-Late March, April?
Late March, April
Metals, Cu, Zn, Pb,
Fe, Mn, Al, Ca, Mg
at a min.
Need help
($ running out)
Help with analysis
CDPHE
Brownfields: Argo
only
Superfund:
Captain Jack
Brownfields:
SW = 2-3
locations
Soils =5-1 5
SF:
Soils, sedm, water-
sw/gw, biota
High / low flows
High/low
Seasonal, two
years
High - March
Low - Aug/
September 2004
Total/dissolved
metals
WQ for piper stifts
diagrams
Total/dissolved
metals, alkalinity,
hardness
Analytica
EPA
EPA
Watershed
As needed
High/ low flows
The sooner the
better for the EPA
lab.
Total/ dissolved
metals, hardness,
macroinvertebrate
EPA Lab
ESAT (Lab)
USFWS
Invertebrate
Field sampling
-possibly fish
(will coordinate
with USGS,
USFS, EPA &
CDOW for fish
tissues
Community (ID
species)
Tissue
concentrations
(fish & invert)
EPA, CSU
(CDPHE)?
USGS
Whole
watershed
Streambed
sediment,
surface water -
total/dissolved
Up to 30 sites
One time
Low flow
Metals
USGS - internal
USFS
Loder Smelter
Wano tailings -
Jamestown
Golden Age/
Castle Gulch
Castle Gulch
down to
Lefthand water
intake
Water -3
locations
Soil - 3
locations
Invertebrates
High/low flow
2 times/year
Spring
Fall
Total/dissolved
metals
Inverts -
community ID
Tissue Analysis
TDS/ turbidity/
TSS
Water samples
to contract lab.
Inverts?
JCWI
James Creek -Peak to Peak to
Jamestown
Little James Creek at mouth
Water quality, some turbidity
Basic chemistry and metals
(total and dissolved)
6 sites -capture impacts from
John Jay Mine, Fairday Mine
and Little James cumulative
Monthly (currently)
Currently continuous
-wish to expand area/ extent
downstream
TSS/
Macroinvertebrates,/pebble
count - imbeddedness
Division of Wildlife
(Riverwatch)
EPA QAPP
-------
APPENDIX B
Standard Guidance to Format Sample Results, Field
Measurements, and Associated Metadata
-------
Standard Guidance to Format Sample Results,
Field Measurements, and Associated Metadata
Environmental Protection Agency Region 8
Updated July 22,2004
General Information
This document describes how environmental data must be formatted before it can be submitted to USEPA Region 8's data archive.
Data providers are requested to create data tables and save them as tab-delimited text files. Most commonly available software products
such as Microsoft Access, Excel, and Lotus 1-2-3 can create tab-delimited files but remember:
I. To not to include text delimiters such as quotation marks
II. To not include a row of column headings at the beginning of your files
III. To delineate individual fields or columns using a tab
IV. To not include tabs anywhere in the actual data that you are formatting
There are two types of metadata tables that must be successfully submitted before you submit sampling data and field measurements:
1 PROJECTS Documents the reasons why samples or field measurements were collected
2 LOCATIONS Describes stations where samples are collected and/or field measurements are made
For non-bioJogicaJtesvlts, there are two different types of tables that can be submitted:
3 FIELD MEASUREMENTS Results of measurements or observations made in the field
4 CHEMISTRY Results of non-biological samples analyzed in a laboratory
For biological results, there are three different types of tables that can be submitted:
5 INDIVIDUALS Physical attributes associated with individual organisms
6 TAXON ABUNDANCE Census results associated with populations of biological organisms
7 TISSUE Results of tissue samples analyzed in a laboratory
The following sections list the data fields and format restrictions that are associated with each type of data table. For more information
or to request deviations from these data formats, contact Martin McComb at 303-312-6963 or mccomb.martin@epa.gov.
-------
1 PROJECTS
This type of table contains data documenting the reasons why samples or field measurements were collected. The columns, order, and
specific requirements in this table type are: (required fields are flagged with "R")
Column Order. Name
1. Project ID
2. Project Name
3. Project Start Date
4. Project Duration
5. Project Purpose
6. Project Contact
Column Definition
Jser defined identifier for a specific data collection effort.
A user defined name for a specific data collection effort.
Date on which a specific data collection effort began.
Planned duration of a specific data collection effort.
Reasons why a specific data collection effort was initiated.
Contact information for party responsible for data collection effort.
Specific Requirements
Free Text: 8 character limit
Free Text: 60 character limit
Acceptable Format: MM/DD/YYYY
Free Text: 15 character limit
Free Text: 1999 character limit
Free Text: 1999 character limit
2 LOCATIONS
This type of table contains data describing stations (both surface points and wells) where samples are collected and/or field measurements
are taken. The columns, order, and specific requirements in this table type are: (required fields are flagged with "R")
Column Order. Name
1. Location ID
2. Location Name
3. Location Primary Type
4. Location Secondary Type
5. Latitude
5. Longitude
7. Lat/Long Method
Column Definition
[D representing a station where a sample is collected or a field measurement is
taken.
STame representing the station identified by Location ID.
j'rimary type of location at which samples are collected and field measurements are
made.
Secondary type of location at which samples are collected and field measurements
are made. Use "None" for all Primary Types except Canal, Facility, and Wetland.
^atitude, in decimal degrees, of a well or location where a sample is collected or
neld measurements are made.
^ongitude, in decimal degrees, of a station where a sample is collected or field
measurements are made.
Method used to determine the representative Latitude and Longitude coordinates.
Specific Requirements
Free Text: 15 character limit
Free Text: 60 character limit
Valid Values:
Canal
Cave
Channelized stream
Combined sewer
Constructed Wetland
Estuary
Facility
Gallery
Great Lake
Lake
Land
Land runoff
Landfill
Mine/mine discharge
Ocean
Reservoir
River/Stream
Riverine impoundment
Spring
Storm sewer
Waste pit
Waste sewer
Well
Wetland
Valid Values:
Drainage Canal
Irrigation Canal
Transport Canal
Industrial Facility
Municipal Sewage (POTW) Facility
Municipal Water Supply (PWS) Facility
Other/combined Facility
Privately Owned non- Industrial Facility
Estuanne, emergent Wetland
Estuarme, forested Wetland
Estuanne, scrub-shrub Wetland
Lacustrine, emergent Wetland
Palustnne, emergent Wetland
Palustrme, forested Wetland
Palustnne, moss-lichen Wetland
Palustnne shrub-scrub Wetland
Riverine, emergent Wetland
Format: ##.#######
Format: -###.#######
Valid Values:
007 Address Matching - Other
Oil Census -Other
012 GPS Carrier Phase Static Relative Position
013 GPS Carrier Phase Kinematic Relative Pos.
014 GPS Code Differential
015 GPS Code Precise Position
-------
Column Order. Name
8. Lat/Long Datum
9. Lat/Long Scale
10. Elevation
11. Elevation Units
12. Elevation Method
13. Elevation Datum
14. State
15. County
Column Definition
Datum used to determine the representative Latitude and Longitude coordinates.
Scale of the format used to interpolate the representative Latitude and Longitude
coordinates. Required if Lat/Long Method is an interpolation.
Ground elevation of a station where a sample is taken or field measurements are
made.
Jmts of measure for the ground elevation measurement.
Method used to determine the elevation of a station where a sample is taken or field
measurements are made.
Datum used to determine the elevation of a station where a sample is taken or field
measurements are made.
Costal abbreviation of the state in which the station is located.
Maine of the county in which the station is located.
Specific Requirements
016
017
028
018
019
020
021
030
022
027
Valid \
NAD2
GPS Code Standard Position Off
GPS Code Standard Position On
GPS-Unspecified
Interpolation — Map
Interpolation — Photo
Interpolation — Satellite
Interpolation-Other
Interpolation-Digital Map Source
Loran C
Unkno^
^alues:
NAD 83
OTHER
UNKNOWN
vn
North American Datum of 1927
North American Datum of 1983
Other
Unknown
Free Text: 20 character limit
Format: #####.####
Valid \
Valid
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
014
^alues: ft or m
Values:
GPS Carrier Phase Static Relative Position
GPS Carrier Phase Kinematic Relative Pos.
