•
il Year 2010

                         "utaalice

-------
Office of Water
Fiscal Year 2010

-------
                table of contents h^  ^a  ^^                  National Water Prograr
       Executive Summary                                                                     i
I.      Introduction                                                                           1
II.      Strategies to Protect Public Health                                                      4
       Water Safe to Drink                                                                     4
       Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat                                                             9

       Water Safe for Swimming                                                               11

       Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands             12
       Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis                                   12

       Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters                                                       22

       Protect Wetlands                                                                      24

IV.     Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems           26
       Protect U.S.-Mexico Border Water Quality                                                 26

       Protect Pacific Islands Waters                                                            27

       Protect the Great Lakes                                                                 28

       Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay                                                 29

       Protect the Gulf of Mexico                                                               31

       Protect Long Island Sound                                                              33

       Protect South Florida Ecosystem                                                         35

       Protect the Puget Sound Basin                                                           37

       Protect the Columbia River Basin                                                         38

V.      Water Program and Grant Management System                                          40
       National Water Program                                                                 44
       Grants Management for FY 2010                                                         44

VI.     Water Program and Environmental Justice                                              45
       Appendix A  FY2010 National Water Program Guidance Measures Summary Appendix
       Appendix B  FY 2010 Water State Grant Measures Appendix
       Appendix C Explanation of Key Changes Summary
       Appendix D Additional Guidance for Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients
       Appendix E  A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate
       Appendix F  FY2010 Detailed Measures Appendix
       Appendix G Office of Water American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Measures
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------

-------
executive summary
                                                                   National Water Progra
I.      PROGRAM OFFICE:
       NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM

This National Water Program Guidance for fiscal year (FY)
2010 describes how the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA),  states, and tribal  governments will work together
to protect and improve the quality of the Nation's waters,
including wetlands, and ensure safe drinking water. Within
EPA, the Office of Water oversees the delivery of the national
water programs, while the regional offices work with states,
tribes, and others to implement these programs and other
supporting efforts.
                                                        (V.
       IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
II,
       INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT
The  Guidance describes the  key  actions  needed  to
accomplish the  public health and  environmental  goals
established in the  EPA 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. These
goals are:

       Protect public health by improving the quality of
       drinking water, making fish and shellfish safer to
       eat, and assuring that recreational waters are safe
       for swimming;
       Protect and restore the quality of the Nation's fresh
       waters, coastal waters, and wetlands; and
       Improve the health of large aquatic ecosystems
       across the  country.
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 2010 to the
priority areas identified below:

       Support Sustainable Water Infrastructure;
       Improve Water Security and Preparedness;
       Restore, Improve, and Protect Wetlands;
       Improve Water and Wetlands Monitoring;
       Restore Water Quality on a Watershed Basis; and
       Improve Achievement of Drinking Water
       Standards.
In addition, regional priorities support the National Water
Program priorities. More information on these priorities is
provided in the Introduction to this Guidance.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The National Water Program Guidance describes, in general
terms, the work that needs to be done in FY 2010 to reach
the public health and water quality goals that are proposed
in the EPA 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. In the Guidance, these
public health and environmental goals are organized into 15
"subobjectives," and each of the subobjectives is supported
by a specific  implementation strategy  that includes the
following key elements:

        Environmental/Public Health Results
        Expected: Each subobjective strategy begins with
        a brief review of national goals for improvements
        in environmental conditions or public health,
        including national "targets" for progress in FY
        2010.

        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 measures under each
        subobjective, is in Appendix A.

        FY 2010 Targets for Key Program Activities: For
        some of the  program activities, EPA, states, and
        tribes will simply report progress accomplished in
        FY 2009 while for other activities, each EPA region
        has defined  specific "targets" (see Appendices A
        and F). These targets are a point of reference for
        the development of more binding commitments
        to measurable progress in state and tribal grant
        workplans. In the Guidance, national or program-
        matic targets are shown, where applicable, in
        Appendix A.

        Grant Assistance: Each of the subobjective
        strategies includes a brief discussion of EPA grant
        assistance that supports the program activities
        identified in the strategy. New for FY 2010, the
        Section 106 Grant Guidance for Water Pollution
        Control Programs is incorporated within the Water
        Quality Subobjective and Appendix D to pilot a
        more streamlined approach to issuing the grant
        guidance. The National Water Program's approach
        to managing grants for FY 2010 is discussed in
        Part V of this Guidance.
                                                                                                          O

-------
National Water Program:
V
       Environmental Justice: For FY2010, the Office
       of Water is continuing to align the development
       of this Guidance with the development of EJ
       Action Plan. The National Water Program places
       emphasis on achieving results in areas with
       potential environmental justice concerns through
       two national EJ priorities that are covered by
       two subobjectives and other EJ water related
       elements.

       A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate:
       In September of 2008, the National Water
       Program published a Strategy for responding to
       the impacts of climate change on clean water and
       drinking water programs. Key goals of the Strategy
       are to help water program managers recognize the
       impacts of climate change on water programs and
       to identify needed adaptation actions. Additional
       information on the Strategy  is in Appendix E.
MEASURES
The National Water Program uses three types of measures
to assess progress toward the goals in the EPA 2009-2014
Strategic Plan:

       Measures of changes in environmental or public
       health (i.e.,  "outcome measures");
       Measures of activities to implement core national
       water programs; and
       Measures of activities to restore and protect large
       aquatic ecosystems and implement other water
       program priorities in each EPA region.

In 2006-2008, EPA worked with states and tribes to align
and streamline performance measures. The National Water
Program will continue to engage states and tribes in 2009
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.
                                                VII.
                                                                                    executive summary
Senior Management Measures and EPA
Quarterly Reports (EQR): The Office of Water
reports the results on a subset of the National
Water Program Guidance measures on a quarterly
basis. In addition, headquarters and regional
senior managers are held accountable for a select
group of the Guidance measures in their annual
performance assessments.

EPA Headquarters (HQ)/Regional Dialogues:
Each year, the Office of Water will visit up to four
EPA regional offices and great waterbody offices
to conduct dialogues on program management,
grant management, and performance.

Program-Specific Evaluations: In addition to
looking at the performance of the National Water
Program at the national level and performance
in each EPA region, individual water programs
will  be evaluated periodically under the Program
Assessment program managed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Additional evaluations
will  be conducted internally by program managers
at EPA headquarters and regional offices;
and externally by the EPA Inspector General,
Government Accountability Office, and other
independent organizations.
PROGRAM CONTACTS
                                                For additional information concerning this  Guidance and
                                                supporting measures, please contact:

                                                       Nanci Gelb
                                                       Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
                                                       Tim Fontaine
                                                       Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
                                                       Vinh Nguyen
                                                       Program Planning Team Leader, Office of Water
                                                  INTERNET ACCESS:
                                                  This FY 2009 National Water Program Guidance and
                                                  supporting documents  are available at
                                                  (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
                                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------

I.
       INTRODUCTION
C/ean and Safe Water Goals for 2014

The EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, published in October
of 2006, defines specific environmental and public health
improvements to be accomplished by 2011. The Agency
is currently updating the current Strategic Plan to develop
the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan by September 2009. With the
help of states, tribes, and other partners, EPA expects to
make significant progress toward protecting  human health
and improving water quality by 2014, including:

Protect Public Health

       Water Safe to Drink: maintain current high
       percentage of the population served by systems
       meeting health-based Drinking Water standards;-
       Fish Safe to Eat: reduce the percentage of
       women of child-bearing age having mercury levels
       in their blood above levels of concern; and
       Water Safe for Swimming: maintain the currently
       high percentage of days that beaches are open
       and safe for swimming during the beach season.

Restore and Protect Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters,
and Wetlands

       Healthy Waters: address an increasing number
       of the approximately 40,000 impaired waters
       identified by the states in 2002, with the goal of
       having at least 3,250 of these waters attain water
       quality standards fully by 2014;
       Healthy Coastal Waters:  show improvement in
       the overall condition of the Nation's coastal waters
       while at least maintaining conditions in the four
       major coastal regions; and
       More Wetlands: restore, improve, and protect
       wetlands with the goal of increasing the overall
       quantity and quality of the Nation's wetlands.

Improve the Health of Large Aquatic Ecosystems

Implement  collaborative  programs  with  other federal
agencies and with  states, tribes, local governments, and
others to improve the health  of large aquatic ecosystems
including:

       U.S. -Mexico Border waters
       Pacific Island waters
       the Great Lakes
       the Chesapeake Bay
       the Gulf of Mexico
       the Long Island Sound
       South Florida waters
       the Puget Sound
       the Columbia River
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                  National Water Progra
Purpose and Structure of this FY2009 Guidance
This National Program Guidance defines the  process for
creating an "operational  plan" for EPA, state, and tribal
water programs for FY 2010. This Guidance is divided into
three major sections:

1.     Subobjective  Implementation  Strategies: The
EPA Strategic Plan addresses water programs in Goal  2
(i.e., "Clean and  Safe Water") and Goal  4 (i.e., "Healthy
Communities  and Ecosystems").  Within these goals, there
are 16 subobjectives that define  specific environmental or
public health  results to be accomplished by the National
Water  Program  by 2010. This  Guidance is organized
into  15 subobjectives and  describes the increment  of
environmental progress EPA hopes to make in  FY 2010 for
each subobjective and the program strategies to be used to
accomplish these goals.

The National WaterProg ram is working with EPA's Innovation
Action  Council  (IAC)  to  promote program innovations,
including:  1)  the  National  Environmental Performance
Track Program (http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/); 2)
Environmental Management Systems (EMS)  (http://www.
epa.gov/ems/); and, 3) the Environmental Results Program
(ERP)  (http://www.epa.gov/permits/erp/index.htm).  States
and tribes may be able to use these or other innovative
tools in program planning and implementation.

2.     Water Measures: Appendix A, a  comprehensive
list  of performance measures in the  Guidance, includes
three types of measures that support  the  subobjective
strategies and are used to manage water programs:
       "Outcome" Strategic Target Measures:
       Measures of environmental or public health
       changes (i.e. outcomes) are described  in the EPA
       Strategic Plan and include long-range targets for
       this Guidance. These measures are described in
       the opening section of each of the subobjective
       plan summaries in this Guidance.
       National  Program Activity Measures: Core
       water program activity measures (i.e., output
       measures) address activities to be implemented by
       EPA and by states/tribes that administer national
       programs. They are the basis for monitoring
       progress  in implementing programs to accomplish
       the environmental goals in the Agency Strategic
       Plan.  Some of these measures have national and
       regional "targets" for FY2010 that serve as a point
       of reference as EPA regions work with states/tribes
       to define more formal regional "commitments" in
       the Spring/Summer of 2009.
       Ecosystem Program Activity Measures: These
       measures address activities to restore and protect
       communities and large aquatic ecosystems and
       implement other water program priorities in each
       EPA region.
                                                                                                        O

-------
National Water Program:
Over the past seven years, EPA has worked with the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to evaluate key water
programs  using the OMB Program Assessment reviews.
This work included  identifying  measures  of progress for
each  program.  Most  of  the measures identified  in  the
OMB  Program Assessment process are included  in this
Guidance.

3.     Water  Program  Management  System:   Part
V of  this  Guidance describes a  three-step  process for
management of water programs in FY2010:

       Step 1 is the development of this National Water
       Program Guidance.
       Step 2 involves consultation among EPA regions,
       states, and tribes, to be conducted  during the
       Spring/Summer 2009, 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
       Prog ram for FY 2010.
       Step 3 involves work to be done during  FY 2010 to
       assess progress in program implementation and
       improve program performance.

In addition and new for FY 2010, the grant guidance for
the Water  Pollution Control Grants from Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act (Section 106 grants) is incorporated into
this National Water Program Guidance. This is a pilot effort
to gain efficiency in the issuance of the Section  106 Grant
Guidance within this Guidance. Text boxes with  specific
Section 106 guidance are incorporated within Section III,
1 (Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed
Basis) of this Guidance. Appendix 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. This  is a pilot and the Office of Water
welcomes  comments on this approach.
                                           introduction
FY2009 Program Priorities

The Office of Water recognizes that EPA regions, states,
and tribes need flexibility in determining the best allocation
of program  resources  for  achieving clean water  goals
given  their specific needs and  condition. From a national
perspective,  however, EPA, states, and tribes need to give
special attention in FY 2010 to  the priority areas identified
below:

1.     Support Sustainable Water Infrastructure:  EPA
will work with utilities, states, tribes, and others to ensure that
the Nation's  wastewater and drinking water infrastructure
is maintained and sustained over time,  including ongoing
attention to the effective operation of the State Revolving
Funds. EPA  will also encourage practices that reduce the
costs  of water infrastructure and promote the adoption
of proven management approaches, like environmental
management systems  and asset management. This effort
will include work to enhance the market for water efficient
products, encourage adoption  of pricing structures that
recover full  cost  of service, and promote a watershed
approach as an integral part  of  infrastructure decision-
making.

2.     Improve Water Security and Preparedness: EPA
will work with partners to improve security and preparedness
at drinking water and  wastewater facilities to reduce the
risks associated with potentially catastrophic natural and
deliberate incidents. EPA will produce tools and training to
enhance general preparedness  and continue to implement
the Water Security Initiative while assessing lessons learned
to support adoption of contaminant warning systems  by
additional communities. EPA will continue to train and equip
regional water teams to  provide support to drinking  water
and wastewater systems, tribes,  local and state government,
and other federal  agencies,  such as  USAGE and FEMA,
during emergencies that impact  the water sector.

3.     Restore, Improve and Protect Wetlands: A key
objective of EPA's wetlands program is to restore, improve,
and protect wetlands through cooperative partnerships with
federal resource agencies, non  profit organizations, states,
and tribes. Between FY 2005 and  FY 2008, EPA played
a leadership role in working with partners to restore and
improve 82,875 acres of wetlands through the  National
Estuary Program,  CWA 319  program, Great Waterbodies
Programs, and 5-Star Restoration Program. In FY2010, EPA
committed to increasing this total of restored and improved
wetland acres to at least 96,000 acres through the programs
mentioned above. A key step in meeting this commitment is
building the capacity of state and tribal wetlands programs.
At the same  time,  EPA will continue in partnership with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  states and  tribes to ensure
no net loss of wetlands regulated under the CWA Section
404.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
introduction
4.     Improve   Water   Monitoring:   Water   quality
monitoring  is essential for  providing the information that
EPA,  states, tribes,  and others use to establish goals,
determine current water quality,  and  track changes  over
time.  Improving monitoring,  reporting,  and  measuring
progress towards environmental goals to keep the  Nation's
waters clean, safe,  and secure remain  a  top  priority.
EPA will work with states,  tribes, and territories  as  they
implement  their monitoring  strategies and  enhance  their
monitoring programs, including participating in the  national
statistical surveys of water conditions,  adopting state-scale
statistical surveys,  enhancing designs  to  address other
CWA requirements,   enhancing  biological  assessment
programs and biological thresholds, providing water quality
assessment data to the STORE! warehouse using WQX,
and  submitting state  integrated  report  assessment  data
using the Assessment Database or a compatible electronic
format. These activities are  critical to  measuring progress
toward water quality  goals. Also in  FY 2010,  EPA will
continue to work to improve the quality of drinking water
data and implement the Water Security Initiative.

5.     Restore Water Quality on a Watershed Basis:
The  National Water Program continues efforts to build  a
nationwide capacity to restore the health of aquatic  systems
on a  waterbody and  watershed basis. In  FY 2010, EPA,
states, and tribes should give priority to implementing key
national program activities supporting this goal, including:

       Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads
       (TMDLs), including organizing restoration on a
       waterbody or watershed basis where appropriate;
       Targeting Clean Water Act Section 319 nonpoint
       pollution control funds to develop and implement
       watershed plans to help restore impaired waters;
       Encouraging water quality trading; and
       Assuring that high priority permits are current.

6.     Improve  Achievement  of   Drinking   Water
Standards: The percentage of the population served by
community water systems (CWSs) that are in  compliance
with  health-based standards was 92 percent in FY 2008.
Water systems are challenged to simultaneously comply
with regulatory requirements that represent a higher overall
level of public health  protection. In FY 2010, EPA, states,
tribes, and  local water systems should enhance efforts to
maintain compliance with existing drinking water standards,
promptly address  cases of  noncompliance,  prepare  to
comply with new rules, and  improve the quality of data by
which drinking water  compliance is measured, including
paying special attention to  reporting under the Lead and
Copper Rule.
           National Water Progra
EPA, states, and tribes also need to pay special attention
tEPA, states, and tribes also need to pay special attention
to regional priorities. EPA regional offices identified a limited
number of regional and  state priorities. These priorities
were  based  upon  geographic areas  and performance
measures that were established to support the priorities.
The  geographic areas include the Northeast, Midwest,
Great South, Great American  West,  tribes, U.S.-Mexico
Border, and Islands.

Many of the performance measures developed by these
regional groups support the National Water Program national
priorities. The selected regional priorities that align with or
support the National Water Program national goals include
water safe to drink; water safe for  swimming;  improve
water quality on a watershed basis; increase wetlands; and
improve the health  of the  U.S.-Mexico border area, Pacific
Islands  Territories,  Great Lakes,  the  Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem, and Long Island Sound.

A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate

In September of 2008, the National Water Prog ram published
a Strategy for responding to the impacts of climate change
on clean water and  drinking water programs (see www.epa.
gov/water/climatechange/). Key goals of the Strategy are
to help  water  program managers recognize the impacts
of climate change on water programs (e.g.  warming water
temperatures, changes in rainfall amounts and intensity, and
sea level rise) and to identify needed adaptation actions.
Additional information on the Strategy is  in Appendix E.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                  0

-------
   National Water Program:
    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 2010. In addition, this Guidance refers
    to "Program  Activity Measures" that define  key  program
    activities that support each subobjective (see Appendix A).
    1.     Water Safe to  Drink
   A)     Subobjective
   Percent  of  the  population served  by community water
   systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable
   health-based drinking water standards through approaches
   including effective treatment and source water protection.
   2005 Baseline:  89%
   2010 Target: 90%
2008 Commitment: 90%
2014 Target: 93%
   (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
   Appendices A & F.)

   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 over 52,000 CWSsa
   nationwide  that  supply drinking  water to  more  than
   292  million  Americans  (approximately 95% of the U.S.
   population). Over this time, safety standards have  been
   established  and  are being  implemented for 91  microbial,
   chemical, and other contaminants. Forty-nine states have
   adopted primary authority for enforcing their drinking water
   programs. Additionally, CWS operators are better informed
   and trained on the variety of ways to both treat contaminants
   and  prevent them from entering the source of their drinking
   water supplies.

   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

   "Although the Safe Drinking  Water Act applies to 154,879 public water systems nationwide (as of October 2008), which include schools, hospitals,
   factories, campgrounds, motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system, this implementation plan focuses only on CWSs. A CWS is a public
   water system that provides water to the same population year-round. As of October 2008, there were 51,988 CWSs.
                                                     strategies to protect public health
standards for drinking water quality are the cornerstone
of the program. The standards  do not prescribe a specific
treatment approach; rather, individual systems decide how
best to  comply with  any given standard based on  their
own unique circumstances. Systems meet standards  by
employing "multiple barriers of protection" including source
water protection, various stages  of treatment,  proper
operation and maintenance of the distribution and finished
water storage system, and customer awareness.

The overall objective of the drinking water program  is to
protect public health by ensuring that public water systems
deliver safe drinking water to their customers. To achieve
this objective the program must work to maintain the gains
of the previous years' efforts; drinking water systems of all
types and sizes that are currently in compliance will work
to remain in compliance. Efforts will be made to bring non-
complying systems into compliance and to assure all systems
will  be prepared to comply with the new regulations.

Making  sound  decisions to  allocate resources  among
various  program areas requires that each EPA region first
work with states and tribes to define goals for the program
in public health  (i.e., "outcome") terms.  The table below
describes estimates  of progress under the  key drinking
water measure describing the percent  of the population
served by community water systems that receive water that
meets all health based drinking water standards.

Although EPA regions should  use the  national  FY 2010
target of the population served by community water systems
receiving safe drinking  water as  a  point of reference,
regional commitments to this outcome goal may vary based
on differing conditions in each EPA region.

EPA and  states  support the efforts of individual  water
systems by providing a program framework that includes
core programs implemented  by EPA  regional offices and
states.  Core  national program areas that are critical to
ensuring safe drinking water are:
        Development or revision of drinking water
        standards;
        Implementation of drinking water  standards and
        technical assistance to  water systems to enhance
        their technical, managerial, and financial capacity;
        Drinking Water State Revolving Fund;
        Water security;
        Source water protection;
        Underground injection control (UIC); and
        Integration of programs to protect surface water
        that is a source of drinking water.
o
                                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect public health
           National Water Program: Fis
Targets for Population Served by Systems Meeting Standards
EPA Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
National Total
2005 Baseline
92.5%
55.3%
93.2%
93%
94.1%
87.8%
91 .2%
94.7%
94.6%
94.8%
89%
2008 Actual
91%
82%
90%
94%
95%
89%
83%
96%
98%
96%
92%
2009 Commitment
89%
75%
90%
91%
91%
89%
92%
90%
95%
91%
90%
2010 Target
89%
75%
88%
91%
95%
88%
92%
90%
95%
91%
90%
Collectively, these core areas of the national safe drinking
water program  comprise the  multiple-barrier approach to
protecting public health.  In each of these areas, specific
Program Activity Measures indicate progress being made
and  some  measures  include "targets" for  FY 2010. For
measures with targets, a national target and a target for each
EPA region, where applicable, are provided in Appendix A.

1.       Development/Revision of
        Drinking Water Standards

In FY2010, EPA will carry out a number of efforts to support
decision-making on existing, proposed, and potential future
regulations.
        In FY2010,  EPA will conclude monitoring for the
        second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
        Rule, which  is collecting frequency and level of
        occurrence data for 25 unregulated, suspected
        drinking water contaminants. Compliance follow-
        up and data analysis will continue through 2011.
        This information supports future determinations
        whether to regulate a contaminant in the interest
        of protecting public health.
        The Agency will propose the third Unregulated
        Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) in 2010.
        Up to 30 unregulated, suspected drinking water
        contaminants, many from the third Contaminant
        Candidate List (CCL 3; published in 2009), will
        likely be proposed for monitoring. Following public
        comment, EPA will promulgate UCMR 3 in 2011
        with monitoring to be conducted between 2012
        and 2014.
        EPA will evaluate comments and new information
        on health effects, occurrence, and other
        information submitted  during the public comment
        period in response to the publication of the
        Agency's preliminary review of existing National
        Primary Drinking Water Regulations  (published
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2.
       in 2009). After evaluating comments and new
       information submitted by commenters, the Agency
       will publish the final review results in 2011. The
       purpose of this review, which is performed every
       six years and called the "Six-Year Review," is to
       identify those existing drinking water standards
       which, if any, need revision.
       The current Total Coiform Rule (TCR;  published
       in 1989) is the only microbial drinking water
       regulation that applies to all public water systems.
       The rule objectives include ensuring the integrity of
       the distribution system,  indicating the effectiveness
       of treatment, and monitoring the presence of fecal
       contamination. In 2010, the Agency will propose
       revisions to the Total  Coliform Rule  based  on
       recommendations from the Total Coliform Rule/
       Distribution Systems  Federal Advisory Committee.
Implementation of Drinking Water Standards
and Technical Assistance
In  order  to  facilitate  compliance  with  drinking  water
regulations, EPA will use the following tools in partnership
with states and tribes:
       Sanitary Surveys: Sanitary surveys are on-site
       reviews of the water sources, facilities, equipment,
       operation, and maintenance of public water
       systems. States and tribes conduct sanitary
       surveys for community water systems once every
       three years, or for systems determined by the
       state  or tribe to have outstanding performance
       based on prior surveys, subsequent surveys
       may be conducted every five years. EPA will
       also 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
                                                  0

-------
   National Water Program:
           measure applies to surface water systems and
           ground water systems under direct influence of
           surface water and ground water systems.
         Technical Assistance and Training: Reference
         materials to support implementation  of recent
         regulations will be developed. These materials
         will include technical guidance, rollout strategies,
         implementation guidance, and quick reference
         guides. Assistance will focus particularly on the
         Ground Water Rule and revised Lead and Copper
         Rule. EPA will promote operation and maintenance
         best practices to small systems in support of long
         term compliance success with existing regulations.
         EPA will also support states with technical reviews
         of public water system submissions required for the
         Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule in 2010. EPA
         will work directly with systems by conducting training
         and reviewing monitoring submissions in states that
         are not conducting early implementation of the LT2/
         Stage 2 rules (a subset of a universe of over 59,000
         systems that will need to comply with the rules
         during FY 2010).
         Small System Assistance: EPA will also continue to
         provide technical assistance and leverage partners
         to help systems serving less than 3,300 people
         meet existing and new drinking water standards.
         The Agency will also support states in their efforts
         to provide technical, managerial, and financial
         assistance to small systems to improve those
         systems' capacity to consistently meet regulatory
         requirements. We will accomplish this by promoting
         cost-effective treatment technologies, proper
         disposal of treatment residuals, and  compliance
         with contaminant requirements, including monitoring
         under the arsenic and radionuclide rules and rules
         controlling microbial pathogens and disinfection
         byproducts.
         Small  and/or rural public water systems face
         many  challenges in providing safe drinking water
         and meeting the requirements of SDWA. These
         challenges include: (1) turnover of operations
         personnel; (2) part-time personnel who may lack
         necessary technical, financial, and managerial skills;
         (3) volunteer boards and councils; and (4) complex
         drinking water regulations. Water systems benefit
         from face-to-face training and on-site technical
         assistance.
         Area-wide Optimization Program:  Under EPA's
         voluntary Area-Wide Optimization Program (AWOP),
         drinking water systems and states will continue
         to use a variety of optimization tools, including
         comprehensive performance evaluations (CPEs)
         to assess the performance of filtration technology.
3.
                          strategies to protect public health
AWOP is a highly successful technical assistance
and training program that enhances the ability of
small systems to meet existing and future microbial,
disinfectant, and disinfection byproducts standards.
By 2010, EPA will have worked with four EPA
regions and 22 states to have facilitated the transfer
of specific skills using the performance-based
training approach targeted towards optimizing  key
groundwater system and distribution system integrity
management. These groundwater and distribution
system performance objectives are an expansion of
the original program elements, which were focused
on optimizing drinking water treatment plants that
utilize surface water sources.
Data Access, Quality and Reliability: The Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) serves
as the  primary source of national information
on compliance with all  health-based regulatory
requirements of SDWA. EPA will continue to work
with  states, with one focus being to increase the use
of SDWIS/State because of its ease of reporting and
compatibility with the national SDWIS.
To improve SDWIS data quality, EPA will continue to
work with states to implement the recommendations
of the Agency's Data Reliability Improvement
Plan that are based on results of program reviews
conducted by the Agency. In FY2010, EPA will
report annually the percent of data concerning
health-based violations that is complete and
accurate (see Program Activity Measure SDW-2).
In addition, for community water systems serving
greater than 3,300 people, EPA will also monitor
lead  monitoring  results for the Lead and Copper
Rule to ensure that the data is complete (see
Program Activity Measure SDW-3).
Coordination with Enforcement: The EPA regional
offices and the Office of Water will also work with the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) to identify instances of actual or expected
non-compliance that pose risks to public health and
to take appropriate actions as necessary. The  Office
of Water has worked with OECA to develop a new
approach to significant noncompliance. The Office
of Water believes that this new approach will better
focus enforcement efforts on the greatest  public
health  risks.


  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The  Drinking  Water  State  Revolving Fund  (DWSRF),
established under the Safe  Drinking Water Act,  enables
states to offer low interest loans to help public water systems
across the  nation  make improvements  and upgrades
   bFund Utilization Rate is the cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements divided by cumulative funds available.
©
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect public health
to their water infrastructure, or other activities that build
system capacity. As of the end of FY 2008, more than 6,177
infrastructure improvement projects had been funded from
the more than $16.2 billion available from  a combination
of federal  grants,  state  contributions,  bond  proceeds,
repayments, and earnings.

EPA will work with states to increase the DWSRF fund
utilization rate for projects from a 2002 level of 73% to 89%
in 2010 (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
SOW-5). In addition to implementing these measures as part
of the DWSRF base program in 2009, EPA will separately
carry  out  the provisions of the American  Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 which includes a supplemental
DWSRF appropriation for economic stimulus purposes.

In  2009,  the Agency  released  the  Drinking  Water
Infrastructure Needs Assessment  report, based on data
collected from utilities in 2007. The survey documents 20-
year capital investment needs of public water systems that
are eligible to receive DWSRF   monies—approximately
52,000  community water systems and  21,400 not-for-
profit  non-community water systems.  The survey reports
infrastructure needs that  are required to  protect public
health, such as projects to ensure compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As directed by the SDWA, EPA
will use the results of the survey to determine allocations of
DWSRF funds to the states and tribes for the period FYs
2010-2013.

In FY 2010, EPA will further contribute to the sustainable
infrastructure   initiative   through   partnership-building
activities,  including the Agency's  capacity development
and operator certification work with states, and efforts with
leaders in the drinking water utility industry to promote asset
management and the use of watershed-based approaches
to manage water resources. The  drinking water program
will engage states and other stakeholders to facilitate the
voluntary adoption by  public  water systems  of  attributes
associated with  effectively managed utilities. Finally,  the
program will continue to expand efforts to encourage water
efficient practices at public water systems aimed at reducing
leakage and better understanding linkages between water
production/distribution and energy use.
4.
Water System Security
EPA will provide tools, training, and technical assistance to
help protect the Nation's critical water infrastructure  from
terrorist and other catastrophic events. Reducing risk in the
water sector requires a multi-step approach of determining
risk  through  vulnerability  assessments,  reducing   risk
through security enhancements, and preparing to effectively
respond to and recover from incidents. Homeland Security
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                             National Water Progra
Presidential Directives (HSPDs) 7  and 9  direct EPA to
help the  water sector implement  protective  measures
including comprehensive water surveillance and monitoring
programs.

To  advance  the  water preparedness and  resiliency of
water utilities, EPA—through tools, training, and technical
assistance—will establish an  effort to help drinking water
and wastewater utilities to assess climate change impacts
and to implement effective adaptation strategies. This work
has as  its primary  goal  improving  operational resiliency
(one of the attributes of  Effective Utility Management) of
the Nation's  water  infrastructure. This activity would be
implemented through a cross-office effort linking several
important activities already underway within the Office of
Water,  including water security/preparedness, sustainable
infrastructure, and capacity development, and in collaboration
with other key offices, agencies, and stakeholders. It also
will advance the  long-term sustainability of water sector
infrastructure  and water supplies  by incorporating  the
impacts of climate change into decision making. This effort
will enhance the water sector's ability to articulate the type
and magnitude of adaptation-related investments to local,
state, and federal decision makers.

EPA will, in  FY  2010,  continue  prevention,  detection,
response, and recovery activities for  the water sector in
collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and
state and tribal homeland security and water officials. Also
in FY 2010, the program will continue to support deployment
and operation of contamination warning systems at five pilot
cities. These pilots  will provide  opportunities to evaluate
operational experience at different water systems. EPA also
will evaluate operation, performance, and sustainability for
the first pilot contamination warning system; and conduct
outreach efforts to migrate lessons learned from the pilots
to the water sector.

Preparedness is  critical  to  effective  recovery after an
incident. In FY 2010, as part of the Water  Laboratory
Alliance, EPA regional offices will continue to build regional
alliances to provide laboratories and utilities with access to
supplemental  analytical capability and  capacity, improved
preparedness for  analytical  support  to an emergency
situation, and coordinated and standardized data reporting
systems and analytical methods.

EPA will  continue  to facilitate training for emergency
preparedness and development  of mutual aid  Water and
Wastewater Agency  Response Networks   (WARNS)  in
every state and tribes with  utilities. The program will also
continue efforts to build effective relationships to support
activities carried under Emergency Support  Functions 10
(on hazardous materials, managed by EPA),  and 3  (on
infrastructure, managed by FEMA).
                                                                                                    O

-------
National Water Program:
5,
Protecting Sources of Drinking Water
EPA will  serve  as an analytic resource  and facilitator for
states, tribes,  and communities in  developing strategies
and  coordinating  across jurisdictions to  preserve drinking
water resources and continue a multiple barrier approach
to drinking water management  that  uses source water
protection as the initial barrier to contamination. Source
water  includes  surface  water,  ground water,  and the
interchange between them.

EPAs goal is to increase the number of community water
systems  with  minimized  risk to public  health through
development  and implementation of protection strategies
for source water areas (counted by states) from a baseline
of 20% of all areas in  FY 2005 to 41% in FY 2010 (see
measure SP-4a). EPA also has a goal of maintaining the
percent of the population served by these community water
systems at 60% in FY 2010 (see measure SP-4b).

EPA's resources will go mostly to support:

(a) initiatives of the Source Water Collaborative - a multi-
partner group  of federal  agencies and non-governmental
organizations  representing  states,  communities, utilities
and  planners who are interested in fostering source water
protection at the watershed or aquifer scale;

(b) implementing the lessons learned from a seven  state
pilot  program, under a competitive grant led  by  Trust for
Public Land and the Smart Growth Leadership Institute,  to
leverage  state and tribal water quality protection  and land
use management in protecting source water;

(c) nutrient reduction initiatives in the agricultural community,
particularly through  corporate  partnerships to influence
corporate supplier agricultural practices, and educational
curriculum through the National FFA Organization to reduce
source water pollution; and

(d)  state,  tribal, and  local source  water preservation
analyses and initiatives to address issues related to Water
Availability, Variability and Sustainability (WAVS) through
the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and
possibly other partners.

EPA will  continue working with  federal programs to align
source  water  preservation  and  protection  with  their
priorities. In particular, we are working to integrate source
water protection into Clean Water Act programs like the
watershed approach  and storm water management. State
water quality standards set the benchmarks for surface
water quality under  the  Clean  Water Act  and minimum
instream  flow regimes that protect aquatic habitats will also
preserve surface water and ground  water supplies for  all
uses. States, and tribes, and communities should review
these standards and regimes to make sure their source
  0'ers will be preserved and protected.
                                                                            strategies to protect public health
EPA will also continue working with other federal agencies
like the U.S. Forest Service to  maintain healthy land cover
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on land conservation
programs  and  best  management  practices  to  protect
water quality. EPA encourages states and communities to
leverage these programs to preserve and protect drinking
water supplies.
                                                  6.
       Underground Injection Control
                                                  EPA works with states to monitor and regulate the injection
                                                  of fluids, by wells, underground, both hazardous and non-
                                                  hazardous, to prevent contamination of underground sources
                                                  of drinking water. In FY 2010, EPA, states, and tribes will
                                                  continue to implement the Underground Injection Control
                                                  (UIC)  Program for Classes I,  II, III that lost  mechanical
                                                  integrity and are  returned to compliance within 180 days,
                                                  thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground
                                                  sources of drinking water (see Program Activity Measure
                                                  SDW-7).

                                                  In FY2010, EPA will merge identified Class V motor vehicle
                                                  waste disposal wells closed or permitted with high  priority
                                                  class V wells  that are  identified in sensitive ground water
                                                  protection areas that are closed or permitted. EPA, states,
                                                  and tribes will work to address the number and percent of
                                                  high  priority Class  V wells  that are  identified,  closed, or
                                                  permitted in sensitive ground  water protection areas (see
                                                  Program Activity Measure SDW-8).

                                                  Also  in  FY 2010,  EPA will   continue to  process new
                                                  applications for primacy from  states  and tribes work with
                                                  states wanting to return primacy to the Agency, and  update
                                                  the UIC grant allocation guidance used by states and EPA
                                                  regions.

                                                  EPA  will  continue  to  work with states to populate  the
                                                  national database for  the  Underground Injection Control
                                                  (UIC)  program, which will help the Agency to better track
                                                  wells and the  success  of the program. Specifically,  we will
                                                  deploy and implement the UIC database through orientation
                                                  and training of users and leveraging opportunities to reach
                                                  users through their national association.

                                                  EPA, through the UIC program, is responsible forestablishing
                                                  a regulatory  framework for carbon  sequestration  wells,
                                                  which will  ensure that underground sources of drinking
                                                  water are  not placed  at  risk. In  2007,  EPA released
                                                  comprehensive national technical guidance to assist EPA
                                                  regional, state, and tribal UIC  programs in permitting pilot-
                                                  scale CO2 geologic sequestration (GS)  projects, operated
                                                  by the Department of  Energy's Regional Partnerships,
                                                  as Class  V Experimental Technology wells.  In FY 2008,
                                                  EPA  proposed regulations to  manage  commercial scale
                                                  GS projects, and held several public meetings to  ensure
                                                  appropriate solicitation  of comments from stakeholders and
                                                  the potentially-regulated  community. In FY2010, EPA will
                                                  continue to carry out responsibilities in regulating curre,

                                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect public health
and future geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide projects.
The planned activities include:
       Continue to facilitate research on key areas
       of geologic sequestration via DIG wells, which
       address such issues as the potential mobilization
       of metals and organics in injection zones towards
       USDWs, the potential disruption of regional
       ground water flow by the injection of extremely
       high volumes of supercritical CO2 in the
       subsurface, and the introduction of materials as
       co-contaminants in the CO2 injection stream. This
       research will be conducted in close  coordination
       with OAR, ORD, and Department of Enery to avoid
       unnecessary duplication of effort;
       On  an expedited schedule, continue the
       development of final national rule under the
       SDWAforthe GS of carbon dioxide recovered
       from emissions of power plants, refineries, and
       other point source facilities. A final rule is planned
       for  late 2010 or early 2011, depending on the
       Agency's position on taking intermediate steps
       to further notice any new data from  pilot scale
       projects, or to address new key issues with GS
       (see next bullet);
       Analyze any data collected through  Department
       of Energy Class II EOR and Class V pilot projects
       and additional  industry efforts to demonstrate,
       commercialize, and implement geologic
       sequestration of carbon dioxide technology;
       Engage states, tribes,  and public stakeholders
       through meetings, workshops, and other avenues,
       as appropriate; and also work closely with states,
       tribes, and NGOs on addressing climate change
       issues; and
       Provide necessary technical assistance, such as
       the issuance of technical guidance concerning well
       construction and financial responsibility, to states
       and tribes in permitting initial GS projects; and
       where EPA has direct implementation authority,
       permit GS projects.

C)    Grant  Program Resources
  EPA has several program grants to the states, authorized
  under the Safe Drinking Water Act,  that support work
  towards the drinking water strategic goals including the
  Public  Water System  Supervision   (PWSS),  Drinking
  Water  State  Revolving  Fund (DWSRF), Underground
  Injection  Control (DIG),  and water security  grants. For
  additional information on these grants,  see the grant
  program  guidance on the website (http://www.epa.gov/
  water/waterplan).
           National Water Progra
  The PWSS grants support the states' primacy activities
  (e.g., enforcement and compliance with drinking water
  regulations). PWSS  grant guidance issued for FY 2005
  will continue to apply in FY 2010.

  The DWSRF program provides significant resources for
  states to use  in protecting public health.  Through FY
  2008, the program as a whole provided over $14.6 billion
  in assistance and states reserved over $1.5 billion in set-
  asides to support key drinking water programs.  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 forthe 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 1.5% of the DWSRF  funds for
  grants  for  Tribal  and  Alaska Native Village drinking
  water projects, including upgrading of community water
  systems and improving access through construction of
  new systems. EPA also administers a grant program for
  drinking water  and wastewater projects in Alaska Native
  Villages. Additional funding is available from other federal
  agencies, including the Indian Health Service.

  The FY2010 budget for grants to states to carry out primary
  enforcement (primacy) responsibilities for implementing
  regulations  associated with Classes I, II,  III,  IV,  and V
  underground injection control wells. In addition, emphasis
  is directed to activities that address shallow wells (Class
  V) in  source water protection areas.
2.     Fish and Shellfish
       Safe to Eat
A)     Subobjective
Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels
in blood above the level of concern (of 4.6 percent).

2005 Baseline: 5.7%   2009 Commitment: 5.2%
2010 Target: 5.1%      2014 Target: 4.6%

(Note:  Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices A and F.)
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 0

-------
National Water Program:
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,
states and tribes have issued fish  consumption advisories
fora range of contaminants covering 930,000 stream miles
and  over 15 million lake acres. In addition, a significant
portion of the valuable shellfishing acres managed by states
and tribes are not open for use. EPA's  national  approach
to meeting safe fish goals and improving  the quality of
shellfishing waters is described on the following pages.
;
Safe Fish
EPA's approach to making fish safer to eat includes sev-
eral key elements:
        Encourage development of statewide mercury
        reduction strategies;
        Reduce air deposition of mercury; and
        Improve public information and notification offish
        consumption risks.
a)      Comprehensive Statewide Mercury Reduction
        Programs
EPA recognizes that restoration of waterbodies impaired by
mercury may require coordinated efforts to address widely
dispersed sources of contamination and  that restoration
may require a long-term commitment.

