4>EPA
Off ice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
ationa
Program Guidance
'
April 2010
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
I. Introduction 1
II. Strategies to Protect Public Health 5
[_~] 1. Water Safe to Drink 5
@ 2. Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat 12
[jig] 3. Water Safe for Swimming 14
III.Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands 16
U 1. Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis 16
§ 2. Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters 27
^ 3. Protect Wetlands 29
IV. Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems 32
1 1. Protect U.S.-Mexico Border Water Quality 32
[W] 2. Protect Pacific Islands Waters 33
^ 3. Protect the Great Lakes 34
Egp] 4. Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay 36
[^] 5. Protect the Gulf of Mexico 38
1 6. Protect Long Island Sound 40
HI 7. Protect the South Florida Ecosystem 42
0 8. Protect the Puget Sound Basin 44
I 9. Protect the Columbia River Basin 45
10. San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary 47
V. National Water Program and Grant Management 49
VI. National Water Program and Environmental Justice 54
VII. National Water Program and Children's Health 57
VIM.National Water Program and the Urban Waters Initiative 58
IX. National Water Program and Climate Change 59
Appendices 60
A) FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measures Summary Appendix
B) FY 2011 Water State Grant Measures Appendix
C) Office of Water American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Measures
D) Explanation of Key Changes Summary
E) Additional Guidance for Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients
F) FY 2011 Detailed Measures Appendix
-------
-------
Executive Summary
I. PROGRAM OFFICE: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
This National Water Program Guidance for fiscal year (FY)
2011 describes how the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), states, and tribal governments will work together
to protect and improve the quality of the nation's waters,
including wetlands, and ensure safe drinking water. Within
EPA, the Office of Water oversees the delivery of the
national water programs, while the regional offices work
with states, tribes, and others to implement these programs
and other supporting efforts.
II. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT
The Guidance describes the key actions needed to accomplish
the public health and environmental goals proposed in the
EPA Strategic Plan. The Agency is currently developing the
2010-2015 Strategic Plan by September 2010. As the Agency
proceeds with implementing the Strategic Plan for FY 2011,
it may be necessary to make adjustments to annual measures
and commitments specified in this Guidance to align them
with the new 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 2011 to the prior-
ity areas identified below to ensure safe and clean water
for all Americans. These priorities of the National Water
Program are organized into two themes, Sustainable Com-
munities and Healthy Watersheds:
1. Sustainable Communities - Making Communities More
Sustainable
Making America's Water Systems Sustainable
and Secure
Safeguarding Public Health
Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters
2. Healthy Watersheds - Restoring and Protecting Ameri-
ca's Watersheds
Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas
Strengthening Protections for Our Waters
Improving Watershed-Based Approaches
In addition, the National Water Program is working to
support the Administrator's key priority themes of Taking
Action on Climate Change, Assuring the Safety of Chemi-
cals, Expanding the Conversation of Environmentalism and
Working For Environmental Justice, and Building Strong
State and Tribal Partnerships. Supporting the Administra-
tor's and the National Water Program priorities are the EPA
regional priorities. More information on these priorities is
provided in the Introduction to this Guidance.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The National Water Program Guidance describes, in general
terms, the work that needs to be done in FY 2011 to reach
the public health and water quality goals that are proposed
in the EPA 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. In the Guidance, these
public health and environmental goals are organized into 15
"subobjectives," and each of the subobjectives is supported
by a specific implementation strategy that includes the fol-
lowing key elements:
Environmental/Public Health Results Expected.
Each subobjective strategy begins with a brief review of
national goals for improvements in environmental condi-
tions or public health, including national "targets" for
progress in FY 2011.
Key Strategies. For each subobjective, the key strategies
for accomplishing environmental goals are described. The
role of core programs (e.g. State Revolving Funds, water
quality standards, discharge permits, development of safe
drinking water standards, and source water protection) is
discussed and a limited number of key program activ-
ity measures are identified. A comprehensive summary,
listing all strategic target and program activity annual
measures under each subobjective, is in Appendix A.
FY 2011 Targets for Key Program Activities. For
some of the program activities, EPA, states, and tribes
will simply report progress accomplished in FY 2011
while for other activities, each EPA region will define
specific "targets" (Appendix F). These targets are a point of
reference for the development of more binding commit-
ments to measurable progress in state and tribal grant
workplans. In the Guidance, national or programmatic
targets are shown, where applicable, in Appendix A and F.
Grant Assistance. Each of the subobjective strategies
includes a brief discussion of EPA grant assistance that
supports the program activities identified in the strategy.
Section 106 Grant Guidance for Water Pollution Con-
trol Programs is incorporated within the Water Quality
Subobjective andAppendixEto streamline the approach
to the grant guidance issuance. The National Water
Program's approach to managing grants for FY 2011 is
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Executive Summary
discussed in Part V of this Guidance. New for FY 2011,
EPA is working to incorporate the grant guidance for the
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC) grants within the Water
Safe to Drink Subobjective to continue to pilot a more
streamlined approach to issuing the grant guidance.
Environmental Justice (EJ). For FY 2011, the Office of
Water is continuing to align the development of this Guid-
ance with the development of the E J Action Plan. 2010
ushered in a new era that raised the level of outreach and
protection of historically underrepresented and vulner-
able subpopulations to a top priority for all Agency activi-
ties. To undertake this top priority, environmental justice
principles must be included in our entire decision making
processes. Expanding the conversation on environmental-
ism and working for environmental justice is a key prior-
ity for the National Water Program.
A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate. In Sep-
tember 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 recog-
nize the impacts of climate change on water programs
and to identify needed adaptation actions. Additional
information on the Strategy is in Section IX as well as
at http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/. New for
2011, each of the relevant subobjective section includes a
brief description of climate change related activities.
V. MEASURES
The National Water Program uses three types of measures
to assess progress toward the proposed goals in the EPA
2010-2015 Strategic Plan:
Measures of changes in environmental or public health
(i.e., outcome measures);
Measures of activities to implement core national water
programs (i.e., program activity measures); and
Measures of activities to restore and protect large aquatic
ecosystems and implement other water program priori-
ties in each EPA region (i.e., ecosystem outcome and
program activity measures).
In 2006 - 2009, EPA worked with states and tribes to align
and streamline performance measures. The National Water
Program will continue to engage states and tribes in 2010
in the Agency's performance measurement improvement
efforts.
VI. TRACKING PROGRESS
The National Water Program will evaluate progress toward
the environmental and public health goals described in the
EPA Strategic Plan using four key tools:
National Water Program Performance Reports: The
Office of Water will use data provided by EPA regional
offices, states, and tribes to prepare performance reports
for the National Water Program at the mid-point and end
of each fiscal year.
Senior Management Measures and EPA Quarterly
Reports (EQR): The Office of Water reports the results
on a subset of the National Water Program Guidance mea-
sures 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 perfor-
mance 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 evalua-
tions will be conducted internally by program managers
at EPA headquarters and regional offices; and externally
by the EPA Inspector General, Government Accountabil-
ity Office, and other independent organizations.
VII. PROGRAM CONTACTS
For additional information concerning this Guidance and
supporting measures, please contact:
Michael H. Shapiro; Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water
Tim Fontaine; Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
Vinh Nguyen; Program Planning Team Leader, Office of
Water
Internet Access: This FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance and supporting documents are available at
(http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
National Water Program Guidance
II
-------
I. Introduction
Clean and Safe Water Goals for 2015
The EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, published in October
of 2006, defines specific environmental and public
health improvements to be accomplished by 2011. The
Agency is currently updating the current Strategic Plan to
develop the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan by September 2010.
As the Agency proceeds with implementing the Strategic
Plan for FY 2011, it may be necessary to make adjustments
to annual measures and commitments specified in this
Guidance to align them with the new Strategic Plan. With
the help of states, tribes, and other partners, EPA expects to
make significant progress toward protecting human health
and improving water quality by 2015, including:
Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink: maintain current high per-
centage of the population served by systems meeting
health-based Drinking Water standards;
Fish Safe to Eat: reduce the percentage of women of
child-bearing age having mercury levels in their blood
above levels of concern; and
Water Safe for Swimming: maintain the currently
high percentage of days that beaches are open and safe
for swimming during the beach season.
Restore and Protect Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and
Wetlands
Healthy Waters: address an increasing number of
the approximately 40,000 impaired waters identified
by the states in 2002;
Healthy Coastal Waters: show improvement in the
overall condition of the nation's coastal waters while
at least maintaining conditions in the four major
coastal regions; and
More Wetlands: restore, improve, and protect wet-
lands with the goal of increasing the overall quantity
and quality of the nation's wetlands.
Improve the Health of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Implement collaborative programs with other federal
agencies and with states, tribes, local governments, and
others to improve the health of communities and large
aquatic ecosystems including:
U.S.-Mexico Border the Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
waters
Pacific Island waters
the Great Lakes
the Chesapeake Bay
South Florida waters
the Puget Sound
the Columbia River
Purpose and Structure of this FY 2011 Guidance
This National Program Guidance defines the process for creat-
ing an "operational plan" for EPA, state, and tribal water
programs for FY 2011. This Guidance is divided into three
major sections:
1. Subobjective Implementation Strategies: The EPA
2006-2011 Strategic Plan addresses water programs in
Goal 2 (i.e., "Clean and Safe Water") and Goal 4 (i.e.,
"Healthy Communities and Ecosystems"). This structure
is subject to change in the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan.
Within these goals, there are 16 subobjectives that
define specific environmental or public health results
to be accomplished by the National Water Program by
the end of FY 2011. This Guidance is organized into 15
subobjectives and describes the increment of environ-
mental progress EPA hopes to make in FY 2011 for each
subobjective and the program strategies to be used to
accomplish these goals.
The National Water Program is working with EPA's
Innovation Action Council (IAC) to promote program
innovations, including the Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) (www.epa.gov/ems/) and the Environ-
mental Results Program (ERP) (www.epa.gov/permits/
erp/index.htm). States and tribes maybe able to use
these or other innovative tools in program planning and
implementation.
2. Water Measures: Appendix A, a comprehensive list of
performance measures in the Guidance, includes three
types of measures that support the subobjective strate-
gies and are used to manage water programs:
"Outcome" Strategic Target Measures: Mea-
sures 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 implement-
ing programs to accomplish the environmental goals
in the Agency Strategic Plan. Some of these measures
have national and regional "targets" for FY 2011 that
serve as a point of reference as EPA regions work with
states/tribes to define more formal regional "commit-
ments" in the Spring/Summer of 2010.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Introduction
Ecosystem Program Activity Measures: These
measures address activities to restore and protect
communities and large aquatic ecosystems and imple-
ment other water program priorities in each EPA
region.
Over the past eight years, EPA has worked with the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to evaluate key water
programs using the OMB Program Assessment reviews. This
work included identifying measures of progress for each
program. Most of the measures identified in the OMB Pro-
gram Assessment process are included in this Guidance.
3. Water Program Management System: Part V of this
Guidance describes a three-step process for management
of water programs in FY 2011:
Step 1 is the development of this National Water Pro-
gram Guidance.
Step 2 involves consultation among EPA regions, states,
and tribes, to be conducted during the Spring/Sum-
mer 2010, to convert the "targets" in this Guidance
into regional "commitments" that are supported by
grant workplans and other agreements with states and
tribes. This process allocates available resources to those
program activities that are likely to result in the best
progress toward accomplishing water quality and public
health goals given the circumstances and needs in the
state/region. The tailored, regional "commitments"
and state/tribal workplans that result from this
process define, along with this Guidance, the
"strategy" for the National Water Program for FY
2011.
Step 3 involves work to be done during FY 2011 to
assess progress in program implementation and
improve program performance.
In addition for FY 2011, the grant guidance for the Water
Pollution Control Grants from Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act (Section 106 grants) is incorporated into this
National Water Program Guidance. This was a pilot effort
started in FY 2010 to gain efficiency in the issuance of the
Section 106 Grant Guidance within this Guidance. Text
boxes with specific Section 106 guidance are incorporated
within Section III, (Restore and Improve Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis) of this Guidance. Appendix E has additional
information for states and the interstate agencies. The
Tribal Program, Monitoring Initiative, and Water Pollution
Enforcement Activities are not included in this pilot, and
grantees should follow the specific, separate guidances for
these programs. For FY 2011, this pilot effort continues
with the integration of the grant guidance for the Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS) and Underground Injec-
tion Control (UIC) grants. These grant guidance sections
will be incorporated in the Water Safe to Drink Subobjective
in the final National Water Program Guidance in April.
FY 2011 National Water Program Priorities
The Office of Water recognizes that EPA regions, states, and
tribes need flexibility in determining the best allocation
of program resources for achieving clean water goals given
their specific needs and condition. From a national perspec-
tive, however, EPA, states, and tribes need to give special
attention in FY 2011 to the priority areas identified below
to protect America's waters. The Office of Water has two
organizing themes for the National Water Program, Sustain-
able Communities and Healthy Watersheds.
1. Sustainable Communities - The nation's water
resources are the lifeblood of the nation's communities,
supporting the economy and way of life. For communi-
ties to be sustainable, water resources must be sustain-
able as well.
Making America's Water Systems Sustainable
and Secure
The nation's water infrastructure needs are substantial,
and the ability to meet those needs through traditional
programs and funding is limited. EPA is working with
partners to help communities and utilities continue
to provide for their residents by improving financing,
management, and use of innovative solutions such as
green infrastructure and expansion of the WaterSense
program. Recovery Act funds and increases in the Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving
Funds have already boosted these efforts. While making
water systems more sustainable, EPA also wants to for-
tify their security and resiliency by working with water
utilities to prevent or minimize disruptions in providing
clean and safe water for all citizens. The National Water
Program will build upon the successes of the sustainable
infrastructure work to address the needs of disadvan-
taged urban, rural, and tribal communities.
Safeguarding Public Health
Using science-based standards to protect public water
systems as well as ground and surface water bodies has
long been an Office of Water priority. Protecting public
health through tools, such as beach, fish consumption
and drinking water advisories, is part of EPA's core
mission. EPA is expanding that science to improve our
understanding of emerging potential threats to public
health to bring a new sense of responsiveness to public
needs. By also working closely with the enforcement
program, the National Water Program can ensure safe
drinking water and surface water suitable for recreation
for all Americans.
Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters
With the water program's new Urban Waters Initiative,
EPA can help communities, especially those that are disad-
vantaged and that face environmental justice challenges,
to access, restore, and benefit from their urban waters and
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Introduction
surrounding land. By focusing on building capacity and
supporting the growth of the green jobs sector in urban
communities, the National Water Program is helping to
make these communities more vibrant and strengthen-
ing the connections between a healthy environment and
a healthy economy. Additional information on the Urban
Waters Initiative is in Section VIII.
2. Healthy Watersheds - People and the natural ecosys-
tems both rely on the health of watersheds. By improv-
ing programs and tools to protect watersheds, EPA is
protecting human health as well as the environment.
Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas
America's largest aquatic ecosystems are seriously
impaired, resulting in significant losses to the diver-
sity and productivity of these systems and risks to the
socio-economic well-being of communities. The National
Water Program is leading efforts to restore and protect
these treasured resources, and in so doing is provid-
ing models for broader national applicability. The Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Execu-
tive Order and Strategy, the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
Action Plan, the federal Bay-Delta Workplan, and the
National Ocean Policy are each designed to help com-
munities in these key geographic areas address complex
transboundary challenges. By engaging in innovative,
collaborative approaches with federal, state, and local
government and tribal and non-governmental partners,
and making robust use of existing statutory author-
ity, EPA helps make these programs more effective and
restore these precious resources.
Strengthening Protections for Our Waters
America's waterbodies are imperiled as never before,
but EPA has the tools to help repair them. EPA and its
partners can provide better protection of the nation's
water resources, including sources of drinking water by
strengthening criteria and revising regulations. Some
examples are by revising the stormwater rule, updating
effluent guideline limitations for construction and devel-
opment and the steam electric sectors, taking action
to reduce the harmful environmental consequences of
mountaintop mining, and strengthening protection for
wetlands and other waters of the United States. EPA
will continue to work with the states, tribes, and others
to improve monitoring of waters so that we are better
able to measure progress in protecting and restoring
them. EPA is also working closely with the enforcement
program to focus on the biggest threats to the nation's
water resources.
Improving Watershed-Based Approaches
Complex issues, such as nonpoint source and nutrient
pollution, require holistic, integrated solutions that
emphasize accountability. The National Water Program
will improve the way existing tools, such as water qual-
ity standards, protection of downstream uses, permits
and total maximum daily loads, are used to protect and
restore watersheds; explore how innovative tools, such
as trading and other market-based approaches to water-
shed protection, can be applied; and enhance efforts to
prevent water quality impairments in healthy water-
sheds. Local partners are becoming more important than
ever to the health of watersheds and estuaries, and EPA
must improve outreach to them to help them build their
capacity to develop and implement their own solutions
to local water quality problems.
In addition, the National Water Program supports the
Administrator's priority themes:
Taking Action on Climate Change
Climate change will affect multiple aspects of the water
program, including threatening infrastructure invest-
ment, exacerbating water quality problems, compounding
stress to aquatic ecosystems, and placing the health and
well-being of vulnerable populations at increased risk. EPA
must continue to work with partners to identify ways to
control greenhouse gas emissions through energy and water
efficiency, make programs more resilient through initiatives
such as the Climate Ready Estuaries program and Climate
Ready Water Utilities, and help adapt base water programs
to impacts from a changing climate.
A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate: In September
of 2008, the National Water Program published a Strategy
for responding to the impacts of climate change on clean
water and drinking water programs (see 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 tempera-
tures, changes in rainfall amounts and intensity, and sea
level rise) and to identify needed adaptation actions. Addi-
tional information on the Strategy is in Section IX.
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
The Office of Water will partner with the Office of Pesti-
cides and Toxic Substances to accelerate testing of potential
endocrine disrupting chemicals that can be present in water
supplies and surface waters.
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and
Working for Environmental Justice
As the federal government, EPA must ensure that commu-
nities disproportionately affected by pollution have clean
and safe water, and that environmental justice informs
decision-making, including permitting and standards deci-
sions. The Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water
wants to underscore those principles and asks that we strive
to incorporate them in our work. In addition to the Urban
Waters initiative which can benefit disadvantaged commu-
nities, the Office of Water co-leads and actively participates
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Introduction
in EPA's Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE) program. CARE is providing on-the-ground techni-
cal assistance and funding to underserved communities to
help them understand, prioritize, and address environmen-
tal health threats from all sources.
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
EPA recognizes that states and tribes are key partners in
implementing the National Water Program. States write
the overwhelming majority of water permits, water quality
standards, and total maximum daily loads. Similarly, most
inspections are done by states. EPA has begun working
to improve this partnership through increased collabora-
tion on key problems, such as nutrients, and by provid-
ing greater opportunity to discuss strategic and program
planning through the Partnership Council of the Office of
Water and the States. The Office of Water is also commit-
ted to improving tribal access to safe drinking water and,
sanitation, and to improve tribes' capacities to assume
greater responsibility for waters within their jurisdiction.
The National Tribal Water Council is a key mechanism for
ensuring that the views of tribal water professionals are
considered in EPA's regulatory and other programs.
EPA, states, and tribes also need to pay special attention to
regional priorities. EPA regional offices identified a limited
number of regional and state priorities. These priorities
were based upon geographic areas and performance mea-
sures that were established to support the priorities. Many
of the performance measures developed by these regional
groups support the National Water Program national
priorities.
Improving Enforcement of the Clean Water Act
In October, 2009, EPA issued the Clean Water Act Action
Plan ("the Action Plan"). The Action Plan identifies steps
EPA will take to improve enforcement efforts aimed at
addressing water quality impairment. The Office of Water is
currently working with the Office of Enforcement and Com-
pliance Assurance (OECA), EPA regions, and states to imple-
ment the Action Plan. The Action Plan's three key elements
are to: 1) focus NPDES enforcement efforts on pollution
sources that pose the greatest threats to water quality; 2)
strengthen oversight of state permitting and enforcement
programs; and 3) improve the accessibility and quality of
information provided to the public.
Since work under the Action Plan is ongoing as this Guid-
ance is finalized, FY 2011 will be a transition year. EPA
anticipates that existing policies, strategies and regulations,
may need to be revised to better identify and address the
key water quality problems where NPDES compliance and
enforcement efforts are critical components to protection
and restoration. EPA also expects that the implementation
of the Action Plan will identify more immediate opportu-
nities to improve identification of serious noncompliance
problems as well as new approaches to address these viola-
tions. For more information on specific enforcement actions
for 2011, please see the 2011 OECA National Program guid-
ance at www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
High Priority Performance Goals
As part of the FY 2011 budget process, EPA developed
High Priority Performance Goals (HPPG) around FY 2011
budget priorities and the Administrator's priorities. For the
National Water Program, two HPPGs were developed with
OMB, for quarterly reporting beginning in FY 2010, to track
the development of state watershed implementation plans
in support of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) and the review of drinking water standards to
strengthen public health protection.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
II. Strategies To Protect Public Health
For each of the key subobjectives related to water addressed in the EPA Strategic Plan, EPA has worked with states,
tribes, and other stakeholders to define strategies for accomplishing the improvements in the environment or public
health identified for the subobjective. This National Program Guidance draws from the Strategic Plan but describes plans
and strategies at a more operational level and focuses on FY 2011. In addition, this Guidance refers to "Program Activity
Measures" that define key program activities that support each subobjective (see Appendix A).
1) Water Safe to Drink
A) Subobjective:
Percent of the population served by
community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards
through approaches including effective treatment and
source water protection.
2005 Baseline: 89% 2010 Commitment: 90%
2011 Target: 91% 2014 Target: 93%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendix A.)
B) Key Program Strategies
For more than 30 years, protecting the nation's public
health through safe drinking water has been the shared
responsibility of EPA, the states, and 51,651 CWSs1 nation-
wide 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 pro-
grams. 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 drink-
ing water supplies.
EPA, states, tribes, and CWSs will work together so that
the population served by CWSs receives drinking water
that meets all health-based standards. This goal reflects
the fundamental public health protection mission of the
national drinking water program. Health protection-based
regulatory standards for drinking water quality are the
cornerstone of the program. The standards do not prescribe
a specific treatment approach; rather, individual systems
decide how best to comply with any given standard based on
their own unique circumstances. Systems meet standards by
employing "multiple barriers of protection" including source
water protection, various stages of treatment, proper opera-
tion and maintenance of the distribution and finished water
storage system, and customer awareness.
The overall objective of the drinking water program is to
protect public health by ensuring that public water systems
deliver safe drinking water to their customers. To achieve
this objective the program must work to maintain the gains
of the previous years' efforts; drinking water systems of all
types and sizes that are currently in compliance will work to
remain in compliance. Efforts will be made to bring non-
complying systems into compliance and to assure all sys-
tems will be prepared to comply with the new regulations.
Making sound decisions to allocate resources among various
program areas requires that each EPA region first work with
states and tribes to define goals for the program in public
health (i.e., "outcome") terms. The table below describes
estimates of progress under the key drinking water measure
describing the percent of the population served by commu-
nity water systems that receive water that meets all health
based drinking water standards.
Targets for Population Served by Systems Meeting
Standards (Measure 2.1.1)
EPA
Region
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
National
Total
2005
Baseline
92.5%
55.3%
93.2%
93%
94.1%
87.8%
91.2%
94.7%
94.6%
94.8%
89%
2009
92%
79%
89.9%
93.7%
95.4%
89.7%
94.1%
95.8%
96.9%
96.4%
92%
2010 Com-
mitment
89%
75%
88%
91.7%
95%
88%
92%
90%
95%
91%
90%
2011
Target
89%
75%
88%
93%
95%
88%
93%
90%
95%
91%
91%*
' The national target is 91% while the regional aggregate
is 90%.
Although the Safe Drinking Water Act applies to 153,530 public water systems nationwide (as of October 2009), which include schools, hospitals, facto-
ries, campgrounds, motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system, this implementation plan focuses only on CWSs. A CWS is a public water
system that provides water to the same population year-round. As of October 2009, there were 51,651 CWSs.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Although EPA regions should use the national FY 2011
target of the population served by community water sys-
tems receiving safe drinking water as a point of reference,
regional commitments to this outcome goal may vary based
on differing circumstances in each EPA region.
EPA, states, and tribes support the efforts of individual
water systems by providing a program framework that
includes core programs implemented by EPA regional
offices, states, and tribes. Core national program areas that
are critical to ensuring safe drinking water are:
Development or revision of drinking water standards;
Implementation of drinking water standards and techni-
cal assistance to water systems to enhance their technical,
managerial, and financial capacity;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund;
Water system security;
Protecting sources of drinking water; and
Underground injection control (UIC).
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grant
Guidance to states and tribes.
This National Water Program Guidance for FY2011 includes
guidance for state and tribal recipients of Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program grants. Grant recipients are
expected to conduct their programs to help achieve the goals,
objectives, sub-objectives, strategic targets, and program activity
measures specified in section III.l of this Guidance. In addition,
grant recipients should be focused on ensuring that the gains of
the previous years' efforts are preserved and built upon.
The overall objective of the PWSS program grant is to protect
public health by ensuring that:
Drinking water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, that are
currently in compliance, remain in compliance;
Drinking water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, that are
not currently in compliance, achieve compliance;
Drinking water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, are
preparing to comply with new drinking water regulations
that will be taking effect in FY 2011.
