EPA Region 8 State Directors Meeting
May 26 - 27, 2010
MONTANA
Page 1 of 74
-------
Agenda Region 8 State Directors Meeting May 26 - 27, 2010
Wednesday
May 26,
2010
Activity
Lead
Page Ref
8:30 AM
Coffee, Rolls
Jack Hidinger
8:50
Logistics
Jack Hidinger, Director State
Assistance Program
9:00
Welcome and Introductions
Jim Martin, EPA R8 RA
9:15
Climate Change
Laura Farris / EPA Climate
4
• GHG Reporting Rule
• GHG Tailoring Rule
• Vehicle GHG and Fuel Economy rule
• Sequestration Rule
• GHG Legislative Update
Change Division
9:45
Q&A and Discussion on GHGs
EPA HQ Juan E. Santiago
10:15
NPDES Pesticides Permit
Sandra Stavnes
8
10:40
Communities
Cindy Cody
• HUDDOT/EPA Sustainable Communities
9,25
• Salt lake City Project
Amanda Smith/ Debra
Thomas
27
11:05
Break (10 Minutes)
11:15
State Directors address EPA Staff in the Atrium
12:15
Working Lunch
12:30
Budgets and ARRA Status
Judy Wong
• EPA Budget Summary - STAG FY 11
28
• FY 10 Appropriation
30
• STAG 2 year Grant Summary
31
• ARRA April 2010 Report
33
12:45
Water Quality I
Sandra Stavnes
• Sustainable Infrastructure, Water
Sense/Water Conservation
34
• Green Projects/SRF Funding
36
• Effluent Guidelines
37
1:30
Water in the West - Introductory
Remarks ( Quantity and Quality)
Jim Lochhead
38
2:30
Water Quality II
• Managed Grazing/Watershed Health
Leonard Blackham
• Nutrients
Bert Garcia
39
• TMDLs
40
3:00
Break (15 minutets)
3:15
SPCC Rule
Kathie Atencio
45
3:30
Enforcement
• Clean Water Action Plan
Mike Gaydosh/John Corra
47
• Enforcement Priorities
Mike Gaydosh
49
4:15
End of the Day
Page 2 of 74
-------
Agenda Region 8 State Directors Meeting May 26 - 27, 2010
Wednesday
May 26,
2010
Activity
Lead
Page Rcf
5:00
Social at the Denver Marriot
6:40
Rockies vs Diamondbacks
Thursday
May 27
8:15 AM
Coffee and rolls
8:30
Air Quality
• Regional Haze
Callie Videtich
53
• Rural Ozone
Callie Videtich/John Corra
51
• Tri State Air Quality Collaboration
Callie Videtich/
Martha Rudolph
53
9:15
Energy Round Table
Steve Tuber
54
10:15
Work Sharing and Streamlining Work
Processes (LEAN)
Carol Rushin
Callie Videtich
55
11:00
Priorities
• Administrator's Priorities
Carol Rushin
56
• Regional and State Priorities
57
11:45
Summary and Review of Action Items
Jim Martin
Background
CAFO
62
E-15
63
Lead RRP
64
Enforcement Goals
66
Enforcement Background
67
National Environmental Exchange
Network - CROMERR
71
Page 3 of 74
-------
Summary of EPA GHG Regulatory Actions
Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule (MRR)
Status: Final rule signed 9/22/09 and published on 10/30/09, effective 12/29/09
Web page: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
Summary:
• Required under FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
• Covers CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated
ethers (HFE)
• Will cover -10,000 facilities accounting for -85 % of GHG emissions
• Annual reporting of GHGs by:
- 31 of 42 emissions sources
- 5 types of suppliers of fuel and industrial GHGs
- Motor vehicle and engine suppliers (except light duty sector)
• 25,000 MT C02e per year reporting threshold
• Monitoring begins 1/1/2010; first reports due 3/31/2011
• Direct electronic reporting to EPA
• EPA to verify data
• Manure management systems were also included in the final rule, but are exempt
from reporting for calendar year 2010 due to a Congressional restriction in EPA's
FY2010 appropriations prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this purpose. The
restriction only applies to EPA in FY2010, unless it is extended.
• Four amendments to the rule were proposed on March 22, 2010: 1) Corporate Parent
and NAICS Code Requirements, 2) Oil and Natural Gas Systems GHG Reporting
Requirements, 3) Additional Sources of F-GHGs Reporting Requirements, and 4)
Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration Reporting Requirements.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V "GHG Tailoring Rule"
Status: Final rule signed on May 13, 2010, not published as of 05/19/10
Web page: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2010
• Sets thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit programs are
required for new and existing industrial facilities.
• Without this tailoring rule, the lower emissions thresholds would take effect
automatically for GHGs on January 2, 2011. PSD and title V requirements at these
thresholds would lead to dramatic increases in the number of required permits —tens of
thousands of PSD permits and millions of title V permits. State, local, and tribal
permitting authorities would be overwhelmed and the programs' abilities to manage air
quality would be severely impaired.
• Addresses emissions from six GHGs that may be covered by an EPA rule controlling
or limiting their emissions: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.
• EPA will phase in the CAA permitting requirements for GHGs in two initial steps.
Page 4 of 74
-------
Summary of EPA GHG Regulatory Actions
Step 1. (January 2, 2011 -June 30, 2011)
• Only sources currently subject to the PSD permitting program (i.e., those that are
newly-constructed or modified in a way that significantly increases emissions of a
pollutant other than GHGs) would be subject to permitting requirements for their
GHG emissions under PSD.
• For these projects, only GHG increases of 75,000 tpy or more of GHGs would need
to determine the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for their emissions.
• Similarly, for the operating permit program, only sources currently subject to the
program (i.e., newly constructed or existing major sources for a pollutant other than
GHGs) would be subject to title V requirements for GHG.
Step 2. (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013)
• Step 2 will build on Step 1. In this phase, PSD permitting requirements will cover for
the first time new construction projects that emit GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy
even if they do not exceed the permitting thresholds for any other pollutant.
• Modifications at existing facilities that increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy
will be subject to permitting requirements, even if they do not significantly increase
emissions of any other pollutant.
• In Step 2, operating permit requirements will, for the first time, apply to sources
based on their GHG emissions even if they would not apply based on emissions of any
other pollutant. Facilities that emit at least 100,000 tpy CCtee will be subject to title V
permitting requirements.
• EPA estimates that about 550 sources will need to obtain title V permits for the first
time due to their GHG emissions. The majority of these newly permitted sources will
likely be solid waste landfills and industrial manufacturers. There will be approximately
900 additional PSD permitting actions each year triggered by increases in GHG
emissions from new and modified emission sources.
Additional Step 3 Outlined in this Rule
• In this final rule, EPA commits to undertake another rulemaking, to begin in 2011 and
conclude no later than July 1, 2012. That action will take comment on an additional step
for phasing in GHG permitting, and may discuss whether certain smaller sources can be
permanently excluded from permitting. EPA also plans to explore a range of
opportunities for streamlining future GHG permitting that have the potential to
significantly reduce permitting burdens. EPA will propose viable streamlining options in
the "Step 3" rulemaking.
• Step three, if established, will not require permitting for sources with GHG emissions
below 50,000 tpy.
• EPA will not require permits for smaller sources in step three or through any other
action until at least April 30, 2016.
Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards and CAFE Standards
Page 5 of 74
-------
Summary of EPA GHG Regulatory Actions
Status: Status: Finalized jointly with DOT NHTSA on 4/1/10
Web page: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm
Summary:
• Follows the President's National Fuel Efficiency Policy announcement on 5/19/09,
covering model years 2012-2016, and ultimately requiring an average fuel economy
standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016.
• EPA finalizes the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and
NHTSA finalizes CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
• The combined EPA and NHTSA standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016.
• Requires these vehicles meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250
grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 MPG if the automobile industry were to meet
this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements.
• Will cut C02 emissions by approx. 960 million metric tons and save 1.8 billion
barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-
2016).
• Average cost increase for a 2016 vehicle due to the proposed national program is
approx. $950, but would save approx. $3,000 over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Geologic Sequestration Rule
Status: Proposed July, 2008, projected final: late 2010
Web page: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells sequestration.html
Summary:
• On July 25, 2008, EPA published proposed Federal Requirements under the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (C02) Geologic
Sequestration (GS) Wells under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
As proposed, the rule creates a new class of injection wells (Class-VI) that would apply
to owners and operators of UIC wells injecting C02 into the subsurface for the purpose
of long-term storage.
• Western states have enormous (several billion metric tons) C02 storage capacity.
EPA worked closely with many stakeholders including the Department of Energy, the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, as well as the Ground Water Protection
Council (GWPC) representing many State UIC programs, in the development of the draft
regulations.
• The public comment period for the proposed rule ended December 24, 2008. A
Notice of Data Availability (NOD A) was published July 2009 to provide additional
research data and to propose the waiver process, which allows injection above the
lowermost USDW.
• The proposed rule covers:
- Geologic site characterization to ensure that GS wells are appropriately sited;
Page 6 of 74
-------
Summary of EPA GHG Regulatory Actions
- Requirements to construct wells with injectate-compatible materials and in a manner
that prevents fluid movement into unintended zones;
- Periodic re-evaluation of the AOR around the injection well to incorporate monitoring
and operational data and verify that the C02 is moving as predicted within the
subsurface;
- Testing of the mechanical integrity of the injection well, ground water monitoring, and
tracking of the location of the injected CO2 to ensure protection of underground sources
of drinking water;
- Extended post-injection monitoring and site care to track the location of the injected
C02 and monitor subsurface pressures; and
- Financial responsibility requirements to assure that funds will be available for well
plugging, site care, closure, and emergency and remedial response.
• EPA HQ and workgroup are currently working on response to comments to the draft
and NOD A, and formulation of the final rule.
• EPA anticipates publishing its final rule fall 2010.
• For a State to obtain Class VI well primacy, state regulations will need to be at least
as stringent as EPA's. States should be aware of this when developing their own rules.
• EPA Region 8 can provide support and expertise to states interested in applying for
primacy, as well as those developing their own state rules who may not apply for
primacy.
• Delegation of UIC Class VI primacy remains unclear at this point in time. The draft
C02 rule requests comments on the granting of partial primacy for Class-VI programs, so
it is not yet certain a state could apply independent of Classes I, III & V.
• Disposition of a waiver process to allow injection above the lowermost USDW and
the use of aquifer exemptions to allow geo-sequestration within relatively deep USDWs
are also still under consideration.
Page 7 of 74
-------
NPDES Pesticides Permit
Background: Why are we here?
• EPA's 2006 rule stating that NPDES permits are not required for pesticide applications
applied to or over, including near waters of the U.S., remains in effect until April 9, 2011.
• As of April 10, 2011, discharges into a water of the U.S. from pesticide applications will
require coverage under an NPDES permit.
Current Status - EPA Pesticides General Permit
• Public Notice of Draft Permit - May 28, 2010 - June 30, 2010
• Issuance of Final Permit - Dec 2010
• Pesticide uses to be covered under PGP:
o Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control
o Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
o Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
o Forest Canopy Pest Control
EPA estimates PGP will cover approximately 35,000 applicators.
NOI - Who files?
• NOIs will be required for entities that exceed an annual treatment area threshold.
• Entity responsible for deciding to conduct the pesticide applications, as opposed to the person
performing the applications, if different.
• General annual treatment thresholds: 640 acres for applications not directly to water
(mosquito and forest canopy), 20 acres or 20 linear miles for applications to water.
Region 8 activities:
• Continue monthly calls with State Environmental and Agricultural Agencies to discuss
EPA's proposed permit, state permit development and implementation issues.
• Conduct "listening sessions" for states and regulated community after EPA permit is issued
to share information and obtain feedback.
• Facilitate effective communication for states with EPA headquarters Office of Water and
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance.
Questions for discussion:
1) Do states have any concerns about developing and implementing this permit?
2) What additional actions could Region 8 take to support states in ensuring their permits are
issued by April 9, 2011?
3) Are states planning on covering any other application types that are not covered under the
PGP?
4) What are states outreach plans to ensure applicators know they are covered under the PGP
and may need to file a NOI?
Page 8 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
/fis
Afml2010
DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs for Sustainable Communities
This guide to federal programs is intended to help communities identify resources available
to support their efforts to promote livable and sustainable communities.
In June 2009, the Partnership
for Sustainable Communities
was formed by the U.S.
Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD),
the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DO T), and
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agenty (EPA).
These three agencies have
pledged to ensure that
housing and transportation
goals are met while simulta-
neously protecting the
environment, promoting
equitable development, and
helping to address the
challenges of climate change.
The following LivabilitY Prin-
ciples are guiding their work:
• Provide more transporta-
tion choices.
• Promote equitable,
affordable housing.
• Enhance economic com-
petitiveness.
• Support existing commu-
nities.
• Coordinate and leverage
federal policies and
investment
• Value comm unifies and
neyyfcborfcoods.
UJS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The U.S. Department of Transportation serves the United
States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and
convenient transportation system that meets our national
interests and enhances the quality of life of the American
people, both today and into the future.
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER}: The TIGER
Discretionary Grant Program was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act to spur a national competition for innovative, multimodal, and multi-jurisdictional
transportation projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits
to an entire metropolitan ares, a region, or the nation. In February 2010, DOT selected
51 projects to be funded with the $L5 billion allocated in the Recovery Act, including
improvements to roads, bridges, rail, ports, transit and intermodal facilities. In FY
2010, DOT wil I be competitively selecting s second round of projects under the TIGER
program. Up to S600 million wii be funded, including up to $35 million set aside for
planning projects. The solicitation is expected later in FY 2010.
Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse! This is US DQT's one-stop source
of information on transportation and climate change issues. It irtdudes information on
greenhouse gas [GHG} inventories, analytic methods and tens, GHG reduction
strategies, potential impacts of cimate change on transportation infrastructure, and
approaches for integrating climate change considerations into transportation decision
making. htto:..',¦'climate.dot.gov/
Joint federal Transit and federal Highway Administration Programs
Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program: This FHWA/FTA comprehensive
program provides training, technical assistance, and support to he p decision makers,
iC&iriniKd w Z,i
Please Note:
The following funding and technical assistance programs are not a complete list of DOT, HUD,
and £P& grant and technical assistance programs. These programs are included here because of
tivar con nection to trie principles of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
Page 1
I H I I I I I I I • H 4 J I ¦ II III 1 I T I T
DOT will work to promote li vable communities and enhance
the economic and social well-being of ail Americans by
creating and maintaining a safe, reliable, integrated, and
accessible transportation network. A multimodal
transportation system increases choice, provides easy
access to employment opportunities and other
destinations, and improves the surrounding community. DOT wiil work to build on
innovative ways of doing business that promote mobility and enhance the unique
characteristics of our neighborhoods, communities, and regions.
DOT Smotexty Ray LxHood
Page 9 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs
transportation officials, and staff resolve the increasingly
complex issues they face when addressing transportation
needs in their communities. Resources avei able through this
program address topics such as land use, scenario planning.,
transit-oriented development, non-motorized transportation,
safety, community impact assessments, operations and
management strategies, and analysis methods. This program
is targeted to tribal, regional, state, and oca governments ;
transit operators; and community leaders. htt£j2
www-glann in g. dot.gov
Metropolitan & Statewide Planning Formula Grant
Programs: These programs, jointly administered by FTA and FHWA, provide formu a funding to support
cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive planning for making transportation investment decisions in
metropolitan areas and statewide. Eligible recipients include state departments of transportation and metropolitan
pla nni ng organizations.
htto://ww«.fta.dot.gov.'"funame/gramcs.,'erarts financing 3S65.ht?inl and
http://ww.rw. fhwa.dot.gov/plannine/
Federal Transit A dmiriist ration — htt p: / /www.f ta ,d ot.gov/1 ivabi I ity
A safe, reliable, integrated, and accessible transportation system supports communities, expands business
opportunities, and improves people's quality of life while a so creating jobs. FTA programs offer different
opportunities for funding transportation planning and projects that can assist your community's development and
stimulate America's neighborhoods to become safer, heaSthier, and more environmentally sustainable. FTA
provides stewardship of combined formuia and discretionary programs totaling more than $10 billion to support a
variety of ocaliy panned, constructed, and operated public transportation systems throughout the United States.
Public transportation systems typically include buses, subways, sight rail, commuter rail, streetcars, monorail,
passenger ferry boats, irtcl ined railways, or people movers.
Formula Funding Programs for Transit
Urbanized Areas Formula Grant Program: This program makes federal resources available via formula allocation to
transit agencies in urbanize d areas over 200,000 in popu lation and to governors for transit capita l and operating
assistance in urbanized areas between 5Q.OOG and 200,000 in population. Funding can be used for planning,
engineering design and evaluation of transit projects, and other technical transportation-related studies. Funding
can also be used for capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement, overhaul, and
rebuilding of buses. For urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more, at least one percent of the fu nding
apportioned to each area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as historic preservation,
fandscaping, pubic art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, and enhanced access for persons with disabilities.
hrto:/.;wMQM.ta.dot.gov.;fundine/arants/grants flnancine 3561 .html
Rail and Freed Guideway Modernization Formula Program; This program provides funding via formula al ocation to
transit agen cies with a fixed guideway transit system. A "fixed guideway'* refers to any transit service that uses
exclusive or controlled rights-of-way or rails, entirely, or in part. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light
rail, monorail, troileyfcus, aerial tramway, inclined plane, cable car, automated guideway transit, ferryboats, that
portion of motor bus service operated on exclusive or controlled rights-of-way, and high-occupancy'-vehicle (MOV)
lanes. Funds can be used to modernize or improve existing fixed guideway systems.
htta:.'Vwww.fta. d ot. gov .'fund ine/erants,''grants fi nancin g 355S .html
P^ge 2
Page 10 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Rural and Small Urban Area Formula Grant Program; This program provides critics!, transit access to residents in
nonurbanized areas to employment; health, educational, and other important human services and opportunities.
Via formu a-based funding to states, this program supports public transportation in areas of :ess than 50,000 in
population. Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to state agencies, local pub; ic
bodies, Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation services. The Intercity Bus
program '[5311(f)) under this program supports the connection between nonurbanized areas and the larger regmnaJ
or national system of intercity bus service, http: ,'7 wwvv.fta. dot.gov/funding/Erants/grants financing 3555.htm I
Rural Transit Assistance Program jRTAP): RTAP provides funding to assist in the design and implementation of
training and technical assistance projects and other support services tailored to meet the needs of transit operators
in nonurbanized areas. RTAP has both state and national program components.
http; h'Vrmv .fta. dp^.ggv/fundin g/erantt/grents financin g 1553. htm I
Competitive Funding Programs for Transit
Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary Grant Program; This program provides capital assistance for new and
replacement buses, related equipment, and facilities, as well as intermodal transit centers. Funding is available to
states for rural and sma I urban bus and bus facility projects and to transit agencies for projects in urban areas
greater than 200,000 in popu lation. While often earmarked by Congress, this program does have competitive
opportunities to prowdefunding for the purchase of bus and bus facilities, which are announced in the Federal
Register, http: //wow .fta. dot.gov/fi.inti in =,''grants /grs nts fjnancing 3 55 7. htm I
New Starts/Small Starts Discretionary Grant Program: These discretionary programs are the federal government's
primary financial resource [03 U.S.C. 5309) for supporting the planning, development, and construction of major
transit fisted guideway capita projects. New Starts and Small Starts have helped make possible dozens of new or
extended transit fixed guideway systems across the country - heavy rai:, light rai, commuter rail, bus rapid transit,
and ferries. New Starts projects a re typically greater than 5250 million in total project cost, requesting greater than
S75 miJlion in New Starts funding. The Small Starts program supports fixed guideway projects smal'er than the New
Starts cost thresholds. Participation in the New Starts and Sma I Starts programs requires completion of a
legislatively directed process for planning and project development,
hrtp:/,.'ww w fta.dot.gnv/funding/erants/grants financing 3559.html
Federal Transportation Programs, continued
Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction
(TIGGER) Program; TIGGER grants are awarded to public transit
agencies for the implementation of new strategies for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions or redudng energy usage from their
operations. These strategies can be imp emented through
operational or technological enhancements or innovations.
http .//www .fta. d ot. gov/tigger
Paul S, SarbanesTransit in the Parks Discretionary Grant Program; This program protects environmentally
ICuiimjI m pah 4.1
Mill
Page 3
Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Discretionary Grant Program; Based upon an annual national
competitive selection process, FTA awardsTriba?Transit grants direct y to federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Recipients of Tribal Transit Program grants may use these funds
for planning, capita!: and operating assistance for rural public
transit sen/ices, and support for rural intercity bus service.
http://www .fta. d ot. gov/fundine/grants/
£Tants_^n5ndjT£_J£S3ihm^i
Page 11 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs
sensitive national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other federai
lands while improving visitor experience through funding for pub lie
transportation and other alternative transportation. Administered by
FTA in partnership with the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service, the program funds capital and planning expenses for
alternative transportation systems such as shuttle buses and bicycle
trai s in national parks and public lands. The goals of the program are to
conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources; reduce congestion
and pollution; improve visitor mobility and accessibility; enhance visitor
experience; and ensure access to all, including persons with disabifities.
htto:.'Vwv.-w.fta ,d ot. gov .'fund ine/arana/erants n nancine 6106 .html
Funding Programs for Transit Serving Target Populations
FTA believes that all segments of the population should have safe, reliable access to public transportation. FTA
offers severa grant programs tailored to target populations such as the elderly, Americans with disabilities, and low
-income workers who face particular cha lenges with access to critica services. FTA programs provide lifel ine
services through a "mobility management'' approach to ensure access for all Americans to public transportation.
