ational Water
rogram Guidance
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
I. Introduction 1
II. Strategies to Protect Public Health 5
p^l 1. Water Safe to Drink 5
0 2. Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat 14
pa Water Safe for Swimming 15
III.Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands 17
[2 1. Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 17
pig 2. Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters 27
nfl 3. Increase Wetlands 29
IV. Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems 33
fa\ 1. Improve the Health of the Great Lakes 33
^ 2. Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay 35
|^| 3. Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico 37
] 4. Restore and Protect Long Island Sound 39
p^| 5. Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin 41
j 6. Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health 43
[p] 7. Sustain and Restore Pacific Islands Territories 44
Hi 8. Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem 45
I 9. Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin 47
10. San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary 48
V. National Water Program and Grant Management System 51
VI.Water Program and Environmental Justice 57
VII. Water Program and Children's Health 61
VIM.National Water Program and the Urban Waters Effort 62
IX. National Water Program and Climate Change 63
X. National Water Program and Tribes 65
Appendices 66
A) FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures Summary
B) Office of Water American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Measures
C) Explanation of Key Changes Summary
D) Additional Guidance for Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients
E) FY 2012 Detailed Measures Appendix
F) Work Sharing Between EPA and States - Examples and Best Practices
-------
-------
Executive Summary
I. PROGRAM OFFICE: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
This National Water Program Guidance (Guidance) for fiscal
year (FY) 2012 describes how the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), states, territories, and tribal governments
will work together to protect and improve the quality of the
nation's waters, including wetlands, and ensure safe drink-
ing water. Within EPA, the Office of Water oversees the
delivery of the national water programs, while the regional
offices work with states, tribes, territories, and others to
implement these programs and other supporting efforts.
II. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT
The Guidance describes the key actions needed to accom-
plish the public health and environmental goals in the EPA
FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan, published on September 30,
2010. These goals are:
Protect human health by improving the quality of drink-
ing 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
Protect and restore the health of large aquatic ecosystems
across the country.
III. WATER 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 2012 to the prior-
ity 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 Com-
munities 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 Ameri-
ca'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 sup-
port the Administrator's key priorities of Taking Action on
Climate Change, Assuring the Safety of Chemicals, Expand-
ing the Conversation of Environmentalism and Working For
Environmental Justice, and Building Strong State and Tribal
Partnerships through participation in the Agency's cross-
cutting fundamental strategies. More information on these
priorities is provided in the Introduction to this Guidance.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The National Water Program Guidance describes, in general
terms, the work that needs to be done in FY 2012 to reach
the public health and water quality goals that are proposed
in the EPA 2011-2015 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 fol-
lowing key elements:
Environmental/Public Health Results Expected. Each
subobjective strategy begins with a brief review of
national goals for improvements in environmental condi-
tions or public health, including national "targets" for
progress in FY 2012.
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 2012 Targets for Key Program Activities. For some of
the program activities, EPA, states, and tribes will simply
report progress accomplished in FY 2012 while for other
activities, each EPA region will define specific "targets"
(Appendix E). 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 Guid-
ance, national or programmatic targets are shown, where
applicable, in Appendices A and E.
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 Subob-
jective and Appendix D to streamline the approach to the
grant guidance issuance. The National Water Program's
approach to managing grants for FY 2012 is discussed in
Part V of this Guidance. In FY 2011, EPA incorporated 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.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Executive Summary
Environmental Justice (EJ). For FY 2012, the Office
of Water is continuing to align the development of this
Guidance with the development of the E J Action Plan
and the implementation of elements of the cross-cutting
fundamental strategy, Working for Environmental Justice
and Children's Health. The year 2010 ushered in a new era
that raised the level of outreach and protection of histori-
cally 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. The EPA
Office of Water released the National Water Program
Strategy: Response to Climate Change in September 2008.
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.
Additional information on the Strategy and the National
Water Program's efforts to build a resilient program are
in Section IX as well as at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
climatechange/index.cfm.
V. MEASURES
The National Water Program uses three types of measures
to assess progress toward the proposed goals in the EPA
2011-2015 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 priori-
ties in each EPA region (i.e., ecosystem outcome and
program activity measures).
From 2006 - 2010, EPA worked with states and tribes to
align and streamline performance measures. The National
Water Program will continue to engage states and tribes
in the Agency's performance measurement improvement
efforts.
VI. TRACKING 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 and DA Measures: The Office of
Water reports the results on a subset of the National
Water Program Guidance measures to the Deputy Admin-
istrator. 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 three 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, evalu-
ations will be conducted internally by program managers
at EPA headquarters and regional offices; and externally
by the EPA Inspector General, Government Accountabil-
ity 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 T. T. Nguyen; Program Planning Team Leader, Office
of Water
Internet Access: This FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance and supporting documents are available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan.
National Water Program Guidance
II
-------
Introduction
I. Introduction
Clean and Safe Water Goals for 2015
The EPA 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, published in Sep-
tember of 2010, defines specific environmental and
public health improvements to be accomplished by
2015. With the help of states, tribes, and other partners,
EPA expects to make significant progress toward protecting
human health and improving water quality by 2015 for the
following key areas:
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;
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 in Hawaii and the South Central Alaska
Region; and
More Wetlands: Restore, improve, and protect wetlands
with the goal of increasing the overall quantity and qual-
ity of the nation's wetlands and reduce the loss of coastal
wetlands.
Restore and Protect the Health of
Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Implement collaborative programs with other federal agen-
cies and with states, tribes, local governments, and others
to improve the health of communities and large aquatic
ecosystems including:
the Great Lakes
the Chesapeake Bay
the Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
the Puget Sound
U.S.-Mexico Border waters
Pacific Island waters
South Florida waters
the Columbia River Basin
the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
Purpose and Structure of this FY 2012 Guidance
This National Program Guidance defines the process for creat-
ing an "operational plan" for EPA, state, and tribal water
programs for FY 2012. This Guidance is divided into three
major sections:
1. Subobjective Implementation Strategies: The EPA 2011-
2015 Strategic Plan addresses water programs in Goal 2,
Protecting America's Waters. Within Goal 2, there are 12
subobjectives that define specific environmental or public
health results to be accomplished by the National Water
Program by the end of FY 2015. This Guidance is orga-
nized into 15 subobjectives and describes the increment
of environmental progress EPA hopes to make in FY 2012
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 Environ-
mental Results Program (ERP) (www.epa.gov/
erp/index.htm). States and tribes maybe able to use
these or other innovative tools in program planning and
implementation.
2. Water Measures: Appendix A, a comprehensive list of per-
formance 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 subobjec-
tive plan summaries in this Guidance.
National Program Activity Measures: Core water pro-
gram 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 2012 that serve as a point of
reference as EPA regions work with states/tribes to define
more formal regional "commitments" in the spring/sum-
mer of 2011.
Ecosystem Program Activity Measures: These measures
address activities to restore and protect communities
and large aquatic ecosystems and implement other water
program priorities in EPA regional offices.
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 Pro-
gram Assessment process are included in this Guidance.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Introduction
3. Water Program Management System: Part V of this
Guidance describes a three-step process for management
of water programs in FY 2012:
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/sum-
mer 2011, 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 2012.
Step 3 involves work to be done during FY 2012 to assess
progress in program implementation and improve pro-
gram performance.
In FY 2010, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution Con-
trol Grants from Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (Section
106 grants) was incorporated into the National Water Program
Guidance. This was a pilot effort started in FY 2010 to gain
efficiency in the issuance of the Section 106 Grant Guid-
ance within the 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 D 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. In FY 2011, this pilot
effort continued with the integration of the grant guidance
for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC) grants. These grant guidance
sections were incorporated in the Water Safe to Drink Subob-
jective in the final FY 2011 Guidance.
FY 2012 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 perspec-
tive, however, EPA, states, and tribes need to give special
attention in FY 2012 to the priority areas identified below
to protect America's waters. The Office of Water has two
organizing themes for the National Water Program, Sustain-
able Communities and Healthy Watersheds.
1. Sustainable Communities: The nation's water resources
are the lifeblood of the nation's communities, support-
ing 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 work-
ing with partners to help communities and utilities con-
tinue to provide for their residents by improving access to
financing, management practices, 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
wants 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 water infrastructure work to address
the needs of disadvantaged urban, rural, and tribal
communities.
Safeguarding Public Health: Using science-based stan-
dards 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 respon-
siveness 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 Effort, EPA can help com-
munities, especially those that are underserved and those
with environmental justice concerns, to access, restore,
and benefit from their local urban waters and surround-
ing land. By focusing on building capacity and pairing
urban water quality restoration with community revital-
ization, 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
Effort is in Section VIII.
2. Healthy Watersheds: People and the natural ecosystems
both rely on the health of watersheds. By improving pro-
grams 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, result-
ing in significant losses to the diversity and productivity
of these systems and risks to the socio-economic well-
being of communities. The National Water Program is
leading efforts to restore and protect these treasured
resources, and in so doing is providing models for broader
national applicability. The Great Lakes Restoration
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Introduction
Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order and Strat-
egy, the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, the federal
Bay-Delta Workplan, and the National Ocean Policy are
each designed to help communities in these key geo-
graphic areas address complex transboundary challenges.
By engaging in innovative, collaborative approaches with
federal, state, tribal, and local government and non-gov-
ernmental partners, and making 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 harm-
ful 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, tribes, 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 big-
gest 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. As stated in the March 2011 memoran-
dum, "Working in Partnership with States to Address
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a
Framework for State Nutrient Reductions", EPA believes
that nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is one of the
most serious and pervasive water quality problems. In
2012, EPA water program managers should place a high
priority on working with interested state governments
and other federal agencies, in collaboration with partners
and stakeholders, to accelerate near-term efforts to reduce
nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollution. EPA managers
should also continue working with states to help develop
numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, so that
states have clearly measurable, objective metrics to guide
long-term pollution reduction efforts and adaptively man-
age towards achieving long-term goals. (See http://water.
epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutri-
ents/upload/memo_nitrogen_framework.pdf.)
The National Water Program will improve the way exist-
ing 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 estu-
aries, 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.
These National Water Program priorities directly support
the Administrator's priority, Protecting America's Waters.
In addition, the National Water Program supports the
Administrator's following priority themes:
Taking Action on Climate Change
Climate change will affect multiple aspects of the National
Water Program, including threatening infrastructure invest-
ment, exacerbating water quality problems, compounding
stress to aquatic ecosystems, and placing the health and
well-being of vulnerable populations at increased risk. EPA
must continue to work with partners to identify ways to
control greenhouse gas emissions through energy and water
efficiency, make programs more resilient through initiatives
such as the Climate Ready Estuaries program and Climate
Ready Water Utilities, and help adapt base water programs
to impacts from a changing climate.
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 water.epa.gov/
scitech/climatechange/index.cfm). 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 Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to accelerate test-
ing 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 part of 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 stan-
dards 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 effort 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.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Introduction
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
EPA recognizes that states and tribes 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 collabora-
tion on key problems, such as nutrients, and by provid-
ing 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 commit-
ted 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 mea-
sures that were established to support the priorities. Many
of the performance measures developed by these regional
groups support the National Water Program national
priorities.
Improving Enforcement of the Clean Water Act
In October 2009, EPA issued 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 Com-
pliance Assurance (OECA), EPA regions, and states to imple-
ment 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 Guid-
ance is finalized, FY 2012 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 opportu-
nities to improve identification of serious noncompliance
problems as well as new approaches to address these viola-
tions. For more information on specific enforcement actions
for 2012, please see the 2012 OECA National Program guid-
ance at www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
Priority Performance Goals
As part of the FY 2011 budget process, EPA developed Pri-
ority Performance Goals around FY 2011 budget priorities
and the Administrator's priorities. For the National Water
Program, two Priority Performance Goals were developed
with OMB, for quarterly reporting beginning in FY 2010, to
track the development of state watershed implementation
plans in support of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) and the review of drinking water stan-
dards to strengthen public health protection. These Priority
Performance Goals continue into FY 2012.
Sustainability
The Office of Water supports the Administrator's emphasis
on sustainability and through a collaborative process with
other EPA offices and regions will strive to continuously
improve our processes to leverage sustainability concepts
in achieving OW's mission. Sustainability as a management
process emphasizes need for systems-based, integrated
tools for assistance, permitting and enforcement. As just
one example in one region, Region 1 which has created a
functional cross-office team designed to identify how exist-
ing EPA approaches and tools can most effectively address
stormwater run-off. The Region has selected a combina-
tion of assistance, permitting and enforcement, and BMP/
technology-driving tools to promote long-term sustainable
outcomes. Under MS4 compliance for example, the Region
is targeting enforcement, low impact develop SEPs and
assistance (this, through a series of MS4 Compliance/LID
workshops) all designed to promote long-term green infra-
structure changes in municipal approaches to compliance
and land use practices. Additionally, EPA will continue its
efforts to promote and educate drinking water and waste-
water systems on sustainability practices, such as asset
management and water and energy efficiency, in order to
facilitate their long-term sustainability. For such examples
to become operational norm, having common understand-
ing of these concepts across all staff will be critical moving
forward. Sustainability is also an opportunity to improve
communications with the public as to how human health
and environmental protection may continue to move for-
ward in a smarter manner able to achieve greater benefits at
same or lower cost.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
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 2012. In addition, this Guidance refers to "Program Activity
Measures" that define key program activities that support each subobjective (see Appendix A and E).
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% 2011 Commitment: 91%
2012 Target: 91%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
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 52,873 CWSs1 nation-
wide that supply drinking water to more than 300 million
Americans (approximately 95% of the U.S. population).
Over this time, drinking water standards have been estab-
lished and are being implemented for 91 microbial, chemi-
cal, and other contaminants. Forty-nine states and the
Navajo Nation have adopted primary authority for enforc-
ing their drinking water programs. Additionally, CWS opera-
tors 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.
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 opera-
tion 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 sys-
tems 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 commu-
nity water systems that receive water that meets all health-
based drinking water standards.
Targets for Population Served by Systems Meeting
Standards (Measure SDW-211)
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%
2010
91.3%
82.4%
96.6%
94.2%
93.2%
90.3%
81.6%
93.2%
96%
92.2%
91.4%
2011 Com-
mitment
89%
76%
90%
93%
93%
87%
85%
91%
95%
91%
91%
2012
Target
89%
76%
90%
92%
94%
87%
90%
91%
95%
91%
91%*
* The national target is 91% while the regional aggregate is 90%.
Although the Safe Drinking Water Act applies to 159,945 public water systems nationwide (as of October 2010), which include schools, hospitals, fac-
tories, campgrounds, motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system, this implementation plan focuses only on CWSs. A community water
system (CWS) is a public water system that provides water to the same population year-round. As of October 2010, there were 52,873 CWSs.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Although EPA regions should use the national FY 2012
target of the population served by community water sys-
tems receiving safe drinking water as a point of reference,
regional commitments to this outcome goal may vary based
on differing circumstances in each EPA region.
EPA, states, and tribes support the efforts of individual
water systems by providing a programmatic framework
through the core programs they implement. 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 techni-
cal assistance to water systems to enhance their techni-
cal, 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 Pro-
gram Activity Measures indicate progress being made and
some measures include "targets" for FY 2012. For measures
with targets, a national target and a target for each EPA
region, where applicable, are provided in Appendix A andE.
1. Development/Revision of Drinking
Water Standards
In FY 2012, the Agency will assess the available information
on health effects and contaminant occurrence in drinking
water to determine which Contaminant Candidate List (CCL
3) chemicals and/or pathogens have sufficient information
on which to base a regulatory decision. EPA will work to
compile this information to make regulatory determina-
tions for at least five CCL 3 contaminants in 2012. The
Agency will also continue to evaluate and address drink-
ing water risks through activities that implement the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) including:
Following recommendations provided to EPA in the
Total Coliform Rule/Distribution System Federal Advi-
sory Committee's Agreement in Principle, EPA proposed
revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) in FY 2010.
The Agency has been evaluating the public comments
on the proposed revisions to the TCR and is preparing
responses. EPA will publish a final revised Total Coliform
Rule 2012.
EPA will continue to provide technical and scientific sup-
port for the development and implementation of drink-
ing water regulations.
EPA proposed the third round of unregulated contami-
nant monitoring (UCMR 3) in FY 2011. The initial review
of the comments received on the proposed UCMR 3 com-
menced in FY 2011 and continues in FY 2012. EPA will
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grant
Guidance to States, Tribes, and EPA Regions
with Primacy Enforcement Authority
This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2012 includes
guidance for state and tribal recipients of Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program grants, as well as for EPA regions
with primacy enforcement authority. Grant recipients are
expected to conduct their programs to help achieve the goals,
objectives, sub-objectives, strategic targets, and program
activity measures specified in Section 111.1 of this Guidance. In
addition, grant recipients should be focused on ensuring that
the gains of the previous years'efforts are preserved and built
upon.
The overall objective of the PWSS program grant is to protect
public health by ensuring that:
Drinking water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, that are
currently in compliance, remain in compliance;
Drinking water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, that are
not currently in compliance, achieve compliance;
Drinking water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, are
preparing to comply with new drinking water regulations
that will be taking effect in FY 2012.
A proportion of each PWSS grant should be devoted to
ensuring that data quality and other data problems are being
addressed. Specifically that:
Water system compliance determinations are consistent
with federal and state regulations; and
The required inventory, compliance, and enforcement data
being provided to EPA are accurate and complete.
In accordance with EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Compli-
ance, Review and Monitoring, effective January 1,2008, EPA
regions must develop and carry out a post-award monitoring
plan and conduct baseline monitoring for every award. This
monitoring should ensure satisfaction of five core areas: (1)
compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions; (2)
correlation of the recipient's work plan/application and actual
progress under the award; (3) availability of funds to complete
the project, (4) proper management of and accounting for
equipment purchased under the award, and (5) compliance
with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the program.
In addition, this monitoring should inform Regional decisions
under 40 CFR 142.17 as authorized under Section 1413 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
The PWSS grant allotments are based on factors such as popu-
lation, geographic area, and PWS inventory. State-by-state
allotments and the total amount available to each region for
its tribal support program will be available at http://www.epa.
gov/safewater/pws/grants/allotments_state-terr.html.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
publish the final UCMR 3 in FY 2012. EPA is required by
Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
as amended, to annually set-aside $2 million of State
Revolving Funds to pay the costs of small system moni-
toring and sample analysis for contaminants for each
cycle of the UCMR.
As stated previously, EPA has been evaluating the
contaminants on the third drinking water Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL 3). EPA is assessing data on health
effects, occurrence, analytical methods, and treatment
technologies for the CCL 3 contaminants, to determine
which, if any, CCL 3 contaminants are appropriate for
regulation. EPA will publish Preliminary Regulatory
Determinations to regulate or not regulate at least five
contaminants from the CCL 3 in FY 2012.
EPA has been developing revisions to the Lead and Cop-
per Rule. Input has been sought through expert panels,
public workshops, an Agency work group, and other
stakeholder meetings, as well as from peer reviewed
scientific literature. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue
to evaluate the long-term issues identified in the national
review of the revised Lead and Copper Rule.
In FY 2011, the Agency developed and expects to publish
the final regulatory determination for perchlorate. If the
Agency decides to regulate perchlorate, we will begin the
regulatory process to develop a drinking water standard
for perchlorate in FY 2012.
In 2010, the Agency announced a new Drinking Water
Strategy (DWS) that outlines new principles to improve
the public health protection for drinking water. In FY
2011, OW made significant progress for the first prin-
ciple (i.e., addressing contaminants as groups rather than
one at a time) by holding a national conversation with
the public and stakeholders, including utilities, rural
communities, and states. We expect to develop a regula-
tory action to address the first contaminant group in FY
2012. OW will continue to collaborate with ORD and
our regional, state, local, and other stakeholders in FY
2012 to address the second principle, which is fostering
the development of new drinking water technologies to
address health risks posed by a broad array of contami-
nants. OW worked with other EPA Offices such as OCSPP
in FY 2011 and will continue to do so in FY 2012 to
gather additional information on other groups of con-
taminants and use other statutory authorities to protect
drinking water (i.e., the third DWS principle).
In 2010, the Agency announced plans to revise the regu-
lations for trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethyl-
ene (PCE). The Agency began to revise these two regula-
tions in FY 2011 and will be working with an Agency
workgroup to develop a proposed regulation in FY 2012.
The Agency's efforts to revise TCE and PCE might also
consider other carcinogenic volatile organic compounds
for regulation revision.
EPA will continue to collaborate with stakeholders to
undertake the highest priority research and information
collection activities to better understand water quality
issues in distribution systems.
2. Implementation of Drinking Water Standards and
Technical Assistance
In order to facilitate compliance with drinking water regula-
tions, 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. As a result, these
surveys can serve as a basis for an assessment of the
operator's water system management capability. 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 sys-
tems. 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 com-
plete 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.
Technical Assistance and Training: Reference materi-
als to support implementation of recent regulations will
be developed or updated. 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
the Disinfection By-Products rules, as well as simultane-
ous compliance issues. 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
beginning in 2011. EPA will continue to provide technical
training to help state staff review new treatment plant
upgrades under LT2, specifically membrane and ultravio-
let disinfection. In addition, EPA will develop technical
assistance materials and training to support state and
water system implementation of the revised Total Coli-
form Rule.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Small System Assistance: EPA also will continue to pro-
vide technical assistance, as well as leverage partnerships
to help systems serving fewer than 10,000 people con-
sistently 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 disin-
fection by-products in drinking water. Small public water
systems face many challenges in providing safe drinking
water and 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 lack
the requisite financial, technical, or managerial skills; and
(5) difficulty in understanding 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 2012, EPA
is continuing its efforts begun in FY 2010 to renew
and reinforce efforts to enhance small system capacity
through a comprehensive small system strategy founded
on three major components. First, EPA is working with
the USDA Rural Utilities Service and state DWSRF
programs to strengthen financial support mechanisms.
Through this component, the Agency will continue to
encourage states that have not yet developed a disadvan-
taged communities program to do so, as well as advo-
cating that states support existing disadvantaged com-
munity assistance, 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 are deemed sustain-
able 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 sys-
tems, and enhance state capacity development programs,
in order to improve small system capacity to achieve and
maintain compliance with drinking water regulations
and long-term system sustainability. Through their first
decade of experience, state capacity development pro-
grams 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 continue to work with states to identify and dis-
seminate best practices, policies and innovations across
state programs, and promote cost-effective, energy- and
water-efficient system practices. EPA also will encourage
states to target use of DWSRF set-asides for activities
that enhance the technical, managerial, and financial
capacity of small systems; thereby enhancing the ability
of these systems to consistently meet both existing and
newer drinking water standards. Third, EPA will promote
water system partnerships to address existing non-sus-
tainable systems, and work with states to ensure that new
water systems are sustainable. To promote restructuring
and other forms of system partnerships such as volun-
tary consolidation, the Agency will continue to provide
information on the benefits and best practices associated
with these partnerships. 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 partnerships. Also, the Agency will evalu-
ate 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 this small system strategy,
the Agency has developed a suite of new indicators for
the FY 2011 Guidance, with continued emphasis for use in
FY 2012. 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 their capacity to quickly return to compliance with
health-based standards. For public water systems serving
fewer than 500 persons, the Agency includes an indicator
that will be able to track these systems, as well as the cre-
ation of new small water systems. This measure is impor-
tant 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 2012. Schools and childcare centers are a critical
subset of small systems for which EPA is also continuing
to provide special emphasis in FY 2012 to ensure that
children receive water that is safe to drink. Therefore,
included is a separate indicator for schools and childcare
centers meeting health-based standards.
Area-Wide Optimization Program: EPA's Area-Wide
Optimization Program (AWOP), which provides compli-
ance assistance to small drinking water systems, con-
tinues to work with systems and states to develop and
implement a variety of approaches to improve water
system performance. Tools include comprehensive per-
formance evaluations (CPEs) to assess the performance
of filtration technology and distribution system optimi-
zation (DSO) techniques. 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. In FY 2012, EPA continues to work with four
EPA regional offices and 21 states to facilitate the transfer
of specific skills using the performance-based training
approach targeted towards optimizing key distribution
system components and/or ground water system and
distribution system integrity.
National Water Program Guidance
8
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program:
EPA will continue the program that sets standards and
establishes methods for EPA, state, tribal, and privately-
owned laboratories that analyze drinking water samples.
Through this program, EPA also will conduct three EPA
regional program reviews during FY 2012. 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 Drink-
ing Water Information System (SDWIS) serves as the
primary source of national information on compliance
with all health-based regulatory requirements of SDWA.
As part of the Drinking Water Strategy and the Agency-
wide "Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in
Critical Areas", EPA will replace obsolete and expensive
to maintain drinking water information system technol-
ogy under the legacy SDWIS platform. The next genera-
tion of SDWIS will reduce the total cost of ownership;
enable faster implementation of drinking water rules and
provide tools to ensure consistent determinations for
compliance with drinking water rules; and support effi-
cient sharing of drinking water compliance monitoring
data between states and EPA. In addition, EPA in concert
with states, will work to collect and display all compliance
monitoring data. This will improve transparency and data
management operations.
EPA will continue to work with states to improve data
completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency in
the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
through: 1) training on data entry, error correction, and
regulatory reporting; 2) conducting data verifications
and analyses where possible; and 3) implementing quality
assurance and quality control procedures.
As stated previously, a new Drinking Water Strategy
envisions a comprehensive new approach to public health
protection under the SDWA and other federal statutes.
The fourth principle of the Strategy calls for EPA to part-
ner with states and tribes to share all monitoring data
collected and reported by public water systems (PWS).
This partnership will improve how states, tribes, and EPA
share and use information, and allow more rigorous over-
sight of the drinking water program to improve public
health. It will also improve consumer access to water qual-
ity data of their own systems. Making these data available
will result in greater transparency in drinking water qual-
ity from the national level to the individual water-system
level, thereby increasing public awareness of status and
trends in drinking water quality and its importance
to public health. Through this data sharing principle,
the Strategy acknowledges the growing demand from
environmental agencies, public health agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and the public for access
to a broader range of information about drinking water
quality than is currently available in the SDWIS database.
EPA joined with three state environmental and public
health associations in November 2010 in a memorandum
of understanding for the exchange of drinking water data
and information. Beginning in FY 2011 and continuing
into FY 2012, EPA will work with state partners on the
data to be shared, approaches to successful data exchange,
uses of monitoring data, and ways to effectively commu-
nicate the data.
Coordination with Enforcement: The EPA regional
offices and the Office of Water will continue to work with
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OEC A) 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 OEC A to develop a new approach to signifi-
cant 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 viola-
tions at schools and childcare centers that have their own
water source. These public water systems are of special
concern as children are the subpopulation most vulnera-
ble to lead and other contaminants, and as a result, a new
measure was added in FY 2011 to monitor compliance.
3. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), estab-
lished 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 utili-
zation rate2 for projects from a 2002 level of 73% to 89% in
2012 (see Program Activity Measure SDW-4). EPA will 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 allo-
cated 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.3 There is
also a statutory requirement that each state and the District
of Columbia receive no less than one percent of the allot-
ment. The survey documents 20-year capital investment
needs of public water systems that are eligible to receive
DWSRF moniesapproximately 53,000 community water
systems and 21,400 not-for-profit non-community water
systems. The survey reports infrastructure needs that are
2 Fund Utilization Rate is the cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements divided by cumulative funds available.
3 The 2007 Needs Survey was released in 2009
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
required to protect public health, such as projects to ensure
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
In FY 2012 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 compli-
ance. 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 2012, EPA will further contribute to the sustainable
water infrastructure initiative through partnership-building
activities, including the Agency's capacity development and
operator certification work with states, and efforts with
the water utility industry to promote asset management,
system-wide planning, and the water sector as a career of
choice. The program will engage states and other stakehold-
ers to facilitate the voluntary adoption by public water
systems of attributes associated with effectively managed
utilities. Finally, the program also will continue to expand
efforts to encourage sustainable practices at public water
systems aimed at reducing water loss and better under-
standing 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 determin-
ing risk through vulnerability assessments, reducing risk
through security enhancements, and preparing to effec-
tively respond to and recover from incidents.
EPA will move to the next phase of the Water Security
Initiative (WSI) pilot program, focusing on technical assis-
tance, 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
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 Agen-
cy'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 2012, EPA will complete as part of a stakeholder
workgroup, an evaluation of the effectiveness, sustain-
ability, and practicality of the WSI contamination warning
system pilot. The Agency will also continue to prepare and
refine a series of guidance documents for water utilities on
designing, deploying, and testing contamination warning
systems based on lessons learned from the pilots.
In FY 2010, EPA published a Water Laboratory Alliance
(WLA) response plan providing the processes and proce-
dures for coordinated laboratory response to water contam-
ination incidents. In FY 2012, EPA will focus its efforts on
conducting exercises within the framework of this national
plan and work to expand the membership of the WLA with
the intention of achieving nationwide coverage. In addi-
tion, 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 situ-
ation, and coordinated and standardized data reporting
systems and analytical methods.
In FY 2012, EPA in partnership with states and tribes 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 ter-
rorist 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), states and tribes,
and homeland security and water sector officials:
Continue to promote awareness and adoption of drinking
water and wastewater protective programs throughout
the nation to further Agency priorities and the interests,
needs, and priorities of stakeholders.
Continue to chair the Water Government Coordination
Council and coordinate with the Water Sector Coordinat-
ing Council.
Continue to develop and conduct exercises to prepare
utilities, emergency responders, and decision-makers to
evaluate and respond to physical, cyber, and contamina-
tion 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: infor-
mation on high priority contaminants, incident com-
mand protocols, sampling and detection protocols and
methods, and treatment options;
Provide an expanded set of tools (e.g., best security prac-
tices, incident command system and mutual aid train-
ing, contaminant databases, decontamination guidance)
in order to keep the water sector current with evolving
water security priorities;
Refine and provide outreach and training on a risk assess-
ment tool that will enable utilities to address the risks
from all hazards, including climate change impacts; and
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).
National Water Program Guidance
10
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
5. Protecting Sources of Drinking Water
A core principle of source water protection is that, while
each public water system is responsible for providing safe
drinking water, no public water system should have to
provide more drinking water treatment than that which is
required to address naturally occurring pollutant concen-
trations. In furtherance of this principle, EPA will serve as
an analytic resource and facilitator for states, interstates,
tribes, and communities in consolidating and sharing infor-
mation, developing strategies and coordinating across juris-
dictions to protect and 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. The cost to prevent source water
contamination is usually less than the cost of source water
remediation. 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 devel-
opment and implementation of protection strategies for
source water areas (as determined by states) from a base-
line of 20% of all areas in FY 2005 to 50% in FY 2012 (see
measure SDW-SP4a). EPA also has a goal of increasing the
percent of the population served by these community water
systems to 57% in FY 2012 (see measure SDW-SP4b).
In FY 2012, 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 water infrastructure effort because source
water protection can reduce the need for drinking water
treatment, along with related increased energy use, which,
in turn, can reduce the cost of infrastructure. In FY 2012,
the Agency will continue to:
Work with national, state, and local stakeholder organiza-
tions and the multi-partner Source Water Collaborative to
encourage broad-based actions at the state and local level
to address potential sources of contamination (PSOCs);
Support source water protection efforts by providing
training, technical assistance, and technology transfer
capabilities to states and localities, and facilitating the
adoption and sharing of Geographic Information System
(CIS) databases to support local decision-making;
Work with states, interstates, tribes, and other stakehold-
ers to characterize current and future pressures on source
water quality and availability (particularly the impacts of
climate change, such as the increased frequency, sever-
ity and duration of drought), assess adaptation options
to address those impacts, and explore opportunities to
mutually leverage resources among federal, state, inter-
state, and local agencies to implement the most effective
options.
EPA will continue working with federal programs to align
source water conservation and protection with their priori-
ties. In particular, EPA is working to integrate source water
protection into Clean Water Act programs, such as the
watershed approach, storm water management, and OECA
enforcement programs (e.g. to prioritize inspections and
enforcement by source water impact).
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 lever-
age these programs to preserve and protect drinking water
supplies.
6. Underground Injection Control (UIC)
EPA works with states and tribes to monitor and regulate
the underground injection of fluids by wells, both haz-
ardous and non-hazardous, to prevent contamination of
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). EPA,
states, and tribes will continue to report on Classes I, II,
and III wells that lost mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 180 days, but will no longer track
these separately for each class starting in FY 2012. This
will enable better target setting and evaluation of program
performance.
In 2012, states and EPA (where EPA directly implements the
UIC program) will continue to carry out implementation of
the regulations for each class of injection wells. States and
EPA will continue to address high priority Class V wells. In
2012, the measure for Class V will be changed from high
priority wells, as defined by each program, to only those
high priority well types regulated under the Class V rule in
order to provide nationally consistent information about
implementation of that rule. States and EPA will also con-
tinue to process UIC Class V permit applications for experi-
mental technology carbon sequestration projects, as well
as UIC permits for other non-traditional injection streams,
such as desalination brines and treated waters injected for
aquifer storage and recovery at a later time. The informa-
tion gathered from these efforts will enable the Agency
and states to evaluate new Class VI permits for large-scale
commercial carbon sequestration applications following the
GS regulation, finalized in December 2010. In FY 2012, EPA
will have two indicator measures, permit actions taken and
volume of CO2 sequestered, that will assist in evaluating
implementation of that rule. States and EPA will process
UIC permits for other nontraditional injection streams,
such as desalination brines and treated waters injected for
aquifer storage and recovered at a later time. States and EPA
will also examine and improve current practices for permit-
ting the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing operations
related to oil, gas, and geothermal production activities.
The Agency will carry out the following responsibilities in
permitting current and future geologic sequestration (GS)
of carbon dioxide projects. Activities planned for FY 2012
include:
National Water Program Guidance
11
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grant Guidance to States and Tribes
The UIC Prog ram, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, is vital to the protection of underground sources of drinking water. EPA works
with states and tribes to regulate and monitor the injection of fluids, both hazardous and non-hazardous, by wells, to prevent contami-
nation.This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2012 includes guidance for EPA regional, state, and tribal recipients of UIC program
funds. Each year. State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) funds are distributed by the national UIC Program to help UIC programs
enforce the minimum federal UIC requirements. These funds are authorized by Congress under Section 1443 of the SDWA. Grant
recipients are expected to conduct their programs to help achieve the goals, objectives, sub-objectives, strategic targets, and program
activity measures specified in this Guidance. In addition, grant resources should be focused on ensuring that the gains of the previous
years'efforts are preserved and built upon.
