FY 2008 Best Practices and
End of the Year Performance Report
April 2009
Office of Water
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Office of Water National Water Program
FY 2008 Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
-------
able of Contents
Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Introduction 5
III. Overview of 2008 Performance Results and Recent Trends 7
IV. FY 2008 Best Practices 15
LEPAAsset Management Checkup Program for
Small Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems 17
2. Energy Benchmarking Tool for Wastewater Treatment Plants 18
3.Fostering Green Infrastructure Implementation 19
4.Stormwater Fees Support Pollution Identification
and Correction (PIC) Program 20
S.Potomac River Drinking Water Source Protection
Partnership and Strategy 21
6.Watershed Restoration Criteria Checklist 22
/.Process for Developing Ecoregion-based Dissolved
Oxygen Criteria for Southern Louisiana 23
8.Incentive-Based Nitrogen Trading Program to Improve Water Quality 24
9. Increasing the Pace of a State DWSRF Program 25
10.Chesapeake Bay Program Performance Dashboards 26
11 .National Estuary Program Evaluation Tool 27
V. End-of-Year Performance Results by Subobjective 28
1 .Water Safe to Drink 29
2.Fish and Shellfish 39
3.Water Safe for Swimming 41
4.Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 44
5. Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters 59
6. Protect Wetland 63
/.Protect Mexico Border Water Quality 66
8. Protect the Pacific Islands Waters 68
9. Protect the Great Lakes 70
10. Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay 76
11. Protect the Gulf of Mexico 80
12.Protect Long Island Sound 83
13. Protect the South Florida Ecosystem 85
14.Restore and Protect Puget Sound 87
15.Protect the Columbia River Basin 89
VI. Appendix A: Measure by Measure Summary of Commitments
Met or Not Met 91
Appendix B: Detailed Measures Appendix: Measures with National
and Regional Data and Commitments 97
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Executive Summary
FY2008 National Water Program
Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
Overview
EPA met 63% of its commitments for all National Water Program measures in FY 2008. Twenty-two percent (22%)
were not met and 15% did not have enough data available to assess progress or no reporting was expected
for 2008. FY 2008 represented a slight decrease in the number of measures met from FY 2007 (66%). Other
highlights include:
Seventy-one (71%) of the commitments under Goal 2 of the 2006 Strategic Plan were met in 2008,
1 8% were not met, and 1 1 % had no data available. Slightly more than half (52%) of the commitments
under Goal 4 were met.
Fifty-seven (57%) percent of the strategic targets met their FY 2008 commitments. There was a slight
drop in the percentage of Strategic Targets met in 2008 (57% compared to 67% in 2007).
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Program Activity Measures (PAMs) met their commitments in 2008. There
has been a gradual increase in the percentage of PAMs that have met their commitments over the past
three years with 59% in 2006, 67% in 2007, and 69% in 2008.
Oceans and Coastal Protection, Drinking Water, Safe Swimming, and the Great Lakes subobjectives
were most successful in meeting their 2008 commitments.
On average, 82% of performance commitments set by the EPA regional offices for activities in their
geographic areas were met in 2008 while 1 2% of commitments were missed. This was a slight
improvement over the FY 2007 results of 80% met.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of all National Water Program target measures
met their commitments in 2007. Twenty-three percent (23%) were not met,
and 1 1 % did not have enough data available to assess progress.
Protect Public Health
EPA met 75% of its commitments for all drinking water measures in 2008. Of these, the highlights were:
Ninety-two (92%) of the population was served by community water systems with drinking water that
met all applicable health-based drinking water standards (commitment 90%).
Ninety (90%) of the cumulative amount of Drinking Water State Revolving Funds available had loan
agreements in place (commitment of 85%). EPA has met its commitments for this measure for four years
in a row.
Ninety-nine (99%) of Class I and III and 98% of Class II underground injection wells maintained their
mechanical integrity thereby reducing the impact to underground sources of drinking water.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
xecutive Summary
EPA did not meet 25% of its drinking water commitments in 2008. Challenges confronted by EPA include:
Eighty-seven (87%) of community systems underwent a sanitary survey which was short of the Agency's
national commitment of 94%. This was partly due to an increase in the number of requirements on the
States with the promulgation of new drinking and groundwater rules.
EPA struggled to meet its commitments for drinking water on Tribal lands. For example, 83% of the
population served by community water systems in Indian country were receiving drinking water meeting
health-based standards (FY08 commitment-87%). For the third year in a row, the program failed to
meet its annual commitment of reducing the number of households on Tribal lands lacking access to safe
drinking water (FY08 commitment-30,587; FY08 Result-34,855). On the other hand, the number of
homes on Tribal lands that lack access to safe drinking water was down to 34,855 in 2008 from
the 2003 baseline of 38,637.
EPA has shown significant improvement in meeting its commitments under the Water Safe for Swimming subobjective
over the past three years. The percent of measures met increased from 20% in 2006 to 1 00% in 2008. For example,
EPA found that 95% of days of the beach season were open and safe for swimming (FY08 commitment-91 %). EPA
has met this commitment over the past four years.
Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
EPA and States met 63% of its commitments under the water quality subobjectives in 2008, fell short on 22%, and
data were not available for 1 5%. Highlights include:
2,1 65 of the waters listed as impaired in 2002 met water quality standards for all the identified
impairments (FY08 commitment-1,500). This was a 30% increase over the 2008 commitment.
EPA approved 92.5% of water quality standards revisions submitted by States and Territories (FY08
national commitment-74.1 %). EPA also exceeded its target (66.5%) for approving Tribal standards
revisions (100%).
More than 9100 TMDLs were developed by States and approved or established by EPA (FY08
commitment-7,81 9). Nine out of ten Regions met their commitments for this measure in 2008 and EPA
has met its commitment for this measure for 4 years in a row.
For the second year in a row, EPA and States achieved the national goal of having current NPDES
permits in place for 90% of non-Tribal facilities (FY08 commitment-87%). In addition, EPA and
authorized States exceeded their commitments for issuing high priority permits for the past four years.
EPA and States made significant gains in documenting the full or partial restoration of waterbodies
that are impaired primarily by non-point sources. Nationally, EPA and States doubled their output from
2007 and exceeded their commitment (91) with 97 waterbodies that were partially or fully restored.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund utilization rate reached an unprecedented 98% by the end of
2008. Of the $70.1 billion of funds available for projects through 2008, $68.8 billion are committed
to more than 22,700 loans.
EPA faced several management challenges in FY 2008. These include:
The number of States and Territories that are implementing comprehensive monitoring strategies in
~
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Executive Summary
keeping with established schedules, has decreased over the past two years.
As of 2008, nine States and Territories have adopted water quality criteria for nutrients, which was
fust below the national target of 10. For the second year in a row, States and Territories did not meet
Regional commitments for submitting new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect
new scientific information.
Permits for 85% of Tribal facilities were considered current, just short of the national goal of 89%. The
Agency also fell short of achieving its national goal of reducing the number of homes on Tribal lands
lacking access to basic sanitation.
EPA has made significant progress over the past three years in meeting its annual commitments for protecting
coastal and ocean resources. EPA has gone from meeting 60% of its commitments in 2006 to achieving 1 00% in
2008. The third National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR III) was published in 2008, and rated overall condition
of the Nation's coastal waters as fair or 2.3 on a scale from 1 to 5. In FY 2008, EPA and its partners protected or
restored 82,827 acres of habitat in the 28 estuaries that make up the National Estuary Program (NEP).
More than 80,000 acres of wetlands have been restored and enhanced since 2002, far surpassing the Agency's
goal of 1 2,000 acres by Earth Day 2009. There was a decrease in three (3) States but an increase of 1 3 Tribes
with adequate wetlands protection program capacity.
Improve the Health of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
EPA implements collaborative programs with other Federal agencies, States, and local communities to improve the
health of large aquatic ecosystems. Highlights and challenges for each program include:
U.S. Mexico Border. EPA exceeded its commitments in 2008 by providing access to safe drinking water
for 5,1 62 additional homes and by providing adequate wastewater sanitation to an additional 31,686
homes over the past year.
U.S. Pacific Island Waters. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific
Island Territories complied with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS). Monitored beaches in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories were open and safe for
swimming for 80% of the days of the beach season in FY 2008. This was short of the EPA's commitment
of 85% of days open.
Great Lakes. From a baseline score of 20 in 2002, EPA and its partners improved its score from
22.7 in 2007 to 23.7 in 2008 using the Great Lakes Index 40-point scale. Average long-term total
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) concentrations in whole top predator fish at sites in each Great Lake
declined more than 5 percent annually between 1 991 and 2005. EPA, States and other partners
remediated almost 5.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments through 2007 including more than
960,000 cubic yards for the most recent year reported.
Chesapeake Bay. After a successful year in 2006, EPA has struggled to meet the majority of its annual
commitments for restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. New restoration programs and projects
were put in place in 2008, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals to implement nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution control practices. Increasing pollutant loads from urban and suburban growth
and development are outstripping progress from agriculture and wastewater sectors.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
xecutive Summary
Gulf of Mexico. The latest National Coastal Condition Report (2008) indicates that the overall aquatic
ecosystem health of the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is 2.2 on a 5-point scale in which 1 is
poor and 5 is good. This was short of the 2008 commitment of 2.5. The Gulf Program ended the year
well ahead of its FY 08 cumulative target (1 8,200 acres) to restore, protect, or enhance coastal and
marine habitats.
Long Island Sound. EPA met its 2008 commitment (862 acres) by restoring or protecting 1,1 99 acres
of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands. EPA fell short of
its commitment to reduce the amount of nitrogen discharging into Long Island Sound from wastewater
treatment plants. EPA reported that 40,440 Trade-Equalized pounds were reduced per day, which was
above the FY2008 commitment of 37,323 pounds per day.
South Florida. EPA and its Federal, State, and local partners were unable to maintain "no net loss" of
stony coral cover in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters off
southeast Florida in 2008. EPA met part of its 2008 commitment to maintain the overall health of sea
grass beds in the FKNMS including a statistically insignificant change in species composition. Although
EPA and its partners were unable to maintain the overall water quality of the FKNMS, increases in
nitrogen and phosphorus were mostly regional in scope.
Puget Sound Basin. In 2008, EPA and its State, local, and Tribal partners improved water quality in
the Puget Sound Basin which enabled the lifting of harvest restrictions in 1,566 acres of shellfish bed
growing areas (cumulative from FY 2006.) Over 4400 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
estuarine wetlands have been restored in the Puget Sound Basin since FY 2006. The program exceeded
its 2008 commitment by 48%.
Columbia River Basin. Working with EPA and other partners, the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership has protected, enhanced, or restored 1 2,986 acres of wetland and upland habitat in the
Lower Columbia River watershed since FY 2006. This is well above the commitment of 8,000 acres
established for 2008.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a new Strategic Plan in the Fall of 2006. In April 2007,
the National Water Program published the FY 2008 National Water Program Guidance describing how EPA,
States, Tribes, and others would work together in FY 2008 to implement the water elements of the 2006 Strategic
Plan. The Strategic Plan and the FY 2008 Guidance are available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/water/
waterplan).
This FY 2008 End-of-Year Best Practices and Performance Report describes the progress made in 2008 towards
each of fifteen National Water Program Sub-objectives described in the Guidance and the EPA Strategic Plan (see
Table 1: National Water ProgramKey Sub-objectives). The report is based primarily on materials and analysis
developed in December 2008 by Headquarters and EPA Regional staff working together on the Sub-objective
Teams. These materials provided data concerning progress toward environmental and public health goals of key
program activities along with management challenges in meeting or not meeting program commitments. Much
of this work is accomplished through grants and this Report serves as the Office of Water's primary summary of
progress under the Environmental Results Grants Order.
Table 1: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM - KEY SUB-OBJECTIVES
1. Water Safe to Drink
2. Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
3. Water Safe for Swimming
4. Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
5. Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
6. Protect Wetlands
7. Protect Mexico Border Water Quality
8. Protect the Pacific Islands Waters
9. Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
10. Protect the Great Lakes
1 1. Protect the Gulf of Mexico
1 2. Protect the Long Island Sound
1 3. Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
14. Protect the Puget Sound Basin
15. Protect the Columbia River Basin
This Report includes four key elements:
Overview of performance for all 2008 National Water Program measures;
Description of innovative approaches and best practices in program implementation;
Performance highlights and management challenges for each Sub-objective; and,
An appendix of data for environmental and program related measures, including national, and in many
cases EPA Regional data.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
It is important to note that more detailed information concerning performance under each of the outcomes and
program measures is provided in the Appendix to this Report and is available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/
water/waterplan). The chapter on Best Practices is provided as a separate web link to allow for easier access.
Program Contacts
For additional information concerning this Best Practices and End of the Year Report and supporting measures
contact:
Michael Shapiro; Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Tim Fontaine; Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
Michael Mason; Senior Program Analyst, Office of Water
Internet Access
This FY 2008 National Water Program Best Practices and End of the Year Performance Report and supporting
documents are available at (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/fy08.html).
z
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Overview of 2008 Performance Results and Recent Trends
I. FY 2008 Performance Measure Universe
Total Measures by Commitments vs. Indicators
The National Water Program tracked a total of 136 total performance measures in FY 2008 to assess progress
in protecting the public health and the environment. Eighty percent (80%) of these measures had annual targets
or commitments and 20% of the measures were indicators with no targets or commitments in 2008. The number
of measures with annual commitments increased by 14% over 2007. While indicator measures are important
for tracking changes in performance from year to year, this report will focus mostly on those measures that had
commitments for 2008.
FY 2008 National Water Program Measures
A,
Commitments
D Indicators
n = 136
FY 2006-2008 Trend National Water Program Measures
Indicators
D Annual Commitment
1 52 measures 157 measures
1 36 measures
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Total Measures by Goal
Sixty-one percent (61%) of National Water Program performance measures are in Goal 2 and 39% are in Goal
4 of the EPA's 2006 Strategic Plan. Fiscal Year 2008 was the first year of reporting under the 2006 Plan. Aside
from a handful of measures in the national wetlands program, the vast majority of the Goal 4 measures belong to
the Agency's Large Aquatic Ecosystems programs.
Percent of Total FY2008 Measures by Goal
39%
Goal 2
D Goal A
n = 136
Total Measures by Sub-objectives
Among the 1 5 sub-objectives outlined in the 2006-2009 Strategic Plan, Water Quality had the largest share of
performance measures (30%), Drinking Water was next with 1 5%, and Coastal and Ocean Protection was third
with 10%. The remaining 45% of the measures were spread among the other twelve sub-objectives.
Percent of Total FY 2008 Measures by Sub-objective
Long Island Sound,
3%
Gulf of Mexico, 6%
Chesapeake Bay, 6%
Great Lakes, 8%_
Pacific Islands, 2%
Mexico Boarder, 2%_/l
Wetlands, 5%
Coastal Oceans, 1 0%
Columbia River, 2%
Puget Sound, 2%
Drinking Water, 15%
Fish and Shellfish, 3%
Safe Swimming, 3%
Water Quality, 30%
n = 136
FY 2008 Strategic Targets vs. PAMs
The National Water Program uses two types of measures to assess progress toward the goals in the Strategic
Plan: Strategic Targets and Program Activity Measures (PAMs). Strategic Targets are organized under individual
subobjectives in the Strategic Plan and are outcome-based measures of changes in the environment or public
health with long-term targets for 201 1. Program Offices and Regions also set annual commitments for almost all of
~
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
these measures. Strategic Targets represented 44% of all 2008 performance measures. Program Activity
Measures (PAMs) are primarily output-based measures that track programmatic progress on an annual
basis. PAMs represented 56% of all measures in 2008. Strategic Targets represented a larger proportion
of the total number of measures under the 2006 Strategic Plan (44%) compared to the 2003 Plan (26%)
The increase in the proportion of Strategic Targets was due primarily to two factors: [1] an increase in the
number of subobjectives for large aquatic ecosystems in the 2006 Strategic Plan (i.e., Long Island Sound,
South Florida, the Columbia River, Puget Sound, and the Pacific Islands); and [2] a concerted effort by
EPA Headquarters and Regional managers in FY 2007 to decrease the number of output measures that
would require State reporting. As a result of this process, EPA deleted over thirty of the national program
measures used in FY 2007.
FY 2008 Strategic Targets vs. PAMs
44%
PAMs
D Strategic Targets
n = 136
FY 2006 and FY 2008 Comparison of Strategic Targets vs. PAMs
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PAMs
D Strategic Targets
n = 136
II. FY 2008 Performance Results and Recent Trends
FY 2008 Total Commitment Measures Met and Not Met
In FY 2008, 63% of measures met their commitments. Twenty-two percent (22%) were not met, and 1 5%
did not have enough data available to assess progress or no reporting was expected for 2008. FY 2008
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Overview of 2008 Performance Results
represented a slight decrease in the number of measures met (66%) and an increase in the number of measures
with data unavailable (1 1%) over FY 2007.
Percent of Total FY 2008 Commitment Measures Met and Not Met
22%
Met
Not Met
Data Not Available
2006-2008 Trend: Percent of Total Commitment Measures Met and Not Met
D Measures Met
D Measures Not Met
Data Not Available
FY 2008 Commitments Met and Not Met by Goal
EPA met 71% of the commitments under Goal 2 of the 2006 Strategic Plan in 2008. Eighteen (18%) of the
commitments were not met and 1 1% had no data available. Slightly more than half (52%) of the commitments
under Goal 4 were met, 28% were not met, and 20% did not have data to report in 2008. This was the first year
of reporting for many of the Goal 4 measures and efforts are currently underway during the development of the
2009 Strategic Plan to improve the quality and data for these measures.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Percent of FY 2008 Commitments Met and Not Met by Goal
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D Goal 2
D Goal 4
Total Measures=106
Measures Met
Measures Not Met
Data Not Available
Strategic Targets Met/Not Met
Fifty-seven (57%) percent of the strategic targets met their FY 2008 commitments. Twenty three percent (23%)
were not met, and 20% had no data available. There was a slight drop in the percentage of Strategic Targets met
in 2008 (57% compared to 67% in 2007). This was matched by a slight increase in the percentage of measures
with data not available in 2008 (20%) over 2007 (19%). National success in meeting commitments is expected
to improve over the next few years as Large Aquatic Ecosystem programs continue to refine and improve their
measures.
Percent of FY 2008 Strategic Targets Met and Not Met
Met
Not Met
Data Not Available
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Overview of 2008 Performance Results
2006-2008 Trend: Percent of Strategic Targets Met vs. Not Met
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D Strategic Targets Met
D Strategic Targets Not Met
Data Not Available
2006
2007
2008
Program Activity Measures Met and Not Met
Seventy percent (70%) of Program Activity Measures (PAMs) met their commitments in 2008. Twenty one percent
(21 %) did not meet their commitments, and 9% lacked sufficient data. Approximately one third of these measures
are indicator measures that do not have annual commitments. There has been a gradual increase in the percentage
of PAMs that have met their commitments over the past three years from 59% in 2006, 67% in 2007, and 69% in
2008. There was a slight increase in the number of measures without data in 2008 compared to 2007.
Percent of FY 2008 Program Activity Measures Met and Not Met
21%
Met
Not Met
Data Not Available
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Overview of 21
FY 2006-2008 Trend: Percent of Program Activity Measures Met vs. Not Met
Met
Not Met
Data Not Available
FY 2008 Commitment Measures Met and Not Met by Sub-Objective
The Oceans and Coastal Protection, Drinking Water, Safe Swimming, and the Great Lakes subobjectives were most
successful in meeting their 2008 commitments. The South Florida, Wetlands, and Chesapeake Bay Programs had
the most difficulty in meeting their commitments in 2008.
Percent of FY 2008 Commitment Measures Met and Not Met by Sub-Objective
D Met
D Not Met
I Data Not Available
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Overview of 2008 Performance Results
FY 2008 Commitment Measures Met/Not Met by EPA Regions
EPA, States, and the regulated community located in ten geographic regions are responsible for implementing the
programs and complying with the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. On average, 82% of performance
commitments set by the EPA Regional Offices for activities in their geographic areas were met in 2008 while 1 2%
of commitments were missed. This was a slight improvement over the FY 2007 results of 80% met and 14% not met.
Region 4 and Region 6 met the highest percentage of their commitments (93%) in 2008.
Percent of FY 2008 Commitment Measures Met and Not Met by EPA Region
100%
10%
0%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
s
s
s
s
s
s
Met
Not Met
I Data Not Available
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
FY 2008 Best Practices and
End of the Year Performance Report
April 2009
Office of Water
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
Introduction
Achieving continuous improvement in programmatic activities and environmental outcomes requires a process of
planning, implementation, measurement, and analysis. This section highlights a number of best practices that have
resulted in success in drinking water, surface water quality, coastal and wetlands programs. A best practice is
defined as a process or methodology that consistently produces superior or innovative results. To propagate their
impact widely and encourage their adoption, it is important to identify and analyze these approaches.
The eleven best practices highlighted in this section were selected from proposals submitted by the Office of Water
headquarters offices and water divisions in EPAs Regional Offices. The proposals were assessed according to the
following criteria:
Success within the program: How has the activity resulted in improvements? Are the activity results
clear, and does it have a direct or catalytic impact on program success?
Innovation: How does the activity differ from existing approaches?
Replicability: Can the activity be adopted by other Regions/Offices/States? Does it have the potential
for expansion?
Direct relation to the Administrator's priorities
The selected best practices do not represent a comprehensive list of the innovative activities that are being
implemented. Rather the selection is intended to provide examples of different types of activities taking place in
different regions addressing different sub-objectives. In selecting these best practices, special emphasis was placed
on identifying activities or approaches that have resulted in measurable successful outcomes. These best practices
are in addition to a number of activities identified in the FY2008 End of Year Report.
The vision for this Best Practices Report is to promote the wide spread use of these successful activities and scale
up the benefits of their implementation by sharing information on them among the program and Regional offices.
Further activities will be identified and analyzed on a biannual basis. Furthermore, activities that have been
selected will continue to be monitored to study their long-term effectiveness. This is part of a continuous learning
process that is anticipated to yield even more innovation and successful outcomes.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
1
FY2008 Best Practices
EPA Asset Management Checkup Program for Small Drinking Water and
Wastewater Systems
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
Highlights:
What: The Asset Management Checkup Program for Small Systems (CUPSS) is a user-friendly desktop computer
software designed to help small drinking water and wastewater systems develop and implement an asset
management program.
Who: The program was developed by the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water in 2008 and is being
implemented by EPA Region 7 in a number of States.
Why: CUPSS was developed in response to the need from small water and wastewater systems, communities,
and technical assistance providers/trainers requesting to consolidate and package existing asset
management materials in an easy-to-use electronic medium.
Brief Description:
The Checkup Program for Small Systems (CUPSS) is a comprehensive computer software application that introduces the
beginning steps to develop and implement an asset management program, budget tracking, and operation and maintenance
scheduling. The program leads users through a series of modules to collect information on their drinking water and/or
wastewater utility's assets, operation and maintenance activities, and financial status to produce a prioritized asset inventory,
a set of financial reports, and an asset management plan. EPA and partnering organizations have developed a number of
documents to help potential users understand the benefit of starting asset management using the CUPSS application. For more
information, please refer to the website, http://www.epa.gov/cupss and select "Resources".
EPA Region 7's Drinking Water Management Branch is implementing CUPSS through a series of direct assistance visits
and training sessions with small State and Tribal drinking water and wastewater systems. Many small drinking water and
wastewater systems in Region 7 are having difficulty meeting old and new regulatory requirements because their systems are
deteriorating. To achieve the goal of sustainable infrastructure practices for small systems, the Region applies a two-prong
approach. First, Region 7 developed knowledge of asset management by partnering with at least one system to gain hands
on experience on the use of CUPSS. Second, Region 7 provided train-the-trainer workshops for its partners at the States
and technical assistance providers so that they would go out and provide one-on-one support to small systems to implement
CUPSS. The follow-up assistance by the State and technical assistance providers is accomplished through existing programs
rather than developing new agreements.
Current Status:
Region 7 has completed both parts of its practices, which include conducting train-the-trainer session in all Region 7 States for
drinking water staff, wastewater staff, and technical assistance providers. The next step is to complete one-on-one training
for Tribal water systems.
Outcomes:
Small systems will better manage their systems towards financial and technical sustainability resulting in cleaner water and
improved protection of public health. An example of the usefulness of CUPSSone drinking water system's decision makers
expressed their willingness to support increases in rates because of the information provided by CUPSS. The Region anticipates
that greater use of CUPSS will lead to better asset management by small systems and, ultimately, improved compliance.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
By using real data from a small system, Region 7 established credibility with its partners and provided real examples of the
benefits of asset management. The traditional approach of providing information at conferences and workshops to a large
group of people introduces the concept but does not get the CUPSS program working at the local level. One-on-one work,
directly with the operators, is needed through State and technical assistance providers.
Contact Information:
Robert Dunlevy (913)551 -7798
http://www.epa.gov/cupss
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
2
Energy Benchmarking Tool for Wastewater Treatment Plants
Subobjective: Restore and Improve Water Quality
Highlights:
What: A free online energy tool that helps municipal wastewater operators identify opportunities to save money
and reduce emissions.
Who: EPA Region 1 working with ENERGY STAR staff at EPA headquarters
Why: Wastewater treatment plants are often the largest single energy user in a municipality. Conventional
energy production is associated with significant carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions.
Brief Description:
EPA New England, partnering with local water and wastewater industry associations, such as the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE), offers free classroom training sessions or on-site visits to show plant operators how to input data from their
electric, oil, and gas bills along with basic information about their plants into the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, a free
online energy management software tool which provides instant feedback on how well they are managing their energy use.
Current Status:
Six classroom trainings and several on-site visits have been completed with additional trainings planned. Major architectural
and engineering firms are starting to offer benchmarking as a free value-added service to their clients in this sector. Plants
around the region are in various stages of implementing energy efficiency and/or renewable energy measures and EPA is
helping them quantify improvements using this tool.
Outcomes:
Plant operators and municipal officials have an increased
understanding of their plants' overall energy efficiency and
energy costs. So far, more than 50 plants in the region (10% of
all plants in New England) have been benchmarked and several
have used the data as a starting point to pursue energy efficiency
projects. Currently, EPA's Regions 9 and 10 are already holding
similar trainings and conducting outreach.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Plant operators benefit most from the personal approach of plant
visits and small training groups. Trainings should be hands-on
and result in the operators leaving with a benchmarked facility.
Visual Diagram
This chart shows the variability in energy use and costs for several
similar sized facilities in New England. The 8.0 MGD plant uses
only 1 /3 of the energy to treat a gallon of water as the 5.2
MGD plant. Note that energy prices vary in different states,
so a plant that uses more energy per flow can still spend less on
energy, as in the two 6.5 MGD plants.
Energy Use and Cost per Flow vs. Fa
Contact Information:
Jason Turgeon (617)918-1637 turgeon.jason@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/energy/ew-infrastructure.html
http://www.energystar.gov/benchmark
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
3
Fostering Green Infrastructure Implementation
Subobjective: Restore and Improve Water Quality
Highlights:
What Region 5 is implementing focused efforts to foster green infrastructure implementation and related
sustainable practices.
Who: EPA Region 5
Why: Green infrastructure solutions can help reduce the costs of meeting stormwater and CSO control objectives,
and can provide other important benefits, including climate change-related benefits and socio-economic
benefits for communities.
Brief Description:
Green infrastructure approaches provide numerous substantive benefits, but these approaches are not yet in widespread use.
In 2008, EPA Region 5 conducted an assessment to identify factors discouraging or restraining green solutions and found that
many practicing stormwater engineers are uncertain about these practices and more data is needed on performance, including
data on green Best Management Practices. EPA Region 5 is tackling these barriers to green infrastructure implementation
head-on. In particular, Region 5 is:
Working with universities (University of Illinois and the University of Minnesota) and other stakeholders to develop
training for practicing engineers and engineering students on green infrastructure/low impact development (LID)
stormwater practices.
Funding work by communities and nonprofit organizations for research, demonstration projects, and quantification
efforts related to the performance and/or benefits of green practices. Region 5 is also planning work with State
and local transportation officials on integration of green infrastructure approaches into street and highway
systems.
Working with external partners (USAGE, NRCS, Purdue, and Center for Neighborhood Technology) on tools to
estimate the stormwater volumes and pollutant loads associated with various development patterns, with and
without green infrastructure/LID practices. This will help planners and developers better understand the effects of
impervious surfaces and the benefits of green infrastructure.
Implementing an Excellence in Conservation and Native Landscaping awards program in partnership with
Chicago Wilderness, a coalition of over 200 Chicago-area organizations. Through the awards program the
EPA and Chicago Wilderness seek to recognize exceptional sites, raise awareness about native landscaping,
conservation, habitat, and ecosystems, and encourage others to become excited about implementing like projects.