FTAis also committed to maintaining affordab e transportation services for al" communities.
Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities: This program provides formu a funding to states
to he p private nonprofit groups meet the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities when
transportation service is unavailable or insufficient. Funds are apportioned based Dn each state's share of
population for these groups of people. For persons with mobility limitations related to advanced age, persons with
disabilities, and persons struggling for self-sufficiency, transportation within and between communities needs to be
as availab e and affordab e as possible. Jitt£^www;fta;dot;g2i^indi22^S2£l^[a£2s_JiMndng_3556ihtnv
The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARCjr JAFtC provides Sow-income workers and students with
transportation services to jobs, employment centers, and educational institutions. A recent study of the economic
benefits of employment-related transportation services concluded that transportation funded through the JARC
program provided access to approximately 43.4 million jobs, including 21.2 million low-wage jobs.
jms [£www fta .c st. gsv.'f u ndi ig/'g'a nts/erarts *"jnancing 3SSOJrtmj
The New Freedom Formula Grant Program: This program aims to provide additional) toois to overcome barriers
that Americans with disabil ities face when seeking integration into the work force and full participation in
society. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier to work for individuals with disabilities. The 2000
Census showed that only 60 percent of people between the ages of 16 and 64 with disabilities are employed. The
New Freedom formula grant program seeks to reduce barriers to transportation services and expand the mobility
options available to peop!e with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americana with Disabilities Act (ADA)
of 1990. http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grant5/grant5 financing 3543.html
Federal Highway Administration - littp: //www .fli wa. dot. eov
FHWA has broad responsibility for improving mobility and safety' on our nation's roads and highways through
national leadership, innovation, and program delivery. Although state, local, and tribal governments own most of
the nation's highways, FHWA provides financial an d technical support to these governments for constructing,
improving, and preserving America's highway system. Its annual budget of more than $30 billion is funded by fuel
and motor vehicle excise taxes. Th e budget is primarily divided between two programs: Federa -aid funding to state
and oca governments; and Federal Lands Highways funding for national parks, national forests, Indian 'lands, and
other land under federal stewardship.
4 I I I 1 I ? I T I I III II f till III 11 TUTJ: II 1 II
"¦¦I-1 II ll--. * I l-l1 1 . I I I I I TTfrT I I I-1 I TTTTt1! • ¦ i. 1 ¦ m
Page 12 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
© *-,#
The Federal-Aid Highway Program provides federa- financial resources and
technical assistance to state and local governments for constructing, preserving,
and "improving the National Highway System and resources for urban and njra
roads that are rot on the National Highway System, but that are eligible for
federal aid. Below are a few of FHWA's programs that can be used to promote
Eivable community projects.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program: The goal of this program is to reduce
pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities, injuries and crashes and make the Nation's
roads safer for these vulnerable road users. This is achieved through conducting
research and developing guidelines, tools, and safety countermeasures. In
addition, program members focus on crash data to identify crash hot spots and
determine lower cost measures to improve safety. Part of the effort includes
trying to aggressively reduce pedestrian deaths by focusing extra resources on the
states (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, li'linois, Nevada, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas) and cities (Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, New York
City, Washington DC) with the highest pedestrian fatalities and/or fatality rates, ht:psa'"etv.fhwa.dot.go
£ed_bjke/
Recreational Trails Program (RTP}: This program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational
trsi s and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trai' uses. Federa transportation
funds benefit recreation, including hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, cross-country skiing,
snowmobiling, off-road motorcycling,, al'.-terrain vehide riding, four-wheel driving, Dr other off-road motorized
vehicles. http://www fhwa.dot-EoWenyironment/rectraiIs/
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program: TE activities offer opportunities to help expand transportation choices
and enhance the transportation experience through activities related to surface transportation, including
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs, scenic and historic h ghway programs, landscaping and
scenic beautification, historic preservation, and environmental mitigation. TE projects must re ate to surface
transportation and must qualify under one or more of the eligible categories,
htto: ;7ww w ^.vva dot.gov/envi ron ment/te
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS): While not a funding program, CSS is a col aborative, interdisciplinary approach
that involves al stakeholders in developing a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves
scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS considers the
tota: context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. CSS principles inc ude the employment
of early, continuous, and meaningful involvement of the pub ic and all stakeholders throughout the project
development process. The project is designed and buiit with minimal disruption to the community.
http://ww".v.fhwB.dot.gov,''context./
National Scenic Byways Program: Grants and technical assistance are provided to states and Indian tribes to
implement projects on highways designated as National Scenic Byways, Ail-American Roads, America's Byways, and
state scenic or Indian tribe scenic byways and to plan, design, and develop 3 state or Indian tribe scenic byway
program. Funds shal be available for an activity related to the p anmng, design, or development of a state or Indian
tribe scenic byway program; development and implementation of a byway corridor management plan; safety
improvements to accommodate increased traffic; improvements that enhance access; protection of resources
adjacent to the byway; development and implementation of a marketing program; development and provision of
tourist infrastructure; and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, interpretive facilities, overlooks, and
other enhancements for byway travelers. hUg^wwWjftwajdotgov^HEP^b^wa^jndexiTbn
P&f.tlllMa Of. JM4C ¦* '
"ITI'IT 111 I I I 1 TIT ' T fT IT 1 I HI TTTTf 1 I I I "I TTT1T 5
¦»
r I Fir II f I ;l lit I I ill L X f * l¥l" X X ll'.i' I I 1 Tl 1 J ill
Federal Transportation Programs, continued
Page 13 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs
>afe Routes to School Program; For infrastructure-related projects, eligible
activities are the planning, design, and construction of projects that will
substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bike to school. These
nc ude sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction
m provem en ts, pedestrian andl b icy tie crossing improvements, on-street
jicyde facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, secure bike parking,
and traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools {within
approximately two miles). Such projects may be carried out on any public road
jr any bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail in the vicinity of schools.
Each state must set aside from its Safe Routes to School apportionment not
ess than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent of the funds for non-
nfrastructure-related activities to encourage wa'king and bicycling to school
rhese include public awareness campaigns and outreach to press and
:ommun'ity leaders; traffic education and enforcement in the vicinity of
schooJs; student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment; and training of volunteers and
managers of Safe Routes to School programs, http:,'7s3fetv.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/
Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP): These discretionary funds, usually earmarked
~y Congress, may be used to carry out eligible projects to integrate transportation, community, and system
^reservation plans and practices that improve the efficiency of the transportation system of the United States; reduce
:he impacts of transportation on. the environment; reduce the need for costiy future investments in public
nfrastructure; provid e efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade; examine commun ity development
patterns; and identify strategies to encourage private-sector development, http://www.ftiit*a.dot.gov.''tcsoj'
Towns and cities should contact the Metropo itan Planning Organization (MPO) for their area for prospective projects.
^ list of MPOs can be found at htt£j[£^wwiam£oior|^direKo^£inde)yjhj}. For additional information, towns and
:rties can contact their state department of transportation.
:lexible Programs Under the Federal Highway Administration
Many Federal-Aid Highway programs have specific eligible transit activities identified in legislation. In addition, funds
Tom other programs that do not have specific transit e igibility may be transferred by states to other Federal-Aid
Highway programs that do have such eligibility. If funds are transferred from one Federa'-Aid Highway program to
moth er, those funds then have the same eligibility as the program that they are transferred to. For example,
nterstate Maintenance (IM) funds transferred to the Surface Transportation Program fSTPj would have the same
iligi bility as STP fu nds.
To tra nsfer funds from FHWA to FTA, the state department of transportation must req uest that th e funds be
:ransferred, with the concurrence of the MPO if the project is within a metropolitan planning area, in a ettertothe
-HWA Division Office. Funding transfers are permitted only for projects contained in an approved metropo itan
:ransportation improvement program (TIP) and/or statewide transportation improvement program {5TIP).
itto://www.fta .dot .eov/fu ndi ng/gra nts/eraruts financi ng 3545 .htm
ingestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ} Program: The CMAQ program supports transportation projects or
urograms that will improve air qua lit"/ and relieve congestion in areas that do not meet National Ambient Air Quality
Standards- Reducing pollution and other adverse environmental effects of transportation projects and transportation
rystem inefficiency have been long-standing DOT objectives. CMAQ. funds ma-/ be used to establish new or expanded
:ransportation projects or programs that reduce emissions, including capital investments in transportation
6 'rrrrr ,n:i.1:1: rn i I rrrrr .1.11.1.1 ttttv t i ) i i Tiny
1ST
Page 14 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
© * (b
Federal Housing and Urban Development Programs
i nfrastnjcture, congestion relief efforts, and diese engine retrofits. Other CMAQ projects include operati ng assistance
for new transit services, trave' demand management strategies, traffic flow improvement programs that reduce
emissions, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities and programs, htto: //www.fh ma .dot .gov;'environment/'cmaapsrs/
Surface Transp-ortaticm Program: The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by
states and localities for projects on any federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects
on arty public road, transit capita' projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. It can be used for a
broad array of highway purposes and flexibly used for major transit purposes as well. A few examples include buying
buses or rail vehicles or constructing fixed guide way systems like Hght rail or heavy rail.
htto://wwwihw'B.dot.aQy/safetea u/factsheets/stp.htm
National Highway System (NHS) Program: The NHS Program provides flexible funding that may be used by states and
localities for projects to make improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
HUD SecTeiaiT' SluLim Donovan
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's mission is to increase
homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable
housing free from discrimination
HUD promotes sustainable communities by coordinating federal housing and
transportation investments with local land use decisions in order to reduce transpor-
I tation costs for fami ies, improve housing affordabiiity, save energy, and increase
access to housing and employment opportunities. By ensuring that housing is ocated
near job centers and affordable, accessib e transportation, we will nurture healthier,,
' more inclusive communities—which provide opportunities for people of all ages,
incomes, races, and ethnicities to Hive, work:, and leam together.
Sustainable Communities - http://wmv.hurt.gov7sustaiiiabiiitv
HUD'S 2010 appropriations irwdude $150 million for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning
efforts that integrate housing and tra nsportation decisions and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning,
and $50 million for an Energy Innovation Fund to enabte the Federal Housing Administration and the Office of
Sustainable Housing and Communities to catalyze innovations in the residential energy efficiency sector that have
promise of replicability and help create a standardized home energy efficient retrofit market. These funds will be
allocated as follows:
Sustainable Communities Initiative
• $100 million for Regional integrated Planning Grants to support linking integrated housing, transportation,
economic development and other :artd use planning.
• $40 million for Community Cha lenge Grants to foster reform and reduce barriers to achieve affordable.
econorrucaEly vital, and sustainab e communities.
• $10 million for joint HUD/DOT research efforts that shall indude a rigorous evaluation of the Regional Integrated
Planning Grants and Community Chaltenge Grants Progra ms.
Energy Innovation Fund
• $25 million for an Energy Efficient Mortgage Innovation pilot program directed at the sing'e family housing
market.
• $25 million for a Multifamily Energy Pilot directed at the multifamiSy housing market.
iCRunmud ra l*er tit
11111 11 I IT I T I I I TIT IT ' TTT TT TTrrr 1 I TTT' i i i n
Hill i111S 11111 111 It Mill llll I 1 Mil Hill
Page 7
Page 15 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT. HliD, and EPA Programs
Public and Indian Housing
HOPE VI; The Hope VI Program provides competitive funding for the
elimination or reclamation of severely distressed pub ic housing
developments. Funds can be used for demolition., major rehabilita-
tion, and new construction of public housing; acquisition of sites in
other :ocations for private new construction and supportive services
for those rel ocated by the program. The HOPE VI progra m promotes
the creation of mixed-income communities that are pedestrian-
friendly., and transit-accessible. It also encourages high standards of
green building for new construction projects through regulation and
the prioritization of proposals with green features.
Jit^/^wwjvliudjgov/officK^ih^ro^^ms/gJvhoge^ir^eXjCftTi
Public Housing: The Public Housing Program provides funding to local housing agencies for operating expenses and
repairs to public housing developments. Funds are a located based on the continuing needs of the authorities,
especially the number of units they own. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) are encouraged to use environmentally
responsible practices through regulations, guidance, and incentive programs like Energy Performance Contracting
(EPC). The EPC program provides funding to make public housing units more resource efficient through the imple-
mentation of energy and water conservation measures and the installation of renewable energy systems. By freezing
utility subsidies for the length of an EPC contract, PHAs are able to utilize the monetary savings that result from
resource-efficiency improvements to repay the upfront costs of those improvements. Historically, the EPC program
has generated over 52 in savings for every $1 in investment,
jittg^/wwwiiud^gov/offices^gih^gmgram^gh
Housing Choice and Project-Based Vouchers; Housing Choke and Project-Based Voucher Programs provide funding
to local public housing agencies for renta I subsidies for units that are chosen by the tenant in the private market
(Housing Choice Vouchers) orfor use in specific developments or units (Project-Based Vouchers). Housing Choice
Vouchers allow tenants more flexibility in deciding the location of their residence, giving them more of an opportunity
to live closer to work, family, amenities, or services. httD://mvw.hud.govyoffices/pih/Drograms/hCT/about/index.cftn
Community Planning and Development
Community Development Block Grants (CD8GJ: The CDBG Program provides formula funding directly to larger cities
and counties and through state governments for small units of Local government. Funds can be used for most kinds of
development as tong as it meets one of the following national objectives: 1) benefits tow- and moderate-income
persons; 2) aids in the prevention or elimination of slum and blight; or 3) meets certain community development
needs having a particular urgency. CDBG is a flexible program that provides resources to address a wide range of
community and economic development needs, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded
economic opportunity, fatg^wwwiiu^jjov^offices^cgd/comnuinit^ae^ogmentjjrograms
Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program that provides public entities loan funds for
businesses or other entities to carry out approved economic development, housing, and public facility projects. The
public entity may camy out eligible projects itse If.
http://www.hu d.gov/offjces/cod/communitydeveoDment/pTQErams/lOg/
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI): BED I is a competitive program used to spur the return of
brownfieiids to productive economic reuse. BEDI grants must be used in conjunction with a new Section 10S loan.
Both Section 10S loan proceeds and BEDI grant funds are initially made available by HUDto public entities approved
for assistance, http:/Avww.hud.gor/officss/cpd/sconomicdeve opfnent,''programs/bed i/'ndex.cfm
IIITI' T:l:T.I.T . . I III. L I SIX t: .11111:: IT ITT : i J 111 ?
Page 16 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
© (§)@
HOME Investment Partnership: The HOME Program provides formula funding directSy to larger cities and counties, to
consortia of local governments, and to state governments. The HOME program is designed to create affordable
housing for low-income households and can take theform of direct assistance or loan guarantees. Funds can be used
for most kinds of housing development, including acquisition and rehabilitation in the creation of low-income
housing. Additionally HOME program funds can be used for homebuyer assistance and for Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance, http: ;7 ww.v hud. gov /orfices/cpd /afforda b eh o usin g/programsAi ome
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: HOPWA provides formula funding and competitive ty-awarded grants
to states, cities, and nonprofit organisations. Funds can be used to develop and support housing for peop e with AIDS
and may- be used for certain supportive services, http://wwrtf.hud.gov/offices/cpd/aidshousing/indeit.cfm
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (MSP): NSP comprised two one-time only grants, in 2GCS and 2009, to states,
local governments, and selected non-profit organizations to hep communities address their serious housing
foreclosure problems. Funds are being used to acquire and rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed housing in
distressed neighborhoods.
httry //portal .h ud.gov/porta /oaee .'porta /RECOVERY/programs/NEIGH B OR HO OP ST A 51LIZATIO N
Federal Housing and Urban Development Programs, continued
Rural Innovation Fund: HUD's FY 2010 appropriations include $25
million for a new Rural Innovation Fund to address the prob ems of
concentrated rural housing distress and community poverty.
Housing Programs and FHA Mortgage Insurance Resources
Supportive Housii>g for the Elderly (Section 202) arid Supportive Housirtg for Persons with Disabilities (Section Gil):
These programs provide competitive funding to nonprofit agencies deveioping housing for the elderly and persons
with disabilities. Funds consist of capita grants to assist in the original construction and annual project rental
assistance to support operating and maintenance costs to ensure that rents remain affordable to very tow-income
peop e.
htt£;£/wwwJiudijjov^offices/te£/mfh^£ro£des£/ekJ202icfm
httg^/wwwJTudjgov^offices/hsg/mlh^grogdesCj^isabSll;^!!!
Mortgage Insurance for Rental Housing: Several FHA mortgage insurance programs can be used to facilitate the new
construction and substantia) rehabilitation of multifamily renta: projects. Some FHA programs can be used to
refinance and acquire existing mu'tifamily projects not requiring substantial rehabilitation. These programs include:
• Mortgage insurance pursuant to Section 220 may be used to insure loans for multifamify housing projects in
designated urban renewal areas, code enforcement areas, and other areas that local governments have
designated for revitaliiation. htt£i/i/j™wjTijd;£ov^ofncesJ/hsg/m2T1[£ro£desci/rentul3ar^£220;rfm
' C-CMir-is-r; oti page lOi
>ti m ii t n- i till ii i 11 rtM-t mi i tim- i rrit
itWIT TTTTT
PageS
Homeless Programs: Homeless Programs provide formula and competitive funding to state and local governments
and private nonprofit organizations. Competitive funds are awarded in
connection with the Continuum of Care planning group, a community-
wide group that psans for and provides services to homeless peop e.
Funds can be used for services and for development of emergency
shatters and transitional and permanent housing to serve the
homeless.
http://www. hud.gov/offices/cpd .'"homeless/index.cfm
Page 17 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs
• Mortgage insurance pursuant to Section 221(d)(4) and Section 221(d)(3) may be used to insure mortgages used
to construct or substantially rehabilitate mult'ifamilly rental housing. The former program may be used by for-
profit sponsors and the latter by nonprofit sponsors.
http: //'/.'lAi'.V-h'jd gov/officesJtisg/mfh /progdesc.'rentcooDhsg221d3n4cfm
• Mortgage insurance pursuant to Section 2Q7/223{f) may be used to insure mortgages made for the purpose of
acquiring or refinancing existing multifamify rental housing. Projects requiring substantial rehabilitation are not
eligible for the program, http: //w ww.h ud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/progdesc/purchrefi223.f. cfm
• Eligible owners an d purchasers utilizing the above programs apply for the FHA insurance through HUD-approved
lenders. The programs have differing maximum mortgage limitations and requirements.
Mortgage Insurance for Condominium Units: FHA also insures mortgages on condominium units in developments
that are proposed or under construction, existing projects, or conversions. Generally, approval of the condominium
project must be obtained from an authorized fender.
http ://www.hu d .eov/offices/adm/hudciips/ etters/m ortgaeee/files/C'9-46ami. pdf
http://www.hud.eov/offices/adm/hudciips/ ettersi''mortgaeee/files/09-46bml.pdf
Housing Finance Agency Risk Sharing Program: Under this program, HUD provides credit enhancement on loans
underwritten and closed by a state or local housing finance agency (HFA). Loans made pursuant to Section 542(c) are
for affordable housing which includes new construction, substantial rehabilitation, elderty housing, and refinancing.
Eligible owners and purchasers apply for the program through the appropriate HFA.
http://www.hud.eol.'/offices/hse/mfh/progdesc/riskshare542b.cfm
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's mission is to protect human health and the
environment. Where and how we build communities has a major impact on the
environment and on public health. By promoting more environmental y, economically,
and socially sustainable communities, EFA can help protect our nation's air, water, land,
and people. A dean, green , healthy community is a better place to buy a home and
raise a family, ifs an appealing place for businesses to .ocate, and it has the founda-
tions it needs for prosperity. Many EPA programs are aimed at helping tribal, state, and
local governments support activities that build more sustainable communities and
protect human health and the environment.
In addition to the resources listed here, EPA programs offer many tools on a variety of
topics that communities may find useful. EPA Admuusmioi Lisa Jackum
Brownfields Remediation and Redevelopment
EPA has a variety of programs to help eligible entities assess, remediate, and restore brownfields sites to productive
use and revitalize affected neighborhoods, http:y.w.v.eaa.eov/bfownfie ds
Assessment Grant Program: These grants provide funding to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning
and community involvement related to brownfield sites. Grants are for upto S20Q,000 to address sites contaminated
by hazardous substances, and upto 5200,000 to address sites contaminated by petroleum. Applicants can also apply
as an Assessment Coalition (a group of three or more eligible entities) for up to Si mi lion.
hupr>vtvw.sBia.egv/brgwnfields¦'a^seagmgrants,htm
P«lf£6 10 . 11 I II III II III II I I III 44 4 4 ¦ III M
¦ i ¦ m .l.i.i. j.i. » . il l: i -i Tmrn uii .i i rrrttt?