GPS Code Differential
GPS Code Precise Position
GPS Code Standard Position Off
GPS Code Standard Position On
Classica
Other
1 Surveying Techniques
Altimetry
Topographic Map Interpolation
Valid Values:
NAVD88
NGVD29
WGS84
SEALV
OTHER
UNKNOWN
Valid Values:
Valid Values:
North American Datum of 1988
National Geodetic Datum of 1929
World Geodetic System of 1984
Elevation from Mean Sea Level
Other
Unknown
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
-lefer to Appendix D
-------
3 FIELD MEASUREMENTS
This type of table contains data describing the results of measurements or observations made in the field. The columns, order, and specific
requirements in this table type are: (required fields are flagged with "R")
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Column Order. Name
1. Project ID
2. Location ID
3. Activity ID
4. Medium
5. Date
6. Time
7. Personnel
8. Depth
9. Depth Units
10. Activity Comments
11. Parameter
12. Result Value
13. Result Value Units
14. Result Type
15. Result Comment
Column Definition
ID for a specific data collection effort.
ID representing a station where a sample is collected or a field measurement is taken.
ID that groups together a suite of field measurements that were made at the same date,
time, place, and in the same medium.
Medium in which the field measurements were made.
Date that the field measurements were made.
Time that the field measurements were made.
STame of the person who collected the field measurements.
Depth from surface to where the field measurements were taken.
Jmts associated with the depth where the field measurements were taken.
Text comments to be associated with a group of field measurements.
STame of the characteristic that was measured.
Value that was measured.
Jmts associated with the value measured.
Type of result that was measured.
Comments associated with the measured value.
Specific Requirements
Free Text: Must exist in STORET
Free Text: Must exist in STORET
Free Text: 12 character limit
Valid Values: Air
Sediment
Soil
Water
Acceptable Format: MM/DD/YYYY
Acceptable Format: HH:MM
Acceptable Format: LastName (space) FirstName
Acceptable Format: #####.##
Valid Values: ft or m
Free Text: 256 character limit
Valid Values: Refer to Appendix B
Acceptable Format: #########.#####
Valid Values: Refer to Appendix C
Valid Values: Actual
Calculated
Estimated
Free Text: 256 character limit
-------
4 CHEMISTRY
This type of table contains data describing the results of results of non-i
requirements in this table type are: (required fields are flagged with "R")
' samples analyzed in a laboratory. The columns, order, and specific
Column Order. Name
1. Project ID
2. Location ID
3. Sample ID
4. Sample Category
5. Replicate Number
6. Activity Medium
7. Sample Matrix
8. Activity Date
9. Activity Time
10. Personnel
11. Depth
12. Depth Units
13. Upper Depth
14. Lower Depth
15. Depth Range Units
16. Sample Comments
17. Parameter
18. Sample Fraction
19. Re suit Value
20. Result Value Units
21. Result Type
22. Result Comment
23. Detection Limit
24. Detection Limit Units
25. Detection Limit Comment
26. Analytical Procedure
27. Analytical Procedure Source
28. Analysis Date
29. Analysis Time
Column Definition
ID for a specific data collection effort.
[D representing a station where a sample is collected or a field measurement is
taken.
[D that groups together the results of a sample analyzed in a lab.
Category that best describes the kind of sample that was collected and analyzed.
Slumber to distinguish a replicate sample analysis from a primary one. Only valid if
Sample Category field is "Field Replicate/Duplicate" or "Depletion Replicate". All
replicates should have the same Activity ID as the primary sample.
Medium in which the sample was collected.
Specific matrix that was analyzed by the lab.
Date that the sample was collected.
Time that the sample was collected.
STame of the person who collected the sample in the acceptable format.
Depth from surface to where the sample was collected.
Jmts associated with the depth from surface to where the sample was collected.
Depth from surface to the top of the place where the sample was collected if the
sample was collected over a range of depths.
Depth from surface to the bottom of the place where the sample was collected if
the sample was collected over a range of depths.
Jmts associated with the upper and lower depths where a sample was collected.
Text comments to be associated with a sample.
STame of the characteristic that was measured.
Fraction of the sample that was analyzed to obtain a Result Value.
Value that was measured.
Jmts associated with the value measured.
Type of result that was measured.
Comments associated with the measured value.
Detection limit to be associated with the result of a sample analysis.
Jmts of measure associated with the detection limit that is being reported.
A description of the type of detection limit that is being reported.
The lab analytical procedure that was used to obtain a result from a sample.
The source of the lab analytical procedure.
Date that the sample was analyzed.
Time that the sample was analyzed.
Specific Requirements
Free Text: Must exist in STORET
Free Text: Must exist in STORET
Free Text: 12 character limit
Valid Values: Composite w/o Parents
Depletion Replicate
Field Blank
Field Calibration Check
Field Equipment Rinsate Blank
Field Replicate /Duplicate
Field Spike
Field Split
Field Surrogate Spike
Integrated Cross-Sectional Profile
Integrated Time Series
Integrated Flow Proportioned
Integrated Horizontal Profile
Integrated Vertical Profile
Routine Sample
Valid Values: Integers between 01 and 99
Valid Values: Air
Sediment
Soil
Water
Valid Values: Refer to Appendix E
Acceptable Format: MM/DD/YYYY
Acceptable Format: HH:MM
Acceptable Format: LastName FirstName
Acceptable Format: #####.##
Valid Values: ft or m
Acceptable Format: #####.##
Acceptable Format: #####.##
Valid Values: ft or m
Free Text: 256 character limit
Valid Values: Refer to Appendix B
Valid Values: Total
Dissolved
Suspended
Settleable
Non-settleable
Filterable
Non-filterable
Volatile
Non-volatile
Acid Soluble
Vapor
Supernate
Fixed
Total Recovrble
Acceptable Format: #########.#####
Valid Values: *Non-detect
*Present>QL
*Present
-------
APPENDIX C
Lefthand Watershed Fact Sheet
-------
Lefthand Watershed
Colorado Department
FEBRUARY 2004 INFORMATION SHEET
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) will examine
opportunities to coordinate environmental and
water quality assessments and funding efforts
within the Lefthand Watershed. This effort will
promote a holistic approach to assure
coordination in establishing and achieving
environmental cleanup and water quality goals.
A key component of this effort will be assuring
participation between local, state and federal
stakeholders.
The Lefthand Watershed Oversight Group
(LWOG) and the James Creek Watershed
Initiative (JCWI) are local stakeholder groups
working collaboratively with local, state and
federal agencies to address environmental
contamination in the Lefthand Watershed. The
group currently focuses on the impacts on human
health and the environment from historic mining
practices. Metals such as cadmium, copper, lead
and zinc are the primary contaminants of
concern. This fact sheet will highlight the
progress made to date, current activities, and
steps to be taken in the future.
US 36
Foothills Highway
PROGRAM INVOLVEMENT
x Superfund
i Site Assessment
x Brownfield- Boulder County Open
Space
( Honeywell - Voluntary Cleanup
Raytheon - RCRA
-------
BACKGROUND
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the
Boulder County Health Department (BCHD)
have worked on environmental issues in the
Lefthand Watershed since the mid-1980s.
Lefthand Creek is the primary source of
drinking water for more than 14,000
customers of the Left Hand Water District.
In the 1980s, EPA site assessment activities
revealed significant impacts to fisheries and
wetlands from the discharges of metal-
contaminated water from the major
abandoned mining and milling areas of
Captain Jack, adjacent to the town of Ward,
the Slide Mine and Mill, downhill from
Gold Hill and adjacent to Rowena and from
the numerous abandoned mines and mills of
the Jamestown area, on Little James and
James Creeks, tributaries to Lefthand Creek.
In May 2002, the Boulder County Board of
Health sent a letter to the Colorado
Governor's office requesting support for the
National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund
designation for the Captain Jack Mill site.
The site was listed on the NPL on
September 29, 2003.
EPA has also been involved in the Lefthand
Watershed at the Raytheon site, located
about two miles north of Boulder. The
Raytheon site originally consisted of 1,500
acres on the east and west sides of the North
Foothills Highway. Raytheon sold 1,237
acres on the east side of the highway to
Boulder County Open Space. In 1996, 225
acres were sold to the Santa Fe Land
company, leaving Raytheon with
approximately 38 acres. Sampling in 1991
and 1995 identified low residual
concentrations of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) in ground water
migrating across the highway to open space
property. The contaminated ground water
emerges as surface water in seeps that flow
into a wetland area in a drainage
approximately a half mile uphill of Left-
hand Reservoir, a drinking water supply for
the Left Hand Water District. No
contaminants from this seepage water have
been detected in the reservoir.
The James Creek Watershed is listed on the
State of Colorado's 1998 303(d) list as
impaired for not supporting the aquatic life
use classification. The stream exceeds water
quality standards for cadmium, copper,
manganese, lead and zinc. The segment is
designated as high priority for Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
development.