In early March 2007, EPA established  guidelines allowing
states  the  option of developing  comprehensive  mercury
reduction programs in conjunction with their FY 2008  lists
of impaired waters developed under Section 303(d) of the
Clean WaterAct. Underthe new guidelines, EPAallows states
that have a comprehensive mercury reduction program to
place  waters  impaired by mercury in  a subcategory "5m"
of their impaired  waters  lists and defer  development of
mercury TMDLs for these waters. These mercury impaired
waters would not be included in estimates of the "pace" of
TMDL development needed to meet the goal of developing
TMDLs for impaired waters within  8 to 13 years of listing the
waterbody.

The  key elements of a  state  comprehensive  mercury
reduction program are:

        Identification of air sources of mercury in the
        state, including adoption of appropriate state level
        programs to address in-state sources;
        Identification of other potential multi-media
        sources of mercury in products and wastes and
        adoption of appropriate state level  programs;
        Adoption of statewide mercury reduction goals
        and targets, including targets for percent reduction
        anddates of achievement;
                                                                           strategies to protect public health
       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.
EPAexpectsthatthese elements of a comprehensive mercury
reduction program  will be in place in order for 5m listings
to be appropriate (i.e., specific legislation, regulations, or
other programs that implement the required elements have
been formally adopted by the state, as opposed to being in
the planning or implementation stages). States will have the
option of using the "5m" listing approach as part of the 2010
Section 303(d) lists due to EPA in April 2010.

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.

b)     Reduce Air Deposition of Mercury
Most fish advisories are for mercury, and a critical element of
the strategy to reduce mercury in fish is reducing emissions
of mercury from combustion sources in the United States.
On a nationwide basis, by 2010, federal regulatory programs
are expected to reduce electric-generating unit emissions of
mercury from their 2000 level (see EPA Strategic Plan; Goal
1: Clean Air, Subobjective 1.1.2: Reduced Risk from Toxic
Air Pollutants).

c)     Improve Public Information and Notification
       of Fish Consumption Risks
Another key element of the strategy to make fish safer to
eat is to expand and improve  information and notification
of the risks offish consumption. As part of this work, EPA is
also encouraging and supporting states and tribes to adopt
the new fish tissue criterion for mercury that EPA issued
in 2001 and apply it based on implementation  guidance
issued in 2009.

EPA  is  actively   monitoring   the  development of fish
consumption  advisories  and working   with  states  to
improve monitoring to support this effort. Fish tissues has
been assessed to  support waterbody-specific or regional
consumption advisories for 26% of lake acres and 38% of
river miles (see Program Activity Measure  FS-1). EPA also
encourages states  and tribes to monitor fish tissue  based
on national guidance and most states  are now doing this
work.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect public health
2.
       Safe Shellfish
Shellfish safety is managed through the Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a partnership of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the state shellfish
control agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the EPA. The state shellfish
control agencies monitor shellfishing waters and can pro-
hibit or restrict harvesting if the waters from which shellfish
are taken are considered unsafe.
Success in achieving improved quality in shellfishing waters
relies on implementation of Clean Water Act programs that
are focused on sources causing shellfish acres to be closed.
Important  new technologies  include  pathogen source
tracking, new indicators of pathogen contamination and
predictive correlations between environmental stressors and
their effects. Once critical areas and sources  are identified,
core program authorities, including expanded  monitoring,
development of TMDLs, and revision of discharge permit
limits can be applied to improve conditions.

In addition, a wide range of clean water programs that apply
throughout the country will generally reduce pathogen levels
in key waters. For example, work to control Combined Sewer
Overflows, to reduce discharges from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations, to reduce storm water runoff, and to
reduce nonpoint pollution will contribute  to  restoration of
shellfish uses.

Finally,  success  in achieving  improved  water  quality
in shellfishing waters  also  depends  on improving  the
availability of state shellfish  information.  EPA, along with
NOAA and FDA, is encouraging states to  participate in the
ISSC and report shellfish information. EPA is also working to
improve data concerning the location of open  and  restricted
shellfishing areas.

C)     Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting  this  goal include the state
program grant under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act,
other water grants identified in the Grant Program Resources
section of Subobjective 4, and grants from the Great Lakes
National Program Office. For additional information on these
grants, see  the grant program guidance  on the website
(http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
           National Water Progra


3.     Water Safe for
       Swimming


A)     Subobjective
Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and
Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety
programs are open and safe for swimming:
2006 Baseline: 97%    2008 Commitment: 93%
2010 Target: 95%     2014 Target:  96%

(Note:  Additional measures of progress are included in
Appendices A and F.)

B)     Key National Strategies
The Nation's waters, especially beaches in coastal areas
and the Great  Lakes,  provide recreational  opportunities
for millions of Americans. Swimming in some recreational
waters, however, can pose a  risk of illness as a result of
exposure to microbial pathogens. By "recreational waters"
EPA means waters officially recognized for primary contact
recreation use or similar full body contact use by  states,
authorized tribes, and territories.

For FY 2010, 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 pathogens levels in all recreational
       waters; and
       Improve beach monitoring and public notification.

1)     Continue to Develop the Scientific Foundation
       to Support the Next Generation of Recommended
       Water Quality Criteria
The Beach Act requires EPA to develop new or revised
recreational water quality criteria.  EPA is implementing a
science plan that will provide the support needed to underpin
the next generation of recommended water quality criteria.

2)     Identify Unsafe Recreational Waters and Begin
       Restoration
A key component of the strategy to restore waters unsafe for
swimming is to  identify the specific waters that are  unsafe
and develop plans to accomplish the needed restoration. A
key part of this work is to maintain  strong progress  toward
implementation  of Total Maximum Daily Loads  (TMDLs)
which are developed based on the schedules established
by states in conjunction with EPA. Program Activity Measure
WQ-8 indicates that most EPA regions expect to maintain
schedules providing for completion of TMDLs within 13 years
of listing. EPA will continue to work with states to expand
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
implementation of TMDLs, including  developing TMDLs
on a water segment or watershed basis where appropriate
(see Section 11.1).

In a related effort, the Office of Waterwill work in partnership
with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) to better  focus  compliance and  enforcement
resources to unsafe recreational waters. In addition,  wet
weather discharges, which are a major source of pathogens,
are one of OECAs national priorities.

3)      Reduce Pathogen Levels in
       Recreational Waters Generally
In  addition  to  focusing on waters  that are unsafe for
swimming today,  EPA, states and tribes will  work  in FY
2010 to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged to
recreational waters using three key approaches:
       Reduce pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows
       (CSOs);
       Address other sources discharging pathogens
       under the permit program; and
       Encourage improved management of septic
       systems.
Overflows from combined storm and sanitary sewers in
urban areas can result in high levels  of pathogens being
released during storm events.  Because urban areas  are
often  upstream  of  recreational waters,  these overflows
are a significant  source  of unsafe levels of pathogens.
EPA is working with states and local governments to fully
implement the CSO Policy providing for the development
and implementation of Long Term Control Plans  (LTCPs)
for CSOs. EPA expects that close to 80% of the 853 CSO
permits will have schedules in place to implement approved
LTCPs in FY 2010 (see Program Activity Measure SS-1).
EPA will also work with states to resolve longstanding issues
associated with sanitary sewer overflows and bypasses at
treatment plants.

Other key sources of pathogens to the Nation's waters are
discharges from Concentrated Animal  Feeding Operations
(CAFOs) and municipal storm sewer systems and industrial
facilities. EPA expects to work with states to  assure that
these  facilities are covered by permits.

Finally, there is growing  evidence that ineffective  septic
systems are adversely impacting water resources. EPA will
work with state and local governments to develop voluntary
approaches to improving management of these systems.

4)      Improve Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
Another important element of the strategy for improving
the safety of recreational waters is improving monitoring of
public beaches and notifying the public of unsafe condi-
tions.  EPA continues to work with states to implement the
                         strategies to protect public health
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act and expects that 99 percent of "significant"
public beaches will be monitored in accordance with
BEACH Act requirements in FY2009 (see Program Activ-
ity Measure SS-2). Significant public beaches are those
identified by states as "Tier 1" in their Beach monitoring
and notification programs. Finally, EPA will continue to
receive state information on beach notifications and dis-
place it through the BEACON system (http://www.epa.gov/
beaches/).

C)    Grant Program Resources
Grant resources  supporting  this  goal  include  the  Clean
Water Act Section 106  grant to states, nonpoint source
program  implementation  grants   (Section 319  grants),
and the BEACH Act  grant program grants. For additional
information on these grants, see the grant program guidance
on the website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
III.    STRATEGIES TO PROTECT
       AND RESTORE  FRESH WATERS,
       COASTAL WATERS, AND
       WETLANDS

An overarching goal of the National Water  Program is to
protect and restore aquatic systems throughout the country,
including  rivers,  lakes, coastal  waters, and wetlands.
Although the three subobjective strategies described below
address discrete elements of the Nation's water resources,
the National Water Program manages these  efforts as part
of a comprehensive effort. In addition, the national strategies
described below are intended to work in concert with the
efforts to restore and protect the large aquatic ecosystems
described in Part IV of this Guidance.
1.     Restore and  Improve
       Water Quality on a
       Watershed  Basis
A)     Subobjective
Use  pollution prevention and restoration  approaches to
protect and restore the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams
on a watershed basis.

(NOTE: Additional measures of progress  are included in the
Appendices, including measures related to watersheds  and
maintaining water quality in streams already meeting standards.)
                                                                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands

B)     Key National Strategies
In FY 2009, EPA will work with states and others to
implement programs to protect and restore these
water resources with three key goals in mind:

        Core Water Programs: EPA, states, and tribes
        need to continue maintaining and improving the
        integration and implementation of the core national
        clean water programs throughout the country to
        most effectively protect and restore water quality.
        Broaden 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 integrate these efforts
        with restoration approaches.
                                                       1.
                                                                  National Water Progra
Implement Core Clean Water Programs
to Protect All Waters Nationwide
                                                       In FY 2010, 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 2010 include:
                                                               Strengthen the water quality standards program;
                                                               Improve water quality monitoring and assessment;
                                                               Implement TMDLs and other watershed plans;
                                                               Strengthen the NPDES permit program;
                                                               Implement practices to reduce pollution from all
                                                               nonpoint sources; and
                                                               Support sustainable wastewater infrastructure.

                                                       As part of this process, EPA will continue efforts to
                                                       integrate across programs, media and federal agencies
                                                       to more effectively support efforts to  protect and restore
                                                       waters. In the event that the Office of Water finds that
                                                       existing programs, initiatives, or processes are not
                                                       resulting in a significant contribution to national goals, we
                                                       will work with regions, states, tribes,  and other partners to
                                                       rethink and redesign the delivery of clean water programs
                                                       to more effectively protect and restore waterbodies and
                                                       watersheds. Similarly, EPA regional offices have the
                                                       flexibility to emphasize various parts of core national
                                                       programs and modify targets to  meet EPA regional and
                                                       state needs and conditions.
                                                       Priorities for FY 2010 in each of these program areas are
                                                       described below.
Section 106 Grant Guidance to  States and Interstate Agencies:
General Information

On a pilot basis, this National Water Program Guidance for FY2010 includes guidance for state and interstate recipients
of Section 106 grants for Water Pollution Control Programs. As a general matter, grant recipients are expected to
conduct their programs to help achieve the goals, objectives, subobjectives, strategic targets, and program activity
measures specified in section 111.1 of this Guidance. In addition, section 111.1 includes specific guidance for State and
Interstate grant recipients in text boxes like this. Together, section 111.1, the text boxes, and Appendix D replace the
corresponding portions of the biannual Section 106 Grant Guidance formerly provided separately.
This pilot covers only the core water pollution control activities listed above this box.
EPA continues to provide separate guidance for the following water pollution control activities:
      Tribal water pollution control programs.*   See http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106tgg07.htm.
      State and Interstate use of Monitoring  Initiative funds.
      See http://epa.goV/owm/cwfinance/106-guidelines-monitor.htm.
      Water pollution enforcement activities. See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.

This exception does not apply to regulatory programs for which tribes have been found eligible under section 518(e) of the Clean Water Act to be
treated in the same  manner as a state (TAS), such as to administer a water quality standards program. Tribes with TAS for regulatory programs are
expected to follow the same guidance as states for these programs.
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
a)     Strengthen Water Quality Standards:
Water Quality Standards are the regulatory and scientific
foundation of water quality protection programs under the
Clean Water Act.  Under the Act,  states and authorized
tribes establish water quality standards that define the goals
and limits for waters within their jurisdictions. They are used
to determine which waters must be cleaned up, how much
may be discharged, and what is needed for protection.

To help  achieve  strategic targets,  EPA will  continue to
review and  approve or disapprove state and tribal water
quality standards and  promulgate replacement standards
where needed; develop water quality criteria, information,
methods, models,  and policies to  ensure  that each
waterbody in the United States has a clear, comprehensive
suite of standards that define the highest attainable uses;
and as needed, provide technical and scientific support to
states, territories, and  authorized tribes in the development
of their standards.

A high priority is to support state and territory development
of numeric nutrient criteria—water quality criteria to help
target reductions in excess nitrogen and phosphorus that
can  cause  eutrophication  and other problems in  lakes,
estuaries, rivers, and streams. EPA will work with states and
territories as they develop and implement mutually-agreed
upon plans  for developing  numeric nutrient water quality
standards and will provide technical tools and guidance to
assist them (see Program Activity Measure WQ-1).

In a related effort, EPAwill continue to encourage and support
tribes in  implementing  one of the three approaches for
                          strategies to protect fresh waters,
                              coastal waters, and wetlands
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  scientific
information (see Program Activity Measures WQ-3a and 4b)
and to facilitate adoption of standards that EPA can approve
(see Program Activity Measures WQ-4a and 4b).

EPA will encourage states, territories, and  authorized tribes
to make  their water quality standards accessible to the
public on the Internet in a systematic format.

b)     Improve Water Quality Monitoring
       and Assessment:
EPA will  continue  to work with states, tribes,  territories,
and  other  partners to provide the monitoring data and
information needed to make good water quality protection
and  restoration decisions  and to track  changes in  the
Nation's water quality overtime.

Beginning in FY 2005, Congress designated $18.5 million
in new Section 106 funds  for a  monitoring initiative, which
builds upon  states'  base  investments  in monitoring  to
  Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies:
  Water Quality Standards

  It is EPA's objective for states and authorized tribes to administer the water quality program consistent with the
  requirements of the CWAand the water quality standards regulation.* EPA expects states and tribes will enhance the
  quality and timeliness of their water quality standards triennial reviews so that these standards reflect EPA guidance
  and updated scientific information. EPA will work with states and tribes to reach early agreement on triennial review
  priorities and schedules and coordinate at critical points to facilitate timely EPA reviews of state water quality standards
  submissions. States with disapproved standards provisions should work with EPA to resolve the disapprovals promptly.
  A high priority is for states to implement their agreed-upon work plans for developing and adopting numeric nutrient
  criteria—water quality criteria to help target reductions in excess nutrients that can cause eutrophication and other
  problems in lakes, estuaries, rivers, and streams.
  States should make their water quality standards accessible to the public on the Internet in a systematic format. Users
  should be able to identify the current EPA-approved standards that apply to each waterbody in the State, for example
  by providing tables and maps of designated  uses and related criteria. EPA has developed the Water Quality Standards
  Database for this purpose. EPA will provide a copy of the Database for a State to populate, operate, and maintain locally
  if it does not have its own database. You may request a copy of the WQSDB and guidance for its installation and use at
  http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqshome/.

  'Tribes found eligible to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS) to administer water quality standards programs under section 518 of the
  Clean Water Act. As of January 2009, 44 tribes have been found so eligible.
                                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands
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 are found in the Amendment to the Guidelines
for the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section
106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes in the
Federal Register \n July 17, 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/award-monitoring-fund.htm).   The   guidelines
specify  the activities that states and interstates carry out
under the  monitoring  initiative. These  included funding
new, expanded,  or enhanced monitoring activities as part
of the state's implementation of its comprehensive state
monitoring  strategy.  Some monitoring priorities that states
should consider include:
      Integration of statistical survey and targeted
      monitoring designs to assess the condition of all
      water resources overtime;
      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.
Aseparate Section 106 workplan component must besubmitted
that includes  water monitoring activities  and milestones for
both  implementation  of state strategies and collaboration on
statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters.

State and EPAcooperation on statistically-valid assessments
of water condition  nationwide remains  a top priority.  In
FY 2010,  states, tribes, EPA,  and other partners will be
analyzing  samples for a statistically valid survey of rivers
and streams. The results  of this survey will be issued  in
FY 2012, with a report on the baseline condition of rivers
and changes  in stream condition since 2006 (see Strategic
Target SP-14). During FY 2010, field sampling  for a fifth
statistically valid survey of coastal waters will  occur. (See
Subobjective  2.2.2  and Strategic Targets SP-16 to 19)
Planning for a survey of baseline conditions of wetlands will
also  continue. A portion of the FY 2010 CWA Section 106
Monitoring  Initiative funds will be allocated for sampling and
analysis for a wetland condition survey. EPA will enhance
and expand work with states, tribes, and other partners  to
improve the administration, logistical, and technical support
for the surveys.

In FY 2010,  states will continue  to enhance  and refine
their monitoring  programs and  make progress  according
to schedules  established  in  their monitoring  strategies.
(see Program Activity Measure WQ-5). EPA stresses the
importance of using statistical surveys to generate statewide
assessments  and track broad-scale trends; enhancing and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                               National Water Program;
                                                     Section 106 Grant Guidance to
                                                     States and Interstate Agencies:
                                                     Monitoring

                                                     EPA encourages states, tribes, territories, and interstate
                                                     commissions to use a combination of section 106
                                                     monitoring funds, base  106 funds, and other resources
                                                     available to enhance their monitoring activities. During
                                                     FY2010, these efforts include:
                                                          Implementing monitoring strategies;
                                                          Undertaking statistical surveys; and
                                                          Integrating assessments of water conditions,
                                                          including reports under Section 305(b)  of the
                                                          Clean Water Act  and listing of impaired waters
                                                          under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act by
                                                          April 1,2010.
                                                     In FY 2010, states will transmit water quality data to the
                                                     national STORET warehouse using the Water Quality
                                                     Exchange (WQX) and submit assessment results for the
                                                     2010 Integrated Report via the Assessment Database
                                                     version 2, or a compatible electronic format, and geo-
                                                     reference these assessment decisions (see Program
                                                     Activity Measure WQ-7). EPA will support states' and
                                                     tribes' use of WQX 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.
                                                    implementing designs to address water information needs at
                                                    local scales (e.g., watersheds) including monitoring waters
                                                    where restoration  actions have  been implemented, and
                                                    integrating  both statistical surveys and targeted monitoring
                                                    to assess the condition of all water resources overtime.

                                                    EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring strategies
                                                    appropriate to their water quality programs  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 overtime.

                                                    EPA's  goal is to achieve greater integration of federal,
                                                    regional, state, and local level monitoring efforts to connect
                                                    monitoring  and  assessment activities across geographic
                                                    scales, in  a  cost-efficient and effective manner,  so that
                                                    scientifically defensible monitoring  data is available  to
                                                    address issues and problems at each of these scales. In
                                                    addition  EPA will work with  states and  other partners to
                                                    address research and technical gaps related to sampling
                                                    methods, analytical approaches, and data management.
                                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
c)     Implement TMDLs and Other
       Watershed Related Plans:
Development and implementation of TMDLs for 303(d)
listed waterbodies  is a critical tool for  meeting water
quality restoration goals. TMDLs focus on clearly defined
environmental  goals  and  establish  a  pollutant  budget,
which is  then  implemented via permit requirements and
through local, state, and federal watershed plans/programs.
Strong networks, including the National Estuary Programs
(see "Protect Coastal and  Ocean  Waters"  Subobjective),
as well as the Association of State  and Interstate Water
Pollution  Control Administrators  (ASIWPCA),  and the
partnership galvanized by a recent EPA-Forest Service
Memorandum  of Agreement (http://www.epa.gov/owow/
tmdl/usfsepamoa/),  foster efficient strategies to address
water quality impairments. These  networks are uniquely
positioned to improve water quality through development
and implementation of TMDLs.

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
  Section 106  Grant Guidance to
  States and Interstate Agencies:
  TMDLs.

  EPA encourages states to effectively assess their waters
  and make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely
  submittal of required § 303(d) lists of impaired waters.
  For the 2008 Integrated Reporting Cycle, there was a
  significant improvement in timely list submissions. In
  2010, EPA will continue to work with states, interstate
  agencies, and tribes to foster a watershed approach
  as the guiding principle of clean water programs. In
  watersheds where water quality standards are not
  attained, states will develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
  (TMDLs), critical tools for meeting water restoration
  goals. States should establish a schedule for developing
  necessary TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable.
  EPA policy is that TMDLs for each impairment listed
  on previous § 303(d) lists should be established in a
  time frame that is no longer than 8 to 13 years from the
  time the impairment is identified. States have started
  to address more difficult TMDLs, such as the recently
  approved a broad-scale mercury TMDL for the Northeast
  Region, and nutrient TMDLs for the Mississippi River
  Delta Region, which required involvement at the State
  and Federal level across multiple programs. EPA will
  also continue to work with states to facilitate accurate,
  comprehensive, and georeferenced data made available
  to the public via the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and
  Implementation System (ATTAINS)
                          strategies to protect fresh waters,
                             coastal waters, and wetlands

rates that ensure  that  the  national  policy  of TMDL
development within 8-13 years of listing is met (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-8).

As  noted  below, EPA is  encouraging states  to organize
schedules forTMDLs to address all pollutants on an impaired
segment when possible (see Program Activity Measure WQ-
21). Where multiple impaired segments are clustered within
a watershed, EPA encourages states to organize restoration
activities across the  watershed (i.e.,  apply a watershed
approach). To assist in the development of  Watershed
TMDLs, the TMDL program developed two tools recently:
Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed TMDLs, and a
'checklist' for developing mercury TMDLs where the source
is primarily  atmospheric  deposition (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 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.
d)
Strengthen the NPDES Permit Program:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The  NPDES program requires point sources discharging
to waterbodies to have permits and requires pretreatment
programs to control discharges from industrial facilities to
sewage treatment plants.
EPA's  "Permitting  for  Environmental  Results Strategy"
focuses on permit issuance and the health of state NPDES
programs. The strategy  focuses limited  resources  on
the  most critical environmental problems  and addresses
program efficiency and integrity. Based on EPA and states'
assessment  of NPDES program integrity, EPA developed
a commitment and  tracking system to ensure that NPDES
programs implement follow-up actions resulting from these
assessments. EPA  continues to emphasize the importance
of these follow-up actions (see Program Activity Measure
WQ-11). As the  Office of Water conducts regional reviews,
EPA does permit quality reviews for states within the region
being reviewed. Additional action items will continue to be
identified and addressed through this  process in FY2010.

EPA is also 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. Some key NPDES program efforts include:
  •    High Priority Permits: States and EPA regions
      are asked to select priority permits based on
      programmatic and environmental significance and
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands
     commit to issuing a specific number of those permits
     during  the fiscal year. Beginning in FY 2010, EPA is
     aligning the priority permit universe selection with
     the GPRA commitment schedule (see Program
     Activity Measures WQ-19).
  •   Watershed Permits/Water Quality Trading:
     Organizing permits on a watershed basis can improve
     the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.
     Permits can also be used as an effective mechanism
     to facilitate cost-effective pollution reduction through
     water quality trading (see Prog ram 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
     Infrastructure Action Strategy released in January
     2008, to help incorporate green infrastructure
     solutions at the local level to protect water quality
     from stormwater and CSOs. Green Infrastructure
     management approaches and technologies infiltrate,
     evapotranspire, capture and reuse stormwater to
     maintain or restore natural hydrology. EPA supports
     use of 106 funds to provide programmatic support
     for green infrastructure efforts promote prevention,
     reduction, and  elimination of water pollution.
     Pesticides: On January 7, 2009, the 6th Circuit
     Court of Appeals required EPA and authorized
     states to issue  permits to pesticide applicators that
     discharge to waters of the U.S. DOJ filed a motion
                                                                National Water Progra
                                                           to stay issuance of the Court's mandate for two
                                                           years to provide EPA time to develop, propose and
                                                           issue a final NPDES general permit for pesticide
                                                           applications, for States to develop permits, and to
                                                           provide outreach and education to the regulated
                                                           community.
                                                           Vessels: As a result of a 2006 court ruling,
                                                           approximately 70,000 vessels that were exempt
                                                           from permitting must now be covered by an NPDES
                                                           permit. On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a new
                                                           NPDES general permit to regulate 26 types of
                                                           discharges from vessels operating in U.S. waters. In
                                                           addition, legislation  enacted in July 2008 (S.3298),
                                                           requires EPA to perform a study to characterize
                                                           certain discharges from fishing and smaller
                                                           communal vessels.  Depending on the results of that
                                                           study, Congress may determine that EPA consider
                                                           whether all, or a subset of these vessels require
                                                           NPDES permits.
                                                           Stormwater: In October 2008, The  National
                                                           Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
                                                           (NRC) found that EPA's stormwater program needs
                                                           a significant overhaul to improve its  effectiveness
                                                           and the quality of urban streams.  EPA is evaluating
                                                           the NRC recommendations to strengthen the
                                                           stormwater program. EPA will continue  to work
                                                           with states to assure that industrial,  construction,
                                                           and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
                                                           facilities are covered by current Phase  I and Phase
                                                           II stormwater permits and to monitor the number
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies:
Permits, Enforcement, and Compliance

States should continue to implement actions identified under EPA's Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) strategy
to assure effective management of the permit program and to adopt efficiencies to improve environmental results.
States should also implement recommended actions identified under the EPA/ECOS enforcement and compliance
"State Review Framework" process. States should place emphasis on implementing criteria to ensure that priority
permits selected are those  offering the greatest benefit to improve water quality. In addition, states should work to
ensure that 90 percent of all NPDES permits are current. EPA will track program enhancements and states should
continue to implement the program enhancements identified in the updated action item lists for their water programs
(WQ-11). 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. States should place emphasis on incorporating green infrastructure in all stormwater permits. States are
expected to ensure data  availability by fully populating the required Permit Compliance System (PCS) or Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS- NPDES) data elements Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB)) or
data elements in ICIS-NPDES that are comparable to WENDB in PCS or ICIS (December 28, 2007 memo from Michael
Stahl and James Hanlon, "ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 Permit Compliance System Policy Statement")
as appropriate. In its separate National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) continues to focus on wet weather issues, including combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary
sewer overflows (SSOs), storm water, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as national priorities
through FY 2010. The final OECA NPM Guidance is available with the complete Agency set at:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
      of facilities covered by storm water permits (see
      Program Activity Measure WQ-13).
      CAFOs: EPA revised the NPDES regulations for
      CAFOs in 2008 to address the Second Circuit's
      2005 decision in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA.
      Under the terms of the revised regulations, CAFOs
      that discharge or propose to discharge to waters of
      the U.S. must seek NPDES permit coverage. EPA
      is working to assure that all states have up-to-date
      CAFO NPDES programs and that all CAFOs that
      discharge seek and  obtain NPDES permit coverage.
      EPA will also work with permitting authorities to
      identify which CAFOs need to seek permit coverage
      and provide the tools and  information needed to
      prevent discharges and provide appropriate permit
      coverage. In addition, EPA will continue to monitor
      the number of CAFOs covered by NPDES permits.
      (see Program Activity Measure WQ-13).
      Forest Roads: As required by the Ninth Circuit
      Court,  EPA will reevaluate if sediment discharges
      from forest roads which impair water quality should
      be regulated under the NPDES program.
      New Dischargers to Impaired Waters (Carlota):
      Longstanding EPA regulations prohibit issuance of
      a permit to a new source or new discharger if the
      discharge will cause or contribute to a violation of a
      water quality standard (WQS) (40 CFR 122.4(i)). The
      Ninth Circuit recently vacated an NPDES permit that
      EPA issued to a new discharger, the Carlota Copper
      Mine, finding that the required showings under 40
      CFR 122.4(i)  had not been made. This decision
      has consequences for how permitting authorities
      impose limits in permits for new dischargers in
      impaired waterbodies. Water Permits Division
      is considering a variety of actions to clarify the
      expectation for new  dischargers to impaired waters,
      in light of this decision, including the issuance  of
      interpretive statements and a rulemaking to revise
      the regulation.
      Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and Bypasses:
      EPA will continue to  work with states to resolve
      longstanding  issues related to overflows in
      separate sanitary sewer systems and bypasses at
      the treatment plant to ensure that water quality is
      protected during wet weather events.
      Current Permits: EPA will continue to work with
      states to set targets  for the percentage of permits
      that are considered current, with the goal of assuring
      that not less than 90% of all permits are current (see
      Program Activity Measure WQ-12). In addition, EPA
      is working with states to expedite reviews of permit
      renewals and modifications for NPDES permits held
      by Performance Track facilities.
      Pretreatment: EPA  and states will monitor the
      percentage of significant industrial facilities that
                          strategies to protect fresh waters,
                             coastal waters, and wetlands
      have control mechanisms in place to implement
      applicable pretreatment requirements prior to
      discharging to publicly owned treatment works.
      EPA will also  monitor the percentage of categorical
      industrial facilities in non-pretreatment publicly-
      owned treatment works (POTWs) that have control
      mechanisms  in place to implement applicable
      pretreatment  requirements (see Program Activity
      Measure WQ-14).
      Compliance: EPA will track and report on key
      measures of compliance with discharge permits
      including the  percent of major dischargers in
      Significant Noncompliance (SNC), and the percent
      of major publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
      that comply with their permitted wastewater
      discharge standards (see Program Activity
      Measures WQ-15 and WQ-16).
e)     Implement Practices to Reduce Pollution
       from all Nonpoint Sources:
Polluted runoff from  sources  such as agricultural lands,
forestry sites, and   urban  areas  is the  largest single
remaining  cause  of water pollution. Land  applied nutrients
represent a significant challenge to improving water quality.
EPA, states, and tribes are working with local governments,
watershed groups, property owners, tribes, and others to
implement programs and management practices to control
polluted runoff throughout the country.

EPA provides grant funds to states under Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act to implement comprehensive programs
to control  nonpoint pollution, including reduction in runoff
of nitrogen, phosphorus,  and  sediment.  EPA will monitor
progress in reducing  loadings  of these key pollutants  (see
Program Activity Measure WQ-9). In addition, EPA estimates
that  some  5,967  waterbodies are primarily  impaired  by
nonpoint sources and will track progress in restoring these
waters nationwide (see Program Activity Measure WQ-10).

As described in  more detail in  Section  2  below, EPA is
encouraging states to use the 319 program to support a
more comprehensive, watershed approach to protecting and
restoring water quality. EPA first published in FY 2003 new
grant guidelines for the Section 319 program to require the
use of at least $100 million for developing and implementing
comprehensive watershed plans. These plans are geared
towards restoring impaired waters  on a  watershed  basis
while still protecting high quality and threatened waters as
necessary. In  2010, EPA will work closely with and support
the many efforts of states, interstate agencies, tribes,  local
governments  and communities,  watershed groups,  and
others  to develop and implement  their  local  watershed-
based  plans.  State  CWSRF funds are also available to
support efforts to  control pollution from nonpoint sources.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands
f)      Support Sustainable Water Infrastructure:
Much of the dramatic progress  in improving water quality
is directly attributable to investment in drinking water and
wastewater  infrastructure,  but the job is far  from  over.
Communities are challenged to find the fiscal resources to
replace aging infrastructure,  meet growing infrastructure
demands  fueled by  population  growth, and secure their
infrastructure against threats. If these challenges are  not
met, rising water pollution levels could erase the gains in
water quality that the Nation has achieved.

Today's challenges require  a multi-faceted  approach to
managing infrastructure assets. The Nation must embrace a
fundamental change in the way we manage, value, and invest
in infrastructure. EPA is pursuing a Sustainable Infrastructure
Initiative, organized around four principles, or "pillars":
       Better  Management - work  with  utilities  and
       communities  to  promote   utility  management
       programs  based  on  attributes  of   effectively
       managed utilities and performance measures that
       will help change the paradigm from managing for
       compliance to managing forsustainability.
       Water Efficiency - promote wise water use by
       consumersand utilitiesthrough marketenhancement
       programs for water efficient products, partnerships,
       and  public  education.
       Full Cost Pricing - help utilities and communities
       recognize the full cost  of providing services and
       implement pricing structures that recover these costs.
       The Watershed Approach - help utilities and other
       stakeholders use watershed  approaches to think
       holistically  about infrastructure planning, including
       drinking  water,  source  water, wastewater,  and
       stormwater management; and to promote soft path
       technologies,  such as  low impact development
       and  green  infrastructure solutions to wet weather
       management.
In pursuing actions under each of these pillars, EPA will be
guided by several cross-cutting themes such as innovation,
collaboration with  partners,  use of  new technology, and
research focused on new tools and techniques.  In addition,
EPA will pursue innovative, market-based tools to increase
and accelerate the amount of capital invested in the Nation's
water infrastructure. One focus will be on removing barriers
to private investment in public purpose infrastructure.

EPA  is   developing  measures  for  the   Sustainable
Infrastructure Initiative for inclusion in the National Water
Program  Guidance for FY 2010, as well as the 2009-2014
Strategic Plan. Under development are two measures:
       Number of utilities achieving recognition as part of
       the revised Clean Water Act Awards. (HQ reports)
       Number of outreach or training events that
       promote Asset Management or Environmental
       Management Systems. (Regions report)

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           National Water Progra
Also important to the implementation of the  Sustainable
Infrastructure Strategy are the DWSRFs and CWSRFs that
provide low interest loans to help finance drinking water and
wastewater treatment facilities, as well as otherwaterquality
projects.  Recognizing the substantial remaining need for
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, EPA expects
to continue to provide significant  annual capitalization to
the SRFs. 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 a related effort, EPA will work with other federal agencies
to improve access  to  basic sanitation.  The 2002 World
Summit in Johannesburg adopted  the goal of reducing the
number of people lacking access to safe drinking water
and basic sanitation  by 50% by 2015. EPA will contribute to
this work through its support for development of sanitation
facilities in Indian  country, Alaskan  Native villages,  and
Pacific Island communities using funds set aside from the
CWSRF and targeted grants. Other federal agencies, such
as the Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA), and the  Department of Housing and
Urban  Development, also  play key roles in  this area and
are working with EPA in this  effort. EPA is also working to
improve access to drinking water and wastewater treatment
in the  U.S.-Mexico  Border area  (see Section IV of this
Guidance).
2,
Accelerate Watershed Protection
Strong implementation of core Clean Water Act programs
is essential to improving water quality but is not sufficient to
accomplish the water quality improvements called for in the
Agency's Strategic Plan. Today's water quality problems are
often caused by many different and diffuse sources resulting
in an accumulation of problems in a watershed. Addressing
these complex problems demands watershed approaches
that use 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
operate successful programs addressing the Chesapeake
Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf  of Mexico, and National Estuary
Program watersheds. Many states, EPA regions, and their
partners have also undertaken important efforts to protect,
improve, and restore watersheds at other hydrologic scales.
Together, these projects provide strong evidence of the value
of a comprehensive  approach  to assessing water quality,
defining  problems,   integrating  management  of  diverse
pollution controls, and defining financing of needed projects.
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
Over the past decade, EPA has witnessed a groundswell
of  locally-driven  watershed   protection  and  restoration
efforts. Watershed stakeholders,  such as citizen groups,
governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses, have
come together and created long-term goals and innovative
solutions to clean up their watersheds and promote  more
sustainable uses of their water resources. Additionally, many
of these  groups and other volunteer efforts provide water
monitoring data that  can  be used to identify problems and
track progress toward water quality goals. EPA estimates
that there are approximately 6,000 local watershed groups
active nationwide.

For FY 2010, EPA will continue to implement  its  National
Strategy  for building  the capacity of local government and
watershed groups. The Strategy emphasizes three activities
to accelerate local watershed protection efforts:
       Target training and tools to areas where existing
       groups can deliver environmental results;
       Enhance support to local watershed organizations
       through third party providers (e.g., federal partners,
       EPA assistance  agreement  recipients),  including
       support for enhancing volunteer monitoring and EPA
       and state ability to use  volunteer data; and
       Share   best  watershed  approach  management
       practices  in  locations  where  EPA is  not  directly
       involved.
EPA is also working  at the  national level  to  develop
partnerships  with  federal  agencies  to  encourage  their
participation in watershed protection and to promote delivery
of their programs on  a watershed basis. For example,  EPA
will work with USDA  to promote coordinated use of federal
resources,  including grants under  the Clean Water Act
                           strategies to protect fresh waters,
                              coastal waters, and wetlands
Section 319 and Farm Bill funds. EPA is also working with
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to foster efficient strategies
to address water quality impairments by maintaining and
restoring National Forest System watersheds. EPA and the
USFS will work to advance a suite of water quality related
actions, including category 4b watershed plans that will build
partnerships between agencies and among states.

3.      Define Waterbody/Watershed Standards
       Attainment Goals and Strategies

In 2002, states identified some 39,503 specific waterbodies
as impaired (i.e., not attaining state water quality standards)
on lists required under Section 303(d) of the Clean  Water
Act. Although core programs, as described above, provide
key tools for improving these impaired  waters, success  in
restoring the  health  of impaired waterbodies  often requires
a  waterbody-specific  focus to define the  problem and
implement specific steps needed to reduce pollution.

Nationally, EPA has  adopted a goal of having 3,250 of those
waters identified as attaining  water quality  standards  by
2012 (about 5.7% of all impaired waters identified in 2002).
Regions have indicated the progress they expect to make
toward this goal in FY 2010 (see strategic target SP-10 and
the following table).

Regional commitments for  this measure,  to  be developed
over the summer of 2009 based on the targets in the table
below,  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
Targets for Attaining Standards in Impaired Waters
By Region and Nationally (Measure SP-10)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Total Impaired
Waters (2002)
6,710
1,805
8,998
5,274
4,550
1,407
2,036
1,274
1,041
6,408
39,503°
FYs 2002-2008
Waters in
Attainment
84
87
358
418
528
144
226
222
45
53
2,165
FY 2009 Target
Commitment
(cumulative)
84
107
425
418
528
155
230
222
45
58
2,272
FY2012
Target
(cumulative)
90
109
525
460
621
180
236
227
55
66
2,263d
                                                                                   (Note that a previous measure
                                                                                   reported 1,980 waters identified
                                                                                   as impaired in 1998-2000 to be in
                                                                                   attainment by 2002. These estimates
                                                                                   are not included in the table above.)
                                                                                   =39,503 updated from 39,768
                                                                                   to reflect corrected data. dOMB
                                                                                   Program Assessment target is 2,525.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands
existing program delivery  and alignment is not likely to
result in a significant contribution to national goals, the EPA
region should work with states to rethink and redesign the
delivery of clean  water programs to more effectively restore
waterbodies and watersheds.  Regions will also develop
targets  and commitments for progress under  measures
related  to  improvement of impaired waters short  of full
standards attainment (see measure SP-11) and in  small
watersheds where one or more waterbody is impaired (see
measures SP-12).

States and EPA regions have indicated that the time frame
for  reaching  full attainment  in formerly impaired waters
can be  long and that the significant  program efforts to put
restoration plans in place  need to  be  better  recognized.
Recognizing this issue, EPA  will work with states to report
the  number of impaired water segments where restoration
planning will be complete in FY2010 (see Program Activity
Measure WQ-21). Completion  of planning is an  essential,
intermediate step toward full restoration of a waterbody and
can be  documented  more quickly than  actual waterbody
improvement. In general, planning for restoration is complete
when  each cause of impairment is a waterbody is covered
by one or more of the following: an EPA approved TMDL, a
watershed restoration plan that is an acceptable  substitute
for  a  TMDL, or a  statewide mercury  reduction program
consistent with EPA guidance.

For some impaired waters, the best path to restoration  is
the  prompt implementation of a waterbody-specific TMDL
or TMDLs. For  many waters,  however, the best path to
restoration will be as part of  a  larger, watershed approach
that results in completion of TMDLs for multiple waterbodies
within  a  watershed  and  the  development of a  single
implementation plan for restoring  all the impaired waters
in that watershed.  EPA has identified  some 4,800  small
watersheds where one or  more waterbodies are impaired
and the watershed  approach is being applied. The goal  is
to demonstrate how the Watershed Approach is working by
showing a measurable improvement in 300 such watersheds
by 2014 (see strategic target SP-12).