The overall objective of the UIC grant is to protect public health by:
Setting minimum requirements for injection wells. All injection must be authorized under either general rules or specific permits;
Ensuring that injection well owners and operators may not site, construct, operate, maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or conduct
any other injection activity that endangers USDWs;
Ensure that injected fluids stay within the well and the intended injection zone; or
No injection may occur which allows for the introduction of any contaminant into an underground source of drinking water
(USDW) if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water standard or otherwise adversely
affect public health.
Assisting owners and operators of UIC facilities in meeting these objectives require grantees to adopt a variety of approaches and
to coordinate efforts with other groundwater protection programs. FY 2012 priority activities for the UIC grant fund recipients
should include the following:
Timely submission of primacy program revisions for the purpose of adopting new or revised federal regulations;
Maintaining program capacity to implement UIC program requirements for all classes of wells;
Ensuring that Class I, II and III (salt solution) wells that lose mechanical integrity are returned to compliance;
Addressing high priority ClassVwells; and
Populating the UIC National Database by sharing well specific data.
In accordance with EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Compliance, Review and Monitoring, effective January 1,2008, EPA regions must
develop and carry out a post-award monitoring plan and conduct baseline monitoring for every award. This monitoring should
ensure satisfaction of five core areas: (1) compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions; (2) correlation of the recipient's
work plan/application and actual progress under the award; (3) availability of funds to complete the project, (4) proper manage-
ment of and accounting for equipment purchased under the award, and (5) compliance with all statutory and regulatory require-
ments of the program.
The grant allotments are determined by the UIC Grant Allocation Model and follow the criteria identified in Section 1443 of the
SDWA which requires UIC allocations to be based on such factors as "population, geographic area, extent of underground injection
practices, and other relevant factors." UIC Grant Guidance #42 provides more detail about the UIC Grant Allocation Model includ-
ing how the model works and examples of how the UIC funds maybe used. See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/guidance.html.
The UIC program is currently working to update the UIC Grant Allocation Model so that allocations best represent the resources and
efforts required to implement primacy programs now and in the future. As with the old formula, the new formula will direct available
resources toward the highest risk wells in order to achieve the maximum level of public health protection. Corresponding UIC grant
guidance for the new formula will be issued in FY2012.
National Water Program Guidance
12
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Complete development of supporting GS documents (i.e.,
technical support documents, guidance documents, 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 geo-
logic sequestration including studies on siting character-
istics of GS projects, monitoring of injected CO2, model-
ing of CO2 plume and pressure front movement, and
other processes of CO2 injection which could potentially
pose risks to USDWs.
Analyze data collected through Class II Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) and Class V pilot projects and additional
industry efforts to demonstrate, commercialize, and
implement geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide
technology;
Continue to engage states, tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, and public stakeholders through meetings,
workshops, and other avenues, on technical issues related
to the final Class VI rule and on climate change issues
more broadly; and
Provide necessary technical assistance, such as the issu-
ance of technical guidance concerning well construction,
financial responsibility, testing and monitoring, to states
and tribes in permitting initial GS projects; and where
EPA has direct implementation authority, permit GS
projects; and
Process initial primacy applications from states and
tribes seeking GS well permitting authority and approve
revisions to UIC programs for acquiring GS Class VI wells
in their existing state and tribal UIC programs.
Many of these activities support the recommendations
laid out in the President's Carbon Capture and Storage
Task Force report. EPA will continue to implement actions
responsive to the Task Force report into FY 2012. Also in
FY 2012, 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 implementation of the UIC National
Database by working with states and direct implementation
programs to fully populate the UIC National Database. The
Agency aims to include 68 UIC programs and 500,000 wells
by 2013. 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.
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), and Underground Injec-
tion Control (UIC) 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' and EPA regional
primacy activities (e.g., enforcement and compliance with
drinking water regulations). PWSS grant guidance issued
for FY 2005 will continue to apply in FY 2012. The Final FY
2008 Memo, titled Guidance and Tentative Grant Allotments
to Support Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
on Tribal Lands, will continue to apply in FY 2012 to EPA
regions that receive tribal PWSS funding to support the
Tribal Drinking Water Program. Of the FY 2012 President's
Budget request of $109.7 million, approximately $6.8 mil-
lion 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 2012, the Agency requested $0.99 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
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 2.0% of the DWSRF funds for grants for Tribal and
Alaska Native Village drinking water infrastructure to pro-
vide access to safe drinking water by facilitating compliance
with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 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, U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The FY 2012 budget requests $11.1 million for grants to
states to carry out primary enforcement (primacy) respon-
sibilities 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.
National Water Program Guidance
13
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
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% 2011 Commitment: 4.9%
2012 Target: 4.9% 2015 Target: 4.6%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
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. Across the country as
of 2008, 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 man-
aged by states and tribes is not open for use. EPA's national
approach to meeting safe fish goals and improving the qual-
ity of fishing waters is described in this section.
EPA's approach to making fish and shellfish safer to eat
includes several key elements:
Encourage development of statewide mercury reduction
strategies;
Reduce air deposition of mercury; and
Improve the quality of fishing waters.
EPA will also improve public information and notification of
fish consumption risks in order to help people make more
informed choices about selecting fish to eat.
1. 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 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 pro-
gram to place waters impaired by mercury in a subcategory
"5m" of their impaired waters lists and defer develop-
ment 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 reduc-
tion 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 appro-
priate state level programs;
Adoption of statewide mercury reduction goals and tar-
gets, 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 mer-
cury reduction program will be in place in order for 5m list-
ings 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.
2. 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 emis-
sions of mercury from combustion sources in the United
States. On a nationwide basis, by 2010, federal regula-
tory programs were expected to reduce electric-generating
unit emissions of mercury from their 2000 level (see EPA
Strategic Plan; Goal 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and
Improving Air Quality).
3. Improve the Quality of Fishing Waters
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 identi-
fied, expanded monitoring and development of TMDLs
National Water Program Guidance
14
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe for Swimming
may support revision of discharge permit limits to ensure
compliance with applicable CWA requirements.
Another key element of the strategy is to expand and
improve information and notification of the risks of fish
consumption. As part of this work, EPA is also encouraging
and supporting states and tribes to adopt the fish tissue
criterion for mercury that EPA issued in 2001 and apply it
based on implementation guidance.
EPA is actively monitoring the development of fish con-
sumption advisories and working with states to improve
monitoring to support this effort. Forty-three percent of
lake acres and 39 percent of river miles have been assessed
to support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice
is necessary (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 using EPA guid-
ance recommendations in their fish advisory programs.
In addition, a wide range of clean water programs that
applies throughout the country will generally reduce patho-
gen levels in key waters. For example, improved implemen-
tation of NPDES permit requirements for Combined Sewer
Overflows, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and
storm water runoff, as well as improved nonpoint source
control efforts, will contribute to restoration of shellfish
uses.
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the state
program grants 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 infor-
mation on these grants, see the grant program guidance on
the website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
3. Water Safe for Swimming
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Percent of days of the beach season that
coastal and Great Lakes beaches moni-
tored by state beach safety programs
are open and safe for swimming:
2006 Baseline: 97% 2011 Commitment: 91%
2012 Target: 95% 2015 Target: 95%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are included in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key National Strategies
The nation's waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and
the Great Lakes, provide recreational opportunities for mil-
lions 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 designated for primary contact recreation
use or similar full body contact use by states, authorized
tribes, and territories.
For FY 2012, EPA's national strategy for improving the
safety of recreational waters will include four key elements:
Establish pathogen indicators based on sound science;
Identify unsafe recreational waters and begin restoration;
Reduce pathogen 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 rec-
reational water quality criteria. EPA is implementing a sci-
ence plan that will provide the support needed to underpin
the next generation of recommended water quality criteria.
EPA will propose criteria in early 2012 and publish new or
revised criteria in October 2012.
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 restora-
tion. 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 II.1).
In a related effort, the Office of Water will work in partner-
ship with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assur-
ance (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 swim-
ming today, EPA, states and tribes will work in FY 2012 to
reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged to recre-
ational waters using three key approaches:
Reduce pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) that are not in compliance with final requirements
of the Long Term Control Plans;
National Water Program Guidance
15
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe for Swimming
Address other sources discharging pathogens under the
NPDES permit program; and Encourage improved man-
agement 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 sig-
nificant 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 implemen-
tation of Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs) for CSOs. EPA
expects that close to 87% of the 853 CSO permits will have
schedules in place to implement approved LTCPs in FY 2012
(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), municipal storm sewer systems, and industrial
facilities. EPA expects to work with states to assure that
these facilities are covered by permits. In addition, EPA
expects to work with the states to develop approaches for
monitoring wet weather discharges and impacts to surface
waters, developing WQBELs, and identifying effective con-
trol measures and BMPs. For CAFOs, the NPDES regula-
tions currently require facilities with discharges to seek
permit coverage. Full implementation of the NPDES permit-
ting requirement for CAFOs will result in lower pathogen
contamination due to permitting requirements that place
controls on discharges of manure and process wastewater.
Finally, there is growing evidence that ineffective septic
systems are adversely impacting water resources. EPA will
work with state, tribal, 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 condi-
tions. 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 2012 (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 fully implement improvements
to eBeaches that will make it easier for states to submit
information on beach monitoring and notification, as well
as enable EPA to make information available to the public
through the BEACON system in a more timely manner
(http://epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/).
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the Clean
Water Act Section 106 grants to states, nonpoint source
program implementation grants (Section 319 grants), and
the BEACH Act grant program grants. For additional infor-
mation on these grants, see the grant program guidance on
the website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
National Water Program Guidance
16
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
.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. Improve Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Use pollution prevention and restora-
tion 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 2012, EPA will work with states, tribes, 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 pro-
grams 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.
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 inte-
grate these efforts with restoration approaches.
1. Implement Core Clean Water Programs to Protect All
Waters Nationwide
In FY 2012, 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 2012 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 non-
point sources; and
Support sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
As part of this process, EPA will continue efforts to inte-
grate 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
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: General Information
This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2012 includes
guidance for state and interstate recipients of Section 106
grants for Water Pollution Control Programs. As a general mat-
ter, 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 III. 1 includes specific
guidance for State and Interstate grant recipients in text boxes
like this.Together, Section III.1, the text boxes, and AppendixD
replace the biannual Section 106 Grant Guidance.The National
Water Program Guidance for FY 2012 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.
*Tribes found eligible under Section 518(e) of the Clean Water
Act to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS) to admin-
ister a water quality standards program are expected to follow
the same guidance as states for these programs.
National Water Program Guidance
17
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
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 empha-
size various parts of core national programs and modify tar-
gets to meet EPA regional and state needs and conditions.
Priorities for FY 2012 in each of these program areas are
described below.
a) Strengthen Water Quality Standards Program: Water
Quality Standards are the regulatory and scientific foun-
dation 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 maybe 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, informa-
tion, methods, models, and policies to ensure that each
waterbody in the United States has a clear, comprehen-
sive suite of standards consistent with the Clean Water
Act, and as needed, provide technical and scientific
support to states, territories, and authorized tribes in the
development of their standards.
EPA continues to place a high priority on state and
territory adoption of numeric criteria for nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus
can cause eutrophication and human health problems
in lakes, estuaries, rivers, and streams; and can degrade
drinking water quality. EPA also encourages states to
take action to reduce loadings of these pollutants, while
they develop their numeric criteria. For example, a policy
memorandum issued in March 2011, "Working in Part-
nership with States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen
Pollution through Use of a Framework for State Nutrient
Reductions," encourages states to develop watershed scale
plans for targeting adoption of the most effective agricul-
tural practices and other appropriate loading reduction
measures in areas where they are most needed while they
develop numeric nutrient criteria and related schedules.
To track progress, EPA will work with states to identify
internal milestones for developing, proposing, and adopt-
ing 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 ben-
eficial for states to derive additional numeric criteria for
response variables, such as chlorophyll-a and water clarity.
Continuing degradation of previously high quality waters
is of increasing concern. EPA's antidegradation policy
calls for states and authorized tribes to conduct a public
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: Water Quality Standards
It is EPA's objective for states and authorized tribes to adminis-
ter 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 timeli-
ness 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 infor-
mation 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 disap-
proved 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 reduce or prevent eutrophication and other problems
in those waters (see measures WQ-la 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-1 c).
EPA strongly encourages states and authorized tribes without
antidegradation implementation methods to establish them as
soon as possible, consistent with EPA's regulation.
States and tribes 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 or reserva-
tion, for exam pie 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 or tribe to populate, operate, and
maintain locally if it does not have its own data base. You may
request a copyoftheWQSDBand guidance for its installation
and use at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
wqshomejndex.cfm.
*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 forTAS status
review of proposed activities that are likely to lower water
quality in high quality waters to determine whether
the proposed degradation is necessary to accommodate
important economic or social development in the area in
which the waters are located. EPA strongly encourages
states and authorized tribes without antidegradation
implementation procedures to establish them as soon
as possible to ensure that antidegradation policies are
implemented.
National Water Program Guidance
18
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
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's Final 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 scien-
tific information (see Program Activity Measures WQ-3a
and 3b) 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 protec-
tion and restoration decisions and to track changes in the
nation's water quality over time.
Congress designated $18.5 million in new Section 106
funds for the Agency's Monitoring Initiative. Begun
in 2005, this initiative builds upon states' base invest-
ments 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, Inter-
state Agencies, and Tribes in the Federal Register in July
17, 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/award-
monitoring-fund.htm). Once FY 2012 funds are appropri-
ated, EPA will revise the guidelines to reflect any changes
to the program. The guidelines specify the activities that
states and interstate agencies carry out under the moni-
toring 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:
Integration of statistical survey and targeted moni-
toring designs to assess the condition of all water
resources over time;
Evaluate the effects of implementation of TMDLs and
watershed plans,
Development of criteria and standards for nutrients
and excess sedimentation;
Enhancement of bioassessment and biocriteria for all
water resources; and
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 assess-
ments of water condition nationwide remains a top
priority. In FY 2012, EPA will issue the National Rivers
& Streams Assessment report which will contain the
finding from the 2008-2010 rivers & streams survey
coupled with a baseline condition of the nation's riv-
ers. This report will constitute the second survey for
streams which will allow a comparison of stream condi-
tions from 2004 to 2008/2009 and evaluate change. The
fifth report on the national coastal condition also will
be released in 2012. In FY 2012, EPA, states, and tribes
will be conducting field sampling for the second National
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: Monitoring
EPA encourages states, 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 Prog ram" (http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
elements/), which calls for states to implement their monitor-
ing strategies by 2014. During FY 2012, 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 1,2012.
In FY 2012, some states will transmit water quality data to the
national STORETWarehouse using the Water Quality Exchange
(WQX) framework and submit assessment results for the 2012
Integrated Report via the Assessment Database version 2, or a
compatible electronic format, and geo-reference these assess-
ment decisions (see Program Activity Measure WQ-7). EPA will
support states'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.
National Water Program Guidance
19
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Lakes Assessment, and data collected from the previous
year's Wetlands Survey will be undergoing laboratory
analysis. FY 2010 CWA Section 106 Monitoring Initiative
funds will be allocated for sampling for the second Riv-
ers & Streams Survey. Throughout the National Aquatic
Resource Survey (NARS) program EPA will continue to
enhance and expand its working relation with states,
tribes, and other partners to improve the administration,
logistical, and technical support for the surveys.
In FY 2012, 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 state-
wide assessments and track broad-scale trends; enhanc-
ing and implementing designs to address water informa-
tion 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 strate-
gies 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, tribal, and local level monitoring efforts to
connect monitoring and assessment activities across geo-
graphic 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 research and technical gaps related to sampling
methods, analytical approaches, and data management.
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 require-
ments 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 Memo-
randum of Agreement (http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
usfsepamoa/) designed to develop strategies (e.g., TMDLs
and TMDL alternatives) to address water quality impair-
ments on FS land. In addition, EPA formed a partnership
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 2010 Inte-
grated Reporting (IR) Cycle, State 303(d) list submissions did
not match the progress made with the 2008 IR Cycle. In 2012,
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 developTotal Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs), critical tools for meeting water restora-
tion goals. States should establish a schedule for developing
necessary TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable. EPA policy is
thatTMDLs 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 difficultTMDLs, such as broad-
scale mercury and nutrient TMDLs, which required involve-
ment 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,TMDLTracking, and Implementation
System (ATTAINS).
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
rates that ensure that the national policy of TMDL devel-
opment 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-21a). 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: Handbook for Developing Water-
shed TMDLs, and a 'checklist' for developing mercury
TMDLs where the source is primarily atmospheric deposi-
tion (http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/). Another tool
supporting the development of watershed TMDLs is the
Causal Analyses/Diagnosis Decision Information System
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/caddis).
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
National Water Program Guidance
20
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
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. Moreover, EPA issued an updated guidance
on how to more effectively address stormwater impair-
ments under two key programs of the CWA: the 303(d)
TMDL Program and the NPDES Stormwater Program.
The updated guidance will assist the translation of TMDL
Waste Load Allocations into NPDES Stormwater permits,
as well as support innovative approaches, such as Imper-
vious Cover TMDLs, to address the considerable number
of waterbodies polluted by stormwater discharges.
d) Strengthen the NPDES Permit Program: The NPDES
program requires point source dischargers to be per-
mitted and requires pretreatment programs to control
discharges from industrial and other facilities to the
nation's public-owned treatment works. 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 the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) to implement the Clean Water Act
Action Plan. Additional information on the Action Plan
and 2012 activities can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm#OECA. Some key NPDES
program efforts include:
Permit Quality Reviews and Action Items: EPA
conducts Permit Quality Reviews to assess the health
and integrity of the NPDES program in authorized
states, tribes, territories, and EPA regions. EPA man-
ages a commitment and tracking system to ensure
that NPDES Action Items identified in these assess-
ments are implemented. Implementation is measured
through Program Activity Measure WQ-11. Additional
NPDES Action Items will continue to be identified and
addressed through this process in FY 2012.
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 enforce-
ment 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. In
addition, EPA will begin a process to make streamlin-
ing revisions to various parts of the existing NPDES
application and permit regulations to improve program
clarity, protection of water quality, program transpar-
ency, and efficiency.
Integrated Workload Planning: The Office of Waste-
water Management (OWM) and the Office of Com-
pliance (OC) are jointly implementing an effort to
strengthen performance in the NPDES program by
integrating and streamlining approaches for oversight
of NPDES permitting and enforcement, including a
rule replacing existing paper reporting with electronic
reporting, in order to automate compliance evaluations
and improve transparency. This current initiative builds
upon recent efforts by OECA and OW to strengthen
implementation of the NPDES permit and enforcement
programs under the Clean Water Act Action Plan and
the "Coming Together for Clean Water" strategy.
High-Priority Permits: EPA works with states and
EPA regions 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 (see Program Activity Measures
WQ-19). Currently, measure WQ-19's targets are based
on a universe of priority permits that shifts each year,
and those fluctuations in the measure's universe make
trend analysis difficult. In FY 2012, EPA intends to
reevaluate the overall measure structure, as well as
criteria used in the selection process for priority per-
mits, in order to allow EPA to set a better baseline and
improve the overall effectiveness of the measure. Any
revisions to this measure are intended for adoption and
implementation in FY 2013.
Watershed Permits/Water Quality Trading: Orga-
nizing 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, USDA, and other federal agencies to implement
watershed programs.
Green Infrastructure: EPA is collaborating with
partner organizations to implement the Green Infra-
structure 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 manage-
ment approaches and technologies infiltrate, evapo-
transpire, 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, which promote prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pollution.
Pesticides: On January 7, 2009, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that NPDES
permits are required for discharges from the applica-
tion of pesticides to waters of the United States. In
response to the Court's decision, EPA issued a draft
NPDES pesticides general permit (PGP) in 2010 and
National Water Program Guidance
21
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
will issue a final PGP in 2011 for areas of the country
where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. EPA
has been and will continue to assist NPDES-autho-
rized states in developing their own pesticide general
permits and to assist in a national effort to educate
the pesticides application industry regarding the new
permit requirements.
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 December 2008, EPA
issued the Vessel General Permit (VGP) to provide
coverage for these vessels in US waters. EPA is cur-
rently developing the next iteration of the VGP, which
will become effective in December 2013. As part of
these efforts, EPA has taken the lead in developing
scientific protocols and models to determine how to
more effectively control the introduction of numer-
ous 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. Legislation enacted on July 31, 2008, (P.L.
110-299) established a moratorium on NPDES per-
mitting of incidental discharges (except ballast water)
from fishing vessels (regardless of size) and commercial
vessels less than 79 feet. Subsequent legislation (P.L.
111-215) extended this moratorium to December 18,
2013. EPA is exploring options for providing permit
coverage for these vessels.
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 find-
ings and state permitting authorities have identified
additional efficiencies that should be considered. EPA
has initiated national rule-making to improve the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the program. EPA
intends to propose this rule in the fall of 2011 and take
final action in November of 2012 (FY 2013).
CAFOs: EPA revised the NPDES regulations for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in
2008 to address the Second Circuit's 2005 decision in
Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA. 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 regu-
latory, permitting, modeling, reporting and planning
efforts for the Agency, including developing a storm-
water regulation to better control wet weather related
pollution and revised CAFO implementation guidance
and regulations to better control agricultural pollu-
tion in the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will work with the Bay
jurisdictions to facilitate implementation of the Bay
TMDL at the local level. EPA will encourage jurisdic-
tional NPDES programs to incorporate more stringent
permit provisions in stormwater permits prior to
promulgation of a rule. Also, EPA will review all new or
reissued NPDES permits for significant municipal and
industrial wastewater dischargers submitted by Bay
jurisdictions to ensure that the permits are consistent
with the applicable Bay water quality standards and the
Bay TMDL wasteload allocations. EPA also will con-
tinue to support jurisdictions and EPA regional offices
in effectively implementing the NPDES program to
improve the health of the watershed. Finally, EPA will
continue to implement a Chesapeake Bay Compliance
and Enforcement Strategy in part to ensure that per-
mittees are in compliance with their permit provisions.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and Bypasses: EPA
will continue to work with states to resolve longstand-
ing issues related to overflows in separate sanitary
sewer systems and bypasses at the treatment plant.
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 num-
ber and national percentage of significant industrial
users that have control mechanisms in place to imple-
ment applicable pretreatment requirements prior
to discharging to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs). EPA will also monitor the number and
national percentage of categorical industrial users in
non-approved pretreatment POTWs that have control
mechanisms in place to implement applicable pretreat-
ment 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 Noncompli-
ance (SNC), and the percent of major publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their per-
mitted wastewater discharge standards (see Program
Activity Measures WQ-15 and WQ-16). As part of the
Clean Water Act Action Plan, in FY 2011, EPA's OECA
National Water Program Guidance
22
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: Permits, Enforcement,
and Compliance
States should continue to implement significant actions identi-
fied 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 iden-
tified 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 qual-
ity and those permit revisions needed to implementTMDLs.
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 priori-
ties, 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 modify
their programs to regulate pesticide discharges by April 2011
and continue implementation through 2012. In general, states
should ensure that permittees submit data that accurately
characterizes the pollutant loadings in their discharge for rea-
sonable 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) Water Enforcement
National Data Base (WENDB) data elements 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. States
and regions should continue to conduct joint permitting and
enforcement planning as outlined in the OECA NPM Guidance.
[OECA CWA-09]. In 2012, OECA's NPM Guidance continues to
identify 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.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
will be leading an effort to review, revise and integrate
current policies and tools that guide how EPA and state
prioritize permitting and enforcement actions, includ-
ing those surrounding the SNC Policy, and in FY2012,
regions and states should pilot test the draft revised
versions of these policies and regulations.
Urban Waters: EPA's Urban Waters effort is focus-
ing on pilot projects nationwide to help urban com-
munities, particularly disadvantaged communities,
to reconnect with and revitalize their water environ-
ments. EPA's OWM will continue to be involved in
Federal Partners workgroup, develop work products to
advance this effort to integrate green infrastructure
into stormwater management plans, reduce combined
sewer overflows, and promote wastewater operation
certification training.
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 work-
ing with local governments, watershed groups, property
owners, and others to implement programs and manage-
ment practices to control polluted runoff throughout the
country.
EPA provides grant funds to states and tribes under Sec-
tion 319 of the Clean Water Act to implement compre-
hensive programs to control nonpoint pollution, includ-
ing 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 more than half of
the waters identified on states' 303 (d) impaired waters
list 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 Section 319 program to
support a more comprehensive, watershed approach to
protecting and restoring water quality. EPA first pub-
lished 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 water-
shed plans. These plans are geared towards restoring
impaired waters on a watershed basis while still protect-
ing high quality and threatened waters as necessary.
In FY 2012, 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 avail-
able to support efforts to control pollution from non-
point sources.
National Water Program Guidance
23
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
f) Support Sustainable Water Infrastructure: The U.S.
depends on drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater
infrastructure for the health, the economy, the vitality of
water environment, and the sustainability of communi-
ties. However, the U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
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 plan-
ning that incorporates the assessment of life cycle costs,
innovative and green alternatives, and collateral environ-
mental 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 inte-
grate 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 facili-
ties, 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 sup-
port 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 agen-
cies 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 con-
tribute 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
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 prob-
lems are often caused by many significant factors that are
not adequately addressed by these core programs, including
loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation, hydrologic altera-
tion, 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 eco-
systems. 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-defined 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 oper-
ate 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, defin-
ing 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, govern-
ments, non-profit organizations, and businesses, have come
together and created long-term goals and innovative solu-
tions to clean up their watersheds and promote more sus-
tainable 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.
National Water Program Guidance
24
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
To increase focus on protecting, maintaining, and con-
serving our nation's remaining healthy waters, EPA has
launched a proactive approach called the Healthy Water-
sheds Initiative (HWI) (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/
watershed/index.cfm). The goal of the HWI is to maintain
and protect a healthy watershed "infrastructure" of habitat,
biotic communities, water chemistry, and intact water-
shed processes such as hydrology, fluvial geomorphology,
and natural disturbance regimes. These healthy, function-
ing 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 water-
sheds and intact components of other watersheds statewide
and implement protection and conservation programs both
at the state and local levels.
For FY 2012, EPA will finalize and implement its National
Strategy, including a Healthy Watersheds Strategy, for
building the capacity of state, tribal, and local government
and 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 abil-
ity 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 partner-
ships 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 work-
ing with other federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service, USGS,
USFWS & others) to leverage their healthy watersheds
programs (e.g., Green Infrastructure Community of Prac-
tice). Also, EPA will work with USDA to promote coordi-
nated 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 stan-
dards) 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, suc-
cess 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 3,360 of those
waters identified as attaining water quality standards by
2015 (about 8.2% of all impaired waters identified in 2002).
Regions have indicated the progress they expect to make
toward this goal in FY 2012 (see strategic target WQ-SP10.
Nil and the following table).
Kargets for Attaining Standards in Impaired Waters By
Region and Nationally (Measure WQ-SP10.N11)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Total
Impaired
Waters
6,710
1,805
8,998
5,274
4,550
1,407
2,036
1,274
1,041
6,408
39,5034
FYs 2002-
2010
Waters in
Attainment
101
126
544
495
630
182
295
270
72
194
2,909
FY2011
Commitment
(cumulative)
117
127
555
504
640
190
302
270
72
196
2,973
201 2 Target
(cumulative)
133
128
575
554
660
200
308
276
102
199
3,135*
Note that a previous measure reported 1,980 waters identified as
impaired in 1998-2000 to be in attainment by 2002. These esti-
mates are not included in the table above. *Although the regional
aggregate for WQ-SP-10.N11 is 3,135, EPA has set a national FY
2012 target of 3,273. EPA wffl revisit the FY 2012 targets this
summer to determine the most appropriate commitment for this
measure.
Regional commitments for this measure, to be developed
over the summer of 2011 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 exist-
ing program delivery and alignment is not likely to result
in a significant contribution to national goals, the EPA
39,503 updated from 39,768 to reflect corrected data.
National Water Program Guidance
25
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
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 WQ-SP11) and in small
watersheds where one or more waterbody is impaired (see
measures WQ-SP12.N11).
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 res-
toration planning will be complete in FY 2012 (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-21a and proposed indicator measure
in the Incremental Progress in Restoring Water Quality
section below). 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, initial restoration planning 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 plan (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 water-
bodies 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 water-
sheds where one or more waterbodies are impaired and the
watershed approach is being applied. The goal is to demon-
strate how the Watershed Approach is working by showing
a measurable improvement in 330 such watersheds by 2015
(see strategic target WQ-SP12.N11).
Regions are encouraged to use some or all of the following
strategies in marshalling resources to support waterbody
and watershed restoration:
Realign water programs and resources as needed, includ-
ing proposal of reductions in allocations among core
water program implementation as reflected in commit-
ments to annual program activity measure targets;
Coordinate waterbody restoration efforts with Section
319 funds reserved for development of watershed plans;
Make effective use of state revolving funds provided
under Title VI of the Clean Water Act;
Make effective use of water quality planning funds pro-
vided under Section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act;
Leverage resources available from other federal agencies,
including the US DA;
Apply funds appropriated by Congress for watershed or
related projects; and
A goal of the Assessment TMDL Tracking and Implemen-
tation System (ATTAINS) is to track several strategic plan
measures. In a continuing effort to improve the ability
of the ATTAINS data system to track measures using the
2002 baseline waters, EPA is working with Regions 4 and
8 to ensure that the 2002 baseline waters data available
in ATTAINS accurately reflects the state reports. This
quality assurance effort may result in corrections to the
data component of the 2002 baseline. The goal is to have
all corrections made by the time the FY 2012 Guidance
commitment appendix is posted later this year and for
ATTAINS to become the repository for measures WQ-21,
WQ-SP10.N11, and WQ-SP11.
EPA also recognizes that additional impaired waters are not
included on state 303(d) lists because the standards impair-
ments 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 impair-
ment 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.
Development of Measures for Improving Water
Quality on a Watershed Basis
Incremental Progress in Restoring Water Quality
EPA has a suite of existing measures that track progress in
water quality restoration:
Previously impaired waters now fully attaining water
quality standards (WQ-SP10.N11).
Previously impaired waters for which a cause of impair-
ment has been removed (WQ-SP11).
Impaired watersheds with water quality improvement
(WQ-SP12.N11).
Net water quality restoration or maintenance by water-
body type (e.g., rivers, lakes) (WQ-SP13.N11 for wadeable
streams).
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
National Water Program Guidance
26
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
of full WQS attainment. The major gap is tracking progress
after TMDLs or other planning is complete, but before stan-
dards are fully met.
In the draft FY 2012 Guidance, EPA proposed the addition
of an indicator measure that was intended to demonstrate
trends in improved water quality. EPA received many com-
ments that the measure needed to be better defined. EPA is
committed to developing a measure that captures incremen-
tal improvements. To address the concerns raised during
the public comment process, EPA will use the EPA/State
Monitoring Assessment Partnership (MAP) forum to refine
the measure and develop technical guidance for reporting
and tracking this measure. EPA will provide the technical
approach in the FY 2013 Guidance so the reporting can start
in FY 2014.
319 Program Study and Potential Program Improvements
and Accountability
Nonpoint source pollution, caused by runoff that carries
excess nutrients, pesticides, pathogens, toxics, and other
contaminants to waterbodies, is the greatest remaining
source of surface and ground water quality impairments
and threats in the United States. Grants under Section 319
of the Clean Water Act (C WA) are provided to help states,
territories, and tribes implement their EPA-approved non-
point source (NFS) management programs. The programs
are designed to: (1) protect water quality by preventing
or minimizing new NFS pollution, (2) improve impaired
waters so that they ultimately meet water quality standards,
(3) restore impaired waters so that they meet water qual-
ity standards, and (4) improve or restore those waters with
deteriorated water quality that may not have been formally
assessed by a state and added to the state's Section 303(d)
list of impaired waters. To better understand the effective-
ness of various state NFS programs in reducing or eliminat-
ing nonpoint source pollution, EPA plans, in cooperation
with state partners to complete a detailed study of how
states are implementing their section 319 nonpoint source
programs to protect and restore NFS-impaired waters.
Based on the results of the study, EPA will engage the states
in developing recommendations on program revisions, as
appropriate, to maximize program effectiveness in pro-
tecting and restoring water quality and to assure program
accountability.
The study will provide valuable information on the range,
extent, and effectiveness of a broad variety of program tools
currently being used by the states to control NFS pollution,
such as the development and implementation of watershed-
based plans to remediate impaired waterbodies; the use
of state-wide non-regulatory and regulatory approaches
to achieve broad-scale implementation or compliance
to address broadly pervasive issues (e.g. Animal Feed-
ing Operations, cropland, and urban runoff); use of State
Revolving Loan Funds, state funds, and other state-wide
financial incentives/disincentives to achieve broad-scale
implementation; and effectiveness of state-wide leveraging
of authorities and resources of other federal and state agen-
cies. The Agency will consult states frequently throughout
the study and, ultimately, provide recommendations for
potential program improvements, including incentives that
are likely to improve the effectiveness of states' nonpoint
source management programs and/or the establishment
of metrics to increase accountability for NFS pollution
reduction.
In the draft FY 2012 Guidance, EPA also proposed an indica-
tor measure that captures the development of watershed
management plans. EPA has decided to delay the inclusion
of this measure in the Guidance until the results and recom-
mendations from the program study are available.
C) Grant Program Resources
Key program grants that support this Subobjective 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;
Alaska Native Village Water and Wastewater Infrastruc-
ture 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.epa.gov/
water/waterplan).