THE WATERSHED PROCESS
In 2001 the BCHD facilitated the formation
of a Lefthand Watershed Task Force to
assess existing environmental and health
data related to the watershed, determine if a
cleanup action was necessary and, if
necessary, evaluate cleanup options and
recommend the preferred option to the
Boulder County Board of Health. In March
2002, the findings and recommendations of
the Lefthand Watershed Task Force
included: establishment of a Watershed
Oversight Group (WOG) to serve as a hub
for communication and information
dissemination, further assessment and
remediation using the Superfund NPL for
the Captain Jack Mill site, and further
assessment using alternatives to Superfund
throughout the remainder of the Lefthand
Watershed and the communities of Rowena
and Jamestown.
The 2002 Lefthand Watershed Task Force
report indicated that, despite numerous
individual studies of the watershed, no
comprehensive, systematic study of the
entire watershed can conclusively establish:
• the exact extent of potential risks to
aquatic life and human health;
• the potential effects on water quality
of a catastrophic storm or similar
event;
• the source(s) of contaminants;
• the appropriate remediation
strategies to remove contaminants.
-------
This community-based watershed effort will
utilize watershed-based data and solutions to
make site-specific cleanup decisions. EPA
and CDPHE are working together to provide
cross-programmatic assessment and
remediation alternatives to the community.
The goal of the watershed-based assessment
is to provide a transparent and efficient
cleanup in partnership with the community
and local, state and federal agencies.
PROGRAM OVERVIEWS:
TMDL Study
When pollutants affect the use of a water
body, a study is required by the Clean Water
Act to restore the impaired water and
remove pollutants. This study is called the
Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL.
This establishes the amount of a pollutant
allowed in the water. Colorado is required
by law to identify polluted waters on the
303(d) list and to develop TMDLs to help
address the problem.
The TMDL study follows a process that
includes the following steps:
1. Identify the sources and causes of
the pollutant responsible for
impairment.
2. Quantify the TMDL by determining
the total amount of pollutant that
can be allowed into the water and
what reductions are needed to
achieve that amount. Surrogate
endpoints may be established that
are directly linked to the impairment
to assure the achievement of the
water quality goals.
3. Identify the water quality goal. How
much does the pollutant need to be
reduced to meet water quality
objectives?
4. Identify and implement the practices
needed to reduce excess pollutants.
5. Monitor the water bodies to assure
the goals are being met and modify
the plan if needed.
A TMDL has been completed for Little
James Creek for cadmium and zinc. In
addition, the James Watershed is currently
listed for copper and lead on the Colorado
State draft 2004 303(d) List.
319 Nonpoint Source Program
Congress enacted Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act in 1987, establishing a national
program to control nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is
caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over
and through the ground and carrying natural
and human-made pollutants into lakes,
rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other
coastal waters and ground water.
Atmospheric deposition and hydrologic
modification are also sources of nonpoint
pollution.
Since 1999, Section 319(h) funds have been
awarded to state nonpoint source agencies in
two categories; incremental funds and base
funds. Incremental funds are designated for
the development and implementation of
watershed-based plans and Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters.
Base funds, are used to provide staffing and
support to manage and implement the state
Nonpoint Source Management Program.
Base funds help support projects that
identify and address nonpoint source
problems and threats, and also can be used
for water-body specific, statewide or
regional projects. A portion of these base
funds (up to 20 percent) may be used for
conducting assessments, developing
TMDLs, and creating programs to solve
nonpoint source problems.
Site Assessment Program
The Superfund Site Assessment Program
conducts screening investigations to
evaluate potential threats to human health
and the environment associated with a
specific site. The program also helps
identify and prioritize the sites that should
be on the Superfund National Priorities List
-------
(NPL). The following site assessment steps
are taken prior to NPL listing or any
remedial activities.
1. Site Identification or Discovery - Sites
may be discovered by anyone, but are
frequently identified by concerned citizens,
who call the local or state health department
or EPA to report a release (or the threat of a
release) of a hazardous substance to the
environment. Once identified, EPA enters
the site into a database that tracks all sites
investigated using funds from
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or Superfund.
2. Complete a Preliminary Assessment
(PA) - The PA is a limited-scope
investigation where available information
about a site and its surrounding area is
compiled. The PA is designed to distinguish
between sites that pose little or no threat to
human health and the environment and sites
that may pose a threat and require further
investigation. If the PA results in a
recommendation for further investigation, a
Site Inspection is performed.
3. Conduct a Site Inspection (SI) - The SI
involves collecting on-site characterization
samples and off-site ground water, surface
water/sediments, soil, air or fish tissue
samples to determine if substances at the site
are being released to the environment and
assess if they have reached nearby targets.
The SI can be conducted in one stage or two.
The first stage, or focused SI (FSI), tests
hypotheses developed during the PA and can
yield information sufficient to prepare a
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring
package. If further information is necessary
to document an HRS score, an expanded SI
(ESI) is conducted. To save time and
money, the PA and SI phases may be
completed at once.
4. Calculate a preliminary HRS score
using data collected during the PA and SI
Sites with a preliminary HRS score of 28.50
or greater are eligible for listing on the NPL
and require the formal preparation of an
HRS scoring package.
Superfund Program
The Superfund program was created in 1980
to address the worst abandoned hazardous
waste sites in the United States. In the
Rocky Mountain states, many Superfund
sites are associated with past mining
activities. Once a potential site has been
discovered and reported to the state and/or
EPA, it becomes eligible for investigation.
At this point, the Site Assessment program
(explained above) investigates the site and
uses the HRS to determine if the site can be
on the National Priorities List (NPL), a list
of sites needing the most attention. A site
on the NPL becomes eligible for cleanup
funding from Superfund. Wherever possible,
EPA attempts to find those responsible for
causing the problem and makes them pay for
the cleanup. In cases where viable
responsible parties cannot be found,
Superfund is used to clean up the site.
If a site is scored on the NPL, a remedial
investigation (study) must take place to
define the extent of the problem. Next, a
feasibility study picks the best way to clean
up the site and EPA issues a Record of
Decision (ROD) outlining the official clean
up plan. Once the ROD is issued, a
remedial design (a detailed engineering plan
for the cleanup) and remedial action (clean
up) take place. Depending on the size of the
problem and the availability of funding, this
process can take several years.
Brownfields
On January 11, 2002, The Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act was signed, expanding
EPA's Brownfields program. This law
defines a brownfields site as "real property,
the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of
which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant." The
law further defines the term "brownfields
-------
site" to include sites contaminated by
controlled substances, petroleum or
petroleum products, or mining wastes.
Properties and/or facilities that are on the
NPL, subject to legal proceedings and
determinations under CERCLA, or owned
by the federal government are not covered
under the Brownfields program.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA)
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (enacted in 1976) governs the
management of solid and hazardous waste
and underground storage tanks. RCRA
programs are designed to address active
facilities that manage, use or dispose of
hazardous wastes. These programs include
taking clean up and containment actions
where threats to human health and the
environment have been identified.
USFS Abandoned Mine Lands
Program
The Department of Agriculture Forest
Service has established an Abandoned Mine
Lands (AML) Program to clean up and
reclaim abandoned mines sites on National
Forest System (NFS) Lands. The Forest
Service has CERCLA authority for
investigations and remediation of non-
emergency hazardous waste sites on lands
they manage. The Forest Service AML
program conducts CERCLA removal and
remedial actions following the National
Contingency Plan. Once a site is identified,
a Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site
Investigation (SI) are conducted as
described above.
In support of the National Forest Plan
revisions, which occur every five years, the
U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Forest
Service coordinate on an assessment of
geological resources on NFS lands.
Beginning in 2004, the Geological Survey
will be conducting the Central Colorado
Assessment Project, which will include the
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests.
This current assessment will include
biological and water chemistry components.
The Forest Service has proposed the
Lefthand Watershed as its priority watershed
for the USGS assessment of the Roosevelt
National Forest.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
ASSESSMENT - Lefthand Watershed
Site Assessment Program
Left Hand Watershed PA/SI Activities
The following subsections summarize the
Site Assessment work done at the Captain
Jack Mine and Mill, the Golden Age Mine,
and the Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel.
Captain Jack Mine and Mill
Around 1986, and before EPA Site
Assessment Program involvement, the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division
(CMLRD) and the CDPHE investigated the
Captain Jack. In 1988, the EPA PA reported
the potential for significant impacts to the
local environment. In 1992, EPA conducted
an SI, in which elevated concentrations of
several organic compounds, pesticide/PCB
compounds, radionuclides and metals were
reported. Arsenic, barium and lead were
detected in Left Hand Creek downgradient
of the mine. In 1992, there was also an
illegal cyanide discharge that released
cadmium, copper, lead and zinc.
In 1997, the EPA conducted another SI.