Page 18 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
#d>#
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant Program: These grants of up to $1 million
provide funding to capitalize a revolving loan fund. Revolving loan funds can be
used to provide no-interest or low-interest cans and subgrants to eligible
entities who own the site to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. RLF
grants require a 20 percent cost share.
httg^wwWjegajjm^brownfiekj^^riflstjhtm
Cleanup Grant Program; These grants provide funding for a recipient to carry
out cleanup activities at brownfields sites that it owns. Sites may be contami-
nated by hazardous substances and/or petro eum. Grants are up to $200,000
per site and require a 20 percent cost share,
http:wow.eoa.eov.'bfownfie cs/clean jd erarts.mm
Federal Environmental Protection Programs, continued
Brownfields Job Training Grant Program; These grants provide funding to
eiigible entities and nonprofit organizations to help communities take advan-
tage of jobs crested by the assessment and cleanup of brownfie ds. The Job
Training Grant Program's goals are to prepare trainees for future employment in
the environmental field and tofaci itate cleanup of brownfield sites contaminated widi hazardous substances. Grants
are for up to 5200,000. http://www.epa.eov/brownfields/iob.htm
Targeted Brownfields Assessments: These assessments are conducted by an EPA contractor, and sen.'ices can include
site assessments, cleanup options and cost estimates, and community outreach. Sites for this program are selected by
EPA regional offices. Services can range from several thousand dollars to as much as $100,000.
http: //www .epa. eov/brow nfieds/Erant infb/tba .htm
Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Program: TAB services are provided to communities, regional entities, and
nonprofits who need technical assistance dealing with brownfield sites. The program can also assist communities with
applying for EPA brownfie ds grants or identifying other resources to address their brownfield sites.
http: //era .eov/brownfie ds/tools/tab btfold.pdf
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all peop e regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and polities. EPA has this goal for ail communities and persons across the nation. It wilS be achieved
when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the
decision-making process to have a heafthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.
I^ttc-://www.epa.gov,''environ Tieits I st ce/
Environmental Justice Small Grants Program: This program provides financial assistance to eligible organizations to
build collaborative partnerships, to identify the local environmental and/or public health issues, and to envision
solutions and empower the comrn unity through education, training, and outreach.
http://www.epa-EPv'/enyirQnmental!ustice/grant5/ei-sm grarrts.html
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program; This program provides
financial assistance to eligib e organizations working on or pianningto work on projects to address iocal environ-
mental and/or public heai'th issues in their communities, using EPA's "Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-
Solving Model." http://www.epa .soy/environmental iustice/erants/ei-cps-grants. html
Coiit:r:wi -?1I pfip 12)
:T:T:r-rrr I III I t Ft 11 i1 II I tttt-l:- I III I i i 11 i 1
Page 19 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs
State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreements Program; This program provides funding so that eligible
entities may work collaboratively with affected communities to understand, promote, and integrate approaches to
provide meaningful and measurab e improvements to the public health and/or environment in the communities.
http:.'7www.spa .gov,''environ mental iuscice/EfantSi''ei-se;c3-grants.htm I
Environmental Justice Showcase Communities Project: This project provides EPA regional office funding to bring
together governmental and non-governmenta organizations to pool their resources and expertise on the best ways
to achieve real results in communities. The successes and lessons learned in these demonstration projects will be
used to help guide the design and implementation of future environmenta I justice projects and will help EPA
increase its ability to address local environmental challenges in more effective, efficient, and sustainable ways.
http:Jyw.vw.eD3.aov/environmentalmstice/eranB/ei-showcase.htiTil
Toxic Pollution Reduction
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE): CARE is a competitive grant program that offers an
innovative way for a community to organize and take action to reduce toxic poliution in its local environ-
ment. Through CARE, a community creates a partnership that implements solutions to reduce releases of toxic
pol utants and minimize people's exposure to them. By providing financial and technical assistance, EPA helps CARE
communities get on the path to a renewed environment, http://www.epa..gov/care/
Lead Grants; EPA awards grants aimed at reducing childhood lead
poisoning in comm unities with older ho using through the National
Community-Based Lead Grant and the Targeted Lead Grant
Programs. The projects supported by these grant funds are an
important part of EPA's lead program to eliminate childhood lead
poisoning as a major public health concern.
ht^^wwwega^gov^ead^ubs^grantmagjTtm
Energy Conservation and Renewable and Clean Energy
Energy Effici ency at the State and Local levels; The State and Local
Climate and Energy Program provides technical assistance,
analytical tools, and outreach support to state, local, and triba
governments. Specific assistance includes identifying and documenting cost-effective policies and initiatives;
measuring and evaluating the benefits of dean energy initiatives; offering tools, guidance, and outreach support;
and fostering peer exchange opportunities. The program's web site provides state and local governments with
information on energy efficiency and clean energy, including webcasts on a variety of topics.
[htta-jyeD3.gov/sta-elocalclimBte
National Clean Diesel Campaign {NCDC): NCDC offers a comprehensive program to he p fleet owners clean up their
diese I fleets. The campaign awards competitive grants through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act to public
agencies, eligible nonprofits, and private entities, such as school bus contractors, wtio partner with eligible entities.
NCDCs rigorous verification program evaluates the performance and durability of retrofit technologies and provides
a path to verification for emerging technologies. The campaign's innovative programs, such as Clean School Bus USA,
C»ean Ports USA, and Clean Construction USA, provide sector-specific information, including case studies, technology
options, and publications. NCDCs tools and resources include the web-based Diesel Emissions Quantifier to help
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various retrofit options and the State and Local Toolkit to hetlp design, fund, and
evaluate emission-reduction programs. In addition, NCDC supports regional private-public col aboratives whose
members coordinate to imp ement a wide array of activities to reduce diesel emissions.
http://epa.eov/cleandiesel/
Page 12
Page 20 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Federal Environmental Protection Programs, continued
Smart Growth
EPA's Smart Growth Program offers case studies, research,, tools, and
pub ications to help communities learn about and implement smart
growth solutions to a wide range of development-related challenges,,
including transportation and parking, affordable housing, storm water
runoff, zoning codes, infill and redevelopment, and many other issues,
htto: .eoa .eov/sm artarowth /
SmartWay Transport Partnership: Under SmartWay, EPA provides web-based analytical tools, technica assistance,
innovative financing options, air quality planning guidance, product and vehicle verification and! certification, and
recognition incentives to he'p states and municipalities support deanergoods movement in their communities.
SmartWay partners earn how to shrink their carbon footprints and reduce emissions of air pollutants whiie saving
fuel and expanding their businesses. Smart Way's innovative financial options can help trucking firms, municipal fleet
managers, and owner-operators serving communities across the country overcome financial obstacles to dleaner, fuel
-saving vehicle retrofits and upgrades. Cities can partner with EPA regional offices to recruit city-based freight
shippers and carriers into the program, organize events or pilot tools/resources forthe local business community, use
locomotive and truck idle-reduction strategies to achieve clean air goals, and let businesses and consumers know
about !ower-pollifting, fuel-saving, SmartWay-designated passenger vehicles and commercial trucks,
http: //'www .eoa. eov/sm artwav
Smart Growth Implementation Assistance (SGIA} Program: Through
the SGIA program, EPA solicits applications from state, local, regional,
and tribal governments (and non-profits that have partnered with a governments entity) that want to incorporate
smart growth techniques into their future deve opment. Once selected, communities receive direct technical
assistance from a team of national experts in one of two areas: policy analysis (e.g., zoning codes, school silting
guidelines, transportation policies) or public participatory processes (e.g., visioning, design workshops, alternatives
analysis). EPA tailors the assists nee to the community's unique situation and priorities and provides the contractor
team. This is not a grant. Through a site visit and a report, the multtidisciplinary teams he p the community achieve its
goal of encouraging growth that fosters economic progress and environmental protection. The SGIA Request for
Applications is usually open in the first quarter of the year.jTtt^^wwwjsg^goVj^snra^rowtjh^igiafTtm
Funding Resources: The Smart Growth Program occasionally offers competitive grants. It has also compiled lists of
federal, regional, and state resources for communities and non-governmental organizations that are seeking funding
to address various aspects of smart growth, http: /.¦' ww.v .eoa .eov/sm artarowth /grants/in de* .htm
Water Quality
Irt urban and suburban areas, much of the land surface is covered by buildings, pavement, and compacted andscapes
that do not allow rain and snowmelt to soak into the ground, which greatly increases the volume and velocity of
stoimwater runoff. Upgrading water infrastructure and! using green infrastructure techniques can hep improve
stonnwater management to better protect our nation s drinking water and lakes, rivers, streams, and other water
bodies, http:/ /www.&pa.aov:'owow/rps/urban.htm
State Revolving Loan Funds: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) Programs are federal/state partnerships designed to finance the cost of infrastructure needed to achieve
compliance with the Clean Water Act. Through the SRFs, states maintain revolving loan funds to provide tow-cost
financing for a wide range of water quality infrastructure projects, such as traditional municipal wastewater treat-
ment and collection systems, nonpoint source program, implementation projects, wetlands restoration, groundwater
protection, innovative stormwater runoff and estuary management projects, drinking water treatment and convey-
ance systems, and source water protection. Funds to estab ish Dr capitafize the SRF programs are provided through
GaituMjei eii pflft 14}
r -rrr rrr mil inti mu imi-1 mil 13
Page 21 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA Programs
EPA grants to the states, along with state matching funds (equal to 20 percent
of federal government grants). Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act stimulus funding, in FY 2010, 20 percent of the federal funds must be
targeted to green infrastructure, water-efficiency improvements, energy-
efficiency improvement, and environmentally innovative approaches to water
quality improvement.
h tt p: / ww v;. ep a. go / o i*m /cwfi n a n ce / c ws rfa n d
http://wwt* .epa .gov/saf e water/dwsrfi1'
Green Infrastructure: Green infrastructure is an approach to wet weather
management that is cost effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly.
Green infrastructure management approaches and technologies infiltrate,
evapotranspire, capture, and reuse stormwater to maintain or restore natural
hydrology. Many of these approaches, including green roofs, rain gardens,
green streets, and other innovative stormwater management techniques, can
also make neighborhoods safer, healthier, and more attractive. EPA has
compiled a list of funding resources to help communities fund green infrastruc-
ture projects.
httD:.''/cfDU b.eoa .eov/npd es ,'greeninfr astru rture/fu ndi ngopporton ities. rfm
Asset Management! As communities undertake the task of renewing their water infrastructure systems, EPA can
offer a suite of practices and approaches to ensure that water infrastructure both supports sustainable communities
and can be supported by the communities it serves. One of the keys to sustainable infrastructure is the practice of
Asset Management (AM), which provides a p atform for making the best, most effective infrastructure investments.
EPA offers AM training and a suite of too's to promote adoption and improvement of AM implementation. Multisec-
tor AM integrates investments in water, transportation, and housing infrastructure and is being promoted through a
Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and DOT.
htt£^wwvviegaj*ov£omin(i[assetnianage|£
Nonpoint Source Management Grants: Under Section 319 of theOean Water Act, states receive grant money to
support a wide variety of activities to reduce nonpoint source po llution, including techniques related to agriculture,
urban runoff, forestry, and the physical modification of water bodies. States directly implement projects as well as
provide funds to organizations and local governments to carry out projects that reduce nonpoint source pollution
through best management practices, outreach and education, and demonstration of new appro aches to improve
water quafity. These grant monies may not be used tofund activities currently required ir» a stormwater permit
issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Each state publishes an annual request for proposals.
httE^wwwejiajjjov^njjs^^artlTtn^
Photo Credits:
Page 1—U.S. Department of Transportation
Page 2—Federal Transit Administration
Page 3—National Park Service
Page 4—Federal Transit Administration
Page 5—Planning Raleigh 2030
Page 6—Gateway 1 Corridor Action Plan., Maine
Page 7—US. Department of Housing and Urban Development
PageS—Planning Raleigh 2030
Page 9— U.S. Department of Transportation
Page 10—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 11—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 12—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 13—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 14—U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
Page 16—US. Department of Transportation
Page 14
Page 22 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, Rl, VT) Kendall Square, 55
Broadway, Suite 920, Cambridge, MA 02142-1093, Tel: S17
-494-2055
Region 2 (NJ, MY) One Bowling Green, Room 429, New
York, m 101X14-1415, Tei: 212-663-2170
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) 1760 Market Street,
Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19103-4124, Tel: 215-656-7100
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI) 230
Peadhtree Street, NW, Suite SQOt Atlanta, GA 30303, Tel:
404-865-5600
Region 5 (IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, Wl} 200 West Adams Street,
Suite 320, Chicago, IL 60606,, Tel: 312-353-2789
Region 6 (AR, LA, OK, NM, TX} E19 Taylor Street, Room
SA36, Ft. Worth, TX 76102, TeS: 817-973-0550
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) 901 Locust Street, Room 404,
Kansas City, MO 64106, Tei: S16-329-3920
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SDr UT, WY} 12300 West Dakota
Avenue, Suite 310, Lakewood, CO S022S-2583, Tel: 720-963-
3300
Region 9 (AZ» CA HI, NV, American Samoa, Guam, North-
em Mariana Islands) 201 Mission Street, Room 1650, San
Francisco, CA 9410S-1926, Tel: 415-744-3133
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) Jackson Federal Building. 915
Second Avenue, Suite 3142, Seattle, WA 9S174-1002, Tel:
206-220-7954
U.5. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
The Federal Highway Administration field offices are organized by state. For efforts re ated to the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities, specific FHWA Division Offices have assumed leadership roles for facilitating and organizing
efforts within the DOT/HUD/EPA regions. Be ow is their contact information.
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, Rl, VT) - Massachusetts Division: Region 5 (IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, Wl) - II inois Division: 3250
55 Broadway, 10th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142, Tel: 617-
494-2419
Region 2 [NJ, NY) - New York Division: Leo O'Brien Federa:
Building, Clinton Avenue & North Pear Street, Room 719,
Albany, NY 12207, Tel: 518-431-4125
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) - Pennsylvania Division:
228 Wa nut Street, Room 536, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720,
Tel: 717-221-3703
Region 4 (AU FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI) - Georgia
Division: 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 17T100, Atlanta, GA
30303, Tel: 404-562-3659
Executive Park Drive, Springfield, IL 62703, Te1: 217-492-
4642
Region 6 (AR, LA, OK, NM, TX} - Texas Division: Federal Of-
fice Building, 300 East Sth Street, Austin, TX 7S701, Tel: 512-
536-5952
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) - Missouri Division: 3220 West
Edgewood, Suite H, Jefferson City, MO 65109, Tei: 573-638-
2620
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, LTT, WY} - Colorado Division:
123QQ W. Dakota Avenue, Suite ISO, Lakewood, CO 80223,
Tel: 720-963-3016
Also, FHWA's Resource Center staff are available for assistance:
* Atlanta, Georgia: 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 17T26, Atlanta, GA 30303, Tel: 404-562-3667
* Lakewood, Colorado: 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 340, Lakewood, CO S0228, Tel: 720-963-3072
* San Francisco. California: 201 Mission Street, Suite 1700. San Francisco, CA 94105, Tel: 415-744-2628
t H; j i ¦ mn nii.4 ri.i jiiv tiu i i
I I!. I I I . 1. L L L 1. : i',1 J J J . j j j i-i
Page 15
Page 23 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
For More Information: Regional Points of Contact, continued
UJS. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, Rlr VT) 10 Causeway Street,
Room 301, Boston.. MA 02222-1092, Tel: 617-994-S200
Region 2 (NJ, NY) 26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3541, New York,
NY 1027S-0068, Tel: 212-264-SOCO
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) 100 Pern Square East,
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3380, Tei: 215-656-0500
Region 4 (AL.. FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI) 40 Mari-
etta Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-2806, Tel: 404-331-5001
Region 5 (IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, Wl) 77 West Jackson Boule-
vard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507, Tel: 312-353-5680
Region 6 (AR, LA, OK, NM, TX} B01 Cherry Street, Unit #45,
Suite 2500, Ft. Worth, TX 76102, Tei: S17-97B-5965
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) 400 State Avenue, Room S07,
Kansas City, KS 66101-2406, Tel: 913-551-5462
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY} 1670 Broadway, 25th
Floor, Denver, CO 30202, Tel: 303-672-5440
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, American Samoa, Guam, North-
em Mariana Islands) 600 Harrison Street, 3rd Floor, San
Francisco, CA. 94107-1300, Tel: 415-4S9-6400
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) 909 First Avenue Suite 200, Se-
attle, WA 98104-1000, Tel: 206-220-5101
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, Rlr VT) 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA02109-3912, Tel: 617-918-1111
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI) 290 Broadway, New York, NV
10007-1B66, Tel: 212-637-3000
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) 1650 Arcti Street,
Phi adelphia, PA 19103-2029, Tel: 215-S14-5M0
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, Tel:
404-562-9900
Region 5 (IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, Wl) 77 West Jackson Boule-
vard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507, Tel: 312-353-200D
Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK,TX} Fountain P ace, 12th Floor,
Suite 1200,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Tel:
214-665-2200
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
KS 66101, Tel: 913-551-7003
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY} 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO £0202-1129, Tel: 303-312-6312
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, Pacific Islands) 75 Hawthorns
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Tel: 415-947-8000
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) 1200Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101, Tel: 206-553-1200
Pflge 16
Page 24 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
Partnership in Action
/iy|h\ 0\ Sq\ Partnership for Sustainable Communities
kHZ* i5BjSjjS53$ in Action Wt
In June 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency joined together to
form the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an
unprecedented agreement to coordinate federal housing,
transportation, and environmental investments; protect public
health and the environment; promote equitable development;
and help address the challenges of climate change.
The three agencies are working together more closely than
ever before to meet President Obama's challenge to
coordinate federal policies, programs, and resources to help
urban, suburban, and rural areas build more sustainable
communities and make those communities the leading style
of development in the United States.
The agencies are working together to identify opportunities
to build more sustainable communities and to remove policy
or other barriers that prevent these places from being built.
Livability Principfes
1. Provide more transportation choices,
2. Promote equitable, affordable bousing.
3. Increase economic competitiveness.
4. Support existing communities.
5. Leverage federal investment
6. Vaiue communities and neighborhoods.
Listening Sessions: Sustainable
"It's time to throw out old policies that
encouraged sprawl and congestion, pollu-
tion, and ended up isolating our communi-
ties in the process. We need strategies
that encourage smart development linked
to guality public transportation, that bring
our communities together."
-President Barack Obama, January 21, 2010 to
the U.S. Conference of Mayors
fc U.S. OFPVBTMK.N7 (>!- IIOl.'SING
JP I KiiA\ OI-VI'I OPMENT
HJD Deputy Secretary Ror-Sms and HJD Mami Fiefi Office Director
Armaria Fana at the frst of several lister ng sessions on the HUD Sus-
tainable Cornnmjnibes Plannng Grant Program.
Planning Grant Program
In the 201C budget. Congress, provided St5D million to HUD
for 3 Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional
planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation
decisions and increase capacity to improve land use and
zoning. Approximately $100 million of that total will be given to
regional integrated planning initiatives through HUD's
Sustainable Communibes Planning Grant Program.
With DOT and EPA's assistance, HUD developed an Advance
Notice of Funding Availability with a description and
framework of the grant program for public comment in early
February. It was designed to gather input from the public on
how the program should be structured in order to have the
most meaningful impact on sustainable regional planning.
As part of a commitment to listening and learning, HUD
Deputy Secretary Ron Sims kicked of* HUD's Sustainable
Communities Planning Grant Listening Tour in Miami on
February 19th. The Deputy Secretary and Shelley Poticha,
Director oJ the Office of Sustainable Housing and
Communities, listened to stakeholders to learn how the new
grant program could spur local innovations thai will help
communities grow more sustainably.
Throughout February and March, listening sessions were held
in Denver, Colo.; Albuquerque, N.M.; Los Angeles, Calif.; St.
Louis, Mo.; Hartford, Conn.; Washington D.C., and Cleveland,
Ohio. Over7CO people participated, including representatives
of state, local, and regional governments; community
development organizations; and a broad range of other
stakeholders. To reach as many stakeholders as possible,
HUD also hosted si* webcasts which reached approximately
SCO additional people.
More information about the HUD Sustainable Communities
Planning Grant Program is available at www.hud.govj
susta inability.
Page 25 of 74
-------
HUD/DOT/EPA Communities
..
(i)
Partnership for Sustainable Communities
PurttiafDiup if) Action
As a result of the Partnership, DOT, HUD. and EPA have increased interagency coordination and collaboration and are developing
internal initiatives to support the Partnership's work. Here are a few examples:
HUD Launch of Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
In February 201Q, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan publicly announced the creation of the Office of Sustainable Hous'ng and Comm unities. The
office wll be overseen by Deputy Secretary Ron Sirrs and is under the management of D rector Shelley Poticha The office will help buiid
stronger oommunittes by connecting housing to transportation festering local innovation, and building a clean energy economy. Funded by
Congress for fee first time in HUD's 2D10 buflget, the office is a key component of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The office wil
work closely with EPA and DOT to coordinate feoeral policies, programs, and resources to help urban, suburban, and rural areas build more
sustainable communities. More information: j-ttc- •'.•www .hud.aov.'susta -abi::tv
Sustainable Communities Brownfields Pilots
Together EPA, HUD, and DOT h3ve selected five Brownfields Pilots where there is a convergence of public transit amid the need for affordable
housing. Cleaniig and reusing this land and providing new housing choices wil create jobs and new econonvc opportunities. The five sites are
the Fainnount Line in Boston; the Smart Growth Redevelopment D'slrict in Indianapolis the La AJmai'Soulh Lincoln Park neighborhood in Denver
the Riverfront Crossings District in Iowa City, Iowa: and the Wests ide Affcroable Housing Transit-Oriented Development in National City,
California- More infbrmaton. h1tDJ'i'www.eoa.aov.'brownfields,''susta'n.h)rn#o3rt
DOT Funds for Urban Circulator, Bus, and Bus Facility Projects
DOT is evaluating grafts for tvro new p#Dt programs to support livabifty projects. Up to S150 million is available for fenis livabi'ity projects to
provide new mobility optons to improve access to jobs, heathcare, and education. 513D mfion is available for Urban Circylator Grants, which wl
connect destinations and foster walkat^e, mixed-use redevelopment More information: httP:/.''edocket.3ccess.gpo.gov,'2Q0ai'pdf,^5-29242^"
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Pilots Announced
Though new Clean Water State Revolving Fund Pilots, EPA will offer technical ass stance to New York. Maryland, and California - to use their
clean water funding programs to support efforts to make comrr unities more sustainafcle. The am of this technical assistance is to promote more
w idespread adoption of practces that encourage states to reinvest in the r existing infrastructure systems and in their existing communities.
