 |
||
|
Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution) |  |
 |
||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 GrantsDownload Guidelines in Word Perfect (118K) September 27, 2001
MEMORANDUMSUBJECT: Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants FROM: Robert Wayland, Director Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds TO: EPA Regional Water Division Directors State Water Division Directors Introduction I am pleased to transmit to you the final changes to the reporting requirements for nonpoint source grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which will become effective beginning in fiscal year 2002. These new reporting elements reflect the deliberation over the past year and a half by the Results Work Group, one of the seven State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership groups formed by EPA and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to improve the quality of nonpoint source programs nationally. The changes were circulated as draft proposals in the March 19, 2001 memorandum, "Proposed Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements under Section 319: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS." EPA fully considered the comments made on that draft before deciding on these final changes. The most significant new required reporting elements are to:
These and other changes are discussed in Attachment A of this memorandum. Attachment C has the complete listing of newly mandated fields or changes to existing mandated fields. Background Fiscal year 2001 is the twelfth year of State implementation of nonpoint source programs with Congressional funding. Congress has now appropriated over $1.3 billion to the States to implement their nonpoint source management programs. This is a large sum of money, and much has been accomplished. At the same time, this funding level is appropriately giving rise to more specific questions from Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the public as to how and where this money is being spent, and what water quality improvements are being achieved as the result of these Federal expenditures. Furthermore, under the Government Performance and Results Act, EPA's current commitments include reporting on water quality improvements and reducing nonpoint source loadings, especially for nutrients and sediment (including reduction of cropland erosion by 20% from 1992 levels). Equally significant, Section 319(h)(11) requires States to report annually on what their nonpoint source programs are accomplishing, including available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements. Therefore, EPA and the States have been working to improve our ability to account to the public what we are accomplishing with Section 319 funds. The Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) is the main reporting vehicle for the Section 319 program. This system has historically focused on limited aspects of Section 319 program implementation, most notably to generally identify where and how Section 319 money is spent. EPA, working with the Results Work Group, has identified several critical needs for improved reporting for the Section 319 program through GRTS that would enable us to address the concerns noted above. EPA has carefully focused the enhanced reporting elements to ensure that the modified GRTS requirements appropriately balance the need to provide good quality information on the results being achieved by the Section 319 program with the need to avoid onerous and duplicative reporting burdens for States. States' data entry and collection burdens should be eased by the now Web-enabled version of GRTS (see Appendix D), which allows for much more efficient, less problematic data-entry. The Web-enabled version of GRTS also allows subgrantees the ability to enter data into the system if States so choose, thus easing the burden on State GRTS staff. It is our expectation that the new reporting elements will expedite States' ability to achieve the requirements of Section 319(h)(11) that States annually report available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements. The portion of a State nonpoint source management program's load reductions attributable specifically to Section 319 projects can now be better ascertained. A subgroup of the Results Work Group is currently developing proposals and models for good State annual reports, which are the reporting vehicle for load reductions and other aspects of a State's nonpoint source management program under Section 319(h)(11). These improved reports will allow States to more effectively communicate the achievements of State nonpoint source programs. Conclusion We appreciate the hard work and extensive reviews of lists, models, and other documents by the State and EPA Regional members of the Results Work Group during the past year. We also thank the States and Regions for their comments on the proposals in the draft memorandum. EPA is excited by the possibilities that the upgraded GRTS will provide to all of us to report to elected officials, nonpoint source professionals, and the public what we are accomplishing in the nonpoint source program to solve our nation's water quality problems. If you would like to discuss any issues with respect to describing and reporting nonpoint source results, please call me at (202) 260-7040, or email me at sutfin.charles@epa.gov. You may also have your staff call Romell Nandi of my staff at (202) 260-2324, or email