2. Improve 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 2011 Commitment: 2.8
2012 Target: 2.8 2015 Target: 2.8
(NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key National Strategies
Estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans are among the most
productive ecosystems on earth, providing multiple ecologi-
cal, economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits and services.
They are also among the most threatened ecosystems,
largely as a result of rapidly increasing population 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
National Water Program Guidance
27
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
overuse of natural resources and poor land use practices
in upland as well as coastal areas have resulted in a host of
human health and natural resource problems.
For FY 2012, EPA's national strategy for improving the
condition of coastal and ocean waters will include the key
elements identified below:
Maintain coastal monitoring and assessment;
Support state coastal protection programs;
Implement the National Estuary Program (NEP); and
Protect ocean resources.
Effective implementation of the national water quality pro-
gram, as well as of the ocean and coastal programs described
in this section, will increase the likelihood of achieving the
national and regional objectives described below.
One important objective of the national strategy is to main-
tain a national coastal condition score of at least 2.8the
national baseline score in the 2009 National Coastal Condi-
tion Report (NCCR) III (see measure CO-222.N11). Another
objective is to assess conditions in each major coastal region
Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Puerto Rico, Gulf of
Mexico, Hawaii, and South Central Alaska and to work with
states, tribes, and other partners over the next five years to
at least maintain each region's coastal condition rating.
EPA works with diverse partners to implement region-
specific protection and restoration programs. For example,
EPA manages the National Estuary Program (NEP), the
agency's flagship place-based water quality protection and
restoration effort. In addition, EPA works to protect and
restore coastal water quality with the states, tribes, and
other partners in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, New
England, and along 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 quality condi-
tions a top priority for coastal as well as inland waters.
Some of these data were collected by the OSVBold. In FY
2010, states completed field sampling under EPA's National
Coastal Condition Assessment program. Results of the
sampling will serve as the basis for the National Coastal
Condition Report V (NCCR V). In FY 2012, states will analyze
sampling data and the National Water Program will work
with states, tribes, and EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment to draft the NCCR V, which is planned for release in
December 2012. Building on coastal condition assessment
reports issued in 2001, 2004, 2008 and on the NCCR IV now
scheduled for release in December 2011, the NCCR Vwill
describe the health of major marine eco-regions along the
coasts of the U.S. and will depict assessment trends for the
nation and for individual marine eco-regions. The coastal
condition assessments are the basis for the measures of
progress in estuarine and coastal water quality used in the
current EPA Strategic Plan.
2. State Coastal Programs
States play a critical role in protection of coastal waters
through the implementation of core Clean Water Act pro-
grams, ranging from permit programs to financing of waste-
water treatment plants. States also lead the implementation
of efforts to assure the high quality of the nation's swim-
ming beaches; including implementation of the BEACH Act
(see the Water Safe for Swimming Subobjective).
In FY 2012, 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 Activ-
ity Measure CO-2).
3. Implement the National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a local, stakeholder-
driven, and collaborative program that protects and restores
the water quality and ecological integrity of estuaries, for
which goals are identified in Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans (CCMPs). The NEP is comprised of
28 estuaries of national significance along the east, west,
Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coasts. During FY 2012, EPA
will continue supporting the NEPs' implementation of their
individual Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans (CCMPs).
The overall health of the nation's estuarine ecosystems
depends on the protection and restoration of high-quality
habitat, EPA tracks the number of habitat acres that the
NEPs and their partners annually protect and restore in
their estuarine watersheds, or study areas. The numbers
appear as environmental outcome measures under the
Ocean/Coastal Subobjective. EPA has set a FY 2012 goal of
protecting or restoring an additional 100,000 acres of habi-
tat within the NEP study areas.
EPA also tracks the annual and cumulative amount of cash
and in-kind resources that NEP directors and/or staff are
influential in obtaining. The measure depicts the level of
resources leveraged by the CWA Section 320 base grants
annually provided to the NEPs (see Program Activity Mea-
sure CO-4).
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, Rl
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
TillamookBay,OR
National Water Program Guidance
28
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Increase Wetlands
4. Ocean Protection Programs
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA, also called the Ocean Dumping Act) is the primary
federal environmental statute governing transportation
of dredged material and other material for the purpose of
disposal into ocean waters, while Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 governs the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "waters of the United States." Several hundred million
cubic yards of sediment are dredged from waterways, ports,
and harbors every year to maintain the nation's navigation
system. 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 sedi-
ment occurs.
EPA and USAGE will focus on improving how disposal of
dredged material is managed, including designating and
monitoring disposal sites, involving local stakeholders in
planning to reduce the need for dredging (see Program
Activity Measure CO-5), and increasing the beneficial use
of dredged material. EPA will use the capability provided by
the OSVBoldto monitor compliance with environmental
requirements at ocean disposal sites (see Program Activ-
ity Measure CO-6). In addition, the Strategic Plan includes
a measure of the percent of active ocean dredged material
disposal sites that have achieved environmentally accept-
able conditions (see CO-SP20.N11).
One of the greatest threats to U.S. ocean waters and ecosys-
tems is the uncontrolled spread of invasive species. A prin-
cipal way invasive species are introduced or spread in U.S.
waters is through the discharge of ballast water from ships.
In FY 2012, 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 Elimina-
tion 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 estab-
lish management practices and associated standards of
performance for such discharges (except for vessel sewage,
which is already regulated by the CWA). EPA is 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 Pol-
lution Control Program administered jointly by EPA and
the NOAA (Section 6217 grant program). In addition, clean
water program grants identified under the watershed sub-
objective support this work. For additional information on
these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
D) A Strategy for Addressing Climate Change
1. Support Evaluation of Sub-seabed and Ocean
Sequestration of CO2
EPA will work with other interested agencies and the inter-
national community to develop guidance on sub-seabed
carbon sequestration and will address any requests for car-
bon sequestration in the sub-seabed or "fertilization" of the
ocean, including any permitting under the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) or the Under-
ground Injection Control program that may be required.
2. "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 coasts. EPA will provide additional
assistance to individual NEPs to support their work to
develop adaptation plans for their study areas or techni-
cal 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.
3. Increase Wetlands
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Working with partners, achieve a net
increase of wetlands nationwide, with
additional focus on coastal wetlands,
and biological and functional measures
and assessment of wetland condition.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key National Strategies
Wetlands are among the nation's most critical and produc-
tive 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.
By 1997, the United States has lost more than 115 million
acres of wetlands5 to development, agriculture, and other
uses. Today, the U.S. maybe entering a period of annual net
Dahl, I.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, Washington, D.C.
National Water Program Guidance
29
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Increase Wetlands
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
Report6, 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 wet-
lands services and others of which may have varying eco-
system 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 the Spring of FY 2011.
In addition the Status and Trends report, EPA is working
with states, FWS, and other federal agencies to complete a
National Wetland Condition Assessment by 2013 to effec-
tively 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 2008 follow-up report7, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisher-
ies 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 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 assessment on the natural and human forces
behind these trends and to an expanded effort on conser-
vation 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 partner-
ship 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 2012, 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 Appala-
chian surface coal mining. Policy actions include: publica-
tion of a rule addressing fill material, 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 compen-
satory 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 determi-
nations, 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. EPA tracks performance through budget
measure WT-SP22.
EPA will continue to work with USAGE to ensure applica-
tion 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. EPA regions
should identify whether the Corps issuing a Section 404
permit would result in adverse human health or environ-
mental effects on low-income and minority populations,
including impacts to water supplies and fisheries. Where
such effects are likely, EPA regions should suggest ways and
Dahl,T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, Washington, D.C.
7 Stedman, S. and I.E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
National Water Program Guidance
30
-------
Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Increase Wetlands
measures to avoid and/or mitigate such impacts through
comments to the Corps. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to
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 inspec-
tions, and Interagency Review Team activities;
Assistance on development of mitigation site perfor-
mance 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 pri-
marily 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 via EPA 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 technical assistance and informational tools
for wetlands protection; and
Collaborating with USDA, DOI, NOAA, and other federal
agencies with wetlands restoration programs to ensure
the greatest environmental outcomes.
For FY 2012, EPA expects to track the following key activi-
ties for accomplishing its wetland goals:
Wetlands Restored and Enhanced Through Partner-
ships: 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, Sec-
tion 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 2009 and 2010, mainly due to unexpected
accomplishments from National Estuary Program
enhancement projects. Based on five year trend data, the
target will be at 170,000 cumulative acres for FY 2011, as
measured against a FY 2005 baseline.
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; volun-
tary restoration and protection; and water quality stan-
dards 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 Measures
WT-2a and WT-2b reflect EPA's goal of increasing state and
tribal capacity in these core wetland management areas.
In reporting progress under measures WT-2a and WT-2b,
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 perfor-
mance 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 environ-
mental improvement in the final permit decision. This
measure will remain an indicator until enough data is
collected to define a meaningful target. This is also an
indicator measure.
Wetland Monitoring: In 2006, EPA issued "The Ele-
ments of a State Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment
Program" to assist EPA and state program managers in
planning and implementing a wetland monitoring and
assessment program within their broader water qual-
ity monitoring efforts. Since that time, EPA has worked
actively with states and tribes to advance wetlands moni-
toring and the use of assessment data to better manage
wetland resources. EPA chairs the National Wetlands
Monitoring and Assessment Work Group, comprised of
more than 35 states and tribes along with other federal
agencies, to provide national leadership in implementing
state and tribal wetlands monitoring strategies. The Work
Group played a prominent role in informing the design
of the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA).
The NWCA will provide the first statistically valid assess-
ment of the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands,
providing a baseline data layer that could be used in
subsequent years to gauge changes in wetland condition
and potentially the impacts of climate change on wetland
ecological integrity. Field work will be concluded in 2011,
National Water Program Guidance
31
-------
Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Increase Wetlands
with data analysis scheduled for 2012. The final NWCA
report is expected in 2013.
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. At the end of
FY 2010, 22 states were measuring and reporting baseline
wetland condition in the state using condition indicators
and assessments (see Program Activity Measure WT-4). By
the end of FY 2012, EPA projects at least 26 states will be
doing the same. 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:
Building technical and financial capacity to conduct an
"intensification study" as part of the 2011 National Wet-
land 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 evaluat-
ing 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 Res-
toration 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 pro-
gram implementation, including wetlands monitoring and
protection projects.
National Water Program Guidance
32
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
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. Improve the Health of the
Great Lakes
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Improve the overall ecosystem health
of the Great Lakes by preventing water
pollution and protecting aquatic eco-
system (using the Great Lakes 40-point
scale).
2005 Baseline: 21.5 points 2009 Result 23.9
2010 Result: 22.7 2011 Commitment: 23.4
2012 Target: 23.9 2014 Target: 24.7
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Strategies
As the largest surface freshwater system on the face of the
earth, the Great Lakes ecosystem holds the key to the qual-
ity 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.
During 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) began implementing President Obama's Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI), the largest investment in the
Great Lakes in decades. The GLRI invests in the region's
environmental and public health through a coordinated
interagency process led by EPA. As outlined in the GLRI
Action Plan released by the Administrator and governors,
this unprecedented program focuses on five major restora-
tion priorities: (1) reducing toxic substances and restoring
Areas of Concern; (2) advancing a "zero tolerance" policy
toward invasive species; (3) improving near-shore health
and reducing non-point source pollution; (4) restoring and
protecting habitat, including reducing species loss; and (5)
ensuring the information, engagement, and accountability
in the program overall. In FY 2012, the President has pro-
posed $350 million for the Initiative to strategically imple-
ment both federal projects and projects with states, tribes,
municipalities, universities, and other organizations.
The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable eco-
logical targets, and specific actions for each of the five focus
areas identified above. The Action Plan is used by federal
agencies in the development of the federal budget for Great
Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2012 and beyond. As such,
it serves as guidance for collaborative restoration work with
participants to advance restoration. The Action Plan also
helps 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 targeted to help fur-
ther clean up the Great Lakes.
Under the Initiative, EPA will administer funding individu-
ally 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.
Continued progress is dependent on continued work to
implement core Clean Water Act programs and appropri-
ately 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 contamina-
tion and atmospheric deposition) they also face problems
common to most other waterbodies around the country.
Effective implementation of core programs, such as dis-
charge permits, nonpoint pollution controls, wastewater
treatment, wetlands protection, and appropriate designa-
tion of uses and criteria, must be fully and effectively imple-
mented throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
In its third year, the GLRI will support programs and proj-
ects strategically chosen to target the most significant envi-
ronmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem through
direct program implementation by EPA and Interagency
Task Force members. This will be accomplished by issuing
National Water Program Guidance
33
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
grants and other agreements to states, tribes, munici-
palities, universities, and other organizations. Guided by
the GLRI Action Plan, Agencies are shifting efforts for a
stronger emphasis on implementation actions and results
in the Initiative's focus areas. A special focus is being placed
on restoring Areas of Concern (AOC) throughout the Basin,
using Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) cleanups of contami-
nated sediments to address beneficial use impairments
(BUIs). Programs and projects expected to be initiated
in FY 2012 are selected via a planning process conducted
through the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. This
process includes competitive grant programs to implement
the Initiative by funding states, tribes, and other partners.
Key activities expected to advance environmental progress
within each of the Initiative's focus areas are described
below:
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern: EPA is working
closely with non-federal partners to address beneficial use
impairments in Areas of Concerns, including GLLA clean-
ups of contaminated sediments.
Invasive Species: GLRI has supported priority Asian carp
work including; the installation of structures by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (USAGE) at the electric barrier
site to reduce the risk of bypass by Asian carp; and Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Illinois Department of
Natural Resource efforts to detect and remove Asian Carp
from the system. As needed, GLRI will invest in efforts
to keep Asian carp from becoming established in the
Great Lakes through the support of priorities, such as
the development of Ballast Water Treatment technolo-
gies; assistance to states and communities in prevent-
ing the introduction of invasive species and controlling
existing populations; establishing early detection and
rapid response capabilities; and the implementation of
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans by the FWS
partnership.
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source: Watershed
plans will be implemented by EPA, U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), FWS, USGS, state programs, and tribal govern-
ments. Additionally, GLRI funds have been marked for
NRCS to work directly with agricultural producers in tar-
geted watersheds to implement conservation practices to
reduce soil erosion and non-point source nutrient loading
to waters of the Great Lakes Basin.
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration: GLRI
funds will support an FWS led multistate, bi-national
recovery program to manage extinction threats to the
endangered piping plover; U.S. Forest Service projects
that replace culverts and road crossings in order to
improve fish passage; BIA wetland restoration projects
in tribal areas; restoration of degraded habitats in AOCs;
and USAGE and NOAA programs to assist local commu-
nities in implementing habitat restoration projects in
coastal areas.
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation,
Communication, and Partnerships: EPA and partner
agencies will enhance existing programs that measure
and assess the physical, biological, and chemical integrity
of the Great Lakes. EPA will continue to refine the Great
Lakes Accountability System, the publicly accessible
database which partner agencies use to regularly report
on their progress to meet the objectives the GLRI Action
Plan.
Progress will be tracked against measures of progress in
each Focus Area, including:
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
Implementation of management actions necessary for
delisting Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Removal of Beneficial Use Impairments.
Remediation of contaminated sediments.
Cumulative decline of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.
Invasive Species
Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Acres managed for populations of invasive species con-
trolled to a target level.
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
Loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus from tributaries
draining targeted watersheds.
Percent of days of the beach season that Great Lakes
beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.
Acres in the Great Lakes watershed with USDA conserva-
tion practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients,
and/or pesticide loading.
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened
and endangered species self-sustaining in the wild.
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands protected, restored and enhanced.
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced.
Number of species delisted due to recovery.
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Com-
munication and Partnerships
Improvement in the overall aquatic ecosystem health of
the Great Lakes using the Great Lakes 40-point scale.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
C) Grant Program Resources
Most EPA grants will be issued competitively in support
of progress in the GLRI Action Plan focus areas. Other
members of the Interagency Task Force are also expected to
select proposals, issue grants, and provide other assistance
with funding from the Initiative.
In addition, the Great Lakes National Program Office
negotiates grants resources with states and tribes, focusing
on joint priorities, such as AOC restoration, pursuant to
Remedial Action Plans, and Lakewide Management Plans
implementation. 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 requesting proposals for monitor-
ing and evaluation of contaminated sediments or for reme-
diation of contaminated sediments, a non-grant program
pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
2. Improve the Health of the
Chesapeake Bay
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem.
(Note: Measures of progress are identified in Appendices A
andE.)
B) Key Strategies
The Chesapeake Bay the largest estuary in the United
States is a complex ecosystem that includes important
habitats and food webs. The Chesapeake Bay watershed
includes more than 64,000 square miles of land, encom-
passing parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the entire District of
Columbia. Threading through the Bay watershed are more
than 100,000 tributaries that flow into the Bay. The com-
munity, environmental, and economic health and vitality
of the Bay and its watershed are impacted by the quality of
the Bay's waters and the biological, physical, and chemical
conditions of the Bay watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional
partnership that has coordinated and conducted the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. CBP part-
ners include the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; the District of
Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC); the
Environmental Protection Agency, representing the federal
government; and advisory groups of citizens, scientists, and
local government officials. EPA is the lead federal agency
on the Chesapeake Executive Council (EC). In addition to
the EPA Administrator, the EC consists of the governors
of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the mayor of
the District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and for the past few years, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Governors of New York, West Virginia,
and Delaware have been invited to participate.
In the last 25 years, the CBP partners have achieved impor-
tant progress:
Promulgated the nation's largest total maximum daily
load (TMDL) with excellent supporting science;
Adopted the nation's first consistent water quality stan-
dards and assessment procedures, prompting major state
and local investments in nutrient removal technologies
across hundreds of wastewater treatment facilities;
Established nutrient management plans on more than 3
million farmland acres;
Preserved more than one million acres of forests, wet-
lands, farmland and other natural resources, meeting the
Program's Land Preservation goal two years early;
Developed science, data monitoring, models, and mea-
sures 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 two million acres;
Planted more than seven thousand miles of streamside
forested buffers;
Restored nearly 15 thousand acres of wetlands; and
Removed blockages to more than two thousand miles of
spawning grounds to help restore migratory fish.
Despite 25 years of progress, the health of the Bay and its
watershed remains in poor condition.
In May 2009, the EC pledged to put all Bay management
mechanisms necessary to restore the Bay in place by 2025
and agreed to use short-term goals, called milestones, to
increase restoration work. Every two years, the Bay juris-
dictions will meet milestones for implementing measures
to reduce pollution, with the first set of milestones due in
December 2011.
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 interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO
establishes the purpose of concerted, coordinated federal
agency action: "to protect and restore the health, heritage,
natural resources and economic value of the Nation's largest
estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its
watershed."
On May 12, 2010, in response to EO 13508, EPA and the
other federal agencies, identified in the EO, released a strat-
egy to coordinate, expand, and bring greater accountability
to efforts to help speed the Bay's recovery. The coordinated
strategy defines environmental goals and milestones, iden-
tifies key indicators of progress, describes specific programs
and strategies to be implemented, identifies mechanisms
National Water Program Guidance
35
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
to ensure coordinated and effective activities, and outlines
adaptive management to make necessary adjustments.
In June 2010, EPA launched ChesapeakeStat, a systematic
process within the partnership for analyzing information
and data to continually assess progress towards goals and
adapt strategies and tactics when needed. ChesapeakeStat
includes a public website that promotes improved account-
ability, fosters coordination, and promotes transparency
by sharing performance information on goals, indicators,
strategies, and funding.
In September 2010, the EO agencies released their first
annual action plan with more detailed information about
the EO strategy initiatives to be undertaken in 2011.
This will be followed in early 2012 by the first annual EO
progress report. Federal agencies will join the states in
establishing two-year milestones with many federal efforts
designed to support the state and the District in meeting
their current and future water quality milestones. Federal
agencies will also develop appropriate two-year milestones
for other outcomes outlined in the strategy, beyond those
for water quality.
On December 29, 2010, EPA established the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL, a historic and comprehensive "pollution diet"
with rigorous accountability measures to initiate sweep-
ing actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay
and the region's streams, creeks, and rivers. The TMDL was
prompted by insufficient restoration progress over the last
several decades in the Bay. The TMDL is required under
federal law and responds to consent decrees in Virginia and
D.C. dating back to the late 1990s. It is also a keystone com-
mitment of the EO strategy. The TMDL - the largest ever
developed by EPA - includes pollution limits to meet water
quality standards in the Bay and its tidal rivers. The TMDL
is designed to ensure that all pollution control measures to
fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025,
with 60 percent of the actions completed by 2017. The
TMDL is supported by rigorous accountability measures to
ensure cleanup commitments are met, including short-and
long-term benchmarks, a tracking and accounting system
for jurisdiction activities, and federal contingency actions
that can be employed if necessary to spur progress.
The Year Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
EPA's focus in FY 2012 will be to continue to improve the
rate of progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay by meet-
ing the President's expectations as described in EO 13508,
using the agency's existing statutory authority, developing
more rigorous regulations, providing states with the tools
necessary for effective regulatory implementation, creating
better tools for scientific analysis and accountability, and
supporting regulatory compliance and enforcement.
EPA will work with the states to build and refine a trans-
parent accountability system. This system is expected to
provide EPA, the states, local governments, and the public a
clear understanding of how the TMDL is being implemented
and attained through appropriate point and nonpoint
source controls to meet the basin-jurisdiction loading
targets identified in two-year milestones. The system is also
expected to track any offsets that are relied upon to achieve
the TMDL allocations and build appropriate accountability
for implementation of such offsets.
EPA monitoring of the states' progress under the TMDL
will include evaluation of whether the states two-year
milestones are consistent with the expectations and the
load and wasteload allocations in the TMDL. EPA will also
monitor whether a jurisdiction has implemented point and
nonpoint source controls to meet the basin-jurisdiction
loading targets identified in its two-year milestones.
The EO specifically cites the need for strengthening the
scientific support for actions to better protect and restore
the water quality and ecological integrity of the entire Bay
watershed, and calls for focused and coordinated habitat
and research activities directed toward living resources and
water quality. EPA is working with the other CBP partners
to expand the scientific capabilities of the program. New
decision support tools and an expanded set of models will
allow for better prioritization and adjustment of manage-
ment activities.
In FY 2012, EPA will use its technical and scientific analysis
capabilities to provide support and guidance to the jurisdic-
tions as they work to involve thousands of local govern-
ments that will be affected by the TMDL. EPA will assist the
jurisdictions in making scientifically informed determina-
tions of the most effective ways to meet their TMDL obliga-
tions that will provide individually tailored solutions.
In FY 2012, EPA also will continue the development and
implementation of new regulations to protect and restore
the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will continue work on rulemakings
under the Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen, phospho-
rus, and sediment pollution in the Bay from concentrated
animal feeding operations, stormwater discharges from new
and redeveloped properties, new or expanded discharges,
and other pollutant discharges as necessary.
EPA will use its resources to develop the scientific under-
pinnings of the new regulations, which likely will include
enhanced understanding of the loads contributed by various
pollution sources in specific geographies. EPA has com-
mitted to reducing air deposition of nitrogen to the tidal
waters of the Bay from 17.9 to 15.7 million pounds per year
through federal air regulations during the coming years.
To ensure that the jurisdictions are able to meet EPA's
expectations under the TMDL and new rulemakings, EPA
will continue its broad range of grant programs. Most signif-
icantly, EPA will continue funding for state implementation
and enforcement, directing recipients to give preference
to priority strategies, practices, and watersheds that will
result in the greatest benefits to water quality in the Bay,
consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Program's ongoing
efforts to use the most accurate and appropriate science to
National Water Program Guidance
36
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
identify priority watersheds and practices. Priority strate-
gies and practices would be those identified in jurisdictions'
Watershed Implementation Plans as necessary to achieve
nutrient and sediment reductions to meet Chesapeake Bay
TMDL allocations. Priority practices are also those proven,
cost-effective practices that reduce or prevent the greatest
nutrient and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay.
Ensuring that the regulated community complies with the
appropriate regulations is an essential responsibility for
achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake Bay and
its watershed. In FY 2012, the Enforcement and Compliance
Assistance program will use its Bay-related resource alloca-
tion to focus on sectors contributing significant amounts
of nutrients, sediment and other contaminants to impaired
watersheds in the Bay, including CAFOs, stormwater point
source discharges (including discharges from municipal
separate storm, sewer systems, stormwater discharges from
construction sites and other industrial facilities), munici-
pal and industrial wastewater facilities, and air deposition
sources of nitrogen, including power plants. EPA also will
identify appropriate opportunities for compliance and
enforcement activities related to dredge and fill operations,
federal facilities, and Superfund sites, including remedial
action and removal sites, and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facilities.
More specifically, EPA's compliance and enforcement review
will be focused on the following areas:
Superfund and RCRA: Elizabeth River; Anacostia River;
and Patapsco River (Baltimore Harbor);
CAFOs: Three geographic areas that represent the great-
est contributions of manure-based agriculture nutrient
loads to the Bay;
Wastewater: Significant wastewater facilities under per-
mit schedules for upgrading treatment;
Stormwater: Permit non-compliance related to munici-
pal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction
activity and priority industrial sectors within geographic
hot-spots that are critical to restoration of the Bay; and
Air deposition: Stationary sources and mobile sources at
port facilities, warehouses, and construction sites within
the Chesapeake Bay airshed.
In addition, enforcement resources will support the Agen-
cy's priority to restore the Chesapeake Bay by providing
information about wet weather sources of pollution. This
will result in an increase in knowledge, use, transparency,
and public access to data about wet weather sources through:
a) building an electronic reporting module for getting non-
major permit data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot with states in
the Chesapeake Bay; b) building and deploying targeting
tools to help identify the most significant sources of non-
compliance and discharges of pollutants most responsible
for the impairment of this important water body; and c)
making all non-enforcement confidential data available,
with easy-to-use tools to aid in the public's ability to use
and understand the data.
C) Grant Program Resources
Resources supporting this goal include grant authorizes
under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act. For additional
information on these grants, see the grant program guid-
ance at http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.
htm.
3. Restore and 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
2010 Actual: n/a
2011 Commitment: 2.6 2012 Target: 2.6
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Strategies
The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Water-
shed." Its U.S. coastline is 1,630 miles; it is fed by 33 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 40 percent of
the nation's commercial fishery landings, and Gulf Coast
wetlands comprise about half the national total and provide
critical habitat for 75 percent of the migratory waterfowl
traversing the United States.
1. Healthy and Resilient Coastal Habitats
Healthy and resilient coastal habitats sustain many ecosys-
tem services upon which humans rely. Reversing ongoing
habitat degradation and preserving the remaining healthy
habitats is necessary to protecting the communities, cul-
tures, and economy of the Gulf Coast. The overall wetland
loss in the Gulf area is on the order of 50 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 30,600 cumulative acres of habitat by 2012 (see
Program Activity Measure GM-SP39). EPA is working with
the NOAA, environmental organizations, the Gulf of Mexico
Foundation, and area universities to identify and restore
critical habitat. EPA will enhance cooperative planning and
programs across the Gulf states and federal agencies to
protect wetland and estuarine habitat.
National Water Program Guidance
37
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
2. Sustainable Coastal Barriers
The Gulf Coast supports a diverse array of coastal, estua-
rine, 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 recre-
ation. 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 com-
promised by development and pollution. In order to sustain
and grow the Gulf region's economic prosperity, individu-
als, businesses, communities, and ecosystems all need to be
more adaptable to change. In 2012, 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. EPA is working with NOAA, Sea
Grant Programs, and the U.S. Geological Survey in support
of this goal.
3. Wise Use of Sediment Resources
The wise management of sediments for wetland creation,
enhancement, and sustainability is of critical importance
to the Gulf Coast region, especially given locally high rates
of subsidence and the region-wide threat from potential
future impacts of climate change. To successfully sustain
and enhance coastal ecosystems, a broad sediment manage-
ment effort is needed that incorporates beneficial use of
dredge material, and other means of capturing all available
sediment resources.
Healthy estuaries and coastal wetlands depend on a bal-
anced level of nutrients. Excessive nutrient levels can
have negative impacts such as reducing the abundance of
recreationally and commercially important fishery species.
Excess nutrients is identified as one of the primary prob-
lems 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 2012, 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 Partnership 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, supports the long-term target to reduce the size of
the hypoxic zone from about 17,300 square km to less than
5,000 square km, measured as a five-year running average
(see Program Activity Measure GM-SP40.N11). In work-
ing to accomplish this goal, EPA, states, and other federal
agencies, such as USDA, 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 2012, EPA's Mississippi River Basin
program will address excessive nutrient loadings that
contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and,
ultimately, to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico.
Working with the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, Gulf of Mexico
Alliance and other states within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya
River Basins, and other federal agencies, EPA will help tar-
get efforts within critical watersheds to implement effective
strategies that can yield significant progress in addressing
nonpoint source nutrient pollution.
4. Improve Science Monitoring and Management Efforts
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 con-
tributes pollution, especially oxygen demanding nutrients,
to the Gulf. Enhanced monitoring and research is needed in
the Gulf Coast region to make data more readily available.
EPA regions and the Gulf of Mexico Program Office will
work with states to continue to maximize the efficiency and
utility of water quality monitoring efforts for local manag-
ers 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. 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.
A central pillar of the strategy to restore the health of the
Gulf is restoration of water quality and habitat in 13 prior-
ity 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 FY 2012 goal is to fully
attain water quality standards in at least 132 of these seg-
ments (see Program Activity Measure GM-SP38).
National Water Program Guidance
38
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
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 capa-
bility system to manage harmful algal blooms and for notify-
ing public health managers (see Program Activity Measure
GM-01) and expects to expand the system in 2012 by provid-
ing support for taxonomy training in Yucatan and Quintana
Roo to complete the training in all six Mexican States.
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.
5. Environmental Education
Education and outreach are essential to accomplish EPA's
overall goals and are integral to all priority issues. It is criti-
cal 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 goal
is to increase awareness and stewardship of Gulf coastal
resources and promote action among Gulf citizens. In 2012,
the Gulf of Mexico Program will establish public and private
support for the development and deployment of the Gulf
Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers Rotational Educational
Exhibits Initiative; foster regional stewardship and aware-
ness of Gulf coastal resources through annual Gulf Guardian
Awards; and support initiatives that include direct involve-
ment from underserved and underrepresented populations
and enhance local capacity to reach these populations.
C) Grant Program Resources
The Gulf of Mexico Program issues an annual competi-
tive Funding Announcement for Gulf of Mexico 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 Ecosystem Restora-
tion Strategy.
For additional information on these grants, see the grant
program guidance on the website (http://www.epa.gov/
gmpo).
4. Restore and 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
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Program 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 alonerecreational
and commercial fishing and shellfishing, beach-going, and
swimming. In 2011 dollars, that value is now $8.91 bil-
lion. 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 of fish 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 and tributary waters that meet prescribed state
water quality standardswaters that are fishable, swim-
mable, and that support;
Diverse habitats of healthy, abundant and sustainable
populations of aquatic and marine-dependent species in;
An ambient environment that is free of substances that
are potentially harmful to human health or that other-
wise may adversely affect the food chain; and
An educated and informed citizenry who participates in
the restoration and protection of this invaluable resource.
EPA will continue to work with the Long Island Sound Study
(LISS) Management Conference partnersthe states of
New York and Connecticut and other federal, state, and
local government agencies, academia, industry, and the
private sectorto implement the Comprehensive Conser-
vation 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 anthropogenic nitrogen dis-
charges to meet these water quality standards.
1. Reduce Nitrogen Loads
The Long Island Sound bi-state nitrogen TMDL, approved
by EPA in 2000, relies on flexible and innovative
approaches, notably bubble permits, management zones,
and exchange ratios that allow sewage treatment plant
(STP) operators to trade nitrogen reduction obligations
National Water Program Guidance
39
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
with each other. This approach helps attain water quality
improvement goals, while allowing communities to save an
estimated $800 million by allocating reductions to those
STPs where they can be achieved most economically, and to
STPs that have the greatest impact on water quality.
The States of New York and Connecticut will continue to
allocate resources toward STP upgrades to control nitrogen
discharges to meet TMDL requirements. These states will
monitor and report discharges through EPA's Permit Com-
pliance System (PCS) and Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs). A revised TMDL will incorporate updated state
marine water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, as well
as other refined or updated technical data.
The State of Connecticut will continue to implement its
Nitrogen Credit Exchange program, first instituted in 2002.
Reductions in nitrogen discharges at STPs that go beyond
TMDL requirements create the state's system of market
credits, which will continue to assist municipalities in reduc-
ing construction costs and more effectively address nitrogen
reductions to the Sound. New York City will continue its
STP nitrogen upgrades and will minimize the impact of
nitrogen discharges to the Sound as construction proceeds
through 2017. Westchester County will continue construc-
tion upgrades at its two affected STPs to control its nitrogen
discharges to the Western Sound.
EPA will continue to work with the upper Long Island Sound
watershed States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Vermont to implement state plans that identify and control
nitrogen discharges to the Connecticut River. As sources
are identified and control strategies developed, the states
will modify discharge permits 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 groundwa-
ter infiltration. These sources 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 and
projects that reduce stormwater runoff, plan for and man-
age growth, and conserve natural landscapes.
2. Reduce the Area and Duration of Hypoxia
As nitrogen loads to the Sound decrease, reductions in the
size and duration of the hypoxic area may be anticipated;
however, ecosystem response is not linear spatially or tem-
porally in some systems. While other factors also affect the
timing, duration, and severity of hypoxia, including weather
conditions such as rainfall, solar radiation and light, tem-
perature, and winds, continued reductions in nitrogen loads
will help to mitigate these uncontrollable natural factors. As
the states continue implementing STP upgrades for nitro-
gen and nonpoint source controls, the new applied technol-
ogies will reduce nitrogen inputs, limit algal response, and
intervene in natural cycles of algal growth, its death, decay,
and resulting loss of dissolved oxygen.