A proportion of each state's PWSS grant should be devoted to
ensuring that data quality and other data problems are being
addressed. Specifically that:
Water system compliance determinations are consistent
with federal and state regulations; and
The required inventory, compliance, and enforcement data
being provided to EPA are accurate and complete.
The PWSS grant allotments are based on factors such as popu-
lation, geographic area, and PWS inventory. State-by-State
allotments and the total amount available to each Region for
its Tribal support program will be available at http://www.epa.
gov/safewater/pws/grants/allo tments_state-terr.html.
Collectively, these core areas of the national safe drinking
water program comprise the multiple-barrier approach to
protecting public health. In each of these areas, specific
Program Activity Measures indicate progress being made
and some measures include "targets" for FY 2011. For
measures with targets, a national target and a target
for each EPA region, where applicable, are provided in
Appendix A.
1. Development/Revision of Drinking Water
Standards
In FY 2011, the Agency will assess the available informa-
tion on health effects and occurrence data in drinking
water to determine which Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL 3) contaminants have sufficient information on
which to base a regulatory decision. EPA will work to
compile this information to make regulatory determina-
tions for at least five CCL 3 contaminants by 2012. The
Agency will also continue to evaluate and address drink-
ing water risks though activities to also implement the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) including:
Responding to public comment on proposed revi-
sions to the Total Coliform Rule. In addition, EPA will
prepare a final rule which is scheduled for publication
in 2012.
Provide technical and scientific support for the
development and implementation of drinking water
regulations.
Continue the review, validation, and analysis of data
from the second round of contaminant monitoring
conducted under the Unregulated Contaminant Moni-
toring Rule (UCMR). UCMR2 data reporting by public
water systems will continue through mid-FY 2011. In
addition, in FY 2011, EPA will propose the third round
of unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCMR3) and
review the comments received on the proposed UCMR3
as we prepare the final UCMR3 for publication in FY
2012. EPA is required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, to annually
set-aside $2 million of State Revolving Funds to pay the
costs of small system monitoring and sample analysis
for contaminants for each cycle of the UCMR.
Collaborating with stakeholders to undertake the
highest priority research and information collection
activities to better understand water quality issues in
distribution systems.
Implementing the appropriate actions (i.e., regulatory
revisions and/or revised guidance) to address the long
term issues identified in the national review of the
revised Lead and Copper Rule.
Support the Partnership for Safe Water, a national col-
laborative effort between the water industry and EPA
to pursue optimization of the drinking water systems.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
2. Implementation of Drinking Water Standards
and Technical Assistance
In order to facilitate compliance with drinking water
regulations, EPA will use the following tools in partner-
ship 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 com-
munity water systems once every three years. For
non-community water systems or community water
systems determined by the state or tribe to have out-
standing performance based on prior surveys, surveys
may be conducted every five years. EPA will conduct
surveys at systems on tribal lands. Focused moni-
toring of this activity was initiated in 2007, for the
three-year period starting in 2004 (see Program Activ-
ity Measure SDW-1). This measure applies to surface
water systems and ground water systems under direct
influence of surface water and ground water systems.
Beginning in December 2009, states were required for
the first time to conduct sanitary surveys for ground
water systems. States have until December 2012 to
complete the initial round of sanitary surveys for
community water systems, and until December 2014
to complete the initial round of sanitary surveys for
non-community water systems or community water
systems designated as outstanding performers.
Technical Assistance and Training: Reference
materials to support implementation of recent regula-
tions will be developed. These materials will include
technical guidance, implementation guidance, and
quick reference guides. Assistance will focus particu-
larly on the Ground Water Rule, revised Lead and
Copper Rule, and Total Coliform Rule, as well as simul-
taneous compliance. Monitoring under the Ground
Water Rule begins in FY 2010. EPA will promote
operation and maintenance best practices to small sys-
tems in support of long term compliance success with
existing regulations. EPA will also provide training and
technical assistance to states and to water systems
that need to increase their treatment to comply with
Stage 2 and LT2. Over 59,000 water systems will need
to comply with these rules during 2011. EPA will be
developing and delivering technical training to help
state staff review new treatment plant upgrades under
LT2, specifically membrane and ultraviolet disinfec-
tion. In addition, EPA will develop technical assistance
materials to support state and water system imple-
mentation of the revised Total Coliform Rule.
Small System Assistance: EPA also will continue to
provide technical assistance and to leverage partners
to help systems serving fewer than 10,000 people con-
sistently meet regulatory requirements through the
use of cost-effective treatment technologies, proper
disposal of treatment residuals, and compliance with
monitoring requirements under the arsenic and radio-
nuclide rules, and with rules controlling microbial
pathogens and disinfection byproducts in drinking
water. Small public water systems face many chal-
lenges in providing safe drinking water and in meeting
the requirements of SDWA. These challenges include:
(1) lack of adequate revenue or access to financing; (2)
aging infrastructure; (3) retirement of experienced
system operators and the inability to recruit new oper-
ators to replace them; (4) operators who may lack the
requisite financial, technical, or managerial skills; and
(5) difficulty in understanding of existing or new regu-
latory requirements. As a result, small systems may
experience frequent or long-term compliance chal-
lenges to providing safe water to their communities.
In response to this ongoing challenge, in FY 2011, EPA
is renewing and reinforcing its efforts to enhance small
system capacity through a comprehensive small system
strategy founded on three major components. First,
EPA will work with the USDA Rural Utilities Service and
state DWSRF programs to strengthen financial sup-
port mechanisms and to streamline the administrative
process small systems must follow to access financial
assistance. Through this component, the Agency will
encourage states that have not yet developed a dis-
advantaged communities program to do so, and have
states increase disadvantaged community support, with
an emphasis on those systems requiring installation of
treatment technology to comply with the newer drink-
ing water regulations. The Agency also will work closely
with states to ensure that DWSRF loans are reserved for
systems which already are deemed sustainable or are on
a pathway to sustainability through DWSRF support.
Second, the Agency will work with states to improve
training and technical assistance for small systems,
and enhance oversight of state capacity development
programs, in order to improve small system capacity to
achieve and maintain compliance with drinking water
regulations. Through their first decade of experience,
state capacity development programs have identified
which strategies and techniques are most likely to help
small systems achieve and maintain sustainability.
Under this aspect of the strategy, EPA will coordinate
with states to identify and disseminate best practices,
policies and innovations across state programs, and
promote cost-effective, energy-efficient system practices.
EPA also will encourage states to target usage of DWSRF
set-asides for training and technical assistance provided
to systems challenged to meet newer drinking water
standards. Third, EPA will promote the restructuring
or voluntary consolidation of existing non-sustainable
systems, and work with states to ensure that new water
systems are sustainable. To promote restructuring,
the Agency will continue to provide information on
the benefits of different kinds of restructuring, or of
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
voluntary consolidation, of existing non-sustainable
systems. In addition EPA, in cooperation with states and
water system associations, will help states and systems
identify how to use DWSRF set-asides to achieve desired
restructuring. Also, the Agency will evaluate whether, as
a condition of the DWSRF, state programs are effectively
ensuring that new water systems have adequate capacity
to meet SDWA requirements.
To support implementation of the strategy, the Agency
has developed a suite of new indicators for the FY 2011
guidance. These indicators correspond to the three major
components of the small system strategy: existing and
new small water system inventory; state DWSRF proj-
ects targeting small systems; and, small system noncom-
pliance, and capacity to quickly return to compliance
with health-based standards. For public water systems
serving fewer than 500 persons, the Agency includes a
new indicator that will be able to track these systems,
as well as the creation of new small water systems. This
measure is important to help account for changes in
the universe of small water systems and help provide a
more complete picture of the nature of the small system
challenges in each state. The measure is an important
aspect of the small systems strategy that will continue
to be a major area of emphasis in FY 2011. Schools and
daycare centers are a critical subset of small systems for
which EPA is also continuing to provide special emphasis
in FY 2011 to ensure that children receive water that is
safe to drink. Therefore, included is a separate indicator
for schools and daycare centers meeting health-based
standards.
Area-wide Optimization Program: Under EPA's
voluntary Area-Wide Optimization Program (AWOP),
drinking water systems and states will continue to
use a variety of optimization tools, including com-
prehensive performance evaluations (CPEs) to assess
the performance of filtration technology. AWOP is
a highly successful technical assistance and training
program that enhances the ability of small systems to
meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and
disinfection byproducts standards. By FY 2011, EPA
will have worked with four EPA regional offices and 24
states to facilitate the transfer of specific skills using
the performance-based training approach targeted
towards optimizing key distribution system compo-
nents and/or groundwater system and distribution
system integrity.
Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Pro-
gram: EPA will continue the program that sets
standards and establishes methods for EPA, state,
tribal, and privately-owned laboratories that analyze
drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA
also will conduct three EPA regional program reviews
during FY 2011. Headquarters visits each EPA regional
office on a triennial basis and evaluates their oversight
of the state laboratories and the state laboratory certi-
fication programs within their purview.
Data Access, Quality and Reliability: The Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) serves
as the primary source of national information on com-
pliance with all health-based regulatory requirements
of SDWA. EPA will continue to work with states, with
one focus being to increase the use of SDWIS/State
because of its ease of reporting and compatibility with
the national SDWIS.
EPA will continue to improve the quality of data in
the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
by continuing to work with states to improve data
completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency
through: 1) training on data entry, error correction,
and regulatory reporting; 2) conducting data verifica-
tions and analyses; and 3) implementing quality assur-
ance and quality control procedures. Additionally, a
State-EPA workgroup is identifying underlying causes
of data quality problems and developing actions to
improve quality.
Coordination with Enforcement: The EPA regional
offices and the Office of Water will also work with the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OEC A) to identify instances of actual or expected
non-compliance that pose risks to public health and
to take appropriate actions as necessary. The Office
of Water has worked with OECA to develop a new
approach to significant noncompliance. The Office of
Water believes that this new approach will better focus
enforcement efforts on the greatest public health
risks. In addition, OW and OECA will continue close
coordination regarding violations at schools that have
their own water source. These school public water
systems are of special concern as children are the sub-
population most vulnerable to lead and other contami-
nants, and as a result, a new measure is proposed to
monitor compliance.
3. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF),
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, enables
states to offer low interest loans and other assistance
to help public water systems across the nation make
improvements and upgrades to their water infrastruc-
ture, or other activities that build system capacity.
EPA will work with states to increase the DWSRF fund
utilization rate2 for projects from a 2002 level of 73%
to 89% in 2011 (see Program Activity Measure SDW-4).
EPA will also work with states to monitor the number
Fund Utilization Rate is the cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements divided by cumulative funds available.
1 The 2007 Needs Survey was released in 2009
National Water Program Guidance
8
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
of projects that have initiated operations (see Program
Activity Measure SDW-5).
For fiscal years 2010-2013, appropriated funds will
be allocated to states in accordance with each state's
proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need
as determined by the most recent Needs Survey and
Assessment.3 There is also statutory constraint that
each state and the District of Columbia receive no less
than one percent of the allotment. The survey docu-
ments 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 com-
pliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
In FY 2011 EPA will continue implementation of the
SRF Sustainability Policy. This policy is designed to
promote technical, financial, and managerial capacity
as a critical means to meet infrastructure needs, and
further enhance program performance and efficiency,
and to ensure compliance. The Agency will continue to
work with state and local governments to address federal
drinking water policy in order to provide equitable con-
sideration of small system customers.
In FY 2011, EPA will further contribute to the sustain-
able 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 pub-
lic 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 bet-
ter understanding linkages between water production/
distribution and energy use.
4. Water System Security
EPA will provide tools, training, and technical assistance
to help protect the nation's critical water infrastructure
from terrorist and other catastrophic events. Reducing
risk in the water sector requires a multi-step approach
of determining risk through vulnerability assessments,
reducing risk through security enhancements, and
preparing to effectively respond to and recover from
incidents.
EPA will move to the next phase of the Water Security
Initiative (WSI) pilot program, focusing on techni-
cal assistance, support and evaluation activities, and
will continue to support water sector-specific agency
responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat
Reduction (WATR), to protect the nation's critical water
infrastructure. The Agency will continue to integrate the
regional laboratory networks and the WSI pilot labora-
tories into a national, consistent program. All of these
efforts support the Agency's responsibilities and com-
mitments under the National Infrastructure Protection
Plan (NIPP), as defined within the Water Sector Specific
Plan, which includes, for example, specific milestones for
work related to the WSI, the Water Laboratory Alliance,
and metric development.
In FY 2011, EPA will begin focusing on calibrating the
contaminant warning systems and conducting extensive
and thorough evaluations of each pilot. The Agency also
will continue to prepare and refine a series of guidance
documents for water utilities on designing, deploying,
and testing contamination warning systems based on
additional lessons learned from the pilots.
In FY 2009, EPA integrated the eleven Regional Labora-
tory Response Plans into a single National Plan. In FY
2011, EPA will focus its efforts on conducting exercises
within the framework of this National Plan and work
to expand the membership of the Water Laboratory
Alliance with the intention of achieving nationwide
coverage. In addition, EPA will continue to support the
Regional laboratory networks by providing laboratories
and utilities with access to supplemental analytical capa-
bility and capacity, improved preparedness for analytical
support to an emergency situation, and coordinated
and standardized data reporting systems and analytical
methods.
In FY 2011, EPA will also continue working to ensure
that water sector utilities have tools and information
(including those that support WATR) to prevent, detect,
respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, other
intentional acts, and natural disasters. The following pre-
ventive and preparedness activities will be implemented
for the water sector in collaboration with the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security (DHS), states, and tribes
homeland security and water sector officials:
Continue to develop and conduct exercises to prepare
utilities, emergency responders, and decision-makers
to evaluate and respond to physical, cyber, and con-
tamination threats and events;
Disseminate tools and provide technical assistance
to ensure that water and wastewater utilities and
emergency responders react rapidly and effectively to
intentional contamination and other incidents. This
includes: information on high priority contaminants,
incident command protocols, sampling and detection
protocols and methods, and treatment options;
Provide an expanded set of tools (e.g., best security
practices, incident command system and mutual aid
training, contaminant databases, decontamination
guidance) in order to keep the water sector current
with evolving water security priorities;
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
Continue to test and refine a risk assessment tool
that will enable utilities to address the risks from all
hazards, including climate change impacts;
Continue to implement specific recommendations of
the Water Decontamination Strategy as developed by
EPA and water sector stakeholders (e.g., defining roles
and responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies
during an event).
5. Protecting Sources of Drinking Water
EPA will serve as an analytic resource and facilitator for
states, tribes, and communities in developing strate-
gies 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 contami-
nation. Source water includes surface water, ground
water, and the interchange between them.
EPA's goal is to increase the number of community
water systems with minimized risk to public health
through development and implementation of protec-
tion strategies for source water areas (counted by states)
from a baseline of 20% of all areas in FY 2005 to 50%
in FY 2011 (see measure SP-4a). EPA also has a goal of
maintaining the percent of the population served by
these community water systems at 57% in FY 2011 (see
measure SP-4b).
In FY 2011, EPA will continue supporting state and local
efforts to identify and address current and potential
sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts
are integral to the sustainable infrastructure effort
because source water protection can reduce the need for
expensive drinking water treatment, along with related
increased energy use and costs, which, in turn, can
reduce the cost of infrastructure. In FY 2011, the Agency
will:
Continue to work with national, state, and local stake-
holder organizations and the multi-partner Source
Water Collaborative to encourage broad-based efforts
directed at encouraging actions at the state and local
level to address sources of contamination identified in
source water assessments;
EPA will continue to support source water protection
efforts by providing training, technical assistance,
and technology transfer capabilities to states and
localities, and facilitating the adoption of Geographic
Information System (CIS) databases to support local
decision-making;
Continue working with states, tribes, and other stake-
holders to characterize current and future pressures
on water availability, variability and sustainability
(WAYS) in the face of climate change.
EPA will also continue working with federal programs
to align source water preservation and protection with
their priorities. In particular, we are working to inte-
grate source water protection into Clean Water Act
programs like the watershed approach and storm water
management. State and tribal water quality standards
set the benchmarks for surface water quality under the
Clean Water Act and instream flow regimes that protect
aquatic habitats will also preserve surface water and
ground water supplies for all uses. States, tribes, and
communities should review these standards and regimes
to make sure their source waters will be preserved and
protected.
EPA will continue working with other federal agencies
like the U.S. Forest Service to maintain healthy land
cover and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on land
conservation programs and best management practices
to protect water quality. EPA encourages states and
communities to leverage these programs to preserve and
protect drinking water supplies.
6. Underground Injection Control
EPA works with states and tribes to monitor and
regulate the injection of fluids, by wells, underground,
both hazardous and non-hazardous, to prevent con-
tamination of underground sources of drinking water.
In FY 2011, EPA, states, and tribes will continue to
implement the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program for Classes I, II, III that lost mechanical integ-
rity and are returned to compliance within 180 days,
thereby reducing the potential to endanger under-
ground sources of drinking water (see Program Activity
Measure SDW-7).
In FY 2011, states and EPA (where EPA directly imple-
ments) will continue to carry out regulatory functions for
each class of wells. States and EPA will also continue to
process UIC permit applications for experimental carbon
sequestration projects. The information gathered from
these efforts will enable the Agency and states to provide
permits to large-scale commercial carbon sequestration
applications following finalization of the GS regulation.
Similarly, states and EPA will process UIC permits for
other nontraditional injection streams such as desalina-
tion brines and treated waters injected for storage and
recovered at a later time.
The Agency will carry out responsibilities in permitting
current and future geologic sequestration (GS) of carbon
dioxide projects. Activities planned for FY 2011 include:
Complete development of the rule and supporting
documents (i.e., technical support documents, guid-
ance documents, a response to comments document,
and implementation materials) for the GS of carbon
dioxide recovered from emissions of power plants and
other facilities;
Continue to facilitate research in UlC-related areas
of geologic sequestration including studies on siting
National Water Program Guidance
10
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe to Drink
characteristics of GS projects, monitoring of injected
CO2, modeling of CO2 plume and pressure front
movement, and other processes of CO2 injection
which could potentially pose risks to underground
sources of drinking water.
Analyze any data collected through Department of
Energy Class II EOR and Class V pilot projects and
additional industry efforts to demonstrate, com-
mercialize, and implement geologic sequestration of
carbon dioxide technology;
Engage states, tribes, and public stakeholders through
meetings, workshops, and other avenues, as appro-
priate; and also work closely with states, tribes, and
NGOs on addressing climate change issues; and
Provide necessary technical assistance, such as the issu-
ance of technical guidance concerning well construc-
tion and financial responsibility, to states and tribes in
permitting initial GS projects; and where EPA has direct
implementation authority, permit GS projects.
Also in FY 2011, EPA will continue to review new appli-
cations for primary enforcement authority from states
and tribes work to dissuade states from returning their
UIC programs to the Agency, and update the UIC grant
allocation guidance used by states and EPA regions.
EPA will continue training on the UIC database. The
Agency will continue to work with the states to fully
populate the UIC database, targeted to include 68 UIC
programs and 500,000 wells by 2012. EPA will support
mapping of each state's data for initial submissions and
transition from paper reporting to electronic reporting
for states that pass Quality Assurance/Quality Control
parameters.
Improving Drinking Water Public Health Protection
Strategy
Drinking water protection starts with the SD WA which
establishes EPA as the lead in developing national health
standards and working with states and other partners to
implement the resulting regulations in over 56,000 com-
munities across the country. The scientific underpinnings
of drinking water regulations are complex. The SDWA holds
EPA to high standards in its use of data and other informa-
tion and in the rigor of its analyses. The Agency thus faces a
two-fold challenge to provide the public with greater clarity
on the level of risk posed by regulated and unregulated
contaminants, and to more expeditiously reduce exposure
to contaminants that may pose undue risks.
These challenges are compounded by the numbers of chemi-
cals that are manufactured domestically or imported for
commercial purposes - tens of thousands with as many as a
thousand added every year.
The Agency is seeking to confront these challenges in new
ways that will help to accelerate efforts to reduce contami-
nants that pose significant health risks to drinking water
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grant
Guidance to states and tribes.
Each year, grant money is allocated to help UIC programs
enforce the minimum federal UIC requirements. These funds are
authorized by Congress under Section 1443 of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act (SDWA). The State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) are distributed by the national UIC Program. The grant
allotments are determined by the UIC Grant Allocation Model
and follow the criteria identified in Section 1443 of the SDWA
which requires UIC allocations to be based on such factors as
"population, geographic area, extent of underground injection
practices, and other relevant factors." The formula directs avail-
able resources toward the highest risk wells in order to achieve
the maximum level of public health protection.
UIC Grant Guidance #42 provides more detail about the UIC
Grant Allocation Model including how the model works and
examples of how the STAG maybe used. See http://www.epa.
gov/safewater/uic/gui dance.html.
The grant allocations are distributed to EPA regions which then
provide funds to states and tribes that have primacy to imple-
ment and maintain UIC programs. EPA regions ensure that the
programs are focused toward achieving the goals outlined in
this National Program Water Guidance. Specifically, work plans/
grant agreements should address the Program Activity Measures
(PAMs) for FY 2011, SDW-7a, -7b, -7c and -8, which may be
found in Appendix A.
In accordance with EPA Order 5700.6A2, CHG2, revised on
September 24, 2007, EPA regions must develop and carry out a
post-award monitoring plan and conduct basic monitoring for
every award. This monitoring should ensure satisfaction of five
core areas: (1) compliance with all programmatic terms and con-
ditions; (2) correlation of the recipient's work plan/application
and actual progress under the award; (3) availability of funds to
complete the project, (4) proper management of and accounting
for equipment purchased under the award, and (5) compliance
with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the program.
Given the variations among the programs, EPA regions deter-
mine the appropriate level of monitoring for the UIC grants that
comply with the Office of Water and Agency requirements.
consumers paying particular attention to protecting chil-
dren from unsafe drinking water contaminants. As such, the
Agency is reassessing its historic public health protection
strategy to consider alternative approaches to protecting
the nations' drinking water.
The approach encompasses the following:
Review of potential and regulated drinking water con-
taminants with all its available tools to reduce exposure
to drinking water contaminants
Employing resources of the Clean Air Act to help reduce
deposition in water
Restructuring the Toxic Substances Control Act to limit
exposure to toxic contaminants
National Water Program Guidance
11
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Reinvigorating the Clean Water Act compliance to protect
our source waters, and implementing the Safe Drinking
Water Act to protect sensitive life stages, such as children
and the elderly.
Expanding collection and dissemination information to
more clearly communicate the science and risks concern-
ing drinking water contaminants, all to help the public
better understand and help protect their drinking water.
The strategy also proposes innovative and longer-term
efforts that EPA can explore to support regulatory develop-
ment and highlights efforts that EPA and others can make
to improve public health protection while reducing the need
for drinking water treatment by keeping contaminants out
of the rivers, lakes, and aquifers that serve as America's
drinking water sources.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA has several program grants to the states, authorized
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, that support work
towards the drinking water strategic goals including the
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and Underground Injec-
tion Control (UIC) grants. For additional information on
these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
The PWSS grants support the states' primacy activities
(e.g., enforcement and compliance with drinking water
regulations). PWSS grant guidance issued for FY 2005 will
continue to apply in FY 2011. Of the FY 2011 President's
Budget request of $105.7 million, approximately $6.8 mil-
lion will support implementation of the Tribal Drinking
Water Programs.
The DWSRF program provides significant resources for
states to use in protecting public health. Through FY 2009,
the program as a whole provided over $16.1 billion ($16.2B
including ARRA) in assistance and states reserved over $1.5
billion in set-asides to support key drinking water pro-
grams. In FY 2011, the Agency requested $1.3 billion for the
program. EPA is emphasizing targeting DWSRF resources
to achieve water system compliance with health-based
requirements.
Tribal drinking water systems and Alaska Native Village
water systems face the challenge of improving access to
safe drinking water for the populations they serve. Funding
for 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, includ-
ing upgrading of community water systems and improv-
ing access through construction of new systems. EPA also
administers a grant program for drinking water and waste-
water projects in Alaska Native Villages. Additional funding
is available from other federal agencies, including the Indian
Health Service.
The FY 2011 budget requests $11.1 million for grants to
states to carry out primary enforcement (primacy) responsi-
bilities 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 shal-
low wells (Class V) in source water protection areas.
2) Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
A) Subobjective:
Percent of women of childbearing age
having mercury levels in blood above the
level of concern (of 4.6 percent).
2005 Baseline: 5.7% 2010 Commitment: 5.1%
2011 Target: Deferred 2014 Target: 4.6%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
Elevated blood mercury levels pose a significant health risk
and consumption of mercury- contaminated fish is the
primary source of mercury in blood. As of 2008 across the
country, states and tribes have issued fish consumption
advisories for a range of contaminants covering 1.4 million
river miles and over 18 million lake acres. In addition, a
significant portion of the valuable shellfishing acres man-
aged by states and tribes is not open for use. EPA's national
approach to meeting safe fish goals and improving the
quality of shellfishing waters is described on the following
pages.