him at nandi.romell@epa.gov. Attachments: Attachment A: Final Changes to Section 319 Reporting Requirements Attachment B: Results Work Group Members Attachment C: New or Changed Mandated Fields for GRTS Attachment D: Web-Enabling GRTS Attachment E: New "Category of Pollution" Picklist Attachment F: New "Pollutant Type" Picklist Attachment G: New "Functional Category of Pollution" Picklist cc. (by email): EPA Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs EPA Regional NPS Coordinators State NPS Coordinators National GRTS Users' Group EPA Regional Monitoring Coordinators EPA Regional TMDL Coordinators Attachment A: Final Changes to Section 319 Reporting Requirements I. Introduction The Results Work Group is a joint EPA/State work group formed in February, 2000 to look at how the States and EPA can more effectively report to government officials and the general public on the results being achieved by State nonpoint source programs. The Work Group was subsequently folded into the State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership, which was formed at the National Nonpoint Source Meeting in Riverside, California in April, 2000. The Results Work Group has held several conference calls, reviewed a number of ideas, and had many electronic mail exchanges. Additional input was provided by a number of State and EPA users of GRTS after these proposals were presented at the State/EPA National GRTS-Users Meeting in Philadelphia, November 13-16, 2000. Finally, EPA distributed and solicited State comment on a draft of this memorandum with attachments. EPA would like to make a note here about the new Web-enabled version of GRTS. EPA has Web-enabled GRTS to allow greater access to the system. States do not have to have Lotus Notes on their desktop computer to access GRTS any longer -- States simply need a user-name and password. The Web-enabled GRTS will soon be migrated to a faster, more powerful server to allow for speedier processing of information. It should also be noted that the current Web-enabled version of GRTS does not allow members of the public to see a State's GRTS entries. In the near future, EPA will put a replica of GRTS onto a public-access server. At that point, the public will be able to view Section 319 project data in GRTS. However, data entry will still be made on the secure, private server. Please see Attachment D for further information on the advantages of the new Web-enabled GRTS. EPA will provide more Regional GRTS-training in fiscal year 2002 so States can more easily learn how to use the Web-enabled GRTS, the Web-based Reach Indexing Tool (see Part II below), and the optional load reduction models (see Part IV-B below). Each subsection below discusses a particular change to GRTS, which will be applicable beginning with the fiscal year 2002 grant cycle. Any project using FY 2002 funds should enter the new mandated reporting elements into GRTS. II. Geolocating Section 319 Projects The new geolocational field will replace the current field, where States enter 8-digit "hydrologic unit code" (HUC) information. Since the first 8 digits of a 14 digit stream reach code is the 8-digit HUC, States will still be able to search the system using 8-digit HUC as a search parameter. Because 8-digit HUC watersheds can be over 1 million acres in size, more specific geolocational information for Section 319 projects is needed for the public to get a better indication of the activities and results within a local watershed. In addition, demarcating Section 319 projects on the GIS display of the Water Assessment and Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS -- see below) will enable us to relate the projects to waters listed under Section 303(d) and (eventually) to waters assessed under Section 305(b) (for those States which georeference their 305(b)-assessed waters). Therefore, geolocational information will now be reported at the stream reach level (which also includes information on lakes and many other water bodies). Specifically, reach codes of the affected stream segments must be entered into the geolocational field of GRTS. EPA will periodically pull this geolocational information out of GRTS and digitize it in the GIS display of WATERS. The initial release of WATERS (www.epa.gov/waters) identifies:
We anticipate that future releases of WATERS will be able to, among other things:
States can use one of two methods to obtain the proper geolocational information and enter this information into GRTS. One way is to use WATERS' GIS interface to locate Section 319 projects on specific reaches (which can also be identified by name). WATERS will allow a user to select a State, and then zoom in on a map by choosing a city, county, lat/long, 8-digit HUC watershed, or zip code. Then, further features (such as schools, hospitals, major roads, etc.) can be used to further locate where a user is on the map. In this manner, those using GRTS should be able to quickly and easily identify on the display in WATERS which stream segments are being affected by the given Section 319 project. Clicking on a digital display of a given stream reach will then bring up the numerical reach code for that stream segment. The GRTS-user will then be able to copy and paste that stream reach code into the geolocational field of GRTS. Since this method only allows a user to enter one stream reach code at a time into GRTS, EPA is currently developing a second method, which will allow GRTS-users to simultaneously transfer multiple stream