NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
GUIDANCE
FISCAL YEAR 2011
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
February 2010
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. Introduction 1
II. Strategies to Protect Public Health 8
1. Water Safe to Drink 8
2. Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat 21
3. Water Safe for Swimming 24
III. Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters,
Coastal Waters, and Wetlands 27
1. Restore and Improve Water Quality 27
2. Protect Coastal Waters and Estuaries 48
3. Protect Wetlands 52
IV. Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and
Large Aquatic Ecosystems 57
1. Protect U.S.-Mexico Border Water Quality 57
2. Protect Pacific Islands Waters 59
3. Protect the Great Lakes 61
4. Protect the Chesapeake Bay 65
5. Protect the Gulf of Mexico 70
6. Protect Long Island Sound 74
7. Protect South Florida Waters 78
8. Protect Puget Sound 81
9. Protect the Columbia River 85
10. San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary 88
V. National Water Program and Grant Management 92
VI. National Water Program and Environmental Justice 101
VII. National Water Program and Children's Health 106
VIII. National Water Program and the Urban Waters Initiative 107
IX. National Water Program and Climate Change 109
11
-------
APPENDICES 112
A) FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measures Summary Appendix
B) F Y 2011 Water State Grant Measures Appendix
C) Office of Water American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Measures
D) Explanation of Key Changes Summary
E) Additional Guidance for Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients
F) FY 2011 Detailed Measures Appendix (to be published with Final NWPG)
G) Draft Definition for Measure WQ-1 a,b,c
H) Potential Future Measures of Incremental Progress in Restoring Water Quality
in
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
/. PROGRAM OFFICE: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
This National Water Program Guidance for fiscal year (FY) 2011 describes how the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and tribal governments will work together to
protect and improve the quality of the Nation's waters, including wetlands, and ensure safe
drinking water. Within EPA, the Office of Water oversees the delivery of the national water
programs, while the regional offices work with states, tribes, and others to implement these
programs and other supporting efforts.
//. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT
The Guidance describes the key actions needed to accomplish the public health and
environmental goals proposed in the EPA 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. These goals are:
• Protect public health by improving the quality of drinking water, making fish and
shellfish safer to eat, and assuring that recreational waters are safe for swimming;
• Protect and restore the quality of the Nation's fresh waters, coastal waters, and
wetlands; and
• Improve the health of large aquatic ecosystems across the country.
///. WA TER PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The Office of Water recognizes that EPA regional offices, states, and tribes need flexibility in
determining the best allocation of resources for achieving clean water goals and safe drinking
water at the regional, state, and tribal level. From a national perspective, however, EPA, states,
and tribes need to give special attention in FY 2011 to the priority areas identified below to
ensure safe and clean water for all Americans. These priorities of the National Water Program
are organized into two themes, Sustainable Communities and Healthy Watersheds:
1. Sustainable Communities - Making Communities More Sustainable
• Making America's Water Systems Sustainable and Secure
• Safeguarding Public Health
• Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters
2. Healthy Watersheds - Restoring and Protecting America's Watersheds
• Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas
• Strengthening Protections for Our Waters
-------
• Improving Watershed-Based Approaches
In addition, the National Water Program is working to support the Administrator's key priority
themes of Taking Action on Climate Change, Assuring the Safety of Chemicals, Expanding the
Conversation of Environmentalism and Working For Environmental Justice, and Building Strong
State and Tribal Partnerships. Supporting the Administrator's and the National Water Program
priorities are the EPA regional priorities. More information on these priorities is provided in the
Introduction to this Guidance.
IV. IMPLEMENT A TION STRA TEGIES
The National Water Program Guidance describes, in general terms, the work that needs to be
done in FY 2011 to reach the public health and water quality goals that are proposed in the EPA
2010-2015 Strategic Plan. In the Guidance, these public health and environmental goals are
organized into 15 "subobjectives," and each of the subobjectives is supported by a specific
implementation strategy that includes the following key elements:
• Environmental/Public Health Results Expected. Each subobjective strategy begins
with a brief review of national goals for improvements in environmental conditions or
public health, including national "targets" for progress in FY 2011.
• Key Strategies. For each subobjective, the key strategies for accomplishing
environmental goals are described. The role of core programs (e.g. State Revolving
Funds, water quality standards, discharge permits, development of safe drinking
water standards, and source water protection) is discussed and a limited number of
key program activity measures are identified. A comprehensive summary, listing all
strategic target and program activity annual measures under each subobjective, is in
Appendix A.
• FY 2011 Targets for Key Program Activities. For some of the program activities,
EPA, states, and tribes will simply report progress accomplished in FY 2011 while
for other activities, each EPA region will define specific "targets" (Appendix F).
These targets are a point of reference for the development of more binding
commitments to measurable progress in state and tribal grant workplans. In the
Guidance, national or programmatic targets are shown, where applicable, in Appendix
A andF.
• Grant Assistance. Each of the subobjective strategies includes a brief discussion of
EPA grant assistance that supports the program activities identified in the strategy.
Section 106 Grant Guidance for Water Pollution Control Programs is incorporated
within the Water Quality Subobjective and Appendix E to streamline the approach to
the grant guidance issuance. The National Water Program's approach to managing
grants for FY 2011 is discussed in Part V of this Guidance. New for FY 2011, EPA is
ii
-------
working to incorporate the grant guidance for the Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) and Underground Injection Control (UIC) grants within the Water Safe to
Drink Subobjective to continue to pilot a more streamlined approach to issuing the
grant guidance.
• Environmental Justice (EJ). For FY 2011, the Office of Water is continuing to
align the development of this Guidance with the development of the EJ Action Plan.
2010 ushered in a new era that raised the level of outreach and protection of
historically underrepresented and vulnerable subpopulations to a top priority for all
Agency activities. To undertake this top priority, environmental justice principles
must be included in our entire decision making processes. Expanding the
conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice is a key
priority for the National Water Program.
• A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate. In September of 2008, the National
Water Program published a Strategy for responding to the impacts of climate change
on clean water and drinking water programs. Key goals of the Strategy are to help
water program managers recognize the impacts of climate change on water programs
and to identify needed adaptation actions. Additional information on the Strategy is in
Section IX as well as at http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/. New for 2011,
each of the relevant subobjective section includes a brief description of climate
change related activities.
V. MEASURES
The National Water Program uses three types of measures to assess progress toward the
proposed goals in the EPA 2010-2015 Strategic Plan:
• Measures of changes in environmental or public health (i.e., outcome measures);
• Measures of activities to implement core national water programs (i.e., program
activity measures); and
• Measures of activities to restore and protect large aquatic ecosystems and implement
other water program priorities in each EPA region (i.e., ecosystem outcome and
program activity measures).
In 2006 - 2009, EPA worked with states and tribes to align and streamline performance
measures. The National Water Program will continue to engage states and tribes in 2010 in the
Agency's performance measurement improvement efforts.
VI. TRA CKING PROGRESS
-------
The National Water Program will evaluate progress toward the environmental and public health
goals described in the EPA Strategic Plan using four key tools:
• National Water Program Performance Reports: The Office of Water will use data
provided by EPA regional offices, states, and tribes to prepare performance reports
for the National Water Program at the mid-point and end of each fiscal year.
• Senior Management Measures and EPA Quarterly Reports (EQR): The Office
of Water reports the results on a subset of the National Water Program Guidance
measures on a quarterly basis. In addition, headquarters and regional senior managers
are held accountable for a select group of the Guidance measures in their annual
performance assessments.
• EPA Headquarters (HQ)/Regional Dialogues: Each year, the Office of Water will
visit up to four EPA regional offices and Great Waterbody Offices to conduct
dialogues on program management, grant management, and performance.
• Program-Specific Evaluations: In addition to looking at the performance of the
National Water Program at the national level and performance in each EPA region,
individual water programs will be evaluated periodically under the Program
Assessment program managed by the Office of Management and Budget. Additional
evaluations will be conducted internally by program managers at EPA headquarters
and regional offices; and externally by the EPA Inspector General, Government
Accountability Office, and other independent organizations.
VII. PROGRAM CONTACTS
For additional information concerning this Guidance and supporting measures, please contact:
• Michael H. Shapiro; Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
• Tim Fontaine; Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
• Vinh Nguyen; Program Planning Team Leader, Office of Water
INTERNET ACCESS: This FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance and
supporting documents are available at (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
IV
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Clean and Safe Water Goals for 2014
The EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, published in October of 2006, defines specific
environmental and public health improvements to be accomplished by 2011. The Agency is
currently updating the current Strategic Plan to develop the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan by
September 2010. With the help of states, tribes, and other partners, EPA expects to make
significant progress toward protecting human health and improving water quality by 2014,
including:
Protect Public Health
• Water Safe to Drink: maintain current high percentage of the population served by
systems meeting health-based Drinking Water standards;
• Fish Safe to Eat: reduce the percentage of women of child-bearing age having
mercury levels in their blood above levels of concern; and
• Water Safe for Swimming: maintain the currently high percentage of days that
beaches are open and safe for swimming during the beach season.
Restore and Protect Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
• Healthy Waters: address an increasing number of the approximately 40,000
impaired waters identified by the states in 2002, with the goal of having at least 3,250
of these waters attain water quality standards fully by 2014;
• Healthy Coastal Waters: show improvement in the overall condition of the
Nation's coastal waters while at least maintaining conditions in the four major coastal
regions; and
• More Wetlands: restore, improve, and protect wetlands with the goal of increasing
the overall quantity and quality of the Nation's wetlands.
Improve the Health of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Implement collaborative programs with other federal agencies and with states, tribes,
local governments, and others to improve the health of communities and large aquatic
ecosystems including:
• U. S.-Mexico Border waters
• Pacific Island waters
• the Great Lakes
• the Chesapeake Bay
• the Gulf of Mexico
• Long Island Sound
• South Florida waters
- 1 -
-------
• the Puget Sound
• the Columbia River
Purpose and Structure of this FY 2011 Guidance
This National Program Guidance defines the process for creating an "operational plan" for EPA,
state, and tribal water programs for FY 2011. This Guidance is divided into three major
sections:
1. Subobjective Implementation Strategies: The EPA Strategic Plan addresses water
programs in Goal 2 (i.e., "Clean and Safe Water") and Goal 4 (i.e., "Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems"). Within these goals, there are 16 subobjectives that define specific
environmental or public health results to be accomplished by the National Water Program by
the end of FY 2011. This Guidance is organized into 15 subobjectives and describes the
increment of environmental progress EPA hopes to make in FY 2011 for each subobjective
and the program strategies to be used to accomplish these goals.
The National Water Program is working with EPA's Innovation Action Council (IAC) to
promote program innovations, including the Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
(www.epa.gov/ems/) and the Environmental Results Program (ERP)
(www.epa.gov/permits/erp/index.htm). States and tribes may be able to use these or other
innovative tools in program planning and implementation.
2. Water Measures: Appendix A, a comprehensive list of performance measures in the
Guidance, includes three types of measures that support the subobjective strategies and are
used to manage water programs:
• "Outcome" Strategic Target Measures: Measures of environmental or public health
changes (i.e. outcomes) are described in the EPA Strategic Plan and include long-range
targets for this Guidance. These measures are described in the opening section of each of
the subobjective plan summaries in this Guidance.
• National Program Activity Measures: Core water program activity measures (i.e.,
output measures) address activities to be implemented by EPA and by states/tribes that
administer national programs. They are the basis for monitoring progress in
implementing programs to accomplish the environmental goals in the Agency Strategic
Plan. Some of these measures have national and regional "targets" for FY 2011 that
serve as a point of reference as EPA regions work with states/tribes to define more formal
regional "commitments" in the Spring/Summer of 2010.
• Ecosystem Program Activity Measures: These measures address activities to restore
and protect communities and large aquatic ecosystems and implement other water
program priorities in each EPA region.
-2-
-------
Over the past eight years, EPA has worked with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to evaluate key water programs using the OMB Program Assessment reviews. This
work included identifying measures of progress for each program. Most of the measures
identified in the OMB Program Assessment process are included in this Guidance.
3. Water Program Management System: Part V of this Guidance describes a three-step
process for management of water programs in FY 2011:
• Step 1 is the development of this National Water Program Guidance.
• Step 2 involves consultation among EPA regions, states, and tribes, to be conducted
during the Spring/Summer 2010, to convert the "targets" in this Guidance into regional
"commitments" that are supported by grant workplans and other agreements with states
and tribes. This process allocates available resources to those program activities that are
likely to result in the best progress toward accomplishing water quality and public health
goals given the circumstances and needs in the state/region. The tailored, regional
"commitments" and state/tribal workplans that result from this process define,
along with this Guidance, the "strategy" for the National Water Program for FY
2011.
• Step 3 involves work to be done during FY 2011 to assess progress in program
implementation and improve program performance.
In addition for FY 2011, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution Control Grants from Section
106 of the Clean Water Act (Section 106 grants) is incorporated into this National Water
Program Guidance. This was a pilot effort started in FY 2010 to gain efficiency in the issuance
of the Section 106 Grant Guidance within this Guidance. Text boxes with specific Section 106
guidance are incorporated within Section III, 1 (Restore and Improve Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis) of this Guidance. Appendix E has additional information for states and the
interstate agencies. The Tribal Program, Monitoring Initiative, and Water Pollution Enforcement
Activities are not included in this pilot, and grantees should follow the specific, separate
guidances for these programs. For FY 2011, this pilot effort continues with the integration of the
grant guidance for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and Underground Injection
Control (UIC) grants. These grant guidance sections will be incorporated in the Water Safe to
Drink Subobjective in the final National Water Program Guidance in April.
FY2011 National Water Program Priorities
The Office of Water recognizes that EPA regions, states, and tribes need flexibility in
determining the best allocation of program resources for achieving clean water goals given their
specific needs and condition. From a national perspective, however, EPA, states, and tribes need
to give special attention in FY 2011 to the priority areas identified below to protect America's
waters. The Office of Water has two organizing themes for the National Water Program,
Sustainable Communities and Healthy Watersheds.
-------
1. Sustainable Communities - The nation's water resources are the lifeblood of the nation's
communities, supporting the economy and way of life. For communities to be sustainable,
water resources must be sustainable as well.
Making America's Water Systems Sustainable and Secure
The nation's water infrastructure needs are substantial, and the ability to meet those needs
through traditional programs and funding is limited. EPA is working with partners to help
communities and utilities continue to provide for their residents by improving financing,
management, and use of innovative solutions such as green infrastructure and expansion
of the WaterSense program. Recovery Act funds and increases in the Clean Water and
Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Funds have already boosted these efforts.
While making water systems more sustainable, EPA also want to fortify their security
and resiliency by working with water utilities to prevent or minimize disruptions in
providing clean and safe water for all citizens. The National Water Program will build
upon the successes of the sustainable infrastructure work to address the needs of
disadvantaged urban and rural communities.
Safeguarding Public Health
Using science-based standards to protect public water systems as well as ground and
surface water bodies has long been an Office of Water priority. Protecting public health
through tools, such as beach, fish consumption and drinking water advisories, is part of
EPA's core mission. EPA is expanding that science to improve our understanding of
emerging potential threats to public health to bring a new sense of responsiveness to
public needs. By also working closely with the enforcement program, the National Water
Program can ensure safe drinking water and surface water suitable for recreation for all
Americans.
Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters
With the water program's new Urban Waters Initiative, EPA can help communities,
specially disadvantaged communities and those with environmental justice challenges,
access, restore and benefit from their urban waters and surrounding land. By focusing on
building capacity and supporting the growth of the green jobs sector in urban
communities, the National Water Program is helping to make these communities more
vibrant and strengthening the connections between a healthy environment and a healthy
economy. Additional information on the Urban Waters Initiative is in Section VIII.
2. Healthy Watersheds - People and the environment both rely on healthy watersheds. By
improving programs and tools to protect watersheds, EPA is protecting human health as well
as the environment.
Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas
America's largest aquatic ecosystems are seriously impaired, resulting in significant loses
to the diversity and productivity of these systems and impaired economic and social
values. The National Water Program is leading efforts to restore and protect these
treasured resources, and in so doing providing models for broader national applicability.
-4-
-------
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order and
Strategy, the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, the federal Bay-Delta Workplan, and
the National Ocean Policy are each designed to help one of the nation's key geographic
areas address complex and cross-boundary challenges. Through innovative, collaborative
approaches across federal, state, and local governmental organizations, and with robust
use of existing statutory authority, EPA helps make these programs more effective and
restore these precious resources.
Strengthening Protections for Our Waters
America's waterbodies are imperiled as never before, but EPA has the tools to help repair
them. EPA and its partners can provide better protection of the nation's water resources,
including sources of drinking water by strengthening criteria and revising regulations.
Some examples are by revising the stormwater rule, updating effluent guideline
limitations for construction and development and the steam electric sectors, taking action
to reduce the harmful environmental consequences of mountaintop mining, and
strengthening protection for wetlands and other waters of the United States. EPA will
continue to work with the states and others to improve monitoring of waters so that we
are better able to measure progress in protecting and restoring them. EPA is also working
closely with the enforcement program to focus on the biggest threats to the nation's water
resources.
Improving Watershed-Based Approaches
Complex issues, such as nonpoint source and nutrient pollution, require holistic,
integrated solutions that emphasize accountability. The National Water Program will
improve the way existing tools, such as water quality standards, protection of
downstream uses, permits and total maximum daily loads, are used to protect and restore
watersheds; explore how innovative tools, such as trading and other market-based
approaches to watershed protection, can be applied; and enhance efforts to prevent water
quality impairments in healthy watersheds. Local partners are becoming more important
than ever to the health of watersheds and estuaries, and EPA must improve outreach to
them to help them build their capacity to develop and implement their own solutions to
local water quality problems.
In addition, the National Water Program supports the Administrator's priority themes:
Taking Action on Climate Change
Addressing the challenges climate change poses for water resources will take the efforts of many
partners. EPA must work with these partners to identify ways to make programs more resilient
through initiatives, such as the Climate Ready Estuaries program and Climate Ready Utilities,
while making the water sector more energy-efficient. But it is not only partners who must
innovate: evaluating and providing other means to address greenhouse gas emissions, such as
through the sequestration of carbon dioxide in below-ground geologic formations, will allow the
Office of Water to be a leader in the fight against climate change.
-5-
-------
A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate: In September of 2008, the National Water
Program published a Strategy for responding to the impacts of climate change on clean water and
drinking water programs (see www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/). Key goals of the Strategy
are to help water program managers recognize the impacts of climate change on water programs
(e.g. warming water temperatures, changes in rainfall amounts and intensity, and sea level rise)
and to identify needed adaptation actions. Additional information on the Strategy is in Section
IX.
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
The Office of Water will partner with the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances to accelerate
testing of potential endocrine disrupting chemicals that can be present in water supplies and
surface waters.
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental
Justice
As the federal government, EPA must ensure that communities disproportionately affected by
pollution have clean and safe water, and that environmental justice informs decision-making,
including permitting and standards decisions. The Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water
wants to underscore those principles and asks that we strive to incorporate them in our work. In
addition to the Urban Waters initiative which can benefit disadvantaged communities, the Office
of Water co-leads and actively participates in EPA's Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE) program. CARE is providing on-the-ground technical assistance and
funding to underserved communities to help them understand, prioritize, and address
environmental health threats from all sources.
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
EPA recognizes that states are key partners in implementing the National Water Program. States
write the overwhelming majority of water permits, water quality standards, and total maximum
daily loads. Similarly, most inspections are done by states. EPA has begun working to improve
this partnership through increased collaboration on key problems, such as nutrients, and by
providing greater opportunity to discuss strategic and program planning through the Partnership
Council of the Office of Water and the States. The Office of Water is also committed to
improving tribal access to safe drinking water and, sanitation, and to improve tribes' capacities to
assume greater responsibility for waters within their jurisdiction. The National Tribal Water
Council is a key mechanism for ensuring that the views of tribal water professionals are
considered in EPA's regulatory and other programs.
EPA, states, and tribes also need to pay special attention to regional priorities. EPA regional
offices identified a limited number of regional and state priorities. These priorities were based
upon geographic areas and performance measures that were established to support the priorities.
Many of the performance measures developed by these regional groups support the National
Water Program national priorities.
-6-
-------
Improving Enforcement of the Clean Water Act
In October, 2009, EPA issues the Clean Water Act Action Plan ("the Action Plan"). The Action
Plan identifies steps EPA will take to improve enforcement efforts aimed at addressing water
quality impairment. The Office of Water is currently working with the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), EPA regions, and states to implement the Action Plan. The
Action Plan's three key elements are to: 1) focus NPDES enforcement efforts on pollution
sources that pose the greatest threats to water quality; 2) strengthen oversight of state permitting
and enforcement programs; and 3) improve the accessibility and quality of information provided
to the public.
Since work under the Action Plan is ongoing as this Guidance is finalized, FY 2011 will be a
transition year. EPA anticipates that existing policies, strategies and regulations, may need to be
revised to better identify and address the key water quality problems where NPDES compliance
and enforcement efforts are critical components to protection and restoration. EPA also expects
that the implementation of the Action Plan will identify more immediate opportunities to
improve identification of serious noncompliance problems as well as new approaches to address
these violations. For more information on specific enforcement actions for 2011, please see the
2011 OECA National Program guidance at www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
-7-
-------
II. STRATEGIES TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH
For each of the key subobjectives related to water addressed in the EPA Strategic Plan, EPA has
worked with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to define strategies for accomplishing the
improvements in the environment or public health identified for the subobjective. This National
Program Guidance draws from the Strategic Plan but describes plans and strategies at a more
operational level and focuses on FY 2011. In addition, this Guidance refers to "Program
Activity Measures" that define key program activities that support each subobjective (see
Appendix A).
1) Water Safe to Drink
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: 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.
2005 Baseline: 89% 2010 Commitment: 90%
2011 Target: 91% 2014 Target: 93%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key Program Strategies
For more than 30 years, protecting the Nation's public health through safe drinking water has
been the shared responsibility of EPA, the states, and 51,651 CWSsa nationwide that supply
drinking water to more than 292 million Americans (approximately 95% of the U.S. population).
Over this time, safety standards have been established and are being implemented for 91
microbial, chemical, and other contaminants. Forty-nine states have adopted primary authority
for enforcing their drinking water programs. Additionally, CWS operators are better informed
and trained on the variety of ways to both treat contaminants and prevent them from entering the
source of their drinking water supplies.
a Although the Safe Drinking Water Act applies to 153,530 public water systems nationwide (as of October 2009),
which include schools, hospitals, factories, campgrounds, motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system,
this implementation plan focuses only on CWSs. A CWS is a public water system that provides water to the same
population year-round. As of October 2009, there were 51,651 CWSs.
-------
EPA, states, tribes, and CWSs will work together so that the population served by CWSs
receives drinking water that meets all health-based standards. This goal reflects the fundamental
public health protection mission of the national drinking water program. Health protection-based
regulatory standards for drinking water quality are the cornerstone of the program. The
standards do not prescribe a specific treatment approach; rather, individual systems decide how
best to comply with any given standard based on their own unique circumstances. Systems meet
standards by employing "multiple barriers of protection" including source water protection,
various stages of treatment, proper operation and maintenance of the distribution and finished
water storage system, and customer awareness.
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. To achieve this objective
the program must work to maintain the gains of the previous years' efforts; drinking water
systems of all types and sizes that are currently in compliance will work to remain in
compliance. Efforts will be made to bring non-complying systems into compliance and to assure
all systems will be prepared to comply with the new regulations.
Making sound decisions to allocate resources among various program areas requires that each
EPA region first work with states and tribes to define goals for the program in public health (i.e.,
"outcome") terms. The table below describes estimates of progress under the key drinking water
measure describing the percent of the population served by community water systems that
receive water that meets all health based drinking water standards.
Targets for Population Served by Systems Meeting Standards (Measure 2.1.1)
EPA Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
National Total
2005 Baseline
92.5%
55.3%
93.2%
93%
94.1%
87.8%
91.2%
94.7%
94.6%
94.8%
89%
2009 Actual
92%
79%
89.9%
93.7%
95.4%
89.7%
94.1%
95.8%
96.9%
96.4%
92%
2010
Commitment
89%
75%
88%
91.7%
95%
88%
92%
90%
95%
91%
90%
2011 Target
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
91%
Although EPA regions should use the national FY 2011 target of the population served by
community water systems receiving safe drinking water as a point of reference, regional
-9-
-------
commitments to this outcome goal may vary based on differing circumstances in each EPA
region.
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grant Guidance to states and tribes.
Grant guidance for the PWSS Grant will be available with the publication of the final
National Water Program Guidance in April 2010.
EPA and states support the efforts of individual water systems by providing a program
framework that includes core programs implemented by EPA regional offices and states. Core
national program areas that are critical to ensuring safe drinking water are:
• Development or revision of drinking water standards;
• Implementation of drinking water standards and technical assistance to water systems
to enhance their technical, managerial, and financial capacity;
• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund;
• Water system security;
• Protecting sources of drinking water; and
• Underground injection control (UIC).
Collectively, these core areas of the national safe drinking water program comprise the multiple-
barrier approach to protecting public health. In each of these areas, specific Program Activity
Measures indicate progress being made and some measures include "targets" for FY 2011. For
measures with targets, a national target and a target for each EPA region, where applicable, are
provided in Appendix A.
1. Development/Revision of Drinking Water Standards
In FY 2011, the Agency will assess the available information on health effects and
occurrence data in drinking water to determine which Contaminant Candidate List (CCL
3) contaminants have sufficient information on which to base a regulatory decision. EPA
will work to compile this information to make regulatory determinations for at least five
CCL 3 contaminants by 2012. The Agency will also continue to evaluate and address
drinking water risks though activities to also implement the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA) including:
• Responding to public comment on proposed revisions to the Total Coliform Rule. In
addition, EPA will prepare a final rule which is scheduled for publication in 2012.
• Provide technical and scientific support for the development and implementation of
drinking water regulations.
-10-
-------
• Continue the review, validation, and analysis of data from the second round of
contaminant monitoring conducted under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR). UCMR2 data reporting by public water systems will continue through
mid-FY 2011. In addition, in FY 2011, EPA will propose the third round of
unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCMR3) and review the comments received on
the proposed UCMR3 as we prepare the final UCMR3 for publication in FY 2012.
EPA is required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA), as
amended, to annually set-aside $2 million of State Revolving Funds to pay the costs
of small system monitoring and sample analysis for contaminants for each cycle of
the UCMR.
• Collaborating with stakeholders to undertake the highest priority research and
information collection activities to better understand water quality issues in
distribution systems.
• Implementing the appropriate actions (i.e., regulatory revisions and/or revised
guidance) to address the long term issues identified in the national review of the
revised Lead and Copper Rule.
• Support the Partnership for Safe Water, a national collaborative effort between the
water industry and EPA to pursue optimization of the drinking water systems.
2. Implementation of Drinking Water Standards and Technical Assistance
In order to facilitate compliance with drinking water regulations, EPA will use the
following tools in partnership with states and tribes:
• Sanitary Surveys: Sanitary surveys are on-site reviews of the water sources,
facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of public water systems. States and
tribes conduct sanitary surveys for community water systems once every three years.
For non-community water systems or community water systems determined by the
state or tribe to have outstanding performance based on prior surveys, surveys may be
conducted every five years. EPA will conduct surveys at systems on tribal lands.
