Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants
Tribal Set-Aside Program
Revised Guidelines
FINAL
December 2013
-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-B-13-015
December 2013
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS 1
I. INTRODUCTION 2
A. Purpose of Guidelines 2
II. PROGRAM OVERVIEW 2
A. Roles and Responsibilities 4
B. Program Goals and Strategic Measures 4
C. Statutory Authority and Controlling Regulations 6
III. FUNDING AMOUNT AND ALLOCATION 6
A. Funding Amount 6
B. Allocation of DWIG-TSA Program Funds 7
1. EPA's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey 7
2. IHS's Community Deficiency Profile and Home Inventory Tracking System 7
3. Regional Allotment Factor and Allocation Formula 7
C. Allotted Funds Memorandum 8
D. Potential for Additional Funds 8
E. Fund Re-allotments 9
IV. POTENTIAL RECIPIENTS AND FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR DWIG-TSA FUNDS 9
A. Federally Recognized Tribes 9
B. The State of Alaska 10
C. Indian Health Service 10
V. WATER SYSTEM ELIGIBILITY FACTORS 12
A. System Ownership 12
B. Public Water Systems Serving Commercial or Industrial Properties 13
C. System Location 13
D. EPA and Tribal Primacy Authority 13
E. Constructed Conveyance Public Water Systems 13
VI. ELIGIBLE USES OF DWIG-TSA FUNDS 14
A. Expansion, Consolidation or Development of a New Public Water System 15
B. Unscheduled "Emergency" Projects 16
VII. INELIGIBLE USES OF DWIG-TSA FUNDS 16
VIM. COMBINING DWIG-TSA FUNDS WITH OTHER SOURCES OF MONEY 17
IX. DWIG-TSA AND CWISA INTER-PROGRAM TRANSFER AUTHORITY 18
X. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS AND RANKING CRITERIA 18
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines \ December 2013
-------
A. Threshold Requirements 19
1. Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity 19
2. Systems Compliant with the SDWA 21
3. Project Readiness 21
B. Ranking Criteria 22
1. Applicant Ability to Self Finance 22
2. Project Cost Efficiency 23
XI. OGWDW AND REGIONAL PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES 24
A. OGWDW Responsibilities 24
B. Regional Responsibilities 24
1. Regional Outreach 25
2. Plan & Specification Review 25
3. Other Regional Responsibilities 25
APPENDICES 27
Appendix A. SDWA Section 1452 A-l
Appendix B. EPA Administrator's Delegated Authority to DWIG-TSA Program B-l
Appendix C. Grant Management and Oversight Requirements C-l
Appendix D. Interagency Agreement (IA) Standard Terms and Conditions D-l
Appendix E. Federal Cross-Cutting Authorities E-l
Appendix F. Example Regional Funding Allocation F-l
Appendix G. EPA Tribal Drinking Water Program Direct Implementation Nexus (TDI Nex) Data
Entry Guidelines G-l
Appendix H. Guidelines for Fund Transfer Authority between the DWIG-TSA and CWISA Programs
(May 2013) H-l
Appendix I. EPA-Approved Providers Meeting the Requirements of National Tribal Drinking Water
Operator Certification 1-1
Appendix J. Preliminary Engineering Report Template J-l
Appendix K. Example Certification Utility Financial Account K-l
Appendix L. 2012 Median Metropolitan & Non-metropolitan Household Incomes by State (HUD)
L-l
Appendix M. IHS 2012 Allowable Cost per Unit 1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: DWIG-TSA Program Roles and Responsibilities 5
Figure 2: IHS Areas and EPA Regions 11
Figure 3: Overview of CWISA and DWIG-TSA Programs Transfer Authority 19
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines \\ December 2013
-------
ANV
CDP
CWISA
DL
DWIG-TSA
DWINS
DWSRF
EPA
ERP
ETT
FFY
GMO
HITS
HUD
IA
IASSC
IGMS
IHS
MCL
MOA
NPDWR
OECA
OGD
OGWDW
OMB
OW
OWM
PWSS
QAPP
SDS
SDWA
SDWIS
SNC
STARS
TDI Nex
TT
Alaska Native Village
Community Deficiency Profile
Clean Water Indian Set-Aside
Deficiency Level
Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set -Aside
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Response Policy
Enforcement Targeting Tool
Federal Fiscal Year
Grants Management Office
Home Inventory Tracking System
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Interagency Agreement
Interagency Agreement Shared Service Center
Integrated Grants Management System
Indian Health Service
Maximum Contaminant Limit
Memorandum of Agreement
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Grants and Debarment
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of Management and Budget
Off ice of Water
Office of Waste Management
Public Water System Supervision
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Sanitary Deficiency System
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System
Significant Noncompliance
Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System
Tribal Drinking Water Program Direct Implementation Nexus
Treatment Technique
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
December 2013
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to award capitalization grants to states to establish a Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(DWSRF). These funds are used to make low interest loans and offer other types of assistance to eligible
water systems. Section 1452(i) of the SDWA also authorizes EPA to set aside a portion of each year's
DWSRF appropriation and use it to make direct grants (not loans) for capital improvements to public
water systems that serve tribes.
The Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside (DWIG-TSA) program allocates funds to be used
only "for public water system expenditures referred to in subsection (a)(2)/' and to "address the most
significant threats to public health." Subsection (a)(2) further directs that financial assistance may be
used for public water system expenditures which will facilitate compliance with the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) or will otherwise further the health protection objectives of the
SDWA (Appendix A).
EPA's Office of Water (OW) has been delegated the authority by the EPA Administrator to allocate
funding to the DWIG-TSA Program. The authority to approve grants to tribes for drinking water
infrastructure needs has been delegated by the EPA Administrator to EPA Regions (Appendix B). The
fiduciary responsibility, which includes accounting for funds utilization and expenditures of DWIG-TSA
Program funds, is a shared responsibility between OW and EPA Regions. This accountability is necessary
to allow OW to manage the program responsibly and maximize the use of funds to address significant
threats to the public health of tribes and Alaska Native Villages. Guidelines were developed in 1998 to
assist Regions with program implementation. In 2010, EPA initiated a program evaluation of both the
DWIG-TSA and Clean Water Indian Set-Aside (CWISA) programs. Through the evaluation, EPA sought to
determine the effectiveness of the programs in meeting stated goals and whether program performance
measures are accurate indicators of EPA's progress in meeting these goals. The evaluation resulted in
recommendations to revise the 1998 guidelines to articulate program goals, priorities, and performance
measures and ensure that selected projects meet these standards.
A. Purpose of Guidelines
These guidelines provide an overview of the DWIG-TSA Program, describe the allocation process used to
distribute funds to the Regions and detail the eligible uses for the funds. They also articulate minimum
threshold criteria and ranking requirements for project selection to ensure consistency and
transparency across Regional DWIG-TSA Programs. The responsibilities of OW currently implemented
through the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) and the Regions in administering the
DWIG-TSA Program are also discussed along with the administrative policies used to manage the
program.
II. PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Each year, EPA's OGWDW uses an allocation formula to distribute set-aside funds among the nine EPA
Regions with federally recognized tribes. Each EPA Region is responsible for working with the Indian
Health Service (IMS) and the tribes in their Region, to identify, prioritize, and select projects to receive
funding from its share of the program funds. Regions are given flexibility in project selection but must
ensure that the selection process meets the requirements of SDWA Section 1452(i)(2), which state that
funds "shall be used to address the most significant threats to public health associated with public water
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 2 December 2013
-------
systems that serve Indian Tribes." Project selection should also prioritize projects that meet, to the
maximum extent practicable, the requirements listed in Section 1452(b)(3)(A) of the SDWA, as shown
below, and the additional requirements outlined in this guidance.
SDWA Section 1452(b)(3)(A) states that funded projects should:
(i) address the most serious risk to human health;
(ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title; and
(iii) assist systems most in need on a per household basis
To assist in the project selection process, these guidelines establish three threshold requirements that
must be met by a water system serving a tribe prior to award of DWIG-TSA project funding:
• Technical, managerial and financial capacity;
• Compliance with the SDWA (as described in Section X-A-2 ); and
• Project readiness.
In addition, two criteria for ranking projects for funding are also included. These criteria are to ensure
that projects designed to address significant threats to public health are prioritized. They are:
• Evaluation of an applicant's ability to self-finance a project (Recommended Criteria); and
• Evaluation of the project's cost efficiency (Required Criteria).
EPA Regions are responsible for the development of a quantifiable approach for project selection.
There are a number of tools available to Regions to help identify and prioritize projects. These include:
• Responses from American Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages (ANVs) to Regional project
solicitations;
• Findings from sanitary surveys of public water systems serving tribes;
• Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) data on systems with maximum contaminant
level (MCL) exceedances/violations, treatment technique violations; and
• Projects included in the IMS Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) database.
While each Region has flexibility in designing a program that works best for the tribes in that Region,
Regional programs must comply with the statutory requirements and be consistent with the threshold
requirements and ranking criteria outlined in Section X of these guidelines. Prior to implementing their
program under these national guidelines, each Region is required to update their program guidelines.
During this process the Region will allow OGWDW and tribes to review and comment on their guidelines
prior to finalization. Once the guidelines are developed, each Region must work with the IMS and tribes
regarding project selection.
After the Regions have identified the projects to be funded, they must notify OGWDW of their
selections. OGWDW then will transfer the program funds to the Regions, and the Regions work to
allocate the funding in projects.
The tribes have two methods they can use to implement the project. They may request to administer
the project funds themselves through a direct grant, or they may request that IMS administer the project
funds for them, through an interagency agreement (IA) between EPA and IMS. To qualify for a grant, the
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
December 2013
-------
tribe must meet the grant requirements listed in Appendix C and the Region must determine that the
tribe has the necessary capacity to successfully complete the project, following an approved grant work
plan. If EPA approves a tribe's request to administer the grant itself, a grant agreement is signed
between EPA and the tribe and grant regulations must be followed.
In the case where an IA is used, the funds are administered by IMS. The required standard terms and
conditions for these lAs are provided in Appendix D. In either situation, EPA Regions are responsible for
managing the award and for administering and tracking project progress after an award.
A. Roles and Responsibilities
There are many active partners that participate in the DWIG-TSA Program. Each has responsibilities
throughout the different stages of the program, from guideline development, project selection,
dispersing funds and managing project construction progress. Figure 1 provides an overview of the
DWIG-TSA Program activities and the overarching roles and responsibilities of agencies and offices that
participate in the program. The primary partners are EPA Headquarters, Interagency Agreement Shared
Service Center (IASSC) West, EPA Regional Grants Management Offices (GMOs), EPA Regional program
staff, IMS and tribes/ANVs.
B. Program Goals and Strategic Measures
Progress made by the DWIG-TSA Program is measured against Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Protecting
America's Waters) of the FY2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan.1 This goal, Protecting America's Waters, has
two program measures by which the DWIG-TSA Program is evaluated:2
1. Percent of the population in Indian country served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards; and
2. Number of American Indian and ANV homes provided access to safe drinking water in
coordination with other federal agencies.
1 EPA, September 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan,
http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/stategicplan
EPA, April 2012, National Water Program Guidance, Appendix E: 2013 Detailed Measures Appendix,
http://water.epa.gov/resource performance/planning/upload/FY-2013-NWPG-4-20-2012 Appendix-E.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 4 December 2013
-------
Figure 1: DWIG-TSA Program Roles and Responsibilities
Headquarters
IASSC or GMO
Region
IBS
Tribe/ANV
Announce
funding
through
annual
allottment
memo
1
Se
proj
bat
thres
require
and re
crib
i
ect
sets
•ed
hold
merits
nking
jria
Report
selected
projects to
HQ via TDI
Nex*
Work with Regions to select
projects
Reprogram
funds for
projects
selected by
Regions
EPA enters into IA with IMS
EPA enters into direct grant with
Tribe/ANV
Implement project
Manage project progress
Report on
measures*
i
>r~
Report
project
progress
\
r
Closeout project
' Tribal Direct Implementation Nexus (TDI Nex) is a data reporting tool used by the DWIG-TSA Program.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
December 2013
-------
In addition to program measures, OGWDW also uses the number of American Indian and ANV homes
lacking access to safe drinking water as a program indicator. Information on tribal home access to safe
drinking water is obtained from IMS Community Deficiency Profile (CDP) of the Sanitation Tracking and
Reporting System (STARS), a database used by IMS to track sanitation facilities deficiencies. In
accordance with Public Law (P.L) 94-437, as amended, at 25 USC 1632(g)(4), IMS associates each
American Indian and ANV tribe or community with a deficiency level (DL) between 1 and 5, with DL5
being the greatest deficiency.3
Tribal homes that lack access to safe drinking water are defined by the Tribal Infrastructure Task Force,4
as homes ranked in STARS with a DL 4 or DL 5. IMS is developing the Home Inventory Tracking System
(HITS), which will geographically locate all tribal homes with corresponding deficiency attribute data.
After HITS is fully populated, it will be used by the DWIG-TSA Program to identify tribal homes for its
measure and allocation formula.
C. Statutory Authority and Controlling Regulations
The statutory authority for DWIG-TSA Program grants is the SDWA, as amended, Section 1401
Definitions and Section 1452(i) State Revolving Loan Fund, Indian Tribes. EPA determined that
program-specific regulations are not required for the conduct of the DWIG-TSA Program as the
regulations in 40 CFR Part 31 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments apply to the program.
There are a number of federal laws, executive orders and government-wide policies that apply
additional terms to projects and activities receiving federal financial assistance. These "cross-cutting
federal authorities" apply to both direct grant and IA funded projects and include environmental laws
such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered
Species Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and authorities such as Executive Orders on Equal
Employment Opportunity and government-wide debarment and suspension rules. A basic list of these
cross-cutting-laws is contained in Appendix E.
III. FUNDING AMOUNT AND ALLOCATION
A. Funding Amount
The SDWA allows EPA to use up to 1.5% of the annual DWSRF appropriation to carry out Section 1452 of
the SDWA as grants to tribes (the DWIG-TSA Program). Since 2010, EPA has been authorized through its
appropriation from Congress to use up to a 2% set aside from the DWSRF each federal fiscal year (FFY)
for grants to tribes. The total amount of DWIG-TSA Program funds varies annually based on the DWSRF
appropriation level.
3 Indian Health Service, Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, Division of Sanitation Facilities
Constructions, May 2003, Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for Indian Homes and Communities: Working
Draft, http://www.ihs.gov/dsfc/documents/sdsworkingdraft2003.pdf
Infrastructure Task Force Access Subgroup, March 2008, Meeting the Access Goal,
http://www.epa.gov/tp/pdf/infra-tribal-access-plan.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 6 December 2013
-------
B. Allocation of DWIG-TSA Program Funds
The nine Regions participating in the DWIG-TSA Program each receive a "base" amount that is equal to
2% of the annual DWIG-TSA appropriation, accounting for 18% of the available DWIG-TSA funds. The
remaining funds are allotted to the Regions using a formula that is based on two types of data: 1) EPA
drinking water infrastructure need cost data; and 2) IMS tribal home count data.
1. EPA's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
As required by the SDWA the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (DWINS) analysis is updated
every four years making it a resource for drinking water infrastructure cost data for both states and
tribes. The American Indian and ANV drinking water infrastructure needs were last updated in the 2011
DWINS5 and will be used in the allocation formula for FFYs 2014 to 2017, at which point updated DWINS
data from the 2015 DWINS should be available. In FFY 2018 and every four years following, OGWDW, in
coordination with the Regions, will examine the source of the cost data to determine if EPA DWINS or
IMS Sanitation Deficiency cost data are most representative at that time. Consideration will be given to
the timing of when the DWINS survey data was collected.
2. IHS's Community Deficiency Profile and Home Inventory Tracking System
In the allocation formula DWIG-TSA funds, DL 3, DL 4 and DL 5 homes are extracted from the data in
STARS because of their direct correlation to the goals of the program. Because all homes classified as DL
4 and DL 5 lack access to safe drinking water and only a smaller portion of homes classified as DL 3 meet
this requirement, homes with DL 4 and DL 5 are given twice the emphasis as DL 3 homes when
calculating the Regional allotment factor.
The DWIG-TSA Program currently uses CDP data, which is updated annually. When the IMS HITS data are
used by IMS in their allocation formula, these data will replace the CDP and become the data source for
DL 3, DL 4 and DL 5 homes in the DWIG-TSA allocation formula. At that point, only tribal homes
associated with a public water system will be included in the allocation formula. Tribal homes not
associated with a public water system will not be used in the allocation formula.
3. Regional Allotment Factor and Allocation Formula
Using data obtained from DWINS and IMS CDP (and in the future HITS), the allotment factor for each
Region is calculated by the following formula.
Region A Allotment Factor =
/((DL4homes + DL5homes)x2) + DL3homes\ / DWINS AI*+ANV Cost Data for \
0.5 x
in Region A / Region A
+ 0.5 x
V
((DL 4 homes + DL 5 homes) x 2) + DL 3 homes ' I DWINS AI+ANV Total Cost Nationwide
in IHS CDP (or HITS) / \ I
*AI -American Indian
Each Regional allotment of the DWIG-TSA funds is then determined by the following formula.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, Fifth Report to Congress (April 2013). Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/grants funding/dwsrf/index.cfm
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 1 December 2013
-------
Regional A Allocation =
(2% x DWIG TSA Appropriation) + ((82% x DWIG TSA Appropriation) x Region A Allotment Factor)
An example Regional allocation based on the 2011 American Indian and ANV DWINS cost data and the
November 2012 IMS CDP home counts are provided in Appendix F.
C. Allotted Funds Memorandum
After EPA receives its annual appropriation for the fiscal year and OGWDW calculates the Regional
funding allotments using the above formula, OGWDW will send an annual allotment memorandum to
the Regions. It will list the Regional allocations, provide availability of funds that have been re-allotted,
if applicable, and include IMS Allowable Unit cost per home (used to rank projects), if updated
information is available. The annual memorandum will also include a list of all health-based drinking
water violations data associated with tribally owned American Indian and Alaska Native Village public
water systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for the twelve month period
of July 1 to June 30. The data will indicate if the cause of each violation could be eliminated with
infrastructure improvements. The list will be developed jointly by OGWDW and the Regions. This
allocation memorandum will be completed within 30 days of when EPA has received its annual budget
appropriation.
Once Regions receive the memorandum, they have two years to submit to OGWDW their selected
projects; however it is strongly encouraged that Regions make their selections by the end of the first
year. This recommendation is consistent with the August 2006 memo from the OGWDW Director to
improve the state DWSRF program pace and the timely and efficient use of federal capitalization grants.6
Once projects are selected, Regions must report available project data as required in the EPA Tribal
Drinking Water Program Direct Implementation Nexus (TDI Nex) Data Entry Guidelines (see Appendix G).
The purpose of TDI Nex is to provide a comprehensive picture of the DWIG-TSA Program and describe
the public health benefits of DWIG-TSA funded projects. Following notification of data entry into the TDI
Nex, OGWDW will transfer the funds required for the selected projects to the Regions.
Regions will be required to update the data entry for each project, following the award, with the
assigned IA or grant number and IMS Project Data System project number (if funding is via an IA with
IMS).
D. Potential for Additional Funds
The EPA capitalization grants to states for DWSRF programs are available for a limited time (two years).
The SDWA requires that any funds not obligated to the states within this two-year time frame are to be
reallotted among the states that have obligated all of their funds. The SDWA also allows EPA to reserve,
and allocate, 10% of these "reallotment" funds for additional grants to tribes (i.e., the DWIG-TSA
Program). EPA reserves the maximum amount allowable (10%) of any available reallotment funds for
additional grants to tribes through the DWIG-TSA Program. If additional funds become available
through this process they will be identified in the annual alloted funds memorandum.
Cynthia C. Dougherty, August, 2006, Memorandum: National Priorities for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund, http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/dwsrf/pdfs/memos/memo dwsrf policy 2006-08-21.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 8 December 2013
-------
Formula
originally to allot the DWIG-TSA funds for that year's appropriation.
Timing The timing of any re-allotment of DWSRF funds will be established through the DWSRF
program when this event occurs.
E. Fund Re-allotments
Any fiscal year DWIG-TSA funds originally allotted to a Region that are not awarded within two years of
allocation will be re-allotted among those Regions that have awarded all of their funds for that fiscal
year. Funds will not be re-allotted without notification to and consultation with the Regions. OGWDW
will maintain all of the allotted funds for the DWIG-TSA Program within the program. Any funds that are
available for internal re-allotments are re-allotted among the EPA Regions using the same formula that
was used to originally allot DWIG-TSA funds for that year's appropriation.
IV. POTENTIAL RECIPIENTS AND FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR
DWIG-TSA FUNDS
Typically, funds are provided through a grant to a tribe, a grant to the State of Alaska or an IA with the
IMS.
A. Federally Recognized Tribes
The SDWA gives EPA the authority to award grants directly to tribes. All tribes recognized by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs are eligible to receive grants from the DWIG-TSA Program unless they have
been deemed ineligible to receive federal funds if any federal agency or department or the Region
determines that the tribe does not have the necessary capacity to successfully complete the project
following an approved grant work plan. After the funds are awarded, the tribe may elect to provide
some or all of the funds to a local government, a tribal consortium, IMS or a non-tribally owned water
system that serves tribal members in order for them to conduct the project. The plan for the tribe's use
of the grant funds must be identified in the grant award document. If a tribe decides to provide all or
some of its funds to another entity as described above, the tribe must recognize that it is still the grant
recipient and is ultimately responsible to EPA for proper management of the funds.
Direct grants to tribes through the DWIG-TSA Program are subject to assistance agreement regulations,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost principles, the Cash Management Improvement Act and
EPA policies. The grants must be awarded and managed as any other assistance agreement. The Office
of Grants and Debarment (OGD) has developed Orders, Grants Policy Issuances (GPIs), and directives to
assist project officers and program offices in fulfilling and understanding their responsibilities (available
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policv/policy.htm). Several grant requirements are discussed further in
Appendix C.
Some tribes may elect to have IMS administer and manage the project on their behalf. This requires an
IA between EPA and IMS. Funds provided by EPA through an IA to IMS may only be used in agreements
authorized by the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 2004a (Public Law 86-121). Tribes that have
assumed the responsibility to implement the Indian Health Service Sanitary Facilities Construction
Program under Title I or Title III of Public Law 93-638 (Indian Self-Determination Act) can only receive
DWIG-TSA funds through a direct grant with EPA.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 9 December 2013
-------
B. The State of Alaska
The SDWA also gives EPA the authority to award grants to the State of Alaska on behalf of ANVs. Award
of funds to the State of Alaska for the benefit of ANVs may only occur when the village asks the state to
administer the project and the state agrees to manage the project on their behalf. In the case of a grant
for a project made to the State of Alaska, DWIG-TSA funds can be provided in an amount not to exceed
4% for project management. These indirect project management costs do not include reimbursement
for project design or construction oversight responsibilities.