reach codes into GRTS using a Web-based Reach Indexing Tool. This tool will be available by early fall, 2001. Users will then be able to use the tool to collectively import the stream reach codes for all of the streams affected by a given Section 319 project at once into the geolocational field of GRTS. Training on the Web-based Reach Indexing Tool will become part of regular GRTS training. Please note that EPA is not requiring information on where Best Management Practices (BMPs) themselves are being placed, but rather is requesting the identification of streams which are directly receiving benefits from a particular Section 319 project. For example, a State will not have to locate where a particular animal feeding operation is being addressed through a Section 319 project; instead, it will locate the stream reach or reaches which are being directly affected by that project as a whole. The stream reaches identified in this manner should not be every reach downstream of the project that may potentially receive benefits from the project, but only those reaches which the project benefits directly. Other methods for geolocating Section 319 projects were also considered. Geolocating by watersheds or by latitude/longitude were rejected for several reasons. Watershed identification would not provide the specific link between Section 319 projects and individual Section 303(d)-listed and 305(b)-assessed waters. In addition, most 14-digit HUCs (normal size range from 10,000 to 40,000 acres) have not been delineated, and an even smaller number have been checked for accuracy of their delineations. Even smaller watersheds, insofar as they have been delineated at all, would still lack precision in linking Section 319 projects to specific impaired waters. By linking Section 319 projects to specific stream reaches, linkages to impaired segments can be made in WATERS. Finally, watershed delineations will be changing as a result of a long-term effort being conducted by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). FGDC is working to create a nationally consistent set of watersheds. The use of latitude/longitude was rejected (except under the particular circumstances explained below) because a single point cannot accurately reflect the extent of a watershed project. Even using several latitude/longitude points is problematic. Many Section 319 project BMPs are land-based, and EPA would be forced into the position of translating which waters a project is affecting from latitude/longitude information in order to make the connection between Section 319 projects and Section 303(d) (and eventually 305(b)) data. Geolocational information will not be required for projects that apply statewide or involve activities that otherwise do not lend themselves to precise geolocation. Such projects can be identified in a currently mandated GRTS field called "Primary Functional Category of Activity," where the broad-brush type of activity that the project falls under is covered (see Attachment G). This field is limited to one entry. There is also a "Secondary Functional Category of Activity" field which is optional, and which is not limited in the number of entries that can be made. If one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Pollution field, the system itself will automatically enter "Not Applicable" for the geolocational field of GRTS: 100 Statewide Education/Information Programs 201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management 202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing 410 Geographic Information Systems 600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs Furthermore, since groundwater is not depicted in WATERS, States will enter a central lat/long point for such projects in GRTS (i.e. groundwater geolocational information will exist in GRTS, but will not be digitized in WATERS). Estuaries also lack 14-digit reach codes, although estuaries are graphically displayed in WATERS; therefore, States may geolocate estuary projects in one of two ways: (1) pick a central lat/long point for the project (which will literally be displayed as a point in the GIS display of WATERS), or (2) for those with access to a GIS, send EPA a shapefile or other coverage of the project (with the project number), which EPA will then use to depict the area of the project in WATERS. There are stream reach codes for reaches running along estuaries - these reaches should still be designated by reach codes. III. Water Quality Improvement Water quality improvements from nonpoint source programs or projects will not be reported in GRTS. A future release of WATERS will demarcate where there have been improvements in water quality for impaired waters, including waters which are being or have been addressed by Section 319 projects. Therefore, water quality information need not be recorded within GRTS itself - instead, this information will be available through WATERS. States that are currently performing monitoring to measure changes over time in the ambient quality of the water associated with Section 319 projects are strongly encouraged to enter this information into EPA's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database. STORET will also be linked to WATERS in a future release. States may also enter such information into the existing optional Project Evaluation field of GRTS (see below). IV. Load Reductions This field does not exist in the current version of GRTS, although there is a similar optional field (see below).