Today, the National Water Program  has good information
about the number  of impaired waters  and the status of
TMDLs or watershed plans forthe restoration of these waters.
Information concerning  progress toward implementation of
the  pollution  controls needed to  restore designated uses
in impaired waters is much less complete. To address this
problem,  and  in response to specific  recommendations
contained in  an  Office of Inspector General  audit report
in 2007 on water performance measures, Total  Maximum
Daily  Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to
Demonstrate Environmental Results: OIGNo. 2007-P-00036,
the Office of Water is conducting a detailed review of options
for modifying its data systems to better track implementation
of waste  load allocations  in the  permits issued to point
source dischargers of pollutants of concern. During 2008,
 ,e Office of Water convened  a workgroup to identify actions

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           National Water Progra
to improve the availability of information across programs. In
2009, the Office of Water will start the detailed review and
determine the set of data system modifications.
In 2008, the Office of Water began undertaking a statistically-
based  survey on a stratified random sample  of TMDLs
completed through 2007.  The  sample-based assessment
aims to develop sound estimates of TMDL implementation
rates and other insights about implementation patterns that,
if known, would improve OW understanding of Clean Water
Act program effectiveness while providing insights that show
how to improve implementation rates. As a first phase in this
assessment, OW worked jointly with ORD and Region 5 on
a regional scale pilot assessment to deliver a regional report
on TMDL implementation rates as well as help inform and
refine the national sample assessment. After completing
the national, statistical survey of TMDL implementation, the
Office of Water will determine the most promising options
for  improving the tracking of progress towards  achieving
waterbody restoration goals.

Regions are encouraged to use some  or all of the following
strategies in marshaling resources to support waterbody and
watershed restoration:
        Realign water  programs and  resources as  needed,
        including proposal  of reductions  in allocations among
        core water program implementation  as reflected  in
        commitments to annual program activity measure targets;
        Coordinate waterbody restoration efforts with Section 319
        funds reserved for development of watershed plans;
        Make effective use of water quality  planning  funds
        provided under Section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act;
        Make effective use of Regional Geographic
        Initiative Funds in the EPA region;
        Leverage  resources available from other federal
        agencies, including the USDA; and
        Apply funds appropriated by Congress for watershed
        or related projects.

C)      Grant Program Resources
Key program grants that support this Subobjective are:
        The  Clean Water Act Section 319 State program
        grant for nonpoint pollution control, including set-
        aside for Tribal programs;
        Targeted Watershed Assistance grants;;
        Alaska  Native  Village  Water and Wastewater
        Infrastructure grants;
        CWSRF capitalization grants,  including set-asides
        for planning under Section 604(b) of the Clean Water
        Act and for grants to tribes for wastewater treatment
        infrastructure.
For additional information on these grants, see  the  grant
program guidance on the website  (http://www.epa.gov/
water/waterplan).

-------
National Water Program:
2.     Protect Coastal
       and Ocean Waters
A)     Subobjective
Prevent water pollution  and  protect  coastal and  ocean
systems to improve  national  coastal aquatic ecosystem
health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report. (Rating is a system in which 1 is poor and
5 is good.)
2009 Baseline: 2.8
2010 Target:  2.8
2008 Commitment: 2.4
204 Target: 2.8
(NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in
Appendices A and F.)

B)     Key National Strategies
Estuaries and coastal waters are among the most productive
ecosystems  on  Earth,  providing  numerous  ecological,
economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits and services. They
are also among the most threatened  ecosystems, largely
as a result of rapidly increasing growth and development.
About half of the U.S. population now lives in coastal areas
and coastal  counties are growing three times  faster than
counties elsewhere in the Nation. The overuse of resources
and poor  land use  practices have resulted in a host of
human health and natural resource problems.

For FY 2010,  EPA's national strategy for  improving  the
condition of  coastal and ocean waters will include the  key
elements identified below:
      Improve coastal monitoring and assessment;
      Support state programs for coastal protection;
      Implement the National Estuary Program  (NEP); and
      Protect ocean resources.
An important objective  of all of these activities is at least
maintaining coastal conditions nationally based on the scale
in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series of
assessments (i.e., using the 2.8 national score  in the 2009
NCCR as the baseline; see measure 2.2.2).

In addition, the NCCRs include assessments of conditions
in  each major coastal  region around the  country  (i.e.,
Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Puerto Rico, Gulf of
Mexico, Hawaii, and South Central Alaska;  see measures
SP-16, 17, 18, and 19, CO-7, CO-8, and Subobjective 4.3.5
in Appendix A). EPA will work with states  and others to
at  least maintain condition ratings in each of these major
coastal regions over the next five years.

The national water quality program, as well as the ocean
and coastal  programs described in this section, contribute
                                                     strategies to protect fresh waters,
                                                        coastal waters, and wetlands
                           to  addressing these goals nationally  and  regionally.  EPA
                           is also working with diverse partners to implement region-
                           specific restoration and protection programs. The National
                           Estuary   Program, described  below, establishes  such
                           partnerships in 28 estuaries nationwide. In addition,  EPA
                           is working with the states and other  partners in the  Gulf
                           of  Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, New England, and the West
                           Coast. Some of these efforts are described in more detail in
                           Part III of this Guidance.
                           1.
       Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
EPA has made improved monitoring of water conditions a
top priority for coastal as well as inland waters. In FY 2010,
the National Water Program will work with states and tribes,
as well as the EPA Office of Research and Development, to
develop the fifth NCCR describing the health of the major
marine eco-regions around the United States. In FY2010,
states will be doing the field sampling for the fifth National
Coastal Condition Report. This  report will build on  past
Reports issued in 2001, 2004, and 2008 and will  allow for
valid trend assessment. These assessments are the basis
for the environmental measures of progress used in the
EPA Strategic Plan.

In  FY 2010,  EPA will monitor  changes in the condition of
coastal waters that states have  identified as not meeting
state water quality standards  under the Clean Water Act
(see Program Activity Measure CO-1). We will work  with
NEPs and with state  TMDL programs to track progress in
restoration of these waters.
                           2.
       State Coastal Programs
                           States play a critical role in protection of coastal waters
                           throughthe implementation of coreCleanWaterActprograms,
                           ranging from permit programs to financing  of wastewater
                           treatment  plants. States also lead the implementation  of
                           efforts to assure the high quality of the Nation's swimming
                           beaches; including implementation of the BEACH Act (see
                           the Water Safe for Swimming Subobjective).

                           In  addition, states work with both EPA and the National
                           Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA)  in the
                           implementation of programs to reduce nonpoint pollution
                           in  coastal  areas.  In FY 2010, EPA will continue  work with
                           states  to assist in the full  approval  of coastal  nonpoint
                           control programs in all coastal states.

                           In  FY 2010, EPA will continue efforts to work with states to
                           identify coastal areas which might benefit from the adoption
                           of  "no discharge zones" to control sewage discharges from
                           vessels. We will track total coastal and noncoastal statutory
                           square  miles  protected by "no  discharge zones" (see
                           Program Activity Measure CO-2).
                                                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands
3.
Implement the National Estuary Program
The  NEP provides inclusive,  community-based planning
and action at the watershed level, through a collaborative
system of 28  nationally significant estuaries. The NEP is a
highly visible program that plays a critical role in conserving
the Nation's most valuable coastal and ocean resources.

During FY 2010, EPA will continue  supporting the efforts
of all 28 NEP estuaries to implement their Comprehensive
Conservation  and  Management Plans  (CCMPs).  One
measure of NEP success is the number of priority actions
in these plans that have been completed. EPA tracks the
number of these priority actions completed  (see Program
Activity Measure CO-3) and will work with NEPs to support
continued progress in completion of these key efforts. EPA
also tracks the cumulative dollar amount of the resources
leveraged by EPAgrantfunds (see ProgramActivity Measure
CO-4), tracking "primary leveraged resources" obtained by
the NEPs, which are defined as cash or in-kind resources
that are above and beyond the NEP CWA Section 320 base
grants and in which the NEP director and/or staff played the
central role in obtaining the resources).

The  health of  the Nation's estuarine ecosystems also
depends on the maintenance of high-quality habitat. As a
result, one of the environmental outcome measures under
the Ocean/Coastal  Subobjective is protecting or restoring
additional habitat acres within the  NEP study areas. For
FY 2010, EPA has  set a goal of protecting or restoring an
additional 100,000 acres of habitat within the NEP areas.

4.     Ocean Protection Programs

Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged
from waterways, ports, and harbors every year to maintain
the Nation's  navigation  system. All of this sediment must
be disposed without causing adverse effects to the marine
environment.  EPA and the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers
(COE) share responsibility for regulating how and where the
disposal of dredged sediment occurs.
                                                                  National Water Progra
                                                        EPA and  COE will focus  on improving  how disposal  of
                                                        dredged material is managed, including  designating and
                                                        monitoring disposal sites and involving local stakeholders
                                                        in planning to reduce the need for dredging (see Program
                                                        Activity Measure CO-5). EPA will use the capability provided
                                                        by the OSV Bold to monitor compliance with environmental
                                                        requirements at ocean disposal sites (see ProgramActivity
                                                        Measure CO-6). In addition, the Strategic Plan includes a
                                                        measure of the percent of active dredged  material disposal
                                                        sites  that have  achieved  environmentally  acceptable
                                                        conditions (see SP-20).

                                                        One of the greatest threats  to U.S. ocean waters and
                                                        ecosystems is the uncontrolled spread of  invasive species.
                                                        Invasive species commonly enter U.S. waters through the
                                                        discharge of ballast water from ships. In FY2010, EPA will
                                                        continue to participate  on  the Aquatic Nuisance Species
                                                        Task  Force, work with  other agencies on  ballast  water
                                                        discharge standards or controls, and work with other nations
                                                        for effective international management of ballast water.

                                                        C)     Grant Program Resources
                                                        Grant  resources directly supporting this work include the
                                                        National Estuary Program grants  and  coastal  nonpoint
                                                        pollution control grants underthe Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
                                                        Control Program administered jointly by EPA and the NOAA
                                                        (Section 6217 grant program). In  addition, clean  water
                                                        program grants identified underthe watershed subobjective
                                                        support this work. For additional information on these grants,
                                                        see the grant program guidance on the website (http://www.
                                                        epa.gov/water/waterplan).
 Estuaries in the National Estuary Program
 Albemarle-Pemlico 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
                                                                 Tillamook Bay, OR
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program: Fiscai.Year2u10 Guidance

3.     Protect Wetlands
A)     Subobjective
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of acres of
wetlands per year with additional focus on biological and
functional measures and assessment of wetland condition.

2005 Baseline: annual net gain of an estimated 32,000
acres per year
2007 Actual: estimated 32,000 acres annual net gain
2008 Actual: estimated 32,000 acres annual net gain
(96,000 cumulative)
2009 Commitment: 100,000 per year (500,000
cumulative)
2010 Target: 100,000 per year (Continue target rate of
100,000 annually)

(Note:  Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices A and F.)

B)     Key National Strategies
Wetlands are among the Nation's most critical and productive
natural resources. They  provide a  variety of benefits,
such  as  water  quality  improvements, flood  protection,
shoreline erosion control, and  ground water  exchange.
Wetlands are the primary habitat for fish, waterfowl, and
wildlife, and  as such, provide numerous opportunities for
education, recreation, and research. EPA recognizes that
the  challenges the Nation faces to conserve our wetland
heritage are daunting and that many partners  must work
together in order for this effort to succeed.

Over the years, the  United States has lost more than 115
million acres of wetlands to development,  agriculture, and
other uses.  Today, the  U.S. may be entering a period of
annual net gain of wetlands acres for some wetland classes.
Still, many wetlands in the U.S. are in less  than  pristine
condition and many created wetlands, while  beneficial,
fail to replace the diverse  plant and  animal communities of
wetlands lost.

The 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends
Report, released  by the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), reports  the quantity and type of wetlands in  the
conterminous United States. Although the report shows that
overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from
1998 through 2004, this gain is primarily attributable to an
increase in un-vegetated freshwater ponds, some of which
(such as aquaculture  ponds) may not provide wetlands
services and others of which may have varying ecosystem
value. The report notes the following trends in other wetland
categories: freshwater vegetated wetlands declined by 0.5%,
a smaller rate of loss than in preceding years; and estuarine
                          strategies to protect fresh waters,
                             coastal waters, and wetlands
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. EPA is working with FWS
and other federal agencies to complete a National Wetland
Condition Assessment by 2013 to effectively complement
the FWS Status and Trends Reports and provide,  for the
first time, a snapshot of baseline wetland condition for the
conterminous U.S.

In  a 2009 follow-up  report,  the  National  Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National  Marine  Fisheries
Service,  in cooperation with  the  U.S.  Fish  and Wildlife
Service, analyzed the status and  recent trends of wetland
acreage in the coastal watersheds  of the United  States
adjacent 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 net  loss of
about 60,000 acres over the 6-year study period. The fact
that coastal watersheds were losing  wetlands despite the
national trend  of net gains during the same study period
points to the need for more research  on the natural and
human forces  behind  these trends  and to  an  expanded
effort on conservation  of wetlands in these coastal areas.
This  point was highlighted in a 2008 report on wetland
conservation by the Council on Environmental Quality. To
that end, EPA, FWS,  NOAA's National Marine  Fisheries
Service  and Coastal Resources Center, the Army Corps
of  Engineers, USDA's Natural  Resource  Conservation
Service,  and the Federal Highway Administration have
begun  working in  partnership to  determine the specific
causes of this coastal wetland loss and to more specifically
understand the tools, policies, and practices to successfully
address it.

EPAs 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 EPAs 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, EPAs Wetlands Program articulated a set of national
strategies in the  areas  of  monitoring,  state  and tribal
capacity, regulatory programs, jurisdictional determinations,
and restoration partnerships. These  strategies are  in part
reflected in the following measures.
 .
       No Net Loss:
EPA contributes to achieving no overall net loss of wetlands
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
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect fresh waters,
coastal waters, and wetlands
Corps of Engineers (COE) 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 will continue to work with COE to ensure application
of the  Section 404(b)(1)  guidelines  which  require that
discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.
be avoided and  minimized to the extent practicable and
unavoidable impacts are compensated for. In FY2010, EPA
will track the effectiveness of EPAs 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)(1) guidelines.  At  a minimum,
these include:
     Environmental review of CWA Section 404 permits to
     ensure wetland impacts are avoided and minimized;
     Ensure when wetland impacts cannot  be avoided
     under CWA Section 404 permits, that the
     unavoidable impacts are compensated for;
     Participation in joint impact and mitigation site
     inspections, and Mitigation Bank Review Team
     activities;
     •Assistance on development of mitigation site
     performance standards and monitoring protocols;
     and
     Enhanced coordination on resolution of
     enforcement cases.
2.
       Net Gain Goal:
Meeting the "net gain"  element of the  wetland goal is
primarily accomplished by other federal programs (Farm Bill
agriculture incentive programs and wetlands acquisition and
restoration programs, including those administered by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) and non-federal programs. EPA
will work to improve levels of wetland protection  by states
and other federal programs through actions that include::
     Working with and integrating wetlands protection
     into other EPA programs such as Clean Water Act
     Section 319, State  Revolving Fund,  National Estuary
     Program, and Brownfields;
     Providing grants and technical assistance to state,
     tribal, or local organizations;
     Developing information, education and outreach
     tools; and
     Collaboration with USDA, DOI, NOAA, and other
     federal agencies with wetlands restoration programs
     to ensure the greatest environmental outcomes.
For FY 2010, EPA expects to track the following key
activities for accomplishing its wetland goals:
                                                                  National Water Progra
Wetlands RestoredandEnhancedThrough Partnerships:
EPA will track this commitment as a sub-set  of the overall
net gain goal and will track and report the results separately
under Program Activity Measure WT-1. These acres may
include those supported by Wetland Five-Star Restoration
Grants, the National Estuary Program, Section 319 nonpoint
source grants, Brownfield grants, EPAs Great Waterbody
Programs, and other EPA programs. This does not include
enforcement or mitigation acres. EPA greatly exceeded its
target for this Program Activity Measure in 2005 and  2006,
mainly due to unexpected accomplishments from National
Estuary Program enhancement projects. However, because
EPA cannot assume such significant results each year, the
target will be at 96,000 cumulative acres for FY 2010.

State/Tribal  Programs: A key objective of EPAs wetlands
program is building the capacity of states and tribes  in the
following core elements of a  wetlands program: wetland
monitoring; regulation;  voluntary restoration and protection;
and water quality standards for wetlands. EPA is enhancing
its support  for  state   and  tribal  wetland programs by
providing more directed technical assistance and making
refinements to the Wetland Program Development Grants.
Program Activity Measure WT-2 reflects EPAs  goal of
increasing state and tribal capacity  in these  core wetland
management areas. In reporting progress under measure
WT-2, EPA will assess  the number of states and tribes that
have substantially increased their capacity in one or more
core elements, as well as track those core elements that
states and tribes  have  developed to a point where they are
fully functional. This is  an indicator measure.

Regulatory Program Performance: EPA and the Corps of
Engineers have partnered to develop and refine a Clean
Water Act Section  404 permit database (ORM  2.0) that
enables more insightful data collection on the performance
of the Section 404 regulatory program. Using ORM 2.0 as
a data source, Program Activity Measure WT-3 documents
the annual percentage  of 404 standard permits where EPA
coordinated with the permitting authority and that coordination
resulted in an environmental improvement in the final permit
decision. This measure will remain an indicator until enough
data is collected to define a meaningful target.

Wetland  Monitoring: In  March 2003, EPA  released
guidance to states outlining the Elements of a State Water
Monitoring  and  Assessment  Program.  The  guidance
recommended including wetlands as part of that  program.
This was followed  in April  of 2006  by release of an
"Elements" document specific to wetlands to help EPA and
state  program managers plan and  implement a wetland
monitoring and assessment  program within their  water
monitoring and  assessment  programs.  EPA chairs the
National Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Work Group
to provide national leadership in  implementing  state and
tribal wetlands monitoring strategies. The Work Group will
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
also play a prominent role in informing design of the National
Wetland Condition Assessment, scheduled for fieldwork in
2011.

EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to build the
capability to monitor trends in wetland condition as defined
through biological metrics and assessments. By the end of
FY 2010, EPA projects at least 19 states will be measuring
and reporting baseline wetland condition in the state using
condition indicators and assessments (see  Program Activity
Measure WT-4). States should also have plans to eventually
document trends in wetland condition overtime. 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
     Wetland Condition Assessment;
     developing or adapting wetland assessment tools for
     use in the state;
     monitoring activity is underway for wetland type(s)/
     watershed(s) stated in strategy or goals; and
     developing a monitoring strategy with one goal
     of evaluating baseline wetland condition.
Baseline condition  may  be  established using landscape
assessment (Tier 1), rapid assessment (Tier 2), or intensive
site assessment (Tier 3).

C)    Grant Program Resources
Examples of grant resources supporting this work include
the Wetland  Program Development  Grants,  Five  Star
Restoration Grants, the Clean  Water Act  Section 319
Grants, the Brownfields grants, and the National Estuary
Program Grants. For additional information  on these grants,
see the grant program guidance on the website (http://www.
epa.gov/water/waterplan). In  addition,  some states and
tribes have utilized Clean Water Act Section 106 funds for
program implementation,  including wetlands monitoring and
protection projects.
IV.    STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE
       HEALTH OF COMMUNITIES AND
       LARGE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

The core programs of the Clean WaterAct and Safe Drinking
Water Act are essential for the protection of the Nation's
drinking waterand 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,
                                    strategies to protect
                                large aquatic ecosystems

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, and the waters of the
Pacific Islands.
1.     Protect U.S.-Mexico
       Border Water Quality
A)     Subobjective
Sustain  and restore the environmental  health along  the
U.S.-Mexico Border through the implementation  of  the
Border 2012 Plan.

(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices A and F.)

B)     Key Strategies
The  United  States  and  Mexico have  a  long-standing
commitment to protect the environment and public health
for communities  in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. The
basic approach to improving the environment and public
health in the U.S.-Mexico Border region is the Border 2012
Plan. Under this Plan, EPA expects to take the following key
Actions to improve water quality and protect public health.
1.
Core Program Implementation:
EPA will continue to implement core programs under the
Clean Water Act  and  related  authorities,  ranging  from
discharge  permit issuance,  to  watershed  restoration, to
nonpoint pollution control.

2.     Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment
       Financing:

Federal, state, and local institutions participate in border area
efforts to improve water quality through the construction of
infrastructure and development  of pretreatment programs.
Specifically, Mexico's National WaterCommission(CONAGUA)
and EPA provide funding and technical assistance for project
planning and construction of infrastructure.

Congress has provided $963 million for Border infrastructure
from 1994 to 2009. For FY 2009, EPA expects to be able to
provide approximately $10 million forthese projects. EPA will
continue working with all its partners to  leverage available
resources to meet priority needs. The FY 2010 target will
be achieved through  the completion  of prioritized  Border
Environment  Infrastructure  Fund (BEIF) drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure projects. Future progress in
meeting this subobjective will be achieved through other
border drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects
as well  as through the collaborative efforts  established
through the Border 2012 Water Task Forces.
                                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems
3.
Build Partnerships:
Partnerships are critical to the success of efforts to improve
the environment  and public  health  in the U.S.-Mexico
Border region. Since 1995, the NAFTA-created institutions,
the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC)
and the North American Development Bank (NADB), have
had the primary  role in working with communities to develop
and construct environmental infrastructure projects. BECC
and NADB support efforts to evaluate, plan, and implement
financially and operationally sustainable drinking water and
wastewater projects.  EPA will continue to support these
institutions and work collaboratively with CONAGUA.
4.
Improve Measures of Progress:
During FY 2010, EPA will work with Mexico, states, tribes,
and  other institutions  to improve measures  of  progress
toward water quality and public health goals.

C)    Grant Program Resources
A range of program grants are used by states to implement
core  programs  in the  U.S.-Mexico  Border  region  for
waters in the U.S. only. Allocations of the funding  available
for infrastructure projects,  funded through  the Border
Environment Infrastructure  Fund (BEIF), are not  provided
through guidance, but through a collaborative and public
prioritization process.
2.     Protect Pacific
       Islands Waters
A)    Subobjective
Sustain and restore the environmental health of the  U.S.
Pacific Island Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(Note:  Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices A.)

B)    Key Program Strategies
The  U.S.  island territories  of Guam,  American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
struggle to  provide adequate drinking water and sanitation
service. For example, the island of Saipan in the Northern
Marianas, with a population of about 70,000, may be the
only municipality of its size in the United States without 24-
hour drinking water. When residents of Saipan do get water
(many  receive only a few hours per day of water service),
it is too salty to  drink. In the Pacific Island territories,  poor
wastewater conveyance and treatment systems threaten
to contaminate  drinking water wells and  surface waters.
Island beaches, with important recreational, economic, and
cultural significance, are frequently  polluted and placed
under advisories.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                           National Water Progra
One of the root causes of drinking water and sanitation
problems in the U.S. Pacific Island territories is inadequate
and crumbling infrastructure. Recent studies estimate that
it would take over one billion dollars in capital  investments
to bring the Pacific territories drinking water and wastewater
systems up to U.S. standards. EPA is targeting the use of
existing grants, enforcement, and technical assistance to
improve the drinking water and wastewater situation in the
Pacific Islands. In pursuing these actions, EPA  will continue
to use the available resources and to work with partners at
both the federal and local levels to seek improvements.
  •   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 (about $1.5M
     per territory for water and wastewater combined),
     plus other federal grants have led to significant
     improvements in the recent past. However, existing
     grants fall far short of the overall capital needs in the
     Pacific Islands.
  •   Enforcement: EPA will continue to oversee
     implementation of judicial and administrative orders
     to improve drinking water and wastewater systems.
     For example, as  a result of 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 compared to nearly
     every month in 2002. In 2009, EPA has entered into
     a comparable Stipulated Order in the CNMI. EPA
     will continue to assess judicial and administrative
     enforcement as a tool to improve water and
     wastewater service.
  •   Technical Assistance: EPA will continue to use
     technical assistance to improve the operation of
     drinking water and wastewater systems in the  Pacific
     Islands. In addition to periodic on-site training, EPA
     will continue to use the IPA (Intergovernmental
     Personnel Act) to build capacity in the Islands to
     protect public health and the environment. For
     example, in recent years, EPA has placed U.S.
     Public Health Service drinking water engineers in
     key positions within Pacific island  water utilities and
     within local regulatory agencies.
  •   Guam Military Expansion: EPA will continue
     to partner with the Department of Defense in its
     Guam Military Expansion project to improve the
     environmental infrastructure on Guam. The U.S
     and Japan have  agreed to relocate the Marine
     Base from Okinawa, Japan to Guam. By 2014, the
     relocation could result in approximately 17,000
     additional troops and dependents and upwards of
     45,000 additional people total on Guam (a 25%
     increase in population) while spending $10-$15
     billion on construction. This  military expansion

-------
 National Water Program:
       is an opportunity to significantly improve the
       environmental infrastructure on Guam.

 C)     Grant Program Resources
 A  range of grants funds and set-asides from the  national
 State Revolving Fund  (SRF) appropriation are available
 to  implement projects to improve water infrastructure in
 the Pacific Islands.  EPA  currently  provides about  $4.5
 million total to the Pacific territories in drinking water and
 wastewater grants annually through the SRF programs.
 3.     Protect the
        Great Lakes
 A)    Subobjective
 Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by
 preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic ecosystem
 (using the Great Lakes 40-point scale).
 2005 Baseline:
 2007 Result:
 2008 Result:
 2008 Commitment:
 2010 Target:
 2014 Target:
21.5 points
21.7
23.7
22.5
23
23.5e
 (Note:  Additional measures of progress are identified in
 Appendices A.)

 B)    Key Strategies
 As the largest surface freshwater system on the face of
 the earth, the Great Lakes ecosystem holds the key to the
 quality of life and economic prosperity for tens  of millions
 of people. While  significant progress has been made to
 restore the environmental health of the Great Lakes, much
 work remains to be done.

 In May 2004, a Presidential Executive Order recognized the
 Great Lakes as a national treasure, calling for the creation
 of a "Regional Collaboration of National Significance" and a
 cabinet-level interagency Task Force. The President's May
 2004 Executive Order established the EPA Administrator as
 the chair of  a ten-member Great Lakes Interagency Task
 Force, one purpose of which is to ensure that their programs
 are funding  effective,  coordinated,  and  environmentally
 sound activities in the Great Lakes system.

 Federal, state, local and tribal governments; nongovernmental
 entities; and private  citizens  participated in  the  Great
 Lakes  Regional  Collaboration  (GLRC)  on  eight issue-
 specific Strategy Teams to develop a Great Lakes Regional
                                     strategies to protect
                                large aquatic ecosystems
Collaboration Strategy to Restore and  Protect the  Great
Lakes, presented in December 2005. Teams focused on:
      Aquatic Invasive Species
      Habitat/Species
      Coastal Health
      Areas of Concern/Sediments
      Nonpoint Source
      Toxic Pollutants
      Indicators and Information
      Sustainable Development
EPA and the Interagency Task Force are  using the Strategy
as a  guide for Great Lakes protection and restoration.
The Administration is implementing near term actions that
address issues in  all eight of the priority  areas identified in
the Strategy. Highlights include:
      Continued implementation of the Great Lakes
      Legacy Act (which was reauthorized and revised
      pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization
      Act of 2008 on October 8, 2008) to remediate
      contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of
      Concern.
      Implementation of a communication network among
      federal agencies to coordinate response to newly
      identified aquatic invasive species  in response
      to requests for assistance from state or local
      authorities, including rapid assessment of needed
      actions and  prompt determination of who has the
      resources and expertise to assist in taking action.
      Establishment of a forum that includes other
      federal agencies, states, and non-governmental
      organizations to support the GLRC goal of protecting
      and restoring 200,000 acres of wetlands by
      accomplishing three things: enhanced coordination;
      improved accountability; and accelerated actions.
      Attendant activities will include work with forum
      members to update the Great Lakes Habitat
      Initiative's database of potential habitat restoration
      projects and funding programs.
      Implementation of pilots by state and local
      governments using a standardized sanitary survey
      form for beach assessments.
      Surveillance for emerging chemicals of concern.
      The  IATF created  the Wetlands Subcommittee and
      the  Aquatic Invasive Species   Rapid Response
      Subcommittee to improve interagency coordination
      on two high priority areas for the Great Lakes. Both
      subcommittees are  also bringing  in non-federal
      partners through joint projects in cooperation with the
      Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
 "The long-term target was changed to 23.5 in the 2007 OMB Program Assessment.

28
                                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems
Progress under the Great Lakes Strategy is dependent
on continued work to implement core Clean Water Act
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 (exten-
sive sediment contamination and atmospheric deposition)
they also face problems common to most other waterbod-
ies around the country. Effective implementation of core
programs, such as discharge permits, nonpoint pollution
controls, wastewater treatment, wetlands protection, and
appropriate designation of uses and criteria,  must be fully
and effectively implemented throughout the Great Lakes
Basin.

In addition, for the Great Lakes Basin, EPA will focus on
two key measures of core program implementation: im-
proving the quality of major discharge permits and imple-
menting the national Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Policy.  In the case of discharge permits, EPA has a goal
of assuring that by FY2010, 96% of the major, permitted
discharges to the Lakes or major tributaries have permits
that reflect water quality standards to implement the Great
Lakes Guidance (see  Program Activity Measure GL-1).
This is  a significant increase from the 2002 baseline of
61.6%%; however, the measure may need adjustment to
appropriately measure progress in reductions of bioac-
cumalitive chemicals of concern. In the case of the CSO
Policy,  EPA has a long-term goal of 100% of permits with
schedules in place in  permits or other enforceable mecha-
nisms to implement approved Long Term Control Plans.
The FY 2010 target is 93%  of permits consistent with the
Policy (see Program Activity Measure GL-2).

Making recreational waters of the Great Lakes safe for
swimming is a common goal of the EPA Strategic Plan and
other EPA regional and Great Lakes plans. In FY 2007,
EPA worked with states to both improve the state water
quality  standards for bacteria in recreational waters and to
implement the BEACH Act (see Water Safe for Swimming,
Section 3 of this Guidance). EPA has a goal of assuring
that 100% of high priority beaches around the Great Lakes
continue to be served by water quality monitoring and
public notification programs consistent with the BEACH
Act guidance (see Program Activity Measure GL-3). EPA's
Great Lakes National  Program Office will continue to work
with EPA regions and  states to make and track progress
toward  a goal of 90%  of monitored, high priority Great
Lakes beaches meeting bacteria standards more than
95% of the swimming  season.
Following intensive ship- and land-based monitoring of
Lakes Michigan, Superior, Huron, and Ontario from CY
2005 through CY2008, EPA will focus on similar coopera-
tive monitoring efforts on Lake Erie in CY 2009 before
                                                              National Water Progra
                                                   resuming this rotation with intensive monitoring of Lake
                                                   Michigan in CY 2010. In FY 2010, EPA plans to begin
                                                   nearshore chemical and biological monitoring of Lakes Su-
                                                   perior and Michigan nearshore waters. Through nearshore
                                                   monitoring, EPA is thus collecting better information related
                                                   to the most productive of the Great Lakes waters, intakes,
                                                   outfalls, and beaches.

                                                   C)      Grant Program Resources:
                                                   The Great Lakes National Program Office negotiates grants
                                                   resources with states and tribes, focusing on joint priorities
                                                   for Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans.
                                                   The Great Lakes  National  Program Office issues  awards
                                                   for monitoring the environmental condition  of the Great
                                                   Lakes, and also issues solicitations for projects  furthering
                                                   protection and clean up of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
                                                   Priorities are expected to include Contaminated Sediments;
                                                   Pollution  Prevention  and   Toxics  Reduction;   Habitat
                                                   (Ecological) Protection and Restoration; Invasive Species;
                                                   Strategic or Emerging Issues, such as the disappearance of
                                                   diporeia at the base of the food web; and specific Lakewide
                                                   Management Plan or Remedial Action Plan (LaMP/RAP)
                                                   Priorities. 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 monitoring  and
                                                   evaluation of contaminated sediments or for remediation of
                                                   contaminated sediments, a non-grant program pursuant to
                                                   the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
                                                   4.     Protect and  Restore
                                                          the Chesapeake Bay
                                                   A)    Subobjective
                                                   Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem.

                                                   (Note:  Additional measures of progress are  identified  in
                                                   Appendices A and F.)

                                                   B)    Key Strategies
                                                   The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional
                                                   partnership that  directs and conducts the restoration  of
                                                   the Chesapeake  Bay by bringing together local, state and
                                                   federal governments, non profit organizations, watershed
                                                   residents and the region's leading academic institutions  in
                                                   a partnership effort to protect and restore the Bay. The CBP
                                                   signatories—the  state of  Maryland;  the commonwealths
                                                   of Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the
                                                   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency representing the
                                                   federal government; and the Chesapeake Bay Commission
                                                   representing  Bay  state   legislators—have   committed
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
to reducing pollution, restoring  habitat  and sustainably
managing fisheries  since  signing the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement  of  1983.   Subsequent  agreements  have
augmented  the  original  program,  and  most  recently
culminated in  signing Chesapeake 2000, an agreement
intended to guide restoration activities throughout the Bay
watershed through 2010. Chesapeake 2000 also provided
an opportunity for the headwater states of Delaware, New
York and West Virginia to join in regional efforts to improve
water quality of the Bay and its tributaries.
In the  last 25 years, the CBP  partners  have  achieved
important progress:
     Developed the science, monitoring data, models,
     and measures that are recognized as the best and
     most extensive in the country and often around the
     world.
     Adopted the nation's first consistent water quality
     standards and assessment procedures, prompting
     major state and local investments in nutrient removal
     technologies across hundreds of wastewater
     treatment facilities.
     Placed a moratorium on striped bass harvests,
     leading to restoration of the stock that supports 90
     percent of the Atlantic Coast population.
     Established nutrient management plans on more
     than 3 million farmland acres.
     Advanced use of conservation tillage is being
     practiced on more than 2 million acres.
     Planted more than six thousand miles of streamside
     forested  buffers.
     Restored more than 13 thousand acres of wetlands.
     Preserved more than 1 million acres of forests,
     wetlands, farmland and other natural resources.
     Removed blockages to more than 2,000 miles of
     spawning grounds to help restore migratory fish.
Progress on Bay restoration must be accelerated The new
Chesapeake Action  Plan (CAP), submitted  to  Congress
in July  2008,  enhances  the  coordination, transparency,
accountability and management of the Bay Program.
     The CAP aligns the Bay Program's strategies and
     actions to the five goals of the Chesapeake 2000
     agreement.
     An activity database captures the implementation
     actions often federal agencies, six states, DC, CBC,
     and others. It identifies over $1 billion in restoration
     action in 2007 and more than $600 million in 2008.
     All partners have access which will result in
     enhanced coordination and synergy.
     Management dashboards show status and projected
     progress and set the stage for identifying obstacles
     and needs.
                                     strategies to protect
                                large aquatic ecosystems
      In 2008, the Government Accountability Office
      (GAO), at the request of Senator Mikulski, reviewed
      the Program's progress to improve reporting
      and to create a comprehensive, coordinated
      implementation strategy. GAO acknowledged
      recent positive actions with the development of the
      Chesapeake Action Plan. The GAO is expected to
      re-evaluate progress again in 2009.

  The CBP has approved a new  organization structure to
  better emphasize the critical goals  and priorities of the
  program.
      The reorganization will begin to change the  business
      model of the Program, clarify roles, and expand
      contributions of other partners.
      Six Goal Implementation Teams, aligned to the
      major C2K goals, will coordinate specific actions and
      strategies to achieve focus and outcome-oriented
      results.
      Implementation of the new structure began in
      February 2009.

  A new independent report  released  by  the Program's
  Scientific and Technical Advisory  Committee (STAC),
  Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay: State-of-the-
  Science Review and Recommendations, describes the
  impacts of climate change during the next century:
      Rising sea levels and increased coastal flooding and
      submergence of wetlands.
      Elevating  water temperatures which will promote
      growth of harmful algae, loss of underwater bay
      grasses, and favor warmer water fish and shellfish.
      More erratic climate and weather conditions.
      STAC recommends that the Program factor climate
      change into current and future restoration efforts.
      Near term actions to restore the Bay can also help
      address the impacts of climate change.

The Year Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite 25 years of progress, the health of the Bay and its
watershed remains severely degraded, impacted primarily
by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediments from
agriculture, development, wastewater, and  air deposition.
The  pressures  of population growth  and development
are the  greatest challenge to restoring and protecting the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Suburban and  urban
stormwater runoff is the only source where nutrient pollution
is increasing in  the watershed. Addressing this obstacle to
restoration  will  require working more  closely with roughly
1,800 local governments, who  have great control  over
zoning and development.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems
The Chesapeake Bay  Program has  undergone intensive
scrutiny and evaluation with reports by GAO, EPA's Inspector
General (IG), National Academy of Public Administration, and
OMB. EPA's Inspector General has completed six evaluations
in the  last four years on the Chesapeake Bay Program,
resulting in nearly 20 recommendations yet to be fulfilled.
Among other things, the Program has committed to:
      Enhance and implement the Chesapeake Action
      Plan.
      Develop an explicit strategy to engage local
      governments and local watershed groups.

EPA's IG has designated the Bay Program as a "management
challenge" under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act  indicating that EPA lacks the  tools,  resources  or
authorities to be fully successful. The EPA CBPO will  be
reporting annually to the Deputy Administrator on progress
addressing these challenges

EPA is developing  the nation's largest and most complex
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) forthe entire Chesapeake
Bay watershed. The Agency has committed to  accelerate
its  completion from  May 2011  to  December 2010. The
TMDL will rely on the latest science  to set new nutrient and
sediment allocations for each of the states and the District
of Columbia.  The TMDL will be accompanied  by detailed
state implementation plans (e.g., tributary strategies) that
describe how point and nonpoint  source allocations will
be  achieved. The  TMDL will be backed by "reasonable
assurance" provisions to ensure plans stay on track, and the
science involved will allow local-level allocations, improving
the ability  to target actions.

In November 2008,  the Executive Council (EC)  adopted a
new strategy  to speed up the pace  of Bay restoration and
become more accountable by setting two-year milestones
to reduce pollution  to the Bay  and its rivers. The  EC  is
scheduled to  meet in May 2009. Significant  emphasis will
be  on actions to accelerate implementation, management
and accountability. The chair of the EC has set the clear
expectation that the May meeting will address:
  1.  Setting  two year milestones of progress to drive
      action and accountability;
  2.  Devising "contingencies" and "consequences" if
      milestones are not met; and
  3.  Setting  a new "end date" for restoration measures to
      achieve needed nutrient and sediment reductions to
      the Bay.

EPA will continue to forge ahead to implement Bay Program
efforts  to emphasize  implementation,  and  effective
management, coordination, and accountability. EPA staff
are developing specific ideas for explicit actions (e.g. two
year milestones) and new tools, programs, authorities and
 ^sources to accelerate and improve restoration  progress.

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           National Water Progra
C)     Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the Chesapeake
Bay Implementation and Monitoring Grants under Section
117 of the Clean Water Act, as well as a range of program
grants to states. A website provides information about grants
progress toward meeting environmental results (http://www.
epa.gov/region3/chesapeake/grants/progress.htm).
5.     Protect the
       Gulf of Mexico
A)     Subobjective
Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico (by 0.2) on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report (a 5-point system in which 1 is
poor and 5 is good):

2004 Baseline:        2.4
2008 Actual:          2.2
2009 Commitment:    2.5
2010 Target:          2.5
2014 Target:          2.6

(Note:  Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices A and F.)

B)     Key Strategies
The  Gulf of Mexico basin  has  been  called  "America's
Watershed."  Its U.S. coastline is 1,630 miles; it is fed by
thirty-three major rivers, and it receives drainage  from 31
states in  addition to a similar drainage area from  Mexico.
One  sixth of the U.S. population now lives  in  Gulf Coast
states, and  the region is experiencing remarkably rapid
population growth. In addition, the Gulf yields approximately
forty percent of the Nation's commercial fishery landings,
and Gulf Coast wetlands comprise about half the  national
total  and provide critical habitat for seventy-five percent of
the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States.

For FY2010, EPA is working with states and other partners
to support attainment of environmental and health goals that
align with the Gulf of Mexico  Governors'Action Plan II which
follows the successes of the firstAction Plan. The Gulf States
Alliance has now developed a farther-reaching, five-year
regional plan that builds on the partnerships established as
part of the 2006 Action Plan  (see Program Activity Indicator
GM-3). The Alliance has identified issues that are regionally
significant and can be  effectively  addressed  through
increased collaboration at  the  local, state, and federal
levels. These activities fall into six categories:

-------
National Water Program:
1.      Water Quality for Healthy Beaches
       and Shellfish Beds

The Clean Water Act provides authority and resources that
are essential to protecting water quality in the Gulf of Mexico
and in the  larger Mississippi River Basin that contributes
pollution, especially  oxygen demanding nutrients, to  the
Gulf. EPA regions and the Gulf of Mexico Program Office will
work with states to continue to  maximize the efficiency and
utility  of water quality monitoring efforts for local managers
by coordinating and  standardizing state and federal water
quality data collection activities in the  Gulf region and to
assure the continued effective implementation of core clean
water programs, ranging from discharge permits, to nonpoint
pollution  controls, to wastewater treatment, to  protection of
wetlands.