Focused monitoring of this activity was initiated in 2007, for the three-year period
starting in 2004 (see Program Activity Measure SDW-1). This measure applies to
surface water systems and ground water systems under direct influence of surface
water and ground water systems. Focused tracking of this activity was initiated in
2007, for the three-year period starting in 2004 (see Program Activity Measure SDW-
1). Beginning in December 2009, states were required for the first time to conduct
sanitary surveys for ground water systems. States have until December 2012 to
complete the initial round of sanitary surveys for community water systems, and until
December 2014 to complete the initial round of sanitary surveys for non-community
water systems or community water systems designated as outstanding performers.
-11-
-------
Technical Assistance and Training: Reference materials to support implementation
of recent regulations will be developed. These materials will include technical
guidance, implementation guidance, and quick reference guides. Assistance will
focus particularly on the Ground Water Rule, revised Lead and Copper Rule, and
Total Coliform Rule, as well as simultaneous compliance. Monitoring under the
Ground Water Rule begins in FY 2010. EPA will promote operation and maintenance
best practices to small systems in support of long term compliance success with
existing regulations. EPA will also provide training and technical assistance to states
and to water systems that need to increase their treatment to comply with Stage 2 and
LT2. Over 59,000 water systems will need to comply with these rules during 2011.
EPA will be developing and delivering technical training to help state staff review
new treatment plant upgrades under LT2, specifically membrane and ultraviolet
disinfection. In addition, EPA will develop technical assistance materials to support
state and water system implementation of the revised Total Coliform Rule.
Small System Assistance: EPA also will continue to provide technical assistance
and to leverage partners to help systems serving fewer than 10,000 people
consistently meet regulatory requirements through the use of cost-effective treatment
technologies, proper disposal of treatment residuals, and compliance with monitoring
requirements under the arsenic and radionuclide rules, and with rules controlling
microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts in drinking water. Small public
water systems face many challenges in providing safe drinking water and in meeting
the requirements of SDWA. These challenges include: (1) lack of adequate revenue
or access to financing; (2) aging infrastructure; (3) retirement of experienced system
operators and the inability to recruit new operators to replace them; (4) operators who
may lack the requisite financial, technical, or managerial skills; and (5) difficulty in
understanding of existing or new regulatory requirements. As a result, small systems
may experience frequent or long-term compliance challenges to providing safe water
to their communities.
In response to this ongoing challenge, in FY 2011, EPA is renewing and reinforcing
its efforts to enhance small system capacity through a comprehensive small system
strategy founded on three major components. First, EPA will work with the USD A
Rural Utilities Service and state DWSRF programs to strengthen financial support
mechanisms and to streamline the administrative process small systems must follow
to access financial assistance. Through this component, the Agency will encourage
states that have not yet developed a disadvantaged communities program to do so,
and have states increase disadvantaged community support, with an emphasis on
those systems requiring installation of treatment technology to comply with the newer
drinking water regulations. The Agency also will work closely with states to ensure
that DWSRF loans are reserved for systems which already are deemed sustainable or
are on a pathway to sustainability through DWSRF support. Second, the Agency will
work with states to improve training and technical assistance for small systems, and
enhance oversight of state capacity development programs, in order to improve small
system capacity to achieve and maintain compliance with drinking water regulations.
-12-
-------
Through their first decade of experience, state capacity development programs have
identified which strategies and techniques are most likely to help small systems
achieve and maintain sustainability. Under this aspect of the strategy, EPA will
coordinate with states to identify and disseminate best practices, policies and
innovations across state programs, and promote cost-effective, energy-efficient
system practices. EPA also will encourage states to target usage of DWSRF set-
asides for training and technical assistance provided to systems challenged to meet
newer drinking water standards. Third, EPA will promote the restructuring or
voluntary consolidation of existing non-sustainable systems, and work with states to
ensure that new water systems are sustainable. To promote restructuring, the Agency
will continue to provide information on the benefits of different kinds of
restructuring, or of voluntary consolidation, of existing non-sustainable systems. In
addition EPA, in cooperation with states and water system associations, will help
states and systems identify how to use DWSRF set-asides to achieve desired
restructuring. Also, the Agency will evaluate whether, as a condition of the DWSRF,
state programs are effectively ensuring that new water systems have adequate
capacity to meet SDWA requirements.
To support implementation of the strategy, the Agency has developed a suite of new
indicators for the FY 2011 guidance. These indicators correspond to the three major
components of the small system strategy: existing and new small water system
inventory; state DWSRF projects targeting small systems; and, small system
noncompliance, and capacity to quickly return to compliance with health-based
standards. For public water systems serving fewer than 500 persons, the Agency
includes a new indicator that will be able to track these systems, as well as the
creation of new small water systems. This measure is important to help account for
changes in the universe of small water systems and help provide a more complete
picture of the nature of the small system challenges in each state. The measure is an
important aspect of the small systems strategy that will continue to be a major area of
emphasis in FY 2011. Schools and daycare centers are a critical subset of small
systems for which EPA is also continuing to provide special emphasis in FY 2011 to
ensure that children receive water that is safe to drink. Therefore, included is a
separate indicator for schools and daycare centers meeting health-based standards.
• Area-wide Optimization Program: Under EPA's voluntary Area-Wide
Optimization Program (AWOP), drinking water systems and states will continue to
use a variety of optimization tools, including comprehensive performance evaluations
(CPEs) to assess the performance of filtration technology. AWOP is a highly
successful technical assistance and training program that enhances the ability of small
systems to meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection
byproducts standards. By FY 2011, EPA will have worked with four EPA regional
offices and 24 states to facilitate the transfer of specific skills using the performance-
based training approach targeted towards optimizing key groundwater system and
distribution system integrity.
-13-
-------
• Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program: EPA will continue the
program that sets standards and establishes methods for EPA, state, and privately-
owned laboratories that analyze drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA
also will conduct three EPA regional program reviews during FY 2011. Headquarters
visits each EPA regional office on a triennial basis and evaluates their oversight of the
state laboratories and the state laboratory certification programs within their purview.
• Data Access, Quality and Reliability: The Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) serves as the primary source of national information on compliance
with all health-based regulatory requirements of SDWA. EPA will continue to work
with states, with one focus being to increase the use of SDWIS/State because of its
ease of reporting and compatibility with the national SDWIS.
EPA will continue to improve the quality of data in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) by continuing to work with states to improve data
completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency through: 1) training on data
entry, error correction, and regulatory reporting; 2) conducting data verifications and
analyses; and 3) implementing quality assurance and quality control procedures.
Additionally, a State-EPA workgroup is identifying underlying causes of data quality
problems and developing actions to improve quality.
• Coordination with Enforcement: The EPA regional offices and the Office of Water
will also work with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to
identify instances of actual or expected non-compliance that pose risks to public
health and to take appropriate actions as necessary. The Office of Water has worked
with OECA to develop a new approach to significant noncompliance. The Office of
Water believes that this new approach will better focus enforcement efforts on the
greatest public health risks. In addition, OW and OECA will continue close
coordination regarding violations at schools that have their own water source. These
school public water systems are of special concern as children are the subpopulation
most vulnerable to lead and other contaminants, and as a result, a new measure is
proposed to monitor compliance.
3. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, enables states to offer low interest loans and other assistance to help
public water systems across the nation make improvements and upgrades to their water
infrastructure, or other activities that build system capacity.
EPA will work with states to increase the DWSRF fund utilization rateb for projects from
a 2002 level of 73% to 89% in 2011 (see Program Activity Measure SDW-4). EPA will
b Fund Utilization Rate is the cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements divided by cumulative funds available.
-14-
-------
also work with states to monitor the number of projects that have initiated operations (see
Program Activity Measure SDW-5).
For fiscal years 2010-2013, appropriated funds will be allocated to states in accordance
with each state's proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need as determined by
the most recent Needs Survey and Assessment.0 There is also statutory constraint that
each state and the District of Columbia receive no less than one percent of the allotment.
The survey documents 20-year capital investment needs of public water systems that are
eligible to receive DWSRF monies - approximately 52,000 community water systems
and 21,400 not-for-profit non-community water systems. The survey reports
infrastructure needs that are required to protect public health, such as projects to ensure
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
In FY 2011 EPA will continue implementation of the SRF Sustainability Policy. This
policy is designed to promote technical, financial, and managerial capacity as a critical
means to meet infrastructure needs, and further enhance program performance and
efficiency, and to ensure compliance. The Agency will continue to work with state and
local governments to address federal drinking water policy in order to provide equitable
consideration of small system customers.
In FY 2011, EPA will further contribute to the sustainable infrastructure initiative
through partnership-building activities, including the Agency's capacity development and
operator certification work with states, and efforts with leaders in the drinking water
utility industry to promote asset management and the use of watershed-based approaches
to manage water resources. The drinking water program will engage states and other
stakeholders to facilitate the voluntary adoption by public water systems of attributes
associated with effectively managed utilities. Finally, the program will continue to
expand efforts to encourage water efficient practices at public water systems aimed at
reducing leakage and better understanding linkages between water
production/distribution and energy use.
4. Water System Security
EPA will provide tools, training, and technical assistance to help protect the Nation's
critical water infrastructure from terrorist and other catastrophic events. Reducing risk in
the water sector requires a multi-step approach of determining risk through vulnerability
assessments, reducing risk through security enhancements, and preparing to effectively
respond to and recover from incidents.
EPA will move to the next phase of the Water Security Initiative (WSI) pilot program,
focusing on technical assistance, support and evaluation activities, and will continue to
support water sector-specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for
Threat Reduction (WATR), to protect the nation's critical water infrastructure. The
! The 2007 Needs Survey was released in 2009.
-15-
-------
Agency will continue to integrate the regional laboratory networks and the WSI pilot
laboratories into a national, consistent program. All of these efforts support the Agency's
responsibilities and commitments under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP), as defined within the Water Sector Specific Plan, which includes, for example,
specific milestones for work related to the WSI, the Water Laboratory Alliance, and
metric development.
In FY 2011, EPA will begin focusing on calibrating the contaminant warning systems
and conducting extensive and thorough evaluations of each pilot. The Agency also will
continue to prepare and refine a series of guidance documents for water utilities on
designing, deploying, and testing contamination warning systems based on additional
lessons learned from the pilots.
In FY 2009, EPA integrated the eleven Regional Laboratory Response Plans into a single
National Plan. In FY 2011, EPA will focus its efforts on conducting exercises within the
framework of this National Plan and work to expand the membership of the Water
Laboratory Alliance with the intention of achieving nationwide coverage. In addition,
EPA will continue to support the Regional laboratory networks by providing laboratories
and utilities with access to supplemental analytical capability and capacity, improved
preparedness for analytical support to an emergency situation, and coordinated and
standardized data reporting systems and analytical methods.
In FY 2011, EPA will also continue working to ensure that water sector utilities have
tools and information (including those that support WATR) to prevent, detect, respond to,
and recover from terrorist attacks, other intentional acts, and natural disasters. The
following preventive and preparedness activities will be implemented for the water sector
in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and states' homeland
security and water sector officials:
• Continue to develop and conduct exercises to prepare utilities, emergency responders,
and decision-makers to evaluate and respond to physical, cyber, and contamination
threats and events;
• Disseminate tools and provide technical assistance to ensure that water and
wastewater utilities and emergency responders react rapidly and effectively to
intentional contamination and other incidents. This includes: information on high
priority contaminants, incident command protocols, sampling and detection protocols
and methods, and treatment options;
• Provide an expanded set of tools (e.g., best security practices, incident command
system and mutual aid training, contaminant databases, decontamination guidance) in
order to keep the water sector current with evolving water security priorities;
• Continue to test and refine a risk assessment tool that will enable utilities to address
the risks from all hazards, including climate change impacts;
-16-
-------
• Continue to implement specific recommendations of the Water Decontamination
Strategy as developed by EPA and water sector stakeholders (e.g., defining roles and
responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies during an event).
5. Protecting Sources of Drinking Water
EPA will serve as an analytic resource and facilitator for states, tribes, and communities
in developing strategies and coordinating across jurisdictions to preserve drinking water
resources and continue a multiple barrier approach to drinking water management that
uses source water protection as the initial barrier to contamination. Source water includes
surface water, ground water, and the interchange between them.
EPA's goal is to increase the number of community water systems with minimized risk to
public health through development and implementation of protection strategies for source
water areas (counted by states) from a baseline of 20% of all areas in FY 2005 to 50% in
FY 2011 (see measure SP-4a). EPA also has a goal of maintaining the percent of the
population served by these community water systems at 57% in FY 2011 (see measure
SP-4b).
In FY 2011, EPA will continue supporting state and local efforts to identify and address
current and potential sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts are integral
to the sustainable infrastructure effort because source water protection can reduce the
need for expensive drinking water treatment, along with related increased energy use and
costs, which, in turn, can reduce the cost of infrastructure. In FY 2011, the Agency will:
• Continue to work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and the
multi-partner Source Water Collaborative to encourage broad-based efforts directed
at encouraging actions at the state and local level to address sources of contamination
identified in source water assessments;
• EPA will continue to support source water protection efforts by providing training,
technical assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and localities, and
facilitating the adoption of Geographic Information System (GIS) databases to
support local decision-making;
• Continue working with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to characterize current
and future pressures on water availability, variability and sustainability (WAYS) in
the face of climate change.
EPA will also continue working with federal programs to align source water preservation
and protection with their priorities. In particular, we are working to integrate source
water protection into Clean Water Act programs like the watershed approach and storm
water management. State water quality standards set the benchmarks for surface water
quality under the Clean Water Act and minimum instream flow regimes that protect
aquatic habitats will also preserve surface water and ground water supplies for all uses.
-17-
-------
States, and tribes, and communities should review these standards and regimes to make
sure their source waters will be preserved and protected.
EPA will continue working with other federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to
maintain healthy land cover and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on land conservation
programs and best management practices to protect water quality. EPA encourages states
and communities to leverage these programs to preserve and protect drinking water
supplies.
6. Underground Injection Control
EPA works with states to monitor and regulate the injection of fluids, by wells,
underground, both hazardous and non-hazardous, to prevent contamination of
underground sources of drinking water. In FY 2011, EPA, states, and tribes will continue
to implement the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Classes I, II, III that
lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days, thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water (see Program
Activity Measure SDW-7).
In FY 2011, states and EPA (where EPA directly implements) will continue to carry out
regulatory functions for each class of wells. States and EPA will also continue to process
UIC permit applications for experimental carbon sequestration projects. The information
gathered from these efforts will enable the Agency and states to provide permits to large-
scale commercial carbon sequestration applications following finalization of the GS
regulation. Similarly, states and EPA will process UIC permits for other nontraditional
injection streams such as desalination brines and treated waters injected for storage and
recovered at a later time.
The Agency will carry out responsibilities in permitting current and future geologic
sequestration (GS) of carbon dioxide projects. Activities planned for FY 2011 include:
• Complete development of the rule and supporting documents (i.e., technical support
documents, guidance documents, a response to comments document, and
implementation materials) for the GS of carbon dioxide recovered from emissions of
power plants and other facilities;
• Continue to facilitate research in UlC-related areas of geologic sequestration
including studies on siting characteristics of GS projects, monitoring of injected CO2,
modeling of CO2 plume and pressure front movement, and other processes of CO2
injection which could potentially pose risks to underground sources of drinking water.
• Analyze any data collected through Department of Energy Class IIEOR and Class V
pilot projects and additional industry efforts to demonstrate, commercialize, and
implement geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide technology;
-18-
-------
• Engage states, tribes, and public stakeholders through meetings, workshops, and other
avenues, as appropriate; and also work closely with states, tribes, and NGOs on
addressing climate change issues; and
• Provide necessary technical assistance, such as the issuance of technical guidance
concerning well construction and financial responsibility, to states and tribes in
permitting initial GS projects; and where EPA has direct implementation authority,
permit GS projects.
Also in FY 2011, EPA will continue to review new applications for primary enforcement
authority from states and tribes work to dissuade states from returning their UIC
programs to the Agency, and update the UIC grant allocation guidance used by states and
EPA regions.
EPA will continue training on the UIC database. The Agency will continue to work with
the states to fully populate the UIC database, targeted to include 68 UIC programs and
500,000 wells by 2012. EPA will support mapping of each state's data for initial
submissions and transition from paper reporting to electronic reporting for states that pass
Quality Assurance/Quality Control parameters;
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grant Guidance to states and tribes.
Grant guidance for the UIC Grant will be available with the publication of the final
National Water Program Guidance in April 2010.
Improving Drinking Water Public Health Protection Strategy
Drinking water protection starts with the SDWA which establishes EPA as the lead in
developing national health standards and working with states and other partners to implement the
resulting regulations in over 56,000 communities across the country. The scientific
underpinnings of drinking water regulations are complex. The SDWA holds EPA to high
standards in its use of data and other information and in the rigor of its analyses. The Agency
thus faces a two-fold challenge to provide the public with greater clarity on the level of risk
posed by regulated and unregulated contaminants, and to more expeditiously reduce exposure to
contaminants that may pose undue risks.
These challenges are compounded by the numbers of chemicals that are manufactured
domestically or imported for commercial purposes - tens of thousands with as many as a
thousand added every year.
The Agency is seeking to confront these challenges in new ways that will help to accelerate
efforts to reduce contaminants that pose significant health risks to drinking water consumers
paying particular attention to protecting children from unsafe drinking water contaminants. As
-19-
-------
such, the Agency is reassessing its historic public health protection strategy to consider
alternative approaches to protecting the nations' drinking water.
The approach encompasses the following:
• Review of potential and regulated drinking water contaminants with all its available tools to
reduce exposure to drinking water contaminants
• Employing resources of the Clean Air Act to help reduce deposition in water
• Restructuring the Toxic Substances Control Act to limit exposure to toxic contaminants
• Reinvigorating the Clean Water Act compliance to protect our source waters, and
implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect sensitive life stages, such as children
and the elderly.
• Expanding collection and dissemination information to more clearly communicate the
science and risks concerning drinking water contaminants, all to help the public better
understand and help protect their drinking water.
The strategy also proposes innovative and longer-term efforts that EPA can explore to support
regulatory development and highlights efforts that EPA and others can make to improve public
health protection while reducing the need for drinking water treatment by keeping contaminants
out of the rivers, lakes, and aquifers that serve as America's drinking water sources.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA has several program grants to the states, authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act, that
support work towards the drinking water strategic goals including the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS), Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), Underground Injection
Control (UIC), and water security grants. For additional information on these grants, see the
grant program guidance on the website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
The PWSS grants support the states' primacy activities (e.g., enforcement and compliance with
drinking water regulations). PWSS grant guidance issued for FY 2005 will continue to apply in
FY 2011. Of the FY 2011 President's Budget request of $105.7 million, approximately $6.8
million will support implementation of the Tribal Drinking Water Programs.
The DWSRF program provides significant resources for states to use in protecting public health.
Through FY 2009, the program as a whole provided over $16.1 billion ($16.2B including
ARRA) in assistance and states reserved over $1.5 billion in set-asides to support key drinking
water programs. In FY 2011, the Agency requested $1.3 billion for the program. EPA is
emphasizing targeting DWSRF resources to achieve water system compliance with health-based
requirements.
Tribal drinking water systems and Alaska Native Village water systems face the challenge of
improving access to safe drinking water for the populations they serve. Funding for
-20-
-------
development of infrastructure to address public health goals related to access to safe drinking
water comes from several sources within EPA and from other federal agencies. EPA reserves
1.5% of the DWSRF funds for grants for Tribal and Alaska Native Village drinking water
projects, including upgrading of community water systems and improving access through
construction of new systems. EPA also administers a grant program for drinking water and
wastewater projects in Alaska Native Villages. Additional funding is available from other
federal agencies, including the Indian Health Service.
The FY 2011 budget requests $11.1 million for grants to states to carry out primary enforcement
(primacy) responsibilities for implementing regulations associated with Classes I, II, III, IV, and
V underground injection control wells. In addition, emphasis is directed to activities that address
shallow wells (Class V) in source water protection areas.
2) Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in
blood above the level of concern (of 4.6 percent).
2005 Baseline: 5.7% 2010 Commitment: 5.1%
2011 Target: Deferred 2014 Target: 4.6%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
Elevated blood mercury levels pose a significant health risk and consumption of mercury-
contaminated fish is the primary source of mercury in blood. As of 2008 across the country,
states and tribes have issued fish consumption advisories for a range of contaminants covering
1.4 million river miles and over 18 million lake acres. In addition, a significant portion of the
valuable shellfishing acres managed by states and tribes are not open for use. EPA's national
approach to meeting safe fish goals and improving the quality of shellfishing waters is described
on the following pages.
1) Safe Fish
EPA's approach to making fish safer to eat includes several key elements:
• Encourage development of statewide mercury reduction strategies;
• Reduce air deposition of mercury; and
-21-
-------
• Improve public information and notification offish consumption risks.
a) Comprehensive Statewide Mercury Reduction Programs
EPA recognizes that restoration of waterbodies impaired by mercury may require
coordinated efforts to address widely dispersed sources of contamination and that
restoration may require a long-term commitment.
In early March 2007, EPA established guidelines allowing states the option of developing
comprehensive mercury reduction programs in conjunction with their FY 2008 lists of
impaired waters developed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Under the new
guidelines, EPA allows states that have a comprehensive mercury reduction program to
place waters impaired by mercury in a subcategory "5m" of their impaired waters lists
and defer development of mercury TMDLs for these waters. These mercury impaired
waters would not be included in estimates of the "pace" of TMDL development needed to
meet the goal of developing TMDLs for impaired waters within 8 to 13 years of listing
the waterbody.
The key elements of a state comprehensive mercury reduction program are:
• Identification of air sources of mercury in the state, including adoption of
appropriate state level programs to address in-state sources;
• Identification of other potential multi-media sources of mercury in products and
wastes and adoption of appropriate state level programs;
• Adoption of statewide mercury reduction goals and targets, including targets for
percent reduction and dates of achievement;
• Multi-media mercury monitoring;
• Public documentation of the state's mercury reduction program in conjunction
with the state's Section 303(d) list; and
• Coordination across states where possible, such as through the use of multi-state
mercury reduction programs.
EPA expects that these elements of a comprehensive mercury reduction program will be
in place in order for 5m listings to be appropriate (i.e., specific legislation, regulations, or
other programs that implement the required elements have been formally adopted by the
state, as opposed to being in the planning or implementation stages). States will have the
option of using the "5m" listing approach as part of the Section 303(d) lists due to EPA in
April of every even numbered year.
EPA will also use available tools to identify specific waters with high mercury levels and
then address these problems using core Clean Water Act program authorities, including
TMDL and permitting programs where a state does not develop a comprehensive
statewide reduction strategy for specific waters in which a local source of mercury can be
addressed using existing tools.
-22-
-------
b) Reduce Air Deposition of Mercury
Most fish advisories are for mercury, and a critical element of the strategy to reduce
mercury in fish is reducing emissions of mercury from combustion sources in the United
States. On a nationwide basis, by 2010, federal regulatory programs are expected to
reduce electric-generating unit emissions of mercury from their 2000 level (see EPA
Strategic Plan; Goal 1: Clean Air, Subobjective 1.1.2: Reduced Risk from Toxic Air
Pollutants).
c) Improve Public Information and Notification of Fish Consumption Risks
Another key element of the strategy to make fish safer to eat is to expand and improve
information and notification of the risks offish consumption. As part of this work, EPA
is also encouraging and supporting states and tribes to adopt the new fish tissue criterion
for mercury that EPA issued in 2001 and apply it based on implementation guidance
issued in 2009.
EPA is actively monitoring the development offish consumption advisories and working
with states to improve monitoring to support this effort. Fish tissues have been assessed
to support waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories for 43% of lake acres
and 39% of river miles (see Program Activity Measure FS-1). EPA also encourages
states and tribes to monitor fish tissue based on national guidance and most states are
now doing this work.
2) Safe Shellfish
Shellfish safety is managed through the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(ISSC), a partnership of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the state
shellfish control agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and the EPA. The state shellfish control agencies monitor shellfishing waters
and can prohibit or restrict harvesting if the waters from which shellfish are taken are
considered unsafe.
Success in achieving improved quality in shellfishing waters relies on implementation of
Clean Water Act programs that are focused on sources causing shellfish acres to be
closed. Important new technologies include pathogen source tracking, new indicators of
pathogen contamination and predictive correlations between environmental stressors and
their effects. Once critical areas and sources are identified, core program authorities,
including expanded monitoring, development of TMDLs, and revision of discharge
permit limits can be applied to improve conditions.
In addition, a wide range of clean water programs that apply throughout the country will
generally reduce pathogen levels in key waters. For example, work to control Combined
Sewer Overflows, reduce discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and
-23-
-------
reduce storm water runoff and nonpoint source pollution will contribute to restoration of
shellfish uses.
Finally, success in achieving improved water quality in shellfishing waters also depends
on improving the availability of state shellfish information. EPA, along with NOAA and
FDA, is encouraging states to participate in the ISSC and report shellfish information.
EPA is also working to improve data concerning the location of open and restricted
shellfishing areas.
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the state program grant under Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act, other water grants identified in the Grant Program Resources section of
Subobjective 4, and grants from the Great Lakes National Program Office. For additional
information on these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http: //www. ep a. gov/water/waterpl an).
3) Water Safe for Swimming
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: 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:
2006 Baseline: 97% 2010 Commitment: 95%
2011 Target: 95% 2014 Target: 96%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are included in Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
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 as a result of 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.
For FY 2011, EPA's national strategy for improving the safety of recreational waters will
include four key elements:
-24-
-------
• Establish pathogen indicators based on sound science;
• Identify unsafe recreational waters and begin restoration;
• Reduce pathogens levels in all recreational waters; and
• Improve beach monitoring and public notification.
1) Continue to Develop the Scientific Foundation to Support the Next
Generation of Recommended Water Quality Criteria
The BEACH Act requires EPA to develop new or revised recreational water quality
criteria. EPA is implementing a science plan that will provide the support needed to
underpin the next generation of recommended water quality criteria.
2) Identify Unsafe Recreational Waters and Begin Restoration
A key component of the strategy to restore waters unsafe for swimming is to identify the
specific waters that are unsafe and develop plans to accomplish the needed restoration. A
key part of this work is to maintain strong progress toward implementation of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which are developed based on the schedules
established by states in conjunction with EPA. Program Activity Measure WQ-8
indicates that most EPA regions expect to maintain schedules providing for completion of
TMDLs within 13 years of listing. EPA will continue to work with states to expand
implementation of TMDLs, including developing TMDLs on a water segment or
watershed basis where appropriate (see Section III).
In a related effort, the Office of Water will work in partnership with the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to better focus compliance and
enforcement resources to unsafe recreational waters. In addition, wet weather discharges,
which are a major source of pathogens, are one of OECA's national priorities.
3) Reduce Pathogen Levels in Recreational Waters Generally
In addition to focusing on waters that are unsafe for swimming today, EPA, states and
tribes will work in FY 2011 to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged to
recreational waters using three key approaches:
• Reduce pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs);
• Address other sources discharging pathogens under the permit program; and
• Encourage improved management of septic systems.