1) Safe Fish
EPA's approach to making fish safer to eat includes sev-
eral key elements:
Encourage development of statewide mercury reduc-
tion strategies;
Reduce air deposition of mercury; and
Improve public information and notification of fish
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 allow-
ing states the option of developing comprehensive mer-
cury reduction programs in conjunction with their FY
2008 lists of impaired waters developed under Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Under the new guide-
lines, EPA allows states that have a comprehensive
mercury reduction program to place waters impaired
by mercury in a subcategory "5m" of their impaired
waters lists and defer development of mercury TMDLs
for these waters. These mercury impaired waters would
not be included in estimates of the "pace" of TMDL
National Water Program Guidance
12
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
development needed to meet the goal of developing
TMDLs for impaired waters within 8 to 13 years of list-
ing the waterbody.
The key elements of a state comprehensive mercury
reduction program are:
Identification of air sources of mercury in the state,
including adoption of appropriate state level programs
to address in-state sources;
Identification of other potential multi-media sources
of mercury in products and wastes and adoption of
appropriate state level programs;
Adoption of statewide mercury reduction goals and
targets, including targets for percent reduction and
dates of achievement;
Multi-media mercury monitoring;
Public documentation of the state's mercury reduction
program in conjunction with the state's Section 303(d)
list; and
Coordination across states where possible, such as
through the use of multi-state mercury reduction
programs.
EPA expects that these elements of a comprehensive
mercury reduction program will be in place in order for
5m listings to be appropriate (i.e., specific legislation,
regulations, or other programs that implement the
required elements have been formally adopted by the
state, as opposed to being in the planning or implemen-
tation stages). States will have the option of using the
"5m" listing approach as part of the Section 303(d) lists
due to EPA in April of every even numbered year.
EPA will also use available tools to identify specific
waters with high mercury levels and then address these
problems using core Clean Water Act program authori-
ties, including TMDL and permitting programs where a
state does not develop a comprehensive statewide reduc-
tion 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 Con-
sumption Risks
Another key element of the strategy is to expand and
improve information and notification of the risks of fish
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
consumption. As part of this work, EPA is also encourag-
ing and supporting states and tribes to adopt the fish
ing and supporting states an tries to aopt te fis
iterion for mercury that EPA issued in 2001 and
based on imlementation uidance.
tissue criteron or mercury tat ssue
apply it based on implementation guidance.
EPA is actively monitoring the development of fish con-
sumption advisories and working with states to improve
monitoring to support this effort. Fish tissues have
been assessed to support waterbody-specific or regional
consumption advisories for 43% of lake acres and 39%
of river miles (see Program Activity Measure FS-1). EPA
also encourages states and tribes to monitor fish tissue
based on national guidance and most states are now
doing this work.
2) Safe Shellfish
Shellfish safety is managed through the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a partnership
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the
state shellfish control agencies, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and EPA. State
shellfish control agencies monitor shellfishing waters
and can prohibit or restrict harvesting if the waters from
which shellfish are taken are considered unsafe.
Success in achieving improved quality in shellfishing
waters relies on implementation of Clean Water Act
programs that are focused on sources causing shellfish
acres to be closed. Important new technologies include
pathogen source tracking, new indicators of pathogen
contamination and predictive correlations between
environmental stressors and their effects. Once critical
areas and sources are identified, core program authori-
ties, 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
applies throughout the country will generally reduce
pathogen levels in key waters. For example, work to con-
trol Combined Sewer Overflows, reduce discharges from
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and reduce
storm water runoff and nonpoint source pollution will
contribute to restoration of shellfish uses.
Finally, success in achieving improved water quality in
shellfishing waters also depends on improving the avail-
ability 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.
National Water Program Guidance
13
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe for Swimming
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the state pro-
gram 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).
3) Water Safe for Swimming
A) Subobjective:
Percent of days of the beach season that
coastal and Great Lakes beaches moni-
tored by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming:
2006 Baseline: 97% 2010 Commitment: 95%
2011 Target: 95% 2014 Target: 96%
(Note: Additional measures of progress are included in
AppendixA.)
B) Key National Strategies
The nation's waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and
the Great Lakes, provide recreational opportunities for mil-
lions of Americans. Swimming in some recreational waters,
however, can pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to
microbial pathogens. By "recreational waters" EPA means
waters officially designated for primary contact recreation
use or similar full body contact use by states, authorized
tribes, and territories.
For FY 2011, EPA's national strategy for improving the
safety of recreational waters will include four key elements:
Establish pathogen indicators based on sound science;
Identify unsafe recreational waters and begin
restoration;
Reduce pathogen levels in all recreational waters; and
Improve beach monitoring and public notification.
1) Continue to Develop the Scientific Foundation
to Support the Next Generation of Recommended
Water Quality Criteria
The BEACH Act requires EPA to develop new or revised
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 main-
tain strong progress toward implementation of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which are devel-
oped based on the schedules established by states in
conjunction with EPA. Program Activity Measure WQ-8
indicates that most EPA regions expect to maintain
schedules providing for completion of TMDLs within 13
years of listing. EPA will continue to work with states to
expand implementation of TMDLs, including developing
TMDLs on a water segment or watershed basis where
appropriate (see Section II.1).
In a related effort, the Office of Water will work in
partnership with the Office of Enforcement and Com-
pliance Assurance (OECA) to better focus compliance
and enforcement resources to unsafe recreational
waters. In addition, wet weather discharges, which are a
major source of pathogens, are one of OECA's national
priorities.
3) Reduce Pathogen Levels in Recreational Waters
Generally
In addition to focusing on waters that are unsafe for
swimming today, EPA, states and tribes will work in FY
2011 to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged
to recreational waters using three key approaches:
Reduce pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) that are not in compliance with final require-
ments of the Long Term Control Plans;
Address other sources discharging pathogens under
the permit program; and
Encourage improved management of septic systems.
Overflows from combined storm and sanitary sewers in
urban areas can result in high levels of pathogens being
released during storm events. Because urban areas are
often upstream of recreational waters, these overflows
are a significant source of unsafe levels of pathogens.
EPA is working with states and local governments
to fully implement the CSO Policy providing for the
development and implementation of Long Term Control
Plans (LTCPs) for CSOs. EPA expects that close to 84%
of the 853 CSO permits will have schedules in place to
implement approved LTCPs in FY 2011 (see Program
Activity Measure SS-1). EPA will also work with states
to resolve longstanding issues associated with sanitary
sewer overflows and bypasses at treatment plants.
Other key sources of pathogens to the nation's waters
are discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) and municipal storm sewer systems
and industrial facilities. EPA expects to work with states
to assure that these facilities are covered by permits. In
addition, EPA expects to work with the states to develop
approaches for monitoring wet weather discharges
and impacts to surface waters, developing WQBELs,
and identifying effective control measures and BMPs.
For CAFOs, the NPDES regulations currently require
facilities with discharges to seek permit coverage. Full
implementation of the NPDES permitting requirement
for CAFOs will result in lower pathogen contamination
National Water Program Guidance
14
-------
Strategies to Protect Public Health
Water Safe for Swimming
due to permitting requirements that place controls on
discharges of manure and process wastewater.
Finally, there is growing evidence that ineffective septic
systems are adversely impacting water resources. EPA
will work with state, tribal, and local governments to
develop voluntary approaches to improving manage-
ment of these systems.
4) Improve Beach Monitoring and Public
Notification
Another important element of the strategy for improv-
ing the safety of recreational waters is improving
monitoring of public beaches and notifying the public
of unsafe conditions. EPA continues to work with states
to implement the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act and expects that 97
percent of "significant" public beaches will be monitored
in accordance with BEACH Act requirements in FY 2010
(see Program Activity Measure SS-2). Significant public
beaches are those identified by states as "Tier 1" in their
beach monitoring and notification programs. Finally,
EPA will continue to receive state information on beach
notifications and make it available to the public 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 pro-
gram implementation grants (Section 319 grants), and the
BEACH Act grant program grants. For additional informa-
tion on these grants, see the grant program guidance on the
website (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
National Water Program Guidance
15
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
.Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters,
Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
An overarching goal of the National Water Program is to protect and restore aquatic systems throughout the country,
including rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands. Although the three subobjective strategies described below
address discrete elements of the nation's water resources, the National Water Program manages these efforts as part
of a comprehensive effort. In addition, the national strategies described below are intended to work in concert with the
efforts to restore and protect the large aquatic ecosystems described in Part IV of this Guidance.
1) Restore and Improve Water
Quality on a Watershed Basis
A) Subobjective:
Use pollution prevention and restoration
approaches to protect and restore the
quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on
a watershed basis.
(NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in
the Appendices, including measures related to watersheds
and maintaining water quality in streams already meeting
standards.)
B) Key National Strategies
In FY 2011, EPA will work with states, tribes, and others to
implement programs to protect and restore water resources
with three key goals in mind:
Core Water Programs: EPA, states, and tribes need to
continue maintaining and improving the integration and
implementation of the core national clean water pro-
grams throughout the country to most effectively protect
and restore water quality.
Use of the Watershed Approach: EPA will continue to
support the implementation of "watershed approaches"
to restoring and protecting waters. This work will be
coordinated with the efforts to restore and protect large
aquatic ecosystems discussed in Part IV of this Guidance.
Water Restoration Goals and Strategies: EPA will
continue to work with states and tribes to strengthen
capacities to identify and address impaired waters and to
use adaptive management approaches to implement cost-
effective restoration solutions, giving priority to water-
shed approaches where appropriate.
Water Protection Goals and Strategies: EPA will work
with states and tribes to strengthen capacities to identify
and protect high quality waters including efforts to inte-
grate these efforts with restoration approaches.
1. Implement Core Clean Water Programs to Pro-
tect All Waters Nationwide
In FY 2011, EPA, states, and tribes need to continue to
effectively implement and better integrate programs
established under the Clean Water Act to protect,
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies: General Information.
This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2011 includes guidance for state and interstate recipients of Section 106
grants for Water Pollution Control Programs. As a general matter, grant recipients are expected to conduct their pro-
grams to help achieve the goals, objectives, subobjectives, strategic targets, and program activity measures specified in
section III.l of this Guidance. In addition, section III.l includes specific guidance for State and Interstate grant recipients
in text boxes like this. Together, section III.l, the text boxes, and Appendix E replace the biannual Section 106 Grant
Guidance. The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2011 continues this practice of incorporating Section 106 grants
guidance into the main National Program Guidance.
This grant guidance covers only the core water pollution control activities listed above this box. EPA continues
to provide separate guidance for the following water pollution control activities:
Tribal water pollution control programs.*
See http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106tgg07.htm.
State and Interstate use of Monitoring Initiative funds.
See http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106-guidelines-monitor.htm.
Water pollution enforcement activities.
See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/
index.htm.
Tribes found eligible under section 518(e) of the Clean Water Act to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS) to
administer a water quality standards program are expected to follow the same guidance as states for these programs.
National Water Program Guidance
16
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
improve, and restore water quality. To achieve this, EPA
will apply adaptive management principles to our core
programs and initiatives. Key tasks for FY 2011 include:
Strengthen the water quality standards program;
Improve water quality monitoring and assessment;
Implement TMDLs and other watershed plans;
Strengthen the NPDES permit program;
Implement practices to reduce pollution from all
nonpoint sources; and
Support sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
As part of this process, EPA will continue efforts to
integrate across programs, media and federal agen-
cies 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 2011 in each of these program areas are
described below.
a. Strengthen Water Quality Standards: Water
Quality Standards are the regulatory and scientific
foundation of water quality protection programs
under the Clean Water Act. Under the Act, states and
authorized tribes establish water quality standards
that define the goals and limits for waters within
their jurisdictions. These standards are then used
to determine which waters must be cleaned up, how
much may be discharged, and what is needed for
protection.
To help achieve strategic targets, EPA will continue
to review and approve or disapprove state and tribal
water quality standards and promulgate replacement
standards where needed; develop water quality cri-
teria, 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
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 require-
ments of the CWA and the water quality standards regulation.* EPA expects states and tribes will enhance the quality and
timeliness of their water quality standards triennial reviews so that these standards reflect EPA guidance and updated
scientific information. EPA encourages states and tribes to reach early agreement with EPA on triennial review priorities
and schedules and coordinate at critical points to facilitate timely EPA reviews of state water quality standards submis-
sions. It is particularly important for states and tribes to keep their water quality criteria up to date, including consider-
ing all the scientific information EPA has issued for specific pollutants since the state or tribe last updated those criteria,
and adding or revising criteria as necessary (see measures WQ-3a and 3b). States with disapproved standards provisions
should work with EPA to resolve the disapprovals promptly.
EPA places a high priority on states proposing and adopting numeric water quality standards for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus that apply to all waters in each of three waterbody types - lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, and estu-
aries - to help target reductions in excess nutrients that can cause eutrophication and other problems in those waters
(see measures WQ-la and Ib). To help EPA track state progress, states need to provide EPA with a full set of performance
milestone information concerning total nitrogen and total phosphorus numeric criteria development, proposal, and
adoption (see measure WQ-lc). These three nutrient criteria measures are new for 2011. To facilitate accurate reporting,
EPA is providing detailed guidance for WQ-la, Ib, and Ic in Appendix H.
EPA strongly encourages states and authorized tribes without antidegradation implementation methods to establish
them as soon as possible, consistent with EPA's regulation.
States and tribes should make their water quality standards accessible to the public on the Internet in a systematic
format. Users should be able to identify the current EPA-approved standards that apply to each waterbody in the state
or reservation, 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 or tribe to
populate, operate, and maintain locally if it does not have its own database. You may request a copy of the WQSDB and
guidance for its installation and use at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqshome/.
Tribes found eligible to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS) to administer water quality standards programs
under section 518 of the Clean Water Act. As of January 2009, 44 tribes have been found to be eligible for TAS status.
National Water Program Guidance
17
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
quality criteria to help target reductions in excess
nitrogen and phosphorus that can cause eutrophica-
tion and other problems in lakes, estuaries, rivers,
and streams. EPA will work with states and territo-
ries as they propose and adopt numeric water quality
standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus
that apply to each of three entire waterbody types:
lakes and reservoirs; rivers and streams; and estuar-
ies. To track progress, EPA will work with states to
identify internal milestones for developing, propos-
ing, and adopting total nitrogen and total phospho-
rus numeric criteria for their waters (see Program
Activity Measures WQ-la, Ib, and Ic). EPA continues
to believe that it is also beneficial for states to derive
additional numeric criteria for response variables,
such as chlorophyll-a and water clarity.
Continuing degradation of previously high quality
waters is of increasing concern. EPA's antidegrada-
tion policy calls for states and authorized tribes to
conduct a public review of proposed activities that
are likely to lower water quality in high quality waters
to determine whether the proposed degradation is
necessary to accommodate important economic or
social development in the area in which the waters
are located. EPA strongly encourages states and
authorized tribes without antidegradation imple-
mentation procedures to establish them as soon as
possible to ensure that antidegradation policies are
implemented.
In a related effort, EPA will continue to encourage
and support tribes in implementing one of the three
approaches for protecting water quality contained
in EPA's Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian
Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. The
three approaches are: the non-regulatory approach;
the tribal law water quality protection approach; and
the EPA-approved water quality protection approach.
EPA tracks the progress of tribes adopting EPA-
approved water quality standards under the third
approach (see Program Activity Measure WQ-2).
EPA will also work with states, territories, and autho-
rized 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 3b) and to facilitate adoption of
standards that EPA can approve (see Program Activity
Measures WQ-4a).
EPA encourages states, territories, and authorized
tribes to make their water quality standards accessible
to the public on the Internet in a systematic format.
b. Improve Water Quality Monitoring and Asses-
sment: EPA will continue to work with states, tribes,
territories, and other partners to provide the moni-
toring data and information needed to make good
water quality protection and restoration decisions
and to track changes in the nation's water quality
over time.
Beginning in FY 2005, Congress designated $18.5
million in new Section 106 funds for a monitoring
initiative, which builds upon states' base investments
in monitoring to include enhancements to state and
interstate monitoring programs and collaboration on
statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. EPA
recognizes that these funds represent a small amount
of the total needed to address all state water monitor-
ing needs. The basis for allotting these funds is found
in the Amendment to the Guidelines for the Award of
Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section 106 Grants
to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes in the Federal
Register in July 17, 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/award-monitoring-fund.htm). The guide-
lines specify the activities that states and interstate
agencies carry out under the monitoring initiative.
These included funding new, expanded, or enhanced
monitoring activities as part of the state's implemen-
tation of its comprehensive state monitoring strategy.
Some monitoring priorities that states should consider
include:
Integration of statistical survey and targeted moni-
toring designs to assess the condition of all water
resources over time;
Evaluate the effects of implementation of TMDLs
and watershed plans,
Development of criteria and standards for nutri-
ents and excess sedimentation;
Enhancement of bioassessment and biocriteria for
all water resources; and
Support other state monitoring objectives, includ-
ing monitoring of wetlands and use of landscape
and other predictive tools.
A separate Section 106 workplan component must be
submitted that includes water monitoring activities
and milestones for both implementation of state
strategies and collaboration on statistically-valid
surveys of the nation's waters, (http://www.epa.gov/
owow/monitoring/nationalsurveys.html)
State and EPA cooperation on statistically-valid
assessments of water condition nationwide remains
a top priority. In FY 2011, states, tribes, EPA, and
other partners will be completing the analysis for
a statistically valid survey of rivers and streams.
The results of this survey will be issued in FY 2012,
with a report on the baseline condition of rivers and
changes in stream condition since 2006 (see Strategic
Target SP-13). During FY 2011, field sampling for the
first ever statistically valid survey of wetland condi-
tion will occur. (See Sub-objective 4.3.1, Increase
Wetlands.) During FY 2011, samples for the fifth
National Water Program Guidance
18
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: Monitoring.
EPA encourages states, territories, and interstate com-
missions to use a combination of Section 106 monitoring
funds, base 106 funds, and other resources available to
enhance their monitoring activities, and meet the objec-
tives of EPA's March, 2003 guidance, "Elements of a State
Water Monitoring and Assessment Program" (http://
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/), which calls
for states to implement their monitoring strategies by
2014. During FY 2011, these efforts include:
Implementing monitoring strategies;
Undertaking statistical surveys; and
Integrating assessments of water conditions, including
reports under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
and listing of impaired waters under Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act by April 1, 2010.
In FY 2011, some states will transmit water quality data
to the national STORET warehouse using the Water Qual-
ity Exchange (WQX) framework and submit assessment
results for the 2011 Integrated Report via the Assessment
Database version 2, or a compatible electronic format,
and geo-reference these assessment decisions (see Pro-
gram Activity Measure WQ-7). EPA will support states'
use of WQX, WQX Web, and data in the STORET Data
Warehouse through technical assistance and exchange
network grants. Water quality assessment data are critical
to measuring progress towards the Agency's and states'
goals of restoring and improving water quality.
statistically-valid assessment of coastal waters will be
analyzed to report on trends in FY 2012. A portion
of the FY 2011 CWA Section 106 Monitoring Initia-
tive funds will be allocated for sampling and analysis
for the second statistically-valid survey of lakes
nationwide, with a report scheduled in 2014. EPA
will enhance and expand work with states, tribes, and
other partners to improve the administration, logisti-
cal, and technical support for the surveys.
In FY 2011, states will continue to enhance and
refine their monitoring programs and make progress
according to schedules established in their monitor-
ing strategies (see Program Activity Measure WQ-5).
EPA stresses the importance of using statistical
surveys to generate statewide assessments and track
broad-scale trends; enhancing and implementing
designs to address water information needs at local
scales (e.g., watersheds) including monitoring waters
where restoration actions have been implemented,
and integrating both statistical surveys and tar-
geted monitoring to assess the condition of all water
resources over time.
EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring
strategies appropriate to their water quality programs
through training and technical assistance and work
with tribes to provide data in a format accessible for
storage in EPA data systems (see Program Activity
Measure WQ-6). As tribal strategies are developed, EPA
will work with tribes to implement them over time.
EPA's goal is to achieve greater integration of fed-
eral, regional, state, tribal, and local level monitoring
efforts to connect monitoring and assessment activi-
ties across geographic scales, in a cost-efficient and
effective manner, so that scientifically defensible mon-
itoring data is available to address issues and problems
at each of these scales. In addition EPA will work with
states and other partners to address research and
technical gaps related to sampling methods, analytical
approaches, and data management.
c. Implement TMDLs and Other Watershed Related
Plans: Development and implementation of TMDLs
for 303(d) listed waterbodies is a critical tool for
meeting water quality restoration goals. TMDLs focus
on clearly defined environmental goals and establish
a pollutant budget, which is then implemented via
permit requirements and through local, state, and
federal watershed plans/programs. Strong networks,
including the National Estuary Programs (see "Protect
Coastal and Ocean Waters" Sub objective), as well as
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollu-
tion Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and federal
land management agencies foster efficient strategies
to address water quality impairments. In 2007, EPA
and the Forest Service (FS) signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/usfsepa-
moa/) designed to develop strategies (e.g., TMDLs and
TMDL alternatives) to address water quality impair-
ments on FS land. In addition, EPA recently formed a
partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
to identify the location of impaired waters and to
develop a strategy to address and protect waters on
FWS land. These networks are uniquely positioned
to improve water quality through development and
implementation of TMDLs, TMDL alternatives, and
other restoration actions.
EPA will track the degree to which states develop
TMDLs or take other appropriate actions (TMDL alter-
natives) on approved schedules, based on a goal of at
least 80 percent on pace each year to meet state sche-
dules or straight-line rates that ensure that the national
policy of TMDL development within 8-13 years of
listing is met (see Program Activity Measure WQ-8).
As noted below, EPA is encouraging states to organize
schedules for TMDLs to address all pollutants on an
impaired segment when possible (see Program Activ-
ity Measure WQ-21). Where multiple impaired seg-
ments are clustered within a watershed, EPA encour-
ages states to organize restoration activities across
the watershed (i.e., apply a watershed approach). To
assist in the development of Watershed TMDLs, the
National Water Program Guidance
19
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
Interstate Agencies: TMDLs.
EPA encourages states to effectively assess their waters
and make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely
submittal of required § 303(d) lists of impaired waters.
For the 2008 Integrated Reporting Cycle, there was a
significant improvement in timely list submissions. In
2011, EPA will continue to work with states, interstate
agencies, and tribes to foster a watershed approach as the
guiding principle of clean water programs. In watersheds
where water quality standards are not attained, states will
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), critical
tools for meeting water restoration goals. States should
establish a schedule for developing necessary TMDLs as
expeditiously as practicable. EPA policy is that TMDLs for
each impairment listed on the state § 303 (d) lists should
be established in a time frame that is no longer than 8
to 13 years from the time the impairment is identified.
States have started to address more difficult TMDLs,
such as broad-scale mercury and nutrient TMDLs, which
required involvement at the state and federal level across
multiple programs. EPA will also continue to work with
states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and georef-
erenced data made available to the public via the Assess-
ment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System
(ATTAINS).
TMDL program developed two tools: Draft Handbook
for Developing Watershed TMDLs, and a 'checklist'
for developing mercury TMDLs where the source
is primarily atmospheric deposition (http://www.
epa.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. Addi-
tionally, EPA will work with partners to improve our
ability to identify and protect healthy waters/water-
sheds, 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: The
NPDES program requires point source dischargers to
be permitted and requires pretreatment programs to
control discharges from industrial and other facilities
to the nation's public-owned treatment works. EPA is
working with states to structure the permit program
to better support comprehensive protection of water
quality on a watershed basis and recent increases in
the scope of the program arising from court orders
and environmental issues. In addition, the NPDES
Program will be working closely with the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to
implement the Clean Water Act Action Plan. Addi-
tional information on the Action Plan, and 2011
activities can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/
npmguidance/index.htm#OECA. Some key NPDES
program efforts include:
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Reviews
and Action Items: EPA conducts Regional Pro-
gram and Permit Quality Reviews (PQRs) to assess
the health and integrity of the NPDES program
in both the regional offices and authorized states.
EPA developed a commitment and tracking system
to ensure that regional and state NPDES programs
implement follow-up actions resulting from these
assessments. EPA continues to emphasize the
importance of these follow-up actions (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-11). Additional action items
will continue to be identified and addressed through
this process in FY 2011.
Program Integrity: EPA will increase emphasis in
working with states to ensure the integrity of the
NPDES program. Consistent with the Clean Water
Act Action Plan, EPA will integrate program and
enforcement oversight to ensure the most signifi-
cant actions affecting water quality are included in
an accountability system and are addressed. Some
factors that will be reviewed in EPA's oversight pro-
gram include sufficient progress in the implementa-
tion of the NPDES program including permitting,
inspections, and enforcement. In addition, EPA will
begin a process to make streamlining revisions to
various parts of the existing NPDES application
and permit regulations to improve program clarity,
protection of water quality, program transparency,
and efficiency.
High Priority Permits: States and EPA regions
are asked to select high priority permits based on
programmatic and environmental significance and
commit to issuing a specific number of those per-
mits during the fiscal year. Beginning in FY 2010,
EPA aligned the priority permit universe selection
with the GPRA commitment schedule (see Program
Activity Measures WQ-19).
Watershed Permits/Water Quality Trad-
ing: 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 Pro-
gram Activity Measure WQ-20). EPA will continue to
coordinate with EPA regional offices, states, USDA,
and other federal agencies to implement watershed
programs.