C. Indian Health Service
IMS has been providing drinking water infrastructure to tribes through the Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program since 1959. IMS is organized in twelve area offices as shown in Figure 2. Some
tribes may request that IMS design, construct and/or administer construction of the projects funded with
DWIG-TSA Program funds. Assuming that IMS agrees to provide the requested service, the tribe can
request EPA to directly transfer the funds for the project to IMS through an IA. An IA reduces the
administrative burden on the tribe, lessens paperwork for all parties and provides IMS with access to all
of the funds throughout the project.
Using the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS), Regions will submit an IA funding package
(Decision Memorandum, Commitment Notice and Scope of Work) to Interagency Agreement Shared
Service Center (IASSC) West. A signed memorandum of agreement (MOA) between IMS and a tribal
recipient is not required as part of the initial funding package, however, they should be provided to
IASSC West for inclusion in the official IA file once available.
The IA describes the scope of work for the project, milestones, project period, budget and payment
terms. The total project period, including extensions, may not exceed seven years without specific
regulatory or statutory authorization, or a signed waiver.7'8 As such, project funds must be liquidated
(spent) within that seven-year period. After the IA is executed, the funds are transferred to the IMS Area
Office and they are considered obligated for the FFY.
If multiple projects are to be combined into a single IA, it should be done strategically based on project
scale and schedule. Similar-term projects are better grouped together to ensure that the award does not
extend beyond the seven-year authorization period. Similarly, an IA with multiple projects should be
limited to one FFY. Additional projects should not be added to an IA of a previous FFY unless the project
is phased over several years and benefits the same tribe; in this case, one IA is preferred.
7 As per Interagency Agreement Policy Issuance (IPI-08-02), Guidance on Project Period Duration, and
Interagency Agreement Policy Issuance (IPI-11-02), Clarification of Senior Resource Official Review Requirements
for Time Extensions under Interagency Agreements.
Class Waiver for the Clean Water Act Indian Set-Aside and the Safe Drinking Water Act Tribal Set-Aside
Infrastructure Programs dated July 21, 2008.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 10 December 2013
-------
Figure 2: IMS Areas and EPA Regions
Indian Health Service (IMS) Areas &
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions
Mjj EPA Regions
Aberdeen
Alaska
Albuquerque
Bemidji
Billings
California
Nashville
Navajo
Oklahoma City
Phoenix
Portland
Tucson
•Source: IHS GIS
When DWIG-TSA projects are funded through an IA with IHS, IHS often does the engineering,
construction project management and funds administration. When IHS provides any of these services,
DWIG-TSA funds can be used for these costs. The scope and cost for IHS engineering, construction
project management and administration should be discussed and negotiated between the tribe, EPA
Region and IHS Area. If the design, management and administration costs are more than 15% of the
construction the Region should request written documentation from IHS to include in their project file
explaining the expenditures.
Appendix D contains the IA standard terms and conditions to be used between Regions and IHS Area
offices. These terms and conditions may be updated periodically by IASSC West to incorporate changes
to interagency agreement policies and procedures, add new statutory requirements, or in response to
requests from OGWDW to incorporate additional programmatic requirements that have been mutually
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
11
December 2013
-------
agreed upon between OGWDW and the IMS Headquarters. No changes shall be made to the standard
terms and conditions included in this guidance by the Regions or IMS Area offices.
The IA standard terms and conditions specify that an umbrella Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
previously prepared by EPA applies to DWIG-TSA funded projects. The QAPP9 describes applicable
water sample collection and analysis activities conducted at the completion of drinking water facility
construction to ensure proper project performance and operation. If the scope of the DWIG-TSA funded
project includes a pilot water treatment facility study or hydraulic network modeling, IMS is responsible
for preparing an individual project-specific QAPP in accordance with EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans.10
V. WATER SYSTEM ELIGIBILITY FACTORS
A. System Ownership
The SDWA specifies that the DWIG-TSA funds must be used to address the most significant risks to
public health associated with public water systems serving Indian tribes. This can include systems owned
by a tribe, or systems owned by someone other than a tribe, as long as the system serves a tribal
population, regardless of whether EPA or state primacy has oversight. EPA's definition of what
constitutes a system that serves Indian tribes follows.
Tribally Owned Water Systems: All existing community water systems and all non-profit,
non-community water systems owned by a tribal government are considered to serve an Indian
tribe and are eligible to have projects funded with DWIG-TSA funds provided they serve tribal
homes.
During project evaluation, Regions should consider whether it is reasonable for the DWIG-TSA to
fund the entire cost of the project. In some cases, a significant portion of the water produced by
some tribally-owned water systems serves a non-tribal population. The Region must resolve
whether it is appropriate for the DWIG-TSA funds to pay for the entire project, or whether the
non-tribal community being served should pay for a portion of the project.
Similarly, a significant portion of the water produced by some tribally-owned community and
non-profit non-community water systems will serve connections other than tribal homes
(whether it is a tribal or non-tribal entity). In such cases, Regions must decide whether it is
appropriate for DWIG-TSA funds to pay for the entire project or whether another entity should
pay for a share of the project cost. In both of the above situations, Regions have the
responsibility and authority to determine the appropriate DWIG-TSA funding level.
Non-Tribally Owned Water Systems: The tribal population served by the water system must be
governed by a federally recognized tribal entity. When considering projects with
non-tribally-owned water systems, Regions must take into account the tribal proportion of the
population to benefit from the project. A system's tribal population may be a small percentage
"Water Sample Collection and Analysis QAPP for Tribal Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects" signed by
EPA's QA Manager, OWM, OGWDW, and IMS (March 2012).
10 See "Water Sample Collection and Analysis QAPP for Trib;
signed by EPA's QA Manager, OWM, OGWDW and IMS (March 2012).
See "Water Sample Collection and Analysis QAPP for Tribal Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects"
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 12 December 2013
-------
of the total service population, but a particular project may be primarily for the benefit of that
tribal population. If the project is exclusively, or primarily, for the benefit of a tribal population,
then the Region may conclude that the DWIG-TSA should fund the entire cost of the project. On
the other hand, if the tribal population benefiting from the project is a relatively small
percentage of the total population benefiting from the project, then the Region must conclude
that it is not appropriate for the DWIG-TSA to fund the entire cost of the project. In this case the
DWIG-TSA Program should fund the project proportionally according to the tribal population
served. Regions should evaluate these situations on a project by project basis.
Federally Owned Systems: The DWIG-TSA Program cannot directly be used to fund drinking
water systems owned and operated by the federal government for the benefit of a tribe. If a
project meets the criteria of the SDWA 1452(i)(l) and (2); however, tribes may choose to have
EPA enter into an IA with a federal agency to provide construction or improvement of drinking
water facilities so long as the terms of the IA meet the criteria to be considered a grant or
cooperative agreement, and not a contract. That is, the purpose of the IA must be to carry out
the public purpose for the benefit of the tribe. It shall not be for the direct benefit or use of the
United States Government.
B. Public Water Systems Serving Commercial or Industrial Properties
Community water systems typically serve residential properties and their funding for improvements
serves the goal of providing safe drinking water to tribal homes. Funding of systems serving solely
commercial or industrial uses is not allowed under the DWIG-TSA Program. Funding can only be
provided for systems if they serve a tribal residential population and the extent of funding must be
scaled to the proportion of water served to residential users.
C. System Location
The SDWA does not restrict funding to projects that are within reservations or on tribally-owned land.
The Act only requires that the system serve an Indian tribe. As such, system location alone is not a factor
in determining eligibility.
D. EPA and Tribal Primacy Authority
EPA is directly responsible for the oversight of public water systems operated in Indian country with the
exception of those systems operating on the Navajo Nation and ANVs that are overseen by the Navajo
Nation and the State of Alaska, respectively. The entity that regulates or has primacy over the public
water system is not a factor in determining eligibility for DWIG-TSA funds. Many federally recognized
tribes are eligible to seek and assume authority to operate their own regulatory primacy program under
the SDWA. Even if tribes receive this authority, such a determination has no impact on the DWIG-TSA
Program. Primacy for overseeing implementation of the SDWA does not alter a tribe's opportunities or
limitations under the DWIG-TSA Program.
E. Constructed Conveyance Public Water Systems
Based on the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, EPA modified its federal drinking water regulations to
adopt a revised definition of "public water system," and on August 5, 1998 published a revised definition
of a public water system. It is defined as "a system for the provision to the public of water for human
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 13 December 2013
-------
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service
connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals."11 Systems that serve Indian tribes and meet this
definition are eligible for DWIG-TSA funding. This revised definition expanded the means of delivering
water to include not only systems that provide water for human consumption through pipes, but also
systems that provide water for human consumption through "other constructed conveyances." A
constructed conveyance is broadly interpreted to refer to any manmade conduit such as a ditch, culvert,
waterway, flume, mine drain or canal.
VI. ELIGIBLE USES OF DWIG-TSA FUNDS
The DWIG-TSA Program can only fund public water system projects that EPA determines will meet the
SDWA priorities for funding as discussed in the Program Overview section of this document. These
include projects that address the most serious health risks, facilitate compliance with the NPDWR and
address those systems most in need (on a household basis). Eligible project categories should directly or
in a phased manner:
• Address a current NPDWR health-based violation (MCL) or treatment technique violation (TT);
• Address a current MCL or action level exceedance(s);
• Address a system deficiency as part of an approved NPDWR exception;
• Address drinking water outages or limited supply needed for human consumption;
• Reduce the risk of failure of major treatment or distribution system components;
• Provide first service to homes that lack access to safe drinking water; and
• Provide operational efficiencies to reduce operation and maintenance costs.
Examples of eligible projects are provided below.
Example Eligible Project Types
Rehabilitate or develop sources [excluding reservoirs, dams, dam rehabilitation and water rights] to
replace contaminated sources;
Install or upgrade treatment facilities if, in the Region's opinion, the project would improve the quality
of drinking water to comply with NPDWR;
Install or upgrade storage facilities, including finished water reservoirs, to prevent microbiological
contaminants from entering the water system;
Install or replace transmission and distribution pipes to prevent contamination caused by leaks or
breaks in the pipe, or improve water pressure to safe levels;
Replace aging infrastructure if the replacement is needed to maintain compliance or further the health
protection goals of the SDWA;
Install new transmission, distribution or service lines to connect existing homes to a public water
supply;
Water efficiency projects (e.g., installation of meters);
Expansion, consolidation or development of a new public water system (Limited Circumstances See
Section A Below); and
Develop preliminary engineering reports (PERs) for future project funding by DWIG-TSA Program.*
* Regions have the discretion to limit the total amount of funds awarded to develop PERs. See Section X.A.3 on Project
Readiness.
EPA guidelines on the definition of a public water system can be found here:
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/pwsdef2.cfm
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 14 December 2013
-------
A. Expansion, Consolidation or Development of a New Public Water System
Under limited circumstances, expansion, consolidation or construction of new public water systems are
eligible projects for DWIG-TSA funds. While Section 1452 of the SWDA states that DWIG-TSA funds
may only be used for assisting existing public water systems and are not available for the construction of
new public water systems, EPA believes that the SDWA may be interpreted to permit the creation of
new public water systems, in limited circumstances, to solve the public health problems intended to be
addressed by the statute. The conditions used to determine if development of a new water supply is
appropriate are listed below.
Conditions for Creation of New Water Systems with DWIG-TSA Funds
Options for connection with adjacent public water systems have been fully explored and deemed
unreasonable by the EPA Region;
Upon completion of the project, the entity created must meet the federal definition of a public water
system;
Funding is limited to projects where an actual public health problem exists with documented health
risks;
The project must be limited in scope to the specific geographic area affected by health risk; and
The project can only be sized to accommodate a reasonable amount of growth expected over the life of
the facility. Growth cannot be a substantial portion of the project.
A project to supply drinking water to existing homes that do not currently receive their drinking water
from an existing public water system is eligible for funding, if the current source of the drinking water
available to the homes has documented concentration levels of contaminants above the MCL for the
NPDWR and/or there is an inadequate supply of safe drinking water at the home to meet basic water
needs. An inadequate supply is considered to be less than 30 gallons per person per day for more than
20 days per year.12 Note that DWIG-TSA grants can only be awarded to tribes, not directly to the water
system or to the individual home owners.
System consolidation can also be an eligible project for DWIG-TSA funds if specific circumstances exist.
The purpose of system consolidation funded by DWIG-TSA is to address the public health risk posed to
the service population by the current system. This is accomplished through provision of an alternative
water source and/or the expansion of the user base to support long-term tribally sustained operation
and maintenance of the system. A project to eliminate an existing public water system through
consolidation with another existing system is eligible for funding if the water served by the system to be
eliminated exceeds the MCL for at least one contaminant included on the NPDWR, has a TT violation,
and/or lacks an adequate quantity of water to meet basic needs as described above. Additionally,
systems which the Region believes are lacking in adequate technical, managerial and financial capacity
are also eligible for consolidation with a system that demonstrates it has capacity.
All projects selected for construction of new public water systems, system expansion and system
consolidation should meet the project cost efficiency requirements (see the Section X: Threshold
Requirements and Ranking Criteria). Regions should avoid funding a costly system consolidation when
there are lower capital cost alternative solutions (e.g. treatment), particularly in situations where the
tribe has the technical, managerial and financial capacity to operate and maintain its facilities.
Appendix E: Sanitation Deficiency System Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for Indian Homes and
Communities, May 2003 http://www.ihs.gov/dsfc/documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 15 December 2013
-------
DWIG-TSA funds are limited and the Region should make award decisions to benefit the maximum tribal
population.
B. Unscheduled "Emergency" Projects
It is possible that an emergency project will become necessary after a Region uses its prioritization
method to rank projects for a year and informs the tribes of the rankings and selections. Such projects
can include those where some type of failure was unanticipated or the result of natural disaster or an
emergency and may require immediate attention to protect public health. In these cases, the Regions
have the authority to fund the emergency project ahead of the selected projects provided it meets the
requirements of the DWIG-TSA Program. Funding can be redirected from a project to support an
emergency project only between the time the project is identified and entered into TDI Nex and when
an IA is signed with IMS or a direct grant is signed by a tribe. After an IA or a direct grant has been signed
for a project, funds cannot be redirected. The Region must inform the tribe(s) whose project(s) were
by-passed of the Region's decision and provide the rationale behind that decision and update the
project data in the TDI Nex. The projects that were by-passed should receive consideration for the next
available round of funding. Regions should identify in their priority system the types of situations that
constitute emergencies.
VII. INELIGIBLE USES OF DWIG-TSA FUNDS
According to Section 1452 (a)(2), the SDWA specifically disallows projects for:
• Monitoring;
• Operation and maintenance;
• Projects intended primarily for future growth, and
• Land acquisition (unless the land is integral to the project and is from a willing seller) (Section
Water systems serving a tribe that do not meet the threshold requirements established in Section XI of
these guidelines are also not eligible for DWIG-TSA funds. In addition, EPA has determined that a
number of other types of projects are ineligible for funding through the DWIG-TSA Program.
Examples of Projects Ineligible for Funding
Dams, or rehabilitation of dams, including bank stabilization, erosion control or repair to weirs and
flow control structures;
Water rights (except if the water rights are owned by a public water system that is being consolidated
and the EPA Regional Office has determined that the consolidation is necessary because the system to
be consolidated lacks adequate technical, managerial, or financial capacity);
Reservoirs (except for finished water reservoirs and those reservoirs that are part of the treatment
process and are located on the property where the treatment facility is located);
Projects that serve only commercial uses such as livestock watering
Projects needed mainly for fire protection;
Compliance monitoring; and
Projects for tasks that are considered routine operation and maintenance.
There are a number of "non-infrastructure improvement" activities described in SDWA sections
1452(g)(2) and 1452(k) that allow the use of DWSRF fund appropriations. It is EPA's interpretation that
the SDWA does not provide the same allowance for the DWIG-TSA funds. Both sections specifically use
language that a "state" may use funds for these other purposes. SDWA defines a "state" as each of the
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
16
December 2013
-------
50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Indian tribes were not
included in the term "state." As a result, EPA does not have the statutory authority to use DWIG-TSA
funds for the purposes described in sections (g)(2) and (k). These prohibited and ineligible activities are
identified below.
Activities in Section 1452(g)(2) of the SDWA not eligible for DWIG-TSA funds
Supplement the Public Water System Supervision Program;
Administer or provide technical assistance through source water protection programs;
Develop and implement a capacity development strategy; and
Administer an operator certification program.
Activities in Section 1452(k) of the SDWA not eligible for DWIG-TSA funds
Loans to water systems to acquire land or a conservation easement;
Loans to any community water system to implement source water protection measures in delineated
areas;
Loans to any community water system to assist them with source water protection;
Technical or financial assistance to any water system to carry out a capacity development strategy; and
Implementation of a wellhead protection program.
Although the SDWA does not provide for the above activities under the DWIG-TSA Program, EPA
recognizes their importance to tribal water system operation, especially system capacity development
(including operator training and certification) and the various source water protection activities. Since
FFY 1998, EPA has received funding under the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program to
provide tribal water systems, regulated under SDWA by the Regions or the Navajo Nation, technical
assistance to improve the technical, financial and managerial capacity of tribes to operate and maintain
their public water systems, among other priorities. In addition, in FFY 2011 EPA began the National
Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program.13
VIII. COMBINING DWIG-TSA FUNDS WITH OTHER SOURCES OF MONEY
There are many sources of financial assistance available for projects to improve tribal drinking water
systems. In some circumstances, there may not be sufficient funds from one source to complete a
project, therefore leveraging funds from multiple sources should be recommended to the tribal
applicant. Regions that have limited DWIG-TSA allotments that may not be able to fund an entire project
in one fiscal year should examine this option to ensure funds are not subject to re-allotment.
For projects with multiple funding sources, Regions need to evaluate the appropriate amount in which
DWIG-TSA funds can contribute. Using the Region's ranking criteria can help assess how a project will
address health risks or meet water infrastructure needs of tribal homes. DWIG-TSA funds can be
combined with other federal or state funds as long as the Region determines that the portion of funds
provided by the DWIG-TSA Program support the requirements of these guidelines.
There is one exception in which funds cannot be combined for a single project. The SDWA language in
Section 1452(i)(l) states that DWIG-TSA funds "may be used by the Administrator to make grants to
Indian tribes and ANVs that have not otherwise received either grants from the Administrator under this
Authorized through direct implementation authority set forth in Public Law No. 105-65, iii Stat.1334,1374
(1997) and 42 U.S.C. 300j-2(a)(8)
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
17
December 2013
-------
section or assistance from state loan funds established under this section" (emphasis added). Some
states allow tribally-owned public water systems to apply for and receive funds from their state's
DWSRF program. While this is another potential source of funds for tribes, the SDWA limits a tribe's
ability to mix DWIG-TSA and state DWSRF funds. A tribe may not receive funds from both the DWIG-TSA
and a state DWSRF for the same project. In instances where a tribe would like to use both DWIG-TSA
and state DWSRF funds to improve a single water system, the two funding sources must be used on
separate and discretely different projects.
The SDWA language should not be interpreted to mean that a tribe is only eligible to receive one grant
or only have one project funded from the DWIG-TSA. Some tribes have many systems and it is EPA's
interpretation that Congress did not intend that tribes only be allowed to improve one of their systems.
Further, some water systems may require multiple projects. Nothing in the above SDWA language
should be interpreted to mean that EPA can only fund one project per water system.
IX. DWIG-TSA AND CWISA INTER-PROGRAM TRANSFER AUTHORITY
In FFY 2012, Congress provided EPA with the authority to transfer funds between the CWISA
administered by the Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) and DWIG-TSA Programs. Starting in
FFY 2013, EPA began implementing this authority by allowing Regions to transfer funds between the two
programs up to an amount that is equivalent to 33% of a Region's DWIG-TSA allotment. Any
transferred clean water infrastructure funds must be used to fund projects that are related to drinking
water and will provide the greatest public health benefit to tribes. To determine the amount of funds
that could be transferred in each Region, OWM and OGWDW establish the allotment and maximum
amount available for transfer for each EPA Region. Figure 3 provides an overview of the transfer
process for both the CWISA and DWIG-TSA Programs. Appendix H contains the guidelines that outline
the required documentation and approvals for an inter-program funds transfer.
X. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS AND RANKING CRITERIA
Included in this section are DWIG-TSA Program threshold requirements EPA has established that water
systems serving tribes must meet prior to funding. These requirements are intended to provide a
consistent programmatic approach to evaluating projects submitted for funding and are based on the
statutory requirements of EPA under the SDWA. This section also includes ranking criteria EPA Regions
can use to prioritize projects for funding. These ranking factors shall be incorporated into the
quantifiable selection factors in each Region's program.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 18 December 2013
-------
Figure 3: Overview of CWISA and DWIG-TSA Programs Transfer Authority
Regional Allotment Calculations
OWM/OGWDW includes allotments and maximum amount availablefor transfer.
Notification of Transfe r
Regions notify OWM/OGWDW of interest to transfer funds.
Transfer Justification
Regions submit justification to OWM/OGWDW or Regional Administrator (See Requirements in
Appendix H).
Transfer Justification Review/Approval
Justification reviewed by OWM/OGWDW or Regional Administrator.
Funds Re programming
Upon approval, OWM/OGWDW reprograms funds.
A. Threshold Requirements
There are three threshold requirements that a water system serving a tribe must meet prior to project
funding:
• Technical, managerial and financial capacity;
• Systems compliant with the SDWA; and
• Project readiness.
Regions have the flexibility to include additional threshold requirements in their guidelines that are
consistent with the program's authorities, goals and objectives.
1. Technical. Managerial and Financial Capacity
The DWIG-TSA Program only funds drinking water infrastructure projects at public water systems that
have the technical, managerial and financial capacity to ensure compliance with the requirements of the
SDWA per requirements of Section 1452 (a)(3)(A)(i). EPA has established the following criteria to ensure
this requirement is met by the DWIG-TSA Program.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
19
December 2013
-------
Prior to the award of DWIG-TSA funds, the public water system receiving the improvement(s) must
demonstrate that it has:
a. Certified Operator: An operator in charge is certified at the appropriate level to operate the
public water system, including the infrastructure proposed in the project. Operator certification
helps protect human health and the environment by establishing minimum professional
standards for the operation and maintenance of public water systems. A tribe or the water
system serving the tribe must provide copies of the operator's certification prior to award of
DWIG-TSA funds. The certification required to meet this requirement can be issued from EPA,
EPA Approved Providers or a state (see Appendix I).
b. Annual Operating Budget An annual operating budget that shows income, operation and
maintenance costs, and short-lived asset reserves. A key element in demonstrating public water
system managerial and financial capacity is a documented understanding of the revenue and
expenditures that allow a system to be operated and maintained over the long term. EPA
requires that an annual operating budget with information on income from user rates or other
sources, operation and maintenance costs and short-lived asset reserves for the public water
system serving the tribe be provided prior to award. The recommended details to include in an
annual operating budget are included in Section 6.f. "Annual Operation Budget" of the PER
requirements document in Appendix J. If a tribe does not have an annual operating budget, EPA
Regions are encouraged to work with the tribe to assist them in developing one.