A central pillar of the strategy  to restore the health of the
Gulf is restoration of water quality and habitat  in 13 priority
coastal watersheds.  These 13 watersheds include 755 of
the impaired segments identified  by states around  the Gulf
and will receive targeted technical and financial assistance
to  restore impaired waters. The 2010 goal  is to  fully attain
water quality standards in at least 96  of these segments
(see Program Activity Measure SP-38).

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) cause public health advisories,
halt commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting, limit
recreation,  exacerbate human respiratory problems, and
cause fish  kills. EPA is working with  Mexico and the Gulf
states to implement an  advanced  detection  forecasting
capability system to manage  harmful algal  blooms and
for notifying public health managers (see Program Activity
Measure GM-1) and expects to expand the system in 2010
to  include the additional Mexican  State of Tabasco.

The Gulf of Mexico  Program  Office  has a long-standing
commitment to develop  effective partnerships  with other
programs within  EPA, in  other federal agencies, and with
other  organizations.  For  example, the Program Office is
working with the  EPA Office of  Research and Development
and other federal agencies to develop and implement a
coastal monitoring program to  better  assess the condition
of  Gulf waters.
2,
Habitat Conservation and Restoration
Another  key element of the strategy for  improving  the
water quality in the Gulf is to restore,  enhance, or protect
a significant number of acres of coastal and marine habitat.
The overall  wetland loss in the Gulf area is on the order
of fifty percent, and protection  of the critical habitat that
remains is essential to the health of the  Gulf aquatic system.
EPA has a goal of restoring 27,500 acres of habitat by 2010
(see Program Activity Measure SP-39). EPA is working with
the NOAA, environmental organizations, the Gulf of Mexico
                                                                                       strategies to protect
                                                                                  large aquatic ecosystems
                                                  Foundation,  and area universities to identify  and  restore
                                                  critical habitat. The Gulf Alliance will enhance cooperative
                                                  planning and programs across the Gulf states and federal
                                                  agencies to protect wetland and estuarine habitat.
                                                  3.
        Ecosystems Integration and Assessment
                                                  The  Gulf Coast  supports a  diverse  array  of coastal,
                                                  estuarine, nearshore and  offshore ecosystems, including
                                                  seagrass beds, wetlands and marshes, mangroves, barrier
                                                  islands, sand dunes, coral  reefs, maritime forests, bayous,
                                                  streams,  and rivers. These ecosystems provide numerous
                                                  ecological and economic benefits including water quality,
                                                  nurseries forfish, wildlife habitat, hurricane and flood buffers,
                                                  erosion prevention, stabilized shorelines, tourism, jobs, and
                                                  recreation. The Gulf of Mexico contributes U.S. commercial
                                                  fish landings estimated  annually at more  than  $1  billion
                                                  and as much as 30 percent of U.S. saltwater recreation
                                                  fishing trips. The ability to  evaluate the extent and quality
                                                  of these habitats is critical to successfully managing  them
                                                  for sustainability, as well as better determining threats from
                                                  hurricanes and storm surge. The long-term partnership goal
                                                  forthe Alliance is to identify,  inventory, and assess the current
                                                  state of and trends in priority coastal, estuarine, near-shore,
                                                  and offshore Gulf  of Mexico  habitats to  inform resource
                                                  management decisions.  The  Gulf  of Mexico  Program  is
                                                  working with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
                                                  the U.S. Geological Survey in support of this goal.
                                                  4.
        Nutrients and Nutrient Impacts
Healthy estuaries and  coastal  wetlands depend  on a
balanced level of nutrients. Excessive nutrient levels can
have negative impacts such as reducing the abundance of
recreationally and commercially important fishery species.
The Alliance has  identified  excess  nutrients  as one  of
the primary problems facing Gulf estuaries and coastal
waters. Over the next several years, the Gulf states will be
establishing criteria for nutrients in coastal ecosystems that
will guide regulatory,  land use, and water quality protection
decisions. Nutrient criteria could potentially reverse current
trends in nutrient pollution to coastal waters and estuaries,
but the  challenge is  to prevent or reduce the  man-made
sources of  nutrients to  levels that  maintain  ecosystem
productivity and restore beneficial uses.  In 2010, EPA will
support coastal nutrient criteria and standards development
with  a  Gulf state  pilot  and  will develop  science and
management tools  for the  characterization of nutrients
in  coastal ecosystems. Because the five Gulf states face
similar nutrient management challenges at both the estuary
level and as the receiving water for the  entire  Mississippi
River watershed, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance is an important
venue  to  build  and test management tools  to reduce
nutrients in Gulf waters and  achieve healthy and resilient
coastal ecosystems.
                                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems
Any strategy to improve the overall health of the entire Gulf
of Mexico must include a focused effort to reduce the size of
the zone of hypoxic conditions (i.e., low oxygen in the water)
in the northern Gulf. Actions to address this problem must
focus on both localized pollutant  addition  throughout the
Basin and on nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River.

EPA, in cooperation with states and other federal agencies,
developed the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008. This Action
Plan includes as a goal the long-term target to reduce the
size of the hypoxic zone from about 14,000 square km to
less than 5,000 square km. measured as a five-year running
average (see Program Activity Measure SP-40). In working
to accomplish this goal,  EPA, states,  and other federal
agencies, such as 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 FY2010, EPA will support efforts to reduce
nutrient loadings to watersheds and reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone. EPA will increase watershed  partnerships to
implement best management practices, identify significant
nutrient sources,  identify  opportunities for significant load
reductions, and pilot new  nutrient reduction technologies.
EPA will coordinate  resources and research to provide
guidance in  the development of hypoxia  reduction  goals
and thresholds and  contribute to the  development and
coordination of state nutrient reduction strategies across
the Mississippi River Watershed.
5.
        Environmental Education
Education and outreach are essential to accomplish the
Gulf of Mexico Alliance's overall goals and are integral to
the other five Alliance priority issues.  It is critical that Gulf
residents and decision makers understand and appreciate
the connection between the ecological health of the Gulf of
Mexico and  its watersheds and coasts, their own  health,
the economic vitality of their communities, and their overall
quality of life. There  is a nationwide need for a  better
understanding of the link between the health  of the Gulf
of Mexico and the U.S. economy. The long-term Alliance
partnership goal is to increase awareness and stewardship
of Gulf coastal resources  and promote action among Gulf
citizens.

6)     Coastal Community Resilience

Coastal communities continuously face and adapt to various
challenges of living along the Gulf of Mexico. The economic,
ecological, and social losses from coastal hazard events have
grown as  population  growth places people in  harm's way
and as the ecosystems' natural resilience is compromised
by development and  pollution.  In  order to sustain and
grow the  Gulf region's economic prosperity,  individuals,
businesses,  communities, and ecosystems all  need to be
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                   National Water Progra
                                                        more adaptable to change. In 2010, EPA will assist with the
                                                        development of information, tools, technologies,  products,
                                                        policies, or public decision processes that can be used by
                                                        coastal communities to increase resilience to coastal natural
                                                        hazards and sea level rise. The Gulf of Mexico Program
                                                        is working with NOAA, Sea Grant Programs, and the U.S.
                                                        Geological Survey in support of this goal.

                                                        C)     Grant Program Resources
                                                        The Gulf of Mexico Program issues an annual competitive
                                                        Funding Announcement for Gulf of Mexico Alliance Regional
                                                        Partnership  projects that improve the health of the Gulf of
                                                        Mexico by  addressing improved water  quality and  public
                                                        health, priority  coastal habitat  protection/recovery, more
                                                        effective coastal environmental education, improved habitat
                                                        identification/characterization data  and decision support
                                                        systems, and strategic nutrient reductions. Projects must
                                                        actively involve  stakeholders  and  focus on  support and
                                                        implementation of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governors'
                                                        Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts.

                                                        For additional information on these grants, see  the grant
                                                        program  guidance  on the website  (http://www.epa.gov/
                                                        gmpo).
                                                        6.      Protect Long
                                                                Island Sound
A)     Subobjective
Prevent water  pollution,  improve water  quality, protect
aquatic ecosystems, and restore  habitat  of Long Island
Sound.

(Note:  Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendices A and F.)

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  2008 dollars, that value is now
$8.5 billion. The Sound also generates uncounted billions
through transportation, ports,  harbors, real estate, and
other cultural and  aesthetic values. The Sound is breeding
ground, nursery, feeding ground, and  habitat to  more than
170 species offish and 1,200 invertebrate species that are
under increasing stress from development and  competing
human uses.

-------
National Water Program:
The key environmental and ecological outcomes for Long
Island Sound include:
     Marine waters that meet prescribed water quality
     standards;
     Diverse habitats that support healthy, abundant
     and sustainable populations of diverse aquatic and
     marine-dependent species; and
     An ambient environment that is free of substances
     that are potentially harmful to human health or
     otherwise may adversely affect the food chain.
EPA continues to work with the States  of New York and
Connecticut and other federal, state, and local Long Island
Sound  Management Conference  partners to implement
the Comprehensive Conservation  and Management  Plan
(CCMP) to restore and protect the Sound. Because levels of
dissolved oxygen are critical to the health of aquatic life and
viable public use of the Sound, a CCMP priority is controlling
nitrogen discharges to meet water quality standards.
1.
Reduce Nitrogen Loads
The Long Island Sound bi-state nitrogen TMDL relies on
flexible  and innovative  approaches, notably Abubble@
management zones and exchange ratios that allow sewage
treatment plant  operators  to trade nitrogen  reduction
obligations with  each  other.  This  approach  can  help
attain water quality  improvement goals, while allowing
communities to save an estimated $800 million  by allocating
reductions to those plants where they can be achieved most
economically, and plants that have the greatest impact on
water quality.

The States of New York and Connecticut will continue  to
allocate resources toward Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
upgrades to control nitrogen discharges as required in their
revised NPDES (SPDES) permits. The States will monitor
and  report discharges through the  Permit  Compliance
System (PCS). Revisions to the TMDL conducted under the
initial review process will incorporate any revised marine
water quality standards for  dissolved oxygen adopted by
the States of Connecticut and New York.

The  State of Connecticut will continue  its  innovative
Nitrogen  Credit  Exchange  program  instituted  in  2002.
Reductions in nitrogen discharges at plants that go beyond
TMDL  requirements create  the state's system  of market
credits, which will continue to assist in reducing construction
costs and more effectively address nitrogen reductions  to
the Sound. New York City will continue  its STP nitrogen
upgrades under a 2005 State of New York Consent Order,
and will minimize the impact of nitrogen discharges to the
Sound  as construction proceeds through 2017.

EPA will continue to work with the upper Long Island Sound
watershed  States  of Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,
and Vermont to develop state  plans to identify and control
                                                                                     strategies to protect
                                                                                large aquatic ecosystems
                                                 nitrogen discharges to the Connecticut River, the primary
                                                 fresh water riverine  input to  the Sound.  As sources are
                                                 identified and control strategies developed, state discharge
                                                 permits will need to be modified to incorporate appropriate
                                                 load allocations.
                                                 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.
While other factors also  affect the timing, duration,  and
severity of hypoxia,  including weather conditions such
as rainfall, solar  radiation  and  light, temperature,  and
winds;  continued reductions in  nitrogen loads will help  to
mitigate these uncontrollable factors. As the states continue
implementing STP upgrades, the new applied technologies
will reduce nitrogen  inputs,  limiting algal  response  and
interfering with the cycles that promote algal growth, death,
decay,  and loss of dissolved  oxygen.

3.     Restore and Protect Critical Habitats and
       Reopen Rivers to Diandromous Fish

EPA will continue to  work with Management Conference
partners to restore degraded  habitats and reopen rivers
and streams to diadromous  fish passage. States and  EPA
will direct  efforts at the most vulnerable coastal habitats
and key areas for productivity.  Projects, using a variety
of public and private  funding sources,  and  in cooperation
with landowners, will  construct fishways, remove dams,  or
otherwise remove impediments to diadromous fish passage.
Where  feasible and as funding allows, fish counting devices
will provide valuable data on actual numbers offish entering
breeding  grounds.  Restoration  of the diadromous fishery
and increasing the  higher trophic levels in the Sound are
longer-term goals of federal and state managers.
                                                 4.
       Implement through Partnerships
                                                 To continue CCMP implementation, New York, Connecticut,
                                                 and EPA will  sign and  implement a Long Island Sound
                                                 2009 Agreement. The Agreement builds upon CCMP goals
                                                 and targets, which were refined and documented in the
                                                 predecessor Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement.

                                                 EPA and states will continue to participate in the Long Island
                                                 Sound Management Conference underCWASection 320, as
                                                 implemented through the Long Island Sound Restoration Act
                                                 of 2000 as amended,  CWA Section 119. The states and EPA
                                                 will continue to address the highest  priority environmental
                                                 and ecological problems identified in the CCMP—the impact
                                                 of hypoxia on  the ecosystem; the  effects of reducing  toxic
                                                 substances, pathogens,  and floatable debris; identification,
                                                 restoration and protection of critical habitats; and managing
                                                 the  populations  of living  marine  and  marine-dependent
                                                 resources that rely on the Sound  as their primary habitat.
                                                 The Management Conference will work to  improve riparian
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems
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 Advisory
Committee, which  provide technical  expertise  and public
participation and advice  to the Management Conference
partners in the implementation of the CCMP. An educated
and informed public will  more readily recognize problems
and understand their role in environmental stewardship.
5,
       Core EPA Program Support
The  Long Island  Sound  Study (LISS)  supports, and is
supported by EPA core environmental management and
regulatory control programs. The CCMP, established under
CWA Section 320, envisioned a partnership of federal, state
and local governments, private industry, academia and the
public, to cleanup and restore the Sound. This cooperative
environmental partnership relies on existing federal, state
and local regulatory frameworks—and funding—to achieve
targets for restoration and protection  and apply limited
resources to highest priority areas.

EPA and the states use authorities under CWA Section 319
to manage watersheds that are critical to the health of Long
Island Sound. State and local TMDLs for harmful substances
support the work of the Management Conference in ensuring
a clean and safe Long Island Sound.

State Revolving  Funds under  Section 601  are used to
upgrade STPs for nitrogen control, and  NPDES permits
issued under Section 402 provide enforceable targets to
monitor  progress  in reducing nitrogen and other harmful
pollutants  to waters entering  the Sound. Because  of the
LISS nitrogen TMDL, 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 issued in November
2000. Connecticut conducts the LIS ambient water quality
monitoring (WQM)  program, and has participated with the
State of New York in  EPA's National Coastal Assessment
monitoring program. The data compiled by the LISS WQM
program is one of the most robust and extensive datasets
on ambient conditions available to scientists, researchers,
and managers. The LISS nitrogen TMDL sets firm reduction
targets and  encourages  trading at point  sources, and
NPDES/SPDES permits have been modified to incorporate
TMDL nitrogen limits on a 15 year enforceable schedule.
The  states of New York  and Connecticut recognize  the
significant investments  required  to  support  wastewater
infrastructure and  have  passed state bond act funding to
sustain efforts to upgrade facilities to reduce nitrogen loads
to the Sound as established in the nitrogen TMDL.  These
actions are primary support of CWA core programs, and
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                  National Water Progra
are ongoing and integral to LISS CCMP implementation to
restore and protect Long Island Sound.

C)    Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources supporting this goal include the Long
Island  Sound  CCMP  implementation grants  authorized
under Section 119(d) of the Clean Water Act as amended.
These include the Long Island Sound Futures Fund Large
and Small grant programs administered  by  the  National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Long Island Sound CCMP
Enhancements Grant program  administered  by the  New
England  Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission,
and the  Long  Island  Sound  Research Grant  program
administered by the New York and Connecticut Sea Grant
programs. The LISS web page  provides  grant information
and progress toward  meeting  environmental  results at:
(http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/grants/index.htm).
                                                        7.     Protect 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 A and F.)

                                                       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 overthe next
                                                       10 to 20 years. Fifty percent of the region's wetlands have
                                                       been lost to suburban and  agricultural development, and
                                                       the altered hydrology and water management throughout
                                                       the region have had a major impact on the ecosystem.

                                                       EPA is working in partnership with numerous local, regional,
                                                       state, and federal agencies  and tribes to ensure the long-
                                                       term sustainability of the region's varied natural  resources
                                                       while providing for  extensive  agricultural operations and
                                                       a  continually expanding population.  EPA's South Florida
                                                       Geographic  Initiative  (SFGI)   is  designed  to protect
                                                       and  restore  communities and ecosystems  affected by
                                                       environmental problems. SFGI efforts  include  activities
                                                       related to the Section 404 wetlands protection program; the

-------
National Water Program:
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP);
the Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys
National  Marine Sanctuary; the Southeast Florida Coral
Reef Initiative, directed by the  U.S. Coral Reef Task Force;
the Brownfields  Program;  and a number of other waste
management programs.
1,
Accelerate Watershed Protection
Strong execution of core clean water programs is essential but
not adequate for accelerating progress toward maintaining
and restoring water quality and the associated biological
resources in  South Florida. Water quality  degradation is
often  caused by many different  and diffuse sources.  To
address the complex causes of water quality impairment,
we are using an approach grounded in science, innovation,
stakeholder involvement, and adaptive management - the
watershed approach. In addition to implementing core clean
water programs, we will continue to work to:
      Support and expand local watershed protection
      efforts through innovative approaches to build local
      capacity; and
      Initiate or strengthen through direct support
      watershed protection and restoration for critical
      watersheds and water bodies.

2.     Conduct Congressionally-mandated
       Responsibilities

The  Florida  Keys  National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)
and Protection  Act  of 1990 directed EPA and the State
of Florida,  in consultation with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  to develop a Water
Quality Protection  Program (WQPP)  for the Sanctuary.
The  purpose  of the  WQPP  is  to  recommend  priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing
point and nonpoint sources of pollution in the Florida Keys
ecosystem. In addition, the Act also required development
of a comprehensive water quality monitoring program and
provision of opportunities  for public participation. In FY
2010, EPA will  continue to  implement the  WQPP  for the
FKNMS,  including the comprehensive monitoring projects
(coral reef, seagrass,  and water  quality), special studies,
data  management,  and  public education and  outreach
activities. EPA will also continue to support implementation
of wastewater and storm water master plans for the  Florida
Keys  to upgrade inadequate wastewater and storm water
infrastructure. In addition, we will continue to assist with
implementing  the  comprehensive  plan  for  eliminating
sewage discharges from boats and other vessels.
                                     strategies to protect
                                large aquatic ecosystems

3.     Support the Actions of
       the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

In October 2002, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force passed
a  resolution to  improve  implementation of the National
Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. Among other things,
the resolution recommended development of local action
strategies (LAS) to improve coordinated implementation of
coral reef conservation. In 2004 and 2005,  EPA Region 4
staff worked with the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative
(SEFCRI) to develop a LAS for southeast Florida calling for
reducing  "land-based sources of pollution" and  increasing
the awareness and appreciation of coral habitat. Key goals
of the LAS are;
     Characterize the existing condition of the coral reef
     ecosystem;
     Quantify, characterize and  prioritize the land-based
     sources of pollution that need to be addressed
     based on  identified impacts to the reefs;
     Identify how pollution affects the southeast Florida
     coral reef habitat;
     Reduce the impacts of land-based sources of
     pollution; and
     Work in close cooperation with the awareness and
     appreciation focus team.
Detailed action strategies or projects foreach goal have been
developed. For example, one  priority action strategy/project
is to assimilate existing data to quantify and characterize the
sources of pollution and identify the relative contributions of
point and nonpoint sources.

4.     Other Priority Activities for FY 2010

     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.
     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.
     Assist the State of Florida and South Florida
     Water Management District in evaluating the
     appropriateness of aquifer storage and recovery
     (ASR) technology as a key element of the  overall
     restoration strategy for south Florida. Region 4 will
     continue to work with the COE to evaluate proposed
     ASR projects.
     Continue implementation of the South Florida
     Wetlands  Conservation Strategy, including protecting
     and restoring critical wetland habitats in the face of
     tremendous growth and development.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems

      Continue to work closely with the Jacksonville District
      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida
      to facilitate expedited review of National Environmental
      Policy Act (NEPA) and regulatory permit actions
      associated with the ongoing implementation of CERP.
      Several  large water storage impoundments will be
      under construction during the next few years.

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
ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef habitat.
These programs and projects include  monitoring (water
quality,  seagrass,  and  coral  reef), special studies, and
public education and outreach activities. Federal assistance
agreements for projects supporting the activities of the SFGI
are awarded under the authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the
CWA. Region  4 issues announcements of opportunity for
federal funding and "requests for proposals" in accordance
with EPA Order 5700.5 (Policy for Competition in Assistance
Agreements).
8.     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 A and F.)

B)     Key Program Strategies
The  Puget  Sound  Basin  is the largest  population and
commercial  center in the Pacific Northwest, supporting a
vital system  of international ports, transportation  systems,
and defense installations. The  ecosystem encompasses
roughly 20  rivers and  2,800 square miles of sheltered
inland waters that provide habitat to hundreds of species of
marine mammals, fish, and sea birds. Puget Sound salmon
landings average more than 19 million pounds per year and
support an average of 578,000 sport-fishing trips each year,
as well as subsistence harvests to many tribal communities.
However, continued declines in wild salmon and other key
species indicate that additional watershed  protection and
restoration efforts are needed to reverse these trends.

Although Puget Sound  currently leads U.S. waterways in
shellfish production, 30,000 acres of shellfish beds have
been closed to harvest since 1980. These  closures affect
local economies  and cultural and subsistence needs for
these traditional  resources. In addition, excess  nutrients
have created hypoxic zones that further impair shellfish and
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                   National Water Progra
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
contaminated with  toxics  and another 24,000 as at least
partially contaminated. Additional pollutants are still being
released:  approximately 1 million pounds  of toxics  are
released into the water, with stormwater identified as a
major source, and 5 million pounds into the air each year,
with many of these pollutants also finding their way into
Puget Sound and its food web.

There  is growing  recognition that protecting the Puget
Sound ecosystem  would  require increased  capacity and
sharper focus. In 2006, a broad partnership of civic leaders,
scientists, business and  environmental  representatives,
representative agency directors  and tribal leadership was
asked to propose a new state approach  to  restoring and
protecting the  Puget  Sound Basin and its  component
watersheds. This challenge resulted in the creation of the
Puget Sound Partnership  in 2008, a new state agency,
and  an  updated  and  more integrated  comprehensive
management plan in 2009, the "2020 Action Agenda", for
protecting and restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem.

Key program strategies for FY  2010 include:

Improving Water Quality and Restoring Shellfish Beds
and Wild Salmon Populations through Local Watershed
Protection
      EPAwill continue to work with state and local agencies
      and tribal governments to build local  capacity for
      protecting and restoring local watersheds. This will
      help focus and maintain coordinated protection and
      corrective actions to improve water quality specifically
      in those areas where shellfish bed closures or harvest
      area downgrades are occurring or where key salmon
      recovery efforts are being focused.

Addressing Stormwater Issues through Local Watershed
Protection Plans
      EPA will work with state and local agencies and the
      tribes using local watershed protection approaches
      to reduce  stormwater impacts to local aquatic
      resources in urbanizing areas currently outside of
      NPDES Phase I and  II permit authority. Of particular
      concern are the sensitive and high value estuarine
      waters such as Hood Canal, the northern Straits,
      and south Puget Sound.
      EPA will also work with the  state to increase support
      to local and tribal governments and the development
      community to promote smart growth and low impact
      development approaches in the Puget Sound Basin.
      Watershed focused projects are being implemented
      with West Coast Estuaries  Watershed Grants

-------
National Water Program:
      awarded in FYs 2008 and 2009. As of January 2009,
      eight large watershed protection grants have been
      awarded and initiated through the leadership of
      local and tribal governments. Most of the projects
      supported by these and another round of grants
      awarded in 2009 will be ongoing in 2010.
      Improvements in water quality and local beneficial
      uses will be quantified, documented and evaluated
      as these local watershed protection and restoration
      plans are implemented.
      EPA will work with states to help support
      development of a comprehensive  storm water
      monitoring program for the Puget  Sound basin
      so that information gathered can be  used to
      adaptively manage the next  round of permits and
      implementation actions.

Reducing  Sources of Toxics and Nutrients
      Priority toxic contaminants from terrestrial,
      atmospheric, and marine discharge sources will be
      quantified and source control actions prioritized and
      initiated.
      A mass balance model of nutrient sources,
      reservoirs, pathways, and risk to local ecosystems
      in Puget Sound will be refined and specific nutrient
      reduction strategies will be established  within priority
      areas, including both Hood Canal  and South Puget
      Sound.

Restoring  and Protecting Nearshore Aquatic Habitats
      Through the Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration
      Partnership, high profile habitat restoration projects
      will continue to be initiated and others completed
      in priority estuaries, including the Skagit, Nisqually,
      Hood Canal,  Elwha, and South Puget Sound.
      Protection programs, restoration strategies, project
      lists, and outcomes will be evaluated against current
      conditions and ongoing habitat loss to determine net
      changes in extent and function of  estuary habitats.

Improving Ecosystem Monitoring
and the Application of Science
      A new Integrated Science Plan for Puget Sound
      will be 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.
      A comprehensive watershed monitoring program will
      be implemented to  better understand the impacts
      of stormwater runoff on aquatic resources and the
      effectiveness of different management practices and
      policies.
                                     strategies to protect
                                large aquatic ecosystems
     EPA  will  work with other science  communication
     initiatives  and programs to ensure that data and
     information is more available and relevant to citizens,
     local jurisdictions,  watershed management forums,
     and resource managers.

Ensuring Focused and Productive
Transboundary Coordination
     EPA Region 10 has  committed to work with
     Environment Canada, Pacific Yukon Region to
     implement the 2008-2010 Statement of Cooperation
     Action Plan - Initiatives for the Salish Sea. Work will
     be directed toward three focus areas: 1) working
     with the tribes and other levels of government
     to improve the effectiveness of transboundary
     governance and ecosystem management; 2) sharing
     knowledge and information across borders; and 3)
     initiating transboundary demonstration projects that
     contribute to improved air quality, water quality and
     habitat and species  health.

C)      Grant  Program Resources
EPA grant  resources  directly supporting this  goal  have
usually been limited to the  National Estuary Program Grants
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act  (approx. $500
K annually  in recent years).  The FY  2008  appropriations
bill  included  close to $20 million for development and
implementation  of the 2020 Action  Agenda  for Puget
Sound. FY 2009 and 2010 appropriations will be applied to
implementation of priority actions aimed at pollution source
control,  watershed protection, and the science  capacity
needed to help focus, monitor and assess the effectiveness
of actions.  A range of other water program grants also
support  many activities that assist in the achievement of this
subobjective. These include grants supporting Washington
State and Tribal water quality programs, infrastructure loan
programs, and competitive grants such as the West Coast
Estuaries Watershed Grants.
9)     Protect the Columbia
       River Basin
A)     Subobjective
Prevent water pollution  and improve  and protect water
quality and ecosystems  in the Columbia River Basin  to
reduce risks to human health and the environment.

(Note:  Additional measures  of progress are identified  in
Appendices A and F.)
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
strategies to protect
large aquatic ecosystems

B)     Key Program Strategies
The  Columbia River Basin covers a major portion of the
landscape of North America, including parts of seven U.S.
states and British Columbia. The basin provides drainage
through an area of more than 260,000 square miles into a
river over  1,200 miles in length. The Columbia River Basin
has been  and will continue to provide an important North
American  backdrop for urban settlement and development,
agriculture,   transportation,  recreation,   fisheries  and
hydro power.

The  Columbia River Basin also serves as a unique and
special  ecosystem,  home to many important  plants and
animals. Columbia  River salmon and  steelhead  runs
were once the largest  runs in the world. The tribal people
of the  Columbia River have depended on these salmon
for thousands of years for human, spiritual, and cultural
sustenance.

Challenges

The Columbia River Basin provides great environmental,
economic, and social benefit to many public and  private
interests. The Basin is a dynamic economic engine driving
many industries vital to the Pacific Northwest, including
sport and commercial fisheries, agriculture, transporta-
tion, recreation and, with many hydropowerdams, elec-
trical power generation. However, hydro-electric power
generation, agriculture,  and other human activities have
disrupted natural processes and  impaired water quality
in some areas to the point where human health is at risk
and historic salmon stocks are threatened or extinct. Many
Columbia River tributaries, the mainstem, and the estuary
are declared 'impaired' under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act.

In 1992, an EPA national survey of contaminants in fish
alerted EPA and others to a potential health threat to tribal
and other people who eat fish from the Columbia River
Basin. To evaluate the likelihood that tribal people may
be exposed to high levels of contaminants in fish, EPA
funded the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission to
survey tribal  members' fish consumption rates. This survey
found Columbia River tribal people eat significantly greater
amounts offish than the general  population. A follow-up
2002 EPA fish contaminant study found toxics in fish that
tribal people eat. Recent studies  and monitoring programs
have found significant levels of toxic chemicals in fish and
the waters they inhabit,  including DDT, PCBs, mercury,
and emerging contaminants, such as PBDEs.

EPA Region  10 is working closely with the States of
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Columbia Basin tribal govern-
ments, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership,
local governments, citizen groups, industry, and other
                                                              National Water Progra
                                                    federal agencies to develop and implement a collabora-
                                                    tive strategy to assess and reduce toxics in fish and water
                                                    in the Columbia River Basin and to restore and protect
                                                    habitat.

                                                    The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, one of
                                                    EPA's  National Estuary Programs, also plays a key role
                                                    in addressing toxics and restoration of critical wetlands in
                                                    the Lower Columbia River estuary. Since 1996, EPA has
                                                    provided significant financial support to the Lower Colum-
                                                    bia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP). LCREP developed
                                                    a management plan in 1999 that has served as a blueprint
                                                    for estuary recovery efforts. The Lower Columbia River
                                                    and estuary monitoring program, developed and overseen
                                                    by LCREP, is critical for better understanding the lower
                                                    river and estuary, including toxics and habitat character-
                                                    ization, information that is essential for Columbia River
                                                    salmon restoration. EPA has also provided supplemental
                                                    funding to the LCREP program through EPA's Targeted
                                                    Watershed Grant program.

                                                    Working  with partners including LCREP, and the states
                                                    of Washington and Oregon, EPA has established several
                                                    goals for improving environmental conditions in the Colum-
                                                    bia River basin by 2014:
                                                         Protect, enhance,  or restore 19,000 acres of wetland
                                                         and upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River
                                                         watershed;
                                                         Clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated
                                                         sediments; and
                                                         Demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean
                                                         concentration of certain contaminants of concern
                                                         found in water and fish tissue.

                                                    Future Directions and Accomplishments

                                                    Oregon,  Washington, Idaho, Montana, Columbia Basin
                                                    tribal governments, the Lower Columbia River Estuary
                                                    Partnership, local governments, citizen groups, industry,
                                                    and other federal agencies are  actively engaged in efforts
                                                    to remove contaminated sediments, bring back native ana-
                                                    dromous fish, restore water quality, and preserve, protect,
                                                    and restore habitat. To achieve this daunting task, EPA
                                                    Region 10  is leading the Columbia River Toxics Reduc-
                                                    tion Strategy, a collaborative effort with  many partners,
                                                    to achieve these three goals and other actions to better
                                                    understand and reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin.
                                                    The goal is to protect public health and the environment by
                                                    reducing toxics in fish, water, and sediment of the Colum-
                                                    bia River Basin and by developing and implementing a
                                                    multi-agency monitoring and research strategy to under-
                                                    stand toxic loads, emerging contaminants, and overall
                                                    ecosystem health, and increase and expand toxic reduc-
                                                    tion actions, which include:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
     The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working
     Group has been convened as a collaborative
     watershed based group consisting of local
     communities, non-profits, tribal, state, and federal
     government agencies to develop and implement an
     action plan for reducing toxics in the Columbia River
     Basin.
     EPA, with the Columbia River Toxics Reduction
     Working Group, completed a Columbia River Basin
     State of the River Report for Toxics, in January
     2009. This report is a first attempt to understand
     and describe the current status and trends of
     toxics pollution and serve as a catalyst for a public
     dialogue on enhancing and accelerating actions
     to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin. The
     report contains an action  agenda that identifies
     actions to help restore this magnificent ecosystem.
     Federal and state governments are cleaning
     up contamination at Portland Harbor, Hanford,
     Upper Columbia/Lake Roosevelt,  Bradford Island,
     Vancouver Alcoa' and other sites.
     States and tribes are reducing toxics with
     regulatory tools: Water Quality Standards; water
     quality improvement plans (total maximum daily
     loads (TMDLs); and National Pollutant Discharge
     Elimination  System (NPDES) permits.
     States, tribes, and local partners are improving
     farming practices ;
         Yakima River Valley farming improvements
         reduced DDT concentrations in fish by 30-85%
         Walla Walla River Pesticide Stewardship
         Partnership reduced levels of several pesticides
     State and local governments are removing toxics
     from communities, including a Washington State
     2007  PBDE ban and mercury reduction strategies
     by Oregon and Nevada, to help communities reduce
     toxic chemical use and ensure proper disposal.

C)     Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources  directly supporting this goal are lim-
ited to the National Estuary Program Grants under Section
320 of the Clean Water Act (approx. $500 K annually  in
recent years) which funds work only in the lower part of
the Columbia River, which is less than 2% of the Columbia
River Basin. A range  of other water program grants also
support many activities that assist in the achievement of
this subobjective. These include grants supporting Or-
egon, Idaho, and Washington state and tribal water quality
programs.
                                    water program and
                              grant management system

V.     WATER PROGRAM AND GRANT
       MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

This National Water Program Guidance document describes
the general approaches that EPA, in consultation with states
and tribes, expects to be most effective  in attaining the
environmental and public health improvements identified in
the EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and the proposed 2009-
2014 Strategic Plan. This Guidance, however, is part of a
larger, three part management process.

Part 1: Complete National Water Program Guidance:
During the fall of 2008, EPA reviewed program measures
and made improvements to many measures. Draft Guid-
ance was issued in February 2009 and comments were
due by March 20th. EPA reviewed these comments and
made changes and clarifications 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 of-
fices provided regional targets in late March. After discus-
sion among headquarters and regional offices, national
targets for FY 2010 were revised to reflect regional input
(see Appendices A and F).

Part 2: EPA Region/State/Tribe Consultation/Planning:
EPA Regions will work  with states and tribes to develop
FY 2010  Performance  Partnership Agreements or other
grant workplans,  including commitments to reporting key
activities and, in some cases, commitments to specific FY
2010 program accomplishments (May through October of
2009).

Part 3: Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management:
The National Water Program will evaluate program progress
in 2010 and adapt water program management and priorities
based on this assessment information (FY2010).

Parts 2 and 3 of this program management system are
discussed below.  Key  aspects of water program  grant
management are also addressed.

A)     EPA Region/State/Tribe
       Consultation/Planning (Step 2)
EPA regional offices will work with states and tribes beginning
in April of 2009 to develop agreements concerning program
priorities  and commitments for FY 2010 in  the  form  of
Performance  Partnership Agreements  or  individual grant
workplans. The National Water Program Guidance for FY
2010, including program strategies and FY 2010 targets,
forms a foundation for this effort.

The  National  Water Program Guidance for  FY 2010
includes a minimum number of measures that address the
critical program activities that are expected to  contribute to
                                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
water program and
grant management system
attainment 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 Appendix A). In addition,
some of these measures  include  annual national "targets"
while others are intended to simply  indicate change over
time.

During the Spring/Summer of 2009, EPA regions will work
with states and tribes  to agree  on  reporting for  all the
measures in the FY2010 Guidance, including both target and
indicator measures. For the target measures, EPA regional
offices will develop FY2010 regional "commitments" based
on their discussions with  states and tribes and using the
"targets" in the FY 2010 Guidance as a point of reference.
Draft  regional  "commitments" are due  July 10  and, after
review and comment by National  Program Managers, EPA
regions are to finalize regional commitments by September
25. These final regional "commitments" are then summed to
make the national commitment, and both the regional and
national commitments are entered into the Agency's Annual
Commitment System (ACS) prior to the October 1st start of
FY2010.

A  key part  of this process is  discussion among EPA
regions,  states, and  tribes  of  regional  "commitments"
and the development of binding  performance partnership
agreements  or  other  grant workplan  documents  that
establish  reporting  and  performance  agreements.  The
goal of this joint effort is to allocate available resources to
those program activities that are likely to  result in the best
progress toward accomplishing water  quality  and  public
health goals for that state/tribe (e.g.,  improved compliance
with drinking water standards and improved water quality on
a watershed basis). This process is intended to provide the
flexibility for EPA regions to adjust their commitments based
on relative needs, priorities,  and  resources of states and
tribes in the EPA region. Recognizing that rural communities
face significant challenges in ensuring safe drinking water
and protecting water quality, the  National Water Program
will focus on   addressing  rural  communities'  needs  in
discussions with states and work  more collaboratively with
rural  communities and rural technical  providers in 2010
in  planning program activities for FY 2011. The tailored
program "commitments" that result from this process
define, along with this Guidance, the "strategy" for the
National Water Program  for FY 2010.

As EPA regional offices work with states and tribes to develop
FY 2010 commitments, there should  also be discussion of
initial expectations for progress under key measures in FY
2011. The Agency begins developing the FY 2011 budget in
the spring of 2009 and is required to provide initial estimates
of FY 2011 progress for measures included in the budget in
August of 2009. These estimates can be adjusted  during
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                              National Water Progra
                                                   the fall before they go into the final FY 2011  President's
                                                   budget in January 2010. The Office of Water  will consult
                                                   with EPA regions  in developing the initial FY 2011 budget
                                                   measure targets in August 2009, and regions will be better
                                                   able to comment on proposed initial targets if they have had
                                                   preliminary discussions of FY 2011  progress  with states
                                                   and tribes. Regions should assume stable funding for the
                                                   purposes of these discussions.

                                                   EPA believes that consistent and quantifiable reporting  of
                                                   state results is critical toward achieving national goals and
                                                   results. In concert with this belief, OMB's FY 2007 Budget
                                                   passback  instructed  EPA  to "develop  a  standardized
                                                   template for States to use in reporting results achieved under
                                                   grant agreements with EPA". In early FY 2008, a workgroup
                                                   was created  to identify lessons learned  in EPA's  State
                                                   Grant Template Measures (SGTM) approach and provided
                                                   recommendations for FY2009 and beyond. The workgroup
                                                   found that the SGTM approach by itself is inadequate to fulfill
                                                   the objectives of accurately characterizing, delineating, and
                                                   communicating results under state grants relative to EPA's
                                                   mission. As a result, EPA and EGOS are seeking alternative
                                                   approaches to discuss with OMB on how  best to achieve
                                                   accountability for state grant performance for FY 2011.

                                                   For FY 2010, Regions and States will continue to report
                                                   performance  results  against the  set  of State  grant
                                                   measures into Measures Central  (ACS). Further guidance
                                                   will be issued shortly from OGD/OCFO/OCIR detailing the
                                                   alternatives for FY 2010 in ensuring that grant workplans
                                                   contain the required elements.  In the meantime, ORBIT
                                                   reports will continue to be available to report results by
                                                   state and by grant. For a subset of the measures for which
                                                   FY 2010 targets and  commitments  are established,  EPA
                                                   is asking that states  and  EPA  regions provide National
                                                   Program Managers with state specific results  data at the
                                                   end of FY 2010. These measures are associated with some
                                                   of the larger water program grants. The grant programs and
                                                   the FY 2010  "State Grant" measures supporting  the grant
                                                   are:
                                                     1. Water Pollution Control State and Interstate
                                                         Program Support (106  Grants). FY2010 State
                                                         Grant Measures: SP-10; WQ-1a/b; WQ-3a; WQ-5;
                                                        WQ-8b; WQ-14a; WQ-15a; WQ-19a.
                                                     2.  Public  Water System Supervision (PWSS
                                                         Grants). FY2010 State  Grant Measures: 2.1.1; SP-
                                                         1;andSDW-1a.
                                                     3. State Underground Water Source Protection
                                                         (UIC Grants). FY 2010 Measures: SDW-6 and
                                                         SDW-7a/b/c.
                                                     4.  Beach  Monitoring and  Notification Program
                                                         Implementation Grants. FY2010 Measures:
                                                         SP-9 and SS-2.
                                                     5.  Nonpoint Source Grants (319 Grants). FY 2010
                                                         Measure: WQ-10.

-------
National Water Program:
For these grants, states will need to provide end of year
results data for FY  2010  on  a state-specific basis for
identified measures.

EPA, states, territories, and tribes are working together to
develop the National  Environmental Information Exchange
Network, a secure, Internet- and standards-based way to
support electronic data reporting, sharing, and integration
of both regulatory and non-regulatory environmental data.
Where data exchange using the Exchange  Network is
available, states, tribes and territories exchanging data with
each other or with EPA should make the Exchange Network
and EPA's connection  to it, the Central Data Exchange
(CDX), the standard way they exchange data and should
phase out any legacy methods they have been using. More
information on the Exchange Network is available at (www.
exchangenetwork.net).