Section 319 (h)(11) requires States to report annually on what their nonpoint source programs are accomplishing, including available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements. Although this section of the Clean Water Act refers to more than just what the Section 319 program is accomplishing, information about Section 319 projects can facilitate this reporting. EPA also understands that many projects mix Section 319 funding with funding from other programs. Generally, States should be able to identify BMPs implemented using Section 319 funds as opposed to BMPs implemented using funds from other programs; however, to the extent that States do not make this distinction, load reductions should be reported for the entire project. When reporting on programmatic accomplishments to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and others, EPA will make this caveat clear. EPA will now require that load reduction information for Section 319 implementation projects be entered into GRTS. The load reduction field within GRTS will be mandated for projects that address nitrogen (lbs/year), phosphorus (lbs/year), and sediment (tons/year). For certain types of projects, load reduction information would not be relevant and thus would not be required. Load reductions will not be required under either of the two following conditions: 1) There will be a mandatory check-off box for whether or not the project is a BMP implementation project that addresses nutrients and/or sediment. If it is not a BMP implementation project that addresses nutrients and/or sediment, then the system will automatically enter "Not Applicable" into the load reduction field. Questions about whether a particular project constitutes a "BMP implementation project that addresses nutrients and/or sediment" should be addressed to the appropriate EPA Region. If it is deemed necessary, EPA will provide further guidance on this issue in the future. 2) If the pollutant chosen in the "Pollutant Type" field (see part XI below) is "Cause Unknown," then "Not Applicable" will automatically be entered into the Load Reduction field. For projects addressing pollutants other than nutrients or sediment, EPA strongly encourages load reduction or change in concentration information whenever this information is available. An optional load reduction field for pollutants other than nutrients or sediment will be placed under the mandated load reduction field. Other types of available information for a given project may be entered into the existing optional Project Evaluation field. Given the significant resources that would need to be expended to calculate load reductions using monitoring, States may enter modeled estimates for load reductions without empirical confirmation of results from monitoring (see discussion below). Monitoring estimates can be used if the State so chooses. BMPs for a given Section 319 project are sometimes changed between the project proposal stage and the implementation stage, and even through the implementation stage. Therefore, EPA will not require that load reduction predictions be entered into GRTS at the time the grant is awarded. Instead, States will begin to enter load reduction numbers into GRTS after the first year of project implementation, and make any necessary changes in load reduction calculations based on further implementation at least annually thereafter. This will facilitate States' compliance with the requirement in Section 319(h)(11) to annually report load reductions. The current optional "Environmental Results" field in GRTS, which allows for entry of load reductions, will be adjusted as necessary based on the changes articulated here. Some Section 319 projects are intended to prevent pollution, rather than reduce existing pollution (for example, land easement or acquisition projects that prevent or modify development). If a State has a dependable way of quantitatively measuring pollution prevention of nutrients or sediment, this estimate may be entered into the load reduction field. However, entering information would only be required in the case of actual reductions. Any use of load reduction information reported in GRTS or extracted in reports will include appropriate explanations as to how the data or estimates were developed and tabulated. Conclusions will be caveated appropriately. Furthermore, EPA will only use load reduction figures in GRTS as one part of the total picture given to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, or the public as to what the Section 319 program is accomplishing. Any formal report that EPA creates which utilizes load reduction and water quality improvement information will also include narrative descriptions of other accomplishments of the program, such as educational accomplishments.
States that currently model load reductions for nutrients or sediment for Section 319 projects may continue to use their current methods or models. Below the load reduction field, there will be a mandated field for the State to indicate whether it used monitoring or modeling for estimating its load reduction figure. If modeling is used, the name of the model used should be entered, as well. Furthermore, load reductions should be reported in consistent units regardless of the model used for these calculations (lbs/year for nutrients and tons/year for sediment). For those States that do not currently model or monitor load reductions, we will provide two relatively simple optional models for States to choose from that will be directly accessible through GRTS. One of these models (the "Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load" or "STEPL") is currently being refined for use in determining load reductions. A manual on the use of this model will be made available to States. The other model (the "Region 5" model) uses some long-used equations to help determine load reductions (such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, the Gully Erosion Equation, and the Channel Erosion Equation). EPA will provide States a manual through GRTS which will explain the calculations behind the Region 5 model (it is not an instructional manual on the model itself; however, using the model is not difficult once one understands how to get the input parameters). EPA will provide training on the use of these two optional models as part of regular GRTS-training. EPA will provide Region-specific GRTS-training for the States