•
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
|