Analyses showed elevated levels of arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
manganese, mercury and zinc at the Big
Five tailings pile and settling pond. Surface
water and sediment samples collected along
Left Hand Creek and its tributaries indicated
elevated concentrations of site-related
metals. In addition, ground water samples
collected indicated elevated concentrations
of cadmium, calcium, copper, lead,
manganese and zinc.
-------
EPA identified downstream targets
including a fishery, wetlands, and threatened
and endangered species habitat within Left
Hand Canyon. All of the data from the
investigations noted above were used to
support HRS documentation and placement
on the NPL. Currently, remedial dollars are
being made available to fund further
characterization, risk assessment, and
cleanup of the Captain Jack site.
Golden Age Mine
This mine has also been investigated under
the Site Assessment program. In 1994 a PA
was completed, which recommended that a
SI be conducted. In 1997, EPA evaluated
the Jamestown District, in which the Golden
Age Mine is located. The 1997 FSI and
1998 ESI showed that mining sources in the
Jamestown District have impacted wetlands
and a fishery. Since that time, EPA
Superfund programs have been coordinating
with a local community-based effort to
address mining impacts in this part of the
watershed.
Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel
The Slide Mine/Corning Tunnel site consists
of an abandoned mill building, a large
tailings pile and a collapsed adit/seep area
comprising about 12 acres on a hill terrace
approximately 1,000 feet above Left Hand
Creek on the south side of the creek. The
site also includes the abandoned Corning
Tunnel and a collapsed mill structure with
associated foundations and debris. At
certain locations on the hill, slope water
emerges and discharges to the unnamed
drainage that joins Left Hand Creek.
Sampling efforts performed in and around
the site consist of incidental sampling events
prompted by reports of stream discoloration
by the citizens of Rowena. These reports as
well as past CDPHE observations indicate
that the Slide Mine runoff discharges to Left
Hand Creek during periods of snowmelt and
high precipitation. During a May 2001 tour
of the Left Hand Creek drainage, personnel
from CDPHE, Boulder County Health, and
representatives of news media and local
elected officials observed runoff from the
Slide Mine drainage entering Left Hand
Creek. The discharge discolored the creek
from the Probable Point of Entry (PPE) at
the base of the Slide Mine Drainage to a
location approximately 0.25 miles below the
town of Rowena. At the time of the
observation, the creek above the PPE for the
Slide Mine was clear and the source of the
discharge was visually evident.
In March 2002, reports to the Boulder
County Health Department indicated that the
Slide Mine was again discoloring the stream
during a runoff event. Rowena residents
characterized the runoff as a milky-white
substance entering Left Hand Creek from
the Slide Mine area and discoloring the
creek for an undetermined distance below
town. EPA Emergency Response Branch
(ERB) personnel responded and samples
collected from the stream during this run-off
event indicated the presence of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, silver
and zinc.
In November 2002 and February 2003,
CDPHE Site Assessment staff conducted a
combined PA/SI. Total metals analysis of
the tailings samples indicated the presence
of arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead,
silver and zinc. Comparisons of metals in
sediment samples collected downstream of
the site to those levels reported in the
upgradient sample indicate releases of site-
related contaminants. The elevated levels of
metals are documented in sediments as far
as 0.3 miles downstream of the PPE.
Surface water pathway targets include the
fishery and riparian wetlands that are present
along Left Hand Creek downstream of the
site as well as the Left Hand Water District's
Haldi intake, which serves 6,318
connections and is situated approximately
8.2 miles downstream of the site. EPA is
working with state and local partners to
develop a strategy to address the Slide Mine
site.
-------
319 Nonpoint Source Assessment
The Lefthand Watershed Oversight Group
(LWOG) received a $25,000 grant from
CDPHE Nonpoint Source program for the
development of a Watershed Plan for the
upper Lefthand Watershed that can be used
to plan corrective actions. The plan will
formalize the organizational structure of
numerous stakeholders in the watershed and
provide a framework for project
implementations. The LWOG will utilize
existing and future data compiled during the
project from the EPA, CDPHE, U.S.
Geological Survey, James Creek Watershed
Initiative, University of Colorado, Lefthand
Watershed Task Force, and other available
sources. Areas that need additional
characterization or evaluation will be
identified and additional data will be
gathered. Once developed, this plan will be
used to solicit additional funding from the
Nonpoint Source program and other funding
sources for development of a TMDL,
including assessment work and
implementation of the watershed-based plan.
Brownfields Assessment
In FY 2003, Boulder County Open Space
submitted a proposal to receive a grant of
$200K to conduct further assessment
(sampling) of the Argo Mine, which had
been acquired by the County.
Unfortunately, they were not eligible to
receive the grant due to liability prohibitions
associated with EPA brownfields grants. As
a result, Boulder County Open Space met
with the State to seek direct assessment
support through the Targeted Brownfields
Assessment program.
The State has agreed to support Boulder
County by assessing the Argo Mine. To
date, a sampling plan has not been prepared,
however, CDPHE does not anticipate the
sampling to be very extensive. The
approximate cost of the assessment will be
between $5,000 - $10,000 and will include
analyzing for metals in the surface water of
Little James Creek and sampling of waste
rock. The State anticipates that the sampling
will occur sometime during the spring of
2004.
Superfund Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
The Captain Jack Mill site has been included
on the National Priorities List. The first step
of this process is the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility study (RI/FS). The RI will collect
data to characterize site conditions,
determine the nature of the waste, and assess
the risk to human health and environment.
The FS is the mechanism for the
development, screening and detailed
evaluation of alternative remedial actions.
The RI and FS are conducted concurrently.
Voluntary Cleanup - Burlington Mine
The primary objectives of the CDPHE lead
Voluntary Cleanup Plan (VCUP) for the
Burlington Mine Site are to fill the
subsidence features, cover mine wastes,
manage surface water, realign Balarat
Gulch, and revegetate the entire disturbed
area.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act activities at Raytheon
RCRA
The RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
completed in October 2002 focused on three
areas at the Raytheon property in the Left
Hand Creek Watershed: The Clean Room
Annex/former impoundment area, the
Unnamed Drainage/Seep Area, and the
Target/Missile Fueling Area (TMFA).
The area around the Clean Room
Annex/former impoundment area show
elevated concentrations of acetone, Freon
113, TCE and its decomposition products
exist in fractured bedrock and groundwater.
A dissolved-phase plume of VOC's from the
Clean Room/Impoundment area follows the
-------
valley formed by the Unnamed Drainage
and emerges at the ground surface off-site
area of natural ground-water discharge. The
RFI included a series of pumping tests
conducted in the Unnamed Drainage to
assess hydraulic characteristics within the
drainage and identify and evaluate possible
boundary effects. A barrier boundary,
possibly a fault, was identified. Pilot scale
hydraulic recovery and soil vapor extraction
tests were conducted on three angle borings;
the results indicate that both groundwater
and soil vapor extraction are effective. In
addition, results of the pumping tests show
that the groundwater in the Fort Hays and
overlying Niobrara Shale is not strongly
interconnected.
Contaminant concentrations in the TMFA
are several orders of magnitude less than
those found in the Clean Room Annex/
Impoundment Area. The resultant
contaminant plume in the shallow
groundwater at the TMFA is confined within
the former Facility boundaries.
Raytheon has begun a Phase II RFI to make
a final determination of nature and extent of
groundwater contamination by drilling five
deep sampling wells and additional shallow
wells to understand the complex site
geology. A parallel, Corrective Measures
Study is testing five techniques to remediate
chlorinated hydrocarbons in groundwater.
The Interim Remedial Measure started in
1997 provided continuous UV/hydrogen
peroxide, carbon polishing, and air stripping
of contaminated groundwater. The
contaminated groundwater is pumped from
eight wells located near the Clean Room
Annex/Impoundment area. To date, 2.5
million gallons of groundwater have been
treated.
When the Phase II RFI and the Corrective
Measure Study are completed a Corrective
Measures Workplan will be prepared.
Corrective Measures will continue
indefinitely, until acceptable water quality
standards are met.
EPA Consolidated Funding Process
A proposal submitted from LWOG for 2004
Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)
funding requests $20,000 to quantify, over
varying flow conditions, the metal
contributions of potential sources of
significant water quality impairment.
One Cleanup Pilot Program
The work to be performed has not been
finalized. It is anticipated that a guidance
manual will be developed documenting the
integration of multiple programs and
Superfund in the assessment and cleanup of
Lefthand Watershed.
USFS Abandoned Mine Lands
In the mid-1990s, the Forest Service
contracted with the Colorado Geological
Survey to conduct an inventory of
abandoned mine sites on the Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests. The Forest
Service has been using this inventory to
prioritize sites for assessment and
evaluation. The Forest Service will be
working on several sites in the Lefthand
Creek Watershed in 2004.