Overflows from combined storm and sanitary sewers in urban areas can result in high
levels of pathogens being released during storm events. Because urban areas are often
upstream of recreational waters, these overflows are a significant source of unsafe levels
of pathogens. EPA is working with states and local governments to fully implement the
CSO Policy providing for the development and implementation of Long Term Control
Plans (LTCPs) for CSOs. EPA expects that close to 84% of the 853 CSO permits will
-25-
-------
have schedules in place to implement approved LTCPs in FY 2011 (see Program Activity
Measure SS-1). EPA will also work with states to resolve longstanding issues associated
with sanitary sewer overflows and bypasses at treatment plants.
Other key sources of pathogens to the Nation's waters are discharges from Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and municipal storm sewer systems and industrial
facilities. EPA expects to work with states to assure that these facilities are covered by
permits.
Finally, there is growing evidence that ineffective septic systems are adversely impacting
water resources. EPA will work with state and local governments to develop voluntary
approaches to improving management of these systems.
4) Improve Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
Another important element of the strategy for improving the safety of recreational waters
is improving monitoring of public beaches and notifying the public of unsafe conditions.
EPA continues to work with states to implement the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act and expects that 97 percent of "significant" public
beaches will be monitored in accordance with BEACH Act requirements in FY 2010 (see
Program Activity Measure SS-2). Significant public beaches are those identified by
states as "Tier 1" in their beach monitoring and notification programs. Finally, EPA will
continue to receive state information on beach notifications and disperse it through the
BEACON system (http://www.epa.gov/beaches/).
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the Clean Water Act Section 106 grant to states,
nonpoint source program implementation grants (Section 319 grants), and the BEACH Act grant
program grants. For additional information on these grants, see the grant program guidance on
the website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
-26-
-------
III. STRATEGIES TO PROTECT AND RESTORE
FRESH WATERS, COASTAL WATERS,
AND WETLANDS
An overarching goal of the National Water Program is to protect and restore aquatic systems
throughout the country, including rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands. Although the three
subobjective strategies described below address discrete elements of the Nation's water
resources, the National Water Program manages these efforts as part of a comprehensive effort.
In addition, the national strategies described below are intended to work in concert with the
efforts to restore and protect the large aquatic ecosystems described in Part IV of this Guidance.
1) Restore and Improve Water Quality
on a Watershed Basis
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect and
restore the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis.
(NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in the Appendices, including
measures related to watersheds and maintaining water quality in streams already meeting
standards.)
B) Key National Strategies
In FY 2011, EPA will work with states and others to implement programs to protect and restore
water resources with three key goals in mind:
• Core Water Programs: EPA, states, and tribes need to continue maintaining and
improving the integration and implementation of the core national clean water
programs throughout the country to most effectively protect and restore water quality.
• Use of the Watershed Approach: EPA will continue to support the implementation
of "watershed approaches" to restoring and protecting waters. This work will be
coordinated with the efforts to restore and protect large aquatic ecosystems discussed
in Part IV of this Guidance.
-27-
-------
• Water Restoration Goals and Strategies: EPA will continue to work with states
and tribes to strengthen capacities to identify and address impaired waters and to use
adaptive management approaches to implement cost-effective restoration solutions,
giving priority to watershed approaches where appropriate.
• Water Protection Goals and Strategies: EPA will work with states and tribes to
strengthen capacities to identify and protect high quality waters including efforts to
integrate these efforts with restoration approaches.
1) Implement Core Clean Water Programs to Protect All Waters Nationwide
In FY 2011, EPA, states, and tribes need to continue to effectively implement and better
integrate programs established under the Clean Water Act to protect, improve, and restore
water quality. To achieve this, EPA will apply adaptive management principles to our
core programs and initiatives. Key tasks for FY 2011 include:
• Strengthen the water quality standards program;
• Improve water quality monitoring and assessment;
• Implement TMDLs and other watershed plans;
• Strengthen the NPDES permit program;
• Implement practices to reduce pollution from all nonpoint sources; and
• Support sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
As part of this process, EPA will continue efforts to integrate across programs, media and
federal agencies to more effectively support efforts to protect and restore waters. In the
event that the Office of Water finds that existing programs, initiatives, or processes are
not resulting in a significant contribution to national goals, we will work with regions,
states, tribes, and other partners to rethink and redesign the delivery of clean water
programs to more effectively protect and restore waterbodies and watersheds. Similarly,
EPA regional offices have the flexibility to emphasize various parts of core national
programs and modify targets to meet EPA regional and state needs and conditions.
-28-
-------
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies: General Information
This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2011 includes guidance for state and
interstate recipients of Section 106 grants for Water Pollution Control Programs. As a
general matter, grant recipients are expected to conduct their programs to help achieve
the goals, objectives, subobjectives, strategic targets, and program activity measures
specified in section 111.1 of this Guidance. In addition, section 111.1 includes specific
guidance for State and Interstate grant recipients in text boxes like this. Together, section
111.1, the text boxes, and Appendix E replace the biannual Section 106 Grant Guidance.
The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2011 continues this practice of
incorporating Section 106 grants guidance into the main National Program Guidance.
This grant guidance covers only the core water pollution control activities listed above
this box. EPA continues to provide separate guidance for the following water pollution
control activities:
• Tribal water pollution control programs.*
See http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106tgg07.htm.
• State and Interstate use of Monitoring Initiative funds.
See http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106-guidelines-monitor.htm.
• Water pollution enforcement activities.
See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
This exception does not apply to regulatory programs for which tribes have been found eligible
under section 518(e) of the Clean Water Act to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS),
such as to administer a water quality standards program. Tribes with TAS for regulatory
programs are expected to follow the same guidance as states for these programs.
Priorities for FY 2011 in each of these program areas are described below.
a) Strengthen 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 goals and limits for waters within their jurisdictions.
These standards are then used to determine which waters must be cleaned up, how
much may be discharged, and what is needed for protection.
To help achieve strategic targets, EPA will continue to review and approve or
disapprove state and tribal water quality standards and promulgate replacement
standards where needed; develop water quality criteria, information, methods,
models, and policies to ensure that each waterbody in the United States has a
clear, comprehensive suite of standards that define the highest attainable uses; and
as needed, provide technical and scientific support to states, territories, and
authorized tribes in the development of their standards.
A high priority is to support state and territory development of numeric nutrient
criteria — water quality criteria to help target reductions in excess nitrogen and
phosphorus that can cause eutrophication and other problems in lakes, estuaries,
rivers, and streams. EPA will work with states and territories as they propose and
adopt numeric water quality standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus that
-29-
-------
apply to each of three entire waterbody types: lakes and reservoirs; rivers and
streams; and estuaries. To track progress, EPA will work with states to identify
internal milestones for developing, proposing, and adopting total nitrogen and
total phosphorus numeric criteria for their waters (see Program Activity Measures
WQ-la, Ib, and Ic). EPA continues to believe that it is also beneficial for states
to derive additional numeric criteria for response variables, such as chlorophyll-a
and water clarity.
Section 106 Grant Guidance to states and Interstate Agencies: Water Quality
Standards. It is EPA's objective for states and authorized tribes to administer the water
quality program consistent with the requirements of the CWA and the water quality
standards regulation.* EPA expects states and tribes will enhance the quality and
timeliness of their water quality standards triennial reviews so that these standards reflect
EPA guidance and updated scientific information. EPA encourages states and tribes to
reach early agreement with EPA on triennial review priorities and schedules and
coordinate at critical points to facilitate timely EPA reviews of state water quality
standards submissions. It is particularly important for states and tribes to keep their water
quality criteria up to date, including considering all the scientific information EPA has
issued for specific pollutants since the state or tribe last updated those criteria, and
adding or revising criteria as necessary (see measures WQ-3a and 3b). States with
disapproved standards provisions should work with EPA to resolve the disapprovals
promptly. EPA places a high priority on states proposing and adopting numeric water
quality standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus that apply to all waters in each of
three waterbody types - lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, and estuaries - to help
target reductions in excess nutrients that can cause eutrophication and other problems in
those waters (see measures WQ-1a and 1b). To help EPA track state progress, states
need to provide EPA with a full set of performance milestone information concerning total
nitrogen and total phosphorus numeric criteria development, proposal, and adoption (see
measure WQ-1c). These three nutrient criteria measures are new for 2011. To facilitate
accurate reporting, EPA is providing detailed guidance for WQ-1a, 1b, and 1c in
Appendix H.
States should make their water quality standards accessible to the public on the Internet
in a systematic format. Users should be able to identify the current EPA-approved
standards that apply to each waterbody in the State, for example by providing tables and
maps of designated uses and related criteria. EPA has developed the Water Quality
Standards Database for this purpose. EPA will provide a copy of the Database for a State
to populate, operate, and maintain locally if it does not have its own database. You may
request a copy of the WQSDB and guidance for its installation and use at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqshome/.
Tribes found eligible to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS) to administer water
quality standards programs under section 518 of the Clean Water Act. As of January 2009, 44
tribes have been found to be eligible for TAS status.
-30-
-------
In a related effort, EPA will continue to encourage and support tribes in
implementing one of the three approaches for protecting water quality contained
in EPA'sFinal Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act. The three approaches are: the non-regulatory
approach; the tribal law water quality protection approach; and the EPA-approved
water quality protection approach. EPA tracks the progress of tribes adopting
EPA-approved water quality standards under the third approach (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-2).
EPA will also work with states, territories, and authorized tribes to ensure the
effective operation of the standards program, including working with them to
keep their water quality standards up to date with the latest scientific information
(see Program Activity Measures WQ-3a and 4b) and to facilitate adoption of
standards that EPA can approve (see Program Activity Measures WQ-4a).
EPA encourages states, territories, and authorized tribes to make their water
quality standards accessible to the public on the Internet in a systematic format.
b) Improve Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment: EPA will continue 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.
Beginning in FY 2005, Congress designated $18.5 million in new Section 106
funds for a monitoring initiative, which builds upon states' base investments in
monitoring to include enhancements to state and interstate monitoring programs
and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the Nation's waters. EPA
recognizes that these funds represent a small amount of the total needed to
address all state water monitoring needs. The basis for allotting these funds is
found in the Amendment to the Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring Initiative
Funds under Section 106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes in the
Federal Register in July 17, 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/award-
monitoring-fund.htm). The guidelines specify the activities that states and
interstate agencies carry out under the monitoring initiative. These included
funding new, expanded, or enhanced monitoring activities as part of the state's
implementation of its comprehensive state monitoring strategy. Some monitoring
priorities that states should consider include:
o Integration of statistical survey and targeted monitoring designs to assess
the condition of all water resources over time;
o Evaluate the effects of implementation of TMDLs and watershed plans,
o Development of criteria and standards for nutrients and excess
sedimentation;
o Enhancement of bioassessment and biocriteria for all water resources; and
-31-
-------
o Support other state monitoring objectives, including monitoring of
wetlands and use of landscape and other predictive tools.
A separate Section 106 workplan component must be submitted that includes
water monitoring activities and milestones for both implementation of state
strategies and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters.
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/nationalsurveys.html)
State and EPA cooperation on statistically-valid assessments of water condition
nationwide remains a top priority. In FY 2011, states, tribes, EPA, and other
partners will be completing the analysis for a statistically valid survey of rivers
and streams. The results of this survey will be issued in FY 2012, with a report
on the baseline condition of rivers and changes in stream condition since 2006
(see Strategic Target SP-13). During FY 2011, field sampling for the first ever
statistically valid survey of wetland condition will occur. (See Goal 4, Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems, Objective 4.3, Restore a Protect Critical
Ecosystems, Sub-objective 4.3.1, Increase Wetlands.) During FY 2011, samples
for the fifth statistically-valid assessment of coastal waters will be analyzed to
report on trends in FY 2012. A portion of the FY 2011 CWA Section 106
Monitoring Initiative funds will be allocated for sampling and analysis for the
second statistically-valid survey of lakes nationwide, with a report scheduled in
2014. EPA will enhance and expand work with states, tribes, and other partners
to improve the administration, logistical, and technical support for the surveys.
In FY 2011, states will continue to enhance and refine their monitoring programs
and make progress according to schedules established in their monitoring
strategies (see Program Activity Measure WQ-5). EPA stresses the importance of
using statistical surveys to generate statewide assessments and track broad-scale
trends; enhancing and implementing designs to address water information needs
at local scales (e.g., watersheds) including monitoring waters where restoration
actions have been implemented, and integrating both statistical surveys and
targeted monitoring to assess the condition of all water resources over time.
EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring strategies appropriate to their
water quality programs through training and technical assistance and work with
tribes to provide data in a format accessible for storage in EPA data systems (see
Program Activity Measure WQ-6). As tribal strategies are developed, EPA will
work with tribes to implement them over time.
EPA's goal is to achieve greater integration of federal, regional, state, and local
level monitoring efforts to connect monitoring and assessment activities across
geographic scales, in a cost-efficient and effective manner, so that scientifically
defensible monitoring data is available to address issues and problems at each of
these scales. In addition EPA will work with states and other partners to address
-32-
-------
research and technical gaps related to sampling methods, analytical approaches,
and data management.
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies: Monitoring.
EPA encourages states, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions to use a
combination of section 106 monitoring funds, base 106 funds, and other resources
available to enhance their monitoring activities, and meet the objectives of EPA's March,
2003 guidance, "Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program"
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/), which calls for states to implement
their monitoring strategies by 2014.. During FY 2011, these efforts include:
• Implementing monitoring strategies;
• Undertaking statistical surveys; and
• Integrating assessments of water conditions, including reports under Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act and listing of impaired waters under Section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act by April 1, 2010.
In FY 2010, states will transmit water quality data to the national STORE! warehouse
using the Water Quality Exchange (WQX) framework and submit assessment results for
the 2010 Integrated Report via the Assessment Database version 2, or a compatible
electronic format, and geo-reference these assessment decisions (see Program Activity
Measure WQ-7). EPA will support states' and tribes' use of WQX WQX Web, and data in
the STORE! Data Warehouse through technical assistance and exchange network
grants. Water quality assessment data are critical to measuring progress towards the
Agency's and states' goals of restoring and improving water quality.
c) Implement TMDLs and Other Watershed Related Plans: Development and
implementation of TMDLs for 303(d) listed waterbodies is a critical tool for
meeting water quality 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. Strong networks, including the National Estuary Programs (see
"Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters" Subobjective), as well as the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and
federal land management agencies foster efficient strategies to address water
quality impairments. In 2007, EPA and the Forest Service (FS) signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (http ://www. epa. gov/owow/tmdl/usfsepamoa/)
designed to develop strategies (e.g., TMDLs and TMDL alternatives) to address
water quality impairments on FS land. In addition, EPA recently formed a
partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to identify the location of
impaired waters and to develop a strategy to address and protect waters on FWS
land. These networks are uniquely positioned to improve water quality through
development and implementation of TMDLs, TMDL alternatives, and other
restoration actions.
EPA will track the degree to which states develop TMDLs or take other
appropriate actions (TMDL alternatives) on approved schedules, based on a goal
of at least 80 percent on pace each year to meet state schedules or straight-line
-33-
-------
rates that ensure that the national policy of TMDL development within 8-13 years
of listing is met (see Program Activity Measure WQ-8).
As noted below, EPA is encouraging states to organize schedules for TMDLs to
address all pollutants on an impaired segment when possible (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-21). Where multiple impaired segments are clustered
within a watershed, EPA encourages states to organize restoration activities
across the watershed (i.e., apply a watershed approach). To assist in the
development of Watershed TMDLs, the TMDL program developed two tools:
Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed TMDLs, and a 'checklist' for
developing mercury
TMDLs where the
source is primarily
atmospheric
deposition
(http://www.epa.go
v/owow/tmdl/).
Another tool
supporting the
development of
watershed TMDLs
is the Causal
Analyses/Diagnosis
Decision
Information System
(http ://cfpub. epa. go
v/caddis).
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: TMDLs.
EPA encourages states to effectively assess their
waters and make all necessary efforts to ensure the
timely submittal of required § 303(d) lists of impaired
waters. For the 2008 Integrated Reporting Cycle,
there was a significant improvement in timely list
submissions. In 2011, EPA will continue to work
with states, interstate agencies, and tribes to foster
a watershed approach as the guiding principle of
clean water programs. In watersheds where water
quality standards are not attained, states will
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),
critical tools for meeting water restoration goals.
States should establish a schedule for developing
necessary TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable.
EPA policy is that TMDLs for each impairment listed
on the state § 303(d) lists should be established in a
time frame that is no longer than 8 to 13 years from
the time the impairment is identified. States have
started to address more difficult TMDLs, such as
broad-scale mercury and nutrient TMDLs, which
required involvement at the state and federal level
across multiple programs. EPA will also continue to
work with states to facilitate accurate,
comprehensive, and georeferenced data made
available to the public via the Assessment, TMDL
Tracking, and Implementation System (ATTAINS).
For waters impaired
by problems for
which TMDLs are
not appropriate,
EPA will work with
partners to develop
and implement
activities and
watershed plans to
restore these waters
e.g., TMDL
alternatives.
Additionally, EPA will work with partners to improve our ability to identify and
protect healthy waters/watersheds, and to emphasize integration of and
application of core program tools, the watershed approach, and innovative ideas
for protecting these waters.
-34-
-------
d) Strengthen the NPDES Permit Program: The NPDES program requires point
source dischargers to be permitted and requires pretreatment programs to control
discharges from industrial and other facilities to the nation's wastewater treatment
plants. EPA is working with states to structure the permit program to better
support comprehensive protection of water quality on a watershed basis and
recent increases in the scope of the program arising from court orders and
environmental issues. In addition, the NPDES Program will be working closely
with Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to implement the Clean
Water Act Action Plan. Additional information on the Action Plan, and 2011
activities can be found at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm. Some key
NPDES program efforts include:
• Permit Quality Reviews and Action Items: The strategy focuses limited
resources on the most critical environmental problems and addresses program
efficiency and integrity. EPA conducts regional program assessments and
permit quality reviews to ensure the health of the NPDES program. EPA
developed a commitment and tracking system to ensure that NPDES programs
implement follow-up actions resulting from these assessments. EPA
continues to emphasize the importance of these follow-up actions (see
Program Activity Measure WQ-11). Additional action items will continue to
be identified and addressed through this process in FY 2011.
• Program Integrity: EPA will increase emphasis in working with states to
ensure the integrity of the NPDES program. Consistent with the Clean Water
Act Action Plan, EPA will integrate program and enforcement oversight to
ensure the most significant actions affecting water quality are included in an
accountability system and are addressed. Some factors that will be reviewed in
EPA's oversight program include sufficient progress in the implementation of
the NPDES program including permitting, inspections, and enforcement.
• High Priority Permits: States and EPA regions are asked to select high
priority permits based on programmatic and environmental significance and
commit to issuing a specific number of those permits during the fiscal year.
Beginning in FY 2010, EPA aligned the priority permit universe selection
with the GPRA commitment schedule (see Program Activity Measures WQ-
19).
• Watershed Permits/Water Quality Trading: Organizing permits on a
watershed basis can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.
Permits can also be used as an effective mechanism to facilitate cost-effective
pollution reduction through water quality trading (see Program Activity
Measure WQ-20). EPA will continue to coordinate with EPA regional offices,
states, USD A, and other federal agencies to implement watershed programs.
-35-
-------
• Green Infrastructure: EPA is collaborating with partner organizations to
implement the Green Infrastructure Action Strategy released in January 2008,
to help incorporate green infrastructure solutions at the local level to protect
water quality using integrated wet weather management. Green Infrastructure
management approaches and technologies infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture
and reuse stormwater to maintain or restore natural hydrology. EPA supports
use of Section 106 funds to provide programmatic support for green
infrastructure efforts promote prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution.
• Pesticides: On January 7, 2009, the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals required
EPA and authorized states to issue permits for the application of pesticides to
waters of the U.S. EPA will develop and public notice a draft general permit
in 2010 in the states where EPA is the permitting authority for the application
of pesticides to waters of the U.S. and finalize the permit in 2011. EPA will
assist the other 45 states in developing their own general permits and assist in
a national effort to educate the pesticides application industry regarding how
to comply with the new permits. EPA OW, OECA, and the regions will work
together to issue the permit four months early to work with the industry sector
to understand what is required.
• Vessels: As a result of a 2006 court ruling vacating a longstanding EPA
regulation, approximately 70,000 vessels that were exempt from permitting
need to be covered by an NPDES permit for discharges incidental to their
normal operation. In addition, EPA is developing scientific protocols and
models to determine how to more effectively control the introduction of
numerous aquatic invasive species into our nation's waters from ballast water
discharges. Ballast water discharges have resulted in the introduction of
numerous aquatic invasive species, resulting in severe degradation of many
ecosystems and billions of dollars of economic damages. In addition, in
response to legislation enacted on July 31, 2008, (P.L. 110-299), EPA will
submit a report to Congress that characterizes discharges incidental to the
normal operation of fishing vessels commercial vessels less than 79 feet. This
law also established a moratorium on NPDES permitting of incidental
discharges (except ballast water) from these vessels which will expire on July
31, 2010. Absent congressional action, after the expiration of the moratorium,
these vessels will need to be covered by an NPDES permit to discharge
legally.
• Stormwater: In October 2008, The National Academy of Sciences/National
Research Council (NRC) found that EPA's stormwater program needs
significant changes to improve its effectiveness and the quality of urban
streams. EPA has evaluated the NRC findings and state permitting authorities
have identified additional efficiencies that should be considered. EPA has
-36-
-------
initiated national rule-making to improve the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the program.
• CAFOs: EPA revised the NPDES regulations for CAFOs in 2008 to address
the Second Circuit's 2005 decision in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA.
Under the terms of the revised regulations, CAFOs that discharge or propose
to discharge to waters of the U.S. must seek NPDES permit coverage. EPA is
working to assure that all states have up-to-date CAFO NPDES programs and
that all CAFOs that discharge seek and obtain NPDES permit coverage. EPA
will also work with permitting authorities to identify which CAFOs need to
seek permit coverage and provide the tools and information needed to prevent
discharges and provide appropriate permit coverage. In addition, EPA will
continue to monitor the number of CAFOs covered by NPDES permits as an
indication of state progress (see Program Activity Measure WQ-13).
• Chesapeake Bay: In response to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, EPA
will conduct significant new regulatory, permitting, modeling, reporting and
planning efforts for the Agency. Examples of these actions include the
development of a stormwater regulation to better control wet weather related
pollution, and the development of revised CAFO implementation guidance
and regulations to better control agricultural pollution currently affecting the
Chesapeake Bay. In addition, EPA will continue to support states and EPA
regional offices in effectively implementing the NPDES program to improve
the health of the watershed.
• Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and Bypasses: EPA will continue to
work with states to resolve longstanding issues related to overflows in
separate sanitary sewer systems and bypasses at the treatment plant to ensure
that water quality is protected during wet weather events.
• Current Permits: EPA will continue to work with states to set targets for the
percentage of permits that are considered current, with the goal of assuring
that not less than 90% of all permits are current (see Program Activity
Measure WQ-12).
• Pretreatment: EPA and states will monitor the percentage of significant
industrial facilities that have control mechanisms in place to implement
applicable pretreatment requirements prior to discharging to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). EPA will also monitor the percentage of
categorical industrial facilities in non-pretreatment publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) that have control mechanisms in place to implement
applicable pretreatment requirements (see Program Activity Measure WQ-14).
• Compliance: EPA will track and report on key measures of compliance with
discharge permits including the percent of major dischargers in Significant
-37-
-------
Noncompliance (SNC), and the percent of major publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge
standards (see Program Activity Measures WQ-15 and WQ-16).
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies: Permits,
Enforcement, and Compliance. States should continue to implement significant
actions identified during Regional program and permit quality reviews to assure
effective management of the permit program and to adopt efficiencies to improve
environmental results. States should also implement recommended significant actions
identified under the EPA/ECOS enforcement and compliance "State Review
Framework" process. States should place emphasis on implementing criteria to ensure
that priority permits selected are those offering the greatest benefit to improve water
quality and those permit revisions needed to implement TMDLs. EPA will track the
implementation of the significant action items described above (WQ-11). EPA will work
with each state to evaluate and set programmatic and performance goals to maximize
water quality improvement and achieve state and EPA regional priorities across the
Clean Water Act programs to maintain the integrity of the NPDES programs. EPA and
states should work together to optimally balance competing priorities, schedules for
action items based on the significance of the action, and program revisions. States are
encouraged to seek opportunities to incorporate efficiency tools such as watershed
permitting, trading, and linking development of water quality standards, TMDLs, and
permits. States are expected to ensure that stormwater permits are reissued on a
timely basis and to strengthen the provisions of the MS4 permits as the permits are
reissued to ensure clarity on what is required and that permits are written so that they
are enforceable. States should place emphasis on incorporating green infrastructure in
all stormwater permits. States need to update their programs to implement the
concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) rule, including regulations, permits and
technical standards, and work closely with their inspection and enforcement programs
to ensure a level playing field. States need to update their programs to issue pesticide
permits by April 2011. In general, states should ensure that permittees submit data that
accurately characterizes the pollutant loadings in their discharge for reasonable
potential determinations and other reporting. States are expected to ensure data
availability by fully populating the required Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS- NPDES) or Permit Compliance System (PCS) data elements Water Enforcement
National Data Base (WENDB)) or data elements in ICIS-NPDES that are comparable to
WENDB in PCS or ICIS (December 28, 2007 memo from Michael Stahl and James
Hanlon, "ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 Permit Compliance System
Policy Statement") as appropriate. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) has a separate National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance. In
2011, OECA's NPM Guidance identifies initial activities for improving enforcement
efforts aimed at addressing water quality impairment through the Clean Water Act
Action Plan (the Action Plan). OW and states will be working closely with OECA as the
Action Plan is implemented. The final OECA NPM Guidance is available with the
complete Agency set at: www.epa.qov/ocfo/npmquidance/index.htm.
-38-
-------
e) Implement Practices to Reduce Pollution from all Nonpoint Sources: Polluted
runoff from sources such as agricultural lands, forestry sites, and urban areas is
the largest single remaining cause of water pollution. Land applied nutrients
represent a significant challenge to improving water quality. EPA, states, and
tribes are working with local governments, watershed groups, property owners,
and others to implement programs and management practices to control polluted
runoff throughout the country.
EPA provides grant funds to states under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act to
implement comprehensive programs to control nonpoint pollution, including
reduction in runoff of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. EPA will monitor
progress in reducing loadings of these key pollutants (see Program Activity
Measure WQ-9). In addition, EPA estimates that some 5,967 waterbodies are
primarily impaired by nonpoint sources and will track progress in restoring these
waters nationwide (see Program Activity Measure WQ-10).
As described in more detail in Section 2 below, EPA is encouraging states to use
the 319 program to support a more comprehensive, watershed approach to
protecting and restoring water quality. EPA first published in FY 2003 new grant
guidelines for the Section 319 program to require the use of at least $100 million
for developing and implementing comprehensive watershed plans. These plans
are geared towards restoring impaired waters on a watershed basis while still
protecting high quality and threatened waters as necessary. In FY 2011, EPA will
continue to work closely with and support the many efforts of states, interstate
agencies, tribes, local governments and communities, watershed groups, and
others to develop and implement their local watershed-based plans. State
CWSRF funds are also available to support efforts to control pollution from
nonpoint sources.
f) Support Sustainable Water Infrastructure: The Nation depends on
drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure for the health, the
economy, the vitality of water environment, and the sustainability of
communities. However, the Nation has underinvested in the renewal of existing
infrastructure while growth patterns create needs for an expanding network of
infrastructure that communities will need to maintain and replace.