National Water Program Guidance
20
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Green Infrastructure: EPA is collaborating with
partner organizations to implement the Green
Infrastructure Action Strategy released in Janu-
ary 2008, to help incorporate green infrastructure
solutions at the local level to protect water qual-
ity using integrated wet weather management.
Green Infrastructure management approaches and
technologies infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture and
reuse stormwater to maintain or restore natural
hydrology. EPA supports use of Section 106 funds to
provide programmatic support for green infrastruc-
ture efforts promote prevention, reduction, and
elimination of water pollution.
Pesticides: On January 7, 2009, the sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals required EPA and authorized
states to issue permits for the application of pes-
ticides to waters of the U.S. EPA will develop and
public notice a draft general permit in 2010 in the
states where EPA is the permitting authority for
the application of pesticides to waters of the U.S.
and finalize the permit in 2011. EPA will assist the
other 45 states in developing their own general
permits and assist in a national effort to educate
the pesticides application industry regarding how
to comply with the new permits. EPA OW, OECA,
and the regions will work together to issue the per-
mit four months early, if possible, to work with the
industry sector to understand what is required.
Vessels: As a result of a 2006 court ruling vacating a
longstanding EPA regulation, approximately 70,000
vessels that were exempt from permitting need
to be covered by an NPDES permit for discharges
incidental to their normal operation. EPA is devel-
oping scientific protocols and models to determine
how to more effectively control the introduction of
numerous aquatic invasive species into our Nation's
waters from ballast water discharges. Ballast water
discharges have resulted in the introduction of
numerous aquatic invasive species, resulting in
severe degradation of many ecosystems and bil-
lions of dollars of economic damages. Legislation
enacted on July 31, 2008, (PL. 110-299) established
a moratorium on NPDES permitting of incidental
discharges (except ballast water) from fishing vessels
(regardless of size) and commercial vessels less then
79 feet which will expire on July 31, 2010. Absent
congressional action, after the expiration of the
moratorium, these vessels will need to be covered by
an NPDES permit to discharge legally.
Stormwater: In October 2008, The National
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
(NRC) found that EPA's stormwater program needs
significant changes to improve its effectiveness and
the quality of urban streams. EPA has evaluated
the NRC findings and state permitting authorities
have identified additional efficiencies that should
be considered. EPA has initiated national rule-
making to improve the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the program.
CAFOs: EPA revised the NPDES regulations for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
in 2008 to address the Second Circuit's 2005 deci-
sion 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 cover-
age and provide the tools and information needed
to prevent discharges and provide appropriate
permit coverage. In addition, EPA will continue to
monitor the number of CAFOs covered by NPDES
permits as an indication of state progress (see
Program Activity Measure WQ-13).
Chesapeake Bay: In response to the Chesapeake
Bay Executive Order, EPA will conduct significant
new regulatory, permitting, modeling, report-
ing and planning efforts for the Agency, including
developing a stormwater regulation to better control
wet weather related pollution and revised CAFO
implementation guidance and regulations to better
control agricultural pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA will encourage state NPDES programs to incor-
porate more stringent permit provisions in storm-
water permits prior to promulgation of a rule. Also,
EPA will review all new or reissued NPDES permits
for significant municipal and industrial wastewater
dischargers submitted by Bay jurisdictions to ensure
that the permits are consistent with the applicable
Bay water quality standards and the Bay TMDL was-
teload allocations. In addition, EPA will continue to
support states and EPA regional offices in effectively
implementing the NPDES program to improve the
health of the watershed. Finally, EPA will implement
a Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement
Strategy in part to ensure that permittees are in
compliance with their permit provisions.
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 treat-
ment plant to ensure that water quality is protected
during wet weather events. EPA will be conducting
outreach meetings in its initiation of a rulemaking.
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 assur-
ing that not less than 90% of all permits are cur-
rent (see Program Activity Measure WQ-12).
National Water Program Guidance
21
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Pretreatment: EPA and states will monitor the
percentage of significant industrial facilities that
have control mechanisms in place to implement
applicable pretreatment requirements prior to
discharging to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs). EPA will also monitor the percentage of
categorical industrial facilities in non-pretreatment
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 dis-
charge standards (see Program Activity Measures
WQ-15andWQ-16).
Urban Waters: In March 2009, EPA introduced
the Urban Waters Initiative to focus on helping
urban communities, particularly disadvantaged
communities, to reconnect with and revitalize
their water environments. EPA's OWM has been
involved in several urban water workgroups,
developed work products to advance the initiative
and strategy to integrate green infrastructure into
stormwater management plans, reduce combined
sewer overflows, and promote wastewater opera-
tion certification training.
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 pollu-
tion. Land applied nutrients represent a significant
challenge to improving water quality. EPA, states, and
tribes are working with local governments, watershed
groups, property owners, and others to implement
programs and management practices to control pol-
luted runoff throughout the country.
EPA provides grant funds to states and tribes under
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act to implement
comprehensive programs to control nonpoint pol-
lution, including reduction in runoff of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment. EPA will monitor prog-
ress 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).
Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies: Permits, Enforcement, and
Compliance.
States should continue to implement significant actions identified during Regional program and permit quality reviews
to assure effective management of the permit program and to adopt efficiencies to improve environmental results. States
should also implement recommended significant actions identified under the EPA/ECOS enforcement and compliance "State
Review Framework" process. States should place emphasis on implementing criteria to ensure that priority permits selected
are those offering the greatest benefit to improve water quality and those permit revisions needed to implement TMDLs.
EPA will track the implementation of the significant action items described above (WQ-11). EPA will work with each state to
evaluate and set programmatic and performance goals to maximize water quality improvement and achieve state and EPA
regional priorities across the Clean Water Act programs to maintain the integrity of the NPDES programs. EPA and states
should work together to optimally balance competing priorities, schedules for action items based on the significance of the
action, and program revisions. States are encouraged to seek opportunities to incorporate efficiency tools such as watershed
permitting, trading, and linking development of water quality standards, TMDLs, and permits. States are expected to ensure
that stormwater permits are reissued on a timely basis and to strengthen the provisions of the MS4 permits as the permits
are reissued to ensure clarity on what is required and that permits are written so that they are enforceable. States should
place emphasis on incorporating green infrastructure in all stormwater permits. States need to update their programs to
implement the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) rule, including regulations, permits and technical standards,
and work closely with their inspection and enforcement programs to ensure a level playing field. States need to update their
programs to issue pesticide permits by April 2011. In general, states should ensure that permittees submit data that accu-
rately characterizes the pollutant loadings in their discharge for reasonable potential determinations and other reporting.
States are expected to ensure data availability by fully populating the required Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS- NPDES) or Permit Compliance System (PCS) data elements Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB)) or
data elements in ICIS-NPDES that are comparable to WENDB in PCS or ICIS (December 28, 2007 memo from Michael Stahl
and James Hanlon, "ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 Permit Compliance System Policy Statement") as appro-
priate. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has a separate National Program Manager (NPM)
Guidance. In 2011, OECA's NPM Guidance identifies initial activities for improving enforcement efforts aimed at address-
ing water quality impairment through the Clean Water Act Action Plan (the Action Plan). OW and states will be working
closely with OECA as the Action Plan is implemented. The final OECA NPM Guidance is available with the complete Agency
set at: www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
National Water Program Guidance
22
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
As described in more detail in Section 2 below, EPA
is encouraging states to use the Section 319 pro-
gram 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 implement-
ing comprehensive watershed plans. These plans
are geared towards restoring impaired waters on a
watershed basis while still protecting high quality
and threatened waters as necessary. In FY 2011, EPA
will continue to work closely with and support the
many efforts of states, interstate agencies, tribes,
local governments and communities, watershed
groups, and others to develop and implement their
local watershed-based plans. State CWSRF funds are
also available to support efforts to control pollution
from nonpoint sources.
f. Support Sustainable Water Infrastructure:
The U.S. depends on drinking water, wastewater,
and stormwater infrastructure for the health, the
economy, the vitality of water environment, and the
sustainability of communities. However, the U.S.
has underinvested in the renewal of existing infra-
structure while growth patterns create needs for an
expanding network of infrastructure that communi-
ties will need to maintain and replace.
The U.S. must embrace a fundamental change in
the way we manage, value, and invest in infrastruc-
ture. EPA is pursuing a Sustainable Infrastructure
Program, designed to affect that change by institu-
tionalizing practices that will help communities find
sustainable solutions while maximizing the value of
each infrastructure dollar spent. The suite of activi-
ties which comprises the program is based on two
basic tenets:
To be sustainable as a community, you need sus-
tainable infrastructure.
To achieve sustainable water infrastructure, you
need sustainable utilities.
To those ends, EPA is working to foster the integra-
tion of water infrastructure decisions into smart
growth strategies that provide more livable com-
munities and reduce long term infrastructure needs
and costs. EPA is also working to promote effective
and sustainable utility management. Those efforts
center around upfront planning that incorporates the
assessment of life cycle costs, innovative and green
alternatives, and collateral environmental benefits
into infrastructure investment strategies.
Sustainable Water Infrastructure is an integral part
of the Sustainable Communities Partnership between
HUD, DOT, and EPA. EPA is working with the
partners to integrate infrastructure planning across
water, housing, and transportation sectors to achieve
the partnership goals.
EPA is also pursuing these goals through the DWSRFs
and CWSRFs that provide low interest loans to help
finance drinking water and wastewater treatment
facilities, as well as other water quality projects. Rec-
ognizing the substantial remaining need for drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure, EPA expects
to continue to provide significant annual capitaliza-
tion to the SRFs, and to encourage the leveraging
of those investments to achieve infrastructure and
community sustainability. EPA will work with states
to assure the effective operation of SRFs, including
monitoring the fund utilization rate (see Program
Activity Measure WQ-17).
In another example, EPA is working with USDA and
other partners to expand the promotion of effective
utility management with smaller utilities. This effort
will support the National Water Program's efforts to
address the needs of disadvantaged urban and rural
communities.
In a related effort, EPA will work with other federal
agencies to improve access to basic sanitation. The
2002 World Summit in Johannesburg adopted the
goal of reducing the number of people lacking access
to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50%
by 2015. EPA will contribute to this work through its
support for development of sanitation facilities in
Indian country, Alaskan Native villages, and Pacific
Island communities using funds set aside from the
CWSRF and targeted grants. Other federal agen-
cies, 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 pro-
grams is essential to improving water quality but is not
sufficient to fully accomplish the water quality improve-
ments called for in the Agency's Strategic Plan. Today's
water quality problems are often caused by many signifi-
cant factors that are not adequately addressed by these
core programs, including loss of habitat and habitat
fragmentation, hydrologic alteration, invasive species,
and climate change. Addressing these complex problems
demands a watershed systems approach to protection
that considers both habitats and the critical watershed
processes that drive the condition of aquatic ecosys-
tems. The watershed systems approach is implemented
through an iterative planning process to actively seek
broad public involvement and focus multi-stakeholder
National Water Program Guidance
23
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
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 water-
sheds at other hydrologic scales. Together, these projects
provide strong evidence of the value of a comprehensive
approach to assessing water quality, defining problems,
integrating management of diverse pollution controls,
and defining financing of needed projects.
Over the past decade, EPA has witnessed a groundswell
of locally-driven watershed protection and restoration
efforts. Watershed stakeholders, such as citizen groups,
governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses,
have come together and created long-term goals and
innovative solutions to clean up their watersheds and
promote more sustainable uses of their water resources.
Additionally, many of these groups and other volunteer
efforts provide water monitoring data that can be used
to identify problems and track progress toward water
quality goals. EPA estimates that there are approxi-
mately 6,000 local watershed groups active nationwide.
To increase focus on protecting, maintaining, and
conserving our nation's remaining healthy waters, EPA
has launched a proactive approach called the Healthy
Watersheds Initiative (HWI). The goal of the HWI is to
maintain and protect a healthy watershed "infrastruc-
ture" of habitat, biotic communities, water chemistry,
and intact watershed processes such as hydrology, fluvial
geomorphology, and natural disturbance regimes. These
healthy, functioning watersheds provide the ecologi-
cal infrastructure that anchor water quality restoration
efforts. This ecological support system will enable us
to restore impaired waters, and to do so cost effec-
tively. Key components of the HWI are development of
Regional Office HWI Strategies that include working
with the states to identify healthy watersheds and intact
components of other watersheds statewide and imple-
ment protection and conservation programs both at the
state and local levels. For FY 2011, EPA will develop and
implement its National Strategy, including a Healthy
Watersheds Strategy, for building the capacity of state,
tribal, and local government and watershed groups to
protect and restore water quality. The Strategy empha-
sizes four activities to accelerate local watershed protec-
tion efforts:
Target training and tools to areas where existing
groups can deliver environmental results;
Work with states to develop and begin implemen-
tation of Healthy Watersheds programs;
Enhance support to local watershed organizations
through third party providers (e.g., federal partners,
EPA assistance agreement recipients), including sup-
port 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 partner-
ships with federal agencies to encourage their participation
in watershed protection and to promote delivery of their
programs on a watershed basis. For example, EPA is work-
ing with other federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service, USGS,
USFWS & others) to leverage their healthy watersheds
programs (e.g., Green Infrastructure Community of Practice).
Also, EPA will work with USDA to promote coordinated use of
federal resources, including grants utilizing the Clean Water
Act Section 319 and Farm Bill funds. EPA is also working with
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to foster efficient strategies to address water qual-
ity impairments by maintaining and restoring watersheds
on federal lands. EPA and the USFS will work to advance a
suite of water quality related actions, TMDL alternatives
(i.e., including category 4b watershed plans) that will build
partnerships between agencies and among states.
3. Define Waterbody/Watershed Standards
Attainment Goals and Strategies
In 2002, states identified some 39,503 specific waterbodies
as impaired (i.e., not attaining state water quality stan-
dards) on lists required under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act. Although core programs, as described above,
provide key tools for improving these impaired waters, suc-
cess in restoring the health of impaired waterbodies often
requires a waterbody-specific focus to define the problem
and implement specific steps needed to reduce pollution.
Nationally, EPA has adopted a goal of having 3,250 of
those waters identified as attaining water quality stan-
dards by 2014 (about 8.2% of all impaired waters identi-
fied in 2002). Regions have indicated the progress they
expect to make toward this goal in FY 2011 (see strategic
target SP-10 and the table on next page).
Regional commitments for this measure, to be devel-
oped over the summer of 2010 based on the targets in
the table above, should reflect the best effort by EPA
regions and states to address impaired waters based
on redesigning and refocusing program priorities and
delivery methods where necessary to meet or exceed this
measure's targets. In the event that an EPA regional office
finds that existing program delivery and alignment is not
likely to result in a significant contribution to national
goals, the EPA region should work with states to rethink
and redesign the delivery of clean water programs to more
National Water Program Guidance
24
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Region
Total Impaired Waters
(2002)
FYs 2002-2009 Waters
in Attainment
FY 2010 Commitment
(cumulative)
FY 20 11 Target
(cumulative)
6,710
84
90
106
1,805
113
119
132
8,998
431
550
560
5,274
418
460
460
4,550
537
621
621
1,407
170
182
182
2,036
289
295
302
1,274
222
227
227
1,041
51
72
72
10
6,408
190
193
195
Totals
39,503
2,505
2,809
2,857*
(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. *The national FY 2011 target for this measure is 2,910.)
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 water-
body is impaired (see measures SP-12).
States and EPA regions have indicated that the time frame
for reaching full attainment in formerly impaired waters
can be long and that the significant program efforts to put
restoration plans in place need to be better recognized.
Acknowledging this issue, EPA will work with states to
report the number of impaired water segments where
restoration planning will be complete in FY 2011 (see Pro-
gram 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 in
a waterbody is covered by one or more of the following: an
EPA approved TMDL, a watershed restoration plan that is
an acceptable substitute for a TMDL (e.g. TMDL alterna-
tive), or a statewide mercury reduction program consis-
tent 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 mul-
tiple waterbodies within a watershed and the develop-
ment of a single implementation plan for restoring all
the impaired waters in that watershed. EPA has identi-
fied 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 Water-
shed Approach is working by showing a measurable
improvement in 300 such watersheds by 2014 (see
strategic target SP-12).
Regions are encouraged to use some or all of the fol-
lowing strategies in marshalling resources to support
waterbody and watershed restoration:
Realign water programs and resources as needed,
including proposal of reductions in allocations among
core water program implementation as reflected in
commitments to annual program activity measure
targets;
Coordinate waterbody restoration efforts with Section
319 funds reserved for development of watershed
plans;
Make effective use of water quality planning funds
provided under Section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act;
Leverage resources available from other federal agen-
cies, including the USDA; and
Apply funds appropriated by Congress for watershed
or related projects.
EPA also recognizes that additional impaired waters are
not included on state 303(d) lists because the standards
impairments may not require or be most effectively
addressed through development and implementa-
tion of a TMDL. Many of these waters are identified in
Categories 4b and 4c of state Integrated Reports - that
is, where the impairment is being addressed through
other pollution control requirements (4b), or where
the impairment is not caused by a pollutant, per se,
but rather by habitat degradation or other factors (4c).
EPA and its partners should continue to work together
to ensure that restoration efforts are focused on these
waters as well as those on the 303 (d) list, facilitate
integration of activities to incorporate these waters into
National Water Program Guidance
25
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
watershed plans, and identify mechanisms for tracking
progress in restoring them.
Potential Future Measures for Improving Water Quality on
a Watershed Basis
Incremental Progress in Restoring Water Quality
EPA has a suite of existing measures that track progress in
water quality restoration:
Previously impaired waters now fully attaining water
quality standards (SP-10).
Previously impaired waters for which a cause of impair-
ment has been removed (SP-11).
Impaired watersheds with water quality improvement
(SP-12).
Net water quality restoration or maintenance by water-
body type (e.g., rivers, lakes) (SP-13 for wadeable
streams).
Impaired waters where initial restoration planning (e.g.,
TMDLs) is complete (WQ-21).
Existing measures, however, do not fully capture all types
of restoration progress. Most waters take years to recover
fully, and although incremental improvements represent
progress these are currently not well represented. EPA has
heard a strong message from states that new measures are
needed to give credit for water quality improvement short
of full WQS attainment. The major gap is tracking progress
after TMDLs or other planning is complete, but before stan-
dards are fully met (see Box 1, right).
At an August 2009 meeting, representatives from the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Con-
trol Administrators (ASIWPCA) and EPA agreed to develop
indicator measures to fill this gap. The states of AL, CO, CT,
KS, MA, ME, MN, MT, and VA have worked with EPA since
then to develop several draft measures tracking watershed
planning, implementation of clean-up plans, and incremen-
tal improvements in water quality (see Box 2, right).
EPA invited comments from states and other stakeholders on
these draft measures. EPA and the work group will review the
comments and continue to explore these measures.
Potential Changes to Baselines for Strategic Measures
Three of the current strategic measures - measures SP-10,
SP-11, and SP-12 - use a fixed baseline year of 2002. That is,
they look only at waters which states listed as impaired in
the section 303(d) reports required for 2002. Use of a fixed
baseline enables clear accountability for a known "universe"
of problem waters. Some states have suggested, however,
that using 2002 as the base year ignores progress achieved
for more recently-listed waters.
EPA invited comment on whether EPA should establish new
strategic measures that use a fixed baseline of waters listed
in a more recent year, such as 2008. EPA and the work group
will review the comments and continue to explore revising
Box 1 Clean Water Act Impaired Waters
Program Pipeline
ig | Improving | Recovery
The Clean Water Act's impaired waters program pipeline
is a simplified graphical representation of how impaired
waters are restored. The pipeline's programmatic stages
include: listing, planning, implementing, improving, and
recovery. The purpose of the State-EPA Work Group on
Incremental Measures is to develop indicator measures
that better capture incremental progress towards full water
quality standards attainment made by states and EPA in
the Planning, Implementing and Improving stages, above.
Box 2 Potential Future Measures for
FY2012
Planning
1. The number of 9-element watershed management plans to
protect or restore surface water quality in each State
Implementing
2. Miles of impaired rivers and streams or lake acres
addressed by watershed plans where nonpoint source load
reductions are being achieved by implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs)
Improving
3. Report of waters with improvements in water quality
assessment results (Group 1: 2002 inventory of impaired
waters. Group 2: other assessed waters)
4. Report of waters with maintenance/protection of desig-
nated uses as measured by water quality or aquatic life
indicators
Source: State-EPA Work Group on Incremental Measures
these measures.
Potential Change to Measurement Units
Measure SP-10 currently uses "number of waterbodies" as
the unit of measure. This means that waterbodies receive
equal credit regardless of size. Recent advances in EPA's
ATTAINS tracking system could potentially allow track-
ing progress in units of river or stream miles and lake or
estuary acres in the future. EPA recognizes this feature has
not yet been fully tested and once this capability were to be
incorporated into ATTAINS, it could still take a few years to
reach a point where reporting of miles and acres would be
fully realized. While EPA believes "miles and acres" maybe
more meaningful, the timeliness of reporting may suffer.
Determining and verifying the geographic extent of each
reported waterbody could add a number of months to the
National Water Program Guidance
26
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
data processing cycle for each reporting year. Additionally,
there would be a time and resource commitment necessary
for states and EPA to reach the point where these data could
be reported in units of miles and acres, and thus, it could be
several years before such a change would be realistic.
EPA invited comments on the potential change of measure-
ment units. EPA and the work group will review the com-
ments and continue to explore revising these measures.
C) Grant Program Resources
Key program grants that support this Subobjective are:
The Clean Water Act Section 106 Water Pollution Control
State Program grants;
The Clean Water Act Section 319 State program grant for
nonpoint pollution control, including set-aside for Tribal
programs;
Targeted Watershed Assistance grants;
Alaska Native Village Water and Wastewater Infrastruc-
ture grants;
CWSRF capitalization grants, including set-asides for
planning under Section 604(b) of the Clean Water
Act and for grants to tribes for wastewater treatment
infrastructure.
For additional information on these grants, see the grant
program guidance on the website (http://www.epa.gov/
water/waterplan).
2) 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 Condi-
tion Report. (Rating is a system in which 1 is poor and 5 is
good.)
2009 Baseline: 2.8 2010 Commitment: 2.8
2011 Target: 2.8 2014 Target: 2.8
(NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in
Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
Estuaries and coastal waters are among the most produc-
tive ecosystems on earth, providing multiple ecological,
economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits and services. They
are also among the most threatened ecosystems, largely as a
result of rapidly increasing population growth and develop-
ment. 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 natu-
ral resources and poor land use practices in upland as well
as coastal areas have resulted in a host of human health and
natural resource problems.
For FY 2011, EPA's national strategy for improving the
condition of coastal and ocean waters will include the key
elements identified below:
Maintain coastal monitoring and assessment;
Support state coastal protection programs;
Implement the National Estuary Program (NEP); and
Protect ocean resources.
Effective implementation of the national water quality pro-
gram, as well as of the ocean and coastal programs described
in this section, will increase the likelihood of achieving the
national and regional objectives described below.
One important objective of the national strategy is to main-
tain a national coastal condition score of at least 2.8 the
national baseline score in the 2009 in the National Coastal
Condition Report (NCCR) III (see measure 2.2.2). Another
objective is to assess conditions in each major coastal region
Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Puerto Rico, Gulf of
Mexico, Hawaii, and South Central Alaska (see measures
SP-16,17,18, and 19, CO-7, CO-8, and 4.3.5 in Appendix
A) and to work with states, tribes, and other partners over
the next five years to at least maintain each region's coastal
condition rating.
EPA works with diverse partners to implement region-
specific protection and restoration programs. For example,
EPA manages the National Estuary Program (NEP), the
agency's flagship place-based water quality protection and
restoration effort. In addition, EPA works to protect and
restore coastal water quality with the states, tribes, and
other partners in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, New
England, and along the West Coast. Some of these efforts
are described in more detail in Part III of this Guidance.
1. Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
EPA has made improved monitoring of water quality con-
ditions a top priority for coastal as well as inland waters.
In FY 2010, states will complete field sampling under
EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment program.
Results of the sampling will serve as the basis for the
National Coastal Condition Report V (NCCR V). In FY 2011,
states will analyze sampling data and the National Water
Program will work with states, tribes, and EPA's Office of
Research and Development to draft the NCCR V, which is
planned for release in 2012. Building on coastal condition
assessment reports issued in 2001, 2004, 2008 and on the
NCCR IVnow scheduled for release in 2011, the NCCR V
will describe the health of major marine eco-regions along
the coasts of the U.S. and will depict assessment trends
for the nation and for individual marine eco-regions. The
coastal condition assessments are the basis for the mea-
sures of progress in estuarine and coastal water quality
used in the current EPA Strategic Plan. In FY 2011, EPA
will develop a new measure of water quality condition in
estuarine and coastal areas. This measure will appear in a
future National Water Program Guidance.
National Water Program Guidance
27
-------
Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
2. State Coastal Programs
States play a critical role in protection of coastal waters
through the implementation of core Clean Water Act
programs, ranging from permit programs to financing
of wastewater treatment plants. States also lead the
implementation of efforts to assure the high quality of
the nation's swimming beaches; including implementa-
tion 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) to
implement programs that help reduce nonpoint pol-
lution in coastal areas. In FY 2010, EPA will continue
work with states to assist in the full approval of coastal
nonpoint control programs in all coastal states.