in at least some Regions starting in fiscal year 2002. We appreciate the difficulty of drawing a regional or national picture of what the Section 319 program is accomplishing with respect to load reductions when States are not using the same methods for calculating load reductions. We also recognize the limitations of using models (or even monitoring) for determining load reductions. However, for purposes of reporting through GRTS, we believe that the vast majority of models a State might use would be adequate for providing a rough estimate of load reductions. For those states that have reservations about the rough estimate load reduction figures they are providing through GRTS, we will have an optional narrative field underneath the load reduction field where a State may enter any appropriate explanations about the accuracy of the load reduction figure it is providing. This may include anything from a description of the limitations of the particular model they are using to the inclusion of any confidence statistics on the load reduction number the State may have. V. Wetlands/Streambanks/Shorelines In addition to calculating load reductions for sediment and nutrients, EPA believes it is also critical to account for the successful implementation of several key practices that not only reduce loads, but protect the biological and physical characteristics of waterbodies. There will be a mandated field that will track the following measures if relevant to the project:
This field would be filled after the first year of implementation, and then updated at least annually thereafter. A State could enter "Not Applicable" if none of these practices is being implemented. VI. TMDL status for Section 319 projects addressing TMDLs Given the prominent need for States to address impaired waters, GRTS will add a mandated field describing the link a given project has to TMDLs. A dropdown box will enable the user to pick one, two, or three of the following options: "Funds from this project are being used for:"
If "Project does not address a TMDL(s)" is chosen, then no other option may be chosen.VII. Reformatting of Primary Category of Pollution field The Category of Pollution field is divided into "Primary" and "Secondary" fields. In the modified GRTS, data entry into the mandated Primary Category of Pollution field will be restricted to main source categories (i.e. agriculture, silviculture, etc. -- see Attachment E). A dropdown box will be used for the Primary field to restrict what options can be entered. The Primary Category of Pollution field is currently designed so that only one entry can be made in that field. This will be changed so that up to five main source categories may be entered into the Primary Category of Pollution field. Some Section 319 projects do not lend themselves to easy categorizations of individual pollutants. Therefore, there will be a new entry option for the Primary Category of Pollution field called "All Sources." This option will only be available for certain types of projects that address all sources of pollution. If (and only if) one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Activity field (which is limited to one entry), the user will be able to choose "All Sources" on the Primary Category of Pollution list: 100 Statewide Education/Information Programs 201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management 202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing 410 Geographic Information Systems 600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs In all other cases, the user would have to individually select all the sources being addressed by a given project. VIII. Expenditure breakdown for main source categories in Primary Category of Pollution field In order to discern approximately what percentage of project dollars is going for what source of pollution, States must enter what percentage of dollars goes for what aspect of the project in the Primary Category of Pollution field. States would do this only once for each project, while initiating project closeout. Here is an example of what the Primary Category of Pollution field may look like: Primary Category of Pollution: 1000 Agriculture (50%) 4000 Urban Runoff/Stormwater (25%) 2000 Silviculture (25%) Dollar percentage breakdowns will not be required for subcategories in the Secondary Category of Pollution field. This approach will allow States and EPA to provide a somewhat more accurate estimate of how Section 319 dollars are being spent. For example, at present a search for all agriculture projects will fail to identify the dollars expended on the agricultural components of larger watershed projects. The proposed system will help rectify errors such as this. The proposed architecture will tie the percentages in the Primary Category of Pollution field to the dollar amount brought up by the search. Therefore, if total project costs of an agriculture project are $50,000, and the field entry is "Agriculture (50%)," the cost figure brought out by a search using the main source category "Agriculture" will be $25,000. This figure more accurately reflects what is actually being spent on agriculture. IX. Mandatory Reporting of the Subcategory Level in the Secondary Category of Pollution Field The Secondary Category of Pollution field will now also be mandated. This field will now be restricted to sub-source categories (e.g. "forest harvesting" -- see Appendix E). A dropdown box will be used for the Secondary field to restrict what options can be entered. If (and only if) one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Activity field, the user will be able to enter "All Sources" into the Secondary Category of Pollution lists: 100 Statewide Education/Information Programs 201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management 202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing 410 Geographic Information Systems 600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs In all other cases, the user will have to individually select all the sources being addressed by a given project. X. Best Management Practices This field has been optional in the past, but will now be mandated. The field will only require the name of the BMP(s), not where it is located. EPA will provide a more comprehensive list than the current BMP picklist for states to choose from. Furthermore, the State will be able to type a BMP name into the field if the