The Nation must embrace a fundamental change in the way we manage, value,
and invest in infrastructure. EPA is pursuing a Sustainable Infrastructure
Program, designed to affect that change by institutionalizing practices that will
help communities find sustainable solutions while maximizing the value of each
infrastructure dollar spent. The suite of activities which comprises the program is
based on two basic tenets:
• To be sustainable as a community, you need sustainable infrastructure.
• To achieve sustainable water infrastructure, you need sustainable utilities.
-39-
-------
To those ends, EPA is working to foster the integration of water infrastructure
decisions into smart growth strategies that provide more livable communities and
reduce long term infrastructure needs and costs. EPA is also working to promote
effective and sustainable utility management. Those efforts center around upfront
planning that incorporates the assessment of life cycle costs, innovative and green
alternatives, and collateral environmental benefits into infrastructure investment
strategies.
Sustainable Water Infrastructure is an integral part of the Sustainable
Communities Partnership between HUD, DOT, and EPA. EPA is working with
the partners to integrate infrastructure planning across water, housing, and
transportation sectors to achieve the partnership goals.
EPA is also pursuing these goals through the DWSRFs and CWSRFs that provide
low interest loans to help finance drinking water and wastewater treatment
facilities, as well as other water quality projects. Recognizing the substantial
remaining need for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, EPA expects to
continue to provide significant annual capitalization to the SRFs, and to
encourage the leveraging of those investments to achieve infrastructure and
community sustainability. EPA will work with states to assure the effective
operation of SRFs, including monitoring the fund utilization rate (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-17).
In another example, EPA is working with USDA and other partners to expand the
promotion of effective utility management with smaller utilities. This effort will
support the National Water Program's efforts to address the needs of
disadvantaged urban and rural communities.
In a related effort, EPA will work with other federal agencies to improve access to
basic sanitation. The 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg adopted the goal of
reducing the number of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation by 50% by 2015. EPA will contribute to this work through its support
for development of sanitation facilities in Indian country, Alaskan Native villages,
and Pacific Island communities using funds set aside from the CWSRF and
targeted grants. Other federal agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
(DOI), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, also play key roles in this area and are working
with EPA in this effort. EPA is also working to improve access to drinking water
and wastewater treatment in the U.S.-Mexico Border area (see Section IV of this
Guidance).
2) Accelerate Watershed Protection
-40-
-------
Strong implementation of core Clean Water Act programs is essential to improving water
quality but is not sufficient to fully accomplish the water quality improvements called for
in the Agency's Strategic Plan. Today's water quality problems are often caused by
many significant factors that are not adequately addressed by these core programs,
including loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alteration, invasive
species, and climate change. Addressing these complex problems demands a watershed
systems approach to protection that considers both habitats and the critical watershed
processes that drive the condition of aquatic ecosystems. The watershed systems
approach is implemented through an iterative planning process to actively seek broad
public involvement and focus multi-stakeholder and multi-program efforts within
hydrologically-defmed boundaries to address priority resource goals.
The National Water Program has successfully used a watershed approach to focus core
program activities and to promote and support accelerated efforts in key watersheds. At
the largest hydrologic scales, EPA and its partners operate successful programs
addressing the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and National Estuary
Program watersheds. Many states, EPA regions, and their partners have also undertaken
important efforts to protect, improve, and restore watersheds at other hydrologic scales.
Together, these projects provide strong evidence of the value of a comprehensive
approach to assessing water quality, defining problems, integrating management of
diverse pollution controls, and defining financing of needed projects.
Over the past decade, EPA has witnessed a groundswell of locally-driven watershed
protection and restoration efforts. Watershed stakeholders, such as citizen groups,
governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses, have come together and created
long-term goals and innovative solutions to clean up their watersheds and promote more
sustainable uses of their water resources. Additionally, many of these groups and other
volunteer efforts provide water monitoring data that can be used to identify problems and
track progress toward water quality goals. EPA estimates that there are approximately
6,000 local watershed groups active nationwide.
To increase focus on protecting, maintaining, and conserving our nation's remaining
healthy waters, EPA has launched a proactive approach called the Healthy Watersheds
Initiative (HWI). The goal of the HWI is to maintain and protect a healthy watershed
"infrastructure" of habitat, biotic communities, water chemistry, and intact watershed
processes such as hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, and natural disturbance regimes.
These healthy, functioning watersheds provide the ecological infrastructure that anchor
water quality restoration efforts. This ecological support system will enable us to restore
impaired waters, and to do so cost effectively. Key components of the HWI are
development of Regional Office HWI Strategies that include working with the states to
identify healthy watersheds and intact components of other watersheds statewide and
implement protection and conservation programs both at the state and local levels.
For FY 2011, EPA will develop and implement its National Strategy, including a Healthy
Watersheds Strategy, for building the capacity of state and local government and
-41-
-------
watershed groups to protect and restore water quality. The Strategy emphasizes four
activities to accelerate local watershed protection efforts:
• Target training and tools to areas where existing groups can deliver
environmental results;
• Work with states to develop and begin implementation of Healthy
Watersheds programs;
• Enhance support to local watershed organizations through third party
providers (e.g., federal partners, EPA assistance agreement recipients),
including support for enhancing volunteer monitoring and EPA and state
ability to use volunteer data; and
• Share best watershed approach management practices in locations where
EPA is not directly involved.
EPA is also working at the national level to develop partnerships with federal agencies to
encourage their participation in watershed protection and to promote delivery of their
programs on a watershed basis. For example, EPA is working with other federal agencies
(e.g., Forest Service, USGS, USFWS & others) to leverage their healthy watersheds
programs (e.g., Green Infrastructure Community of Practice). Also, EPA will work with
USDA to promote coordinated use of federal resources, including grants utilizing the Clean
Water Act Section 319 and Farm Bill funds. EPA is also working with the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to foster efficient strategies to
address water quality impairments by maintaining and restoring watersheds on federal
lands. EPA and the USFS will work to advance a suite of water quality related actions,
TMDL alternatives (i.e., including category 4b watershed plans) that will build partnerships
between agencies and among states.
3) Define Waterbody/Watershed Standards Attainment Goals and Strategies
In 2002, states identified some 39,503 specific waterbodies as impaired (i.e., not attaining
state water quality standards) on lists required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act. Although core programs, as described above, provide key tools for improving these
impaired waters, success in restoring the health of impaired waterbodies often requires a
waterbody-specific focus to define the problem and implement specific steps needed to
reduce pollution.
Nationally, EPA has adopted a goal of having 3,250 of those waters identified as attaining
water quality standards by 2014 (about 5.7% of all impaired waters identified in 2002).
Regions have indicated the progress they expect to make toward this goal in FY 2011 (see
strategic target SP-10 and the following table).
-42-
-------
Targets for Attaining Standards in Impaired Waters
By Region and Nationally (Measure SP-10)
Region
1
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Total Impaired
Waters (2002)
6,710
1,805
8,998
5,274
4,550
1,407
2,036
1,274
1,041
6,408
39,503d
FYs 2002-2009
Waters in
Attainment
84
113
431
418
537
170
289
222
51
190
2,505
FY 2010
Commitment
(cumulative)
90
119
550
460
621
182
295
227
72
193
2,809
FY2011
Target
(cumulative)
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
2,910
(Note that a previous measure reported 1,980 waters identified as
be in attainment by 2002. These estimates are not included in the
impaired in 1998-2000 to
table above.)
Regional commitments for this measure, to be developed over the summer of 2010 based
on the targets in the table above, should reflect the best effort by EPA regions and states to
address impaired waters based on redesigning and refocusing program priorities and
delivery methods where necessary to meet or exceed this measure's targets. In the event
that an EPA regional office finds that existing program delivery and alignment is not likely
to result in a significant contribution to national goals, the EPA region should work with
states to rethink and redesign the delivery of clean water programs to more effectively
restore waterbodies and watersheds. Regions will also develop targets and commitments
for progress under measures related to improvement of impaired waters short of full
standards attainment (see measure SP-11) and in small watersheds where one or more
waterbody is impaired (see measures SP-12).
States and EPA regions have indicated that the time frame for reaching full attainment in
formerly impaired waters can be long and that the significant program efforts to put
restoration plans in place need to be better recognized. Acknowledging this issue, EPA
will work with states to report the number of impaired water segments where restoration
planning will be complete in FY 2011 (see Program Activity Measure WQ-21).
39,503 updated from 39,768 to reflect corrected data.
-43-
-------
Completion of planning is an essential, intermediate step toward full restoration of a
waterbody and can be documented more quickly than actual waterbody improvement. In
general, planning for restoration is complete when each cause of impairment in a
waterbody is covered by one or more of the following: an EPA approved TMDL, a
watershed restoration plan that is an acceptable substitute for a TMDL (e.g. TMDL
alternative), or a statewide mercury reduction program consistent with EPA guidance.
For some impaired waters, the best path to restoration is the prompt implementation of a
waterbody-specific TMDL or TMDLs. For many waters, however, the best path to
restoration will be as part of a larger, watershed approach that results in completion of
TMDLs for multiple waterbodies within a watershed and the development of a single
implementation plan for restoring all the impaired waters in that watershed. EPA has
identified some 4,800 small watersheds where one or more waterbodies are impaired and
the watershed approach is being applied. The goal is to demonstrate how the Watershed
Approach is working by showing a measurable improvement in 300 such watersheds by
2014 (see strategic target SP-12).
Regions are encouraged to use some or all of the following strategies in marshaling
resources to support waterbody and watershed restoration:
• Realign water programs and resources as needed, including proposal of
reductions in allocations among core water program implementation as reflected
in commitments to annual program activity measure targets;
• Coordinate waterbody restoration efforts with Section 319 funds reserved for
development of watershed plans;
• Make effective use of water quality planning funds provided under Section
604(b) of the Clean Water Act;
• Leverage resources available from other federal agencies, including the USD A;
and
• Apply funds appropriated by Congress for watershed or related projects.
EPA also recognizes that additional impaired waters are not included on state 303(d) lists
because the standards impairments may not require or be most effectively addressed
through development and implementation of a TMDL. Many of these waters are identified
in Categories 4b and 4c of state Integrated Reports - that is, where the impairment is being
addressed through other pollution control requirements (4b), or where the impairment is
not caused by a pollutant, per se, but rather by habitat degradation or other factors (4c).
EPA and its partners should continue to work together to ensure that restoration efforts are
focused on these waters as well as those on the 303(d) list, facilitate integration of activities
to incorporate these waters into watershed plans, and identify mechanisms for tracking
progress in restoring them.
-44-
-------
Potential Future Measures for Improving Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
EPA invites comments on the following potential future measures under subobjective 2.2.1
(Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Water shed Basis). These measures are being considered
for inclusion in the EPA 2013-2018 Strategic Plan and/or the National Water Program Guidance
for 2012. Comments should be sent to Ms. Vinh Nguyen, EPA Office of Water, EPA (4101M), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, or by email to nguyen. vinh(a),epa.gov, by April 2,
2010.
Incremental Progress in Restoring Water Quality
EPA has a suite of existing measures that track progress in water quality restoration:
o Previously impaired waters now fully attaining water quality standards (SP-10).
o Previously impaired waters for which a cause of impairment has been removed (SP-11).
o Impaired watersheds with water quality improvement (SP-12).
o Net water quality restoration or maintenance by waterbody type (e.g., rivers, lakes) (SP-13
for wadeable streams).
o Impaired waters where initial restoration planning (e.g., TMDLs) is complete (WQ-21).
Existing measures, however, do not fully capture all types of restoration progress. Most waters
take years to recover fully, and although incremental improvements represent progress these are
currently not well represented. EPA has heard a strong message from states that new measures are
needed to give credit for water quality improvement short of full WQS attainment. The major gap
is tracking progress after TMDLs or other planning is complete, but before standards are fully met
(see Box 1, below).
At an August 2009 meeting, representatives from the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and EPA agreed to develop indicator measures to
fill this gap. The states of AL, CO, CT, KS, MA, ME, MN, MT, and VA have worked with EPA
since then to develop several draft measures tracking watershed planning, implementation of
clean-up plans, and incremental improvements in water quality (see Box 2, below).
EPA invites comments from states and other stakeholders on these draft measures. EPA is
particularly interested in (1) whether these are the best measures for tracking incremental
restoration progress, (2) whether any of them should be incorporated in the next Strategic Plan (for
FY2013 -2018) or the next National Water Program Guidance (for FY 2012), (3) states' level of
readiness for reporting on these draft measures, and (4) which existing measures, if any, should be
decommissioned to make way for the new measures. EPA and the work group will review the
comments and continue to explore these measures.
Potential Changes to Baselines for Strategic Measures
Three of the current strategic measures - measures SP-10, SP-11, and SP-12 - use a fixed baseline
year of 2002. That is, they look only at waters which states listed as impaired in the section 303(d)
reports required for 2002. Use of a fixed baseline enables clear accountability for a known
-45-
-------
"universe" of problem waters. Some states have suggested, however, that using 2002 as the base
year ignores progress achieved for more recently-listed waters.
EPA invites comment on whether EPA should establish new strategic measures that use a fixed
baseline of waters listed in a more recent year, such as 2008.
Potential Change to Measurement Units
Measure SP-10 currently uses "number of waterbodies" as the unit of measure. This means that
waterbodies receive equal credit regardless of size. Recent advances in EPA's ATTAINS tracking
system could potentially allow tracking progress in units of river or stream miles and lake or
estuary acres in the future. EPA recognizes this feature has not yet been fully tested and once this
capability were to be incorporated into ATTAINS, it could still take a few years to reach a point
where reporting of miles and acres would be fully realized. While EPA believes "miles and acres"
may be more meaningful, the timeliness of reporting may suffer. Determining and verifying the
geographic extent of each reported waterbody could add a number of months to the data
processing cycle for each reporting year. Additionally, there would be a time and resource
commitment necessary for states and EPA to reach the point where these data could be reported in
units of miles and acres, and thus, it could be several years before such a change would be
realistic.
EPA invites comments on this potential change of measurement units.
Box 1 — Clean Water Act Impaired Waters Program Pipeline
Impaired i
waters i ^ Listing | Planning | Implementing | Improving | Recovery J^> Restored
waters
il
y HA
The Clean Water Act's impaired waters program pipeline is a simplified graphical
representation of how impaired waters are restored. The pipeline's programmatic stages
include: listing, planning, implementing, improving, and recovery. The purpose of the State-
EPA Work Group on Incremental Measures is to develop indicator measures that better capture
incremental progress towards full water quality standards attainment made by states and EPA in
the Planning, Implementing and Improving stages, above.
-46-
-------
Box 2 - Potential Future Measures for FY 2012
Planning
1. The number of 9-element watershed management plans to protect or restore surface
water quality in each State
Implementing
2. Miles of impaired rivers and streams or lake acres addressed by watershed plans where
nonpoint source load reductions are being achieved by implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs)
Improving
3. Report of waters with improvements in water quality assessment results (Group 1: 2002
inventory of impaired waters. Group 2: other assessed waters)
4. Report of waters with maintenance/protection of designated uses as measured by water
quality or aquatic life indicators
Source: State-EPA Work Group on Incremental Measures
For more complete descriptions of these measures, see Appendix H at the end of this guidance.
C) Grant Program Resources
Key program grants that support this Sub objective are:
• The Clean Water Act Section 106 Water Pollution Control State Program grants;
• The Clean Water Act Section 319 State program grant for nonpoint pollution control,
including set-aside for Tribal programs;
• Targeted Watershed Assistance grants;
• Alaska Native Village Water and Wastewater Infrastructure grants;
• CWSRF capitalization grants, including set-asides for planning under Section 604(b) of
the Clean Water Act and for grants to tribes for wastewater treatment infrastructure.
For additional information on these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http: //www. ep a. gov/water/waterpl an).
-47-
-------
2) Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to
improve national coastal aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report. (Rating is a system in which 1 is poor and 5 is
good.)
2009 Baseline: 2.8 2010 Commitment: 2.8
2011 Target: 2.8 2014 Target: 2.8
(NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
Estuaries and coastal waters are among the most productive ecosystems on Earth, providing
numerous ecological, economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits and services. They are also among
the most threatened ecosystems, largely as a result of rapidly increasing growth and development.
About half of the U.S. population now lives in coastal areas and coastal counties are growing three
times faster than counties elsewhere in the Nation. The overuse of resources and poor land use
practices have resulted in a host of human health and natural resource problems.
For FY 2011, EPA's national strategy for improving the condition of coastal and ocean waters will
include the key elements identified below:
• Improve coastal monitoring and assessment;
• Support state programs for coastal protection;
• Implement the National Estuary Program (NEP); and
• Protect ocean resources.
An important objective of all of these activities is at least maintaining coastal conditions nationally
based on the scale in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series of assessments (i.e.,
using the 2.8 national score in the 2009 NCCR as the baseline; see measure 2.2.2).
In addition, the NCCRs include assessments of conditions in each major coastal region around the
country (i.e., Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Puerto Rico, Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, and South
Central Alaska; see measures SP-16, 17, 18, and 19, CO-7, CO-8, and Sub-objective 4.3.5 in
Appendix A). EPA will work with states and others to at least maintain condition ratings in each of
these major coastal regions over the next five years.
-48-
-------
The national water quality program, as well as the ocean and coastal programs described in this
section, contribute to addressing these goals nationally and regionally. EPA is also working with
diverse partners to implement region-specific restoration and protection programs. The National
Estuary Program, described below, establishes such partnerships in 28 estuaries nationwide. In
addition, EPA is working with the states and other partners in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake
Bay, New England, and the West Coast. Some of these efforts are described in more detail in Part
III of this Guidance.
1) Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
EPA has made improved monitoring of water conditions a top priority for coastal as well as inland
waters. In FY 2011, the National Water Program will work with states and tribes, as well as the
EPA Office of Research and Development, to develop the fifth NCCR describing the health of the
major marine eco-regions around the United States. In FY 2010, states completed the field
sampling that will be the basis for the fifth NCCR. In FY 2011, states will analyze the data. This
report will build on past reports issued in 2001, 2004, and 2008, and the NCCR4 expected to be
released in 2011, and will allow for valid trend assessment. These assessments are the basis for
the environmental measures of progress used in the EPA Strategic Plan. In FY 2011, EPA will
also prepare a new measure to monitor changes in the condition of estuarine and coastal water
quality for a future National Water Program Guidance.
2) State Coastal Programs
States play a critical role in protection of coastal waters through the implementation of core
Clean Water Act programs, ranging from permit programs to financing of wastewater
treatment plants. States also lead the implementation of efforts to assure the high quality of
the Nation's swimming beaches; including implementation of the BEACH Act (see the
Water Safe for Swimming Subobjective).
In addition, states work with both EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the implementation of programs to reduce nonpoint pollution in
coastal areas. In FY 2010, EPA will continue work with states to assist in the full approval
of coastal nonpoint control programs in all coastal states.
In FY 2011, EPA will coordinate with states interested in establishing "no discharge zones"
to control vessel sewage. EPA will track total coastal and noncoastal statutory square
miles protected by "no discharge zones" (see Program Activity Measure CO-2).
3) Implement the National Estuary Program
The NEP provides inclusive, community-based planning and action at the watershed level,
through a collaborative system of 28 nationally significant estuaries. The NEP is a highly
visible program that plays a critical role in conserving the Nation's most valuable coastal
and ocean resources.
-49-
-------
During FY 2011, EPA will continue supporting the efforts of all 28 NEP estuaries to
implement their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs). One
measure of NEP success is the number of priority actions in these plans that have been
completed. EPA tracks the number of these priority actions completed (see Program
Activity Measure CO-3) and will work with NEPs to support continued progress in
completion of these key efforts. EPA also tracks the cumulative dollar amount of the
resources leveraged by EPA grant funds (see Program Activity Measure CO-4), tracking
"primary leveraged resources" obtained by the NEPs, which are defined as cash or in-kind
resources that are above and beyond the NEP CWA Section 320 base grants and in which
the NEP director and/or staff played the central role in obtaining the resources).
The health of the Nation's estuarine ecosystems also depends on the maintenance of high-
quality habitat. As a result, one of the environmental outcome measures under the
Ocean/Coastal Subobjective is protecting or restoring additional habitat acres within the
NEP study areas. For FY 2011, EPA has set a goal of protecting or restoring an additional
100,000 acres of habitat within the NEP areas.
Estuaries in the National Estuary Program
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC
Barataria-Terrebonne, LA
Barnegat Bay, NJ
Buzzards Bay, MA
Casco Bay, ME
Charlotte Harbor, FL
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries, TX
Lower Columbia River, OR/WA
Delaware Estuary, DE/NJ
Delaware Inland Bays, DE
Galveston Bay, TX
Indian River Lagoon, FL
Long Island Sound, NY/CT
Maryland Coastal Bays, MD
Massachusetts Bay, MA
Mobile Bay, AL
Morro Bay, CA
Narragansett Bay, RI
New Hampshire Estuaries, NH
New York/New Jersey Harbor, NY/NJ
Peconic Bay, NY
Puget Sound, WA
San Francisco Bay, CA
San Juan Bay, PR
Santa Monica Bay, CA
Sarasota Bay, FL
Tampa Bay, FL
Tillamook Bay, OR
4) Ocean Protection Programs
Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from waterways, ports, and
harbors every year to maintain the Nation's navigation system. All of this sediment must
be disposed without causing adverse effects to the marine environment. EPA and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) share responsibility for regulating how and where the
disposal of dredged sediment occurs.
EPA and USAGE will focus on improving how disposal of dredged material is managed,
including designating and monitoring disposal sites and involving local stakeholders in
planning to reduce the need for dredging (see Program Activity Measure CO-5). EPA will
use the capability provided by the OSV Bold to monitor compliance with environmental
requirements at ocean disposal sites (see Program Activity Measure CO-6). In addition,
the Strategic Plan includes a measure of the percent of active dredged material disposal
sites that have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (see SP-20).
-50-
-------
One of the greatest threats to U.S. ocean waters and ecosystems is the uncontrolled spread
of invasive species. Invasive species commonly enter U.S. waters through the discharge of
ballast water from ships. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to participate on the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force, work with other agencies on ballast water discharge
standards or controls (both through EPA's Vessel General Permit and coordination with
U.S. Coast Guard regulatory efforts under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act as amended), and participate in activities with other nations for effective
international management of ballast water.
In July of 2008, Congress passed the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-228) amending
the Clean Water Act (CWA) to provide that no National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits shall be required under the CWA for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of recreational vessels. Instead, the Act directs EPA to establish
management practices and associated standards of performance for such discharges (except
for vessel sewage, which is already regulated by the CWA). EPA is currently developing
those regulations.
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources directly supporting this work include the National Estuary Program grants and
coastal nonpoint pollution control grants under the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
administered jointly by EPA and the NOAA (Section 6217 grant program). In addition, clean
water program grants identified under the watershed subobjective support this work. For
additional information on these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http: //www. ep a. gov/water/waterpl an).
D) A Strategy for Addressing Climate Change
Support Evaluation of Sub-seabed and Ocean Sequestration of CO2
EPA will work with other interested agencies and the international community to develop
guidance on sub-seabed carbon sequestration and will address any requests for carbon
sequestration in the sub-seabed or "fertilization" of the ocean, including any permitting under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) or the Underground Injection Control
program that may be required.
"Climate Ready Estuaries"
EPA will continue to build capacity within the National Estuary Program (NEP) to adapt to the
changes from climate change on the coast. EPA will provide additional assistance to individual
NEPs to support their work to develop adaptation plans for their study areas or technical assistance
to support implementation of those plans. Climate Ready Estuaries will continue to revise and
improve the internet based tool kit as a resource for other coastal communities working to adapt to
climate change.
-51 -
-------
3) Protect Wetlands
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: 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.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
Wetlands are among the 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 in order for this effort to succeed.
Over the years, the United States has lost more than 115 million acres of wetlands to development,
agriculture, and other uses. Today, the U.S. may be entering a period of annual net gain of
wetlands acres for some wetland classes. Still, many wetlands in the U.S. are in less than pristine
condition and many created wetlands, while beneficial, fail to replace the diverse plant and animal
communities of wetlands lost.
The 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report, released by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), reports the quantity and type of wetlands in the conterminous United
States. Although the report shows that overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from
1998 through 2004, this gain is primarily attributable to an increase in un-vegetated freshwater
ponds, some of which (such as aquaculture ponds) may not provide wetlands services and others of
which may have varying ecosystem value. The report notes the following trends in other wetland
categories: freshwater vegetated wetlands declined by 0.5%, a smaller rate of loss than in
preceding years; and estuarine vegetated wetlands declined by 0.7%, an increased rate of loss from
the preceding years. The report does not assess the quality or condition of wetlands. The FWS
expects to issue an updated report in FY 2011. In addition the Status and Trends report, EPA is
working with FWS and other federal agencies to complete a National Wetland Condition
Assessment by 2013 to effectively complement the FWS Status and Trends Reports and provide,
for the first time, a snapshot of baseline wetland condition for the conterminous U.S.
In a 2009 follow-up report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Marine Fisheries Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, analyzed the
status and recent trends of wetland acreage in the coastal watersheds of the United States adjacent
-52-
-------
to the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes between 1998 and 2004. Results indicate
that Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast watersheds experienced a net loss in wetland area at an
average annual rate of about 60,000 acres over the 6-year study period. The fact that coastal
watersheds were losing wetlands despite the national trend of net gains during the same study
period points to the need for more research on the natural and human forces behind these trends
and to an expanded effort on conservation of wetlands in these coastal areas. This point was
highlighted in a 2008 report on wetland conservation by the Council on Environmental Quality. To
that end, EPA, FWS, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and Coastal Resources Center,
the Army Corps of Engineers, USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Federal
Highway Administration have begun working in partnership to determine the specific causes of
this coastal wetland loss and to more specifically understand the tools, policies, and practices to
successfully address it.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue a multi-agency effort to comprehensively review and evaluate
policy and practice for permitting mountaintop mining operations with the goal of reducing the
harmful environmental effects of Appalachian surface coal mining. The multi-faceted initiative
involves enhanced environmental review and coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers on
Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, more rigorous review of CWA Section 402 permits,
coordination with the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) on Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation (SMCRA) permits, and several significant technical documents and Clean Water Act
policy actions to guide future practice in Appalachian surface coal mining. Policy actions include:
develop technical guidance to clarify how the 404(b)(l) guidelines will be applied to proposed
mining operations to ensure adverse impacts are minimized, support improved and strengthened
state oversight of proposed permits using state 401 water quality certification authority, consider
other regulatory and/or policy modifications to better protect the environment and public health
from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining, and improve compensatory mitigation for
stream and wetland impacts from permitted mining activities.
EPA's Wetlands Program combines technical and financial assistance to state, tribal, and local
partners with outreach and education, in addition to wetlands regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act for the purpose of restoring, improving and protecting wetlands in the U.S.