In FY 2011, EPA will coordinate with states interested
in establishing "no discharge zones" to control vessel
sewage. EPA will track total coastal and noncoastal statu-
tory square miles protected by "no discharge zones" (see
Program Activity Measure CO-2).
3. Implement the National Estuary Program
The NEP is a local stakeholder-driven, collaborative,
voluntary estuarine protection and restoration program.
There are currently 28 estuaries of national significance
along the east, west, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. During FY
2011, EPA will continue supporting the NEPs' implemen-
tation of their individual Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans (CCMPs). One measure of NEP
progress that EPA tracks is the annual number of CCMP
priority actions that the NEPs have completed (see Pro-
gram Activity Measure CO-3). EPA also tracks the annual
and cumulative amount of cash and in-kind resources that
NEP directors and/or staff played a key role in obtaining.
The measure depicts the level of resources leveraged by
the CWA Section 320 base grants annually provided to the
NEPs (see Program Activity Measure CO-4).
Since the overall health of the nation's estuarine ecosys-
tems depends on the protection and restoration of high-
quality habitat, EPA also tracks the number of habitat
acres that the NEPs annually protect and restore in
their estuarine watersheds, or study areas. The numbers
appear as environmental outcome measures under the
Ocean/Coastal Subobjective. EPA has set a FY 2011 goal
of protecting or restoring an additional 100,000 acres of
habitat within the NEP study 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 (USAGE) share responsibility
for regulating how and where the disposal of dredged
sediment occurs.
EPA and USAGE will focus on improving how disposal
of dredged material is managed, including designat-
ing 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 OSVBold to monitor compli-
ance with environmental requirements at ocean disposal
sites (see Program Activity Measure CO-6). In addition,
the Strategic Plan includes a measure of the percent of
active dredged material disposal sites that have achieved
environmentally acceptable conditions (see SP-20).
One of the greatest threats to U.S. ocean waters and eco-
systems is the uncontrolled spread of invasive species.
Invasive species commonly enter U.S. waters through
the discharge of ballast water from ships. In FY 2011,
EPA will continue to participate on the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, work with other agencies on ballast
water discharge standards or controls (both through
EPA's Vessel General Permit and coordination with U.S.
Coast Guard regulatory efforts under the Nonindig-
enous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
as amended), and participate in activities with other
nations for effective international management of bal-
last water.
M i EM I lH III! f Ell I'l IB! 1*111 El i'J U tm
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC
Barataria-Terrebonne, LA
Barnegat Bay, NJ
Buzzards Bay, MA
Casco Bay, ME
Charlotte Harbor, FL
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries, TX
Lower Columbia River, OR/WA
Delaware Estuary, DE/NJ
Delaware Inland Bays, DE
Galveston Bay, TX
Indian River Lagoon, FL
Long Island Sound, NY/CT
Maryland Coastal Bays, MD
Massachusetts Bay, MA
Mobile Bay, AL
Morro Bay, CA
Narragansett Bay, RI
New Hampshire Estuaries, NH
New York/New Jersey Harbor, NY/NJ
Peconic Bay, NY
Puget Sound, WA
San Francisco Bay, CA
San Juan Bay, PR
Santa Monica Bay, CA
Sarasota Bay, FL
Tampa Bay, FL
TiUamook Bay, OR
National Water Program Guidance
28
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Protect Wetlands
In July of 2008, Congress passed the Clean Boating Act
of 2008 (P.L. 110-228) amending the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to provide that no National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits shall be required
under the CWA for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of recreational vessels. Instead, the Act directs
EPA to establish management practices and associated
standards of performance for such discharges (except for
vessel sewage, which is already regulated by the CWA).
EPA is currently developing those regulations.
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources directly supporting this work include the
National Estuary Program grants and coastal nonpoint
pollution control grants under the Coastal Nonpoint Pol-
lution Control Program administered jointly by EPA and
the NOAA (Section 6217 grant program). In addition, clean
water program grants identified under the watershed sub-
objective support this work. For additional information on
these grants, see the grant program guidance on the website
(http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan).
D) A Strategy for Addressing Climate Change
Support Evaluation of Sub-seabed and Ocean
Sequestration of CO2
EPA will work with other interested agencies and the inter-
national community to develop guidance on sub-seabed
carbon sequestration and will address any requests for car-
bon sequestration in the sub-seabed or "fertilization" of the
ocean, including any permitting under the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) or the Under-
ground Injection Control program that may be required.
"Climate Ready Estuaries"
EPA will continue to build capacity within the National
Estuary Program (NEP) to adapt to the changes from
climate change on the coast. EPA will provide additional
assistance to individual NEPs to support their work to
develop adaptation plans for their study areas or techni-
cal assistance to support implementation of those plans.
Climate Ready Estuaries will continue to revise and improve
the internet based tool kit as a resource for other coastal
communities working to adapt to climate change.
3) Protect Wetlands
A) Subobjective:
Working with partners, achieve a net
increase of acres of wetlands per year
with additional focus on biological and
functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendix A.)
B) Key National Strategies
Wetlands are among the nation's most critical and produc-
tive natural resources. They provide a variety of benefits,
such as water quality improvements, flood protection,
shoreline erosion control, and ground water exchange.
Wetlands are the primary habitat for fish, waterfowl, and
wildlife, and as such, provide numerous opportunities for
education, recreation, and research. EPA recognizes that the
challenges the nation faces to conserve our wetland heritage
are daunting and that many partners must work together in
order for this effort to succeed.
Over the years, the United States has lost more than 115 mil-
lion acres of wetlands to development, agriculture, and other
uses. Today, the U.S. maybe 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 conter-
minous United States. Although the report shows that
overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from
1998 through 2004, this gain is primarily attributable to an
increase in un-vegetated freshwater ponds, some of which
(such as aquaculture ponds) may not provide wetlands
services and others of which may have varying ecosystem
value. The report notes the following trends in other wetland
categories: freshwater vegetated wetlands declined by 0.5%,
a smaller rate of loss than in preceding years; and estuarine
vegetated wetlands declined by 0.7%, an increased rate of
loss from the preceding years. The report does not assess the
quality or condition of wetlands. The FWS expects to issue an
updated report in FY 2011. In addition the Status and Trends
report, EPA is working with FWS and other federal agencies
to complete a National Wetland Condition Assessment by
2013 to effectively complement the FWS Status and Trends
Reports and provide, for the first time, a snapshot of baseline
wetland condition for the conterminous U.S.
In a 2009 follow-up report, the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
analyzed the status and recent trends of wetland acreage in
the coastal watersheds of the United States adjacent to the
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes between
1998 and 2004. Results indicate that Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic coast watersheds experienced a net loss in wetland
area at an average annual rate of about 60,000 acres over the
6-year study period. The fact that coastal watersheds were
losing wetlands despite the national trend of net gains during
the same study period points to the need for more 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 Qual-
ity. To that end, EPA, FWS, NOAA's National Marine Fisher-
ies Service and Coastal Resources Center, the Army Corps of
Engineers, USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service,
and the Federal Highway Administration have begun working
National Water Program Guidance
29
-------
Strategies to Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Protect Wetlands
in partnership to determine the specific causes of this coastal
wetland loss and to more specifically understand the tools,
policies, and practices to successfully address it.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue a multi-agency effort to
comprehensively review and evaluate policy and practice for
permitting mountaintop mining operations with the goal of
reducing the harmful environmental effects of Appalachian
surface coal mining. The multi-faceted initiative involves
enhanced environmental review and coordination with the
Army Corps of Engineers on Clean Water Act Section 404
permits, more rigorous review of CWA Section 402 permits,
coordination with the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) on
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation (SMCRA) permits,
and several significant technical documents and Clean Water
Act policy actions to guide future practice in Appalachian
surface coal mining. Policy actions include: develop techni-
cal guidance to clarify how the 404(b)(l) guidelines will be
applied to proposed mining operations to ensure adverse
impacts are minimized, support improved and strengthened
state oversight of proposed permits using state 401 water
quality certification authority, consider other regulatory and/
or policy modifications to better protect the environment and
public health from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal
mining, and improve compensatory mitigation for stream
and wetland impacts from permitted mining activities.
EPA's Wetlands Program combines technical and financial
assistance to state, tribal, and local partners with outreach
and education, in addition to wetlands regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the purpose of
restoring, improving and protecting wetlands in the U.S.
Objectives of EPA's strategy include helping states and
tribes build wetlands protection program capacity and
integrating wetlands and watershed protection. Through a
collaborative effort with our many partners culminating in a
May 2008 report, EPA's Wetlands Program articulated a set
of national strategies in the areas of monitoring, state and
tribal capacity, regulatory programs, jurisdictional determi-
nations, and restoration partnerships. These strategies are
in part reflected in the following measures:
1. No Net Loss: EPA contributes to achieving no overall net
loss of wetlands through the wetlands regulatory program
established under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and
EPA jointly administer the Section 404 program, which
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States, including wetlands.
EPA will continue to work with USAGE to ensure applica-
tion of the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines which require
that discharges of dredged or fill material into waters
of the U.S. be avoided and minimized to the extent
practicable and unavoidable impacts are compensated
for. In FY 2011, EPA will track the effectiveness of EPA's
environmental review of CWA Section 404 permits (see
Program Activity Measure WT-3). Each EPA region will
also identify opportunities to partner with the Corps
in meeting performance measures for compliance with
404(b)(l) guidelines. At a minimum, these include:
Environmental review of CWA Section 404 permits to
ensure wetland impacts are avoided and minimized;
Ensure when wetland impacts cannot be avoided
under CWA Section 404 permits, that the unavoid-
able impacts are compensated for;
Participation in joint impact and mitigation site
inspections, and Interagency Review Team activities;
Assistance on development of mitigation site perfor-
mance standards and monitoring protocols; and
Enhanced coordination on resolution of enforcement
cases.
2. Net Gain Goal: Meeting the "net gain" element of the
wetland goal is primarily accomplished by other federal
programs (Farm Bill agriculture incentive programs and
wetlands acquisition and restoration programs, includ-
ing 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 2011, EPA expects to track the following key
activities for accomplishing its wetland goals:
Wetlands Restored and Enhanced Through Part-
nerships: 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 Wet-
land Five-Star Restoration Grants, the National Estuary
Program, Section 319 nonpoint source grants, Brown-
field grants, EPA's Great Waterbody Programs, and other
EPA programs. This does not include enforcement or
mitigation acres. EPA greatly exceeded its target for this
Program Activity Measure in 2005 and 2006, mainly due
to unexpected accomplishments from National Estuary
Program enhancement projects. However, because EPA
cannot assume such significant results each year, the
target will be at 110,000 cumulative acres for FY 2011.
National Water Program Guidance
30
-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
Protect Wetlands
State/Tribal Programs: A key objective of EPA's
wetlands program is building the capacity of states
and tribes in the following core elements of a wetlands
program: wetland monitoring; regulation including 401
certification; voluntary restoration and protection; and
water quality standards for wetlands. EPA is enhanc-
ing its support for state and tribal wetland programs by
providing more directed technical assistance and making
refinements to the Wetland Program Development
Grants. Program Activity Measure WT-2 reflects EPA's
goal of increasing state and tribal capacity in these core
wetland management areas. In reporting progress under
measure WT-2, EPA will assess the number of states and
tribes that have substantially increased their capac-
ity 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 deci-
sion. 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 guid-
ance recommended including wetlands as part of that
program. This was followed in April of 2006 by release
of an "Elements" document specific to wetlands to help
EPA and state program managers plan and implement a
wetland monitoring and assessment program within their
water monitoring and assessment programs. EPA chairs
the National Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Work
Group to provide national leadership in implementing
state and tribal wetlands monitoring strategies. The Work
Group will also play a prominent role in informing design
of the National Wetland Condition Assessment, scheduled
for fieldwork in 2011. The 2011 condition assessment will
provide a baseline data layer that, in subsequent years,
could be used to judge the impacts of climate change on
wetland ecological integrity at multiple spatial scales.
EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to build the
capability to monitor trends in wetland condition as defined
through biological metrics and assessments. By the end of
FY 2011, EPA projects at least 21 states will be measuring
and reporting baseline wetland condition in the state using
condition indicators and assessments (see Program Activity
Measure WT-4). States should also have plans to eventually
document trends in wetland condition over time. Examples
of activities indicating the state is "on track" include, but are
not limited to:
building technical and financial capacity to conduct an
"intensification study" as part of the 2011 National
Wetland Condition Assessment;
developing or adapting wetland assessment tools for use
in the state;
monitoring activity is underway for wetland type(s)/
watershed(s) stated in strategy or goals; and
developing a monitoring strategy with a goal of evaluat-
ing baseline wetland condition.
Baseline condition may be established using landscape
assessment (Tier 1), rapid assessment (Tier 2), or inten-
sive site assessment (Tier 3).
C) Grant Program Resources
Examples of grant resources supporting this work include
the Wetland Program Development Grants, Five Star Res-
toration Grants, the Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants,
the Brownfields grants, and the National Estuary Program
Grants. For additional information on these grants, see the
grant program guidance on the website (http://www.epa.
gov/water/waterplan). In addition, some states and tribes
have utilized Clean Water Act Section 106 funds for pro-
gram implementation, including wetlands monitoring and
protection projects.
National Water Program Guidance
31
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect U.S.-Mexico Border Water Quality
IV.Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and
Large Aquatic Ecosystems
The core programs of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are essential for the protection of the nation's
drinking water and fresh waters, coastal waters, and wetlands. At the same time, additional, intergovernmental
efforts are sometimes needed to protect and restore communities and large aquatic ecosystems around the county. For
many years, EPA has worked with state and local governments, tribes, and others to implement supplemental programs to
restore and protect the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the waters along the U.S.-Mexico Border.
More recently EPA has developed new, cooperative initiatives addressing Long Island Sound, South Florida, Puget Sound,
the Columbia River, San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, and the waters of the Pacific Islands.
2012 Plan.
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
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendix A.)
B) Key Strategies
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing com-
mitment to protect the environment and public health for
communities in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. The basic
approach to improving the environment and public health
in the U.S.-Mexico Border region is the Border 2012 Plan.
Under this Plan, EPA expects to take the following key
Actions to improve water quality and protect public health.
1. Core Program Implementation: EPA will continue
to implement core programs under the Clean Water Act
and related authorities, ranging from discharge permit
issuance, to watershed restoration, to nonpoint pollu-
tion control.
2. Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment
Financing: Federal, state, and local institutions par-
ticipate in border area efforts to improve water quality
through the construction of infrastructure and develop-
ment of pretreatment programs. Specifically, Mexico's
National Water Commission (CONAGUA) and EPA
provide funding and technical assistance for project
planning and construction of infrastructure.
Congress has provided $990 million for border infra-
structure from 1994 to 2010. In FY 2010, EPA plans
to provide approximately $14.5 million for planning,
design, and construction of drinking water and waste-
water facilities. EPA will continue working with all of its
partners to leverage available resources to meet priority
needs. The FY 2011 targets will be achieved through the
completion of prioritized Border Environment Infra-
structure Fund (BEIF) drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. Future progress in meeting
this subobjective will be achieved through other border
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects
as well as through the collaborative efforts established
through the Border 2012 Water Task Forces.
3. Build Partnerships: Partnerships are critical to the
success of efforts to improve the environment and public
health in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. Since 1995, the
NAFTA-created institutions, the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North Ameri-
can 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 imple-
ment financially and operationally sustainable drinking
water and wastewater projects. EPA will continue to
support these institutions and work collaboratively with
CONAGUA.
4. Improve Measures of Progress: During FY 2011, EPA
will work with Mexico, states, tribes, and other institu-
tions 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 Environ-
ment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), are not provided through
guidance, but through a collaborative and public prioritiza-
tion process.
National Water Program Guidance
32
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect Pacific Islands Waters
2) Protect Pacific Islands Waters
A) Subobjective:
Sustain and restore the environmental
health of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
^^ of American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendix A.)
B) Key Program Strategies
The U.S. Pacific island territories of Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
struggle to provide adequate drinking water and sanitation
service. For example, the island of Saipan in the Northern
Marianas, with a population of about 70,000, maybe 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 wastewa-
ter conveyance and treatment systems threaten to contami-
nate drinking water wells and surface waters. Island beaches,
with important recreational, economic, and cultural signifi-
cance, are frequently polluted and placed under advisories.
One of the root causes of drinking water and sanitation
problems in the U.S. Pacific Island territories is inadequate
and crumbling infrastructure. Recent studies estimate that
it would take over one billion dollars in capital investments
to bring the Pacific territories drinking water and wastewa-
ter systems up to U.S. standards. EPA is targeting the use
of existing grants, enforcement, and technical assistance to
improve the drinking water and wastewater situation in the
Pacific Islands. In pursuing these actions, EPA will continue
to use the available resources and to work with partners
at both the federal and local levels to seek improvements.
These efforts will very likely only keep the infrastructure
and situation from worsening, and will not move the sys-
tems up toward U.S. standards.
Use of Existing Grants: EPA is working in partnership
with the U.S. Department of the Interior to optimize
federal grants to improve priority water and wastewater
systems. EPA grants (historically, about $1.2M per terri-
tory annually for water and wastewater combined), plus
other federal grants have led to some improvements in
the recent past. However, existing grants fall far short of
the overall capital needs in the Pacific Islands.
Enforcement: EPA will continue to oversee implemen-
tation of judicial and administrative orders to improve
drinking water and wastewater systems. For example, as
a result of implementation of a 2003 Stipulated Order
under the federal district court in Guam, wastewater spills
in Guam in the period of 2005-2008 were down by 99%
compared to 1999-2002; and no island-wide boil water
notices have been issued in over four years (through mid-
2009) compared to nearly every month in 2002. (However,
in 2009, several wastewater overflows and boil water
notices occurred.) In 2009, EPA has entered into a compa-
rable Stipulated Order in the CNMI. EPA will continue to
assess judicial and administrative enforcement as a tool to
improve water and wastewater service.
Technical Assistance: EPA will continue to use technical
assistance to improve the operation of drinking water and
wastewater systems in the Pacific Islands. In addition to
periodic on-site training, EPA will continue to use the IPA
(Intergovernmental Personnel Act) to build capacity in
the Islands to protect public health and the environment.
For example, in recent years, EPA has placed U.S. Public
Health Service drinking water and wastewater engineers
in key positions within Pacific island water utilities and
within local regulatory agencies.
Guam Military Expansion: EPA will continue to work
with the Department of Defense in its Guam Military
Expansion project to improve the environmental infra-
structure on Guam. The U.S and Japan have agreed to
relocate the Marine Base from Okinawa, Japan to Guam.
By 2014, the relocation could result in approximately
22,000 additional troops and dependents and upwards of
80,000 additional people total on Guam (a 40% increase in
population) while spending $10 - $15 billion on construc-
tion. This military expansion is an opportunity to improve
the environmental infrastructure on Guam, but significant
investment will be required to meet the increased strain on
the island's fragile water and wastewater infrastructure.
C) Grant Program Resources
A range of grants funds and set-asides from the national
State Revolving Fund (SRF) appropriations are available to
implement projects to improve drinking water and wastewa-
ter infrastructure in the Pacific islands. EPA has historically
provided about $4 million total to the Pacific territories in
drinking water and wastewater grants annually through the
SRF programs. SRF funding under ARRA provided approxi-
mately an additional $4M per territory in infrastructure
funding in FY 2009.
The FY 2010 appropriations language increased the SRF
set-aside for territories to 1.5%, which, along with the sig-
nificant overall increase in SRF funding, resulted in a nearly
10-fold increase in infrastructure funding for the Pacific ter-
ritories, to approximately $37M total in FY 2010. However,
the 1.5% set-aside for territories is not permanent, and
funding levels for subsequent years are uncertain. To bring
drinking water and wastewater service and infrastructure in
the U.S. Pacific territories up to U.S. standards, significant
and sustained investment will be required.
D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
EPA's Pacific Islands Office has been working to address
climate change and water issues by focusing on three main
areas in the Pacific Islands: water quality protection and
improvement; outreach, education and collaboration on
National Water Program Guidance
33
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Great Lakes
climate change issues; and sustainable military buildup on
Guam. Projects include:
Promoting water conservation and efficiency at public
utilities through innovative State Revolving Fund (SRF)
projects;
Following up on the June 2009 Pacific Islands Environ-
ment Conference, entitled "Climate of Change: Energizing
a Sustainable Future for Pacific Islands." The conference,
which took place on Saipan, CNMI, focused on issues
including renewable energy and energy efficiency, coral
reef protection, adaptation strategies for Pacific Islands,
and improved efficiency for water and wastewater ser-
vices; and
Working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and
other federal resource agencies to ensure that sustainable
practices are included in the upcoming military buildup
on Guam. This includes improving drinking water and
wastewater compliance with environmental standards,
utilizing low impact development and green infrastruc-
ture for new construction, and minimizing marine habitat
disturbance.
For additional information on EPA's work in the Pacific
Islands, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region09/islands/
3) Protect the Great Lakes
A) Subobjective:
Improve the overall ecosystem health of
the Great Lakes by preventing water pol-
lution and protecting aquatic ecosystem
^^m (using the Great Lakes 40-point scale).
2005 Baseline: 21.5 points
2008 Result: 23.7
2009 Result: 23.9
2010 Commitment: 23
2011 Target: 23.4
2014 Target: 23.7e
(Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
Appendix 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 qual-
ity of life and economic prosperity for tens of millions of
people. While significant progress has been made to restore
the environmental health of the Great Lakes, much work
remains to be done.
U.S. President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson, in collaboration with 15 other federal agencies,
have made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority.
Congress appropriated $475 million for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (Initiative) for FY 2010. The President
has proposed $300 million for the Initiative for FY2011.
A Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan describes
how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 through 2014.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan builds on
countless hours by elected, agency, business, public inter-
est, and other leaders, which resulted in the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC
Strategy provided a framework for the Action Plan. As such,
the Action Plan is just that: an action driver. It articulates
the most significant ecosystem problems and efforts to
address them in five major focus areas:
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
Invasive Species
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Com-
munication and Partnerships
The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable
ecological targets, and specific actions for each of the five
focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by
federal agencies in the development of the federal budget
for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond.
As such, it will serve as guidance for collaborative restora-
tion work with participants to advance restoration. The
Action Plan will also help advance the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement with Canada. Traditional infrastructure
financing under Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, and Superfund cleanup enforcement are important
examples of work which, though outside the Initiative's
scope, will also continue to be essential to Great Lakes
protection and restoration. EPA is working with states and
tribes to ensure that these high priority activities are prop-
erly targeted whenever possible to help further clean up the
Great Lakes.
Under the Initiative, EPA will administer funding individu-
ally and with other federal agencies to implement priority
federal projects as well as other programs undertaken by
nonfederal entities that support the Action Plan. Funding
will be provided through grants and cooperative agreements
or through interagency agreements that allow the transfer
of funds to other federal agencies for subsequent use and
distribution. Most grants will be issued competitively. The
principles of accountability, action, and urgency underlie
the Action Plan.
Progress under the Great Lakes Strategy is dependent on
continued work to implement core Clean Water Act pro-
grams and appropriately targeted supplementation of those
programs. These programs provide a foundation of water
pollution control that is critical to the success of efforts to
restore and protect the Great Lakes. While the Great Lakes
face a range of unique pollution problems (extensive sedi-
ment contamination and atmospheric deposition) they also
face problems common to most other waterbodies around
The long-term target was changed to 23.5 in the 2007 OMB Program Assessment. New target of 24.7 in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Great Lakes
the country. Effective implementation of core programs,
such as discharge permits, nonpoint pollution controls,
wastewater treatment, wetlands protection, and appropri-
ate designation of uses and criteria, must be fully and effec-
tively implemented throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
Within the five focus areas of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, efforts and funds will be targeted to the highest
priority projects in a way that maximizes results. Targeted,
cooperative efforts are necessary to ensure meaningful
progress on many of the complex and costly issues that
have plagued the Great Lakes for decades. Some issues exist
basinwide (e.g., invasive species, nonpoint source pollu-
tion,) and require broad, expansive action, while others are
more localized (e.g., Areas of Concern, habitat) and will have
site-specific remedies. In each focus area there are efforts
which will be given special attention.
In the focus area of Toxic Substances and Areas of Con-
cern, efforts will be targeted to remediate contaminated
sediments and to address other major pollution sources
in order to restore and delist the most polluted sites in
the Great Lakes basin.
In the focus area of Invasive Species, efforts will be
targeted to institute a "zero tolerance policy" as a long
term goal toward new invasions, including focuses
on the development of an early detection and rapid
response capability, and the development of ballast water
technology.
In the focus area of Nearshore Health and Nonpoint
Source Pollution, efforts will be targeted geographically
to focus on watersheds of extreme ecological sensitiv-
ity (such as the Green Bay/Fox River, Genesee River,
Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River, places
where environmental problems and their solutions have
been clearly identified).
Efforts will target implementation of lakewide biodiver-
sity conservation blueprints and restoration of important
species such as the Lake Sturgeon and the Piping Plover.
In the focus area of Accountability, Education, Moni-
toring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships,
efforts will include the implementation priority Lakewide
Management Plan projects for restoring the lakes, as
well as establishment of quality goal and results-based
accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach
and strategic partnerships.
Progress will be tracked against measures of progress in
each Focus Area, including:
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
Implementation of management actions necessary for
delisting Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Removal of Beneficial Use Impairments.