Current Status:
Reports on work funded through grants have been received and data is being shared. New work in Milwaukee may be
undertaken in 2009. Purdue University is working to add a module that can be used to evaluate and quantify the effects
and benefits of green infrastructure measures. EPA Region 3 is working with EPA Headquarters and Region 5 to try to update
university program accreditation criteria to include green infrastructure content.
Outcomes:
As engineers and other practitioners become more confident and have less uncertainty about the performance and benefits
of green infrastructure practices, the implementation of these practices will accelerate.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
EPA Region 5 recommends that other Regions and States take steps to address implementation barriers to green infrastructure
in their jurisdictions. Pilot or demonstration projects can be undertaken, monitoring can be conducted, and data can be
circulated. Example curricula from University of Illinois and University of Minnesota can be shared.
Contact Information:
Peter Swenson Chief, NPDES Programs Branch (312) 886-0236
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
A Stormwater Fees Support Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC)
Program
Subobjective: Restore and Improve Water Quality
Highlights:
What:
The PIC Program, led by the Kitsap County Health District in Washington State, uses dedicated fee-based
funding that assist in addressing the causes of bacterial water pollution.
Who: Kitsap County Surface and Stormwater Management (SSWM) partner agencies.
Why: The goals are to (1) protect public health, (2) protect shellfish resources, and (3) preserve, protect, and
restore surface water quality.
Brief Description:
The PIC Program combines science, strong public outreach, established protocols, and a clear plan of action with a long-range
vision for the future of the county. A Manual of Protocol details all aspects of the program and is approved by the State
departments of Health and Ecology. Proposed project areas are prioritized based on established factors (water quality
problems, 50%; potential for public exposure, 30%; OSS failure history, 20%). Recommendations for specific actions are
made for each project area selected. Fee revenue collected from owners of developed lands by the Kitsap County Surface
and Stormwater Management District is shared among the Kitsap County Departments of Public Works and Community
Development, County Health District, and the Kitsap Conservation District.
Current Status:
Projects are being conducted throughout Kitsap County including
large scale projects along the Upper Hood Canal shoreline, Jump off
Joe Creek, Dyes Inlet, Enetai Creek, and Sinclair Inlet. Additionally,
a grant application has been submitted to Washington State's
Department of Ecology to fund a 2009 PIC project in Liberty Bay.
Outcomes:
Based on the robust nature of the PIC program and its success to
date, Washington's Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA removed
several Kitsap County streams from the 303(d) list of contaminated
waters by declaring the "other pollution controls" instituted by the
PIC program equivalent to development of a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). A particularly successful project in the Yukon Harbor
drainage improved water quality sufficiently to upgrade 935 acres
of commercial shellfish growing area from prohibited to open status.
This was achieved through water quality sampling, inspection of 335
septic systems, and resolving problems. The Conservation District
conducted extensive outreach, cost-share funding and technical
support to establish better land-management practices to protect
water quality. This practice could be widely replicable as the
involved partners exist in many areas, and the Manual of Protocol
and fee structure could be implemented elsewhere.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The partnership of cooperating agencies implementing the PIC
has resulted in increased understanding and cooperation where
previously there had been little communication. Monitoring is also a
critical component to targeting activities in an effective manner.
Kitsap County Health District
2008 PIC Program Project Areas
Contact Information:
Leslie Banigan (360) 337-5627
http://www.kitsa pcounty hea lth.com/envi ronmenta_hea lth/water_q ua lity/pic.htm
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
5
Potomac River Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership and Strategy
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
Highlights:
What: To address drinking water quality concerns arising in source water areas, water utilities and governmental
counterparts have joined together to create the Potomac River Basin Drinking Water Source Protection
Partnership .
Who: The Potomac Partnership is a voluntary association of 19 members, including water supply and government
agency stakeholders in the Potomac basin.
Why: Since source water protection is not mandatory this coalition of water utilities and regulatory agencies
enables a comprehensive approach to protecting water supply sources in the basin.
Brief Description:
Water utilities and other agencies responsible for the water supply for about four million residents in the Potomac River
watershed have partnered as the Potomac River Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership to cooperatively assess current
and potential issues that may affect the quality of drinking water sources. The Potomac Partnership has identified several
issues of importance and has formed workgroups focused on pathogens, emerging contaminants, disinfectant byproduct
precursors, urban issues, agricultural issues, and development of an early warning and emergency response system. The
Partnership consists of a Government Partners Committee and Utility Source Water Protection Committee. The full membership
of the Partnership meets quarterly; Government and Utility Committees and work group activities carry on throughout the
year. The Partnership includes agency representatives from States (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and the
District of Columbia), the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), and Federal agencies. The Utility Source
Water Protection Committee includes water suppliers from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area and upstream. The
Partnership's actions or positions are based on consensus of its members.
Current Status:
Through workgroups and active discussion at meetings, the Partnership is implementing a strategy addressing recommendations
in source water assessments that were prepared throughout the Potomac Basin. The strategy was created in 2005 (and
continues to be implemented) through work groups and active discussion at Partnership meetings. Its purpose is to help the
Partnership reach its goals of protecting the Potomac River as source of drinking water for millions of people The strategy
prioritizes and addresses the impacts on regional water supplies and helps to provide the workgroups with a clear vision and
objectives, activities, and milestones to meet short term and long term goals. For a copy of the strategy, go to: http://www.
potomacdwspp.org/aboutdocs/FinalPartnershipStrategy.pdf.
Outcomes:
Partnership activities help to ensure that people's most basic need for clean, safe and abundant water is reliably met.
Collaborative monitoring programs have explored the occurrence of several unregulated contaminants, providing the region
with reliable information about contaminant occurrence and persistence as well as increased understanding of the water
quality of a major source of drinking water. Additionally, training and tabletop exercises have helped enhance the region's
ability to protect public health by providing clean and safe drinking water during emergency situations. Partnership exercises
have improved emergency response coordination and communication between Potomac River water utilities, local responders,
Federal and State agencies, and private industry.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
With 19 signatory members and more participants, it has been valuable
to have a coordinating agency (ICPRB) to manage organizational and administrative tasks.
Agreement on common priority concerns has helped to maintain
Partnership's focus.
Annual rotation of overall leadership of the Partnership between
the Government and Utility Committees encourages new perspectives,
energy, and collaboration each year.
Contact Information:
Ellen Schmitt 215-814-5787 http://www.potomacdwspp.org
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
6
Watershed Restoration Criteria Checklist
Subobjective: Restore and Protect Water Quality
Highlights:
What: The Watershed Restoration Criteria Checklist is an EPA tool for targeting Agency involvement in local
watersheds and planning and tracking progress toward watershed restoration.
Who: Staff in the Watershed Management Office of EPA Region 4.
Why: Given limited resources, EPA recognized the need for applying a systematic and deliberate approach
to identifying priority watersheds and tracking activities and results in a way that provides for easy
communication of progress to management as well as aids in continuity planning.
Brief Description:
The Watershed Restoration Criteria Checklist includes four phases:
1. "Assessment" available information is reviewed to decide whether or not EPA involvement in the watershed
will yield strategic objectives;
2. "Build and Prepare" assessment gaps are addressed and a watershed plan is developed;
3. "Implementation" EPA programs with roles in implementation as identified by the plan will carry out their
parts based on established rules and timelines; and,
4. "Maintenance" when implementation has yielded adequate results for EPA to have met a substantial part
of its stated objectives.
The selection of watersheds begins with an analysis of clusters of water quality impaired segments. The goal is to identify
places that may be candidates for meeting key Agency performance commitments related to watershed restoration (SP-1 0,
SP-11, and SP-12). There are three major determinants in the decision: (1) Are there good candidate places for restoration
and protection? (2) Is there an on-the-ground local entity willing and ready to partner with EPA, and (3) Does the State Water
Quality Agency feel that this is a place where EPA involvement would add value to their management process.
Certain other factors can also contribute to the decision,such as boundary waters, previous grant investments, large enforcement
actions. All phases include elements dealing with building the capacity of local stakeholders to restore and maintain water
quality. Where grants have been awarded or specific programs have played a major role, partnerships are developed that
include EPA in the local process.
Current Status:
The process is being used by EPA Watershed Coordinators in all eight Region 4 States. The criteria checklist is in the process
of being revised based on lessons learned from the last three years.
Outcomes:
Priority watersheds have been steadily prog ressing through the Criteria Checklist phases. Over a dozen 12-digit HUC watersheds
have met the criteria for EPA involvement and having sustainable watershed stakeholders committed to maintenance.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The general lesson is that, although the phased criteria checklist is thorough and comprehensive, management of the process
requires a great deal of flexibility to account for variability of circumstances in each locality. Not all actions require EPA
involvement nor will all programs be engaged in all locations. Finally, tracking progress would be facilitated through a web-
enabled electronic database once one is developed. The criteria checklist process is applicable in all EPA Regions regardless
of organizational configuration, but it does require the presence of dedicated watershed coordinators to engage in the
process.
Contact Information:
Marjan Peltier 404-562-9420
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
7
Process for Developing Ecoregion-based Dissolved
Oxygen Criteria for Southern Louisiana
Subobjective: Restore and Protect Water Quality
Highlights:
What: The State of Louisiana recently developed ecoregion- based dissolved oxygen criteria for portions of two
ecoregions following an intensive planning effort with EPA Region 6.
Who: Methodology and criteria were developed by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ),
in coordination with USEPA Region 6.
Why: The new criteria addresses long-standing impairment issues triggered by deltaic waterbodies naturally low
in dissolved oxygen, and compounded by disparity in Agency approaches to criteria development.
Brief Description:
The key element of this project is the performance and documentation of up-front planning and coordination between State and
Federal Agencies. Prior to development of the criteria itself, EPA Region 6 and LDEQ staff constructed a mutually agreeable
protocol for development of ecoregion-based dissolved oxygen criteria. The protocol and a timeline for developing criteria
for each ecoregion in the State was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the two agencies in
January of 2008. The recently developed criteria are the first project to be implemented under the MOA. It is also noteworthy
that LDEQ worked cooperatively with other State agencies to include monitoring data and other information to support the
criteria-development effort. The compilation of these diverse datasets provided a comprehensive picture of the attainable
aquatic life use for the ecoregion and provided a strong foundation for criteria development.
Current Status:
Louisiana adopted the criteria and accepted public comments in 2008. The State is currently reviewing the comments received
and is expected to submit the criteria to EPA for review and approval in early 2009. The State has already begun monitoring
and data collection activities for the next ecoregion project.
Outcomes:
Aspects that may make this approach useful in other situations include the up-front planning and coordination between the
agencies, and the flexibility built into the protocol and MOA. By adopting the protocol and MOA into the State's Water
Quality Management Plan, the process of planning and coordination between EPA Region 6 and LDEQ is streamlined for
future revisions to the State's dissolved oxygen criteria. Up-front coordination enables the agencies to identify potential
obstacles or conflicts related to the revisions, identify conflicting agency priorities, develop a toolbox of potential solutions
and contingencies, and develop an understanding of the working culture of each agency. Building flexibility into the planning
documents enables, and possibly encourages, each agency to strive toward better approaches, and removes roadblocks
caused by disagreements over methodology.
The ecoregion approach will result in more appropriate dissolved oxygen criteria than the statewide criteria currently
applied. This will result in a reduction in the number of unnecessary restoration measures such as TMDLs, and subsequent
resource savings to the program.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Working together to develop the protocol enabled the agencies to work more closely than the routine standards coordination
generally require. The process for approving proposed water quality standards is highly structured and does not require
close coordination and communication between the State and EPA. The process of joint planning enhances the quality of the
supporting documentation and streamlines the approval process. To ensure accountability, the MOA was signed by high-level
managers of both agencies.
Contact Information:
Tina Hendon hendon.tina@epa.gov
(214)665-6619.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
8
Incentive-Based Nitrogen Trading Program to Improve Water Quality
Subobjective: Restore and Protect Water Quality
Highlights:
What: An innovative statewide incentive-based nutrient trading program allowing sewage treatment plants
(STPs) within the estuary watershed to participate in an economic program for funding advanced nutrient
removal strategies to collectively reduce the nitrogen load to the waters of Long Island Sound (LIS).
Who: The State of Connecticut (CT) and the State of New York (NY). The program is administered by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) and overseen by an independent Nitrogen
Credit Advisory Board (NCAB) in which all of the State's municipalities with publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) participate.
Why: To improve dissolved oxygen in the bottom waters of Long Island Sound exacerbated by nutrient
enrichment from POTW discharges by giving economic incentives to municipalities for viable and
alternative strategies to meet their individual Waste Load Allocation (WLA) goals while implementing a
statewide collective nitrogen reduction goal.
Brief Description:
The State of Connecticut and the State of New York developed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis to achieve
water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in Long Island Sound. The TMDL was approved by EPA in 2001. To implement
the TMDL, the State of Connecticut adopted legislation creating a statewide Nitrogen General Permit (NGP) and Nitrogen
Credit Exchange (NCE) program. The NGP includes reporting requirements by the municipalities themselves which is then
reported to the Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board (NCAB) in order to establish the price of credits for each year. The NCAB
authorizes the collection of payments from POTWs that need to buy credits and the payout of credits to POTWs that reduced
nitrogen below their wasteload allocations (WLA).
Current Status:
During 2002-2007, the total value of credits bought and sold exceeded $39 million, representing nearly 14 million nitrogen
credits exchanged. In 2007, EPA awarded Connecticut with the first EPA "Blue Ribbon for Water Quality Trading," recognizing
its NCE program and the NGP.
Outcomes:
Potential savings with nitrogen trading are estimated between $200 to $400 million. The program has successfully provided
an alternative compliance mechanism for POTWs to meet the nitrogen WLA for the LIS TMDL. By 2008, thirty-nine "Project
Facilities" with fully-operational nitrogen removal systemspartially funded with money raised from the NCE Programhad
reduced from baseline levels, the cumulative equalized load of nitrogen entering Long Island Sound from CT POTWs by
11,080 pounds per day.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
While significant annual variability can be expected, a downward trend in the amount of nitrogen discharged to LIS is expected
to continue. Nitrogen credit trading programs can be implemented by other States bordering large aquatic ecosystems. New
approaches could include regional or multi-state trading programs. They could also incorporate nonpoint and storm water
sources into credit exchange programs as the technology or models to measure actual reduction of nutrients and empirical
identification of attenuation factors improve.
Contact Information:
Mark Tedesco EPA Long Island Sound Office 203-977-1541
tedesco.mark@epa.gov
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
9
Increasing the Pace of a State DWSRF Program
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
Highlights:
What: EPA Region 6 conducted a Strategic Management Review of the New Mexico Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan program and developed over 50 suggestions that resulted in a significant increase in the
number of loans to local governments for drinking water enhancements.
Who: EPA Region 6 (funded by EPA Headquarters via contract)
Why: The New Mexico (NM) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program had the slowest "Pace" in
the nation. (Pace is assistance (e.g., loans) provided as a percentage of funds available.)
Brief Description:
In addition to vigorous program monitoring (monthly Loan and Marketing Activity Reports, weekly and quarterly communication,
and following through on potential loan applicants), EPA Region 6 contracted with an independent firm to conduct a Strategic
Management Review of the New Mexico DWSRF program. The purpose of the Review was to examine State program policies
and operations, identify areas for improvement, and outline recommended program changes with the potential to increase
fund utilization. The Review concluded that the primary reason for the State's fund underutilization was competition from other
water infrastructure financing programs. It also identified opportunities to streamline program operations to make the DWSRF
program more appealing to borrowers and provided ideas for enhancing marketing/outreach, [web link to Review] Based
on recommendations from the study, the NM DWSRF program partnered with five State and two Federal agencies to pilot a
Uniform Funding Application in 2008. The web-based application involves a "pre-screening" of the application to determine
if urgent conditions exist, the nature of the project, the amount of money required, the ability of the applicant to complete
the project, compliance with laws and regulations, where the project is in the process, and potential sources of funding. The
new application process has reduced application processing time for agencies, the number of applications an applicant has
to complete, and the overlap in communication while searching for funding. The New Mexico Uniform Funding Application can
be found at: http://ufa.nmenv.state.nm.us/APPLICATION_open.php.
Current Status:
Of the fifty-three suggestions for program enhancement in the Review, at least twenty-five have been implemented thus far.
The most significant ones involve development and implementation of a Uniform Funding Application, a marketing initiative,
and initiation of an on-line application process.
Outcomes:
NM went from ranking last place in the nation with a Pace of 57.7% in SFY 2007 to 35th place (out of 51 DWSRF programs)
in SFY 2008 with a Pace of 83.5%.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
A grantee sometimes needs an independent or third party review in order
to identify areas for better collaboration, streamlining, marketing, etc.
An independent reviewer may identify concepts that staff had been proposing that might not have been
considered by management.
Consistent and fair oversight keeps grantees accountable and on track.
Contact Information:
Maurice Rawls 214-665-8049 and
Javier Ball! 214-665-7261
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
10
Chesapeake Bay Program Performance Dashboards
Subobjective: Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
Highlights:
What: EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Offices (CBPO) performance dashboards are high-level summaries
exhibited on EPA's public website of key information, including clear status of progress toward goals,
realistic annual targets, and summaries of actions and funding.
Who: EPA CBPO developed these dashboards on behalf of the CBP partnership.
Why: The dashboards were developed in response to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommendation to develop a means to demonstrate how resources are effectively targeted to achieve
program goals and outcomes.
Brief Description:
The CBPO dashboards are one of three primary management resources that the Chesapeake Bay Program has developed
in response to the GAO recommendation to "establish a means to better target [the program's] limited resources to ensure
that the most effective and realistic work plans are developed and implemented." (The other two management resources
are the realistic annual targets and the Activity Integration Plan System.) The dashboards are publically available on
EPA's CBPO web site. They allow CBP partners to review a succinct summary of: (1) measures of progress towards both
the performance on Bay restoration indicators and on the program's realistic annual targets; (2) the total resources CBP
participating partners have dedicated to a topic area over several years; (3) the resources dedicated to specific activities
within topic areas; and, (4) analyses of the strategies that need to be done to improve implementation. The CBPO
dashboards are an innovative reporting tool that allows program stakeholders the means to monitor in one location
progress the Agency and its partners are making in meeting its goals and targeting its resources effectively. To access
dashboard, go to http://cap.chesapeakebay.net/dashboards.htm.
Current Status:
The CBP partners propose to update the dashboards on a regular basis, according to the need for updates and the availability
of new data. To date, a select number of dashboards have been developed for certain topic areas.
Outcomes:
Early outcomes include an increased understanding of the collective resources and activities targeted to restoring the Bay,
and better accountability among the partners. The dashboard approach is replicable across the country, and the CBPO has
been sharing the approach and other tools with other large watershed partnerships (e.g., Puget Sound, Long Island Sound,
other large aquatic ecosystems).
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Future versions of the management dashboards will be tailored to better meet partner needs for information and to facilitate
the flow of information through the partnership. New dashboards are being developed that present cascading information
showing more detail about activities, and where in the watershed they are occurring. The intention is to better target activities,
force greater accountability for partner actions, and improve the ability to quantify the "gap" between current progress and
2010 and future goals for a restored Bay.
Contact Information:
Julie Winters (410-267-5754) and
Doreen Vetter (41 0-267-5780).
http://cap.chesapeakebay.net/dashboards.htm
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
FY2008 Best Practices
11
National Estuary Program Evaluation Tool
Subobjective: Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
Highlights:
What: The National Estuary Program (NEP) Program developed Program Evaluation (PE) Guidance for assessing
the implementation and performance of each of the 28 NEPs.
Who: The EPA Headquarters Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds released the Evaluation Guidance in
September 2007. The NEP PE Guidance was developed in collaboration with EPA Regions, NEP
Directors, and internal and external experts, including participation from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Why: The NEP PE Guidance was created to improve EPA's ability to assess, objectively and transparently, the
programmatic and environmental achievements of each of the 28 estuaries, and the overall
effectiveness of the NEP.
Brief Description:
The NEP PE Guidance includes program evaluation methodology features that improve objectivity, consistency, and
transparency. These features include: 1) a logic model that incorporates the pressure-state-response framework; 2) pre-
selected performance measures and a 4-tiered rubric for programmatic activities (Minimally Performing, Fully Performing,
Good and Excellent); 3) narrative summary of NEP workplan goals discussed in the context of the logic model; 4) articulated
rating thresholds (Pass, Conditional Pass, and Fail; and, 5) an on-site visit.
Current Status:
Each NEP is subject to an evaluation process every three years. In 2008, EPA completed nine NEP evaluations. Ten NEPs will
be evaluated in 2009 with nine more in 2010.
Outcomes:
The most important outcomes from the NEP PE Guidance are: (1) the standardized performance measures with a 4-tiered
rubric and articulated rating thresholds create transparency and consistency regarding programmatic expectations of the
NEPs; (2) the evaluation methodology reduces the burden on NEPs by using standardized performance measures and existing
NEP workplan goals and outcomes; (3) the logic model links NEP workplan outputs and outcomes to either reductions in
pressures on the estuaries or changes in the state of the environment; (4) the on-site visit ensures face-to-face collaboration
and partnership-building between EPA and the NEP staff; and, (5) the systematic design of the evaluation methodology
enhances EPA's ability to report program outputs and outcomes in a meaningful and consistent way.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The PE process has proven to be a very powerful tool to demonstrate results. The PE process has driven adaptive management
strategies. For example, identified challenges have created positive changes in the NEPs and allowed EPA Headquarters
Office and the NEPs to set priorities on budget and resources. Also, the PE process has proven to be a credible form of
evaluation for providing results and the methodology can be replicated and is transferable to other programs.
Contact Information:
Noemi Mercado 202-566-1251 mercado.noemi@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
.nd of Year Performance by Subobjective
End of Year Performance by Subobjective
This section provides a summary of the progress toward accomplishment of environmental and program goals
described in the National Water Program Guidance for FY 2008. Each Sub-objective section includes all of the
following key information::
A brief summary of overall performance in 2008 and the previous three years for measures under
each Sub-objective;
A description of performance highlights for each commitment measure, including what commitments
were met and what factors contributed to success; and
A description of management challenges identifying key factors that lead to measures not being met
and next steps to improve performance for the future.
Each Sub-objective section focuses primarily on measures with 2008 commitments. Indicator measures are discussed
where trends significantly differ from previous year's results. ACS measure codes are provided in parenthesis with
codes in bold represented by charts in the report.
For the measure summary tables in each Subobjective chapter, an "up" arrow means that a measure met its 2008
commitment and a "down" arrow indicates that the annual commitment was not met. The letter "I" means that
the measure is an indicator measure and did not have an annual commitment for 2008. The appendix number
represents the number of the slide in Appendix B (A-00) of the Report.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drin.
Sub-objective: Water Safe to Drink
FY 2008 Drinking Water Measures Universe
24%
Commitments
D Indicators
n = 21
FY 2008 Drinking Water Commitment Measures Results
25%
Total Met
D Total Not Met
n = 16
Seventy-six percent (76%) of all drinking water measures had numeric commitments in 2008. Seventy-five percent
(75%) of all drinking water measures met their commitments in 2008. Twenty-five percent of measures did not meet
their commitments.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
FY08
ACS Code
Measure ("Key Words'
Met/Not Met
(I = Indicator)
Appendix Page
Number (A-0)/
Report Page Number
(pg.o)
2.1.1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4a
SP-4b
SP-5
SOW- la
SDW-lb
SDW-2
SDW-3
SDW-4
SDW-5
SDW-6
SDW-7a
SDW-7b
SDW-7c
SOW- 8
SDW-9
SDW-lOa
SOW- 1 Ob
Population served by CWSs
meeting safe standards
CWSs meeting safe standards
"Person months" with CWSs meeting safe standards
Population Indian country served
by CWSs meeting safe standards
CWSs & source water protection
Population & source water protection
Tribal households with safe drinking water
CWSs with sanitary survey
Tribal CWSs with sanitary survey
Data for violations in SDWIS-FED
Lead/Copper Rule data in SDWIS-FED
DWSRF fund utilization rate
DWSRF projects initiated
Class V Motor Vehicle Waste wells
Class 1 wells with mechanical integrity
Class II wells with mechanical integrity
Class III wells with mechanical integrity
High Priority Class V wells closed or permitted
CWSs intakes for drinking water uses
Drinking water impairments with TMDL
Drinking water impairments restored
A
T
T
T
1
1
T
1
1
1
A-2, R-31
A-3
A-4
A-5, R-36-37
A-6, R-32
A-6
A-7, R-37
A-8, R-35-36
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-l l,R-33
A-12
A-13,R-34
A-14,R-34
A- 15, R-34
A- 16, R-34
A- 17
A- 18
A-19
A-19
EPA exhibited a significant increase in the percentage of commitments met from 2006 to 2007 under the Water
Safe to Drink subobjective but had a slight decrease in 2008. Data was available for all measures for the past
two years.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drmh
3 Year Trend Results Water Safe to Drink
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% Met
% Not Met
Data Not Available
2006
2007
2008
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
Compliance with Drinking Water Standards. The overall objective of the drinking water program is to protect
public health by ensuring that public water systems deliver safe drinking water to their customers. EPA, the States,
and community water systems (CWSs)1 work together to increase the percentage of the population served by
CWSs that meet all health-based standards. EPA met its 2008 commitment (90%) by providing 92% of the
population that was served by community water systems with drinking water that met all applicable health-based
drinking water standards (Sub-objective 2.1.1). Nine out of ten EPA Regional Offices met their 2008 commitments.
Five Regional Offices (1,4, 8, 9, and 10) met their annual commitments for four years in a row. Although Regions use
the national target of the population served by community water systems receiving safe drinking water as a point
of reference, Regional commitments to this outcome goal may vary based on differing conditions in each Region.
Sub-objective 2.1.1 Percent Population with Drinking Water Meeting Standards by Fiscal Year
100%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
'A CWS is a public water system that provides water to the same population year-round.
As of December 2006, there were 52,056 CWSs.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Sub-objective 2.1.1 Percent Population with Drinking Water Meeting Standards by EPA Region
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Source Water Protection: Community water systems were able to minimize the risk2 to public health for 32% of
the Nation's source water areas (both surface and ground water) (SP-4a). This was an increase over the FY 08
commitment of 27%. Nine out of 1 0 Regions met their commitment in 2008. EPA met its commitment for this measure
for the third year in a row.
SP 4a Percent CWS Where Risk Minimized Through Source Water Protection by Fiscal Year
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
' "Minimized risk" is achieved by the substantial implementation as determined
by the state of source water protection actions in a source water protection strategy.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drin.
P 4a Percent Source Water Areas with Minimized Risk by Region
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg
Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 1 0
Water System Financing. Financing is a key component of the national drinking water program. The Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides low interest loans to communities for building and upgrading drinking
water facilities. The SRF fund utilization ratedollar amount of loan agreements per funds available for projects
is a valuable way to measure States' effectiveness in obligating grant funds for drinking water projects (SDW-4).
EPA met its FY 08 goal by establishing loan agreements for 90% of the cumulative amount of funds available
(commitment of 85%). EPA has met its commitments for this measure for four years in a row. Nine out of ten Regions
met their commitments in FY 08 with a range of 82% to 102% of funds obligated. Over 4,082 SRF projects have
initiated operations to date which is up from 3,526 in 2007 and 3,063 in 2006 (SDW-5).
SDW-4 DWSRF Fund Utilization Rate by Year
Commitment
End-of-Year
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
SDW-4 DWSRF Fund Utilization Rate by Region
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3
I 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Underground Injection Control. EPA works with States to monitor the injection of fluids, both hazardous and non-
hazardous, to prevent contamination of underground sources of drinking water. EPA met its FY 08 commitments by
maintaining the mechanical integrity of 99%, 98%, and 99% of its Class I, II, and III wells respectively, thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water. (SDW-7a,b,c). EPA and States closed
or permitted 88% of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells, which was well over the program commitment of
73% (SDW-6). Eight out of ten Regions met their 2008 commitments for this measure.
SDW-6 Percent Class V Wells Closed or Permitted by Year
1 00%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drin.
SDW-6 Percent of Class V Wells Closed or Permitted by Region
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6
9 Reg 1 0
The percent of high priority Class V wells identified in ground water-based community water system source water
areas that were closed or permitted increased from 76% in 2007 to 84% in 2008 (SDW-8). This result was just
short of the 2008 commitment of 86%. This measure does not report all of the high priority wells that are being
closed or permitted because some States do not distinguish between high priority wells in ground water-based
community water system source water areas and other areas. In FY 2009, this measure has been changed to track
high priority Class V well activity in sensitive groundwater areas, as defined by States and Regions, and the data
gathered are expected to be more complete. Despite the complexity of the measure, it is important to note that
the data indicate that wells are being addressed at a faster rate than they are being identified.