3. Restore and Protect Critical Habitats and Reopen
Rivers to Diadromous Fish
EPA will continue to work with Management Conference
partners as they restore and protect critical and degraded
habitats and reopen rivers and streams to diadromous fish
passage. The states and EPA will continue to direct efforts at
the most vulnerable coastal habitats and key areas of high
ecological value, such as coastal wetlands. The states will
lead these efforts, using EPA's and a variety of public and
private funds, and cooperate with landowners, to construct
fishways, remove dams, or otherwise mitigate impediments
to diadromous fish passage. Where feasible and as fund-
ing allows, fish counting devices will provide valuable data
on actual numbers of fish returning to breeding grounds.
Restoration of the diadromous fishery and increasing the
higher trophic levels in the Sound are longer-term goals
of Long Island Sound's federal and state natural resource
managers. The states and EPA will continue work to plan
for, address, and mitigate climate change impacts on coastal
estuarine environments through the Long Island Sound
Sentinel Monitors program. Key environmental sentinels of
ecological change will be identified and tracked to monitor
changes from baselines. Through this program, managers
and decision makers will be alerted to potential effects on
the vital ecological resources at risk or vulnerable to climate
change, and mitigation options maybe developed and
implemented.
4. Implement Through Partnerships
New York, Connecticut, and EPA will cooperate to agree on
and assist in implementing a new Long Island Sound Agree-
ment. The Agreement will build upon CCMP goals and tar-
gets, which were refined and documented in the predecessor
Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement.
The states and EPA will continue to address the highest
priority environmental and ecological problems identified
in the CCMPthe impact of hypoxia on the ecosystem,
including living marine resources; the effects of reduc-
ing toxic substances, pathogens, and floatable debris on
the ambient environment; identification, restoration and
protection of critical habitats; and managing the popula-
tions of living marine and marine-dependent resources that
rely on the Sound as their primary habitat. The Manage-
ment 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 Citizens
Advisory Committee and the Science and Technical Advi-
sory Committee, which provide technical expertise and pub-
lic 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.
National Water Program Guidance
40
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
5. Core EPA Program Support
The LISS supports, and is supported by EPA core environ-
mental management and regulatory control programs, as
well as one of the Administrator's key priorities - urban
waters. Long Island Sound itself is known as the "Urban
Sea,"8 because of its proximity in the Northeast popula-
tion corridor and its vulnerability to the impacts of human
usage. All of Connecticut's 24 coastal towns are urbanized,
as are Westchester, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties
in New York that border the Sound. The CCMP, established
under CWA Section 320, envisioned a partnership of fed-
eral, state and local governments, private industry, aca-
demia and the public, to support and fund the cleanup and
restoration of the Sound. This cooperative environmental
partnership relies on existing federal, state and local regula-
tory frameworks, programs, and funding to achieve restora-
tion and protection goals.
For example, EPA and the states use authorities and fund-
ing provided 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 sub-
stances support the work of the Management Conference in
ensuring a clean and safe Long Island Sound.
EPA's State Revolving Fund under Section 601 is used by
states to leverage funding for STP upgrades 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 partici-
pated 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 exten-
sive 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. The states of New York and Connecticut recognize
the significant financial investments required to support
wastewater infrastructure and have passed state bond
act funding to sustain efforts to upgrade STPs to reduce
nitrogen loads. 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,
the Urban Sea.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources supporting this goal include the Long
Island Sound CCMP implementation grants authorized
under Sections 119(d) and 320(g) of the Clean Water Act
as amended. These grants include sub grants for the Long
Island Sound Futures Fund Large and Small grant programs
administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, the Long Island Sound CCMP Enhancements program
administered by the New England Interstate Water Pol-
lution 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://longislandsoundstudy.
net/ab out/grants/?).
5. Restore and Protect the 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
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Program Strategies
The Puget Sound Basin is the largest population and com-
mercial 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 mam-
mals, fish, and sea birds. Puget Sound salmon landings aver-
age 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 restora-
tion 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 cre-
ated hypoxic zones that further impair shellfish and finfish
populations. Recent monitoring 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 contami-
nated 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
1 L.Koppelman, The Urban Sea: Long Island Sound, 1976; ISBN 0-275-28863-8
National Water Program Guidance
41
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
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, rep-
resentative 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 Part-
nership (Partnership) in 2007, 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.
In 2011 EPA awarded multi-year cooperative agreements to
competitively-selected entities to act as "lead organizations"
(LOs) to implement focused efforts to improve conditions
in the Puget Sound basin within the following areas of
emphasis:
Marine and nearshore protection and restoration;
Watershed protection and restoration;
Toxics and nutrients prevention, reduction, and control;
Pathogen prevention, reduction, and control;
Projects in tribal areas; and
Outreach and education.
The Partnership and LOs will be directly involved in much of
the work outlined below.
Key program strategies for FY 2012 include:
1. Improving Water Quality and Restoring Shellfish Beds
and Wild Salmon Populations through Local Water-
shed Protection
EPA will continue to work with state and local agencies
and tribal governments to build capacity for protecting
and restoring local watersheds, particularly in areas where
shellfish bed closures or harvest area downgrades are occur-
ring or where key salmon recovery efforts are being focused.
In recent years, FY 2008 - FY 2010, substantial watershed
protection grants have been awarded to protect and restore
commercial, subsistence, and recreational shellfish growing
areas and other awards were made to entities working to
protect watersheds supporting wild salmon populations.
2. 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 urbaniz-
ing 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. In 2010, eight sub-
stantial watershed protection or technical study grants were
awarded to help reduce stormwater impacts and promote
low impact development approaches.
Watershed protection and land use integration projects
continue to be a focus of EPA's stormwater work and these
activities are included in actions eligible for funding in EPA's
Puget Sound grant programs. This is consistent with sup-
porting 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.
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 protec-
tion and restoration plans are implemented.
EPA is working with the Partnership and other state agen-
cies 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.
3. 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.
4. Restoring and Protecting Nearshore Aquatic Habitats
EPA will work closely with state and local agencies to
enhance and leverage their resources to protect and restore
Puget Sound nearshore habitat.
Efforts will focus on (1) effective regulation and steward-
ship, including updating Shoreline Management Plans
and ensuring their effective implementation; (2) targeting
capital investments in habitat restoration and protection
consistent with the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
Restoration Partnership and other analyses; and (3) tackling
high priority threats including invasive species, oil spills,
and climate change.
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.
National Water Program Guidance
42
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
5. 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 is working with a number of stakeholders in the Puget
Sound National Estuary Program management conference
through the Puget Sound Partnership to develop a basin-
wide, coordinated ecosystem monitoring and assessment
system.
EPA will work with other science communication initia-
tives and programs to ensure that data and information is
more available and relevant to citizens, local jurisdictions,
watershed management forums, and resource managers.
EPA awarded a lead organization cooperative agreement to
the Partnership in FY 2010 to coordinate and implement a
Puget Sound wide environmental education and outreach
program that includes regular communication to the public
of the science, monitoring data, and results of actions taken
to preserve and restore Puget Sound.
6. Ensuring Focused and Productive Transboundary
Coordination
EPA Region 10 will continue to work with Environment Can-
ada, 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 repre-
sentatives, work 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 is
the planning of the 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 are
provided through the National Estuary Program grants
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. In recent years,
additional Puget Sound grant resources have been made
available under the "Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Program Project" appropriation. These appropriations have
been applied to priority actions aimed at pollution 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 subobjec-
tive. 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 received FY 2010 Climate
Ready Estuaries funds to incorporate climate change into
its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans,
and also received an additional technical assistance contract
to develop climate change indicators and climate-sensitive
habitat restoration guidance. 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.
Many of the strategies and actions to protect and restore
the Puget Sound also serve as mitigation and adaptation
measures. Both the Puget Sound Partnership and EPA have
identified climate change impacts to be considered when
evaluating potential actions. Additionally, the lead orga-
nizations (LOs) implementing focused efforts to improve
conditions in Puget Sound are incorporating climate
change response and adaptation in their criteria for project
funding.
For additional information, please visit: http://www.epa.
gov/regionlO/psgb/.
6. Sustain and Restore the U.S.-
Mexico Border Environmental
Health
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Sustain and restore the environmental
health along the U.S.-Mexico Border through the imple-
mentation of the Border 2012 Plan.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Strategies
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing com-
mitment 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 con-
struction of infrastructure and development of pretreat-
ment programs. Specifically, Mexico's National Water
Commission (CONAGUA) and EPA provide funding and
technical assistance for project planning and construction
of infrastructure.
National Water Program Guidance
43
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Sustain and Restore Pacific Islands Territories
Congress has provided $990 million in financing for bor-
der water infrastructure between 1994 and 2010. In FY
2012, EPA plans to provide approximately $10 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 pri-
ority needs. The FY 2012 targets will be achieved through
the completion of prioritized Border Environment Infra-
structure Fund (BEIF) drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. Future progress in meeting this
subobjective will be achieved through the completion of
other border drinking water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture projects as well as through the collaborative efforts
established through the Border 2012 Water Task Forces.
3. Build Partnerships: Partnerships are critical to the suc-
cess 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 Ameri-
can Development Bank (NADB), have worked closely
with communities to develop and construct environ-
mental 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 2012, EPA
will work with Mexico, states, tribes, and other institu-
tions to improve measures of progress toward water qual-
ity 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 Environ-
ment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), are provided through a
collaborative and public prioritization process.
7. Sustain and Restore Pacific Islands
Territories
A) SUBOBJECTIVE
Sustain and restore the environmental
health of the U.S. Pacific Island Terri-
tories of American Samoa, Guam, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Program 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 terri-
tories, poor wastewater conveyance and treatment systems
threaten to contaminate drinking water wells and surface
waters. Island beaches, with important recreational, eco-
nomic, 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 wastewa-
ter 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 sys-
tems 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 terri-
tory 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 implemen-
tation of judicial and administrative orders to improve
drinking water and wastewater systems. For example, as
a result of 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. (How-
ever, in 2009, several wastewater overflows and boil water
notices occurred.) In 2009, EPA has entered into a compa-
rable 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.
National Water Program Guidance
44
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Guam Military Expansion: EPA will continue to work
with the Department of Defense in its Guam Military
Expansion project to improve the environmental infra-
structure 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 waste-
water 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 wastewa-
ter 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 approxi-
mately 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 sig-
nificant overall increase in SRF funding, resulted in a nearly
10-fold increase in infrastructure funding for the Pacific ter-
ritories, 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; 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 Environ-
ment Conference, entitled "Climate of Change: Energiz-
ing a Sustainable Future for Pacific Islands." The confer-
ence, 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 wastewa-
ter 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 infrastruc-
ture for new construction, and minimizing marine habi-
tat disturbance.
For additional information on EPA's work in the Pacific
Islands, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region09/islands/
8. Restore and Protect the 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
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Program 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 through-
out 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 natu-
ral 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 maintain-
ing and restoring water quality and the associated biologi-
cal resources in South Florida. Water quality degradation
is often caused by many different and diffuse sources. To
National Water Program Guidance
45
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
address the complex causes of water quality impairment,
we are using an approach grounded in 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 Flor-
ida, in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric 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 compre-
hensive water quality monitoring program and provision of
opportunities for public participation. In FY 2012, EPA will
continue to implement the WQPP for the FKNMS, includ-
ing the comprehensive monitoring projects (coral reef,
seagrass, and water quality), special studies, data manage-
ment, 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 appre-
ciation focus team.
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 char-
acterize the sources of pollution and identify the relative
contributions of point and nonpoint sources.
4. Other Priority Activities for FY 2012
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 Environ-
mental Protection in developing numeric water quality
criteria for Florida water bodies. EPA in accordance with
a consent decree established numeric nutrient criteria for
all Florida lakes and flowing waters (except South Florida
flowing waters) in 2010. EPA is to propose numeric nutri-
ent criteria for all Florida estuaries and coastal waters
and South Florida flowing waters in 2011 and finalize
these criteria in 2012.
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 restor-
ing 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 associ-
ated with the ongoing implementation of CERP. Several
large water storage impoundments will be under con-
struction during the next few years.
Continue to implement the Everglades Ecosystem Assess-
ment Program, an EMAP-based monitoring program to
assess the health of the Everglades and the effectiveness
of ongoing restoration and regulatory strategies, espe-
cially those for phosphorus and mercury.
Continue to work with the State of Florida, the South
Florida Water Management District, the Seminole Tribe
of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,
and federal agencies to implement appropriate phos-
phorus control programs that will attain water quality
standards throughout 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. To insure the identification of the
appropriate WQS criteria, both tribes should be involved
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
in the activities, especially in nutrient control, water qual-
ity activities, and development of TMDLs effecting tribal
waters.
C) Grant Program 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 ecosys-
tem, including the Everglades and coral reef habitat. These
programs and projects include monitoring (water quality,
seagrass, and coral reef), special studies, and public edu-
cation and outreach activities. Federal assistance agree-
ments 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 of Assis-
tance Agreements).
9. Restore and Protect the Columbia
River Basin
A) SUBOBJECTVE
Prevent water pollution and improve
and protect water quality and ecosys-
tems in the Columbia River Basin to
reduce risks to human health and the environment.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices AandE.)
B) Key Program Strategies
The Columbia River Basin is one of the world's great river
basins in terms of its land area and river volume, as well as
its environmental and cultural significance. It is vital to the
more than eight million people who inhabit the area. The
Columbia River Basin spans two countries, seven states,
roughly 259,000 square miles. It is our country's fourth
largest watershed, containing the largest river input into
the Pacific Ocean in North and South America and once
boasted the largest salmon runs in the world. The Columbia
River Basin is home to many native tribes - high fish con-
sumption and increased exposure to toxics by tribal people
is a significant environmental justice issue. The Columbia
River Basin also serves as a unique and special ecosystem,
home to many important plants and animals.
Challenges
The river is economically vital to many Northwest indus-
tries, such as sport and commercial fishing, agriculture,
hydropower, wind energy, recreation, and tourism. Tribal
people have depended on the Basin for physical, spiritual,
and cultural sustenance for centuries. Public and scien-
tific concern about the health of the Basin ecosystem is
increasing. Salmon runs have been reduced from a peak of
almost 16 million fish annually to a fraction of their origi-
nal returns. There is significant habitat and wetland loss
throughout the Basin. There are several Superfund sites in
the Basin (Portland Harbor, Hanford, Couer d'Alene River
Basin and Lake Roosevelt) and there are growing concerns
about toxic contamination in fish, aquatic life, and wildlife.
Based on concern raised by a 1992 EPA national survey of
contaminants, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Com-
mission and EPA conducted two studies. A fish consumption
survey in 1995 showed tribal members eat 6-11 times more
fish than the EPA national average; and a fish contamina-
tion study in 2002 showed the presence of 92 contaminants
in fish consumed by tribal members with some levels above
EPA levels of concern. Recent studies and monitoring pro-
grams have found significant levels of toxic chemicals in fish
and the waters they inhabit, including DDT, PCBs, mercury,
and emerging contaminants, such as PBDEs.
In 2005, EPA joined with other partners in 2005 to form
the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group. The
Working Group consists of representatives from tribal,
federal, state, local, and non-profit partners and provides a
forum to share information and collaborate on toxics reduc-
tion. Through the working group, EPA Region 10 is work-
ing 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 implement a
collaborative action plan 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 pro-
vided 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 Estuary
Monitoring Program, developed and overseen by LCREP, is
critical for better understanding the lower river and estuary,
including toxics and habitat characterization, 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:
Clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated sedi-
ments in the Portland Harbor and other sites; and
Demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concen-
tration of certain contaminants of concern found in
water and fish tissue in five sites where baseline data is
available.
Future Directions and Accomplishments
EPA Region 10 is leading the Columbia River Toxics Reduc-
tion Strategy, a collaborative effort with many partners, to
National Water Program Guidance
47
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
better understand and reduce toxics in the Columbia River
Basin. Actions 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 imple-
ment 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 provided a
characterization of 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.
In September 2010, EPA and the Columbia River Toxics
Reduction Working Group released the Columbia River
Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan. The Action Plan pres-
ents 61 actions that can be accomplished over the next
five years to reduce toxics in the Basin, focusing around
five initiatives:
Increase public understanding and political commit-
ment to toxics reduction;
Increase toxic reduction actions;
Increase monitoring for source identification and then
focus attention to reduce toxics;
Develop regional, multi-agency monitoring; and
Develop a data management system to share toxics
information around the Basin.
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 improve-
ment 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 Reserva-
tion to collaboratively develop human health criteria that
will increase protection for Oregon populations who con-
sume high amounts of fish, especially tribal fish consum-
ers, 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 tox-
ics reduction and human health protection.
States, tribes, and local partners are improving farming
practices:
Oregon's Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Program
in the Walla Walla Basin has shown a 70 percent
decline in bioaccumulative organophospate pesticides
in 2006-2008 data.
On 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.
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.
Federal and state governments are cleaning up contami-
nation at Portland Harbor, Hanford, Upper Columbia/
Lake Roosevelt, Bradford Island, Coeur d'Alene Basin, 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. $600 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 subob-
jective. 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 (Bay Delta) is the larg-
est estuary on the west coast of North America. Its 4-mil-
lion acre watershed covers more than 40% of California and
includes the drainage basins for the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the
San Francisco Bay (including Suisun and San Pablo Bays).
The Bay Delta is a valuable economic and ecological
resource. It provides drinking water to 25 million Califor-
nians, irrigation to 4.5 million acres of agriculture, and
hosts important economic resources such as the hub of
California's water supply infrastructure, Port of Oakland,
deep water shipping channels, major highway and rail-
road corridors, and energy lines. The Bay Delta ecosystem
supports 750 species of plants, fish, and wildlife including
National Water Program Guidance
48
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
several endangered and threatened aquatic species, such as
delta smelt, steelhead, spring run Chinook salmon, winter
run Chinook salmon, and others. Two-thirds of California's
salmon pass through Bay Delta waters, and at least half of
its Pacific Flyway migratory water birds rely on the region's
wetlands.
The Bay Delta Estuary is confronted by a wide range of chal-
lenges that are magnified and concentrated in the Delta, the
heart of California's water system. Delta resources are in a
state of crisis. Decades of pollution and resource extraction
have lead to sharp declines in Bay Delta fisheries contribut-
ing to the collapse of California's salmon fishing industry.
Multiple years of drought conditions have reduced water
supply for agriculture and cities contributing to difficult
economic conditions. Sub-sea level Delta islands are pro-
tected only by aging levees, leaving homes, communities,
farms, transportation corridors, and energy infrastructure
vulnerable to sea level rise, levee collapse, and flooding. A
major earthquake would cause a catastrophic failure of the
levee system jeopardizing lives, cities, and water supplies
from the Delta to San Diego.
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
Understanding9 and produced an Interim Action Plan10
describing a coordinated set of actions to restore the ecolog-
ical 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 effec-
tiveness 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.
Since FY2008, EPA has administered a competitive grant
program, the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improve-
ment Fund (SFBWQIF), to support partnerships that pro-
tect and restore San Francisco Bay watersheds as directed by
congressional appropriations. EPA has prioritized activities
to protect and restore habitat including riparian corridors,
floodplains, wetlands, and the Bay; reduce polluted run-off
from urban development and agriculture; and implement
TMDLs to restore impaired water quality. To date, EPA
has awarded $14.7 million, leveraging an additional $11.7
million and involving nearly 37 partners working on 28
projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
In FY 2012, the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary program
will focus on the following activities:
Provide scientific support for Bay-Delta restoration to
improve the understanding of:
The causes and methods for reversing the decline of
pelagic organisms in the Delta;
Restoring the health of the San Joaquin River (San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Public Law
111-11); and
Pesticide and mercury pollutant loading;
Participate in a state/federal partnership to balance the
competing water needs between agriculture, urban uses,
and the environment, especially the Agency commit-
ments in the Interim Federal Action Plan of December
2009;
Continue a competitive grant program to implement proj-
ects that improve water quality and restore habitat in San
Francisco Bay watersheds;
Strengthen ongoing implementation of the San Fran-
cisco Estuary Partnership's CCMP by supporting a
new strategic plan. Encourage focus on reducing urban
runoff impacts on water quality through watershed
planning, Low Impact Development (LID) and TMDL
implementation;
Support the California Water Boards in implementing
their Bay Delta Strategic Plan, particularly reviewing/
improving water quality standards;
Increase effectiveness of regulatory programs to restore
water quality and to protect wetlands and streams;
Continue efforts to support studies that focus on prepar-
ing for the effects of climate change;
Continue to support restoration of wetlands acreage; and
Strengthen monitoring to assist in Clean Water Act
reporting and TMDL implementation, particularly aimed
at establishing a San Joaquin Regional Monitoring
Program.
For additional information see: http://www.epa.gov/
region9/water/watershed/sfbay-delta/index.html.
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. $600 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 lever-
age 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, flood-
plains, wetlands, and the Bay. There are currently no grant
http://www.doi.gov/documents/BayDeltaMOUSigned.pdf
3 http://www.doi.gov/documents/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf
National Water Program Guidance
49
-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
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 San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Estuary Part-
nership, the Bay Conservation and Development Commis-
sion (BCDC), and EPA Global Change Research Program
completed a pilot project with the Climate Ready Estuaries
Program to identify key vulnerabilities of the San Francisco
Bay Delta Estuary to climate change. BCDC is proposing
new policies for their Bay Plan to better address climate
change and EPA will work to support adoption of appropri-
ate policies.
For additional information, please visit
http://www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail2.php?projectID=4.
National Water Program Guidance
50
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
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 2011-2015 Strategic Plan. This Guidance, however, is part of a larger, three part management process.
Part 1: Develop the National Water Program Guidance:
During the fall of 2010, EPA reviewed program measures
and made improvements to many measures. The draft
Guidance was issued in February 2011 and comments
were due by March 18th. EPA reviewed these comments
and made changes and clarifications, where appropriate,
to measures and the text of the Guidance. A summary of
responses to comments is provided on the Office of Water
Strategic Plan Web site at (http://www.epa.gov/water/
waterplan/). EPA regional offices provided regional tar-
gets in mid March. After discussion among headquarters
and regional offices, national targets for FY 2012 were
revised to reflect regional input, where applicable.
Part 2: EPA Region/State/Tribe Consultation/Planning:
EPA regions will work with states and tribes to develop
FY 2012 Performance Partnership Agreements or other
grant workplans, including commitments to reporting
key activities and, in some cases, commitments to specific
FY 2012 program accomplishments (May through Octo-
ber of 2011).
Part 3: Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management:
The National Water Program will evaluate program prog-
ress in 2012 and adapt water program management and
priorities based on this assessment information.
Parts 2 and 3 of this program management system are dis-
cussed below. Key aspects of water program grant manage-
ment 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 begin-
ning in April of 2011 to develop agreements concerning
program priorities and commitments for FY 2012 in the
form of Performance Partnership Agreements or individual
grant workplans. The National Water Program Guidance for
FY2012, including program strategies and FY 2012 targets,
forms a foundation for this effort.
The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2012 includes
a minimum number of measures that address the critical
program activities that are expected to contribute to attain-
ment of long-term 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 Appendices A and E). 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 2011, EPA regions will work
with states and tribes to agree on reporting for all the mea-
sures in the FY 2012 Guidance, including both target and
indicator measures. For the target measures, EPA regional
offices will develop FY 2012 regional "commitments" based
on their discussions with states and tribes and using the
"planning targets" in the FY2012 Guidance as a point of
reference. Draft regional "commitments" are due July 8 and,
after review and comment by National Program Managers,
EPA regions are to finalize regional commitments by October
3rd. 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 21, 2011.
A key part of this process is discussion among EPA regions,
states, and tribes of regional "commitments" and the devel-
opment 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 activi-
ties 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 rela-
tive 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 discus-
sions with states and work more collaboratively with rural
communities and rural technical providers in 2012 in plan-
ning program activities for FY 2012. The tailored program
"commitments" that result from this process define, along
with this Guidance, the "strategy" for the National Water
Program for FY 2012.
National Water Program Guidance
51
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
As EPA regional offices work with states and tribes to
develop FY 2012 commitments, there should also be discus-
sion of initial expectations for progress under key measures
in FY 2013. The Agency begins developing the FY 2013 bud-
get in the spring of 2011 and is required to provide initial
estimates of FY 2013 progress for measures included in the
budget in August of 2011. These estimates can be adjusted
during the fall before they go into the final FY 2013 Presi-
dent's budget in January/February 2012. The Office of
Water will consult with EPA regions in developing the
initial FY 2013 budget measure targets in August 2011, and
regions will be better able to comment on proposed initial
targets if they have had preliminary discussions of FY 2013
progress with states and tribes. Regions should assume
stable funding for the purposes of these discussions.
Final commitments are used as a management internal con-
trol to communicate performance expectations to programs
in regions and headquarters. The accountability to these
commitments is tracked through annual and interim report-
ing by responsible programs. HQ and regional managers
are responsible for translating the measured commitments
into appropriate tasking for their staffs, reviewing progress
against these tasks, and accounting for their completion.
2. State Grant Results and Reporting
In FY 2012, 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 2012 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) convened a State/EPA workgroup of
grant practitioners to identify Essential Elements to be
included in grant workplans and related grant progress
reports for the 14 identified state categorical grant pro-
grams. On January 24, 2011, OGD issued Grants Policy
Issuance (GPI) 11-03 State Grant Workplans and Progress
Reports. The GPI requires that workplans and associated
progress reports prominently display three Essential Ele-
ments (the Strategic Plan Goal; the Strategic Plan Objective;
and the Workplan Commitments plus time frame) to fur-
ther accountability, strategic plan alignment, and consistent
performance reporting. To further transparency, the GPI
calls for the establishment of an Information Technology
application to electronically store workplans and progress
reports. The State /EPA workgroup is currently exploring
prototypes for the application.
In consultation with the practitioners workgroup and rec-
ognizing that the requirements for the GPI will need to be
phased in over time to allow regions and states to adjust to
the new requirements. The GPI will go into effect for awards
for the 14 identified state categorical grant programs made
on or after October 1, 2012. The Agency's goal is to have all
covered grants awarded on or after October 1, 2012 comply
with the GPI. Regions and states, however, should begin
their planning now to transition to the new approach and,
at a minimum, the GPI should be considered in FY 2012
workplan negotiations. As the policy is implemented, it will
be important for National Program Managers and Regional
Program Offices to provide appropriate outreach, assistance
and education to state recipients. In addition, OGD will
work with regions on a case-by-case basis to address any
implementation challenges. Please contact Jennifer Bogus,
OARM/OGD, at 202-564-5294 should you have questions
related to the GPI.
Measuring Results in State Grant Work Plans and Progress
Reports: OW program offices and regions should begin
working with state grant recipients to ensure compliance
with the new GPI when it becomes effective in FY 2013.
As the policy is implemented, it will be important for OW
program offices and regions to provide appropriate out-
reach, assistance, and education to state grant recipients. In
addition, OGD will work with the regions on a case-by-case
basis to address any implementation challenges.
The current set of measures flagged as State Grant Mea-
sures in ACS will be retained for FY 2012 reporting. As in
FY 2011, 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.
For FY 2012, 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 2012
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 2012. These mea-
sures are associated with some of the larger water program
grants. The water grant programs and the FY 2012 "State
Grant" measures supporting the grant are:
a) Water Pollution Control State and Interstate Program
Support (106 Grants). State Grant Measures: WQ-SP10.
Nil; WQ-la/b/c; WQ-3a; WQ-5; WQ-8b; WQ-14a; WQ-
15a; WQ-19a.
b) Public Water System Supervision (PWSS Grants). State
Grant Measures: SDW-211; SDW-SP1.N11; SDW-SP4a;
and SDW-la.
c) State Underground Water Source Protection (UIC
Grants). State Grant Measures: SDW-7.
d) Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Imple-
mentation Grants. State Grant Measures: SS-SP9.N11
andSS-2.
e) Nonpoint Source Grants (319 Grants). State Grant Mea-
sure: WQ-10.
National Water Program Guidance
52
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
3. Use of the Exchange Network for Reporting Water
Quality Monitoring Results
In a July 2009 memorandum, EPA Administrator Jackson
made enhanced use of the National Environmental Informa-
tion Exchange Network a part of her strategic vision for the
Agency. She wrote in response to a unanimous request from
the Environmental Council of the States emerging from
their spring 2009 meeting that she intends "the Agency
to work with the states to set an aggressive timetable for
completing the transition to the Exchange Network (EN)
for regulatory and national system reporting". She directed
the NPMs to work to achieve the vision of the Network as
"the preferred way EPA, states, tribes, and others share
and exchange data." She added "I look forward to reviewing
our progress toward achieving this goal". OW places a high
priority on increasing the use of the EN for the exchange of
water related flows.
Regions working in partnership with the state programs
should:
Increase WQX submissions to at least 46 state submis-
sions during 2011;
Increase SDWIS submissions using the EN to 39 states by
2012;
Encourage the use of the exchange network for submit-
ting UIC data by 15 states during 2011; and
Increase the use of the eBeaches flow to 15 states by 2011
and 30 states by 2012.
4. Grant Guidances
In addition to this National Water Program Guidance, sup-
porting technical guidance is available in grant-specific
guidance documents. The grant guidance documents will be
available by April 2011 in most cases. For most grants, guid-
ance for FY 2011 is being carried forward unchanged to FY
2012. Grant guidance documents can be found on the Inter-
net at (www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/). More information
about grant management and reporting requirements is
provided at the end of this section.
In FY 2010, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution Con-
trol Grants from Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (Sec-
tion 106 grants) was 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.l.
B. of this Guidance. Appendix D 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.
In FY 2011, EPA incorporated 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.
5. Work Sharing Between EPA and States
Both EPA and states fulfill critical roles in protecting and
improving human health and the environment. By law and
through shared experience, EPA and states must effectively
collaborate in the planning and implementation of environ-
mental programs, and by ensuring compliance with statu-
tory and regulatory requirements to succeed.
The current economic challenges facing states are requiring
the Agency to seriously consider alternate approaches in
work planning to maintain the current levels of delivery of
its environmental and public health programs.
Further, the Administrator has placed renewed emphasis
on improving the Agency's relationships with the States
through the Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamen-
tal Strategy, Strengthening State, Tribal and International
Partnerships.
To maintain program performance nationally and to ensure
the success of the Partnerships Strategy, EPA regional
offices and their state partners are to expand the utiliza-
tion of work sharing in developing their FY 2012 program
performance commitments. Examples and best practices for
work sharing are included in Appendix F (in electronic copy
only).
B) Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management (Step 3)
As the strategies and programs described in this Guid-
ance are implemented during FY 2012, 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 Mid-Year and End of Year
Best Practice and 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 headquar-
ters 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, manage-
ment 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.
National Water Program Guidance
53
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
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 three times per fiscal year. In addition, headquar-
ters 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 to conduct dialogues on program management
and performance. These visits will include assessment
of performance in the EPA regional office and associated
Large Aquatic Ecosystem programs 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
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 Innova-
tion'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 pro-
gram 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 com-
mitment 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:
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.
Communicate Performance Information to Congress
and the Public: The Office of Water will use performance
assessment reports and findings to communicate pro-
gram progress to other federal agencies, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the Congress, and the
public. The Office of Water has established a performance
page on EPA's web site to display data on annual and long
term performance trends.
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.
Promote Wide Dissemination of Best Practices: The
Office of Water will actively promote the wide applica-
tion of best practices and related program management
innovations identified as part of the End of the Year
Performance Reports.
Expand Regional Office Participation in Program
Assessment: The Office of Water will promote expanded
involvement of EPA regional offices in program assess-
ments and implementation of the assessment process.
This effort will include expanded participation of the Lead
Region in program assessment processes.
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.
Recognize Successes: In cases where program per-
formance 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.
Strengthen Development of Future Strategic Plans and
National Performance Guidance: The Office of Water
will use program assessments to improve future strategic
plans, including revised strategic measures. In addition,
the Office of Water will use end of the year performance
results to assist in setting regional and national annual
commitments for the National Water Program Guidance.
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 appli-
cable grants requirements (described in greater detail in
the "National Water Program Grants Management for FY
2012" section), regardless of whether the program spe-
cific guidance document addresses the requirement.
National Water Program Guidance
54
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
Follow-Up Evaluation for Measure and Program Improve-
ment: The Office of Water may conduct systematic
assessments of program areas that have consistently
been unable to meet performance commitments. The
assessments will focus on characterizing barriers to
performance and options for program and/or measure
improvement.
2. National Water Program Grants Management for
FY2012
The Office of Water places a high priority on effective grants
management. The key areas to be emphasized as grant pro-
grams are implemented are:
Promoting competition to the maximum extent
practicable;
Monitoring assistance agreements and ensuring compli-
ance with post-award management standards;
Assuring that project officers and their supervisors
adequately address grants management responsibilities;
and
Linking grants performance to the achievement of envi-
ronmental 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 5700.5A1, effective January 15, 2005, applies to:
(1) competitive announcements issued, released, or posted
after January 14, 2005; (2) assistance agreement competi-
tions, awards, and disputes based on competitive announce-
ments issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
(3) non-competitive awards resulting from non-competitive
funding recommendations submitted to a Grants Manage-
ment Office after January 14, 2005; and (4) assistance
agreement amendments issued after January 14, 2005.
If program offices and regional offices choose to conduct com-
petitions 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 Competi-
tion 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 govern-
ment website where applicants can find and apply to funding
opportunities from all federal grant-making agencies.
On December 1, 2006, OGD issued a memorandum describ-
ing the approval process for using State and Tribal Assis-
tance 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 Environ-
mental Commissioner or the head of the state public health
or agricultural agency) is involved in this approval process.
Accordingly, effective December 1, 2006, before redirect-
ing 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
The Office of Water is required to develop and carry out a
post-award monitoring plan and conduct baseline monitor-
ing for every award. EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Com-
pliance, 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 program-
matic standpoint, this monitoring should ensure satisfac-
tion 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 require-
ments 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
Guidance for Assessing Grants Management and the Man-
agement of Interagency Agreements under the Performance
Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS) on September
30, 2010 to be used for 2010 PARS appraisals of project
officers who are managing at least one active grant dur-
ing the rating period, and their supervisors/managers. The
memo also provides guidance for the development of 2011
performance agreements. The Office of Water supports the
requirement that project officers and their supervisors/
National Water Program Guidance
55
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
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 program-
matic goals and responsibilities.