Remediation of contaminated sediments.
Cumulative decline of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.
Invasive Species
Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Acres managed for populations of invasive species con-
trolled to a target level.
Number multi-agency rapid response plans established,
mock exercises to practice responses carried out under
those plans, and/or actual response actions.
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus from tributaries
draining targeted watersheds.
Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95% or
more of beach days.
Acres in the Great Lakes watershed with USDA conserva-
tion practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients,
and/or pesticide loading.
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened
and endangered species self-sustaining in the wild.
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands protected, restored and enhanced.
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced.
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Com-
munication and Partnerships
Improvement in the overall aquatic ecosystem health of
the Great Lakes using the Great Lakes 40-point scale.
C) Grant Program Resources:
Most EPA grants will be issued competitively pursuant to
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) addressing the five focus
areas. The first of EPA's RFPs identified 35 grant program
areas. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan
identifies numerous issue-based and geographically focused
plans for Great Lakes protection and restoration which will
be supported by the RFPs. Several other members of the
Interagency Task Force are also expected to select propos-
als, issue grants, and provide other assistance with funding
from the Initiative. Grant opportunities for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative are described in an Interagency Fund-
ing Guide.
In addition, the Great Lakes National Program Office
negotiates grants resources with states and tribes, focus-
ing on joint priorities for Lakewide Management Plans and
Remedial Action Plans Additional information concerning
these resources is provided in the grant program guidance
website (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/fund/glf.html). This
website also links to information 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.
National Water Program Guidance
35
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
in Appendix A.)
4) Protect and Restore the
Chesapeake Bay
A) Subobjective:
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem.
(Note: Measures of progress are identified
B) Key Strategies
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional
partnership that has coordinated and conducted the resto-
ration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. Partners of the
Chesapeake Bay Program include the states of Delaware,
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay
Commission (CBC), a tri-state legislative body; the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, representing the federal govern-
ment; and advisory groups of citizens, scientists, and local
government officials.
In the last 25 years, the CBP partners have achieved impor-
tant progress:
Adopted the nation's first consistent water quality stan-
dards and assessment procedures, prompting major state
and local investments in nutrient removal technologies
across hundreds of wastewater treatment facilities;
Established nutrient management plans on more than 3
million farmland acres;
Preserved more than 1 million acres of forests, wetlands,
farmland and other natural resources, meeting the Pro-
gram's Land Preservation goal two years early;
Developed science, data monitoring, models, and mea-
sures that are recognized as some of the best and most
extensive in the country and often around the world;
Placed moratoria on striped bass harvests, leading to
restoration of the stock that supports 90 percent of the
Atlantic Coast population;
Advanced use of conservation tillage, now practiced on
more than 2 million acres;
Planted nearly seven thousand miles of streamside for-
ested buffers;
Restored nearly 14 thousand acres of wetlands; and
Removed blockages to more than 2 thousand miles of
spawning grounds to help restore migratory fish.
Despite 25 years of progress, the health of the Bay and its
watershed remains in poor condition. In the most recent
assessment, the overall health of the Bay averaged 45 based
on goals for water quality, habitats and lower food web,
and fish and shellfish abundance. This was a six percent
increase from the previous year. The Bay Program partners
achieved 64 percent of its goals to reduce pollution, restore
habitats, manage fisheries, protect watersheds, and foster
stewardship. Human activities continue to contribute more
pollution, offsetting many of the accomplishments restora-
tion projects have made.
In July 2008, the Agency submitted a report to Congress
summarizing the Chesapeake Action Plan. The plan was
intended to enhance coordination of and accountability for
the full spectrum of federal, state, local, and private part-
ners' actions to restore the watershed and Bay. The plan:
Aligned the program's strategies and actions to the goal
areas of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement;
Included an activity database that captures the implemen-
tation actions of ten federal agencies, six states, District
of Columbia, the CBC and other partners; and
Included performance management dashboards that
show status, projected progress, and set the stage for
identifying obstacles and needs.
In March 2009, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners
approved and implemented a new organizational structure
aligned with the CAP goals better emphasizing and focusing
the critical goals and priorities of the program to:
Change the business model of the program to include
specific adaptive management principles, clarify roles,
and expand contributions of other partners;
Coordinate specific actions and strategies, through six
Goal Implementation Teams, aligned to the major Chesa-
peake 2000 goals, to achieve focus and outcome-oriented
results.
In May 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council (EC)
pledged to get all Bay management mechanisms necessary
to restore the Bay in place by 2025. Part of this new strategy
to speed up the pace of Bay restoration and become more
accountable included the setting of specific two-year mile-
stones for each jurisdiction to reduce pollution to the Bay
and its rivers. These milestones will also contain "contingen-
cies" and "consequences" for falling short.
On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order
(EO) 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.
The EO has brought the Chesapeake Bay Program to a new
level of interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO
established a Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesa-
peake Bay chaired by EPA and including six other federal
agencies. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is supporting
implementation of the new EO.
On November 9, 2009, EPA and the other agencies included
in the EO released a draft comprehensive strategy for the
protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed as called for in section 203 of the EO. Also in
November 2009, EPA and other agencies released indi-
vidual reports on specific challenges in the Chesapeake Bay
as required under section 202 of the EO. The agencies are
engaged in a significant public outreach effort to explain the
strategy and reports and to hear directly from members of
the public as to their perspectives on the ideas contained
in these documents. Moreover, many elements of the CAP
National Water Program Guidance
36
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
are serving a central role in the development of the strategy
required by the EO.
EPA's recommended actions under the EO include:
Development of watershed implementation plans by the
six Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia;
Requiring the states and District to develop milestones
detailing near-term actions and loading reduction targets
to evaluate progress toward water quality goals;
Undertaking new rulemakings to reduce nutrient and
sediment loadings to the Chesapeake Bay from concen-
trated animal feeding operations, stormwater, and other
pollutant sources as EPA deems necessary; and
Establishing an enhanced partnership with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to accelerate the adoption of
conservation practices by agricultural interests in the Bay
watershed.
On November 4, 2009, EPA provided the six states in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia
with rigorous expectations for jurisdictions to reduce pol-
lution in streams, rivers, and the Bay to meet water quality
standards. EPA's expectations fulfill the mandate of the EO,
which calls for a new accountability framework that guides
federal, state, and local water quality restoration efforts. The
expectations also are a component of the Chesapeake Bay
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which will set pollu-
tion limits for point sources and nonpoint sources contrib-
uting nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment to the Bay and its
tidal creeks, rivers, and embayments. EPA expects the six
watershed states and D.C. to identify how they will reduce
pollutant loads to levels necessary to meet water quality
standards. EPA expects detailed schedules for implementing
cleanup actions and achieving pollution reductions. Prog-
ress will be measured through benchmarks every two years,
and EPA may impose federal consequences for inadequate
plans or failure to meet the performance milestones.
The Year Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
EPA continues to apply rigor to the adaptive management
of the Bay Program by emphasizing implementation, effec-
tive management, coordination, and accountability through
expanded use of accountability tools and partner participa-
tion on Goal Implementation Teams. EPA works with our
partners to align activities to entities best positioned to
deliver services. The Chesapeake Registry aids articulation
and tracking of partner actions with current and expected
progress against explicit environmental measures and
outcomes (i.e., restored water quality, aquatic habitat and
fisheries, healthy watersheds, and fostered stewardship).
EPA will work with key partners to integrate their existing
internal partner performance management data systems
and refine the Chesapeake Registry to better support state
and federal implementation efforts.
EPA is also developing a new tool, ChesapeakeStat, to
integrate information from the Chesapeake Registry with
geospatial and other data to significantly enhance the
accountability of program partners. ChesapeakeStat will
provide interested parties with a more comprehensive idea
of the progress being made in the Chesapeake Bay than has
ever been available. The partnership will use Chesapeake
Stat to develop interactive performance dashboards that
will help articulate and support the implementation activi-
ties and resources needed to close the gap between expected
outcomes and established program goals. This will lead to
better targeting of implementation activities in those sub-
watersheds that will yield the greatest nutrient and sedi-
ment reductions and understanding of options to accelerate
implementation.
Through the partnership's Goal Implementation Teams,
goals, strategies and milestones for the Bay and watershed
will continue to be refined to accurately represent and com-
municate the protection and restoration work being done.
The effort will include incorporation of the activities pro-
posed under the EO in partnership's strategic framework,
which should enhance the integration and cooperation of
federal, state, and local governments on the Chesapeake Bay
and watershed.
EPA will augment funding for states and other monitoring
and implementation activities to further leverage critical
investments to reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the
Chesapeake Bay. For example in FY 2010, EPA is provid-
ing $11.2 million more in grants to states than in FY 2009.
This grant funding is provided to support regulatory and
enforcement efforts related to the Executive Order and
TMDL.
EPA will continue to develop an explicit strategy to engage
local governments and local watershed groups in response
to a program commitment to EPA's Inspector General. EPA
will direct investments toward key local governments and
watershed organizations based on their ability to reduce
nutrient and sediment loads via key sectors such as devel-
opment and agricultural in urban and rural areas.
EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has also desig-
nated the CBP as a "management challenge" under the Fed-
eral Managers' Financial Integrity Act indicating that EPA
lacks the tools, resources, or authorities to be fully success-
ful. In response, EPA is developing specific ideas for explicit
actions, new tools, programs, authorities, and resources to
accelerate and improve restoration progress. The CBP part-
nership is using independent program performance evalua-
tion to critically review components of the CBP and support
enhanced "adaptive management" efforts. The program is
bringing in an Independent Evaluator to aid in transpar-
ency and accountability by all of the partners. A first step
in this effort is EPA's contract with the National Academies
of Science. The National Academies shall provide actionable
recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and other relevant parties including, and not
limited to, the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
the District of Columbia, and other federal agencies on how
National Water Program Guidance
37
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Gulf of Mexico
to improve strategic and specific implementation efforts to
obtain the CBP's nutrient reduction goal for water quality in
order to accelerate reaching the overall goals to protect and
restore the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA is developing the nation's largest and most complex
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the entire Chesa-
peake Bay watershed, due to be completed by December
2010. EPA expects that the states and D.C. will provide
specific timelines for enhancing programs and implement-
ing actions to reduce pollution, with all measures needed to
reach the pollution load limits in place no later than 2025.
By December 2010, the states and D.C. are expected to
identify gaps in current programs that must be addressed
to meet pollution limits, which could be accomplished by
expanding regulatory authorities, improving compliance
with existing regulations, securing additional financial
resources and issuing more stringent permits for wastewa-
ter facilities.
By 2011, EPA expects the states and D.C. to divide their
allocated pollution reductions to the local level so that coun-
ties, municipalities, conservation districts and watershed
organizations understand their role in meeting water qual-
ity goals. EPA expects that by 2017 pollution controls will
be in place that should result in approximately 60 percent
of the required reductions. States and D.C. must also offset
any increased loads from population growth and land use
changes anticipated in the coming decades.
While EPA has rigorous expectations for the states and D.C.
to reduce water pollution, the jurisdictions are provided
flexibility in how they achieve those reductions. Plans for
achievement, however, should include a level of detail that
creates a high degree of accountability for reducing water
pollution, including assurance that permits will be issued to
be consistent with the plans and TMDL pollution alloca-
tions. To increase accountability, the six Bay states - Dela-
ware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West
Virginia - and D.C. will demonstrate progress toward imple-
menting pollution controls through two-year milestones.
If plans are inadequate or progress is insufficient, EPA may
impose federal consequences. Consequences may include
assigning more stringent pollution reduction requirements
to point sources, objecting to state-issued National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System permits, prohibiting new
or expanded pollution discharges, and withholding or real-
locating federal grants.
C) Grant Program Resources
Grant resources supporting this goal include the Chesa-
peake 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 informa-
tion 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 sys-
tem in which 1 is poor and 5 is good):
2004 Baseline: 2.4
2009 Actual: 2.2
2010 Commitment: 2.5
2011 Target: 2.5
2014 Target: 2.6
(Note: Measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key Strategies
The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Water-
shed." Its U.S. coastline is 1,630 miles; it is fed by thirty-
three major rivers, and it receives drainage from 31 states
in addition to a similar drainage area from Mexico. One
sixth of the U.S. population now lives in Gulf Coast states,
and the region is experiencing remarkably rapid population
growth. In addition, the Gulf yields approximately forty
percent of the nation's commercial fishery landings, and
Gulf Coast wetlands comprise about half the national total
and provide critical habitat for seventy-five percent of the
migratory waterfowl traversing the United States.
For FY 2011, EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
partners to support attainment of environmental and
health goals that align with the Gulf of Mexico Governors'
Action Plan II which follows the successes of the first Action
Plan. The Gulf States Alliance has now developed a farther-
reaching, five-year regional plan that builds on the partner-
ships established as part of the 2006 Action Plan. In Action
Plan II, (2009-2014), the Alliance has identified issues that
are regionally significant and can be effectively addressed
through increased collaboration at the local, state, and fed-
eral levels. These activities fall into six categories:
1) Water Quality for Healthy Beaches and Shellfish Beds
The Clean Water Act provides authority and resources
that are essential to protecting water quality in the Gulf of
Mexico and in the larger Mississippi River Basin that con-
tributes 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 implementa-
tion 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 prior-
ity coastal watersheds. These 13 watersheds include 755 of
National Water Program Guidance
38
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Gulf of Mexico
the impaired segments identified by states around the Gulf
and will receive targeted technical and financial assistance
to restore impaired waters. The 2011 goal is to fully attain
water quality standards in at least 128 of these segments
(see Program Activity Measure SP-38).
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) cause public health adviso-
ries, 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 forecast-
ing capability system to manage harmful algal blooms and
for notifying public health managers (see Program Activity
Measure GM-1) and expects to expand the system in 2011
to include the additional Mexican States of Campeche and
Tabasco.
The Gulf of Mexico Program Office has a long-standing
commitment to develop effective partnerships with other
programs within EPA, in other federal agencies, and with
other organizations. For example, the Program Office is
working with the EPA Office of Research and Development
and other federal agencies to develop and implement a
coastal monitoring program to better assess the condition
of Gulf waters.
2) Habitat Conservation and Restoration
Another key element of the strategy for improving the
water quality in the Gulf is to restore, enhance, or pro-
tect a significant number of acres of coastal and marine
habitat. The overall wetland loss in the Gulf area is on the
order of fifty percent, and protection of the critical habitat
that remains is essential to the health of the Gulf aquatic
system. EPA has a goal of restoring 30,000 cumulative acres
of habitat by 2011 (see Program Activity Measure SP-39).
EPA is working with the NOAA, environmental organiza-
tions, the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and area universities
to identify and restore critical habitat. The Gulf Alliance will
enhance cooperative planning and programs across the Gulf
states and federal agencies to protect wetland and estuarine
habitat.
3) Ecosystems Integration and Assessment
The Gulf Coast supports a diverse array of coastal, estua-
rine, nearshore and offshore ecosystems, including seagrass
beds, wetlands and marshes, mangroves, barrier islands,
sand dunes, coral reefs, maritime forests, bayous, streams,
and rivers. These ecosystems provide numerous ecological
and economic benefits including water quality, nurseries
for fish, wildlife habitat, hurricane and flood buffers, ero-
sion 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 sus-
tainability, as well as better determining threats from hur-
ricanes and storm surge. The long-term partnership goal for
the Alliance is to identify, inventory, and assess the current
state of and trends in priority coastal, estuarine, near-shore,
and offshore Gulf of Mexico habitats to inform resource
management decisions. The Gulf of Mexico Program is
working with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the U.S. Geological Survey in support of this goal.
4) Nutrients and Nutrient Impacts
Healthy estuaries and coastal wetlands depend on a bal-
anced 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 estab-
lishing 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 estuar-
ies, but the challenge is to prevent or reduce the man-made
sources of nutrients to levels that maintain ecosystem
productivity and restore beneficial uses. In 2011, EPA will
support coastal nutrient criteria and standards develop-
ment 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 nutri-
ents in Gulf waters and achieve healthy and resilient coastal
ecosystems.
Any strategy to improve the overall health of the entire Gulf
of Mexico must include a focused effort to reduce the size of
the zone of hypoxic conditions (i.e., low oxygen in the water)
in the northern Gulf. Actions to address this problem must
focus on both localized pollutant addition throughout the
Basin and on nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River.
EPA, in cooperation with states and other federal agencies,
developed the GulfHypoxia Action Plan 2008. This Action
Plan includes as a goal the long-term target to reduce the
size of the hypoxic zone from about 14,000 square km to
less than 5,000 square km. measured as a five-year running
average (see Program Activity Measure SP-40). In work-
ing to accomplish this goal, EPA, states, and other federal
agencies, such as USDA, will continue implementation of
core clean water programs and partnerships and efforts to
coordinate allocation of technical assistance and funding to
priority areas around the Gulf.
Specifically, in FY 2011, EPA will support a targeted Missis-
sippi River Basin initiative which will support development
and implementation of State Nutrient Reduction strategies
to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds and reduce the size
of the hypoxic zone. A new grant program will provide the
opportunity to build state partnerships along the Mississippi
River based upon accountability and water quality goals.
National Water Program Guidance
39
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect Long Island Sound
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 over-
all quality of life. There is a nationwide need for a better
understanding of the link between the health of the Gulf
of Mexico and the U.S. economy. The long-term Alliance
partnership goal is to increase awareness and stewardship
of Gulf coastal resources and promote action among Gulf
citizens.
6) Coastal Community Resilience
Coastal communities continuously face and adapt to various
challenges of living along the Gulf of Mexico. The economic,
ecological, and social losses from coastal hazard events have
grown as population growth places people in harm's way
and as the ecosystems' natural resilience is compromised
by development and pollution. In order to sustain and
grow the Gulf region's economic prosperity, individuals,
businesses, communities, and ecosystems all need to be
more adaptable to change. In 2011, EPA will assist with the
development of information, tools, technologies, products,
policies, or public decision processes that can be used by
coastal communities to increase resilience to coastal natural
hazards and sea level rise. The Gulf of Mexico Program is
working with NOAA, Sea Grant Programs, and the U.S.
Geological Survey in support of this goal.
C) Grant Program Resources
The Gulf of Mexico Program issues an annual competi-
tive Funding Announcement for Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Regional Partnership projects that improve the health of
the Gulf of Mexico by addressing improved water qual-
ity 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).
in Appendix A.)
6) Protect Long Island Sound
A) Subobjective:
Prevent water pollution, improve water
quality, protect aquatic ecosystems, and
restore habitat of Long Island Sound.
(Note: Measures of progress are identified
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 2009 dollars, that value is now $8.41 bil-
lion. The Sound also generates additional billions of dollars
through transportation, ports, harbors, real estate, and
other cultural and aesthetic values. The Sound is breeding
ground, nursery, feeding ground, and habitat to more than
170 species of fish and 1,200 invertebrate species that are
under stress from development, competing human uses and
climate change.
The key environmental and ecological outcomes for Long
Island Sound include:
Marine waters that meet prescribed water quality
standards;
Diverse habitats that support healthy, abundant and
sustainable populations of diverse aquatic and marine-
dependent species;
An ambient environment that is free of substances that
are potentially harmful to human health or otherwise
may adversely affect the food chain; and
Educated and informed citizens who participate in the
restoration and protection of this invaluable resource.
EPA continues to work with the Long Island Sound Man-
agement Conference partners - the states of New York and
Connecticut and other federal, state, and local government
agencies, industry, and the private sectorto implement
the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) to restore and protect the Sound. Because levels
of dissolved oxygen are critical to the health of aquatic
life and viable public use of the Sound, a CCMP priority is
controlling nitrogen discharges to meet these water quality
standards.
1) Reduce Nitrogen Loads
The Long Island Sound bi-state nitrogen TMDL relies on
flexible and innovative approaches, notably bubble permits
and management zones and exchange ratios that allow sew-
age treatment plant operators to trade nitrogen reduction
obligations with each other. This approach can help attain
water quality improvement goals, while allowing com-
munities to save an estimated $800 million by allocating
reductions to those plants where they can be achieved most
economically, and to plants that have the greatest impact on
water quality.
The States of New York and Connecticut will continue to
allocate resources toward Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
upgrades to control nitrogen discharges as required in their
revised NPDES (SPDES) permits. The States will monitor
National Water Program Guidance
40
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect Long Island Sound
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 construc-
tion costs and more effectively address nitrogen reductions
to the Sound. New York City will continue its STP nitrogen
upgrades under a 2005 State of New York Consent Order,
and will minimize the impact of nitrogen discharges to the
Sound as construction proceeds through 2017.
EPA will continue to work with the upper Long Island
Sound watershed States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and Vermont to develop state plans to identify and control
nitrogen discharges to the Connecticut River, the primary
fresh water riverine input to the Sound. As sources are
identified and control strategies developed, state discharge
permits will need to be modified to incorporate appropriate
load allocations. A continuing challenge to EPA and states is
to address nonpoint sources of nitrogen deposition to the
Sound, including atmospheric deposition and groundwater
infiltration, which contribute many thousands of pounds of
nitrogen and which are more difficult and complex to iden-
tify and control. To address these sources, the LISS supports
local watershed protection programs to reduce stormwater
runoff, plan for and manage growth, and conserve natural
landscapes.
2) Reduce the Area and Duration 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 miti-
gate these uncontrollable factors. As the states continue
implementing STP upgrades and nonpoint source controls,
the new applied technologies will reduce nitrogen inputs,
limiting algal response and interfering with the cycles that
promote algal growth, and its death, decay, and resulting
loss of dissolved oxygen.
3) Restore and Protect Critical Habitats and Reopen Rivers
to Diadromous Fish
EPA will continue to work with Management Conference
partners to restore degraded habitats and reopen rivers and
streams to diadromous fish passage. States and EPA will
direct efforts at the most vulnerable coastal habitats and
key areas of high ecological value, such as coastal wetlands.
Projects, using EPA and a variety of public and private
funding sources, and in cooperation with landowners, will
construct fishways, remove dams, or otherwise remove
impediments to diadromous fish passage. Where feasible
and as funding allows, fish counting devices will provide
valuable data on actual numbers of fish entering breeding
grounds. Restoration of the diadromous fishery and increas-
ing the higher trophic levels in the Sound are longer-term
goals of federal and state natural resource managers.
4) Implement through Partnerships
New York, Connecticut, and EPA will cooperate to agree
on and implement a new Long Island Sound Agreement. The
Agreement will build upon CCMP goals and targets, which
were refined and documented in the predecessor Long Island
Sound 2003 Agreement.
EPA and states will continue to participate in the Long
Island Sound Management Conference under CWA Section
320, as implemented through the Long Island Sound Restora-
tion Act of 2000 as amended, CWA Section 119. The states
and EPA will continue to address the highest priority envi-
ronmental and ecological problems identified in the CCMP
- the impact of hypoxia on the ecosystem, including living
marine resources; the effects of reducing toxic substances,
pathogens, and floatable debris on the ambient environ-
ment; identification, restoration and protection of critical
habitats; and managing the populations of living marine
and marine-dependent resources that rely on the Sound
as their primary habitat. The Management Conference will
work to improve riparian buffers in key river reaches and
restore submerged aquatic vegetation in key embayments;
reduce the impact of toxic substances, pathogens, and float-
able debris on the ecology; and improve the stewardship of
these critical areas.
EPA and the states will continue to support the Long Island
Sound Study (LISS) Citizens Advisory Committee and the
Science and Technical Advisory Committee, which provide
technical expertise and public participation and advice to
the Management Conference partners in the implementa-
tion of the CCMP. An educated and informed public will
more readily recognize problems and understand their role
in environmental stewardship.
5) Core EPA Program Support
The LISS supports, and is supported by EPA core environ-
mental 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 frameworksand
fundingto achieve targets for restoration and protection
and apply limited resources to highest priority areas.
For example, EPA and the states use authorities under CWA
Section 319 to manage watersheds that are critical to the
health of Long Island Sound. Under Section 303(d), state
and local TMDLs for harmful substances support the work
of the Management Conference in ensuring a clean and safe
Long Island Sound.
National Water Program Guidance
41
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
State Revolving Funds under Section 601 are used to
upgrade STPs for nitrogen control, and NPDES permits
issued under Section 402 provide enforceable targets to
monitor progress in reducing nitrogen and other harmful
pollutants to waters entering the Sound. Because of the
LISS nitrogen TMDL, developed under Section 303(d), both
the states of Connecticut and New York revised their ambi-
ent water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) to be
consistent with EPA's national guidance for DO in marine
waters. With EPA funding through the LISS, Connecticut
conducts the LIS ambient water quality monitoring (WQM)
program, and has participated with the State of New York
in EPA's National Coastal Assessment monitoring program.
The data compiled by the LISS WQM program is one of the
most robust and extensive datasets on ambient conditions
available to scientists, researchers, and managers. The LISS
nitrogen TMDL sets firm reduction targets and encourages
trading at point sources, and NPDES/SPDES permits have
been modified to incorporate TMDL nitrogen limits on a
15 year enforceable schedule. EPA and the states evaluate
the TMDL and revise the allocations as necessary to attain
water quality standards. The states of New York and Con-
necticut recognize the significant investments required to
support wastewater infrastructure and have passed state
bond act funding to sustain efforts to upgrade facilities to
reduce nitrogen loads to the Sound as established in the
nitrogen TMDL. These actions are primary support of CWA
core programs, and are ongoing and integral to LISS CCMP
implementation to restore and protect Long Island Sound.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources supporting this goal include the Long
Island Sound CCMP implementation grants authorized
under Section 119(d) of the Clean Water Act as amended.