FY 2008 Management Challenges
According to EPA regulations3, community water systems are required to undergo a sanitary survey within three
years of their last survey (five years for outstanding performers). Sanitary surveys are on-site reviews of the water
sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of public water systems. EPA estimates that in 2008,
87% of community systems underwent a survey (SDW-la). This is short of the Agency's commitment of 94%. EPA has
been faced with many challenges in attempting to meet its commitments for this measure over the past two years.
Sanitary surveys are resource-intensive efforts, as State staff or contractors must physically visit each community
water system. The costs of individual sanitary surveys have increased due to higher labor costs and higher gas
prices. In addition, requirements on the States have increased with the promulgation of LT2/Stage 2 and the
Ground Water Rule, while State funding for drinking water programs have not increased.
3 Interim Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface Water Treatment Rules
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
SDW-1 a Percent of CWSs with Sanitary Surveys
1 00%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2007
2008
SDW-1 a Percent Community Water Systems with Sanitary Surveys by Region
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
EPA fell short of meeting its commitment for the percent of the population served by community water systems
in Indian Country receiving drinking water meeting health-based standards (FY08 Commitment87%; FY08
Result83%) (SP-3). Despite EPA's failure to meet its national commitment, seven out of nine EPA Regions
met their commitments in 2008. This is a slight improvement over 2007, when six out of nine Regions did not
meet their commitments for this measure. When it comes to the implementation of new and existing drinking
water regulations, smaller systems have a greater challenge compared to larger systems. In fact, 93% of the
population in Indian Country is served by a small system or very small systempopulation under 3,300 (Small
systems serving 501 -3,300 (64%) and very small serving 25-500 (29.2%)).
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drmh
SP-3 Percent Population in Indian Country Receiving Safe Drinking Water by Fiscal Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
SP-3 Percent Population in Indian Country Receiving Safe Drinking Water by Region
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4
5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
For the third year in a row, the program failed to meet its annual commitment of reducing the number of households
on Tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water (FY08 Commitment30,587; FY08 Result34,855) (SP-5).
On the other hand, the number of homes on Tribal lands that lack access to safe drinking water was down to 34,855
in 2008 from the 2003 baseline of 38,637. EPA and its Federal partners set a very ambitious goal to reduce
the number of Tribal homes without access to safe drinking water by 50% by 201 5. This goal remains ambitious
due to the logistical challenges, and capital and operation and maintenance costs, involved in providing access.
EPA leads the Tribal Access Subgroup that includes the Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Interior. This group
developed a strategy document that identified the goal's challenges and recommended approaches to overcome
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
them, including coordinating spending on Tribal lands, developing a map of homes without access to safe drinking
water on the Navajo Nation, and a preparing a strategy to coordinate technical assistance services to Tribes. With
these and other activities, EPA and its Federal partners expect to make measurable progress on the access issue in
the future.
SP-5 Number of Tribal Households Lacking Access to Safe Drinking Water
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Fish and Shellfish
Sub-objective: Fish and Shellfish
FY 2008 Fish and Shellfish Measures Universe
50%
Commitments
Indicators
n -A
FY 2008 Fish and Shellfish Commitment Measures Results
Data Not Available
I 100%
n = 2
Fifty percent (50%) of all fish and shellfish measures had commitments in 2008. Data are not available at this time
for commitments for 2008.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Fish and Shellfish
FY 08 . ... ... , . Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number (A-0)/
A^C f _. Measure ("Key Words") ... , « *../ «/
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) Report Page Number (pg.O)
SP-6
SP-7
FS-la
FS-lb
Women & mercury blood levels
Shellfish-growing acres
River Miles fish consumption
advisory
Lake acres fish consumption
advisory
Data Available
in 2009
Data Available
in 2009
1
1
A-20, R-40
A-20, R-40
A-21,R-40
A-21,R-40
Although EPA has had success in meeting some of its commitments for its fish and shellfish measures over the past
three years, it has struggled to provide data for other measures in a timely matter.
3 Year Trend Results Fish and Shellfish Measures
Total Met
Total Not Met
Data Not Available
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
Elevated blood mercury levels pose a significant health risk and consumption of mercury- contaminated fish is the
primary source of mercury in blood. Across the country, States and Tribes have issued fish consumption advisories
for a range of contaminants covering 840,000 stream miles and over 14 million lake acres. In addition about 1 8
percent of the 22 million valuable shell-fishing acres managed by States are not open for use.
Results in 2008 are currently unavailable for measures pertaining to the percentage of women having mercury
levels above concern (SP-6) and shellfish-growing acres monitored by States that are approved or conditionally
approved for use (SP-7).
As reported in the 2007 End of the Year Report, EPA and States assessed 26% of river miles and 38% of lake
acres in support of water body-specific or regional consumption advisories (FS-la/b). Results for these indicators
are reported on a 2 year cycle. The next report will be provided during FY 2009 covering results from FY 2008
and 2009.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
iubobjective: Water Safe for Swimming
Sub-objective: Water Safe for Swimming
FY 2008 Safe Swimming Measures Universe
Commitments
100%
n =4
FY 2008 Safe Swimming Commitment Measure Results
Total Met
100%
n = 4
All national measures tracking swimmable waters had commitments in FY 2008. EPA and States met 1 00% of their
commitments.
FY 08 .. . ... . ... Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number (A-0)/
... . Measure (Key Words ) '. , .. '
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) Report Page Number (pg.O)
SP-8
SP-9
SS-1
SS-2
Waterborne disease & swimming
Beach days safe for swimming
CSO permits schedules in place
Public beaches monitored
A-22, R-42
A-23, R-42
A-24, R-43
A-25, R-42
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
FY 2006-2008 Safe Swimming Measures
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
% Met
% Not Met
Data Not Available
EPA has shown significant improvement in meeting its commitments under the Water Safe for Swimming
subobjective over the past three years. The percent of measures met increased from 20% in 2006 to 1 00%
in 2008. Data was available for all measures in 2008.
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The Nation's waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational
opportunities for millions of Americans. Swimming in some recreational waters, however, can pose a risk of
illness resulting from exposure to microbial pathogens. By "recreational waters," EPA means waters officially
recognized for primary contact recreation use or similar full body contact use by States, authorized Tribes
and Territories.
EPA is reporting for the first time in 2008 the number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to
swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal and Great Lakes waters. No waterborne disease
outbreaks were reported in 2008 (SP-8).
Beach Monitoring and Safety
For coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State-based beach safety programs, EPA found that
95% of days of the beach season were open and safe for swimming. This result exceeded the FY 08 target
of 91% and EPA has consistently met its annual targets over the past four years. Seven out of eight EPA
Regions met their FY 08 target (Regions 7 and 8 do not have beaches under the program.) Region 1 had
the highest percentage of beach days open and safe for swimming (SP-9). States monitored and managed
99% of all Tier 1 (significant) public beaches covered under the BEACH Act program in 2008. (SS-2) Seven
out of eight Regions met their commitments in 2008.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
iubobjective: Water Safe for Swimming
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs).
Over the past three years, progress has consistently improved for increasing the number of CSO permits with
compliance schedules in place. As of 2008, EPA and States had 61 0 CSO permits with compliance schedules (SS-
1). This slightly exceeded the 2008 national commitment of 604. The program has met its commitments three of the
past four years. Seven of nine Regions met their commitment for this measure in 2008.
SS-1 Number of CSO Permits with Schedules in Place by Fiscal Year
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005 2006 2007 2008
SS-1 Number of CSO Permits with Schedules in Place by Region
250
200
150
100
50
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Sub-objective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
FY 2008 Water Quality Measures Universe
22%
Commitments
Indicators
n = 4]
FY 2008 Water Quality Commitment Measures Results
Total Met
D Total Not Met
D Data Not Available
n = 32
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the 41 measures under the Water Quality Sub-objective had annual commitments
in FY 2008. Of these, EPA and States met 63% of its commitments in 2008, fell short on 22%, and data were not
available for 1 5%.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
. Appendix Page Number
ACS Code MeaSure ("K6y W°rdS") (1 =6 Ind°cato6r) (A'0)/ Rep°rt Page Number
(pg-0)
SP-10
SP-1 1
SP-12
SP-1 3
SP-1 4
SP-1 5
WQ-la
WQ-lb
WQ-2
WQ-3a
WQ-3b
WQ-4a
WQ-4b
WQ-5
WQ-6a
WQ-6b
WQ-7
WQ-8a
WQ-8b
WQ-9a
WQ-9b
WQ-9c
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
WQ-13b
WQ-13c
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
WQ-15b
WQ-16
WQ-17
Formerly impaired waterbodies now attaining water quality
standards
Remove causes of waterbody impairment
Improve water quality w/ watershed approach
Ensure wadeable stream conditions
Show improvement in Tribal waters
Reduce Tribal households lacking sanitation
States/Territories adopted nutrient criteria
States/Territories on schedule to adopt nutrient criteria
Tribal water quality standards approved by EPA
States/Territories updating water quality criteria
Tribes updating water quality criteria
States/Territories water quality standards
revisions approved by EPA
Tribes water quality standards submissions
States/Territories adopting monitoring strategies
Tribes implementing monitoring strategies
Tribes providing water quality data
States/Territories using Assessment Database (ADB)
TMDLs completed by EPA and States
TMDLs completed by States
Nitrogen loadings reduced
Phosphorus loadings reduced
Sediment loadings reduced
NPS-impaired waterbodies restored
NPDES follow-up actions completed
Non-Tribal NPDES permits current
Tribal NPDES permits current
Facilities covered by MS-4 permits
Facilities covered by industrial storm water permits
Facilities covered by construction storm water permits
Facilities covered by CAFO permits
POTWs SlUs with control mechanisms in place
POTWs ClUs with control mechanisms in place
Percent major dischargers in SNC
Major Dischargers on impaired waters in SNC
POTWs complying with wastewater discharge standards
CWSRF Fund utilization rate
A
Report in 20 12
Report in 20 12
T
T
T
A
T
Data Available
in 2009
Data Available
in 2009
Data Available
in 2009
^
1
T
1
1
1
1
1
T
1
A-26, R-46
A-27, R-47
A-28, R-47
A-29
A-30
A-31,R-56
A-32, R-56
A-32, R-49
A-33, R-55
A-34, R-57
A-34, R-55
A-35, R-48
A-35, R-55
A-36, R-49
A-37, R-50
A-37, R-50
A-38, R-49
A-39, R-50
A-40
A-41
A-41
A-41
A-42, R-53-54
A-43
A-44, R-51
A-44, R-56
A-45
A-45
A-46
A-46
A-47
A-47
A-48, R-55
A-48
A-49
A-50, R-54-55
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
. Appendix Page Number
ACS Code MeaSure ("K6y W°rdS") (1 =6 Ind°cato6r) (A'0)/ Rep°rt Page Number
(pg-0)
WQ-18
WQ- 1 9a
WQ-19b
WQ-20
WQ-21
WQ-21
People served by health-based projects/$M
High priority state NPDES permits
High priority EPA/Tribal NPDES permits
Facilities providing trading
Impaired segments restoration planning complete
Impaired segments restoration planning complete
1
1
1
A-51
A-52, R-52
A-53, R-52
A-54
A-55
A-55
3 Year Trend Results Water Quality Measures
D % Met
% Not Met
D Data Not Available
The percent of commitments met under the Water Quality subobjective have been fairly steady over the past three
years ranging from 63% to 52%. The number of measures with commitments that were not met was at its lowest
point in 2008 (19%) but the percent of measure with data unavailable has shown a slight uptick from 15% in 2006
to 22% in 2008.
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The Agency continues to make strong progress in ensuring that water quality standards are fully attained in
waterbodies listed as impaired. At the end of 2008, a cumulative 2,165 of the waters listed as impaired in 2002
met standards for all the impairments identified, thus exceeding the FY 2008 commitment of 1,500 (SP-10). This
was a roughly 30% increase over the year's commitment. Since this measure was new in 2008 (a similar measure
in 2005-2007 was based on a 2000 baseline) and an annual commitment did not exist until this year, trend
data is limited. Nine out of ten regions met their 2008 commitments. Regions 4, 5, and 8 exceeded their annual
commitments by 38%, 41%, and 57% respectively.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
P-10 Number of Impaired Waterbodies Now Meeting Standards by Year
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
SP-10 Number of Impaired Waterbodies Now Meeting Standards by Region
500
400
300
200
100
2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Based on two new measures reported in 2008, the National Water Program demonstrated significant progress in
addressing waterbody impairment. Specific causes of impairment identified by States in 2002 have been removed
in 6,723 Waterbodies through 2008. This was approximately a 30% increase over the 2008 commitment (4,607
waterbodies). In addition, EPA and States have improved water quality conditions in 60 impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed approach cumulatively through 2008. Not only was this significantly over the 2008
commitment but represented an increase over the annual rate achieved in 2007. As a result of these successes, EPA
Regions have revised their 2009 and 201 0 commitments to be more ambitious.
Water Quality Standards. Water Quality Standards are the regulatory and scientific foundation of water quality
protection programs under the Clean Water Act. Under the Act, States and authorized Tribes establish water
quality standards that define the designated uses and water quality criteria to protect those uses for waters
within their jurisdictions. The standards are used to determine which waters must be cleaned up, how much may be
discharged, and what is needed for protection.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
EPA significantly exceeded its FY 2008 national commitment (74.1 %) by approving 92.5% of water quality standards
revisions submitted by States and Territories. Nine out or ten regions met their State and Tribal commitments for
this measure (WQ-4a). EPA also exceeded its target (66.5%) for approving Tribal standards revisions (100%). EPA
attributes at least some of this success to working with States and Territories early in their standards development
process to help them submit standards that EPA can approve. EPA also improved its ability to estimate the number
and approvability of standards revisions that States and Territories submit, and made broader use of partial
approvals so that the great majority of standards revisions can be effective more readily while unresolved issues
are being elevated.
WQ-4a Percent States/Territories Water Quality Standards Submission Approved by EPA
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
WQ-4a Percent Water Quality Standards Submissions Approved by Region
2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
EPA met its commitment in FY 2008 for the number of States and Territories that were on schedule with a mutually
agreed upon plan to adopt nutrient criteria into their water quality standards (commitment 31, results = 35). A
policy memorandum, issued in May 2007, "Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards," encouraged
all States and Tribes to accelerate their efforts and give priority to adopting numeric translators for narrative
standards for all waters that contribute nutrient loadings to the Nation's waterways (WQ-1 b).
Water Quality Monitoring. During FY 2008, EPA continued to work with States, Tribes, Territories, and other
partners to provide the monitoring data and information needed to make good water quality protection and
restoration decisions and to track changes in the Nation's water quality over time. Because of resource and technical
constraints, most monitoring programs have traditionally been able to collect and analyze only a small portion
of the data they need to meet these many requirements of the CWA. For example, States generally assess only
about 20 percent of their streams and rivers, 40 percent of lakes, and 30 percent of bays and estuaries. Greater
integration of monitoring efforts is needed to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic scales
most appropriate to address issues and problems: national, regional, interstate, state, and watershed.
EPA, States, Tribes and other monitoring partners are making progress toward the goal of monitoring all water
types in a statistically valid manner, and reporting on changes in water condition nationally and regionally. See
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/nationalsurveys.html. In addition, States are finding that statistical surveys
are a cost-effective means of reporting and communicating to their citizens on the condition of the their waters. In
FY 2008, thirty States were in the process of conducting statewide surveys of at least one waterbody type.
While EPA's FY 2008 target was for all States and Territories to be implementing comprehensive monitoring
strategies in keeping with established schedules, three States fell behind because of technical, organizational,
and resource limitations (WQ-5). The number of States keeping up with their established schedules has been
decreasing over the past two years. The Regions are working closely with these States to assist them in improving
their strategies and implementing them in a manner consistent with milestones set out in the strategies. During 2008,
EPA and the States met the target of 42 States and Territories using the Assessment Database to report their water
quality assessment decisions and facilitate integrated reporting (WQ-7). This result reflects the addition of two
States since 2006.
WQ-5a Number of States/Territories Adopting Monitoring Strategies by Year
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-5 Number of States/Territories Adopting Monitoring Strategies by Region
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Over 1 00 Tribes that currently receive funding under CWA section 1 06 have developed and began implementing
monitoring strategies in 2008 (WQ-6a). Not only did the Agency exceed its FY 08 commitment of 79 Tribes but
this was a significant increase in the number of Tribes with monitoring strategies since 2007 (44). Additionally, 60
Tribes are providing water quality data in a format accessible for storage in EPAs data system against the FY 08
commitment of 58 (WQ-6b).
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads or "TMDLs" for an impaired
waterbody is a critical step in meeting water restoration goals. TMDLs focus on clearly defined environmental
goals and establish a pollutant budget, which is then implemented via permit requirements and through local,
State, and Federal watershed plans/programs. In 2008, more than 91 00 TMDLs4 were developed by States and
approved or established by EPA. This was a significant increase over the national commitment of 7,81 9 and nine
out of ten regions met their commitments for this measure in 2008. (WQ-8a) Regions 3, 4, and 5 each exceeded
their commitments by more than 30%. EPA also tracks the pace of TMDL development and approval which refers
to the annual number of TMDLs needed to be consistent with national policy. The national policy recommends that
TMDLs be established and approved within 8 to 1 3 years of the water having been listed as impaired under the
Clean Water Act section 303(d). The national 2008 end-of-year pace was 1 05%, which exceeded the commitment
of 90%. These successful results are attributed in part to EPA and States completing TMDLs ahead of schedule,
increasing collaboration between EPA and States to develop nutrient TMDLs within the Mississippi River Delta
Region, and completing the first multi-state mercury TMDL effort in the Northeast.
4 A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality standards.
The terms 'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself .
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-8a Number of TMDLs Established by States or EPA by Year
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
WQ-8a Number of TMDLs Established by States or EPA by Region*
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
lit
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
NPDES Permit Program. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requires all point
sources discharging into waterbodies of the U.S. to be covered by State or EPA NPDES permits and Publicly-
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to have pretreatment programs to control contributions from industrial facilities
to sewage treatment plants. For the second year in a row, EPA and States achieved the national goal of having
current NPDES permits in place for 90% of facilities (non-Tribal) over a national commitment of 87% (WQ-12a).
Eight out of ten regions met or exceeded their commitments in 2008. This was a significant improvement over 2007
where only four out of ten regions exceeded their FY 07 commitments.).
In 2008, Region 1 completed a significant number of TMDLs due to the completion of broad-scale TMDLs for mercury:
the first multi-state mercury TMDLthe Northeast Regional Mercury TMDLwas approved by EPA in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008.].
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-12a Number of Non-Tribal NPDES Permits by Year
110,000
100,000
90,000
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005 2006 2007 2008
WQ-12a Number of Non-Tribal NPDES Permits by Region
30,000
25,000
20,000
1 5,000
1 0,000
5,000
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
I 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
EPA has been working with States to structure the permit program to better support comprehensive protection
of water quality on a watershed basis. A key strategy is to focus efforts on high priority permits that need to
be issued or reissued to help implement TMDLs, watershed plans, effluent guidelines, or other environmental and
programmatic actions. In 2008, both EPA and authorized States exceeded their national commitments for issuing
non-Tribal priority permits. The authorized States issued 930 priority permits, exceeding the national commitment
of 738 permits (WQ-19a), and EPA issued 61 priority permits exceeding its 2008 commitment of 55 permits (WQ-
1 9b). EPA and authorized States have exceeded their commitments for issuing high priority permits for the past
four years.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-19a Percent of High Priority Permits by Year
1 20%
1 00%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
WQ-1 9b Percent of High Priority Permits by Regional
250%
200%
1 50%
1 00%
50%
0%
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Control Nonpoint Source Pollution: Polluted runoff from sources such as agricultural lands, forestry sites, and urban
areas is the largest single remaining cause of water pollution. EPA and States are working with local governments,
watershed groups, property owners, Tribes, and others to implement programs and management practices to
control polluted runoff throughout the country. EPA and States made significant gains in 2008 in documenting the
full or partial restoration of waterbodies that are primarily non-point source impaired. Nationally, EPA and States
doubled their output from 2007 and exceeded their commitment (91) with 97 waterbodies that were partially
or fully restored. EPA continues to highlight nonpoint source success stories on its website at http://www.epa.gov/
owow/nps/Success319/. (WQ-10)
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-10 Number of NPS-lmpaired Waterbodies Restored by Year
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
WQ-10 Number of NPS-lmpaired Waterbodies Restored by Region
25
20
15
10
2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
Clean Water Financing. The Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) provides low interest loans to local
governments to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects. The CWSRF utilization
rate reached an unprecedented 98% by the end of 2008. Of the $70.1 billion of funds available for projects
through 2008, $68.8 billion are committed to more than 22,700 loans. For the first time in history, project assistance
reached $5.8 billion in 2008, funding 2,030 loans in a single year. Nationally, since 2001, fund utilization has
remained relatively stable and strong at over 90%. This high level of performance is expected to continue in the
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
future (WQ-17). States frequently provide SRF resources to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to improve
or maintain compliance with wastewater permit limits. In 2008, 23.9% of all major POTWs were in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the past year which was short of EPA's commitment of no more than
22.5%. (WQ 1 5a)
WQ-17 CWSRF Fund Utilization Rate by Year
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
WQ-17 CWSRF Fund Utilization Rate by Region
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
FY 2008 Management Challenges
American Indian Tribal Programs. Although Indian Tribes have made significant progress in the past few years
in receiving EPA approval for water quality standards and criteria (WQ-2 WQ-3b, and WQ-4b), EPA and
other Federal agencies have struggled to meet their annual commitments for keeping NPDES permits current and
increasing access to basic sanitation. In 2008, permits for 85% of Tribal facilities were considered current, just
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
short of the national goal of 89% (WQ-1 2b). The national target was missed because a complex general permit
in Region 1 0 was not issued in time for end of year reporting. The Region submitted the permit for public notice in
November, and anticipates issuing the permit in FY 2009. The Agency also fell short of achieving its national goal
of reducing the number of homes on Tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation. Over 24,000 homes still lack
access to basic sanitation which is short of the Agency's goal of 21,219 homes (SP-15). The shortfall may be due
to a number of variables including new homes, lifecycle costs, homes where water and wastewater facilities fall out
of compliance, new environmental regulations, construction cost inflation, and population growth. An interagency
task force is currently pursuing means to best address the fluctuating needs of Tribal homes lacking access to basic
sanitation.
Water Quality Criteria and Standards. As of 2008, nine States and Territories have adopted water quality criteria
for nutrients, which was just below the national target of 10 (WQ-1 a). Five Regions met their commitments in 2008,
one Region missed its target by one, and four EPA regions did not make commitments or have results. There was a
similar pattern in 2007. Progress has been slow over the past few years for this measure, in part because of the
scientific complexity of such criteria, and programmatic and policy challenges. In response to this slow pace, EPA
established a new measure (WQ-1 b, see above) several years ago to help encourage and manage intermediate
steps to criteria adoption. In addition, EPAs May 2007 policy memorandum on nutrients (see Performance Highlights
above) placed a high management priority on managing nutrients. In January 2009 EPA announced it would
promulgate Federal nutrient criteria for waters in Florida.
WQ-1 a Number of States/Territories Adopted Nutrient Criteria by Year
10
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-1 a Number of States/Territories Adopted Nutrient Criteria by Region
2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
For the second year in a row, State and Territories did not meet Regional commitments for submitting new or
revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information (WQ-3a). The 2008 result
of 35 States and Territories (62.5%) fell short of the national goal of 38 (67.9%). States in three Regions did not
meet these commitments. Some of the shortfall may be due to declining State resources and technical expertise to
deal with complex science and policy issues. EPA is developing an action plan in 2009 to address the challenges
confronted by States and Territories in meeting the commitments for this measure.
WQ-3a Number of States/Territories Updating Criteria by Year
45^
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fiscal Year
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
WQ-3a Number of States/Territories Updating Criteria by Region
D 2008 Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
Sub-objective: Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
FY 2008 Coastal and Ocean Waters Measures Universe
46%
Commitments
D Indicators
n = 13
FY 2008 Coastal and Ocean Water Commitment Measure Results
Total Met
100%
n = 13
Fifty-four percent (54%) of measures under this Sub-objective had commitments in 2008. EPA's Coastal and Ocean
Protection program met 1 00% of its commitments in 2008.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number
° , Measure ("Key Words") (1 = (A-0)/ Report Page Number
ACS Code , .. . / /»>
Indicator) (pg-0)
2.2.2
SP-16
SP-17
SP-18
SP-19
SP-20
4.3.2
CO-1
CO-2
CO-3
CO-4
CO-5
CO-6
Improve coastal aquatic system health
Maintain aquatic health-Northeast
Maintain aquatic health - Southeast
Maintain aquatic health West Coast
Maintain aquatic health Puerto Rico
Ocean dumping sites acceptable conditions
NEP Acres habitat protected or restored
Coastal waterbody impairments restored
Coastline miles protected vessel sewage
NEP priority actions completed
Rate of return Federal investment for NEP
Dredged material management plans in place
Active dredged material sites monitored annually
^
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-56, R-61
A-57
A-57
A-57
A-57
A-58, R-62
A-59, R-62
A-60
A-61
A-62, R-62
A-63, R-62
A-64
A-65
EPA has made significant progress over the past three years in meeting its annual commitments for protecting
coastal and ocean resources. EPA has gone from meeting 60% of its commitments in 2006 to achieving 1 00% in
2008.
3 Year Trend Results Coastal and Ocean Protection
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LI L
D % Met
% Not Met
Data Not Available
2006
2007
2008
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
In December 2008, the Federal Government released the third National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR III), which
highlights EPAs National Coastal Assessment (NCA) data collected primarily in 2001 and 2002. The findings from this
Report serve as a foundation for EPA and our partners to meet our commitments to water quality, and offer insights
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Overall National
Coastal Condition
Ovwmll (1M
Great Lakes \JU
0«,n4l '
Overall
Pu*rtoRko_
Mr
on what additional actions are needed
to better protect, manage, and restore
coastal ecosystems. The overall condition
of the Nation's coastal waters is rated
fair (Sub-objective 2.2.2). This rating
is based on five indicators of ecological
condition: water quality index (including
dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and water clarity), sediment
quality index (including sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, and sediment total
organic carbon [TOC]), benthic index,
coastal habitat index, and a fish tissue
contaminants index.
Comparison of the coastal condition
scores shows that overall condition in U.S.
coastal waters has improved slightly since
the 1990s. Although the overall condition
of U.S. coastal waters is rated as fair in
all three reports, the score increased from
2.0 to 2.3 from NCCR I to NCCR II and increased to 2.8 in NCCR III with the addition of Alaska and Hawaii (2.3
not including AK and HI). Since EPA is not collecting data annually on this measure, it is able to maintain the same
target for the period within which a particular NCCR is applicable
Comparison of Scores for Indicators of Condition by Geographic Region from Three National
Coastal Condition Reports1
NCCRI 1990-96
NCCR II 1997-2000
NCCR III 2001 -2002
1.8
2.4
2.2
3.6
3.8
3.6
1.8
1.8
2.4
5.0
4.5
2.0
2.0
2.4
1.4
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.8
'Rating scores are based on a 5-point system, where a score of less than 2.0 is rated poor; 2.0 to less than 2.3 is rated fair to poor; greater than 2.3. to 3.7 is rated fair; greater than 3.7 to 4.0 is rated good to fair; and greater
than 4.0 is rated good.
2West Coast, Great Lakes, and Puerto Rico scores for the NCCR III are the same as NCCR II (no new data for the NCCR III except for the West Coast benthic index).
'AK and HI were not reported in the NCCR I or NCCR II. The NCCR I assessment of the Northeast Coast region did not include the Acadian Province. The West Coast ratings in the NCCR I were complied using data from many
different programs.
'U.S. score is based on an areally weighted mean of regional scores. The first U.S. score is excluding South central Alaska and Hawaii. The second U.S. score includes South central Alaska and Hawaii.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
National Estuary Program. In FY 2008, EPA and its partners protected or restored 82,827 acres of habitat in the
28 estuaries that make up the National Estuary Program (NEP). This was significantly above the national annual
commitment of 43,1 14 acres (4.3.2). The EPA has learned that habitat protection and restoration is not an easy
process to forecast due to such factors as weather variability, funding, and negotiations with landowners. EPA has
revised its 2009 and 2010 national targets to 100,000 acres to reflect historic end of the year accomplishments.
-4.3.2 Acres of Habitat Protected or Restored by Year
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
D Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
EPA completed 330 priority actions in NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) in FY
2008 (C/O-3). In FY 2008, the 28 NEPs played the primary role in leveraging approximately $161 million or
$1 1.4 for every $1 in CWA Section 320 and earmarked funding received (C/O-4), which is about the same as
the 1 1.6 :1 leveraging ratio in FY 2007. Nearly 95% of these leveraged resources were invested in on-the-ground
activities, such as habitat restoration and stormwater management, rather than overhead or operations.