An annual operating budget is also required when a tribe requests funding for PER development
to demonstrate the public water system serving the tribe and considering improvements
through DWIG-TSA funds has an operating budget. This operating budget only needs to consider
the existing infrastructure under operation by the public water system. Changes to the
operating budget that may result from future infrastructure improvements should be reflected
in the PER.
c. Accounting System: A utility should demonstrate that they have an accounting system that
records, tracks and reports the public water system's revenues and expenses separate from
other program activities. The Infrastructure Task Force cites this as an attribute of a sustainable
utility, where utility funds are managed separately from general tribal funds.14 The ability to
track operating funds is an important element in demonstrating a utility's managerial and
financial capacity. Expenses or revenues associated with the utility should be managed in a
separate accounting system or tracked through separate line items within the tribe's accounting
ledger.
To meet DWIG-TSA Program threshold requirements, tribes must document that the accounting
system for the public water system receiving DWIG-TSA funds has the capability to record, track
and report on the program specific financial information independently from other programs.
As part of the project award Regions shall require a written certification from the governing
body of the public water system that their accounting system meets these requirements. An
example certification letter is included in Appendix K.
Infrastructure Task Force, January 2012, Summary of Commonalities and Best Practices from Tribal Utility
Interview, http://www.epa.gov/tp/pdf/itf-commonalities-12.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 20 December 2013
-------
2. Systems Compliant with the SDWA
The primary purpose of the DWIG-TSA Program is to support the construction of drinking water
infrastructure that will facilitate compliance with the SDWA. According to the SDWA Section 1452
(a)(3)(A)(ii), DWSRF funds, including those allotted to the DWIG-TSA Program, cannot be awarded to
existing public water systems that are in significant noncompliance (SNC) with any requirements of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
In December 2009, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) released an
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) that provides a new enforcement targeting approach that identifies
all unaddressed violations at a public water system. The new approach replaces the prior strategy which
focused on water systems in SNC on a rule-by-rule basis. The ERP is supported by the Enforcement
Targeting Tool (ETT), which assigns a point value to individual violations at each system to prioritize
public water systems with the most serious, numerous or long lasting unaddressed violations for
possible enforcement actions.15
The Director of the OGWDW issued a memo on March 30, 2012, instructing that the term "significant
noncompliance" be interpreted for the purpose of the DWSRF Program implementation as systems with
ETT scores of 11 or greater.16 This means assistance from the DWIG-TSA Program may not be provided
for projects at systems that have an ETT score of 11 or greater prior to award, unless the project will
directly address existing violations that impact the ETT score. It should be noted that OECA requires
public water systems with an ETT score of 11 or higher to return to compliance within six months of
reaching that score, or OECA will issue an enforcement order to correct all violations at the system.
3. Project Readiness
Projects that have not been fully evaluated prior to funding may not provide the most feasible and cost
efficient solution to address public health risks and may also result in construction delays. To improve
project readiness to ensure that health risks are adequately addressed, a project submitted for funding
must have a completed PER that follows the standardized template for PERs developed by the
Infrastructure Task Force (Appendix J). The standardized PER makes it easier for tribes to receive
funding from more than one federal source and simplifies coordination between federal agencies.
The PER should clearly describe the public water system's current situation, include an analysis of
alternatives and propose a specific course of action from an engineering perspective. The analysis of
alternatives must compare construction costs and operation and maintenance costs. A project that has
been vetted through an analysis of alternatives and is ready for implementation ensures that funds are
awarded to projects that are ready to proceed to construction.
DWIG-TSA funds will not be awarded without the submission of a PER, however there are some
instances in which IMS Area Sanitation Facilities Construction Program Director may determine that a
PER is not required because the project's scope is limited. It should be noted, however, that even when
15 Memo dated December 8, 2009 from Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator to Regional Administrators.
http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/water/documents/policies/drinking water erp 2009.pdf
16 Cynthia C. Dougherty, March 2012, Memorandum: Update to the Implementation of Capacity Development &
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs to Reflect the New Enforcement Policy & Enforcement
Targeting Tool, http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/upload/erpettmemo.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 21 December 2013
-------
a PER is not required, an annual operating budget for current operating conditions as part of the funding
award must still be submitted per Section X.A.
As indicated in Section VI, Regions may award projects to develop a PER. Regions should take steps to
ensure that projects receiving funds for development of a PER are eligible infrastructure projects under
the DWIG-TSA Program. They should also ensure that the project will be ready for construction
(pending the availability of project funds) as soon as possible following completion of the PER.
Following completion of a DWIG-TSA funded PER, Regions have the discretion in their program
guidelines to identify how they will handle award of a DWIG-TSA project to construct the recommended
course of action identified in the PER.
B. Ranking Criteria
Regions must develop a quantifiable method of prioritizing projects and the method must be applied to
all the potential projects each fiscal year. Regions have flexibility in developing the prioritization method
within their Region, but must meet the requirements of Section 1452(b)(3)(A) of the SDWA.
SDWA Section 1452(b)(3)(A) states that funded projects should:
(i) address the most serious risk to human health;
(ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title; and
(iii) assist systems most in need on a per household basis.
Each Region's prioritization method should differentiate the projects according to the severity of the
health risk to be resolved by the project. Acute health risks should be resolved before non-acute risks
and known threats should be addressed before potential threats. Assuming projects address similar
health risks, ranking criteria can help Regions select the best project for funding in a given fiscal year.
There are two factors that the Regions shall consider in developing their Regional guidelines:
• Evaluation of an applicant's ability to self finance a project (recommended) and
• Evaluation of the project's cost efficiency (required).
Specific ranking criteria for these issues are discussed below. The Regional Administrator in each Region
has the ability to waive these specific criteria on a case-by-case basis. This is allowed if the Region can
demonstrate that a project provides a significant public health benefit or resolves serious compliance
issues as described in Section 1452(b)(3)(A) of the SDWA and that these considerations outweigh these
ranking criteria.
1. Applicant Ability to Self Finance
The ability of tribes to pay for needed infrastructure varies widely across the country. The applicant's
ability to self finance refers to the ability of the community served by the public water system to provide
funds to cover all or a portion of the cost associated with the construction of the proposed
infrastructure. The limited grant funds from the DWIG-TSA Program should be used to assist public
water systems that serve communities with the greatest financial need. Therefore, the Regions may
develop within their project ranking criteria a method to reduce the priority of projects requested from
public water systems that serve a community with a median household income equal to or greater than
80% of the statewide nonmetropolitan household income. In the Region's project prioritization this
factor is recommended to be weighted to account for a maximum of 7% of the overall calculation, a
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines
22
December 2013
-------
percentage that is equivalent to the current IMS ranking system for the consideration of other funds that
can be added to a project's financing.
The median household income of the service area and the nonmetropolitan median household income
of the state will be determined from available U.S. Census data. If there is reason to believe that the
Census data do not provide an accurate representation of the median household income within the area
to be served, the reasons will be documented and the applicant may furnish, or the Region may obtain,
additional information regarding such median household income. Information will consist of reliable
data from local, Regional, state or federal sources, or from a survey conducted by a reliable impartial
source.
Appendix L provides an example of how household income of the water system's service area can be
calculated. Also included in Appendix L are current non-metropolitan household income amounts by
state prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which are used by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture in determining the loan/grant mix for water project awards. These
numbers are calculated from the American Community Survey data of the U.S. Census and are updated
as new data are released.
2. Project Cost Efficiency
SDWA Section 1452(b)(3)(A)(iii) requires the DWIG-TSA Program to assist systems most in need on a per
household basis. Including project cost efficiency in the Region's prioritization process addresses this
requirement. In the Region's project prioritization this factor is recommended to be weighted to
account for a minimum of 15% of the overall ranking process. This weighting factor is consistent with
existing IHS ranking criteria.
IHS determines the economic feasibility of a project by comparing the per unit project cost to serve a
home to the total allowable unit cost based on the HUD Dwelling Construction and Equipment Cost
(DCE) and the IHS Health Facilities Cost Index.17 The threshold costs included in Appendix M are 50% of
the IHS calculated 2012 allowable cost. These figures represent the highest threshold costs allowable for
drinking water facilities under the IHS approach. These figures will be updated by OGWDW as they are
available from IHS Headquarters and will be provided to the Regions in the annual allotted funds
memorandum. Projects with a unit cost per home equal to or greater than the amounts shown in
Appendix M will receive a lower priority in the Region's allocation process.
Regions have the flexibility to develop their own project cost efficiency methodology other than the
process described in this guidance. This criterion will be deemed met for Regions that utilize the IHS
SDS as the project prioritization process. A Region can increase the weighting factor used to consider
cost efficiency or make project cost efficiency a threshold criteria to determine if a project is eligible for
funding. In any case, if the project selected for funding has a unit cost equal to or greater than
$132,000 per tribal home served, the Regional Administrator must be notified to ensure awareness of
such projects.
IHS, May 2003, Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for Indian Homes and Communities
http://www.ihs.gov/dsfc/documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 23 December 2013
-------
XI. OGWDW AND REGIONAL PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The responsibilities of OGWDW staff and their Regional counterparts were described in a recent
memorandum from OGWDW to Regional drinking water program managers. These responsibilities are
described below, including the requirements for regular meetings between OGWDW and Regions, and
project management responsibilities for all involved with the program.
A. OGWDW Responsibilities
Twice a year, OGWDW DWIG-TSA staff will initiate a teleconference with the Regional programs to
discuss funding allocation and project selection issues. The first meeting is scheduled approximately 90
days following the annual announcement of the funding allocations to the Regions. The second meeting
takes place in the fall following the close of the fiscal year to discuss funded project milestones and
implementation challenges encountered with the tribes and/or IMS.
In addition, OGWDW program staff shall:
1. Designate a DWG-TSA National Program Coordinator with the responsibility for Regional
coordination;
2. Develop an annual allotted funds memorandum providing the funding amount for that fiscal
year to each Region, and update project cost efficiency data (the memo is to be sent to the
Regions within 30 days of when EPA's annual appropriation is finalized);
3. Monitor and report on the overall progress made by the DWIG-TSA Program in meeting Regional
and national goals;
4. Schedule, lead and summarize progress meetings with Regions to track projects and identify and
resolve problems encountered by Regions during implementation;
5. Access, review and summarize the most recent data from SDWIS, IMS PDS and EPA's Integrated
Grants Management System prior to the meeting through TDI Nex;
6. Work with the Regions to categorize the causes of health based drinking water regulation
violations at tribally owned and operated systems as either infrastructure or operations and
maintenance related; and
7. Identify and coordinate responses to DWIG-TSA Program implementation issues with the IMS
Headquarters.
B. Regional Responsibilities
After OGWDW allots the DWIG-TSA funds to Regions, Regions are responsible for management and
oversight of the direct grants and interagency agreements associated with their projects. Each Region
shall develop a set of quantifiable methods and standards to identify and prioritize water system
projects. Prior to DWIG-TSA Program funding being obligated for FFY 2015, Regions must submit their
guidelines to OGWDW for comment to ensure consistency with these guidelines. Within 30 days of
receipt of the Regional guidelines, OGWDW will either inform each Region that their guidelines are
consistent with the national program or will provide written comments to the Region for consideration
in revising their guidelines to ensure national consistency. Future updates of the Region's DWIG-TSA
Program guidelines must also be submitted to OGWDW for review following the same schedule.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 24 December 2013
-------
1. Regional Outreach
Regions should provide their program guidelines to the tribes in their Region and allow for an adequate
opportunity for review and comment. Guidelines should also be redistributed when revisions are
made.
Annually, Regions must inform tribes about projects identified for DWIG-TSA Program funding. They
must also inform tribes and other parties about the estimated amount of DWIG-TSA funds to be
awarded for each project. In some instances, such as for the ANVs, it may also be appropriate to inform
the states of the Region's plans.
It is important that the Regions consult and coordinate with the local IMS Area Office in project selection
to avoid confusion and possible duplication of effort.
2. Plan & Specification Review
If a Region has directly provided or funded a review of the plans and specifications for the same or
similar project, the Region must ensure that the tribe has sufficiently addressed the review comments
provided before project award.
For projects funded with lAs to IMS, EPA Regions shall provide comments according to their standard
practice to IMS Area Offices on the design and planning documents associated with projects funded
through an IA following project award.
For projects funded through direct grants to tribes following project award, it is recommended that EPA
Regions include the following grant conditions:
Prior to the start of project construction the tribe must:
a. Provide the plans and specifications to the EPA Region for review and comment
b. Sufficiently address the review comments provided by the EPA Region
3. Other Regional Responsibilities
EPA Regional Program staff will participate in the semi-annual meetings with OGWDW program staff as
discussed in the OGWDW Responsibilities section above. In addition, Regional staffs have the
responsibility to:
1. Designate a Regional Program Coordinator to participate in semi-annual meetings/conference
calls. The Regional Program Coordinator is responsible for presenting a summary of annual
Regional project selection decisions and awarded project status oversight activities;
2. Ensure that the Regionally-entered data fields in the TDI Nex are updated according to the Tribal
Direct Implementation Nexus Data Guidelines (Appendix G) prior to meetings;
3. Work with OGWDW staff to categorize the causes of health based drinking water regulation
violations at tribally owned and operated systems as either infrastructure or operations and
maintenance related;
4. Attend semi-annual meetings prepared to review detailed information on the following topics:
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 25 December 2013
-------
a. Individual DWIG-TSA funded project details, schedule, milestones, outputs and planned
project oversight for both direct grant and IA awards,
b. The factors influencing annual project prioritization and selection for DWIG-TSA award,
c. The expected impact of the individual DWIG-TSA projects on Regional goals and national
Tribal Drinking Water Program measures,
d. Progress on DWIG-TSA project funds expenditure, milestones and outputs, as well as the
demonstrated impact on expected Regional outcomes and Tribal Drinking Water
Program measures, and
e. Identification and qualification of any discrepancies between the amount of funds
expended and project milestone progress reported; and
Identify and report issues associated with EPA Region and IMS Area office coordination or EPA
Region and grant recipient coordination that may impact the award of DWIG-TSA funds or
completion of DWIG-TSA funded projects.
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 26 December 2013
-------
APPENDICES
DWIG-TSA Program Guidelines 27 December 2013
-------
Appendix A. SDWA Section 1452
A-l
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
Sec. 1452 SAFE DRINKING WATER 454
(A) the Indian Tribes is recognized by the Secretary of
the Interior and has a governing body carrying out sub-
stantial governmental duties and powers;
(B) the functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe
are within the area of the Tribal Government's jurisdic-
tion; and
(C) the Indian Tribe is reasonably expected to be capa-
ble, in the Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the
functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the
terms and purposes of this title and of all applicable regu-
lations.
(2) PROVISIONS WHERE TREATMENT AS STATE INAPPRO-
PRIATE.—For any provision of this title where treatment of In-
dian Tribes as identical to States is inappropriate, administra-
tively infeasible or otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of
this title, the Administrator may include in the regulations
promulgated under this section, other means for administering
such provision in a manner that will achieve the purpose of the
provision. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow
Indian Tribes to assume or maintain primary enforcement re-
sponsibility for public water systems or for underground injec-
tion control in a manner less protective of the health of persons
than such responsibility may be assumed or maintained by a
State. An Indian tribe shall not be required to exercise crimi-
nal enforcement jurisdiction for purposes of complying with the
preceding sentence.
[42 U.S.C. 300J-11]
STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS
SEC. 1452. (a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—
(1) GRANTS TO STATES TO ESTABLISH STATE LOAN FUNDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall offer to
enter into agreements with eligible States to make capital-
ization grants, including letters of credit, to the States
under this subsection to further the health protection ob-
jectives of this title, promote the efficient use of fund re-
sources, and for other purposes as are specified in this
title.
(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—To be eligible to receive
a capitalization grant under this section, a State shall es-
tablish a drinking water treatment revolving loan fund (re-
ferred to in this section as a "State loan fund") and comply
with the other requirements of this section. Each grant to
a State under this section shall be deposited in the State
loan fund established by the State, except as otherwise
provided in this section and in other provisions of this
title. No funds authorized by other provisions of this title
to be used for other purposes specified in this title shall be
deposited in any State loan fund.
(C) EXTENDED PERIOD.—The grant to a State shall be
available to the State for obligation during the fiscal year
for which the funds are authorized and during the fol-
lowing fiscal year, except that grants made available from
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
455 SAFE DRINKING WATER Sec. 1452
funds provided prior to fiscal year 1997 shall be available
for obligation during each of the fiscal years 1997 and
1998.
(D) ALLOTMENT FORMULA.—Except as otherwise pro-
vided in this section, funds made available to carry out
this section shall be allotted to States that have entered
into an agreement pursuant to this section (other than the
District of Columbia) in accordance with—
(i) for each of fiscal years 1995 through 1997, a
formula that is the same as the formula used to dis-
tribute public water system supervision grant funds
under section 1443 in fiscal year 1995, except that the
minimum proportionate share established in the for-
mula shall be 1 percent of available funds and the for-
mula shall be adjusted to include a minimum propor-
tionate share for the State of Wyoming and the Dis-
trict of Columbia; and
(ii) for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent fiscal
year, a formula that allocates to each State the propor-
tional share of the State needs identified in the most
recent survey conducted pursuant to subsection (h),
except that the minimum proportionate share provided
to each State shall be the same as the minimum pro-
portionate share provided under clause (i).
(E) REALLOTMENT.—The grants not obligated by the
last day of the period for which the grants are available
shall be reallotted according to the appropriate criteria set
forth in subparagraph (D), except that the Administrator
may reserve and allocate 10 percent of the remaining
amount for financial assistance to Indian Tribes in addi-
tion to the amount allotted under subsection (i) and none
of the funds reallotted by the Administrator shall be real-
lotted to any State that has not obligated all sums allotted
to the State pursuant to this section during the period in
which the sums were available for obligation.
(F) NONPRIMACY STATES.—The State allotment for a
State not exercising primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems shall not be deposited in any such
fund but shall be allotted by the Administrator under this
subparagraph. Pursuant to section 1443(a)(9)(A) such
sums allotted under this subparagraph shall be reserved
as needed by the Administrator to exercise primary en-
forcement responsibility under this title in such State and
the remainder shall be reallotted to States exercising pri-
mary enforcement responsibility for public water systems
for deposit in such funds. Whenever the Administrator
makes a final determination pursuant to section 1413(b)
that the requirements of section 1413(a) are no longer
being met by a State, additional grants for such State
under this title shall be immediately terminated by the
Administrator. This subparagraph shall not apply to any
State not exercising primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems as of the date of enactment of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
Sec. 1452 SAFE DRINKING WATER 456
(G) OTHER PROGRAMS.—
(i) NEW SYSTEM CAPACITY.—Beginning in fiscal
year 1999, the Administrator shall withhold 20 per-
cent of each capitalization grant made pursuant to
this section to a State unless the State has met the re-
quirements of section 1420(a) (relating to capacity de-
velopment) and shall withhold 10 percent for fiscal
year 2001, 15 percent for fiscal year 2002, and 20 per-
cent for fiscal year 2003 if the State has not complied
with the provisions of section 1420(c) (relating to ca-
pacity development strategies). Not more than a total
of 20 percent of the capitalization grants made to a
State in any fiscal year may be withheld under the
preceding provisions of this clause. All funds withheld
by the Administrator pursuant to this clause shall be
reallotted by the Administrator on the basis of the
same ratio as is applicable to funds allotted under
subparagraph (D). None of the funds reallotted by the
Administrator pursuant to this paragraph shall be al-
lotted to a State unless the State has met the require-
ments of section 1420 (relating to capacity develop-
ment).
(ii) OPERATOR CERTIFICATION.—The Administrator
shall withhold 20 percent of each capitalization grant
made pursuant to this section unless the State has
met the requirements of 1419* (relating to operator
certification). All funds withheld by the Administrator
pursuant to this clause shall be reallotted by the Ad-
ministrator on the basis of the same ratio as applica-
ble to funds allotted under subparagraph (D). None of
the funds reallotted by the Administrator pursuant to
this paragraph shall be allotted to a State unless the
State has met the requirements of section 1419 (relat-
ing to operator certification).
(2) USE OF FUNDS.—Except as otherwise authorized by this
title, amounts deposited in a State loan fund, including loan
repayments and interest earned on such amounts, shall be
used only for providing loans or loan guarantees, or as a source
of reserve and security for leveraged loans, the proceeds of
which are deposited in a State loan fund established under
paragraph (1), or other financial assistance authorized under
this section to community water systems and nonprofit non-
community water systems, other than systems owned by Fed-
eral agencies. Financial assistance under this section may be
used by a public water system only for expenditures (not in-
cluding monitoring, operation, and maintenance expenditures)
of a type or category which the Administrator has determined,
through guidance, will facilitate compliance with national pri-
mary drinking water regulations applicable to the system
under section 1412 or otherwise significantly further the
health protection objectives of this title. The funds may also be
1So in law. The reference to "1419" probably should be to "section 1419". See the amendment
made by section 130 of Public Law 104-182.
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
457 SAFE DRINKING WATER Sec. 1452
used to provide loans to a system referred to in section
1401(4)(B) for the purpose of providing the treatment described
in section 1401(4)(B)(i)(III). The funds shall not be used for the
acquisition of real property or interests therein, unless the ac-
quisition is integral to a project authorized by this paragraph
and the purchase is from a willing seller. Of the amount cred-
ited to any State loan fund established under this section in
any fiscal year, 15 percent shall be available solely for pro-
viding loan assistance to public water systems which regularly
serve fewer than 10,000 persons to the extent such funds can
be obligated for eligible projects of public water systems.
(3) LIMITATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), no assistance under this section shall be provided to
a public water system that—
(i) does not have the technical, managerial, and fi-
nancial capability to ensure compliance with the re-
quirements of this title; or
(ii) is in significant noncompliance with any re-
quirement of a national primary drinking water regu-
lation or variance.
