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 monies—approximately 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 2.8—the
      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 alone—recreational
   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 standards—waters 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 partners—the states of
   New York and Connecticut and other federal, state, and
   local government agencies, academia, industry, and the
   private sector—to 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 CCMP—the 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
     disposa—technical assistance, data, and initiatives, such as
     the Urban Waters Effort, Community Action  for a Renewed
     Environment (CARE), and grants—to 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-
     ties—particularly underserved communities—access,
     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/Recyclable—Printed with vegetable oil based inks on 100% postconsumer, process chlorine free recycled paper.

-------