The Order applies to all non-competitive funding pack-
ages/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 competi-
tive funding announcements issued after January 1, 2005.
Project officers must include in the Funding Recommenda-
tion a description of how the project fits within the Agen-
cy's Strategic Plan. The description must identify all appli-
cable 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 program-
matic 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.
National Water Program Guidance
56
-------
Water Program and Environmental Justice
VI. Water Program and Environmental Justice
In January 2010, Administrator Jackson made Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environ-
mental Justice one of EPA's key priorities. This new priority challenges EPA to address the needs of communities that are
underrepresented in environmental decision-making and overburdened by environmental pollution. Through this prior-
ity, the Office of Water will actively perform community outreach and engage and work with communities to create healthy
and sustainable communities by decreasing environmental burdens and increasing environmental benefits.
To further support this priority, environmental justice
principles must be included in the Agency's decision making
processes. The Office of Water supports the Administra-
tor's E J priority and the E J Plan 2014, a four-year plan that
will help EPA move forward to develop a stronger relation-
ship with communities and increase the Agency's effort to
improve the environmental conditions and public health
in overburdened communities. For more information on
EJ Plan 2014, see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/
resources/policy/plan-ej-2014.html. The Office of Water
also supports the Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy: Work-
ing for Environmental Justice and Children's Health estab-
lished in the FY 2011 - 2015 Strategic Plan.
To facilitate the continued integration of EJ into its pro-
grams, OW will:
Provide opportunities to engage communities in the
National Water Program work and develop improved
methods of information delivery and technical assistance
to communities underrepresented in decisions to provide
clean and safe water;
Overcome barriers to incorporating EJ in decision mak-
ing, including development of regulations and issuing
permits;
Consider approaches for incorporating EJ in setting
priorities, allocating resources, targeting activities, and
measuring progress; and
Work with the regions and federal agencies to coordinate
funding and technical support for efforts to build healthy,
sustainable, and green neighborhoods.
The Office of Water will make the use of all tools it has at its
disposatechnical assistance, data, and initiatives, such as
the Urban Waters Effort, Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE), and grantsto link with EPA
regional efforts that address the range of environmental
issues facing all EJ communities including the community
based EJ Showcase Community Program.
During FY 2011 - 2012, OW will work with other EPA
media offices and EJ stakeholders to address permits issued
pursuant to federal environmental laws that enable EPA
to address the complex issue of cumulative impacts from
exposure to multiple sources and existing conditions that
are critical to the effective consideration of environmental
justice in permitting.
The goal of this effort is to ensure that environmental jus-
tice concerns are given full consideration in the decision to
issue a permit and the terms of permits issued under federal
environmental laws. An additional goal is to develop tools to
support the consideration of environmental justice during
implementation of permitting programs.
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). 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 2.2.9);
2) Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories (Subobjec-
tive 2.2.10); and 3) Alaska Native Villages Program. This
focus will result in improved environmental quality for all
people, including the unserved and underserved subpopula-
tions living in areas with potential disproportionately high
and adverse impacts on human health. The Office of Water
will explore ways to collaborate with the Office of Environ-
mental 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 E J concerns, the Office of Water will address the E J
considerations in drinking water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture improvements to small and disadvantaged communi-
ties. The Office of Water will address the lack of access to
safe drinking water and sanitation systems in small dis-
advantaged communities, including tribal and territorial
communities, as well as reduce the risk to exposure in con-
taminants 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 continue 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 especially
disadvantaged communities to access, restore and benefit
their urban waters through the Urban Waters Effort.
National Water Program Guidance
57
-------
Water Program and Environmental Justice
2. Environmental Justice and Water Safe to Drink
The Office of Water will promote infrastructure improve-
ments to small and disadvantaged communities through the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that reduce
public exposure to contaminants through compliance
with regulations and support the reliable delivery of safe
water by community water systems, schools, and child-care
centers.
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 devel-
opment and operator certification programs, and through
initiatives on asset management, operator recruitment and
retention, and water efficiency. This also includes partner-
ship efforts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural
Development to enhance the sustainability of rural water
systems and to promote a sustainable and green water sec-
tor 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 modi-
fications 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 in Indian Country
The challenges associated with the provision of safe drink-
ing 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 systems. The magnitude of these challenges in Indian
Country is demonstrated by tribal water system compliance
with health-based regulations (SDW-SP3.N11) and by the
number of homes that lack access to safe drinking water
in Indian country (SDW-SP5). Similarly, the magnitude of
challenges associated with provision of sanitation is dem-
onstrated by the number of homes that lack access to basic
sanitation in Indian Country (WQ-SP15).
In 2010,13.2% of the population in Indian country was
served by community water systems in violation of EPA's
health-based drinking water standards. In comparison;
7.9% of the entire U.S. population was served by commu-
nity water systems in violation of these regulations.
Additionally, 34,187 or 12.1% of the tribal homes tracked
by the Indian Health Service were found to lack access to
safe drinking water and/or wastewater disposal facili-
ties 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 con-
tinue to maintain its commitment to improve the provision
of safe drinking water in Indian country by working with
public water systems to maintain and improve compliance
with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
through use of infrastructure funding, technical assistance,
and enforcement actions. This effort supports the Cross-
Cutting Fundamental Strategy: Working for Environmental
Justice and Children's Health to highlight EJ supporting
work. EPA recognizes that not all tribal communities are
disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards,
and thus, do not present a universal need for environmental
justice. However, the above measure (SDW-SP3.N11) indi-
cates that a greater proportion of the overall population in
Indian Country lacks access to and receives drinking water
that is not in compliance with all applicable health-based
drinking water standards compared to the U.S. population
on the whole. Therefore, an increase in the percent popula-
tion receiving safe drinking water is indicative of an overall
increase in public health protection in Indian Country.
The EPA will also continue to work in partnership with the
Indian Health Service, the Department of Agriculture, and
Housing and Urban Development through the Infrastruc-
ture 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.
To support better management and maintenance of water
systems on tribal lands, EPA will continue to implement the
National Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification pro-
gram to ensure that tribal water utility staff have the train-
ing and experience needed to provide safe 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 of fish and shellfish taken
from polluted waters. Integration of public health advi-
sory activities into the Water Quality Standards Program
promotes environmental justice by ensuring that adviso-
ries 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 popula-
tions, particularly those that catch fish for subsistence. Such
National Water Program Guidance
58
-------
Water Program and Environmental Justice
populations may include women of child bearing age, chil-
dren, African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics,
Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.
The Office of Water reaches these populations by dissemi-
nating 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 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 and the U.S.-Mexico
Border Region
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing com-
mitment to protect the environment and public health for
communities in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Residents of
the border region face disproportionate exposure to inade-
quately treated wastewater and unsafe drinking water. EPA's
U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program enables
communities in the border region, defined as 100 kilome-
ters north and south of the international border, to develop,
design, and construct infrastructure projects that provide
safe drinking water and wastewater collection and treat-
ment. The lack of safe drinking water directly impacts public
health while inadequate sanitation and treatment facili-
ties impact shared and transboundary rivers and coastal
waters and threaten the public health and ecosystems of
the region. EPA prioritizes funding to border communities
based on the most severe public health and environmental
conditions. These communities are looking to EPA as a last-
resort funding source when utilities, cities, or states are not
able to fully finance needed infrastructure improvements.
Through the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Pro-
gram, communities build and improve drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure. Many households in the commu-
nities receive drinking water or wastewater service for the
first time. These first time service connections are tracked
by measures MB-SP24.N11 and MB-SP25.N11 - additional
homes served by improvements in water services. The
household connections are reported when infrastructure
projects have completed construction and are operational.
6. Environmental Justice and Alaska Native Villages
Alaska Native Villages (ANVs) are unique populations that
have extreme sanitation difficulties relative to people in
the lower 48 States. Limited federal and state funding was
provided to address these problems, but under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, Congress
formally recognized an annual appropriation that EPA
may distribute specifically to these communities. The ANV
Program addresses the lack of basic drinking water and
sanitation infrastructure (i.e., flushing toilets and running
water) in rural and Native Alaska communities. In many
of these communities, "honeybuckets" and pit privies are
the sole means of sewage collection and disposal. Drinking
water is often hauled in 50-gallon tanks from community
watering points.
Since 1995 the ANV program, through the state of Alaska,
has provided grant funds to over 200 under-served commu-
nities to improve or to construct drinking water and waste-
water facilities thereby improving local health and sanita-
tion conditions. The ANV program also supports training
and technical assistance programs related to the technical,
financial, and managerial requirements of managing sanita-
tion systems in rural Alaska.
Measure WQ-23 tracks the percentage of serviceable rural
Alaska homes with access to safe drinking water supply
and wastewater disposal. The number of homes served by
a community water and wastewater system has increased
dramatically from 60% in 1998 to 90% in 2008. When
compared to the national average, ANVs continue to stand
out as under-served populations for both clean water infra-
structure and wastewater treatment. Consequently, these
villages experience disproportional exposure to untreated or
under-treated wastewater.
7. Environmental Justice Water-Related Elements
The Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
program is a community-based, multi-media collabora-
tive 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. CARE
assistance agreements create and strengthen local partner-
ships, local capacity, and civic engagement to improve local
environments and health, and to ensure sustainability of
environmental health efforts over time. Technical support
and training help communities build partnerships and use
collaborative processes to improve their understanding of
environmental risks from all sources, set priorities, and
select and implement actions to reduce risks.
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. The
CARE program coordinates with a broad range of govern-
ments, organizations and businesses to help communities
find partners they will need to succeed. In addition, CARE
makes best practices, lessons learned and other tools acces-
sible to all communities. CARE benefits many communities,
the majority of which are experiencing disproportionate
adverse health and environmental impacts.
The Office of Water will work with CARE communities/proj-
ects to assess and address sources of water pollution, includ-
ing the use of water pollution reduction programs in their
communities, particularly those communities suffering
disproportionately from environmental burdens. The CARE
Program will continue to promote cross-media collabora-
tion 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
National Water Program Guidance
59
-------
Water Program and Environmental Justice
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
2012, the lead coordination NPM for the CARE Program is
OW, with OAR as co-lead. OCSPP 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. To
capture some of the program successes, the CARE program
has two new indicator measures that will be tracked and
reported under the Office of Air's National Program Guid-
ance. The indicator measures are:
Number and percent of communities who have developed
and agreed on a list of priority toxic and environmental
concerns using the CARE partnership process (annual
and cumulative)
Number and percent of communities who, through the
CARE Program, implement local solutions to address
an agreed upon list of priority toxic and environmental
concerns using the CARE partnership process (annual
and cumulative)
More program information is available at www.epa.gov/
CARE.
In addressing the challenges of climate change, it is impor-
tant to recognize that the impacts of climate change raise
serious environmental justice issues. It is generally under-
stood 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 accom-
panying the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Find-
ings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean
Air Act, "within settlements experiencing climate change,
certain parts of the population maybe 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 E J communities
regarding climate change
8. Achieving Results in the Environmental
Justice Priorities
The Office of Water will track these activities through Goal
2, Protecting America's Waters, and is reviewing existing
measures, as part of the Action Plan for the Cross-Cutting
Fundamental Strategy: Working for Environmental Justice and
Children's Health, to identify opportunities to highlight EJ
work in the National Water Program. Measures (safe drink-
ing water and sanitation on tribal lands, the U.S.-Mexico
border region, and Alaska native villages) supporting EJ
work are discussed in previous subsections.
National Water Program Guidance
60
-------
National Water Program and Children's Health
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 consider-
ation in Agency decision-making, but a driving force in decisions. EPA must use a variety of approaches to protect chil-
dren 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, states, and tribes 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
and planning. The regional Children's Health Coordinator is
also a liaison between the region and the Office of Chil-
dren's Health Protection and Environmental Education at
headquarters.
Actions that regions can take in FY 2012 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 child care centers are a critical subset of small
drinking water systems for which EPA is also continuing to
provide special emphasis in FY 2012 to ensure that children
receive water that is safe to drink. There are approximately
7,700 schools and child care centers that are also public
water systems. Similar to other small systems, schools and
child care centers often do not have the technical, mana-
gerial, or financial capacity to comply with Safe Drinking
Water Act requirements, including maintaining a certified
operator. EPA will continue to provide technical assistance,
user-friendly guidance, and training to ensure that these
systems understand their responsibilities for providing safe
drinking water. EPA will also continue to work with state
partners to ensure that violations occurring at schools and
child care centers are addressed quickly and these systems
are returned to compliance. The National Water Program
has developed a separate indicator (SDW-17) for schools
and child care centers meeting health-based standards in
order to track progress in this area.
National Water Program Guidance
61
-------
National Water Program and the Urban Waters Effort
VIII. National Water Program and the Urban
Waters Effort
Urban environments, particularly in underserved 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 isolate communities from their waters.
In March 2009, in response to a charge from EPA Admin-
istrator Lisa Jackson, EPA's Office of Water, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, and Office of Environmen-
tal Justice began to develop a new Urban Waters effort to
address these issues. This effort supports the Administra-
tor's priority, Protecting America's Waters.
The goal of the Urban Waters effort is to help communi-
tiesparticularly underserved communitiesaccess,
restore, and benefit from their urban waters and the sur-
rounding 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 resi-
dents, especially youth; robust partnerships; strong commu-
nity-based organizations; active and informed local gov-
ernment 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 mak-
ing more informed choices and in influencing local decisions
about their waters and the surrounding land.
In response to key stakeholder feedback, EPA will join with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Inte-
rior to lead a federal interagency working group to improve
communities' access to resources relevant to urban water
restoration; 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 pro-
vide 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 environ-
mental justice to undertake activities that:
Promote equitable and safe public access to urban water-
ways 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 reframing water as
relevant to community priorities, such as education,
employment, recreation, safety, health, housing, trans-
portation, and livability.
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.
The FY 2012 President's Budget proposes funding to
support Urban Waters grants for community projects to
address water quality issues. These activities would be
reflected in two new measures: 1) WQ-25a: Number of
urban water projects initiated addressing water quality
issues in the community, and 2) WQ-25b: Number of urban
water projects completed addressing water quality issues
in the community. If funding is approved, grant recipients
would be required to report results corresponding to these
measures.
National Water Program Guidance
62
-------
National Water Program and Climate Change
IX. National Water Program and Climate Change
The EPA Office Water released the National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change (Strategy) in Septem-
ber 2008. 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.
For more information, visit http://water.epa.gov/scitech/climatechange/strategy.cfm.
Forty-four specific "key actions," identified in the Strat-
egy, lay the foundation for adapting water programs to a
changing climate. Most of these actions address building
resilience to climate change impacts, while others address
opportunities for mitigating release of greenhouse gases,
improving research on climate change and water issues, and
facilitating education 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 emis-
sions by focusing on improving energy efficiency at
drinking water and wastewater utilities, reducing water
use through the WaterSense program, and reducing
urban heat islands through the Green Infrastructure and
Green Buildings programs. In addition in 2010, the EPA
Underground Injection Control Program finalized 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 also formed a working group
under the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
FACA to evaluate the concept of "Climate Ready Water
Utilities". This group provided findings and recommenda-
tions on the development of an effective program that
will enable drinking water and wastewater utilities to
develop and implement long-range plans that account for
climate change impacts.
Water Program Adaptation: Climate change adaptation
and mitigation is being incorporated throughout the
National Water Program's base programs as informa-
tion becomes available and resources allow. For example,
guidance has been issued clarifying the use of the State
Revolving Funds for climate change mitigation and adap-
tation related activities: water infrastructure programs
are adopting methods to reduce risk to investments;
green infrastructure strategies are being promoted to
manage stormwater flows while preserving water in
watersheds; the National Estuary Program is incorporat-
ing climate resilient strategies; and watershed-based pro-
grams are incorporating climate change risks in strategies
to build watershed resilience. Further, the regional water
programs are implementing projects to address regional
priorities, mitigate greenhouse gases, and build resilience.
Collaboration: Addressing climate change requires col-
laborative problem solving, and the NWP has engaged
partners and stakeholders throughout the federal gov-
ernment, in states, tribes and localities, and with other
EPA offices. For example, the Office of Water Deputy
Assistant Administrator co-chairs the Water Workgroup
of Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force,
comprising over a dozen federal agencies involved in
water resource management in the U.S. The Interagency
Workgroup has developed a set of recommendations for
federal agencies to work together to respond to climate
change challenges and continues to work together to
implement strategies.
Next Steps
The National Water Program will continue to build a
resilient program. In 2011, the program will continue to
work with stakeholders and partners to build our collective
ability to plan and implement strategies. Notably, the NWP
Climate Workgroup will revise its Strategy for 2012 and
beyond, building on the foundation, the lessons learned,
and the partnerships built during the past few years of
addressing climate change. Efforts in 2011 include:
Continue to implement the updated key actions;
Revise and update the Strategy by 2012 with long-term
goals and mid-term strategies to guide annual plan-
ning, including both headquarters and regional water
programs;
Work with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to
enhance communication and collaboration and build
new programs, such as Climate Ready Water Utilities to
address adaptation challenges;
Continue to co-chair the Water Workgroup of the Inter-
agency Adaptation Task Force, and work with other fed-
eral agencies involved in water management to address
priority projects, such as water use efficiency and improv-
ing data and information for planning;
Continue developing integrated water and climate change
research programs among EPA, other federal agencies,
water research foundations, and other interested parties;
and
National Water Program Guidance
63
-------
National Water Program and Climate Change
Continue to reach out to water program managers, rel-
evant partners and 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 reasons to evaluate options to conserve
water, reduce energy use, adopt green infrastructure and
watershed-based practices, and improve the resilience of
watersheds and estuaries. Over the next several years, more
tools and information will be developed to support plan-
ners and decision makers as they address this important
challenge.
National Water Program Guidance
64
-------
National Water Program and Tribes
X. National Water Program and Tribes
EPA is committed to strengthening human and environmental health in Indian country. As outlined in the EPA 2011-
2015 Strategic Plan, the agency will continue to engage with tribes to build effective and results-oriented environmen-
tal programs. EPA continues to provide federally-recognized tribes with opportunities to develop tribal capacity to
ensure that programs implemented by tribes or by EPA are protective of public health and the environment. EPA's National
Water Program recognizes that as sovereign entities, and environmental co-regulators, Indian tribes are responsible for
protecting thousands of square miles of rivers, streams, and lakes, as well as ground water. In addition, tribes living on or
near the coast are largely dependent on coastal resources. Tribes play a major role in protecting the water resources vital
to their existence, and many are seeking to develop comprehensive and effective water quality programs to improve and
protect water quality on tribal lands.
Each tribe faces a variety of challenges in protecting these
resources and ensuring the health of their communities. To
support and enhance tribal efforts in FY 2012, the Office
of Water is taking actions in its programs to promote tribal
participation and program development to protect water
resources. These actions are described throughout this guid-
ance, and include helping tribes to: develop and implement
water quality programs under the Final Guidance on Awards
of Grants to Indian tribes under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act; restore and improve water quality on a water-
shed basis through watershed-based plans and monitoring;
conduct source water protection assessments; and improve
implementing core elements of a wetlands program or wet-
lands monitoring strategy. In addition, in FY 2012, EPA will
host the first national tribal water quality work shop. This
workshop will bring together tribal water quality profes-
sionals for information exchange and capacity building. Fur-
ther, to reduce the number of tribal homes lacking access
to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, which remains
high relative to the national average, the National Water
Program is working with other federal agencies to ensure
that federal infrastructure investments are integrated and
planned to provide long-term sustainable solutions for safe
drinking water and basic sanitation on tribal lands. The
Office of Water will continue to support the National Tribal
Water Council (NTWC) to promote information exchange,
sharing of best management practices, and analysis of
high-priority water-related issues and actions from a tribal
perspective. The NTWC serves as a national forum for tribal
water managers to interact with each other, with tribes, and
directly with EPA on issues related to ground, surface and
drinking water quality.
The National Water Program will continue to evaluate
progress on actions in Indian country that support goals
described in the EPA Strategic Plan. EPA will evaluate prog-
ress using the National Water Program measures, includ-
ing a set of measures directly supporting tribes, which
are highlighted here and further described in Appendix A
andE. In addition, the Administrator has placed renewed
emphasis on improving the Agency's relationships with
tribes through the Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamen-
tal Strategy: Strengthening State, Tribal and International
Partnerships. EPA will also work with tribes to improve
environmental conditions and public health in communi-
ties overburdened by environmental pollution in support
of the Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy:
Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health (see
VI. Water Program and Environmental Justice in this Guid-
ance). Throughout 2006 - 2010, EPA worked with states and
tribes to align and streamline performance measures. The
National Water Program will continue to engage states and
tribes in the Agency's performance measurement improve-
ment efforts.
Summary of FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance
Measures Supporting Tribes
Water Safe to Drink
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP5
SDW-18.N11
SDW-01 b
Improved Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-SP14a.N11
WQ-SP14b.N11
WQ-SP15
WQ-02
WQ-03b
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-12b
WQ-19b
WQ-23
WQ-24.N11
Increase Wetlands
WT-SP22
WT-02a
National Water Program Guidance
65
-------
ational Water
rogram Guidance
-------
OFFICE OF WATER
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-SP5
SDW-18.N11
SDW-Ola
SDW-Olb
SDW-03
SDW-04
SDW-05
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.
Percent of community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based standards through approaches that
include effective treatment and source water protection.
Percent of "person months" (i.e. all persons served by
community water systems times 12 months) during which
community water systems provide drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards.
Percent of the population in Indian country served by
community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards.
Percent of community water systems where risk to public
health is minimized through source water protection.
Percent of the population served by community water
systems where risk to public health is minimized through
source water protection.
By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies,
reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal land
lacking access to safe drinking water.
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to safe drinking water in coordination
with other federal agencies.
Percent of community water systems (CWSs) that have
undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years
(five years for outstanding performers) as required under
the Interim Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface Water
Treatment Rules.
Number of tribal community water systems (CWSs) that
have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three
years (five years for outstanding performers) as required
under the Interim Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface
Water Treatment Rule.
Percent of the lead action level data that for the Lead and
Copper Rule, for community water systems serving over
3,300 people, is complete in SDWIS-FED.
Fund utilization rate [cumulative dollar amount of loan
agreements divided by cumulative funds available for
projects] for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF).
Number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) projects that have initiated operations.
(cumulative)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
91%
90%
95%
87%
95%
89%
91%
90%
95%
87%
50%
57%
Indicator
110,000
95%
76
Indicator
93%
6,080
Page 1 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-07
SDW-08
SOW- 11
SOW- 12
SDW-13
SOW- 14
SOW- 15
SDW-16
SDW-17
SDW-19a
SDW-19b
Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution mining
wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 1 80 days thereby reducing the
potential to endanger underground sources of drinking
water.
Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells
(MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC) that are
closed or permitted (cumulative).
Percent of DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
serving <500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 consumers.
Percent of DWSRF dollars awarded to small PWS serving
<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000 consumers.
Percent of DWSRF loans that include assistance to
disadvantaged communities.
Number and percent of CWS and NTNCWS, including
new PWS, serving fewer than 500 persons. (New PWS
are those first reported to EPA in last calendar year).
Number and percent of small CWS and NTNCWS (<500,
501-3,300, 3,301-10,000) with repeat health based
Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and TCR
violations.
Average time for small PWS (<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-
10,000) to return to compliance with acute Nitrate/Nitrite,
Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and TCR health-based violations
(based on state-reported RTC determination date).
Number and percent of schools and childcare centers that
meet all health-based drinking water standards.
Volume of CO2 sequestered through injection as defined
by the UIC Final Rule.
Number of permit decisions during the reporting period
that result in CO2 sequestered through injection as defined
by the UIC Final Rule.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
90%
20,840
90%
24,327
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
2.1.2
2.1.2
2.1.2
FS-SP6.N11
FS-la
FS-lb
Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern.
Percent of river miles where fish tissue were assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice
is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska
not included) (Report every two years)
Percent of lake acres where fish tissue were assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice
is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska
not included) (Report every two years)
Y
Y
4.9%
4.9%
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
2.1.3
SS-SP9.N11
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.
Y
95%
95%
Page 2 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.1.3
2.1.3
SS-1
SS-2
Number and national percent, using a constant
denominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
permits with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate
enforceable mechanism, including a permit or enforcement
order, with specific dates and milestones, including a
completion date consistent with Agency guidance, which
requires: 1) Implementation of a Long Term Control Plan
(LTCP) which will result in compliance with the
technology and water quality- based requirements of the
Clean Water Act; or 2) implementation of any other
acceptable CSO control measures consistent with the 1994
CSO Control Policy; or 3) completion of separation after
the baseline date, (cumulative)
Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that are
monitored and managed under the BEACH Act program.
Y
751
95%
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP1 1
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13.N11
WQ-SP14a.Nll
WQ-SP14b.Nll
WQ-SP15
WQ-24.N11
WQ-Ola
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining
water quality standards where standards are now fully
attained, (cumulative)
Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment
identified by states in 2002. (cumulative)
Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed approach, (cumulative)
Ensure that the condition of the Nation's streams does not
degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant increase in
the percent of streams rated "poor" and no statistically
significant decrease in the streams rated "good").
Improve water quality in Indian country at baseline
monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
improvement in one or more of seven key parameters:
dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, pathogen indicators, and turbidity).
(cumulative)
Identify monitoring stations on tribal lands that are
showing no degradation in water quality (meaning the
waters are meeting uses), (cumulative)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies,
reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands
lacking access to basic sanitation, (cumulative)
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to basic sanitation in coordination with
other federal agencies.
Number of numeric water quality standards for total
nitrogen and for total phosphorus adopted by States and
Territories and approved by EPA, or promulgated by EPA,
for all waters within the State or Territory for each of the
following waterbody types: lakes/reservoirs,
rivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of a universe
of280)
Y
Y
Y
Y
3,273
9,566
238
3,273
9,691
255
Maintain or
improve
stream
conditions
20
Indicator
Indicator
56,400
42
Page 3 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-Olb
WQ-Olc
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-05
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-07
WQ-08a
Number of numeric water quality standards for total
nitrogen and total phosphorus at least proposed by States
and Territories, or by EPA proposed rulemaking, for all
waters within the State or Territory for each of the
following waterbody types: lakes/reservoirs,
rivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of a universe
of 280).
Number of States and Territories supplying a full set of
performance milestone information to EPA concerning
development, proposal, and adoption of numeric water
quality standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus
for each waterbody type within the State or Territory
(annual). (The universe for this measure is 56.)
Number of Tribes that have water quality standards
approved by EPA. (cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of States and Territories
that within the preceding three year period, submitted new
or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that
reflect new scientific information from EPA or other
resources not considered in the previous standards.
Number, and national percent of Tribes that within the
preceding three year period, submitted new or revised
water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information from EPA or other resources not
considered in the previous standards.
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality
standards from States and Territories that are approved by
EPA.
Number of States and Territories that have adopted and
are implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping
with established schedules.
Number of Tribes that currently receive funding under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act that have developed
and begun implementing monitoring strategies that are
appropriate to their water quality program consistent with
EPA Guidance, (cumulative)
Number of Tribes that are providing water quality data in
a format accessible for storage in EPA's data system.
(cumulative)
Number of States and Territories that provide electronic
information using the Assessment Database version 2 or
later (or compatible system) and geo-reference the
information to facilitate the integrated reporting of
assessment data, (cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a
schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to attain water quality standards. The terms
'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.
Y
Y
Y
Y
64.3%
85%
51,923
49
38
40
37
16
85%
56
219
180
49
2,305
Page 4 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-08b
WQ-09a
WQ-09b
WQ-09c
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
WQ-13b
WQ-13c
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
Number, and national percent, of approved TMDLs, that
are established by States and approved by EPA [State
TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to attain water quality standards. The terms
'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded
projects only).
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section
319 funded projects only).
Estimated annual reduction in million tons of sediment
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded
projects only).
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 1998/2000
or subsequent years) as being primarily nonpoint source
(NPS)-impaired that are partially or fully restored.
(cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of follow-up actions that
are completed by assessed NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) programs, (cumulative)
Percent of non-Tribal facilities covered by NPDES
permits that are considered current.
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and report
results in both % and #.]
Percent of tribal facilities covered by NPDES permits that
are considered current.
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and report
results in both % and #.]
Number, and national percent, of MS-4s covered under
either an individual or general permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general industrial storm water permit.
Number of sites covered under either an individual or
general construction storm water site permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general CAFO permit.
Number, and national percent, of Significant Industrial
Users (SIUs) that are discharging to POTWs with
Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements.
Number, and national percent, of Categorical Industrial
Users (CIUs) that are discharging to POTWs without
Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements.
Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
43,711
8.5 million
4.5 million
700,000
<22.5%
2,129
8.5 million
4.5 million
700,000
291
Indicator
90%
90%
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
20,844
Indicator
<22.5%
Page 5 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
WQ-20
WQ-21
WQ-22a
WQ-22b
WQ-23
WQ-25a
WQ-25b
Number, and national percent, of all major publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their
permitted wastewater discharge standards, (i.e. POTWs
that are not in significant non-compliance)
Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreement dollars to
the cumulative funds available for projects] for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
Number of high priority state NPDES permits that are
issued in the fiscal year.
Number of high priority state and EPA (including tribal)
NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
Number of facilities that have traded at least once plus all
facilities covered by an overlay permit that incorporates
trading provisions with an enforceable cap.
Number of water segments identified as impaired in 2002
for which States and EPA agree that initial restoration
planning is complete (i.e., EPA has approved all needed
TMDLs for pollutants causing impairments to the
waterbody or has approved a 303(d) list that recognizes
that the waterbody is covered by a Watershed Plan [i.e.,
Category 4b or Category 5m]). (cumulative)
Number of Regions that have completed the development
of a Healthy Watersheds Initiative (HWI) Strategy and
have reached an agreement with at least one state to
implement its portion of the Region's HWI Strategy.
Number of states that have completed a Healthy
Watersheds Protection Strategy or have completed at least
2 of the major components of a Healthy Watersheds
assessment.
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
Number of urban water projects initiated addressing water
quality issues in the community.
Number of urban water projects completed addressing
water quality issues in the community.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
86%
94.5%
100%
100%
93%
3
0
86%
94.5%
542
590
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
92%
3
N/A
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
CO-222.N11
CO-SP20.N11
CO-02
CO-04
CO-05
Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean
systems to improve national and regional coastal aquatic
system health on the 'good/fair/poor' scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that will have achieved environmentally acceptable
conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan
and measured through on-site monitoring programs).
Total coastal and non-coastal statutory square miles
protected from vessel sewage by "no discharge zone(s)."
(cumulative)
Dollar value of "primary" leveraged resources (cash or in-
kind) obtained by the NEP Directors and/or staff in
millions of dollars rounded to the nearest tenth of a
percent.
Number of dredged material management plans that are in
place for major ports and harbors.
Y
Y
Y
95%
2.8
96%
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Page 6 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.2
2.2.2
CO-06
CO-432.N11
Number of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that are monitored in the reporting year.
Working with partners, protect or restore additional acres
of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that
are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).
Y
100,000
Indicator
100,000
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
WT-SP21.N11
WT-SP22
WT-01
WT-02a
WT-02b
WT-03
WT-04
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of wetlands
nation wide, with additional focus on coastal wetlands,
and biological and functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
states and tribes, achieve 'no net loss' of wetlands each
year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program.
Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star,
NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs (cumulative).
Number of states/tribes that have substantially built or
increased capacity in wetland regulation, monitoring and
assessment, water quality standards, and/or restoration and
protection. (This is an annual reporting measure.)
Number of core elements (regulation, monitoring and
assessment, water quality standards, or restoration and
protection) developed and implemented by (number) of
States/Tribes.
Percent of Clean Water Act Section 404 standard permits,
upon which EPA coordinated with the permitting
authority (i.e., Corps or State), where a final permit
decision in FY 08 documents requirements for greater
environmental protection* than originally proposed.
Number of states measuring baseline wetland condition -
with plans to assess trends in wetland condition - as
defined through condition indicators and assessments
(cumulative).
Y
Y
Y
No Net Loss
170,000
Target in
Spring 2011
No Net Loss
170,000
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
29
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
GL-433.N11
GL-SP29
GL-SP31
GL-SP32.N11
GL-05
GL-06
GL-07
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes
by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic
ecosystems.
Cumulative percentage decline for the long term trend in
average concentrations of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all
management actions necessary for delisting have been
implemented (cumulative)
Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment
remediated in the Great Lakes (cumulative from 1997).
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within
Areas of Concern, (cumulative)
Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established,
mock exercises to practice responses carried out under
those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative).
23.9
40%
3
8.7 million
31
1
10
23.9
40%
3
8.7 million
31
1
10
Page 7 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
GL-08
GL-09
GL-10
GL-11
GL-12
GL-13
GL-15
GL-16
Percent of days of the beach season that the Great Lakes
beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.
Acres managed for populations of invasive species
controlled to a target level (cumulative).
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened
and endangered species self-sustaining in the wild
(cumulative).
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
Number of species delisted due to recovery.
Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive
phosphorus (metric tons per year) from tributaries draining
targeted watersheds.
Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation
practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or
pesticide loading.
94%
2,600
35%
7,500
20,000
1
0.5%
8%
94%
2,600
35%
7,500
20,000
1
0.5%
8%
Subobjective 2.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
CB-SP33.N11
CB-SP34
CB-SP35
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
CB-2
Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000
acres achieved, based on annual monitoring from prior
year.
Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards
attainment achieved, based on annual monitoring from the
previous calendar year and the preceding 2 years.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen
pollution reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus
pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment
pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles
achieved.
1%
1%
1%
Long Term
Target
Long Term
Target
1%
1%
1%
71%
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
2.2.6
2.2.6
2.2.6
2.2.6
GM-435
GM-SP38
GM-SP39
GM-SP40.N11
Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality
standards in impaired segments in 13 priority areas.