(B) RESTRUCTURING.—A public water system described
in subparagraph (A) may receive assistance under this sec-
tion if—
(i) the use of the assistance will ensure compli-
ance; and
(ii) if subparagraph (A)(i) applies to the system,
the owner or operator of the system agrees to under-
take feasible and appropriate changes in operations
(including ownership, management, accounting, rates,
maintenance, consolidation, alternative water supply,
or other procedures) if the State determines that the
measures are necessary to ensure that the system has
the technical, managerial, and financial capability to
comply with the requirements of this title over the
long term.
(C) REVIEW.—Prior to providing assistance under this
section to a public water system that is in significant non-
compliance with any requirement of a national primary
drinking water regulation or variance, the State shall con-
duct a review to determine whether subparagraph (A)(i)
applies to the system.
(b) INTENDED USE PLANS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—After providing for public review and
comment, each State that has entered into a capitalization
agreement pursuant to this section shall annually prepare a
plan that identifies the intended uses of the amounts available
to the State loan fund of the State.
(2) CONTENTS.—An intended use plan shall include—
(A) a list of the projects to be assisted in the first fiscal
year that begins after the date of the plan, including a de-
scription of the project, the expected terms of financial as-
sistance, and the size of the community served;
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
Sec. 1452 SAFE DRINKING WATER 458
(B) the criteria and methods established for the dis-
tribution of funds; and
(C) a description of the financial status of the State
loan fund and the short-term and long-term goals of the
State loan fund.
(3) USE OF FUNDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An intended use plan shall provide,
to the maximum extent practicable, that priority for the
use of funds be given to projects that—
(i) address the most serious risk to human health;
(ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this title (including requirements for
filtration); and
(iii) assist systems most in need on a per house-
hold basis according to State affordability criteria.
(B) LIST OF PROJECTS.—Each State shall, after notice
and opportunity for public comment, publish and periodi-
cally update a list of projects in the State that are eligible
for assistance under this section, including the priority as-
signed to each project and, to the extent known, the ex-
pected funding schedule for each project.
(c) FUND MANAGEMENT.—Each State loan fund under this sec-
tion shall be established, maintained, and credited with repay-
ments and interest. The fund corpus shall be available in per-
petuity for providing financial assistance under this section. To the
extent amounts in the fund are not required for current obligation
or expenditure, such amounts shall be invested in interest bearing
obligations.
(d) ASSISTANCE FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.—
(1) LOAN SUBSIDY.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, in any case in which the State makes a loan
pursuant to subsection (a)(2) to a disadvantaged community or
to a community that the State expects to become a disadvan-
taged community as the result of a proposed project, the State
may provide additional subsidization (including forgiveness of
principal).
(2) TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUBSIDIES.—For each fiscal year, the
total amount of loan subsidies made by a State pursuant to
paragraph (1) may not exceed 30 percent of the amount of the
capitalization grant received by the State for the year.
(3) DEFINITION OF DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY.—In this
subsection, the term "disadvantaged community" means the
service area of a public water system that meets affordability
criteria established after public review and comment by the
State in which the public water system is located. The Admin-
istrator may publish information to assist States in estab-
lishing affordability criteria.
(e) STATE CONTRIBUTION.—Each agreement under subsection
(a) shall require that the State deposit in the State loan fund from
State moneys an amount equal to at least 20 percent of the total
amount of the grant to be made to the State on or before the date
on which the grant payment is made to the State, except that a
State shall not be required to deposit such amount into the fund
prior to the date on which each grant payment is made for fiscal
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
459 SAFE DRINKING WATER Sec. 1452
years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 if the State deposits the State
contribution amount into the State loan fund prior to September
30, 1999.
(f) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Except as otherwise limited by
State law, the amounts deposited into a State loan fund under this
section may be used only—
(1) to make loans, on the condition that—
(A) the interest rate for each loan is less than or equal
to the market interest rate, including an interest free loan;
(B) principal and interest payments on each loan will
commence not later than 1 year after completion of the
project for which the loan was made, and each loan will be
fully amortized not later than 20 years after the comple-
tion of the project, except that in the case of a disadvan-
taged community (as defined in subsection (d)(3)), a State
may provide an extended term for a loan, if the extended
term—
(i) terminates not later than the date that is 30
years after the date of project completion; and
(ii) does not exceed the expected design life of the
project;
(C) the recipient of each loan will establish a dedicated
source of revenue (or, in the case of a privately owned sys-
tem, demonstrate that there is adequate security) for the
repayment of the loan; and
(D) the State loan fund will be credited with all pay-
ments of principal and interest on each loan;
(2) to buy or refinance the debt obligation of a municipality
or an intermunicipal or interstate agency within the State at
an interest rate that is less than or equal to the market inter-
est rate in any case in which a debt obligation is incurred after
July 1, 1993;
(3) to guarantee, or purchase insurance for, a local obliga-
tion (all of the proceeds of which finance a project eligible for
assistance under this section) if the guarantee or purchase
would improve credit market access or reduce the interest rate
applicable to the obligation;
(4) as a source of revenue or security for the payment of
principal and interest on revenue or general obligation bonds
issued by the State if the proceeds of the sale of the bonds will
be deposited into the State loan fund; and
(5) to earn interest on the amounts deposited into the
State loan fund.
(g) ADMINISTRATION OF STATE LOAN FUNDS.—
(1) COMBINED FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION.—Notwith-
standing subsection (c), a State may (as a convenience and to
avoid unnecessary administrative costs) combine, in accordance
with State law, the financial administration of a State loan
fund established under this section with the financial adminis-
tration of any other revolving fund established by the State if
otherwise not prohibited by the law under which the State loan
fund was established and if the Administrator determines
that—
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
Sec. 1452 SAFE DRINKING WATER 460
(A) the grants under this section, together with loan
repayments and interest, will be separately accounted for
and used solely for the purposes specified in subsection (a);
and
(B) the authority to establish assistance priorities and
carry out oversight and related activities (other than finan-
cial administration) with respect to assistance remains
with the State agency having primary responsibility for
administration of the State program under section 1413,
after consultation with other appropriate State agencies
(as determined by the State): Provided, That in nonpri-
macy States eligible to receive assistance under this sec-
tion, the Governor shall determine which State agency will
have authority to establish priorities for financial assist-
ance from the State loan fund.
(2) COST OF ADMINISTERING FUND.—Each State may annu-
ally use up to 4 percent of the funds allotted to the State under
this section to cover the reasonable costs of administration of
the programs under this section, including the recovery of rea-
sonable costs expended to establish a State loan fund which
are incurred after the date of enactment of this section, and to
provide technical assistance to public water systems within the
State. For fiscal year 1995 and each fiscal year thereafter, each
State may use up to an additional 10 percent of the funds al-
lotted to the State under this section—
(A) for public water system supervision programs
under section 1443(a);
(B) to administer or provide technical assistance
through source water protection programs;
(C) to develop and implement a capacity development
strategy under section 1420(c); and
(D) for an operator certification program for purposes
of meeting the requirements of section 1419,
if the State matches the expenditures with at least an equal
amount of State funds. At least half of the match must be ad-
ditional to the amount expended by the State for public water
supervision in fiscal year 1993. An additional 2 percent of the
funds annually allotted to each State under this section may
be used by the State to provide technical assistance to public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons in the State.
Funds utilized under subparagraph (B) shall not be used for
enforcement actions.
(3) GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS.—The Administrator shall
publish guidance and promulgate regulations as may be nec-
essary to carry out the provisions of this section, including—
(A) provisions to ensure that each State commits and
expends funds allotted to the State under this section as
efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and ap-
plicable State laws;
(B) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; and
(C) guidance to avoid the use of funds made available
under this section to finance the expansion of any public
water system in anticipation of future population growth.
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
461 SAFE DRINKING WATER Sec. 1452
The guidance and regulations shall also ensure that the States,
and public water systems receiving assistance under this sec-
tion, use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that conform
to generally accepted accounting standards.
(4) STATE REPORT.—Each State administering a loan fund
and assistance program under this subsection shall publish
and submit to the Administrator a report every 2 years on its
activities under this section, including the findings of the most
recent audit of the fund and the entire State allotment. The
Administrator shall periodically audit all State loan funds es-
tablished by, and all other amounts allotted to, the States pur-
suant to this section in accordance with procedures established
by the Comptroller General.
(h) NEEDS SURVEY.—The Administrator shall conduct an as-
sessment of water system capital improvement needs of all eligible
public water systems in the United States and submit a report to
the Congress containing the results of the assessment within 180
days after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 and every 4 years thereafter.
(i) INDIAN TRIBES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—ll/2 percent of the amounts appropriated
annually to carry out this section may be used by the Adminis-
trator to make grants to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native vil-
lages that have not otherwise received either grants from the
Administrator under this section or assistance from State loan
funds established under this section. The grants may only be
used for expenditures by tribes and villages for public water
system expenditures referred to in subsection (a)(2).
(2) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds reserved pursuant to paragraph
(1) shall be used to address the most significant threats to pub-
lic health associated with public water systems that serve In-
dian Tribes, as determined by the Administrator in consulta-
tion with the Director of the Indian Health Service and Indian
Tribes.
(3) ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES.—In the case of a grant for a
project under this subsection in an Alaska Native village, the
Administrator is also authorized to make grants to the State
of Alaska for the benefit of Native villages. An amount not to
exceed 4 percent of the grant amount may be used by the State
of Alaska for project management.
(4) NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—The Administrator, in consulta-
tion with the Director of the Indian Health Service and Indian
Tribes, shall, in accordance with a schedule that is consistent
with the needs surveys conducted pursuant to subsection (h),
prepare surveys and assess the needs of drinking water treat-
ment facilities to serve Indian Tribes, including an evaluation
of the public water systems that pose the most significant
threats to public health.
(j) OTHER AREAS.—Of the funds annually available under this
section for grants to States, the Administrator shall make allot-
ments in accordance with section 1443(a)(4) for the Virgin Islands,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, and Guam. The grants allotted as provided in this sub-
section may be provided by the Administrator to the governments
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
Sec. 1452 SAFE DRINKING WATER 462
of such areas, to public water systems in such areas, or to both, to
be used for the public water system expenditures referred to in
subsection (a)(2). The grants, and grants for the District of Colum-
bia, shall not be deposited in State loan funds. The total allotment
of grants under this section for all areas described in this sub-
section in any fiscal year shall not exceed 0.33 percent of the aggre-
gate amount made available to carry out this section in that fiscal
year.
(k) OTHER AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), a
State may take each of the following actions:
(A) Provide assistance, only in the form of a loan, to
one or more of the following:
(i) Any public water system described in sub-
section (a)(2) to acquire land or a conservation ease-
ment from a willing seller or grantor, if the purpose of
the acquisition is to protect the source water of the
system from contamination and to ensure compliance
with national primary drinking water regulations.
(ii) Any community water system to implement
local, voluntary source water protection measures to
protect source water in areas delineated pursuant to
section 1453, in order to facilitate compliance with na-
tional primary drinking water regulations applicable
to the system under section 1412 or otherwise signifi-
cantly further the health protection objectives of this
title. Funds authorized under this clause may be used
to fund only voluntary, incentive-based mechanisms.
(iii) Any community water system to provide fund-
ing in accordance with section 1454(a)(l)(B)(i).
(B) Provide assistance, including technical and finan-
cial assistance, to any public water system as part of a ca-
pacity development strategy developed and implemented in
accordance with section 1420(c).
(C) Make expenditures from the capitalization grant of
the State for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to delineate and
assess source water protection areas in accordance with
section 1453, except that funds set aside for such expendi-
ture shall be obligated within 4 fiscal years.
(D) Make expenditures from the fund for the establish-
ment and implementation of wellhead protection programs
under section 1428.
(2) LIMITATION.—For each fiscal year, the total amount of
assistance provided and expenditures made by a State under
this subsection may not exceed 15 percent of the amount of the
capitalization grant received by the State for that year and
may not exceed 10 percent of that amount for any one of the
following activities:
(A) To acquire land or conservation easements pursu-
ant to paragraph (l)(A)(i).
(B) To provide funding to implement voluntary, incen-
tive-based source water quality protection measures pursu-
ant to clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (1)(A).
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
463 _ SAFE DRINKING WATER _ Sec. 1452
(C) To provide assistance through a capacity develop-
ment strategy pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).
(D) To make expenditures to delineate or assess source
water protection areas pursuant to paragraph (IXC).
(E) To make expenditures to establish and implement
wellhead protection programs pursuant to paragraph
(3) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section
creates or conveys any new authority to a State, political sub-
division of a State, or community water system for any new
regulatory measure, or limits any authority of a State, political
subdivision of a State or community water system.
(1) SAVINGS. — The failure or inability of any public water sys-
tem to receive funds under this section or any other loan or grant
program, or any delay in obtaining the funds, shall not alter the
obligation of the system to comply in a timely manner with all ap-
plicable drinking water standards and requirements of this title.
(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. — There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this section
$599,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994 and $1,000,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 1995 through 2003. To the extent amounts au-
thorized to be appropriated under this subsection in any fiscal year
are not appropriated in that fiscal year, such amounts are author-
ized to be appropriated in a subsequent fiscal year (prior to the fis-
cal year 2004). Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(n) HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES. — From funds appropriated pur-
suant to this section for each fiscal year, the Administrator shall
reserve $10,000,000 for health effects studies on drinking water
contaminants authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amend-
ments of 1996. In allocating funds made available under this sub-
section, the Administrator shall give priority to studies concerning
the health effects of cryptosporidium (as authorized by section
1458(c)), disinfection byproducts (as authorized by section 1458(c)),
and arsenic (as authorized by section 1412(b)(12)(A)), and the im-
plementation of a plan for studies of subpopulations at greater risk
of adverse effects (as authorized by section 1458(a)).
(o) MONITORING FOR UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS. — From
funds appropriated pursuant to this section for each fiscal year be-
ginning with fiscal year 1998, the Administrator shall reserve
$2,000,000 to pay the costs of monitoring for unregulated contami-
nants under section 1445(a)(2)(C).
(p) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR STATE OF VIRGINIA. — Not-
withstanding the other provisions of this section limiting the use
of funds deposited in a State loan fund from any State allotment,
the State of Virginia may, as a single demonstration and with the
approval of the Virginia General Assembly and the Administrator,
conduct a program to demonstrate alternative approaches to inter-
governmental coordination to assist in the financing of new drink-
ing water facilities in the following rural communities in south-
western Virginia where none exists on the date of enactment of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and where such
communities are experiencing economic hardship: Lee County,
Wise County, Scott County, Dickenson County, Russell County, Bu-
chanan County, Tazewell County, and the city of Norton, Virginia.
December 31, 2002
-------
Q:\COMP\ENVIR2\SDWA
Sec. 1453 SAFE DRINKING WATER 464
The funds allotted to that State and deposited in the State loan
fund may be loaned to a regional endowment fund for the purpose
set forth in this subsection under a plan to be approved by the Ad-
ministrator. The plan may include an advisory group that includes
representatives of such counties.
(q) SMALL SYSTEM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Administrator
may reserve up to 2 percent of the total funds appropriated pursu-
ant to subsection (m) for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2003
to carry out the provisions of section 1442(e) (relating to technical
assistance for small systems), except that the total amount of funds
made available for such purpose in any fiscal year through appro-
priations (as authorized by section 1442(e)) and reservations made
pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed the amount authorized
by section 1442(e).
(r) EVALUATION.—The Administrator shall conduct an evalua-
tion of the effectiveness of the State loan funds through fiscal year
2001. The evaluation shall be submitted to the Congress at the
same time as the President submits to the Congress, pursuant to
section 1108 of title 31, United States Code, an appropriations re-
quest for fiscal year 2003 relating to the budget of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
[42 U.S.C. 300J-12]
SOURCE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
SEC. 1453. (a) SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT.—
(1) GUIDANCE.—Within 12 months after the date of enact-
ment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,
after notice and comment, the Administrator shall publish
guidance for States exercising primary enforcement responsi-
bility for public water systems to carry out directly or through
delegation (for the protection and benefit of public water sys-
tems and for the support of monitoring flexibility) a source
water assessment program within the State's boundaries. Each
State adopting modifications to monitoring requirements pur-
suant to section 1418(b) shall, prior to adopting such modifica-
tions, have an approved source water assessment program
under this section and shall carry out the program either di-
rectly or through delegation.
(2) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—A source water assessment
program under this subsection shall—
(A) delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas
in such State from which one or more public water sys-
tems in the State receive supplies of drinking water, using
all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the
sources of the supply of drinking water in the State and
the water flow, recharge, and discharge and any other reli-
able information as the State deems necessary to ade-
quately determine such areas; and
(B) identify for contaminants regulated under this title
for which monitoring is required under this title (or any
unregulated contaminants selected by the State, in its dis-
cretion, which the State, for the purposes of this sub-
section, has determined may present a threat to public
December 31, 2002
-------
Appendix B. EPA Administrator's Delegated
Authority to DWIG-TSA Program
B-l
-------
Appendix B
EPA Administrator's Delegated Authority to DWIG-TSA Program
9-67. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program
1200 TN 499
2/14/2000
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to Sections 1419, 1420, and 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
amended, the authority to:
a. Allot funds among the States, Indian Tribes, Alaskan Native Villages, governments of the
Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Guam, the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands, and to the District of Columbia for drinking water infrastructure needs,
as authorized by Section 1452.
b. Approve capitalization grant agreements to States and grants to Indian Tribes, Alaskan
Native Villages, and the State of Alaska for the benefit of Native Villages, governments or
public water systems of the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa
and Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and to the District of Columbia for
drinking water infrastructure needs, as authorized by Section 1452.
c. Make determinations annually on a fiscal year basis to withhold a certain percentage of
each capitalization grant, in accordance with Sections 1420(a), 1420(c), and 1452(a)(l)(G)(i),
made to a State if it has not:
1. developed and is implementing a program to ensure demonstration of technical,
managerial, and financial capacity by new community and nontransient,
noncommunity water systems; and
2. developed and is implementing a strategy to assist public water systems in
acquiring and maintaining the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to
comply with the Act.
d. Concur with determinations made under l(c) and l(e).
e. Make determinations to withhold 20% of a State's capitalization grant, in accordance with
Section 1419(b) and Section 1452(a)(l)(G)(ii), made to a State if it has not adopted and is
implementing a program for the certification of operators of community and nontransient,
noncommunity public water systems that meets the requirements of guidelines published
pursuant to section 1419(a) or meets the requirements of Section 1419(c).
f. Reallot unobligated and withheld funds in accordance with the requirements of Section
1452.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED.
a. Authorities l(a), l(d), and l(f) are delegated to the Assistant Administrator for Water (OW).
b. Authorities l(b), l(c), and l(e) are delegated to Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS.
a. To achieve national consistency in withholding decisions under l(c), each Regional
Administrator is to make withholding decisions, in accordance with the guidance published
under Sections 1420(d)(4) and 1452(g)(3) and must seek concurrence from the Assistant
Administrator for OW on:
1. the decision on the first State new systems program submitted under Section
1420(a) in each Region, and all decisions to withhold funds; and
B-2
-------
2. the decision on the first capacity development strategy submitted under Section
1420(c) in each region, and all decisions to withhold funds.
b. To achieve national consistency in withholding decisions under l(e), each Regional
Administrator is to make withholding decisions, in accordance with the guidance published
under Sections 1419(a) and 1452(g)(3) and must seek concurrence from the Assistant
Administrator for OW on:
1. the decision on one State operator certification program submitted under Section
1419(b) in each Region, and all decisions to withhold funds;
2. the decision on any State operator certification program submitted under Section
1419(c) (programs submitted as "equivalent") in each Region, and all decisions to
withhold funds;
c. Withholdings under l(c) and l(e) do not apply to Native American Tribes, the Virgin Islands,
the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
d. For concurrences under l(b), the Regional Administrator shall obtain the concurrence of
the Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water for the following:
1. in those cases where a state capitalization grant applicant requests an exception to
cash draw procedures related to aggressive leveraging proposals or other cases
which would involve the draw of cash at a more accelerated rate than specified in
the DWSRF Guidelines or regulations;
2. for approval of any capitalization grants where the DWSRF will be used to generate
payments for state match bonds. However, this concurrence is not required if
concurrence was given for such use on a previous capitalization grant and there are
no changes to the structure of the program.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY.
a. The authorities delegated to the Assistant Administrator for OW under l(a) and l(f) may not
be redelegated.
b. The authority delegated to Regional Administrators to approve the initial grant agreement
in each State, or the initial grant to the District of Columbia and the above listed territories
under l(b) may not be redelegated.
c. The authority delegated to Regional Administrators to approve all grants to Native American
Tribes and the State of Alaska for the benefit of Native Villages in l(b) may be redelegated
to the Regional Division Director level, or equivalent, and may not be redelegated further.
d. The authority delegated to Regional Administrators to approve amendments to initial grant
agreements and approve subsequent grant agreements to States, the District of Columbia,
and above listed territories under l(b) and l(e) may be redelegated to the Regional Division
Director level, or equivalent, and may not be redelegated further.
e. Regional Administrators may redelegate the authority under l(c) and l(e) to the Water
Division Directors, or equivalent, and this authority may not be redelegated further.
f. The Assistant Administrator for OW may redelegate the authorities under l(d) and 3(a) and
3(b) to the Office Director level or equivalent, and this authority may not be redelegated
further.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. 40 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 141, and 142
b. EPA Delegation 1-14, Assistance Agreements
c. EPA Assistance Administration Manual
d. EPA Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996
B-3
-------
e. EPA Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of the Operators of Community and
Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems
f. EPA DWSRF Program Guidelines and additional regulations and guidance for the Program
B-4
-------
Appendix C. Grant Management and
Oversight Requirements
C-l
-------
Appendix C
Grant Management and Oversight Requirements
Grants through the DWIG-TSA program are subject to assistance agreement regulations, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) cost principles, the Cash Management Improvement Act, and Agency
policies. Grants must be awarded and managed as any other assistance agreement. The Office of Grants
and Debarment (OGD) has developed Orders, Grants Policy Issuances (GPIs) and directives to assist
project officers and program offices in fulfilling and understanding their responsibilities (available at
http://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policv/policy.htm. Several grant requirements are discussed in further
detail below.
Orders, Policies, and Directives Overview
EPA Order 5700.7, Environmental
Results Under Assistance
Agreements
The Order applies to funding packages to the Grants Management
Office after January 1,2005, and requires EPA Program Offices to:
1) Link proposed assistance agreements to the Agency's Strategic
Plan/Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
architecture;
2) Ensure that outputs and outcomes are appropriately addressed in
assistance agreement work plans and funding recommendations;
and
3] Ensure that progress in achieving agreed-upon outputs and
outcomes is adequately addressed in grantee progress reports and
advanced monitoring activities.
OGD policy memorandum GPI
00-02, Pre-Award Costs, and 2 CFR
225
Applies to all grants awarded on or after April 1,2000 and addresses
EPA's revised interpretation of a provision in the general grant
regulations at 40 CFR 31.23(a) concerning the approval of pre-award
costs.