DOT Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (T1GER1 Grants
In February 201D. DOT announced S1.5 billion n TIGER grants for over 50 hgh-prority innovative transportation projects across the country. The
projects, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {ARRAi, will create thousands of jobs and hefp get the U.S. economy back on
track The TIGER grant program targets maior national and regional transportaton projects that a-e often dffioult to pursue through government
funding programs. Seeded projects must foster job creation, show strong economc benefits, and promote communities that are safer, cleaner,
and more livable. The projects selected range in size from uncer$4 mllion to ove» $100 million and are found in both rural and urban
communities. They are distributed in 41 states and the District of Columbia. HUD and EPA offered expertise in the review of the grant
appl catioirss- $600 million has been allocated to DOT for a second round of TIGER grants. S3Q million of those funds can be used for planning and
capacity building to generate and fund projects that improve livabifity. More information: htic://www.dot.aov.'affa -5/20 • 0'cot301 Ob."tun
Smart Growth Implementation Assistance
For the crst tme, HUD and DOT headquarters and regional staff are serving on the teams for EPA's Smart Growth Implementation Assistance
projects—helping oommurites find solutions to development-reSated chalenges in the slate of California; Louisville, Ky.; Las Cruces. N.M. and
Montgomery County. Md. More nforn1 ation, ^^^wrt^egagowsn^r^rowpjsgatmi
Federal Transit Administration IFTA1-HUD Mixed-Income. Transit-Oriented Development Action Guide
FTA and HUD have developed an action guide to hefl> planners implement mixed-income, transit-oriented development. This interactive web
guide will help local planners find effective toots to encourage mixed-income envelopment around transit. Mo*e information: http:,'.'www.mitod.org
Change to Federal Transit Administration's New Starts Program
D OT has repealed the New Starts cost-effectiveness rule that limited its New Starts fund ing recommendations. DOT is making this change in
order to give meaningful! consideratdn to the full range of benefits that transit can provide, mduding shorter travel limes congestion relief, and
other important economic development, envronmental, and social benefits.
More information: nttoi/.'www.fta.dot.aovfrewB.'riews everts 1:043.htiri
EFft Urban Waters Initiative
Under the new Urban Wane's Initiative, EPA will work with HUD and DOT to promote equitable redevelopment adjacent to urban waterways re-
invest in existing infrastructure improve water quatfily, and revitaSize waterfront neighborhoods, especially disadvantaged neghbomoods. EPA
expects to announce a Request 'or Proposals in 2010 for approximately $600,000 in Targeted Watersheds Grants to build capacity in urban
watersheds. More information: ("tip:i'.''www.epa.gov.twa
Mere information a-
-------
Salt Lake City Project
5/18/10
Overview of the
Children's Environmental Health & Environmental Justice (CEH/EJ)
Salt Lake City, UT Community Initiative
PURPOSE OF INITIATIVE: Employ a collaborative, community-based partnership to
strengthen community capacity and engagement in the protection of children's health through the
promotion of healthier environments where children live, learn, and play.
BACKGROUND
• Highly collaborative, community-based project with local, state and federal government
agencies, community organizations, and neighborhood residents.
• Initiated by Children's Environmental Health, Environmental Justice, and Indoor Air
programs in fall 2009.
• Nine contiguous neighborhoods in central-city and west-side Salt Lake City are the focus
of the initiative based on community capacity, disproportionate environmental burden
and social vulnerability.
• 39% of west Salt Lake City residents are ethnic minorities (Hispanic, Bosnian, Sudanese,
Afghani, Bantu, Burmese, Russian, Samoan, Tongan, Latino etc.)
• Two-year project with $100,000 of Environmental Justice Showcase funds.
PROJECT GOALS
• Empower the community to reduce environmental risks to children.
• Achieve a more holistic, integrated approach to children's environmental health that is
sustainable in the community and replicable for communities outside of the initiative.
• Build collaborative, community-based partnerships.
• Improve agency coordination and leverage resources.
CURRENT STATUS
• Initiative is in the early stages of development & partnership building.
• Three face-to-face partnership meetings and several conference calls have been held with
community groups, neighborhood councils, Salt Lake County Health, Utah Department
of Health, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UT DEQ), Salt Lake City, and
EPA Region 8.
• Partnership project needs will be identified in May 2010 and Environmental Justice (EJ)
Showcase Funding will be committed in June 2010.
• After commitment of the EJ Funding the community education and assessment phase will
begin to identify community concerns, vulnerabilities, and assets.
Contacts: Deb Thomas, EPA R8 Management Contact, 303-312-6298; Jaslyn Dobrahner, EPA
R8 Project Leader, 303-312-6252; Stacee Adams, Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
801-536-4482.
Page 27 of 74
-------
Budgets and ARRA Status
EPA Budget Summary - State & Tribal Assistance Grants
FY 2010 Enacted Budget Changes vs. FY 2011 President's Budget
(Dollars in Thousands)
**/ Increases for these State and Tribal Assistance Grant Programs reflects an increase to assist
states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and Tribal program
implementation.
\J Air Quality (+82,500.0): Increase supports expanded core state workload for implementing
revised and more stringent NAAQS and reducing public exposure to air toxics; assist state and
local agencies in developing capacity to permit large sources of greenhouse gas emissions;
additional state air monitors required by revised NAAQS.
2/ Local Gov't Climate Change (-$10,000.0): This decrease discontinues funding for these grants
in the FY 2011 President's Budget. The Agency relies on existing EPA partnership programs to
achieve future greenhouse gas reductions.
3/ Water Section 106 (+$45,000.0): Increase to strengthen the base state, interstate and tribal
programs, address emerging water quality issues such as nutrients and new regulatory
requirements, and support expanded enforcement efforts. Includes an increase to assist state and
tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal implementation.
4/ Tribal General Assistance (+$8,500.0): Increase the base funding available for Tribal General
Assistance Program (GAP) grants, providing tribes with a stronger foundation to build tribal
capacity and implement other related efforts, continuing EPA's partnership and collaboration
with the tribes. The Agency is encouraging a stronger environmental program base, and
therefore allowing more tribes to take advantage of the new multi-media implementation
program starting in FY 2011.
5/ Multi-Media Tribal (+$30,000.0): EPA will launch a new multi-media implementation grant
program which will assist tribal governments in implementing environmental programs, going
beyond establishing an environmental presence. The new grant program will allow the Agency
to provide multi-media grants to tribes for implementation of Federal environmental programs.
The multi-media implementation funding will be directed toward federally-recognized tribes
with mutually-agreed upon EPA/tribal-prioritized programs.
6/ Pesticides Implementation (net +$170.0): (+$270.0) Increase to assist states and tribes in
meeting inflation costs associated with state and tribal program implementation. (-$100.0) This
change partially reduces additional support for grants that address emerging pesticide issues
provided in FY2010. The net effect is a $170.0 increase (+$270.0-$100.0).
7/ Total Categorical Grants excludes $9.9 million for Beaches Protection Grants, changing the total
for Categorical Grants from $1,276 billion to $1,266 billion.
8/ Clean Water/Drinking Water SRF Programs (-$200,000.0) Due to the amount of funds directed
towards these programs in the last 3 years, including ARRA funding ($6 billion), this reduction
will not have a significant impact on these programs.
Page 28 of 74
-------
Budgets and ARRA Status
9/ Congressional Earmarks (-$164,777.0) Funding for congressional earmarks has been eliminated
in FY 2011.
10/ Targeted Airshed (-$20,000.0) The FY 2011 President's Budget does not continue funding for
these grants.
11/Brownfields Projects (+$38,254.0) Increase will provide funding for disadvantaged and
underserved communities. Under the Healthy Communities initiative, EPA plans to perform
Targeted Brownfields Assessments for 35 communities, and focus on area wide planning.
Page 29 of 74
-------
Budgets and ARRA Status
Appropriation
FY 2010
Enacted
Increase
From
FY 2011 FY2010 to
Pres Bud FY2011 % Increase
Environmental Program &
Management
$2,993,779
$2,891,036
-$102,743
-3.4%
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$113,101
$113,219
$118
0.1%
Science & Technology
$846,049
$846,697
$648
0.1%
Building & Facilities
$37,001
$40,001
$3,000
8.1%
State and Tribal Assistance Grants**
$4,938,323
$4,751,973
-$186,350
-3.8%
Oil Spill Response
$18,379
$18,468
$89
0.5%
Superfund
$1,306,541
$1,293,060
-$13,481
-1.0%
Inspector General
$44,791
$45,646
$855
1.9%
Agency Sub-Total
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
$10,297,964
$40,000
$10,000,100
$10,000.0
-$297,864
-$30,000
-2.9%
-75.0%
Agency Total
$10,257,964
$9,990,100.0
-$267,864.0
-2.6%
**Does not include Beaches Protection, Mexico Border and Alaska Native Villages
Page 30 of 74
-------
Budgets and ARRA Status
FY10
FY11
FY10 to FY11
GRANT
Enacted
Pres Bud
Change
Air Quality 1/
Tribal Air Quality**
Radon
Local Gov't Climate Change 2/
$226,580.0
$13,300.0
$8,074.0
$10,000.0
$309,080.0
$13,566.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$82,500.0
$266.0
$0.0
-$10,000.0
Water Section 106 3/
Nonpoint Source
Wetlands**
Public Water Supply
Underground Injection**
Homeland Security (DW)
Tribal General Asst. 4/
Multi-Media Tribal 5/
$229,264.0
$200,857.0
$16,830.0
$105,700.0
$10,891.0
$0.0
$62,875.0
$0.0
$274,264.0
$200,857.0
$17,167.0
$105,700.0
$11,109.0
$0.0
$71,375.0
$30,000.0
$45,000.0
$0.0
$337.0
$0.0
$218.0
$0.0
$8,500.0
$30,000.0
Underground Storage Tanks**
Haz. Waste Financial Asst. **
Brownfields
$2,500.0
$103,346.0
$49,495.0
$2,550.0
$105,412.0
$49,495.0
$50.0
$2,066.0
$0.0
Pesticides Implementation 6/
Lead**
Pollution Prevention**
$13,520.0
$14,564.0
$4,940.0
$13,690.0
$14,855.0
$5,039.0
$170.0
$291.0
$99.0
Page 31 of 74
-------
Budgets and ARRA Status
FY10
FY11
FY10 to FY11
GRANT
Enacted
Pres Bud
Change
Pesticides Enforcement**
Toxics Substance Complaince**
Improve Compliance/Sector
Environmental Information Grants**
TOTAL Categorical Grants 7/
$18,711.0
$5,099.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$1,106,546.0
$19,085.0
$5,201.0
$0.0
$10,200.0
$1,266,719.0
$374.0
$102.0
$0.0
$200.0
$160,173.0
(!Li an \\ aler Slale Iie\ ul\ ing I' und 8/
Drinking Wtr State Revolving Fund 8/
Diesel Emissions
Congressional Earmarks 9/
Targeted Airshed 10/
Brownfields Projects 11/
S^,ll II 1,1 IIII I.I 1
$1,387,000.0
$60,000.0
$164,777.0
$20,000.0
$100,000.0
S° 1IIII1 1IIII1 II
-S 11II I.I IIII I.I 1
-$100,000.0
$0.0
-$164,777.0
-$20,000.0
$38,254.0
$1,287,000.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$138,254.0
Total STAG Special Program Grants
Total STAG Appropriation
$3,831,777.0
$4,938,323.0
$3,485,254.0
$4,751,973.0
-$346,523.0
-$186,350.0
Page 32 of 74
-------
Budgets and ARRA Status
Region 8 ARRA April 2010 Monthly Report
Outlay Rate and Jobs Reported
Program
(A) Amount
Awarded
(B) Total Outlays
(thru 5/3/10)*
(B/A)
Cumulative
%
National
Average %
Outlays
Reported
Jobs (for
FY10 Q2)**
Drinking Water SRF
$134,452,000
$48,174,781
36%
32%
196
Clean Water SRF
$126,354,000
$48,135,102
38%
28%
281
604b
$1,303,000
$407,792
31%
N/A (included
in CWSRF)
4
Superfund
$75,810,000
$14,932,459
20%
30%
36
DERA
$17,770,597
$6,237,154
35%
20%
37
LUST
$9,848,000
$1,934,744
20%
20%
17
Browntields
$5,433,000
$567,958
10%
10%
4
Totals
$370,970,597
$120,389,989
32%
28%
574
* SF contracts outlays through March 26.
**Full Jobs Created number unavailable for Eureka IAG
Page 33 of 74
-------
Water Quality I
Current Sustainable Infrastructure and Water Conservation Activities
Engagement in HUD / DOT / EPA Partnership Activities
The objective of the partnership is to identify potential areas where the three agencies can better
leverage and/or coordinated financing in promoting sustainable, livable communities. EPA is
identifying potential areas for collaboration in Colorado to leverage coordinated financing in
promoting sustainable communities.
• Exploring HQ support to update Garfield County comprehensive planning to target
growth and integrate livability principles by assessing cost and benefits of alternative
growth scenarios and implications on infrastructure cost, return on investment, proximity
to transit, land conversion, water demand, stormwater runoff and housing choice.
Supporting Utilities with Energy Management Planning
Region 8 is currently working with HQ to develop an approach to support interested utilities in
benchmarking current energy use, identifying energy savings opportunities, and developing and
implementing energy management plans.
• Estimated that 30-40% of municipal energy use and associated operating budgets are
spent on treating and distributing water/wastewater.
• Rising energy costs represent a major challenge for utilities that are also facing
challenges of increasing demands due to population growth, more stringent regulations
and aging infrastructure.
• Results of energy management activities by utilities in other regions have realized
significant benefits (monetary savings, reduced green house gas emissions).
WaterSense and Water Conservation
Water efficiency can stretch our limited water supplies further. WaterSense is a voluntary
program that aims to bring water efficient products, services, and practices to market. Utilities,
Governments and Non-Profits can become a Promotional Partner.
EPA Communication Strategies for WaterSense Partners:
• Partner Forum- Quarterly webcast conference call for partners (5/20 - Outdoor Water
Use)
• Partner Pipeline -Quarterly eBulletin with partner-specific information
• The WaterSense Current - Quarterly newsletter for the public and your constituents
• Other -Partner recognition, Specification announcements, conferences, news
publications, etc.
EPA's WaterSense Program is just one example of a program that helps to promote water savings
in communities. There are over a hundred different types of conservation measures that can
significantly reduce water loss / water demand. EPA is currently exploring the role of
conservation as a cost effective means in helping to meet some of the growing water needs in our
arid region. The 2011 SRF Green Project Reserve Guidelines specifically identify Water
Efficiency/Conservation as an eligible project.
Page 34 of 74
-------
Water Quality I
Green Project Reserve (GPR) and State Revolving Loan Fund Program
ARRA Summary:
R8 States funded:
- 30.5% of CW projects in GPR ($38.5 million)
- 29.6% of DW projects in GPR ($39.7 million)
Types of projects:
- 5 3 % Water Effi ci ency
- 29% Energy Efficiency
- 17%) Green Infrastructure
- 1% Environmentally Innovative
2010 Appropriation:
20% Green Project Reserve in 2010 Appropriation and 2011 Pres Budget
• The 2010 Guidance for Determining GPR Project Eligibility is FINAL
- States and EPA Regions provided input on the development of Draft guidance,
and commented on the Draft guidance.
How Region 8 is helping States meet GPR requirement:
• Working with HQ Stormwater experts to identify areas of collaboration (e.g. technical
assistance) for Green Project Reserve funds to assist R8 states in meeting the 20%> goal.
Will be hosting a webinar(s) on the Benefits of Green Infrastructure for States and
municipalities in next few months
• Working with States that wish to revise their priority setting process for their Intended
Use Plans to factor in new Green guidance
• Discussing the 2010 Green guidance during state visits to ensure appropriate application
and consistency.
What is the impact on the Green Project Reserve requirement if a state chooses to transfer
funds from one SRF to another? The 20%> Green Requirement still applies. However, if a
State has met its 20%> requirement in the donor program, then the receiving program will not
have to apply the same requirement. However, if the donor SRF program had only met half of its
requirement at the time of the transfer, the remaining half would have to be met by the receiving
program.
Questions for Discussion
1) What are states doing regarding sustainable infrastructure/green infrastructure? Are there
opportunities for partnership?
2) What challenges/opportunities do states see going forward in these areas?
3) How can Region 8 best support the States in implementing the Green Project Reserve?
Page 35 of 74
-------
Water Quality I
Green Project Reserve (GPR) Waiver Process
From the guidance, "Procedures for Implementing Certain Provisions of EPA's Fiscal Year 2010
Appropriation Affecting the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs,"
• States have sufficient time for the solicitation of eligible GPR project applications to
meet the minimum GPR threshold of 20 percent. This is "two-year money." EPA
strongly encourages States to put forth every effort to meet the 20 percent GPR
requirement in the 2010 Appropriations Bill.
• If a State determines that it cannot meet the 20 percent GPR requirement, it must
demonstrate compliance with the following process outlined in the Required Grant
Condition guidance:
"Recipient agrees to make a timely and concerted solicitation for projects that address
green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally
innovative activities. The recipient agrees to include in its IUP such qualified projects, or
components of projects, that total an amount at least equal to 20% of its capitalization grant. If
there are not sufficient qualified projects or components already in the IUP that total 20% of the
FY 2010 funds available, the recipient agrees to conduct additional solicitation, to amend its
project list to include any such qualified projects thus identified, and to provide not less than
20% of such FY 2010 funds available to such projects on its amended project list. If there are
not sufficient qualified projects or components on the amended project list after such additional
solicitation, the recipient may if necessary submit a waiver request to EPA in accordance with
the FY 2010 procedures."
Any requests for a waiver from the GPR requirement based on insufficient project applications
will be reviewed by EPA Headquarters on a case-by-case basis. EPA will use the following
sample actions as a guide when deciding whether to approve or disapprove a State's waiver
request:
• Prominent messages on State SRF and green infrastructure websites;
• Notification clearly soliciting funding applications for projects eligible for GPR sent to
all municipalities in the State;
• Targeted meetings with State programs associated with green infrastructure, water and
energy efficiency, and other environmentally innovative projects;
• Notification clearly soliciting funding applications for projects eligible for GPR sent to
mailing lists used by the aforementioned State programs;
• Targeted meetings with associations, watershed organizations and environmental groups
involved in green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency and other environmentally
innovative projects; and
• Notification clearly soliciting funding applications for projects eligible for GPR sent to
mailing lists and members of aforementioned associations, watershed organizations and
environmental groups.
Note: In order to qualify for a waiver, States must open up their loan fund to the entire cadre of
green projects, including replacement of on-site systems with new on-site systems.
Page 36 of 74
-------
Water Quality I
Effluent Guidelines
Background: What are effluent guidelines?
Effluent guidelines are national standards, based on the performance of treatment and control
technologies, for wastewater discharges to surface waters and municipal sewage treatment
plants. Effluent guidelines are developed for industry categories (aluminum forming, pulp and
paper mills, steam electric power generation, etc). The performance based limitations are
incorporated into surface water discharge permits or into permits established by sewage
treatment plants.
Coalbed Methane (CBM) Detailed Study
Rationale for Detailed Study:
- CBM is a growing industry sector with potential impacts on the environment.
Objectives and Scope of the Detailed Study:
- Evaluate availability and affordability of technology treatment options for CBM
produced water discharges in the current and future CBM basins.
- Evaluate potential environmental issues associated with the discharge of CBM
produced water.
Study Activities
- Screener survey sent in February 2009 to all operators with three or more wells.
- Detailed survey sent to a representative sample of CBM projects in October 2009.
- Literature review of environmental impacts and beneficial uses of produced
water.
- Review of state permitting requirements for CBM.
Study completion and a decision on whether to initiate an effluent guideline rulemaking
is anticipated in the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Plan, approximately October 2010.
Page 37 of 74
-------
Water Quality I
Jim Lochhead, CEO Denver Water, will address the future of water supply in the west and the
factors that affect quality and quantity. A discussion where the State Directors will focus on their
State's water issue will follow.
Page 38 of 74
-------
Water Quality II
Excess Nutrients in Water
Update from 2009 State Directors' Meeting
State Directors' Meeting
May 26-27, 2010
In the year since we last met, EPA Region 8 has focused its efforts to address excess nutrients in
water in three main areas:
• Providing technical assistance to Region 8 states as they develop the tools and science to
adopt nutrient criteria.
• Improving working relationships with the community concerned with nutrient pollution;
federal, state and local entities responsible for wastewater, drinking water, agriculture and
stormwater management.
• Working with States and watershed groups on watershed restoration and products such as
watershed plans and Total Maximum Daily Loads.
• HQs is focused on 1) Florida Promulgation; 2) Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
(due 12/31/2010); 3) Mississippi River Basin Strategy; and 4) meeting expectations of the
Inspector General's Office based on EPA's response to the Report from the OIG, "EPA
Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards."
Technical Assistance
¦ Significant work within Region 8 and the states to understand the implications of setting
nutrient criteria and evaluating various options and tools to assist with criteria implementation.
This has involved considerable consultation with HQs as many implementation questions are not
answered in existing policy, guidance or regulation and the questions can be very technical.
¦ Staff are actively involved with Montana, Utah, and Colorado staff and stakeholder workgroups
developing nutrient assessment tools and science for setting nutrient criteria.
¦ The Region has worked with HQs to: a) understand the work completed to date on
environmental benefits for nutrient criteria; and b) identify both economic approaches and
connections to drinking water impacts that more effectively highlight the environmental
benefits of nutrient criteria.