(cumulative starting in FY 07)
Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres
of important coastal and marine habitats, (cumulative
starting in FY 07)
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi
River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the
Gulf of Mexico, as measured by the 5-year running
average of the size of the zone.
2.6
234
30,600
2.6
234
30,600
Deferred for
FY2012
Page 8 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.6
GM-01
Implement integrated bi-national (U.S. and Mexican
States) early-warning system to support State and coastal
community efforts to manage harmful algal blooms
(HABs).
Complete
taxonomy
training in all 6
Mexican states
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
2.2.7
2.2.7
2.2.7
2.2.7
LI-SP41
L1-SP42.N11
L1-SP43
LI-SP44
Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-equalized (TE)
point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound
from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE Ibs/day.
Reduce the size (square miles) of observed hypoxia
(Dissolved Oxygen <3mg/l) in Long Island Sound.
Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat from
the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to diadromous
fish passage from the 2010 baseline of 177 river miles by
removal of dams and barriers or by installation of bypass
structures.
56%
250 acres
38 miles
70%
Deferred for
FY2012
250 acres
38 miles
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
2.2.8
2.2.8
PS-SP49.N11
PS-SP51
Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas
impacted by degraded or declining water quality.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
Restore acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
estuarine wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
5,453
13,863
5,453
13,863
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S. -Mexico Border Environmental Health
2.2.9
2.2.9
2.2.9
MB-SP23
MB-SP24.N11
MB-SP25.N11
Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed
(cumulative million pounds/year) from the U.S. -Mexico
Border area since 2003.
Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water
in the U.S. -Mexico border area that lacked access to safe
drinking water in 2003.
Number of additional homes provided adequate
wastewater sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico border area that
lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
108.8
100
1,282
115.9
1,000
13,700
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
2.2.10
2.2.10
2.2.10
PI-SP26
PI-SP27
PI-SP28
Percent of population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
served by community water systems that has access to
continuous drinking water meeting all applicable health-
based drinking water standards, measured on a four
quarter rolling average basis.
Percentage of time that sewage treatment plants in the
U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with permit limits
for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS).
Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of
the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the
Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for
swimming.
78%
64%
78%
64%
82%
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
2.2.11
SFL-SP45
Achieve 'no net loss' of stony coral cover (mean percent
stony coral cover) in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, working with
all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, tribal, and local).
Y
Indicator
Page 9 of 10
-------
APPENDIX A: FY 2012 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2012 ACS
Code
FY 2012 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2012 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 2012 Congressional Justification.
2.2.11
2.2.11
2.2.11
2.2.11
2.2.11
SFL-SP46
SFL-SP47a
SFL-SP47b
SFL-SP48
SFL-1
Annually maintain the overall health and functionality of
sea grass beds in the FKNMS as measured by the long-
term sea grass monitoring project that addresses
composition and abundance, productivity, and nutrient
availability.
At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in
the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary will maintain Chlorophyll a
(CHLA) levels at less than or equal to 0.35 ug 1-1 and
light clarity (Kd)) levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-1 .
At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in
the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary will maintain dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to
0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or
equal to .25 uM .
Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as
measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 1 0
parts per billion (ppb) total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the
effluent limits for discharges from storm water treatment
areas.
Increase percentage of sewage treatment facilities and
onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems receiving
advanced wastewater treatment or best available
technology as recorded by EDU. in Florida Keys two
percent (1500 EDUs) annually.
Y
Y
75%
75%
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline
Indicator
75%
75%
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline
Indicator
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
2.2.12
2.2.12
CR-SP53
CR-SP54
Clean up acres of known contaminated sediments.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentration of certain
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
60
Deferred until
2014
Page 10 of 10
-------
National Water
"rogram Guidance
-------
OFFICE OF WATER
APPENDIX B
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT MEASURES
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Number of ARRA projects for which Tribes have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with IHS for the project (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Number of States that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative funds
available for projects) for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Number of ARRA projects for which Tribes have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with IHS for the project (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Number of States that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative funds
available for projects) for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Measures in BOLD are annual measures included in Appendix A of the FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance.
* Denotes measures that are long-term
-------
National Water
"rogram Guidance
-------
APPENDIX C: Explanation of Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012
Office of Water-National Water Program Guidance FY 2012
Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected
Pages and
Sections
Priorities
No change to National Water Program
priorities.
Not applicable
Executive
Summary
and
Introduction
Strategies
Strategies in the National Water Program
Guidance are reorganized into
subobjectives in Goal 2 to align with the
new EPA Strategic Plan. Previously, the
National Water Program subobjectives are
in Goals 2 and 4.
NWPG strategies are organized by subobjectives to align with
the new FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan, published
September 30, 2010. All subobjectives previously under Goal
4 (part of 2.2.2 and subobjectives 2.2.3 to 2.2.12) are now in
Goal 2, Objective 2.
See Table of
Contents for
overview of
new
organization.
Added a new section to highlight the
National Water Program's work with tribes
A new section is added to highlight the National Water
Program work with tribes. Also included is a list of measures
that directly support tribes.
Section X
Added narrative for worksharing between
EPA and states.
New text is added to emphasize work sharing between EPA
and states to ensure that current levels of delivery of
environmental and public health programs are maintained
given current economic challenges facing states.
Section V, A,
5
Strategic Plan measures starting with a
number or SP have been re-coded.
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Measures in the previous Strategic Plan starting with a number
or SP have been re-coded to align to their respective
subobjective. For example, measure 2.1.1 was re-coded to
SDW-211 and measure SP-10 to WQ- SP 10 .N11. The original
code is retained in the new code, right after the subobjective
prefix. The suffix .Nl 1 is added to measures that are in the
new FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan.
Appendix A
and
throughout
the narrative
Measure delete: SDW-2. Measure text:
Percent of the data for violations ofhealth-
based standards at public water systems
EPA will conduct program oversight and reviews in concert
with logic model outputs for states, instead of conducting
traditional DVs until SDWIS modifications are available to
Section II
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012
1
-------
Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected
Pages and
Sections
Annual
Commitment
Measures
that is accurate and complete in SDWIS-
FEDfor all maximum contaminant level
and treatment technique rules (excluding
the Lead and Copper Rule).
improve the historical numerical scoring approach. The
measure is suspended until this effort is completed and new
data is available.
Measures modified: SDW-07a, SDW-07b
& SDW-07c.
SDW-7 Measure text: Percent of Classes I,
II and Class III salt solution mining wells
that have lost mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180 days
thereby reducing the potential to endanger
underground sources of drinking water.
Combine 3 mechanical integrity measures into SDW-07. The
denominator for the number of wells with mechanical integrity
losses is very small. Typically, Class I, II and III wells are
deep wells and there are many more Class II wells that lose
mechanical integrity relative to Classes I and III wells (2,800
compared to 8 for Class I and 7 for Class III). The revised
measure should improve the numbers in the denominator of
the measure.
Section II &
Appendix A
&E
Measure modified: SDW-08. Measure
Text: Number of Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal wells (MVWDW) and large
capacity cesspools (LCC) that are closed or
permitted (cumulative).
The measure includes all the wells covered by the EPA 1999
Class V Rule reporting on closed or permitted MVWDW
wells. In addition, it allows for reporting on additional types of
high priority wells including, at minimum, Large Capacity
Cess (LCC) Pools. Reporting in percentages will not provide
good information on progress in closing or permitting the
MVWD wells. The new measure, cumulative numbers of
wells, for the MVWDW, will show progress each year against
the universe.
Section II,
Appendix A
Newly created measures: SDW-19a &
SDW-19b.
SDW-19a Measure text: Volume ofCO2
sequestered through injection as defined by
the UIC Final Rule.
SDW-19b Measure text: Number of permit
decisions during the reporting period that
result in CO2 sequestered through injection
as defined by the UIC Final Rule.
Adding two new measures for geologic sequestration of carbon
dioxide. EPA is promulgating a regulation to require
greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting from facilities that
conduct geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide and all other
facilities that conduct injection of carbon dioxide. This rule
does not require control of greenhouse gases, it requires only
monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases. The final rule is
effective on December 31, 2010.
Section II &
Appendix A
&E
Measure modified: WQ-SP13.N11
Revised measure language to align with FY 2011-2015
Strategic Plan by deleting "Wadeable." Note: Also consistent
Section II &
Appendix A
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012
-------
Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected
Pages and
Sections
Annual
Commitment
Measures
with the FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan, in 2015 this measure
will be revised to report on the Lakes survey.
&E
Measure modified: WQ-SP14a.Nll
Newly created measure: WQ-SP14b.Nll
Measure text: Identify monitoring stations
on tribal lands that are showing no
degradation in water quality (meaning the
waters are meeting uses), (cumulative)
SP-14 is broken out into two parts (a and b) to provide for
clear reporting. Aligning to the new FY 2011-2015 Strategic
Plan by adding the word "baseline" to WQ-SP14a.Nl 1
(formerly SP-14). WQ-SP14b.Nll is a newly created indicator
measure to track monitoring stations on tribal lands that show
no degradation in water quality.
Section III &
Appendix A
&E
Measure deleted: WQ-15b Measure text:
By 2015, in coordination with other federal
agencies, reduce by 50 per cent the number
of homes on tribal lands lacking access to
basic sanitation, (cumulative)
Difficulty in obtaining data has led to an absence of national
data since 2005.
Section III
Measure modified: WQ-22b Measure text:
Number of states that have completed a
Healthy Watersheds Protection Strategy or
have completed at least 2 of the major
components of a Healthy Watersheds
assessment.
Added completion of Healthy Watersheds Protection
Strategies to measure text.
Section III &
Appendix A
&E
Newly created measures:
WQ-25a Measure text: Number of urban
water projects initiated addressing water
quality issues in the community.
WQ-25b Measure text: Number of urban
water projects completed addressing water
quality issues in the community.
Added measures to track progress of projects that help
communities access, improve, and benefit from their urban
waters and surrounding lands. These measures, modeled after
WQ-10 to highlight success stories, will track projects initiated
and completed in the Urban Waters effort.
Section III &
Appendix A
&E
Measure deleted: CO-3 Measure Text:
Number of National Estuary Program
priority actions in Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) that have been completed.
(cumulative)
Deleted as it is a poor measure of progress as many actions are
on-going and not completed within one year.
Section III
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012
-------
Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected
Pages and
Sections
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Measures deleted: CO-SP16, CO-SP17,
CO-SP18, CO-SP19, CO-7, CO-8
Streamlining regional measures from the National Coastal
Condition Reports. The regional results are included in the
NCCR which can be found at:
http://water.epa.gov/tvpe/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/index.cfm.
The overall national NCCR results are captured under CO-
2.2.2.N.11, which remains in the National Water Program
Guidance.
Section III
Measure modified: WT-SP21.N11 Measure
text: Working with partners, achieve a net
increase of wetlands nation wide, with
additional focus on coastal wetlands, and
biological and functional measures and
assessment of wetland condition.
Revised measure language to align with FY 2011-2015
Strategic Plan.
Section III &
Appendix A
&E
Measures modified: GL-08. Measure text:
Percent of days of the beach season that the
Great Lakes beaches monitored by state
beach safety programs are open and safe
for swimming.
More accurately reflects the efforts of EPA and partners in
protecting the beaches of the Great Lakes and more fully
aligns with national reporting methods.
Section IV &
Appendix A
&E
Measures modified: CB-SP35, CB-SP36,
& CB-SP37
Modification is required as a result of the new TMDL and the
inability to track the old measures after FY 2010.
Section IV &
Appendix A
&E
Measures deleted: CB-la & CB-lb
Deletion is required as a result of the new TMDL and the
inability to track the old measure after FY 2010.
Section IV
Measure modified: LI-SP42.N11 Measure
Text: Reduce the size (square miles) of
observed hypoxia (Dissolved Oxygen
<3mg/l) in Long Island Sound.
Measure language changed to be consistent with measures text
in new Strategic Plan
Section IV &
Appendix A
Measures modified:
LI-SP43 Measure text: Restore, protect or
enhance acres of coastal habitat from the
2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
LI-SP44 Measure text: Reopen miles of
Measure language changed to track acres and miles instead of
percent of goal achieved for which long-term goals have been
exceeded.
Section IV &
Appendix A
&E
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012
-------
Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Contacts
river and stream corridors to diadromous
fish passage from the 2010 baseline of 177
river miles by removal of dams and barriers
or by installation of bypass structures.
Measure deleted: PS-SP50 Measure text:
Remediate acres of prioritized
contaminated sediments, (cumulative
starting in FY 06)
Measure deleted: CR-SP52 Measure Text:
Protect, enhance, or restore acres of
wetland habitat and acres of upland habitat
in the Lower Columbia River watershed.
(cumulative starting in FY 05)
No change
Reason for Change
Deletion in anticipation of the development of other indicators
and performance measures that would more meaningfully
reflect results from investments made through funding and
directly tied to the Puget Sound sub-objective. Measure is
duplicative as both the Superfund and RCRA programs have
other targets related to these projects.
Deletion reflects duplicative reporting by this measure. Results
are captured under CO-432.N1 1.
Not applicable
Affected
Pages and
Sections
Section IV
Section IV
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012
-------
National Water
"rogram Guidance
-------
Appendix D
Additional Guidance for Section 106 State and Interstate Grant
Recipients
This appendix, along with the text boxes found in Section III.1.B.1, provide
guidance for state and interstate grant recipients of grants for water pollution
control programs under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Together,
Section 111.1, the text boxes, and Appendix E replace the corresponding portions
of the biannual Section 106 grant guidance.
Base Program Measures: Section 106 funding supports many of the strategic
targets and goals outlined in the National Water Program Guidance. These
measures include:
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13
WQ-1a, b, c
WQ-3a
WQ-5
WQ-8b
WQ-10
WQ-12a
WQ-13a, b, c, d
WQ-14a
WQ-15a
WQ-19a
WQ-20
SS-1
Guidance for Core Programs: Guidance for core programs funded through
grants for water pollution control programs under Section 106 of the CWA is
provided in text boxes in Section 111.1. Restore and Improve Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis.
Other programs in the NWPG that can utilize Section 106 Funds: State and
interstate agencies can use Section 106 Grants to carry out a wide range of
water quality planning and management activities. Agencies have the flexibility
to allocate funds toward priority activities. Other activities that may be funded
with Section 106 funds include:
Source Water and Ground Water: EPA regions and states are reminded
that Section 106 grant funds are an essential funding source for the states'
drinking water protection activities. The Agency recommends that states
1
-------
continue to direct a portion of their Section 106 funding to source water
protection and wellhead protection actions that protect both ground water
and surface water used for drinking water. States should ensure that
there are protective water quality standards in place, and being attained,
for each waterbody being used as a public water supply. Also, EPA
encourages states to allocate a reasonable share of water quality
monitoring resources to assess attainment of the public water supply use,
and consider using water quality or compliance monitoring data collected
by public water systems in assessing water quality and determining
impairment. States should consider placing a high priority on (a)
waterbodies where state or local source water assessments have
identified highly threatening sources of contamination that are subject to
the Clean Water Act and (b) the development and implementation of
TMDLs to address impairments of the public water supply use. In
particular, states should consider the relationship between point source
dischargers and drinking water intakes in setting permit requirements and
inspection and enforcement priorities. In addition, EPA encourages state
programs to consider using their allocation to leverage the resources of
Source Water Collaborative members and allies, found on:
www.protectdrinkingwater.org. See Section 11.1 ,B,5 for additional
discussion on the Source Water and Ground Water.
Non-point Source: States, territories, and tribes may use Section 106
funds to develop watershed-based plans and to conduct monitoring on a
watershed basis. States' integrated monitoring designs should use a
combination of statistical surveys and targeted monitoring to cost-
effectively evaluate the health of watersheds and the effectiveness of
protection and restoration actions, such as nonpoint source
implementation projects. In addition, EPA encourages, consistent with the
scope of Section 106, broader efforts to protect and maintain healthy
watersheds, so that costly implementation measures are not required to
restore water quality and aquatic habitat.
Protecting Wetlands: Some states have utilized Section 106 funds for
program implementation, including wetlands monitoring and protection
projects.
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat: See the grant program guidance at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan
Water Safe for Swimming: See the grant program guidance at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan
Other Guidance: Guidance for the Tribal Program, the Monitoring Initiative, and
Enforcement is provided separately and can be found at:
-------
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
Office of Compliance and Enforcement Assurance National Program
Manage Guidance. In October, 2009, EPA issued 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 guality
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. For more information on specific
enforcement actions for 2012, please see the 2012 OECA National
Program guidance at:
http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.html
Disclaimer: The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance.
The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain
legally binding reguirements. This document is not a regulation itself, nor does
not it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations. Thus, it does not
impose legally binding reguirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community.
This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any
member of the public.
While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this
guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes,
regulations, or other legally binding reguirements. In the event of a conflict
between the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this
document would not be controlling. The general description provided here may
not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. Interested
parties are free to raise guestions and objections about the substance of this
guidance and the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a
particular situation. EPA and other decision makers retain the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this
guidance where appropriate. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use.
This is a living document and may be revised periodically without public notice.
EPA welcomes public input on this document at any time.
-------
National Water
"rogram Guidance
April 2012
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
_ , 1 FY 2012 Measure Text
Code i
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Ind cator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
iPercent of the population served by community
Iwater systems that receive drinking water that meets
SDW-21 1 |all applicable health-based drinking water standards
ithrough approaches including effective treatment
land source water protection.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
|FY 2010 UNIVERSE (in millions)
iNational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of community water systems that meet all
SDW- | applicable health-based standards through
SP 1 .N 1 1 | approaches that include effective treatment and
1 source water protection.
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of "person months" (i.e. all persons served
|by community water systems times 12 months)
SDW- SP2 i during which community water systems provide
1 drinking water that meets all applicable health-
jbased drinking water standards.
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE (in millions)
iNational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of the population in Indian country served
SDW- iby community water systems that receive drinking
SP3.N1 1 Iwater that meets all applicable health-based
I drinking water standards.
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iFY 2010 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of community water systems where risk to
SDW-SP4a ipublic health is minimized through source water
Iprotection
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE
OMB PA
BUD
SG
ARRA
The univers
OMB PA
BUD
SG
SP
91%
represents
90%
91%
91%
91.4%
92%
92%
89%
the population serve
90%
88%
89.6%
89.1%
89%
89%
51,297
89.9%
89.8%
91.4%
300.7
i by community
88.1%
87.8%
89.6%
52,736
89%
89%
91.3%
92%
91%
92.5%
15
76%
76%
82.4%
79%
82%
55.3%
304
90%
90%
96.6%
89.9%
89.6%
93.2%
254
92%
94.2%
93.7%
94.1%
93%
57 7
94%
93.2%
95.4%
94.9%
94.1%
433
87%
90.3%
89.7%
89.4%
87.8%
378
90%
81.6%
94.1%
91.2%
11 9
91%
91%
93.2%
95.8%
96%
94.7%
105
95%
95%
96%
96.9%
97.5%
94.6%
502
91%
91%
92.2%
96.4%
96.1%
94.8%
113
water systems. The National commitment for FY1 1 is higher than the regional aggregate commitment to be consistent with the FY1 1 budget target.
83%
83%
84.8%
85.7%
85%
85.7%
2,714
83%
83%
85%
86%
86%
86.4%
3,624
87%
87%
91%
90.7%
91%
91.8%
4,462
90.5%
90%
91.7%
90.9%
91%
91%
8,808
93%
91%
93.9%
93%
91.4%
92%
7,241
86%
86%
88.8%
87.8%
86.8%
86.2%
8,231
87%
87%
87.2%
87.5%
88%
86.8%
4,106
90%
90%
89.4%
90%
90%
90.3%
3,223
88% 88%
88% 1 88% !
87.8% I 89.6% I
87.9% i 88% i
88.7% i 87.9% i
91.6%
4,492
07 "jo/
4,396
90%
New measure starting in FY08.
OMB PA
BUD
KPI
95%
95%
95%
96.7%
97.2%
97%
97%
3,525.1
94.4%
94.9%
96.7%
3,608.7
94%
94%
98%
97.5%
95.9%
96%
180.2
90%
90%
93.5%
91.9%
91.2%
92%
365.6
91%
95%
91%
96.9%
98.2%
99%
305.9
95%
96%
98.3%
98.3%
98.2%
98%
693.1
96%
96%
96.6%
97.8%
97.3%
97%
519.9
94%
94%
96.6%
96.2%
95.7%
97%
454.1
94%
94%
96.9%
98.2%
97%
98%
142.8
95%
95%
98%
99%
99%
99%
126
98% 95%
98% 1 95%
98.6%
98.4%
98.6% ! 98.7%
99.1%
98.3%
97% | 98%
602
135.5
Indicator measure in FY07.
BUD
KPI
SP
87%
87%
80%
87.2%
81.2%
83%
86%
887 321
79.9%
79.6%
898,619
90%
95%
100%
99.9%
100%
100%
90594
90%
50%
100%
99.6%
53.1%
100%
11,071
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
90%
100%
100%
89.8%
100%
20962
98%
95%
97.1%
99.3%
96.9%
99.5%
114.635
78%
80%
89.9%
83.6%
90.4%
71.173
85%
80%
83.3%
83.3%
87%
86.5%
5394
87%
87%
90%
90.4%
88.2%
82.6%
90,832
70% 87%
70% 1 87%
80% 1 85.5%
68.1%
73.4%
87 7°/
99%
80.9% 1 88.1%
433 933
48.727
88%
The universe represents the population in Indian country served by community water systems.
OMB PA
50%
36.4%
37%
35%
50,916
40.1%
36.4%
37%
52,736
66%
64%
65.8%
64%
64%
2,714
61%
61%
61%
60%
58%
30%
3,624
33%
25%
29%
27%
4,462
38°/
38°/
30°/
8,808
39%
38.8%
38%
40%
19%
7,241
40%
40%
40%
38%
19%
8,231
15%
15%
9%
9%
17%
13%
4,106
45%
45%
38.6%
38%
3,223
10%
9%
40%
40%
8% 1 40%
8% 1 38%
4,111
35°/
28%
4,396
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
INational Program Manager Comments
i Percent of the population served by community
SDW-SP4b Iwater systems where risk to public health is
I minimized through source water protection.
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE (in millions)
iNational Program Manager Comments
I By 2015, in coordination with other federal
iagencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of
Ihomes on tribal land lacking access to safe drinking
Iwater.
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2003 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of American Indian and Alaska Native
SDW-18.N11 Ihomes provided access to safe drinking water in
| coordination with other federal agencies.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
! Percent of community water systems (CWSs) that
|have undergone a sanitary survey within the past
SDW-Ola Ithree years (five years for outstanding performers)
I as required under the Interim Enhanced and Long-
|Term I Surface Water Treatment Rules.
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of tribal community water systems (CWSs)
|that have undergone a sanitary survey within the
SDW-Olb Ipast three years (five years for outstanding
Iperformers) as required under the Interim Enhanced
|and Long-Term I Surface Water Treatment Rule.
FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2009 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region
345
Region Region Region
678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
The univers
SG
is the num
3er of community WE
52.3%
52%
54%
48%
n/a
293.9
ter systems.
54.3%
52.3%
52%
300.7
96%
93%
95.7%
93%
95%
15
80%
80%
80%
80%
81%
30.4
63% 56% 62%
58% I 49% I 62%
63% 1 46% 1 62%
63% 1 51% 1 65%
57% | 40% | 64%
62% 20% 40%
62% I 20% I 40%
63% i 22% i 51.8%
63% 1 15% 1 37%
44% ! 16% ! 35%
25.4 | 57.7 | 43.3
37.8 | 11.9 | 10.5
12% i 80%
12% 1 82%
11% 1 85%
12% 1 82%
12% | 71%
50.6 | 11.3
SP-4bis a new measure starting in FY 08. Note: "Minimized risk" is achieved by the substantial implementation, as determined by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy. The universe is the
most recent SDWIS inventory of community water systems.
OMB PA
ARRA
I
This measur
ARRA
SP
e involves c
Indicator
34,187
(10.7%)
43,437
34,855(11%)
38,637
319,070
oordination with oth
110,000
100,700
80,900
360,000
=r federal agencie
s. Measure is
converted i
ito an indicator for FY11 and supplemented by SDW-18.
i Indicator
| ! 34,187
i (10.7%)
| ! 43,437
1 i 34,855
1 i 38,637
| | 319,070
i 110,000
1 | 100,700
I | 809,000
1 I 360,000
136,100
New measure for F Y 1 1 , to supplement SP-5 in the NWPG and replace SP-5 in the new Strategic Plan.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
95%
95%
88%
87%
88%
87%
88.7%
88%
87%
90%
90%
99%
99%
96%
479
95%
95%
95%
95%
96%
1,019
91% 90% 93%
91% I 87% I 91%
93.7% ! 90% ! 95.5%
93.2% i 87% i 92.9%
95.4% i 84.3% i 87.6%
.215 1 1.750 ! .356
93% 87% 90%
93% I 87% I 95%
78% 1 94% 1 92%
92% i 91% i 90%
94.4% 1 93% 1 91%
2.100 i 7»n | 808
70% 75%
70% 1 75%
68% 1 64%
67% 1 80%
60.7% 1 66%
936 1 ««
*Prior to FY07, this measure tracked states, rather than CWSs, in compliance with this regulation. The national FY07 end-of-year result provided is an estimate.
76
65
63
63
47
22
79
76
65
63
79
2
2
2
2
1
n/a
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
n/a 1 2
n/a 1 2
n/a | 1 | 2
n/a ! 1 ! 2
n/a I 1 I 2
n/a ! 1 ! 2
n/a i 1 i 2
8 1 25
9 ! 1 ! 15
7 1 1 1 15
9 ! 1 ! 13
5 i 1 i 16
1 i 1 i 0
9 i 1 i 25
27 | 8
25 | 8
25 | 8
25 | 8
12 1 71
9 i 7
27 1 10 1
A sanitary survey is an on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of a public water system for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of the facilities for producing and
distributing safe drinking water.
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
IPercent of the lead action level data that for the
|Lead and Copper Rule, for community water
Isystems serving over 3,300 people, is complete in
ISDWIS-FED.
|FY 2005-2007 END OF YOUR RESULTS
IFY 2002-2004 END OF YEAR RESULTS
IFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
1 Fund utilization rate [cumulative dollar amount of
|loan agreements divided by cumulative funds
lavailable for projects] for the Drinking Water State
JRevolving Fund (DWSRF).
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE (FY 2007, in millions)
INational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
SDW-05 i (DWSRF) projects that have initiated operations.
1 (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iPercent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution
Imining wells that have lost mechanical integrity and
SDW-07 |are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby
Deducing the potential to endanger underground
i sources of drinking water.
iFY 2010 UNIVERSE
|
INational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal
SDW-08 jwells (MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools
|(LCC) that are closed or permitted (cumulative).
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iPercent of DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
SDW-1 1 iserving <500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000
Iconsumers.
IFY 2009 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
I
Indicator
87%
80%
80%
n/a
8,954
88%
89%
435
97%
97%
699
93%
86%
87%
98%
83%
47%
71%
68%
89%
90%
676
2,006
1,594
1,438
440
366
76% | 90%
88% | 85%
913 | 387
This measure is calculated every three years to match the requirements for lead sampling. The 2008-20 10 results will be calculated in April 2011.
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
89%
93%
87.7%
91.3%
92%
90%
84.7%
$14,419.7
91.0%
87.7%
$14,419.7
90%
90%
99.1%
94%
97.2%
78.5%
$1,378.1
90%
90%
98%
90%
94%
93%
$2,686.4
86%
86%
102%
95%
91.5%
83.3%
$832.3
90%
90%
90%
95%
89.5%
88%
$1,527.6
95%
80%
93.2%
79%
81.8%
87%
$2,812.2
89%
89%
99%
93%
88. 1%
64.5%
$1,283.7
95%
95%
109%
99%
102%
91%
$978.8
92%
90%
91.9%
93%
85.9%
84%
$1,006.8
88% 95%
85% ! 92%
85% l 104.6% i
83% i 86% !
85.7% l 93% i
80% i 94.3% i
$1,321.7 1 $592.1
Universe represents the funds available for projects for the DWSRF through 2007, in millions of dollars (i.e., the denominator of the measure).
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
6,080
5,590
5,236
4,576
4,082
2,611
0
5,943
5,590
5,236
4,576
4,082
2,611
795
624
735
564
465
320
422
416
410
396
383
311
530
482
500
464
418
261
625
681
599
564
522
369
1,300
1,230
1,066
936
847
557
258
235
192
160
135
59
481
542
480
427
380
229
675
550
591
479
418
242
382 i 475
330 1 500
261 1 402
225 1 361
207 i 307
123 | 140
This measure was annually reported in ACS starting in FY09.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
Combined t
are deep we
numbers in t
OMB PA
BUD
90%
le 3 classes
Is and there
le denomin
20,840
90%
3f mechanical integrj
are many more Clas
ator of the measure.
24,327
ty measures into
s II wells that lost
24,327
TBD
n/a
one measure
mechanical
1,309
90%
SDW-07a. 1
integrity rel
482
70%
75%
57%
90%
90%
80%
"he denominator for the number of wells with mechanical integrity losses is
ative to Classes I and III wells (2,800 compared to 8 for Class I and 7 for Cl
4,000 105 4,110 365 378 2,547
90% i 75%
very small. Typically, Class I, II anc
ass III). The revised measure should
3,000 | 8,031
III wells
improve the
Measure revised for FY2012. The measure ncludes all the wells covered by the EPA 1999 Class V Rule reporting on closed or permitted MVWDW wells. In addition, it allows for reporting on
additional types of high priority wells inc uding, at minimum, Large Capacity Cess [LCC] Pools. Reporting in percentages will not provide good information on progress in closing or permitting the
MVWD wells. The new measure, cumulat ve numbers of wells, for the MVWDW, wll show progress each year against the universe.
I
New measur
e starting in
Indicator
698
FY11.
698
138
44
56
30%
43
68%
126
76%
33
80%
70
87
81% l 80% i
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS|
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
! Percent of DWSRF dollars awarded to small PWS
Iserving <500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000 consumers.
iFY 2009 BASELINE
j UNIVERSE (Millions)
jNational Program Manager Comments
,,,,, 1 Percent of DWSRF loans that include assistance to
aL>W-13 !
idisadvantaged communities.
JFY 2009 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber and percent of CWS and NTNCWS,
4 lincluding new PWS, serving fewer than 500
[persons. (New PWS are those first reported to EPA
jinlast calendar year).
JFY 2009 BASELINE (CWS & NTNCWS <500)
iFY 2009 New Systems (CWS & NTNCWS)
1 UNIVERSE (CWS & NTNCWS)
JNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber and percent of small CWS and NTNCWS
!(<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000) withrepeat health
ibased Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and
ITCR violations.
JFY 2009 BASELINE (CWS & NTNCWS
|<10,000 w/ repeat Health-Based Viols)
iUNIVERSE (CWS &NTNCWS<10,000)
jNational Program Manager Comments
1 Average time for small PWS (<500, 501-3,300,
13,301-10,000) to return to compliance with acute
SDW-16 iNitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR andTCR
ihealth-based violations (based on state-reported
IRTC determination date).
JFY 2009 BASELINE (CWS & NTNCWS
i<10,000 w/ Acute Health-Based Viols)
IUNIVERSE (cws &NTNCWS
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region
345
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of river miles where fish tissue were
I assessed to support waterbody-specific or regional
| consumption advisories or a determination that no
| consumption advice is necessary. (Great Lakes
Imeasured separately; Alaska not included) (Report
I every two years)
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of lake acres where fish tissue were
| assessed to support waterbody-specific or regional
P,-, ., | consumption advisories or a determination that no
| consumption advice is necessary. (Great Lakes
Imeasured separately; Alaska not included) (Report
1 every two years)
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
n/a
n/a
5.7%
I ! n/a
! i n/a
I 1 5.7%
New measure starting in FY08.
I
Indicator
n/a
39%
26% (910,000)
26% (910,000)
24% (840,000)
100% (3,500,000)
The FY10 EOY result was not available at the time of the publication of this appendix.
I
Indicator
n/a
43%
38% (15.2 million)
38% (15.2 million)
35% (14 million)
100% (40 million)
The FY10 EOY result was not available at the time of the publication of this appendix.
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
I Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and
SS-SP9.N1 1 jGreat Lakes beaches monitored by state beach
| safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iFY 2010 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
|Number and national percent, using a constant
Idenominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Ipermits with a schedule incorporated into an
| appropriate enforceable mechanism, including a
ipermit or enforcement order, with specific dates
land milestones, including a completion date
| consistent with Agency guidance, which requires:
SS-1 1 1) Implementation of a Long Term Control Plan
I (LTCP) which will result in compliance with the
Itechnology and water quality-based requirements of
Ithe Clean Water Act; or 2) implementation of any
| other acceptable CSO control measures consistent
jwith the 1994 CSO Control Policy; or 3)
Icompletion of separation after the baseline date.
1 (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
BUD
SG
SP
95%
95%
91%
95%
95%
95%
96%
754,345
92%
91%
95%
754,345
98%
98%
97.2%
n/a
98.6%
98%
86,226
95%
95%
97%
98%
97.9%
97.2%
90,834
95% 92% 88%
95% ! 92% ! 88%
98.2% 97.7% 94%
99.2% I 96.8% I 93.7%
98% I 96.4% I 91%
98.5% i 96.3% i 95.5%
17,861 | 184,609 | 51,726
^^
80%
80%
91%
82%
93%
28,146
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
86%
93.1%
95%
95%
95%
93% 1 98%
93.3%
95.3%
282,149
95.4%
92.8%
12,794
95%
Universe changes annually. Universe equals the total number of beach season days associated with the swimming seasons of monitored beaches.
751
736 (86%)
751
736
76
76
74
72
225 18 315
225 1 18 1 304
n/a
n/a
24
22
1
1
3
3
15
15
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
I Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that
SS-2 | are monitored and managed under the BEACH Act
Iprogram.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basi
INumber of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not
/vw 1 attaining water quality standards where standards
1 are now fully attained, (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2002 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IRemove the specific causes of waterbody
WQ-SP11 iimpairmentidentifiedbystatesin2002.
| (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
i UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
| Improve water quality conditions in impaired
Nl Iwatersheds nationwide using the watershed
1 approach, (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
1 UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
lEnsure that the condition of the Nation's streams
Idoes not degrade (i.e., there is no statistically
^ | significant increase in the percent of streams rated
| "poor" and no statistically significant decrease in
|the streams rated "good").