Ocean Protection. In FY 2008,99% of ocean dumping sites with active dredged material achieved environmentally
acceptable conditions as reflected in each site's management plan and measured through on-site monitoring
programs (SP-20). Not only did this exceed the annual commitment of 95.4% but also, it was an improvement over
the 85% of sites with acceptable conditions in 2007. Throughout the year, EPA Regions worked to ensure that ocean
dumping sites with active dredged material are accurately identified, monitoring is conducted as reflected in their
site management plans, and corrective action is taken where needed regarding the management of the sites.
FY 2008 Management Challenges
Accurate data continues not to be available to report on the number of impaired coastal waters restored since
2002 (C/O-1). EPA is conducting two pilot efforts to crosswalk 2002 listed impaired coastal waters with subsequent
lists of impaired waters. The preliminary results indicate that data is still not available for some watersheds, and
that "manually" cross walking 2002 data with later lists requires a significant workload. EPA is currently considering
appropriate next steps.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect Wetlands
Sub-objective: Protect Wetlands
FY 2008 Wetlands Measures Universe
43%
Commitments
D Indicators
n = 7
FY 2008 Wetlands Commitment Measures Results
Total Met
D Total Not Met
D Data Not Available
n = 4
Four of the seven national measures for wetlands protection had national commitments in 2008. Two of these
measures met their commitments, one measure did not, and one had no data available.
FY08 . ... ... , . Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number (A-0)/
. _ . Measure ("Key Words") ... , n » _ / «/
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) Report Page Number (pg.O)
SP-21
SP-22
WT-1
WT-2a
WT-2b
WT-3
WT-4
Net increase wetlands achieved
No Net Loss of wetlands
Wetland acres restored and enhanced
States built capacities in wetland monitoring
Tribes built capacities in wetland monitoring
404 permits with greater environ, protection
States wetland condition trend has been measured
Data Available in
2009
A
1
1
1
A-66, R-65
A-66, R-65
A-67, R-64
A-68, R-64
A-68, R-64
A-69
A-70, R-64
EPA's Wetlands Program has had a mixed record of performance over the past three years. Although at least half
of EPA's commitments were met in two out of the last three year, the Agency has had difficulty in obtaining data in
a timely manner for its national no net loss of wetlands measure.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect Wetlands
3 Year Trend Results Wetland Protection
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
% Met
% Not Met
Data Not Available
2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
Wetlands are among our Nation's most critical and productive natural resources. They provide a variety of benefits,
such as water quality improvements, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, and ground water exchange.
Wetlands are the primary habitat for fish, waterfowl, and wildlife, and as such, provide numerous opportunities for
education, recreation, and research. EPA recognizes that the challenges the Nation faces to conserve our wetland
heritage are daunting and that many partners must work together for this effort to succeed.
Number of Wetland Acres Restored/Enhanced. EPA continues to exceed expectations in the number of acres of
wetlands restored and enhanced under the President's 2004 Earth Day Initiative. More than 80,000 acres have
been restored and enhanced since 2002, far surpassing the Agency's goal of 1 2,000 acres by Earth Day 2009
(WT-1). EPA has significantly exceeded its commitment under this measure every year since 2004. This is primarily
due to the outstanding wetland and stream restoration work reported by National Estuary Program partners.
Significant achievements among 5-Star Restoration Grant program partners also played an important role.
State and Tribal Wetlands Program Capacity. As of 2008, 22 States and 24 Tribes have built capacities in
wetlands monitoring, regulation, restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance, and partnership
building. (WT-2a/b) This is an important performance measure for the Wetlands Program as a substantial portion
of the program's resources are devoted to building State and Tribal wetlands capacity. There was a decrease
in 3 States but an increase of 1 3 Tribes with adequate wetlands program capacity from 2007's end of the year
results. Although it is difficult to determine the reason for the slight decrease in the number of States with program
capacity, it could be due to a number factors including some States were not successful in obtaining competitive
Wetland Program Development Grants for specific program core elements in FY 2008, or States lost staff due to
budget cuts and work on projects ceased until the position could be filled
Number of States Measuring Trends in Condition. The number of States where the trend in wetland condition
has been measured as defined through biological metrics and assessments increased from 1 2 in FY 2007 to 14
States in FY 2008 (WT-4). This measure is currently defined as counting states that are "on track" to assess trends
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect Wetlands
in wetland condition for at least 20% of their state by the end of FY 2008. Trends assessment involves establishing
a baseline, then re-assessing the same areas to evaluate trends. The increase among States in building wetlands
monitoring programs is due to a number of factors, including: 1) active participation by approximately 40 States
on the National Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Work Group; 2) involvement of 8 out of 1 0 EPA Regions in
the Regional Wetlands Monitoring Work Groups that facilitate data and information sharing; and 3) EPA working
actively with States to plan the 201 1 National Wetland Condition Assessment. States see this as a "call to action"
to enhance development of their wetlands monitoring program so they may effectively participate in the 201 1
national survey.
FY 2008 Management Challenges
EPA reported a net increase of 32,000 acres of wetlands in the coterminous United States in FY 2008. This fell short
of the commitment of 100,000 acres (SP-21). The result for this measure, however, does not represent real-time
data for FY 2008. Data reported under this measure are pulled from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Status and
Trends Report. The most recent report was issued in 2005 and reported that the U.S. gained approximately 32,000
wetland acres annually from 1998-2004. For FY 2008, EPA applied the 32,000 acres as the wetland gain rate
and reported cumulatively from the baseline year in 2005. The next Status and Trends Report will be released in
2010, and will discribe the timeframe 2005-2009 whereby EPA expects to confirm that it has met or exceeded its
FY 2008 targets.
For the third year in a row, data were unavailable for achieving "no net loss" of wetlands under the Clean Water
Act Section 404 regulatory program. (SP-22) It is taking longer than expected to update the database that will
be used to report on this measure. The US Army Corps of Engineers was delayed in completing their ORM 2.0
database due to new data tracking requirements associated with Jurisdictional Determinations coordination. As a
result, EPA cannot complete the EPA-funded ORM 2.0 interface (DARTER) that will be used to pull data nationally
and regionally for this measure. In addition, there are some minor questions regarding the Corps preliminary data.
It is unclear if the current dataset is truly national in scope. There are also questions about the comparability of
wetland impact and wetland compensation data used to calculate "no net loss." EPA has plans to work with the
Corps and State representatives to devise an appropriate method for calculating "no net loss" in FY 2009. The
Agency is confident an effective method can be worked out after further deliberations.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect Mexico Border Water Quality
Sub-objective: Protect Mexico Border Water Quality
FY 2008 Mexico Border Measures Universe
Commitments
100%
n =
FY 2008 Mexico Border Commitment Measure Results
33%
Total Met
Data Not Available
n = 3
All performance measures for the U.S. Mexico Border program had commitments in FY 2008. EPA met its commitments
for two measures and was unable to report data on one measure in 2008.
FY08 ... ... Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number (A-0)/
... . Measure (Key Words ) ,. .. , .. '
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) Report Page Number (pg.O)
SP-23
SP-24
SP-25
Mexico Border transboundary surface waters achieved
Safe drinking water homes Mexico Border
Wastewater sanitation homes Mexico Border
Data Available in
2009
A
A
A-71,R-67
A-72, R-67
A-73, R-67
For the first time in three years, EPA was able to demonstrate progress in bringing safe drinking water and
wastewater sanitation to homes in the U.S Mexico Border region. Prior to 2008, EPA had difficulty setting commitments
or reporting data for its national measures. EPA is planning to replace its transboundary surface water achieved
measure with a new Strategic Target in the 2009 Strategic Plan. This new indicator will measure the reduction in
the amount of biological oxygen demand (BOD) pollutants in the water of the U.S. Mexico Border region.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect Mexico Border Water Quality
3 Year Trend Results Mexico Border Water Quality
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
D % Met
% Not Met
I Data Not Available
2007 2008
Fiscal Year
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing commitment to protect the environment and public health
in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region. The U.S./Mexico Border 2012 Program, a joint effort between the U.S. and
Mexican governments, will work with the 1 0 Border States and with border communities to improve the region's
environmental health.
Safe Drinking Water to Homes in Mexico Border Area. The EPA exceeded its commitment (2,500 additional
homes) by providing access to safe drinking water for 5,162 additional homes in 2008 (SP-24). Since 2003, the
Agency has provided access to safe drinking water to 28,896 additional homes in the U.S./Mexico border area
that lacked access to a potable water supply. As a result, the Agency has already exceeded its long term 201 2
commitment of 24,628 additional homes.
Adequate Wastewater Sanitation to Homes in the Mexico Border Area. EPA exceeded its FY 2008 commitment
(15,000 additional homes) by providing adequate wastewater sanitation to an additional 31,686 homes over the
past year. Since 2003, the Agency has provided access to wastewater sanitation to an additional 1 35,365 homes
(SP-25). The Agency has achieved 78% of its long term 201 2 commitment of 172,680 homes.
FY 2008 Management Challenges
EPA did not have data to report results for the reduction in the number of currently exceeded water quality
standards in impaired transboundary segments of U.S. surface waters measure (SP-23). The program maintains
that the current measure lacks sensitivity since many surface water quality impacts are not attributable solely to
domestic sewage. This measure is being revised and EPA expects to begin reporting on a new measure in FY1 1.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Pacific Islands Waters
Sub-objective: Protect the Pacific Islands Waters
FY 2008 Pacific Islands Measures Universe
Commitments
100%
n = 3
FY 2008 Pacific Islands Commitment Measure Results
33%
Total Met
D Total Not Met
n = 3
All of the U.S. Pacific Island measures had commitments in 2008. The Pacific Islands met two of three of its commitments
in 2008.
. Appendix Page Number
ACS Code «-»("<* WHO «£££
-------
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The U.S. island territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
struggle to provide adequate drinking water and sanitation service. EPA is targeting innovative infrastructure
financing, enforcement, and technical assistance to improve the water and wastewater situation in the Pacific Islands.
In 2008, 79% of the population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories was served by community drinking water
systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout
the year (SP-26). The FY2008 commitment was 69%.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories complied with permit
limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) (SP-27). The FY08 commitment was
62%. A recent stipulated order on Guam has resulted in some improvements such as upgrading the primary plants
but the disposal of septic tank waste at the plant greatly affected the operations. Overall progress is limited by
Guam's ability to raise capital and very limited EPA infrastructure funds.
Monitored beaches in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories were open and safe for swimming for 80% of the days of
the beach season in FY 2008 (SP-28). This was short of the EPAs commitment of 85% of days open. The results
for this measure have been virtually the same over the last two years despite improvements in the Pacific Islands'
sewage treatment system. The results seem to track weather patterns more than wastewater compliance. In FY
2009, EPA plans to take a deeper look into the data (e.g., correlation with actual rainfall, which beaches are
closed most often, when, and what might be in the watershed).
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Great Lakes
Sub-objective: Protect the Great Lakes
FY 2008 Great Lakes Measures Universe
Commitments
Indicators
n = 9
FY 2008 Great Lakes Commitment Measure Results
Total Met
Total Not Met
n = 8
Eight out of nine Great Lakes measures had national commitments in 2008. The Great Lakes National Program
Office met 88% of their performance commitments in 2008.
. Appendix Page Number
J Measure ("Key Words") Met Not Met (A-0)/ Report Page
ACS Code v 7 ' (1 = Indicator) , ,. , «,
Number (pg.O)
4.3.3
SP-29
SP-30
SP-31
SP-32
GL-1
GL-2
GL-3
GL-4a/b
Improve health - Great Lakes ecosystem
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes fish
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes air
Restore AOCs
Remediate cubic yards of contaminated sediment
Permitted discharges reflect standards
CSO permits consistent with national policy
High priority - Great Lakes beaches
Great Lakes near term actions completed
T
1
A-77, R-71
A-77, R-71
A-78, R-73
A-78, R-74
A-79, R-74
A-80, R-74
A-8 1 , R-74
A-82, R-74
A-83
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Great Lakes
EPA has been very successful over the past three years in establishing and meeting its annual commitments for
protecting the Great Lakes. It has met 78%, 100%, and 88% of its commitments in 2006, 2007, and 2008
respectively. In addition, EPA has been able to provide data in a timely manner for all Great Lakes measures for
the past two years.
3 Year Trend Results Great Lakes
D %Met
% Not Met
Data Not Available
Fiscal Year
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
EPAs Great Lakes annual performance goal assesses the overall progress U.S. environmental programs are making
in protecting and restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. This
is measured using the Great Lakes Index, a tool for assessing the overall condition of the Great Lakes that is
based on a set of selected ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment
contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics
deposition). Improvements in the Great Lakes Index measures would indicate that fewer toxins are entering the
food chain; ecosystem and human health is better protected; fish are safer to eat; water is safer to drink; and
beaches are safer for swimming.
From a baseline score of 20 in 2002, EPA and its partners improved its score from 22.7 in 2007 to 23.7 in 2008
using the Great Lakes Index 40-point scale. Not only did EPA and its partners meet its 2008 commitment of 22,
the result also indicate long-term progress in improving the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem (Sub-objective
4.3.3). The most recent improvement in the Index is a specific result of greater progress in removing contaminated
sediments (>10% remediated) due to projects funded under the Great Lakes Legacy Act and other remediation
authorities. Other components measured in the Great Lakes Index also maintained progress.
The results of analyses reported in 2008 indicated that average long-term total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish at sites on each Great Lake declined more than five-percent
annually between 1991 and 2005, meeting the target for declines in concentration trends (SP-29). The Great
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Great Lakes
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has worked to eliminate a data lag for reporting PCBs in fish and expects
reports to be posted within 2 years of data collection (within GPRA reporting requirements).
SP 29 Percent Decline of PCBs in Great Lakes Waters Top Predator Fish
5%
2%
1%
0%
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
Total PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish, Even Year
Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
1990-2006
Superior
--A-------Michigan
Huron
-Erie
Ontario
Year
*2006 - previsional data
PCBs were banned in "the 1 970's" and continue to degrade. Contaminated sediment remediation (including Legacy
Act and Superfund) is removing additional PCBs from the environment. Based on Lake Michigan data, current
concentrations in lake trout are approximately eight times the wildlife protection value (0.16ppm) and current
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Great Lakes
concentrations in game fish fillets are approximately ten times the unlimited consumption level for protection of
human health (0.05ppm).
Atmospheric deposition has been shown to be a significant source of pollutants to the Great Lakes. Average long-
term concentrations of PCBs in U.S. air measured at stations on Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Erie decreased more
than 7 percent annually, meeting the targeted commitment (SP-30).
SP 30 Percent Decline of PCBs in Great Lakes Air
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
Fiscal Year
Average Annual Air Concentrations of PCBs in the Great Lakes Basin
O
Q_
_o
"i
D
u
O
U
2500 -,
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500
I Eagle Harbor
I Sleeping Bear Dunes
Burnt Island
I Sturgeon Point
I Point Petre
Chicago
Cleveland
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Great Lakes
A prominent source of pollution in the Great Lakes is contaminated sediments. Data for 2007, which became available
in FY 2008, reported the remediation of more than 960,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments through the
combined efforts of EPA, States, and other partners. Having remediated almost 5.5 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments through 2007, EPA and its partners have already beaten the 2008 goal by 1.3 million cubic yards. This is
the fourth year in a row that Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has met its commitments for this measure
(SP-32).
The Great Lakes program met its commitment for the percentage of NPDES-permitted dischargers to the Great Lakes
and its tributaries that have permit limits that reflect Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance water quality standards (GL-
1) (commitment = 96%). The program fell short of its numeric goal due to a decrease in the universe of dischargers.
The Agency exceeded its 2008 commitment of 115 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) permits in the Great Lakes basin
that are consistent with national CSO policy (GL-2). A total of 126 CSO permits had schedules in place largely due to
the fact that more CSO projects were constructed in Ohio than were originally expected. Regions 2, 3, and 5 met 77%
(20/26), 100% (1/1), and 85% (105/1 24) of their universe respectively. Of the four remaining candidate communities
in Region 2, two are still in enforcement negotiations and two are still having Long Term Control Plans evaluated by the
State.
Each year for the past four years, 100% of all high priority Great Lakes beaches where States and local agencies
have put into place water quality monitoring and public notification programs complied with the U.S. National Beaches
Guidance.
FY 2008 Management Challenges
A key Strategic Target for the GLNPO is to restore and de-list Area of Concerns (AOCs) within the Great Lakes basin. A
de-listing indicates that the area meets the public's vision for that area and that it is no longer among the most polluted
areas in the Great Lakes. EPA and its partners failed to meet its commitment (3) in 2008 by de-listing one Area of
Concern over the past year. (SP-31) De-listing has been delayed due to the lag time between cleanup of contaminated
sediment sites (such as the 5 completed Legacy Act sediment remediations) and monitored environmental response.
EPA is increasing staff and funding for the program and is systematically working with States to address beneficial use
impairments through target setting and de-listings.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
t Binalional AOCs
Delisled AOCs
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Sub-objective: Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
FY 2008 Chesapeake Bay Measures Universe
25%
Commitments
D Indicators
n = 8
FY 2008 Chesapeake Bay Commitment Measures Results
Total Met
Total Not Met
n = 6
Six out of eight Chesapeake Bay Sub-objective measures had annual commitments in 2008. EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program fell short in meetings its commitments for four out of six national performance measures.
FY08
ACS Code
Measure ("Key Words")
Met/Not Met
(I = Indicator)
Appendix Page
Number (A-0)/
Report Page
Number (pg.O)
SP-33
SP-34
SP-35
SP-36
SP-37
CB-la
CB-lb
CB-2
Chesapeake Bay SAV restored
Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen attained
Bay nitrogen reduction practices implementation
Bay phosphorus reduction practices implementation
Bay sediment reduction practices implementation
Bay Point source nitrogen reduction
Bay Point source phosphorus reduction
Bay Forest buffer goal achieved
Report in 2012
Report in 2012
T
T
T
A
T
A-85, R-77
A-85
A-86, R-77-78
A-86, R-77-78
A-87, R-78-79
A-88, R-79
A-88, R-79
A-89, R-79
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
After a successful year in 2006, EPA has struggled to meet the majority of its commitments for restoring and
protecting the Chesapeake Bay for the past three years. The Agency has been successful, however, in setting
commitments and the timely reporting of data for all Chesapeake Bay measures for the past three years.
3 Year Trend Results Chesapeake Bay
% Met
% Not Met
Data Not Available
Fiscal Year
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The overriding goal of EPAs Chesapeake Bay Program Office is to work with its Federal, State, and local partners
to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. One of the most important indicators for measuring the
health of the Chesapeake Bay is the change in the number of acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the
Bay (SP-33). Based on annual monitoring from the prior year, the Bay Program reported 64,91 2 acres of SAV in
the Bay. This represents approximately 35% of the Bay program's long-term goal of 1 85,000 acres which is the
amount necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. Starting in 2008, the Agency no longer
sets annual commitments for SAV (SP-33) due to the extreme variability in the annual results. Instead, EPA set a
long-term target of 83,250 acres for SAV in 201 1.
The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy primarily because of pollution from excess nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment entering the water. The main sources of these pollutants are agriculture, urban and
suburban runoff, wastewater, and airborne contaminants. New restoration programs and projects were put in place
in 2008, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals to implement nitrogen and phosphorus pollution control
practices (SP 35 and SP 36). EPA maintains that efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural practices is occurring
but not at a sufficient enough pace to meet annual commitments. Incorporating nutrient limits into permit cycles is
ongoing but upgrades of wastewater treatment plants are costly. Furthermore, increasing pollutant loads from
urban and suburban growth and development are outstripping progress from agriculture and wastewater sectors.
EPAs efforts to meet the program's commitments for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus in 2009 include supporting
local community efforts to upgrade wastewater treatment plants, engaging and empowering local governments to
address water quality degradation from development and polluted runoff, and strengthening farmers ability to
implement critical agricultural conservation practices (e.g., stream fencing and buffers, nutrient management, no-till,
cover crops).
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
SP 35 Percent of Implementation Goal for Nitrogen Reduction in the Chesapeake Bay
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Annual Commitment
D End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fiscal Year
SP 36 Percent of Implementation Goal for Phosphorus Reduction in the Chesapeake Bay
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Annual Commitment
- D End-of-Year Results
2005
2006 2007
Fiscal Year
2008
For the second year in a row, the Bay Program met its 2008 commitment for reducing sediments to the Bay and, as
a result, has achieved 64% of its long term implementation goal (SP-37).
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
SP 37 Percent of Implementation Goal for Sediment Reduction in the Chesapeake Bay
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Annual Commitment
End-of-Year Results
2005
2006
2007
2008
Point sources, such as industrial dischargers and wastewater treatment plants, are significant sources of nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution into the Bay. The Bay Program missed its 2008 commitment for reducing nitrogen from point
sources (CB-la) for the second year in a row. Sixty-nine percent of its point source nitrogen reduction goal (49.9
million pounds) was achieved in 2008, which was short of its commitment of 74%. The program met its commitment
for reducing phosphorus by reaching 87% of its point source phosphorus reduction goal (6.1 6 million pounds) (CB-
1 b). The mixed results were produced in part by pollution reduction strategies that were not implemented to levels
envisioned by the Chesapeake Bay Program partners.
The Bay program and its partners were unsuccessful in meeting the 2008 commitment of planting 6,000 miles of
forest buffer within the Bay watershed. The program has reached 57% of its long-term goal of 1 0,000 miles of
forest buffer falling short of its 2008 commitment of 60% (CB-2).
FY 2008 Management Challenges
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program reported a decrease in nitrogen and phosphorus discharged in the wastewater
from municipal and industrial facilities that flow into the Bay, accounting for a large portion of the estimated nutrient
reductions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to date. However, as the population in the Chesapeake watershed
continues to grow (an estimated 1 50,000 annually since 2000), the volume of waste requiring treatment grows. To
keep pace with the growing population and meet Bay restoration goals, Bay jurisdictions are implementing a new
permitting approach that requires hundreds of wastewater treatment plants to install a new generation of nutrient
reduction technology equipment.
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Gulf of Mexico
Sub-objective: Protect the Gulf of Mexico
FY 2008 Gulf of Mexico Measures Universe
Commitments
Indicators
n =
FY 2008 Gulf of Mexico Commitment Measure Results
Total Met
Total Not Met
Data Not Available
n = 6
Six out of seven Gulf of Mexico Sub-objective measures had commitments in 2008. EPA met its commitments
for three measures, fell short of its commitment for one measure and had no data to report for two measures in
2008.
. Appendix Page Number
° , Measure ("Key Words") e ; ° e . (A-0)/ Report Page Number
ACS Code v ' ' (1 = Indicator) v " , "
pg-0
4.3.5
SP-38
SP-39
SP-40
GM-1
GM-2
GM-3a/b
Improve health - Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
Impaired water segments and habitat restored
Gulf Acres restored or enhanced
Reduces hypoxic zone Gulf of Mexico
Warning system to manage algal blooms
Reduce shellfish-borne illnesses
Gulf near term actions completed
Data Available in 2009
1
Data Not Available
^
A-90, R-81
A-90, R-82
A-91, R-81
A-91, R-81
A-92
A-93, R-82
A-94, R-82
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Gulf of Mexico
EPA continued to meet the majority of its commitments to protect the Gulf of Mexico in 2007 and 2008. Although
there was a decline in the number of commitments met over the past two years, this was due to an increase in the
number of measures without available data.
3 Year Trend Results Gulf of Mexico
D % Met
% Not Met
D Data Not Available
Fiscal Year
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Watershed." Its U.S. coastline is 1,630 miles, it is fed by thirty-
three major rivers, and it receives drainage from 31 States in addition to a similar drainage area from Mexico.
One-sixth of the U.S. population now lives in Gulf Coast States, and the region is experiencing remarkably rapid
population growth. In addition, the Gulf yields approximately forty percent of the Nation's commercial fishery
landings. Gulf Coast wetlands comprise about half the national total and provide critical habitat for seventy-five
percent of the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States.
The latest National Coastal Condition Report (2008) indicates that the overall aquatic ecosystem health of the
coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is 2.2 on a 5-point scale in which 1 is poor and 5 is good. (Subobjective 4.3.2)
This was short of the 2008 commitment of 2.5. Although EPA no longer sets a target for reducing the size of the
hypoxic, or "dead zone" zone, in the Gulf of Mexico; it is worth noting that the size of the zone increased slightly
from 20,500 km2 in 2007 to 20,720 km2 in 2008 (SP-40).
Acres Habitat Restored. The Gulf Program ended the year well ahead of its FY 08 cumulative target (18,200
acres) to restore, protect or enhance coastal and marine habitats. Regional collaboration by industry partners
through coordinated efforts of more than 72 organizations helped restore 6,739 acres in 2008. The Program has
restored, enhanced, or protected a total of 25,21 5 acres in the states of Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana,
and Texas since 2006. (SP-39)
Percent Impaired Segments Restored. In 2007, with the support of numerous Federal, State, local and private
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
partners, EPA achieved a reduction of 109 in impaired waterbody listings in the 13 priority coastal areas of
the Gulf of Mexico, exceeding the target of 56 (SP-38). Data is currently not available for this measure for FY
2008.
Shellfish Illness Rate Reduced. The Agency failed to meet the 2007 commitment 0.121 per million people for
reducing the rate of shellfish-born Vibrio vunificus illnesses caused by consumption of raw or undercooked oysters
by reaching 0.2250 per million people in 2007. Through 2005 and 2006, the rates have stayed below the 2007
commitment level while efforts in 2007 did not maintain a rate of illness below 0.1 21 per million people (GM-2).
Data is currently not available for this measure for 2008.
Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the 73 near term actions in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governors' Action Plan are
on track or completed. Leveraging of Gulf of Mexico Alliance Partnerships contributed to the high rate of success
in the number of actions that are completed (44%). (GM-3b)
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Subobjective: Protect Long Islam
Sub-objective: Protect Long Island Sound
FY 2008 Long Island Sound Measures Universe
25%
Commitments
D Indicators
n -A
FY 2008 Long Island Sound Commitment Measure Results
33%
Total Met
D Total Not Met
n =
Three out of four Long Island Sound measures had commitments in 2008. The program met two out of three of its
commitments in 2008.
FY08 . ... ... , . Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number (A-0)/
._- _ . Measure ("Key Words") ... , « » _ / «/
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) Report Page Number (pg.O)
SP-41
SP-42
SP-43
SP-44
Reduce Long Island Sound nitrogen
Reduce Long Island Sound hypoxic zone
Restore Long Island Sound coastal habitat
Re-open river & streams for fish passage
T
1
A-95, R-84
A-96, R-84
A-97, R-84
A-98, R-84
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect Long Island Sound
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
More that 20 million people live within 50 miles of the Long Island Sound's shores and more than one billion gallons
per day of treated effluent enter the Sound from 1 06 treatment plants. In 2008 dollars, the Sound generates more
than $8.25 billion to the regional economy from clean water-related activities alonerecreational and commercial
fishing and shellflshing, beach-going and swimming. The Sound is breeding ground, nursery, feeding ground, and
habitat to more than 170 species of fish and 1,200 invertebrate species that are under increasing stress from
development and competing human uses.
The Long Island Sound program met its 2008 commitment (862 acres) by restoring or protecting 1,199 acres
of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands (SP-43). EPA also
reported that since FY 2006 it has re-opened 1 24 miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage
through removal of dams and barriers or installations of by-pass structures such as flshways (SP-44). This exceeded
the commitment of 1 06 miles. EPA reported that its success was due to effective coordination among Federal, State
and local partners and appropriate landowners on planned projects.
The Long Island Sound program fell short of its commitment to reduce the amount of nitrogen discharging into Long
Island Sound from wastewater treatment plants. EPA reported that 40,440 Trade Equalized pounds were reduced
per day which was above the FY 2008 of 37,323 pounds per day. The size in the hypoxic area in Long Island
Sound increased from 1 62 square miles in 2007 to 1 80 square miles in 2008. (SP-42) The duration of the "hypoxic
event" increased from 58 days in 2007 to an 79 days in 2008.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Sub-objective: Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
FY 2008 South Florida Measures Universe
Commitments
100%
n = 4
FY 2008 South Florida Commitment Measures Results
Total Not Met
100%
n -A
All of South Florida's measures had commitments in 2008. Although EPA was unable to meet any of their measure
commitments in 2008, the Agency and it partners made partial progress on several sub-indicators within some of
the measures.
_ .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY08 . ... ... .... Met/Not Met ,..,
,___ . Measure ("Key Words") .. . (A-0)/ Report Page Number
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) .
(pg-0)
SP-45
SP-46
SP-47
SP-48
Achieve no net loss in South Florida stony coral
Maintain health of South Florida sea grass
Maintain South Florida coastal water quality
Improve Everglades water quality
T
T
T
T
A-98, R-86
A-98, R-86
A-99, R-86
A- 100, R-86
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The South Florida ecosystem encompasses three national parks, more than ten national wildlife refuges, a national
preserve and a national marine sanctuary. It is home to two Native American Nations, and it supports the largest
wilderness area east of the Mississippi River, the only living coral barrier reef adjacent to the United States, and
the largest commercial and sport fisheries in Florida. However, rapid population growth is threatening the health
of this vital ecosystem. South Florida is home to about 8 million people, more than the populations of 39 individual
States.