¦ Region 8 initiated pilot projects to derive nutrient criteria at an ecoregional scale.
¦ Tracked the complexities of the Florida promulgation and EPA's response to the Inspector
General's report in order to answer the technical questions states have about those actions.
Page 39 of 74
-------
Water Quality II
State Environmental Directors' Meeting
May 26-27,2010
Key Messages for Total Maximum Daily Loads Topic
o Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) analyses are important because they provide the
information needed to create plans to restore waterbodies impaired by excess pollutant
loads. They are required by Clean Water Act Section 303(d) to be written for waters
identified on the States' impaired waterbody lists.
o In the past EPA has focused on counting the number of TMDL approvals as a measure of
progress toward restoring impaired waterbodies.
• WQ-8 is measure of the annual number of TMDLs produced by the Region and is a
senior management performance measure.
• WQ-8 counts all TMDLs equally regardless of the quality and utility of the TMDL
approved.
• Additional program measures are used to document actual water quality restoration.
- SP-10 & SP-11 count number of past impairments that have been restored.
- SP-12 attempts to measure progress in NPS impaired watersheds prior to full
restoration utilizing a set of criterion.
o EPA sincerely appreciates the very hard work that Region 8 states have put towards
developing their TMDL program and the increasing difficulties they are encountering in
producing some of these documents.
o Now that most court orders have been met and TMDLs are being developed, EPA is
currently considering a focus on the utility of the TMDL document to restoration
planning rather than emphasizing numbers as heavily in the past.
• TMDL Pace does not equal Restoration Pace: EPA realizes that TMDL pace is not
the same thing as the pace of water quality restoration as there are many additional
steps in the restoration process before water quality standards are once again attained.
• Focusing too heavily on counting the number of approved TMDL documents may
have been a disincentive to creating a TMDL document of sufficient quality to truly
serve as a blueprint to restoration.
• High quality TMDLs can facilitate the water quality restoration process by providing
sound information for restoration planning. However, poorly written TMDLs can
hinder the restoration process if the information provided is not useful to other
programs or an inaccurate picture of what is needed to restore the waterbody.
Page 40 of 74
-------
Water Quality II
I) State - Specific TMDL Information Region 8.
State
Current
Number of
(303)d
Listings
Approx.
13-Yr
Pace
Average 5
Year
Production
TMD1
^ Production
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
CO
273
21
15.8
0
1
13
38
27
WY
131
10.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
UT
207
15.9
5.4
0
11
12
4
0
SD
232
17.8
10.4
8
9
4
26
5
ND
337
25.9
10
1
6
10
7
26
MT
1843
141.7
80.4
38
122
34
89
119
Note: The above TMDL production numbers do not include TMDLs based on individual NPDES permit renewals,
a practice phased out in FY07.
Important notes/considerations for perspective
Region 8:
• Prior to FY06/FY07, Region 8 relied heavily (65-75%) on NPDES permit-based TMDLs
to meet TMDL development pace expectations.
• Starting in FY07 Region 8 no longer relies on the NPDES permit based TMDLs to meet
our regional pace expectations.
• Starting in FY08, the Region 8 TMDL review guidelines were rewritten by the TMDL
team to improve the quality of the TMDLs approved by EPA. The new review guidelines
include a set of minimum submission requirements to provide clear direction to state
programs on what EPA expects to see in a TMDL document to gain EPA approval.
• These changes have made it more difficult for Region 8 States, and, thus, Region 8 as a
whole, to meet the annual TMDL production pace. However, the changes improve the
likelihood that the TMDLs Region 8 does approve will facilitate future water quality
restoration.
CO
• CO relied heavily on NPDES permit-based TMDLs written on their behalf by EPA
Region 8 prior to FY07.
• Since FY07, CO has successfully developed watershed-based TMDLs and has been a
solid and reliable producer of TMDLs in Region 8.
WY
• WY relied entirely on NPDES permit-based TMDLs prior to FY07.
• Prior to FY07, WY struggled to complete TMDLs against strong opposition from the
local agricultural and ranching community as represented by the WY Association of
Conservation Districts.
• In the first quarter of FY10, WY submitted its first watershed-based TMDL for Ocean
Lake which was subsequently approved by EPA R8.
• WY currently has 40+ TMDLs under development by contractors funded by ARRA and
Clean Water Act Section 319 (nonpoint source) program.
Page 41 of 74
-------
Water Quality II
• WY is putting emphasis on high quality TMDLS by requiring implementation plans for
TMDLs funded by Section 319.
UT
• TMDL development in UT has been slowed by the State's attempt to develop TMDLs for
waters impaired by nutrients which include significant nutrient contributions from
Publically Owned wastewater Treatment Facilities (POTWs). In addition to technical
challenges, the stakeholder process becomes complex and sensitive, affecting TMDL
development.
SD
• While SD did use NPDES permit-based TMDLs in the past, they also successfully
developed some watershed-based TMDLs.
• While SD's TMDL coordinator was suffering from a terminal illness, the program
struggled. A newly hired coordinator has helped the program increase its pace.
• SD has also been slowed by attempts to develop TMDLs for waterbodies impaired by
nutrients.
ND
• TMDLs are developed by staff in the ND Nonpoint Source program using Clean Water
Act Section 319 (nonpoint source) funds.
• NPS staff in ND have many other tasks in addition to developing TMDLs, which limits
the time and technical expertise available for this task.
MT
• MT is under court order to develop TMDLs at a rapid pace.
• MT typically accounts for half or more of the total Regional TMDL production numbers.
• Additional information on the MT TMDL program and the status of litigation on the MT
TMDL program is presented in a separate section below.
II) General Background Information about TMDLs
i Who must complete TMDLs?
(1) States are required to complete TMDLs for waters impaired, or threatened to
become impaired, by excessive pollutant loads.
(2) If states do not complete TMDLs in a timely manner, federal courts may order
EPA to complete the TMDLs for them.
(3) TMDLs are typically developed by the states directly or by state contractors.
Occasionally, EPA contractors or EPA staff may develop TMDLs at a states
request or if ordered to do so by federal courts.
ii What is a TMDL?
(1) TMDL stands for the Total Maximum Daily Load of a pollutant that a waterbody
can assimilate while still attaining water quality standards.
(2) NPDES Permit Based TMDLs - Prior to FY07, R8 encouraged and accepted the
development of TMDLs based on the individual waste load from recently
Page 42 of 74
-------
Water Quality II
renewed NPDES permits. Outside of R8, this type of TMDL was not considered
a valid TMDL and their use was phased out FY07.
(3) A TMDL consists of a specific waterbody & pollutant combination.
(4) The TMDL equation:
TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS + Seasonality Factors
(a) The TMDL (assimilative capacity of the waterbody for a particular pollutant)
(b) WLAs (waste load allocations for point sources of pollution)
(c) LAs (load allocations for non-point sources of pollution and natural
background loads)
(d) MOS (an additional load to be set aside to provide a Margin of Safety to
account for inaccuracies and errors when the TMDL is calculated).
(e) Seasonality Factors (to account for the variation in the assimilative capacity of
the waterbody at different times of the year).
iii When are TMDL completed?
(1) Based on case law, EPA has established a national policy stating that TMDLs
should be completed within 8-13 years (on average) from the time an impairment
is first placed on the 303(d) list.
(2) A waterbody is considered to be impaired when one or more water quality
standards are not being attained.
(a) Note that not all impairments are the result of a pollutant load and therefore
not all impairments require the determination of a TMDL.
iv Where are TMDL applied?
(1) For the purposes of TMDL development, a waterbody is typically defined as a
single "assessment unit" as defined by the state.
(a) The size of an assessment unit can vary substantially and may be as small as a
mile or two section of stream, or as large as a medium sized watershed
including several tributaries.
(2) States can and do change the definition of an assessment unit for a variety of
reasons, including to separate an impaired segment from a larger segment.
v Why do we need TMDLs?
(1) TMDLs determine and allocate the allowable pollutant load among the sources in
the watershed.
(2) Pollutant Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) set by TMDLs are used by the NPDES
permit programs to regulate point sources of a pollutant.
(3) Pollutant Load Allocations are used by Non Point Source pollution control
programs to determine how much nonpoint source pollutant load reductions are
needed to allow impaired waterbodies to attain WQS.
vi How are TMDLs completed?
(1) Methods used to determine TMDL loads vary widely based on many different
factors (e.g., the pollutant involved; the type of pollutant sources involved; the
resource limitations of the agency determining the TMDL, the political and
economic ramifications of the TMDL; the interest of the stakeholder community;
and the likelihood of successfully restoring the waterbody to attaining water
quality standards).
Page 43 of 74
-------
Water Quality II
(2) Water quality targets are set to represent one or more conditions that must be met
to ensure the waterbody will attain and maintain a water quality standard.
(a) Water quality criterion may be used directly as a target.
(3) Some approaches to TMDL development include
(a) Utilizing complex watershed/water quality models such as SWAT,
AnnAGNPS, HSPF, Qual2k etc.
(b) Basing the water quality target on non-impaired reference waterbodies
(c) Basing the water quality target on literature values.
Ill) Information on the MT TMDL Law Suit
EPA is currently under court order to assure the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) completes Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all waterbodies
listed on Montana's 1996 Section 303(d) list by December 31, 2012.
EPA has been working collaboratively with DEQ to complete these TMDLs by using a
holistic, watershed-scale to TMDL development - this approach results in technically
sound, implementable TMDLs that are widely accepted by staff, watershed stakeholders,
and the Plaintiffs from the original lawsuit.
However, this approach will not address all of the court-ordered 1996 listings by
December 31, 2012 because, using the watershed approach, they, instead, address a
combination of listings from 1996-2008.
EPA and DEQ have developed and are implementing a plan to meet the 2012 deadline,
which will address all of the remaining 1996 listings. We will not fail to meet the court
ordered deadline.
At the same, EPA is working with DEQ, the Plaintiffs, and the Department of Justice to
draft a motion to amend the court order as follows: (1) eliminate the requirement to
address waterbody-pollutant combinations appearing specifically on Montana's 1996
Section 303(d) list by December 31, 2012; and (2) replace it with a requirement to
address an equivalent number of waterbody-pollutant combinations from any list by
December 31, 2012.
Page 44 of 74
-------
SPCC
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Regulation
40 CFR part 112
Background:
The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations are not new - they have
been in place for thirty-six years, since January 10, 1974. Although the SPCC regulations cover
many different types of facilities, this handout is focused on requirements for farms. It is
estimated that there are approximately 157,354 farms in EPA Region 8 states, which include
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah. Only those with non-
exempt containers and equipment with oil which exceed the 1,320 gallon capacity threshold are
potentially subject to the SPCC rules. Since there is no requirement to obtain a permit or report
to EPA, the exact number of facilities subject to the rule is not known.
What is SPCC?
The goal of the SPCC program is to prevent oil spills into waters of the United States and
adjoining shorelines by requiring secondary containment for tanks, equipment and
loading/unloading areas. Oil spills can cause injuries to people and damage to the environment.
A key element of this program calls for farmers and other facilities to have an oil spill prevention
plan, called an SPCC Plan. These Plans can help farmers prevent oil spills which can damage
water resources needed for farming operations.
What is considered a farm under SPCC?
Under SPCC, a farm is: "a facility on a tract of land devoted to the production of crops or raising
of animals, including fish, which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold,
$1,000 or more of agricultural products during a year."
When is a farm covered by SPCC?
SPCC applies to a farm which:
• Stores, transfers, uses, or consumes oil or oil products, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, lube
oil, hydraulic oil, adjuvant oil, crop oil, vegetable oil, or animal fat; and
• Stores more than 1,320 US gallons in aboveground containers or more than 42,000 US
gallons in completely buried containers; and
• Could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to waters of the US or adjoining
shorelines, such as interstate waters, intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams.
If a farm meets all of these criteria, then the farm is covered by SPCC.
TIPS:
* Count only containers of oil that have a storage capacity of 55 US gallons and
above.
* Adjacent or non-adjacent parcels, either leased or owned, may be considered
separate facilities for SPCC purposes. Containers on separate parcels (that the farmer
identifies as separate facilities based on how they are operated) do not need to be
added together in determining whether the 1,320-gallon applicability threshold is met.
Page 45 of 74
-------
SPCC
If A farm is covered by SPCC, what is required?
The SPCC program requires an SPCC Plan to be prepared and implemented. Businesses which
were in existence prior to August 16, 2002, should maintain their existing SPCC Plan. If you do
not have a Plan, you should prepare and implement one. Many farmers will need to have their
Plan certified by a Professional Engineer ("PE"). However, you may be eligible to self-certify
your amended Plan if:
• Your farm has a total oil storage capacity between 1,320 and 10,000 gallons in
aboveground containers, and the farm has a good spill history (as described in the SPCC
rule), you may prepare and self-certify your own Plan. (However, if you decide to use
certain alternate measures allowed by the federal SPCC Rule, you will need a PE.)
• Your farm has storage capacity of more than 10,000 gallons, or has had an oil spill (as
described in the SPCC rule), you may need to prepare an SPCC Plan certified by a PE.
When should a plan be prepared and implemented?
Farms in operation on or before August 16, 2002, must maintain or amend their existing Plan by
November 10, 2010. Any farm that started operation after August 16, 2002, but before
November 10, 2010, must prepare and use a Plan on or before November 10, 2010.
Note: If a farm was in operation before August 16, 2002, and there has not already been a
Plan developed, a Plan must be prepared now.
What compliance assistance is being offered to the regulated Farming
COMMUNITY?
• EPA is increasing its outreach efforts to assist the regulated community in complying
with the SPCC Rule. Workshops and presentations will continue to be given throughout
this year in R8 including one scheduled in Minot, ND on May 25; one in Montana on
June 11 for the Montana Grain Growers Association; one in either Utah or South Dakota;
and an upcoming presentation at the ND Agriculture Association meeting later this year.
• EPA has and is continuing to develop several new fact sheets for specific industries, such
as farms, which explain the requirements as they apply to their operations.
• A template for use by owner or operators of smaller, Tier I-qualified facilities is available
to be downloaded from EPA's web site: http://epa.gov/oem/content/spec/tier 1 temp.htm.
• EPA also plans on making this information available through state and local farm bureau
offices.
Page 46 of 74
-------
Enforcement
Clean Water Act Action Plan
Clean Water Act
Action Plan
Overview
Presentation by: Mike Gaydosh
Assistant Regional Administrator
ECEJ
Region 8 State Directors Meeting
May 26, 2010
mm
m
mm
CWA Action Plan Overview
Three key improvements needed:
« Target enforcement to the most
important water pollution problems
« Reset relationships with the states and
strengthen oversight of the state
programs
« Improve transparency and accountability
CWA Action Plan
Implementation Teams
NPDES Data Analysis
New Approach
Short Term Oversight
Public Access
Electronic Reporting
Citizen Suit
• ••
• •••
• ••••
• •••
• ••••
• •••
••••
Page 47 of 74
-------
Enforcement
Next Steps for Region 8
• FY11 PPA negotiations
• Development of collaborative work plans
• Regular meetings to track progress
• Continued work to improve the SRF
process and integrate state permitting and
enforcement program reviews
• Continued focus on database integrity
Next Steps for Region 8
• FY11 PPA negotiations
• Development of collaborative work plans
• Regular meetings to track progress
• Continued work to improve the SRF
process and integrate state permitting and
enforcement program reviews
• Continued focus on database integrity
• •
• ••
• •
• ••
• •
• •
Page 48 of 74
-------
Enforcement
Enforcement Priorities
¦ J
EPA National
Enforcement Goals
Mike Gaydosh
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA Region 8
May 26-27, 2010
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
Aggressively go after pollution problems that make
a difference in communities
Vigorous civil and criminal enforcement
Advance environmental justice
Clean Water
Clean Air
Climate and Clean Energy
Protect People from Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
Reset EPA Relationship with the States
~ Shared accountability
~ Strengthened oversight
~ Establish new model, starting with water
Page 49 of 74
-------
Enforcement
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
¦ ov isparency
~ i • ••" - ?. ;f i:
~ I- •••¦ "• •••¦
~ F - :
4
EPA National Enforcement
Goals
more information
National Enforceme ' sase visit:
httD://www.eDa.aov/oecaerth/data/Dlannina/initiatives/aoals.html
5
Page 50 of 74
-------
Air Quality
Rural Ozone
Rural Ozone
Goal - Where local area strategies are not enough for
areas to come into attainment, discuss what States could
do to influence "regional" reduction strategies
Set Stage - What would the attainment status be for our
States under 3 new ozone standard scenarios
Western ozone background concentrations
Discussion - J. Corra lead
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.075 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
J No Data or< 0.060 ppm
] 0.061 to 0.064 ppm
] 0.065 to 0.069 ppm
] 0.070 to 0.074 ppm
| 0.075 ppm or greater
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.070 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
I I No Data or< 0.060 ppm
I I 0.061 to 0.064 ppm
I I 0.065 to 0.069 ppm
I I 0.070 to 0.074 ppm
~ 0.075 ppm or greater
Page 51 of 74
-------
Air Quality
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.065 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
I I No Data or< 0.060 ppm
I I 0.061 to 0.064 ppm
0.065 to 0.069 ppm
0.070 to 0.074 ppm
I I 0.075 ppm or greater
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.060 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
I I No Data or< 0.060 ppm
I I 0.061 to 0.064 ppm
I I 0.065 to 0.069 ppm
0.070 to 0.074 ppm
~ 0.075 ppm or greater
Western Ozone Background Concentrations
EPA Defined "Policy Relevant Background" for Ozone is Approx. 40 ppb*
Region 8 Rural Background Ozone Monitors:
4th Maximum 8-hour avg., ppb
Year
Glacier
(MT)
Yellowstone
(WY)
Gothic
(CO)
Canyonlands
(UT)
Great Basin
(NV)
2006
59
69
70
70
72
2007
54
65
63
72
75
2008
57
65
71
71
71
2009
55
63
Not Available
68
69
* EPA Staff Paper for the Ozone NAAQS Review: EPA-452/R-07-007, July 2007, p. 2-48
5/17/2010 6
Page 52 of 74
-------
Air Quality
Regional Haze and Tri-State Study Pilot Project
Regional Haze
Regional Haze SIP Status
• Section 308 Regional Haze SIPs were due 12/17/07
~ 1/15/09 - 37 states received findings of failure to submit their SIPs
• 1/15/11 - deadline to have SIPs/FIPs in place
~ Early 5/10: For the Western Regions, since the Findings, 7 final
SIPs have been submitted (CA, KS, ND, NV, OK, OR, TX)
~ Most remaining SIPs are expected in mid to late 2010
309 SIPs - Backstop Trading Program for S02
• Four states (AZ, NM, UT, and WY) opted to submit 309 SIPs
• UT and WY submitted 309 SIPs in late 2008
~ 309g SIPs required for NOx, PM, and long term strategy (UT
submitted, awaiting WY)
5/17/2010 7
Regional Haze (cont.)
WildEarth Guardians' (WEG) Lawsuit
~ EPA was sued on 6/2/09 for failure to act on SIPs or FIPs to satisfy
Interstate Transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
~ Seven western states were named in the lawsuit: CO, ND, NM, OK,
CA, ID, and OR
~ Under consent decree, final visibility related prong SIPs/FIPs are
required to be in place by 5/10/11
5/17/2010 8
Tri- State Study
Pilot Project
• Comprehensive cumulative effects air quality analyses in the Tri-
State area would establish a credible baseline for future air quality
estimates and serve as the basis for State planning efforts and FLM
NEPA analyses
• Over the course of the 3 years, 13 new monitoring sites are being
added; BLM, WY DEQ, EPA, USFS will provide varying levels of
funding. Total 3-year funding: S2.87M total. CO, UT, and WY
providing additional staff support for monitoring efforts.
• Data Warehouse (Scoping/Design and Operation)
• Modeling Center
• MOA Under Development
5/17/2010 9
Page 53 of 74
-------
Energy Round Table
Some of the issues that will be discussed are: coal bed methane, oil shale, renewable fuels, uranium,
renewable energy, power plants, etc.
Page 54 of 74
-------
Work Sharing and Streamlining Work Processes
LEAN
Streamlining Work Process
(i.e., LEAN)
Region 7 SIP Kaizen (LEAN) Event
• Participants: EPA HQ, EPA Region 7 and its States, Regions 4
and 6
• Scope: SIP process from EPA rule promulgations to State SIP
submittal to final EPA approval of SIP
• Goals:
- 100% ofapprovable NAAQS attainment SIPs occur within
statutory time frames.
- SIPS are of sufficient quality to be approvable on first pass.
- Reduce processing time by 50%.
- Eliminate a 1/3 of SIP backlog each year for the next 3 years.
5/17/2010 1
LEAN (cont.)
• Process changes to achieve goals: Requires HQ, Regional and
State changes
• Transferability: EPA evaluating the results of the Region 7 process
to determine applicability in other Regions and States
• Next Steps:
- EPA and States progress of various workgroups already
underway.
- Workgroups include: SIP Template, Public Comment Efficiency,
Federal Measures, RPO Strategy, Menu of Control Measures
and federal rule quantification, and overall roll out plan.