724 (85%)
693(81%)
610 (72%)
536 (63%)
724
693
610
76
76
76
75(91%)
70
67
62
51(48%)
221
206
197
175(74%)
17
17
15
9(38%)
303
294
232
200(55%)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
18
14
9
7(29%)
853 853 82 106 236 | 24 | 362 n/a | 24
Measure revised for FY08. FY07 numbers are based on a slightly different definition.
Beginning in FY08, OECA and OWM agreed on common language and data collection procedures to streamline this measure. While the definition is
comparison with future data. We have included a revised baseline to demonstrate the real progress for FY08. While national numbers are fairly stable,
SG
95%
99.1%
97.6%
99.1%
96.5%
2,160
97%
99.1%
2,160
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
130
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
394
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
84
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
472
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
343
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
1
1
1(100%)
3
3
3
3(100%)
15
15
15
15(100%)
1 3 1 15
slightly different for OWM, the past data is still valid for
the Regional baselines did change.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
85%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
586
93%
93%
93%
93%
80%
74
States may change their designation of beaches at any time. Therefore, these numbers may change fiom year to year. Universe equals the total number of Tier 1 beaches.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
KPI
ARRA
SP
3,273
3,273
2,973
2,909
2,505
2,165
39,503
3,135
2,973
2,909
2,505
2,165
39,503
133
117
101
84
84
6,710
128
127
126
113
87
1,805
575
555
544
431
358
8,998
554
504
495
418
418
5,274
660
640
630
537
528
4,550
200
190
182
170
144
1,407
308
302
295
289
226
2,036
276
270
270
222
222
1,274
102
72
72
51
45
1,041
199
196
194
190
53
6,408
3,360
WQ-SP10.N1 1 differs fiom previous Measure L, since WQ-SP10.N1 1 uses an updated 2002 baseline. Note: 2000-2002 results equal 1,980 waters -not included above.
BUD
EPA will rei
BUD
SP
9,566
new the FY
238
9,691
9,016
8,446
7,530
6,723
9,691
9,016
8,446
7,530
6,723
1 2 budget target when we prepare the
255
208
168
104
60
4,767
255
208
168
104
60
4,767
346
339
320
224
217
8,826
FY13 budge
8
6
5
4
1
246
458
456
453
384
243
2,567
submission
24
23
22
14
8
300
1,775
1,725
1,703
1,403
1,232
13,958
20
18
16
12
8
300
1,221
1,110
1,018
912
912
9,374
56
48
40
32
20
2,000
3,475
3,205
2,796
2,666
2,665
10,155
30
23
20
10
5
378
440
420
412
395
346
3,005
42
28
17
9
3
213
346
341
340
324
240
4,391
8
7
5
4
3
169
547
541
529
465
465
3,502
30
24
20
17
12
684
619
419
419
310
303
2 742
19
17
15
0
464
460
456
447
100
11,157
18
14
8
2
010
27
450
330
EPA will review the FY12 budget target when we prepare the FY13 budget submission.
SP
Maintain or
improve stream
conditions
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS|
Code i
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
JFY 2006 BASELINE
INational Program Manager Comments
| Improve water quality in Indian country at baseline
imonitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
\\/O- ! improvement in one or more of sevenkey
Spi4a Nil jparameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water
! temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
ipathogen indicators, and turbidity), (cumulative)
1 FY 2005 BASELINE
| UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
! Identify monitoring stations on tribal lands that are
/IK MI jshowing no degradation in water quality (meaning
ithe waters are meeting uses), (cumulative)
I BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
I By 2015, in coordination with other federal
iagencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of
ihomes on tribal lands lacking access to basic
| sanitation, (cumulative)
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2003 BASELINE
! UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of American Indian and Alaska Native
WQ-24.N1 1 ihomes provided access to basic sanitation in
| coordination with other federal agencies.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 BASELINE
! UNIVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of numeric water quality standards for total
initrogen and for total phosphorus adopted by States
1 and Territories and approved by EPA, or
WQ-Ola jpromulgated by EPA, for all waters within the State
lor Territory for each of the following waterbody
jtypes: lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and estuaries
| (cumulative, out of a universe of 280)
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 BASELINE
! UNIVERSE
JNumber of numeric water quality standards for total
jnitrogen and total phosphorus at least proposed by
1 States and Territories, or by EPA proposed
WQ-Olb jrulemaking, for all waters within the State or
jTerritory for each of the following waterbody types:
! lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and estuaries
i (cumulative, out of a universe of 280) .
!FY 2011 COMMITMENT
!FY 2010 BASELINE
j UNIVERSE
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
28% good; 25%
fair; 42% poor
The Wadeable Streams Survey will be updated in 2011. There will be no reporting on this measure until 2012. InFY15, EPA will be reporting on the Lakes Survey.
OMB PA
SP
Numbers in
Note: EPA e
I
I
This measur
SP
parentheses
stimates tha
e involves c
20
1,969
185
are the number of st
t improvement is me
Indicator
1,969
Indicator
25,737
28,052
26,777
319,070
oordination with oth
56,400
52,300
43,600
360,000
11
1
^M
1,729 | 160
185 j 14
itions with suspec
st attainable at 18
=r federal agencie
ted depresse
5 stations.
s. Measure is
n/a
14
n/a
d water qua]
converted i
n/a | 1 2 | 1 0 0
n/a | 37 729 | 68 | 150 | 100
n/a | 2 | 44 | 1 | 4 | 10
ry and restoration activities underway.
ito an indicator for FY 1 1 and supplemented by WQ-24.
4 I 2
203 | 268
43 | 67
| Indicator
i Indicator
1 1 25,737
| | 28,052
| | 26,777
! ! 319,070
I 56,400
| | 52,300
| | 43,600
| | 360,000
50
67,900
New measure for F Yl 1 , to supplement SP- 1 5 in the NWPG and replace SP- 1 5 in the new Strategic Plan.
SG
SG
42
49
31
280
49
56
31
280
42
49
31
280
49
56
31
280
1
^^^|
3
34
3
3
3
34
7
5
20
7
7
5
20
084000
864 n/a 1 n/a
00 1 000
34 I 44 I 24 I 24 i 16 24
087000
9 ! 6 ! 4 n/a ! 3 ! n/a
0 i 0 i 1 i 0 i 0 i 0
34 | 44 | 24 | 24 | 16 24
22 | 0
22 1 n/a
22 ! 0
38 I 22
24 | 0
24 1 n/a
22 1 0
38 | 22
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
iNumber of States and Territories supplying a full
jset of performance milestone information to EPA
i concerning development, proposal, and adoption of
WQ-Olc inumeric water quality standards for total nitrogen
i and total phosphorus for each waterbody type
iwithin the State or Territory (annual). (The universe
ifor this measure is 56.)
iFY 201 1 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of Tribes that have water quality standards
i approved by EPA. (cumulative)
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber, and national percent, of States and
iTerritories that within the preceding three year
iperiod, submitted new or revised water quality
i criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific
iinformation fiom EPA or other resources not
i considered in the previous standards.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber, and national percent of Tribes that within
ithe preceding three year period, submitted new or
, irevised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that
ireflect new scientific information fiom EPA or
i other resources not considered in the previous
i standards.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iFY 2008 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
i Percentage of submissions of new or revised water
WQ-04a i quality standards fiom States and Territories that
iare approved by EPA.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iFY 2008 UNIVERSE
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
SG
38
21
3
56
20
3
56
2
0
6
1
0
4
0
3
0
6
6
6
0
8
1
1
0
6
3
n/a
0
5
3
4
0
4
0
3
0
6
4
4
3
0
n/a
0
7 i 41
New measure for F Y 1 1 .
40
39
37
35
35
26
55
40
39
37
35
35
26
"
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Universe reflects all federally recognized Tribes who have applied for "treatment in the same manner as a state"
OMB PA
BUD
SG
64.3%
37
66.1%
38 (68%)
38
35
35 (62.5%)
38 (68%)
56
37
38 (68%)
38
35
35
38
56
2
1
2
3
3
4
6
3
4
3
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
6
*FY05 EOY results are fiom the WATA database.
16
32%
13(37%)
16
17
19(61%)
12(40%)
35
12
13; 37%
16
17
19
12
35
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
1
1
1
1
1
n/a
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8
8
8
6
5
7
8
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
5
4
3
3
2
5
10
10
10
10
10
9
11
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
3
3
2
2
2
2
6
8
11
8 i 10 I
8
7
10
10
7 i 10 1
3
16
8
14
(TAS) to administer the water quality standards program (as of September 2007).
4
5
6
4
4
5
6
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
1
1
3
2
5
5
10
3
4
3
3
2
2
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
4
4
5
6
5
4
6
3
3
3
3
3
4
7
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2 I 3
4
6
4
4
2
2
3
4
0 i 3
8 i 9
The universe for FY11 and FY12 percentages for WQ-3b is the number of authorized tribes that have at least initial EPA approved water quality standards as of September 2010.
OMB PA
BUD
85%
85%
85%
90.9%
93.2%
92.5%
54
85%
85%
90%
93.2%
92.5%
54
75%
75%
98%
75%
100%
1
n/a
85%
100%
100%
96%
1
75%
90%
100%
83%
100%
87%
87%
96.7%
100%
88.6%
85%
75%
99%
100%
100%
75%
75%
100%
91.7%
85%
50%
50%
47.2%
55%
99%
79%
79%
79.6%
96.7%
90%
3
10
10
16
2
3
75% I 80%
75%
100%
97%
100%
50%
77.8%
50%
33%
6
2
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
INational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of States and Territories that have adopted
WQ-05 land are implementing their monitoring strategies in
ikeeping with established schedules.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
INumber of Tribes that currently receive funding
lunder Section 106 of the Clean Water Act that have
| developed and begun implementing monitoring
1 strategies that are appropriate to their water quality
jprogram consistent with EPA Guidance.
I (cumulative)
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of Tribes that are providing water quality
WQ-06b Idata in a format accessible for storage in EPA's data
I system, (cumulative)
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of States and Territories that provide
i electronic information using the Assessment
| Database version 2 or later (or compatible system)
1 and geo-reference the information to facilitate the
Integrated reporting of assessment data.
1 (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
Based on submissions received in the 12 month period ending April 30 of the fiscal year. Partial approvals receive fractional credit. Universe is not applicable because it changes annually based on number of
water quality standards submissions.
SG
56
56
55
56
53
51
56
56
56
55
56
53
51
56
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
"In keeping with established schedules" means that states include in their annual Section 106 Monitoring Initiative workplans specific actions that are
states demonstrate that they are making a good faith effort to do these activities.
219
176
161
134
101
0
242
219
176
161
134
101
0
242
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
2
2
2
1
1
0
5
32
32
29
29
24
0
32
36
20
14
14
14
0
40
5
4
3
2
2
0
5
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
7 | 4
7 1 4
714
714
714
714
714
ntended to implement their monitoring strategies and that
19
19
19
19
4
0
23
80
55
50
30
18
38
37
37
33
32
010
93
37
A cumulative measure that counts tribes that have developed, submitted to the Region, and begun implementing water monitoring strategies that are consistent with the EPA 106 Tribal Guidance.
180
130
106
86
60
3
242
180
130
107
86
60
3
242
4
4
4
1
1
0
6
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
2
2
1
1
0
5
23
22
21
20
18
0
32
30
10
10
2
40
4
3
2
1
1
0
5
21
21
21
21
15
1
23
70
45
30
20
10
0
93
25
22
16
14
7
0
37
A cumulative measure that counts tribes that are providing surface water data electronically in a format that is compatible with the STORET/WQX system.
49
46
44
44
42
56
49
46
44
44
42
56
6
6
6
6
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
4
4
5
7
7
7
7
7
5
6
6
6
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
6
5
4
6
7
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
714
Universe is fifty states and six territories, including the District of Columbia
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS|
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
iNumber, and national percent, of TMDLs that are
! established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on
i a schedule consistent with national policy.
INote: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing
! pollutants in order to attain water quality standards.
jThe terms 'approved and 'established' refer to the
jcompletion and approval of the TMDL itself
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
jNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber, and national percent, of approved TMDLs,
ithat are established by States and approved by EPA
| [State TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with
jnational policy.
WQ-08b !
jNote: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing
| pollutants in order to attain water quality standards.
jThe terms 'approved and 'established' refer to the
jcompletion and approval of the TMDL itself.
I|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JNational Program Manager Comments
i Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
WQ-09a Initrogen from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
1 (Section 319 funded projects only).
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
JNational Program Manager Comments
! Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
WQ-09b iphosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
j (Section 319 funded projects only).
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
JNational Program Manager Comments
| Estimated annual reduction in million tons of
WQ-09c |sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
l(Section319 funded projects only).
IFY 2011 COMM11MENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
OMB PA
BUD
KPI
51,923
2,305
74%
2,433; 76%
4,951
147%
5,887 (162%)
1,908
2,433
4,951
5,887
55
205
439
340
35
40
112
126
125
400 316 325 155 167 150
750 i 337 i 325 i 215 i 106 i 150
2,823 305 437 230 124 184
3,413 675 530 186 49 178
65 | 240
65 1 240
82 | 215
80 | 310
96 | 312
Annual pace is the number of TMDLs needed to be established consistent with national policy, i.e. generally within 1 3 years of listing of the water as impaired.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
43,711
2,129
1,999; 64%
2,262
69%
5,829 (162%)
8,973 (105%)
1,748
1,999
2,262
5,829
8,973
55
205
439
340
5,454
35
40
112
126
125
400 206 325 145 167 150
474 265 325 196 84 150
224 249 437 222 101 184
3,413 | 661 | 530 j 146 j 49 j 178
911 1 783 1 878 i 66 i 185 i 168
30 | 235
25 i 235
79 | 215
76 1 310
92 1 311
Annual pace is the number of TMDLs needed to be established consistent with national policy, i.e. generally within 13 years of listing of the water as impaired.
OMB PA
BUD
FY05 baseli
OMB PA
BUD
FY05 baseli
OMB PA
BUD
8.5
million
tie for a 6 m
4.5
million
tie for a 6 m
700,000
8.5 million
8,500,000
9,749,485
9,100,000
11,300,000
3,700,000
onth period only. St
4.5 million
4,500,000
2,575,004
3,500,000
3,500,000
558,000 Ibs
onth period only. St
700,000
700,000
2,054,869
2,300,000
2,100,000
1,680,000
siting with FY06
a full year o
arting with FY06, a full year o
f data report
f data report
3d. End-of-Year results are received mid-February of the following year.
1 1 1
3d. End-of-Year results are received mid-February of the following year.
i 8.5 million
1 I 8,500,000
1 i 9,749,485
1 1 9,100,000
1 i 11.3m
I | 3,700,000
| 4.5 million
| | 4,500,000
1 | 2,575,004
| | 3,500,000
| ! 3,500,000
| 558,000
| 700,000
| | 700,000
1 | 2,054,869
| | 2,300,000
i ! 2,100,000
| 1,680,000
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of waterbodies identified by States (in
11998/2000 or subsequent years) as being primarily
Inonpoint source (NPS)-impaired that are partially or
i fully restored, (cumulative)
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber, and national percent, of follow-up actions
|that are completed by assessed NPDES (National
iPollutant Discharge Elimination System) programs.
! (cumulative)
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of non-Tribal facilities covered by NPDES
ipermits that are considered current.
i [Measure will still set targets and commitments and
|report results in both % and #.]
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
|NationaI Program Manager Comments
IPercent of tribal facilities covered by NPDES
Ipermits that are considered current.
i [Measure will still set targets and commitments and
jreport results in both % and #.]
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
f
.
***SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY06, a full year of data reported. End-of- Year results are received mid-February of the following year.
OMB PA
SG
296
251
215
147
97
15
296
251
215
147
97
15
27
24
19
16
13
1
16
15
12
6
6
0
40
35
31
16
9
2
61
56
52
36
24
5
32
27
22
18
11
3
29
19
17
11
8
0
28
24
20
16
14
4
24
19
16
13
6
0
15
13
9
3
2
0
Regions report results. The universe is the estimated waterbodies impaired primarily by nonpoint sources from the 1998 (or 2000 if states did not have a 1998 list) 303(d) lists
time anew303(d) list is developed, so this figure is only an estimate. Only waters on the Success Story website (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319/) are counted.
I
Indicator
253
229
216 (100%)
62%
18%
100%
253
229
216
184
54
368
27
26
26
22
6
36
21
18
18
16
5
27
23
22
21
17
4
32
27
23
23
20
9
41
44
40
34
28
16
66
17
17
15
10
2
23
23
18
18
16
6
47
28
27
26
23
3
39
24
19
17
12
4
0
Note that this universe shifts each
17
15
13
13
1
21
26
23
22
19
2
36
Regional annual commitments and completed NPDES Action Items are confirmed by the HQ Action Items database. Assessed programs include 45 authorized states, 5 unauthorized states (MA, NH, NM, AK,
ID), 1 authorized territory (VI), 3 authorized territories (DC, PR, Pacific Island Territories), and 10 Regions (total of 64 programs) assessed through the Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) program and
subsequent Permit Quality Reviews. Universe of 372 includes all follow-up Actions for which a schedule was established. The universe increases as additional NPDES Action Items are identified through
Regional and HQ program review.
KPI
90%
109,513
88.5%
107,631
89.4%
108,755
90% (102,196)
90%
(105,089)
87.8% (96,851)
121,681
86%
107,459
88.5%
107,631
89.4%
108,755
121,681
85%
1,587
80%
1,494
86%
1,595
81.0%
(73.5%)
1,165
64%
1,867
87%
2,868
87%
2,868
91%
3,007
89.0%
(90%)
2,885
94%
89%
16,128
89%
16,128
15,743
89.0%
(86.9%)
15,710
86%
8,121
85%
15,938
85%
15,938
91%
16,990
91.0%
(90.1%)
17,431
87%
18,750
90%
16,426
90%
16,443
OO/O
16,067
88.0%
(85.5%)
12,660
87%
18,251
94%
24,434
94%
24,434
98%
25,572
97.0%
(97.7%)
26,288
93%
25,994
90%
15,821
90%
15,821
90%
15,742
90.0%
(91%)
16,384
17,579
80%
4,402
85%
4,677
4,534
83.0%
(88%)
4,879
87%
5,502
80%
2,191
79%
2,164
84%
2,289
84.0%
(88.6%)
2,407
91%
2,739
80%
7,665
80%
7,665
7,216
83.0%
(81.3%)
5,280
77%
9,581
Targets, commitments, and results will be reported in both percent and number. This measure includes facilities covered by all permits, including State and EPA issued permits. Due to the shifting universe of
permitees, its is important to focus on the national percent *FY05 data not from ACS.
Targets, con
permitees, it
imitments, a
s is importai
90%
370
84%
345
363
83% (321)
85% (329)
80% (261)
411
aid results will be re
it to focus on the nat
345
84%
345
363
261
411
sorted in both per
tonal percent
0%
0
0%
0
100%
2
100%
(100%) 2
0
2
sent and nun
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
(100%) 2
2
2
ber. This m
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
11
100%
11
100%
11
92%
(100%) 13
16
95%
42
95%
42
93%
41
100%
(100%) 42
37
90%
12
90%
12
100%
13
92%
(100%) 10
8
100%
16
100%
16
94%
15
100%
(100%) 16
1
90%
187
90%
187
97%
202
91%
(95%) 189
140
n/a ! 11 ! 44 ! 13 ! 16 ! 208
asure includes facilities covered by all permits, including State and EPA is
85%
43
85%
43
86%
43
76%
(79%) 38
41
50%
33
50%
33
34
46%
(30%) 17
16
50 | 65
ued permits. Due to the shifting univ
erse of
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
INumber, andnational percent, of MS-4s covered
lunder either an individual or general permit.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
WO 13b iNumber of facilities covered under either an
Individual or general industrial storm water permit
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
I UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of sites covered under either anindividual
|or general construction storm water site permit
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
INumber of facilities covered under either an
Individual or general CAFO permit.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber, andnational percent, of Significant
| Industrial Users (SIUs) that are discharging to
WQ- 1 4a I POTWs with Pretreatment Programs that have
| control mechanisms in place that implement
lapplicable pretreatment standards and requirements.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region Re;
6
pon Region
7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
I
Data did not
I
exist prior t
Indicator
6,919
6,541
7,080
n/a
n/a
02007 for WQ-13 a
Indicator
88,788
81,660
89,530
n/a
100%
6,919
6,541
7,080
&b.
88,788
81,660
89,530
510
517
517
3,489
3,548
1,654
1,262
1,227
1,101
4,412
4,605
5,160
1,026
1,016
964
675
503
758
1,813
1,813
1,813
626 1 258 1 263
526 I 284 I 250
161 | 257 | 384
6,337
6,500
6,436
18,577
18,477
18,323
20,508
20,508
20,508
18,065 I 7,576 I 4,866
13,508 | 7,068 | 4,198
11,940 | 6,623 | 4,372
260 1 226
179 1 226
584 | 541
971 1 3,987
766 | 2,482
11,273 | 3,241
Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-13 a & b.
I
Data did no
I
exist prior
Indicator
186,874
200,732
204,341
n/a
n/a
02007 for WQ-13c.
Indicator
7,882
7,900
7,830
8,623
18,972
186,874
200,732
204,341
7,882
7,900
7,830
18,972
11,177
7,704
4,321
6
6
2
0
33
5,669
17,671
9,742
566
602
609
624
632
28,983
19,317
23,799
54,607
75,311
75,317
7,477
7,738
9,879
24,463 13,
254 10,013
17,403 ! 12,480 j 12,444
16,308 | 18,
210 ! 12,051
333
277
269
175
770
967
1,021
966
2,131
3,621
2,145
2,129
2,024
1,488
2,523
781 | 1,510 | 658
890 | 1,443 | 618
895 I 1,438 I 581
1,391 I 1,239 I 448
4,190 | 3,777 | 841
23,339 ! 7,892
24,069 | 6,595
27,409 1 7,305
205 1 711
203 | 711
222 1 824
296 1 831
1,670 | 915
*FY05 CAFO data is not from ACS Note: It is likely the Regions overestimated the number of CAFOs covered by a general permit in 2005.
SG
20,844
97 9%
21,385
99.6%
21,487
21,264(99%)
21,830(99%)
22,226 (97.8%)
20,844
97.9%
21,385
99.6%
21,487
21,264
1,305
1,314
1,316
1,314
1,367
1,589
1,397
1,632
1,632
1,656
1,756
2,101
1,882
1,665
1,696
1,733
3,460
3,460
4,480
4,968
1,976 980 647
1,976 | 980 | 647
1,710
1,728
1,685
1,790
1,734
3,539
3,601
3,619
3,932
3,539
4,903
4,540
4,721
4,899
4,481
1,997 I 995 I 647
1,997 I 1,006 I 658
2,081 I 1,003 I 647
2,132 | 829 | 592
2,010 1 1,009 1 658
4,088 | 580
4,088 | 587
4,137 1 587
4,088 1 576
4,088 1 576
4,019 | 562
4,214 1 587
iNational Program Manager Comments All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from year to year.
INumber, and national percent, of Categorical
| Industrial Users (CIUs) that are discharging to
WQ- 1 4b | POTWs without Pretreatment Programs that have
L| control mechanisms in place that implement
lapplicable pretreatment standards and requirements.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
I
Indicator
1,278
1,278
45
71
68
283
521
124 i 84 i 36
6 1 40
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of major dischargers in Significant
WQ-15a INoncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal
iyear.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2006 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
INumber, and national percent, of all major publicly-
I owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply with
Itheir permitted wastewater discharge standards, (i.e.
1 POTWs that are not in significant non-compliance)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
1 IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
I Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreement
wn _ | dollars to the cumulative funds available for
Iprojects] for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
|(CWSRF).
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
I UNIVERSE (in billions)
iNational Program Manager Comments
INumber of high priority state NPDES permits that
1 are issued in the fiscal year.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2011 UNIVERSE
|
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of high priority state and EPA (including
WQ-19b itiibal) NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
iyear.
1,315
1,363
91.2%
100%
1,315
1,363
1,015
1,606
45
44
44
45
72
68
117
72
68
67
74
75
299
316
31
321
542
580
458
630
124
120
17
124
81
84
31
243
36
36
45
42
6 1 42
6 1 42
0 1 198
6 1 48
All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from year to year.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
<22.5%
<22.5%
<22.5%
n/a
23.9%
19 7%
6,643
6,643
n/a
n/a
39.8%
25.0%
426
n/a
n/a
29.3%
28.7%
582
n/a
n/a
18.4%
15.0%
757
n/a
n/a
25.9%
20.7%
1,345
n/a
n/a
19.1%
17.7%
1,167
n/a
n/a
23.3%
23 7%
1,087
n/a
n/a
34.4%
17.7%
396
n/a
n/a
10.5%
8.0%
260
I <22.5%
n/a 1 n/a
n/a 1 n/a
19.8% I 14.1%
13.7% | 15.3%
347 | 276
HQ reports results by Region. FY08 commitment for WQ-15a of <22.5% is a 3 yr. average that shows overall trends. No regional commitments are set.
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
86%
86%
86%
n/a
n/a
3,645
(86%)
3,670
4,238
| 86%
1 1 86%
1 1 n/a
1 1 n/a
1 ! 3,645
1 1 (86%)
1 1 3,670
1 ! 4,238
The FY10 EOY result was not available at the time of the publication of this appendix.
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
94.5%
94.5%
94.5%
100%
98%
98%
94.7%
$84.1
94.5%
94.5%
$84.1
94%
94%
108%
102%
107%
110%
$8.1
^Universe represents the funds available for projects for the CWSRF throuj
OMB PA
BUD
SG
100% 542
702
1,008 (142%)
1,026
930 (120%)
601 (104%)
702
542
702
1,008
1,026
930
601
702
10
13
16
16
16
9
13
90%
90%
95%
90%
95%
94%
$16.6
>h2010,int
24
24
40
42
40
22
24
92%
92%
96%
92%
94%
89%
$7.3
95%
96%
100%
102%
103%
95%
$9.9
100%
95%
102%
98%
96%
98%
$17.7
94%
95%
94%
94%
95%
91%
$8.0
92%
93%
101%
n/a
93%
88%
$4.4
95%
95%
98%
93%
95%
91%
$2.7
95% I 98%
94% | 95%
111% 1 100%
109% 1 104%
103% 1 103%
93% 1 98%
$6.8 | $2.5
illions of dollars (i.e., the denominator of the measure). FY1 1 targets include all funds (ARRA and Base).
100
167
142
125
168
21
167
80
80
181
253
198
91
80
90
93
197
204
252
265
93
47
57
91
122
84
125
57
119
116
194
164
104
32
116
41
67
62
56
47
22
67
16 I 15
16 i 69
43 1 42
36 | 8
17 I 4
3 1 11 1
16 I 69
InFYlO, the measure will be revised to provide a universe of priority permits in time for the setting of national and regional commitments in September 2009, consistent with the Agency target and commitment
schedule. Regions will commit to issue a certain number of permits from the fixed universe of priority permits in FY10. The national target will be the sum of all Regional commitments. There will be no
percentage goal for this measure. The universe of priority permits will be updated annually. HQ reports results by Region.
WQ-19a conforms to 106 OMB PA measure. FY06 measure, formed prior to OMB PA, reported in 2 parts (non-tribal and tribal). FY06 results: 98.5% (non-tribal) & 63.2% (tribal). FY07 measure reported in 3
parts (State issued, EPA non- tribal, and EPA tribal permits). **FY08 measure was reported as State Issue (WQ-19a) and EPA issued (WQ-19b) priority permits. Starting in FY08, the universe of priority permits
candidates is expanded to capture a larger universe of environmentally significant permits.
BUD
100%
590
590
20
37
101
80
90
50
128
44
20 | 20
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
|FY 2011 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of facilities that have traded at least once
WO 70 ^^ ^ facilmes covered by an overlay permit that
lincorporates trading provisions with an enforceable
|cap.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE (FY 2007)
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of water segments identified as impaired in
12002 for which States and EPA agree that initial
Irestoration planning is complete (i.e., EPA has
wo - 1 approved all needed TMDLs for pollutants causing
Impairments to the waterbody or has approved a
|303(d) list that recognizes that the waterbody is
Icovered by a Watershed Plan [i.e., Category 4b or
1 Category 5m]). (cumulative)
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE (FY 2002)
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of Regions that have completed the
1 development of a Healthy Watersheds Initiative
WQ-22a |(HWI) Strategy and have reached an agreement with
|at least one state to implement its portion of the
iRegion's HWI Strategy.
IFY 2010 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of states that have completed a Healthy
1 Watersheds Protection Strategy or have completed
|at least 2 of the major components of a Healthy
IWatersheds assessment.
nFYlO.the
schedule. Rt
percentage g
WQ-19acor
measure rep
universe of
EPA issued
I
measure w]
gions will c
oal for this
iforms to Su
orted in 3 pa
priority pern
ncluding Ti
763
1,097 (144%)
1,118
61 (109%)
59 (104%)
ill be revised to prov]
ommit to issue a cer
measure. The univer
rface Water Protect!
rts (State issued, EP
lits candidates is exp
ibal).
Indicator
442
406
368
127**
98»»
510
763
1,097
1,118
313
324
de a universe of i
ain number of pe
e of priority pern
3n OMB PA mea
A non-tribal, and
anded to capture
442
407
368
127
98
510
29
53
36
9
16
29
priority perm
[mits from til
lits will be u
lire. FY06 n
EPA tribal p
a larger univ
80
80
80
80
79
80
37
49
54
14
9
37
its in time fc
e fixed univ
)dated annu<
easure, forn
srmits). **F
3rse of envir
25
25
1
1
0
25
169
145
130
1
0
169
80
181
253
1
0
80
93
197
204
255
265
93
59
95
132
3
1
59
121
194
165
0
8
121
69
62
58
3
6
r the setting of national and regional commitments in September 2009, con.
3rse of priority permits in FY 2010. The national target will be the sum of a
illy. HQ reports results by Region.
ed prior to OMB PA, reported in 2 parts (non-tribal and tribal). FY06 resu
Y08 measure was reported as State Issue (WQ- 1 9a) and EPA issued (WQ-
Dnmentally significant permits. Starting in FY09, WQ-19b will measure the
171 I 57 I 21 I 1 I 0 I 0
165
152
1
1
171
30
30
30
8
57
22
22
7
3
87
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
20
62
48
1
86
59
38
26
0 1 19
istent with the Agency target and coi
1 Regional commitments. There will
ts: 98.5% (non-tribal) & 63.2% (trite
19b) priority permits. Starting in FYO
sum of all priority permits (State issi
61 1 26
61
60
4
6
61
23
19
1
1
26
nmitment
)e no
d). FY 07
8, the
ed and
Note: WQ-20 was a two-part measure in FY07; (a) was a Target measure until early FY 07, and has subsequently been dropped. Universe is the number of dischargers covered under an NPDES permit that allows
trading. In FY07, measure was: "Number of permits providing for trading.... and the number of dischargers that carried out trades." ***FY07 end-of-year results are based on the number of dischargers that
carried out trades and are not from ACS.
*The trading measure counts all point source permitted facilities that have traded at least once using either individual or general permits that allow trading. Facilities covered under an overlay permit (sometimes
called an 'aggregate,' 'watershed,' 'bubble,' or 'umbrella' permit) that set an enforceable cap on specific pollutant discharges are all automatically counted as having traded.
I
For FY09, g
I
eo-referenci
Indicator
13,932
13,515
12,856
6,792
n/a
39,503*
ng data will be reque
Indicator
0
n/a
13,932
13,515
12,856
6,792
39,503
sted for reported
4,877
4,866
4,978
529
6,710
segments. U
0
1
437
266
266
332
1,805
liverse cons
0
1
2,693
2,596
2,240
1,313
1,806
1,804
1,799
1,322
1,036
947
868
506
Dec
n/a
n/a
263
1,781
1,759
1,698
1,637
227
206
206
200
8,998
5,274
4,550
1,407
2,036
1,274
sts of waters identified as impaired in state submission in 2002.
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
96
96
96
47
979
975
705
643
1,041
6,408
0
1
0
1
0
1
New measure for F Y 1 1 .
I
Indicator
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code i
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
|FY 2010 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
| Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with
WQ-23 | access to drinking water supply and wastewater
Idisposal.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of urban water projects initiated
| addressing water quality issues in the community.
1 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of urban water projects completed
| addressing water quality issues in the community.
i BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region
345
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
New measur
OMB PA
BUD
eforFYll.
93%
0
n/a
92%
92%
91%
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
o ! o ! o
n/a n/a n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0 | 0 ! n/a
n/a i n/a n/a
| 92%
i I 92%
1 i 91%
i ! n/a
New measure for FY11. Since this is a new measure, the baseline is the current year. The universe is not applicable since this units are percent of serviceable homes.
BUD
3
3
TBD
TBD
Newmeausre for FY12: will be reported on if grants funding is provided as proposed in the FY12 President's Budget. The baseline will be established with the first reporting cycle inFY12.
BUD
0
N/A
TBD
TBD
New measure for FY12: will be reported on if grants funding is provided as proposed in the FY12 President's Budget. The baseline will be established with the first reporting cycle in FY12.
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
i Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and
locean systems to improve national and regional
| coastal aquatic system health on the 'good/fair/poor'
| scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2004 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
i Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping
i sites that will have achieved environmentally
CO-SP20.N1 1 i acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's
imanagement plan and measured through on-site
| monitoring programs).