Addresses EPA's interpretation of a provision in the general grant
regulations at 40 CFR 31.23(a) allowing up to 90 days of preaward
costs.
• Recipients may incur pre-award costs [up to] 90 calendar days
prior to the award date provided they include such costs in their
application, the costs meet the definition of pre-award costs and
are approved by the EPA Project Officer and EPA Award Official.
• The award official can approve pre-award costs incurred more
than 90 calendar days prior to the grant award date, in appropriate
circumstances, if the pre-award costs are in conformance with the
requirements set forth in 2 CFR 225 (supersedes OMB Circular
A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal
Governments) and with applicable Agency regulations, policies and
guidelines.
If otherwise consistent with the coverage of 2 CFR 225, the following
two situations may meet the requirements at Appendix B 31.
Pre-award costs:
• Any allowable costs incurred after the start of the fiscal year for
which the funds were appropriated but before grant award (i.e. for
a FY 2010 project, this date is October 1, 2009).
• Allowable facilities planning and design costs associated with the
construction portions of the project included in the grant that were
incurred before the start of the fiscal year for which the funds were
appropriated (i.e. for a FY 2010 project, this date is October 1,
2009).
C-2
-------
Orders, Policies, and Directives
OMB Circular A-16, which
incorporates Executive Order
12906 and the One-Stop Geospatial
E-gov Initiative
OGD Cost Review Guidance
EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on
Compliance, Review, and Monitoring
OGD directives to project officers
OGD policy memorandum GPI
08-05, Guidance regarding Grants
Management and the Management
of I nteragency Agreements under
the Performance Appraisal and
Recognition System (PARS)
Office of Human Resources (OHR)
PARS policy documents
"Place of performance"
requirement
Project officer must indicate in the funding recommendations for a
proposed assistance agreement that the grant involves or relates to the
creation, collection, or analysis of geospatial information.
GPI's 00-05 & 08-04 require EPA staff to review all elements of cost for
all funding packages. Cost review checklists are available at
http://intranet/epa.gov/ogd/cost review/main/index.htm.
Streamlines post-award management of assistance agreements and
helps ensure effective oversight of recipient performance and
management. Requires EPA project office to develop and carry out
post-award monitoring plan, and conduct annual baseline monitoring
or the equivalent for every award.
Grants will be managed according to the EPA Project Officer Manual
fhttp://intranet.epa.gov/OGD/proiect officer manua!6/)and directives
listed at http://intranet.epa.gov/OGD/policv/policv.htm
For consideration in assessing grants project officer and
supervisor/manager compliance with key grants management policies
under the PARS process, developing PARS performance agreements,
and conducting mid-year and end-of-year performance reviews.
http://intranet.epa.gov/policv/pars/index.htm
For most projects, the geographic information needed includes the
NPDES or SDWIS number(s). For those without these identification
numbers, the latitude and longitude of the project should be provided.
C-3
-------
Appendix D. Inter agency Agreement (IA)
Standard Terms and Conditions
D-l
-------
Interagency Agreement between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Indian Health Service
for [Tribal Drinking Water Facilities] Construction
I. ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Interagency Agreement (IA) provides for the coordination between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region [ ] Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants -Tribal Set Aside (DWIG-TSA) Program
and the Indian Health Service (IMS) Sanitation Facilities Construction Program. This IA applies to funds
appropriated to the EPA under section 1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which the EPA intends to
transfer to the IMS under this IA.
If the actual cost of providing the facilities is less than the amount in the Project Documents, the IMS
Area Office and the EPA Region, in consultation with the Tribe, will coordinate the disposition of the
remaining funds. The parties may decide to increase the scope or identify another project for funding,
or the IMS may return the unused funds to the EPA. Any project changes agreed to by the parties must
be reflected in the IA through an amendment prior to expiration of the IA and before allocating funds to
a new project, unless the IMS decides to return the funds to the EPA. If the parties cannot come to
agreement, the IMS will return the funds to the EPA.
Funds transferred by EPA to the IMS under this IA may only be used in agreements authorized by Indian
Sanitation Facilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 2004a.
The IMS is approved to purchase equipment in accordance with its equipment management policies. The
IMS will determine that the equipment is in the best interest of the government and is necessary for the
performance of the projects under this IA. Disposition of the equipment will be subject to IMS
equipment management policies or as specified in the Project Documents with no further accountability
to EPA.
A. Resolution of Disagreements
Should disagreements arise on the interpretation of the provisions of this agreement or amendments
and/or revisions thereto, that cannot be resolved at the operating level, the area(s) of disagreement
shall be stated in writing by each party and presented to the other party for consideration. If
agreement or interpretation is not reached within 30 days, the parties shall forward the written
presentation of the disagreement to respective higher officials for appropriate resolution.
If a dispute related to funding remains unresolved for more than 30 calendar days after the parties have
engaged in an escalation of the dispute, disputes will be resolved in accordance with instructions
provided in the Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Appendix 10, available
at http://www.fms.treas.gov/tfm/index.html.
B. Duration of Agreement and Termination Procedures
This agreement shall continue in effect until IMS or EPA provides written notice of termination, or when
a project (or projects) funded under this agreement are completed or are no longer needed for the
purpose identified in the Project Documents. Any funds that are obligated up to and on the date of
D-2
-------
termination will remain obligated to the project(s) identified in this agreement. Notice shall be given
to the other party at least 60 days in advance of a termination date.
As per section 4.3.2 of EPA's "Interagency Agreement Policies, Procedures, and Guidance Manual 2008"
the total duration of the project period for an IA may not exceed 7 years unless (1) there is statutory or
regulatory authorization for a longer period, (2) a signed waiver from an EPA Director, Office of Grants &
Debarment (OGD), or designee, granting an exception is obtained, or (3) in the case of an allocation
(appropriation) transfer, a shorter period is mandated, i.e., 5 years. This durational limitation includes
both the original period of performance and any extensions. The initial determination of the appropriate
length of the project period should take this limitation into account. (For example, an IA between IMS
and EPA normally has a 5-year term. The IA can be extended upon approval of the parties for up to two
more years for a total IA term of 7-years. An IA cannot be extended beyond the 7-year limit unless a
waiver is granted by the EPA Director, Office of Grants & Debarment.) To exceed the 7-year policy
limitation, a waiver request must be submitted in writing by the appropriate EPA Senior Resource
Official to OGD. The OGD Director, or designee, may approve waivers on a class or individual basis
because of national security concerns, circumstances of unusual or compelling urgency, unique
programmatic considerations, or because the waiver would be in the public interest.
C. Sufficient Progress
EPA expressly reserves the right to terminate the IA for failure to make sufficient progress so as to
reasonably ensure completion of the project within the project period (as defined in Section I.B.),
including any extensions. EPA will measure sufficient progress by examining the performance required
under the Statement of Work, the time remaining for performance, and/or the availability of funds
necessary to complete performance. Prior to exercising this right to terminate, EPA will follow the
resolution procedures cited Section I.A.
D. Cost Collection upon Cancellation
If the EPA cancels the order, the IMS is authorized to collect costs incurred prior to cancellation of the
order plus termination costs, up to the total payment amount provided for under the agreement.
E. lAs with Contracts or Procurement
The IMS will use its administrative policies and procedures including those under the Buy Indian Act
provisions for direct federal acquisition, to implement and execute projects funded under this IA.
F. Fiscal and Project Reporting Requirements
The IMS will update its Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS) quarterly and provide a report
in STARS that may be accessed by the EPA. The report will include at minimum, project-specific
estimated expenditures and actual milestones achieved to date and will be available to the respective
EPA Regional DWIG Program Coordinator and to the EPA Financial Management Center. The STARS will
be updated by the 30th day following the end of a quarter, beginning with the first full reporting period
after funds are received by the IMS.
D-3
-------
G. Audit Findings
If an audit determines that any direct or indirect costs in a project funded under this IA are unallowable,
the parties to this IA will be notified immediately following resolution of the audit and the IMS project
account will be credited for ineligible costs.
II. PROGRAMMATIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. Authority and Purpose
The activities under this IA are being executed by the EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act
section 1450 (b), 42 USC 300j-9(b) and 1452(i), 42 USC 300j-12(i). The services and facilities will be
provided to the Tribe by the IMS under the Transfer Act, 42 U.S.C. 2001; Indian Sanitation Facilities Act,
42 U.S.C. 2004a; and Title III of Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 1632.
B. EPA Responsibilities
1. The EPA Regional Office shall designate a representative to coordinate its participation in projects
(Regional Program Coordinator). This representative shall formally advise the respective IMS Area Office
of this designation.
2. As resources permit the EPA shall provide to the IMS and Tribes technical assistance as needed to
successfully meet applicable program requirements.
3. The EPA Regional Office will ensure that the proposed projects are in accordance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act, annual national guidance and the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal
Set-Aside Program Final Guidelines October 1998 and the Addendums.
4. EPA Regional Office will ensure that water collection and analysis methodologies (as applicable) are
in accordance with the IHS/EPA jointly developed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
5. EPA is responsible for any distribution within the EPA of the final technical and financial report
provided to the respective EPA Regional Program Coordinator after the construction phase completion.
6. The EPA will not be a signatory on any Project Summaries or Memorandums of Agreement.
7. Where appropriate, EPA Regions shall provide comments to IMS Area Offices on the design and
planning documents associated with projects funded by the IA within 30 days of receiving said
documents.
8. EPA Regions shall monitor construction progress with: data from the IMS database, discussions with
the IMS Area Offices and field site visits as necessary to ensure the level of expended funds is reasonable
given the reported milestone dates. The EPA will consult with the IMS Area Office quarterly to discuss
project status.
9. The EPA Regions will participate in the final project inspection, as deemed necessary and resources
permitting. At project completion, the EPA Region will review the final technical and financial reports
provided by the IMS Area Office and will initiate the necessary EPA close-out process.
D-4
-------
10. The EPA Regions will acknowledge and respond to IMS Area invitations to participate in project
activities within 10 days of receipt.
C. IMS Responsibilities
1. The IMS shall implement and execute projects funded under this IA using its administrative policies
and procedures as described in the Indian Health Manual, Part 5, Chapter 2, Memorandum of
Agreement.
2. Project Documents (Project Summary/ Memorandum of Agreement or Arrangements as described
in 42 U.S.C. 2004a) will be developed by the IMS Area Office, in consultation with the respective Tribes
and respective EPA Regional Office.
3. Unless otherwise stipulated in the project documents, the IMS shall be the lead agency in assuring
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), and other applicable Federal requirements only if the EPA funds are deposited in the IMS
financial system (UFMS).
4. Quarterly progress reports will be available to EPA through the IMS STARS system as stated in I.F.,
Fiscal and Project Reporting Requirements. Should the need arise and if the agencies mutually agree,
the report may be supplemented.
5. The EPA Regional Office shall be formally notified of and invited to participate in the conceptual
design meeting, the final plans and specification review, and the final inspections for projects in which
EPA funds are utilized. IMS shall notify the EPA at least 30 business days prior to these events to allow
optimal participation. Notification will be by e-mail.
6. As applicable, upon completion of each project under this IA, all rights title and interest to the
provided sanitation facilities shall be transferred to the Tribe or to a responsible entity identified by the
Tribe in accordance with the Project Documents. Each respective IMS Area Office shall make such
arrangements as they determine necessary for the ownership and operation and maintenance of the
completed facilities.
7. For each project funded under this IA, a final technical and financial report shall be provided no
later than 365 days after construction phase completion to the respective EPA Regional Program
Coordinator. Electronic copies of the report shall be provided to the EPA representatives identified
above in Fiscal Reporting Requirements.
8. The water sampling umbrella Water Sample Collection and Analysis Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) for Tribal Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects, developed jointly between
EPA and IMS, will be implemented by IMS as applicable.
9. For an EPA funded project for a pilot water treatment study or for a specific hydraulic network
model calibration, the IMS will prepare an individual project specific Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) in accordance with EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/G-5) (EPA 2001) which
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf. The QAPP must be submitted for
review and approval by the EPA OW QA Officer through the EPA IA Project Officer, who must approve
D-5
-------
the Quality Assurance procedures or standards in writing. EPA will have 60 calendar days to approve
the QAPP submitted by IMS, after that time the QAPP will be considered final.
10. Restrictions on FY13 Funding for Corporations with Unpaid Federal Tax Liabilities and Felony
Convictions
This interagency agreement (IA) obligates and transfers or advances EPA funds appropriated under
Public Law 113-6 (Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013) and Public Law 112-175 (Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2013). As a result, this IA is subject to the provisions contained in the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, Public Law 112-74, Division E, Title IV,
Sections 433 and 434, regarding unpaid federal tax liabilities and federal felony convictions.
The IMS is also subject to the provisions of Division E, Sections 433 and 434 of the FY12 Appropriations
Act, regarding federal felony convictions and unpaid federal tax liabilities, in accordance with
Department of Health & Human Services Acquisition Policy Number 2012-03. IHS will forward to the
EPA Award Official, within 45 days, any documentation supporting an award where a written
determination was made by the agency debarring and suspending official that suspension or debarment
was considered but is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
D-6
-------
Appendix E. Federal Cross-Cutting
Authorities
E-l
-------
Appendix E
Federal Cross-Cutting Authorities
A number of federal laws and Executive Orders apply in Federal financial assistance programs - including
projects and activities funded through the DWIG-TSA Program. Below is a list of statutes, regulations, and
other information that may be helpful in complying with the requirements of other federal authorities.
Environmental Authorities
• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Pub. L. 86-523, as amended
• Clean Air Act, Pub. L. 84-159, as amended
• Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Pub. L. 97-348
• Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub. L. 92-583, as amended
• Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. 93-205, as amended
• Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898
• Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 as amended by Executive Order 12148
• Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990
• Farmland Protection Policy Act, Pub. L. 97-98
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-624, as amended
• National Environmental Policy Act, Pub. L. 91-190, as amended
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, PL 89-665, as amended
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. 90-542, as amended
Economic and Miscellaneous Authorities
• Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-754, as amended
• Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
• Procurement Prohibitions under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean
• Water Act, including Executive Order 11738, Administration of the Clean Air Act and the Federal
• Water Pollution Control Act with Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans
• Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Pub. L. 91-646, as amended
• Debarment and Suspension, Executive Order 12549
• Davis-Bacon Act, Pub. L. 107-217, as amended
Social Policy Authorities
• Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-135
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-3524
• Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-500 (the
Clean Water Act)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112 (including Executive Orders 11914 and
11250)
• The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690 (applies only to the capitalization grant
recipient)
• Equal Employment Opportunity, Executive Order 11246
• Women's and Minority Business Enterprise, Executive Orders 11625,12138 and 12432
• Section 129 of the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988, Pub.
L. 100-590
• Anti-Lobbying Provisions (40 CFR part 30) [applies only to capitalization grant recipients].
E-2
-------
Appendix F. Example Regional Funding
Allocation
F-l
-------
APPENDIX F
Example Regional Funding Allocation
Example Regional Allocation of DWIG-TSA Funding
(Assumed $18,000,000 DWIG-TSA Funding Level1)
Region
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Funding Amount2
$ 397,000
$ 475,000
$ 767,000
$ 924,000
$ 3,126,000
$ 548,000
$ 2,488,000
$ 5,863,000
$ 3,412,000
% of Total DWIG-TSA Funds
2.2%
2.6%
4.3%
5.1%
17.4%
3.0%
13.8%
32.6%
19.0%
Note:
Totals
$ 18,000,000
1 The funding level used in this example is not based on actual Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
appropriation amount.
2 Allocation distribution based on the 2011 EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and the
November 2012 IMS home counts using the formula described in Section III B of the guidelines.
F-2
-------
Appendix G. EPA Tribal Drinking Water
Program Direct Implementation Nexus
(TDINex) Data Entry Guidelines
G-l
-------
EPA Tribal Drinking Water Program
Tribal Direct Implementation Nexus (TDI Nex)
Data Guidelines
March 2012
I. Introduction
The Tribal Direct Implementation Nexus (TDI Nex) unites existing data systems from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Indian Health Service (IMS) with EPA Regional Tribal
and Alaska Native Village (ANV) program data to assist in the oversight of the Drinking Water
Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside (DWIG-TSA) Program. Information from existing agency
wide data systems: the IMS Project Data System (PDS), the EPA Integrated Grants Management
System (IGMS), and the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) form the
backbone of the TDI Nex. The EPA Regional Tribal/ANV data supplements the existing data
sources to improve EPA's ability to describe the success of the DWIG-TSA program.
This document summarizes data fields available through the TDI Nex Tool and the
responsibility and frequency of data updates. The use of this tool will start with the FY 2012
funding year and will continue for future funding cycles or until future notice.
IMS Project Data
System (PDS)
Integrated Grants
ribal Direct
Implementation
Nexus (TDI Nex)
afe Drinking Water
nformation Syst
(SDWIS)
Management System
(IGMS)
EPA Regional
Tribal/ANV
Program Dat
Figure 1: Data Sources Integrated via the TDI Nex
G-2
-------
II. Purpose of Data Integration
The data integration effort is part of an overall strategy by EPA to better establish the
specific public health benefits realized in both State and tribal communities by the State
Revolving Fund and DWIG-TSA programs. Date Integration will also improve EPA's ability to:
demonstrate the use of DWIG-TSA funds and identify aspects of DWIG-TSA program
implementation that lead to lasting success in Indian country. The TDI Nex tool will be used to
improve accountability of the DWIG-TSA program by; helping track and summarize the annual
fund usage over time. The outputs of the tool will be used to help the DWIG-TSA program
demonstrate successful implementation overtime including: compliance with the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations and a summary of EPA infrastructure investments. The
specific Region entered data fields are intended to support EPA's goal of improved program
accountability.
III. Summary of Data Responsibility
Table 1 summarizes the minimum update frequency and responsible entity associated with
the four data sources integrated by the TDI Nex. EPA Headquarters will be responsible for
updating the IGMS, IMS PDS and SDWIS data sources quarterly. The Regional Tribal and ANV
Program Data shall be updated by the EPA Regions at a minimum prior to each of the bi-annual
Regional—Headquarters check in discussions. Additionally, any project changes that impact
the required regional data fields (see Table 3 below) and occur outside of scheduled meetings
should be updated within 30 calendar days of the change.
Table 1: Data Source Minimum Update Frequency and Responsibility
Data Source
Integrated Grants
Management System (IGMS)
Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS)
IMS Project Data System (PDS)
Regional Tribal and ANV
Program Data
Minimum Update Frequency
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Bi-Annually prior to check-in
meetings
Responsibility Entity
EPAHQ
EPAHQ
EPAHQ
EPA Regions
IV. Description of Data Sources
The following section describes the data fields associated with each database included in
the TDI Nex tool.
A. Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) Data
The IGMS is a database used by EPA to manage grant and interagency agreement funding
agency wide. Twenty - three IGMS data fields that are of importance to EPA's tribal drinking
water program have been incorporated into the TDI Nex via a data pull from IGMS that will be
G-3
-------
completed quarterly by EPA Headquarters and uploaded to the TDI Nex tool via an excel
spreadsheet. The IGMS data will include the follow fields:
Table 2: Integrated Grants Management System Data Fields Included in the TDI Nex
Awarding Region Code
Applicant Type
Project Officer
Award Date
Award Fiscal Year
Grant No
Grant Family
Grant Status
Program Code
Project Description
Project Title
Project Start Date
Project End Date
Applicant Name
EPA Amount This Action
Total EPA Amount Awarded to Date
Recipient Contribution: Amended Total
Other Federal Funds: Amended Total
EPA Amount: Amended Total
Expenditure Amount
Unliquidated Obligation Amt
Final Report
Final Report Date
Detailed description of the data fields in IGMS can be found at this web link:
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/igms/userguide.html
B. Indian Health Service Project Data System (PDS) Data
The IMS maintains six data systems within the Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System
(STARS) the data system that is of most importance to the fiduciary responsibilities of the EPA's
tribal drinking water set aside program is the PDS. PDS data is used by IMS to track
construction project progress. Forty-one PDS data fields of importance to EPA's tribal drinking
set aside water program will been incorporated in the TDI Nex via a quarterly data pull to be
coordinated between EPA and IMS Headquarters. EPA Headquarters will upload the data to
the TDI Nex tool quarterly. The data from PDS will be arranged in six tabs (Project Details,
Project Milestones, Homes, Project Costs, Project Funding and IA Project identification number)
and will include the following fields:
Table 3: IMS Project Data System Data Fields Included in the TDI Nex
IHSArea
PDS Project Number
EPA Region
Project Name
Tribe
Community State Code
Community Name
Project Homes
Total Cost
Total Funding
Percent Construction Complete
Housing Group
Home Type
Number Homes
Homes Served
Initial Deficiency Level (IDL)
Final Deficiency Level (FDL)
First Service Homes
Funding Source Code
Funding Source Name
Fiscal Year
Funding Year
G-4
-------
Percent Project Complete
Percent Funds Expended
MOA Signed Date
Construction Start Date
Construction Complete Date
Final Report Date
Last Update
Scope
Percent Construction Complete*
Construction Document Start Date*
Construction Document Complete Date*
Construction Phase Start Date*
Construction Phase End Date*
*lncludes: Proposed, Estimated and Actual
Dates.
Estimated Cost
Actual Cost
Document Num. (IA)
Estimated Amount
Estimated Expenditure
Document (IA) Signed Date
Start Date
End Date
Document (IA) Amount
Additional information regarding these data fields can be found in the Sanitation Tracking and
Reporting System User Manual (September 2008).
C. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Data
The SDWIS contains information about public water systems and their violation of EPA's
drinking water regulations, as reported by the EPA Regional Direct Implementation Program
and the States. All the publically available in SDWIS available through the EPA Data
Warehouse associated with public water systems serving tribes and ANVs will be imported into
the tool via an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) by EPA Headquarters on a quarterly basis.
Projects will be associated to one or more public water systems by the Regions through
direct data input. This will link the project to the public water system and their violations,
Enforcement Tracking Tool scores and inventory.
D. EPA Regional/ANV Tribal Program Data
Table 4 contains four key numeric data fields Regions need to fill in order to reference data
tables within the tool.
G-5
-------
Table 4: Region Entered Project Identifiers
Data Field
Funding Source
Region Project ID#
PDS Number
IA Number
EPA Grant Number
Public Water System
Identification Number
(PWS#)
Description
Identifies where the
program funds will be
taken from
Number which will
identify projects before
there are IGMSorPDS
numbers available
IMS PDS number
associated with the
funded project
Number which identifies
the IA under which the
project is funded.