In addition to  this  National  Water Program Guidance,
supporting technical guidance is available in grant-specific
guidance documents. The grant guidance documents will
be available by April 2009 in most cases. For most grants,
guidance for FY 2010 is being carried forward unchanged
to FY 2010. Grant guidance documents  can be found on
the  Internet   at  (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/).
More information about grant management and reporting
requirements is  provided at the end of this section.

New for FY 2010, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution
Control  Grants  from Section 106 of the  Clean Water Act
(Section 106 grants) is incorporated into this National Water
Program Guidance. This is  a pilot effort to gain efficiency
in the issuance  of the Section 106 Grant Guidance within
the FY 2010  National Water  Program Guidance.  Text
boxes with specific Section 106 guidance are incorporated
within Section  III, 1,  B, 1 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. This is a pilot and the Office
of Water welcomes comments on this approach.

B)     Program Evaluation and Adaptive
        Management (Step  3)
As the strategies and programs described in this Guidance
are implemented during FY2010, 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.
                              water program and
                        grant management system

National Water Program Best Practice and Mid-
Year and End of Year Performance Reports
The Office of Water will prepare a performance report for
the National Water Program at the mid-point in each fiscal
year and the end of each fiscal year based on data provided
by EPA headquarters program offices, EPA regions, states,
and tribes. These reports will give program managers an
integrated analysis of:
      Progress at the national level with respect to
      program activities and expected environmental and
      public health goals identified in the Strategic Plan;
      Progress in each EPA region with respect to the
      Strategic Plan and program activity measures
      (including state/region specific data);
  The   reports   will  include   performance  highlights,
  management challenges, and best practices. In addition,
  the  Office of Water will maintain program performance
  records  and   identify   long-term  trends  in  program
  performance.

2.     Senior Management Measures
       and EPA Quarterly Reports  (EQR)

The Office  of Water reports to  the Deputy Administrator
the results  on a  subset of the  National Water Program
Guidance measures on a quarterly basis. This information
is displayed and tracked on the Agency EQR website.  In
addition,  headquarters and regional  senior managers
are held accountable for a  select  group of the Guidance
measures in their annual performance assessments.
3,
HQ/Regional Dialogues
Each year, the Office of Water will visit three EPA regional
offices and great waterbody offices to conduct dialogues on
program management and performance. These visits will
include assessment of performance in the  EPA regional
office against objectives and subobjectives in the Strategic
Plan and  annual state/tribal  Program Activity  Measure
commitments.

In  addition, a key topic for the HQ/regional dialogues will
be identification of program innovations or "best practices"
developed by  the EPA region,  states, tribes, watershed
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.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
water program and
grant management system
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  projects  undertaken
by the evaluation staff in the Office of Water and  the
continuing oversight and evaluation of state/tribal program
implementation  in  key  program  areas  (e.g.,  NPDES
program). The  Office  of Water is currently developing an
annual program evaluation  plan to  determine  evaluation
projects in FY  2010. A key evaluation project planned by
the Office of Water in FY 2009 and FY 2010 includes an
Evaluation of the Total Coliform (TCR) Implementation.

In addition, the  Office of Water expects that external parties
will evaluate water programs, including projects conducted
by the EPA Inspector  General  (IG), the  Congressional
Government Accountability  Office  (GAO), the National
Academy of Public Administrators (NAPS), and projects by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

One of  the  most important  external  program-specific
evaluations of the National Water Program over the past
five years has  been the Program  Assessment  reviews
conducted  by  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget
(OMB). The Water Program has received an adequate (10)
or moderately effective (3) rating for the 13 OMB Program
Assessment reviews completed to date. As in the past, water
program managers will continue to incorporate the findings
and follow-up actions from the  OMB Program Assessment
reviews in their programmatic and resource  decisions.

Finally,   improved  program  performance  requires  a
commitment to both sustained  program evaluation and to
using program  performance  information to revise program
management approaches.  Some  of the approaches  the
Office of Water will take to  improve the linkage between
program assessment and program management include:
  1.  Communicate Performance Information to
     Program Managers: The Office of Water will use
     performance information to provide mid-year and
     annual program briefings to the Deputy Assistant
     Administrator and senior  HQ water program
     managers.
  2.  Communicate Performance Information to
     Congress and the Public: The Office of Water will
     use performance assessment reports  and findings
     to communicate program progress to other federal
     agencies, the Office of Management and Budget
     (OMB), the Congress, and the public.
                                                                 National Water Progra
                                                         3.  Link to Budget and Workforce Plans: The
                                                            Office of Water will use performance assessment
                                                            information in formulation of the annual budget and
                                                            in development of workforce plans.
                                                         4.  Promote Wide Dissemination of Best Practices:
                                                            The Office of Water will actively promote the wide
                                                            application of best practices and related program
                                                            management innovations identified as part of
                                                            program assessments.
                                                         5.  Expand Regional Office Participation in Program
                                                            Assessment: The Office of Water will promote
                                                            expanded involvement of EPA regional offices
                                                            in program assessments and  implementation of
                                                            the assessment process. This effort will include
                                                            expanded participation of the  Lead Region in
                                                            program assessment processes.
                                                         6.  Strengthen Program Performance Assessment
                                                            in Personnel Evaluations: The Office of Water will
                                                            include in EPA staff performance standards specific
                                                            references that link the evaluation  of staff, especially
                                                            the Senior Executive Service  Corps, to success in
                                                            improving program performance.
                                                         7.  Recognize Successes: In cases where program
                                                            performance assessments have contributed to
                                                            improved performance in environmental or program
                                                            activity terms, the Office of Water will recognize
                                                            these successes. By explaining and promoting cases
                                                            of improved  program performance, the organization
                                                            builds confidence in the assessment process and
                                                            reinforces the concept that improvements are
                                                            attainable.
                                                         8.  Strengthen Development of Future Strategic
                                                            Plans: The Office of Water will use program
                                                            assessments to improve future strategic plans
                                                            and program measures.
                                                         9.  Promote Effective Grants Management: The
                                                            Office of Water will continue to actively promote
                                                            effective grants management to improve program
                                                            performance. The Agency has issued directives,
                                                            policies, and guidance to help improve grants
                                                            management. It is the policy of the Office of Water
                                                            that all grants are to comply with applicable grants
                                                            requirements (described in greater detail in  the
                                                            "National Water Program Grants Management
                                                            for FY2010" section), regardless of whether the
                                                            program specific guidance document addresses the
                                                            requirement.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
National Water Program
Grants Management for FY 2010

The Office of Water places a high priority on effective grants
management. The key areas to be  emphasized as grant
programs are implemented are:
     Promoting competition to the maximum extent
     practicable;
     Monitoring assistance agreements and ensuring
     compliance with post-award management standards;
     Assuring that project officers and their supervisors
     adequately address grants management
     responsibilities; and
     Linking grants performance to the achievement of
     environmental results as laid out in the Agency's
     Strategic Plan and this National Water Program
     Guidance.

1.     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
competitive announcements issued, released, or posted
after January 14, 2005; assistance agreement competitions,
awards, and disputes based on competitive announcements
issued, released, or posted after January 14,  2005; non-
competitive awards resulting from non-competitive funding
recommendations submitted  to  a  Grants  Management
Office after January  14, 2005; and assistance agreement
amendments issued after January 14, 2005.

If program offices and  regional offices choose to conduct
competitions for awards under programs that are exempt
from the  Competition Order,  they must  comply with  the
Order and any applicable guidance  issued by the Grants
Competition Advocate (GCA). This includes complying with
the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) standard
formatting requirements for federal agency announcements
of funding opportunities.

As of October 1,2006, per OMB Directive, all federal agency
funding opportunity announcements  for open competitions
must provide applicants with  the  opportunity to submit
                                    water program and
                              grant management system

applications   electronically  through  (http://www.grants.
gov).  It  is the official federal government website where
applicants can find and apply to funding opportunities from
all 26  federal grant-making agencies.

On December 1, 2006 the Office of Grants and Debarment
issued a memorandum describing the approval  process
for using State and Tribal Assistance Grants  (STAG) funds
to make  non-competitive  awards to state co-regulator
organizations using the  co-regulator exception  in the
Competition Order. The memorandum states that it is EPA
policy to ensure that the head of the affected state agency
or department (e.g., the State Environmental Commissioner
or the head of the state public health or agricultural agency)
is involved in this approval process. Accordingly, effective
December 1, 2006,  before redirecting STAG funds from
a  State Continuing Environmental Program (CEP) grant
allotment for a non-competitive award to a state co-regulator
organization, EPA must request and obtain the consent of
the head of the affected state agency or department.
2.
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
monitoring for every award. EPA Order 5700.6, Policy on
Compliance, Review and  Monitoring,  effective January
1,  2008 helps to ensure effective  post-award oversight
of recipient  performance and  management.  The Order
encompasses both the administrative and programmatic
aspects of the Agency's financial assistance programs.
From the programmatic standpoint, this monitoring  should
ensure satisfaction of five core areas:
     Compliance with all programmatic terms and
     conditions;
     Correlation  of the recipient's work plan/application
     and actual progress under the award;
     Availability of funds to complete the project;
     Proper management of and accounting for
     equipment purchased under the award; and
     Compliance with all statutory and regulatory
     requirements of the program.
If during monitoring it is determined that there is reason to
believe that the grantee has committed or commits fraud,
waste and/or abuse, then the project officer must contact
the Office  of the  Inspector General. Advanced monitoring
activities must be documented in the official grant file and
the Grantee Compliance Database.  Baseline monitoring
activities must be documented in the Post-Award Database
in the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS).
                                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
water program and
grant management system

3.      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 Addressing Grants Management and
the Management of Interagency Agreements under the
Performance Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS) on
January 17, 2008 to be used for 2008 PARS performance
agreements/appraisals of project officers who are managing
at least one active grant during the rating period and their
supervisors/managers. The Office of Water supports the
requirement that  project officers and their supervisors/
managers  address  grants management responsibilities
through the Agency's PARS process.

4.     Environmental Results Under
       EPA Assistance Agreements

EPA Order 5700.7, which went into effect in 2005, states
that it is EPA policy to:
      Link proposed assistance agreements to the
      Agency's Strategic Plan;
      Ensure that outputs and outcomes are appropriately
      addressed in assistance agreement competitive
      funding announcements, work plans, and
      performance reports; and
      Consider how the results from completed assistance
      agreement projects contribute to the Agency's
      programmatic goals and responsibilities.
The  Order  applies  to  all  non-competitive   funding
packages/funding recommendations submitted to Grants
Management Offices after January 1, 2005, all competitive
assistance  agreements resulting from competitive  funding
announcements  issued  after January  1,  2005,  and
competitive  funding  announcements issued after January
1,  2005. Project officers  must include in  the  Funding
Recommendation a description of how the project fits within
the Agency's Strategic Plan. The description must identify
all applicable EPA strategic goal(s),  objectives, and where
available, subobjective(s), consistent with the appropriate
Program Results Code(s).

In addition, project officers must:
      Consider how the results from completed assistance
      agreement projects contribute to the Agency's
      programmatic goals and objectives;
      Ensure that well-defined outputs and outcomes are
      appropriately addressed in assistance agreement
      work plans, solicitations, and performance reports;
      and
      Certify/assure that they have reviewed the
      assistance agreement work plan and that
      the work plan contains outputs and outcomes.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           National Water Progra
VI.    WATER PROGRAM AND
       ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In  2001,  the  EPA  Environmental  Justice   Executive
Steering Committee (comprised of the  Deputy Assistant
Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators) directed
each headquarters program office and EPA regional office to
develop Environmental Justice (EJ) Action  Plans. In 2005,
EPA identified eight (8) specific national  environmental
justice priorities as critical  issues of nation-wide concern
and addressed in the Agency's FY 2006 - 2011 Strategic
Plan.

The  EJ  Action  Plans  are  prospective  planning  tools
that  identify  measurable commitments to address  key
environmental justice priorities. EPA is  currently working
to align the development of the EJ Action Plans with the
development  of the NPM Guidances. The development or
identification of activities for the EJ Action Plans is occurring
concurrently with  the  development of the priorities  and
strategies of the National Program Manager Guidances.

Environmental Justice in the
EPA National Water Program

The Office of Water places emphasis on achieving results
in areas with potential environmental  justice  concerns
through Water Safe to Drink (Sub-objective 2.1.1) and Fish
and Shellfish  Safe to Eat (Sub-objective 2.1.2), two of the
eight national EJ priorities.  In addition, the National Water
Program  places  emphasis  on other EJ  Water Related
Elements: 1)  Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border
Environmental Health (Subobjective 4.2.4); 2) Sustain and
Restore Pacific Island Territories (Subobjective 4.2.5); and
3) Alaska Native Villages Program. This focus will result in
improved environmental quality for all people, especially for
those living in areas with potential disproportionately high
and adverse human health  conditions. In order to advance
environmental quality for communities with EJ  concerns,
the Office of  Water will address the EJ considerations in
infrastructure  improvements to small and disadvantaged
communities and reducing risk to exposure in contaminants
in fish. Finally, 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.

Environmental Justice Priority: Water Safe to  Drink

The Office of Waterwill promote infrastructure improvements
to small  and disadvantaged  communities through  the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that reduce
public exposure to contaminants through compliance with
rules  and  supports the reliable delivery of safe water in
small and disadvantaged communities, Tribal and territorial
public water systems, schools, and child-care centers.

-------
National Water Program:
To support better management of water systems on tribal
lands,  EPA will implement  a Tribal operator certification
program to provide Tribal water utility staff with drinking
water operator certification opportunities. EPA will workwith
its federal partners to improve access to safe drinking water
for persons living on tribal lands.

To maintain and improve water quality in rural America, EPA
will continue its efforts  to promote  better management of
water utilities through support of state capacity development
and operator certification programs, and through initiatives
on asset management,  operator recruitment and retention,
and water efficiency.

EPA will  continue  to encourage states to refer drinking
water systems to third  party  assistance providers, when
needed. Third party assistance is provided through existing
contractual agreements or by other state, federal, or  non-
profit entities.

On October 10, 2007, EPA published the latest changes to
the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) which included  significant
improvements  to the Public Education (PE) requirements.
Drinking water systems must conduct PE when  they have
a  lead action  level exceedance.  EPA made  significant
modifications to the content  of the written public education
materials  (message content) and  added a  new  set of
delivery requirements.  These  revisions are  intended to
better ensure that at risk and under represented populations
receive information quickly and are  able to act  to  reduce
their exposure.

The  Energy  Independence and  Security Act of 2007
includes a provision which provides new authority for EPA,
in  consultation with other federal agencies,  to  conduct a
range of activities to promote healthy school environments.
The Act requires EPA,  in consultation with DoEd,  DHHS,
and other relevant  agencies, to issue voluntary  guidelines
for states  to  use  in  developing  and  implementing an
environmental  health program for schools. The  guidelines
are to encompass a broad range of specific issues including
lead in  drinking water.

Environmental Justice Priority:
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat

EJ  Consideration:  Fish Consumption  Monitoring  and
Advisories—Reducing Risk to Exposure in Contaminants in
Fish.

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 advisory
activities   into  the  Water  Quality  Standards   Program
promotes environmental justice by allowing that  advisories
                                     water program and
                               grant management system
and  minority population  health  risks are  known  when
states make water quality standards attainment decisions,
developing Total Maximum Daily Loads for impaired waters,
and developing permits to control sources of pollution.

The  Office of Water will focus on  activities  encouraging
states  to  assess fish  and shellfish  tissue  contaminant
information in waters used forfishing  by minority populations
and tribes, particularly those that catch fish for subsistence.
Such populations may include  women  of child  bearing
age, children, African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders,
Hispanics, Native Americans, Native  Hawaiians, and Alaska
Natives.

The  Office  of  Water  reaches these  populations by
disseminating information in multiple languages to doctors,
nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives about reducing
the risks of exposure to contaminants in fish and shellfish.
The  Office of Water maintains the National Fish Advisory
Website that includes the National Listing of Fish Advisories
(includes both fish and shellfish advisories) and provides
information to health professionals and the public on health
advice for eating fish and shellfish, and how to prepare fish
caught for recreation and subsistence.

Environmental Justice Water Related Elements

The  Community  Action  for  a  Renewed  Environment
(CARE)  program  is  a  community-based,  multi-media
collaborative  Agency  program  designed  to help  local
communities  address the  cumulative  risk  of pollutant
exposure. Through  the  CARE  program, EPA programs
work together to provide technical and financial assistance
to communities. This support helps them build partnerships
and  use collaborative  processes  to select and  implement
actions to improve community health and the environment.
Much of the risk reduction comes through  the application
of EPA partnership  programs.  CARE  helps  communities
choose from the range of  programs designed to address
community concerns and  improve  their effectiveness by
working to integrate the programs to better meet the needs
of communities. CARE benefits many communities, some
of which are experiencing disproportionate adverse health
and environmental impacts.

The Office of Waterwill workwith CARE communities/projects
to assess and address sources of water pollution, including
the use of voluntary water  pollution  reduction programs in
their communities, particularly those communities suffering
disproportionately from environmental burdens. Regions
will use  cross-media  teams to manage and  implement
CARE cooperative agreements in order to  protect  human
health and protect and restore the environment at the local
level. More program information is  available  at www.epa.
gov/CARE.
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
water program and
grant management system
In addition,  EPA will continue to work with unserved and
underserved communities in the U.S.-Mexico Border region
and Pacific Islands to improve  water  infrastructure  to
increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

The Office of  Water will promote the protection  of public
health through the improvement of sanitation conditions in
Alaska Native  Villages  and other small and disadvantaged
rural  Alaska communities. EPAs  Alaska Native Village
Infrastructure   program  funds  the  development  and
construction of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
As projects are completed, public exposure to contaminants
is greatly reduced through the reliable  delivery of  safe
drinking water in  compliance with public health standards
and the  treatment of wastewater to meet environmental
regulations.

Achieving Results in the
Environmental Justice Priorities

The Office of Water will track these activities through the
EJ Action Plan, Goal 2 Clean and Safe Water, Subobjective
2.1.1 (Water Safe to Drink) and Subobjective 2.1.2 (Fish and
Shellfish Safe  to Eat).  For the EJ water related elements,
the Office  of  Water will track activities through the EJ
Action Plan, Subobjective 4.2.4 (Sustain  and Restore the
U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health), Subobjective
4.2.5 (Sustain  and Restore Pacific Island Territories), and
performance measures from the budget and OMB Program
Assessment review of the Alaska Native Villages Program.

In orderto begin documenting the environmental and human
health improvements  achieved in  areas  with  potential
environmental  justice concerns, the  Office of Water will
begin  developing  specific  performance  measures  for
activities identified in its EJ Action Plan. These performance
measures will  assist managers  on  how to better  integrate
environmental  justice principles into policies, programs, and
activities.
                                                               National Water Progra
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
National Water Program Guidance
Fiscal Year 2010
April 2009

-------
'.
    Katie ua
    Offi
       il Year 2010
    Appendix A
uidance

-------
Appendix A
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance Measures Summary
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                      OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                      APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
fY/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Sub-objective 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
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4a
SP-4b
SP-5
SDW-
la
SDW-
Ib
SDW-2
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 Drotection.
Percent of community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based standards through approaches
that include effective treatment and source water
Drotection.
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.
Number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe
drinking water.
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 Rules.
Percent of the data for violations of health-based
standards at public water systems that is accurate and
complete in SDWIS-FED for all maximum contaminant
level and treatment technique rules (excluding the Lead
and Copper Rule!









Y
Y
Y



Y

Y


90%
90%
95%
87%
41%
55%
27,367
95%
70
n/a
90%
90%
95%
87%
Long-Term
Target

Long-Term
Target
95%


   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
o

-------
   National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance
                                OFFICE OF WATER:  NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                                APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
©


G/O/S



ACS
Code



FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text

Non-

ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State

Grant
Measure
(Y/N)

FY2010
Planning
Target

National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).

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


Subob
2 1 2


SDW-3


SDW-4


SDW-5

SDW-
7a




SDW-
7b




SDW-
7c




SDW-8



SDW-9

SDW-
lOa


SDW-
lOb

Percent of the Lead action level data for the Lead and
Copper Rule, for community water systems serving over
3,300 people, that 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.
Percent of deep injection wells that are used to inject
industrial, municipal, or hazardous waste (Class I) that
lose mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance
within 1 80 days thereby reducing the potential to
endanger underground sources of drinking water.
Percent of deep injection wells that are used to enhance
oil/natural gas recovery, or for the injection of other
(Class II) fluids associated with oil and natural gas
production, that have lost mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 1 80 days thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources
of dnnkincr water *
Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt
solution mining (Class III) that lose mechanical integrity
and are returned to compliance within 1 80 days thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources
of drinkine water.
Percent of high priority Class V wells identified in
sensitive ground water protection areas that are closed or
permitted, (cumulative)
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and
reoort results in both % and #.1
Percent of community water system intakes for which

the source water was assessed.*
Percent of waterbody impairments identified by States in
which there is a community water system intake and for
which there is a TMDL.*
Percent of waterbody impairments identified by States in
which there is a community water system intake and for
which the waterbody impairment causes have been
removed. *

Y





























Y


Y


Y












Y





Y





Y


















n/a


89%


450 (4,532)


92%





89%





93%




76% (25,3 12)



n/a


n/a


n/a






89%


450


92%





89%





93%




n/a












ective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
SP-6

Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern.




5 1%

5 1%

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES


G/O/S



ACS
Code



FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text

Non-

Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)

State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)


FY2010
Planning
Target


National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).


2.1.2




2.1.2


Subob.

2.1.3


2.1.3







2.1.3







2.1.3

Subob

2.2.1

22 1

2 2 1



FS-la




FS-lb


Percent of river miles where fish tissue will be assessed
to support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption
advice is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately;
AK not included.)
Percent of lake acres where fish tissue will be assessed
to support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption
advice is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately;
AK not included.)


Y




Y














n/a




n/a












ective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming

SP-8


SP-9







SS-1







SS-2

Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to
swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal
and Great Lakes waters, measured as a 5 -year average.
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.
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















Y


2


95%







(707) 83%







99%


2


95%







707/852 (83%)









ective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

SP-10

SP-11

SP-12

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)








Y






2,525

7720

128


2,525

7720

128

                                                                    0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
   National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance
                                OFFICE OF WATER:  NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                                APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES

G/O/S


ACS
Code


FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text

Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)

FY2010
Planning
Target

National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).

2.2.1



2.2.1


2.2.1


2.2.1


2.2.1


221



2.2.1




2.2.1



2.2.1


2.2.1


2.2.1


SP-13



SP-14


SP-15


WQ-la


WQ-lb


WQ-2



WQ-3a




WQ-3b



WQ-4a


WQ-4b


WQ-5

Ensure that the condition of the Nation's wadeable
streams does not degrade (i.e., there is no statistically
significant increase in the percent of streams rated
"poor" and no statistically significant decrease in the
streams rated "eood"Y
Improve water quality in Indian country at monitoring
stations in tribal waters (i.e., show improvement in one
or more of seven key parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH,
water temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
pathogen indicators, and turbidity), (cumulative)
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 States and Territories that have adopted EPA
approved nutrient criteria into their water quality
standards, (cumulative)
Number of States and Territories that are on schedule
with a mutually agreed-upon plan to adopt nutrient
criteria into their water quality standards, (annual)
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.
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water
quality standards from authorized Tribes that are
approved by EPA.
Number of States and Territories that have adopted and
are implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping
with established schedules.

















































Y


Y






Y














Y


No reporting
until 20 12



No reporting
until 20 12


18,985 (5.95%)


20


33


40



37 (66%)




20 (57%)



85.0%


70.0%


56






Long-Term
Target


Long-Term












66%








85%







o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
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
U.S. E
WQ-6a
WQ-6b
WQ-7
WQ-8a
WQ-8b
WQ-9a
WQ-9b
WQ-9c
WQ-10
wironme
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
anH annroval of the TMDT. itself
Number, and national percent, of 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













Y



Y
157
118
44
2,623 (78%)
2,572 (78%)
8,500,000
4,500,000
700,000
184



41,992
36,495
8.5 million
4.5 million
700,000
Long-Term
Target
                                                              0

-------
   National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance
                                OFFICE OF WATER:  NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                                APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
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-11
WQ-12a
WQ-
12b
WQ-13a
WQ-
13b
WQ-13c
WQ-
13d
WQ-14a
WQ-
14b
WQ-15a
WQ-
15b
WQ-16
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 #.1
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 #.1
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.
Of the major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance
(SNC) at any time during the fiscal year, the number,
and national percent, discharging pollutant(s) of concern
on impaired waters.
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)
Y


Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y








Y

Y


n/a
88% (101,684)
87% (335)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21,495 (98%)
n/a
<22.5%
n/a
4,256 (86%)









22.5%

86%
©
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
Subob
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-
19b
WQ-20
WQ-21
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)



Y
Y

Y



94.5%
694
788
n/a
n/a
94.5%
95%
95%


ective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
2.2.2
SP-16
SP-17
SP-18
SP-19
CO-7
CO-8
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.
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report in the Northeast Region.
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report in the Southeast Region.
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report in the West Coast Region.
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report in Puerto Rico.
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report in the Hawaii Region. **
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report in the South Central Alaska Region. **














2.8
2.4
3.6
2.4
1.7
4.5
5.0
Long-Term






                                                                    o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
   National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance
                                OFFICE OF WATER:  NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                                APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
2.2.2
4.3.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
SP-20
4.3.2
CO-1
CO-2
CO-3
CO-4
CO-5
CO-6
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).
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
fNEP).
Number of coastal waterbodies identified in 2002 as not
attaining water quality standards where standards are
now fully attained.
Total coastal and non-coastal statutory square miles
protected from vessel sewage by "no discharge zone(s)."
(cumulative) *
Number of National Estuary Program priority actions in
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) that have been completed, (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.
Number of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that are monitored in the reporting year.


Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y








95%
100,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
95%
100,000






GOAL 4
Subob
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.1
ective 4.3.1 Increase Wetlands
SP-21
SP-22
WT-1
WT-2a
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of acres of
wetlands per year with additional focus on biological
and functional measures and assessment of wetland
condition.
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.) *



Y




100,000
No Net Loss
96,000
n/a
100,000
No net loss
96,000

0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.1
Subob
4.2.4
4.2.4
4.2.4
Subob
4.2.5
4.2.5
4.2.5
Subob
4.3.3
4.3.3
U.S. E
WT-2b
WT-3
WT-4
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
nronosed
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




n/a
n/a
19



ective 4.2.4 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
SP-23
SP-24
SP-25
Loading of pollutant 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.






24 million
pounds
700
14,700
Long-Term
28,434
cumulative
246,175
cumulative
ective 4.2.5 Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
SP-26
SP-27
SP-28
Percentage of population in the U.S. Pacific Islands
Territories 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 sewage treatment plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories that comply with permit limits
for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSSY *
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.






73%
62%
80%
73%
62%
80%
ective 4.3.3 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
4.3.3
SP-29
wironme
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes
by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic
ecosystems.
Average annual percentage decline for the long-term
trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and




23.0
5%
Long-Term
5%
                                                              0

-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance
                             OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                             APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
Subob
4.3.4
4.3.4
SP-30
SP-31
SP-32
GL-1
GL-2
GL-3
GL-4a
GL-4b
GL-5
Average annual percentage decline for the long-term
trend in concentrations of PCBs in the air in the Great
Lakes basin.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin
which are restored and de-listed.
Cubic yards of contaminated sediments remediated
(cumulative) in the Great Lakes.
Number, and percent of all NPDES permitted discharges
to the Lakes or major tributaries that have permit limits
that reflect the Guidance's water quality standards,
where applicable.
Number, and Great Lakes percent, using a constant
denominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
permits with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate
enforceable mechanism, including a permit or
enforcement order, with specific dates and milestones,
including a completion date consistent with Agency
guidance, which requires: 1) Implementation of a Long
Term Control Plan (LTCP) which will result in
compliance with the technology and water quality -based
requirements of the Clean Water Act; or 2)
implementation of any other acceptable CSO control
measures consistent with the 1994 CSO Control Policy;
or 3) completion of separation after the baseline date.
f 1 4-' \
Percent of high priority Tier 1 (significant) Great Lakes
beaches where States and local agencies have put into
place water quality monitoring and public notification
programs that comply with the U.S. EPA National
Beaches Guidance.
Number of near term Great Lakes Actions on track.
Number of near term Great Lakes Actions completed.
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within
Areas of Concern.






Y
Y










7%
3
6.4 million
2,815 (96%)
137 (91%)
100% (349)
n/a
n/a
26
7%
Long-Term
6.5million





26
ective 4.3.4 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
SP-33
SP-34
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.




n/a
[Commit.
deferredl
n/a
[Commit.
deferred]
Long-Term

                                                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                       OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                       APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
Subob.
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
SP-35
SP-36
SP-37
CB-la
CB-lb
CB-2
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen
reduction practices (expressed as progress in meeting
the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million pounds from
1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 175 million
Ibs (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
*
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of
phosphorus reduction practices (expressed as progress in
meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds from 1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load
of 12.8 million Ibs (based on long-term average
hvdroloev simulationsY *
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment
reduction practices (expressed as progress in meeting
the sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million tons from
1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 4. 15
million tons (based on long-term average hydrology
simulationsY *
Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9
million pounds achieved.
Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of
6.16 million pounds achieved.
Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles
achieved.












52% (84.44 M
Ibs)
66% (9.48 M
Ibs)
67%(1.13M
tons)
74% (36.92 M
Ibs)
89% (5.48 M
Ibs)
65% (6,522
miles)
52%
66%
71%
79%
89%
65%
ective 4.3.5 Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
4.3.5
SP-38
SP-39
SP-40
GM-1
GM-3a
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.
Implement integrated bi-national (U.S. and Mexican
Border States) early-warning system to support State and
coastal community efforts to manage harmful algal
blooms (HABsY
Number of near term actions in the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance Governors' Action Plan that are on track.












2.5
96
27,500
n/a
[Commit.
deferred)
Expand
operational
system to
Tabasco, MX
15
2.5
96
27,500



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance
                             OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                             APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
4.3.5
Subob
4.3.6
4.3.6
4.3.6
4.3.6
Subob.
4.3.7
4.3.7
4.3.7
4.3.7
Subob.
4.3.8
4.3.8
GM-3b
Number of near term actions in the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance Governors' Action Plan that are completed.


5

ective 4.3.6 Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
SP-41
SP-42
SP-43
SP-44
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) and duration (number of
days) of observed hypoxia (Dissolved Oxygen <3mg/l)
in Long Island Sound. *
Percent of goal achieved in restoring, protecting or
enhancing 240 acres of coastal habitat from the 2008
baseline of 1,199 acres. *
Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river and
stream miles to diadromous fish passage from the 2008
baseline of 124 miles. *








63%
n/a
[Commitment
deferred for FY
20101
33%
33%
60%

33%
33%
ective 4.3.7 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
SP-45
SP-46
SP-47
SP-48
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
localY
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.
Annually maintain the overall water quality of the near
shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS.
Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem
as measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the
10 parts per billion (ppb) total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and
the effluent limits to be established for discharges from
stormwater treatment areas.








No Net Loss
Maintain
Baseline
Maintain
Baseline
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline and
meet discharge
limits
No net loss
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline and
meet discharge
limits
ective 4.3.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
SP-49
SP-50
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)
Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)




1,800
123
1,800
123
                                                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                       OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                       APPENDIX A: FY 2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise, the
FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
4.3.8
Subob
4.3.9
4.3.9
4.3.9
SP-51
Protect and restore acres of tidally- and seasonally-
influenced estuarine wetlands, (cumulative starting in
FY06)


6,500
6,500
ective 4.3.9 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
SP-52
SP-53
SP-54
Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland habitat and
acres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River
watershed, (cumulative starting in FY 05)
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) *






14,250
20
n/a
[Commitment
deferred for FY
20111
14,250
20

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
'.
    Katie ua
    Offi
       il Year 2010
    Appendix B
uidance

-------
Appendix B
FY 2010 Water State Grant Measures Appendix
                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                         APPENDIX B: FY 2010 STATE GRANT MEASURES
Type of
Categorical
Grant
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance Measure Text
FY 2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise,
the FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Sub-objective 2.1.1: Water safe to drink
Grant Program: Public Water System Supervision SDWA Section 1443(a)
PWSS
PWSS
PWSS
PWSS
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SP-1
SP-4b
SDW-
la
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 the population served by community water systems
where risk to public health is minimized through source water
protection.
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.
90%
90%
55%
95%
90%
90%

95%
Grant Program: Underground Injection Control
UIC
UIC
UIC
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-
7a
SDW-
7b
SDW-
7c
Percent of deep injection wells that are used to inject industrial,
municipal, or hazardous waste (Class I) that lose mechanical
integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of
drinking water.
Percent of deep injection wells that are used to enhance
oil/natural gas recovery, or for the injection of other (Class II)
fluids associated with oil and natural gas production, that have
lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within
180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground
sources of drinking water.*
Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt solution
mining (Class III) that lose mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to
endanger underground sources of drinking water.
92%
89%
93%
92%
89%
93%
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
Grant Program: Beaches Protection
Beaches
Beaches
2.1.3
2.1.3
SP-9
SS-2
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.
Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that are
monitored and managed under the BEACH Act program.
95%
99%
95%

Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Grant Program: Water Pollution Control (Section 106)
106
2.2.1
SP-10
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining water
quality standards where standards are now fully attained.
(cumulative)
2,525
2,525
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
o

-------
   National Water Prograrn^iscal Year 2010 Guidance
                                        OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
                                          APPENDIX B: FY 2010 STATE GRANT MEASURES
Type of
Categorical
Grant
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance Measure Text
FY 2010
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2010 CJ)
* Denotes change in measure text and/or change in reporting. ** Denotes new measure for FY 2010. Unless noted otherwise,
the FY 2010 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2010 Congressional Justification (CJ).
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1

2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-la
WQ-lb
WQ-3a
WQ-5
WQ-8b
WQ-14a
WQ-15a
WQ-19a
Number of States and Territories that have adopted EPA
approved nutrient criteria into their water quality standards.
(cumulative)
Number of States and Territories that are on schedule with a
mutually agreed-upon plan to adopt nutrient criteria into their
water duality standards, (annual)
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 crevious standards.
Number of States and Territories that have adopted and are
implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping with
established schedules.
Number, and national percent, of 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.
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. *
Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance
(SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
Number of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in
the fiscal year. *
20
33
37 (66%)
56
2,572 (78%)
21,495 (98%)
<22.5%
694


66%

36,495

22.5%
95.0%
Grant Program: Non-Point Source (Section 319)
319
2.2.1
WQ-10
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)
184

©
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
Katie ua
Office
Fiscal Year 2010
Appendix C
                                                •
                                                  -*t PRO^
                                                  April 2009

-------
Appendix C
Explanation of Key Changes Summary
                APPENDIX C:  Explanation of Changes from FY 2009 to FY 2010
                        Office of Water— National Water Program Guidance FY 2010
Change from FY 2009 Guidance Document
Priorities
Strategies
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Limited changes
Integrating the Section 106 Grant
Guidance for Water Pollution Control
Programs into the National Water Program
Guidance. As a pilot, this National Water
Program Guidance for FY 2010 includes
guidance for state and interstate recipients of
Section 106 grants for Water Pollution
Control Programs.
Measures SDW-6: Measure merged with
SDW-8forFY2010.
Measure SDW-9: Measure text revised.
Measure SDW-lOa and b: Measure text
revised.
Measures WQ-19a and b: Measure text
revised.
Reason for Change
Update
This is a pilot effort to gain efficiency in the
issuance of the Section 106 Grant Guidance
within the FY 2010 National Water
Program Guidance. Text boxes with
specific Section 106 guidance are
incorporated within Section III, 1 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.
Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells
are tracked in SDW-8.
Revising measure definition and text to
improve reporting.
Revising measure definition and text to
improve reporting.
In an effort to improve planning and
reporting of this measure and ensure that a
universe is provided at the annual
commitment stage, revisions are proposed
for the measure text and definition.
EPA is proposing to shift the time period for
Effected Pages and Sections
Executive Summary and
Introduction.
Section III, 1, B and
Appendix D.
Measure deleted and not
included in the FY 2010
National Water Program
Guidance.
Section II, 1, B, 5
Section II, 1, B, 5
Section III, 1, B, e

-------
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Tracking
Process
Contacts

Measure CO-2: Measure was modified to
track total coastal and non-coastal statutory
square miles protected from vessel sewage by
"no discharge zone(s)."
Two new measures for the Coastal
subobjective
Measure WT-2a & b: measure text revised.
Measure SP-23: Measure was modified.
Measure SP-41, SP-43, SP-44: Measures
were modified.
No Change

No change
locking down the priority permits universe.
EPA is also proposing to shift to a
commitment for the number of priority
permits issued rather than a percentage for
FY2010.
Modifying measure to track both inland and
coastal no discharge zones (NDZs) in
statutory square miles.
Two measures were added to track the
ecosystem health of the Hawaii and South
Central Alaska regions.
Modifying measure text to be more
objective and better track state and tribal
efforts to build wetlands projects.
Modifying measure text to million pounds
of pollution removed.
Modifying measure to track percent of goal
achieved in the Long Island Sound.
Not applicable

Not applicable

Section III, 2, B, 2
Section III, 2, B and
Appendices A & F.
Section III, 3, B, 2
Section IV, 1, B
Section IV, 6, B




-------
        Water
Offi
   il Year 2010
Appendix D
uidance

-------
       D

                    for            106



This appendix, along with the text boxes found in Section III.1.B.1, provides
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 D replace the corresponding portions
of the biannual section 106 grant guidance formerly provided separately.

Base Program Measures: Section 106 funding supports many of the strategic
targets and goals outlined in the National Water Program Guidance. These
measures include:

SP-10
SP-11
SP-12
SP-13
WQ-1aandb
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 utilize Section 106 Funds: State and
interstate agencies 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
      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. See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm

Disclaimer: The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance.
The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain
legally binding requirements. 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 requirements 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 requirements. 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 questions 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.

-------
'.
    Katie ua
    Offi
       il Year 2010
    Appendix E
uidance

-------
Appendix E
A Strategic Response to a  Changing  Climate
In September of 2008, the National Water Program published a Strategy for responding to the impacts of
climate change on clean water and drinking water programs (see www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/).  Key
goals of the Strategy are to help water program managers recognize the impacts of climate change on water
programs (e.g. warming water temperatures, changes in rainfall amounts and intensity, and sea level rise) and to
identify needed adaptation actions.

The Strategy identifies 46 specific "key actions" to help water programs adapt to a changing climate.  Most of
these actions address adapting to climate change impacts, while others addresses opportunities for mitigating
release of greenhouse gases, improving research of climate change and water issues, and educating water
program professionals about climate change challenges.

The National Water Program began implementing response actions in 2008 and will continue this work in
2009 and 2010. The Office of Water published a report describing progress in implementing progress in
implementing the Strategy in January of 2009 (see http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/implementation.html).

The National Water Program has several major goals for climate change related work in the next several years:

   •   Continue strong implementation of the key actions in the Strategy not completed in 2008 or 2009;

   •   Revise and update the Strategy in 2009 and implement revised or new key actions in 2009  and 2010;

   •   Expand cooperation with states and tribes in defining climate change impacts on water programs and
       more actively assist state, tribal, and local governments in  addressing key adaptation challenges, such
       as protecting water quality, protecting coastal and freshwater wetlands, and making water infrastructure
       "climate ready";

   •   Expand cooperation on climate change issues with other federal agencies involved in water
       management, including the Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
       the Department of Interior, and the Department of Agriculture.

   •   Develop and implement new mechanisms to foster communication concerning water and climate change
       research among EPA, other federal agencies, water research foundations, and other interested parties.

-------
'.
    Katie ua
    Offi
       il Year 2010
    Appendix F
uidance

-------
                                       National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
Appendix F
FY2010 Detailed Measures Appendix
5/3 ° £? S
• I15!
9
M
o
f»S
a
o

s
.2
|a
K
s
_0
s
0
8?>°
a
0
I"*1
&
s
o
«
JU
1

o



a
.2
iH
1

- s
•II
i|

a
o
•-3 —
1 s
E
0
s ll
fc ffl N
*
s a.
s g
S 0
a

a
o
a
FY 2010 National Water Progr
Measure Text
o aj

|^5
S
§
1
i
Is
1
1
I
I
0
£
1

*
i
1
a
o.

-o
§
i
L
1 fc


< ^
a g



ii
i •§
S OJ
11

.2 ^
S "3
1 ^
||
S ^
|i


s t:
i S
1 1

f J
B .a

S M

e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Pro
table in the FY 2010 Presidents Budget.
3 £

3 1
*
,


*








































ective 2.1 .1 Water Safe to Drink


1
ON
|
ON
-
O
1
*
00

U-J

«
ON
f,
GO

§



*!