Objectives of EPA's strategy include helping states and tribes build wetlands protection program
capacity and integrating wetlands and watershed protection. Through a collaborative effort with
our many partners culminating in a May 2008 report, EPA's Wetlands Program articulated a set of
national strategies in the areas of monitoring, state and tribal capacity, regulatory programs,
jurisdictional determinations, and restoration partnerships. These strategies are in part reflected in
the following measures.
1) No Net Loss: EPA contributes to achieving no overall net loss of wetlands through
the wetlands regulatory program established under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and EPA jointly administer the
Section 404 program, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands.
-53 -
-------
EPA will continue to work with USAGE to ensure application of the Section 404(b)(l)
guidelines which require that discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.
be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and unavoidable impacts are
compensated for. In FY 2011, EPA will track the effectiveness of EPA's environmental
review of CWA Section 404 permits (see Program Activity Measure WT-3). Each EPA
region will also identify opportunities to partner with the Corps in meeting performance
measures for compliance with 404(b)(l) guidelines. At a minimum, these include:
• Environmental review of CWA Section 404 permits to ensure wetland impacts
are avoided and minimized;
• Ensure when wetland impacts cannot be avoided under CWA Section 404
permits, that the unavoidable impacts are compensated for;
• Participation in joint impact and mitigation site inspections, and Interagency
Review Team activities;
• Assistance on development of mitigation site performance standards and
monitoring protocols; and
• Enhanced coordination on resolution of enforcement cases.
2) Net Gain Goal: Meeting the "net gain" element of the wetland goal is primarily
accomplished by other federal programs (Farm Bill agriculture incentive programs and
wetlands acquisition and restoration programs, including those administered by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service) and non-federal programs. EPA will work to improve levels of
wetland protection by states and other federal programs through actions that include:
• Working with and integrating wetlands protection into other EPA programs
such as Clean Water Act Section 319, State Revolving Fund, National Estuary
Program, and Brownfields;
• Providing grants and technical assistance to state, tribal, or local organizations;
• Developing information, education and outreach tools; and
• Collaboration with USD A, DOT, NOAA, and other federal agencies with
wetlands restoration programs to ensure the greatest environmental outcomes.
For FY 2011, EPA expects to track the following key activities for accomplishing its
wetland goals:
Wetlands Restored and Enhanced Through Partnerships: EPA will track this
commitment as a sub-set of the overall net gain goal and will track and report the results
separately under Program Activity Measure WT-1. These acres may include those
supported by Wetland Five-Star Restoration Grants, the National Estuary Program, Section
319 nonpoint source grants, Brownfield grants, EPA's Great Waterbody Programs, and
other EPA programs. This does not include enforcement or mitigation acres. EPA greatly
exceeded its target for this Program Activity Measure in 2005 and 2006, mainly due to
unexpected accomplishments from National Estuary Program enhancement projects.
-54-
-------
However, because EPA cannot assume such significant results each year, the target will be
at 110,000 cumulative acres for FY 2011.
State/Tribal Programs: A key objective of EPA's wetlands program is building the
capacity of states and tribes in the following core elements of a wetlands program: wetland
monitoring; regulation including 401 certification; voluntary restoration and protection;
and water quality standards for wetlands. EPA is enhancing its support for state and tribal
wetland programs by providing more directed technical assistance and making refinements
to the Wetland Program Development Grants. Program Activity Measure WT-2 reflects
EPA's goal of increasing state and tribal capacity in these core wetland management areas.
In reporting progress under measure WT-2, EPA will assess the number of states and tribes
that have substantially increased their capacity in one or more core elements, as well as
track those core elements that states and tribes have developed to a point where they are
fully functional. This is an indicator measure.
Regulatory Program Performance: EPA and the Corps of Engineers have partnered to
develop and refine a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit database (ORM 2.0) that enables
more insightful data collection on the performance of the Section 404 regulatory program.
Using ORM 2.0 as a data source, Program Activity Measure WT-3 documents the annual
percentage of 404 standard permits where EPA coordinated with the permitting authority
and that coordination resulted in an environmental improvement in the final permit
decision. This measure will remain an indicator until enough data is collected to define a
meaningful target.
Wetland Monitoring: In March 2003, EPA released guidance to states outlining the
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. The guidance
recommended including wetlands as part of that program. This was followed in April of
2006 by release of an "Elements" document specific to wetlands to help EPA and state
program managers plan and implement a wetland monitoring and assessment program
within their water monitoring and assessment programs. EPA chairs the National Wetlands
Monitoring and Assessment Work Group to provide national leadership in implementing
state and tribal wetlands monitoring strategies. The Work Group will also play a
prominent role in informing design of the National Wetland Condition Assessment,
scheduled for fieldwork in 2011. The 2011 condition assessment will provide a baseline
data layer that, in subsequent years, could be used to judge the impacts of climate change
on wetland ecological integrity at multiple spatial scales.
EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to build the capability to monitor trends in
wetland condition as defined through biological metrics and assessments. By the end of
FY 2011, EPA projects at least 21 states will be measuring and reporting baseline wetland
condition in the state using condition indicators and assessments (see Program Activity
Measure WT-4). States should also have plans to eventually document trends in wetland
condition over time. Examples of activities indicating the state is "on track" include, but are
not limited to:
-55-
-------
• building technical and financial capacity to conduct an "intensification study" as part of
the 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment;
• developing or adapting wetland assessment tools for use in the state;
• monitoring activity is underway for wetland type(s)/watershed(s) stated in strategy or
goals; and
• developing a monitoring strategy with a goal of evaluating baseline wetland condition.
Baseline condition may be established using landscape assessment (Tier 1), rapid
assessment (Tier 2), or intensive site assessment (Tier 3).
C) Grant Program Resources
Examples of grant resources supporting this work include the Wetland Program Development
Grants, Five Star Restoration Grants, the Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants, the Brownfields
grants, and the National Estuary Program Grants. For additional information on these grants, see
the grant program guidance on the website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan). In addition,
some states and tribes have utilized Clean Water Act Section 106 funds for program
implementation, including wetlands monitoring and protection projects.
-56-
-------
IV. STRATEGIES TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES
AND LARGE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
The core programs of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are essential for the
protection of the Nation's drinking water and fresh waters, coastal waters, and wetlands. At the
same time, additional, intergovernmental efforts are sometimes needed to protect and restore
communities and large aquatic ecosystems around the county. For many years, EPA has worked
with state and local governments, tribes, and others to implement supplemental programs to restore
and protect the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the waters along the
U.S.-Mexico Border. More recently EPA has developed new, cooperative initiatives addressing
Long Island Sound, South Florida, Puget Sound, the Columbia River, San Francisco Bay Delta
Estuary, and the waters of the Pacific Islands.
1) Protect U.S.-Mexico Border Water Quality
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Sustain and restore the environmental health along the U.S.
Mexico Border through the implementation of the Border 2012 Plan.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key Strategies
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing commitment to protect the environment and
public health for communities in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. The basic approach to
improving the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico Border region is the Border 2012
Plan. Under this Plan, EPA expects to take the following key Actions to improve water quality
and protect public health.
1) Core Program Implementation: EPA will continue to implement core programs
under the Clean Water Act and related authorities, ranging from discharge permit
issuance, to watershed restoration, to nonpoint pollution control.
2) Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Financing: Federal, state, and local
institutions participate in border area efforts to improve water quality through the
construction of infrastructure and development of pretreatment programs.
Specifically, Mexico's National Water Commission (CONAGUA) and EPA
-57-
-------
provide funding and technical assistance for project planning and construction of
infrastructure.
Congress has provided $990 million for border infrastructure from 1994 to 2010. In
FY 2010, EPA plans to provide approximately $14.5 million for planning, design,
and construction of drinking water and wastewater facilities. EPA will continue
working with all of its partners to leverage available resources to meet priority
needs. The FY 2011 targets will be achieved through the completion of prioritized
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. Future progress in meeting this subobjective will be
achieved through other border drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects
as well as through the collaborative efforts established through the Border 2012
Water Task Forces.
3) Build Partnerships: Partnerships are critical to the success of efforts to improve
the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. Since 1995,
the NAFTA-created institutions, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB), have had the
primary role in working with communities to develop and construct environmental
infrastructure projects. BECC and NADB support efforts to evaluate, plan, and
implement financially and operationally sustainable drinking water and wastewater
projects. EPA will continue to support these institutions and work collaboratively
with CONAGUA.
4) Improve Measures of Progress: During FY 2011, EPA will work with Mexico,
states, tribes, and other institutions to improve measures of progress toward water
quality and public health goals.
C) Grant Program Resources
A range of program grants are used by states to implement core programs in the U.S.-Mexico
Border region for waters in the U.S. only. Allocations of the funding available for infrastructure
projects, funded through the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), are not provided
through guidance, but through a collaborative and public prioritization process.
-58-
-------
2) Protect Pacific Islands Waters
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Sustain and restore the environmental health of the U.S. Pacific
Island Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key flagrant Strategies
The U.S. Pacific island territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands struggle to provide adequate drinking water and sanitation service. For
example, the island of Saipan in the Northern Marianas, with a population of about 70,000, may be
the only municipality of its size in the United States without 24-hour drinking water. When
residents of Saipan do get water (many receive only a few hours per day of water service), it is too
salty to drink. In the Pacific Island territories, poor wastewater conveyance and treatment systems
threaten to contaminate drinking water wells and surface waters. Island beaches, with important
recreational, economic, and cultural significance, are frequently polluted and placed under
advisories.
One of the root causes of drinking water and sanitation problems in the U.S. Pacific Island
territories is inadequate and crumbling infrastructure. Recent studies estimate that it would take
over one billion dollars in capital investments to bring the Pacific territories drinking water and
wastewater systems up to U.S. standards. EPA is targeting the use of existing grants, enforcement,
and technical assistance to improve the drinking water and wastewater situation in the Pacific
Islands. In pursuing these actions, EPA will continue to use the available resources and to work
with partners at both the federal and local levels to seek improvements. These efforts will very
likely only keep the infrastructure and situation from worsening, and will not move the systems up
toward U.S. standards.
• Use of Existing Grants: EPA is working in partnership with the U.S. Department of the
Interior to optimize federal grants to improve priority water and wastewater systems. EPA
grants (historically, about $1.2M per territory annually for water and wastewater combined),
plus other federal grants have led to some improvements in the recent past. However, existing
grants fall far short of the overall capital needs in the Pacific Islands.
• Enforcement: EPA will continue to oversee implementation of judicial and administrative
orders to improve drinking water and wastewater systems. For example, as a result of
-59-
-------
implementation of a 2003 Stipulated Order under the federal district court in Guam,
wastewater spills in Guam in the period of 2005-2008 were down by 99% compared to 1999-
2002; and no island-wide boil water notices have been issued in over four years (through mid-
2009) compared to nearly every month in 2002. (However, in 2009, several wastewater
overflows and boil water notices occurred.) In 2009, EPA has entered into a comparable
Stipulated Order in the CNMI. EPA will continue to assess judicial and administrative
enforcement as a tool to improve water and wastewater service.
• Technical Assistance: EPA will continue to use technical assistance to improve the operation
of drinking water and wastewater systems in the Pacific Islands. In addition to periodic on-site
training, EPA will continue to use the IPA (Intergovernmental Personnel Act) to build capacity
in the Islands to protect public health and the environment. For example, in recent years, EPA
has placed U.S. Public Health Service drinking water and wastewater engineers in key
positions within Pacific island water utilities and within local regulatory agencies.
• Guam Military Expansion: EPA will continue to work with the Department of Defense in its
Guam Military Expansion project to improve the environmental infrastructure on Guam. The
U.S and Japan have agreed to relocate the Marine Base from Okinawa, Japan to Guam. By
2014, the relocation could result in approximately 22,000 additional troops and dependents and
upwards of 80,000 additional people total on Guam (a 40% increase in population) while
spending $10 - $15 billion on construction. This military expansion is an opportunity to
improve the environmental infrastructure on Guam, but significant investment will be required
to meet the increased strain on the island's fragile water and wastewater infrastructure.
C) Grant Program Resources
A range of grants funds and set-asides from the national State Revolving Fund (SRF)
appropriations are available to implement projects to improve drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure in the Pacific islands. EPA has historically provided about $4 million total to the
Pacific territories in drinking water and wastewater grants annually through the SRF programs.
SRF funding under ARRA provided approximately an additional $4M per territory in
infrastructure funding in FY 2009.
The FY 2010 appropriations language increased the SRF set-aside for territories to 1.5%, which,
along with the significant overall increase in SRF funding, resulted in a nearly 10-fold increase in
infrastructure funding for the Pacific territories, to approximately $37M total in FY 2010.
However, the 1.5% set-aside for territories is not permanent, and funding levels for subsequent
years are uncertain. To bring drinking water and wastewater service and infrastructure in the U.S.
Pacific territories up to U.S. standards, significant and sustained investment will be required.
D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
EPA's Pacific Islands Office has been working to address climate change and water issues by
focusing on three main areas in the Pacific Islands: water quality protection and improvement;
-60-
-------
outreach, education and collaboration on climate change issues; and sustainable military buildup
on Guam. Projects include:
• Promoting water conservation and efficiency at public utilities through innovative State
Revolving Fund (SRF) projects;
• Following up on the June 2009 Pacific Islands Environment Conference, entitled "Climate
of Change: Energizing a Sustainable Future for Pacific Islands." The conference, which
took place on Saipan, CNMI, focused on issues including renewable energy and energy
efficiency, coral reef protection, adaptation strategies for Pacific Islands, and improved
efficiency for water and wastewater services; and
• Working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal resource agencies to
ensure that sustainable practices are included in the upcoming military buildup on Guam.
This includes improving drinking water and wastewater compliance with environmental
standards, utilizing low impact development and green infrastructure for new construction,
and minimizing marine habitat disturbance.
For additional information on EPA's work in the Pacific Islands, please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/islands/
3) Protect the Great Lakes
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by
preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic ecosystem (using the Great Lakes
40-point scale).
2005 Baseline: 21.5 points
2008 Result 23.7
2009 Result: 23.9
2010 Commitment: 23
2011 Target: 23.4
2014 Target: 24.7e
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A)
B) Key Strategies
e The long-term target was changed to 23.5 in the 2007 OMB Program Assessment. New target of 24.7 in Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
-61 -
-------
As the largest surface freshwater system on the face of the earth, the Great Lakes ecosystem holds
the key to the quality of life and economic prosperity for tens of millions of people. While
significant progress has been made to restore the environmental health of the Great Lakes, much
work remains to be done.
U.S. President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, in collaboration with 15 other
federal agencies, have made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority. Congress appropriated
$475 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Initiative) for FY 2010. The President has
proposed $300 million for the Initiative for FY2011. A Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action
Plan describes how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 through 2014.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan builds on countless hours by elected, agency,
business, public interest, and other leaders, which resulted in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy provided a framework for the
Action Plan. As such, the Action Plan is just that: an action driver. It articulates the most
significant ecosystem problems and efforts to address them in five major focus areas:
• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern,
• Invasive Species
• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships
The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable ecological targets, and specific actions for
each of the five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in
the development of the federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond.
As such, it will serve as guidance for collaborative restoration work with participants to advance
restoration. The Action Plan will also help advance the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
with Canada. Traditional infrastructure financing under Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, and Superfund cleanup enforcement are important examples of work which, though outside
the Initiative's scope, will also continue to be essential to Great Lakes protection and restoration.
EPA is working with states and tribes to ensure that these high priority activities are properly
targeted whenever possible to help further clean up the Great Lakes.
Under the Initiative, EPA will administer funding individually and with other federal agencies to
implement priority federal projects as well as other programs undertaken by nonfederal entities
that support the Action Plan. Funding will be provided through grants and cooperative agreements
or through interagency agreements that allow the transfer of funds to other federal agencies for
subsequent use and distribution. Most grants will be issued competitively. The principles of
accountability, action, and urgency underlie the Action Plan.
-62-
-------
Progress under the Great Lakes Strategy is dependent on continued work to implement core Clean
Water Act programs and appropriately targeted supplementation of those programs. These
programs provide a foundation of water pollution control that is critical to the success of efforts to
restore and protect the Great Lakes. While the Great Lakes face a range of unique pollution
problems (extensive sediment contamination and atmospheric deposition) they also face problems
common to most other waterbodies around the country. Effective implementation of core
programs, such as discharge permits, nonpoint pollution controls, wastewater treatment, wetlands
protection, and appropriate designation of uses and criteria, must be fully and effectively
implemented throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
Within the five focus areas of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, efforts and funds will be
targeted to the highest priority projects in a way that maximizes results. Targeted, cooperative
efforts are necessary to ensure meaningful progress on many of the complex and costly issues that
have plagued the Great Lakes for decades. Some issues exist basinwide (e.g., invasive species,
nonpoint source pollution,) and require broad, expansive action, while others are more localized
(e.g., Areas of Concern, habitat) and will have site-specific remedies. In each focus area there are
efforts which will be given special attention.
• In the focus area of Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, efforts will be targeted to
remediate contaminated sediments and to address other major pollution sources in order to
restore and delist the most polluted sites in the Great Lakes basin.
• In the focus area of Invasive Species, efforts will be targeted to institute a "zero tolerance
policy" as a long term goal toward new invasions, including focuses on the development of
an early detection and rapid response capability, and the development of ballast water
technology.
• In the focus area of Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, efforts will be
targeted geographically to focus on watersheds of extreme ecological sensitivity (such as
the Green Bay/Fox River, Genesee River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw
River, places where environmental problems and their solutions have been clearly
identified).
• Efforts will target implementation of lakewide biodiversity conservation blueprints and
restoration of important species such as the Lake Sturgeon and the Piping Plover.
• In the focus area of Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication
and Partnerships, efforts will include the implementation priority Lakewide Management
Plan projects for restoring the lakes, as well as establishment of quality goal and results-
based accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships.
Progress will be tracked against measures of progress in each Focus Area, including:
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
o Implementation of management actions necessary for delisting Great Lakes Areas
of Concern.
o Removal of Beneficial Use Impairments.
o Remediation of contaminated sediments.
-63 -
-------
o Cumulative decline of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.
Invasive Species
o Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
o Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level.
o Number multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice
responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions.
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
o Loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus from tributaries draining targeted
watersheds.
o Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95% or more of beach days.
o Acres in the Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation practices
implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or pesticide loading.
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
o % of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and endangered species self-
sustaining in the wild.
o Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored
and enhanced.
o Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and
enhanced.
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships
o Improvement in the overall aquatic ecosystem health of the Great Lakes using the
Great Lakes 40-point scale.
C) Grant Program Resources:
Most EPA grants will be issued competitively pursuant to Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
addressing the five focus areas. The first of EPA's RFPs identified 35 grant program areas. The
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan identifies numerous issue-based and geographically
focused plans for Great Lakes protection and restoration which will be supported by the RFPs.
Several other members of the Interagency Task Force are also expected to select proposals, issue
grants, and provide other assistance with funding from the Initiative. Grant opportunities for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative are described in an Interagency Funding Guide.
In addition, the Great Lakes National Program Office negotiates grants resources with states and
tribes, focusing on joint priorities for Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans
Additional information concerning these resources is provided in the grant program guidance
website (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/fund/glf.html). This website also links to information
-64-
-------
requesting proposals for monitoring and evaluation of contaminated sediments or for remediation
of contaminated sediments, a non-grant program pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
4) Protect and Restore Chesapeake Bay
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem.
(Note: Measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key Strategies
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional partnership that has coordinated and
conducted the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. Partners of the Chesapeake Bay
Program include the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC), a tri-state legislative
body; the Environmental Protection Agency, representing the federal government; and advisory
groups of citizens, scientists, and local government officials.
In the last 25 years, the CBP partners have achieved important progress:
• Adopted the nation's first consistent water quality standards and assessment
procedures, prompting major state and local investments in nutrient removal
technologies across hundreds of wastewater treatment facilities;
• Established nutrient management plans on 3.4 million farmland acres;
• Preserved 1 million acres of forests, wetlands, farmland and other natural resources,
meeting the Program's Land Preservation goal two years early;
• Developed science, data monitoring, models, and measures that are recognized as some
of the best and most extensive in the country and often around the world;
• Placed moratoria on striped bass harvests, leading to restoration of the stock that
supports 90 percent of the Atlantic Coast population;
• Advanced use of conservation tillage, now practiced on more than 2 million acres;
• Planted 6,172 miles of streamside forested buffers;
• Restored 13,005 acres of wetlands; and
• Removed blockages to more than 2,300 miles of spawning grounds to help restore
migratory fish.
-65-
-------
Despite 25 years of progress, the health of the Bay and its watershed remains severely impaired,
primarily by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediments from agriculture, development,
wastewater, and air deposition. Agriculture accounts for 38 percent of the nitrogen loads, 45
percent of the phosphorus loads, and over 60 percent of the sediment loads to the Bay.
Increasingly, the pressures of population growth and development are the greatest challenge to
restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Nutrients and sediments from
stormwater runoff from suburban and urban sources are the only source of pollution that is
increasing.
The Chesapeake Executive Council (EC) is the body that sets the policy direction of and exerts
leadership over the Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA is the lead federal agency on the EC. In
addition to the Administrator of EPA, the EC consists of the governors of the Bay states, the
mayor of the District of Columbia, the CBC chair, and for the past few years, the Secretary of
Agriculture.
In July 2008, the Agency submitted a report to Congress summarizing the Chesapeake Action
Plan. The plan was intended to enhance coordination of and accountability for the full spectrum of
federal, state, local, and private partners' actions to restore the watershed and Bay. The plan:
• Aligned the program's strategies and actions to the goal areas of the Chesapeake 2000
agreement;
• Included an activity database that captures the implementation actions often federal
agencies, six states, District of Columbia, the CBC and other partners; and
• Included performance management dashboards that show status, projected progress,
and set the stage for identifying obstacles and needs.
In March 2009, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners approved and implemented a new
organizational structure aligned with the CAP goals better emphasizing and focusing the critical
goals and priorities of the program to:
• Change the business model of the program to include specific adaptive management
principles, clarify roles, and expand contributions of other partners;
• Coordinate specific actions and strategies, through six Goal Implementation Teams,
aligned to the major Chesapeake 2000 goals, to achieve focus and outcome-oriented
results.
In May 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council (EC) pledged to get all Bay management
mechanisms necessary to restore the Bay in place by 2025. Part of this new strategy to speed up
the pace of Bay restoration and become more accountable included the setting of specific two-year
milestones for each jurisdiction to reduce pollution to the Bay and its rivers. These milestones will
also contain "contingencies" and "consequences" for falling short.
On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13508 on Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration. The EO has brought the Chesapeake Bay Program to a new level of
-66-
-------
interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO established a Federal Leadership Committee
for the Chesapeake Bay chaired by EPA and including six other federal agencies. The Chesapeake
Bay Program Office is supporting implementation of the new EO.
On November 9, 2009, EPA and the other agencies included in the EO released a draft
comprehensive strategy for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed
as called for in section 203 of the EO. Also in November 2009, EPA and other agencies released
individual reports on specific challenges in the Chesapeake Bay as required under section 202 of
the EO. The agencies are engaged in a significant public outreach effort to explain the strategy
and reports and to hear directly from members of the public as to their perspectives on the ideas
contained in these documents. Moreover, many elements of the CAP are serving a central role in
the development of the strategy required by the EO.
EPA's recommended actions under the EO include:
• Development of watershed implementation plans by the six Bay watershed states and the
District of Columbia;
• Requiring the states and District to develop milestones detailing near-term actions and
loading reduction targets to evaluate progress toward water quality goals;
• Undertaking new rulemakings to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to the Chesapeake
Bay from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, and other pollutant sources
as EPA deems necessary; and
• Establishing an enhanced partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to accelerate
the adoption of conservation practices by agricultural interests in the Bay watershed.
On November 4, 2009, EPA provided the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the
District of Columbia with rigorous expectations for jurisdictions to reduce pollution in streams,
rivers, and the Bay to meet water quality standards. EPA's expectations fulfill the mandate of the
EO, which calls for a new accountability framework that guides federal, state, and local water
quality restoration efforts. The expectations also are a component of the Chesapeake Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which will set pollution limits for point sources and nonpoint
sources contributing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment to the Bay and its tidal creeks, rivers, and
embayments. EPA expects the six watershed states and D.C. to identify how they will reduce
pollutant loads to levels necessary to meet water quality standards. EPA expects detailed schedules
for implementing cleanup actions and achieving pollution reductions. Progress will be measured
through benchmarks every two years, and EPA may impose federal consequences for inadequate
plans or failure to meet the performance milestones.
The Year Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
EPA continues to apply rigor to the adaptive management of the Bay Program by emphasizing
implementation, effective management, coordination, and accountability through expanded use of
accountability tools and partner participation on Goal Implementation Teams. EPA works with
our partners to align activities to entities best positioned to deliver services. The Chesapeake
-67-
-------
Registry aids articulation and tracking of partner actions with current and expected progress
against explicit environmental measures and outcomes (i.e., restored water quality, aquatic habitat
and fisheries, healthy watersheds, and fostered stewardship). EPA will work with key partners to
integrate their existing internal partner performance management data systems and refine the
Chesapeake Registry to better support state and federal implementation efforts.
EPA is also developing a new tool, ChesapeakeStat, to integrate information from the Chesapeake
Registry with geospatial and other data to significantly enhance the accountability of program
partners. ChesapeakeStat will provide interested parties with a more comprehensive idea of the
progress being made in the Chesapeake Bay than has ever been available. The partnership will use
Chesapeake Stat to develop interactive performance dashboards that will help articulate and
support the implementation activities and resources needed to close the gap between expected
outcomes and established program goals. This will lead to better targeting of implementation
activities in those sub-watersheds that will yield the greatest nutrient and sediment reductions and
understanding of options to accelerate implementation.
Through the partnership's Goal Implementation Teams, goals, strategies and milestones for the
Bay and watershed will continue to be refined to accurately represent and communicate the
protection and restoration work being done. The effort will include incorporation of the activities
proposed under the EO in partnership's strategic framework, which should enhance the integration
and cooperation of federal, state, and local governments on the Chesapeake Bay and watershed.
EPA will augment funding for states and other monitoring and implementation activities to further
leverage critical investments to reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA will continue to develop an explicit strategy to engage local governments and local watershed
groups in response to a program commitment to EPA's Inspector General. EPA will direct
investments toward key local governments and watershed organizations based on their ability to
reduce nutrient and sediment loads via key sectors such as development and agricultural in urban
and rural areas.
EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has also designated the CBP as a "management
challenge" under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act indicating that EPA lacks the tools,
resources, or authorities to be fully successful. In response, EPA is developing specific ideas for
explicit actions, new tools, programs, authorities, and resources to accelerate and improve
restoration progress. The CBP partnership is using independent program performance evaluation
to critically review components of the CBP and support enhanced "adaptive management" efforts.