Number associated with
direct grant project
Number associated with
the system(s) receiving
DWIG-TSA funds
Source
EPA Region
EPA Region
IMS (Must be
entered by EPA
Region)
EPA Region
EPA Region
EPA Region
Location in TDI Nex
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
PWS Details
The fields described in Table 5 represent data that is currently not tracked by any of the
aforementioned existing databases, but are required under the 1998 DWIG-TSA Program
Guidelines, as a condition of the EPA National Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification
program and as part of an overall effort by EPA to better establish the specific public health
benefits realized in both State and tribal communities by the Sate Revolving Fund and
DWIG-TSA programs. Regional project managers will be responsible for data entry for the
fields listed in Table 5.
Table 5: Region Entered Data Fields (required)
Reference
Number
a
b
c
Region Entered Data
Field
Certified Operator(s)
appropriate to
operate/maintain
current infrastructure
Certified Operator(s)
appropriate to
operate/maintain
future infrastructure
Project Purpose
Description
Y/N
Y/N/Agrees to Obtain
Narrative of the specific
public health benefit (s)
achieved by this project
Notes
At the time of
project
application
At the time of
project
application
See Section
IV-D-2 for
additional
Location in TDI
Nex
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
G-6
-------
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Primary Project
Purpose
Primary Infrastructure
category
Rule violation (s)
Addressed/Prevented
Technical Assistance
(TA) Provided
Technical Managerial
and Financial (TMF)
Capacity
Capacity Agreement
Fiscal Year Funding
Tag
Project Phased
Pick List menu of
purpose categories to
provide sortable data
Enable project to be
categorized by
infrastructure type(s)
(attached)
The specific rule
violation that is being
addressed or prevented
by this infrastructure
(conditional). One
record for each rule
type. Multiple records
for violation type (e.g.
MCL violations will
require one record for
each contaminant
exceeding the MCL.)
Drop down EPA
Funded TA, Other
Funded TA, EPA and
Other Funded TA or
None.
Y/N Water system has
the technical,
managerial, and
financial capacity to
operate the planned
infrastructure
Y/N tribal entity
responsible for funding
water system
operations has entered
into an agreement to
develop the capacity to
operate the planned
infrastructure)
Identifies the fiscal
year of the funds used
for the project
Yes/No
guidance.
See Section
IV-D-3 for
additional
guidance.
See Section
IV-D-4 for
additional
guidance.
Conditional
Currently or in
the last 12
months prior to
project
application.
At the time of
project
application
Conditional
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
Drinking Water
Project Detail
PWS Details
PWS Details
PWS Details
Drinking Water
Project Details
Drinking Water
Project Details
G-7
-------
Table 6 lists optional data fields that can be used as needed by Regions to assist in their
program management.
Table 6: Region Entered Data Fields (optional)
Reference
Number
1
m
n
o
P
q
r
Region Entered
Data Field
Secondary Project
Purpose
Secondary
Infrastructure
Category
Responsible Entity
Public Water
System O&M
Funding Sources
System Receiving
Infrastructure has
Asset Management
Program
Project
Prioritization Score
Regional Funding
Tracking
Description
Allows categorization of
an additional project
purpose.
Allows categorization of
an additional
infrastructure category
Responsible entity for
oversight of the water
system pick list tribal
utility board, tribal
council, federal
government, local
(non-tribal) government
or none
Identifies the funding
sources and percent that
each attribute to each of
the operation and
maintenance of the water
system. List all sources of
funds (user fees, tribal
enterprise, tribal general
funds, federal
government or other.)
Y/N/Will receive tool as
part of project
Ranking scheme based on
Regional solicitation and
prioritization process
Field used to track
returned and de-obligated
project funds to ensure
full project accounting.
Notes
Pick List
Pick List
Pick list
See Section
IV-D-4 for
additional
guidance.
Location in
TDI Nex
Drinking
Water
Project Detail
Drinking
Water
Project Detail
PWS Details
PWS Details
PWS Details
Drinking
Water
Project Detail
Still in
Progress
G-8
-------
1. Region Entered Data Field Descriptions
a. Certified Drinking Water Operator(s) appropriate to operate/maintain current
infrastructure (required): The intent of this field (Yes/No) is to establish if the system
receiving project funds has met the grant condition of being operated by an adequately
trained and certified operator (DWIG-TSA Guidelines, 17) appropriate for the current
system at the time of application for funding. This condition helps ensure the system has
adequate technical, managerial and financial capacity as required by SDWA
1452(a)(3)(A) and The DWIG-TSA Final Guidelines (16).
b. Certified Drinking Water Operator(s) appropriate to operate/maintain future
infrastructure or agreement to obtain (required): The intent of this field
(Yes/No/Agrees to Obtain) is to indicate if the system receiving funds will be operated
by an adequately trained and certified operator following project completion. An
appropriately certified operator helps ensure the system has adequate technical,
managerial, and financial capacity as required by SDWA 1452(a)(3)(A) and The
DWIG-TSA Final Guidelines (16).
c. Project Purpose Narrative (required): the intent of this narrative field is to specifically
establish how the infrastructure funded by the DWIG-TSA will improve public health in
Indian country by; a.) facilitating compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations and/or b.) significantly furthering the health objectives of the SDWA (SDWA
1452 (a)(2), DWIG-TSA Guidelines, 13). The population of this field explains the
contribution a project has to public health protection as indicated by the traditional
program measures of GPRA compliance (SP-3) and the provision of access to safe
drinking water (SDW-18) and/or other public health impacts. Additional details provided
in Section IV-D-2 below.
d. Primary Project Purpose Category (required): the intent of this data pick list field is to
provide easy sorting of projects for data summary and analysis purposes according to
categories of public health purpose. Additional details provided in Section IV-D-3
e. Primary Infrastructure category (required): The intent of this pick list field is to
systematically categorize the infrastructure funded by the DWIG-TSA program. Data in
this field will allow for a more complete summarization and analysis of the
infrastructure built by EPA in Indian country (e.g. infrastructure category most
frequently associated with projects to facilitate compliance with the Arsenic Rule). Data
in this field will promote the adoption of best practices and allow EPA to quickly identify
the general use of funds for a particular system or tribe. Additional detail on this field is
provided in Section IV-D-4.
f. Rule Violations Addressed/Prevented (conditional required): The intent of this field is
to establish which drinking water rule violation(s) will be addressed and/or prevented by
infrastructure to facilitate compliance with NPDWRs. This field will enable EPA to
G-9
-------
establish the actual and preventative contributions of the DWIG-TSA program to rule
compliance with SDWA in Indian country. This information will be used with the above
field for purposes calculating the DWIG-TSA program's annual impact on
non-compliance.
g. Technical Assistance Provided (required): The intent of this field pick list (PWSS Funded
TA, Other Funded TA, Both or None) is to establish if a system receiving DWIG-TSA
funded project is receiving or has received support from services funded by EPA's Tribal
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program, other technical assistance support, or
none in the last 12 months prior to funding application. Information in this field will
enable EPA to better understand the capacity support provided for each project and
promote comparative analysis of post project outcomes.
h. Technical, managerial and financial (TMF) capacity (required): The intent of this field
(Yes/No ) is to establish that the system receiving DWIG-TSA funds currently has
adequate technical, managerial, and financial capacity as required by SDWA
1452(a)(3)(A) and The DWIG-TSA Final Guidelines (16).
i. Capacity Agreement (conditional required): The intent of this field (Yes/No) is to
establish that a system receiving DWIG-TSA funds that does not possess adequate
technical, managerial and financial capacity has entered into an agreement to undertake
feasible changes in operations necessary to ensure that the system has the technical,
managerial and financial capability to comply with the requirements of SDWA over the
long term (SDWA 1452 a(3)(b)).
j. Fiscal Year Funding Tag (required): The intent of this field is to establish the primary
fiscal year of the funds awarded to an infrastructure project. If a project utilizes
multiple funding years, the EPA Region should select the fiscal year from which the
majority of the project funds originated.
k. Project Phased (required): The intent of this Y/N field is to determine if additional
project phases must be completed before the project purpose is fulfilled. If in order to
fulfill the project purpose an additional project(s) must be complete then the project is
phased (Yes). If when completed this project will meet the project purpose without a
need for additional funding then the project is not phased (No).
I. Secondary Project Purpose (not required): The intent of this field is to allow regions
to categorize a secondary project purpose.
m. Secondary Infrastructure Category (not required): The intent of this field is to allow
regions to categorize additional infrastructure categories as applicable.
n. Responsible Entity (not required): The intent of this pick list field is to establish how
operation of the public water system receiving DWIG-TSA funding is overseen (e.g. a
G-10
-------
utility board, tribal council, local non-tribal government, federal government or none).
Information in this field will provide insight on the organizational set-up of public water
systems receiving EPA funds.
o. Public Water System Operation and Maintenance Funding Source (not required): The
intent of this field is to determine the source(s) of funds utilized by the system to
regularly maintain and operate its facilities. Information in this field will provide insight
on the organizational set-up of public water systems receiving EPA funds and help
identify systems/projects that may benefit from managerial and financial capacity
training to help ensure optimal operation of infrastructure over its lifetime. Additional
detail on this field is provided in Section IV-D-5.
p. System Receiving Infrastructure has Asset Management Program (not required): The
intent of this field is to establish if the system receiving DWIG-TSA funded infrastructure
has or will have by project completion, a program to effectively manage their existing
and future assets. EPA has an interest in providing asset management tools for systems
in Indian country to help ensure proper operation of water infrastructure to achieve
continual compliance with the SDWA and to avoid unnecessary use of program funds.
q. Project Prioritization Score (not required): This intent of this field is for use by EPA
Regions, to indicate the regional ranking associated with a project.
r. Regional Fund Tracking (not required): The intent of this field is to track funding of
projects that utilize funds from multiple fiscal years. As of the date of this guidance
this field is still being developed.
2. Project Purpose Narrative Data Field Entry Requirements
The below guidelines establish the minimal reporting requirements for data entry in the
Project Purpose field by EPA Regional staff. The requirements of this field may be fulfilled
through entry into either:
i. The "Project Description" data field in IGMS data system for direct grant and IA funded
projects
ii. The "Project Description: data in IMS PDS data system for IA funded projects
iii. The "Project Purpose Narrative" data field in the TDI Nex for direct grant and IA funded
projects
If possible, it is recommended that EPA Regional staff utilize option (i) to ensure the quality
of the data contained within the "Project Description" field in IGMS is consistent across EPA
data systems and to reduce duplicative data entry requirements.
Option ii could be used for DWIG-TSA projects funded through lAs with IMS. Under this
option the EPA Regions could request the IMS Area to input the level of detail required by EPA
G-ll
-------
into the PDS data system. However, reliance on IMS data does not relieve the EPA Region the
burden of following the requirements of the guidelines included in this document.
Option iii relies upon duplicative direct data entry into the TDI Nex. Data entered into the
Project Purpose.
Project purpose narrative field data that meets the requirements of these guidelines will
only need to be re-visited by the EPA Region if changes in scope occur that alter a project's
purpose.
a. Background: The intent of this field is to establish how the infrastructure funded by the
DWIG-TSA will improve public health in Indian country by; a.) facilitating compliance
with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and/or b.) significantly furthering
the health objectives of the SDWA (SDWA 1452 (a)(2), DWIG-TSA Guidelines, 13). Data
entered into this field must explain the contribution an awarded project will make to the
protection of public health as demonstrated by the EPA Tribal Drinking Water program
measures SDW-SP3.N11 and SDW-18.N11 and/or other health indicators.
• SDW-SP3.N11: Percent of the population in Indian country served by community
water systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards.
• SDW-18.N11: Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes provided
access to safe drinking water in coordination with other federal agencies.
b. Field Requirements: This field is to be populated by 1 or more sentences that include
the following:
• Identification of the specific system infrastructure deficiencies addressed by the
awarded project
o Identification of the total system infrastructure deficiencies (for phased and
shared cost projects)
• Description of the negative public health effects and/or threats caused by the
identified system infrastructure deficiencies (include an estimate of population
affected for phased, first service, new public water system, shared cost and
feasibility study projects)
o Public health effect: a demonstrated and documented health impact on the
service population or the environment (e.g. health-based violations, boil
water notices, source water quality monitoring data, etc.)
o Public health threat: an identified situation that may lead to a public health
effect based upon existing water system deficiencies (e.g. low distribution
system pressure, point source pollution, new treatment requirements, etc.)
• Description of what infrastructure will be built and how that infrastructure will
address the identified deficiencies
G-12
-------
• Identification of the specific public health benefit(s) gained or negative public health
impact(s) avoided by addressing infrastructure deficiencies. The TDI Nex includes
the National Primary Drinking Water Standard health effects language for all
regulated drinking water contaminants to assist EPA Regions in fulfilling this
requirement.
c. Data Entry Examples:
i. Existing System Upgrade
This project will prevent TCR violations as well as address DBPR MCL exceedences for TTHMs
caused by bacteriological growth and low pressure due to undersized pipe, and dead-ends by
replacing existing mains with 5000' of 10 inch pipe to loop the system which will improve the
hydraulics, prevent growth and support compliant chlorine residuals.
i i. First Service Extension
The project directly addresses an ongoing Radionuclides Rule MCL violation at the current
system (PWS ID 090400267) by taking the current system offline and extending the
neighboring, NPDWR compliant Bald Hill water system to serve the 30 residents of Bald Hill on
Hoopa Valley Tribal Lands. This grant will provide funds for the construction of 2 drinking
water tanks, 2 pump stations and 10,000 ft of 6" PVC pipeline. Pre-award costs have been
approved back to August 1, 2004.
iii. New System
This project will address a significant risk to public health from bacteriological contamination
and disruptions in service due to treatment malfunction and water main breaks. One main
break resulted in a loss of pressure and required the issuance of a boil water notice. This grant
will provide funds for the construction of a new community water system to serve the 60
residents of the Kwigillingok Village in Alaska. The system is scheduled to reach the end of its
design life by 2014. The new system will include; a new treatment building and equipment, 1
new tank, and a new water main and distribution system. The new system will rely on a
geothermal power plant installed by the Department of Energy to reduce operating costs and
provide circulated heat to prevent pipe breaks.
iv. Phased Project
This project is Phase I of IV of an overall plan to construct a 50 mile transmission line and
regional water system between Shiprock, NM and Sweetwater, AZ. The fully completed
project will address Arsenic MCL violations at 5 water systems (NN0400571, NN0400572,
NN0400574, NN0400575, and NN0400578) that serve 7832 residents/1958 homes in 7
communities with a current deficiency of 4. In addition, this project will increase revenues by
expanding the rate payer base and provide operational efficiencies to help address TCR MR
repeat major violations at NN0400572 and NN040574.
G-13
-------
Phase I will address the Arsenic MCL violation for 600 homes (1200 residents) in the
Sweetwater System (NN0400571). Construction will include; two 500,000 gallon water storage
tanks in Sweetwater and Teec Nos Pos, a 300 gallon-per-minute (gpm) booster station in
Sweetwater with a 3-phase power line upgrade, 17,000' of 6" waterline between the
Sweetwater Master Well and the Sweetwater Franco-Western Well, 250' of 14" water
transmission line, booster station upgrades at two sites in Beclabito, and a new booster station
on the existing inter-tie between Cudei and Beclabito.
v. Shared Cost Project
This project will address a risk to public health from bacteriological contamination caused by
chlorination equipment malfunction and subsequent interruptions in service as well as a lack of
staffing by installing a new water treatment plant. This project includes construction of a new
building, two new high service pumps at the water treatment plant for pumping to the
community elevated water storage reservoir, two new high service pumps at the lake intake, a
chlorine contact tank with equalization storage at the water treatment plant, three chemical
treatment rooms for chorine/fluoride, ammonia, and filter cleaning chemicals, and modest
office and laboratory space for water treatment plant operation. This project is being funded by
EPA and IMS. EPA's contribution will be used to fund outside engineering services to provide
specialized design work needed for the geotechnical evaluation, the building and its systems,
and possibly the treatment process itself.
vi. Feasibility Study
This project is for a feasibility study to target the best option to directly address the Arsenic
Rule exemption at the Meneger's Dam water system set to expire in 2015. This project will
provide for a feasibility study to compare the total life time system costs of, but not limited to,
the following alternatives:
• Creating an expanded regional water system that will connect the Meneger's Dam water
system to the proposed Gu Vo/Pia Oik Regional Water System. The Gu Vo water
system will be intertied with the Pia Oik water system under IMS projects TU 99-262 and
TU 99-252, creating the Gu Vo/Pia Oik Regional Water System. The Gu VO/Pia Oik
Regional Water System will utilize a water source with an arsenic level of only 5 ppb.
• Provide a water treatment plant for the Meneger's Dam water system.
Findings from this study will be used to plan and design the most cost effective and expedient
solution to ensure public health protection under the Arsenic Rule for the population served by
the Meneger's Dam system.
G-14
-------
vii. Other Infrastructure
This project will directly address TCR MCL violations due to bacteriological contamination
caused by water system power loss and subsequent pressure loss. Loss of pressure in drinking
water systems is closely associated with bacteriological contamination of water supplies and
the risk of exposure to disease causing organisms. Both systems have experienced TCR MCL
violations and have issued boil water notices over the last year during power failures. One
diesel powered generator will be installed at the two small Tribal community water systems to
provide power during predictable interruptions in power supplied by San Diego General Electric
during wind storms and fire events and maintain pressure within the system.
3. Project Purpose Category Data Field Entry Requirements
To enable the categorization and sorting of projects to summarize use of funds and identify
trends, the Project Purpose Category "pick list" is to be used in conjunction with the Project
Purpose Narrative field. The following list of purpose categories is intended to identify the
public health impact of each project. Users will select the primary and if needed secondary
categorical purpose for each DWIG-TSA funded project.
The infrastructure project will [check one] ( directly OR as part of a phased approach):
a. Address a current NPDWR Health Based Violation (MCL or TT)
b. Address a current NPDWR MCL or Action Level exceedance(s)
c. Address a secondary contaminant exceedance
d. Address a system deficiency as part of an approved NPDWR exemption
e. Address drinking water outages or limited supply needed for human consumption
f. Reduce the risk of failure of major treatment or distribution system components
g. Provide first service to homes that lack access to safe drinking water
h. Provide operational efficiencies and reduce O&M
i. Other
4. Infrastructure Category Data Field Entry Requirements
The Infrastructure Category pick list shall be used to enable the categorization and sorting
of projects to summarize the use of funds and identify trends. The following list of
infrastructure categories is intended to clearly identify the main purpose of the public water
system capital expenditure funded directly by EPA. Users will select the primary and if needed
secondary infrastructure category for each DWIG-TSA funded project.
G-15
-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside Program
Project Infrastructure Categories1
DWIG-TSA Project
Infrastructure
Category1
Description
Planning
Engineering Project Report that includes: executive summary,
background narrative, preliminary design description, alternative
considered and recommended solution, permits required, O&M
requirements, environmental considerations, and project cost
estimate.
Design
Construction project plans and budget
Source
Well, well pump, well house, eliminated well pit, abandon well,
aquifer storage and recovery well, surface water intake, raw water
pump, off-stream raw water storage, spring collector, and
de-stratification
Transmission
Raw water transmission and finished water transmission
Treatment
Disinfection: chlorination, chloramination, chlorine dioxide, ozonation,
mixed oxidant type equipment, ultraviolet disinfection, contact basin
for CT, dechlorination of treated water, and chlorine gas scrubber
Complete Plants: conventional filter plant, direct or in-line filter plant,
slow sand filter plant, diatomaceous earth filter plant, membrane
technology for particulate removal, cartridge or bag filtration plant,
lime softening, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, activated alumina,
manganese green sand (or other oxidation/filtration technology, ion
exchange, groundwater chemical-feed and iron adsorption
Other components/equipment/processes: zebra mussel control,
corrosion control (chemical addition), powdered activated carbon,
aeration, sequestering for iron and/or manganese, chemical feed,
chemical storage tank, fluoride addition, pre-sedimentation basin,
sedimentation/flocculation, granular activated carbon, membrane
filtration, media filters, mechanical waste handling/treatment and
non-mechanical waste handling
G-16
-------
Storage
(finished/treated
water)
Elevated water storage, ground level water storage, hydropneumatic
storage, cisterns and cover for existing water storage
Distribution
Distribution mains (transport water through a piping grid serving
customers), lead service line replacement, service lines, hydrants used
for flushing (not for firefighting), valves (gate, butterfly, and etc.),
control valves (PRVs, altitude, and etc.), backflow prevention
devices/assemblies and water meters
Other
Laboratory capital costs for labs owned by the system, asset
management software/program, computer and automation cost
(SCADA), pump controls/telemetry, emergency power, security
fencing, security other physical (lights, wall, manhole locks, other
locks), security electronic/cyber (computer firewall, closed circuit TV),
and security monitoring tools (identify anomalies in process streams
or finished water)
Above categories adapted from the 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment. Items listed for each description are intended to indicate where different water
system infrastructure components should be categorized. It is not an exhaustive list of eligible
examples.
5. Water System Funding Source Data Field Entry Requirements (Optional Regional Field)
Public water system (PWS) support for the maintenance and operation is crucial for the
service population to receive the maximal public health benefit from EPA's water infrastructure
investments. The categories listed below enables the user to categorize the source of PWS
operational funding. Categorization of funding source provides a method to easily identify
trends in project award, as well as retrospective analysis of post award performance.
Information contained within this field will also help EPA target the appropriate party for
managerial and financial capacity training to support system viability.
Water System Funding Source
• User Fees
• Tribal Government General Fund
• Tribal Economic Enterprises
• Federal Government
• Other
G-17
-------
Appendix H. Guidelines for Fund Transfer
Authority between the DWIG-TSA and
CWISA Programs (May 2013)
H-l
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR - 4 2013
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request to Establish Delegation of Authority 2-105 to/j| ransfer Fund;
Revolving Fund Tribal Set-Aside Progra:
FROM: Bob Perciasepe, Acting Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
I hereby delegate to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regional administrators the authority to
establish Delegation of Authority 2-105 to transfer funds between State Revolving Fund Tribal Set-
Aside programs.
2-105 Transfer Funds Between State Revolving Fund Tribal Set-Aside Programs
(1200 TN 618)
1. AUTHORITY. Pursuant to Public Law 112-74, to approve the transfer of funds between the
accounts provided for tribal set-asides appropriated through the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED. Regional administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS. In a fiscal year, a regional administrator may:
a. Transfer a dollar value of up to 33 percent of the funds provided for the
region's Drinking Water Indian Set-Aside account to the region's Clean Water
Indian Set-Aside account.
b. Transfer a dollar amount up to the dollar amount identified in paragraph a of
funds provided for the region's Clean Water Indian Set-Aside account to the
region's Drinking Water Indian Set-Aside account.
c. Starting in FY13, for the first transfer within each region the regional administrator
must obtain concurrence of the Office of Water's assistant administrator or designee
and thereafter must consult with the Office of Water's assistant administrator or designee
exercising this authority.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable 'Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
H-2
-------
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY.
a. This authority may be redelegated to the division-director level or equivalent
in the regions and no further.
b. This authority may be exercised by any person in the chain of command to
the person to whom it has been redelegated. Any redelegation of this authority
does not divest the official making the redelegation from the power to exercise this
authority.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Section 518(c) of the Clean Water Act.
b. Section 1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
c. Additional guidance may be issued by the Office of Wastewater
Management or the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water.