These include the Long Island Sound Futures Fund Large
and Small grant programs administered by the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Long Island Sound CCMP
Enhancements Grant program administered by the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission,
and the Long Island Sound Research Grant program admin-
istered by the New York and Connecticut Sea Grant pro-
grams. The LISS web page provides grant information and
progress toward meeting environmental results: (http://
www.longislandsoundstudy.net/grants/index.htm).
7) Protect the South Florida
Ecosystem
A) Subobjective:
Protect and restore the South Florida
ecosystem, including the Everglades and
coral reef ecosystems.
(Note: Measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key Program Strategies
The South Florida ecosystem encompasses three national
parks, more than ten national wildlife refuges, a national
preserve and a national marine sanctuary. It is home to
two Native American nations, and it supports the largest
wilderness area east of the Mississippi River, the only living
coral barrier reef adjacent to the United States, and the
largest commercial and sport fisheries in Florida. But rapid
population growth is threatening the health of this vital
ecosystem. South Florida is home to about 8 million people,
more than the populations of 39 individual states. Another
2 million people are expected to settle in the area over the
next 10 to 20 years. Fifty percent of the region's wetlands
have been lost to suburban and agricultural development,
and the altered hydrology and water management through-
out the region have had a major impact on the ecosystem.
EPA is working in partnership with numerous local,
regional, state, and federal agencies and tribes to ensure
the long-term sustainability of the region's varied natu-
ral resources while providing for extensive agricultural
operations and a continually expanding population. EPA's
South Florida Geographic Initiative (SFGI) is designed to
protect and restore communities and ecosystems affected
by environmental problems. SFGI efforts include activities
related to the Section 404 wetlands protection program; the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP);
the Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary; the Southeast Florida Coral
Reef Initiative, directed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force;
the Brownfields Program; and a number of other waste
management programs.
1) Accelerate Watershed Protection
Strong execution of core clean water programs is essential
but not adequate for accelerating progress toward maintain-
ing and restoring water quality and the associated biologi-
cal resources in South Florida. Water quality degradation
is often caused by many different and diffuse sources. To
address the complex causes of water quality impairment,
we are using an approach grounded in science, innovation,
stakeholder involvement, and adaptive management - the
watershed approach. In addition to implementing core clean
water programs, we will continue to work to:
Support and expand local watershed protection efforts
through innovative approaches to build local capacity;
and
Initiate or strengthen through direct support watershed
protection and restoration for critical watersheds and
water bodies.
2) Conduct Congressionally-mandated Responsibilities
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and
Protection Act of 1990 directed EPA and the State of Flor-
ida, in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA), to develop a Water Quality
Protection Program (WQPP) for the Sanctuary. The purpose
of the WQPP is to recommend priority corrective actions
and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint
sources of pollution in the Florida Keys ecosystem. In
National Water Program Guidance
42
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
addition, the Act also required development of a compre-
hensive water quality monitoring program and provision of
opportunities for public participation. In FY 2011, EPA will
continue to implement the WQPP for the FKNMS, includ-
ing the comprehensive monitoring projects (coral reef,
seagrass, and water quality), special studies, data manage-
ment, and public education and outreach activities. EPA will
also continue to support implementation of wastewater and
storm water master plans for the Florida Keys to upgrade
inadequate wastewater and storm water infrastructure. In
addition, we will continue to assist with implementing the
comprehensive plan for eliminating sewage discharges from
boats and other vessels.
3) Support the Actions of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
In October 2002, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force passed a reso-
lution 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 conserva-
tion. 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 appre-
ciation of coral habitat. Key goals of the LAS are:
Characterize the existing condition of the coral reef
ecosystem;
Quantify, characterize and prioritize the land-based
sources of pollution that need to be addressed based on
identified impacts to the reefs;
Identify how pollution affects the southeast Florida coral
reef habitat;
Reduce the impacts of land-based sources of pollution;
and
Work in close cooperation with the awareness and appre-
ciation focus team.
Detailed action strategies or projects for each goal have
been developed. For example, one priority action strategy/
project is to assimilate existing data to quantify and char-
acterize the sources of pollution and identify the relative
contributions of point and nonpoint sources.
4) Other Priority Activities for FY 2011
Support development of TMDLs for various south Florida
waters including the watershed for Lake Okeechobee, the
primary or secondary source of drinking water for large
portions of south Florida.
Continue to work with Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection in developing numeric water quality
criteria for Florida water bodies. EPA in accordance with
a consent decree committed to establish numeric criteria
for lakes and flowing water in 2010, and for estuaries and
coastal waters in 2011.
Assist the State of Florida and South Florida Water
Management District in evaluating the appropriateness
of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) technology as a
key element of the overall restoration strategy for south
Florida. Region 4 will continue to work with the COE to
evaluate proposed ASR projects.
Continue implementation of the South Florida Wetlands
Conservation Strategy, including protecting and restoring
critical wetland habitats in the face of tremendous growth
and development.
Continue to work closely with the Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida to
facilitate expedited review of National Environmental Pol-
icy Act (NEPA) and regulatory permit actions associated
with the ongoing implementation of CERP. Several large
water storage impoundments will be under construction
during the next few years.
Continue to implement the Everglades Ecosystem Assess-
ment Program, an EMAP-based monitoring program to
assess the health of the Everglades and the effectiveness
of ongoing restoration and regulatory strategies. Scien-
tific publications were completed in FY 2010.
Continue to work with the State of Florida, the Semi-
nole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida, and federal agencies to implement appropriate
phosphorus control programs that will attain water qual-
ity standards within the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe
and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida both have
federally approved water quality (WQS) which may differ
from the State WQS. For instance, the Miccosukee Tribe
has a 10 ppb criterion for phosphorus while the State has
a narrative criterion. To insure the identification of the
appropriate WQS criteria, both tribes should be involved
in the activities, especially in nutrient control, water qual-
ity activities, and development of TMDLs effecting tribal
waters.
C) Grant Program Resources
The South Florida Program Office uses available resources
to fund priority programs and projects that support the
restoration and maintenance of the south Florida ecosys-
tem, including the Everglades and coral reef habitat. These
programs and projects include monitoring (water quality,
seagrass, and coral reef), special studies, and public edu-
cation and outreach activities. Federal assistance agree-
ments for projects supporting the activities of the SFGI are
awarded under the authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the
CWA. Region 4 issues announcements of opportunity for
federal funding and "requests for proposals" in accordance
with EPA Order 5700.5 (Policy for Competition in Assis-
tance Agreements).
National Water Program Guidance
43
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Puget Sound Basin
8) Protect the Puget Sound Basin
A) Subobjective:
Improve water quality, improve air qual-
ity, and minimize adverse impacts of
rapid development in the Puget Sound
Basin.
(Note: Measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
B) Key Program Strategies
The Puget Sound Basin is the largest population and com-
mercial center in the Pacific Northwest, supporting a vital
system of international ports, transportation systems,
and defense installations. The ecosystem encompasses
roughly 20 rivers and 2,800 square miles of sheltered
inland waters that provide habitat to hundreds of spe-
cies 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 cre-
ated hypoxic zones that further impair shellfish and finfish
populations. Recent monitoring assessments indicate that
marine species in the Puget Sound have high levels of toxic
contamination. Almost 5,700 acres of submerged land
(about 9 square miles) are currently classified as contami-
nated with toxics and another 24,000 as at least partially
contaminated. Additional pollutants are still being released:
approximately 1 million pounds of toxics are released into
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 repre-
sentatives, 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 com-
prehensive management plan in 2009, the "2020 Action
Agenda", for protecting and restoring the Puget Sound
ecosystem.
Key program strategies for FY 2011 include:
Improving Water Quality and Restoring Shellfish Beds
and Wild Salmon Populations through Local Watershed
Protection
EPA will continue to work with state and local agen-
cies 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 Water-
shed Protection Plans
EPA will work with state and local agencies and the
tribes using local watershed protection approaches to
reduce stormwater impacts to local aquatic resources
in urbanizing areas currently outside of NPDES Phase
I and II permit authority. Of particular concern are the
sensitive and high value estuarine waters such as Hood
Canal, the northern Straits, and south Puget Sound.
EPA will also work with the state to increase support
to local and tribal governments and the development
community to promote smart growth and low impact
development approaches in the Puget Sound Basin.
Watershed protection and land use integration proj-
ects are being funded with approximately half of the
2009 appropriation. The 2009 appropriation will also
fund implementation of Tribal priority ecosystem and
human health work in the Puget Sound region. The
2009 and 2010 grant programs are targeted to sup-
port the priority actions identified in the Puget Sound
Action Agenda, which was formally approved by EPA
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act in 2009.
To the extent that we can, EPA will assist with evalu-
ating, quantifying, and documenting improvements
in local water quality and beneficial uses as these
local watershed protection and restoration plans are
implemented.
EPA will work with states to help support develop-
ment of a comprehensive storm water monitoring pro-
gram 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, atmo-
spheric, and marine discharge sources will be quan-
tified 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 strate-
gies will be established within priority areas, including
both Hood Canal and South Puget Sound.
National Water Program Guidance
44
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Columbia River Basin
Restoring and Protecting Nearshore Aquatic Habitats
Through the Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration
Partnership, high profile habitat restoration projects
will continue to be initiated and others completed
in priority estuaries, including the Skagit, Nisqually,
Hood Canal, Elwha, and South Puget Sound.
Protection programs, restoration strategies, project
lists, and outcomes will be evaluated against current
conditions and ongoing habitat loss to determine net
changes in extent and function of estuary habitats.
Improving Ecosystem Monitoring and the Application
of Science
A new Integrated Science Plan for Puget Sound is
being developed including enhanced monitoring, mod-
eling, assessment and research capacity. The emerg-
ing science agenda will be focused on improving the
effectiveness of both local management activities and
broader policy initiatives.
EPA will continue developing and implementing a
comprehensive watershed monitoring program to
better understand the impacts of stormwater runoff
on aquatic resources and the effectiveness of different
management practices and policies.
EPA will work with other science communication ini-
tiatives and programs to ensure that data and infor-
mation is more available and relevant to citizens, local
jurisdictions, watershed management forums, and
resource managers.
Ensuring Focused and Productive Transboundary
Coordination
EPA Region 10 will continue to work with Environment
Canada, Pacific Yukon Region to implement biennial
work plans developed under the 2000 Joint Statement of
Cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Eco-
system ("SoC"). As in previous years, the EPA-EC chaired
SoC working group, comprising state, provincial, tribal, and
first nations representatives, work toward sharing scientific
information on the ecosystem, developing joint research
initiatives, ensuring coordination of environmental man-
agement initiatives, and jointly considering longer term
planning issues including air quality and climate change. A
significant FY 2011 activity will be planning the next bien-
nial Salish Sea Ecosystem Research Conference (Vancouver,
2011); in 2009 this transboundary conference attracted
registration from over 1100 scientists, policy makers, and
stakeholders
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal have usually
been limited to the National Estuary Program Grants under
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (approx. $500 K annually
in recent years). The FY 2010 appropriations bill included
close to $50 million for development and implementation of
the 2020 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. FY 2010 and 2011
appropriations will be applied to implementation of priority
actions aimed at pollution source control, watershed protec-
tion, 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 sup-
porting Washington State and Tribal water quality programs,
and infrastructure loan programs.
D)A Strategic Response to Climate Change
The Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda calls for
actions to adapt to and mitigate for climate change. The
Action Agenda recognizes that climate change will exacer-
bate the existing threats to Puget Sound. Both the Puget
Sound Partnership and EPA have identified climate change
impacts to be considered when evaluating potential actions.
For example, EPA included climate change as a rating factor
in its 2009 Request for Proposal for Puget Sound "Water-
shed Management Assistance" and in the Puget Sound
"Tribal set-aside" grants, which will provide approximately
$13.5 million in funding. Many of the strategies and actions
to protect and restore Puget Sound also serve as mitigation
and adaptation measures.
For additional information, please visit: http://www.epa.
gov/regionlO/psgb/.
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: Measures of progress are identified in Appendix A.)
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 develop-
ment, agriculture, transportation, recreation, fisheries and
hydropower.
The Columbia River Basin also serves as a unique and special
ecosystem, home to many important plants and animals.
Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs were once the
largest runs in the world. The tribal people of the Columbia
River have depended on these salmon for thousands of
years for human, spiritual, and cultural sustenance.
Challenges
The Columbia River Basin provides great environmental,
economic, and social benefit to many public and private
National Water Program Guidance
45
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
Protect the Columbia River Basin
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 hydropower dams, electrical
power generation. However, hydro-electric power genera-
tion, 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 tribu-
taries, 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 of fish than the general population. A follow-up
2002 EPA fish contaminant study found toxics in fish that
tribal people eat. Recent studies and monitoring programs
have found significant levels of toxic chemicals in fish and
the waters they inhabit, including DDT, PCBs, mercury, and
emerging contaminants, such as PBDEs.
EPA Region 10 is working closely with the States of Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Columbia Basin tribal governments, the
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, local govern-
ments, citizen groups, industry, and other federal agencies
to develop and implement a collaborative strategy to assess
and reduce toxics in fish and water in the Columbia River
Basin and to restore and protect habitat.
The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, one of EPA's
National Estuary Programs, also plays a key role in address-
ing toxics and restoration of critical wetlands in the Lower
Columbia River estuary. Since 1996, EPA has provided
significant financial support to the Lower Columbia River
Estuary Partnership (LCREP). LCREP developed a manage-
ment plan in 1999 that has served as a blueprint for estuary
recovery efforts. The Lower Columbia River and estuary
monitoring program, developed and overseen by LCREP, is
critical for better understanding the lower river and estuary,
including toxics and habitat characterization, information
that is essential for Columbia River salmon restoration.
Working with partners including LCREP, and the states of
Washington and Oregon, EPA has established several goals
for improving environmental conditions in the Columbia
River basin by 2014:
Protect, enhance, or restore 19,000 acres of wetland and
upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River Estuary;
Clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated sedi-
ments in the Portland Harbor and other sites; and
Demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concen-
tration of certain contaminants of concern found in
water and fish tissue in five sites where baseline data is
available.
Future Directions and Accomplishments
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 anadro-
mous fish, restore water quality, and preserve, protect, and
restore habitat. To achieve this daunting task, EPA Region
10 is leading the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strat-
egy, a collaborative effort with many partners, to achieve
these three goals and other actions to better understand
and reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin. The goal is
to protect public health and the environment by reducing
toxics in fish, water, and sediment of the Columbia River
Basin and by developing and implementing a multi-agency
monitoring and research strategy to understand toxic loads,
emerging contaminants, and overall ecosystem health, and
increase and expand toxic reduction actions, which include:
The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group has
been convened as a collaborative watershed based group
consisting of local communities, non-profits, tribal, state,
and federal government agencies to develop and imple-
ment an action plan for reducing toxics in the Columbia
River Basin.
EPA, with the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working
Group, completed a Columbia River Basin State of the River
Report for Toxics, in January 2009. This report is a first
attempt to understand and describe the current status
and trends of toxics pollution and serve as a catalyst for a
public dialogue on enhancing and accelerating actions to
reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin.
EPA and the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working
Group are following up on the State of the River Report
with a Columbia River Basin Action Plan expected to be
final in May 2010, which will identify needed toxic reduc-
tion and monitoring actions with current resources and
proposed increased resources.
EPA is holding workshops around the Basin to engage
citizens; tribal, local state, and federal governments;
industry; agriculture; and NGOs on toxics and toxics
reductions in the Columbia River Basin. Four workshops
have focused on agricultural successes and technology
transfer; PCBs; and flame retardants, a growing concern
in the Columbia River Basin.
States and tribes are reducing toxics with regulatory
tools: Water Quality Standards; water quality improve-
ment plans (total maximum daily loads (TMDLs);
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits.
Currently EPA is working with the State of Oregon,
and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
National Water Program Guidance
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
Reservation to collaboratively develop human health
criteria that will increase protection for Oregon popu-
lations who consume high amounts of fish, especially
tribal fish consumers, expected to be final in 2011. These
criteria will result in reduced toxics in point sources,
nonpoint sources, hazardous waste clean ups, water qual-
ity improvement plan (TMDL) implementation and other
tools and will serve as a national and regional model for
increased toxics reduction and human health protection.
States, tribes, and local partners are improving farming
practices;
Oregon's Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Program
in the Walla Walla Basin has shown a 70% decline in
bioaccumulative organophospate pesticides in 2006-
2008 data.
In May 2009, the Washington Department of Health
lifted the Yakima River DDT fish advisory because of
the success of collaborative efforts of the agricultural
community, Washington Ecology, Yakima Indian
Nation, and others to reduce soil erosion into the
Yakima River.
State and local governments are removing toxics from
communities, including a Washington State 2007
PBDE ban; a 2009 Oregon State Deca-BDE ban; and
mercury reduction strategies by Oregon, Idaho, and
Nevada, to help communities reduce toxic chemical
use and ensure proper disposal.
Federal and state governments are cleaning up contami-
nation at Portland Harbor, Hanford, Upper Columbia/
Lake Roosevelt, Bradford Island, Lake Coeur d'Alene, and
other sites.
C) Grant Program Resources
EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal are limited
to the National Estuary Program Grants under Section
320 of the Clean Water Act (approx. $500 K annually in
recent years) which funds work only in the lower part of the
Columbia River, which is less than 2% of the Columbia River
Basin. A range of other water program grants also support
many activities that assist in the achievement of this subob-
jective. These include grants supporting Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington state and tribal water quality programs.
10) San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
A) Protect and restore water quality and ecological health
of the estuary through partnerships, interagency coordina-
tion, and project grants in the San Francisco Bay.
B) Key Program Strategies
The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary is the hub of the
nation's largest water delivery system, providing drinking
water to 25 million Californians. The ecosystem sustains
about $400 billion of annual economic activity, including
a $28 million agricultural industry and a robust set of
recreational opportunities. Until recently, it has supported
a thriving commercial and recreational fishing industry
that normally contributes hundreds of millions of dollars
annually to the State's economy. The Bay Delta is also home
to 55 species of fish and 750 species of plants and wild-
life. As a result of these oft-competing uses for water, and
compounded by three years of drought, the entire Bay Delta
system is in crisis.
The federal government has recently re-committed to
robust engagement on restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem
and addressing California's water needs. In 2009, EPA was
one of six federal agencies who signed a Memorandum
of Understanding and produced an Interim Action Plan
describing a coordinated set of actions to restore the ecolog-
ical health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem while providing for a
high-quality, reliable, sustainable water supply for the State.
Under the Action Plan, EPA has work underway to address
critical water quality issues, including assessing the effec-
tiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms to address
the key water quality issues, developing a comprehensive
regional water quality monitoring program, and integrating
climate change into regional water management planning.
In addition, EPA has critical work underway to address
San Francisco Bay water quality issues. The San Francisco
Bay Area population benefits from improved water quality
in the Bay and its watersheds in the form of commercial
enterprises, recreational opportunities, and its scenic value.
It also collectively impacts the very same water quality.
During the last three decades, there have been some notable
successes in protecting San Francisco Bay. Efforts are still
needed to reduce stormwater and nonpoint source pollution
impacts, implement Bay, creek and river TMDLs (see http://
www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/
TMDLs/), and protect and restore riparian, floodplain, wet-
land, and Bay habitat.
Impacts associated with urbanization are increasingly
important as resource managers strive to protect and
restore healthy watersheds while local governments plan for
2 million more people by 2035. There is growing recognition
that low impact development (LID) methods should become
common practices as research has shown that impervi-
ous surfaces have negative impacts on aquatic habitats by
increasing stormwater which scours and delivers increased
pollutant loads to local streams and rivers and changes the
historic groundwater and surface water hydrology. Similarly,
innovative practices need to be implemented to address
water quality impacts associated with agricultural activities.
Forecasted changes in climate further heighten the impor-
tance of providing for the long-term resiliency and buffering
capacity of the Bay and its watersheds.
Since FY2008, work in San Francisco Bay has been sup-
ported by congressional appropriations for a competitive
grant program to support partnerships that protect and
restore San Francisco Bay watersheds, the San Francisco
National Water Program Guidance
47
-------
Strategies to Improve the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF). EPA has
prioritized activities to reduce polluted run-off from urban
development and agriculture; implement TMDLs to restore
impaired water quality; and protect and restore habitat
including riparian corridors, floodplains, wetlands, and the
Bay. To date, EPA has awarded $16.7 million, leveraging an
additional $11.7 million and involving nearly 40 partners in
projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary Program is focused on
using existing watershed plans, TMDLs, and related assess-
ments to ensure that priority activities are implemented to
improve water quality. Implementation projects funded by
the SFBWQIF are also integrated with ongoing comprehen-
sive water quality and land use management efforts such
as the San Francisco Estuary Partnership's Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), the Integrated
Water Resource Management Program (IWRMP), and the
SF Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP), as well as local
general plans, stormwater management plans, and Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Implementation Plans.
The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary is currently in the
process of expanding their monitoring and reporting efforts
and plan to develop performance measures for inclusion in
the 2012 NPG.
Key program strategies for FY 2011 include:
Reducing polluted run-off from urban development
and agriculture
EPA will continue to work with state, regional and
local agencies and other partners to enhance and
implement watershed protection and restoration
plans, land use and transportation plans, basin plans,
stormwater controls and/or land development stan-
dards to improve water quality.
EPA will fund activities that develop and carry out
laws, ordinances, and incentive programs to foster the
systematic implementation of low impact develop-
ment (LID) approaches and techniques for new and
existing development.
EPA will increase watershed data and information
available to local decision-makers who write and
implement laws, ordinances, and permits which
impact water quality.
Improve water quality in waterbodies with approved
TMDLs
Watershed-focused projects are being implemented
under the SFBWQIF with FY2008, 2009, and 2010
funds. These projects address PCB and mercury
sources to San Francisco Bay, and pathogen and sedi-
ment reductions in Richardson Bay, Sonoma Creek
and the Napa River.
Improvements in water quality and local beneficial
uses will be quantified, documented and evaluated as
these local watershed protection and restoration plans
are implemented.
Protecting and restoring habitat including riparian cor-
ridors, floodplains, wetlands, and the Bay
Through the SFBWQIF, EPA will fund high priority
habitat projects that maintain native vegetation and
natural hydrology, and protect and restore wetland,
riparian, and upland ecological processes to improve
water quality.
Improve monitoring of environmental results
EPA will require watershed-based monitoring of
grant-funded projects to monitor and assess condi-
tions and trends of water quality and aquatic resources
to provide documentation of ongoing environmental
improvements.
EPA will continue to work with other state and federal
agencies to support the development of a comprehen-
sive water quality monitoring and assessment pro-
gram for the Delta and its tributaries.
C) Grant Program Resources
Historically, EPA grant resources directly supporting this
goal have been limited primarily to the National Estuary
Program grants under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act
(approx. $500 K annually in recent years). More recently,
the FY 2008, 2009, and 2010 appropriations bills included
close to $17 million, collectively, for partnership grants
to improve San Francisco Bay water quality. Proposals are
solicited through an open competition, attempting to lever-
age other funding and targeting the SFBWQIF's priority
environmental issues, as follows: reducing polluted run-off
from urban development and agriculture, implementing
TMDLs to restore impaired water quality, and protecting
and restoring habitat including riparian corridors, flood-
plains, wetlands, and the Bay. There are currently no grant
resources which specifically support the water quality issues
beyond the immediate SF Bay, i.e., in the Delta and its
tributaries.
D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
Within the San Francisco Bay LAE, the San Francisco Estu-
ary Partnership, the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, and EPA Global Change Research Program
are working on a pilot project under the Climate Ready
Estuaries Program to identify key vulnerabilities of the San
Francisco Bay Delta Estuary to climate change. The assess-
ment will take advantage of significant work that is already
underway in the region, particularly on sea level rise, to
support further analysis of climate drivers and ecosystem
effects.
For additional information, please visit http://www.sfestu-
ary.org/projects/detail2.php?projectID=4.
National Water Program Guidance
48
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management System
V. National Water Program and Grant Management System
1. National Water Program
This National Water Program Guidance document describes
the general approaches that EPA, in consultation with states
and tribes, expects to be most effective in attaining the
environmental and public health improvements identi-
fied in the EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and the proposed
2010-2015 Strategic Plan. This Guidance, however, is part of
a larger, three part management process.
Part 1: Complete National Water Program Guidance:
During the fall of 2009, EPA reviewed program mea-
sures and made improvements to many measures. Draft
Guidance was issued in February 2010 and comments
were due by April 2nd. EPA reviewed these comments
and made changes and clarifications to measures and the
text of the Guidance. A summary of responses to com-
ments is provided on the Office of Water Strategic Plan
Web site at (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/).
EPA regional offices provided regional targets in mid
April. After discussion 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/Plan-
ning: EPA regions will work with states and tribes to
develop FY 2011 Performance Partnership Agreements
or other grant workplans, including commitments to
reporting key activities and, in some cases, commit-
ments to specific FY 2011 program accomplishments
(May through October of 2010).