5/17/2010 2
Page 55 of 74
-------
EPA Administrator's Priorities
Administrator's Priorities
~ Taking Action on Climate Change
~ Improving Air Quality
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
~ Cleaning Up our Communities
~ Protecting America's Waters
~ Expanding the Conversation on
Environmentalism and Working
for Environmental Justice
~ Building Strong State and
Tribal Partnerships
Page 56 of 74
-------
Regional and State Priorities
EPA Region 8 Priorities
The following priorities (A-G) were discussed and adopted at the 2009 State Directors
Meeting:
A. Building Partnerships With the Agriculture Community
B. Improving Air Quality
C. Addressing Climate Change
D. Energy
E. All Hazards Response
F. Building State and Tribal Capacity
G. Direct Implementation
These additional priorities were added by the R8 SLT:
H. Sustainable and Healthy Communities
I. Stronger EPA
J. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)
K. Restoring Imperiled Waters
A. Building Partnerships With the Agriculture Community
Region 8 will work in partnership with the agricultural community, other
federal agencies, states, tribes, and others to help achieve continual
environmental improvement and promote environmentally sustainable
production of safe, abundant supplies of food and fiber in support of the
following goals:
~ Restore and Maintain Water Quality
~ Encourage Agriculture Pollution Prevention
~ Protect Health of Agricultural Workers
~ Improve Outdoor Air Quality
~ Build and Maintain Productive Partnerships
B. Improving Air Quality
The overall goal is to work with our State, Tribal and federal partners to
achieve and maintain healthy air quality. A particular focus will be on
effectively addressing air quality impacts from energy development. Region 8
will provide oversight and technical assistance to our States and Tribes and
fulfill direct implementation responsibilities. Major program emphasis areas
will be:
~ Permitting
~ Work with states on ozone designation issues
~ Work with states and Federal Land Managers on the potential
establishment of a data warehouse and/or air quality analysis
center to be used for NEPA and regulatory programs
~ Regional Haze FIPs
~ Diesel emission reductions from DERA/ARRA
~ Work with Utah on PM2.5 nonattainment SIP development
~ Reduce SIP Backlog as described in Consent Agreement
C. Addressing Climate Change
Many states, tribes, and municipalities in Region 8 have been proactive in
addressing climate change in various ways. As part of the Climate Change
priority, Region 8 will continue to recognize and support the important role of
these efforts, and will reach out to identify ways in which we can provide
assistance and work in collaboration to make our programs compatible and
complementary. The Region 8 Climate Change priority will:
Page 57 of 74
-------
Regional and State Priorities
~ Support Administrator's Clean Energy/Climate priority through
implementation of GHG reporting rule, and work with sources
to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions by
leveraging existing federal, state and local programs
~ Assess and plan for the effects of climate change on current
and future responsibilities of the regional office
~ Demonstrate environmental leadership through new building
operations and outreach, including further integration of
Region 8 Environmental Management System (EMS)
~ Identify and implement goals and priority activities that have
the highest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
increase our capacity to adapt to climate variability
~ Support our partners, including states and communities, in
their response to the challenge of climate change through
knowledge building, technical assistance, and partnerships
~ Implement priority climate change activities to expedite
reductions in carbon emissions
D. Energy
Region 8 contains extensive fossil fuel, mineral and renewable energy
resources - so extensive that the Region is in many ways the center of the
nation's energy future. With the current emphasis on resource extraction and
electricity production to meet growing demand, energy projects in our Region
are increasing. Region 8 programs protect air, water, land and ecosystems
from the potential impacts of energy development and production and
encourage energy conservation and renewables. The Region 8 Clean
Energy priority focuses upon achieving the following goals and objectives:
~ Support Administrator's Clean Energy/Climate goals, including
support for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) readiness,
and Underground Storage Tank (UST) compatibility efforts
~ Region 8 decision processes for energy projects will be efficient
and timely and will meet or surpass EPA regulatory requirements
~ EPA's energy goals will be pursued in collaboration with states,
tribes, federal agencies and other stakeholders
~ Help provide affordable energy and a clean environment through
improved compliance.
~ Increased production of renewable and non-renewable energy
and greater energy efficiency to enhance national security and
economic growth
~ Support projects that facilitate clean and renewable energy
production and ensure transmission capacity
~ Accelerate protection of public health and the environment by
helping America use energy more efficiently and affordably,
speeding the transition to cleaner energy sources, improving
energy security and reducing greenhouse gases
~ Implement Energy Act 2005 and the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007
E. All Hazards Response
As part of efforts to improve preparedness and the ability to respond to
terrorist attacks, EPA has been called upon to play a strategic role in
homeland security. The president has given EPA the responsibility for
safeguarding the nation's drinking water supplies and delivery systems
and for responding to biological, chemical and hazardous waste risks
posed by potential terrorist attacks.
11
Page 58 of 74
-------
Regional and State Priorities
Region 8 will continue to strengthen the communications network we
have established with federal, state and local response authorities;
enhance expertise and readiness through training and coordinated
exercises; and take additional steps to secure infrastructure and
hazardous materials. In the long term, our efforts will maximize the
Region's capability to assure time-critical and coordinated responses to
terrorist incidents and natural disasters. Region 8 will also expand the
Region's capability to respond to Incidents of National Significance (INS)
and continue operations during shutdown of the Regional Office or a
pandemic disease outbreak.
EPA continues to focus our attention and efforts on four homeland
security priority areas:
~ Water Security (Sector Lead)
~ Decontamination (U.S. Government Coordinator/Lead)
~ Emergency Response
~ Internal Preparedness including Continuity of Operations Plan
(COOP) / Pandemic Flu
F. Building State and Tribal Capacity
This priority is intended to further improve the federal-state/tribal working
relationships and to identify opportunities to enhance state and tribal
capability to deliver environmental program services. The elements of the
priority include:
~ Providing resources, partnering and work-sharing, Technical
assistance, Training opportunities
~ Promote Innovations and flexibilities
~ Collaborate on priorities
~ Improve the ability to focus limited resources on priorities
~ Maintain core programs within the bounds of available resources
as negotiated in Performance Partnership Agreements
G. Direct Implementation
Region 8 is responsible for, and deploys significant resources to directly
implement environmental programs on tribal lands and to implement
programs where states are either not delegated authority or where
programs cannot be delegated. Our direct implementation responsibilities
are critical to our mission to protect public health and the environment.
Through program implementation, permitting, inspections, compliance
assistance, enforcement and performance of Superfund and NEPA
activities Region 8 fulfills these direct implementation responsibilities.
Region 8 is home to 27 tribal nations with a land area of approximately 28
million acres. In almost all cases, Region 8 implements all environmental
programs on these lands. Direct implementation will continue to demand
attention and resources, especially as increased activities in sectors such
as energy expand programmatic workloads. In addition to the metrics
below direct implementation commitments can be found under Building
State and Tribal Capability, Energy, Climate Change Building Partnerships
with the Agriculture Community, and Air Quality.
H. Sustainable and Healthy Communities
The environmental health and long-term viability of our communities
continues to be a priority of both Region 8 and this Administration. Through
initiatives aimed at ensuring Sustainable and Healthy Communities, EPA's
goal is to foster an integrated approach to community development, with an
emphasis on risk and exposure reductions, protecting Children's health and
improving the lasting livability of our communities.
The Administrator identified the Promoting Healthy Communities investment
Page 59 of 74
-------
Regional and State Priorities
and protecting at-risk communities as primary themes for agency efforts to
protect public health and the environment. Increased monitoring and
analytical services, including efforts in cumulative risk assessment and risk
communication research, along with an emphasis on the cleanup and
revitalization of contaminated properties and greater community participation
are ways to achieve this cross-programmatic goal. Specifically, initiatives to
reduce exposures to pollutants through Healthy School initiatives aim to
improve human health for a significant number of individuals in our most atrisk
communities.
Through agency initiatives and board partnerships the Region will examine
opportunities for enhanced engagement in implementing sustainable
practices in our communities. In addition, EPA strives to meet the President's
challenge for Agencies to work together to encourage and fully assist rural,
suburban and urban areas build sustainable communities using the following
principles:
~ Energy efficiency/water usage/footprint.
~ Reducing Exposure Risks.
~ Community engagement. ~ Clean up/Redevelop/revitalize properties.
~ Expand Availability of Green jobs.
~ Support existing communities.
~ Provide more transportation choices.
~ Promote equitable, affordable housing.
~ Enhance economic competitiveness.
~ Support existing communities.
~ Coordinate policies and leverage investment.
~ Value communities and neighborhoods.
I. Stronger EPA
Region 8 will provide National (Lead Region) leadership for Human
Resources and Human Capital Initiatives. Region 8 will collaborate with EPA
Headquarters in capturing the focus and successes of "Stronger EPA" and
integrating/re-branding this important work in the current Administration.
Region 8 will align with OPM's Strategic Plan and their vision that the
13
Federal Government becomes America's Model Employer for the 21st
Century. OPM's 4 broad strategic goals include:
"Hire the Best": Recruit and hire the most talented and diverse Federal
workforce possible to serve the American people.
"Respect the Workforce: Provide the training, benefits, and work-life
balance necessary for Federal employees to succeed, prosper, and advance
in their careers.
"Expect the Best": Ensure the Federal workforce and its leaders are fully
accountable and are fairly appraised while having the tools, systems, and
resources to perform at the highest levels to achieve superior results.
"Honor Service": Ensure comparable recognition and reward for exemplary
performance of current employees and honor the careers of Federal retirees.
J. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)
The Recovery Act included almost $380 million for projects and programs
administered by EPA Region 8. These programs will protect and promote
both "green" jobs and a healthier environment. These environmental areas
include:
Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund: Distributed over $260 million to assist communities with water quality
and wastewater infrastructure needs and drinking water infrastructure needs.
Page 60 of 74
-------
Regional and State Priorities
A portion of the funding will be targeted toward green infrastructure, water
and energy efficiency, and environmentally innovative projects.
Brownfields: Nearly $4.5 million in competitive grants and loans to evaluate
and clean up former industrial and commercial sites.
Diesel Emissions Reduction: Over $17 million in grants and loans to help
regional, state and local governments, tribal agencies, and non-profit
organizations with projects that reduce diesel emissions.
Superfund Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Over $75 million in contracts for the
cleanup of hazardous sites.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Nearly $10 million to cleanup
petroleum leaks from underground storage tanks.
K. Restoring Imperiled Waters
The Restoring Imperiled Waters initiative is a place based program which will
address pressing water quality challenges facing Region 8 and the nation.
Complementing and building upon the efforts in other watersheds, our efforts
will achieve water quality improvements in key watersheds through targeted
implementation of core water programs, leveraging more effective
partnerships, and strategic targeting of resources. In the urban sector, the
program will focus on helping disadvantaged communities reconnect with
their waters and collaborate with a variety of partners to improve water quality
while achieving other community goals
Page 61 of 74
-------
Combine Animal Feeding Operation
NPDES CAFO Program Update
Background:
The Federal Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations issued pursuant to the
Clean Water Act (CWA) were effective on December 22, 2008. Authorized states for purposes of
the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program must review and
revise as necessary, relevant state statutes and regulations to ensure the state authority is at least as
stringent as the Federal program. Under 40 C.F.R. 123.62(e), States have one year from the
promulgation date of the 2008 CAFO rule to adopt any needed program revisions (by 12/4/09), or
up to two years if statutory revisions are needed (by 12/4/10).
Petitions for review of the 2008 CAFO rule were filed by livestock industry groups and
environmental groups. These petitions were consolidated and are now pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit (New Orleans, Louisiana).
Current Status:
• The Water Program sent letters to Region 8 states on September 10, 2009, outlining
requirements for regulatory/statutory revisions to their NPDES regulations to ensure
equivalency with the Federal 2008 CAFO rule.
• Settlement agreement with the environmental petitioners is pending. Litigation with the
livestock industrial petitioners is still ongoing. All briefs have been filed and no oral arguments
have been scheduled yet.
Key Messages:
• EPA is encouraging states to move forward in adopting and implementing the 2008 CAFO final
rule.
• Ongoing litigation does not relieve EPA or States of responsibilities under CWA to move
forward with implementation.
• EPA is moving forward with issuance of Federal permits and development of guidance.
• EPA will work with States to assist with program revisions and ensure that all CAFOs that
require NPDES permits are permitted in accordance with CWA requirements.
Page 62 of 74
-------
E-15
Current Status of E-15
DOE is continuing longer term testing on 19 vehicles to see what effects there may be with using E-15. DOE
has looked at Tier II compliant vehicles (2007 and later model years) and they are working on finishing
testing 2001 to 2006 vehicles. DOE is supposed to have this testing done by August, 2010. EPA may make
a decision prior to that time ("... sometime in mid-year 2010...") but would prefer to wait until DOE has
finished all of their testing. Question could be how the infrastructure (station pumps) and such will need to
be modified to accommodate this will need to be addressed. There may be auto warranty issues. A short
history of this issue can be found at: http://www.epa.qov/otaq/additive.htm#notices
Here's brief info, on the light-duty vehicle GHG/CAFE standards rule; also included a link at the bottom to
OTAQ's fact sheet on this:
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA and NHTSA are issuing this joint Final Rule to establish a National
Program consisting of new standards for light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and improve fuel economy. This joint Final Rule is consistent with the
National Fuel Efficiency Policy announced by President Obama on May 19, 2009,
responding to the country's critical need to address global climate change and to reduce
oil consumption. EPA is finalizing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended. These standards apply to passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012
through 2016, and represent a harmonized and consistent National Program. Under the
National Program, automobile manufacturers will be able to build a single light-duty
national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both programs while ensuring that
consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices. NHTSA's final rule also constitutes
the agency's Record of Decision for purposes of its National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) analysis.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 6, 2010
CONTACT: EPA: Tad Wysor, 734-214-4332; wysor.tad@epa.gov
or Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; (734) 214-4636; asdinfo@epa.gov
NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, (202) 366-2992
OTAQ Fact Sheet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf
Page 63 of 74
-------
Enforcement Goals
State Authorization of the New Lead RRP Program
Background: Two years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its
Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) regulation, which is an important additional step in
preventing childhood lead poisoning in the United States. The RRP Rule mandates that
contractors working in homes and child-occupied facilities built before 1978 be trained and certified
to follow lead-safe work practices when paint is disturbed during renovation, repair or maintenance
activities. On April 22, 2010, following a two-year phased implementation, the RRP Rule came into
full effect.
Similar to EPA's lead abatement program, the RRP program may be delegated to States,
Territories, and Indian Tribes. Starting in June 2008, States were allowed to pursue authorization
to implement EPA's new Lead-based Paint RRP Program.
Under the lead abatement program, States have already been key partners and contributors to
EPA's lead poisoning prevention program. In Region 8, Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah have all
become authorized to run the EPA's lead abatement program. EPA has encouraged these States
to expand the critical role they are already playing by developing their own RRP Program that fits
the unique characteristics of their State.
To that end, on April 20, 2010, the State of Utah became the fifth state in the nation to become
authorized to administer and enforce the RRP Program. Colorado and North Dakota are exploring
pursuit of RRP Program authorization as well.
It appears that overall funding for EPA's lead poisoning prevention program has not increased with
the addition of the new RRP Program. It is anticipated that as more States take on authorization of
the RRP Program, States that have adopted only the lead abatement program will see their
program funding shrink over time - while States that take on the new RRP program will see an
increase in their overall funding. The RRP program is designed to support itself through fee-based
funding sources. Under the rule, firms are required to become certified and individual renovators
to become trained and certified. Both certification requirements can be tied to collection of a fee.
Regulatory Background: On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a final rule on the Lead; Renovation,
Repair, and Painting program to address lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair
and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint in target housing and child-occupied facilities.
On or after June 23, 2008, under section 404(a) of TSCA, any State or Tribal Program may seek
authorization to administer and enforce such a program pursuant to 40 C.F.R., Part 745, subpart E,
Residential Property Renovation, instead of the Federal program. EPA also modified the Pre-
Renovation Education provisions in 40 C.F.R. Part 745, subpart E and amended the regulations for
the authorization of State, Territorial, and Tribal programs at 40 C.F.R. Part 745 subpart Q, to also
apply to renovation and remodeling activities. Regulations governing the authorization of State,
Territorial, and Tribal programs are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 745, subpart Q.
Page 64 of 74
-------
Enforcement Goals
Kudos: Utah - the only state in Region 8, 9, or 10 with RRP program authorization
UDEQ Authorized to Implement EPA's New Lead-based Paint Renovation. Repair, and
Painting (RRP) Rule
Status: EPA Region 8 will publish a notice of Utah's application for RRP program authorization in
the Federal Register and will offer the public an opportunity to provide comments for 45 days
following this notice. Public comments will be considered in EPA's review which determines if
Utah's RRP program is as protective as our program.
Background: Starting in April 2008, States were allowed to pursue authorization to implement
EPA's new Lead-based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Program. On April 20, 2010,
the State of Utah became the fifth state in the nation to become authorized to administer and
enforce this program. The Utah RRP Rule mandates that contractors working in homes and child-
occupied facilities built before 1978 be trained and certified to follow lead-safe work practices.
Similar EPA requirements went into place nationwide on April 22, 2010, but the Utah program will
operate in lieu of EPA's program, allowing for greater local oversight. EPA's authorization of Utah's
program is based on the receipt of an application from Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert and a
certification from Fred G. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General that the Utah program is at least as
protective as the EPA RRP program and provides adequate enforcement. The Utah RRP Program
will be administered by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality,
Lead-Based Paint Program.
Key Points:
• Kudos to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality for becoming authorized to
implement the Lead-based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. With state
RRP program authorization, the public receives more customized support and local
administration of this important lead-based paint poisoning prevention legislation.
• By becoming authorized prior to EPA's full RRP Rule implementation date, the State of
Utah has streamlined messaging and reduced confusion for the regulated audience of
contractors who provide renovation, maintenance, and repair services in homes and child-
occupied facilities.
• Utah's Lead-based Paint Program has worked in conjunction with EPA-accredited RRP
trainers in Utah to prepare them for this transition. They have also spoken at every training
session offered in Utah to inform soon-to-be certified renovators that the State of Utah will
be overseeing the RRP program instead of EPA.
• The Utah DEQ and EPA offer reciprocity between each other's RRP Programs for firm and
renovator certifications and training so that the regulated audience does not have to pay
twice for the same services.
• The Utah DEQ is the first Region 8, 9, or 10 State to receive RRP Program authorization.
Utah's leadership is providing a more tangible example of western state RRP Program
authorization and encourages continued interest and an additional resource for other States
as they explore implementing their own RRP Program.
Contacts: John Brink, 303-312-6498; Michelle Reichmuth, 303-312-6966
Page 65 of 74
-------
Enforcement Goals
Data, Planning and Results
¦ ¦ -sats riann
Enfai Diirient Goafc
EPA Adrn irvlstr aior.
"Seven Prio-fliiea for EPA'f
Future"
Adrri iterator lackson
announces seven key priorities
to tocus the agency's work.
* Ciean water ad action plan: revamp enforcement and work with permitting to focus
bi^gesL pollution problems,. including
* Get raw sewage aut of the water
* Cut pollution from animal waste
* Reduce polluted storm water runoff
* Assure dean drinking water for all communities, including in Indian country
* Dean up great waters that matter to communities, e.g, Chesapeake Bay
» Clean air
* Cut toxic air pollution rn Communities
* Reduce air pollution from largest sources, including coal fired power plants,, cement, acid and glass sectors
» Climate and dean energy
* Assure compliance with greenhouse gas reporting rule
* Enccunage green house gas em?,sian reductions through settlements
* Target energy sector compliance with air,, water and waste rules
» Protect peopie from exposure ta haxardous chemicals
* Prevent releases of haiarflauS chemicals that threaten public health Dr the environment
* Press. fOT dean up of hazardous srtes m Communities: polluter peys
* Reform chemical management enforcement and reduce exposure to pe,tcides
Reset our relationship with states: make suie we are delivering on our joint
commitm®it to a dean and healthy environment
» Shared accountability
* Make joint progress with States and tribes toward dean air and water goals, protection from exposure to hazardoL2«
chemicals
* Work toward shared focus dn protecting vulnerable communities.
* Strengthened oversight
" Assure Strang anfi effective state enfcrcement of federal environmental laws
* Press for conssrtent enforcement across states and regions: fairness anfl level playing field
* Establish new modd far shared accountability and strengthened oversight, starting with water
* Build focus On highest pnonty problems into grants, enforcement and permuting agreements
* Define dear expectations for state performance
* Take federal action where not meeting minimum expectations
Improve transparency
» Make meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible using 2lst century technologies
» Hold government accountable through public information on SLate and federal performance
* Promote better federal environmental derisions and public engagement through the National Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA)
h Up://ww w.epEL gov/oeeat: rth/data/planning/i nitiatives/goals. html 5/17/2010
EPA Enforcement Goals
Aggressrveiy go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities.
Vigorous dvnl and cnminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air and
chemical hazards; advance environmental justice by protecting vulnerable
communities.