BMP is not listed on the picklist. There will also be a "Not Applicable" option on the picklist. We will also provide an option to record BMP units (e.g. number of feet of terraces); however, unit information will not be mandated. XI. Pollutant Type States must identify specific pollutants in most cases (see Appendix F). However, an "All Pollutants" option will be available if (and only if) one of the following options is entered into the Primary Functional Category of Activity field: 100 Statewide Education/Information Programs 201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management 202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing 410 Geographic Information Systems 600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs States will also still have the option of entering "Cause Unknown," if the pollutant the project is addressing is unknown. If the State wishes to enter a pollutant that is not on the picklist, it will be able to do so, as well. The number of entries into this field is not limited. XII. Project Description The newly mandated field includes: a brief description of the problem being addressed, project goals, and other anticipated deliverables/benefits (if applicable). Additional information may be included in the Project Description field at the user's option. This field would be filled in before the start of a project. If there are changes in project goals, anticipated deliverables/benefits, etc., the State may change the initial entry in the Project Description field. If the State prefers to report changes in goals, deliverables, etc. in project reports in the optional Project Evaluation field rather than changing the initial Project Description, they may do so. The Project Description field will have a standard template that includes all of the elements listed above. XIII. Project Reports We are not mandating that project reports must be reported through GRTS. However, GRTS is already configured so that project reports can be attached at the user's option in the Project Evaluation field mentioned above, and some States have chosen to do so. This field is especially useful for tracking project benefits other than load reductions, such as educational pamphlets produced, improvements in biota, etc. We strongly encourage States to use the system for this purpose, as it facilitates the availability of information to EPA and other States who may benefit from reviewing information about projects across the country. Reporting in this field can be done in lieu of doing project reports on paper. Furthermore, the new Web-enabled GRTS is currently configured so that a State can submit Section 319 grant workplans in a "pre-award" field. Only those specifically authorized by the State may see the data a State enters into this particular field of GRTS. If a State and Region agree to the process, State Section 319 grant workplans may be entered into GRTS using this field, in lieu of paper reporting (it is not nationally mandated that States use the pre-award field to turn in Section 319 grant workplans). XIV. Other Changes to GRTS Following is a list of other changes to GRTS, including the addition of new optional fields:
The picklists for "Category of Pollution," "Pollutant Type," and "Functional Category of Activity" have been altered based on comments from the Results Work Group, GRTS-users, and others. The new picklists are shown in Attachments E, F, and G. The existing picklists for "Category of Pollution" and "Pollutant Type" (both the names of the sources and pollutants and the numerical codes for them) come from an older version of the Section 305(b) national sources and pollutants lists. The Section 305(b) list has changed somewhat over time, but the commensurate changes in GRTS had not been made until now. The new picklists for sources and pollutants in GRTS will also be used for the next national Section 305(b) list (although Section 305(b) will include some point source options that GRTS will not have). Attachment B: Results Work Group Members Aston, Jody Virginia DCR Chartier, Gerard NY DEC Claggett, Richard EPA Region 8 Collins, Jim North Dakota HD Cote, Mel EPA Region 1 Dabolt, Thomas EPA headquarters Davis, Peter EPA Region 7 Fallon, Anna EPA Region 4 Hill, Rick Virginia DCR Hopkins, Rick Vermont DEC Kamin, Jamie ASIWPCA Kunkoski, Don EPA headquarters Lamb, Brad EPA Region 6 Lathrop, Barbara Pennsylvania DEP Lee, Marie EPA Region 8 McCloud, Susan Indiana DEM Miller, Susan Hawaii DBEDT Mollahan, Richard Illinois EPA Nandi, Romell EPA headquarters Nuhfer, Mark EPA Region 4 Patterson, Kenneth Pennsylvania DEP Pierard, Kevin EPA Region 5 Reichgott, Christine EPA Region 10 Reichert, Michael Utah DEQ Rice, David Mississippi DEQ Ristau, Scott Illinois EPA Rohr, Carl Pennsylvania DEP Schrodt, Barbara EPA Region 6 Shannon, Becky Missouri DNR Shileikis, Audrey EPA Region 9 Sloate, Kenneth Maryland DNR Somboonlakana, Donna EPA Region 2 Stone, Wes Indiana DEM Suffian, Fred EPA Region 3 Voerman, Gary EPA Region 10 Vicory, Alan ORSANCO Weitman, Dov EPA headquarters Attachment C: New or Changed Mandated Fields for GRTS Following is a summary list of forthcoming new or changed mandated fields in GRTS. Please note that most of these are check-off boxes or otherwise very simple entries:
This field will replace the current field where States enter 8-digit HUC information.
This field currently does not exist, although there is a similar optional field which will be adjusted.
This field currently does not exist. It is a simple yes/no check-off box. If the "yes" box is checked, then a load reduction estimate must be entered in the Load Reduction field.
This field currently does not exist. It will be a check-off box where States will indicate whether they used monitoring or modeling to estimate load reductions. There will also be a "Not Applicable" option.
This field currently does not exist. States will enter the name of the model they used to do their load reduction estimates, or enter "Not Applicable."
This field does not currently exist, and would track wetlands created and restored, streambanks stabilized, and shoreline protected if applicable to the project.
This field currently does not exist. It would be a simple check-off box addressing the type of link (if any) the project has to TMDLs.
Primary Category of Pollution is currently mandated; however, it will be reformatted to only allow entry of main source categories.