The program is bringing in an Independent Evaluator to aid in transparency and accountability by
all of the partners. A first step in this effort is EPA's contract with the National Academies of
Science. The National Academies shall provide actionable recommendations to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other relevant parties including, and not limited to,
the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the District of Columbia, and other federal
agencies on how to improve strategic and specific implementation efforts to obtain the CBP's
-68-
-------
nutrient reduction goal for water quality in order to accelerate reaching the overall goals to protect
and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA is developing the nation's largest and most complex Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for
the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed, due to be completed by December 2010. EPA expects that
the states and D.C. will provide specific timelines for enhancing programs and implementing
actions to reduce pollution, with all measures needed to reach the pollution load limits in place no
later than 2025. By December 2010, the states and D.C. are expected to identify gaps in current
programs that must be addressed to meet pollution limits, which could be accomplished by
expanding regulatory authorities, improving compliance with existing regulations, securing
additional financial resources and issuing more stringent permits for wastewater facilities.
By 2011, EPA expects the states and D.C. to divide their allocated pollution reductions to the local
level so that counties, municipalities, conservation districts and watershed organizations
understand their role in meeting water quality goals. EPA expects that by 2017 pollution controls
will be in place that should result in approximately 60 percent of the required reductions. States
and D.C. must also offset any increased loads from population growth and land use changes
anticipated in the coming decades.
While EPA has rigorous expectations for the states and D.C. to reduce water pollution, the
jurisdictions are provided flexibility in how they achieve those reductions. Plans for achievement,
however, should include a level of detail that creates a high degree of accountability for reducing
water pollution, including assurance that permits will be issued to be consistent with the plans and
TMDL pollution allocations. To increase accountability, the six Bay states - Delaware, Maryland,
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia - and D.C. will demonstrate progress toward
implementing pollution controls through two-year milestones.
If plans are inadequate or progress is insufficient, EPA may impose federal consequences.
Consequences may include assigning more stringent pollution reduction requirements to point
sources, objecting to state-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits,
prohibiting new or expanded pollution discharges, and withholding or reallocating federal grants.
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the Chesapeake Bay Implementation and Monitoring
Grants under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, as well as a range of program grants to states. A
website provides information about grants progress toward meeting environmental results
(http://www.epa.gov/region3/chesapeake/grants/progress.htm).
-69-
-------
5) Protect the Gulf of Mexico
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico
(by 0.2) on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report (a 5-
point system in which 1 is poor and 5 is good):
2004 Baseline: 2.4
2009 Actual: 2.2
2010 Commitment: 2.5
2011 Target: 2.5
2014 Target: 2.6
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A)
B) Key Strategies
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, and 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.
For FY 2010, EPA is working with states and other partners to support attainment of
environmental and health goals that align with the Gulf of Mexico Governors' Action Plan II
which follows the successes of the first Action Plan. The Gulf States Alliance has now developed
a farther-reaching, five-year regional plan that builds on the partnerships established as part of the
2006 Action Plan (see Program Activity Indicator GM-3). In Action Plan II, (2009-2014), the
Alliance has identified issues that are regionally significant and can be effectively addressed
through increased collaboration at the local, state, and federal levels. These activities fall into six
categories:
1) Water Quality for Healthy Beaches and Shellfish Beds
The Clean Water Act provides authority and resources that are essential to protecting water quality
in the Gulf of Mexico and in the larger Mississippi River Basin that contributes pollution,
especially oxygen demanding nutrients, to the Gulf. EPA regions and the Gulf of Mexico Program
-70-
-------
Office will work with states to continue to maximize the efficiency and utility of water quality
monitoring efforts for local managers by coordinating and standardizing state and federal water
quality data collection activities in the Gulf region and to assure the continued effective
implementation of core clean water programs, ranging from discharge permits, to nonpoint
pollution controls, to wastewater treatment, to protection of wetlands.
A central pillar of the strategy to restore the health of the Gulf is restoration of water quality and
habitat in 13 priority coastal watersheds. These 13 watersheds include 755 of the impaired
segments identified by states around the Gulf and will receive targeted technical and financial
assistance to restore impaired waters. The 2011 goal is to fully attain water quality standards in at
least 128 of these segments (see Program Activity Measure SP-38).
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) cause public health advisories, halt commercial and recreational
shellfish harvesting, limit recreation, exacerbate human respiratory problems, and cause fish kills.
EPA is working with Mexico and the Gulf states to implement an advanced detection forecasting
capability system to manage harmful algal blooms and for notifying public health managers (see
Program Activity Measure GM-1) and expects to expand the system in 2011 to include the
additional Mexican States of Campeche and Tabasco.
The Gulf of Mexico Program Office has a long-standing commitment to develop effective
partnerships with other programs within EPA, in other federal agencies, and with other
organizations. For example, the Program Office is working with the EPA Office of Research and
Development and other federal agencies to develop and implement a coastal monitoring program
to better assess the condition of Gulf waters.
2) Habitat Conservation and Restoration
Another key element of the strategy for improving the water quality in the Gulf is to restore,
enhance, or protect a significant number of acres of coastal and marine habitat. The overall
wetland loss in the Gulf area is on the order of fifty percent, and protection of the critical habitat
that remains is essential to the health of the Gulf aquatic system. EPA has a goal of restoring
30,000 cumulative acres of habitat by 2011 (see Program Activity Measure SP-39). EPA is
working with the NOAA, environmental organizations, the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and area
universities to identify and restore critical habitat. The Gulf Alliance will enhance cooperative
planning and programs across the Gulf states and federal agencies to protect wetland and estuarine
habitat.
3) Ecosystems Integration and Assessment
The Gulf Coast supports a diverse array of coastal, estuarine, nearshore and offshore ecosystems,
including seagrass beds, wetlands and marshes, mangroves, barrier islands, sand dunes, coral reefs,
maritime forests, bayous, streams, and rivers. These ecosystems provide numerous ecological and
economic benefits including water quality, nurseries for fish, wildlife habitat, hurricane and flood
buffers, erosion prevention, stabilized shorelines, tourism, jobs, and recreation. The Gulf of
-71 -
-------
Mexico contributes U.S. commercial fish landings estimated annually at more than $1 billion and
as much as 30 percent of U.S. saltwater recreation fishing trips. The ability to evaluate the extent
and quality of these habitats is critical to successfully managing them for sustainability, as well as
better determining threats from hurricanes and storm surge. The long-term partnership goal for the
Alliance is to identify, inventory, and assess the current state of and trends in priority coastal,
estuarine, near-shore, and offshore Gulf of Mexico habitats to inform resource management
decisions. The Gulf of Mexico Program is working with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey in support of this goal.
4) Nutrients and Nutrient Impacts
Healthy estuaries and coastal wetlands depend on a balanced level of nutrients. Excessive nutrient
levels can have negative impacts such as reducing the abundance of recreationally and
commercially important fishery species. The Alliance has identified excess nutrients as one of the
primary problems facing Gulf estuaries and coastal waters. Over the next several years, the Gulf
states will be establishing criteria for nutrients in coastal ecosystems that will guide regulatory,
land use, and water quality protection decisions. Nutrient criteria could potentially reverse current
trends in nutrient pollution to coastal waters and estuaries, but the challenge is to prevent or reduce
the man-made sources of nutrients to levels that maintain ecosystem productivity and restore
beneficial uses. In 2011, EPA will support coastal nutrient criteria and standards development
with a Gulf state pilot and will develop science and management tools for the characterization of
nutrients in coastal ecosystems. Because the five Gulf states face similar nutrient management
challenges at both the estuary level and as the receiving water for the entire Mississippi River
watershed, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance is an important venue to build and test management tools
to reduce nutrients in Gulf waters and achieve healthy and resilient coastal ecosystems.
Any strategy to improve the overall health of the entire Gulf of Mexico must include a focused
effort to reduce the size of the zone of hypoxic conditions (i.e., low oxygen in the water) in the
northern Gulf. Actions to address this problem must focus on both localized pollutant addition
throughout the Basin and on nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River.
EPA, in cooperation with states and other federal agencies, developed the GulfHypoxia Action
Plan 2008. This Action Plan includes as a goal the long-term target to reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone from about 14,000 square km to less than 5,000 square km. measured as a five-year
running average (see Program Activity Measure SP-40). In working to accomplish this goal, EPA,
states, and other federal agencies, such as USD A, will continue implementation of core clean
water programs and partnerships and efforts to coordinate allocation of technical assistance and
funding to priority areas around the Gulf.
Specifically, in FY 2011, EPA will support a targeted Mississippi River Basin initiative which will
support development and implementation of State Nutrient Reduction strategies to reduce nutrient
loadings to watersheds and reduce the size of the hypoxic zone. A new grant program will provide
the opportunity to build State partnerships along the Mississippi River based upon accountability
and water quality goals.
-72-
-------
5) Environmental Education
Education and outreach are essential to accomplish the Gulf of Mexico Alliance's overall goals
and are integral to the other five Alliance priority issues. It is critical that Gulf residents and
decision makers understand and appreciate the connection between the ecological health of the
Gulf of Mexico and its watersheds and coasts, their own health, the economic vitality of their
communities, and their overall quality of life. There is a nationwide need for a better
understanding of the link between the health of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. economy. The
long-term Alliance partnership goal is to increase awareness and stewardship of Gulf coastal
resources and promote action among Gulf citizens.
6) Coastal Community Resilience
Coastal communities continuously face and adapt to various challenges of living along the Gulf of
Mexico. The economic, ecological, and social losses from coastal hazard events have grown as
population growth places people in harm's way and as the ecosystems' natural resilience is
compromised by development and pollution. In order to sustain and grow the Gulf region's
economic prosperity, individuals, businesses, communities, and ecosystems all need to be more
adaptable to change. In 2011, EPA will assist with the development of information, tools,
technologies, products, policies, or public decision processes that can be used by coastal
communities to increase resilience to coastal natural hazards and sea level rise. The Gulf of
Mexico Program is working with NOAA, Sea Grant Programs, and the U.S. Geological Survey in
support of this goal.
C) Grant Program Resources
The Gulf of Mexico Program issues an annual competitive Funding Announcement for Gulf of
Mexico Alliance Regional Partnership projects that improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico by
addressing improved water quality and public health, priority coastal habitat protection/recovery,
more effective coastal environmental education, improved habitat identification/characterization
data and decision support systems, and strategic nutrient reductions. Projects must actively
involve stakeholders and focus on support and implementation of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts.
For additional information on these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http://www.epa.gov/gmpo).
-73 -
-------
6) Protect Long Island Sound
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Prevent water pollution, improve water quality, protect aquatic
ecosystems, and restore habitat of Long Island Sound.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key flagrant Strategies
More that 20 million people live within 50 miles of Long Island Sound's shores and more than one
billion gallons per day of treated effluent enter the Sound from 106 treatment plants. In a 1992
study, it was estimated that the Sound generated more than $5.5 billion to the regional economy
from clean water-related activities alone - recreational and commercial fishing and shellfishing,
beach-going, and swimming. In 2009 dollars, that value is now $8.41 billion. The Sound also
generates additional billions of dollars through transportation, ports, harbors, real estate, and other
cultural and aesthetic values. The Sound is breeding ground, nursery, feeding ground, and habitat
to more than 170 species offish and 1,200 invertebrate species that are under stress from
development, competing human uses and climate change.
The key environmental and ecological outcomes for Long Island Sound include:
• Marine waters that meet prescribed water quality standards;
• Diverse habitats that support healthy, abundant and sustainable populations of diverse
aquatic and marine-dependent species;
• An ambient environment that is free of substances that are potentially harmful to
human health or otherwise may adversely affect the food chain; and
• Educated and informed citizens who participate in the restoration and protection of this
invaluable resource.
EPA continues to work with the Long Island Sound Management Conference partners - the states
of New York and Connecticut and other federal, state, and local government agencies, industry,
and the private sector - to implement the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) to restore and protect the Sound. Because levels of dissolved oxygen are critical to the
health of aquatic life and viable public use of the Sound, a CCMP priority is controlling nitrogen
discharges to meet these water quality standards.
-74-
-------
1) Reduce Nitrogen Loads
The Long Island Sound bi-state nitrogen TMDL relies on flexible and innovative approaches,
notably Abubble@ management zones and exchange ratios that allow sewage treatment plant
operators to trade nitrogen reduction obligations with each other. This approach can help attain
water quality improvement goals, while allowing communities to save an estimated $800 million
by allocating reductions to those plants where they can be achieved most economically, and to
plants that have the greatest impact on water quality.
The States of New York and Connecticut will continue to allocate resources toward Sewage
Treatment Plant (STP) upgrades to control nitrogen discharges as required in their revised NPDES
(SPDES) permits. The States will monitor and report discharges through the Permit Compliance
System (PCS). Revisions to the TMDL conducted under the initial review process will incorporate
any revised marine water quality standards for dissolved oxygen adopted by the States of
Connecticut and New York.
The State of Connecticut will continue its innovative Nitrogen Credit Exchange program instituted
in 2002. Reductions in nitrogen discharges at plants that go beyond TMDL requirements create the
state's system of market credits, which will continue to assist in reducing construction costs and
more effectively address nitrogen reductions to the Sound. New York City will continue its STP
nitrogen upgrades under a 2005 State of New York Consent Order, and will minimize the impact
of nitrogen discharges to the Sound as construction proceeds through 2017.
EPA will continue to work with the upper Long Island Sound watershed States of Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, and Vermont to develop state plans to identify and control nitrogen discharges to
the Connecticut River, the primary fresh water riverine input to the Sound. As sources are
identified and control strategies developed, state discharge permits will need to be modified to
incorporate appropriate load allocations. A continuing challenge to EPA and states is to address
nonpoint sources of nitrogen deposition to the Sound, including atmospheric deposition and
groundwater infiltration, which contribute many thousands of pounds of nitrogen and which are
more difficult and complex to identify and control. To address these sources, the LISS supports
local watershed protection programs to reduce stormwater runoff, plan for and manage growth,
and conserve natural landscapes.
2) Reduce the Area and Duration ofHypoxia
As nitrogen loads to the Sound decrease, reductions in the size and duration of the hypoxic area
may be anticipated. While other factors also affect the timing, duration, and severity of hypoxia,
including weather conditions such as rainfall, solar radiation and light, temperature, and winds,
continued reductions in nitrogen loads will help to mitigate these uncontrollable factors. As the
states continue implementing STP upgrades and nonpoint source controls, the new applied
technologies will reduce nitrogen inputs, limiting algal response and interfering with the cycles
that promote algal growth, and its death, decay, and resulting loss of dissolved oxygen.
-75-
-------
3) Restore and Protect Critical Habitats and Reopen Rivers to Diadromous Fish
EPA will continue to work with Management Conference partners to restore degraded habitats and
reopen rivers and streams to diadromous fish passage. States and EPA will direct efforts at the
most vulnerable coastal habitats and key areas of high ecological value, such as coastal wetlands.
Projects, using EPA and a variety of public and private funding sources, and in cooperation with
landowners, will construct fishways, remove dams, or otherwise remove impediments to
diadromous fish passage. Where feasible and as funding allows, fish counting devices will provide
valuable data on actual numbers offish entering breeding grounds. Restoration of the diadromous
fishery and increasing the higher trophic levels in the Sound are longer-term goals of federal and
state natural resource managers.
4) Implement through Partnerships
New York, Connecticut, and EPA will cooperate to agree on and implement a new Long Island
Sound Agreement. The Agreement will build upon CCMP goals and targets, which were refined
and documented in the predecessor Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement.
EPA and states will continue to participate in the Long Island Sound Management Conference
under CWA Section 320, as implemented through the Long Island Sound Restoration Act of 2000
as amended, CWA Section 119. The states and EPA will continue to address the highest priority
environmental and ecological problems identified in the CCMP - the impact of hypoxia on the
ecosystem, including living marine resources; the effects of reducing toxic substances, pathogens,
and floatable debris on the ambient environment; identification, restoration and protection of
critical habitats; and managing the populations of living marine and marine-dependent resources
that rely on the Sound as their primary habitat. The Management Conference will work to improve
riparian buffers in key river reaches and restore submerged aquatic vegetation in key embayments;
reduce the impact of toxic substances, pathogens, and floatable debris on the ecology; and improve
the stewardship of these critical areas.
EPA and the states will continue to support the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) Citizens Advisory
Committee and the Science and Technical Advisory Committee, which provide technical expertise
and public participation and advice to the Management Conference partners in the implementation
of the CCMP. An educated and informed public will more readily recognize problems and
understand their role in environmental stewardship.
5) Core EPA Program Support
The LISS supports, and is supported by EPA core environmental management and regulatory
control programs. The CCMP, established under CWA Section 320, envisioned a partnership of
federal, state and local governments, private industry, academia and the public, to cleanup and
restore the Sound. This cooperative environmental partnership relies on existing federal, state and
-76-
-------
local regulatory frameworks - and funding— to achieve targets for restoration and protection and
apply limited resources to highest priority areas.
For example, EPA and the states use authorities under CWA Section 319 to manage watersheds
that are critical to the health of Long Island Sound. Under Section 303(d), state and local TMDLs
for harmful substances support the work of the Management Conference in ensuring a clean and
safe Long Island Sound.
State Revolving Funds under Section 601 are used to upgrade STPs for nitrogen control, and
NPDES permits issued under Section 402 provide enforceable targets to monitor progress in
reducing nitrogen and other harmful pollutants to waters entering the Sound. Because of the LISS
nitrogen TMDL, developed under Section 303(d), both the states of Connecticut and New York
revised their ambient water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) to be consistent with
EPA's national guidance for DO in marine waters. With EPA funding through the LISS,
Connecticut conducts the LIS ambient water quality monitoring (WQM) program, and has
participated with the State of New York in EPA's National Coastal Assessment monitoring
program. The data compiled by the LISS WQM program is one of the most robust and extensive
datasets on ambient conditions available to scientists, researchers, and managers. The LISS
nitrogen TMDL sets firm reduction targets and encourages trading at point sources, and
NPDES/SPDES permits have been modified to incorporate TMDL nitrogen limits on a 15 year
enforceable schedule. EPA and the states evaluate the TMDL and revise the allocations as
necessary to attain water quality standards. The states of New York and Connecticut recognize the
significant investments required to support wastewater infrastructure and have passed state bond
act funding to sustain efforts to upgrade facilities to reduce nitrogen loads to the Sound as
established in the nitrogen TMDL. These actions are primary support of CWA core programs, and
are ongoing and integral to LISS CCMP implementation to restore and protect Long Island Sound.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources supporting this goal include the Long Island Sound CCMP implementation
grants authorized under Section 119(d) of the Clean Water Act as amended. These include the
Long Island Sound Futures Fund Large and Small grant programs administered by the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Long Island Sound CCMP Enhancements Grant program
administered by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, and the Long
Island Sound Research Grant program administered by the New York and Connecticut Sea Grant
programs. The LISS web page provides grant information and progress toward meeting
environmental results at: (http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/grants/index.htm).
-77-
-------
7) South Florida Ecosystem
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Protect and restore the South Florida ecosystem, including the
Everglades and coral reef ecosystems.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key flagrant Strategies
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. But 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.
Another 2 million people are expected to settle in the area over the next 10 to 20 years. Fifty
percent of the region's wetlands have been lost to suburban and agricultural development, and the
altered hydrology and water management throughout the region have had a major impact on the
ecosystem.
EPA is working in partnership with numerous local, regional, state, and federal agencies and tribes
to ensure the long-term sustainability of the region's varied natural resources while providing for
extensive agricultural operations and a continually expanding population. EPA's South Florida
Geographic Initiative (SFGI) is designed to protect and restore communities and ecosystems
affected by environmental problems. SFGI efforts include activities related to the Section 404
wetlands protection program; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP); the
Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; the Southeast
Florida Coral Reef Initiative, directed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force; the Brownfields
Program; and a number of other waste management programs.
1) Accelerate Watershed Protection
Strong execution of core clean water programs is essential but not adequate for accelerating
progress toward maintaining and restoring water quality and the associated biological resources in
South Florida. Water quality degradation is often caused by many different and diffuse sources.
To address the complex causes of water quality impairment, we are using an approach grounded in
-78-
-------
science, innovation, stakeholder involvement, and adaptive management - the watershed
approach. In addition to implementing core clean water programs, we will continue to work to:
• Support and expand local watershed protection efforts through innovative
approaches to build local capacity; and
• Initiate or strengthen through direct support watershed protection and restoration for
critical watersheds and water bodies.
2) Conduct Congressionally-mandated Responsibilities
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and Protection Act of 1990 directed EPA
and the State of Florida, in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), to develop a Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) for the
Sanctuary. The purpose of the WQPP is to recommend priority corrective actions and compliance
schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution in the Florida Keys ecosystem. In
addition, the Act also required development of a comprehensive water quality monitoring program
and provision of opportunities for public participation. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to
implement the WQPP for the FKNMS, including the comprehensive monitoring projects (coral
reef, seagrass, and water quality), special studies, data management, and public education and
outreach activities. EPA will also continue to support implementation of wastewater and storm
water master plans for the Florida Keys to upgrade inadequate wastewater and storm water
infrastructure. In addition, we will continue to assist with implementing the comprehensive plan
for eliminating sewage discharges from boats and other vessels.
3) Support the Actions of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
In October 2002, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force passed a resolution to improve implementation of
the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. Among other things, the resolution
recommended development of local action strategies (LAS) to improve coordinated
implementation of coral reef conservation. In 2004 and 2005, EPA Region 4 staff worked with the
Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) to develop a LAS for southeast Florida calling
for reducing "land-based sources of pollution" and increasing the awareness and appreciation of
coral habitat. Key goals of the LAS are:
• Characterize the existing condition of the coral reef ecosystem;
• Quantify, characterize and prioritize the land-based sources of pollution that need to
be addressed based on identified impacts to the reefs;
• Identify how pollution affects the southeast Florida coral reef habitat;
• Reduce the impacts of land-based sources of pollution; and
• Work in close cooperation with the awareness and appreciation focus team.
-79-
-------
Detailed action strategies or projects for each goal have been developed. For example, one priority
action strategy/project is to assimilate existing data to quantify and characterize the sources of
pollution and identify the relative contributions of point and nonpoint sources.
4) Other Priority Activities for FY 2011
• Support development of TMDLs for various south Florida waters including the
watershed for Lake Okeechobee, the primary or secondary source of drinking water
for large portions of south Florida.
• Continue to work with Florida Department of Environmental Protection in
developing numeric water quality criteria for Florida water bodies. EPA in
accordance with a consent decree committed to establish numeric criteria for lakes
and flowing water in 2010, and for estuaries and coastal waters in 2011.
• Assist the State of Florida and South Florida Water Management District in
evaluating the appropriateness of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) technology as
a key element of the overall restoration strategy for south Florida. Region 4 will
continue to work with the COE to evaluate proposed ASR projects.
• Continue implementation of the South Florida Wetlands Conservation Strategy,
including protecting and restoring critical wetland habitats in the face of
tremendous growth and development.
• Continue to work closely with the Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the State of Florida to facilitate expedited review of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and regulatory permit actions associated with
the ongoing implementation of CERP. Several large water storage impoundments
will be under construction during the next few years.
• Continue to implement the Everglades Ecosystem Assessment Program, an EMAP-
based monitoring program to assess the health of the Everglades and the
effectiveness of ongoing restoration and regulatory strategies. Scientific
publications were completed in FY 2010.
• Continue to work with the State of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida and
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, and federal agencies to implement
appropriate phosphorus control programs that will attain water quality standards
within the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida both have federally approved water quality (WQS) which may differ from
the State WQS. For instance, the Miccosukee Tribe has a 10 ppb criterion for
phosphorus while the State has a narrative criterion. To insure the identification of
the appropriate WQS criteria, both tribes should be involved in the activities,
especially in nutrient control, water quality activities, and development of TMDLs
-80-
-------
effecting tribal waters.
C) Grant fragrant Resources
The South Florida Program Office uses available resources to fund priority programs and projects
that support the restoration and maintenance of the south Florida ecosystem, including the
Everglades and coral reef habitat. These programs and projects include monitoring (water quality,
seagrass, and coral reef), special studies, and public education and outreach activities. Federal
assistance agreements for projects supporting the activities of the SFGI are awarded under the
authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA. Region 4 issues announcements of opportunity for
federal funding and "requests for proposals" in accordance with EPA Order 5700.5 (Policy for
Competition in Assistance Agreements).
8) Puget Sound Basin
A) SUBOBJECTIVE: Improve water quality, improve air quality, and minimize adverse
impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key fragrant Strategies
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. Puget Sound
salmon landings average more than 19 million pounds per year and support an average of 578,000
sport-fishing trips each year, as well as subsistence harvests to many tribal communities.
However, continued declines in wild salmon and other key species indicate that additional
watershed protection and restoration efforts are needed to reverse these trends.
Although Puget Sound currently leads U.S. waterways in shellfish production, 30,000 acres of
shellfish beds have been closed to harvest since 1980. These closures affect local economies and
cultural and subsistence needs for these traditional resources. In addition, excess nutrients have
created hypoxic zones that further impair shellfish and finfish populations. Recent monitoring
-81 -
-------
assessments indicate that marine species in the Puget Sound have high levels of toxic
contamination. Almost 5,700 acres of submerged land (about 9 square miles) are currently
classified as contaminated with toxics and another 24,000 as at least partially contaminated.
Additional pollutants are still being released: approximately 1 million pounds of toxics are
released into the water, with stormwater identified as a major source, and 5 million pounds into the
air each year, with many of these pollutants also finding their way into Puget Sound and its food
web.
There is growing recognition that protecting the Puget Sound ecosystem would require increased
capacity and sharper focus. In 2006, a broad partnership of civic leaders, scientists, business and
environmental representatives, representative agency directors and tribal leadership was asked to
propose a new state approach to restoring and protecting the Puget Sound Basin and its component
watersheds. This challenge resulted in the creation of the Puget Sound Partnership in 2008, a new
state agency, and an updated and more integrated comprehensive management plan in 2009, the
"2020 Action Agenda", for protecting and restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem.
Key program strategies for FY 2011 include:
Improving Water Quality and Restoring Shellfish Beds and Wild Salmon Populations
through Local Watershed Protection
• EPA will continue to work with state and local agencies and tribal governments to build
local capacity for protecting and restoring local watersheds. This will help focus and
maintain coordinated protection and corrective actions to improve water quality
specifically in those areas where shellfish bed closures or harvest area downgrades are
occurring or where key salmon recovery efforts are being focused.
Addressing Stormwater Issues through Local Watershed Protection Plans
• EPA will work with state and local agencies and the tribes using local watershed
protection approaches to reduce stormwater impacts to local aquatic resources in
urbanizing areas currently outside of NPDES Phase I and II permit authority. Of
particular concern are the sensitive and high value estuarine waters such as Hood
Canal, the northern Straits, and south Puget Sound.
• EPA will also work with the state to increase support to local and tribal governments
and the development community to promote smart growth and low impact development
approaches in the Puget Sound Basin.
• Watershed protection and land use integration projects are being funded with
approximately half of the 2009 appropriation. The 2009 appropriation will also fund
implementation of Tribal priority ecosystem and human health work in the Puget Sound
region. The 2009 and 2010 grant programs are targeted to support the priority actions
identified in the Puget Sound Action Agenda, which was formally approved by EPA
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act in 2009.
-82-
-------
• To the extent that we can, EPA will assist with evaluating, quantifying, and
documenting improvements in local water quality and beneficial uses as these local
watershed protection and restoration plans are implemented.