EPA and its Federal, State, regional and local partners were unable to maintain "no net loss" of stony coral cover
(mean percent stony coral cover) in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters
of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida in 2008 (SP-45). Although coral cover increased from FY
2006 to FY 2007, factors affecting coral cover in 2008 were mechanical damage from tropical storms, bleaching
caused by elevated water temperatures, and coral diseases.
EPA met part of its 2008 commitment to maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the
FKNMS as measured by the long-term sea grass monitoring project that address composition and abundance,
productivity, and nutrient availability (SP-46). The measure has two parts including an elemental indicator (El)
and a species composition index (SCI ) of seagrass beds. There was a very small decrease in the El from the
2005 baseline of 8.3 - 7.8 in FY 2008. EPA believes that this may be due to random variability and may not be
biologically significant. EPA met the second status indicator, which is based on species composition of seagrass beds.
The SCI was statistically the same.
In FY 2008, EPA and its partners were unable to maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal
waters of the FKNMS (SP-47), but were able to meet one of the status indicators. This measure has four status
indicators light attenuation, chlorophyll, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and total phosphorus (TP). Light
attenuation was statistically the same as the baseline (< 0.1 3/meter) and is considered met. Chlorophyll showed a
small decrease from the 2005 baseline (<0.2 ug/l). Increases in dissolved inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus
changes were regional in scope and persistent for three quarters in 2008. The program speculates that far field
sources and major upwelling events were probable causes for the decrease in water quality for the Florida Keys.
The program did note that there was a significant decline in DIN and TP in last quarter of FY 2007 to more normal
levels.
The program failed to meet its commitment in 2008 to improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem (SP-
48). The Agency did not meet the total phosphorus (TP) criterion (1 0 ppb) throughout Everglades Protection Area.
It is noteworthy, however, that some areas within the Everglades Protection Area did meet the 1 0 ppb criterion. In
fact, last year's performance for Stormwater Treatment Areas was better than the 2005 baseline in one of five
Treatment Areas and three of six Treatment Areas met their phosphorus effluent limits.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
iubobjective: Restore and Protect Puget Souni
Sub-objective: Restore and Protect Puget Sound
FY 2008 Puget Sound Measures Universe
Commitments
100%
n = 3
FY 2008 Puget Sound Commitment Measure Results
Total Met
100%
n =
All Puget Sound measures had commitments in FY 2008. The Puget Sound program met all of its commitments last
year.
_ .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY08 . ... ... .... Met/Not Met ,..,
,___ . Measure ("Key Words") .. . (A-0)/ Report Page Number
ACS Code (1 = Indicator) .
(pg-0)
SP-49
SP-50
SP-51
Increase acres of Puget Sound shellfish areas
Remediate Puget Sound contaminated sediments
Restore acres of Puget Sound estuarine wetlands
A-101, R-88
A-101, R-88
A- 102, R-88
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Restore and Protect Puget Soum
FY 2008 Performance Highlights
The Puget Sound Basin is the largest population and commercial center in the Pacific Northwest, supporting a vital
system of international ports, transportation systems, and defense installations. The ecosystem encompasses roughly
20 rivers and 2,800 square miles of sheltered inland waters that provide habitat to hundreds of species of marine
mammals, fish, and sea birds.
In 2008, EPA and its State, local, and Tribal partners improved water quality in the Puget Sound Basin which enabled
the lifting of harvest restrictions in 1,566 acres of shellfish bed growing areas (cumulative from FY 2006.) (SP-
49) EPA exceeded its 2008 commitment by 71% (450 acres). Results were partly due to a highly effective Kitsap
County Health District "Pollution Identification and Correction" Program that worked with private landowners to
repair failing septic systems resulting in the upgrading of 935 acres of shellfish beds from prohibited to approved
status in FY08 (see Best Practices). This was in addition to the good work in other areas, which led to another 310
acres of upgrades in FY 2008.
As of the end of FY 2008, EPA and its partners remediated 1 23 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments
(cumulative starting in FY 06.) (SP-50) This reflects the success of the region's Superfund Program in completing
their planned work on schedule.
Over 4400 acres of tidallyand seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands have been restored in the Puget Sound
Basin since FY 2006 (SP-51). The program exceeded its 2008 commitment by 48% (2,310 acres). The large over-
achievement in acres reported is due to the Whidbey Camano Land Trust acquiring 3,160 acres of tidelands in
Livingston Bay, Camano Islandthe largest conservation project in the Land Trust's history. The acquisition was
made possible by a $400,000 grant from the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board, matched by
a generous private donation. In general, success in this measure is facilitated by the Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership (a group of concerned citizens, nonprofit organizations, ports, and others working with local, State,
Tribal, and Federal Government) which works to identify and implement projects protecting valuable nearshore
habitat around Puget Sound.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
Sub-objective: Protect the Columbia River Basin
FY 2008 Columbia River Measures Universe
Commitments
100%
n = 3
FY 2008 Columbia River Commitment Measure Results
Total Met
Data Not Available
n = 3
Two Columbia River measures had commitment in 2008. Both commitments were met in 2008 and one measure has
a long term commitment and will not be reported until in 201 1.
. Appendix Page Number
ACS Code Measure ("Key Words") (, = ndleati) (A-O/ Report Page Number
(pg-0)
SP-52
SP-53
SP-54
Protect Lower Columbia River wetland habitat
Clean up Columbia River contaminated sediments
Reduce Columbia River contaminants at 5 sites
Report in 2012
A-103,R-90
A- 104 R-90
A- 104 R-90
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Subobjective: Protect the Columbia River Basin
Performance Highlights
More than 1,200 miles long, the Columbia River spans portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada,
Utah, Montana, and a substantial portion of British Columbia. The 260,000 square mile Columbia River Basin
comprises ecosystems that are home to a variety of biologically significant plants and animals and supports industries
vital to the Pacific Northwest, including sport and commercial fisheries, agriculture, transportation, recreation, and
electrical power generation.
Working with EPA and other partners, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership has protected, enhanced, or
restored 1 2,986 acres of wetland and upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed since FY 2006 (SP-
52). This is well above the commitment of 8,000 acres established for SP-52 in 2008.
Measure SP-53 is focusing on progress in cleaning up contaminated sediments in the Lower Columbia River, primarily
the Portland Harbor Superfund site. The target for clean-up for contaminated sediments (SP-53) for 2008 was
zero. On-the-ground-clean-up efforts for this measure are targeted to begin in 2009.
For measure SP-54, EPA established a long-term target of 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue to be measured over a 5 year period in five specific locations
in the Columbia River Basin where data was available. The Agency will report on this measure in FY 201 1.
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
APPENDIX A: Measure by Measure
Summary of Commitments Met or Not Met
The following table is a measure by measure summary of performance results for FY 2008. An "up" arrow means
that a measure met its 2008 commitment and a "down" arrow indicates that the annual commitment was not met.
The letter "I" means that the measure is an indicator measure and did not have an annual commitment for 2008.
Measures with page numbers in bold (R-00) are represented by charts in the report. The appendix number
represents the number of the slide number in Appendix B (A-00).
FY08ACS Measure Met/Not Met Appendix Page Number
Code ("Key Words") (1 = Indicator) (A-Q)/ *6p°rt P°96
v 7 ' v ' Number (pg.O)
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.1.1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4a
SP-4b
SP-5
SOW- la
SDW-lb
SDW-2
SOW- 3
SDW-4
SDW-5
SDW-6
SDW-7a
SDW-7b
SDW-7c
SDW-8
SDW-9
SDW-lOa
SOW- 1 Ob
Population served by CWSs
meeting safe standards
CWSs meeting safe standards
"Person months" with CWSs meeting safe standards
Population Indian country served
by CWSs meeting safe standards
CWSs & source water protection
Population & source water protection
Tribal households with safe drinking water
CWSs with sanitary survey
Tribal CWSs with sanitary survey
Data for violations in SDWIS-FED
Lead/Copper Rule data in SDWIS-FED
DWSRF fund utilization rate
DWSRF projects initiated
Class V Motor Vehicle Waste wells
Class 1 wells with mechanical integrity
Class II wells with mechanical integrity
Class III wells with mechanical integrity
High Priority Class V wells closed or permitted
CWSs intakes for drinking water uses
Drinking water impairments with TMDL
Drinking water impairments restored
A
T
T
1
1
T
1
1
1
A-2, R-31
A-3
A-4
A-5, R-36-37
A-6, R-32
A-6
A-7, R-37
A-8, R-35-36
A-8
A-9
A- 10
A-ll,R-33
A-12
A-13,R-34
A- 14, R-34
A-15,R-34
A- 16, R-34
A-17
A- 18
A-19
A- 19
Subobjective 2.1 .1 Safe Fish & Shellfish
SP-6
SP-7
FS-la
FS-lb
Women & mercury blood levels
Shellfish-growing acres
River Miles fish consumption advisory
Lake acres fish consumption advisory
Data Available
in 2009
Data Available
in 2009
1
1
A-20, R-40
A-20, R-40
A-21, R-40
A-2 1, R-40
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
_ . .. .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY 08 ACS Measure Met/Not Met , . n.ln 9
r- i iuu 1.1 i m / x , (A-0)/ Report Page
Code ("Keywords") (1 = Indicator) ..,,_, «,
Number (pg.O)
Subobjective 2.1.3 Safe Swimming
SP-8
SP-9
SS-1
SS-2
Waterborne disease & swimming
Beach days safe for swimming
CSO permits schedules in place
Public beaches monitored
A-22, R-42
A-23, R-42
A-24, R-43
A-25, R-42
Subobjective 2.2.1 Water Quality
SP-10
SP-11
SP-12
SP-13
SP-14
SP-15
WQ-la
WQ-lb
WQ-2
WQ-3a
WQ-3b
WQ-4a
WQ-4b
WQ-5
WQ-6a
WQ-6b
WQ-7
WQ-8a
WQ-8b
WQ-9a
WQ-9b
WQ-9c
WQ-10
WQ-1 1
Formerly impaired waterbodies now attaining
water quality standards
Remove causes of waterbody impairment
Improve water quality w/ watershed approach
Ensure wadeable stream conditions
Show improvement in Tribal waters
Reduce Tribal households lacking sanitation
States/Territories adopted nutrient criteria
States/Territories on schedule to
adopt nutrient criteria
Tribal water quality standards approved by EPA
States/Territories updating water quality criteria
Tribes updating water quality criteria
States/Territories water quality standards
revisions approved by EPA
Tribes water quality standards submissions
States/Territories adopting monitoring strategies
Tribes implementing monitoring strategies
Tribes providing water quality data
States/Territories using Assessment Database (ADB)
TMDLs completed by EPA and States
TMDLs completed by States
Nitrogen loadings reduced
Phosphorus loadings reduced
Sediment loadings reduced
NPS-impaired waterbodies restored
NPDES follow-up actions completed
A
Report in 20 12
Report in 20 12
T
T
A
T
A
T
Data Available
in 2009
Data Available
in 2009
Data Available
in 2009
1
A-26, R-46
A-27, R-47
A-28, R-47
A-29
A-30
A-31, R-56
A-32, R-56
A-32, R-49
A-33, R-55
A-34, R-57
A-34, R-55
A-35, R-48
A-35, R-55
A-36, R-49
A-37, R-50
A-37, R-50
A-38, R-49
A-39, R-50
A-40
A-41
A-41
A-41
A-42, R-53-54
A-43
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
_ . .. .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY 08 ACS Measure Met/Not Met , . n.ln 9
r- i iuu 1.1 i m / x , (A-0)/ Report Page
Code ("Keywords") (1 = Indicator) ..,,_, «,
Number (pg.O)
Subobjective 2.2.1 Water Quality (continued)
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
WQ-13b
WQ-13c
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
WQ-15b
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-18
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
WQ-20
WQ-21
Non-Tribal NPDES permits current
Tribal NPDES permits current
Facilities covered by MS-4 permits
Facilities covered by industrial storm water permits
Facilities covered by construction
storm water permits
Facilities covered by CAFO permits
POTWs SI Us with control mechanisms in place
POTWs ClUs with control mechanisms in place
Percent major dischargers in SNC
Major Dischargers on impaired waters in SNC
POTWs complying with wastewater
discharge standards
CWSRF Fund utilization rate
People served by health-based projects/$M
High priority state NPDES permits
High priority EPA/Tribal NPDES permits
Facilities providing trading
Impaired segments restoration planning complete
T
1
1
1
1
1
T
1
A
T
1
1
A-44, R-51
A-44, R-56
A-45
A-45
A-46
A-46
A-47
A-47
A-48, R-55
A-48
A-49
A-50, R-54-55
A-51
A-52, R-52
A-53, R-52
A-54
A-55
Subobjective 2.2.1 Oceans/Coastal
2.2.2
SP-16
SP-17
SP-18
SP-19
SP-20
4.3.2
CO-1
CO-2
CO-3
CO-4
CO-5
CO-6
Improve coastal aquatic system health
Maintain aquatic health-Northeast
Maintain aquatic health - Southeast
Maintain aquatic health - West Coast
Maintain aquatic health Puerto Rico
Ocean dumping sites acceptable conditions
NEP Acres habitat protected or restored
Coastal waterbody impairments restored
Coastline miles protected vessel sewage
NEP priority actions completed
Rate of return Federal investment for NEP
Dredged material management plans in place
Active dredged material sites monitored annually
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-56, R-61
A-57
A-57
A-57
A-57
A-58, R-62
A-59, R-62
A-60
A-61
A-62, R-62
A-63, R-62
A-64
A-65
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
__, . .__ .. .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY 08 ACS Measure Met/Not Met , ' n.ln 9
r- i iuu 1.1 i m / x , (A-0)/ Report Page
Code ("Keywords") (1 = Indicator) ..,,_, «,
Number (pg.O)
Subobjective 4.3.1 Wetlands
SP-21
SP-22
WT-1
WT-2a
WT-2b
WT-3
WT-4
Net increase wetlands achieved
No Net Loss of wetlands
Wetland acres restored and enhanced
States built capacities in wetland monitoring
Tribes built capacities in wetland monitoring
404 permits with greater environ, protection
States wetland condition trend has been measured
Data Available
in 2009
1
1
1
A-66, R-65
A-66, R-65
A-67, R-64
A-68, R-64
A-68, R-64
A-69
A-70, R-64
Subobjective 4.2.4 Mexico Border
SP-23
SP-24
SP-25
Mexico Border transboundary surface waters
achieved
Safe drinking water homes Mexico Border
Wastewater sanitation homes Mexico Border
Data Available
in 2009
A-71,R-67
A-72, R-67
A-73, R-67
Subobjective 4.2.5 Pacific Islands
SP-26
SP-27
SP-28
Pacific Islands population served by CWS
Pacific Islands treatment plans with BOD limits
Pacific Islands beach days open for swimming
A-74, R-69
A-75, R-69
A-76, R-69
Subobjective 4.3.3 Great Lakes
4.3.3
SP-29
SP-30
SP-31
SP-32
GL-1
GL-2
GL-3
GL-4a/b
Improve health - Great Lakes ecosystem
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes fish
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes air
Restore AOCs
Remediate cubic yards of contaminated sediment
Permitted discharges reflect standards
CSO permits consistent with national policy
High priority - Great Lakes beaches
Great Lakes near term actions completed
T
1
A-77, R-71
A-77, R-71
A-78, R-73
A-78, R-74
A-79, R-74
A-80, R-74
A-81, R-74
A-82, R-74
A-83
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
_ . .. .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY 08 ACS Measure Met/Not Met , . n.ln 9
r- i iuu 1.1 i m / x , (A-0)/ Report Page
Code ("Keywords") (1 = Indicator) ..,,_, «,
Number (pg.O)
Subobjective 4.3.4 Chesapeake Bay
SP-33
SP-34
SP-35
SP-36
SP-37
CB-la
CB-lb
CB-2
Chesapeake Bay SAV restored
Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen attained
Bay nitrogen reduction practices implementation
Bay phosphorus reduction practices implementation
Bay sediment reduction practices implementation
Bay Point source nitrogen reduction
Bay Point source phosphorus reduction
Bay Forest buffer goal achieved
Report in 2012
Report in 2012
T
T
T
A-85, R-77
A-85
A- 8 6, R-77-78
A-86, R-77-78
A-87, R-78-79
A-88, R-79
A-88, R-79
A-89, R-79
Subobjective 4.3.5 Gulf of Mexico
4.3.5
SP-38
SP-39
SP-40
GM-1
GM-2
GM-3a/b
Improve health Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
Impaired water segments and habitat restored
Gulf Acres restored or enhanced
Reduces hypoxic zone Gulf of Mexico
Warning system to manage algal blooms
Reduce shellfish-borne illnesses
Gulf near term actions completed
Data Available
in 2009
1
Data Not
Available
A-90, R-81
A-90, R-82
A-91, R-81
A-91,R-81
A-92
A-93, R-82
A-94, R-82
Subobjective 4.3.6 Long Island Sound
SP-41
SP-42
SP-43
SP-44
Reduce Long Island Sound nitrogen
Reduce Long Island Sound hypoxic zone
Restore Long Island Sound coastal habitat
Re-open river & streams for fish passage
1
A-95, R-84
A-96, R-84
A-97, R-84
A-98, R-84
Subobjective 4.3.7 South Florida
SP-45
SP-46
SP-47
SP-48
Achieve no net loss in South Florida stony coral
Maintain health of South Florida sea grass
Maintain South Florida coastal water quality
Improve Everglades water quality
T
T
A-98, R-86
A-98, R-86
A-99, R-86
A- 100, R-86
Subobjective 4.3.8 Puget Sound
SP-49
SP-50
SP-51
Increase acres of Puget Sound shellfish areas
Remediate Puget Sound contaminated sediments
Restore acres of Puget Sound estuarine wetlands
A-101,R-88
A-101,R-88
A-102, R-88
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
__, . .__ .. .. ... .. Appendix Page Number
FY 08 ACS Measure Met/Not Met , ' n.ln 9
r- i iuu 1.1 i , / x , (A-0)/ Report Page
Code ("Keywords") (1 = Indicator) ..,,_/ «,
Number (pg.O)
Subobjective 4.3.9 Columbia River
SP-52
SP-53
SP-54
Protect Lower Columbia River wetland habitat
Clean up Columbia River contaminated sediments
Reduce Columbia River contaminants at 5 sites
Report in 2012
A- 103, R-90
A-104R-90
A- 104 R-90
National Water Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-------
APPENDIX B: Detailed Measures Appendix: Measures with
National and Regional Data and Commitments
Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2008
-------
Table of Contents
Subobjective Slide Number Subobjective Slide Number
1) Water Safe to Drink 2
9) Great Lakes
2) Safe Fish and Shellfish 20 10) Chesapeake Bay
3) Safe Swimming 22 11) Gulf of Mexico
4) Water Quality 26 12) Long Island Sound
5) Oceans/Coastal 55 13) South Florida
6) Wetlands 65 14) Puget Sound
7) Mexico Border 70 15) Columbia River
76
84
89
93
96
99
101
8) Pacific Islands 73
Measure Type K
PART measure PA
Indicator measure
State Grant measure S
Quarterly Management Report Measure (2008) Qf
FY 2009 CJ Budget Measure Bl
Senior Management Measure Sl\
;y Definition
RT PART or PART-supported measure
National Program Guidance measure with no annual target
G Measure reported in state grants
AR Reported quarterly to the DA for performance asse
;ssment
JD Targeted measures in the FY 2009 Congressional Justification
IM Management performance assessment measure
Water Safe to Drink Ij^,.
Measure #: Subobjective 2. 1.1 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of the population served by community water systems that
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through
approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.
PART; BUD; SG
| 1 Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg £
2005 Baseline 92.5% 55.3% 93.2% 93.0% 94.1% 87.8% 91.2% 94.7% 94. 6°/
2006 End-of-Year 92% 61% 93% 93% 92% 88% 91% 96% 98%
2007 End-of-Year 92% 77% 95% 93% 93% 92% 93.0% 97% 95%
2008 Commitment 89% 75% 92% 91% 91% 88% 93% 90% 95%
2008 End-of-Year 91% 82% 90% 94% 95% 89% 93% 96% 98%
UniMBree (in millions) 14.5 | 31.9 | 24.7 | 55.6 42.5 37.3 11.7 10.1 47.4
2011 Tar
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 05 and FY 06 end-of-year data are from SDWIS.
| Reg 10 | Total ,
94.8% 89%
95% 89%
92% 92%
90% 90%
96% 92%
10.6 286.5
get: 91%
1
-------
Water Safe to Drink bvJ
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-1 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-
based standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water
protection.
PART; BUD; SG
| Reg 1 | Reg 2 | Reg 3
2005 Baseline 85.7% 86.4% 91.8%
2006 End-of-Year 84% 88% 91%
2007 End-of-Year 83% 87% 91%
2008 Commitment 82% 86% 91%
2008 End-of-Year 85% 86% 91%
|universe | 2,728 3,929 4,561
National Program Manager Comments:
Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 R
91.0% 92.0% 86.2% 86
91% 91% 88% 8
91% 90% 88% 87
89% 87% 87% 9
91% 91% 87% 8
8,938 7,408 8,221 4
sg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 I Reg 10
.8% 90.3% 91.6% 87.3%
8% 90% 91% 87%
.3% 91% 89% 88%
1% 90.0% 90% 89%
8% 90% 89% 88%
125 3,164 4,619 4,417
2011 Target: 90%
New measure starting in FY 08.
FY 06 and FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS.
Total 1
89.0%
89.3%
89%
88%
89%
52,110 |
2
Water Safe to Drink Ij^,.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-2 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of "person months" (i.e., all persons served by community
water systems times 12 months) during which community water systems provide drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
PART; BUD; SMM
2005 End-of-Year
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
|2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uniwrse (in millions)
Reg 1 I Reg 2
97% 80%
97.4% 90.8%
96% 92%
94.5% 90%
95.9% 91%
147 383
Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg £
96% 98% 96% 96%
97.4% 97.9% 96.4% 96.10/
99% 98% 97% 97%
96% 93% 95% 93. 5°/
98% 98% 97% 96%
296 667 510 448
National Program Manager Comments:
I Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 I Reg
1 97% 99% 98% 99*
97% 98.9% 99.1% 98.5
98% 99% 97% 98°/
95% 95.5% 98% 95°/
97% 99% 99% 98°/
141 121 569 12E
2011 Target:
FY06 end-of-year data not from ACS. Indicator measure in FY 07
V
0 Tola
o 95.2%
/o 96.8%
o 97%
o 94%
o 97%
3,437
96%
J
3
-------
Water Safe to Drink bvJ
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-3 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of the population in Indian country served by community
water systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking
water standards.
BUD; SMM
1 1 Reg 1 1 Reg 2
2005 Baseline 100% 100%
2006 End-of-Year 100% 100%
2007 End-of-Year 100% 100%
2008 Commitment 90% 90%
2008 End-of-Year 100% 53%
luniverse 41,095 | 8,725
Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 I Reg 7 F
n/a 100% 99.5% 90.4% 86.5% 8
n/a 83% 100% 92% 85%
n/a 89% 98% 81% 72%
n/a 83% 95% 82.5% 85%
n/a 90% 97% 84% 87%
n/a 21,058 | 85,471 | 69,038 | 5,280 8
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 05 and FY 06 end-of-year data are from SDWIS.
teg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10 Total
2.6% 80.9% 88.1% 86%
81% 82% 95% 86.6%
87% 84% 92% 87%
87% 85% 86% 87%
88% 73% 99% 83%
8,563 395,425 | 46,968 761,623
2011 Target: 86%
4
Water Safe to Drink Ij^,.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-4 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of community water systems and percent of the population served by
community water systems where risk to public health is minimized through source water protection.
(SP-4a) Community water systems: PART; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (FY 07)
(SP-4b) Popu
1
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Reg 1
51%
52%
57%
53%
0%
2,728
Reg 2
30%
56%
58%
58%
58% ["
3,929
Reg 3
12%
14% |
21%
21%
~25% ["
4,561
Reg 4
21%
22%
40%
29%
30%
8,938
Reg 5
19%
32%
39%
32%
40%
7,408
Reg 6
19%
13%
27%
18%
25%
8,221
Reg?
13%
14%
17%
11%
17%
4,125
Reg 8
20%
32%
33%
37%
37%
3,164
Reg 9
1%
1%
1%
1%
8%
4,619
ation:
Reg1
77%
81%
77%
95%
Universe (in millions) 14.5
National Program M
Reg 2
58%
79%
81%
81%
Reg 3
53%
54%
56%
57%
31.9 24.7
Reg 4
24%
43%
28%
40%
55.6
Reg 5
47%
63%
47%
64%
42.5
Reg 6
26%
43%
32%
44%
"I 373~~
Reg?
12%
18%
17%
16%
| 11.7
Reg 8
21%
27%
25%
35%
10.1
Reg 9
0%
1%
1%
12%
47.4
anager Comments:
Reg 10
28%
28%
33%
28%
35%
4,417 |
Total %
20%
24%
33%
27%
32%
100%
Total #
10,281
12,616
17,183
14,007
16,662
52,069
2011 Target: 50%
SG
Reg 10
67%
70%
65%
71%
10.6
Total %
n/a
34%
45%
39%
48%
Total #
n/a
32.6
129.5
112.4
138.4
100% 288.3
2011 Target: 62%
SP-4b is a new measure starting in FY 08. Note: "Minimized risk" is achieved by the substantial implementation, as determined
by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy. The universe is the most recent SDWIS inventory of community
water systems. FY 06 and FY 07 end-of-year adjusted data not from ACS.
V
\
5
/
-------
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-5
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking
water.
PART
2003 Baseline
2005 End-of-Year
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment (#)
38,637
38,692
38,737
36,575
30,587
34,855
319,070
%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
11.5%
9.5%
11.0%
100%
2015 Target: Reduce by half from 2003 baseline
(from 38,637 to 19,319)
National Program Manager Comments:
This measure involves coordination with other federal agencies.
Water Safe to Drink Ij^,.
Measure #: SDW-1 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of community water systems (CWSs) and number of tribal community
water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding
performers) as required under the Interim Enhanced and Long- Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rules.
(SDW-la) CWSs in States: PART; BUD; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
| Universe (FY 07)
Reg1
88%
90%
96%
489
Reg 2
data n/a
95%
96%
1,387
Reg3
91%
95%
95%
1,235
Reg 4
95%
95%
84%
1,802
Reg5
81%
84%
88%
1,354
Reg 6
91%
93%
94%
2,100
(SDW-lb) CWSs in Tribes:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (FY07)
Reg 1
n/a
1
1
1
1
n/a
National Program Mana
Reg 2
1
1
2
2
2
2
Reg 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
ger Comments:
RegS
2
2
2
2
2
2
Reg 6
1
1
1
5
5
7
Reg 7
95%
95%
93%
792
RegS
92%
94%
91%
780
Reg 9
100%
100%
61%
917
Reg 10
95%
95%
88%
593
Total
n/a*
n/a*
92%**
94%
87%
11,449 |
QMR
Reg 7
1
4
1
1
1
1
RegS
0
11
17
10
16
25
Reg 9
9
13
18
18
12
20
Reg 10
7
3
8
4
7
10
Total I
22
37
51
44
47
68
I *Prior to FY 07, this measure tracked states, rather than CWSs, in compliance with this regu ation. **Region 1
2 will not have FY 07 end-of-year data until April 2008. The national FY 07 end-of-year result provided is
1 an estimate. I -,
-------
Water Safe to Drink |jy |
Measure #: SDW-2 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of the data for violations of health-based standards at public
water systems that is accurate and complete in SDWIS-FED for all maximum contaminant
level and treatment technique rules (excluding the Lead and Copper Rule).
PART; I
1 Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 End-of-Year
(universe
Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 1 0 Total
n/a
n/a
60%
62%
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
s
The FY 07 end-of-year result is based on audits conducted during 2005
three-year rolling data from data verification audits conducted during tl
V
x
and 2006. Future results will be based on
e past 3 ca endar years.
J
8
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-3
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of the lead action level data that for the Lead and Copper
Rule, for community water systems serving over 3,300 people, that is complete in SDWIS-
FED.
2002-2004 Results
2005-2007 Results
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg 1
89%
88%
435
Reg 2
97%
97%
699
Reg 3
86%
93%
676
Reg 4
87%
85%
2,006
Reg5
83%
98%
1,594
Reg 6
47%
83%
1,438
Reg 7
68%
71%
440
Reg 8
90%
89%
366
Reg 9
88%
76%
913
Reg 10
85%
90%
387
Total I
80%
n/a*
Indicator
87%
8,954 |
National Program Manager Comments:
*This measure is calculated every three years to match the requirements for lead sampling. The 2005-2007
results will be calculated in April 2008.