H-3
-------
Attachment 1
Guidelines for Implementation of Fund Transfer Authority
Between the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant - Tribal Set Aside and the
Clean Water Indian Set - Aside Programs
May 2013
I. Purpose
This document provides guidance to EPA Regions when implementing the option to transfer funds between
the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant - Tribal Set Aside (DWIG-TSA) and Clean Water Indian Set
Aside (CWISA) programs.
II. Authorization
State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs currently have permanent authority to transfer funds between the
Clean Water SRF and the Drinking Water SRF. Authority to transfer funds between the DWIG-TSA and
CWISA programs was provided through EPA's FY12 appropriations, stating:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, the Administrator may transfer
funds provided for tribal set-asides through funds appropriated for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds and for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds between those
accounts in such manner as the Administrator deems appropriate, but not to exceed the
transfer limits given to States under section 302 (a) of Public Law 104-182.
The transfer limit identified in section 302(a) is 33 percent of the Drinking Water SRF. For example, had
we implemented the transfer provision in FY12, 33 percent of the DWIG-TSA allotment (of $18,358,000)
would have been $6,058,140. The process for tribal transfers will begin in FY13; no transfers may be
made with FY12 funds. The project eligibility portion of the grant guidelines specific to the program that
receives funds from a transfer will apply to the transferred funds. For example, if funds are transferred from
the CWISA to the DWIG-TSA, the funds will follow the project eligibility portion of the grant guidelines
that apply to the DWIG-TSA.
III. Permanent Delegation of Authority
A permanent delegation of authority is in place that delegates the authority to transfer funds between the
CWISA and the DWIG-TSA (#2-105). The April 4, 2013 authority memo is attached.
IV. Transfer Process
The following describes the steps to implement a transfer of funds between the two programs.
1. Regional Allotment Calculation: The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) and
Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) calculate the allotments and indicate the maximum amount
of funding available for transfer within each EPA Region.
2. Notification of Transfer: Regions will utilize their existing processes to identify water and wastewater
infrastructure projects and notify Headquarters of their interest in exercising the transfer option.
3. Transfer Justification: Regions electing to transfer funds will submit a short narrative transfer
justification to HQ that covers key points as described in this guidline supported by a Regional Project
List (RPL). For the purposes of these guidelines, the RPL for wastewater projects would consist of
information from the IHS Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) and the RPL for drinking water projects
H-4
-------
would consist of SDS information in addition to information identified through regional project
solicitations. The proposed projects to be funded through a transfer must be on the IHS SDS list.
Section V of this guideline includes a further description of the transfer justification and the data
elements required in the RPL.
4. Transfer Approval Review Criteria: The approval of the fund transfer will be based on a consideration
of several factors linked to Agency measures and priorities along with consistency with Agency
guidelines for implementing the programs. The following information should be provided for
consideration during the review process:
a. Number of Homes Provided Access to Safe Drinking Water or Basic Sanitation: The number of
homes the project provides access to safe drinking water or basic sanitation is based on the Indian
Health Service deficiency level data.
b. Improving Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations (if applicable).
c. Project Readiness: Indication that the following types of documents are complete: project
engineering report, planning, design, environmental reviews and archeology.
d. IHS Sanitation Deficiency Survey Project Priority Number.
5. Transfer Justification Review/Approval: Starting in FY2013, for the first transfer within each region
the regional administrator must obtain concurrence of the Office of Water's assistant administrator or
designee. Should an impasse occur the first time that a transfer is requested, the decision to approve or
disapprove will be resolved by the Assistant Administrator of Water.
For transfers subsequent to the first transfer, the Regions are to consult with the Office of Water's
assistant administrator through notification of OGWDW and OWM of the intent to transfer and provide
the Transfer Justification (Item 3) and the information described in 4ato 4d.
6. Funds Reprogramming: Upon approval of the transfer request, the approved amount of funds will be
reprogrammed. The reprogramming will occur at Headquarters before funds are made available to the
regions.
V. Transfer Justification
In order for OGWDW and OWM to evaluate the reasons for fund transfer, Regions shall provide a narrative
justification for the proposed transfer. The justification statement should highlight the public health threat
posed by the current deficiencies and net positive public health benefits of funding the project proposed for
the transfer. The narrative statement should answer the question: Why are the projects proposed to receive
transfer funds a priority for EPA? The narrative should also describe how the proposed infrastructure
project will address the current deficiencies along with measures or metrics that clarify why this project is a
priority over others. The transfer statement should be supported by the project data provided in the SDS
listing for the project along with the RPL. If the project is not in the top 10 percent of the IHS area SDS, the
narrative should also explain why the project does not rank highly on the IHS Area SDS.
The RPL should include the projects planned for funding that utilize all regional funds (both Drinking
Water and Clean Water.) If possible, the RPL should also include the highest ranked project(s) not funded
as a result of the funds transfer. The data to be included in the RPL for each project are listed in Table 1.
H-5
-------
Table 1: Data Fields for the Regional Project List (RPL)
Project Name*
Project Purpose*
Tribe Name*
Indian Health Service (HS) Area*
IHS Sanitation Deficiency System Data (Project
Number, Project Priority, Project Initial
Deficiency Level and Project Final Deficiency
Level)
Funding from Drinking Water Infrastructure
Grant-Tribal Set- Aside Program
Funding from Clean Water Act Indian Set-
Aside Program
Total Project Cost*
Public Water System Inventory Number*
(Drinking Water project)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Permit (Clean Water Project)
Number of Tribal Homes Served*
Current Violation Type(s) to be address by
project (as applicable)*
Anticipated Construction Start Date*
EPA Program Measures Addressed*
memo EPA National Tribal Drinking Water
Data recommended for all funded wastewater
* Data required for all funded drinking water projects per
Program Oversight and Accountability (March 23, 2012).
projects.
VI. Annual Timeline
The following table describes the approximate timing to implement a transfer of funds between the two
programs. Approval by OGWDW and OWM of the first transfer within each Region is required. For
subsequent transfers, Regions will still need to provide justification information to notify OGWDW and
OWM of the intent to transfer. OGWDW and OWM reserve the right to object to a transfer proposal if it is
contrary to the program guidelines or the goals of the program.
Table 2: Tribal Water Infrastructure Funding Transfer Process Timeline
Milestone
Regional Allotment
Calculation
Notification of Transfer
Transfer Justification
Transfer Approval
Funds Reprogramming
Schedule
Budget Operating Plan + 30 days
Budget Operating Plan + 60 days
Budget Operating Plan + 90 days
Transfer Justification /Consultation + 30 days
Transfer Approval + 30 days
Responsible Entities
OGWDW and OWM
EPA Regions
EPA Regions
Regional Administrator
or OGWDW/OWM
OWM or OGWDW
H-6
-------
Appendix I. EPA-Approved Providers
Meeting the Requirements of National
Tribal Drinking Water Operator
Certification
1-1
-------
Appendix I
EPA-Approved Providers Meeting the Requirements of the National Tribal
Drinking Water Operator Certification Program
As of March 2013, there are two providers approved by EPA to issue operator certifications under EPA's
Tribal Operator Certification Program.
• United Southern and Eastern Tribes (USET): www.usetinc.org/Home.aspx
• Inter Tribal Council of Arizona: www.itcaonline.com
1-2
-------
Appendix J. Preliminary Engineering Report
Template
-------
USDA
4
^*»nnCt
^ *
%
/
rf*
January 16, 2013
INTERAGENCY MEMORANDUM
Attached is a document explaining recommended best practice for the development of Preliminary
Engineering Reports in support of funding applications for development of drinking water,
wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste systems.
The best practice document was developed cooperatively by:
• US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service, Water and
Environmental Programs:
• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water and Office of Wastewater Management:
• US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Community
Planning and Development:
• US Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (IHS):
• Small Communities Water Infrastructure Exchange:
Extensive input from participating state administering agencies was also very important to the
development of this document.
Federal agencies that cooperatively developed this document strongly encourage its use by
funding agencies as part of the application process or project development. State administered
programs are encouraged to adopt this document but are not required to do so, as it is up to a state
administering agency's discretion to adopt it, based on the needs of the state administering agency.
A Preliminary Engineering Report (Report) is a planning document required by many state and
federal funding agencies as part of the process of obtaining financial assistance for development of
drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater facilities. The attached Report outline
details the requirements that funding agencies have adopted when a Report is required.
In general the Report should include a description of existing facilities and a description of the
issues being addressed by the proposed project. It should identify alternatives, present a life cycle
cost analysis of technically feasible alternatives and propose a specific course of action. The
Report should also include a detailed current cost estimate of the recommended alternative. The
attached outline describes these and other sections to be included in the Report.
Projects utilizing direct federal funding also require an environmental review in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Report should indicate that environmental
issues were considered as part of the engineering planning and include environmental information
pertinent to engineering planning.
J-l
-------
For state administered funding programs, a determination of whether the outline applies to a given
program or project is made by the state administering agency. When a program or agency adopts
this outline, it may adopt a portion or the entire outline as applicable to the program or project in
question at the discretion of the agency. Some state and federal funding agencies will not require
the Report for every project or may waive portions of the Report that do not apply to their
application process, however a Report thoroughly addressing all of the contents of this outline will
meet the requirements of most agencies that have adopted this outline.
The detailed outline provides information on what to include in a Report. The level of detail
required may also vary according to the complexity of the specific project. Reports should
conform substantially to this detailed outline and otherwise be prepared and presented in a
professional manner. Many funding agencies require that the document be developed by a
Professional Engineer registered in the state or other jurisdiction where the project is to be
constructed unless exempt from this requirement. Please check with applicable funding agencies
to determine if the agencies require supplementary information beyond the scope of this outline.
Any preliminary design information must be written in accordance with the regulatory
requirements of the state or territory where the project will be built.
Information provided in the Report may be used to process requests for funding. Completeness
and accuracy are therefore essential for timely processing of an application. Please contact the
appropriate state or federal funding agencies with any questions about development of the Report
and applications for funding as early in the process as practicable.
Questions about this document should be referred to the applicable state administering agency,
regional office of the applicable federal agency, or to the following federal contacts:
Agency
USDA/RUS
EPA/DWSRF
EPA/CWSRF
HUD
fflS
Contact
Benjamin Shuman, PE
Kirsten Anderer, PE
Matt King
Stephen Rhodeside
Dana Baer, PE
Email Address
ben.shuman(3);wdc.usda.sov
anderer.kirsten(3)epa.sov
kins.matt(3)epa.sov
Stephen, m.rhodeside(3)hud.sov
dana.baer@ihs.gov
Phone
202-720-1784
202-564-3134
202-564-2871
202-708-1322
301-443-1345
J-l
-------
Sincerely,
/A/A?
JacrfueKne ^ Ponti-LazarulC Assistant(Acl7nin(s^ator
USBA, Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service, Water and Environmental Programs
Sheila Frace, Acting Deputy Director
US EPArOffietToT^'ater, Office of Wastewatcr Management
/5
Andrew Sawyers, Deputy Director
US EPA, Director, Office o/Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
/ QSLI*. — —
, PE, RA&k, Director
Ronald Ferguson,
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction, Indian Health Service
Stanle7Gimont, I/ireckfr J
Office of Block urants&»
-------
WORKING GROUP CONTRIBUTORS
Federal Agency Partners
USDA, Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service (Chair)
EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management
EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management
EPA, Region 1
EPA, Region 9
HUD, Office of Community Planning and Development
HUD, Office of Community Planning and Development
Indian Health Service
Indian Health Service
USDA, Rural Development, Florida State Office
USDA, Rural Development, Florida State Office
Benjamin Shuman, PE
Kirsten Anderer, PE
CAPT David Harvey, PE
Matt King
Joyce Hudson
Carolyn Hayek
Abimbola Odusoga
Stephen M. Rhodeside
Eva Fontheim
CAPT Dana Baer, PE
LCDRCharissaWilliar, PE
Michael Langston
Steve Morris, PE
J-3
-------
State Agency and Interagency Partners
Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Colorado Department of Local Affairs
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Georgia Office of Community Development
Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality
Indiana Finance Authority
Indiana Finance Authority
Indiana Finance Authority
Kentucky Division of Water
Kentucky Department of Local Government
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Maine Department of Health and Human Services
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Montana Department of Commerce
North Carolina Department of Commerce
North Carolina Rural Center
North Carolina Department of Commerce
Rhode Island Department of Health
Rhode Island Department of Health
Dean Moulis, PE
Joel Mora, PE
Barry Cress
Michael Beck
Bret Icenogle, PE
Steed Robinson
Tim Wendland
Emma Kottlowski
Shelley Love
Amanda Rickard, PE
Shafiq Amawi
Jennifer Peters
Jonathan McFarland, PE
Norm Lamie, PE
Amy Douville
Corey Mathisen, PE
Cynthia Smith
Kate Miller, PE
Olivia Collier
Keith Krzywicki, PE
Vickie Miller, CPM
Gary Chobanian, PE
Geoffrey Marchant
J-4
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NPV - Net Present Value
O&M - Operations and Maintenance
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
Report - Preliminary Engineering Report
SPPW - Single Payment Present Worth
USPW - Uniform Series Present Worth
J-5
-------
GENERAL OUTLINE OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
1) PROJECT PLANNING
a) Location
b) Environmental Resources Present
c) Population Trends
d) Community Engagement
2) EXISTING FACILITIES
a) Location Map
b) History
c) Condition of Existing Facilities
d) Financial Status of any Existing Facilities
e) Water/Energy/Waste Audits
3) NEED FOR PROJECT
a) Health, Sanitation, and Security
b) Aging Infrastructure
c) Reasonable Growth
4) ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
a) Description
b) Design Criteria
c) Map
d) Environmental Impacts
e) Land Requirements
f) Potential Construction Problems
g) Sustainability Considerations
i) Water and Energy Efficiency
ii) Green Infrastructure
iii) Other
h) Cost Estimates
5) SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE
a) Life Cycle Cost Analysis
b) Non-Monetary Factors
6) PROPOSED PROJECT (RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE)
a) Preliminary Project Design
b) Project Schedule
c) Permit Requirements
d) Sustainability Considerations
i) Water and Energy Efficiency
ii) Green Infrastructure
J-6
-------
iii) Other
e) Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost)
f) Annual Operating Budget
i) Income
ii) Annual O&M Costs
iii) Debt Repayments
iv) Reserves
7) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
J-7
-------
DETAILED OUTLINE OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
1) PROJECT PLANNING
Describe the area under consideration. Service may be provided by a combination of
central, cluster, and/or centrally managed individual facilities. The description should
include information on the following:
a) Location. Provide scale maps and photographs of the project planning area and
any existing service areas. Include legal and natural boundaries and a
topographical map of the service area.
b) Environmental Resources Present. Provide maps, photographs, and/or a narrative
description of environmental resources present in the project planning area that
affect design of the project. Environmental review information that has already
been developed to meet requirements of NEPA or a state equivalent review process
can be used here.
c) Population Trends. Provide U.S. Census or other population data (including
references) for the service area for at least the past two decades if available.
Population projections for the project planning area and concentrated growth areas
should be provided for the project design period. Base projections on historical
records with justification from recognized sources.
d) Community Engagement: Describe the utility's approach used (or proposed for
use) to engage the community in the project planning process. The project
planning process should help the community develop an understanding of the need
for the project, the utility operational service levels required, funding and revenue
strategies to meet these requirements, along with other considerations.
2) EXISTING FACILITIES
Describe each part (e.g. processing unit) of the existing facility and include the following
information:
a) Location Map. Provide a map and a schematic process layout of all existing
facilities. Identify facilities that are no longer in use or abandoned. Include
photographs of existing facilities.
b) History. Indicate when major system components were constructed, renovated,
expanded, or removed from service. Discuss any component failures and the
cause for the failure. Provide a history of any applicable violations of regulatory
requirements.
c) Condition of Existing Facilities. Describe present condition; suitability for
continued use; adequacy of current facilities; and their conveyance, treatment,
storage, and disposal capabilities. Describe the existing capacity of each
component. Describe and reference compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local laws. Include a brief analysis of overall current energy consumption.
Reference an asset management plan if applicable.
J-8
-------
d) Financial Status of any Existing Facilities. (Note: Some agencies require the
owner to submit the most recent audit or financial statement as part of the
application package.) Provide information regarding current rate schedules,
annual O&M cost (with a breakout of current energy costs), other capital
improvement programs, and tabulation of users by monthly usage categories for the
most recent typical fiscal year. Give status of existing debts and required reserve
accounts.
e) Water/Energy /Waste Audits. If applicable to the project, discuss any water,
energy, and/or waste audits which have been conducted and the main outcomes.
3) NEED FOR PROJECT
Describe the needs in the following order of priority:
a) Health, Sanitation, and Security. Describe concerns and include relevant
regulations and correspondence from/to federal and state regulatory agencies.
Include copies of such correspondence as an attachment to the Report.
b) Aging Infrastructure. Describe the concerns and indicate those with the greatest
impact. Describe water loss, inflow and infiltration, treatment or storage needs,
management adequacy, inefficient designs, and other problems. Describe any
safety concerns.
c) Reasonable Growth. Describe the reasonable growth capacity that is necessary to
meet needs during the planning period. Facilities proposed to be constructed to
meet future growth needs should generally be supported by additional revenues.
Consideration should be given to designing for phased capacity increases.
Provide number of new customers committed to this project.
4) ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This section should contain a description of the alternatives that were considered in
planning a solution to meet the identified needs. Documentation of alternatives
considered is often a Report weakness. Alternative approaches to ownership and
management, system design (including resource efficient or green alternatives), and
sharing of services, including various forms of partnerships, should be considered. In
addition, the following alternatives should be considered, if practicable: building new
centralized facilities, optimizing the current facilities (no construction), developing
centrally managed decentralized systems, including small cluster or individual systems,
and developing an optimum combination of centralized and decentralized systems.
Alternatives should be consistent with those considered in the NEPA, or state equivalent,
environmental review. Technically infeasible alternatives that were considered should be
mentioned briefly along with an explanation of why they are infeasible, but do not require
full analysis. For each technically feasible alternative, the description should include the
following information:
a) Description. Describe the facilities associated with every technically feasible
alternative. Describe source, conveyance, treatment, storage and distribution
J-9
-------
facilities for each alternative. A feasible system may include a combination of
centralized and decentralized (on-site or cluster) facilities.
b) Design Criteria. State the design parameters used for evaluation purposes. These
parameters should comply with federal, state, and agency design policies and
regulatory requirements.
c) Map. Provide a schematic layout map to scale and a process diagram if applicable.
If applicable, include future expansion of the facility.
d) Environmental Impacts. Provide information about how the specific alternative
may impact the environment. Describe only those unique direct and indirect
impacts on floodplains, wetlands, other important land resources, endangered
species, historical and archaeological properties, etc., as they relate to each specific
alternative evaluated. Include generation and management of residuals and
wastes.
e) Land Requirements. Identify sites and easements required. Further specify
whether these properties are currently owned, to be acquired, leased, or have access
agreements.
f) Potential Construction Problems. Discuss concerns such as subsurface rock, high
water table, limited access, existing resource or site impairment, or other conditions
which may affect cost of construction or operation of facility.
g) Sustainability Considerations. Sustainable utility management practices include
environmental, social, and economic benefits that aid in creating a resilient utility.
i) Water and Energy Efficiency. Discuss water reuse, water efficiency, water
conservation, energy efficient design (i.e. reduction in electrical demand),
and/or renewable generation of energy, and/or minimization of carbon
footprint, if applicable to the alternative. Alternatively, discuss the water and
energy usage for this option as compared to other alternatives.
ii) Green Infrastructure. Discuss aspects of project that preserve or mimic natural
processes to manage stormwater, if applicable to the alternative. Address
management of runoff volume and peak flows through infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and/or harvest and use, if applicable.
iii) Other. Discuss any other aspects of Sustainability (such as resiliency or
operational simplicity) that are incorporated into the alternative, if applicable.
h) Cost Estimates. Provide cost estimates for each alternative, including a
breakdown of the following costs associated with the project: construction,
non-construction, and annual O&M costs. A construction contingency should be
included as a non-construction cost. Cost estimates should be included with the
descriptions of each technically feasible alternative. O&M costs should include a
rough breakdown by O&M category (see example below) and not just a value for
each alternative. Information from other sources, such as the recipient's
accountant or other known technical service providers, can be incorporated to assist
in the development of this section. The cost derived will be used in the life cycle
cost analysis described in Section 5 a.
J-10
-------
Example O&M Cost Estimate
Personnel (i.e. Salary, Benefits, Payroll Tax,
Insurance, Training)
Administrative Costs (e.g. office supplies, printing,
etc.)
Water Purchase or Waste Treatment Costs
Insurance
Energy Cost (Fuel and/or Electrical)
Process Chemical
Monitoring & Testing
Short Lived Asset Maintenance/Replacement*
Professional Services
Residuals Disposal
Miscellaneous
Total
* See Appendix A for example list
5) SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE
Selection of an alternative is the process by which data from the previous section,
"Alternatives Considered" is analyzed in a systematic manner to identify a recommended
alternative. The analysis should include consideration of both life cycle costs and
non-monetary factors (i.e. triple bottom line analysis: financial, social, and environmental).
If water reuse or conservation, energy efficient design, and/or renewable generation of
energy components are included in the proposal provide an explanation of their cost
effectiveness in this section.
a) Life Cycle Cost Analysis. A life cycle present worth cost analysis (an engineering
economics technique to evaluate present and future costs for comparison of
alternatives) should be completed to compare the technically feasible alternatives.
Do not leave out alternatives because of anticipated costs; let the life cycle cost
analysis show whether an alternative may have an acceptable cost. This analysis
should meet the following requirements and should be repeated for each technically
feasible alternative. Several analyses may be required if the project has different
aspects, such as one analysis for different types of collection systems and another
for different types of treatment.