O



O


O


^go&l
a a " « §
o e
& s ,|

3 -^ ^ s2
11 f|
S 1 s ^ «
Percent of the population served by
'.TaK-t systems that receive drinking
meets all applicable health-based dr
standards through approaches inclut
treatment and source water protectic


H




o
s
o
s
s
1
1
1
ON
•f
~
ON
1
s
0
g

o



i
00






ON











FY 2009 COMMITMENT







SR
0,
f
£
-p
S
I
*
ON
GO
f
^;
0%
S
S
e£
GO

S



^







(N










H
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESUL







1
g
£
01
f
o
ON
1
*
00

—1

s
s
0^
o\

1



ON







s
o











FY 2008 COMMITMENT







s
0*
s
OS
^?
s
a
*
0,

fi

s
0\
*
ON

s



^







1










l_l
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESUL







si
S
1
s
s
s
g
1
f~-
*
_^
ON
1
s
S


g



8
0,






00











FY 2005 BASELINE









*
^*"
^
0
-
r^
"


fa


"a
S
S
o
U
OB
a
S
S
ft]
8
O
Z



|
0,


^
00
*
°"
-9
O
o\
1
s
00

o

s
0\
0^
00

*



1



s



^
o


o


^ Q 0
a§"
Q
g

If 1
"^ s 1
Percent of communify water system
apphcable health-based standards th
approaches that include effective tre
source water protection.


CL,




|
"
*
g
^?
O
1
s?
00

c.

#
GO
|
0-,

s



,:•







06











FY 2009 COMMITMENT







1
00
S
»
^0
O
1
|
'-D
#
'•
0.
*
0-,
*
0\





,;







i"










H
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESUL







1
„
s
°"
s
o
o\
1
a
00

r~-

s
GO
^
0\





?-l







1







fa


1
FY 2008 COMMITMENT (newn
08)







1
»
s
00
x=
O\
00
s
00

o

s
o-,
0^
o\

f



»







o\







g

s
H
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESUL
ACS)







g
00
&
s
0^
i
i
^
\0


ON
g
o\
00


1



s
GO






1











FY 2005 BASELINE







^
"*
2
J
s

1
s
00"
(N
«,
'
s
GO"
5
^-"





GO
r~-
cs






°-











UNIVERSE


































O
1
g
!l
fa ^
oo "3
•a §
-P O
 >-
1!
& °
is


"a
S
S
o
U
OB
a
S
8
O
Z



S
0,


1
0\
*
i
a
o\
1
*
o\

^o

*
0\
^
0\

0



*



i,



s


^


<
m ° S
a § §
o
•s

ill

Percent of "person months" (i.e. all
by community water systems times
during which community water sysi
drinking water that meets all applies
based drinking water standards.


CL,




S
0\
S
°"
f
O^
1
s
o\

U-J

f.
0\
0^
0\

s



^
a






1











FY 2009 COMMITMENT







g
0,
g
S
^0
S
1
S
S
S!
|J
"
g
"
S
si

g



i
OS






f










H
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESUL







S
US
1
°"
£
£
I
^
S

t

•s.
0\
^
o\

f



fn
0,






1











FY 2008 COMMITMENT







|
*
*
0,
-p
i!
1
S
0,

1

s
S
|
0\

f



^







1










H
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESUL







GO

ON



S
GO
"*

^n



^


oo



5







|











UNIVERSE (in millions)





























S
FT

3
1
E
g
.8
u
E
g
1
1
P
^H
1
O


"a

S
o
U
OK
a
S
o
Z



   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       O

-------
   National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
         cc
         I
         x
         Q
©
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
* s. *• "
a
e
Is
K
e
e
O
*M 00
e
.2 ^
H
e
8
e
'=?">
I-
e
PS
1-
e
O
f *
s
it
e
o f"1
fS
fa
o
£ „
3 &.
i 1
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
® r/i a*
1-1 u "S
g^o
jerformance
s from 4-year
a
f
o
!
|
1
g;
o,

i
Report Measui
9.
t°
3=5 ,§"
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
VIM (Senior Manag
>L Strategic Plan, to 1
^ w
g 2
i o
tate Grant Me
Jie new 2009-
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 j
CO
CO


CO
1
CO
0
CO

CO

-
CO

^
I
I
CO

CO
CO
Q ^
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.
m



s
P
CO
i
CO

CO

CO
CO

1
I
I


CO


FY 2009 COMMITMENT




a
!
i
CO
-.0
CO
o
i
CO
CO

"S
^
i
o


a


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT




CO
CO
CO
CO
xO
CO

«
0-i
CO

1
o
1


CO


FY 2008 COMMITMENT




s
•'-•
CO
CO
s

CO

c^
CO

"S
o
i
o


CO


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
0
o
x°
a
o
8

^
O
O
o
0
o
o


\o
CO


FY 2005 BASELINE



CO

01
88,563
i"?
01

3
g
CO
(N

1
M
co"
41,095





UNIVERSE

















OS
CO
a
g
g
7Y 06 end-of-}
o
National Program Manager Comments

o


1
CO
1
1

o

CO
1

(N
O
I
01

s
Long -Term
Target
OMB PA
Percent of community water systems where risk to
public health is minimized through source water
protection.
I



01
S
00
I

1
01

01
1

•V1.
1
r-


C-J


FY 2009 COMMITMENT




01
CO
s
"

(N

a
01

M
1
I


"


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT




y,
'S,
ft
«

CO

-
(N

(N
&3
1


R


FY 2008 COMMITMENT




m
S
01
~

(N

01
o

(N
CO
ft


01


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not from
ACS)




'j<
't
I
S

2

2
S

2
01
£


!


FY 2005 BASELINE




5
1
S
5

(N
co"

T!-
CO
S"

5
01"
CO


K


UNIVERSE (FY 07)






















National Program Manager Comments

1


(N
&
1
I

i

s
o

CO
o
CO
I
1

£

o
Percent of the population served by community
water systems where risk to public health is
minimized through source water protection.
43
(L
&Q



P
i
S
|

S

S
DC

K
•r:;
CO
CO


CO


FY 2009 COMMITMENT




r^
S
1
1

^

.-,.,
o

K
CO
a


00


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT




s
S
1
-

01

'
CO
(N

^
CO
p


s


FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
08)




o
S
S
I

3

m
m

S
1
00


£


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not from
ACS)



















^


FY 2005 BASELINE




o
t>
o
s

t>

si
%

^
ON
S


CO


UNIVERSE (in millions)

riverse is
I
jd
otection
!
ns in a soi
S
o
|
|
S
S O
S 0
Cementation
ed data not f
S S^
1 i
to >-•
ed by the su
FY 07 end-o
5k" is achie-\
FY 06 and
e: "Minimized ri
y water syiwni.;
SI
co a
o 5
irting in FY
/entory of c
ew measure st
ent SDWIS in
SP-4b is a r
the most rec
1
g
o
U
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
e
Z

oC
(N














1

cn
(N
_J
m
o
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.
i

(N















O
28,977 (?


FY 2009 COMMITMENT


SG
O1















?
:4
rri


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


o"
01















?
ea
o"
01


FY 2008 COMMITMENT


36,575















«
36,575 (1


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT

                                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
 cc
 I
 X
 Q
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
a
Is
G
%'*
&
G
o
*M 00
K
G
.2
Z
G
1
G
f*
G
O
M
s
_2
I-
s
O
»*>
K
it
FY 2010 National
Target
o
£ „
3 8.
i 1
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
£ 0 1
fa -« U
1
s from 4-year
budget Target
o
r**
1
§
6
S
w
5
I


s
PH
(S ^
3=5 JR*
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
vIM (Senior Manag
v Strategic Plan, to t
tate Grant Measure); S
he new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 j
















co"
m


FY 2003 BASELINE

















o
oC


UNIVERSE
















1
I
rdination with other
e involves coo
This measuj
1
g
g
o
U
1
G
S
DC
O
PH
G
Z



1
i
I


s?
c*
CO
&
CO
1
I
1
0
a<
I
1
<
iS ffl m
o
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.
Q ~


Oi
o
o
1
^0
0,
s
s
CO
^
CO
1
1
1

CO


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



1
o
1
^o
S


CO

CO
Ch
1
1

CO


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



s
c
o
1
^0
s
s
OS
00
^
0,
S
a
1

1


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



s
o
1
^
s
s
^
00
^o
a
1
I
1

1


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT

















1


FY 2005 BASELINE



m
S
s
C-J
^
o
o
5
g
Q

3-
CO
m
CO

-


UNIVERSE (FY07)

i
37 end-of-y
national FY
Jl
H
CO
8
DH
3
1

1
O
^
w
'oc
Pi
1
-^
oc
ce with this r
J
ft
|
ther than CWSs,
S
rf
1
1
{ 07, this meas
an estimate.
* Prior to F^
provided is
National Program Manager Comments



CO
s
«




»


i
«
-
CO
o

PH OT
"1
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
& ^
Q —


CO
(N
»




(N


1
(N
-

3


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



>-
(N
S




„


1
«
-

-


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



'
CO
o




(N


1
(N
-

-


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



00
00
s




M


1
«
-

K


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



-
.
O




(N


1
-
1

S


FY 2005 BASELINE



o
o
s




„


1
«
1

CO
^0


UNIVERSE (FY07)




















1
g
g
o
U
1
G
a
So
O
PH
G
Z

















Indicator

ffl I-*
O
Percent of the data for violations of health-based
standards at public water systems that is accurate
and complete in SDWIS-FED for all maximum
contaminant level and treatment technique rules
(excluding the Lead and Copper Rule).
6N
















i


FY 2005 BASELINE

















ro


FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT

















0
CD


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT

















Indicator


2009 Target

















1


UNIVERSE

1
;he past 3 CE
acted during
audits cond
erification
Si
15
I
1
I
three-year r
o
3
e results wil
S,
O
(N
g 2005 and
3 conducted durir
o
o
The FY 07
years.
1
g
o
U
1
G
a
ab
o
PH
S
Z

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            0

-------
   National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
         cc
         I
         x
         Q
O
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
J l^fe
a
Is
K

e

K
e
O
BJj 00
M

W**~
oi
e

^

e
•&m


e
r
e

|"
s



S

3
iS


— S

« 5

—

.2
"S "K
Z ec
fS
fa
o
® "E *
,. "B i_

J
£ »
3 a.
s ?
S O

i
o
FY2010 National Water Program
Measure Text
® r/i a*
>H :i r9
fe < u
1
1

H
1
o
a



*

|
1
S


o,


i



S
1
PH
S 0<
•&I

fl

CM -S

W 0
1 "2

||
6 ^ W
1 2

1 1
O §
S •§
o 1

H ^

i1
•§* "
eg1
@-
pQ M
^ S
" CM
1 ^

e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Prograr
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. ***
1 1
i 1











































0
S
T3
—








§
" 1
If!
Percent of the lead action level data tha
Lead and Copper Rule, for community
systems serving over 3,300 people, tha
in SDWIS-FED.
•£
Q m




0^
in
CO




~§
0


CO
CD


£


CO
CO



CO


CD
CO


-P
0)

^p
0)
CO










0
CO











a
FY 2002-2004 END OF YEAR RESI






£
0
O)




.0
(T>
CO

|^


CO
CO


CO
O)



^
IT)
CO


CO
0)


-p
0)

-e
CO
CO










CO











a
FY 2005-2007 END OF YOUR RES













































o
o
—











FY 2008 COMMITMENT













































0
CD
—











FY 2009 Target






i^
CO
CO

CO



CD


0
*3"

m



O)



o
0
CM"


CD



O)
CD


CO









^
IT)
0)
co"












UNIVERSE















8


1

"3
5
S

1
I
O

1


S
i
i
s

I
•g
CT1
1
S
1
3
g
s
>i
i
|
»

0
1

1
1
1


1
g
o
O
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
e
Z






ON

«£*


.
ON


ON


CO


CO



CO


CO


xO
o

xO
\o
CO



0






O^
CO



•>?
ON
CO

&H Q
m ^
!S ffl
o
&
- 1
ill
Fund utilization rate [cumulative dollar
loan agreements divided by cumulative
available for projects] for the Drinking
Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
& _
Q ^




ON

0^


xp
•-,:-.
X

ON


C^


CO



CO


CO


sp
o

x°
CO










\o
CO












FY 2009 COMMITMENT






ON

g


^
°5
CO

o


CO
CO


CO



ON
CO


ON


xO
--,.
ON

-'.
ON










S












FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT






1

|


sp
^0


ON


r^


r I
CO



CO


CO


xO
ON

x?
ON










CO












FY 2008 COMMITMENT






&

^


XO
^0


ON


C^


CO



ON
CO


ON


xO
ON

.?
S










S












FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT






f*l

0


^
— .
OO

9
ON
-.0

S


O



O
CO
CO


Ol
CO


.•:•-
ON

0
CO









xO
5












FY 2005 BASELINE






1

S

«
00



y:
E
^



M
CO
(A

\D
d
rn

CO

^
^o
s
^
CO
Ol
"J










»











UNIVERSE (FY07 in millions)















1
gj

1

3
s
o
S

^§
1
1

o

1
s
o
o
oc
g
i
p-l
Pi

Q
1
EH
1
o"1



1

•3

i
m


I
'3
^D


1
National Program Manager Comme






o

o
CO






1


•*


o
ON



o


^


Ol
o

10
'



8




w*
Ol





to


&H Q
ffl ^D
!S ffl
o

1 1
fl
Number of Drinking Water State Revo
(DWSRF) projects that have initiated o
(cumulative)
£*
Q ^
50



O

O






ol


*


CO
CO



o


^



ON
Ol

o-i
5









1-
o












FY 2009 COMMITMENT






o

o






01


^


CO



K





01
CO
01

I/I
^










s












FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT






S

r-






1


^


Ol



o


^



CO













Ol"












FY 2008 COMMITMENT






ON
t '

i>






CO


^


§



ON
ON


S



01












,-
01"












FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT






o

w



....


ON
(N





S



ON


S


,_,
01


CSI










5












FY 2005 BASELINE
































o
01
Tt



g
5
o p^
^ o
.S 0
m CN

"^ -5
•^ i>C
0 -2
2 OB

§ "s
® i
-° 
-------
 cc
 I
 X
 Q
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
a, '1 » S


: 2 H g
a
s


Is


e
.2 ^
1
e
*M 00
v
PS

e


BS
e
1

£




£
ll

e
£





"
as
e
O
* -
K



1 1
|P 8E
eS Sf

e
.2
Z M
S t2

fa
o
o tS tfi
fS 8E 8E
^ 03 H

£ „
3 &.
S ?
S O
1

FY 2010 National Water Program Gu
Measure Text
® r/i a*
C 0 o
fa ** °
S


1

a
1
H
n
i
o
fc


1

^^

1
1


W
5
I

&
1


1
s
s
(S o^
•Jl

55 &1

S .a

g|

ent Measur
submitted t
S s


S 3
B3
s^ *

SS
a S
>^ W
i o
S g
| «

ore); SG (State G
are from the nev
S M
S s
51
e I
PQ m
" fc

e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program As
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Stra
1 1
























as


I


•a

-g
a
o
1

C

-2
c§
1
tw
"^ CO
is
-^ U
1 J

&a
•° 8

^ m

^ y
ID ^1 t
0 ^ >•

forFYOS. Urn
lects FY 07 en
i in FY 06 and
•0 g §
•^ ^ 1
S b g
III
S IT S


1
o
O
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
e









S



0


iri
c^



0



o

$
10



o


s




xO
o

1



^
CO








a


<-
^ g o
o
1
1 1 ° 1

Percent of deep injection wells that are usec
enhance oil/natural gas recovery, or for the
injection of other (Class II) fluids associate
oil and natural gas production, that have los
mechanical integrity and are returned to coi
within 180 days thereby reducing the poten
endanger underground sources of drinking
& ^
Q r-








£



1


g
^•i



'•i.



o

^
•0



i


JC
Oi




xO
O

1









JS
00










FY 2009 COMMITMENT









^
d


&

^0
p
"h-



|


^0
S

^
*



S
"'

1




:.'
^

1









|
o^










FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT









S
.-i

CO
^
o-i
ch
vn
CO


^o
CO

1—1
CO
CO

^o
CO
o



V
^

o




n-
«n

1








^
O
^
^r










UNIVERSE (FY 07)


























I
t3



._
?
,a

o
1



3
"1
8
s
•6 co
1 £
3 U
s f

g-a
^3 ID

•g s
°^

» ^S
2 ^ >H

for FY 09. Uni
lects FY 07 en
3 in FY 06 and
•g 2 -3
•|el


5 IT S


1
o
U
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
"as
e
£
R
BE









"1



0


fen
0*1



0--



-

)£
^



s


8




xO
s

1



s
00




S
&


^


^
S § o
^ m m
o
£ 1 . a 1

Percent of deep injection wells that are usec
solution mining (Class III) that lose mechar
integrity and are returned to compliance wi
days thereby reducing the potential to ende
underground sources of drinking water.
& 0
Q *"








>



S


"-,
0*1



,•;•



O

^
^~



£


I




xO
O

1





















FY 2009 COMMITMENT









>



o
0


v-
ui


-0
'~;


'•.?
&

g
o\



1


1




>J
0
o

1





















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT









>



o


o




$



GO

•n







«





^

1









CO
53
'










UNIVERSE (FY 07)


























I
t§



_
?
,a

o
1



3
"1
8
s
•6 co
1?
1.1
3 (D
1 §'

g-s


•g 'g
°^

^ ^s
2 ^ >H

for FY 09. Uni
lects FY 07 en
3 in FY 06 and
^ £ 1
•| e 8

| 1 |
S IT £


National Program Manager Comments













S


0
CO


,_,
o-- ^



CO

^
^



^
°^

CO




^o
^O

o1
ll



^
o




s S
rt
O C
o r~-







co1
o
§
*

CO






^2

FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT (AC
numerical)













0













^D
m






'?





m

8









^r
^t-










UNIVERSE


I g


if
E""1 o
g I 1

n S fe
S 8 ^
5 § ^
III
1"^ i
In
^ p ^
& .^ &
S 3 S
i 1-5
D, B B
& 8 1
•o -o feb

"S S x
III
111
1 ?•§>
-g ^| 2 a
III »
S S "S -a

3 -B 3
3 ^ oc §
* 1 '-§ -2
1 '1 « §


^ 3 B ^

b £ ^ •*•


1 S 1 t?
ill 1

15 g £

DH -6 ID £
^ >1 O
^ ^rt 3

III ^
0 U £ o
^ ^ | tS
^ I a S
" C S ^

•a -^ $ -o
3 1 g §
g |U S
£l| ^
^^ja 1
-3 S £ . 1
•2 g - S 1
§ ™2 ^ a
fill
1 1 i -S-l


1
o
O
1
e
S
ab
O
PH
"a
e
Z


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            0

-------
   National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
         o
         HI
         X
         o
©
?U[
a
!•-
e
£
e
3
s
3
ft
e
e
&W
H
e
I'
e
PS
e
£
G
r
11
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 15
»N OB BE
if1 M H
£ *
3 S.
S o
2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
fa
£51
)erformance
I
I
I
9 and FY 10 I
fc
vStat measure
at (OW EP/
e);andNPMS
Report Measui
9.
Stat Quarterly
eptember 20 C
e); EQR (EPA
o Congress in
ment Measui
e submitted t
VIM (Senior Manag
\. Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
he new 2009-20 14 EP;
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposed
gories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
a the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
||
? I













Indicator

^
nt of community water system intakes for
i the source water was assessed.
II
Q ^
as













i


005 BASELINE
fa














-%


006 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa














'1


007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa














Indicator


009 Target
fa



m
?
CO
05
CO
CO
Ol
o
CO
CO
o
"O
>;

o


^ERSE (FY 07)
Z

£
i 1!
OC ^3 >i
"3 "G ^
1 ti
15 g, S
M ^3
1 I-8
•^ oc >i
d ti
^ "^ -d
M 1 R
2 5T
1 Jl
s ® ^>
1 li
•ill
si (§ y, =0=
a g 1 S
l-lll
° '£ S B
g ID -M .
S 13 _>, ID
llfl
on data collectec
grated Reporting
vaters with comn
akes and the mos
jrocess.
on/nationally, basec
ADB) under the Inte
re is the number of i
waters with CWS in
to their assessment
^ 1§ •§ > &
I e 1 1 &
$ S ° » "
cy » JB 1 '|
anal Program Manager Comments
Z














Indicator

-
nt of waterbody impairments identified by
s in which there is a community water system
e and for which there is a TMDL.
<3 3 -£
&H M .H
a 2
CM













1


005 BASELINE
fa














~S


007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa














Indicator


009 Target
fa














1


fa
Z,

111

ill
oc ^ "^
ill
ill
lit
o S op
liii
Sill
•~ q 5 ^
•o '1 .3 J
ll °'S
| < | 1
! <§ g 3
"•§<"•«
C4 -g Z S
N 3 « S|
||||
1 1 'i «
^3 ^ i
e
S
S
o
U
DC
R
e
R
1
e
Z














Indicator

-
nt of waterbody impairments identified by
s in which there is a community water system
e and for which the waterbody impairment
s have been removed.
s s -a i
„» -S -g 5
fc m .a o
1 "













1


005 BASELINE
fa














1


007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa














Indicator


009 Target
fa














i


i
»
z;

111
ID C g
ill
& u s
III
oil
OC £, "^
fe f I
5 S &1
o 8 
-------
  .

 I
 x
 Q
                                                        National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
a, 1 « §

J l^fa
a
a
c
^o
B!
c
.2
Sp*
M
c
o
SB 00
S
d
.2
SB ~
fiti

s
vo
M
B
f*
B
O
SB "*
K
S
o
g*"1

s


B
^o
M
— S
g |
* Jf

s
.2
Z SB
o f"1
fS
fa


rl BE BE
>• 1 «
fa £ H

*
£ „

re o
s 5

s

•5
Y 2010 National Water Program Gui
Measure Text
fa
® rf, 0*
ll_l
S
1
1

H
I
o
fc


1
.
§
6
ts

w
1
I



PH
||
§|
^ d*


X O
1 i
11
1 M


if
1 a
M CM
>^ W
i 3
s s
1 S
o §
S JH
^ 6

/-^  y"
fa o





































?
















2005 BASELINE
fa





































CO
o
>
S
's1
•S
1
S
1
g


Eg
1
KJ
•-H
On




ional Program Manager Comments
8
Z





































0
i










HH


1 S


:ent of river miles where fish tissue will
ssed to support waterbody-specific or re
sumption advisories or a determination t
sumption advice is necessary. (Great La
sured separately; Alaska not included)
cu 1 8 8 1
S



































o
0
o"
*3-
CO
^
'^~
CN















2005 BASELINE
fa




































0
o
B"
CT)
S
CD
CN















2006 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa




































o
o
U
o"
S
0^
CD
CM















2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa





































0
CD
















2008 COMMITMENT
fa





































0
CD
















2009 Target
fa




































•c
E
IT)
CO
^
0
o















IVERSE
Z






















U
n
1
g
1
1
3

1
1
o
S
0
j

S
3,
1
1
i

o
^
fc
a

i
^
^
M
g




1
g
g
o
U
1
3
S
SB
O
PH
S
O
1





































0
CD










•H


1 S


:ent of lake acres where fish tissue will t
ssed to support waterbody-specific or re
sumption advisories or a determination t
sumption advice is necessary. (Great La
sured separately; Alaska not included)
& I 8 8 I
i



































o
E
IT)
CO















2005 BASELINE
fa





































^- o
^ '=
SD E
CO















2006 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa




































|
E
CM
in
y
CO
CO















2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa





































0
8
















2008 COMMITMENT
fa





































0
8
















2009 Target
fa




































"E"
E
o
^r
^
0
o















IVERSE
t.






















O
jj
1
g
8
1
3

E
§
o
g
0
fe
1

S
<
1
1
1
1

o
^
&
a

c^
j2
!f!
!fl
i




1
O
O
1
B
S
SB
O
PH
C.
O
Z






















































^e 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
'-S
o
3

rt

(N (N
































«




(N




Q

m



g
nber of waterborne disease outbreaks
butable to swimming in or other recreati
tact with coastal and Great Lakes waters
sured as a 5 -year average.
2009 COMMITMENT
1 1 8 1 fa
CO
CX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            O

-------
   National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
         cc
         I
         x
         Q
0
fc * *- J
60 0 M 0
* a, i- ^
J l^fe
a
s
Is
PS
e
S^
n
e
O
*M 00
^
e
S1^
H
e
•|«
Ctf
e
^o
*M ^
a>
»
I-
e
O
*M m
s
K
1-
e
O
f«
s
ff &
«|
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 13
£^£?
f Is
£ „
3 8.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S L Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 c3
? 1

o












o


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


(N












(N


FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
081















C-l


FY 2005 BASELINE















CO
o
p-l
oc
1
s
New measu
1
a
g
O
U
1
e
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
e
_2
R
BE

§3
C^

$
C^
P
CO
~g
~g
5i
CO
10
CO
c^
l/~l
c^
5i
c^
i
c^


Ch
5i
c^
§»
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.
9
ex
M


£
oi
Sv
CO
1
~~£
CO
CO
1
Oi
Sb
Oi
i
Oi

93% = National
commit./ 91.7% =
Regional commit.
Total


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



^r
Oi
Oi
1
~~£
CO
Oi
^r
s
1
Si
Oi
&
s

Oi


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
Ol
&
^b
CO
c-
g
9
CO
o
l/~j
CO
o
Oi
o
V~l
Ol
o
^o
oi
o
s

01


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



s
c^
^r
Ol
-|
~g
1
c^
01
Ol
5i
^b
o\
CO
iS
Oi
^r
Oi
01
t~~
Ol

(N
Oi


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



cc
Oi
Oi
CS
^s
CS
a
9
Oi
Oi
01
^b
Oi
CO
Oi
Oi
o
s

o
s


FY 2005 BASELINE



S
•y;
5
233,000
1
KJ
"a
^o
^o
^r"
Oi
180,965
oT
(N
O
89,355

o
r~-
8
i>


UNIVERSE (2006)

T3
1
ja
O
&
IT
i
i
oc
j£j
03
1
1
©
S3
S
1
•43
1
I
EM
!S
1
o
z
M g"
u 2
5 m
•^ §
11
& e d
*-!  2
|S5 S
Isl i
g-il i
i"§ 1 «
i 1 « s,
e ^ o g1
^ «'§> ^
•"S £ £ ^
B "S 2 -s
s i I 1
1 1 1 a £
s a E j« o
•§ 8 1 S is
B t- R o -2
• "s ^ i
g"a £ * sa ,2
g ° 01 5 -2 s
e ^" a ^ 'T 3
g o B B a „
\\rni
•S ^ »f £ « g"
«J 0 ° " 'S 0
E ^  h fe ^ E^ >
'3 c £• o I '3
art -3 I 3
1
g
g
o
O
1
e
S
S
ab
O
PH
"a
e
^o
R
Z





m
"
a
~s
|
-
S
p
^o
r~-
o
r~-
ss

-------
 cc
 I
 X
 Q
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
p. * *- J
so e oc o
1 !^&
a
s
Is
C4
s
1!W

s
o
'oc oo
s
s
If**
K!
s
'!«
BJ
S
^o
'5c ^
ii
M
s
**
M
s
o
*5c ^
a>

!-
s
o
* -
K
y &
ff.J
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 13
"ti
H *
£ „
3 8.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S 
S
i
1 1
si
S3
s "!
fe (D
0^
5 1
§ "3
^ 'Eb
« f
>,K
|f
C 05
Ife
Is
^ 1
riB -°
2 S
•S 1
• 13
S §
c§ "S
B S
•a 2
e £
|§
r
O j_
d S
o b S
ill
--!
Bog
I i S
fc j3 ^
^ 3 -S
X ^ P
S I «
fl g
; i I
s ^
° a> °
T^ 5r tt
S oc .S -g
^) 3 T3 ID
Sell
e ITS a
B Cl 05 ™
1 §1S
1 g «<
8. FY 06 and FY 07
\ and OWM agreed
a. We have includec
1 results are shown i
" o $ 3
•^ a ^ u
alll
Ifell
£ s ^ 6
£OC O 0
^ -i -s s
1 S 5 °
ra g DH >H
•5 oc g fc
,S,S 8i
National Program Manager Comments



1


KJ
£
~a
as
0
o


0
o
0
o

8
O
o

1

O
M
Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that
are monitored and managed under the BEACH Act
program.
GO
M


O1
Oi
5

1
CS
B
•>
os
S
o


1
o
0
o

1
o
o

1


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



I
^

•«
£
S
i
o


i
o
8
o

1
c
o

8!


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



i
o
b
o

c-
g
as
1


°>
o^
I

b
o
i
o

1


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



1
o
c
o

CC
e
KJ
"a
as
o>
8


I
8

8
0
o

•-':-.
o


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



c.
00

fflgo|
I§MS
o
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not
attaining water quality standards where standards
are now fully attained (cumulative)
o
(L
m


CO

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
P. * *- J
60 0 M 0
* a, i- ^
J l^fe
a
s
Is
K
e
S^
n
e
O
*M 00
^
e
'&""
H
e
•|«
Ctf
e
£
*M ^
a>
«
I-
e
O
*M ^
s
K
1-
e
O
f *
s
If &
«|
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 13
£^£?
f Is
£ „
3 8.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S L Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 c3
? 1
o
o
01

^r
^r
o
(N
«
«
S
O
^r
^o
c^
»,
c^
CO
(N
CO
(N
Q
D
m
Improve water quality conditions in impaired
watersheds nationwide using the watershed
approach, (cumulative)
(N
d
M


«
O
-
^f
CO
o
01
2
2
•^f

(N
O


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



o
o
(N
01
01
«
O
(N
CO
CO
"

o
^o


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



C-J
o
~
n
m
«
S
01
C^l
O

o


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



o
o
c^
o
o
o
o
o
„
o

-


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not from
ACS)



o
v~i
^r
t~~
o
^D
Ch
^D
S
CO
t>
01
o
8
o
o
o
o
01
^D

^D
"^f


UNIVERSE










CO
o
£
g
s
t
,£>
ice measure
fleeted in ACS si
1
T3
S
•a
is from Regior
1
o
£
1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
e
£
«
Z

° u »
s > s
'^ 2 ^ ^
^ & ^
^ M ffl
1











S>N
11
&
g


Ensure that the condition of the Nation's wadeable
streams does not degrade (i.e., there is no
statistically significant increase in the percent of
streams rated "poor" and no statistically significant
decrease in the streams rated "good").
[No reporting on this measure until 2012]
01
(L
M













^ 8
*""! ft
ti
xo s_r
;K '^


FY 2006 BASELINE









o
G
is measure i
sorting on th
£
g
js
!
o
1
3
ja
1
eo
S
M
The Wadea
1
i
g
o
U
1
3
S
S
S£
O
PH
"3
e
^o
«
Z

Tl











•
§>«
'll
&
1
|l
oc c3
|H
<-
CX
ffl
M
o
Improve water quality in Indian country at
monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
improvement in one or more of seven key
parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water
temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
pathogen indicators, and turbidity), (cumulative)
[No reporting on this measure until 2012]
d
m


1
1
100(10)
I
CO
^o
•^f
Ch
r~-
"S
^
1

1661 (185)*


UNIVERSE








1
T3
1
$
ration activii
1
1
g>
i
&
I
g
•o
ll
f 1
•s I
DH^
Ji
0 S ^
 & w
111
1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
S
ab
O
PH
"a
e
^o
«
Z

c^ •— •
CO [£)
°1 O
CO ^
°^ !C
&o" ^











18,985 (5.95%)
Long -Term
Target
g
m
o
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)
d
m

o •/
§3











--•> e--
§3


FY 2009 COMMITMENT


CS
"S
5
T3











data n/a


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


c^ Co1
!-!" ^
(N ^,











10
^D
S-
C^


FY 2008 COMMITMENT


i











i


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT














El
^D °^
N m


FY 2003 BASELINE
UNIVERSE

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
a
Is
s
.2 ^
1
s
o
*M 00
S
at
s
1
s
o
t*
s
o
jf *
M
s
_«
I-
s
O
»*>
K
it
FY 2010 National
Target
o
£ „
3 8.
i 1
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
£ U 1
fa -« 0
jerformance
s from 4-year
budget Target
o
r*
1
i.Stat measure
/d3 AVO) m


s
PH
3=5 JR*
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
vIM (Senior Manag
v Strategic Plan, to t
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 j
sing a static
8"
o
p-l
if measure fo
i
j
3. Duetotl
ribal home
proj ects to t
1
1
ait to pro vie
ral governm
ofthefede
ITS.
the overall effort
for previous yet
5 measure will track
as not been collectec
O ^
ll
1
S.
S.
O
u
1
s
s
DC
O
PH
G
Z



O
-
O
~
-
«


-
o
„
~
o

O
Number of States and Territories that have adopted
EPA approved nutrient criteria into their water
quality standards, (cumulative)
a «


o
-
o
«
-
~


-
o
«

s


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



o
"
O
o
-
-


-
o
o

«


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
•»
o
-
~
«


-
o
o

o


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



o
•*
o
o
"
o


-
o
o

00


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



-
-
*
Tf
„
-


VCt
•*
„

£


UNIVERSE





a
1
a
3d in both
lay be count

|
its applicab
jut not all of
1
S
quality standard
1
I
o
territory has ac
o
1
National Program Manager Comments



o
m
m
«
«
-


«
-
„
m
m

O
Number of States and Territories that are on
schedule with a mutually agreed-upon plan to adopt
nutrient criteria into their water quality standards.
(annual)
t-


o
-
„
m
«n
«


«
,
«

m


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



-
-
"
«
^
«


„
m
m

m


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



-
-
m
cs
-*
-


«
"
(*1

01


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



m
«
-
«
•»
»


«
-
m

"


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
*
o
o
o
»


«
-
«

s


FY 2005 BASELINE



'
„
«
-
^
»


,
-
»

S


UNIVERSE





^j
cx
1
cx
3d in both
lay be count

|
43
1
^ut not all of
for some,
1
CT1
1
1
O
territory has ac
o
1
National Program Manager Comments



o
<-
„
1
o
-


1
-
1
s
o


Number of Tribes that have water quality standards
approved by EPA. (cumulative)
^


o
<-
m
1
o
-


1
-
CS

fe


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



o
<-
M
CC
a
o
«


1
-
1

m


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



»
„
«

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
P. * *- J
60 0 M 0
* a, i- ^
J l^£
a
s
Is
PS
e
S^
H
e
O
£
e
ft**1
H
e
•|«
Ctf
e
O
SB
«
I-
e
O
*M ^
s
PS
1-
e
O
f *
s
If &
• f
e
.2
Z M
1 H
fS
>
fa
o
o "S 13
£^£?
f Is
£ „
s o.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S L Strategic Plan, to 1
H S
>^ w
i 3
s s
1 1
o §
S JH
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 c3
? 1


m
^f


«
^f


o
•*
"
-


.;/
00
•<:.
•x;



FY 2005 BASELINE



-
-


Tf
„


CO
VCt
•*
^o


^o



UNIVERSE















WATA databas
•S
e
&
s
-^
i
06 end-of-yea
*FY 05 and
National Program Manager Comments



«



^
n


M
1
-
KJ
"9
^o

o



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.
^£


«
M


~~Q
fi


cs
^
-
~s


1
•-.-



FY 2009 COMMITMENT



^r
•*


~£
«


«
~s
-
^


S-
c^



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



m
«


~~£
„


-
~s
"
~s


i
-•



FY 2008 COMMITMENT



*3-
m


CC
a
•*t


(N
1
O
1


E



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



r-i
o


o
m


-
1
~s
1


O
^
"1



FY 2005 BASELINE



ON
CO


o
o


«
~s
-
o


f-l



UNIVERSE (FY 08)







r~-
o
o
M
|
&
M
O
T3
T3
water qualit}
A approved
ast initial EP
at have at le
thorized tribes th
o
M
B
g

^rse for WQ-31
FY 08 univ
1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
S
ab
O
PH
"«
e
^o
R
Z



O
r~-


o
^o
5^
r~-
.
s
r~-
co
i/~i
5^
CO
1
^r

in
CO

5i
CO
^DS^l
8SSSI
O ^
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water
quality standards from States and Territories that
are approved by EPA.
O> a
& ^


o
r~-


r~-
5^
r~-
.
s
r~-
co
m
CO
^i
CO
1

lii
IS 1 A
•^ -~. ~=) >
ill
!o B '°c
s 8 iS


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



m
8

O1
^
C^
5^
CO
i
o
^o
s
0
o
&
c^
1';
o


U~l
c^



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



''-••-,
m
z
s

p
^
•€
CO
CO
p
CO
1


3



FY 2008 COMMITMENT



o
S.
•g
CO
1
c
o
s
0
I
1
c
o
c^
CO


^o
i/S
CO



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
^O


«
^D
O

O
m
"
-


S



UNIVERSE (FY 08)

t
>
•g
P
WATA data
is from the
T3
1
Y 06 end-o
1
B
i
1
•1
>
g
r. Partial ap
>-,
13
April 30 of
s.
th period ending
dards submissior
H S
B m
", £.
" '-3
•s §•
S b
•s %
I "3
ubmissions ret
sed on number
li
m ^
m |
1
a
g
o
U
1
e
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
e
^o
R
BE



KJ
a
JQ


^
§
.
i
1
1
1
cc
"a
1

O
o



Percentage of submissions of new or revised water
quality standards from authorized Tribes that are
approved by EPA.
cx &
& ^


o
o


CS
£
P
.
8
1
1
1
1


CO
^b
^o



FY 2009 COMMITMENT



c
o
8
o
O
~g
I
-e
*"-
~s
~s
I
~s


o



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



i
"*"i
1
v=

'-£
r~-
^
i>
$
£
•r:;
r~-
~S


^6
^D



FY 2008 COMMITMENT



i
o
KJ
e
|
o
KJ
B
KJ
e
s
0
1
1
~S
1


8
o



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



-
«


O
«


o
o
-
o


^o



UNIVERSE (FY 08)

eriod for
reporting p
issions in th
/ed no subm
8
S
c^
T3
S
legions 6 e
|
•a
§
1
jrovals recei
r. Partial ap
he fiscal yee
April 30 of
h period ending
1
^g
s
T3
>
'S
ubmissions rec
*Based on
WQ-4b.
National Program Manager Comments

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                        National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
  .