EPA will now require that dollars be estimated for each main source category after the project is closed out.
This is currently an optional field. Only sub-source categories will be entered into this field.
This is currently an optional field.
This is currently an optional field.
This field is currently an optional field. The field would now have a standard format. Attachment D: Web-Enabling GRTS EPA has now Web-enabled GRTS for the purpose of making data entry easier. States do not have to have Lotus Notes on their desktop computer to access GRTS any longer -- States simply need a user-name and password. It should also be noted that the current Web-enabled version of GRTS does not allow members of the public to see a State's GRTS entries. In the near future, EPA will put a replica of GRTS onto a public-access server. At that point, the public will be able to view Section 319 project data in GRTS. However, data entry will still be made on the secure, private server. There are many advantages to having a Web-enabled GRTS: Local Desk Top (Current Practice) Web-Accessible Version Limited number of people can perform data entry No limit on number of people who can perform data entry Local replica on desk top PC No local replica; local data on web site Must replicate to national server No replication; work direct on web to update data site Must replicate to national server No replication; templates automatic to inherit templates Must use user id & password Must use user id & password; also web site password protected Replication conflicts are part of operations No replication conflicts Chance of losing data No chance of losing data Must purchase site licenses and Lotus Notes No Lotus Notes upgrades; license for upgrades server use under discussion Notes must be installed on individual PC No need to install Lotus Notes on PC; access is through web Major effort to add additional users Additional users added very easily Great deal of functionality with local No loss of functionality on web; replica in some areas functionality is better Training is state/regionally based Training could be web-accessible Conflict between versions of Lotus Notes All users access the same version of Lotus Notes Attachment E: Draft Revised "Category of Pollution" Picklist Notes: (A) Some subcategories listed below have not yet had codes assigned to them.
Code Main Category Subcategory 0000 All Sources 1000 Agriculture 1100 - Non-irrigated crop production 1200 - Irrigated Crop Production 1300 - Specialty Crop Production (e.g. horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits) 1350 - Grazing-Related Sources 1400 - Pasture Grazing 1500 - Range Grazing 1700 - Aquaculture 1600 Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) 2000 Silviculture 2100 - Harvesting, Residue Management - Reforestation 2200 - Forest Management (e.g. pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide application) 2300 - Logging Road Construction/Maintenance 3000 Construction 3100 - Highways, Roads, Bridges 3200 - Land Development or Redevelopment Code Main Category Subcategory 4000 Urban Runoff/Stormwater - Municipal - Commercial - Residential (e.g. non-commercial automotive, pet waste, etc.) 4400 - Illicit Connections/Illegal Hook-ups - Dry Weather Flows 4500 - Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff 4600 - Post-Development Erosion and Sedimentation 8900 - Salt Storage Sites 5000 Resource Extraction 5100 - Surface Mining 5200 - Subsurface Mining - Open Pit Mining 5300 - Placer Mining 5400 - Dredge Mining 5500 - Petroleum Activities 5600 - Mill Tailings 5700 - Mine Tailings 5800 - Abandoned Mine Drainage - Sand/Gravel Mining 6000 Land Disposal/Storage/Treatment 6200 - Wastewater 6300 - Landfills 6350 - Inappropriate Waste Disposal 6400 - Industrial Land Management 6500 - On-Site/Decentralized Wastewater Treatment 6600 - Hazardous waste 6700 - Septage Disposal 8200 - Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks (above ground) 8250 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 7000 Hydromodification Code Main Category Subcategory 7100 - Channelization - Channel Erosion/Incision 7200 - Dredging 7300 - Dam Construction 7350 - Upstream Impoundment 7400 - Flow Regulations/Modification 7550 - Other Habitat Modification 7600 - Removal of Riparian Vegetation 7700 - Streambank or Shoreline Modification/Destabilization 7800 - Drainage/Filling of Wetlands 8920 - Groundwater Withdrawal 7900 Marinas and Recreational Boating - Pumpouts - Sanitary On-Vessel Discharges - Other On-Vessel Discharges - Boat Construction - Boat Maintenance - Shoreline Erosion - Fueling - Dredging Turf Management 8710 - Golf Courses - Yard Maintenance - Other Turf Management Historical Pollutants 8500 - Contaminated Sediments - Clean Sediments - Other Historical Pollutants Other NPS Pollution 8050 - Erosion from Derelict Land 8100 - Atmospheric Deposition 8400 - Spills 8600 - Natural Sources 8700 - Recreational and Tourism Activities (non- boating) 8910 - Groundwater Loadings Code Main Category Subcategory - Wildlife 9000 Source Unknown Attachment F: Draft Revised "Pollutant Type" Picklist Notes: (A) Categories with codes are using current 305(b) codes. (B) Categories without codes are new or changed, and therefore have not had codes assigned yet.