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
12011 UNIVERSE
ITotal coastal and non-coastal statutory square miles
CO-02 iprotected fiom vessel sewage by "no discharge
izone(s)." (cumulative)
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
SP
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.3
5
2.8
1 1 2.8
I I I I 1 1 I £
i i i i 1 1 i 2.3
i i i i i i 5
>2.8
Rating consists of a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
BUD
SP
I
95%
96%
98%
90.1%
99%
99%
94% (60)
67
Indicator
53,635
33,966,989
6,100
52,607
163,129
96%
98%
90.1%
60
67
53,635
33,966,989
6,100
52,607
163.129
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5
5
3,132
1,897,585
1,241
2,511
6,453
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
3
3
1,580.33
821,490
276
1,271
5,995
100% 90% n/a
100% 1 90% 1 n/a
100% ! 74% ! n/a
100% I 95% I n/a
100% I 90% I n/a
2 17 i n/a
2 19 1 n/a
65.17 2,872 45,701
41,711 1,775,702 29,248,806
80 1 1,830 1 2,606
65 | 2,775 | 45,701
7,882 24,128 55,419
94%
57%
100%
100%
15
16
1,280
2
2
9.905
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
n/a
0
568
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
254
162,560
n/a
254
1,749
100% i 100%
100% i 100%
100% I 100%
100% 1 100%
100% i 100%
11 1 71
12 | 10 |
28 | 0
17,856 i 0
65 I 0
28 | 0
9,883 I 41,145
95%
As of FY10, the universe consists of the total area of water eligible to be designated as anNDZ under the current regulations (in statutory square miles). Note the change in units of measure fiom FY08 to FY10
(FY08: linear miles, FY09: acres, FY1 0: statutory square miles).
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
| Dollar value of "primary" leveraged resources (cash
| or in-kind) obtained by the NEP Directors and/or
i staff in millions of dollars rounded to the nearest
itenth of a percent.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
i UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of dredged material management plans that
jare in place for major ports and harbors.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
i
iNumber of active dredged material ocean dumping
I sites that are monitored in the reporting year.
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
12011 UNIVERSE
i Working with partners, protect or restore additional
iacres of habitat within the study areas for the 28
|estuaries that are part of the National Estuary
[Program (NEP).
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
I Working with partners, achieve a net increase of
WT- jwetlands nation wide, with additional focus on
SP2 1 .N 1 1 i coastal wetlands, and biological and functional
Imeasures and assessment of wetland condition.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region Re
4
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure).
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
I
Indicator
$274.3
$514.6
$160.9
$208.1
$158.8
n/a
$274.3
$514.6
$160.9
$208.1
$158.8
$71.3
$337.6
$12.4
$53.6
$12.3
$12.6
$14.8
$14.8
$2.8
$46.9
pon Region
5 6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
RT0on HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget.
$9.3
$10.1
$6
$4.5
$7.7
$43.1 I n/a i $5.8
$65.6 ! n/a j $12.5
$101.7 n/a $8.3
$114.7 ! n/a j $11.2
$19.1 | n/a | $4.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$25.1
$21
$11.2
$10.3
$51
$107.1
$53
$6.5
$11
$17.3
(Dollars in millions and rounded to nearest tenth of a percent). Note that "primary" leveraged dollars are those the National Estuary Program (NEP) played the central role in obtaining. An example of primary
leveraged dollars would be those obtained from a successful grant proposal written by the NEP.
I
Indicator
37
38
37
30
15
104
37
38
37
30
15
104
5
5
5
8
2
10
3
3
1
1
1
3
8
8
7
5
2
8
2 n/a 14
2 n/a ! 14
2 n/a 14
2
0
i 6
! 3
18 | 28 | 14
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 ! 3 !
3
3
2 ! 6 !
2 ! 6 i
215!
12
11
*This number represents major coastal/Great Lakes ports/harbors (commercially significant/deep draft and regionally significant). Development of a dredged material management plan is not necessary or feasible
for all ports and harbors in the universe.
I
OMB PA
BUD
SP
The FY12 P
SP
100,000
anning Tar
~
1 UNI VERSE
Indicator
33
38
28
33
n/a
67
100,000
89,985
125,437
82,828
449,241
n/a
>et is higher than the
=^
Target in Spring
2011
Deferred
n/a
32,000
32,000
33
38
28
33
n/a
67
43,092
89,985
125,437
82,828
449,241
n/a
Regional aggregt
^~
3
2
1
5
n/a
5
2,543
3,955.37
6,184
3,267
14,562
tes because
1
1
2
3
n/a
3
1,258
1,435.8
1,690
1,860
15,009
he planning
^m
2 6 n/a 5
2
2
3
n/a
2
3,500
3,052.08
4,642
7,858.5
33,793
6 n/a 1 1
6 n/a 4
5 | n/a | 5
n/a n/a n/a
19 | n/a 16
30,000 n/a 3,000
67,142.6 | n/a j 740
101,792 | n/a | 3,943
43,763.8 I n/a i 3,643
232,605 I n/a I 54,378
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
target aligns with the target included in the F Y 1 2 budget.
^^f^^a^mi
|
6
6
4
3
n/a
12
1,000
8,670
4,861
21,873
82,363
10
10
9
9
n/a
10
1,791
4,989.34
2,325
562.7
16,531
600,000
_^
Target in
Spring
2011
i ! Deferred
1 ! n/a
1 I 32,000
I I 32,000
Net
Increase
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
JNational Program Manager Comments
|In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of
iEngineers, states and tribes, achieve 'nonetloss' of
iwetiands each year under the Clean Water Act
| Section 404 regulatory program.
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of acres restored and improved, under the 5
WT-0 1 | Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs
i (cumulative).
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2006 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of states/tribes that have substantially built
| or increased capacity in wetland regulation,
WT-02a imonitoring and assessment, water quality standards,
i and/or restoration and protection. (This is an annual
ireporting measure.)
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
i UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of core elements (regulation, monitoring
iand assessment, water quality standards, or
irestoration and protection) developed and
jimplementedby (number) of States/Tribes.
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY05 end-of-year data not from ACS. The next Status and Trends Report (2011) should show a continuati on of upward trends. Data source: U.S. DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Status and Trends of
Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2005-09, Washington, DC.
Qualifying language: The 2005-09 reporting period of this measure reflects that the data: a) are published in 5-year increments, which creates a fixed numerical target until the next report publication; and b) are
already at least two years old upon publication. Thus, at any given time, reporting against this measure is never current
BUD
No Net
Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
n/a
ZZ
zz
Data source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ORM2 Regulatory Program Database. Please note that there is a da
reflect no net loss for calendar year 2010.
BUD
These acres
a cumulative
I
170,000
may include
total. Unex
170,000
140,000
130,000
103,507
82,875
58,777
n/a
those supported by
pected accomplishm
Indicator
47
22
22
25
20
584
Wetland 5 Star R
ents in FY 06, pa]
47
22
22
25
20
584
storation Gr
-ticularly in t
5
6
6
6
6
9
ants, Nation
le National
0
0
0
0
0
7
| No Net
i Loss
i 1 No Net
i ! Loss
| | No Net
! Loss
| | No Net
! ! Loss
i ! n/a
a lag with this measure. Reports for the fiscal year reflect the previous calendar year. FY1 1 will
| 170,000
i | 140,000
ii
d Estuary Program, Section 319 grants, Brownfields grants, or EPA's Great
Estuary Program, contributed significantly to the total number of wetland at
5
5
5
5
3
5
1
3
3
8
7
6
4
4
0
1
0
36
3
0
1
1
0
68
3
1
1
1
1
9
13
0
3
0
3
27
| | 58,777
i i n/a
Waterbodies Program. Commitment
Tes restored and enhanced.
5 i 8
1
1
2
2
1 i 21
0 i 01
146
271
represents
Intended to allow us to track work of all states/tribes (those just starting to build wetland programs and those that are improving well developed programs). It tracks the number of states/tribes that have
substantially built or increased capacity in wetland regulation, monitoring and assessment, water quality standards, and/or restoration and protection. Substantially built or increased capacity is defined as
completing two or more of the actions found in the tables found at: www.epa.gov/owow/estp/. This measure is evaluated annually and is an indicator of where states and tribes are focusing their wetland
development effort, the baseline resets to zero annually and is not a cumulative measure. This measure has revised measure language beginning FY10, which means FY10 results cannot be compared to previous
years.
I
Indicator
27
39
24
11
n/a
584
27
39
24
11
584
9
8
8
0
9
0
0
0
0
7
5
n/a
0
n/a
5
2
0
0
0
6
4
22
5
3
36
0
0
0
0
68
0
1
1
1
9
0
0
3
0
27
3
3
2
2
146
4
5
5
5
271
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code i
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
INational Program Manager Comments
! Percent of Clean Water Act Section 404 standard
Ipermits, upon which EPA coordinated with the
ipermitting authority (i.e., Corps or State), where a
| final permit decision in F Y 08 documents
jrequirements for greater environmental protection*
1 than originally proposed.
INational Program Manager Comments
|Number of states measuring baseline wetland
.^ ! condition - with plans to assess trends in wetland
1 condition - as defined through condition indicators
land assessments (cumulative).
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
jNational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
jlmprove the overall ecosystem health of the Great
GL-433.N1 1 | Lakes by preventing water pollution and protecting
! aquatic ecosystems.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
!FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
| Cumulative percentage decline for the long term
GL-SP29 itrend in average concentrations of PCBs in Great
! Lakes fish.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
INational Program Manager Comments
* Measure
Groups
**FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
in, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Designed to track the number of states/tribes that have developed "to a functioning level" a core element (CE) of a wetlands program that they are "implementing". A subset of "core or essential" actions has been
identified for each of the CEs and is tailored to ensure that a basic wetlands regulatory, monitoring and assessment, water quality standards, and/or restoration and protection program (CE) is being implemented.
The essential actions can be found at: www.epa.gov/owow/estpAVT2b. This is a cumulative measure with the baseline beginning in FY10. This measure has revised measure anguage beginning FY10, which
means FY10 results cannot be compared to previous years.
I
Indicator
Tracking capabilities began in January '10. Tracking totals will appear in FY 1 1 . Reported on by Regions and HQ.
""'Requirements for greater environmental protection" are counted under this measure when EPA can document that its recommendations for improvement provided in one or more of the following issue areas
were incorporated into the final permit decision:
1. Demonstration of adequate impact avoidance, including:
a) Determination of water dependency; b) Characterization of basic project purpose; c) Determination of range of practicable alternatives; d) Evaluation of direct, secondary and cumulative impacts for
practicable alternatives; e) Identification of Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative; f) Compliance with WQS, MPRSA, ESA and/or toxic effluent standards; g) Evaluation of potential for
significant degradation.
2. Demonstration of adequate impact minimization
Note: The documented permit decision can be in the form of an issued, withdrawn, or denied permit. The universe is the number of individual permits where EPA has the opportunity to comment (approximately
5,000/year). Regional priorities dictate the specific permits for which EPA submits comments. This number is typically less than 5,000.
29
26
22
20
29
26
22
5
5
4
3
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
3
2
5
5
5
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
14 2 0 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 Ojl!
By 2013, a state will document within an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Report (IMR) the baseline condition of at least one wetland type for the entire state or all wetlands in one major river basin. States
may use either Level 1, 2, or 3 methods or the combined 3-Level approach. The state also has plans tore-survey for the purposes of evaluating trends. To maximize financial resources, states are encouraged to
use a probability survey design for measuring baseline condition. Regions should coordinate with EPA HQ and reference the full definition for this measure to make a determination on whether a state is "on
track" to meet this measure by 2013. Measure revised for FY09.
OMB PA
SP
BUD
23.9
23.9
23.4
22.7
23.9
23.7
21.5
40
23.9
1 23.4 1 1
1 22.7 1 1
! 23.9 ! !
1 23.7 | |
1 21.5 | |
40 I
At least
24.7
This measure provides a general indication of progress of numerous state and federal programs, with a specific focus on coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic
health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition.
OMB PA
BUD
40%
40%
37%
43%
6%
6%
=
40%
1 37% 1 1
! 43% ! !
6% I
6% I
SP-29 indicates that PCBs in top predator fish (generally lake trout, but walleye in Lake Erie) at monitored sites is expected to continue an average annual decrease of 5%. A 2-year lag between measurement and
reporting means that the FY09 target pertains to measurements made in 2007. "'1990 baseline: Concentrations levels at stations in Lakes Superior [0.45 ppm], Michigan [2.72 ppm], Huron [1.5 ppm], Erie
[1.35ppm], & Ontario [2.18 ppm].
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
iNumber of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
GL-SP31 |where all management actions necessary for
1 delisting have been implemented (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
I
1 Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment
GL-SP32.N11 Iremediatedinthe Great Lakes (cumulative fiom
1997).
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of Beneficial Use Impairments removed
GL-05 1 . ,. . c rt , . ^ ,
jwitnrn Areas ol Concern, (cumulative)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of normative species newly detected in the
| Great Lakes ecosystem.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of multi-agency rapid response plans
~T n7 1 established, mock exercises to practice responses
I carried out under those plans, and/or actual
Iresponse actions (cumulative).
IFY 2011 COMM11 MEN 1
|FY 2005 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
| Percent of days of the beach season that the Great
GL-08 1 Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety
Iprograms are open and safe for swimming.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
ai, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
OMB PA
BUD
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
3
1 1
ill 1
111 1
111 1
111 1
111 1
i 31 i 1
Measure changed to indicator starting in FY11. SP-31 identifies a cumulative target of taking all necessary management actions to delist 3 of the original 31 US or binational Areas of Concern. Only 1 AOC (in
New York) has been de-listed to date.
OMB PA
BUD
SP
8.7
million
8.0
8.7 million
7.2 million
7.3 million
6 million
5.5 million
3.7 million
46 million
8.7 million
1 7.2 million 1 1
1 7.3 million i i
! 6 million ! !
I 5.5 million ! !
1 3.7million | |
! 46 million i i
10.2
million
Universe identifies quantity of contaminated sediment estimated to require remediation as of 1 997. This total has been revised fiom a previous estimate of 75 million cubic yards based on state-submitted
information and subsequent decisions, information verification, and actual remediations. Information lags behind (i.e. the 2007 commitment is for calendar year 2006 sediment remediation).
OMB PA
BUD
New measui
BUD
31
e added for
1
31
26
12
12
11
261
FY09 fiom 2007 Ok
1
^^l.l
1.3
181
/IB PA review.
^i
31
26 I
I 12 | 1
i 12 i 1
i 11 i 1
261 !
1
1 1.1 1 i
1.3 !
181 |
New measure starting in FY1 1, added fiom the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
New measui
BUD
New measui
10
4.0
e starting in
94%
e starting in
10
7
0
FY11, added fiom t
94%
n/a
94%
100%
FY12, replacing the
10
7 1
! 0 ! !
in/a! !
ie Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
91%
90%
following measui
eintheGLI
94%
U Action PI
90% 1 n/a 1
1 94% 1 1
! 100% ! !
in: "Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95 percent or more o
beach days
'
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
jAcres managed for populations of invasive species
! controlled to a target level (cumulative) .
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of populations of native aquatic non-
ithreatened and endangered species self-sustaining
Jin the wild (cumulative).
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of acres of wetlands and wetland-
| associated uplands protected, restored and
jenhanced (cumulative).
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of acres of coastal, upland, and island
jhabitats protected, restored and enhanced
! (cumulative).
!FY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
| UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of species delisted due to recovery.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
! UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
1 Five- year average annual loadings of soluble
~^ . jreactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from
itributaries draining targeted watersheds.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iNational Program Manager Comments
| Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA
GL- 1 6 ! conservation practices implemented to reduce
i erosion, nutrients, and/or pesticide loading.
!FY 2011 COMMITMENT
i BASELINE
1 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
i Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of
CB-SP33.N1 1 ! 185,000 acres achieved, based on annual
jmonitoring from prior year.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
* Measure
Groups
**FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
in, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
BUD
2,600
2,600
1,500
0
n/a
2,600
| 0 | I
In/a! 1
New measure starting in FY1 1, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
(51/147)
33%
35%
35%
52
27%
147
35%
i 35% i i
i 52 i I
i 27% i i
i 147 i 1
New measure starting in FY11, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate species that are self-sustaining in the
wild. Denominator: total # of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations. Baseline: 39/147 populations.
BUD
7,500
5,000
7,500
7,500
0
550,000
7,500
1 7'500 1 1
1 550,000 I I
New measure starting in FY1 1, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
New measur
BUD
New measur
BUD
20,000
15,000
e starting in
1
e starting in
20,000
20,000
FY1 1, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Ira
1
1
0
28
tiative Actio
20,000
| 20,000 | |
! o ! !
1,000,000 HH
nPlan.
1
ill i
101 1
i 28 i i
FY1 1, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
0.5% 0.5%
| 0.5%
0.5%
1 0.5% I I
New measure starting in FY11. 2003-07 baseline (metric ton/year) is the following: Fox River is 212, Saginaw River is 133, Maumee River is 623, St. Louis River is TBD, and Genesee River is 85. The
commitments measure percent reduction in five-year average annual loadings.
BUD
8%
8%
2%
165,000 acres
=
8%
! 2% ! !
New measure starting in FY11. The commitments measure annual percentage increases from the FY05 baseline of 165,000 acres.
OMB PA
SP
Long Term Target
Long Term
Long Term
Measure
Long Term
50%
(92,500
acres)
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
1 Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100%
istandards attainment achieved, based on annual
imonitoring from the previous calendar year and the
jpreceding 2 years.
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
i Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen
ipollution reduction actions to achieve the final
JTMDL allocations, as measured through the phase
15.3 watershed model.
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of goal achieved for implementing
iphosphorus pollution reduction actions to achieve
| final TMDL allocations, as measured through the
jphase 5.3 watershed model.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of goal achieved for implementing
! sediment pollution reduction actions to achieve
! final TMDL allocations, as measured through the
iphase 5.3 watershed model.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
! Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 1 0,000
! miles achieved.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
* Measure
Groups
**FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region Region Region Region
5678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
in, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
EPA has set
OMB PA
a long term
46% (85,9 14 acres)
(76,861 acres)
(64,9 12 acres)
39% (72,945)
185,000 acres
target of 50% goal a
Long Term Target
16% (12.27 km1)
12% (8.98km3)
30% (22.73 km1)
100% (74.8 km1)
chievement in 20
5.
46%
(64,912
acres)
185,000 1 ''ill!
Long Term
Measure
12% III
16% | | |
12%
30% III
100% III
EPA has set a long term target of 40% goal achievement in 2015. All historic data for the DO measure will be changed due to a new assessment method adopted during development of the Bay TMDL. Changes
will be made after public release of the 2010 Bay Barometer in April 201 1 .
OMB PA
BUD
,%
56%
100%
1%
56%
0% 1
100% III
FY10 is the last year results can be reported for the old measure since the reduction goal changed as a result of the TMDL and progress is measured with a different model (phase 5.3) and baseline (FY2010). The
FY11 commitment of 56% was based on the old measure. OMB accepted the request to revise the FY11 budget measure language to reflect the TMDL. The FY12 target and/or commitment of 1% maybe
adjusted after the completion of the 2010 progress run under the phase 5.3 watershed model (expected summer 20 1 1).
OMB PA
BUD
,%
1%
70%
0%
100%
1%
70% I I ||
0% | 1 1 1
100% III
FY 10 is the last year results can be reported for the old measure since the reduction goal changed as a result of the TMDL and progress is measured with a different model (phase 5.3) and baseline (FY2010). The
FY11 commitment of 70% was based on the old measure. OMB accepted the request to revise the FY11 budget measure language to reflect the TMDL. The FY12 target and/or commitment of 1% maybe
adjusted after the completion of the 2010 progress run under the phase 5.3 watershed model (expected summer 2011).
OMB PA
BUD
1%
1%
6o%
100%
1%
69%
0%
100%
I I I I
FY10 is the last year results can be reported for the old measure since the reduction goal changed as a result of the TMDL and progress is measured with a different model (phase 5.3) and baseline (FY2010).
The FY11 commitment of 69% was based on the old measure. OMB accepted the request to revise the FY1 1 budget measure language to reflect the TMDL. The FY12 target and/or commitment of 1% maybe
adjusted after the completion of the 2010 progress run under the phase 5.3 watershed model (expected summer 201 1).
OMB PA
71%
69%
69%
i
71% | | | |
69% 1 1 II
69%
62%
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
57%
38%
100% (10,000 mi)
57% \\\\\
38% 1 1 1 1 1
100%
The FY11 commitment has been increased accordingly.
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
I Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the
GM-435 jGulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
INational Coastal Condition Report.
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2004 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
| Restore water and habitat quality to meet water
GM- SP38 | quality standards in impaired segments in 1 3
Ipriority areas, (cumulative starting in FY 07)
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2002 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
I Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number
GM-SP39 |of acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
l(cumulative starting in FY 07)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
! Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the
GM- 1 Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of the
SP40.N11 Ihypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as measured by
|the 5-year running average of the size of the zone.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
I Implement integrated bi-national (U.S. and
jMexican States) early-warning system to support
| State and coastal community efforts to manage
lharmful algal blooms (HABs).
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
BUD
2.6
2.6
2.6
NCCRIVNot
Available
2.2
2.2
2.4
5
The rating is based on five indicators of ecological condition: water quality index, sediment quality
BUD
BUD
234
30,600
234
128
170
131
0
812
30,600
30,000
29,552
29,344
25,215
16,000
3,769,370
-
i 2.6
1 ! 2-6
1 n/a
1 i 2.2
1 i 2.4
i i 5
ndex, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants index.
1 234
1 ! 128
1 ! 131
1 i 0
1 i 812
| 30,600
I | 30,000
1 ! 29,552
1 I 29,344
1 1 25,215
| | 16,000
| | 3,769,370
Coastal habitat includes marshes, wetlands, tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrasses, mangroves, dunes and maritime forest ridge areas.
SP
Deferred for FY
2012
Deferred
20,000 km2
n/a
14,128km2
n/a
| Deferred
i ! Deferred
| | 20,000
I ! 14,128
I ! n/a
5,000 km2
Targets/commitments are deferred for measure SP-40.
Complete
taxonomy training
in all 6 Mexican
states
Complete Op
System
Completion in
Campeche
Expanded system
Pilot underway
I Comp.
I taxonomy
| training 6
1 States
! ! Complete
1 operational
I system
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
JNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of goal achieved in reducing trade-
jequalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to
1 Long Island Sound from the 1 999 baseline of
|59,146TE Ibs/day.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
i
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 1999 BASELINE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jReduce the size (square miles) of observed hypoxia
! (Dissolved Oxygen <3mg/l) in Long Island Sound.
|FY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
| Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat
|fiom the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
| Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to
idiadromous fish passage from the 2010 baseline of
1 1 77 river miles by removal of dams and barriers or
jby installation of bypass structures.
* Measure
Groups
**FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
in, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Results are measured by the number of states that have timely access to data and information for detecting, tracking, and forecasting HAB events and their effects on public health, coastal economies, and natural
resources across the Gulf of Mexico.
BUD
56%
70%
55%
70% (33,703 TE
Ibs/day)
55%(39,011TE
Ibs/day)
40,440 TE Ibs/day
59,1 46 TE Ibs/day
70%
55%
70%
55%
40,440
59,146
Measure tracked in Trade Equalized (TE) Ibs/day. TE Ibs/day are pounds of nitrogen adjusted by application of an equivalency factor assigned to each point source based on its proximity to the receiving water
body (LIS). The TMDL established a Waste Load Allocation of 22,774 TE Ibs/day from point sources, to be achieved over a 1 5 year period beginning in 2000. The annual commitments are calculated by dividing
the difference between the 1999 baseline and 201 4 target by 1 5 (the TMDL period), or 2,425 TE Ibs/day per year.
SP
Deferred for FY
2012
Deferred
101 sq miles; 40
days
169 sq. miles; 45
days
180 sq. miles; 79
days
187 sq miles; 58. 6
days
1, 400 sq miles
(total); 122 days
(actually
monitored)
Deferred
Deferred
101 sq
miles; 40
days
169 sq.
miles; 45
days
180 sq.
miles; 79
days
187 sq
miles; 58.6
days
l,400sq
miles
(total); 122
days
New measure starting in FY08. Due to inter-annual variability, annual reduction targets are not calculated for this measure. Note on Universe: The 20 year average measured maximum area of hypoxia in the
Sound is 203 square miles and the duration average is 58 days.
BUD
250 acres
250 acres
832%
740%
(1,361 acres)
1,614
1,199
1,199 acres
restored &
protected
250 acres
832%
740%
(1,361
acres)
1,614
1,199
1,199
The long-term goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY 2010. EPA is revising this measure in FY 2012 to measure acres instead of percent of goal achieved. EPA will establish annual targets with
partners to measure annual progress.
BUD
38 miles
38 miles
38 miles
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS|
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
!FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 BASELINE
| UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
i Improve water quality and enable the lifting of
lharvest restrictions inacres of shellfish bed growing
| areas impacted by degraded or declining water
i quality, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2007 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IRestore acres of tidaHy- and seasonally-influenced
lesruarine wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
The long-ter
with partner
m goal of th
5 to measure
148%
72%
147
124.3
124
is measure will be si
annual progress.
gnificantly excee
led in FY 20
148%
72%
147
124.3
124
11. EPA is revising this measure in FY 201 2 to measure miles instead of percent of goal achieved. EPA will establish annual targets
BUD
SP
New measur
BUD
5,453
es starting i
13,863
5,453
4,953
4,453
1,730
1,566
322
30,000 acres
iiFYOS. 'Baseline i
13,863
10,800
10,062.7
5,751
4,413
4,152
45,000
5 the end-of-year
data for FYO
7.
I 5,453
1 4,953
i 4,453
| 1,730
i 1,566
! 322
1 30,000
i 13,863
1 10,800
1 10,062.7
| 5,751
i 4,413
| 4,152
| 45,000
4,300
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
ILoading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
MB-SP23 Iremoved (cumulative million pounds/year) from the
lU.S.-Mexico Border area since 2003.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2003 BASELINE
INational Program Manager Comments
MR |Number of additional homes provided safe drinking
| water in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked
laccess to safe drinking water in 2003.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2003 BASELINE
IFY 2003 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
INumber of additional homes provided adequate
MB- |wastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico border
SP25.N1 1 1 area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in
12003.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
IFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
OMB PA
108.8
115.9
108.2
18.7
0
115.9
108.2
18.7
93.1
i i 87 i
i I 0 |
22.8 |
21.2 1
1 i 18.7
0 1
Measure first reported in FY10. FYlO's target and result represent annual progress only. Starting in FY 11, the program will report cumulative progress from 2003 to the current measure-year. 2003 Baseline:
zero pounds/year of BOD removed from U.S.-Mexico Border area waters as a result of new infrastructure projects.
OMB PA
BUD
SP
100
1,000
2,000
21,650
1,584
5,162
0
98,515
1,000
2,000
21,650
1,584
5,162
0
1,000
| | 2,000 |
| | 19,751 |
! ! 1,584 !
5,162
| 0 |
0
0 1
1,899 1
0 1
0 i
0 i
73,886
cumulative
Measure is regionally reported starting in FY 09. 2003 Baseline: zero additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico Border area. 2003 Universe: 98,515 known homes in the Mexico Border
area lacking access to safe drinking water.
OMB PA
BUD
SP
1,282
13,700
207,000
75,175
43,594
13,700
207,000
75,175
43,594
9,000
| | 190,000 |
| | 71,926 |
| | 39,477 |
4,700 |
17,000 |
3,249 1
4,117 |
518,042
cumulative
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Meagre Text
Code |
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2003 BASELINE
iFY 2003 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
31,686
0
| ="" 723
31,686
0
1 I 31,686 I
i | 0 |
0 i
0 i
Measure is regionally reported starting in FY09. 2003 Baseline: zero additional homes provided wastewater sanitation the U.S. -Mexico Border area. 2003 Universe: 690,723 known homes in the U. S.-Mexico
Border area lacking access to wastewater sanitation.
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
iPercent of population in the U.S. Pacific Island
jTerritories served by community water systems that
PI-SP26 ihas access to continuous drinking water meeting all
i applicable health-based drinking water standards,
jmeasured on a four quarter rolling average basis.
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
i UNI VERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercentage of time that sewage treatment plants in
PT opr,7 ItheU.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with
ipermit limits for biochemical oxygen demand
|(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
iFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iNational Program Manager Comments
i Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in
PI SP98 ieach ofthe U.S. Pacific IslandTerritories monitored
junder the Beach Safety Program will be open and
isafe for swimming.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
iFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iNational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Eras'
iAchieve 'no net loss' of stony coral cover (mean
jpercent stony coral cover) in the Florida Keys
|National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the
i coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
| Counties, Florida, working with all stakeholders
i(federal, state, regional, tribal, and local).
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
i
BUD
78%
75%
82%
80%
79%
95% of American
Samoa; 10% of
Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana
75% i
82% i
OAO/ i
50%
79% i
95% AS, i
10% 1
CNMI, i
80% GU i
New measure starting in FY08.
BUD
New measur
64%
e starting in
64%
63%
52%
65%
FY08.
80%
81%
80%
84%
64% i
63% i
63% i
65% i
W i
82%
80%
81% i i
80% ! I
84% i i
New measure starting in FY08.
pstem
I
Indicator
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Loss
Small change
Indicator
No Net
Loss
No Net | | |
Loss
Loss
Small !!!
change
No Net
Loss
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS| FY 2012 Measure Text
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
|FY 2005 BASELINE
JNational Program Manager Comments
! Annually maintain the overall health and
i functionality of sea grass beds in the FKNMS as
SFL-SP46 jmeasured by the long-term sea grass monitoring
iproject that addresses composition and abundance,
j productivity, and nutrient availability.
!FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jAt least seventy five percent of the monitored
jstations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
ep/17 IFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will
jmaintain Chlorophyll a (CHLA) levels at less than
jor equal to 0.35 ugl-1 and light clarity (Kd)) levels
! at less than or equal to0.20m-l.
IFY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 1995-2005 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
|At least seventy five percent of the monitored
| stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
| Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will
SFL-SP47b jmaintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels
jat less than or equal to 0.75 uM and total
Iphosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to .25
|uM.
!FY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 1995-2005 BASELINE
j UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
* Measure
Groups
**FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region
3 4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
S
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
*"SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
in, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
New measur
National Ma
percent in th
produce stal
I
es starting i
rine Sanctu
e mean perc
stically vali
6.8% in FKNMS;
5.9% in SE Florida
nFYOS. Measure ch
ay was modified in
ent stony coral cove
d results.
Indicator
Maintained
Not maintained
Small change
EI = 8.3;SCI=0.48
ange to Indicator
006 by dropping
for the entire Sal
in FY 2011.
one hardbotl
ictuary. Sta
Strategic PI
om monitor
istical analy
6.8%in
FKNMS;
5.9%inSE
an baseline of 6.7% was revised to 6.8%. The Coral Reef Evaluation and N
ng site because of the very small percentage of stony coral cover present (le
>es of the CREMP indicated that sampling a reduced number of stations at s
Indicator
Maintained! ! !
Not ! ! !
maintained
Small
change
El = 8.3;
SCI=0.48
onitoring Project (CREMP) for the F
ss than .2%), resulting in an increase
ites with low stony coral cover wouk
lorida Keys
of.l
1 still
New measures starting inFYOS. Measure changed to Indicator in FY11. El = Elemental Indicator; SCI = Species Composition Index.
BUD
New measur
BUD
75%
e starting in
75%
75%
Maintained
CHLA<0.35ug/L
(75.7%);
Kd £ 0.20m "'
(74.6%)
154 Stations
FY11.
75%
Maintained
DIN < 0.75 uM
(76.3%); TP
< 0.25uM (80.9%)
154 Stations
75%
75% 1 1 1 1
Maintained! ! !
CHLA< ! ! !
0.35ug/L
(75.7%); I ||
Kd< III
0-20ni-l
(74.6%)
154 ! ! !
75%
75%
Maintained ! !
DIN<0.75
uM
(76.3%);
TP<
0.25uM
(80.9%)
154 ! ! !
New measure starting in F Y 1 1 .
-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY2012ACS|
Code |
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (B
*** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Pla
jlmprove the water quality of the Everglades
1 ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus,
iincluding meeting the 10 parts per billion (ppb)
SFL-SP48 itotal phosphorus criterion throughout the
| Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent
ilimits for discharges from stormwater treatment
! areas.
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
|FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
I Increase percentage of sewage treatment facilities
land onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems
SFL-1 jreceiving advanced wastewater treatment or best
javailable technology as recorded by EDU. in
| Florida Keys two percent (1500 EDUs) annually.
|FY 2009 BASELINE
1 UNI VERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Ba
jCleanup acres of known contaminated sediments.
CR-SP53 |,-cumulative starting in FY 06)
JFY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
I UNI VERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
! Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentration of
CR-SP54 jcertain contaminants of concern foundin water and
jfish tissue, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
JFY 2011 COMMITMENT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
! UNI VERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
* Measure
Groups
**FY
2012
Budget
Target
FY 2012 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
***SP
Target
(FY 2015)
dget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget.
in, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
BUD
Maintain
phosphoru
s baseline
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline
Maintain P
baseline & meet
discharge limits
Not maintained
Not maintained
Not maintained
Maintain P
baseline
Maintain P
baseline &
meet
discharge
limits
Not
maintained
| Not | | | |
maintained
Not
maintained
New measure starting in FY08. 2005 Baseline: Average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water Conservation Area 3A, 13 ppb in
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and 1 8 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow - weighted total phosphorus discharges from Stormwater Treatment Areas ranged from 1 3 ppb for area
3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W.
I
Indicator
32,000
75,000
New measure starting in F Y 1 1 .
New measur
es starting i
60
60
20
10
0
400 acres
tiFYOS.
Deferred until
2014
10% reduction
5 sites
Indicator
32,000
| 75,000 ! ! ! !
1 1 1
1 60
! 20
1 10
1 0
! 400 acres
! Deferred
10%
1 reduction
I 5 sites !
Measure was updated in 20 1 2 for 20 1 4.
-------
April 201 I
www.epa.gov
EPA850-K-II-OOI
Recycled/RecyclablePrinted with vegetable oil based inks on 100% postconsumer, process chlorine free recycled paper.
------- |