Fair Day Mine
A PA/SI has been completed for the Fair
Day Mine and will be available for public
review and input in the near future. The
Forest Service intends to conduct a removal
action at the Fair Day in late summer 2004.
Golden Age
EPA has conducted a PA and SI on the
Golden Age Mine and determined that a
portion of the Mine workings is located on
NFS lands. The Forest Service will be
developing an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EECA) in 2004, which may
include some additional site investigation
work.
-------
Loader Tailings
The Loader Tailings are located along
Lefthand Creek downstream of the Captain
Jack Mine. These tailings may have resulted
from operations at the Loader Smelter
located a short distance upstream. The
Forest Service will be conducting a Site
Inspection of the Loader Tailings in 2004.
Bueno Mine Tailings
The Bueno Mine is located west of
Jamestown between James Creek and Little
James Creek. The mine site itself is located
on private property; however, tailings were
slurried from the mine site to the end of the
ridge and onto NFS lands. The Forest
Service will be conducting a Site Inspection
of the Bueno Tailings in 2004.
The Arapaho and Roosevelt NFs will be
submitting a proposal to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for funding to
conduct Removal actions at these and other
sites in the Lefthand Creek Watershed. The
Department is requesting watershed-based
proposals and the Lefthand Watershed has
been targeted as a priority watershed for the
Forest's AML program.
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Brownfields
Assessment Grants
Assessment grants provide funding for a
grant recipient to inventory, characterize,
assess and conduct planning and community
involvement related to brownfields sites.
An eligible entity may apply for up to
$200,000 to assess a site contaminated by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants (including hazardous
substances co-mingled with petroleum) and
up to $200,000 to address a site
contaminated by petroleum.
Revolving Loan Fund Grants
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) grants provide
funding for a grant recipient to capitalize a
revolving loan fund and to provide subgrants
to carry out cleanup activities at brownfields
sites. An eligible entity may apply for up to
$ 1 million for and initial RLF grant.
Proposals may be submitted by "coalitions,"
or groups of eligible entities, to pool their
revolving loan capitalization grant funds. A
coalition is a group of two or more eligible
entities, which submits one grant application
under the name of one of the coalition
participants. Coalitions of eligible entities
may apply together under one recipient for
up to $1 million per eligible entity. These
funds may be used to address sites
contaminated by petroleum and hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants
(including hazardous substances co-mingled
with petroleum). An RLF award requires a
20 percent cost share.
Cleanup Grants
Cleanup grants provide funding for a grant
recipient to carry out cleanup activities at
brownfields sites. An eligible entity may
apply for up to $200,000 per site. Due to
budget limitations, an entity can only apply
for funding cleanup activities at no more
than five sites. These funds may be used to
address sites contaminated by petroleum and
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants (including hazardous
substances co-mingled with petroleum).
Cleanup grants require a 20 percent cost
share. In order to receive a cleanup grant,
the applicant must own the property for
which they are applying by the time the
grant is awarded.
Job Training Grants
The Brownfields Job Training Grants bring
together community groups, job training
organizations, educators, labor groups,
investors, lenders, developers and other
affected parties to address the issue of
providing environmental employment and
training for residents in communities
impacted by brownfields. An eligible entity
may apply for up to $200,000 for the
development of a job training program.
-------
Other Brownfields Assistance
Targeted Brownfields Assessments
EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessment
(TEA) program is designed to help
communities —especially those without
EPA Brownfields Assessment grants—
minimize the uncertainties of contamination
often associated with brownfields. Under
the TEA program, EPA provides technical
assistance for environmental assessments at
brownfields sites throughout the country.
Under the Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act, EPA's
TEA assistance is available through two
sources: directly from EPA through EPA
Regional Brownfields offices under Subtitle
A of the law, and from state or tribal
voluntary response program offices
receiving funding under Subtitle C of the
law. A TEA may encompass one or more of
the following activities: 1) a screening or
"all appropriate inquiry" (Phase I)
assessment, 2) a full (Phase II)
environmental assessment, including
sampling activities to identify the types and
concentrations of contaminants and the areas
of contamination to be cleaned; and 3)
establishment of cleanup options and cost
estimates based on future uses and
redevelopment plans.
319 Nonpoint Source Grants
Colorado annually funds 18-22 projects
statewide to implement their NPS
management program. These projects
compete for approximately $2 million
annually. Within the context of the
management program, priority project
categories are identified, such as: NPS
activities in CWA 303(d) listed waters,
information/education, watershed planning,
agriculture, and stormwater management for
non-permitted activities. Grants require a
cost-share match. No more than 60 percent
of the project's cost can be from federal
funds (including Section 319 dollars or any
other federal funds). The 40 percent cost-
share can come from individuals,
organizations, local governments, or state
agencies. In-kind donations can also be used
for the match; this might involve the use of
equipment or space, a donation of time or
services, or other support. Volunteer
services can also provide part of the match.
No more than 10 percent of a 319 grant can
be used for administrative costs.
Administrative costs include salaries,
overhead, or other indirect costs.
management program.
EPA Consolidated Funding Process
The Region 8 Consolidated Funding Process
(CFP) funds work identified under Section
104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act which
authorizes the award of grants for applied
research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects, extent,
prevention, reduction and elimination of
(water) pollution" to support the restoration
of impacted watersheds, protection of
pristine or high value watersheds or
ecosystems, and water quality improvement.
In the FY2003 CFP funding cycle, EPA
Region 8 funded 57 projects out of 145 for a
total of $2,942,000.
SUMMARY
The mining legacy in the Lefthand
Watershed has left the local communities
with environmental issues that EPA,
CDPHE, ECHO and LWOG are working to
address in a collaborative process that
encourages efficient, cost - effective and
workable solutions. The goal of this
watershed process is to assess the sources
that need to be cleaned up and to meet state
water quality standards that protect human
health and the aquatic environment.
10
-------
CONTACTS
EPA Region 8:
Kathryn Hernandez
Stan Christensen
Sabrina Forrest
Peter Monahan
Noreen Okubo
Kathie Atencio
Rob Henneke
USFS Contact:
Andrew Archeleta
Program Manager
303-312-6101
Superfund RPM
303-312-6694
Site Assessment
303-312-6484
NPS Coordinator
303-312-6946
RCRA RPM
303-312-6646
Brownfields Coordin.
303-312-6803
Community
Involvement
303-312-6734
AML Program Mgr.
303-245-6411
State of Colorado (CDPHE)
Angus Campbell Superfund, VCUP,
Brownfields Project
Mgr.
303-692-3385
Phil Hegeman TMDL Coordinator
303-692-3518
Bill McKee Watershed Coord.
303-692-3583
Cathy Schuster Community
Involvement Specialist
303-692-3308
Margaret F. Schonbeck, Health Assessment
Program Mgr, Envir.
Health Studies
303-692-2636
Rickey Tolliver, Environmental Health Studies
303-692-2698
Beth Williams Health-Related
Comm. Involvement
303-692-2704
11
-------
APPENDIX D
USFS Region 2 and EPA Region 8
Memorandum of Understanding
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 8
AND
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE, REGION 2
This INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT is hereby made and entered into by and between
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as USEPA, and United
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Region 2, hereinafter referred to as
Forest Service, under the provisions of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932 (31 U.S.C.
1535, Pub.L. 97-258 and 98-216).
A. PURPOSE:
Pursuant to Executive Order 12580, as amended by Executive Order 13016, the
President delegated authority to conduct various activities under CERCLA to several
executive departments and agencies, including the USEPA and the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The delegated authorities include performing
investigations, response activities, and cost recovery, entering into agreements with
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform investigations and response actions,
and issuing unilateral administrative orders (UAOs).
The Secretary of Agriculture has redelegated the authorities under Executive Order
12580 to the Chief of the Forest Service with respect to land and facilities under
Forest Service authority (7 CFR § 2.60(a)(39)). The Secretary of Agriculture has
redelegated the CERCLA Section 106 Order authority with respect to National Forest
System (NFS) lands and resources to the Director, Office of Procurement and
Property Management, to be exercised with the Chief of the Forest Service and with
the concurrence of the General Counsel (7 CFR § 2.93(a)(17)(xiv)). In the context of
this Agreement, the Forest Service expects to exercise a variety of its CERCLA
authorities beyond the authority to issue orders under CERCLA Section 106.
The Forest Service and USEPA have determined that the Bueno/Streamside Tailings
Site warrants a CERCLA response actions due to the on-going uncontrolled release of
mine waste and associated metals into James Creek and Little James Creek. This site
is a "mixed ownership" site. Here, the term "mixed ownership" means the site is
located partly on private or State-owned land and partly on NFS land. In order to
perform a complete CERCLA action on this mixed ownership site, USEPA and the
Forest Service must exercise their respective CERCLA authorities. By Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) dated June 2, 2005, the USEPA and Forest Service have
agreed on a framework for coordination of CERCLA response actions on mixed
ownership sites.