• EPA will work with states to help support development of a comprehensive storm
water monitoring program for the Puget Sound basin so that information gathered can
be used to adaptively manage the next round of permits and implementation actions.
Reducing Sources of Toxics and Nutrients
• Priority toxic contaminants from terrestrial, atmospheric, and marine discharge sources
will be quantified and source control actions prioritized and initiated.
• A mass balance model of nutrient sources, reservoirs, pathways, and risk to local
ecosystems in Puget Sound will be refined and specific nutrient reduction strategies
will be established within priority areas, including both Hood Canal and South Puget
Sound.
Restoring and Protecting Nearshore Aquatic Habitats
• Through the Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Partnership, high profile habitat
restoration projects will continue to be initiated and others completed in priority
estuaries, including the Skagit, Nisqually, Hood Canal, Elwha, and South Puget Sound.
• Protection programs, restoration strategies, project lists, and outcomes will be evaluated
against current conditions and ongoing habitat loss to determine net changes in extent
and function of estuary habitats.
Improving Ecosystem Monitoring and the Application of Science
• A new Integrated Science Plan for Puget Sound is being developed including enhanced
monitoring, modeling, assessment and research capacity. The emerging science agenda
will be focused on improving the effectiveness of both local management activities and
broader policy initiatives.
• EPA will continue developing and implementing a comprehensive watershed
monitoring program to better understand the impacts of stormwater runoff on aquatic
resources and the effectiveness of different management practices and policies.
• EPA will work with other science communication initiatives and programs to ensure
that data and information is more available and relevant to citizens, local jurisdictions,
watershed management forums, and resource managers.
Ensuring Focused and Productive Transboundary Coordination
EPA Region 10 will continue to work with Environment Canada, Pacific Yukon Region to
implement biennial work plans developed under the 2000 Joint Statement of Cooperation on the
Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Ecosystem ("SoC"). As in previous years, the EPA-EC chaired
SoC working group, comprising State, Provincial, Tribal, and First nations representatives, work
-83 -
-------
toward sharing scientific information on the ecosystem, developing joint research initiatives,
ensuring coordination of environmental management initiatives, and jointly considering longer
term planning issues including air quality and climate change. A significant FY 2011 activity will
be planning the next biennial Salish Sea Ecosystem Research Conference (Vancouver, 2011); in
2009 this transboundary conference attracted registration from over 1100 scientists, policy makers,
and stakeholders
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal have usually been limited to the National Estuary
Program Grants under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (approx. $500 K annually in recent
years). The FY 2010 appropriations bill included close to $50 million for development and
implementation of the 2020 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. FY 2010 and 2011 appropriations
will be applied to implementation of priority actions aimed at pollution source control, watershed
protection, and the science capacity needed to help focus, monitor and assess the effectiveness of
actions. A range of other water program grants also support many activities that assist in the
achievement of this subobjective. These include grants supporting Washington State and Tribal
water quality programs, and infrastructure loan programs.
D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
The Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda calls for actions to adapt to and mitigate for climate
change. The Action Agenda recognizes that climate change will exacerbate the existing threats to
Puget Sound. Both the Puget Sound Partnership and EPA have identified climate change impacts
to be considered when evaluating potential actions. For example, EPA included climate change as
a rating factor in its 2009 Request for Proposal for Puget Sound "Watershed Management
Assistance" and in the Puget Sound "Tribal set-aside" grants, which will provide approximately
$13.5 million in funding. Many of the strategies and actions to protect and restore Puget Sound
also serve as mitigation and adaptation measures.
For additional information, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/regionlO/psgb/.
-84-
-------
9) Columbia River Basin
A) SVBOBJECTVE: Prevent water pollution and improve and protect water quality and
ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks to human health and the
environment.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key flagrant Strategies
The Columbia River Basin covers a major portion of the landscape of North America, including
parts of seven U.S. states and British Columbia. The basin provides drainage through an area of
more than 260,000 square miles into a river over 1,200 miles in length. The Columbia River Basin
has been and will continue to provide an important North American backdrop for urban settlement
and development, agriculture, transportation, recreation, fisheries and hydropower.
The Columbia River Basin also serves as a unique and special ecosystem, home to many important
plants and animals. Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs were once the largest runs in the
world. The tribal people of the Columbia River have depended on these salmon for thousands of
years for human, spiritual, and cultural sustenance.
Challenges
The Columbia River Basin provides great environmental, economic, and social benefit to many
public and private interests. The Basin is a dynamic economic engine driving many industries vital
to the Pacific Northwest, including sport and commercial fisheries, agriculture, transportation,
recreation and, with many hydropower dams, electrical power generation. However, hydro-electric
power generation, agriculture, and other human activities have disrupted natural processes and
impaired water quality in some areas to the point where human health is at risk and historic salmon
stocks are threatened or extinct. Many Columbia River tributaries, the mainstem, and the estuary
are declared 'impaired' under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
In 1992, an EPA national survey of contaminants in fish alerted EPA and others to a potential
health threat to tribal and other people who eat fish from the Columbia River Basin. To evaluate
-85-
-------
the likelihood that tribal people may be exposed to high levels of contaminants in fish, EPA
funded the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission to survey tribal members' fish
consumption rates. This survey found Columbia River tribal people eat significantly greater
amounts offish than the general population. A follow-up 2002 EPA fish contaminant study found
toxics in fish that tribal people eat. Recent studies and monitoring programs have found significant
levels of toxic chemicals in fish and the waters they inhabit, including DDT, PCBs, mercury, and
emerging contaminants, such as PBDEs.
EPA Region 10 is working closely with the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Columbia Basin
tribal governments, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, local governments, citizen
groups, industry, and other federal agencies to develop and implement a collaborative strategy to
assess and reduce toxics in fish and water in the Columbia River Basin and to restore and protect
habitat.
The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, one of EPA's National Estuary Programs, also
plays a key role in addressing toxics and restoration of critical wetlands in the Lower Columbia
River estuary. Since 1996, EPA has provided significant financial support to the Lower Columbia
River Estuary Partnership (LCREP). LCREP developed a management plan in 1999 that has
served as a blueprint for estuary recovery efforts. The Lower Columbia River and estuary
monitoring program, developed and overseen by LCREP, is critical for better understanding the
lower river and estuary, including toxics and habitat characterization, information that is essential
for Columbia River salmon restoration.
Working with partners including LCREP, and the states of Washington and Oregon, EPA has
established several goals for improving environmental conditions in the Columbia River basin by
2014:
• Protect, enhance, or restore 19,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat in the Lower
Columbia River Estuary;
• Clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated sediments in the Portland Harbor and
other sites; and
• Demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of certain contaminants of
concern found in water and fish tissue in five sites where baseline data is available.
Future Directions and Accomplishments
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Columbia Basin tribal governments, the Lower Columbia
River Estuary Partnership, local governments, citizen groups, industry, and other federal agencies
are actively engaged in efforts to remove contaminated sediments, bring back native anadromous
fish, restore water quality, and preserve, protect, and restore habitat. To achieve this daunting task,
EPA Region 10 is leading the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strategy, a collaborative effort
with many partners, to achieve these three goals and other actions to better understand and reduce
toxics in the Columbia River Basin. The goal is to protect public health and the environment by
reducing toxics in fish, water, and sediment of the Columbia River Basin and by developing and
-86-
-------
implementing a multi-agency monitoring and research strategy to understand toxic loads, emerging
contaminants, and overall ecosystem health, and increase and expand toxic reduction actions,
which include:
• The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group has been convened as a
collaborative watershed based group consisting of local communities, non-profits,
tribal, state, and federal government agencies to develop and implement an action plan
for reducing toxics in the Columbia River Basin.
• EPA, with the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group, completed a
Columbia River Basin State of the River Report for Toxics, in January 2009. This report
is a first attempt to understand and describe the current status and trends of toxics
pollution and serve as a catalyst for a public dialogue on enhancing and accelerating
actions to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin.
• EPA and the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group are following up on
the State of the River Report with a Columbia River Basin Action Plan expected to be
final in May 2010, which will identify needed toxic reduction and monitoring actions
with current resources and proposed increased resources.
• EPA is holding workshops around the Basin to engage citizens; tribal, local state, and
federal governments; industry; agriculture; and NGOs on toxics and toxics reductions
in the Columbia River Basin. Four workshops have focused on agricultural successes
and technology transfer; PCBs; and flame retardants, a growing concern in the
Columbia River Basin.
• States and tribes are reducing toxics with regulatory tools: Water Quality Standards;
water quality improvement plans (total maximum daily loads (TMDLs); and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
• Currently EPA is working with the State of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation to collaboratively develop human health criteria that will
increase protection for Oregon populations who consume high amounts offish,
especially tribal fish consumers, expected to be final in 2011. These criteria will result
in reduced toxics in point sources, nonpoint sources, hazardous waste clean ups, water
quality improvement plan (TMDL) implementation and other tools and will serve as a
national and regional model for increased toxics reduction and human health protection.
• States, tribes, and local partners are improving farming practices;
o Oregon's Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Program in the Walla Walla Basin
has shown a 70% decline in bioaccumulative organophospate pesticides in
2006-2008 data.
o In May 2009, the Washington Department of Health lifted the Yakima River
DDT fish advisory because of the success of collaborative efforts of the
agricultural community, Washington Ecology, Yakima Indian Nation, and
others to reduce soil erosion into the Yakima River.
o State and local governments are removing toxics from communities, including a
Washington State 2007 PBDE ban; a 2009 Oregon State Deca-BDE ban; and
mercury reduction strategies by Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, to help
communities reduce toxic chemical use and ensure proper disposal.
-87-
-------
Federal and state governments are cleaning up contamination at Portland Harbor,
Hanford, Upper Columbia/Lake Roosevelt, Bradford Island, Lake Coeur d'Alene, and
other sites.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal are limited to the National Estuary Program
Grants under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (approx. $500 K annually in recent years) which
funds work only in the lower part of the Columbia River, which is less than 2% of the Columbia
River Basin. A range of other water program grants also support many activities that assist in the
achievement of this subobjective. These include grants supporting Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington state and tribal water quality programs.
10) San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
A) Protect and restore water quality and ecological health of the estuary through
partnerships, interagency coordination, and project grants in the San Francisco Bay.
B) Key Program Strategies
The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary is the hub of the nation's largest water delivery system,
providing drinking water to 25 million Californians. The ecosystem sustains about $400 billion of
annual economic activity, including a $28 million agricultural industry and a robust set of
recreational opportunities. Until recently, it has supported a thriving commercial and recreational
fishing industry that normally contributes hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the State's
economy. The Bay Delta is also home to 55 species offish and 750 species of plants and wildlife.
As a result of these oft-competing uses for water, and compounded by three years of drought, the
entire Bay Delta system is in crisis.
The federal government has recently re-committed to robust engagement on restoring the Bay-
Delta ecosystem and addressing California's water needs. In 2009, EPA was one of six federal
agencies who signed a Memorandum of Understanding and produced an Interim Action Plan
describing a coordinated set of actions to restore the ecological health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem
while providing for a high-quality, reliable, sustainable water supply for the State. Under the
Action Plan, EPA has work underway to address critical water quality issues, including assessing
the effectiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms to address the key water quality issues,
developing a comprehensive regional water quality monitoring program, and integrating climate
change into regional water management planning.
In addition, EPA has critical work underway to address San Francisco Bay water quality issues.
The San Francisco Bay Area population benefits from improved water quality in the Bay and its
watersheds in the form of commercial enterprises, recreational opportunities, and its scenic value.
It also collectively impacts the very same water quality. During the last three decades, there have
-88-
-------
been some notable successes in protecting San Francisco Bay. Efforts are still needed to reduce
stormwater and nonpoint source pollution impacts, implement Bay, creek and river TMDLs (see
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water issues/programs/TMDLs/X and protect and
restore riparian, floodplain, wetland, and Bay habitat.
Impacts associated with urbanization are increasingly important as resource managers strive to
protect and restore healthy watersheds while local governments plan for 2 million more people by
2035. There is growing recognition that low impact development (LID) methods should become
common practices as research has shown that impervious surfaces have negative impacts on
aquatic habitats by increasing stormwater which scours and delivers increased pollutant loads to
local streams and rivers and changes the historic groundwater and surface water hydrology.
Similarly, innovative practices need to be implemented to address water quality impacts associated
with agricultural activities. Forecasted changes in climate further heighten the importance of
providing for the long-term resiliency and buffering capacity of the Bay and its watersheds.
Since FY2008, work in San Francisco Bay has been supported by congressional appropriations for
a competitive grant program to support partnerships that protect and restore San Francisco Bay
watersheds, the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF). EPA has
prioritized activities to reduce polluted run-off from urban development and agriculture;
implement TMDLs to restore impaired water quality; and protect and restore habitat including
riparian corridors, floodplains, wetlands, and the Bay. To date, EPA has awarded $16.7 million,
leveraging an additional $11.7 million and involving nearly 40 partners in projects throughout the
San Francisco Bay Area.
The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary Program is focused on using existing watershed plans,
TMDLs, and related assessments to ensure that priority activities are implemented to improve
water quality. Implementation projects funded by the SFBWQIF are also integrated with ongoing
comprehensive water quality and land use management efforts such as the San Francisco Estuary
Partnership's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), the Integrated Water
Resource Management Program (IWRMP), and the SF Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP),
as well as local general plans, stormwater management plans, and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) Implementation Plans.
The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary is currently in the process of expanding their monitoring and
reporting efforts and plan to develop performance measures for inclusion in the 2012 NPG.
Key program strategies for FY 2011 include:
Reducing polluted run-off from urban development and agriculture
• EPA will continue to work with state, regional and local agencies and other partners
to enhance and implement watershed protection and restoration plans, land use and
transportation plans, basin plans, stormwater controls and/or land development standards to
improve water quality.
-89-
-------
• EPA will fund activities that develop and carry out laws, ordinances, and incentive
programs to foster the systematic implementation of low impact development (LID)
approaches and techniques for new and existing development.
• EPA will increase watershed data and information available to local decision-makers
who write and implement laws, ordinances, and permits which impact water quality.
Improve water quality in waterbodies with approved TMDLs
• Watershed-focused projects are being implemented under the SFBWQIF with
FY2008, 2009, and 2010 funds. These projects address PCB and mercury sources to San
Francisco Bay, and pathogen and sediment reductions in Richardson Bay, Sonoma Creek
and the Napa River.
• Improvements in water quality and local beneficial uses will be quantified,
documented and evaluated as these local watershed protection and restoration plans are
implemented.
Protecting and restoring habitat including riparian corridors, floodplains, wetlands, and
the Bay
Through the SFBWQIF, EPA will fund high priority habitat projects that maintain native
vegetation and natural hydrology, and protect and restore wetland, riparian, and upland
ecological processes to improve water quality.
Improve monitoring of environmental results
• EPA will require watershed-based monitoring of grant-funded projects to monitor and
assess conditions and trends of water quality and aquatic resources to provide
documentation of ongoing environmental improvements.
• EPA will continue to work with other state and federal agencies to support the
development of a comprehensive water quality monitoring and assessment program for
the Delta and its tributaries.
C) Grant Program Resources
Historically, EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal have been limited primarily to the
National Estuary Program grants under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (approx. $500 K
annually in recent years). More recently, the FY 2008, 2009, and 2010 appropriations bills
included close to $17 million, collectively, for partnership grants to improve San Francisco Bay
water quality. Proposals are solicited through an open competition, attempting to leverage other
funding and targeting the SFBWQIF's priority environmental issues, as follows: reducing polluted
run-off from urban development and agriculture, implementing TMDLs to restore impaired water
quality, and protecting and restoring habitat including riparian corridors, floodplains, wetlands,
-90-
-------
and the Bay. There are currently no grant resources which specifically support the water quality
issues beyond the immediate SF Bay, i.e., in the Delta and its tributaries.
D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
Within the San Francisco Bay LAE, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission, and EPA Global Change Research Program are working on a pilot
project under the Climate Ready Estuaries Program to identify key vulnerabilities of the San
Francisco Bay Delta Estuary to climate change. The assessment will take advantage of significant
work that is already underway in the region, particularly on sea level rise, to support further
analysis of climate drivers and ecosystem effects.
For additional information, please visit http://www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail2.php?projectID=4.
-91 -
-------
V. NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM AND GRANT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
1. National Water Program
This National Water Program Guidance document describes the general approaches that EPA, in
consultation with states and tribes, expects to be most effective in attaining the environmental and
public health improvements identified in the EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and the proposed
2010-2015 Strategic Plan. This Guidance, however, is part of a larger, three part management
process.
• Part 1: Complete National Water Program Guidance: During the fall of 2009, EPA
reviewed program measures and made improvements to many measures. These
measures are included in this Draft Guidance. After the stakeholder review and
comment process in the spring of 2010, EPA will finalize the Guidance with a
complete set of performance measures and applicable targets.
• Part 2: EPA Region/State/Tribe Consultation/Planning: EPA Regions will work
with states and tribes to develop FY 2011 Performance Partnership Agreements or
other grant workplans, including commitments to reporting key activities and, in some
cases, commitments to specific FY 2011 program accomplishments (May through
October of 2010).
• Part 3: Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management: The National Water
Program will evaluate program progress in 2011 and adapt water program management
and priorities based on this assessment information.
Parts 2 and 3 of this program management system are discussed below. Key aspects of water
program grant management are also addressed.
A) EPA Region/State/Tribe Consultation/Planning (Step 2)
1) National Water Program Guidance Commitment Process
EPA regional offices will work with states and tribes beginning in April of 2010 to develop
agreements concerning program priorities and commitments for FY 2011 in the form of
Performance Partnership Agreements or individual grant workplans. The National Water Program
Guidance for FY 2011, including program strategies and FY 2011 targets, forms a foundation for
this effort.
The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2011 includes a minimum number of measures that
address the critical program activities that are expected to contribute to attainment of long-term
-92-
-------
goals. Between FYs 2007 and 2008, the total number of water measures has been reduced and
EPA has focused reporting on existing data systems where possible. Some of these Program
Activity Measures track activities carried out by EPA while others address activities carried out by
states and tribes (see Appendix A). In addition, some of these measures include annual national
"targets" while others are intended to simply indicate change over time.
During the Spring/Summer of 2010, EPA regions will work with states and tribes to agree on
reporting for all the measures in the FY 2011 Guidance, including both target and indicator
measures. For the target measures, EPA regional offices will develop FY 2011 regional
"commitments" based on their discussions with states and tribes and using the "targets" in the
FY 2011 Guidance as a point of reference. Draft regional "commitments" are due July 9 and, after
review and comment by National Program Managers, EPA regions are to finalize regional
commitments by October 1. These final regional "commitments" are then summed to make the
national commitment, and both the regional and national commitments are finalized the Agency's
Annual Commitment System (ACS) by October 22, 2010.
A key part of this process is discussion among EPA regions, states, and tribes of regional
"commitments" and the development of binding performance partnership agreements or other
grant workplan documents that establish reporting and performance agreements. The goal of this
joint effort is to allocate available resources to those program activities that are likely to result in
the best progress toward accomplishing water quality and public health goals for that state/tribe
(e.g., improved compliance with drinking water standards and improved water quality on a
watershed basis). This process is intended to provide the flexibility for EPA regions to adjust their
commitments based on relative needs, priorities, and resources of states and tribes in the EPA
region. Recognizing that rural communities face significant challenges in ensuring safe drinking
water and protecting water quality, the National Water Program will focus on addressing rural
communities' needs in discussions with states and work more collaboratively with rural
communities and rural technical providers in 2011 in planning program activities for FY 2011.
The tailored program "commitments" that result from this process define, along with this
Guidance, the "strategy" for the National Water Program for FY 2011.
As EPA regional offices work with states and tribes to develop FY 2011 commitments, there
should also be discussion of initial expectations for progress under key measures in FY 2012. The
Agency begins developing the FY 2012 budget in the spring of 2010 and is required to provide
initial estimates of FY 2012 progress for measures included in the budget in August of 2010.
These estimates can be adjusted during the fall before they go into the final FY 2012 President's
budget in January 2011. The Office of Water will consult with EPA regions in developing the
initial FY 2012 budget measure targets in August 2010, and regions will be better able to comment
on proposed initial targets if they have had preliminary discussions of FY 2012 progress with
states and tribes. Regions should assume stable funding for the purposes of these discussions.
2) State Grant Results and Reporting
-93 -
-------
In FY 2011, EPA remains committed to strengthening our oversight and reporting of results in
state grants, not only linking state work plan commitments to EPA's Strategic Plan, but also
enhancing transparency and accountability. EPA and states will continue working in FY 2011 to
achieve this through two related efforts:
State Grant Workplans. The Agency's long-term goal is for EPA and states to achieve greater
consistency in workplan formats. To achieve that goal, the Office of Grants and Debarment
(OGD) will convene a State/EPA workgroup of grant practitioners to develop a menu of formats
for EPA and states to use when negotiating workplans for the 14 identified categorical grant
programs. In developing these formats, the workgroup will build upon the results of the FY 2009
State Grant Workplan Pilot.
The formats will be available for use beginning with the FY 2011 grants cycle. In consultation
with the practitioners workgroup and recognizing that the formats will need to be phased in over
time, OGD will develop performance metrics to ensure that 100% of workplans under the 14
categorical grant programs use one of the approved formats by no later than the FY 2013 grants
cycle. If a particular state agency has difficulties under state law in adopting one of the established
formats, OGD will work with the affected EPA regional office and NPM to resolve the issue.
Please contact Howard Corcoran, OARM/OGD, at 202-564-1903 should you have any questions.
State Grant Performance Measures (formally known as State Grant Template Measures):
The current set of measures flagged as State Grant Measures in ACS will be retained for FY 2011
reporting. As in FY 2010, the use of the template to capture results for these measures is not
required. However, reporting on the results remains the responsibility of EPA regions and states.
The Agency and members of ECOS have ongoing discussions as to whether there is utility in
identifying a set of common measures that reflect the primary functional work areas under each of
the 14 categorical grants. Issues that have been raised include how the Agency would capture and
use these measures. In FY 2011, the Agency, in consultation with ECOS, will evaluate the
workplan initiative discussed above and determine whether it sufficiently enhances transparency
and accountability such that developing a common set of measures is unnecessary. Please contact
your State Grant Coordinator or Margo Padgett, OCFO/OPAA, at 202-564-1211 should you have
any questions.
For FY 2011, regions and states will continue to report performance results against the set of state
grant measures into ACS. For a subset of the measures for which FY 2011 targets and
commitments are established, EPA is asking that states and EPA regions provide the Office of
Water with state specific results data at the end of FY 2011. These measures are associated with
some of the larger water program grants. The water grant programs and the FY 2011 "State
Grant" measures supporting the grant are:
a. Water Pollution Control State and Interstate Program Support (106 Grants). State
Grant Measures: SP-10; WQ-la/b (and proposed c); WQ-3a; WQ-5; WQ-8b; WQ-14a;
WQ-15a;WQ-19a.
-94-
-------
b. Public Water System Supervision (PWSS Grants). State Grant Measures: 2.1.1;
SP-1; and SOW-la.
c State Underground Water Source Protection (UIC Grants). State Grant Measures:
SDW-6 and SDW-7a/b/c.
d Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Implementation Grants. State Grant
Measures: SP-9 and SS-2.
e. Nonpoint Source Grants (319 Grants). State Grant Measure: WQ-10.
3) Information Exchange
EPA, states, territories, and tribes are working together to develop the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network, a secure, Internet- and standards-based way to support electronic
data reporting, sharing, and integration of both regulatory and non-regulatory environmental data.
Where data exchange using the Exchange Network is available, states, tribes and territories
exchanging data with each other or with EPA should make the Exchange Network and EPA's
connection to it, the Central Data Exchange (CDX), the standard way they exchange data and
should phase out any legacy methods they have been using. More information on the Exchange
Network is available at (www.exchangenetwork.net).
4) Grant Guidances
In addition to this National Water Program Guidance, supporting technical guidance is available
in grant-specific guidance documents. The grant guidance documents will be available by April
2010 in most cases. For most grants, guidance for FY 2011 is being carried forward unchanged to
FY 2011. Grant guidance documents can be found on the Internet at
(http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/). More information about grant management and reporting
requirements is provided at the end of this section.
In addition for FY 2011, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution Control Grants from Section
106 of the Clean Water Act (Section 106 grants) is incorporated into this National Water Program
Guidance. This was a pilot effort to gain efficiency in the issuance of the Section 106 Grant
Guidance within the National Water Program Guidance. Text boxes with specific Section 106
guidance are incorporated within Section III, 1, B, 1 of this Guidance. Appendix E has additional
information for states and the interstate agencies. The Tribal Program, Monitoring Initiative, and
Water Pollution Enforcement Activities are not included in this pilot, and grantees should follow
the specific, separate guidances for these programs.
New for FY 2011, EPA is working to incorporate the grant guidance for the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) and Underground Injection Control (UIC) grants within the Water Safe to
Drink Subobjective to continue to pilot a more streamlined approach to issuing the grant guidance.
-95-
-------
B) Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management (Step 3)
As the strategies and programs described in this Guidance are implemented during FY 2011, EPA,
states, and tribes will evaluate progress toward water goals and work to improve program
performance by refining strategic approaches or adjusting program emphases.
The National Water Program will evaluate progress using four key tools:
1) National Water Program Best Practices and Mid-Year and End of Year
Performance Reports
The Office of Water will prepare a performance report for the National Water Program at
the mid-point and the end of each fiscal year based on data provided by EPA headquarters
program offices, EPA regions, states, and tribes. These reports will give program
managers an integrated analysis of progress at the national level and in each EPA region
with respect to environmental and public health goals identified in the Strategic Plan and
program activity measures in the National Water Program Guidance;
The reports will include performance highlights, management challenges, and best
practices. The Office of Water will maintain program performance records and identify
long-term trends in program performance. In addition, the National Water Program
Oversight Group will meet at mid-year and end of the year to discuss recent performance
trends and results.
2) Senior Management Measures and Quarterly Program Update Meetings with the
Deputy Administrator
The Office of Water reports to the Deputy Administrator the results on a subset of the
National Water Program Guidance measures on a quarterly basis. In addition,
headquarters and regional senior managers are held accountable for a select group of the
Guidance measures in their annual performance assessments.
3) HQ/Regional Dialogues
Each year, the Office of Water will visit three EPA regional offices and Great Waterbody
offices to conduct dialogues on program management and performance. These visits will
include assessment of performance in the EPA regional office against objectives and
subobjectives in the Strategic Plan and annual state/tribal Program Activity Measure
commitments.
In addition, a key topic for the HQ/regional dialogues will be identification of program
innovations or "best practices" developed by the EPA region, states, tribes, watershed
-96-
-------
organizations, and others. By highlighting best practices identified in HQ/region dialogues,
these practices can be described in water program performance reports and more widely
adopted throughout the country.
4) Program-Specific Evaluations
In addition to looking at the performance of the National Water Program at the national
level and performance in each EPA regional office, individual water programs will be
evaluated periodically by EPA and by external parties.
EPA program evaluations include Office of Water projects selected by The Office of
Policy, Economics, and Innovation's (OPEI) annual Program Evaluation Competition and
reviews undertaken by the Evaluation and Accountability Team in the Office of Water.
Program offices will provide continuing oversight and evaluation of state/tribal program
implementation in key program areas (e.g., NPDES program).