-------
Water Safe to Drink bvJ
Measure #: SDW-4 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Fund utilization rate [cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements
divided by cumulative funds available for projects] for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF).
PART; BUD
I Reg 1
2005 Baseline 78.5%
2006 End-of-Year 89%
2007 End-of-Year 90%
2008 Commitment 79%
2008 End-of-Year 97%
Universe (2007) (in
vl, 6fo.l
$ millions)
National Program Mana
Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5
93% 83.3% 88% 87%
89% 88% 92% 81%
91% 91% 89% 84%
91% 85% 86% 82%
94% 88% 90% 82%
$2,686.4 $832.3 $1,527.6 $2,812.2
ger Comments:
Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9
64.5% 91.0% 84.0% 80%
72% 92% 87% 85%
78% 97% 86% 85%
76% 92% 86% 80%
88% 102% 87% 86%
$1,283.7 $978.8 $1,006.8 $1,321.7
Reg 10
94.3%
92%
96%
95%
93%
$592.1
Total
84.7%
89.6%
88%
85%
90%
$14,419.7
Universe represents the funds aval able for projects for the DWSRF through 2007, in millions of dollars 1
(i.e., the denominator of the measure).
10
Water Safe to Drink I. - I
Measure #: SDW-5 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) projects
that have initiated operations.
PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-ofYear
2007 End-ofYear
2008 Commitment
2008 End-ofYear
Uni\«rse
National Prog
Reg 1
320
374
415
440
465
Reg 2
311
311
366
386
383
Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg
261 369 557 59 229 242
297 441 630 79 277 331
353 499 702 119 328 378
415 501 794 140 290 350
418 522 847 135 380 418
3 Reg 9 Reg 10 c"'ali* A"al
Total increment
123 140 2,611 n/a
137 186 3,063 452
137 229 3,526 463
177 225 3,718 192
207 307 4,082 364
n/a
am Manager Comments:
This measure will be annually reported in ACS in FY 2009.
I The 2006 PART annual target is 425; the 2007 PART annual target is 430.
11
-------
Water Safe to Drink bvJ
Measure #: SDW-6 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of identified Class V Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells that
are closed or permitted, (cumulative)
PART; BUD; SG
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8
2005 Baseline 100% 102% 96% 61% 25% 72% 101% 72%
2006 End-of-Year 100% 88% 97% 77% 44% 100% 100% 91%
2007 End-of-Year 93% 100% 95% 73% 74% 100% 100% 91%
2008 Commitment 80% 80% 80% 73% 70% 80% 90% 85%
2008 End-of-Year data n/a 87% 95% 76% 88% 100% 100% data n/a
(universe (FY 07)* | 1,165 | 1,001 | 3,708 | 119 2,385 262 | 246 | 1,894
National Program Manager Comments:
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08.
Reg 9 Reg 10 Total # Total %
23% 30.0% J 9,089 94%
66% 36% 6,842 79%
72% 51% 10,766 85%
80% 20% 9,237 73%
73% 54% 11,136 88%
693 | 1,181 12,654 100%
12
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-7a
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of deep injection wells that are used to inject industrial,
municipal, or hazardous waste (Class I) that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to
compliance within 180 days, thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground
sources of drinking water.
(SDW-7a) Class I: PART; BUD; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (FY 07)*
Reg 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
100%
100%
95%
99%
194
Reg 5
85%
98%
80%
99%
48
Reg 6
100%
100%
70%
98%
183
Reg?
98%
100%
95%
100%
50
Reg 8
100%
100%
95%
data n/a
61
Reg 9
96%
100%
95%
96%
24
Reg 10
100%
100%
88%
100%
22
Total # Total %
n/a
539
581
494
576.18
582
n/a
98%
100%
85%
99%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
Measure revised for F Y 09. Universe for FY 09 will be updated to reflect the forecasted number of
mechanical integrity failures.
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08.
Indicator measure in FY 06 and FY 07.
13
-------
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-7b
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of deep injection wells, that are used to enhance oil
recovery or that are used for the disposal or storage of other oil production related activities
(Class II), that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days,
thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
(SDW-7b) Class II:
PART; BUD; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (FY 07)*
Reg 1
n/3
n/3
n/3
n/a
n/a
Reg 2
100%
99%
80%
100%
543
Reg 3
100%
100%
90%
99%
2,707
Reg 4
99%
99%
98%
99%
4,678
Reg 5
99%
78%
60%
97%
10,863
Reg 6
96%
98%
65%
98%
73,858
Reg?
99%
100%
95%
98%
16,896
Reg 8
98%
98%
95%
data n/a
8,629
Reg 9 Reg 10
99% 99%
97% 97%
95% 99%
95% 99%
30,158 | 1,275
Total #
n/a
143,267
144,328
115,197
146,615
149,607
Total %
n/a
98%
96%
77%
98%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
Measure revised for F Y 09. Universe for F Y 09 will be updated to reflect the forecasted number of
mechanical integrity failures.
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08.
Indicator measure in FY 06 and FY 07..
14
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-7c
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt solution mining
(Class III) that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days,
thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
(SDW-7c) Class III:
2005 End-of-Yea
2006 End-of-Yea
2007 End-of-Yea
2008 Commitme t
2008 End-of-Yea
Universe (FY 07)
PART; BUD; SG
33
33
33
e t
33
7)
Reg 1
n/a
n/3
n/3
n/3
n/3
Reg 2
100%
100%
85%
100%
125
Reg 3
100%
100%
95%
100%
25
Reg 4
100%
100%
100%
100%
5
Reg 5
98%
98%
85%
96%
95
Reg 6
100%
94%
65%
100%
279
Reg?
100%
100%
95%
100%
139
Reg 8
97%
70%
95%
dala n/3
10
Reg 9
100%
100%
95%
100%
207
Reg 10
n/3
n/3
n/3
n/3
n/3
Tot3l #
n/3
5,375
863
734
876
885
Tot3l %
n/3
100%
98%
83%
99%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
Measure revised for F Y 09. Universe for F Y 09 will be updated to reflect the forecasted number of
mechanical integrity failures.
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08.
Indicator measure in FY 06 and FY 07.
15
8
-------
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-8
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of high priority Class V wells identified in sensitive ground
water protection areas that are closed or permitted, (cumulative)
PART; BUD
2005 End-of-Year
2006 End-of-Year
[universe
Reg 1
data n/a
data n/a
data n/a
n/a
data n/a
12,100
Reg 2
62%
100
98%
96%
204
Reg 3
103%
2,734
91%
90%
3,072
0
Reg 4
99%
30
97%
86%
133
Reg 5
38%
69
66%
50%
140
Reg 6
data n/a
0
n/a
20%
2
Reg?
100%
0
n/a
95%
378
Reg 8
89%
1,346
82%
85%
data n/a
Reg 9
0%
0
n/a
50%
5,073
Reg 10
21%
621
19%
20%
125
Total #
n/a
3,635
4,900
-
4,054
TBD
Total %
n/a
94%
75%
86%
84%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
F Y08 results do not represent full reporting by all states and regions because not all states have the capacity
to report within limited geographic parameters.
Measure revised for FY 09. Universe for FY 09 will be updated for the revised measure. Note: Measure will
still set target and commitment and report results in both percent and number.
"Sensitive ground water protection areas" are defined by the UIC primacy program director, but at a
minimum must include ground water based community water system source water areas. This measure does
not report all of the high priority wells that are being closed or permitted because some states do not
distinguish between high priority wells in ground water based community water system source water areas
V and other areas. J
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-9
National Office Lead: OGWDW/OWOW
Measure Description: Percent of community water system intakes for which source water
was assessed for drinking water use during the most recent reporting cycle.
|2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (2007)
Reg1
584
Reg 2
50
Reg 3
883
Reg 4
909
Reg5
518
Reg 6
839
Reg 7
382
Reg 8
485
Reg 9
798
Reg 10
357
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5,805
National Program Manager Comments:
HQ reports results by Region/nationally, based on data collected to support Clean Water Act (CWA) measures
when data becomes available. The number of states reporting drinking water use assessments to the
Assessment Database (ADB) under the Integrated Reporting Guidance will increase over time.
The universe of this measure is the number of waters with community water system (CWS) intakes that have
been indexed to the national hydrography dataset (NHD). The reported data are based on an overlay of the
universe of waters with CWS intakes and the most recently accessible §305(b) reports stored in ATTAINS.
The reported data may be limited to waters assessed for any use because of the variety of state approaches to
their assessment process.
17
-------
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: SDW-10 National Office Lead: OGWDW/OWOW
Measure Description: Percent of waterbody impairments identified by States in 2002, in which
there is a community water system intake and the impairment cause is for either a drinking water use or
a pollutant that is regulated as a drinking water contaminant, for which: (a) there is a TMDL, and (b) the
waterbody impairments have been restored.
(SDW-lOa) TMDL: I
2005 Baseline
2007 End-of-Year
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg 1
Reg 2
Reg 3
Reg 4
Reg5
Reg 6
Reg?
Reg8
Reg 9
Reg 10
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
(SDW-lOb) Waterbody Impairments have been restored:
2005 Baseline
2007 End-of-Year
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg 1
Reg 2
Reg3
Reg 4
Reg 5
Reg 6
Reg 7
Reg 8
Reg 9
Reg 10
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
/HQ reports results by Region/nationally based on data collected to support Subobjective 2.2.1. Baselines and
targets to be determined in consultation with OWOW after geo-referencing baseline has been established for
Clean Water Act (CWA) reporting and with consideration of targets established for CWA reporting. The
universe is the number of waters with community water system (CWS) intakes that have been indexed to the
national hydrography dataset (NHD) and that are listed in ATTAINS as impaired for any reason in that
particular reporting cycle. The reported data are based on an overlay of the universe and the §303(d) related
data in ATTAINS. Interpreting these overlays may be limited to snap shots of status for the waters of each
VGWS.
18
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-6
National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood
above the level of concern.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-7
National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Percent of state-monitored shellfish growing acres impacted by
anthropogenic sources that are approved or conditionally approved for use.
SP-6
BUD
SP-7
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
5.7%
n/a
n/a
5.5%
n/a
n/a
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
65% to 85%
n/a
data not available
65% to 85%
n/a
16.3 million acres
2011 Target: 4.6%
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: Maintain or improve
SP-6 is a new measure starting in F Y 08. Data presented in the 4th National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals will serve as the source for next report of results for SP-6. No firm date has been
given for release of the 4th Report.
10
-------
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat I7T1
Measure #: Strategic Target FS-1 National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Percent of river miles and lake acres where fish tissue will be
assessed to support waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories or a determination
that no consumption advice is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska not
included)
(FS-la) River miles: I (FS-lb) Lake acres: I
National Commitment
24% (840,000)
26% (930,000)*
26% (910,000)
Indicator
26% (910,000)
100% (3.5 million)
National Program Manager Comments:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
| Universe
National Commitment
35% (14 million)
38% (15.4 million)*
38% (15.2 million)
Indicator
38% (15.2 million)
100% (40 million)
*This is the actual FY 06 end-of-year result. An estimated F Y 06 end-of-year result had been entered in ACS.
Results for this indicator are reported on a 2 year cycle. The next report will be provided during F Y 2009
covering FY08 & FY09.
20
Water Safe for Swimming
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-8
National Office Lead: OST/OWOW
Measure Description: Number of waterbome disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in
or other recreational contact with coastal and Great Lakes waters, measured as a 5-year
average.
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
2
n/a
n/a
2
0
n/a
2011 Target: 2 per year
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in F Y (
21
11
-------
Water Safe for Swimming l^3rf|
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-9 National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes
beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
BUD; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (2006)
Reg1
98.0%
98.9%
97.3%
98%
99%
89,355
National Program Ma
Reg 2
97.2%
98.6%
97.4%
96%
98%
105,772
Reg 3
98.5%
98.8%
97.8%
95%
98%
19,357
Reg 4
96.3%
96.0%
96.5%
92%
96%
180,965
Reg 5
95.5%
94.7%
93.1%
85%
91%
52,559
Reg 6
93.0%
86.3%
95.9%
82%
85%
14,266
Reg?
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nager Comments:
Reg 9 Reg 10 Total %
95.3% 92.8% 96%*
97.4% 96.2% 97%
92.4% 96.4% 95.2%
86.6% 96% 91%
93.3% 95% 95%
233,000 13,896 100%
2011 Target: 96°/
X"
/ Universe changes annually.
*InFY 05 andFY 06, only a national commitment/end-of-year number was reported in ACS.
**Per ACS, Region 9's FY 07 commitment reflects the inclusion of Guam, American Samoa, and the
Northern Marianas for the first time. These territories have a higher percentage of beach season day
closures resulting in a ower commitment at the regional and national levels.
*** This is Calendar Year 2006 data.
V Universe equals the total number of beach season days that beaches were open.
Total #
584,150
595,592
674,810
n/a
673,711"
709,170
\
X 22
Water Safe for Swimming
[
*^^^l
^^^^d
Measure #: SS-1 National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number and national percent, using a constant denominator, of Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) permits with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate enforceable mec
lianism,
including a permit or enforcement order, with specific dates and milestones, including a completion date
consistent with Agency guidance, which requires: 1) Implementation of a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)
which will result in compliance with the technology and water quality-based requirements of the Clean
Water Act; or 2) implementation of any other acceptable CSO control measures consistent with the 1994
CSO Control Policy; or 3) completion of separation after the baseline date, (cumulative)
~| Reg 1 I Reg 2 T Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 I Reg 9 Reg 10
2007 Baseline* 75(91%) 51(48%) 175(74%) 9(38%) 195(55%) n/a 7(29%) 1(100%) 3(100%) 15(100%)
2006 End-of-Year (74)90% (44)42% (104)47% (12)43% (187)53% n/a (6)25% (1)100% (3)100% (14)93%
2007 End-of-Year 75(91%) 51(48%) 156(70%) 9(38%) 238(67%) n/a 11(46%) 1(100%) 3(100%) 15(100%)
2008 Commitment 76(93%) 64(60%) 187(79%) 10(42%) 232(64%) n/a 16(67%) 1(100%) 3(100%) 15(100%)
2008 End-of-Year 76 62 197 15 232 n/a 9 1 3 15
Universe 82 | 106 | 236 | 24 | 362 | n/a | 24 | 1 3 15
National Program Manager Comments:
*Measure revised for FY 08. FY 06 and FY 07 numbers are based on a slightly different definition.
Total #
536
445**
559
604
610
853
~N
Beginning in FY 08, OECA and OWM agreed on common language and data collection procedures to
streamline this measure. While the definition is slightly different for OWM, the past data is still valid for
comparison with future data. We have included a revised baseline to demonstrate the real progress for FY
08. While national numbers are fairly stable, the Regional baselines did change.
**FY 06 commitments and results are shown in ACS as percents.
V
>
SG
Total %
63%
53%
67%
71%
72%
100%
\
23
/
12
-------
Water Safe for Swimming
Measure #: SS-2
National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that are monitored
and managed under the BEACH Act program.
SG
1 1 Reg 1 1 Reg 2 Reg 3
2005 Baseline 100% 100% 100%
2006 End-of-Year 100% 100% 100%
2007 End-of-Year 100% 100% 100%
2008 Commitment 100% 100% 100%
2008 End-of-Year 100% 100% 100%
|uni\erse* | 905 | 365 | 89
Reg 4
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
481
Reg 5 Reg 6
100% 92%
100% 95%
100% 99%
100% 95%
100% 100%
327 | 79
Reg?
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 9 Reg 10 Total % Total*
100% 80% 96.5% 2,582
100% 100% 99.4% 2,660
100% 100% 100% 2,676
100% 100% 99% 2,649
100% 93% 99% 2,673
376 | 75 | 100% 2,697
National Program Manager Comments:
States may change their designation of beaches at any time. Therefore, these numbers may change from
year to year.
*Universe for FY 2008 Tier I beaches may be adjusted.
24
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis I ^
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-10 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining water quality
standards where standards are now fully attained, (cumulative)
PART; BUD; SMM; SG
2002-2006 Waters
Results
2007 End-of-Year
(cumulative)
2007 End-of-Year
(annual)
2008 Commitment
(cumulative)
2008 Commitment
(annual)
2008 End-of-Year
(cumulative)
2008 End-of-Year
(annual)
Universe (2002)
Reg 1
47
69
22
69
0
84
15
6,710
Reg 2
6
20
14
25
5
87
62
1,805
Reg 3
224
320
96
350
30
358
8
8,998
Reg 4
72
260
188
260
0
418
158
5,274
Reg 5
241
248
7
309
61
528
219
4,550
Reg 6
73
124
51
124
0
144
20
1,407
Reg 7
196
209
13
223
14
226
3
2,036
Reg 8
51
73
22
96
23
222
126
1,274
Reg 9
8
38
30
46
8
45
-1
1,041
Reg 10
6
48
42
50
2
53
3
6,408
National Program Manager Comments: 2012 Target: 2>250
f ~\
FY 07 data from regional staff and is not reflected in ACS since this measure begins in 2008.
F Y 08 targets in the F Y 09 Budget Congressional Justification and PARTWeb are rounded to 1 ,550.
SP-10 differs from previous Measure L, since SP- 1 0 uses an updated 2002 baseline.
Note: 2000-2002 results equal 1,980 waters -not included above.
V J
Total
924
1,409
485
1,552
143
2,165
613
39,503
25
13
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis Fil
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-11 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by
states in 2002. (cumulative)
BUD
1 Reg1
2002 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year 120
2008 Commitment 120
2008 End-of-Year 217
Universe 8,826
Reg 2
42
100
243
2,567
Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7
1,048 698 1,354 247 18
1,125 698 1,700 247 236
1,232 912 2,665 346 240
13,958 9,374 10,155 3,005 4,391
National Program Manager Comments:
F Y 07 data from Regional staff and is not reflected in ACS since measure is
Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10 Total
0
n/a
163 259 84 4,033
163 134 84 4,607
465 303 100 6,723
3,502 2,742 11,157 69,677
2012 Target: 5,600
new starting in FY 08.
26
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-12
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide
using the watershed approach, (cumulative)
BUD
1
2002 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
0
0
1
246
Reg 2
2
2
8
300
Reg 3
0
3
8
300
Reg 4
10
12
20
2,000
Reg 5
0
5
5
378
Reg 6
0
3
3
213
Reg 7
0
2
3
169
RegS
9
11
12
684
Reg 9
0
0
0
27
Reg 10
0
2
0
450
Total
0
n/a
21
40
60
4,767
2012 Target: 250
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 07 data is from Regional staff and is not reflected in ACS since measure begins in FY 08.
27
14
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-13 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Ensure that the condition of the Nation's wadeable streams does not
degrade (i.e. there is no statistically significant increase in the percent of streams rated "poor"
and no statistically significant decrease in the streams rated "good").
2006 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Univsrse
National Commitment
28% good;
25% fair;
42% poor
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
2012 Target: Maintain or improve
The Wadeable Streams Survey will be updated in 2011. There will be no reporting on this measure until 2012.
28
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-14 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Improve water quality in Indian country at monitoring stations in
tribal waters (i.e., show improvement in one or more of seven key parameters: dissolved
oxygen, pH, water temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, pathogen indicators, and
turbidity), (cumulative)
PART
2006 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uniwrse
Reg1
160(14)
Reg 2
14 (n/a)
Reg3
n/a
Reg 4
37(2)
Reg5
729 (44)
Reg 6
68(1)
Reg 7
82(4)
Reg8
100(10)
Reg 9
203 (43)
Reg 10
268 (67)
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,661 (185)*
2012 Target: 50 stations
National Program Manager Comments:
There will be no reporting on this measure until 2012.
*Numbers in parentheses are the number of stations with suspected depressed water quality and restoration
activities underway.
Note: EPA estimates that improvement is most attainable at 185 stations.
29
15
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-15
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50
percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation, (cumulative)
PART
2003 Baseline
2005 End-of-Year
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment (#)
26,777
n/a
n/a
n/a
21,219
n/a
319,070
%
8.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.65%
n/a
100%
2015 Target: 50% (13,389) reduction from
2003 baseline
National Program Manager Comments:
Beginning inFY 2008, this measure will track the overall efforts of the federal government to provide
wastewater projects to tribal homes. Due to the fact that this is a new measure for FY 2008, using a static
baseline from 2003, data has not been collected for previous years.
30
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 1 ^
Measure #: WQ-1 National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Number of States and Territories that have adopted EPA approved
nutrient criteria into their water quality standards, or are on schedule with a mutually agreed-
upon plan to adopt nutrient criteria into their water quality standards.
(WQ-la) States/Territories that have adopted EPA approved nutrient criteria (cumulative): SG
2005 End-of-year
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
0
0
0
0
6
(WQ-lb) States/territor
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
3
3
3
3
3
6
National Program Mans
Reg 2
0
0
0
0
4
Reg 3
2
1
1
1
6
Reg 4
1
2
2
2
8
Reg5
0
0
1
1
6
Reg 6
1
1
1
1
5
Reg 7
0
0
1
0
4
es on schedule to adopt nutrient criteria (annual):
Reg 2 1 Reg 3 [~ Reg 4 Reg 5 ~| Reg 6 f Reg 7
1
2
1
1
3
4
5
6
5
5
3
6
7
8
8
5
6
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
4
4
4
5
5
ger Comments:
0
3
2
2
3
4
Reg 8
0
0
0
0
6
Reg 9
1
4
4
4
7
Reg 10
0
0
0
0
4
Total
5
n/a
8
10
9
56
SG
Reg 8
0
3
4
3
4
6
Reg 9
4
7
1
1
1
3
Reg 10
0
3
3
1
1
4
Total
26
45
37
31
35
52
If a state or territory has adopted nutrient water quality standards for some, but not all of its applicable waters,
it may be counted in both WQ-la and WQ-lb. 31
16
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 1 ^
Measure #: WQ-2 National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Number of Tribes that have water quality standards approved by EPA.
(cumulative)
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
[Universe
National Progr
Reg1
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
am Mans
Reg 2
0
0
1
1
1
1
Reg 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Reg 5 Re
2 £
3 1
3 1
3 1
3 1
7 1
g 6 Reg 7
0
0 0
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a
1 n/a
Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg
238
259
259
359
2 7 10
6 16 14
0 Tola
26
31
32
33
35
57
ger Comments:
The universe reflects all federally recognized Tribes who have applied for "treatment in the same manner a
state" (TAS) to administer the water quality standards program (as of September 2007).
V
s a
J
32
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-3 National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of States and Territories and authorized
Tribes that within the preceding three year period, submitted new or revised water quality
criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other resources
not considered in the previous standards.
(WQ-3a) States/Territories: PART; BUD; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg 1
4
1
3
3
3
6
Reg 2
1
3
3
2
2
4
Reg 3
4
6
6
4
4
6
Reg 4
7
6
4
6
5
8
Reg 5
5
4
2
4
4
6
Reg 6
4
3
5
5
5
5
Reg?
2
2
2
4
2
4
Reg 8
4
4
6
4
5
6
Reg 9
4
4
4
3
3
7
Reg 10
3
4
4
3
2
4
Total #
38
37
39
38
35
56
Total %
68%
66.1%*
66.1%
67.9%
62.5%
100%
(WQ-3b) Authorized Tribes:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (FY 08)
Reg 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 2
n/a
n/a
0
1
1
1
Reg 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
1
2
2
1
2
2
Reg 5
1
2
2
1
1
3
Reg 6
5
4
4
5
5
10
Reg?
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 8
2
2
2
2
2
2
Reg 9
0
3
3
2
4
5
Reg 10
Total #
12
17
17
15
19
31
Total %
40%
71%
57%
48%
61%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
*FY 05 and 06 end-of-year results are from the WATA database. FY 08 universe for WQ-3b is the number of
authorized tribes that have at least initial EPA approved water quality standards as of September 2007.
33
17
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 1 ^
Measure #: WQ-4 National Office Lead: OST
Measure Description: Percent of submissions of new or revised water quality standards
from States and Territories and from authorized Tribes that are approved by EPA.*
(WQ-4a) States/Territories: PART; QMR; BUD; SMM
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (FY 07)
Reg 1
99.6%
89%
75%
100%
2
Reg 2
100.0%
100%
87%
96%
1
Reg 3
91.7%
100%
75%
100%
3
Reg 4
Reg 5
83.2% 99.8%
100%
100%
87% 80%
89%
7
(WQ-4b) Tribes:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
| Universe (FY 07)
Reg1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 2
n/a
70%
100%
n/a
Reg3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
100%
n/a
n/a
1
National Program Manager Comments:
100%
6
Reg 6
86.4%
100%
75%
85%
10
Reg 7
25.8%
50%
75%
99%
2
Reg 8
95.0%
89%
79%
90%
9
Reg 9
91.7%
78%
75%
100%
9
Reg 10
98.0%
50%
33%
33%
8
Total
n/a
88.6%**
35.6% (49)
74.1%
92.5%
57
Reg5
100%
75%
75%
1
Reg 6
n/a***
75%
100%
0
Reg 7
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 8
100%
79%
0%
2
Reg 9
n/a***
50%
100%
0
Reg 10
100%
50%
100%
2
f
*Based on submissions received in the 12 month period ending April 30 of the fisca year. Partial approvals
receive fractional credit **FY 06 end-of-year data is from the WATA database. Universe changes annually
based on number of water quality standards submissions. ***Regions 6 and 9 received no submissions in the
reporting period for WQ-4b.
V
Total
n/a
n/a
100% (6)
66.5%
79.0%
6
\
34
/
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-5
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of States and Territories that have adopted and are
implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping with established schedules.
SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
| Universe
Reg 1
6
6
6
6
6
6
Reg 2
3
4
4
4
4
4
Reg 3
6
6
6
5
6
6
Reg 4
6
8
8
7
8
8
Reg5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Reg 6
3
5
5
5
5
5
Reg 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
Reg 8
6
6
5
6
3
6
Reg 9
7
7
7
7
7
7
Reg 10
4
4
4
4
4
4
Total
51
56
55
54
53
56
National Program Manager Comments:
"In keeping with established schedules" means that states include in their annual Section 106 Monitoring
Initiative workplans specific actions that are intended to implement their monitoring strategies and that states
demonstrate that they are making a good faith effort to do these activities.
35
18
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 1 ^
Measure #: WQ-6 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of Tribes that currently receive funding under Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act that have developed and begun implementing monitoring strategies that are appropriate
to their water quality program consistent with EPA Guidance, and the number that are providing water
quality data in a format accessible for storage in EPA's data system, (cumulative)
(WQ-6a) Tribes implementing monitoring strategies:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
[Universe
Reg 1
0
0
5
6
6
Reg 2
0
0
0
0
1
Reg 3
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
0
1
1
1
5
Reg5
0
4
24
24
32
Reg 6
0
14
14
14
40
Reg 7
0
1
2
2
5
Reg8
0
11
4
4
23
Reg 9
0
9
9
18
93
Reg 10
0
4
20
32
37
Total
0
n/a
44
79
101
242
(WQ-6b) Tribes providing water quality data:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
[Universe
Reg 1
0
-
1
5
1
6
Reg 2
0
-
1
0
0
1
Reg 3
n/a
-
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 4
0
-
1
1
1
5
Reg5
0
-
11
18
18
32
Reg 6
2
-
7
7
7
40
Reg 7
0
-
0
1
1
5
Reg 8
1
-
18
15
15
23
Reg 9
0
-
3
3
10
93
Reg 10
0
-
2
8
7
37
Total
3*
n/a
44
58
60
242
National Program Manager Comments:
*FY05 end-of-y ear data not from ACS.
36
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-7 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of States and Territories that provide electronic information
using the Assessment Database version 2 or later (or compatible system) and geo-reference
the information to facilitate the integrated reporting of assessment data, (cumulative)
2005 End-of-Year
2006 EndK)f-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg 1
1
4
5
6
5
6
Reg 2
1
3
3
4
4
4
Reg 3
3
6
6
6
5
6
Reg 4
2
5
6
5
7
8
Reg5
2
5
5
5
5
6
Reg 6
3
4
4
3
3
5
Reg 7
1
1
1
1
1
4
Reg 8
3
6
6
6
6
6
Reg 9
1
4
4
4
4
7
Reg 10
1
2
1
2
2
4
Total
18*
40
41
42
42
56
National Program Manager Comments:
*FY 05 end-of-year data not from ACS.
37
19
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-8a National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of TMDLs that are established or
approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy.
(WQ-8a) Total TMDLs:
PART; QMR; BUD; SMM
2005 End-of-Yea
2006 End-of-Yea
2007 End-of-Yea
2008 Commitme
2008 Annual Pac
2008 End-of-Yea
Reg1
73
90
226
5,412
5,469
5,454
Reg 2
62
495
146
119
149
125
Reg 3
1,336
1,259
1,091
618
1,098
912
Reg 4
484
856
608
300
420
835
Reg 5
575
538
865
445
445
878
Reg 6
66
194
214
155
182
170
Reg?