The Bueno/Streamside Tailings Site is located just west of Jamestown, Colorado in
the Lefthand Creek Watershed. The Bueno Mill and associated mine wastes are
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
located on lands with multiple private property owners as well as NFS Lands and
lands owned by the Town of Jamestown. Because of the mixed ownership nature of
the site, the USEPA and Forest Service need to coordinate CERCLA activities and
designate a lead agency pursuant to the Mixed Ownership MOU. USEPA has a
designated contractor for CERCLA Removal Actions that can be quickly mobilized
for additional site characterization work and to implement a response action. In
addition, because of USEPA's previous work in the watershed, some engineering
survey and design work has been completed by USEPA's contractor. Based on this
information and the Mixed Ownership MOU criteria, USEPA and the Forest Service
have determined that it will be most efficient to designate the USEPA as the lead
agency for this action.
This Interagency Agreement between the USEPA and the Forest Service is intended
to 1) describe agency roles and responsibilities as related to the proposed CERCLA
Actions at the Bueno/Streamside Tailings Site, 2) designate the USEPA as the lead
agency for this Action, and 3) provide Forest Service funding to USEPA for specific
CERCLA Action costs.
The USEPA and the Forest Service recognize that implementing CERCLA response
actions on this site requires coordinating the agencies' respective use of their
CERCLA authorities.
B. FOREST SERVICE SHALL:
1. Adhere to Agreements C-O as outlined in Part II of the Mixed Ownership MOU
dated June 2, 2005 (Attachment A).
2. Provide funding to the USEPA in the amount of $500,000.
3. Designate an On-Scene Coordinator for this Action.
C. USEPA SHALL:
1. Adhere to Agreements C-O as outlined in Part II the Mixed Ownership MOU
dated June 2, 2005 (Attachment A).
2. Limit the use of Forest Service Funds to the implementation of the CERCLA
Response Action and subsequent maintenance of the remedy.
3. Designate an On-Scene Coordinator for this Action
4. To the extent possible, the EPA will limit the FS funds spent on overhead and
personnel related costs.
D. IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THAT:
1. FUNDING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. Federal funding under this
instrument is not available for reimbursement of recipient/cooperator purchase of
equipment (and supplies).
2. MODIFICATION. Modifications within the scope of the instrument shall be
made by mutual consent of the parties, by the issuance of a written modification,
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
signed and dated by all parties, prior to any changes being performed. The Forest
Service is not obligated to fund any changes not properly approved in advance.
3. EXTENSION OF PERFORMANCE PERIOD. The Forest Service, by written
modification may extend the performance period of this instrument for a total
duration not to exceed 5 years from its original date of execution.
4. TERMINATION. Any of the parties, in writing, may terminate the instrument in
whole, or in part, at any time before the date of expiration.
No parties shall incur any new obligations for the terminated portion of the
instrument after the effective date and shall cancel as many obligations as
possible. Full credit shall be allowed for each Party's expenses and all non-
cancelable obligations properly incurred up to the effective date of termination.
Excess funds shall be refunded within 60 days after the effective period.
5. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS. The principal contacts for this instrument are:
Forest Service Project Contact
Andrew Archuleta
On-Scene Coordinator
Arapaho & Roosevelt NF's
3063 Sterling Circle, Suite #1
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Phone: 303-245-6411
FAX: 303-443-1083
E-Mail: asarchuleta@fs.fed.us
Forest Service Administrative Contact
LuAnn Wai da,
Grants and Agreements Coordinator
USDA Forest Service
740 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-275-5280
FAX: 303-275-5453
E-Mail: lwaida@fs.fed.us
Cooperator Project Contact
Steve Way
On-Scene Coordinator
US EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: 303-312-6723
FAX: 303-312-6962
E-Mail: Way.Steven@epa.gov
Cooperator Administrative Contact
Carol O'Donnell, Mail Code: 8TMS-G
Grants Specialist
USEPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: 303-312-6824
FAX: 303-312-6685
E-Mail: ODonnell.Carol@epa.gov
BILLING. The maximum total cost liability to the Forest Service for this
instrument is $500,000. Transfer of funds to the USEPA will be through the
Treasury Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System (IPAC) billing.
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
The IP AC billing document which the USEPA prepares shall contain the
following information as the first line of the description or the reference section:
FS Reference Document No. (MO)
FS Accounting Station 0216
Job Code HWT2BT
FS Agreement No. 05-IA-11020000-077
FS Agency Location Code 12-40-1100-
Budget Object Code 2550
Performing Agency Location Code 68-01-0727
FS DUNS No. 929332484
Performing Agency DUNS No. 029128894
Send copy of bill to:
LuAnn Wai da,
USDA Forest Service
Grants and Agreements Coordinator
740 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401
A detailed list of charges incurred will be made available upon request. Any
excess funds not used for the agreed costs shall be refunded to the Forest Service
upon expiration of this instrument.
10. COMMENCEMENT/EXPIRATION DATE. This instrument is executed as of
the date of last signature and is effective through July 1, 2010 at which time it will
expire unless extended.
11. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. By signature below, the cooperator
certifies that the individuals listed in this document as representatives of the
cooperator are authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this
agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last
written date below.
USEPA USDA FOREST SERVICE
Max Dodson Glenda L. Wilson
Assistant Regional Administrator Director of Engineering
DATE DATE
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
The authority and format of this
instrument has been reviewed and
approved for signature.
DATE
FS Agreements Coordinator
Job Code - HWT2BT - $ 500,000
FOR FOREST SERVICE USE ONLY
Agreement #.:
Spending Limit for FY05:
Burden (overhead rate):
Job Code:
Billing Frequency (advance lump sum,
monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annual):
Vendor ID (multiple partners?):
If Federal, Agency Location Code:
Program Manager and phone #:
Termination Date:
04-IA-l 1020000-077
500,000
N/A
HWT2BT
quarterly
EPA
68-01-0727
Suzanne Buntrock,
2009
303-275-5457
CC: Mike Zimmerman, USEPA R8, Removal Program, 303-312-6828,
Zimmerman.Mike@epa.gov
ATTACHMENT A:
Part II. Agreements from MOU between USEPA, Region 8
and USDA Forest Service, Region 2 for Mixed Ownership
CERCLA Sites, Dated June 2, 2005
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
ATTACHMENT A
Part II. Agreements C through O from MOU between USEPA, Region 8 and
USDA Forest Service, Region 2 for Mixed Ownership CERCLA Sites, Dated June 2,
2005.
C. EPA and the Forest Service agree to designate an overall Lead Agency for each
mixed ownership site on a site-by-site basis. In determining which agency should
be the Lead Agency, EPA and the Forest Service will evaluate such factors as:
the ownership pattern of the site; the layout of any mine features or
contamination; the benefits associated with cleanup work; and, the resources
available from each agency. The designation of the Lead Agency will be by
consensus and will take the form of a letter agreement. For each site that is
addressed under this MOU, there may be Action Memoranda or Records of
Decision (RODs) issued pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP) found at 40 CFR Part 300, et seq. The agency that has
not been designated as Lead Agency will still be required, per the requirements of
the NCP, to issue an Action Memorandum/ROD or concur in the Lead Agency's
Action Memorandum/ROD for that portion of any site for which the non-Lead
Agency has jurisdiction. The non-Lead Agency will have the option, at its own
election, of issuing its own Action Memorandum/ROD or of concurring in the
Lead Agency's Action Memorandum/ROD. In determining whether to issue its
own Action Memorandum/ROD or to concur in the Lead Agency's Action
Memorandum/ ROD, the non-Lead Agency may evaluate such criteria as:
whether the Lead Agency's Action Memorandum/ROD adequately addresses all
issues of concern to the non-Lead Agency; the efficiency associated with issuing a
single Action Memorandum/ ROD; community relations and public input into the
selected remedy; and, any other factors as may be appropriate.
D. All response actions shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of
CERCLA and the NCP.
E. The EPA project representative and the FS project representative will coordinate
with each other to implement response activities at each site. This coordination
shall include reasonable prior notice of, and an opportunity to participate in, any
scheduled meetings related to activities at each site, or any significant on-site
activities. In most cases, reasonable prior notice shall be considered seven (7)
days. In the event that EPA and the Forest Service wish to schedule a meeting on
shorter notice, the EPA project representative or the FS project representative
shall contact his/her counterpart and shall determine the counterpart's availability
prior to scheduling the meeting.