In addition, the Office of Water expects that external parties will evaluate water programs,
including projects conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG), the
Congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO), and projects by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Finally, improved program performance requires a commitment to both sustained program
evaluation and to using program performance information to revise program management
approaches. Some of the approaches the Office of Water will take to improve the linkage between
program assessment and program management include:
1) Communicate Performance Information to Program Managers: The Office of
Water will use performance information to provide mid-year and annual program
briefings to the Deputy Assistant Administrator and senior HQ water program
managers.
2) Communicate Performance Information to Congress and the Public: The
Office of Water will use performance assessment reports and findings to
communicate program progress to other federal agencies, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the Congress, and the public.
3) Link to Budget and Workforce Plans: The Office of Water will use performance
assessment information in formulation of the annual budget and in development of
workforce plans.
4) Promote Wide Dissemination of Best Practices: The Office of Water will
actively promote the wide application of best practices and related program
management innovations identified as part of the End of the Year Performance
Reports.
-97-
-------
5) Expand Regional Office Participation in Program Assessment: The Office of
Water will promote expanded involvement of EPA regional offices in program
assessments and implementation of the assessment process. This effort will include
expanded participation of the Lead Region in program assessment processes.
6) Strengthen Program Performance Assessment in Personnel Evaluations: The
Office of Water will include in EPA staff performance standards specific references
that link the evaluation of staff, especially the Senior Executive Service Corps, to
success in improving program performance.
7) Recognize Successes: In cases where program performance assessments have
contributed to improved performance in environmental or program activity terms,
the Office of Water will recognize these successes. By explaining and promoting
cases of improved program performance, the organization builds confidence in the
assessment process and reinforces the concept that improvements are attainable.
8) Strengthen Development of Future Strategic Plans: The Office of Water will use
program assessments to improve future strategic plans and program measures.
9) Promote Effective Grants Management: The Office of Water will continue to
actively promote effective grants management to improve program performance.
The Agency has issued directives, policies, and guidance to help improve grants
management. It is the policy of the Office of Water that all grants are to comply
with applicable grants requirements (described in greater detail in the "National
Water Program Grants Management for FY 2010" section), regardless of whether
the program specific guidance document addresses the requirement.
10) Follow-up action plan for measure and program improvement: Individual
program offices in the Office of Water may develop end of year action plan, if
appropriate, to address challenges in implementing progress and meeting measure
commitments.
2. National Water Program Grants Management for FY
2011
The Office of Water places a high priority on effective grants management. The key areas to be
emphasized as grant programs are implemented are:
• Promoting competition to the maximum extent practicable;
• Monitoring assistance agreements and ensuring compliance with post-award
management standards;
-98-
-------
• Assuring that project officers and their supervisors adequately address grants
management responsibilities; and
• Linking grants performance to the achievement of environmental results as laid out in
the Agency's Strategic Plan and this National Water Program Guidance.
A. Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements
The Office of Water strongly supports the Agency policy to promote competition to the
maximum extent practicable in the award of assistance agreements. Project officers must
comply with Agency policy concerning competition in the award of grants and cooperative
agreements and ensure that the competitive process is fair and impartial, that all applicants
are evaluated only on the criteria stated in the announcement, and that no applicant receives
an unfair advantage.
The Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements, EPA Order 5700.5 Al, effective
January 15, 2005, applies to: (1) competitive announcements issued, released, or posted
after January 14, 2005; (2) assistance agreement competitions, awards, and disputes based
on competitive announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005; (3) non-
competitive awards resulting from non-competitive funding recommendations submitted to
a Grants Management Office after January 14, 2005; and (4) assistance agreement
amendments issued after January 14, 2005.
If program offices and regional offices choose to conduct competitions for awards under
programs that are exempt from the Competition Order, they must comply with the Order
and any applicable guidance issued by the Grants Competition Advocate (GCA). This
includes complying with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard
formatting requirements for federal agency announcements of funding opportunities and
OMB requirements related to Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov), which is the official
federal government website where applicants can find and apply to funding opportunities
from all federal grant-making agencies.
On December 1, 2006 the Office of Grants and Debarment issued a memorandum
describing the approval process for using State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) funds
to make non-competitive awards to state co-regulator organizations using the co-regulator
exception in the Competition Order. The memorandum states that it is EPA policy to
ensure that the head of the affected state agency or department (e.g., the State
Environmental Commissioner or the head of the state public health or agricultural agency)
is involved in this approval process. Accordingly, effective December 1, 2006, before
redirecting STAG funds from a State Continuing Environmental Program (CEP) grant
allotment for a non-competitive award to a state co-regulator organization, EPA must
request and obtain the consent of the head of the affected state agency or department.
B. Policy on Compliance Review and Monitoring
-99-
-------
The Office of Water is required to develop and carry out a post-award monitoring plan and
conduct baseline monitoring for every award. EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on
Compliance, Review and Monitoring, effective January 1, 2008 helps to ensure effective
post-award oversight of recipient performance and management. The Order encompasses
both the administrative and programmatic aspects of the Agency's financial assistance
programs. From the programmatic standpoint, this monitoring should ensure satisfaction
of five core areas:
• Compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions;
• Correlation of the recipient's work plan/application and actual progress under the
award;
• Availability of funds to complete the project;
• Proper management of and accounting for equipment purchased under the award; and
• Compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the program.
If during monitoring it is determined that there is reason to believe that the grantee has
committed or commits fraud, waste and/or abuse, then the project officer must contact the
Office of the Inspector General. Baseline monitoring activities must be documented in the
Post-Award Database in the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS). Advanced
monitoring activities must be documented in the official grant file and the Grantee
Compliance Database.
C. Performance Standards for Grants Management
Project officers of assistance agreements participate in a wide range of pre-and post-award
activities. OGD issued Managers' Guidance for Assessing Grants Management and the
Management of Inter agency Agreements under the Performance Appraisal and
Recognition System (PARS) on September 15, 2009 to be used for 2009 PARS appraisals of
project officers who are managing at least one active grant during the rating period, and
their supervisors/managers. The memo also provides guidance for the development of
2010 performance agreements. The Office of Water supports the requirement that project
officers and their supervisors/managers assess grants management responsibilities through
the Agency's PARS process.
D. Environmental Results Under EPA Assistance Agreements
EPA Order 5700.7, which went into effect in 2005, states that it is EPA policy to:
• Link proposed assistance agreements to the Agency' s Strategic Plan;
• Ensure that outputs and outcomes are appropriately addressed in assistance agreement
competitive funding announcements, work plans, and performance reports; and
• Consider how the results from completed assistance agreement projects contribute to
the Agency's programmatic goals and responsibilities.
- 100-
-------
The Order applies to all non-competitive funding packages/funding
recommendations submitted to Grants Management Offices after January 1, 2005,
all competitive assistance agreements resulting from competitive funding
announcements issued after January 1, 2005, and competitive funding
announcements issued after January 1, 2005. Project officers must include in the
Funding Recommendation a description of how the project fits within the
Agency's Strategic Plan. The description must identify all applicable EPA
strategic goal(s), objectives, and where available, subobjective(s), consistent with
the appropriate Program Results Code(s).
In addition, project officers must:
• Consider how the results from completed assistance agreement projects
contribute to the Agency's programmatic goals and objectives;
• Ensure that well-defined outputs and outcomes are appropriately addressed in
assistance agreement work plans, solicitations, and performance reports; and
• Certify/assure that they have reviewed the assistance agreement work plan and
that the work plan contains outputs and outcomes.
VI. Water Program and Environmental Justice
The first Executive Order on Environmental Justice was signed by President Clinton 15
years ago. Since that time, EPA and its partners have made progress on identifying and
addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by communities disproportionally
impacted by pollution. 2010 ushered in a new era that raised the level of outreach and
protection of historically underrepresented and vulnerable subpopulations to a top priority
for all Agency activities. To undertake this top priority, environmental justice principles
must be included in our entire decision making processes. Expanding the conversation on
environmentalism and working for environmental justice is a key priority for the Office
of Water.
In 2010, the Agency developed a work plan containing four overarching goals for
consideration in program initiatives and activities that will benefit disproportionately
burdened communities:
• Engage Communities in EPA decision-making and Enlist Partners to Meet
Community Needs - Community outreach to minority, low-income, tribal and
other vulnerable populations should be a goal in all program activities.
• Support Community Efforts to Build, Healthy Sustainable and Green
Neighborhoods - Greening and building sustainable communities is a goal for
- 101 -
-------
EPA, but the Agency should especially focus on historically overburdened
communities that will benefit tremendously from the green economy.
• Apply EPA's Regulatory Tools to Protect Vulnerable Communities - All
programs should use their regulatory tools to enhance the quality of life in
disproportionately burdened communities. Prioritizing disproportionately
burdened communities should not create a new workload, rather it merely shifts
the focus of our work.
• Strengthen Internal EPA Mechanisms to Integrate Environmental Justice -
Integrate environmental justice in all Agency programs, policies, and activities by
strengthening communications and training, instituting management and
accountability measures, and fostering a diverse workforce.
The National Water Program supports EJ in several key environmental and public health
areas. The Office of Water will make the use of all tools it has at its disposal — technical
assistance, data, and initiatives, such as the Urban Waters Initiative, Community Action
for a Renewed Environment (CARE), and grants — to link with EPA regional efforts that
address the range of environmental issues facing their EJ Showcase Community.
1. Environmental Justice in the EPA National Water Program
The Office of Water places emphasis on achieving results in areas with potential
environmental justice concerns through Water Safe to Drink (Sub-objective 2.1.1) and
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat (Sub-objective 2.1.2), two of the eight national EJ
priorities. In addition, the National Water Program places emphasis on other EJ Water
Related Elements: 1) Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
(Subobjective 4.2.4); 2) Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories (Subobjective
4.2.5); and 3) Alaska Native Villages Program. This focus will result in improved
environmental quality for all people, especially the unserved and underserved
subpopulations living in areas with potential disproportionately high and adverse human
health conditions. The Office of Water will explore ways to collaborate with the Office
of Environmental Justice and other EPA offices on how to best develop climate change
adaptation policies and strategies that pay closer attention to vulnerable populations.
In order to advance environmental quality for communities with EJ concerns, the Office
of Water will address the EJ considerations in drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements to small and disadvantaged communities. The Office of
Water will also address the lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation systems
by tribes, islands, and small disadvantaged communities, as well as, reducing risk to
exposure in contaminants in fish. The Office of Water also places emphasis on
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) communities/projects that
assess and address sources of water pollution. The Office of Water will begin serving as
the lead for CARE which rotates leadership among EPA's four media programs every
two years. Finally, the Office of Water places emphasis on helping communities —
- 102-
-------
especially disadvantaged communities - to access, restore and benefit their urban waters
through the Urban Waters Initiative.
2. Environmental Justice and Water Safe to Drink
The Office of Water will promote infrastructure improvements to small and
disadvantaged communities through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
that reduce public exposure to contaminants through compliance with rules and supports
the reliable delivery of safe water in small and disadvantaged communities, Tribal and
territorial public water systems, schools, and child-care centers.
To support better management of water systems on tribal lands, EPA will implement a
Tribal operator certification program to provide Tribal water utility staff with drinking
water operator certification opportunities. EPA will work with its federal partners to
improve access to safe drinking water for persons living on tribal lands.
To maintain and improve water quality in rural America, EPA will continue its efforts to
promote better management of water utilities through support of state capacity
development and operator certification programs, and through initiatives on asset
management, operator recruitment and retention, and water efficiency. This also includes
efforts to build a sustainable and green water sector workforce.
EPA will continue to encourage states to refer drinking water systems to third party
assistance providers, when needed. Third party assistance is provided through existing
contractual agreements or by other state, federal, or non-profit entities.
On October 10, 2007, EPA published the latest changes to the Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR) which included significant improvements to the Public Education (PE)
requirements. Drinking water systems must conduct PE when they have a lead action
level exceedance. EPA made significant modifications to the content of the written
public education materials (message content) and added a new set of delivery
requirements. These revisions are intended to better ensure that at risk and under
represented populations receive information quickly and are able to act to reduce their
exposure.
3. Drinking Water on Tribal Lands
The challenges associated with the provision of safe drinking water in Indian country are
similar to challenges facing other small communities: a lack of financial, technical and
managerial capacity to operate and maintain drinking water infrastructure. The magnitude
of these challenges in Indian country is demonstrated by tribal water system compliance
with health-based regulations and by the number of homes that lack access to safe
drinking water in Indian country.
. In 2009, 18.8% of the population in Indian country was served by community
water systems in violation of EPA's health-based drinking water standards. In
- 103-
-------
comparison; 7.9% of the entire U.S. population was served by community
water systems in violation of these regulations.
Additionally, 43,437 or 12.1% of the tribal homes tracked by the Indian
Health Service were found to lack access to safe drinking water in 2009. This
compares with the 0.6% of non-native homes in the United States that lack
such infrastructure, as measured in 2005 by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The EPA National Tribal Drinking Water Program will continue to maintain its
commitment to improve safe drinking water in Indian country by working with public
water systems to maintain and improve compliance with the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations by targeting infrastructure dollars and training. The EPA will also
continue to work in partnership with the Indian Health Service, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and Housing and Urban Development
through the Infrastructure Task Force (ITF) to increase access to safe water. The ITF is
tasked with enhancing the coordination of federal tribal infrastructure funding and
generating ways to improve and support tribal utility management in an effort to increase
and maintain access to safe drinking water in Indian country.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 includes a provision which provides
new authority for EPA, in consultation with other federal agencies, to conduct a range of
activities to promote healthy school environments. The Act requires EPA, in consultation
with DoEd, DHHS, and other relevant agencies, to issue voluntary guidelines for states to
use in developing and implementing an environmental health program for schools. The
guidelines are to encompass a broad range of specific issues including lead in drinking
water.
4. Environmental Justice and Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
The Office of Water promotes contaminant monitoring, as well as risk communication to
minority populations who may consume large amounts offish and shellfish taken from
polluted waters. Integration of public health advisory activities into the Water Quality
Standards Program promotes environmental justice by ensuring that advisories and
minority population health risks are known when states make water quality standards
attainment decisions, develop Total Maximum Daily Loads for impaired waters, and
develop permits to control sources of pollution.
The Office of Water will focus on activities encouraging states to assess fish and shellfish
tissue for contaminants in waters used for fishing by minority and sensitive populations,
particularly those that catch fish for subsistence. Such populations may include women of
child bearing age, children, African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics,
Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.
The Office of Water reaches these populations by disseminating information in multiple
languages to doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives about reducing the risks
of exposure to contaminants in fish and shellfish. The Office of Water maintains the
- 104-
-------
National Fish Advisory Web site that includes the National Listing of Fish Advisories
(includes both fish and shellfish advisories) and provides advice to health professionals
and the public on preparing fish caught for recreation and subsistence.
5. Environmental Justice Water Related Elements
The Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program is a community-
based, multi-media collaborative Agency program designed to help local communities
address the cumulative risk of pollutant exposure. Through the CARE program, EPA
programs work together to provide technical and financial assistance to communities.
This support helps them build partnerships and use collaborative processes to select and
implement actions to improve community health and the environment. CARE helps
communities choose from the range of EPA programs designed to address community
concerns and improve their effectiveness by working to integrate the programs to better
meet the needs of communities. CARE benefits many communities, some of which are
experiencing disproportionate adverse health and environmental impacts.
The Office of Water will work with CARE communities/projects to assess and address
sources of water pollution, including the use of voluntary water pollution reduction
programs in their communities, particularly those communities suffering
disproportionately from environmental burdens. The CARE Program will continue to
promote cross-media collaboration across the Agency. Regions will use cross-media
teams to manage and implement CARE cooperative agreements in order to protect human
health and protect and restore the environment at the local level. Regions also will
identify experienced project officers/leaders for each of the CARE projects and provide
training and support as needed. In FY 2011, the lead coordination NPM for the CARE
Program is OW, with OAR as co-lead. OPPTS and OSWER principals and staff continue
to actively participate in this cross-Agency program, as do OEJ and OCHP. The CARE
Program and regions will ensure required reporting of progress and results in Quarterly
and End of Year Reports and other efforts to aggregate program results on a national
level. More program information is available at www.epa.gov/CARE.
In addition, EPA will continue to work with unserved and underserved communities in
the U.S.-Mexico Border region and Pacific Islands to improve water infrastructure to
increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
The Office of Water will promote the protection of public health through the
improvement of sanitation conditions in Alaska Native Villages and other small and
disadvantaged rural Alaska communities. EPA's Alaska Native Village Infrastructure
program funds the development and construction of drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure. As projects are completed, public exposure to contaminants is greatly
reduced through the reliable delivery of safe drinking water in compliance with public
health standards and the treatment of wastewater to meet environmental regulations.
In addressing the challenges of climate Change, it is important to recognize that the
impacts of climate change raise serious environmental justice issues. It is generally
- 105-
-------
understood that the extent and nature of climate change impacts on populations will vary
by region, the relative vulnerability of population groups, and society's ability to adapt to
or cope with climate change.
As emphasized in the Technical Support Document accompanying the Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act, "within settlements experiencing climate change, certain parts of the
population may be especially vulnerable; these include the poor, the elderly, those
already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone.. .and/or indigenous populations."
The Office of Water will work with program offices in EPA to address the issues facing
EJ communities regarding climate change
6. Achieving Results in the Environmental Justice Priorities
The Office of Water will track these activities through the EJ Action Plan, Goal 2 Clean
and Safe Water, Subobjective 2.1.1 (Water Safe to Drink) and Subobjective 2.1.2 (Fish
and Shellfish Safe to Eat). For the EJ water related elements, the Office of Water will
track activities through the EJ Action Plan, Subobjective 4.2.4 (Sustain and Restore the
U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health), Subobjective 4.2.5 (Sustain and Restore
Pacific Island Territories), and performance measures for the Alaska Native Villages
Program.
To document the environmental and human health improvements achieved in areas with
potential environmental justice concerns, the Office of Water will continue to develop
specific performance measures for activities identified in its EJ Action Plan. These
performance measures will assist managers to fully integrate environmental justice
principles into all decision making, policies, programs, and activities.
VII. Water Program and Children's Health
It is important that children's environmental health be an intrinsic part of decision-
making at every level of the Agency. EPA must build on existing activities and
accomplishments so that children's health protection is not just a consideration in Agency
decision-making, but a driving force in decisions. EPA must use a variety of approaches
to protect children from environmental health hazards, including regulation,
implementation of community-based programs, research, and outreach. At the same time,
EPA must periodically evaluate performance to ensure that progress is being made
towards this goal.
EPA regions and states should identify and assess environmental health risks that may
disproportionately affect children throughout their life stages, including fetal
development, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Regional programs must ensure that
policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children.
Each region supports a Children's Health Coordinator who serves as a resource within
the region to assist offices and divisions with children's environmental health programs
- 106-
-------
and planning. The regional Children's Health Coordinator is also a liaison between the
region and the Office of Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education at
headquarters.
Actions regions can take in FY 2011 to expand efforts to protect children's
environmental health include:
• Reviewing existing ACS measures that are specific to or refer to children's health
to determine if they can better report outcomes and results in children's
environmental health for inclusion in future planning and reporting;
• Formulating discussions and agenda topics on children's health outcomes for EPA
programs in national meetings, such as division directors meetings;
• Implementing the Agency's Children's Environmental Health Guidance for
Human Health Risk Assessments (http://epa.gov/risk/guidance.htm);
• Sponsoring joint meetings with counterparts in state environmental departments
and health departments to facilitate coordinated actions to better protect children's
environmental health; and
• Developing region-wide strategies to focus on addressing critical children's health
issues within each region.
Schools and day care centers are a critical subset of small systems for which EPA is also
continuing to provide special emphasis in FY 2011 to ensure that children receive water
that is safe to drink. The National Water Program has developed a separate indicator for
schools and day care centers meeting health-based standards in order to track progress in
this area.
VIII. National Water Program and the Urban
Waters Initiative
Urban environments, particularly in disadvantaged communities, are dominated by
impervious surfaces, industrial facilities, and abandoned or vacant, often contaminated
lands. These characteristics, in combination with insufficient storm water infrastructure,
generate excess runoff that transports garbage, fertilizers, pesticides, and hazardous
wastes into the local bodies of water and contribute to combined sewer overflows. In
addition, pollution may be introduced to local water bodies from any existing operating
facilities. Years of contamination create legacy pollutant issues, public and
environmental health hazards, and cases of environmental injustice. Urban populations
are often denied access to the water and do not reap the potential economic, social, and
environmental benefits of the resource. Furthermore, historic urban patterns of
development often isolated communities from their waters.
In March 2009, in response to a charge from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, EPA's
- 107-
-------
Office of Water, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Office of
Environmental Justice began to develop a new Urban Waters initiative to address these
issues. This initiative falls within the Community Water Priorities and Healthy
Communities initiatives at EPA
The goal of the Urban Waters initiative is to help communities - particularly
disadvantaged communities - access, restore, and benefit from their urban waters and the
surrounding land. By promoting public access to urban waters, EPA will help
communities become active participants in the enjoyment, restoration, and protection of
these urban waters. By linking water to other community priorities, EPA will help make
the condition of these waters more relevant to nearby communities and help to sustain
their involvement over the time horizon needed for water quality improvement.
In April and May 2009, during outreach to those working in and with urban communities,
EPA heard from organizations and individuals who have successfully mobilized to
address these issues. These stakeholders indicated that important factors in that success
were: engagement of nearby residents, especially youth; robust partnerships; strong
community-based organizations; active and informed local government officials;
effective education and communication; economic incentives; and early, visible victories
that fueled sustained action. It was also clear from these sessions, that stakeholders want
federal agencies to better coordinate their support to communities and that they are
seeking technical assistance and information to assist them in making more informed
choices and in influencing local decisions about their waters and the surrounding land.
In response to key stakeholder feedback, EPA will: lead a federal interagency working
group to improve communities' access to resources; convene national and regional
forums with state, tribal and local agencies, centers of learning, private sector and non-
governmental organizations; and coordinate support to on-the-ground projects. EPA will
develop new Web 2.0 tools for community-to-community knowledge sharing; conduct
outreach to non-digital audiences; and provide technical assistance to support
communities in being informed participants in local decision-making.
State, tribal, and local government agencies are encouraged to build on their existing
partnerships and develop new partnerships with non-profits, private sector, academia and
community groups, especially those addressing environmental justice to undertake
activities that:
• Promote equitable and safe public access to urban waterways and equitable
development of waterfronts;
• Improve the appearance, odor, health, and quality of the water for uses including
recreation, fishing, swimming and drinking water sources; and
• Improve the perception of the potential value of these waters and encourage
community involvement in their restoration and improvement by refraining water
as relevant to community priorities, such as education, employment, recreation,
safety, health, housing, transportation, and livability.
- 108-
-------
Areas of activity may include green infrastructure, source water protection, water sector
workforce development, watershed planning, land revitalization, monitoring and
assessment, fish advisories, and beach monitoring and notification. EPA's current work
in the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, National Estuary Program, and Large Aquatic
Ecosystem programs may offer additional place-based opportunities to engage urban
communities.
IX. National Water Program and Climate
Change
In March 2007, the National Water Program Climate Change Workgroup formed to
assess the implications of climate change for the National Water Program. This
coordinated effort resulted in the September 2008 publication of the National Water
Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change (Strategy). The Strategy describes the
impacts of climate change (e.g. warming water temperatures, changes in rainfall amounts
and intensity, and sea level rise) and their implications for EPA's clean water and
drinking water programs (please see www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/strategy.html).
Forty-four specific "key actions," identified in the Strategy, lay the foundation for
adapting water programs to a changing climate. Most of these actions address adapting
to climate change impacts, while others address opportunities for mitigating release of
greenhouse gases, improving research of climate change and water issues, and educating
water program professionals about climate change challenges.
Highlights of Climate Change activities in the National Water Program
• Greenhouse Gas Mitigation - Water programs at EPA have been working to help
control greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on improving energy efficiency at
drinking water and wastewater utilities, reducing water use through the
WaterSense program, and improving management of stormwater flows and urban
design through the Green Infrastructure and Green Buildings programs. In
addition, the EPA Underground Injection Control Program is developing a rule to
protect groundwater supplies that could be affected by geological sequestration of
carbon dioxide.
• Resiliency - To improve resilience and readiness to adapt to the impacts of
climate change, the EPA Office of Water and the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation have worked together to develop the Climate Ready Estuaries program.
The National Water Program has also formed a working group under the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council to evaluate the concept of "Climate Ready
Water Utilities" and provide findings and recommendations on the development
of an effective program that will enable water and wastewater utilities to develop
and implement long-range plans that account for climate change impacts.
- 109-
-------
• Water Program Adaptation - Climate change is being incorporated into the base
programs of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act as relevance and
resources allow. For example, guidance has been issued clarifying the use of the
State Revolving Funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The
National Water Program is evaluating criteria for sedimentation and velocity
because of the prospect of projected increased intensity of precipitation. In
addition, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting program has reviewed flexibilities and tools within the program to
identify guidance and information needed to help permit writers consider climate
change.
Next Steps
The 2008 Strategy covers actions implemented in 2008 and 2009. During 2010, EPA is
working to update the key actions to be undertaken through 2011. The structure of the
2008 Strategy will be retained with key actions addressing mitigation, adaptation,
education, research, and program management. These actions will continue to develop
the ability of the National Water Program to address the challenges posed by climate
change. During 2011, EPA will work with stakeholders to develop a new, revised
strategy for publication in 2012 that lays out long-term goals under future climate
scenarios.
The National Water Program's goals for climate change related work include:
• Continue implementation of updated key actions through 2011;
• Revise and update the Strategy for 2012 with long-term goals and actions;
• Work closely with states, tribes and other stakeholders to enhance communication
and collaboration and build new programs to address adaptation challenges;
• Expand cooperation on climate change issues with other federal agencies involved
in water management through multi-agency workgroups;
• Ensure continuation of integrated water and climate change research programs
among EPA, other federal agencies, water research foundations, and other
interested parties; and
• Continue to reach out to water program managers, stakeholders, and the public to
build awareness, increase knowledge, and share lessons learned to expand the
national capacity to address climate change.
Water managers are encouraged to evaluate opportunities to address climate change
within their own water programs by identifying ways to mitigate greenhouse gas
emissions and to adapt to long-term vulnerabilities. Climate change adds additional
- 110-
-------
reasons to evaluate options for conserving water, reducing energy use, adopting green
infrastructure and watershed-based practices, and improving the resilience of watersheds
and estuaries. Federal interagency partnerships are being strengthened to help States
evaluate local impacts and develop integrated response strategies. Over the next several
years, more tools and information will support and help planners and decision makers to
address this important challenge.
- Ill -
-------
APPENDICES
A) FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
Measures Summary Appendix
B) FY 2011 Water State Grant Measures
Appendix
C) Office of Water American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Measures
D) Explanation of Key Changes Summary
E) Additional Guidance for Section 106 State
and Interstate Grant Recipients
F) FY 2011 Detailed Measure Appendix - to be
published in April with the Final NWPG
G) Draft Measure Definition for WQ-la, b, c
H) Potential Future Measures of Incremental
Progress in Restoring Water Quality
- 112-
------- |