1. The analysis should convert all costs to present day dollars;
2. The planning period to be used is recommended to be 20 years, but may be any
period determined reasonable by the engineer and concurred on by the state or
federal agency;
3. The discount rate to be used should be the "real" discount rate taken from
Appendix C of OMB circular A-94 and found at
(www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a94 appx-c.html);
4. The total capital cost (construction plus non-construction costs) should be
included;
J-ll
-------
5. Annual O&M costs should be converted to present day dollars using a uniform
series present worth (USPW) calculation;
6. The salvage value of the constructed project should be estimated using the
anticipated life expectancy of the constructed items using straight line
depreciation calculated at the end of the planning period and converted to present
day dollars;
7. The present worth of the salvage value should be subtracted from the present
worth costs;
8. The net present value (NPV) is then calculated for each technically feasible
alternative as the sum of the capital cost (C) plus the present worth of the uniform
series of annual O&M (USPW (O&M)) costs minus the single payment present
worth of the salvage value (SPPW(S)):
NPV = C + USPW (O&M) - SPPW (S)
9. A table showing the capital cost, annual O&M cost, salvage value, present worth
of each of these values, and the NPV should be developed for state or federal
agency review. All factors (major and minor components), discount rates, and
planning periods used should be shown within the table.
10. Short lived asset costs (See Appendix A for examples) should also be included in
the life cycle cost analysis if determined appropriate by the consulting engineer or
agency. Life cycles of short lived assets should be tailored to the facilities being
constructed and be based on generally accepted design life. Different features in
the system may have varied life cycles.
b) Non-Monetary Factors. Non-monetary factors, including social and
environmental aspects (e.g. sustainability considerations, operator training
requirements, permit issues, community objections, reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, wetland relocation) should also be considered in determining which
alternative is recommended and may be factored into the calculations.
6) PROPOSED PROJECT (RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE)
The engineer should include a recommendation for which alternative(s) should be
implemented. This section should contain a fully developed description of the proposed
project based on the preliminary description under the evaluation of alternatives. Include
a schematic for any treatment processes, a layout of the system, and a location map of the
proposed facilities. At least the following information should be included as applicable to
the specific project:
a) Preliminary Project Design.
i) Drinking Water:
Water Supply. Include requirements for quality and quantity. Describe
recommended source, including site and allocation allowed.
J-12
-------
Treatment. Describe process in detail (including whether adding,
replacing, or rehabilitating a process) and identify location of plant and site
of any process discharges. Identify capacity of treatment plant (i.e.
Maximum Daily Demand).
Storage. Identify size, type and location.
Pumping Stations. Identify size, type, location and any special power
requirements. For rehabilitation projects, include description of
components upgraded.
Distribution Layout. Identify general location of new pipe, replacement,
or rehabilitation: lengths, sizes and key components.
ii) Wastewater/Reuse:
Collection System/Reclaimed Water System Layout. Identify general
location of new pipe, replacement or rehabilitation: lengths, sizes, and key
components.
Pumping Stations. Identify size, type, site location, and any special power
requirements. For rehabilitation projects, include description of
components upgraded.
Storage. Identify size, type, location and frequency of operation.
Treatment. Describe process in detail (including whether adding,
replacing, or rehabilitating a process) and identify location of any treatment
units and site of any discharges (end use for reclaimed water). Identify
capacity of treatment plant (i.e. Average Daily Flow).
iii) Solid Waste:
Collection. Describe process in detail and identify quantities of material
(in both volume and weight), length of transport, location and type of
transfer facilities, and any special handling requirements.
Storage. If any, describe capacity, type, and site location.
Processing. If any, describe capacity, type, and site location.
Disposal. Describe process in detail and identify permit requirements,
quantities of material, recycling processes, location of plant, and site of any
process discharges.
iv) Stormwater:
Collection System Layout. Identify general location of new pipe,
replacement or rehabilitation: lengths, sizes, and key components.
Pumping Stations. Identify size, type, location, and any special power
requirements.
J-13
-------
Treatment. Describe treatment process in detail. Identify location of
treatment facilities and process discharges. Capacity of treatment process
should also be addressed.
Storage. Identify size, type, location and frequency of operation.
Disposal. Describe type of disposal facilities and location.
Green Infrastructure. Provide the following information for green
infrastructure alternatives:
• Control Measures Selected. Identify types of control measures
selected (e.g., vegetated areas, planter boxes, permeable pavement,
rainwater cisterns).
• Layout: Identify placement of green infrastructure control measures,
flow paths, and drainage area for each control measure.
• Sizing: Identify surface area and water storage volume for each green
infrastructure control measure. Where applicable, soil infiltration rate,
evapotranspiration rate, and use rate (for rainwater harvesting) should
also be addressed.
• Overflow: Describe overflow structures and locations for conveyance
of larger precipitation events.
b) Project Schedule. Identify proposed dates for submittal and anticipated approval
of all required documents, land and easement acquisition, permit applications,
advertisement for bids, loan closing, contract award, initiation of construction,
substantial completion, final completion, and initiation of operation.
c) Permit Requirements. Identify any construction, discharge and capacity permits
that will/may be required as a result of the project.
d) Sustainability Considerations (if applicable).
i) Water and Energy Efficiency. Describe aspects of the proposed project
addressing water reuse, water efficiency, and water conservation, energy
efficient design, and/or renewable generation of energy, if incorporated into the
selected alternative.
ii) Green Infrastructure. Describe aspects of project that preserve or mimic
natural processes to manage stormwater, if applicable to the selected
alternative. Address management of runoff volume and peak flows through
infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or harvest and use, if applicable.
iii) Other. Describe other aspects of Sustainability (such as resiliency or
operational simplicity) that are incorporated into the selected alternative, if
incorporated into the selected alternative.
e) Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost). Provide an
itemized estimate of the project cost based on the stated period of construction.
Include construction, land and right-of-ways, legal, engineering, construction
program management, funds administration, interest, equipment, construction
contingency, refinancing, and other costs associated with the proposed project.
The construction subtotal should be separated out from the non-construction costs.
The non-construction subtotal should be included and added to the construction
J-14
-------
subtotal to establish the total project cost. An appropriate construction
contingency should be added as part of the non-construction subtotal. For projects
containing both water and waste disposal systems, provide a separate cost estimate
for each system as well as a grand total. If applicable, the cost estimate should be
itemized to reflect cost sharing including apportionment between funding sources.
The engineer may rely on the owner for estimates of cost for items other than
construction, equipment, and engineering.
f) Annual Operating Budget. Provide itemized annual operating budget information.
The owner has primary responsibility for the annual operating budget, however,
there are other parties that may provide technical assistance. This information will
be used to evaluate the financial capacity of the system. The engineer will
incorporate information from the owner's accountant and other known technical
service providers.
i) Income. Provide information about all sources of income for the system
including a proposed rate schedule. Project income realistically for existing
and proposed new users separately, based on existing user billings, water
treatment contracts, and other sources of income. In the absence of historic
data or other reliable information, for budget purposes, base water use on 100
gallons per capita per day. Water use per residential connection may then be
calculated based on the most recent U.S. Census, American Community
Survey, or other data for the state or county of the average household size.
When large agricultural or commercial users are projected, the Report should
identify those users and include facts to substantiate such projections and
evaluate the impact of such users on the economic viability of the project.
ii) Annual O&M Costs. Provide an itemized list by expense category and project
costs realistically. Provide projected costs for operating the system as
improved. In the absence of other reliable data, base on actual costs of other
existing facilities of similar size and complexity. Include facts in the Report to
substantiate O&M cost estimates. Include personnel costs, administrative
costs, water purchase or treatment costs, accounting and auditing fees, legal
fees, interest, utilities, energy costs, insurance, annual repairs and maintenance,
monitoring and testing, supplies, chemicals, residuals disposal, office supplies,
printing, professional services, and miscellaneous as applicable. Any
income from renewable energy generation which is sold back to the electric
utility should also be included, if applicable. If applicable, note the operator
grade needed.
iii) Debt Repayments. Describe existing and proposed financing with the
estimated amount of annual debt repayments from all sources. All estimates of
funding should be based on loans, not grants.
iv) Reserves. Describe the existing and proposed loan obligation reserve
requirements for the following:
Debt Service Reserve - For specific debt service reserve requirements
consult with individual funding sources. If General Obligation bonds are
proposed to be used as loan security, this section may be omitted, but this
should be clearly stated if it is the case.
J-15
-------
Short-Lived Asset Reserve - A table of short lived assets should be
included for the system (See Appendix A for examples). The table should
include the asset, the expected year of replacement, and the anticipated cost
of each. Prepare a recommended annual reserve deposit to fund
replacement of short-lived assets, such as pumps, paint, and small
equipment. Short-lived assets include those items not covered under
O&M, however, this does not include facilities such as a water tank or
treatment facility replacement that are usually funded with long-term
capital financing.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Provide any additional findings and recommendations that should be considered in
development of the project. This may include recommendations for special studies,
highlighting of the need for special coordination, a recommended plan of action to expedite
project development, and any other necessary considerations.
J-16
-------
Appendix A: Example List of Short-Lived Asset Infrastructure
Estimated Repair, Rehab, Replacement Expenses by Item within up to 20 Years from Installation)
Drinking Water Utilities
Wastewater Utilities
Source Related
Pumps
Pump Controls
Pump Motors
Telemetry
Intake/Well screens
Water Level Sensors
Pressure Transducers
Treatment Related
Chemical feed pumps
Altitude Valves
Valve Actuators
Field & Process Instrumentation Equipment
Granular filter media
Air compressors & control units
Pumps
Pump Motors
Pump Controls
Water Level Sensors
Pressure Transducers
Sludge Collection & Dewatering
UV Lamps
Membranes
Back-up power generators
Chemical Leak Detection Equipment
Flow meters
SCADA Systems
Distribution System Related
Residential and Small Commercial Meters
Meter boxes
Hydrants & Blow offs
Pressure reducing valves
Cross connection control devices
Altitude valves
Alarms & Telemetry
Vaults, lids, and access hatches
Security devices and fencing
Storage reservoir painting/patching
Treatment Related
Pump
Pump Controls
Pump Motors
Chemical feed pumps
Membrane Filters Fibers
Field & Process Instrumentation Equipment
UV lamps
Centrifuges
Aeration blowers
Aeration diffusers and nozzles
Trickling filters, RBCs, etc.
Belt presses & driers
Sludge Collecting and Dewatering Equipment
Level Sensors
Pressure Transducers
Pump Controls
Back-up power generator
Chemical Leak Detection Equipment
Flow meters
SCADA Systems
Collection System Related
Pump
Pump Controls
Pump Motors
Trash racks/bar screens
Sewer line rodding equipment
Air compressors
Vaults, lids, and access hatches
Security devices and fencing
Alarms & Telemetry
Chemical Leak Detection Equipment
J-17
-------
Appendix K. Example Certification Utility
Financial Account
K-l
-------
Appendix K
Example Certification Utility Financial Account
The following is an example of a form that a Region might develop to certify how a water system
benefiting from DWIG-TSA Program funding manages the utility.
Public Water System
Name:
Public Water Supply
Identification Number:
System managed by a: [J Trjba| government
L_l Non-tribal utility serving a tribal community
I certify that the accounting system used to manage the financial operating plan for the public water
system benefiting from the Drinking Water Infrastructure Tribal Set-Aside funds has the capability to
record, track, and report on the program specific financial information independently from other
programs.
PRINT NAME
TITLE
SIGNATURE DATE
K-2
-------
Appendix L. 2012 Median Metropolitan &
Non-metropolitan Household Incomes by
State (HUD)
L-l
-------
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
NOTICE
Special Attention of: l\\J I IV-rL. PDR-2012-01
Regional Directors, Field Office Directors,
Economists, Public & Indian Housing Issued: December 1, 2011
Division Directors, Multifamily Hub Directors, Expires: Effective until superseded
Multifamily Program Center Directors
Cross References:
Subject: Estimated Median Family Incomes for Fiscal Year 2012
This memorandum transmits median family income (MFI) and income distribution
estimates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. They are calculated for each metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan area using the Fair Market Rent (FMR) area definitions applied in the
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The estimated MFI for the United States for
FY 2012 is $65,000.
There were no changes to the area definitions for the FY 2012 MFIs. HUD continues to use
the 2005-2009, 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) income data as the basis of FY 2012
Income Limits for all areas of geography, except for the US Virgin Island and the Pacific Islands.
This is the same data that HUD used in calculating the FY 2011 MFIs; more current ACS data has
not been released. An additional year of the Consumer Price Index update factor and the use of FY
2012 FMRs for high housing cost adjustments will result in the changes between the FY 2011 and
the FY 2012 income limits. The factor HUD uses to trend the 2009 estimates to the midpoint of FY
2012 is unchanged at 3 percent per year1.
In areas where there is also a valid 2009 1 year ACS estimate of median family income, a
statistical comparison is made between the 5-year median family income and the 1-year median
family income available from the ACS. If the 1 year data are statistically different then the 5-year
data, HUD calculates an update factor between the 5-year data and the 1-year data and applies this to
the 5 year data.
An explanation of the methodology used to develop FY 2012 MFIs and related documents are
attached. Attachment 1 provides an explanation of the estimation methodology used. Attachment 2
provides state-level MFI estimates. Since these state-level MFI estimates are no longer an update of
the 2000 Decennial Census (which provided 1999 income estimates) there are no longer columns
1 This average annual trend factor is unchanged from last year and relies on a comparison of the nation ACS income in
2000 compared with the income for 2008. HUD is currently evaluating alternative trend factors and may update or
change this trend factor for next year, most likely using a methodology similar to the method for calculating the trend
factor in the FY 2013 Fair Market Rent calculations.
-------
showing comparisons between current and 1999 state medians. The Income Limits Briefing Material
and Area Definitions reports are provided with this notice. Data disk files are also provided on
Section 8 Income Limits and income limits for the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate
(BMIR) rental program, the Section 235 program, and the Section 236 program, that are not part of
this transmittal notice, for you information.
Please note that the use of the HUD MFI estimates is subject to individual program
guidelines covering definitions of income and family, family size, effective dates, and other
factors. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please refer them to our website
at http://wwvv\huduser.org/pQrtd/datasets/il.html.
HUD MFI estimates are also available at the Department's Internet site, which
provides a menu from which you may select the year and type of data of interest
(http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il.html).
/*—-"
W. Boltic, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Development and Research
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
HUD METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING FY 2012
MEDIAN FAMILY INCOMES
HUD updated its methodology to produce Median Family Income (MFI) estimates to take
advantage of new nationally comprehensive data available from the Census Bureau's American
Community Survey (ACS), beginning with the FY 2011 MFIs. In December 2010, the first set of 5-
year ACS data was published. These 5-year aggregations, covering surveys administered in 2005
through 2009, provided income data for most areas of geography2. Because of the increase in the
geographic coverage of the 5-year data, HUD's methodology for calculating FY 2011 MFI no longer
was based on 2000 Decennial Census data, but rather, the 2005 - 2009 ACS data. The next 5-year
series of income data, from 2006 to 2010 was not released in time to incorporate it into the FY 2012
MFIs, which HUD is publishing at this time in response to public comment supporting a fixed, early
publication date. HUD is using the same ACS data for FY 2012 MFIs as it used for FY 2011 MFIs.
HUD uses additional Consumer Price Index (CPI) data to update the ACS data from mid-2009 to the
end of 2010. The factor used to trend the 2010 estimates to the midpoint of FY 2012 MFIs is
unchanged at 3 percent per year3. Separate HUD MFI estimates are calculated for all Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs), HUD Metro FMR Areas, and nonmetropolitan counties.
The ACS, conducted annually, was designed to produce estimates similar to the long-form
sample survey previously conducted with the Decennial Census upon compilation of 5 years of data.
Each year since full implementation of the survey in 2005, the Census Bureau collected an ACS
sample sufficient to provide estimates of most survey items for areas with populations of 65,000 or
more. After the 2007 ACS, the Census Bureau released data aggregated from the ACS samples
collected over the three years, 2005, 2006, and 2007. This allowed the Census Bureau to release
estimates for most items for areas with populations of 20,000 or more. FY 2010 MFIs reflected ACS
survey data aggregated over 2006, 2007 and 2008. After the 2009 ACS sample, the Census Bureau
had sufficient data to release aggregated five-year estimates. Five-year estimates are designed to
provide estimates for geographic areas of all sizes relevant to MFI and income limit production.
As mentioned above, HUD used the 2005-2009 5-year ACS data in the calculation process
for both the FY 2011 MFIs and the FY 2012 MFIs. Specifically, for each metropolitan area, subarea
of a metropolitan area, and non-metropolitan county, 5-year ACS data is used as the new basis for
calculating MFI estimates. HUD is incorporating the 5-year data in this way to eliminate the reliance
on the data collected during the 2000 Decennial Census as it is more than a decade old. In areas
2 The ACS covers the 50 United States, and a separate survey called the Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) covers
Puerto Rico. The US Virgin Islands and the Pacific Islands (American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Guam) are not covered by the ACS or PRCS. Detailed demographic and socio-economic information
covering these island areas have been collected by a special Long Form survey conducted in conjunction with the 2010
Decennial Census. These data are scheduled to be available in the Fall of 2012. For FY 2012 median family income
calculations, HUD continues to use the change in the national median income between the 2000 Decennial Census and
the latest ACS data as the update factor for the US Virgin Islands and the Pacific Islands. Since there was no new ACS
data used for the calculation of FY 2012 median incomes, the national median from FY 2011 was updated with CPI
through the end of 2010.
3 This average annual trend factor is unchanged from last year and relies on a comparison of the nation ACS income in
2000 compared with the income for 2008. HUD is currently evaluating alternative trend factors and may update or
change this trend factor for next year, most likely using a methodology similar to the method for calculating the trend
factor in the FY 2013 Fair Market Rent calculations.
-------
where there is a valid 1-year ACS survey median family income result, HUD endeavors to use this
data as well to take advantage of more recent survey information. By using both the 5-year data and
the 1-year data, where available, HUD is establishing a new basis for MFI estimates while also
capturing the most recent information available.
HUD changed the way it uses ACS margins of error for the FY 2011 MFI estimates. HUD
set the base MFI equal to the 2005-2009 5-year ACS survey value. For areas with a valid 2009 1-
year survey result, HUD used the margin of error for the 1-year data in conjunction with the margin
of error for the 5-year survey result to determine if the two survey results are statistically different. If
they are statistically different, HUD uses the 1-year survey result. In the few cases where the margin
of error exceeds the survey estimate, so that the confidence interval around the estimate includes
zero, HUD assigns the state nonmetropolitan median4. This evaluation is unchanged in the use of the
2005-2009 ACS data for the FY 2012 MFI estimates.
MFI estimates are based on the most currently available data, but the delay in collecting and
reporting the survey data mean that 2009 ACS income data is used for FY 2012 estimates that have
an as-of date of April 1, 2012. The CPI is used to bring the income data from 2009 to the end of
2010. A trend factor based on historic patterns of nominal income growth is used to inflate the
estimate from the end of 2010 to April, 2012. As in previous years, HUD is maintaining the use of a
3 percent trend factor.
Median family5 incomes start with the development of estimates of MFI for the metropolitan
areas and non-metropolitan FMR/income limit areas (including U.S. territories). Attachment 2
provides a detailed explanation of how median family income estimates are calculated. The major
steps are as follows:
HUD uses 2005-2009 5-year ACS estimates of median family income calculated for the areas
used for FMRs and income limits as the new basis for FY 2012. In areas where there is also a
valid 2009 1-year ACS estimate of median family income, a statistical comparison is made
between the 5-year median family income and the 1-year median family income available
from the ACS. If the 1-year data are statistically different from the 5-year data, HUD
calculates an update factor between the 5-year data and the 1-year data and applies this to the
5-year data. Once the appropriate 2009 ACS data has been selected, the data are set as of
December 2010 using the December 2010 national CPI value divided by the annual 2009
National CPI value.
All places:
All estimates (using either 5-year data or 5-year data augmented with 1-year data) are updated
with CPI through the end of 2010 then trended from December, 2010 to April, 2012 (IVi year)
with a trending factor of 3 percent per year.
4 For the FY 2012 MFI estimates, HUD uses the state nonmetropolitan median for Kalawao County, HI and Kenedy
County, TX.
5 Family refers to the Census definition of a family, which is a householder with one or more other persons living in the same
household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. The definition of family excludes one-person
households and multi-person households of unrelated individuals.
-------
For the non-Puerto Rico Insular Areas of the United States,6 which currently lack ACS coverage,
national ACS income changes are used as surrogates to update 2000 Decennial Census data.
HUD anticipates eventually receiving new income data for these areas from the 2010 Decennial
Census, which included a "long form" collection of detailed socio-economic information in these
areas only.
6 The areas without ACS coverage are the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas
Islands. Puerto Rico is covered by the ACS-equivalent Puerto Rico Community Survey.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
FY 2012 Median Family Incomes for States,
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Portions of States
o Irtl Hj
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Call f ornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
55400
80400
61600
50900
71400
74100
89200
73300
71400
57000
59800
79400
55200
72100
60100
64800
65200
53000
55700
61000
89300
86100
60400
73900
48700
60700
58000
64400
64800
80500
89400
54500
71400
57800
67600
61100
55800
63900
66600
75700
55800
60400
54700
60300
67500
67600
76900
72900
50700
66700
67700
— ri^u^^ —
METRO
58800
84500
62800
56600
71800
76700
90000
77400
71400
57800
63700
82700
58400
75300
62400
70300
72100
61800
59600
66300
90600
86100
62900
80200
57700
66600
60900
71500
64700
87500
89400
58900
73300
61600
72900
63200
59900
67700
69300
75700
58400
65700
59000
62400
69000
76700
82800
75600
55400
70200
66600
NONMETRO
47600
71100
46900
43900
57900
61000
83200
62600
52400*
45900
45200
73400
50500
57400
53600
59300
54400
43600
47000
54900
72600
89500
52100
60000
42200
47800
56600
57000
66000
70300
52400*
47700
56900
50200
63800
53600
49500
53400
55600
52400*
48300
56400
46000
49300
57500
63800
52600
57400
45400
59900
68300
US non-metropolitan median
-------
Appendix M. IHS 2012 Allowable Cost per
Unit
M-l
-------
Appendix M
IMS 2012 Allowable Cost per Unit
State
50% of SDS
2012 Total Allowable Unit Cost
Alabama
Alaska
Alaska (1)
Alaska (2)
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
$36,750
$84,000
$64,750
$75,250
$42,250
$50,500
$40,750
$49,500
$39,500
$41,750
$42,250
$40,000
$35,750
$42,750
$59,500
$42,750
$48,250
$36,500
$40,750
$40,750
$46,750
$40,000
$47,500
$37,500
$41,250
$36,500
$45,750
$49,000
$36,500
$39,500
$36,000
$40,500
$48,250
$45,250
$39,250
The IMS developed total allowable unit costs for each state to determine project feasibility, except for
Alaska which has three total allowable unit costs.
M-2
------- |