664
228
160
144
144
185
RegB
365
249
211
230
210
168
Reg 9
67
184
181
90
198
96
Reg 10
379
432
489
306
381
312
Annual
Total #
4,071
4,525
4,191
7,819
8,696
9,135
I
Cumulative Annual
Total f % of pace
17,383 105%
22,648 118%
26,844 128%
33,828 90%
n/a | 100%
35,979 105%
National Program Manager Comments:
ATMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality standards. The terms 'approved' and 'established'
refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself. Annual pace is the number of TMDLs needed to be established consistent
with national policy, i.e. generally within 13 years of listing of the water as impaired. ""Cumulative total commitment numbers are
calculated at about 80% of pace for PART. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, "Detailed Information on the Surface Water
Protection Assessment," available at Imp \wwv\vlv.-.:..-..-.. - '. ::ib expeilniore del.nl 10004380 2005 html'). Annual total
numbers are memorialized and static whereas cumulative total PART numbers are open to semi-annual updates.
38
Measure #: WQ-8b
Measure Description:
States and approved by
(WQ-8b) State TMDLs:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 Annual Pace
2008 End-of-Year
Reg1
90
226
5,412
5,469
5,454
Reg 2
493
145
119
149
125
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis I ^
National Office Lead: OWOW
Number, and national percent, of TMDLs that are established by
EPA [State TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy.
PART; BUD; SG
Reg 3
1,061
1,091
613
1,093
911
Reg 4
731
523
220
340
783
Reg 5
538
862
445
445
878
Reg 6
39
138
106
133
66
Reg?
220
141
144
144
185
RegB
249
211
230
210
168
Reg 9
182
172
86
194
92
Reg 10
432
489
301
376
311
Annual
Total #
4,035
3,998
7,676
8,553
8,973
Cumulative
Total t"
17,682
21,685
28,527
n/a
30,658
Annual %
of Pace
119%
126%
90%
100%
105%
National Program Manager Comments:
( \
ATMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality standards. The terms 'approved' and 'established
refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself. Annual pace is the number of TMDLs needed to be established consistent
with national policy, i.e. generally within 13 years of listing of the water as impaired. "'Cumulative total commitment numbers are
calculated at about 80% of pace for PART. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, "Detailed Information on the Surface Water
Protection Assessment," available at ' ftp K "'I043~0.2005.html'). Annual total numbers
are memorialized and static whereas cumulative total PART numbers are open to semi-annual updates.
V )
39
20
-------
Measure #: WQ-9
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded projects only).
(WQ-9a) Nitrogen: PART; BUD (WQ-9b)Phosphorus: PART; BUD (WQ-9c) Sediment: PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
National Commitment
3.7 million Ibs.
14.5 million Ibs.
19.1 million Ibs.
8.5 million Ibs.
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
National Commitment
558,000 Ibs.
11.8 million Ibs"]
7.5 million Ibs.
4.5 million Ibs.
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
1.68 million tons
1.2 million tons
3.9 million tons
700,000 tons
n/;
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY 06, a full year of data reported. End-of-Year
results are received mid-February of the following year.
40
IV
IV
si
n
/
V
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis I ^ I
leasure#: WQ-10 National Office Lead: OWOW
leasure Description: Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 1998/2000* or
jbsequent years) as being primarily nonpoint source (NFS)- impaired that are partially or fully
stored, (cumulative)
PART; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Progra
Reg1
1
3
9
13
13
Reg 2
0
0
0
6
6
Reg 3
2
2
6
8
9
Reg 4
5
7
14
23
24
Reg5
2
2
3
10
11
Reg 6
0
1
5
5
8
Reg 7
4
4
9
14
14
Reg 8
0
0
0
6
6
Reg 9 Reg 10
0 0
1 0
2 0
2 4
2 4
Total
14
20"
48
91
97
5,967*
m Manager Comments:
^\
legions report results.
*The universe is the estimated waterbodies impaired primarily by nonpoint sources from the 1998 (or 2000 if
states did not have a 1 998 list) 303(d) lists. Note that this universe shifts each time a new 303(d) list is
developed, so this figure is only an estimate. Only waters on the Success Story website
'http://www.epa.2ov/owow/nps/Success3 '. ) are counted.
**Regional FY 06 end-of-year results not from ACS. Only a national FY 06 end-of-year result shown in
ACS. Indicator measure in F Y 06.
^
\
/41
21
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 1 ^
Measure #: WQ-11 National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of follow-up actions that are completed
by assessed NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) programs, (cumulative)
i
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
(cumulati\«)
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
6
15
22
26
34
Reg 2
5
12
16
18
25
Reg 3
4
13
17
21
29
Reg 4
9
15
20
23
36
Reg5
16
23
28
34
47
Reg 6
2
9
10
15
16
Reg?
6
12
16
18
23
Reg 8
3
15
23
26
33
Reg 9
1
10
13
13
23
Reg 10
2
13
19
22
32
Total #
54
137
184
Indicator
216
298
Total %
18%*
47.2%*
62%
ndicator
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
/ Regional annual commitments
*FY 05 and FY 06 end-of-year
measures.)
Assessed programs include 45 £
territory (VI), 3 authorized terri
programs) assessed through the
Universe of 298 includes all fo]
as additional action items are ic
V universe will be available in M<
md actio
data not
uthorize
tories (D
Permits
ow-up a
entified
rch 200?
n items are confirmed by F
rom ACS. (F Y 07 measur
d states, 5 unauthorized st£
C, PR, Pacific Island Tern
~or Environmental Results
ctions for which a schedul
?y the Regions and throug
.
>
.Q action item database.
e slightly different than FY 05 and F Y 06
tes (MA, NH, NM, AK, ID), 1 authorized
ories), and 10 Regions (total of 64
(PER) program.
s was established. The universe increases
i HQ program review. An updated
y
V
/42
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-12 National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Percent of facilities covered by NPDES permits that are considered current, and
of those, the percent of tribal facilities covered.
fWQ-12al Non-tribal facilities covered bv NPDES permits that are current: SG
2005 Baseline
ommi men
Uni\«rse
Reg 1
64%
70.0%
1,092
76%
1,360
73%
1,132
74%
1,165
1,786
Reg 2 Reg 3** Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 Reg 7
94% 86% 87% 87% 93% 82%
87.7% 82.6% 94.1% 74.6% 95.2% 83.6%
2,995 17,460 19,072 10,220 24,444 7,289
89% 89% 95% 82% 97% 90%
3,054 16,449 17,916 11,770 25,993 14,877
87% 86% 90% 86% 90% 81%
2,979 13,325 18,231 12,660 24,082 7,050
90% 87% 90% 86% 98% 91%
2,885 15,710 17,431 12,660 26,288 16,384
3,444 18,435 20,256 14,196 26,748 16,570
Reg 8
87%
85.5%
4,198
82%
3,833
85%
4,154
88%
4,879
4,852
Reg 9 Reg 10
91% 77%
82.0% 79.0%
2,448 5,052
83% 79%
2,281 4,663
81% 80%
2,237 4,681
89% 81%
2,407 5,280
2,761 | 5,850
Total #
96,851
_
94,270
-
102,196
_
90,531
105,089
114,898
Total %
87.8%*
85.7%
_
90%
-
87%
90%
-
100%
(WQ-12b) Tribal facilities covered by permits that are current:
QMR
Reg 1 Reg 2
Reg 3"
2005 Baseline 0 2 n/a
2006 End-of-Year (2)100% (2)100% n/a
2007 End-of-Year 2(100%) 2(100%)1 n7a~
2008 Commitment 2(100%) 2(100%) n/a
2008 End-of-Year 2(100%) 2(100%) n/a
Universe
2 2
n/a
Reg 4
16
(15)100%
13(100%)
13(100%)
| 13 (100%)
13
I Reg 5
37
(37) 90.2%
41 (93%)
40 (93%)
42(100%)
44
Reg 6
8
(10)90%
10(100%)
9 (90%)
10(100%)
10
I Reg 7 I
1
(10)62.5%
16(100%)
16(100%)
16(100%)
16
Reg 8
140
(173)93.5%
188(97%)
186(96%)
189(95%)
198
I Reg 9
Reg 10
Total #
| 41 16 261
(31)77% (16)27.6% 290
34(71%) 15(27%) 321
32 (80%) 47 (80%) 347
38(79%) 17(30%) 329
50
59
394
Total %
| 80%
78.4%
83%
92%
j 85%
| 100%
National Program Manager Comments:
Targets, commitments, and results will be reported in both percent and number. This measure includes
facilities covered by all permits, including State and EPA issued permits. Due to the shifting universe of
permitees, its is important to focus on the national percent. *FY 05 data not from ACS. **(WQ-12a) Region 3
universe & FY 06 result are updated to reflect data reconciliation during migration from PCS to ICIS.
***(WQ-12b) FY07 Region 8 commitment adjusted due to counting error. Universe for WQ-12a is based on 43
VFY2008Q1 data pull. J
22
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 1 ^
Measure #: WQ-13a & b National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of facilities covered under either an
individual or general permit by type: a) MS-4s and b) industrial storm water.
(WQ-13a)MS-4s: SG; I
2005 Baseline
2006 End-ofYear
2007 End-ofYear
2008 Commitment
2008 End-ofYear
Universe
Reg 1
518
517
Reg 2
1,079
1101
Reg 3
994
964
Reg 4
755
758
Reg5
1,813
1813
AVQ-13b) Industrial storm water:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
1,654
1654
Reg 2
4,646
5160
Reg 3
6,071
6436
Reg 4
18,323
18323
Reg 5
20,508
20508
Reg 6
213
161
Reg?
257
257
Reg 8
254
384
Reg 9
583
584
Reg 10
166
541
Total #
n/a
n/a
6,632
Indicator
7,080
n/a
SG;I
Reg 6
11,468
11940
Reg?
5,221
6623
Reg8
4,990
4372
Reg 9
11,222
11273
Reg 10
2,723
Total #
n/a
n/a
86,826
Total %
n/a
n/a
n/a |
Indicator Indicator
3241
89,530
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-13 a & b.
n/a I
100%
44
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis I ^
Measure #: WQ-13c & d National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number of facilities covered under either an individual or general
permit by type: c) construction storm water sites and d) CAFOs.
(WQ-13c) Construction storm water sites: SG; I
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
4,321
4321
Reg 2
8,521
9742
Reg 3
15,671
23799
Reg 4
75,317
75317
Reg 5
44,846
9879
Reg 6
28,360
16308
(WQ-13d) CAFOs:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
0
4
1
33
Reg 2
624
625
610
632
Reg 3
175
153
208
770
Reg 4
2,131
2,126
2,126
3,621
Reg 5
1,488
1,577
1,792
2,523
Reg 6
1,391
906
938
4,190
National Program Manager Comments:
Reg 7
17,661
18210
Reg 8
10,504
12051
Reg 9
32,609
27409
Reg 10
4,991
7305
Total
n/a
n/a
242,801
Indicator
204,341
n/a
SG;I
Reg 7
1,239
1,325
1,399
3,777
Reg8
448
414
550
841
Reg 9
296
269
267
1,670
Reg 10
831
737
838
915
Total
8,623*
8,136
8,729
Indicator
Indicator
18,972
f
Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-13c. *FY 05 CAFO data is not from ACS. Note: It is likely the
Regions overestimated the number of CAFOs covered by a general permit in 2005 .
^
23
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-14 National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of (a) Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) in
POTWs with Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in place that implement applicable
pretreatment requirements; and, (b) Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) in non-pretreatment POTWs that
have control mechanisms in place that implement applicable pretreatment requirements.
(WQ-14a) SIUs: SG
2005 Baseline
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
Uni\«rse
Reg1
1,589
94%
1,411
1,363
1,367
1,367
1,428
Reg 2
1,882
99%
1,869
2,110
1,850
2,101
1,888
Reg 3
1,790
99%
1,792
1,723
1,774
1,685
1,744
Reg 4
3,932
100%
3,871
3,418
3,289
3,561
3,391
Reg 5 Reg 6
4,899 2,132
99.8% 99.4%
5,265 2,005
5,265 2,096
5,265 2,081
4,721 2,081
5,273 | 2,096
Reg?
829
99.9%
1,024
1,021
974
1,003
1,025
Reg 8
592
99%
697
686
690
647
704
Reg 9
4,019
95%
4,019
3,808
4,087
4,088
4,214
Reg 10
562
100%
649
572
572
576
572
Total #
22,226
_
22,602
22,062
21,949
21,830
_
22,335
Total %
97.8%*
98%*
-
96%
98%
-
99%
100%
(WQ-14b) CIUs:
I Reg 1 I Reg 2 Reg 3 j Reg 4 I Reg 5
Reg 6
2005 Baseline 44 | 117 | 74 31 | 458 17
2006 End-of-Year 100% (44) 100% (71) 100% (75) 100% (321) 97% (687) 88% (95)
2007 End-of-Year 44 65 66 313 | 679
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
44
65
75
321
698
109
108
Reg7 Reg 8 Reg9 ReglO Total# Total %
31 45 0 | 198 | 1,015 | 91.2%*
78% (190) 74% (31) 100% (6) 100% (48) 1,568 94%
193 31 6 | 41 | 1,547 | 94%
243
42
6
48
Indicator
1,650
Indicator
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
:*FY 05 and FY 06 data shown as percents in ACS; facility numbers are approximate. Region 4 universe now
includes AL and MS CIUs which are permitted by the states. Baseline is the known percentage of those CIUs
that are 'controlled' in some way, shape, or form. All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from
_year to year.
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis I A I
Measure #: WQ-15 National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance (SNC)
at any time during the fiscal year, and of those, the number, and national percent,
discharging pollutants) of concern on impaired waters.
(WQ-15a) Percent of Major Dischargers in SNC: PART; BUD; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
|2008 End-of-Year
Reg 1
25.0%
42%
39.8%
n/a
Reg 2
28.7%
28%
29.0%
n/a
Reg 3
15.0%
16%
16.7%
n/a
Reg 4
20.7%
22%
22.0%
n/a
Reg 5
17.7%
20%
18.4%
n/a
Reg 6
23.7%
22%
23.9%
n/a
(WQ-15b) Number of Major Dischargers on Impaired Waters i
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uni\«rse**
Reg1
56
155 (89)
Reg 2
Reg 3
27
67 (34)
28
256 (145)
Reg 4
42
147 (75)
Reg 5
90
773 (471)
Reg 6
29
189 (136)
Reg?
17.7%
32%
31.7%
n/a
Reg 8
8.0%
5%
7.8%
n/a
Reg 9
13.7%
17%
16.5%
n/a
Reg 10
15.3%
16%
21 .5%
n/a
nSNC:
Reg?
15
81 (46)
Reg 8
3
43 (29)
Reg 9
12
12 (10)
Reg 10
4
12 (6)
Total %
19.7%
22.2%*
22.6%
< 22.5%
24%
Total %
TBD
n/a
n/a
Indicator
Indicator
100%
Total #
1,308*
1,473*
n/a
n/a
n/a
I
Total #
TBD
308*
n/a
Indicator
Indicator
1,735(1,041)
National Program Manager Comments:
1HQ reports results by Region. FY 08 commitment for WQ-15a of <22.5% is a 3 yr. average that shows overall trends. *FY 06
end-of-year data not from ACS. **The universe for WQ-15b represents the number of major facilities on impaired waterbodies;
in parentheses are the number of major facilities on impaired waterbodies potentially discharging the impairing pollutant.
I-
24
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-16
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of all major publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards
(i.e. POTWs that are not in significant non-compliance).
PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uniwrse
National Commitment (#)
3,670
3,645*
3,650
3,645
3,645
4,238
%
86.6%
86%
86%
86%
86%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
*FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS.
48
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis I ^
Measure #: WQ-17 National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreement dollars to the
cumulative funds available for projects] for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (2007) (in
|$ billions)*
National Progr
Reg 1 Reg 2
110% 94%
102% 96%
104% "96%~
96% 92%
107% 95%
$6.4 $12.9
Reg 3
89%
94%
94%
92%
94%
$5.3
Reg 4 Reg 5
95% 98%
Reg 6 Reg 7
91% 88%
97% 93% 88% | 89%
100% 95%
89% 92% f
103% 96%
$7.5 $14.0
90% I 91%
88% 89%
95% 93%
$6.1 $3.6
Reg 8 Reg 9
91% 93%
91% 95%
93% 101%
91% 92%
95% 103%
$2.1 $5.2
Reg 10 Total
98% 94.7%
104% 94.7%
106% 96.7%
95% 93.5%
103% 98.0%
$2.0 $65.1
am Manager Comments:
*Universe represents the funds available for projects for the CWSRF through 2007, in billions of dollars (i.e., the
denominator of the measure).
49
25
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-18
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number of people served by projects that protect or restore
waterbody uses that impact human health per million dollars of CWSRF assistance provided
for that purpose.
2005 Baseline
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (2007)
National Commitment
7,400 people/million dollars*
6,834 people/million dollars
7,400 people/million dollars
6,552 people/million dollars
$12.3 billion
National Program Manager Comments:
Target, HQ reported, and PART related measure. New starting in F Y 08.
*The FY 2008 budget shows a F Y 05 baseline of 9,434 people/million dollars.
50
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-19a
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of high priority state NPDES permits that are
issued as scheduled.
PART; QMR; BUD; SMM; SG
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
FY 2009 Universe
Reg1
9
21
5(71%)
1
16
Reg 2
22
33
39(115%)
22
40
Reg 3
21
50
29(121%)
20
168
Reg 4
91
66
72 (144%)
54
198
Reg 5
265
130
108(123%;
242
Reg 6
125
95
63 (95%)
48
252 84
Reg?
32
62
92 (94%)
75
104
Reg 8
22
52
42(117%)
27
47
Reg 9
3
8
22(122%)
29
17
Reg 10
11
29
12(92%)
12
4
Total #
601
546
484
530
930
515
Total %
104%
97%
112%
95%"
120%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
CURRENT: Target measure (based on national performance). FY 2009 targets and commitments are fixed at 95% prior to a
universe that will be determined in January 2009.
PROPOSED for FY 2010: Number of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year. In FY 2010, the
measure will be revised to provide a universe of priority permits in time for the setting of national and regional targets in
early 2009, draft commitments in July 2009, and final commitments in September 2009, consistent with the Agency target
and commitment schedule. Regions will commit to issue a certain number of permits from the fixed universe of priority
permits inFY 2010. The national target will be the sum of all Regional commitments. There will be no percentage goal for
this measure. The universe of priority permits will be updated annually.
BACKGROUND: HQ reports results by Region. WQ-19a conforms to 106 PART measure. FY 2006 measure, formed prior
to PART, reported in 2 parts (non-tribal and tribal). FY 2006 results: 98.5% (non-tribal) & 63.2% (tribal). FY 2007 measure
reported in 3 parts (State issued, EPA non-tribal, and EPA tribal permits). *FY 2007 Regional commitments & results are not
fiom ACS. """The revised FY 2008 universe/commitments, including a numerical national commitment, will be reported at
mid FY 2008. Starting in FY 2008, the universe of priority permits candidates is expanded to capture a larger universe of
.environmentally significant permits.
26
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-19b
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number, and national percent, of high priority state and EPA (including tribal)
NPDES permits, that are issued as scheduled.
BUD
1
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
FY 2009 Unixerse
Reg1
16
4
8(114%)
7
9
Reg 2
9
25
20(125%)
13
14
Reg3
0
0
0 (0%)
0
1
Reg 4
0
1
1 (100%)
2
1
Reg 5
0
0
0 (0%)
0
3
Reg 6
1
6
3(150%)
0
3
Reg?
8
3
5 (100%)
0
0
Reg 8
6
5
5 (83%)
2
3
Reg 9
0
0
0 (0%)
4
1
Reg 10
19
24
25 (104%)
86
26
Total #
59
68
63
114
61
620
Total %
104%
117%
100%*
96%"
109%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
/"CURRENT: Target measure (based on national performance). FY 2009 targets and commitments are fixed at 95% prior to a >
universe that will be determined in January 2009.
PROPOSED for FY 2010: Number of high priority state & EPA (including tribal) NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
year. In FY 2010, the measure will be revised to provide a universe of priority permits in time for the setting of national and
regional targets in early 2009, draft commitments in July 2009, and final commitments in September 2009, consistent with the
Agency target and commitment schedule. Regions will commit to issue a certain number of permits fiom the fixed universe of
priority permits in FY 2010. The national target will be the sum of all Regional commitments. There will be no percentage
goal for this measure. The universe of priority permits will be updated annually.
BACKGROUND: HQ reports results by Region. WQ-19a conforms to Surface Water Protection PART measure. FY 2006
measure, formed prior to PART, reported in 2 parts (non-tribal and tribal). FY 2006 results: 98.5% (non-tribal) & 63.2%
(tribal). FY 2007 measure reported in 3 parts (State issued, EPA non-tribal, and EPA tribal permits). *FY 2007 Regional
commitments & results are not from ACS. wwThe revised FY 2008 universe/commitments, including a numerical national
commitment, will be reported at mid FY 2008. Starting in FY 2008, the universe of priority permits candidates is expanded to
capture a larger universe of environmentally significant permits. Starting in FY 2009, WQ-19b will measure the sum of all
Sonority permits (State issued and EPA issued including Tribal). ^/
/52
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-20
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number of facilities that have traded at least once plus all facilities
covered by an overlay permit* that incorporates trading provisions with an enforceable cap.
SG;I
1
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
|2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (2007)
Reg1
79
80
80
80
Reg 2
0
1
1
25
Reg 3
1
1
1
127
Reg 4
8
30
30
30
Reg5
3
4
7
87
Reg 6
0
1
1
1
Reg 7
0
0
0
0
Reg8
0
0
2
2
Reg 9
6
3
4
8
Reg 10
1
1
1
5
Total
98
121"
127"*
Indicator
Indicator
365
National Program Manager Comments:
Note: WQ-20 was a two part measure in FY 07; (a) was a Target measure until early F Y 07, and has
subsequently been dropped. Universe is the number of dischargers covered under an NPDES permit that
allows trading. **FY 05 and FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS. In FY 06, measure language read
"Number of dischargers with permits provided for trading... and the number of dischargers that carried out
trades." In FY 07, measure was: "Number of permits providing for trading.... and the number of
dischargers that carried out trades." ***FY07 end-of-year results are based on the number of dischargers
that carried out trades and are not from ACS.
*The trading measure counts all point source permitted facilities that have traded at least once using either
individual or general permits that allow trading. Facilities covered under an overlay permit (sometimes
i called an 'aggregate,' 'watershed,' 'bubble,' or 'umbrella' permit) that set an enforceable cap on specific ,
\Dollutant discharges are all automatically counted as having traded. ,/
53
27
-------
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Measure #: WQ-21
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of water segments identified as impaired in 2002 for which
States and EPA agree that initial restoration planning is complete (i.e., EPA has approved all
needed TMDLs for pollutants causing impairments to the waterbody or has approved a 303(d)
list that recognizes that the waterbody is covered by a Watershed Plan [i.e., Category 4b or
Category 5m]). (cumulative)
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
|2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe (2002)
Reg1
336
529
6,710
Reg 2
332
332
1,805
Reg 3
1,229*
1,313
8,998
Reg 4
1,243
1,322
5,274
Reg 5
407
506
4,550
Reg 6
131
263
1,407*
Reg 7
1,463
1,637
2,036
Reg8
200
200
1,274
Reg 9 Reg 10
47
47
1,041
576
643
6,408
Total
n/a
5,964*
6,792
Indicator
Indicator
39,503*
National Program Manager Comments:
For F Y 2009, geo-referencing data will be requested for reported segments.
Universe consists of waters identified as impaired in state submission in 2002. *Adjustments made to Region
3 FY 06 end-year result and to Region 6 universe.
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
Measure #: Subobjective 2.2.2
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to
improve national and regional coastal aquatic system health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of
the National Coastal Condition Report.
PART
2004 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.4
2.4
5
2011 Target: 2.5
National Program Manager Comments:
Rating consists of a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
55
28
-------
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters KKSlJ
Measure #: Strategic Targets (SP-16 to SP-19) National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of
the National Coastal Condition Report in the following Regions:
(SP-16) Northeast: (SP-17) Southeast:
2004 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
[2008 End-of-Year
National Commitment
1.8
n/a
1.8*
1.8
1.8
2011 Target: Maintain baseline
(SP-181 West Coast:
2004 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
2
n/a
2*
2
2
5
2004 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
| Universe
National Commitment
3.8
n/a
3.8*
3.8
3.8
5
2011 Target: Maintain baseline
(SP-191 Puerto Rico:
2004 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
1.7
n/a
1.7*
1.7
1.7
c
2011 Target: Maintain baseline 2011 Target: Maintain baseline
National Program Manager Comments:
*FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. (For Gulf of Mexico, see Subobjective 4.3.5)
56
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-20
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that will have
achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan
and measured through on-site monitoring programs).
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uni\«rse
Reg 1
5
5
100%
100%
5
Reg 2
3
3
100%
100%
3
Reg 3
2
3
100%
100%
2
Reg 4
17
13
90%
90%
19
Reg 5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 6
15
14
93%
100%
14
Reg?
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 9
11
11
100%
100%
11
Reg 10
7
7
100%
100%
9
Total #
60
n/a
56
63
63
Total %
94%
n/a
84.8%
95.4%
99%
100% |
2011 Target: 95%
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 07 end-of-year data is shown numerically in ACS. Indicator measure in FY 07.
57
29
-------
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters [3ttjj
Measure #: Subobjective 4.3.2 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Working with partners, protect or restore additional acres of habitat
within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program
(NEP).
PART; BUD; SMM
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uni\«ree
Reg1
14,562
7,495
9,269
975
3,267
Reg 2
15,009
2,831
1,814
1,025
1,860
Reg 3
33,793
4,122
8,349
3,000
7,858
Reg 4 Re
232,605 n
108,791 n
60,963 n
25,000 n
43,764 n
National Program Manager Comments:
f
Note: This measure is under Goal 4 in the 2006-201 1
*F Y 05 end-of-year regional data is not from ACS .
V
g 5 Reg 6 Re
a 54,378 n
a 8,021 n
a 11,484 n
a 3,000 n
a 3,643 n
g 7 Reg 8
a n/a
a n/a
a n/a
a n/a
a n/a
Reg 9
82,363
11,292
6,090
5,114
21,873
Reg 10
16,531
2,900
4,493
5,000
563
Annual
total
_
145,451
102,462
43,114
82,828
n/a
Cumulate
total
449,242-
594,693
697,155
_
779,983
n/a
2011 Target: an additional 250,000 acres
(cumulative measuring from 2007 forward)
Strategic Plan.
>
J
58
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters ft*H
Measure #: CO-1 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of coastal waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining
water quality standards where standards are now fully attained.
i
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
[Universe
National Progr
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg 6 F
0 0 0 0 n/a 0
2,389 742 1,796 1,285 n/a 346
am Manager Comments:
f
Universe represents the number of impaired waters in coastal HUCs (hydro
States in 2002.
Measure revised for FY 09.
V
eg? Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10 Tola
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a 0 0 0
Indica or
Indica or
n/a n/a 474 1,226 8,258
N
logic unit codes) reported by coastal
J
59
30
-------
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters [3ttjj
Measure #: CO-2 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Total coastal and non-coastal acres protected from vessel sewage by
"no discharge zone(s)." (cumulative)
i
1 Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Re
2005 Baseline 334.7 276 37 120.8 2,6
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year 976 276 80.1 120.8 2,6
2008 End-of-Year
Universe 2,788.9 1,406.5 2,440.4 5,332 3,2
g 5 Reg 6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Rec
35.8 0 n/a n/a 65.1
35.8 0 n/a n/a 65.1
S8.9 3,291.7 n/a n/a 1,616.5 1,8
10 Total
3,439.4
n/a
4,123.8
3.1 22,018
National Program Manager Comments:
This is the first reporting year in which both inland and coastal no discharge zones (NDZs) will be tr
addition, NDZs will be measured in area, not coastline miles. As a result, the "universe" will consist
area of water eligible to be designated as a NDZ under the current regulations.
Measure revised for FY 09.
V
acked. In
of the total
J
60
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters ft*H
Measure #: CO-3 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of National Estuary Program priority actions in
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) that have been completed.
(cumulative)
i
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 Reg
2005 Baseline 135 11 0 9 n/a 13
2006 End-of-Year 150 17 3 44 n/a 26
2007 End-of-Year 159 60 1 37 n/a 31
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe 289 468 214 365 n/a 183
6 Reg 7 Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10 Total
n/a n/a 46 11 225
n/a n/a 92 11 343
n/a n/a 269 557
Indicator
Indicator
n/a n/a 250 269 2,038
National Program Manager Comments:
61
31
-------
Measure #: CO-4
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Rate of return on Federal investment for the National Estuary
Programs [dollar value of "primary" leveraged resources (cash or in-kind) divided by Section
320 funds].