» Clean water
Planning Topics
* Enforcement Initiatives
* Enforcement Goals
* FY2011 - 2013
Initiatives
* FT2COB - 2010
Initiatives
* Short Term Planning
* long Term Planning
Page 66 of 74
-------
Enforcement Goals
Enforcement National Goals and Initiatives Background
EPA National
Enforcement Goals
and Initiatives
Mike Gaydosh
Assistant Regional Administrator
Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice
EPA Region 8
nforcement Goals
FY2011-13
Aggressively go after pollution problems
that make a difference in communities
Vigorous civil and criminal enforcement
Advance environmental justice
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
Reset EPA Relationship
with the States
~ Shared accountability
~ Strengthened oversight
~ Establish new model, starting with water
Page 67 of 74
-------
Enforcement Goals
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
¦ Improve Transparency
~ Compliance information available online
~ Public information on state and federal
performance
~ Promote better federal decisions and public
engagement through NEPA
4
Criteria for EPA National
Enforcement Initiatives
¦ Significant Environmental Benefit
¦ Pattern of Noncompliance
¦ Appropriate Federal Enforcement
Responsibility:
5
EPA's FY 2008 - 2010 National
Enforcement Initiatives
¦ CWA
¦ CAA
¦ RCRA
¦ Tribal
¦ RCRA/CERCLA
G
Page 68 of 74
-------
Enforcement Goals
Benefits of EPA
Enforcement Initiatives
¦ Important problems gain focused attention
~ Senior management involvement throughout
~ Resources directed toward these problems
~ Progress is planned and measured
¦ As a result:
~ Noncompliance addressed in key sectors, e.g.,
petroleum refining, mineral processing
~ Public is informed and Agency is accountable
7
^^Ty2011-13 EPA National
Enforcement Initiatives
¦ Municipal Waste Water Infrastructure
(CSOs, SSOs, MS4s)
¦ Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs)
¦ Air Toxics
¦ New Source Review
¦ Mineral Processing
¦ Energy Extraction
8
Keep Raw Sewage and Contaminated
Stormwater Out of Our Nation's Waters
¦ Reduce discharges from
~ CSOs
~ SSOs
~ MS4s
9
Page 69 of
-------
Enforcement Goals
Prevent Animal Waste from
Contaminating Surface and Ground
Waters
¦ Focus primarily on existing large and
medium CAFOs identified as discharging
without a permit
10
Page 70 of 74
-------
National Environmental Information Exchange Network -CROMERR
National Environmental Information
Exchange Network
Exchange Network Objectives
¦ Improved data quality
¦ Reduced burden and costs
associated with accessing
and reporting data
¦ Increased timeliness and
accuracy of data
¦ Enhanced data access to
support stronger
environmental decisions
The Environmental Information
Exchange Network (Exchange
Network) is an Internet-based
approach for exchanging
environmental data among
partners (e.g., EPA, states, tribes
and territories). Built on the
principles of applying data
standards; providing secure, real-
time access; and electronically
collecting and storing accurate
information, the Exchange
Network enables participants to
control and manage their own data while making it available to
partners via requests over a secure Internet connection. By
facilitating the efficient exchange of environmental information
among interested parties at all levels of government, the Exchange
Network has begun to transform the way information is shared.
The information technologies featured on the Exchange Network
allow EPA and its partners to save time and resources on
environmental reporting and ensure timely, high-quality data
exchanges. The Exchange Network also fosters new information
exchanges among its partners by providing infrastructure and
services.
For More Information:
www.epa.gov/exchangenetwork/
www.exchangenetwork.net
Josie Lopez
R8 Exchange Network Coordinator
Lopez.iosie@epa.gov
(303) 312-7079
Exchange Network Grant
Reqion 8 State/Tribal Grants
Pending Awards
New 2010
4
$ 739,600
Active Awards
Open
17
$ 4,398,757
Closed Awards
33
$11,330,669
Total Awards
54
$16,469,026
Unliquidated Amount
$ 3,469,010
FY2011 Solicitation scheduled
for release in July 2010
Applications Due November 5
Christine Vigil
R8 Exchange Network Grant Manager
viqil.christine@epa.gov
(303) 312-6992
Page 71 of 74
-------
National Environmental Information Exchange Network -CROMERR
t®} <©!==" The Exchange Network
• Overview of Network
- Seamless and secure sharing of
data over Internet
- Based on common standards
• Supports our Mission
- Simplifies access to critical data
- Support for geographically-based
and multi-media analysis through
data integration
• New tools being developed to
simplify access
For More Information:
www.epa.gov/exchangenetwork/
www.exchangenetwork.net
Josie Lopez
R8 Exchange Network Coordinator
Lopez.iosie@epa.gov
(303) 312-7079
Christine Vigil
R8 Exchange Network Grant Manager
viqil.christine@epa.gov
(303) 312-6992
Network Overview
UiUhuc-I
ixtrungt
An Internet and standards-based method for
exchanging environmental information
between partners
Page 72 of 74
-------
National Environmental Information Exchange Network -CROMERR
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION
National Data Flow Exchanges
Completing Phase I of the Exchange Network — April 2010
Water
Enforcement
Air
Waste
Multi-Media
WQX
SDWIS
U1C
eBeackes
NefDMR/eDMR
ICIS-NPDES
AQS
OS/NE1
RCRA
FRS
TR1
EN Only
TBD
EN Only
TBD
EN Only/2014
2014
2012
EN Only
TBD
EN Only
EN Only
g
i uency of Submission
Expected
Current
2 J
State
1
Yearly +
Yearly +
State |
State |
wj ~
F
Episodic f»~
Quarterly ("~]
Quarterly f»|
Seasonal (V
Episodic (~
Monthly
Episodic f»]
Updates [~
Monthly [~
Yearly f^l
Updates
Fiowjv
Fl
-------
National Environmental Information Exchange Network -CROMERR
CROMERR Overview for States, Tribes and
Local Governments
Purpose
The Cross-Media Electronic
Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR) provides the legal
framework for electronic
reporting to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and
states, tribes, and local
governments that are
authorized to administer EPA
programs. CROMERR is
intended to reduce the cost and
burden of electronic reporting
while maintaining the level of
corporate and individual
responsibility and accountability
that exists in the paper
environment.
R8 Contact:
Josie Lopez
Lopez. iosie@epa. gov
(303) 312-7079
Assistance available
•Monthly Q&A Calls
•CROMERR 101 Webinar
www.epa.qov\cromerr
How & When Does It Apply?
CROMERR Applies To:
¦ Persons or entities that
submit electronic reports or
documents to EPA.
¦ Authorized programs that
receive electronic reports or
documents.
CROMERR Does Not Apply To:
¦ Documents submitted by fax,
magnetic media such as
floppy disks, or optical media
such as CDs.
¦ Submissions not under 40
CFR.
I
Region 8 Application Status
Of 4 applications submitted to date,
2 applications approved:
ND - DW lab to state
UT-NPDES NetDMR
2 applications pending review or
determined incomplete/awaiting
updated information.
CO- DW lab to state
WY- 51 reports (multiple programs)
Compliance Date:
Background
EPA published a final rule on
October 13, 2005, establishing
a framework by which it will
accept electronic reports from
regulated entities. CROMERR
could apply to any document
submissions required by or
permitted under any EPA or
authorized program governed
by EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), if it is submitted electronically.
Under CROMERR, both new and existing electronic reporting systems
require EPA approval. The regulation provides a framework for
applying for, and obtaining such approval.
New electronic document
receiving systems must
receive EPA approval before
they begin receiving
electronic documents.
Existing systems must submit
applications by January 13,
2010.
Page 74 of 74
-------
MONTANA
EPA Region 8 State Directors Meeting
May 26 - 27, 2010
-------
Presentations
Day 1
i. elcome ~ Jim Martin, EPA R8 Regional Administrator
IjITiate Change ^ Laura Farris, R8 Climate Change Coordinator
3. iscussion on Greenhouse Gases ~ Juan e. Santiago, epahq
PDES Pesticides Permit ~ Sandra Stavnes, EPA R8 Acting Water Program
Director
ommunities~ Cindy Cody, EPA R8 Sustainability Coordinator, OPRA
alt Lake City Project ~ Amanda Smith, Executive Director Utah DEQ ,
^ Debra Thomas, epars Deputy araopra
7. Budget and ARRA Status ~ Judith Wong, eparsaratms
8. ater Quality I ~ Sandra Stavnes, EPA R8 Acting Water Program Director
9. ater in the West ~ Jim Lochhead
10. Water Quality II ^ eonard Blackham, Commissioner Utah Department of Agriculture
~ Bert Garcia, EPA R8 Director EPR
ii. SPCC Regulation ~ Kathie Atencio, epars unit chief, epr
12. Enforcement ~ John Cora, Director Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
^ Andrew M. Gaydosh, eparsaraecej
-------
Presentations
Day 2
13. Air Quality ~ Callie Videtich, EPA R8 Director Air Program OPRA
14. nergy Round Table ~ Stephen Tuber epar8ara,gpra
is. Work Sharing and Streamlining Work Processes (LEAN)
~ Carol Rusin, eparsdra
~ Callie Videtich, EPA R8 Director Air Program OPRA
PA Administrator and Regional Priorities ~ Carol Rusin, eparsdra
17. ummary and Review of Action Items ^ Jim Martin, EPA R8 RA
-------
Welcome
-------
Developments in U.S.
National Climate
Change Policy
State Directors Meeting
May 26, 2010
Laura Farris
Climate Change Coordinator
EPA Region 8
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEDRAFT
DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Overview
• GHG Reporting Rule
• GHG Tailoring Rule
• Vehicle GHG and Fuel Economy Rule
• Sequestration Rule
• GHG Legislative Update
• Questions/Answers
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
GHG Reporting Rule
Overview
• Final rule effective December 29, 2009
• Covers ~ 10,000 facilities emitting 25,000 metric
tons or more C02e per year - 85% of US emissions
• Data collection starts January 1, 2010 - first reports
due March 31, 2011
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
GHG Reporting Rule
New Actions
• Eight proposed subparts in various stages to add
new sources categories and reporting
requirements
• Upcoming "notice and comment" related to CBI
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
GHG Reporting Rule
Impact on State Programs
•No state delegation of the EPA Program
• Does not preempt states from regulating or
requiring reporting of GHGs
• EPA working with ECOS to integrate state programs
with EPA's
(M) <
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
GHG Reporting Rule
Stationary Combustion
Landfills
Natural Gas Suppliers
Electricity Generation
Pulp and Paper
Vehicle Manufacturers
Petroleum Product Suppliers
GHG Suppliers
Petroleum Refineries
iron and Steel
Other
] 425
1502
1108
] 3000
] 2551
] 317
] 315
~ 167
~ 150
~ 121
107
80
41
55
1 3
4 5 5 s
13 13 14 14
23
nnnnnn
(\V
-------
GHG Tailoring Rule
Overview
• Final rule signed May 13, 2010 - will apply to only
the largest facilities
• Sets thresholds for GHGs that define when
permits are required under PSD and title V
• Without the rule, lower thresholds would take
effect on January 2, 2011
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
11
-------
GHG Tailoring Rule
Overview
• Addresses emissions of six GHGs:
Carbon dioxide (C02) Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N20) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Sulfur hexafluoride (SF„)
• The sum of these GHGs on a C02e basis is the "air
pollutant"
12
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
GHG Tailoring Rule
Phase-In Steps
Step l: January 2, 2011 to June 30, 2011 - Only sources
currently covered by the permitting programs ("anyway
sources") and those with GHG emissions of 75k or more
resulting from a change
Step 2: July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013 - New sources with
emissions of 100k or more, and major source modifications of
75k or more
Step 3: By July 1, 2012, rulemaking to consider threshold
revisions and the possibility of permanent exclusions
(No source with emissions below 50K will be covered before 2016)
® 13
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
* J
Jr^
GHG Tailoring Rule
Step 1:
January 2, 2011 to
June 30, 2011
Step 2:
July 1,2011 to
June 30, 2013
Step 3:
July 1, 2012 Proposed Rule
July 1, 2013 Final Rule
5-vear study:
April 30, 2010 to
April 30, 2015
Implementation of Studv:
April 30,2016
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
~
Study Complete
DKAK1- DELIBERATIVE - DU NUT CITE UK QUOTE
-------
GHG Tailoring Rule
Impact on State Programs
• 60 days after rule publication, states submit to EPA
letter describing their ability to implement new rule
• Increase in NSR (CAA105) grant funding, title V fee
increases by states, & possible alternatives to $/ton
• Phased-in approach and regulatory language
interpretation option to allow for timely adoption
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
15
-------
GHG Tailoring Rule
Impact on State Programs
• BACT Workgroup
• Guidance and training forthcoming
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Vehicle GHG and
Fuel Economy Rule
Overview
• EPA and NHTSA issued joint rule April l, 2010 to
achieve 250 grams of C02/mile & average 35.5 mpg
for MY 2012-2016 cars, SUVs, minivans, pickups
• Highly significant: first GHG control regulation
• Reduces GHG emissions by nearly 950 million
metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Vehicle GHG and
Fuel Economy Rule
Impact on State Programs
• Decreased emissions from mobile sources will
provide SIP credits
• Mobile 6 model will be recalibrated to consider the
lower emissions
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Sequestration Rule
Overview
• EPA proposed federal requirements for CO2
geologic sequestration on July 25, 2008, under the
authority of the SDWA - creates Class VI well
• Applies to owners or operators of wells that will be
used to inject CO2 into the subsurface for the
purpose of long-term storage
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
19
-------
Sequestration Rule
Overview
• Notice of Data Availability was published in July
2009 to provide additional research & propose a
waiver process
• EPA is working on the response to comments and
final rule, and developing implementation guidance
- anticipate publishing final rule in fall 2010
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
20
-------
Sequestration Rule
Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force
• On February 3, 2010, the President established an
interagency task force co-chaired by EPA and DOE
• Developing a plan to overcome the barriers to the
deployment of carbon capture and storage
• Will address financial, economic, technological,
legal, institutional, social, and other barriers
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Sequestration Rule
Impact on State Programs
• State regulations will need to be at least as
stringent as EPA's
• UIC Class VI primacy delegation - still uncertain
if it may be independent of Classes I, III, and V
• Waiver process for certain injection scenarios
remains under consideration
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
22
-------
GHG Legislative Update
• House passed American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009
- EPA provided economic analysis in June 2009
• Kerry-Lieberman proposal
- EPA is currently conducting economic analysis
i-JSk)
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Questions and Answers
Juan E. Santiago, Group Leader
Operating Permits Group
Air Quality Policy Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-1084
santiago.juan@epa.gov
DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
NPDES Pesticides Permit
¦ Background: Why are we here?
¦ Current Status: EPA Pesticides General
Permit
¦ NOI - Who files?
¦ Region 8 activities
¦ Q & A
-------
Communities
¦ HUD DOT EPA
¦ Sustainable Communities
-------
Salt Lake City Project
Children Environmental Health &
Environmental Justice Community
Initiative
-------
-------
Region 8 ARRA April 2010 Monthly Report
Outlay Rate and Jobs Reported
rogram
(A) Amount
Awarded
(B) Total
Outlays (thru
5/3/10)*
(B/A)
Cumulative
%
National
Average
%
Outlays
Reported
Jobs (for
FY 10
Q2)**
Drinking Water
SRF
$134,452,000
$48,174,781
36%
32%
196
Clean Water SRF
$126,354,000
$48,135,102
38%
28%
281
604b
$1,303,000
$407,792
31%
N/A
(included in
CWSRF)
Superfund
$75,810,000
$14,932,459
20%
30%
36
DERA
$17,770,597
$6,237,154
35%
20%
37
LUST
$9,848,000
$1,934,744
20%
20%
17
Brownfields
$5,433,000
$567,958
10%
10%
Totals
$370,970,597
$120,389,989
32%
28%
574
* SF contracts outlays through March 26.
**Full Jobs Created number unavailable for Eureka IAG
#7 I
-------
Water Quality I
¦ Current Sustainable Infrastructure
and Water Conservation Activities
¦ Green Project Reserve and State
Revolving Loan Fund Program
¦ GPR Waiver Process
¦ Effluent Guidelines
-------
Water in the West
Quantity and Quality
-------
Agriculture - Environment
Benefits
Region 8 - Denver
May 26, 2010
Leonard M. Blackham
Commissioner
Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food
(UDAF)
-------
Importance of Utah Agriculture
Economic Impact
- Production Agriculture accountants for 2.1% of the
total state output.
- Production agriculture and its associated processing
sectors accounts for 13.9% of total state output.
- Most Rural Communities are balanced on Agriculture
Utah Agriculture is 68% Livestock
- Cattle/Sheep - Public Grazed - ship feeders out of
state.
- Significant Dairy, Turkey, Pork, and Layer Industry
- Most crop production is Alfalfa Hay, and wheat
-------
UDAF Conservation Efforts
(Environmental)
Salinity Reduction in Colorado River
- Salt in the Colorado River rather than nutrients is the problem
Utah Conservation Commission (UCC)
- AFO/CAFO
- Invasive Species Rehab Program
- Air Quality Issues
- Partnership with the Utah Partners for Conservation and
Development (Includes Utah DEQ with 319 funds)
Utah Grazing Improvement Program (UGIP)
- Rangeland Improvement Projects
- Improved Management
- Federal and State Land Policy
-------
Past Agriculture Environmental
Focus
• Animal Feeding Operations
- All AFOs have been inventoried (3,000)
- 94% successful in a voluntary program
- Partnership of all Ag Groups and State Depts.
• Pesticide and fertilizers
- Trained the pesticide applicators
- Tested the ground water
• Tested over 2500 wells on a rotation basis for 12yrs. -
Zero pesticide problems
• Nutrients - Few Geological Nitrogen Related and only a
couple of surface contamination due to Well Construction
Failure.
-------
Animal Feeding Operations
Utah
Phase II
- Currently developing rules
- Reviewing all AFOs again
- Most CAFOs will not need a permit - Can not
impact the Waters of United States or any
other body of water. Most CAFOs are more
than 1/2 mile from any water.
- Non permitted units will still be part of a good
environmental stewardship program.
-------
Thistle Creek Restoration
• EPA Section 319
project
- Six land owners
- Three AFOs
• Stream bank
restoration and erosion
control
- Reduction of 213 tons of
sediment per year
• Animal Feeding
Operations
- Reduction of 1,078 lbs
N, 517 lbs P, and 4,135
lbs BOD per year
-------
Rangeland Health
Managed Era
^ Grazing
"The Under-Rated Tool"
UDAF
-------
Pinion/Juniper over-dominance
LOCATION: Paradise Valley, Utah. Fishlake N. F., Elevation. 7,550 ft.; Juniper has
increased markedly on the distant hillside. Aspen has declined as conifers have both
grown and thickened.
-------
Rangeland Health
Today's Results
• Increased Catastrophic Fires
• Reduced Water Quantity and Quality
• Reduced Plant Diversity - Essential for
abundant Wildlife and Livestock
production
- Caused by over abundance of P-J,
evergreens and monocultures of cheatgrass.
-
-------
UDAF Focus
• Range Improvement Projects
- Large scale landscapes (100,000+ acres)
• Improved Grazing Management
- Financial ability of rancher
- Flexibility of Federal Policy
-
-------
Grazing Improvement Program (GIP)
Technical Committee
Key Principles of Grazing Management
Most rangeland isn't overstocked, but grazing is often
under-managed.
• Grazing impacts are managed by controlling the time
(duration), timing (season), frequency, and intensity of
grazing.
• Managing plant succession through grazing, mechanical,
fire, chemical, and other means can enhance diversity
and production (diversity = sustainability).
• You can't manage what you can't measure (adaptive-
management).
-------
It's about Management
Healthy watersheds are the common
denominator for clean abundant water,
diversity and abundance of wildlife and
sustainable grazing opportunity for livestock.
Well managed livestock grazing is the most
effective landscape scale tool to maintain
and improve watershed health including
wildlife habitat and forage production for
livestock
-------
Deseret Land and Livestock
(Northern Utah Private Ranch)
Transformation from Failure to Success
-All three principles of Healthy Ranges have
been applied
• Livestock grazing practices - Time Controlled
Grazing
• Range improvement projects - Diversity/Vitality
• Flexibility in ranch management
205,000 Private Acres of "Sustainable"
Ecosystem (+15,000 of federal lands)
-------
DLL Stocking Rate Change
1983 to 2001
Species
1983
2001
Mother Cows
2,600
5,500
Yearling Cattle
3,000
4,000
Elk
1,500
2,400
Mule Deer
4,500*
3,500
Antelope
0
600
Moose
50
200
Bird Species
?
260
Sage Grouse
120
600
*
-------
Public Land Management
Rich County Allotment
Consolidation Project
(29 Ranchers)
-
-------
Rich County Project
• 29 ranchers working together
• 136,000 acres of rangeland (BLM, USFS,
State, & Private)
• 3,200 cattle
• 4,000 sheep
• Time-controlled grazing
-
-------
Benefits of Rich Co. Project
• Big Creek - Removal from the 303D list
- Will become a blue-ribbon fishery
• Improved recreational opportunities
• Improved water/wildlife quality & quantity
- (especially sage grouse)
• Reduced fire hazard
• Improved range health for sustainable
livestock production (FOOD)
-
-------
Utah Clean Water and Air
• Healthy Rangeland will result in clean
water and improved air quality (including
public lands that total 70% in Utah).
- Large scale landscape must be addressed
- Ranchers are a key element in Healthy Lands
- Financial investment and improved
management are required to restore Land
Health
-------
If people are to work for Conservation—
Conservation must work for people.
-
-------
Water Quality II
¦ Excess Nutrients in Water
¦ TMDLs
-------
SPCC
¦ Background
¦ What is SPCC?
¦ What is considered a farm under SPCC?
¦ If a farm is covered by SPCC what is
required?
¦ When should a Plan be prepared and
implemented?
¦ What compliance assistance is being
offered to the regulated farming
I community?