Code Pollutant 0000 Cause Unknown All Pollutants 2210 Algal Growth/Chlorophyll 1500 Alteration (Flow) 1600 Alterations (Habitat -- other than flow) 0600 Ammonia 0700 Chlorine 0720 Cyanide 0420 Dioxins/Furans 1200 Dissolved Oxygen (Low) Ethylene Glycol 2600 Exotic Species 0250 Herbicide (Atrazine) Herbicide (Alachlor) Herbicide (Other) 0800 Inorganics (Other) 0500 Metals (Other) Metals (Aluminum) 0510 Metals (Arsenic) 0520 Metals (Cadmium) 0530 Metals (Copper) 0540 Metals (Chromium) Metals (Iron) 0550 Metals (Lead) 0560 Metals (Mercury) 0570 Metals (Selenium) 0580 Metals (Zinc) Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether 0930 Nitrate 0920 Nitrogen Code Pollutant 1900 Oil and Grease 0300 Organics (Other Priority) 0400 Organics (Other Nonpriority) 1700 Pathogens (Other) Pathogens (Coliform) Pathogens (E Coli) 0410 PCBs 0200 Pesticides (Other) Pesticides (DDT) Pesticides (Chlordane) Pesticides (Dieldrin) Pesticides (Dianzinon) 1000 pH 0910 Phosphorus 2200 Plants (Noxious Aquatic) Propylene Glycol 1800 Radiation 1300 Salinity/TDS/Chlorides 1100 Sedimentation/Siltation (habitat and/or morphological) 0750 Sulfates 2100 Suspended Solids 2000 Taste and Odor 1400 Temperature Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2400 Toxics (Total) Trash, Debris, Floatables Tributyltin 2500 Turbidity Attachment G: Functional Category of Activity (A) Subcategories with codes that are shaded (redlined) are new or changed.
Code Main Category Subcategory Restoration/Protection/Prevention 010 Corrective Action (other than BMP implementation) 011 BMP Design/Implementation 012 BMP Performance Assessment 013 Animal Manure/Litter Management Projects 014 Livestock Control Projects 016 Vegetation Management/Revegetation 017 Stream Bank Stabilization 018 Grade Stabilization 019 Sediment Control 020 Stormwater Discharge Design/Control 021 Erosion Control Projects 022 Acquisition of Wetland Resources 023 Wetland Restoration/Protection 024 Acquisition of Riparian Resources 025 Riparian Projects 026 Fisheries Projects 027 Other Restoration/Protection/Prevention Education/Information Programs 100 Statewide Education/Information Programs 600 Local (Specific Target) Education/Information Programs Technical Assistance 200 Technical Assistance to State/Local 201 Nonpoint Source Program Overall Coordination/Management 202 Nonpoint Source Project Staffing 230 Technology Transfer to State/Local Government 290 Other Technical Assistance Activity Regulatory/Enforcement 300 Certification Activities 310 Program Development Activities 320 Inspection Activities 330 Ordinance Development 340 Enforcement Activities Planning 401 Nutrient Management Planning 402 Watershed Modeling Planning 403 Stormwater Management Planning 404 Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)/Watershed Planning 410 Geographic Information Systems 420 Develop/Revise Basin Plans 430 TMDLs 440 Nonstructural Planning (for new
development) 450 Livestock Grazing System Planning 490 Other Planning Water Quality Assessment/Monitoring 501 Instream Flow Assessments 502 Assessments for Compliance with Water Quality Standards 503 Wetland Assessment/Monitoring 504 Riparian Assessment/Monitoring 505 TMDL Assessments 510 Water Quality Trend Assessment 520 Water Quality Problem Identification 590 Other Water Quality Assessment /Monitoring 600 BMP Effectiveness Monitoring 610 Biological Monitoring 620 Watershed Assessments 319(h) National Monitoring Project 800 319(h) National Monitoring Project Other Activities 910 Groundwater (all groundwater activities) 920 Antidegradation Activities and Analyses 930 Soil Analyses
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