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
$12.3
$34.8
$53.6
Reg 2
$46.9
$166.9
$2.8
Reg 3
$7.7
$6.4
$4.5
Reg 4
$19.1
$428.6
$114.7
Reg5
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 6
$4.5
$19.5
$11.2
Reg 7
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 8
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 9
$51.0
$62.7
$10.3
Reg 10
$17.3
$46.7
$11.0
Total
$158.8
$765.6
$208.1
Indicator
Indicator
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
(Dollars in millions and rounded to nearest tenth of a percent).
Note that "primary" leveraged dollars are those the National Estuary Program (NEP) played the central role in
obtaining. An example of primary leveraged dollars would be those obtained from a successful grant proposal
written by the NEP.
FY 06 end-of-year data is not from ACS. j
^ ^s
62
Measure #: CO-5
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of dredged material management plans that are in place for
major ports and harbors.
1
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
2
8
8
10
Reg 2
1
1
1
3
Reg 3
2
5
5
8
Reg 4
0
2
2
18
Reg 5
28
Reg 6
3
6
6
14
Reg 7
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reg 9
2
2
2
12
Reg 10
5
2
6
11
Total
15
26
30
Indicator
Indicator
104*
National Program Manager Comments:
*This number represents major coastal/Great Lakes ports/harbors (commercially significant/deep draft and
regionally significant). Development of a dredged material management plan is not necessary or feasible for all
ports and harbors in the universe.
63
32
-------
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters [3ttjj
Measure #: CO-6 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that are
monitored in the reporting year.
i
Reg 1 Reg 2 Reg 3 Reg 4 Reg 5 F
2005 Baseline 2 1 2 0 n/a
2006 End-of-Y ear 2 3 2 5 n/a
2007 End-of-Y ear 5 3 3 5 n/a
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Y ear
(universe 5 3 2 19 n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
eg 6 Reg? Reg 8 Reg 9 Reg 10 Total
3 n/a n/a 2 5 15
6 n/a n/a 3 5 26
5 n/a n/a 3 9 33
Indicator
Indicator
14 n/a n/a 11 7 61
)
64
Increase Wetlands
Measure #: Subobjective SP-21 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Working with partners, achieve a net increase of acres of wetlands
per year with additional focus on biological and functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-22 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states and
tribes, achieve "no net loss" of wetlands each year under the Clean Water Act Section 404
regulatory program.
SP-21
BUD
SP-22
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
(Annual)
32,000*
32,000
32,000
100,000
32,000
n/a
(Cumulative)
64,000"
96,000
400,000
128,000
n/a
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
n/a
Data available 1/08
Data available 1/08
No Net Loss
n/a
n/a |
2011 Target: 400,000 cumulative
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: No Net Loss
Data source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland Status and Trends Report.
*FY05 end-of-year data not from ACS.
**FY 06 result (estimated 64,000 acres) fell short based on simple extrapolation of most recent annual rate
('98-'04). The next Status and Trends Report (2011) should show a continuation of upward trends.
65
33
-------
Increase Wetlands
Measure #: WT-1
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of wetland acres restored and improved, under the
President's 2004 Earth Day Initiative, (cumulative)
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
n/a
58,777
61 ,856
75,000*
82,875
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
These acres may include those supported by Wetland 5 Star Restoration Grants, National Estuary Program,
Section 319 grants, Brownfields grants, or EPA's Great Waterbodies Program.
*FY 08 Commitment represents a cumulative total. Unexpected accomplishments in FY 06, particularly in
the National Estuary Program, contributed significantly to the total number of wetland acres restored and
enhanced.
66
Increase Wetlands
Measure #: WT-2 National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of States and Tribes that have built capacities in wetland
monitoring, regulation, restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance, and
partnership building.
(WT-2a) States: I
2005 Baseline*
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
6
6
6
6
Reg 2
0
1
0
2
Reg3
3
5
5
5
Reg 4
7
7
8
8
Reg5
0
0
1
6
Reg 6
0
0
1
5
Reg 7
1
0
1
4
Reg8
3
2
0
6
Reg 9
0
0
1
4
Reg 10
0
0
2
4
Total
20
21
25
Indicator
Indicator
50
(WT-2b) Tribes:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg 1
0
0
9
Reg 2
1
0
7
Reg 3
n/a
n/a
0
Reg 4
1
0
6
Reg 5
0
3
36
Reg 6
0
0
68
Reg 7
0
1
9
Reg 8
3
0
27
Reg 9
0
2
146
Reg 10
0
5
271
Total
n/a
5
11
Indicator
Indicator
579
National Program Manager Comments:
Substantial progress to be shown in three of the six areas identified during the last 3 years (i.e. monitoring,
regulation, restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance, and partnership building). *This is not
a true baseline since this measure is evaluated annually and is more akin to a rate than a cumulative measure.
67
34
-------
Increase Wetlands
Measure #: WT-3
National Office Lead: OWOW
Reg 1
Reg 2
Reg 3
Reg 4
Reg 5
Reg 6
Reg 7
Reg 8
Reg 9
Reg 10
HQ
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a**
Indicator
Indicator
n/a
Measure Description: Percent of Clean Water Act Section 404 standard permits, upon which EPA
coordinated with the permitting authority (i.e., Corps or State), where a final permit decision in FY 08
documents requirements for greater environmental protection* than originally proposed.
2005 End-of-Year
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uni\«rse
National Program Manager Comments:
I New starting in FY 08. Reported on by Regions and HQ. ** FY 07 end-of-year data not available till June 2008.
""'Requirements for greater environmental protection" are counted under this measure when EPA can document that its
recommendations for improvement provided in one or more of the following issue areas were incorporated into the final
permit decision:
1. Demonstration of adequate impact avoidance, including:
a) Determination of water dependency; b) Characterization of basic project purpose; c) Determination of
range of practicable alternatives; d) Evaluation of direct, secondary and cumulative impacts for practicable
alternatives; e) Identification of Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative; f) Compliance wit
WQS, MPRSA, ESA and/or toxic effluent standards; g) Evaluation of potential for significant degradation.
2. Demonstration of adequate impact minimization
3. Determination of adequate compensation
Note: The documented permit decision can be in the form of an issued, withdrawn, or denied permit. The universe is the
number of individual permits where EPA has the opportunity to comment (approximately 20,000/year). Regional priorities
dictate the specific permits for which EPA submits comments. This number is typically less than 20,000.
/68
Increase Wetlands
Measure #: WT-4
National Office Lead: OWOW
Measure Description: Number of states measuring baseline wetland condition - with plans
to assess trends in wetland condition - as defined through condition indicators and
assessments, (cumulative)
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 Commitment
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Reg1
1
1
2
2
2
2
6
Reg 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Reg3
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
Reg 4
1
2
1
1
1
1
8
Reg5
1
0
0
0
2
2
6
Reg 6
1
5
Reg 7
1
4
Reg8
1
4
3
1
1
1
6
Reg 9
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
Reg 10
1
4
Total
11
15
14
12
13
14
50
National Program Manager Comments:
By 2013, a state will document within an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Report (IMR) the baseline
condition of at least one wetland type for the entire state or all wetlands in one major river basin. States
may use either Level 1, 2, or 3 methods or the combined 3-Level approach. The state also has plans to re-
survey for the purposes of evaluating trends. To maximize financial resources, states are encouraged to use a
probability survey design for measuring baseline condition.
Regions should coordinate with EPA HQ and reference the full definition for this measure to make a
determination on whether a state is "on track" to meet this measure by 2013.
Measure revised for F Y 09.
69
35
-------
Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-23
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Reduce the number of currently exceeded water quality standards in
impaired transboundary segments of U.S. surface waters.
PART
2002 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Region 6
Region 9
National Commitment
17
n/a
0
0
n/a
n/a
2012 Target: Achieve a majority of
the 2002 baseline (i.e., 9)
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 2009 target is deferred, pending reassessment of the measure. Cumulative starting in FY 07, this measure
refers to a reduction in the number of currently exceeded water quality standards in impaired transboundary
segments of U.S. surface waters (measure description revision to be made in FY 09).
Indicator measure in FY 07.
70
Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-24
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the
U.S.-Mexico Border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
PART; QMR; BUD
2003 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uni\«rse
Region 6
5,162
Region 9
0
National Commitment
98,515
22,458*
1,276
2,500
5,162
n/a
2012 Target: 24,628 (25% of 2003 Baseline)
National Program Manager Comments:
Measure is regionally reported starting in FY 09.
2003 Baseline: 98,515 homes in the Mexico Border area lacking access to safe drinking water.
*FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS. Indicator measure in FY 07.
71
36
-------
Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-25
National Office Lead: OWM
Measure Description: Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation
in the U.S.-Mexico Border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
PART; QMR; BUD
2003 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Uni\«rse
Region 6
31,686
Region 9
0
National Commitment
690,723
30,195*
73,475
15,000
31,686
n/a
2012 Target: 172,680 (25% of 2003 Baseline)
National Program Manager Comments:
Measure is regionally reported starting in F Y 09.
2003 Baseline: 690,723 homes in the Mexico border area lacking access to wastewater sanitation.
*FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS. Indicator measure in FY 07.
72
Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-26
National Office Lead: Region 9
Measure Description: Percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
served by community drinking water systems that receive continuous drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
2OO5 Baseline
2OO6 End-of-Year
2OO7 End-of-Year
2OO8 Commitment
2OO8 End-of-Year
Uni\«rse
BUD
National Commitment
nt
a;
95% of American Samoa;
1O% of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands;
8O% of Guam
n/a
n/a
69%
n/a
n/a
2011 Target: 95%
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08.
73
37
-------
Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-27
National Office Lead: Region 9
Measure Description: Percent of the time that the sewage treatment plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories comply with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and total suspended solids (TSS).
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
59%
34%*
n/a
62%
n/a
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08.
*FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS.
2011 Target: 90%
74
Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-28
National Office Lead: Region 9
Measure Description: Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for
swimming.
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
84%
81%*
n/a
85%
80%
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: 96°/
New measure starting in FY 08.
*FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS.
75
38
-------
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: Subobjective 4.3.3
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing
water pollution and protecting aquatic ecosystems.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-29
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples.
4.3.3
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
20111
PART
National Commitment
21.5 points
21.1 points
22.7 points
22 points
23.7
40 points
farget: 23
SP-29
PART; BUD
199O Baseline
2OO6 End-of-Year
2OO7 End-of-Year
2OO8 Commitment
2OO8 End-of-Year
National Commitment
(*see below)
6%
6%
5%
6%
Universe n/a
2011 Target:
National Program Manager Comments:
Subobjective 4.3.3 provides a general indication of progress of numerous state and federal programs, with a specific focus
on coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination,
beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition.
SP-29 indicates that PCBs in top predator fish (generally lake trout, but walleye in Lake Erie) at monitored sites is
expected to continue an average annual decrease of 5%. A 2-year lag between measurement and reporting means that the
FY 09 target pertains to measurements made in 2007. *1990 baseline: Concentrations levels at stations in Lakes Superior
[0.45 ppm], Michigan [2.72 ppm], Huron [1.5 ppm], Erie [1.35ppm], & Ontario [2.18 ppm].
**.
-------
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-32
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Cubic yards of contaminated sediments remediated (cumulative) in the
Great Lakes.
PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
3.7 million
4.1 million
4.5 million
5 million
5.5 million
46 million
2011 Target: 7 million
National Program Manager Comments:
*FY 06 end-of-year result shown annually in ACS.
Universe identifies quantity of contaminated sediment estimated to require remediation as of 1997. This
total has been revised from a previous estimate of 75 million cubic yards based on state-submitted
information and subsequent decisions, information verification, and actual remediations. Information lags
behind (i.e. the 2007 commitment is for calendar year 2006 sediment remediation).
V /
78
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: GL-1
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Number, and percent of all NPDES permitted discharges to the Lakes
or major tributaries that have permit limits that reflect the Guidance's water quality standards,
where applicable.
2005 Baseline
Region 2
1,196(93%)
Region 3
33(100%)
2006 End-of-Year 1,196(93%)! 33(100%)
2007 End-of-Year 1,186(93%) 33(100%)
2008 Commitment 1 ,186 (93%) 33 (100%)
2008 End-of-Year 1,186(93%)| 33(100%)
Universe
1,275
33
Region 5 |
1,654(91%)
1 ,630 (92%)
1,671 (96%)
1,714(98%)
1,596(98%)
1,770
Total #
2,883
2,859
2,890
2,933
2,815
3,078
Total %
91.9%*
93%
94.8%
96%
96%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
*2005 Baseline has been adjusted to include updated Regional information.
Universe for this measure changes with current information. FY 07 universe equals 3,048 and F Y 08
universe was 3,057.
This measure is the Great Lakes subset of measure SS-1, and now includes consistent methods by the three
Regions.
V /
79
40
-------
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: GL-2
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Number, and Great Lakes percent, using a constant denominator, of
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) permits with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate enforceable
mechanism, including a permit or enforcement order, with specific dates and milestones, including a
completion date consistent with Agency guidance, which requires 1) Implementation of a Long Term
Control Plan (LTCP) which will result in compliance with the technology and water quality-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act; or 2) implementation of any other acceptable CSO control
measures consistent with the 1994 CSO Control Policy; or 3) completion of separation after the
baseline date, (cumulative)
2002 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Region 2
11
15(56%)
19(73%)
21 (81%)
20 (77%)
26
Region 3
1
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1
Region 5
117
79 (65%)
100(81%)
93 (75%)
105 (85%)
124
Total #
129
95
120
115
126
151
Total %
85%
63%
79%
76%
83%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
Universe for this measure changes with current information. FY 08 end-of-year universe equals 151.
80
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: GL-3
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Percent of high priority Tier 1 (significant) Great Lakes beaches
where States and local agencies have put into place water quality monitoring and public
notification programs that comply with the U.S. EPA National Beaches Guidance.
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Region 2
100%
100% (38)
100% (21)
100% (21)
100% (21)
21
Region 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
11
Region 5
100%
100% (305)
100% (306)
100% (327)
100% (342)
334
Total #
325
343
327
348
363
366
Total %
100%
100%*
100%
100%
100%
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
Universe for this measure changes with current information. Prior to FY 2007, Region 2's universe
included more than just the Tier 1 beaches.
81
41
-------
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: GL-4
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description. GL-4a: Number of near term Great Lakes Actions on track.
GL-4b: Number of near term Great Lakes Actions completed.
QMR;I
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
Complete
(GL-4b)
4
12
34
On Schedule
(GL-4a)
40
33
11
Off Schedule
4
0
0
Total #
n/a
48
45
Indicator
Indicator
45
Total %
n/a*
92%*
100%**
Indicator
Indicator
100%
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08. The measure language was revised for FY 08 in ACS to reflect the Quarterly
Management Report (1/08). Measure is now two parts -Actions on track (GL-4a) and Actions completed (GL-
4b) and will be reported by GLNPO only in ACS.
*These numbers have been adjusted to reflect updated information. **FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS.
48 Near Term Actions were identified in December 2005. 3 of those actions became long-term actions in 2007.
82
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Measure #: GL-5
National Office Lead: GLNPO
Measure Description: Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of
Concern, (cumulative)
PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure added for F Y 2009 from 2007 PART review.
83
42
-------
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-33
National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres achieved, based on
annual monitoring from prior year.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-34
National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of the Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards attainment achieved,
based on annual monitoring from the previous calendar year and the preceding 2 years.
SP-33
PART
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
39% (72,945)
42% (78,263)
32% (59,160)
n/a
35% (64,912)
185,000 acres
SP-34
2OO5 Baseline
2OO6 End-of-Year
2OO7 End-of-Year
2OO8 Commitment
2OO8 End-of-Year
Universe
PART
National Commitment
3O% (22.73 km3)*
14% (1O.47 km3)
28% (2O.94 km3)
n/a|
12% (8.98 km3)
1OO% (74.8 km3)
2011 Target: 45% (83,250)
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: 40% (29.92 km3)
Starting in 2008, the Agency no longer sets annual commitments for SAV (SP-33) due to the extreme variability in
the annual results. Instead, EPA set a long term target of 45% goal achievement in 2011. The DO measure (SP-34)
was first used in the Agency's Strategic Plan in 2008. For similar reasons as SAV, no annual commitments are made
for this measure. Instead, EPA set a long term target of 40% goal achievement in 2011. End-of-year data exists for
the DO measure since the Chesapeake Bay Program has been reporting results for this measure for many years.
84
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-35
National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million pound reduced).
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-36
National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of goal achieved for implementation of phosphorus reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million pounds).
SP-35
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year ~
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
PART; BUD
National Commitment
41 % (67~rnillion Ibs)
44% (71.2 million Ibs)
46% (75.22 million Ibs)
50% (81.25 million Ibs)
47% (75.6 million Ibs)
100% (162.5 million Ibs)
SP-36
PART; BUD
2011 Target: 59% (95.88 million Ibs.)
National Program Manager Comments:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
58% (8.4 million Ibs)
60% (8.67 million Ibs)
62% (8.83 million Ibs)
66% (9.48 million Ibs)
62% (8.9 million Ibs)
100% (14.3 million Ibs)
2011 Target: 74% (10.63 million Ibs.)
2011 targets are those reported in the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. 2011 targets will be revised to
reflect End-of Year results and an improved assessment of available and anticipated resources.
85
43
-------
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-37
National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment reduction
practices (expressed as progress meeting the sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million tons
reduced).
PART; BUD
National Commitment
54% (0.9 million tons)
57% (0.96 million tons)
61% (1.03 million tons)
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
64% (1.08 million tons)
64% (1.07 million tons)!
100% (1.69 million tons)
2011 Target: 74% (1.25 million tons)
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 target is that reported in the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. 2011 target will be revised to reflect End-
of Year results and an improved assessment of available and anticipated resources.
86
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 1 ^
Measure #: CB-1 National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds
and of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6. 1 6 million pounds achieved.
(CB-la) Nitrogen reduction: PART; BUD (CB-lb) Phosphorus reduction: PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
| Universe
National Program Manaj
National Commitment
60.95%
68%
69%
74%
69%
100% (49.9 million Ibs/yr)
;er Comments:
N
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe 100°/<
Future targets will be revised to reflect End-of Year results and an improved assessment of available and anticip
resources.
V
ational Commitment
80%
84%
87%
85%
87%
(6.16 million Ibs/yr)
ated
J
87
44
-------
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Measure #: CB-2 National Office Lead: CBPO
Measure Description: Percent of the forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved.
PART; BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
38%
46%*
53%
60%
57%
100% (10,000 miles)
National Program Manager Comments:
Future targets will be revised to reflect End-of Year results and an improved assessment of available and
anticipated resources
Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico i
Measure #: Subobjective 4.3.5 National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description: Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico
on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-38 National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description: Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in
impaired segments in 13 priority areas, (cumulative starting in FY 07)
4.3.5 BUD SP-38 BUD
2004 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
n/a
5
2011 Target: 2.6
National Program Manager Comments:
Nat
2002 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
onal Commitment
0
n/a
38*
64
n/a
812*
2011 Target: 162
*SP-38 replaces FY 07 measure GM-1. FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. Universe char
812.
ged from 354 to
89
45
-------
Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Measure #: Subobjective SP-39 National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description: Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres of important
coastal and marine habitats, (cumulative starting in FY 07)
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-40 National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description: Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin
to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as measured by the 5-year
running average of the size of the zone.
SP-39
BUD
SP-40
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
16,000
16,458
18,660
18,200
25,215
3,769,370 acres
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
14,128km2
14,944 km2
20,500 km2
n/a
2011 Target: 20,000 acres
National Program Manager Comments:
2015 Target: less than 5,000 km2
Targets/commitments are deferred for measure SP-40.
n/a
n/a
90
Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Measure #: GM-1
National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description: Implement integrated bi-national (U.S. and Mexican Border States)
early-warning system to support State and coastal community efforts to manage harmful algal
blooms (HABs).
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
n/a
Supported expansion into Texas
and Florida
Expand operational system to
South Florida and South Texas
Expand operational system to
Veracruz, Mexico
Pilot underway
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 2008 commitment will be added to ACS at midyear.
91
46
-------
Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Measure #: GM-2
National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description: Reduce the rate of shellfish-borne Vibrio vulnificus illnesses caused by
consumption of commercially-harvested raw or undercooked oysters from the average illness
rate for the years 1995-1999.
2005 Baseline
2006 Commitment
2006 End-of-Year
2007 Commitment
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
National Commitment
0.16 per million
0.16 per million
0.09 per million
0.121 per million
0.2250 per milion
0.08 per million
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
FY 2008 commitment will be added to ACS at midyear.
92
Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Measure #: GM-3
National Office Lead: GMPO
Measure Description. GM-3a: Number of near term actions in the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance Governors' Action Plan that are on track. GM-3b: Number of near term actions in
the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governors' Action Plan that are completed.
QMR
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
On Track
(GM-3a)
29
22
48
40
Complete
(GM-3b)
7
9
12
32
National
Commitment
0
36 (49%)
31 (42%)
60 (82%)
72 (99%)
73
National Program Manager Comments:
The measure language was revised for F Y 08 in ACS to reflect the Quarterly Management Report (1/08).
Measure is now in two parts -Actions on track (GM-3a) and Actions completed (GM-3b).
93
47
-------
Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-41
National Office Lead: LISPO
Measure Description: Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound as
measured by the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Lotal Maximum Daily Load (LMDL).
BUD
(in TE lbs/day)*|
59,146 TE Ibs/day
40,582 TE Ibs/day
39,232 TE Ibs/day
1999 Trade Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
I2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
211,724 Ibs/day"
161,359 Ibs/day
153,932 Ibs/day
135,374 Ibs/day
162,080
n/a
37,323 TE Ibs/day
40,440
n/a
2014 Target: -60% reduction ftom 1999 baseline of 211,724 to 88,474 Ibs/day,
22,774 TE Ibs/day, a reduction of 36,372 TE Ibs/day from 1999 baseline of
59,146 TE Ibs/day point sources only**
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08. *Measure will be tracked in Ibs/day and Trade Equalized (TE) Ibs/day. TE
Ibs/day are pounds of nitrogen adjusted by application of the equivalency factor assigned to each point
source based on its proximity to the receiving water body (LIS). The TMDL established a Waste Load
Allocation of 22,774 TE Ibs/day from point sources, to be achieved over a 15 year period beginning in 1999.
The annual commitments are calculated by dividing the difference between the 1999 baseline and 2014 target
by 15 (the TMDL period), or 2,425 Ibs/day per year. **The Baseline and 2014 Target have been updated
\ from the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. F Y 06 and FY 07 data not from ACS and has been updated. /
Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-42 National Office Lead: LISPO
Measure Description: Reduce the size of the hypoxic area in Long Island Sound (i.e.,
defined as the area in which the long-term average maximum July-September dissolved
oxygen level is <3mg/lb; reduce the average duration of the maximum hypoxic event).
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
203 sq. miles; 58 days
200 sq. miles; 53 days*
162 sq. miles; 58 days*
n/a
180sq. miles; 79 days
n/a
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: 25°/
New measure starting in FY 08. Due to inter-annual variability, annual reduction targets are not calculated
for this measure. *FY 06 and FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS.
95
48
-------
Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-43
National Office Lead: LISPO
Measure Description: Restore or protect acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands,
dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands.
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-44 National Office Lead: LISPO
Measure Description: Re-open miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish
passage through removal of dams and barriers or installations of by-pass structures such as
fishways. (cumulative starting in FY 06)
SP-43
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
BUD
National Commitment
SP-44
BUD
712 acres restored &
protected
826*
1,023*
862
1,199*
n/a
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
81 miles
101.2*
123*
105.9 estimated
124.3**
n/a
2011 Target: 1,012 acres (300 additional from 05 baseline)
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: 131 miles (50 additional from 05 baseline)
New measures starting in FY 08. For SP-43: In September 2006, the LISS Policy Committee established the goal of restoring
and protecting an additional 300 acres of coastal habitat above the baseline by 2011 -50 acres per year for 6 years. For SP-44:
The states of NY and CT will re-open 50 river miles above the base for a total of 131 river miles re-opened to fish passage. *FY
06 and FY 07 end-of-year data not fiom ACS. """The 2011 targets were achieved in 2007. EPA will negotiate new 2011 targets
with the LISS Management Conference partners.
96
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-45
National Office Lead: Region 4
Measure Description: Achieve "no net loss" of stony coral cover (mean percent stony coral cover) in
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and
Palm Beach Counties, Florida, working with all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, tribal, and local).
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-46 National Office Lead: Region 4
Measure Description: Annually maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the
FKNMS as measured by the long-term sea grass monitoring project that addresses composition and
abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability.
SP-45
BUD
SP-46
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
6.8% in FKNMS*;
5.9% in SE Florida
n/a
n/a
No net loss
Small loss
n/a
2011 Target: No net loss
National Program Manager Comments:
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
El = 8.3; SCI = 0.48**
n/a
n/a
Long term average
Not maintained
n/a I
2011 Target: Maintain baseline
New measures starting in FY 08. ^Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7% was revised to 6.8%. The Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring
Project (CREMP) for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was modified in 2006 by dropping one hardbottom monitoring site
because of the very small percentage of stony coral cover present (less than .2%), resulting in an increase of. 1 percent in the mean
percent stony coral cover for the entire Sanctuary Statistical analyses of the CREMP indicated that sampling a reduced number of
stations at sites with low stony coral cover would still produce statistically valid results.
*EI = Elemental Indicator; SCI = Species Composition Index.
97
49
-------
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-47
National Office Lead: Region 4
Measure Description: Annually maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and
coastal waters of the FKNMS.
BUD
National Commitment
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
chlorophyll < 0.2 ug/l - 43
light attentuation < 0.13/meter - 23
dissolved inorganic nitrogen £ 0.75 micromolar - 54
total phosphorus £ 0.2 micromolar - 63
n/a
n/a
Maintain baseline
Not maintained
n/a
2011 Target: Maintain baseline
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08.
Baseline numbers are monitoring sites not meeting water quality parameters.
98
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-48
National Office Lead: Region 4
Measure Description: Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured
by total phosphorus, including meeting the 10 parts per billion (ppb) total phosphorus
criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent limits to be
established for discharges from stormwater treatment areas.
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
(see below *)
n/a
n/a
Maintain baseline
Not maintained
n/a
2011 Target: Maintain baseline
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08.
*2005 Baseline: Average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in Everglades
National Park, 10 ppb in Water Conservation Area 3 A, 13 ppb in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and
18 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow - weighted total phosphorus discharges from
Stormwater Treatment Areas ranged from 13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W
99
50
-------
Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-49
National Office Lead: Region 10
Measure Description: Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in
acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water quality.
(cumulative from FY 06)
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-50
National Office Lead: Region 10
Measure Description: Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments, (cumulative
starting in FY 06)
BUD
National Commitment
SP-49
BUD
SP-50
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
n/a
100*
322*
450 (200 new)
1,566
30,000 acres
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
n/a
n/a
120*
100
123
5,000 acres
2011 Target: 1,000 acres
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: 200 acres
New measures starting inFY 08. *FY 06 andFY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS.
100
Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-51
National Office Lead: Region 10
Measure Description: Restore acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine
wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
n/a
750*
4,152*
2,310 (800 new)
4,413
45,000 acres
2011 Target: 3,500 acres
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08.
*FY 06 and FY 07 end-of-year adjusted data not from ACS.
101
51
-------
Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-52
National Office Lead: Region 10
Measure Description: Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland habitat and acres of
upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed, (cumulative starting in FY 05)
BUD
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
National Commitment
0
2,086*
(2,071 wetland + 15 upland)
4,204
8,000
12,986
96, 770 acres
2011 Target: 16,000 acres
National Program Manager Comments:
New measure starting in FY 08.
Note: 13,000 wetland habitat acres and 3,000 upland habitat acres totals 16,000 acres.
*FY 06 and FY 07 end-of year adjusted data are not from ACS.
102
r^n
Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin MHSi
@8i
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-53
National Office Lead: Region 10
Measure Description: Clean up acres of known contaminated sediments, (cumulative
starting in FY 06)
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-54
National Office Lead: Region 10
Measure Description: Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentration of contaminants of
concern found in water and fish tissue, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
SP-53
2005 Baseline
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
2011 Target
BUD
National Commitment
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
400 acres
150 acres
SP-54
N:
2005 Baseline Es
2006 End-of-Year
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Commitment
2008 End-of-Year
Universe
itional Commitment
tablished at 5 sites
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2011 Target: 10%
National Program Manager Comments:
New measures starting in FY 08. There will be no reporting on SP-54 until 2012.
103
52
-------
Office of Water National Water Program
FY 2008 Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
------- |