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
F. A schedule of activities for each site will be established by mutual agreement of
EPA and the Forest Service. The schedule will be for planning purposes and will
be updated periodically to reflect actual progress on work at each site and current
projections.
G. The EPA project representative and the FS project representative will provide
each other with copies of documents such as project proposals, sampling and
analysis plans, work plans, and enforcement documents as needed to fulfill the
purposes of this agreement. The EPA project representative and the FS project
representative will cooperatively determine which documents related to each site
are to be copied and provided to the other agency, either directly by the agencies
or by third parties. Where EPA or the Forest Service need to obtain comments of
the other party on a document, the EPA project representative and FS project
representative will cooperatively determine how and when those comments will
be provided.
H. The EPA project representative and the FS project representative should
communicate regularly to review work status and resolve any existing or
anticipated technical issues. Status calls concerning all active sites will be held no
less frequently than twice a year, and will generally be held quarterly or at such
other regular interval as agreed by the EPA project representative and the FS
project representative, based on need and the level of site activities, and will
include the EPA project representative and the FS project representative. PRP
and contractor representatives will be included when appropriate.
I. EPA and the Forest Service will develop a coordinated position on enforcement
against any PRPs at each site.
J. For response actions on portions of each site that include private property and
NFS land, the EPA project representative and the FS project representative will
co-sign or concur on technical correspondence, including, but not limited to,
comments on deliverables that might be required from PRPs, and approval of
sampling and analysis plans.
K. For response actions on portions of each site that include private property and
NFS land, EPA and the Forest Service will work cooperatively on the following
major decision points:
1. The scope and extent of any additional Preliminary Assessment or Site
Inspection work;
2. Enforcement activities against PRPs including the negotiation of
Administrative Orders on Consent or issuing Unilateral Administrative
Orders;
-------
05-IA-11020000-077
3. The scope and extent of Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis
work and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study work;
4. Community relations activities such as the community relations plan,
public notices and public meetings;
5. Preparation of the administrative record;
6. Selection of any response actions, including, but not limited to
determination of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs), and selection of post-removal site control
requirements for completed response actions;
7. Any Action Memoranda or Records of Decision;
8. Project management procedures and contracts;
9. Design plans for implementing a jointly selected response alternative;
10. Construction contracts and change orders; and
11. Certifications of completion issued for response actions at each site.
L If any site requires a common mine waste repository, EPA and the Forest Service
will enter into a Repository Agreement prior to the construction of any such
repository.
M. The Lead Agency will be responsible for notifying and/or coordinating with the
State, the natural resources trustees, and the public, as required by CERCLA.
N. The EPA project representative should advise the FS project representative
regarding any issues and concerns of special interest to EPA. The EPA project
representative will assist the FS project representative in identifying and
communicating with EPA personnel who can provide information concerning
each site. The FS project representative should advise the EPA project
representative regarding any issues and concerns of special interest to the Forest
Service. The FS project representative will assist the EPA project representative
in identifying and communicating with Forest Service personnel who can provide
information concerning each site.
O. Resolution of and communication regarding legal issues will be coordinated
among EPA counsel and USDA counsel and, as appropriate, United States
Department of Justice attorneys.
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 8
and
USDA FOREST SERVICE
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION - REGION 2
for
MIXED OWNERSHIP CERCLA SITES LOCATED IN THE
STATES OF COLORADO, WYOMING AND SOUTH DAKOTA
I. Recitals
A. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC §§ 9601- 9675, the President is authorized to
respond to the release or threat of release of hazardous substances to protect the
public health or welfare or the environment.
B. Pursuant to Executive Order 12580, as amended by Executive Order 13016, the
President delegated authority to conduct various activities under CERCLA to several
executive departments and agencies, including the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The delegated authorities include performing investigations, response activities, and
cost recovery, entering into agreements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
perform investigations and response actions, and issuing unilateral administrative
orders (UAOs).
C. By Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 19, 1998, EPA and the
USDA, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Commerce, Department of
the Interior, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Department of
Justice entered into an agreement concerning the exercise of authority under Section
106 of CERCLA. This MOU between the USDA Forest Service - Region 2 and U.S.
EPA - Region 8 is intended to supplement the provisions of the nationwide MOU.
D. The Secretary of Agriculture has redelegated the authorities under Executive Order
12580 to the Chief of the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) with respect to land
and facilities under Forest Service authority. 7 CFR § 2.60(a)(39). The Secretary of
Agriculture has redelegated the CERCLA Section 106 Order authority with respect to
National Forest System (NFS) lands and resources to the Director, Office of
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
Procurement and Property Management, to be exercised with the Chief of the Forest
Service and with the concurrence of the General Counsel. 7 CFR § 2.93(a)(17)(xiv).
In the context of this MOU, the Forest Service expects to exercise a variety of its
CERCLA authorities beyond the authority to issue orders under CERCLA Section
106.
E. Authority to issue orders pursuant to Sections 104 and 106 of CERCLA was
delegated to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on
January 23, 1987 by Executive Order 12580, 52 Fed. Reg. 2923. This authority was
further delegated to EPA Regional Administrators on May 11, 1994 by EPA
Delegation No. 14-14-E. The authority to take administrative actions through
unilateral orders was redelegated to the Assistant Regional Administrator (ARA) of
the Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation (EPR) by Regional Delegation
No. 14-14-B on December 20, 1996. The authority to take administrative actions
through consent orders was delegated to the ARA for EPR by Regional Delegation
No. 14-14-C on December 20, 1996. The authority to enter into or exercise Agency
concurrence in administrative consent orders for the recovery of costs was delegated
to the ARA for the Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice
(ECEJ) by Regional Delegation No. 14-14-D on December 20, 1996. In the context
of this MOU, EPA may exercise statutory authorities beyond the authority to issue
orders under CERCLA Sections 104 and 106 (e.g., the authority to make a
determination of imminent and substantial endangerment under CERCLA Section
106(a)).
F. In general terms, EPA has been delegated the President's CERCLA authority where a
release or threat of release of hazardous substances occurs on private property, State-
owned public land and National Priorities List sites. With certain limitations, the
Forest Service has been delegated the President's CERCLA Section 104 authority
where a release or threat of release of hazardous substances is on or the sole source of
the release is from a facility or lands under the jurisdiction, custody or control of the
Forest Service, such as NFS land.
G. There are numerous sites in Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota that may warrant
CERCLA response actions. Many of these sites are of "mixed ownership." Here, the
term "mixed ownership" means sites that are located partly on private or State-owned
land and partly on NFS land. In order to perform a complete CERCLA action on
these mixed ownership sites, EPA and the Forest Service must exercise their
respective CERCLA authorities.
H. This MOU between EPA and the Forest Service is intended to govern CERCLA
actions at mixed ownership sites within the States of Colorado, Wyoming and South
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
Dakota. EPA and the Forest Service recognize that implementing CERCLA response
actions within these States requires coordinating the agencies' respective use of their
CERCLA authorities. EPA and the Forest Service wish to communicate a
coordinated position to PRPs, the States of Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota,
and others.
I. This MOU provides a framework for coordination between EPA and the Forest
Service on any future CERCLA response actions on mixed ownership sites in
Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota. This MOU also provides a process for
resolving disputes between EPA and the Forest Service that may arise during such
response actions. This MOU is not intended to address coordination regarding
natural resource damage.
II. Agreements
A. EPA and the Forest Service have designated the following persons to coordinate the
exercise of the agencies' respective authorities at mixed ownership sites in Colorado,
Wyoming and South Dakota:
EPA Representative
Max Dodson (8EPR)
Director, Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303)312-6598
Fax: (303)312-7025
Forest Service Representative
Suzanne Buntrock
Environmental Engineer
USDA Forest Service - Region 2
740 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: (303)275-5457
Fax: (303)275-5170
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
If EPA or the Forest Service change their representatives, the agency making the
change will notify the other agency in writing as soon as possible.
B. EPA and the Forest Service will meet at least annually to establish joint priorities for
mixed ownership sites. The agencies will strive to develop a coordinated, prioritized
project list for mixed ownership sites for the following five years. The agencies will
independently seek funding and resources for joint projects and will cooperatively
develop strategies for funding and implementation of joint projects to ensure cost-
effectiveness.
C. EPA and the Forest Service agree to designate an overall Lead Agency for each
mixed ownership site on a site-by-site basis. In determining which agency should be
the Lead Agency, EPA and the Forest Service will evaluate such factors as: the
ownership pattern of the site; the layout of any mine features or contamination; the
benefits associated with cleanup work; and, the resources available from each agency.
The designation of the Lead Agency will be by consensus and will take the form of a
letter agreement.