-------
Clean Water Act
Action Plan
Overview
Presentation by: Mike Gaydosh
Assistant Regional
Region 8 State Directors Meeting
May 26, 2010
-------
CWA Action Plan Overview
Three key improvements needed:
Target enforcement to the most
important water pollution problems
Reset relationships with the states and
strengthen oversight of the state
programs
Improve transparency and accountability
-------
CWA Action Plan
Implementation Teams
NPDES Data Analysis
New Approach
Short Term Oversight
Public Access
Electronic Reporting
Citizen Suit
-------
New Approach Straw
Proposals
Short-Term SNC Fixes for
Reporting and Other
Transparency and
Accountability
New Approach to
Addressing DMR
Violations
Expedited Enforcement
Options
Municipal Enforcement
6. Expand Self-Certification
and Electronic Reporting
7. EMS Revisions
8. Watershed Approaches
9. General Permits
10. Work Share Approaches
11. Compliance Assistance
12. Four Tier Approach
-------
Next Steps for Region 8
• FY11 PPA negotiations
• Development of collaborative work plans
• Regular meetings to track progress
• Continued work to improve the SRF process
and integrate state permitting and
enforcement program reviews
• Continued focus on database integrity
-
-------
EPA National
Enforcement Goals
Mike Gaydosh
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA Region 8
May 26-27, 2010
-------
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
Aggressively go after pollution problems that make
a difference in communities
Vigorous civil and criminal enforcement
Advance environmental justice
Clean Water
Clean Air
Climate and Clean Energy
Protect People from Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
-------
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
¦ Reset EPA Relationship with the States
\" -Oik:,
-------
EPA Enforcement Goals
FY2011-13
¦ Improve Transparency
~ Compliance information available online
~ Public information on state and federal performance
~ Promote better federal environmental decisions and
public engagement through NEPA
-------
EPA National Enforcement
Goals
For more information on EPA's FY2011-13
National Enforcement Goals, please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/data/plarininq/iriitiatives/qoals.htinl
-------
EPA National
Enforcement
Initiatives
Mike Gaydosh
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA Region 8
May 26-27, 2010
-------
FY2011-13 EPA National
Enforcement Initiatives
¦ Municipal Waste Water Infrastructure
¦ \FOs
¦ Air Toxics
¦ New Source Review
¦ Mineral Processing
¦ Energy Extraction
-------
Energy Extraction Initiative
Significant and new emerging water and air
problems
Unprecedented exponential natural gas
expansion
Anticipating unprecedented ozone exceedances
Emerging issues in rurai communities and
population centers
Timing is key
-------
EPA National Enforcement
Initiatives
For more information on EPA's FY2011-13
National Enforcement Initiatives, please
visit:
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/data/plariniriq/initiatives/initiatives.html
-------
-------
Rural Ozone
¦ Goal - Where local area strategies are not enough
for areas to come into attainment, discuss what
States could do to influence "regional" reduction
strategies
¦ Set Stage - What would the attainment status be
for our States under 3 new ozone standard
scenarios
¦ Western ozone background concentrations
¦ Discussion - J. Corra lead
-------
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.075 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
No Data or < 0,060 ppm
0.061 to 0,064 ppm
0.065 to 0.069 ppm
0.070 to 0.074 ppm
0.075 ppm or greater
-------
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.070 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
No Data or < 0.060 ppm
0.061 to 0.064 ppm
0.065 to 0.069 ppm
0.070 to 0.074 ppm
0.075 ppm or greater
-------
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.065 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
No Data or < 0.060 ppm
0.061 to 0.064 pprn
0.065 to 0.069 ppm
0.070 to 0.074 ppm
0.075 ppm or greater
-------
Region 8 Counties with Ozone Above 0.060 ppm
2007-2009 Data
Current NAAQS: 0.075 ppm
January 2010 Proposed NAAQS:
0.060 to 0.070 ppm
Legend
COUNTIES
No Data or < 0.060 ppm
0.061 to 0.064 ppm
0.065 to 0.069 ppm
0.070 to 0.074 ppm
0.075 ppm or greater
-------
Western Ozone Background Concentrations
EPA Defined "Policy Relevant Background" for Ozone is Approx. 40 ppb*
Region 8 Rural Background Ozone Monitors:
4th Maximum 8-hour avg., ppb
Year
Glacier
(MT)
Yellowstone
(WY)
Gothic
(CO)
Canyon
lands
(UT)
Great
Basin
(NV)
2006
59
69
70
70
72
2007
54
65
63
72
75
2008
57
65
71
71
71
2009
55
63
Not
Available
68
69
EPA Staff Paper for the Ozone NAAQS Review: EPA-452/R-07-007, July 2007, p. 2-48
¦
-------
Regional Haze
Regional Haze SIP Status
¦ Section 308 Regional Haze SIPs were due 12/17/07
1/15/09 - 37 states received findings of failure to submit their
SIPs
1/15/11 - deadline to have SIPs/FIPs in place
Early 5/10: For the Western Regions, since the Findings, 7 final
SIPs have been submitted (CA, KS, ND, NV, OK, OR, TX)
¦ Most remaining SIPs are expected in mid to late 2010
309 SIPs - Backstop Trading Program for S02
¦ Four states (AZ, NM, UT, and WY) opted to submit 309 SIPs
¦ UT and WY submitted 309 SIPs in late 2008
¦ 309g SIPs required for NOx, PM, and long term strategy (UT
submitted, awaiting WY)
-------
Regional Haze (contB
WildEarth Guardians' (WEG) Lawsuit
EPA was sued on 6/2/09 for failure to act on SIPs or FIPs
to satisfy Interstate Transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS
¦ Seven western states were named in the lawsuit: CO,
ND, NM, OK, CA, ID, and OR
¦ Under consent decree, final visibility related prong
SIPs/FIPs are required to be in place by 5/10/11
-------
Tri- State Study Pilot Project
¦ Comprehensive cumulative effects air quality analyses in
the Tri-State area would establish a credible baseline for
future air quality estimates and serve as the basis for
State planning efforts and FLM NEPA analyses
¦ Over the course of the 3 years, 13 new monitoring sites
are being added; BLM, WY DEQ, EPA, USFS will provide
varying evels of funding. Total 3-year funding: $2.87M
total. CO, UT, and WY providing additional staff support
for monitoring efforts.
¦ Data Warehouse (Scoping/Design and Operation)
¦ Modeling Center
¦ MOA Under Development
-------
Energy Round" able
-------
EPA Administrator Priorities
1. Taking Action on Climate Change
2. Improving Air Quality
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
4. Cleaning Up Our Communities
5. Protecting America's Waters
6. Expanding the Conversation on
Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
7. Building Strong State and Tribal
Partnerships
-------
EPA Regional 8 Priorities
¦ The following priorities (A-G) were discussed and
adopted at the 2009 State Directors Meeting:
¦ A. Building Partnerships With the Agriculture
Community
B. Improving Air Quality
¦ C. Addressing Climate Change
¦ D. Energy
¦ E. All Hazards Response
¦ F. Building State and Tribal Capacity
¦ G. Direct Implementation
¦ These additional priorities were added by the R8 SLT:
¦ H. Sustainable and Healthy Communities
¦ I. Stronger EPA
¦ 3.American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)
¦ K. Restoring Imperiled Waters
-------
Summary and Review of Action Items
Provide Updates on GHG regulatory actions
Provide updates on the status of AG offsets under
national legislation
Work with states to become Water Sense partners
to conserve water resources
Work with EPA HQ to allow more flexibility under
the green reserve & provide updates to states on
the status of this effort
Provide John Corra presentation to the State
Directors
6. Provide Leonard's presentation to State Directors
Follow with invitation from Jim Lochhead to work
with Denver Water
Will work with states to develop a proposal for
presentation to HQ on a way to address rural
Ozone issues
-------
2010 State Directors Action Items
"continued"
9. Temporary Permit for Innovative
Technology, e.g., Manure Burner
10. EPA will find out about a developing
program to deal with surface mining and
get information out to the state
n. Talk with EPA's CAAAC about expanding
representation on the BACT workgroup to
include states in the intermountain west
and AG, and to consider offsets for C02
geologic sequestration & enhanced oil &
gas recovery
12. Lean Process Improvement (e.g., Kaizen)
¦ Enter a process w/EPA to address SIP
13. SPC on GHG regulation
-------
9. Class VI well authority
10. SPC on GHG regulation
11. Regional Haze: follow up
12. Video conference every other month
with state directors
-------
Ozone Events in the Upper Green River Basin
of Western Wyoming
r
fOi
jTjr?; ^ jy!
b ^r!T3 ^1?-
§| 3 fi?
rJW
r
S5S»*«&W
_J ,-' ,
-------
Upper Green River
Basin in Western
Wyoming
Area of oil & gas
development with
primarily minor sources
and low population.
» -
r~k
-------
Discovery of Winter Ozone
• Concerns about impacts from
rapid oil & gas development
led to new monitoring stations
• Elevated ozone discovered in
February 2005 & 2006
• Launched winter ozone study
to research ozone formation
and meteorology
Jonah 2/27/06
8-hour max 93 ppb
-------
Monitored Ozone: Monthly Max 8-Hour Avg.
-------
Winter Ozone Study Team
• WY Department of Environmental Quality
- Cara Keslar: funding, management
- Jennifer Frazier; field support, permits
• ENVIRON International Cora. - Prime Contractor
I
- Till Stoeckenius, Project Manager
- Team management, study design, data analysis and reporting
• T&B Systems
Bob Baxter, Dave Bush, Dave Yoho, Liz Niccum, Don Lehrman
- Study design, measurements, data validation, reduction and analysis
• MSI
- Bill Hauze, Dan Risch, Leona Blackbird
- Study design, measurements, data validation, reduction and analysis
• Additional Participants
- Environmental Analytical Services (2007, 2008, 2009)
Steve Hoyt; Laboratory analysis of voc canisters and carbonyl cartridges
- Univ. of California, Riverside (2009)
Dennis Fitz, Kurt Bumiller: NOy, PAN and N02 photolysis measurements
- Jim McLellan: Pilot (2007 and 2008)
- STI: RWP/RASS/SODAR (2007)
• Charley Knoderer, Clinton MacDonald
-------
Unique Features of SW WY Ozone
Episodes
Winter events
- Low sun angle
- Cold
temperatures
Rural location
Significant oil
& gas
development
-------
Field Study
• Characterize meteorological
conditions during ozone
episodes
• Determine horizontal and
vertical extent of high ozone
concentrations
• Measure UV radiation
• Characterize ozone precursor
(VOC & NOx) concentrations
• Provide data for modeling
Objectives
-------
UGWOS Measurements
-------
UGWOS '10 Monitoring Sites
Mesonet Sites
Permanent Sites
(except BAM &
HONO)
Air Toxics Study
Sites
DANIEL mesa
<£
MApiJJON
*'*' PiuiStlo
BOULDER
HONO/SODAR
„ SPEEDWAJkMj
^ *SAN0 OflAW^S
WARBONNET
%
BUCKHORN
f
BAM _
% %
JUEL SPRING BIG SANOV
%
IB-MILE
•«r
(ARSON
SIMPSON
^jr
%
SEEDS hLA DIE
I !C
Go h
101*
-------
Key Points
-------
Role of Mixing Heights
250
200
= 150
SO
Mixing height
Peak 8-hr Ozone
Peak 8-hr Ozone at Boulder vs Sodar Mixing HeiQlit
o
2/2/2008
2/12/2008 2/22/2008 3/3/2O08 3/13/200B 3/23/2008 -d/2/2008 4/12/20O8
Doite
2008 Data
• Elevated 03 when MH < 150 m agl
• Note SODAR max range = 250 m agl
-------
Low wind speed inhibits mixing
Boulder wind speed vs. ozone
-------
Vertical ozone profiles show uniform ozone above the
inversion layer
8000
40 50 60
Ozone (ppb)
J 1 l—| I i I 1 I I i I I ! i i I | L
7000 -
6000
5000 -
I
LU
4000
3000
2000
> M M I '
¦50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Temperature (C)
Wenz Field - March 1 1, 2000 at 17 MST
2008
7000
6000 —
5000 -
LU
4000 —
3000 —
2000
1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I • I < I
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Temperature (C)
''25mps
40 50 fc-
VVenz Field. Wyoming March 2,2009 16 MST
2009
-------
Large spatial variation throughout
the basin
Aircraft flights show that
ozone is not well mixed
throughout the Basin.
Areas of greatest
concentrations are hard to
predict
Readings consistent with
surface network data
Flight shown: February 21,
2008,1:30 to 5:00 pm
Ozone
Feb. 21, 2008
1330 -1645 MST
0 -60 ppb - »
60 -75 ppb -
75-90 ppb-
90 -105 ppb • •
105 -120 ppb - s
120 -135 ppb - •
135 -150 ppb - •
> 150 ppb - •
-110.3 -110.2 -110.1 -110 -109.9 -109.8 -109.7 -109.6 -1095 -109.4 -109.3
-------
UV Radiation and Snow Cover
UGWOS '07 Data
3/19/07
4/8/07
4/28/07
2 March: Albedo = 0.8 (snow)
23 March: Albedo = 0.06 (bare
ground)
-------
NOx at Jonah
• Typical high ozone day at Jonah
• High morning NO with wind shift -> strong local source
• 03 peak in late afternoon coincides with wind shift to SE
-------
Species Abundance: Boulder 2008
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
sf
1111
MIR*ppbC
O Mean Cone.
(ppbC)
fh
&
cs>
$
-------
Species Abundance: Jonah 2008
361 ppbC
260
240
220
200
180
160 -
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 -
^351 ppbCj
Jonah: Mean VOC / Carbonyl for all 2008 IOP Days
(Includes all species detected in at least 75% of samples)
¦ MIR*ppbC
~ Mean Cone. (ppbC)
^ J*
<<"y
Jk ll I I li t
P & & O® O, e- e, e r?> ce- y & & c® oe 6® o® 6® oe
»/2r yp *(5^ _£? _/2r Jb veP^ ^ yd V5> ^ ^.0 ^ Vc>
/ ^ syy */¦ * //// /yy syyy f/yyyy
-¦* v- -• ^ J?" v ^ v ^ Au% ^ ^ ^ A? ^ &- sen
/ / 04 MDL compared to Boulder
Overall results similar to Boulder w.r.t. importance of toluene and xylenes
2008 Jonah data; includes all species found in at least
75% of all samples
-------
Other Measurements
Continuous CO and S02 (2009 study)
Ammonia and particulate nitrogen
Some canisters analyzed for CH4 and CO
NOy and PAN (2009 study)
N02 photolysis (2009 study)
HONO (2010 study)
-------
Key Characteristics of Winter 03
Episodes
Upper air high pressure ridge over Basin
- trapping colder air at the surface
Strong temperature inversion that persists £
throughout the day g
Sunny skies ^
Weak surface pressure gradients —* light winds o
— Recirculation influenced by topography •<
Snow cover across UGRB I
VOC and NOx concentration measurements show
high VOC/NOx ratios
-------
Typical Characteristics of High Ozone
Episodes in the Field
Extensive snow cover, light winds, clear to partly cloudy skies
Strong, surface based inversion
Pollutants trapped in very shallow layer (less than about
150m)
- High morning NOx and VOC
- Limited horizontal mixing results in strong spatial gradients
Morning NW to afternoon SE wind reversal
- Most common at Jonah; also seen at other sites
Elevated ozone most common along Pinedale Anticline and in
and around the Jonah field
Polluted conditions can develop very quickly - within 24
hours of clean conditions
-------
Challenges of Modeling Winter Ozone
• Current models are developed for summer
time, urban sources with relatively little
terrain and near-sea level conditions
• AQD needs to develop specialized inputs
— wind-field for complex terrain and low wind
speeds
— daily actual inventory for minor sources
— upgrade chemistry modules for unique VOC
inventory
-------
Trajectories:
Regional Scale Vs. Local Scale
• Regional-scale model: HY-
SPLIT back trajectories using
40 km resolution EDAS
• Local scale: UGWOS '08
surface wind data (markers at
1-hour intervals)
• 20 February 2008: 14:00 MST surface back trajectory from
Jonah
•Markers at 1-hour intervals; 12 hours total
-------
Modeling Efforts
Wind Veclor Anal.
February 20, 2008
Underway
-V~rQ '
\ ^ ^ » X S* ^ ^ \
. > ^ v s. * V V ->•<
*¦ Jf tt i
\ w
< f r v *
i J * 1
1 <---r T
J i v' *
T t -r -|"
6 5
Jonah Surface Wind Spe«d (Full Modeling Period)
Feb 18 Feb 19 Feb 20 Feb 21 Feb 22 Feb 23 Feb 24 Feb 25
Decreasing NOx
NMOC/NOx
= 120
us
Hi
ia
us
NOx
(ppb)
NMOC
(PPb)
-------
Comparing Typical Ozone Problem Areas With
Wyoming Ozone Problem Areas
Typical
Wyoming
1.
Summertime exceedances
1.
Winter/spring exceedances
2.
Urban setting
2.
Rural setting
3.
Major sources key players
3.
Minor sources key players
4.
Background levels relatively low
4.
Background levels high
5.
Models available for predicting ozone
5.
No models available for predicting
6.
VOC/NOx ratios relatively low
ozone
7.
Flat terrain
6.
VOC/NOx ratios high
8.
Available regional level met data
7.
Complex terrain
useful
8.
Specialized wind fields developed
9.
Urban chemistry modules useful
9.
Specialized chemistry modules needed
10.
Large research base on summertime
ozone health effects
10.
No research base on wintertime
ozone health effects
11.
Longer episodes
11.
Short-term episodes
12.
Nonattainment requirements useful
for reducing emissions
12.
Nonattainment requirements not
useful for reducing emissions
-------
What is Wyoming Doing to Reduce
Ozone in Sublette County?
Permits
Accelerated management of
emissions from sources without
controls
Contingency Plans
Cooperative efforts with local
governments and industry
1
Mr
KJ
-------
Drill Rig Permitting
Approximately 60 drill rigs in JPDA covered by
permits
Control methodology utilized on drill rig engines
- Diesel Engines
• Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
• Oxidation Catalyst
• Limit Operating Hours
- Natural Gas Engines
• Lean Burn Technology
• Oxidation Catalyst
-------
Interim Policy
« Strategy to allow permitting of new/modified
sources while long-term emission reduction
approach is being developed
• Policy describes options to demonstrate that
the proposed facility will not prevent
maintenance or attainment of any ambient air
quality standard.
• Offsetting VOC and IMOx emissions is the option
of choice
- Offset requirements: 1.5:1 for VOC and 1.1: 1 for
NOx
-------
Minor Source BACT
• New or modified sources are subject to BACT
• BACT for production sites requires VOC
emissions to be controlled from
— Condensate and water tanks
— Dehydration units
— Pumps
-------
AQD's programs proactively reduced NOx and
VOC's in the area of concern
2008 Sublette County Wellsite and
Drill Rig IMOx Emissions Reduction
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Uncontrolled Emissions Drill Rig Permitting
Note: Wellsite and drill rig NOx emissions 51% of Sublette County total
>-
CL
u
o
>
120,000
100,000
30,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2008 Sublette County Wellsite VOC
Emissions Reduction
¦
I
Uncontrolled Emissions MinorSource BACT &
Interim Policy
Note: Wellsite VOC emissions 65% of Sublette County total
-------
Contingency Plans
• AQD requires plans for short-term emission
reductions during winter meteorological
conditions which could form elevated ozone
• Each operator submits a plan to AQD
• Implementation is triggered by AQD's issuance of
ozone advisory
• Example reductions include:
- Reduce vehicle idling and traffic levels
- Postpone initiation of blowdowns, drilling and
completions
- Postpone nonessential construction and maintenance
-------
Cooperative Efforts
• AQD, Sublette County Commissioners and Dept.
of Health working together on air toxics study
and health risk assessment
• AQD & Commissioners working on "boundary"
monitoring
• Worked with oil & gas operators to fund new
monitoring and investigation of ozone formation
• Worked with oil & gas operators to implement
leak detection programs (using FLIR technology)
• University of WY partnership
-------
Public Outreach
Instituted quarterly public
outreach meetings
Website dedicated to
communicating ozone
information for the county
Forecasting for potential
episodes and public alert
system
Real-time ozone website and
began uploading real-time data
to EPA's AirNow
Vpt-f: cell - . lute
kJttf
No Advi-sorv
Ho Af^imsorv
Vibhiit Cottatv Giant InfonuaiioL Pj-xi
EOTLEKE:
l-SoMVVC-TOEQ
¦"SS>5-5i 5""'.
-------
Concerns Going Forward
• States need flexibility to develop tools that
will help us get back in attainment
• Understanding how to deal with background
• Accelerated schedule for designation
overwhelms our resources
• Monitoring rule and proposal of year-round
season
• Other Region 8 states were not proposed as
year-round season
-------
Concerns Going Forward (cont')
• For the Secondary W126 standard, ozone effects
on vegetation in winter is not well understood
• Limited understanding and research on winter
ozone health effects
• The new standard will cause several new non-
attainment areas: concerns will be compounded
in these areas
• Wyoming STAG grant does not cover current
ozone monitoring and will not increase to
support additional required monitoring
(V2% state)
-------
Counties With Monitors Violating Proposed Primary 8-hour Ground-level Ozone Standards
0.060 - 0.070 parts per million
(Based on 2006 - 2008 Air Quality Data)
EPA will not designate areas as nonattainment on these data, but likely on 2008 - 2010 data which are expected to show improved air quality.
93 additional counties violate 0.065 ppm
for a total of 608
] 42 additional counties violate 0.050 ppm
for a total of 650
515 counties violate 0.070 ppm
Notes:
1. No monitored counties outside the continental U.S. violate,
2. EPA is proposing to determine compliance with a revised primary ozone standard by rounding the 3-year average to three decimal places.
-------
Monitored Monthly 8-Hour Maximum
Ozone at Other WY Sites
Campbell Co
South Pass
Thunder Basin
Wamsutter
Yellowstone
25
Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
-------
Recommendations
• Reconsider ozone monitoring season for Wyoming
• Give Wyoming additional time to:
- Implement additional controls to see if non-attainment
can be avoided
- Review data & recommend additional areas for non-
attainment for new standard
• Consider additional funding for Wyoming
- President's request is inadequate for Wyoming to
implement new rules
• Work with WDEC, to understand episodic winter ozone
- Will be using specialized tools; the standard "tool-kit" will
not work for unique issues
-------
-------
------- |