 I
 x
 o
P. * *- J
60 0 M 0
1 !^&
a
s
•| =
g>-
M
t«
!f °^
3
e
o
'5c oo
£
JL.
!f ^
«
e
fise
3
a
^o
'5c "^
u
M
B
O
**
M
B
O
*M m
a>
M
B
ln~
1
B
O
f -
K
y &
ff.J
B
|
Z M
S H
fS
>
fa
o
o "S tfi
"ti
r32
£ »
B 8.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S O





FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT







^o


m
^o
>o
^o


>o





FY 2005 BASELINE







^o


T,
^D
CO
VQ


>O

^O



UNIVERSE

ies and that
oring strateg
•g
o
8
1
1
i
o
intended
B
g
o
0
S3
PH
t
o
|
ring Initiative
106 Monito
g
jj
M
1 S
3 in their an
these activi
that states includ
faith effort to do
1 1
s %
d schedu
/ aremak
with establish^
nstrate that the
"In keeping
states demo
1
g
g
o
U
1
B
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
a
£
SJ
BE




pa


s


^r
c^
(N
M
1


^O
K




Number of Tribes that currentiy 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)
i»



t*i


s


^r
o





FY 2009 COMMITMENT







s


-
CO
"
~g


"

o



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT







2


-
CO
-
~s


-

^r



FY 2008 COMMITMENT







CO


»
"
-
1


-

^r



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT







-


«
O
o
~s


o





FY 2005 BASELINE






01
C-I


o
^r
s
,0
1


>o


(N


UNIVERSE

S
oring strateg
"g
o
6
1
s
1
s
o
1
i
S3
s
o
pecific act
i
it)
JfF
1
>
•ij
•a
oc
106 Monito
g
13
53
3 in their an
these activi
that states includ
faith effort to do
es" means
ng a good
d schedu
y are mak
with establish^
nstrate that the
"In keeping
states demo
1
g
g
o
U
1
a
S
S
ab
O
PH
"«
B
£
«
z







^o


n
«
^o
^o


^o
^r
^r
^r



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)
a






VO


in
*
«

-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
fc * *- J
60 0 M 0
* a, i- ^
J l^fe
a
s
Is
K
e
S^
n
e
O
*M 00
^
e
'&""
H
e
•|«
Ctf
e
^o
*M ^
a>
«
I-
e
O
*M ^
s
K
1-
e
O
f *
s
If &
«|
e
|
1 f2
fS
>
fa
o
o "S tfi
"^Sf
f Is
£ »
3 &.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S L Strategic Plan, to 1
easure); S
-20 14 EP/
tate Grant V
Jie new 200
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 §
? 1


t
^
vo
•^f
„
VO
CO
^D
*$
^O


Vt


UNIVERSE














00
ot from AC
T3
"9
1
O
£
1
S
g
o
U
1
e
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
e
^o
«
Z



o
o
^o
^o
1
U"S
1
o
c^
o
o
T>
^r
 >
» S
S . > 3
B "S g B
S3 'S B B
2 B 1 i
^ S < 1
•S h B S
3 -S 2 o
-g g tj '-^
i ° fe 5
I-PI
O -S (D ™
& ft Q S
till
!ti E3 M g
3 r^1^ fea
Iljl
|t!i
llil
.Ilii
^ u ^ |
fe^P^
^ ^ +J g
fe ° ID P
> & oc ^n
•i i ^ ^
1 g m S
* '^ id 
^r
IT)
^
CO
r~-
r~-
WD
C^
^r
^d
m
fflgo
1 m "
o
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.
CX ^)
g &o


CO
^r
o
C-J
^D
a\
s
^r
o^
c^
CO
o
(N

?-]
CO
c^
ri


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



S
c^
CO
^D
CO
^O
^D
CO
CO
m
CO
c^
on
«

ITS
O
C^
co"


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
^D
CO
O
^r
^o
o
3
O
^O
c^
(N
^

O
1^
^o
^o


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



c^
CO
^r
£
S
^r
CO
\o
CO
m
(N
g
^r
^o
(N

^D
CO
C^
CR
ir{


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT














i
i
f-T


FY 2005 BASELINE

•s 1
!j I
:1 l
13 £ -i
j2 3 g
J I M
Q •£> °
^ 1 1
II °
"SB Sa
i! i
u i
™ .
•ao 3
c > S
B ^ t3 0
J 1 S 2
§• i s s
8 ^ »
| -g S |
o .§ tj "3
S §,1 i
<2 B B §
is si
iiil
fill
i ° s -3
§ OC ^ S
ra C ^ ra
> — > "
S "S „ "3
PH £ 0 'C
J°* S "1 B
l = l§
111!
fi!H
•5 ~ '•§ i
S B B G
"§ S o ^
1 »s °
.1 -S 3 1
13 >; ^ a
g.S'S <
« 'S P ^
-a .5" lr •a
> 2 u -p
B § "O^
J 1 m g
Jfl|
111!
s 1 Is
s § i i
S o ,2 +s
+S -o S w
^ - 2 §
sill
p +j (4-1 Q
1 -S 8 1"
t! B § -°
-§Tg£ 1
s -o : "-i
^ S <; o
& c ^ °P
1' 3 S I
•g Q S o
1 S 0 |
*tai
* o u S
J ^ &H S
< 1 I 1"
National Program Manager Comments

                                                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc

 I
 x
 o
"« +- ^
60 0 M 0
a
Is
e
1
e
O
*M 00
e
.2 ^
K!
e
1
e
f*
e
O
M
e
_«
I-
e
O
* -
K
it
FY 2010 National
Target
o
£ „
3 S.
i 1
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
£ 0 1
fa -« U
jerformance
s from 4-year
budget Target
o
r*
1
i.Stat measure
/d3 AVO) IB


PH
3=5 JR*
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
vIM (Senior Manag
v Strategic Plan, to t
tate Grant Measure); S
he new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 1

o
o
o
8
50












8,500,000
o
1
od
°- a
m ^
S m
o
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
nitrogen from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
(Section 319 funded projects only).
(y cc

8,500,000












8,500,000


FY 2009 COMMITMENT


cc
a












11,300,000


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


8,500,000












8,500,000


FY 2008 COMMITMENT















19,100,000


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT















3.7 million Ibs


FY 2005 BASELINE




S3
llowing y
ary of the fc
mid-Febru
I
i

o
W
"8
)f datarepor
^
as
-ting with FY 06,
ith period only. Sta.
o
KJ
1
FY 05 base
1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
SB
o
PH
"3
e
£
z,


4,500,000












4,500,000
4.5 million
OMB PA
BUD
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
(Section 319 funded projects only).
cx g

4,500,000












4,500,000


FY 2009 COMMITMENT


data n/a












3,500,000


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


4,500,000












4,500,000


FY 2008 COMMITMENT


7,500,000












7,500,000


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT















558,000 Ibs


FY 2005 BASELINE




S3
llowing y
ary of the fc
mid-Febru
S3
i

o
•i
W
"8
)f datarepor
1
"ting with FY 06,
ith period only. Sta.
o
CC
1
FY 05 base
National Program Manager Comments


o
o
o
o"
o












700,000
700,000
OMB PA
BUD
Estimated annual reduction in million tons of
sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
(Section 319 funded projects only).
a o

700,000












700,000


FY 2009 COMMITMENT


data n/a












2,100,000


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


700,000












700,000


FY 2008 COMMITMENT


3,900,000












3,900,000


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT















1.68 million tons


FY 2005 BASELINE





oc
'1
o
£l

1
1
1
o
W
"A
>f datareporl
1
i
ting with FY 06,
f
O
I
ine for a 6 mo
1
o
1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
e
Z



O
m
s
o
o
a


2
„
E
O
CO
d
1
oc
o
^ s
o
O Z
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)
CX o


CO
01
(N
CO
*
s


2
«
S

S


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



-
M
«
3
CO
s


OS
»
m

S


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



"
«
«
S
m
O


CO
«
2

s


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



o
«
o
»
,n
m


»
o
«

GO


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



o
o
o
-
o
C-I


C-J
o
-

2


FY 2005 BASELINE

8
•J3
1
1
i
i
1
~o
g ^
m o
."2 C1 ^o
Hi
111
§1 B
•0 0 %
t o |
s ° 1
§ i "^
fii
^ 
-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      o
      HI
1 ||i
J i-sfe
0
!•-
G
3
*M ^
«
M
e
'|°°
H
e
O
*M f~
m
&
G
*M **
»
«
e
I?"1
K
e
I'
I-
H
e
O
*M *S
£
e
I"

If
II
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o tS 15
»N OE BE
^ M H
£ K
3 a.
|!
S o
2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
fa
0 V) »
ell
)erformance
1
•4
I
1
9 and FY 10 I
fc
1
CM
W
|
e);andNPMS
Report Measui
9.
Stat Quarterly
eptember 20 C
e); EQR (EPA
o Congress in
i 1
a •"
E S
VIM (Senior Manag
\. Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
he new 2009-20 14 EP;
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposed
gories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
a the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
"§ -^
S |
? 6















Indicator

-
ber, and national percent, of follow-up
ns that are completed by assessed
ES (National Pollutant Discharge
nation System) programs, (cumulative)
iSKI
2 CD Z LJJ
cx^


(N
-
(Ti
*o

(M
^O
C^
•*
„
^o


CO


005 BASELINE
>•
fa



m
o
s
s

CTi
m
>/i
m
2
=


S
1^!
'^~


006 END OF YEAR RESULT
^
fa



c^
2
S
^o

o
CO
o
t>
^D
cs


(N
CD


007 END OF YEAR RESULT
i*
fa
















Indicator


008 COMMITMENT
i*
fa
















Indicator


009 Target
i>"
fa



IN
CN
S
(N

^D
^r
^o
c^
(N
^r


^
o
o
0


fa
2
Ed
z;

o
-3
"o
t I
'» 1
* £
o *-<
T3 a
11
1 f
1 £
^2 T3
1 S
* 0
(2 8f>
^ ^
°- ^
a" J
1 1
1 '1
1 S
i !
o §
3 c
r^i '^
rf S
o > 13
Ifr 1
is «
8 'H -a
s § ^
o "0 a
O (D 05
^ 1 1
to S
"9 ^S o
§ § .3
0 "~1 2
£s i
1 1 5 1 ^
•o 8 | 1 -g
B S T i1^
5j ^H |_L| !_, .-H
'S X^^l
1 s 4 g i
-g .SfS S a
CQ r^H X^ x^ rt
Ȥ 11 I
13^3-7^
X (§ M 
f 1
s «
G1 °^
CO CO
SS ^r"
•— -. ^r
xo CQ
SH ^
Si- ^°"
Co1 CO
» (N
& S
Co1 O
o-- ^o
°.
Si- ^
f s
-v ••--:
-; S
^o °1
-f'.: -•-.
xT1 °^
>: V:
CO, c,i
^ r^i
m •— '
» __,"


m
TJ
S
r~-
co


008 COMMITMENT (ACS commitments
rical)
>• I
fa 5



c? ' :-;
c^ ^o
C ^"
/' ':•'•:/
f" i :
y- , ;
CS1 (*i
ft 3
'-- ;>-;
0 ^
,, ,-„
^, r^
r- ••-•:
;.*• !-~.
^ °
>-r* — :
^ ^°
> ^
Si- ^
v-v C^
|§
oo, >o
xT1 ^r
t S
S« m"
Co1 O
;•'- '.O
^o m
» __,"


f
o
o
c^


007 END OF YEAR RESULT (ACS results
rical)
£ 1



r~-
c^
°-~
CO
CO

o^
CO
CO
^)
CO
^r
o^
^D


CO
^o
o^
CO
CO


005 BASELINE
>•
fa



c^
iO1
c^
^r
"J"5
CO
^r"
o
CO
^o"
•n
°\
^o"
^o
CO
^r"
^o
V~l
o"
o
o
co"
V*l
rn"
o
CO


115,864


fa
S
fa
Z
s

iniverse of
he shifting i
£
Q
i
DH
T3
te and EP^
eluding Sts
nmitments.
•a o
M" U
•"3 °^
H O
1°
13 L
^§
1 1
> rO
8 .2
'-PS ^
^ t>
^3 &
K ^
isure includ
Universe f
)er. This me
from ACS.
g Q
|l
B o
rted in both perce
nal percent. *FY
results will be repo
to focus on the natio
nmitments, anc
s is important
Targets, cor
permitees, i
$
G
i
o
U
DC
a
G
a
§
s
1
G
Z



^r
^o
Ch
o
c^
0
o

0
c^
c^
I
"S
o
o
8


xp CO
d^ m
£ s
m

Pi
a
W
nt of tribal facilities covered by NPDES
its that are considered current.
isure will still set targets and commitments and
t results in both % and #.]
o E % o
£ &£ s
O'S
&


xP ^
a-* Vi
^ J
x.0 C*
..; . xT
P S
95%
(188/198
S
D
0
,_
S: ~
°* 2^
l|
D
0
S3
a
c> : :!
O r *
1 ft


(340/388)


009 COMMITMENT
>•
fa



1
CO
01
S>i
^ o^
.> .V-,
o^, ^
^O
o
o
0
o o
o •-'
^r
0
o
o
o
~~£
(N
O
o
1


o^
m,
CO


008 END OF YEAR RESULT (ACS results
rical)
e
£ 1



^r
0
?s
m
o
ss
CO
^D
c^
^o
o
o
c^
0
0%.
o
^r
m
Si-
o
o
~~£
(N
O
O
1


^r
rn,
|
CO


008 COMMITMENT (ACS commitments
rical)
£ 1

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
a, 1 « §

J l^fe
a
s
s
is
B!

.3
I"1
B!
e
O
3) 00
S

.3

B!

e
!>«
S

e
g?">


O
M



e
o
I*
s
«
BS


o
DC ^
K
« 1


eS *f>

B
.2
Z M
o f""1
fS
fa


o tS tfi
fS BE BE

£ n £

*
£ „

tfi 3

S o
S
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidai
Measure Text
® c/) a*
£ 0 1
fa -« 0
S
1
1

i
S
f
o
fh
fe


1
.
1
1
6
g
85

O



1


i
1




ft
CM -S
a &
W o

1 "g

E
|1
g _g
S 1


M 2
SS
B S
1 3
S ^
1 S
O §
S JH
SS g
O 5



1 "
g1



e o


u g
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assess
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic
§ SH
? 1




IT)
g
a
Tt
/_i
^
C
CO
o-
1
2
^
1
o
^_^
^
82


^
m
Si-
m
^
I



d
"
5-1,
§

'— '
(N
O-

O






^.^
(N
S














1
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (ACS re
numerical)







S



<*






1—1



CO



o-i


vn
1—1



a
e

tN












^^
a
S















FY 2005 BASELINE







U"l


CO
^r


S



r-i



O



•*


01
1—1



cd
^

01




C-l








CO
















UNIVERSE


o
o
1
•I
ll
3 ^
u CX
a g
•1 £
g e
0. g

§ m
.1 *
S S
W CN
•S V
S ^
M :S
op w
^ h
3 S
"S 3

ll

OH S
j? 8
"g B

"^

1 ^

S S

11
•S S
1 •-
H ^


i ^.
B ^
32 "T1
s cy
I1
•6 "^


.3 S
S a

'-i S
-° •§
1 §
-M §
1 ,o
SH
S "S


S S

B.S

i'l
R 5

1 S
S> e
iS I

1
o
O
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
"as
e
Z



















































1
^











!— '


Td
Number, and national percent, of MS-4s cover
under either an individual or general permit.
!
cy ^

















































i
















FY 2005 BASELINE



















































i
















FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT







^o


rn






r-.




2


m
CO


m
^





c^
o













(N
















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



















































0
n
£















FY 2008 COMMITMENT



















































0
n
£















FY 2009 Target



















































o
n
£















UNIVERSE
















































,£)
ra
01
O
=2
B
0











Q

National Program Manager Comments



















































o
|
~











,_,


1
Number of facilities covered under either an
individual or general industrial storm water per

|l

















































i
















FY 2005 BASELINE



















































1
















FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT



















































1
















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



















































dicatol
-















FY 2008 COMMITMENT



















































dicatol
-















FY 2009 Target



















































0
o
















UNIVERSE
















































£

m
a
•S
0
o


•fi






«

a

1
o
O
1
e
S
O
PH
e
Z



















































o
g
-











M


1
Number of sites covered under either an indivi
or general construction storm water site permit

|3

















































1
















FY 2005 BASELINE



















































1
















FY2006 END OF YEAR RESULT



















































o
CN















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



















































dicatol
-















FY 2008 COMMITMENT



















































dicatol
-















FY 2009 Target



















































1
















UNIVERSE

















































.
m
a
•S
0
o


•5








a

National Program Manager Comments



















































o
1
^











__



Number of facilities covered under either an
individual or general CAFO permit.
(
p
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      Q
      HI
      X
      Q
?U[
a
!•-
e
O
'§>»<

e
3
e
3
ft
e
e
£
H
e
I'
e
PS
e
£
e
JH
M
||
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 15
»N OB BE
if1 M H
£ *
3 S.
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
jsi
)erformance
J
budget Target i
o
1
fc
vStat measure
at (OW EP/
1

Report Measui
9.
if

e); EQR (EPA
o Congress in
i 1
-a M
h
VIM (Senior Manag
\. Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
he new 2009-20 14 EP;
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposed
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
able in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
* Measur
measure


01
CO
£

CO
Ol
Ol
CO
CO
**„

01
IN"
p

S
o


co"


FY 2005 BASELINE


















co"


FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT


















Ol
co"


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT


















Indicator


FY 2008 COMMITMENT


















Indicator


FY 2009 Target



Ol
o

CO
<^-
g
I/I

Ol"
o

i
S


Ol
co"


UNIVERSE







o
o
permit in
1
oc
£
tFOs coverec
U
o
1
1
|
overest
i
|
1
from ACS. Note: I
FO data is not
U
o
fe
e
S
S
o
U
ec
e
i
1
c
.2
Z



S?
1

i
i
§
s

Ol
01"
Ol

o
2

01
(N
CO

O
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.
a 3


£
o

o
8
!
(N

CO
(N
Ol"
CO

O
01


"'•'• .r?


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



R
O

i
01
o
o
CO
S

Ol"
CO

o
§


21,830(99%)


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



ft
|

O
i
1
i

Ol
CO
(N
Ol"
g

O
CO
§


21,949(98%)


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



ft
CO

CO
§
1
i

CO
01

o
§


1


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



1
o

i
CO
Ol
1

1
g

so
CO
CO


22,226 (97.8%)


FY 2005 BASELINE



ft
3

§
8
O
S

I
P

CO
§8
CO
01


oi
CO


UNIVERSE
















1
hi ft from year to
^proximate as they
numbers are a
All universe
National Program Manager Comments


















Indicator

-
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.
$$


CO
o

5
Ol
s
CO

S
.»

s
"t


Ol


FY 2005 BASELINE



CO*
8
O

Ol
I
CO
OS
1
CO
Ol
0
o
1?
o
o
o
1
8

a\


FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT



'
»

S
Ol
8
Oi

Ol
S

S
5


1


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT


















Indicator


FY 2008 COMMITMENT


















Indicator


FY 2009 Target



00
w

S
01
1
CO
Ol

(N
on
8

S
5


O
O


UNIVERSE
















1
hi ft from year to
^proximate as they
numbers are a
All universe
National Program Manager Comments

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
a, 1 « §

J l^fe

O
S
Is




.2
Sp1*
M
B
O
*M 00



.2

K!

B

M *«
&

B

i>
B
O
M


o
*M ^
0>
C4
B
f«
S

B
O
'& rt
K
- |


1 a> DC
^ •<
B
.2
Z M

fS
fa
o




^ 03 H
*
£ *
B S.
* e

S O

S
B

FY 2010 National Water Program Gui(
Measure Text
® r/i a*
£ 0 1
fa •< u
S
1
1

I
H


i
o
KH

E
*

^^
I
1
6
ts

w

o
I

S


S
PH
PH 0^
-&1
|1
CM -S
ft&
W o

1 i
S 'g
si
§ s
s 1
B £
'§ -ft

si
a S
1 2
s •?
e 8

O §
S ^
o 1




i "S
i I
tj "^
^ S
5 a
e s
Q ^
g ^
^ s
" CM
§ o

e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Ass
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strat
1 j



S?
(N
VI

































Vi
















(N

<-
CX Q


O
13
0
iS

Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during th
year.
is



S?
VI









































1



















FY 2009 COMMITMENT






~a



CO
~s
•i
~g

"°
OS
a

^

-S

.•
""



1
1
ta


1
C3
a
"^

^
-§







~~£



















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT




$
VI





























































FY 2008 COMMITMENT




o
§
g




;:••
^b
CO



r

m

vo
i



x<=

CO
0
CM
(N


S
•"•?
O
C-4

cc
m







oi



















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT






^i




= •-
2
o



=°

^H

VO

m
"

X°

-
Q?
O


O
0
™
(N

O
(N







S



















FY 2005 BASELINE






^D




f-~
m
S



u




OS



^

"
•-
~


is

se


^o
(N








m



















UNIVERSE (FY 06)













M
U

I


15


>-,
o
T3
i
0
^

•j
i
i
S
1
1
1

£
^
w
1
VI


^*

ss
1
1
|
8
CO
O

Pi
O
$


,jp

•73
s
i
o
&

cy




National Program Manager Comments















































0
1















13
1
tfl ,-i
» 0
Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during th
year, and of those, the number, and national
percent, discharging pollutant(s) of concern
impaired waters.
& ^














































Q
CD
1—



















FY 2005 BASELINE












''^










CM




CT)
CM
"^


CO
CM

CM


CD








CO
O
m



















FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT















































f



















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT















































o
ro



















FY 2008 COMMITMENT















































0
8



















FY 2009 Target















































o
in

i^

















UNIVERSE



































































National Program Manager Comments














































5?
1

^r"








<-
&H Q
m ID

o
>i ^H (D •— .
0 •"§ ^ 8
S i* s
3 ,-i1 T3 ;3
Number, and national percent, of all major p
owned treatment works (POTWs) that comp
their permitted wastewater discharge standar
POTWs that are not in significant non-comp
cy ^o













































%*
1

.a--

















FY 2009 COMMITMENT





SON
^O
m SS








































G*
1

m

















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT





;; S








































^?
1

m

















FY 2008 COMMITMENT





'<" . i>
S S








































S"
o

m"

















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT















































o



















FY 2005 BASELINE















































CO
m



















UNIVERSE















































M
u
<

S



T3


>i
?
"s
*O


r




1
g
s
o
u
1
B
S
QJJ
O
PH
B
Z











0?
C^
in





CO



a\




Ch
$
S


c^

o


^r








g










<-
&H Q
m ^D

o
T3
S
S fe
d oft
Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreer
dollars to the cumulative funds available for
proj ects] for the Clean Water State Revolvin
(CWSRF).
?"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
P. * *- J
60 0 M 0
* a, i- ^
J l^£
a
s
Is
PS
e
S^
n
e
O
*M 00
0!
e
ft**1
m
e
•|«
Ctf
e
^o
*M fl
a>
»
I-
e
O
*M m
s
PS
1-
e
O
f *
s
If &
• f
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 13
£^£?
f Is
£ „
3 8.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S L Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 c3
? 1


•>
c^

-.,.
c^
'-'",
c^
£
CO
c^
1 y .
c^
c^
c^
•r:;
c^
1

S


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



o
0
--,-
o
in
Oi
c^
o>
&
c^
(*•
o
a,
o>
o

1


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



:f
Oi

c^
c^
1
CO
6
CO
c^
^
CO
c^
c^
1

s


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



&
o
0
O
I
C^
0
c^
o\
I
'•"-.
Oi
^>
o>
.;...
O

f~-
8


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



CO
ON

C^
C^
€
CO
c^
:k
c^
<~r
O\
G\
CO
-,.
Ol
1

s


FY 2005 BASELINE



o
(A

&>
w
>o
r^
€^
S
O
^r
s^
s^
s^
a\
<&
•*t
^b
s^

iri
^


UNIVERSE (FY 07 in billions)







?
S
of the me
denominatoi
to
§
lions of do
ijp
s
o
o
JS
SRF throug
DjectsfortheCW
DH
Sfi
3
"3
>
1
s
n
^Universe r
1
s
g
o
O
1
3
S
S
SB
o
PH
"«
S
£
«
z



3

o
c^
s
^r
s
o
o
^r
«
-
^r
c^
^o
^r
c^
^o
c^
!go|Sl|f
l§mig'S|2
o —^ ^ cy
Number of high priority state NPDES permits that
are issued in the fiscal year.
ifl


o
C-4

C^
(Ti
£
S
^D
^D
Ch
-
(N

c--
Ch
^r


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



^c

r~~
i>
^r
o
^r
CO
S
S
1
o
^r
^o

C
o
c^


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT



*o

•-1
^r
rn
CO
CO
in
^D
S
Oi
C^
in
^r

;.!•.
CO
r^i


FY 2008 COMMITMENT



g,
(N
/
O
(N
•^1-
^r
•-.",-•
c^
o^
(T>
^O
108(123%)
^,.
^r
(N
(N
^
!-)
C^
m
1

(N
^r
cc


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT



-

m
C-4
(N
01
s
^O
(N
C^
S
(N
O\

1
O
^o


FY 2005 BASELINE

^ 1
11 1 1
a I | oo a
s 6 c3
|s t?S
ll 2^1
i| |ll
12 Ml
ll i1 I
i i ° m g
•s « ^ o s
o S ti < 'S
0 ^P S
ll pi
el -8 I B
B I | S I
ll ll 1
»1 ! a S
ii mi
S^ | i B.
S H 5 pi ^
1 1 .s 1 i
8 ? 1 8 |
•a fc o ^ =
g -9 | S ^
'§> 1 J- ff »
^ g s * §
§ °- a s S
T3 * S ° £
lijii
o ° f Ufl
OC g 3 T3 | M
lillll
liiiffe
=S ^ 3 | < Td
1 1 * | w a
•S g a „ -2 u
ll 5 t
1 i lfe ^ s
^ &^ ^ 0 ^
>. 14-1 .-= 55 H —i
•2* 1 "a g •< 1
I J i 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 « i
i 8 3 vo S 8
1 •» ^ S --a
to S E-1 o ,E2 S
3 1 P » S 5
> -2 8 c o. g
is ll?*
1 1 B I 'i I
^ 1 a a c g •
I 8 3 2 ° 1 s
G ml S ' ^ n^ H
sing's »i
^ m 13 ^ § s &
a 1 §>B §1 1
S3 S ^° g 's
B "g o, » >. | .&
|| g | ^ 1 |
- ^2 ID 2 ^ H ^
2 g £ » | g §
°|1 Ifll
^ i i o-^ i ^
^ 8 iS s S 1 "3
1
g
g
o
O
1
S
S
S
DC
O
PH
"as
s
£
R
Z



C^

(N
C^
S
£
S
O
01
^r
CO
(N
(N
CO
CO
CO
CO
c^
Q
p
m
Number of high priority state and EPA (including
tribal) NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
year.
^


r~-

^D
t>
m
s
o
^D
^O
^O
^O
C^
s
in

r,--
•:.--
c^


FY 2009 COMMITMENT



^o
 .0 ^ &
•S * S 'C 3 S
•| 1 1 i I »
s-aj^nJL
>i ^ -c -c z -3 13
•~S ° o -7 S 5 ^D
1 1 ! t 1 |l
& S ^ o- m .-s oc
° s s 1 1 1 1
Illflii
II §11 11
s 3 1 ^ 'a E g
° 1 1 S * ||
•s §isl|l
ll|s£sl
^ S o .0 ^ ° g
;=! o ^ G B >j_, M
"U Pi +2 ,
^IHiSl
sl|!i§i
(N .-g So a >-, ^
>-, § g 0 - fe o
Illillj
1
a
a
o
U
1
s
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
s
£
R
Z

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc

 I
 x
 o
fc * *- J
60 0 M 0
1 !^£
a
s
is
C4
e
If1*
M
e
O
*M 00
S
e
£>•"
fiti
e
•|«
BJ
e
^o
*M fl
ii
M
e
O
**
M
e
O
*M m
a>
M
I-
e
O
* -
B5
y H>
ff.J
e
|
Z M
S H
fS
S*
fa
o
o "S 13
"ti
SI!
£ „
3 a.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S o
o
o
o
m
CO
-
o
as

jj.
c*


FY 2005 BASELINE



-
en
O
o
-
-
o
en
-
-
o
00

J



FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT



-
*Sf
«
O
-
<~
O
en
-
-
o
CO

*



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT














o
n
s


FY 2008 COMMITMENT














.0
n
T3
fl


FY 2009 Target



«
CO
«
o
-
CO
o
en
r~~
s
o
CO

sn
^o



UNIVERSE (FY 07)

1
1 o ^
& fe 6
SB 1
S 1 £
^ j§ "S
s "^ >
^ ° fi 1
-a "g 21
| 1 b B
T3 -^ "B r£
1 § ll
8 | § g
ll s|
i1 | ||
1 ^ ? §
^3 0 CC >i
•si fcl
!_ O OC -^
Is 11
3 >• 11
Sf- * g
S t 1 =a
S "ss S §
& 1 » s
1 1 if
3i ll
•o ^ tt;a
t! II
J-5 O OH
^ S 1 1
I"! I §
3 "S 1 2
s"! -n §
M (._ O DH
•is ^ S
| -° w3
51 | S
IS g<§
s^ § s
^§ 11
>i : M
•s s1 ? l
"3 'S 3
1 £ ^S
»£ » 1
i oc § &
11 ll
It ll
s 1 . 1 °
BS O W Zj »
i^< 11
^11 1^
?ll s^"
£ ? S 1 -s
p- . . y o W
1 1 •§ 5 1
11 "I;
111 It
S a S -s a
S. ". 1 § tt
i S 1 8 ,gf
M fc 1 l§
Ml 13
S tfl §,"8
c/^ E §,®
* 1 1 £ 1
in a i
Z 13 ^ * S^
National Program Manager Comments














S
S
T3
^S

^
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)
a -
p w













|



FY 2005 BASELINE



^D
•^t
O
O
(N
^D
^
m
O
'T
r^>
^r
Os
(N
m
^o
m

^r
«



FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT



«
^r
^o
^t
o
o

^o
. to Region
ir result an
Y 06 end-yet
) Region 3 F
T3
"S
1
s
"SP
<
i segments.
ssion in 20'
ested for reporte
ed in state submi
Adll be reqv
d as impai
ll
OC T3
9, geo-referenc
nsists of water
For FY 200
Universe co
1
s;
g
o
U
1
e
S
S
DC
O
PH
"«
e
£
«
Z


















«
^
e
1
O
•B
e
S
1
U
i
&.
g
fS
ri
1
1
3
A
3
i/1
CO
CO











CO

B
1
oc
o
_J
<-
CX
m
2
o
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.
1

3











^r



FY 2009 COMMITMENT


S











^r



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


3











^r



FY 2008 COMMITMENT


CO











CO



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT














• v>



FY 2004 BASELINE
UNIVERSE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
J l^fe
a
S
Is
PS

e
.2 ^
1
e
O
&j oo
C4
e
.2
SP
H

s



e
S
gfl ">
s&
s
O
I'
e
O
jf w


B
•— „

H

e
*M iH
1

— '£
C "^

gl> ^

^ w

1 i
1 ^
o §
S j§
o 1

i s

S s
11
e e
pQ M
« g
1 -a
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Ass
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strat
1 |

S S



































oc
.2

I

^
o
.2
g
1
S
|
*
"S
4
o

"M
§
OC
1


1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
QJJ
O
PH
e
Z



^


(N








































c-i













Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/ fair/poor' scale of the National Coasta
Condition Report in the Northeast Region.
^0

BQ












































CO













FY 2009 COMMITMENT















































CO













FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT















































CO











£

FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure i
08)















































1












o
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not f
ACS)















































00













FY 2004 BASELINE





























l/~l
m


.£
g
8
CQ
M
O
|

J


3

fe
U
g
S


1
1

V
1
o
£


1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
QJJ
O
PH
Z



^











































-













Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/ fair/poor' scale of the National Coasta
Condition Report in the Southeast Region.
P*

%












































CO













FY 2009 COMMITMENT















































CO













FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT






m








































CO
m











fe

FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure i
08)















































1












o
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not f
ACS)















































00
rn













FY 2004 BASELINE















































"O













UNIVERSE





























Tl
m


.S
1
I
|
es
O
X

^


3
fe
fe
00
U
g
1


1
1

V
1
o
?


National Program Manager Comments



^


(N








































c-i













Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/ fair/poor' scale of the National Coasta
Condition Report in the West Coast Region
CO

fe












































cs













FY 2009 COMMITMENT















































C4













FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT















































(N











£
a
FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure i
08)






a








































1











6
S
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not f
ACS)















































N













FY 2004 BASELINE















































XI













UNIVERSE





























Ti
m


.£
1
g
|
tx
O
•|

^


3

fe
U
g
S


1
1

V
1
o
?


1
o
O
1
e
S
O
PH
e
Z



^


"








































^













Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coasta
Condition Report in Puerto Rico.
®

fe



~








































h













FY 2009 COMMITMENT















































£













FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT






"








































-











£
a
FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure i
08)



                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 a:

 I
 x
 Q
a, 1 « §

* 2 H ^
^

a
s
Is


'&°"
M
e
*M 00
S
e
.2
SP
K!



f1*
BJ


e

^m
«
e





e
o
'f:<"


|.«
H


o
'&^
M


w
« -g
O M


ff.J
e
.2
"S "K

fS
fa

S i«
£ = ^
* ™

£ M
3 &.

S O
I

FY 2010 National Water Program Gu
Measure Text
S ^ W
i 3
CO M
1 1
O §
S •§
o 1
| ^
o j&
S s
11
II

° "
PQ ^
^ tX
S a
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program A
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Stre
1 |
? 1





1















































1











S
£

FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not
ACS)























































.













FY 2004 BASELINE























































to













UNIVERSE







































S

;I

IB1
M


O
•rt
U


O
*j
0

U
<
|
g
15
1

o
"s
u

£


National Program Manager Comments



5n
a



o
o


8


KJ
3


~r3




8





1







0
o


8



O











S




£



Q

m
& -S .-s

Percent of active dredged material ocean d
sites that will have achieved environmenta
acceptable conditions (as reflected in each
management plan and measured through 01
monitoring programs).
o
i






C
O


8


~s


d




1





a







0
o


1



c











S













FY 2009 COMMITMENT








c
o


8


^a


ri




i





a







o


5



C











§!













FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT








K
o


c
o




ffl
Pi




1





a







8


C
0



0
o
1—1









v;
If
c^












FY 2008 COMMITMENT








r-


m


^a

CO
^a




2





a







n


«



«










^
§0
00










a
M
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (AC








t-


^


^a


d




S





a







N


n



•n










o
^
01












FY 2005 BASELINE








a


^


^a

fO
a




^.





a







(N


m



n











S













2010 UNIVERSE









































fe
.S
1



15
-3
s


U
1
•5
G
g
1
15
2
>1


S




1
o
U
1
e
S
O
PH
e
Z






















































0
CD
—










O
o

Number of coastal waterbodies identified i
as not attaining water quality standards wh
standards are now fully attained.
,_
O
U





















































"c













FY 2005 BASELINE























































"c













FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT








0


o


r







O





•£







0


o



o











0













FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT






















































u
(U
'TD
—












FY 2008 COMMITMENT






















































u
(U
'TD
—












FY 2009 Target








CD
CM
CM_


g


"r







CD
ro





•£

in





CD
CT)


CM



CT)
CO
CO
CM









m
U)
CM
m"













UNIVERSE


























C 3

.S
1
15




,£)
I
a
i
s
•|
0
1
o
T3
o



§
n


|
•s
'S
1
O
2

fl
"S
1
^
£


g


National Program Manager Comments






















































o
.1
"










1 §

Total coastal and non-coastal statutory squ
protected from vessel sewage by "no disch
zone(s)." (cumulative)
CN
O
U






o


CO










CN




<~>
u-T
*






o


S



K
<•!









(N
ri













FY 2009 BASELINE























































i













FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT























































1













FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT






















































o
S
-3
M












FY 2009 Target








o


CO
w
n,
JS;

CO
tn




g





io
in
CO





a
co^


a



m
0
























UNIVERSE



<3
S
2
1
1
£
**
S
•g
1
8
^3
i
^
"S
p

1

J


i
Q

.
o






1 1
-S- 3
N oc
0 £
si
s §

a S
11
1 1
^ N
g D

3 5
1 «
8 -g


•o 2P
a J
3 «
f 3

•§ .Q
^ '5b
.S fe
>1 <4_ g
S g ^
^| (2
-S .g ID
2 ID .2
»£ §
•5 O (D

^11
H 8 S


National Program Manager Comments


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      a:


      I
      x
      o
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
* &. *• "
* £ H &

a
s

e
.2 =
M 2

K


e
.2 ^

M
e
o

e
.2
M "~~
H

e
r
e
'=?">
«

!'
o

K



I-
M
e
_2
I

||
Q3 DC



e
Z M
?
fa









o





~g



S

15


is


w



i

-
s







CO
CO














FY 2005 BASELINE








i>





£



a

~g



s

i


CO


&0



8
68
oq
S







i














FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT








o





o





~g



5

15


S


so



CO

fi
s







(N














FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT















































ndicator














FY 2008 COMMITMENT















































ndicator














FY 2009 Target















































1














UNIVERSE

a
!fl
|
g

£
S
o


•5

f:
O

1

1
1
n
•a
DH
o
"En
|
ob
i
o
g
1
1
1
8


>i

PH
W
|
oc
1
1
c- w
1 1
^ |*
^ U
^ -^

II
1 o
| ^ g &
fl ID ID O

^ 
s
Number of active dredged material ocean du,
sites that are monitored in the reporting year
O
0
                                                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
1 w ®



p. fe
a
s
Is
a!
e
.2
Sp*
Of
e
o
3) 00
e
M f~
C4

e
»^

e
fm
e

M
e
_«



§
*M *S



e
O


M
3*
II
g ^M
e
a
Z M
o f"1
,
fa




fa 1 |2
*
£ »


2 *h



s
G

FY 2010 National Water Program G
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
C 0 o
fa •< u
S



8

1
f
f
O
E


1
1
6
ts

w
O
1



i
PH
f|
§"' P

^ W

rantMeasi
* 2009-20

S JH

O 1


i 1
1 I
^1
2 Q

Q ^

pQ M
^ i
" CM
It
S S
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program /
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** St
§ SJH
? 1







IT)


CM


"c

"J±



CO

~C



CM




T-




(M







IT)


















FY 2005 BASELINE









IT)


O)


~C

"J±



CD

"c



CM









(M







CD
CM


















FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT









CT)


CO


~C

"J±



IT)

~C



ro









Lfl







CO
CO


















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT













































Indicate


















FY 2008 Commitment













































Indicate


















FY 2009 Target









i^


,-


~c

"J±



^

"c



CM









Lfl







S


















UNIVERSE
































































National Program Manager Comment













































5
















13
1
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Co
Condition Report in the Hawaii Region.
^
O
U

o









































o
















-a «
c§ $
Maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Co
Condition Report in the South Central Al
Region.

O
U
S
o


IO


o


fN


^

~g



8
ol"

1
O
O
O
Ol
8



10
^



o








o
o
o
8






8

^
01 D S
CO 3 9
S m M
o

•a
g „

•2-1 t
Working with partners, protect or restore
acres of habitat within the study areas for
estuaries that are part of the National Esti,
Program (NEP).

m.







|

01
CO


S

-^



8

1
O
O
o
8



10
^



,_


m



31_
ii 6 2 -£
1 1 S 1
"cc ^" E
Z 1?
















FY 2009 COMMITMENT









3

01

fN

"S

£



S
01"

i
CO

ol"
CO



o
rn



t-


'"





CO
CO
Cl"
CO


















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT









o
8

Tt
•-1


H

£


0
O^
rn"

1
8
O
8
o
8



10
.-'












Ol"
-t


















FY 2008 COMMITMENT









01

o
o


"a

e


v
.-,

1
01

O
^r
CO'


^r
co



^








g


















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT









S

S
:
°°

1

a


CO
5

1
o


S
01







S








-V-
oC
— :•


















FY 2005 BASELINE













































1


















UNIVERSE







































S
0 M
'Eb O
1 a
M O
S 1
§s

al 4 in th
regional

fe £

| -i


b >


H 10
0

5 fc





1
g
o
u
1
e
S
DC
o
PH
e
Z
































































•B
e
e
!

3
!/>
8
O



O
O
o
8




































O
o
o
8






S


Q

m



(_ ° S
° § S
c§ £ g
Working with partners, achieve a net incr
acres of wetiands per year with additiona
biological and functional measures and as
of wetland condition.
,_
i





o
o
o
g




































100,000


















FY 2009 COMMITMENT







8
fN
01




































32,000


















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT







o
o
o
g




































100,000


















FY 2008 COMMITMENT







8
ol




































O
O
01


















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT













































32,000


















FY 2005 BASELINE


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
"« +- ^


* £ *"" fa

a



o
M S
K


4«
w


e
*M 00
ess
e
.2

H
e
•|«
Ctf


e
O
1«
Ctf

e
*M •*
1
M
e
_O
.jf


e
«


o
iS
It

•3
1
Z DC
o f"1
fS


o
>•*" "a «
fa M H
*
£ %
3 C.




s

3
O

s

FY 2010 National Water Pro
Measure Tex

® r/i a*
1-1 u "S
g^ 5
s

1
I



a
M
i1
H
Si
i
CQ
o
a
"i
§

i

1
E
1
w
o

55
1
If
§
S

PH
S 0<
II
f^j n
«
CL, -5

W 0
^ o
j| -2
^ .g
i !
s a
VI (Senior Manag
Strategic Plan, to 1

a £
3 Grant Measure
new 2009-20 14


O 1
| ^
i n
S s
f»
-. H,


pQ M
^ S
§3 p^
OJ ^
J S
C ^

|l

:ategories include: OMB PA (OMB
le in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budge
« s
i a

S s
-3 S

^
"2 §

^ 3

I ^
5 +n

8 S

O ^
-s i
£f
^H -S
^ ^
o 0 S
O D B
111

S 5 ^
^ of 2
1 ° -a
§ iA 13

^ g S
Ilii
1 1« i

•—•2^2

2 S .2 |
S<§ ||
||?|
s -1 .^ 1
6 ^ S MI
^ ^o -g '€
S 05 ,g °
Q -Q -t-1 ft
•^ S g B
s *M & -J
"K ® g s
S g ^ u
s> 3 s •£
"En B S ^
i.

O j
^

o

z





































h1
S m 0. o
" !a .B S
S 2 o |
g 1 1 ^ c"
< 8 §| g,
1 § -S 1" -o
* °. E 8 °


•o g. O - e
c3 '-^ Q oc Z^
^* ™ 1) 1
"3 3 3 § S


o . 01 ^ i

f t D 0- I



*i
S

S
s

ational Program Manager C
K





o
o


1

o
^

Q
P
m

(H
o
o "o
"o tS "S


3 • a

partnership with the U.S. Arm
ngineers, states and tribes, achi
etlands each year under the Cle
action 404 regulatory program.