D. For each site that is addressed under this MOU, the Lead Agency may be issuing
Action Memoranda or Records of Decision (RODs) pursuant to the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) found at 40 CFR Part 300, et seq.
E. The agency that has not been designated as Lead Agency will still be required, per the
requirements of the NCP, to issue an Action Memorandum/ROD or concur in the
Lead Agency's Action Memorandum/ROD for that portion of any site for which the
non-Lead Agency has jurisdiction. The non-Lead Agency will have the option, at its
own election, of issuing its own Action Memorandum/ROD or of concurring in the
Lead Agency's Action Memorandum/ROD. In determining whether to issue its own
Action Memorandum/ROD or to concur in the Lead Agency's Action Memorandum/
ROD, the non-Lead Agency may evaluate such criteria as: whether the Lead
Agency's Action Memorandum/ROD adequately addresses all issues of concern to
the non-Lead Agency; the efficiency associated with issuing a single Action
Memorandum/ ROD; community relations and public input into the selected remedy;
and, any other factors as may be appropriate.
F. All response actions shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of
CERCLA and the NCP.
G. The EPA project representative and the FS project representative will coordinate with
each other to implement response activities at each site. This coordination shall
include reasonable prior notice of, and an opportunity to participate in, any scheduled
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
meetings related to activities at each site, or any significant on-site activities. In most
cases, reasonable prior notice shall be considered seven (7) days. In the event that
EPA and the Forest Service wish to schedule a meeting on shorter notice, the EPA
project representative or the FS project representative shall contact his/her
counterpart and shall determine the counterpart's availability prior to scheduling the
meeting.
H. A schedule of activities for each site will be established by mutual agreement of EPA
and the Forest Service. The schedule will be for planning purposes and will be
updated periodically to reflect actual progress on work at each site and current
projections.
I. The EPA project representative and the FS project representative will provide each
other with copies of draft and final documents such as project proposals, sampling
and analysis plans, work plans, and enforcement documents as needed to fulfill the
purposes of this agreement. The EPA project representative and the FS project
representative will cooperatively determine which documents related to each site are
to be copied and provided to the other agency, either directly by the agencies or by
third parties. Where EPA or the Forest Service need to obtain comments of the other
party on a document, the EPA project representative and FS project representative
will cooperatively determine how and when those comments will be provided.
J. The EPA project representative and the FS project representative should
communicate regularly to review work status and resolve any existing or anticipated
technical issues. Status calls concerning all active sites will be held no less
frequently than twice a year, and will generally be held quarterly or at such other
regular interval as agreed by the EPA project representative and the FS project
representative, based on need and the level of site activities, and will include the EPA
project representative and the FS project representative. PRP and contractor
representatives will be included when appropriate.
K. EPA and the Forest Service will develop a coordinated position on enforcement
against any PRPs at each site.
L. For response actions on portions of each site that include private property and NFS
land, the EPA project representative and the FS project representative will co-sign or
concur on technical correspondence, including, but not limited to, comments on
deliverables that might be required from PRPs, and approval of sampling and analysis
plans.
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
M. For response actions on portions of each site that include private property and NFS
land, EPA and the Forest Service will work cooperatively on the following major
decision points:
1. The scope and extent of any additional Preliminary Assessment or Site
Inspection work;
2. Enforcement activities against PRPs including the negotiation of Consent
Decrees, Administrative Orders on Consent or issuing Unilateral
Administrative Orders;
3. The scope and extent of Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis work and
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study work;
4. Community relations activities such as the community relations plan, public
notices and public meetings;
5. Preparation of the administrative record;
6. Selection of any response actions, including, but not limited to determination
of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), and
selection of site control requirements for completed response actions;
7. Any Action Memoranda or Records of Decision;
8. Project management procedures and contracts;
9. Design plans for implementing a jointly selected response alternative;
10. Construction contracts and change orders; and
11. Certifications of completion issued for response actions at each site.
N. If any site requires a common mine waste repository, EPA and the Forest Service will
enter into a Repository Agreement prior to the construction of any such repository.
O. The Lead Agency will be responsible for notifying and/or coordinating with the State,
the natural resources trustees, and the public, as required by CERCLA.
P. The EPA project representative should advise the FS project representative regarding
any issues and concerns of special interest to EPA. The EPA project representative
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
will assist the FS project representative in identifying and communicating with EPA
personnel who can provide information concerning each site. The FS project
representative should advise the EPA project representative regarding any issues and
concerns of special interest to the Forest Service. The FS project representative will
assist the EPA project representative in identifying and communicating with Forest
Service personnel who can provide information concerning each site.
Q. Resolution of and communication regarding legal issues will be coordinated among
EPA counsel and USDA counsel and, as appropriate, United States Department of
Justice attorneys.
III. Dispute Resolution
A. Informal dispute resolution, through heightened consultation between the EPA
project representative and the FS project representative should resolve the vast
majority, if not all, technical issues between EPA and the Forest Service.
B. If the EPA project representative and the FS project representative do not reach
agreement on a disputed item arising from activities at a site, the issue will be
elevated to the Assistant Regional Administrator for the Office of Ecosystems
Protection and Remediation within U.S. EPA - Region 8 and the Regional Engineer
in the Forest Service - Region 2 within fourteen days (14) days. If these EPA and
Forest Service personnel are unable to reach agreement within fourteen (14) days, the
issue will be further elevated to the Regional Administrator for U.S. EPA - Region 8
and the Regional Forester for the Forest Service - Region 2.
IV. Limitations
A. Notwithstanding any provision of this MOU, EPA and the Forest Service reserve
their rights and authorities under CERCLA, as well as other laws, the NCP, and
applicable Executive Orders. No provision of this MOU may be used to limit those
rights and authorities or to prejudge what those rights and authorities may be. This
instrument in no way restricts EPA or the Forest Service from participating in similar
activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, or individuals.
B. EPA and the Forest Service acknowledge and understand that the presumptive
arrangement for cooperative work on mixed-ownership sites is that each party shall
bear its own costs. The presumptive arrangement also is that EPA (or PRPs, as
determined by EPA) would fund work related to the cleanup of mine waste from
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
private or State land, and that the Forest Service (or PRPs, as determined by the
Forest Service) would fund work related to the cleanup of mine waste from NFS land.
EPA and the Forest Service will negotiate a written agreement (such as, for example,
an interagency agreement or a cost share agreement) to provide for payment or
reimbursement from the other agency for response costs incurred by them at specific
mixed ownership CERCLA sites. Such written agreement may be jointly modified
by EPA and the Forest Service at any time after the associated project begins. EPA
and the Forest Service acknowledge and understand that funding arrangements will
be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds.
C. EPA and the Forest Service and their respective agencies and offices will handle their
own activities and utilize their own resources, including the expenditure of their own
funds, in pursuing the objectives of this MOU. Each party will carry out its separate
activities in a coordinated and mutually beneficial manner.
D. Any information furnished to EPA or the Forest Service under this instrument is
subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and any privilege claims.
E. EPA and the Forest Service recognize that each agency must operate within the
requirements of the federal budget process and legal restrictions concerning
obligations of funds. No provision of this MOU shall be construed to require EPA or
the Forest Service to obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency
Act, 31 USC § 1341.
F. Nothing in this MOU shall obligate either EPA or the Forest Service to obligate or
transfer any funds. Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of
funds, services, or property among the various agencies and offices of EPA and the
Forest Service will require execution of separate agreements and be contingent upon
the availability of appropriated funds. Such activities must be independently
authorized by appropriate statutory authority. This MOU does not provide such
authority. Negotiation, execution, and administration of each such agreement must
comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.
G. This MOU shall not be deemed to create any right, benefit or trust obligation, either
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or entity in any court against the
United States, its agencies, its officers or any other person.
H. This MOU will terminate five years after the effective date. Either party may
terminate this MOU upon 30 days written notice. Prior to termination, this MOU
may be modified or extended only upon the written agreement of both parties.
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
I. This MOU may be executed in counterparts by each of the signatories. Each of the
counterpart documents shall be deemed an original, but together shall constitute one
and the same instrument.
J. This MOU is effective upon the date signed by the last of the parties.
-------
USEPA Agreement #
USDA Forest Service Agreement # 04-MU-l 1020000-081
The undersigned parties hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of
Understanding.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL USDA FOREST SERVICE - REGION 2
PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 8
By:
(Signature)
By:
(Signature)
(Name)
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA - Region 8
(Name)
Regional Forester
Rocky Mountain Region
USDA Forest Service
Date
Date
The authority and format of this
instrument has been reviewed and
approved for signature.
Forest Service G&A Specialist
Date
10
------- |