(N
v
i





s










































No Net Loss



















Y 2009 COMMITMENT
te








•±

•a








































1

















a

Y 2008 END OF YEAR RES
fcn








| g

^








































No Net Loss



















Y 2008 COMMITMENT
b








1

•a








































1

















a

Y 2007 END OF YEAR RES
&H







































a
n
s
nd Status and T

1
dlife Service 1



p-l
«!
^
|



a



*i
S

S
s

ational Program Manager C
E








S
o

s








































96,000


8
Hi
c^







^ i
T3 §
§ O
- ft

0 0

umber of acres restored and im
Star, NEP, 319, and great wate
umulative).
Z  •£,
^
H
&





S
o

«J








































88,000



















Y 2009 COMMITMENT
fa








g

OJ








































82,875

















a

Y 2008 END OF YEAR RES
fe








8
O

^








































O
o
o



















Y 2008 COMMITMENT
fa








a

«D








































30

















a

Y 2007 END OF YEAR RES
fa



i

s
U

1

P*

s -^
^ i
S 5
11
& 0
"S ">!
O §

< ^a
W -g
"S -°
S -S
-3 S
? S
1 s
m ^
M" &
OC W
^ o
8 ID
M -g
G S

||

w ^°
g fc
Z "™
ij

•s 1
§ 1
land 5 Star Res
al. Unexpected


e supported b}
nts a cumulati


•3 &
£ g
Ed"!
6 |
% o

H




*5
S

S
s

ational Program Manager C
K



























ff5























S
1
•S











f-H

f ^ 1



1 U &i§

umber of States/tribes that have
increased capacity in wetland
onitoring and assessment, wate
id/or restoration and protection
porting measure.)
Z o 6 a K
CN
i
&










o



o




r^


1-1

O



O



I-.







o







o

s -ft


•g cs
O fl
B 1
ID ID
t «
^ fl
^ "i
OC M
•c -5

ix areas identif
evaluated annu£

^ 's
wn in three oi
ice this measu


||
M -°
feb s
& *
13 2
-S m


^ lr



*s
s

s
s

ational Program Manager C
!C



                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                        National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
  .

 I
 x
 Q
fc * ~ J
60 0 M 0
1 !^&
a
s
I o
B>-
M
e
I"1
3
e
o
ft
G
'&1"
«
e
%v
ft
s
£
'5c "^
u
M
e
O
^^
M
e
O
*M m
a>
M
I-
e
O
»*>
K
y &
ff.J
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 13
"ti
H *
£ „
3 8.
i 1
« 5
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
S 


FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT





«


-
O
«


-1
o
o

-


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT

















Indicator


FY 2008 COMMITMENT

















Indicator


FY 2009 Target




CN
^O


o\
CO
^>
^o
rn


o
[>
o-l

c^
E~-


UNIVERSE

|
artnership bl
1
8
Cation comp
i
1
$?
I
i
pf
o
ion, restorati
eayure.
oc >
S '-S
gpl
s (i.e. monit
rate than a
le last 3 year
ore akin to a
ed during t
illy and is ir
six areas identif
s evaluated annuc
5hown in three of the
since this measure i
progress to be
a true baseline
Substantial
*This is no
1
X
g
o
U
1
s
S
S
OE
O
PH
"«
c
£
«
z

















0
S
T3

^
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.
H
^
















^CD
~C


FY 2005 END OF YEAR RESULT

















^CD
~c


FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT

















^CD
~C


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT

















Indicator


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT

















Indicator


FY 2008 COMMITMENT

















^CD
~c


FY 2009 Target

0
1 -§1
'§ ft ft "S
1 e<3 i
£ | § 1
1 |1 o
i ^™ f
1 1? 1
i ti 1
111 £
S 8-3 «
1 81 i
> § ts &H
1. 11 ™
1 c § I g
1 Is 1 §
| 11 12
:••." > 3 e 3
.5 w <; & -5
<2 ?S U
•a IS 1 ^
1 11 5 1
g IS o g
1 T3 trf S3 2
8 1 ;S 1 |
£ -5^ SI
S | '5 H H
-g 0,0 .« 2
rS ^ a ^ S
oo « ° J e M
o § oc "H, > ^2
N i SB -as
11 in 3 S
3 o o u S S
31 gS ^8
21 'S > -a s
|a 11 H
SI P Is
if :| 1|
•o S 81 rf "g
|B |-£ |^
•f1 g ft OC Is
? f S 1 i 1
1 ^ I i 5 1
» ^ o Q § o
? 1 s t -^
N ..?! ll
•1 III 1*
^Ul- li
•ogg.Sgg g o IS
S -g ;l tf t3 w •-§ S «
g | 'g 1 § 1 S .S S
Illi^d lll|
BisBaS'0 "e a S 'S
.sSrt s Ggop,
^2^t3KS 13 S3 g -S
^C-^CCO-g CCPnSS
532PnS?? Pn^So
! P .§ i s .§ I •§ I
| Us §,| i ||2
IjjOg.^s gHil-ff
^illi?; |fll
gli-slil-siii
EjuillillI
riiflilllt
f g g g | « -H g § "S |
I'SlSlfol-SES'H
" g" S D ti -5 « Q Q M e
E^s^Dss,Hm?g:
^sc3 1? PH 'S ^.S
National Program Manager Comments





-


H
"
(N


^r
o
^r
o
c^


Number of states measuring baseline wetiand
condition - with plans to assess trends in wetiand
condition - as defined through condition indicators
and assessments (cumulative).
^r
H
^




-


M
-
«


-
o
f^

a^


FY 2005 END OF YEAR RESULT





~


-
«
«


•*
O
M

^r


FY 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT





~


"
"
(N


t*l
O
(N

S


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT





o o




O --i



o o
(N --i

S •=.


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 COMMITMENT

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
  ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
     cc

     I
     x
     Q
            !'
            OJj 00

            £
            I

            Z M
            o
            s
            «
            DC ,,


            H
re); S

are fr
                         s 5
5 S


l|
                          I  1

                        5 S  2
                        fi  i
                        111
                        •3 PH S •
                        O & T3

                        1^ §
  s S^ m
1 B|!
^ O i ID
g O KJ O


^ O M§ 'g



?1!g
                            fc B

                            •S .S
                                                    Is
                                                    o w
                                                    I -S
                                                    "goo
                                                    h -2 >.
                                                    •2 S °-
                                                    (D  r-
                                                    cr ^ '•:,
                                                    -S I B
                                                              Q PH



                                                              ffl W
                                    111
                                    H»

                                    Pi
                                    •° 3 •§
iti

in t
saf
                                                             ill
o 23
> o '
d |
g> S
i i

fi
& s
                                                                             a
                                                       *
                                                      ^ "3

                                                      SI
                                                      c* >,
                                                      g o
                                                    'B ffl 8
                                                    23 01

                                                    " O fc
                                                    !S IN *
        • Q pi

        ' ID a
        ' ffl W
er sani

acked
                                                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
!> +- ^
50 0 SB ®
a
Is
G
•- A
1
G
o
*M 00
G
'- t-
G
!
S
O
f*
s
£
M
s
^
!-
s
o
* -
B5
it
FY 2010 National
Target
o
£ „
3 8.
i 1
S O
2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text

® rf, 0*
ll_l
1
s from 4-year
budget Target
o
1
i.Stat measure
/d3 AVO) IB

Report Measui
9.
3=5 $
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
vIM (Senior Manag
v Strategic Plan, to t
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
gories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
i the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan

1 j









o
1
1
^ o
OC >H
9.
order area lackin
itor measure in F
rted starting in FY 0
mes in the Mexico 1
ot from ACS. Indie
-egionally repo
ne: 690,723 he
-of-year data n
.2 ^ e
§ m §
1 S ^
!S CN S
1
a
a
o
u
1
G
a
ab
o
PH
"a
s
Z
















rritories
4.2.5 Sustain and Restore Pacific Island T(
!
3
G
so
I


1









m
1
Q
a
m
ntage of population in the U.S. Pacific Islands
tories that has access to continuous drinking
meeting all applicable health-based drinking
standards, measured on a four quarter rolling
ge basis.
(S H S S §
On
CO



p









p


009 COMMITMENT
*.




1









1


008 END OF YEAR RESULT





a\









1


008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
£§














S I o


005 BASELINE
fa














CO
o
!x
's1
1
1
i
3nal Program Manager Comments
R
Z

O


1









1
1
Q
a
m
ntage of sewage treatment plants in the U.S.
ic Island Territories that comply with permit
for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
suspended solids (TSS).
III!
1



1









1


009 COMMITMENT
fa




1









1


008 END OF YEAR RESULT
£




1









1


008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
fa o














K


005 BASELINE
fa














Y08.
ot from ACS.
re starting in F
-of-year data n
New measu
*FY 06 end
1
s.
g
o
U
1
G
S
ab
o
PH
G
Z

1


0
CO









i
o
CO
Q
m
nt of days of the beach season that beaches in
of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
;ored under the Beach Safety Program will be
and safe for swimming.
1111
CO



0
CO









!


009 COMMITMENT
fa




0
CO









1


008 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa




CO









CO


008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY















1


005 BASELINE
fa














Y08.
ot from ACS.
re starting in F
-of-year data n
1 8
1
G
S.
O
U
1
G
a
DC
O
PH
G
Z

















4.3.3 Improve the Health of the Great Lak
!
o
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
* &. *• "
a
Is
K
e
e
o
*M 00
&
G
•- t-
H
e
8
e
£
I-
e
_O
K
1-
e
O
f *
s
it
FY 2010 National
Target
o
° & S
£ „
3 &.
i 1
S O
i
*3
O
s
R
FY 2010 National Water Progr
Measure Text
® r/i a*
^ U "o
£ •< u
jerformance
s from 4-year
iudget Target
o
!
tStat measure
at (OW EP/

Report Measui
9.
3=5 JR*
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
VIM (Senior Manag
>L Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
gram Assessment);
*** Strategic Plan
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Pr
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget.
1 j
S






(N





O
(N
Long -Term
OMB PA
th of the Great
i and protecting
Improve the overall ecosystem hea
Lakes by preventing water pollutio
aquatic ecosystems.
o-i







(N





0]



FY 2009 COMMITMENT








C-I





(N


^
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESU]








o
r-t





o
tN



FY 2008 COMMITMENT








S





S


h
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESU]














S



FY 2005 BASELINE














o
o



UNIVERSE

cf
o
I
;nt contamir
AOC sedim
centrations,
)horus cor
M
DH
1
coastal wei
:ic focus on
ra
II
al programs
oxics depos
ate and feder
ity, and air t
lumerous st
g water qua
n of progress of i
closures, drinkir
s a general indicatio
ontamination, bead-
e 4.3.3 provide
th, fish tissue c
Subobj ectiv
benthic hea
ments
National Program Manager Con

S






1





$
g
OMB PA
BUD
for the long-
3s in whole lake
Average annual percentage decline
term trend in concentrations of PCI
trout and walleye samples.
eS







^





£



FY 2009 COMMITMENT








1





g



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESU]








£





£



FY 2008 COMMITMENT








i





i



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESU]














i



FY 90 BASELINE

u
b ^
B d
1 §
11

8 IF
1 a
! •§
op ft
II
S SB
a J
1 1
8 13
|j
•^ S
11
1
| g
1 2
i|
1 1
„• e
(generally lake tr
dns to measurem
in top predator fish
le FY 09 target pertE
8 ppm].
ates that PCBs
g means that t
& Ontario [2. 1
1 If
ments
o
U
1
s
S
ab
O
PH
"a
e
Z

S






^





S
S
OMB PA
BUD
for the long-
is in the air in
Average annual percentage decline
term trend in concentrations of PCI
the Great Lakes basin.
o







£





s



FY 2009 COMMITMENT








g





S


H
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESU]








g





g



FY 2008 COMMITMENT








00





00


H
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESU]

its made in
measuremer
t pertains to
1
o
p-l
ins that the
jorting meE

en measuren
* 1
s ~oc
^ 'C
o W
verage annu£
89 pg/m3], I
reasing an a
Michigan [2
d to continue dec
[100pg/m3], L.
Qtrations are expecte
is were: L. Superior
ates that conce
2 Concentratio
SP-30 indie
2007. *199
ments
o
U
1
e
S
ab
O
PH
e
Z

-






«





m
Long -Term
OMB PA
Great Lakes
ed.
Number of Areas of Concern in the
Basin which are restored and de-lis
d
ad







«





fN



FY 2009 COMMITMENT








-





-


h
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESU]








„





rn



FY 2008 COMMITMENT








-





-


H
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESU]














"



UNIVERSE





ed to date.
1
York) has
OC (in New
i
O
d
as of Conce
inational Art
o
M
01
^ 3 of the origina
jf
o
1
3
5IB
SP-31 ident
ments
National Program Manager Con

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
« ^


J I^fe
a

e
o


a!
c
.2
J/1
M
c
o
SB 00
S

.3

jV>

e
f1*




f*
B!

o
^"^
M

o
8r
M


"



^o

K
>,
1 1
!f M
^
e
Z M
o f"1
fS
fa
o

fS BE BE
fa = R
:
£ *

i ®
S o
S

3
O
FY 2010 National Water Program
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
C 0 o
fa •< 0


1
1

1
1

"S
f
o
•S

k1"1
1
.
1
1
6
g

w
O
1



S




PH
S 0<
•&S
1 &
o- s
1 8"
!
'o ^
1 S
|1
^ £
g M
o ^


il

"S 0



1 .2
ll
•g ^5

•§ ^
. o


° -a

•^ -^
1 1


ID -j
11
2 co
o |
1 g"
il

».§ g
O T3 -^

g 8-S
_o "o -§
3 'i 1


g g g
^ ^ "B
C --H O
iQ 05 CS
111


1
National Program Manager Comme


























t_l


S 1 S
S





^ 0 S

iw

^ -~o ^O o
o\_
CO
ri












FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


























o


^
g




."71
c
o
C-
^
r''
-.--.
^o

^}








1
5












FY 2008 COMMITMENT


























o


^_
^Q,




3
o
O
^
m
ri-
g;
^O

^r








z
o
"












FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT


























^


§"
S




c?
b

m
^
.-•:.
^o

rJ








^
oc
CO
(M











FY 2005 BASELINE





























-- ;






«
1 '


p











m













UNIVERSE





























'

£ 'Eb
£ P^
5 ID

§1
£ ^


S B
^ "S
•a "2

g1 g
g E £
1|1
B 3 ^
-2 S

OSS
u.s .
•0 @ K!
111
•S y s
.s £ ~s
O ? j§
1 1 i
||1
ill

^ 1 o
a 6 J
g ^P '"
i 1
ffl M ID
0 > 05
Hi


1
National Program Manager Comme





























" o 3






^ o C
o <-"
•-'

^ CN











Si- ^
2 "









JjO ^ ^ .. „ ° ||
o ^ _irt^ ^ P-i j= £ ° '35 -5
B | | |«2 If 1 'S|| 8 ,-,.3
Dn-^J O ID ID KS^S S S '~' -^ "3 *c3
(N
O
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      o
      HI
      X
      o
?U[
a
Is
e
£
e
3
e
3
&
e
e
^o
H
e
I'
e
K
e
£
e
r
If
e
1 H
fa
O
o tS t3
)N ec ec
fa M H
£ K
3 S.
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text

^Sl
)erformance
f
budget Target i
9 and FY 10 I
t
1
at (OW EP/
e);andNPMS
Report Measui
9.
Stat Quarterly
eptember 20 C
e); EQR (EPA
o Congress in
ment Measui
e submitted t
VIM (Senior Manag
\. Strategic Plan, to 1
rant Measure); S
v 2009-20 14 EP;
1|
Measure); SG (S
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposed
ategories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
e in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan

•g
3
tional Program Manager Comments
Z,








o rn

8
O
8


ST
rn.
O



rcent of high priority Tier 1 (significant) Great
ses beaches where States and local agencies have
; into place water quality monitoring and public
tifi cation programs that comply with the U.S.
A National Beaches Guidance.
PL, j p., £ pj
O







o ^
O rn

8
8


m
o



i7 2005 BASELINE
fa








1 i

~s
8


rn.
O



I 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa








<••-'.
o
o

03
O
O


GQ
m
o



I 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa








o
rn.
O
O

cS
8


O



I 2008 COMMITMENT
fa








o
o

S3
a
O


O
O



1 2009 Target
fa








1

«
CN


m



DIVERSE
3






1

e than j ust th
ncluded mor
i
§
o
or to FY 20
information. Pri
es with curren

r this measure

•a
p
tional Program Manager Comments
Z














"TO
^


Pi
cx
.-4a: Number of near term Great Lakes Actions
track.
.-4b: Number of near term Great Lakes Actions
mpleted.
3 g 3 8
o













1



^2005 BASELINE
fa














CM
0)



f 2006 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa














!o
0
o



i7 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
fa














ndicator



1 2008 COMMITMENT
fa














ndicator



i7 2009 Target
fa














0
o



DIVERSE
a

S
o
O
o
1

g
1
|
CO
o
I
1
I !?
ID £ '-g
o c3 S
< ? i
.S "s 8
i M
anguage was revi
NPO only in AC
ipdated informati
nber 2005. 3 of
|s| s
E -H P T3
il?l
§J§f 1
fiii
|1 S |
tional Program Manager Comments
Z

S






s





s

CN
OMB PA
BUD
imber of Beneficial Use Impairments removed
nin Areas of Concern, (cumulative)
ew measure for FY 09]
z S &
o







«





a



i7 2009 COMMITMENT
fa













MB PA review.
O
r-
o
o
£
8
sS
s
New measu
tional Program Manager Comments
Z
















1
e Bay Ecos
1
o
1
O
£
JS
i
.£
S
o
3
                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
!> +- ^
50 0 SB ®
a
Is
c
.2 ^
1
c
o
*M 00
d
.2 ^
K!
e
1
g
f*
B
£
ll
fi
_«
I-
B
O
f-
it
FY 2010 National
Target
o
£ „
3 S.
i 1
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
ll_l
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); and NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure). **FY09 andFY 10 Budget Target is from 4-year performance
measure table in the FY 2010 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the new 2009-20 14 EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in September 2009.
0 ,_,
£ S |








1



"1 G y
o ^
Long -Term
g
m
o
Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of
185,000 acres achieved, based on annual
monitoring from prior year.
On









i



n/a
[Commit, deferred
for FY 09]


FY 2009 COMMITMENT










?- '""



8|


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT










i



i


FY 2008 COMMITMENT










o
Ls '"-
i/~i



I
a\
m


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (updated
from ACS)














m


FY 2005 BASELINE














185,000 acres


UNIVERSE

o
CN
1
1
•g
1
O
I
W
1
•5
1
&
1
1
I
1
1
8
1
a
S
'f
1
1
I
O
O
(N
f
National Program Manager Comments


-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
•* ^
60 0 M 0
* a. *• M
S lHfe
a
s
e
£
PS

e
e
O
*M 00
ess
e
.2
H

e



e
O
*M •«
Ctf
e
O
"M •*
£


e
_O
PS

e
I"
e
O
SP ^


« 1
o M
8f M
Cd M
0

*
^o


^
a, Q
m ^
S m
o
13
^ oc m
S g o o £
1 1 1 i 1
§ g g _W ^ OC
Percent of goal achieved for imp
phosphorus reduction practices (
progress in meeting the phosphoi
of 14.36 million pounds from 19
achieve an annual cap load of 12
(based on long-term average hyd
simulations).
S






















CL -•
10 o^











I
2
' — '

•0














FY 2009 COMMITMENT























N S
*° M,












^ S
CO















a
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RES
























§D ^
^O










1"
9.48 M
0

>0














FY 2008 COMMITMENT






















m
GO ^~.
?-, •"'•
^o










1
8.83 M
"~''

^0













a
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RES




































§
6 _
'• I
^0

m














FY 2005 BASELINE




































I
xO O
li
m

C-














UNIVERSE








1

s
13
'S
g
1

3
^3
1
o
i
-a
i
OH
B
§
§
ss
3
&-)
"§
W
S
>
to
5=1
o
fcj
I
fe
fe
_o
J3
>-.

^0


ts
B

B

o
o



1
S
S
National Program Manager C



|a


















m
SI
^ !S
^o










I
2
•—•

£

,0
rj


<;

m ^
S m
o
1 1 g
'o o o\ § ®
^ ^o 3 i

S 1 1 | o
Percent of goal achieved for imp
sediment reduction practices (exj
in meeting the sediment reductio
million tons from 1 985 levels to
cap load of 4.15 million tons (ba
average hydrology simulations).
%





















m
S'l
t. ;2
^o










o
!S
•--

£














FY 2009 COMMITMENT






















j^.
c'l
^ !S
^o










I
o
•— •

S













a
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RES























c'l
•*~ ^'
'O










O
CO
o
•--

S














FY 2008 COMMITMENT






















m
S|
^ !S
^o










o
o
•— •

S










li
15

a
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RES
from AC S)

                                                                               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 x
 Q
         .2
         Z OB
         S s
         s 5
         o
         s
         DC —

         \\
                3 »
                £ .a
                 5 i=
(Budge
ropose
B PA (OM
idents Bud
int source nitrog
pounds achieved.
                                                              -
point source phosphoi
llion pounds achieved
rget
prel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
!> +- ^
60 0 M 0
* O. *• "
a
Is
PS
e
e
O
*M 00
e
H
s
8
s
t">
I-
e
_O
PS
1-
e
O
f *
s
it
e
Z M
o H
fS
o
z „
3 a.
i 1
S O
FY 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
£ 0 1
fa -* 0
jerformance
s from 4-year
iudget Target
o
r*
!
tStat measure
at (OW EP/

Report Measui
9.
3=5 $
e); EQR (EPA
3 Congress in S
ment Measur
e submitted t
VIM (Senior Manag
>L Strategic Plan, to 1
Measure); S
09-20 14 EP/
tate Grant
lie new 20
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
1 j









(N
Trent for CB
r09 commit
i
i
i
I
eliminary resu
Based on pi
National Program Manager Comments

















i
N
ective 4.3.5 Improve the Health of the Gulf of M(
o
3















(N
Q
m
Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report.
o-i

















FY 2009 COMMITMENT


















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


















FY 2008 COMMITMENT


















FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT


















FY 2004 BASELINE














Vt



UNIVERSE


















1
s.
s.
o
U
1
s
S
ex
o
PH
c.
Z

o














s
Q
ffl
Restore water and habitat quality to meet water
quality standards in impaired segments in 13
priority areas, (cumulative starting in FY 07)
CO

















FY 2009 COMMITMENT














1
"°


FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


















FY 2008 COMMITMENT














CO



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not from
ACS)














o



FY 2002 BASELINE














s



UNIVERSE









om 354 to 8
!
i
U
not from A
end-of-year data
o
to
asure GI\
aces FY 07 me
*SP-38 rep
1
g
g
o
U
1
e
S
DC
O
PH
e
55
Z

O
1












O
o

8
Q
m
Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number
of acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
(cumulative starting in FY 07)
*?













o
(N


FY 2009 COMMITMENT














S



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT














o
O



FY 2008 COMMITMENT














o



FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT














o
o
o



FY 2005 BASELINE














570 acres
m"


UNIVERSE


















National Program Manager Comments

o
o












1 11
1-1 O tJ-H
Q -S


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.
o
(L
m













Is



FY 2009 COMMITMENT














-S



FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT


















FY 2008 COMMITMENT














1
a
o"
(N


FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT

                                                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 X
 Q
a, 1 « §

J l^fe
a
s
is


c.
.2 ^
1
s
O
SB 00
C4

.2

BJ
e

M

e
f «

e
O
g*^
M

e
O
'SB ***
a>
«






M
s
o
g?rt
B5
« 1
.2 a>
8f BE
* ™

FY 2010 National
Target
o

fS BE BE

* P3 H


£ „
3 S.
re o
S O
*

S
e

3
O
FY 2010 National Water Program
Measure Text
S WJ 5
U o
fa •< 0
s
1
1

1
H
n
1
o


1
.
I
1

ts
53
W

5

1




(S ^
||
11
S .a



g, |

1 i
11
s 1
•a -H,
1 ^
-_- |3
5 ^
tate Grant Measure); S
he new 2009-2014 EP/
O 1

'~t- 2

1 "S

S s
11

8 —
pQ M
o e
S g
if


e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Prograr
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. ***
1 1
? I











































OS
















FY 2005 BASELINE













































1
















UNIVERSE












































1
o
1
I

^
S
6

i

i
i
E-i




1
National Program Manager Comme













































Expand
operational system
to Tabasco, MX













6 °

11,°
Implement integrated bi-national (U.S.
Mexican Border States) early-warning
support State and coastal community e
manage harmful algal blooms (HAP,^ •,

O











































Expand
operational system
to Campeche,
Mexico
















FY 2009 COMMITMENT













































Pilot underway
















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT













































Expand
operational system
to Veracruz,
Mexico
















FY 2008 COMMITMENT















































































S3
1
1 1?

Expand
operational system
to South FL &
South TX
•|
be added to ACS at
1 1

3
e
1 1











FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT


a
CO
o
z
p-l




1
o
U
1
e
S
SB
O
PH
e
Z













































S







&
a
w

o
• £3 ±4
1 1

o o
(4-1 ID
Number of near term actions in the Gu
Alliance Governors' Action Plan that ar
m
O











































o
















FY 2009 COMMITMENT













































o
















FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT













































CO












I?"1
a

§
FY 2008 COMMITMENT (newmea
08)













































CN













P

8
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (
ACS)













































o
















FY 2005 BASELINE













































P
















UNIVERSE





.0
O,
|
"En
1
S
o
0
£
O
M
1
g
i
o
0
1
i


i
g
's
1
^

§
o
s
i




s
1
ex
1
O

U

revised for FY 08 i
1

Of)

oc

IB
I
1
i
S
H




1
g
o
U
1
e
S
SB
O
PH
e
Z













































«•>







Pi
cx
w

g

1

o
Number of near term actions in the Gu
Alliance Governors' Action Plan that ar
completed.
5 ^












































m 
-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc

      I
      X

      Q
              £ £ >•
             .2


             Z OB
              •< o
                                                                                       ' is S3
                                                                                       K. •  .:;•,

                                                                                       I £ T
                                                                                       o, o "
                                                                                       E a S
                                                                                      "^
                                                                                      W i-J
                                                                                      SSI5
                                                                                      1 *i'§>
                                                                                      -? on-a ta
                                                                                      £| 2"
                                                                                      »l^i
                                                                                      Sill
                                                                                      £ »< a ^
                                                                                       §> § iS

                                                                                      '-S T3 o^
                                                                                       ^ S ^
                                                                                       1 I S1!

                                                                                       I i 1 *
                                                                                      I tfiS
                                                                                                 •=d
                                                                                                 E "3 ^

                                                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc
 I
 x
 Q
"« +- ^
60 0 M 0
* £ H fe

a


.2 o
1"

.2
Sp*
M

o
SB 00
S
S
.2
SP




*& *«
1


s
*BB ^


O
**
M



'SB ^
a>
B!


I"
M

s

M
- |
§ SB
W gV
rt M



.2
Z SB
o f"1

fa



E ^1
*

£ »

w *•


S
2
0 National Water Program Gi
Measure Text

fa
® rf, 0*


1
1

4
^ W

S ^
1 1


SS g
O 5

||
1 1
s a
OJ ^
9 s
es
Q ft
m M
>^ g
" CM
1 -a
1 a
^ include: OMB PA (OMB Program A
FY 2010 Presidents Budget. *** Str

!J
1 i
s 1









































1













1













£

COMMITMENT (newmeasur

fa o











































sit

s









CO
of
1 1
CT1

S











e

END OF YEAR RESULT (no

N 00























































CO
'tn
^ f

O
(N













BASELINE

fS
fa










00
U
e
g
S
1


S

T3
ID





S
0
PH
m
1
e
j

1
1

o
S
1
i
i

o
-g
1
£
13
S
s1
•g
>
13
3
a
i
3
0
i

o
BH


|
1

2
I
B
jg
1



1
o
O
1
3
S
DC
O
PH

Nation



^ b
§ 0







































01













01





01



Q
ffl


o
li

"goal achieved in restoring, prot
> 240 acres of coastal habitat fror
sline of 1,199 acres.

"S •§ S
gig
& 5 8
01
^r
d,
00








































M













. !















COMMITMENT

fa

























































§















END OF YEAR RESULT

fa











































^o
CO













(N
^O
CO













£
^
COMMITMENT (newmeasur













































g













01
S













p

END OF YEAR RESULT (no

M GO























































'S
2 Tg
g "g

p













BASELINE

r*
[*



jg*
1 1
I 1
I |
I ^
S 3
3 rS
P

•g i

li
§ 1

1 -
J-l
^ s

3 'S


8 W


^ M
3 S
OC --H
•G g
B a
O u
•a S3
o $
2 "S
Td OC
"S -S
•s s

1 (5
S *
B O
B <;


£ o
S 1
J -0
u b
" 1,
b 1
-£> r~-
6 °
"PH Ej~!

s S

2fe
00 s

0 ^
^ ^


iij
III

^ * ID
1 1 §
s m 's
SS6



Program Manager Comments

s
Z



li







































|













1





01
01



Q
m


§ I
.£ R
"goal achieved in reopening 50 r
les to diadromous fish passage f
;line of 124 miles.
° S i
OH M (N
^r
CX























































2















COMMITMENT

FY200











































(N













01
(N















END OF YEAR RESULT

FY200











































o













o













£
*7
COMMITMENT (newmeasur

fS











































S













01













e

END OF YEAR RESULT (no

Sg









































































BASELINE

FY200



»
1
5
1
O
p-l

o

^

DH
§

^
B
S
&
? *
S B
05 fi

1 »
S3 8

•g g
" §
^ U
13 S
§ §
£ §

1 3

II

g oc
> ^
0 ^

a 1

£ "S
1 1

u a

0 0
S (N
3 .S



7 cc
&o ^3
cd ?P
o _3



If
05
2 r')
1 <
1 o
S M-H
z S



1
o
O
1
S
S
SB
O
PH

S
£
Z































































,(

1
2
^
•B
i.
O
fa
5
7 Restore and Protect the Sou

!
o

60
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
National Water Program:
ar 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
•= S1


* £ H &

a
H

s

ft
G
S

ft


o
5JJ 00


e
.2 ^
H
e
J£w


s
•gj ««


r

e
_O
*M ^
PS


is
I?"





£
- |

'M £
*^

•3
.2
Z M
S i2
fS
fa
o
o tS tfi
jj* 3 «

3 a.
s g
S o



)10 National Water Program Guit
Measure Text
fa
® r/i a*
s_ U "o
fa •*! °


1
1

4
|
*
1

f
o
S

"a


£
1
^

1
1
w
o





S
i
PH
S 0<
II


CM -S
ai" "
W 0
V ^




Vlanagement
an, to be subr

If
-_- -g
s M

g Tt
.;' '-

O §
S •§
O 1

i1
S S
f I
eg
° -
pQ M
t J

1 ^
es include: OMB PA (OMB Program Ass
e FY 2010 Presidents Budget. *** Strate
II
1 j


° J
z

























|i



















g
o
"S
Z
o
Z

g
o
1
o
Z

Q
pa
^


'no net loss' of stony coral cover (m
stony coral cover) in the Florida Ke}
Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in
waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm
s, Florida, working with all stakehol
state, regional, tribal, and local).
< &S 8 u £
^r
M





























° J



















'fA
o
_j
^3
Z
o










9 COMMITMENT
fa






























3 »
B »
M -g




















§
"o
^











8 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY200






























°l



















'fA
o
_j
^
Z
o









a
8 COMMITMENT (new measure i
fS
fa o

















































GO "3
S O
gs
• S s
i s?
*° i/s









5 BASELINE
|


g

& 8 2
"§ DH ^3
3 r- g
IIS,
III

!S .g '-g
§88

£ 5*1
« • PH
- i!

§ b o
E .S *
S § !>
^ S 8
£ g>Ta
|| 8

S £, §
o, c? s
1^1
i^i
|I|


DH °
S > "i
_| O l4_.
S » 0
§0-0
w &1 s
a; 'o J
^ u B
§ F 5
0 "S a>
^ y a
H o. &
ill
^ 5 J

^ 2 u
'S r8 ^



S | S

11 1
_o '2 ^

s 6 ^
00°


ID r*1
06 § 1
I-P
.S g-g
OC •§ '^
III
!f> O ^^

2 ID O
n tfl °
g 1 |
^ B 8



il Program Manager Comments
s



"S T3
S pa
























B 0
'a 1




















pa
'a
1
2

'S


Q
m
rf

« g1 i
y maintain the overall health and
ality of sea grass beds in the FKNM
d by the long-term sea grass monito
hat addresses composition and abun
vity, and nutrient availability.
l.§ M 1
II ill
< S B S, S,
^
M




























d u
Maintai
Baselin




















pa
•a
1
S









9 COMMITMENT
FY200






























^ g
B »
M -g




















§
"o
•a
1










8 END OF YEAR RESULT
£





























B I
'a .s
| |


















1
"5
pa
•a
•a









c
8 COMMITMENT (new measure i
>Z

















































CO
rj
o
y
rn"
CO
II
W









5 BASELINE
fa
































|


1

o
U

.fa



i
M
s

'a
13
S
1

w
*
CO
>
s
oc
1
2
1
I



il Program Manager Comments
s
£
Z



"S "55
S pa
























C w
•a s
B "3
'a a


















§
"5
pa
'a
1
S

• 5
!S

Q
m


^
y maintain the overall water quality
re and coastal waters of the FKNMS
^ Hi
•^f
U*J




























C 
-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 cc

 I
 x
 o
1 w ®

J l^fe

a
s

s
g*S
M
e
.2

1
e
O
OB 00


e
.2
sc ~







e
O
$*
a!
e


M

e
O





g
•|N
gf "
e
O
^^
M


— a>


._
tf ^


.2
Z M
o f"1
fS
fa

o -S 15

^ pq H
*
£ *
« e
s 5


s
•5
FY 2010 National Water Program Gui
Measure Text
® rf, 0*
C 0 o
fa •< U
s
s
1

1
a
i
s
f
o
p-l

k1"1


^^
1
6
ts
5^
1
W
^
O
I
§


S

PH
(S o^
||



5^ j%
£ .a

_y P
a i
W o
^ o
1 1
si
1 3

i rt-

s ^
it

i ^
m CM
^ W
i ^
tate Grant Meas
he new 2009-2C
£2- g


1 ^
s s

e 1

pQ W
X g
« p^
S oil
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Ass
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strat
§ SJH
? 1




















































?|S a i -a S B-avl '
"liaSfft- ' gg
-" = ° §?l ^'g












FY 2005 BASELINE











































E
8
1
PH
IS1
1


1

.s


Y08.
toring sites n
PI H
.B B

1 E
f .0
1 I
B .B
| 1
Z ffl



National Program Manager Comments


* ° ° &a

S|1 J-
























£ p -, -M 
8 1
| «

-^ g
& >
•R-a
§ 1
B .
•_g ^
I "
8 <
OC S
di
fc D S
g OC O
^ > o3
1 < 1
S .B B
1 l-a
S 10 °°
g O '-'
^ * S



1
o
U
1
e
S
OB
O
PH
"as
e
55
Z































































«
Bfi
•B
3
O
^"
ective 4.3.8 Restore and Protect the Puge
,OJ
3
!/>

O




8
CO^













































O
g

o
io



Q
m


|
"o .§
Improve water quality and enable the lifting
harvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed
growing areas impacted by degraded or dec
water quality, (cumulative starting in FY 06
TO
^r







to













































o
s












FY 2009 COMMITMENT








g
""I,













































i












FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT








o
3













































o










£
q
FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure
ns~i









P!













































S











g
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not f
ACS)






















































Hi
30,000 ac












UNIVERSE









































O
B
g
1
1


-------
National Water Program: Fiscal Year 2010 Guidance Appendix F
      cc
      I
      x
      Q
fc * ~ J
60 0 M 0
* a, i- ^
J l^fe
a
s
Is
PS
e
S^
n
e
O
*M 00
^
e
S1^
H
e
•|«
Ctf
e
^o
*M ^
a>
«
I-
e
O
*M ^
s
PS
1-
e
O
f«
s
ff &
«|
FY 2010 National
Target
o
o "S 13
£^£?
f Is
£ „
3 8.
i 1
? ^
7 2010 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
fa
S WJ 5
S U e
£ L Strategic Plan, to 1
tate Grant Measure); S
Jie new 2009-2014 EP/
Measure); SG (£
targets are from
BUD (Budget
SP) proposec
gories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment);
n the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan
u 3
*
fa



8










o
o


008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
£§



o










o


007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not from
)
£^














5,000 acres


VERSE
z;
u^











omACS.
IT data not f
=T 07 end-of-yes
~Y08. *FY06and
s
|
1
1
S
Z
onal Program Manager Comments
R
Z

o
o
l/~l
oC

8
^o"










O
o
^o"
o
o
^o"
Q
P
ffl
3re acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
nine wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
II
On
CO


8










O
O


009 COMMITMENT
>
fa



f*~!
^r
•^•"










rn
^~
^


008 END OF YEAR RESULT
>*
fa



o










o


008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
> CO
fa o



(N
^r











O
8
oC

o










o
o
^r
Q
a
m
;ct, enhance, or restore acres of wetiand habitat
icres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia
r watershed, (cumulative starting in FY 05)
£_Sj|
(L
m


o
o
o
o"










o
o
o
o"


009 COMMITMENT
>*
fa



^o
CO
°\










^o
CO
c^


008 END OF YEAR RESULT
>
fa



S
o
co"










o
8
CO


008 COMMITMENT (new measure in FY
£§



1
^r










^r
o
^r"


007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not from
)
£^














E
1
O
r~-
^D
C^


VERSE
Z
S











000 acres.
^o
J
3
pland habitat acr
e not from ACS.
Y08.
tat acres and 3,000 i
year adjusted data ai
re starting in F
0 wetiand habi
FY 07 end-of
New measu
Note: 13,OC
*FY 06 and
onal Program Manager Comments
R
Z

ff~j
CO

o










o
o
Q
P
m
n up acres of known contaminated sediments.
ulative starting in FY 06)
§ £,
m
(L
eS


"~i O










1^1 O


009 COMMITMENT
008 END OF YEAR RESULT
>• >•
fcn *.

                                                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                         National Water Program: Fiscal
ance Appendix F
 Q
 HI
 X
 Q
9-5 0 SB 0

£ H &
a
=
=
EC ®
«
e
o
"81 ^
N
e
00
M
e
O
DC f~
A
e


N
e
*& •«
fiti
e
.2 ^
a!

.2
g?<"
K


e
o


H

e
.2
1
- 2
i ts
1 1
II
8
£
« 'S
0 ^-
fS
fa
o
rj -s1 ff
fa M H
*
3 a.
« o
S O
*
s
e
es
FY 2010 National Water Program Gull
Measure Text
£ 3 i
£ ^5
1
1
f
a

i
H
f
o
fc
1
fc
*

1
g
1
CM
W
fe


1
g
i
1
S 0<
fl


ts "
5^ $.
< g
W to


W o

1 i
i |
1 5
I2
s i
VIM (Senior
>L Strategic P
>^ w
i 3
CS C-l
^ OS
rf 0
S °
If
S ,§
o 1
M (ft
"a? b
If
S S
i|
e s
Q ^
m ^


to 5b
e categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Ass
table in the FY 20 1 0 Presidents Budget. *** Strate
s |
P 6






o






































o











fe

FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure i
08)








-g






































~s












O
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not f
ACS)













































M
2
o
0
•fl












UNIVERSE





































o



S
o
R
no reporti
jfj
'g
p
H
g
fe



S
1

s
z



G
s
s
o
U
DC
e
i
1
e
Z


o
o



G
~s s S ® ^ (~,



































s ^
S ~|
•g ^ 1 — 1
1 l"l
^ >g
~s








"3 1

o ^
Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentrat
certain contaminants of concern found in wa
fish tissue, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
»
w






-g




































•g ^
g to
U ^ o
1 ^
Td











FY 2009 COMMITMENT







">-
CS
T3




































'•-
^













FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT








-g






































^













FY 2008 COMMITMENT (new measure i
08)








-^






































~a












O
FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT (not f
ACS)














































;••
•o













FY 2005 BASELINE





































o



S
o
ff
no reporti
g
'g
p
1
S3
fe
s


S
1

S
Z



e
S
S
o
U
ec
c.
«
1
e
.2
Z


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
'.
    Katie ua
    Offi
       il Year 2010
    Appendix G
uidaiice

-------
Appendix G
Office of Water American  Recovery
and Reinvestment Act Measures
                                           APPENDIX G
                                        OFFICE OF WATER
                    AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT MEASURES
                                        OW ARRA Measures
              DWSRF
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
              DWSRF
Number of ARRA projects for which Tribes have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with IMS for the project (tribal)	
              DWSRF
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-
tribal)	
              DWSRF
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction
(tribal)	
              DWSRF
Number of States that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
              DWSRF
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the
cumulative funds available for projects) for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF)	
              DWSRF
Number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) projects that
have initiated operations (cumulative)	
              DWSRF
                      'Number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
              DWSRF
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.	
              CWSRF
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
              CWSRF
Number of ARRA projects for which Tribes have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with IMS for the project (tribal)
              CWSRF
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-
tribal)	
              CWSRF
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction
(tribal)	
              CWSRF
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)	
              CWSRF
              CWSRF
*By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50
percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation.
              CWSRF
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 noncompliance.)
              CWSRF
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining water quality
standards where stsandards are now fully attained, (cumulative)	
              Measures in BOLD are annual measures included in Appendix A of the FY2010 National
              * denotes measures that are long-term

-------