Part 3: Program Evaluation and Adaptive Man-
agement: The National Water Program will evaluate
program progress in 2011 and adapt water program
management and priorities based on this assessment
information.
Parts 2 and 3 of this program management system are dis-
cussed below. Key aspects of water program grant manage-
ment are also addressed.
A) EPA Region/State/Tribe Consultation/Planning
(Step 2)
1) National Water Program Guidance Commitment Process
EPA regional offices will work with states and tribes begin-
ning in April of 2010 to develop agreements concerning
program priorities and commitments for FY 2011 in the
form of Performance Partnership Agreements or individual
grant workplans. The National Water Program Guidance for
FY 2011, including program strategies and FY 2011 targets,
forms a foundation for this effort.
The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2011 includes
a minimum number of measures that address the critical
program activities that are expected to contribute to attain-
ment of long-term goals. Between FYs 2007 and 2008,
the total number of water measures has been reduced and
EPA has focused reporting on existing data systems where
possible. Some of these Program Activity Measures track
activities carried out by EPA while others address activities
carried out by states and tribes (see Appendix A). In addi-
tion, some of these measures include annual national "tar-
gets" while others are intended to simply indicate change
over time.
During the Spring/Summer of 2010, EPA regions will work
with states and tribes to agree on reporting for all the mea-
sures in the FY 2011 Guidance, including both target and
indicator measures. For the target measures, EPA regional
offices will develop FY 2011 regional "commitments" based
on their discussions with states and tribes and using the
"targets" in the FY 2011 Guidance as a point of reference.
Draft regional "commitments" are due July 9 and, after
review and comment by National Program Managers, EPA
regions are to finalize regional commitments by October
1. These final regional "commitments" are then summed to
make the national commitment, and both the regional and
national commitments are finalized the Agency's Annual
Commitment System (ACS) by October 22, 2010.
A key part of this process is discussion among EPA regions,
states, and tribes of regional "commitments" and the devel-
opment of binding performance partnership agreements or
other grant workplan documents that establish reporting
and performance agreements. The goal of this joint effort
is to allocate available resources to those program activi-
ties that are likely to result in the best progress toward
accomplishing water quality and public health goals for
that state/tribe (e.g., improved compliance with drinking
water standards and improved water quality on a watershed
basis). This process is intended to provide the flexibility for
EPA regions to adjust their commitments based on rela-
tive needs, priorities, and resources of states and tribes in
the EPA region. Recognizing that rural communities face
significant challenges in ensuring safe drinking water and
protecting water quality, the National Water Program will
focus on addressing rural communities' needs in discussions
with states and work more collaboratively with rural com-
munities and rural technical providers in 2011 in planning
program activities for FY 2011. The tailored program
"commitments" that result from this process define,
along with this Guidance, the "strategy" for the
National Water Program for FY 2011.
As EPA regional offices work with states and tribes to
develop FY 2011 commitments, there should also be
discussion of initial expectations for progress under key
measures in FY 2012. The Agency begins developing the
National Water Program Guidance
49
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
FY 2012 budget in the spring of 2010 and is required to
provide initial estimates of FY 2012 progress for measures
included in the budget in August of 2010. These estimates
can be adjusted during the fall before they go into the final
FY 2012 President's budget in January 2011. The Office
of Water will consult with EPA regions in developing the
initial FY 2012 budget measure targets in August 2010, and
regions will be better able to comment on proposed initial
targets if they have had preliminary discussions of FY 2012
progress with states and tribes. Regions should assume
stable funding for the purposes of these discussions.
2) State Grant Results and Reporting
In FY 2011, EPA remains committed to strengthening our
oversight and reporting of results in state grants, not only
linking state work plan commitments to EPA's Strategic
Plan, but also enhancing transparency and accountability.
EPA and states will continue working in FY 2011 to achieve
this through two related efforts:
State Grant Workplans. The Agency's long-term goal is
for EPA and states to achieve greater consistency in work-
plan formats. To achieve that goal, the Office of Grants and
Debarment (OGD) will convene a State/EPA workgroup of
grant practitioners to develop a menu of formats for EPA
and states to use when negotiating workplans for the 14
identified categorical grant programs. In developing these
formats, the workgroup will build upon the results of the FY
2009 State Grant Workplan Pilot.
The formats will be available for use beginning with the FY
2011 grants cycle. In consultation with the practitioners
workgroup and recognizing that the formats will need to be
phased in over time, OGD will develop performance metrics
to ensure that 100% of workplans under the 14 categorical
grant programs use one of the approved formats by no later
than the FY 2013 grants cycle. If a particular state agency
has difficulties under state law in adopting one of the
established formats, OGD will work with the affected EPA
regional office and NPM to resolve the issue. Please contact
Howard Corcoran, OARM/OGD, at 202-564-1903 should
you have any questions.
State Grant Performance Measures (formally known
as State Grant Template Measures): The current set of
measures flagged as State Grant Measures in ACS will be
retained for FY 2011 reporting. As in FY 2010, the use of
the template to capture results for these measures is not
required. However, reporting on the results remains the
responsibility of EPA regions and states. The Agency and
members of ECOS have ongoing discussions as to whether
there is utility in identifying a set of common measures that
reflect the primary functional work areas under each of the
14 categorical grants. Issues that have been raised include
how the Agency would capture and use these measures. In
FY 2011, the Agency, in consultation with ECOS, will evalu-
ate the workplan initiative discussed above and determine
whether it sufficiently enhances transparency and account-
ability such that developing a common set of measures is
unnecessary. Please contact your State Grant Coordinator or
Margo Padgett, OCFO/OPAA, at 202-564-1211 should you
have any questions.
For FY 2011, regions and states will continue to report
performance results against the set of state grant measures
into ACS. For a subset of the measures for which FY 2011
targets and commitments are established, EPA is asking
that states and EPA regions provide the Office of Water with
state specific results data at the end of FY 2011. These mea-
sures are associated with some of the larger water program
grants. The water grant programs and the FY 2011 "State
Grant" measures supporting the grant are:
a. Water Pollution Control State and Interstate
Program Support (106 Grants). State Grant
Measures: SP-10; WQ-la/b/c; WQ-3a; WQ-5;
WQ-8b; WQ-14a; WQ-15a; WQ-19a.
b. Public Water System Supervision (PWSS Grants
State Grant Measures: 2.1.1; SP-1; SP-4a; and
SOW-la.
c. State Underground Water Source Protection
(UIC Grants). State Grant Measures: SDW-7a/b/c.
d. Beach Monitoring and Notification Program
Implementation Grants. State Grant Measures:
SP-9 and SS-2.
e. Nonpoint Source Grants (319 Grants). State Grant
Measure: WQ-10.
3) Use of the Exchange Network for Reporting Air Quality
Monitoring Results
In a July 2009 memorandum, EPA Administrator Jackson
made enhanced use of the National Environmental Informa-
tion Exchange Network a part of her strategic vision for the
Agency. She wrote in response to a unanimous request from
the Environmental Council of the States emerging from
their spring 2009 meeting that she intends "the Agency
to work with the states to set an aggressive timetable for
completing the transition to the Exchange Network (EN)
for regulatory and national system reporting". She directed
the NPMs to work to achieve the vision of the Network as
"the preferred way EPA, states, tribes, and others share
and exchange data." She added "I look forward to reviewing
our progress toward achieving this goal". OW places a high
priority on increasing the use of the EN for the exchange of
water related flows.
In FY 2010, OW will examine the current processes for
submitting water data, and will collaborate with OEI to
identify and prioritize any critical technical obstacles that
maybe impeding partner's use of water related flows. OW
will work with OEI to address the prioritized impediments
in FY 2011.
National Water Program Guidance
50
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
Regions working in partnership with the state programs
should:
Increase WQX submissions to at least 40 state submis-
sions during 2011;
Increase SDWIS submissions using the EN to 39 states by
2012;
Encourage the use of the exchange network for submit-
ting UIC data from 4 states to 10 states by 2011; and
Increase the use of the eBeaches flow to 15 states by 2011
and 30 states by 2012.
4) Grant Guidances
In addition to this National Water Program Guidance, sup-
porting technical guidance is available in grant-specific
guidance documents. The grant guidance documents will
be available by April 2010 in most cases. For most grants,
guidance for FY 2011 is being carried forward unchanged
to FY 2011. Grant guidance documents can be found on
the Internet at (http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/).
More information about grant management and reporting
requirements is provided at the end of this section.
In addition for FY 2011, the grant guidance for the Water
Pollution Control Grants from Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act (Section 106 grants) is incorporated into this
National Water Program Guidance. This was a pilot effort
to gain efficiency in the issuance of the Section 106 Grant
Guidance within the National Water Program Guidance. Text
boxes with specific Section 106 guidance are incorporated
within Section III, 1, B, 1 of this Guidance. Appendix E has
additional information for states and the interstate agen-
cies. The Tribal Program, Monitoring Initiative, and Water
Pollution Enforcement Activities are not included in this
pilot, and grantees should follow the specific, separate guid-
ances for these programs.
New for FY 2011, EPA is working to incorporate the grant
guidance for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
and Underground Injection Control (UIC) grants within
the Water Safe to Drink Subobjective to continue to pilot a
more streamlined approach to issuing the grant guidance.
B) Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management
(Step 3)
As the strategies and programs described in this Guid-
ance are implemented during FY 2011, EPA, states, and
tribes will evaluate progress toward water goals and work
to improve program performance by refining strategic
approaches or adjusting program emphases.
The National Water Program will evaluate progress using
four key tools:
1) National Water Program Best Practices and Mid-
Year and End of Year Performance Reports
The Office of Water will prepare a performance report
for the National Water Program at the mid-point and
the end of each fiscal year based on data provided by
EPA headquarters program offices, EPA regions, states,
and tribes. These reports will give program managers an
integrated analysis of progress at the national level and
in each EPA region with respect to environmental and
public health goals identified in the Strategic Plan and
program activity measures in the National Water Program
Guidance;
The reports will include performance highlights, man-
agement challenges, and best practices. The Office of
Water will maintain program performance records and
identify long-term trends in program performance. In
addition, the National Water Program Oversight Group
will meet at mid-year and end of the year to discuss
recent performance trends and results.
2) Senior Management Measures and Quarterly
Program Update Meetings with the Deputy
Administrator
The Office of Water reports to the Deputy Administra-
tor the results on a subset of the National Water Program
Guidance measures on a quarterly basis. In addition,
headquarters and regional senior managers are held
accountable for a select group of the Guidance measures
in their annual performance assessments.
3) HQ/Regional Dialogues
Each year, the Office of Water will visit three EPA
regional offices and Great Waterbody offices to conduct
dialogues on program management and performance.
These visits will include assessment of performance
in the EPA regional office against objectives and sub-
objectives 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 perfor-
mance reports and more widely adopted throughout the
country.
4) Program-Specific Evaluations
In addition to looking at the performance of the
National Water Program at the national level and per-
formance in each EPA regional office, individual water
programs will be evaluated periodically by EPA and by
external parties.
EPA program evaluations include Office of Water proj-
ects selected by The Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation's (OPEI) annual Program Evaluation Com-
petition and reviews undertaken by the Evaluation and
Accountability Team in the Office of Water. Program
offices will provide continuing oversight and evaluation
of state/tribal program implementation in key program
areas (e.g., NPDES program).
National Water Program Guidance
51
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
In addition, the Office of Water expects that external par-
ties will evaluate water programs, including projects con-
ducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG), the
Congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and projects by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Finally, improved program performance requires a com-
mitment to both sustained program evaluation and to
using program performance information to revise program
management approaches. Some of the approaches the Office
of Water will take to improve the linkage between program
assessment and program management include:
1) Communicate Performance Information to Pro-
gram Managers: The Office of Water will use perfor-
mance information to provide mid-year and annual
program briefings to the Deputy Assistant Administra-
tor and senior HQ water program managers.
2) Communicate Performance Information to Con-
gress and the Public: The Office of Water will use
performance assessment reports and findings to com-
municate program progress to other federal agencies,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the
Congress, and the public.
3) Link to Budget and Workforce Plans: The Office of
Water will use performance assessment information in
formulation of the annual budget and in development
of workforce plans.
4) Promote Wide Dissemination of Best Practices:
The Office of Water will actively promote the wide appli-
cation of best practices and related program manage-
ment innovations identified as part of the End of the
Year Performance Reports.
5) Expand Regional Office Participation in Pro-
gram Assessment: The Office of Water will pro-
mote 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 ref-
erences 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 perfor-
mance assessments have contributed to improved per-
formance 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 assess-
ments 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 Manage-
ment for FY 2010" section), regardless of whether the
program specific guidance document addresses the
requirement.
10) Follow-up action plan for measure and program
improvement: Individual program offices in the Office
of Water may develop end of year action plan, if appro-
priate, to address challenges to achieving progress and
meeting measure commitments.
2. National Water Program Grants Management for
FY2011
The Office of Water places a high priority on effective grants
management. The key areas to be emphasized as grant pro-
grams are implemented are:
Promoting competition to the maximum extent
practicable;
Monitoring assistance agreements and ensuring compli-
ance with post-award management standards;
Assuring that project officers and their supervisors
adequately address grants management responsibilities;
and
Linking grants performance to the achievement of envi-
ronmental results as laid out in the Agency's Strategic
Plan and this National Water Program Guidance.
A. Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements
The Office of Water strongly supports the Agency policy to
promote competition to the maximum extent practicable in
the award of assistance agreements. Project officers must
comply with Agency policy concerning competition in the
award of grants and cooperative agreements and ensure
that the competitive process is fair and impartial, that all
applicants are evaluated only on the criteria stated in the
announcement, and that no applicant receives an unfair
advantage.
The Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements, EPA
Order 5700.5A1, effective January 15, 2005, applies to:
(1) competitive announcements issued, released, or posted
after January 14, 2005; (2) assistance agreement competi-
tions, awards, and disputes based on competitive announce-
ments issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
(3) non-competitive awards resulting from non-competitive
funding recommendations submitted to a Grants Manage-
ment Office after January 14, 2005; and (4) assistance
agreement amendments issued after January 14, 2005.
If program offices and regional offices choose to conduct
competitions for awards under programs that are exempt
National Water Program Guidance
52
-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
from the Competition Order, they must comply with the
Order and any applicable guidance issued by the Grants
Competition Advocate (GCA). This includes complying with
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard
formatting requirements for federal agency announcements
of funding opportunities and OMB requirements related
to Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov), which is the official
federal government website where applicants can find and
apply to funding opportunities from all federal grant-mak-
ing 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 orga-
nizations using the co-regulator exception in the Competi-
tion 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 allot-
ment for a non-competitive award to a state co-regulator
organization, EPA must request and obtain the consent of
the head of the affected state agency or department.
B. Policy on Compliance Review and Monitoring
The Office of Water is required to develop and carry out a
post-award monitoring plan and conduct baseline monitor-
ing for every award. EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Com-
pliance, Review and Monitoring, effective January 1, 2008
helps to ensure effective post-award oversight of recipient
performance and management. The Order encompasses
both the administrative and programmatic aspects of the
Agency's financial assistance programs. From the program-
matic standpoint, this monitoring should ensure satisfac-
tion of five core areas:
Compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions;
Correlation of the recipient's work plan/application and
actual progress under the award;
Availability of funds to complete the project;
Proper management of and accounting for equipment
purchased under the award; and
Compliance with all statutory and regulatory require-
ments of the program.
If during monitoring it is determined that there is reason to
believe that the grantee has committed or commits fraud,
waste and/or abuse, then the project officer must contact
the Office of the Inspector General. Baseline monitoring
activities must be documented in the Post-Award Database
in the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS).
Advanced monitoring activities must be documented in the
official grant file and the Grantee Compliance Database.
C. Performance Standards for Grants Management
Project officers of assistance agreements participate in a
wide range of pre-and post-award activities. OGD issued
Managers' Guidance for Assessing Grants Management and the
Management of Interagency Agreements under the Performance
Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS) on September
15, 2009 to be used for 2009 PARS appraisals of project
officers who are managing at least one active grant dur-
ing the rating period, and their supervisors/managers. The
memo also provides guidance for the development of 2010
performance agreements. The Office of Water supports
the requirement that project officers and their supervi-
sors/managers assess grants management responsibilities
through the Agency's PARS process.
D. Environmental Results Under EPA Assistance
Agreements
EPA Order 5700.7, which went into effect in 2005, states
that it is EPA policy to:
Link proposed assistance agreements to the Agency's
Strategic Plan;
Ensure that outputs and outcomes are appropriately
addressed in assistance agreement competitive funding
announcements, work plans, and performance reports;
and
Consider how the results from completed assistance
agreement projects contribute to the Agency's program-
matic goals and responsibilities.
The Order applies to all non-competitive funding pack-
ages/funding recommendations submitted to Grants
Management Offices after January 1, 2005, all competitive
assistance agreements resulting from competitive funding
announcements issued after January 1, 2005, and competi-
tive funding announcements issued after January 1, 2005.
Project officers must include in the Funding Recommenda-
tion a description of how the project fits within the Agen-
cy's Strategic Plan. The description must identify all appli-
cable EPA strategic goal(s), objectives, and where available,
subobjective(s), consistent with the appropriate Program
Results Code(s).
In addition, project officers must:
Consider how the results from completed assistance
agreement projects contribute to the Agency's program-
matic goals and objectives;
Ensure that well-defined outputs and outcomes are
appropriately addressed in assistance agreement work
plans, solicitations, and performance reports; and
Certify/assure that they have reviewed the assistance
agreement work plan and that the work plan contains
outputs and outcomes.
National Water Program Guidance
53
-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
VI.National Water Program and Environmental Justice
The first Executive Order on Environmental Justice was signed by President Clinton 15 years ago. Since that time,
EPA and its partners have made progress on identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced
by communities disproportionally impacted by pollution. 2010 ushered in a new era that raised the level of outreach
and protection of historically underrepresented and vulnerable subpopulations to a top priority for all Agency activities.
To undertake this top priority, environmental justice principles must be included in our entire decision making processes.
Expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice is a key priority for the Office of
Water.
In 2010, the Agency developed a work plan containing four
overarching goals for consideration in program initiatives
and activities that will benefit disproportionately burdened
communities:
Engage Communities in EPA decision-making and
Enlist Partners to Meet Community Needs - Commu-
nity outreach to minority, low-income, and other vulner-
able populations should be a goal in all program activities.
Support Community Efforts to Build, Healthy Sus-
tainable and Green Neighborhoods - Greening and
building sustainable communities is a goal for EPA, but
the Agency should especially focus on historically over-
burdened communities that will benefit tremendously
from the green economy.
Apply EPA's Regulatory Tools to Protect Vulnerable
Communities - All programs should use their regulatory
tools to enhance the quality of life in disproportionately
burdened communities. Prioritizing disproportionately
burdened communities should not create a new workload,
rather it merely shifts the focus of our work.
Strengthen Internal EPA Mechanisms to Integrate
Environmental Justice - Integrate environmental
justice in all Agency programs, policies, and activities by
strengthening communications and training, instituting
management and accountability measures, and fostering
a diverse workforce.
The National Water Program supports EJ in several key
environmental and public health areas. The Office of Water
will make the use of all tools it has at its disposaltechnical
assistance, data, and initiatives, such as the Urban Waters
Initiative, Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE), and grantsto link with EPA regional efforts that
address the range of environmental issues facing their E J
Showcase Community.
1. Environmental Justice in the EPA National Water
Program
The Office of Water places emphasis on achieving results
in areas with potential environmental justice concerns
through Water Safe to Drink (Sub-objective 2.1.1) and
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat (Sub-objective 2.1.2), two of
the eight national EJ priorities. In addition, the National
Water Program places emphasis on other E J Water Related
Elements: 1) Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border
Environmental Health (Subobjective 4.2.4); 2) Sustain and
Restore Pacific Island Territories (Subobjective 4.2.5); and
3) Alaska Native Villages Program. This focus will result in
improved environmental quality for all people, especially
the unserved and underserved subpopulations living in
areas with potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health conditions. The Office of Water will explore
ways to collaborate with the Office of Environmental Justice
and other EPA offices on how to best develop climate change
adaptation policies and strategies that pay closer attention
to vulnerable populations.
In order to advance environmental quality for communities
with E J concerns, the Office of Water will address the E J
considerations in drinking water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture improvements to small and disadvantaged communi-
ties. The Office of Water will also address the lack of access
to safe drinking water and sanitation systems by tribes,
islands, and small disadvantaged communities, as well as,
reducing risk to exposure in contaminants in fish. The Office
of Water also places emphasis on Community Action for a
Renewed Environment (CARE) communities/projects that
assess and address sources of water pollution. The Office of
Water will begin serving as the lead for CARE which rotates
leadership among EPA's four media programs every two
years. Finally, the Office of Water places emphasis on help-
ing communitiesespecially disadvantaged communities
to access, restore and benefit their urban waters through
the Urban Waters Initiative.
2. Environmental Justice and Water Safe to Drink
The Office of Water will promote infrastructure improve-
ments to small and disadvantaged communities through the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that reduce
public exposure to contaminants through compliance with
rules and supports the reliable delivery of safe water in
small and disadvantaged communities, Tribal and territorial
public water systems, schools, and child-care centers.
To support better management of water systems on tribal
lands, EPA will implement a Tribal operator certification
program to provide Tribal water utility staff with drinking
water operator certification opportunities. EPA will work
National Water Program Guidance
54
-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
with its federal partners to improve access to safe drinking
water for persons living on tribal lands.
To maintain and improve water quality in rural America,
EPA will continue its efforts to promote better management
of water utilities through support of state capacity devel-
opment and operator certification programs, and through
initiatives on asset management, operator recruitment and
retention, and water efficiency. This also includes efforts to
build a sustainable and green water sector workforce.
EPA will continue to encourage states to refer drinking
water systems to third party assistance providers, when
needed. Third party assistance is provided through existing
contractual agreements or by other state, federal, or non-
profit entities.
On October 10, 2007, EPA published the latest changes to
the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) which included significant
improvements to the Public Education (PE) requirements.
Drinking water systems must conduct PE when they have a
lead action level exceedance. EPA made significant modi-
fications to the content of the written public education
materials (message content) and added a new set of delivery
requirements. These revisions are intended to better ensure
that at risk and under represented populations receive
information quickly and are able to act to reduce their
exposure.
3. Drinking Water on Tribal Lands
The challenges associated with the provision of safe drink-
ing water in Indian country are similar to challenges facing
other small communities: a lack of financial, technical and
managerial capacity to operate and maintain drinking water
infrastructure. The magnitude of these challenges in Indian
country is demonstrated by tribal water system compliance
with health-based regulations and by the number of homes
that lack access to safe drinking water in Indian country.
In 2009,18.8% of the population in Indian country was
served by community water systems in violation of EPA's
health-based drinking water standards. In comparison;
7.9% of the entire U.S. population was served by commu-
nity water systems in violation of these regulations.
Additionally, 43,437 or 12.1% of the tribal homes tracked
by the Indian Health Service were found to lack access to
safe drinking water in 2009. This compares with the 0.6%
of non-native homes in the United States that lack such
infrastructure, as measured in 2005 by the U.S. Census
Bureau.
The EPA National Tribal Drinking Water Program will con-
tinue to maintain its commitment to improve safe drink-
ing water in Indian country by working with public water
systems to maintain and improve compliance with the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations by target-
ing infrastructure dollars and training. The EPA will also
continue to work in partnership with the Indian Health
Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
the Interior, and Housing and Urban Development through
the Infrastructure Task Force (ITF) to increase access to safe
water. The ITF is tasked with enhancing the coordination of
federal tribal infrastructure funding and generating ways to
improve and support tribal utility management in an effort
to increase and maintain access to safe drinking water in
Indian country.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 includes
a provision which provides new authority for EPA, in con-
sultation with other federal agencies, to conduct a range of
activities to promote healthy school environments. The Act
requires EPA, in consultation with DoEd, DHHS, and other
relevant agencies, to issue voluntary guidelines for states
to use in developing and implementing an environmental
health program for schools. The guidelines are to encompass
a broad range of specific issues including lead in drinking
water.
4. Environmental Justice and Fish and Shellfish Safe
to Eat
The Office of Water promotes contaminant monitoring, as
well as risk communication to minority populations who
may consume large amounts of fish and shellfish taken
from polluted waters. Integration of public health advi-
sory activities into the Water Quality Standards Program
promotes environmental justice by ensuring that adviso-
ries and minority population health risks are known when
states make water quality standards attainment decisions,
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads for impaired waters,
and develop permits to control sources of pollution.
The Office of Water will focus on activities encouraging
states to assess fish and shellfish tissue for contaminants
in waters used for fishing by minority and sensitive popula-
tions, particularly those that catch fish for subsistence. Such
populations may include women of child bearing age, chil-
dren, African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics,
Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.
The Office of Water reaches these populations by dissemi-
nating information in multiple languages to doctors, nurses,
nurse practitioners, and midwives about reducing the risks
of exposure to contaminants in fish and shellfish. The
Office of Water maintains the National Fish Advisory Web
site that includes the National Listing of Fish Advisories
(includes both fish and shellfish advisories) and provides
advice to health professionals and the public on preparing
fish caught for recreation and subsistence.
5. Environmental Justice Water Related Elements
The Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
program is a community-based, multi-media collabora-
tive Agency program designed to help local communi-
ties address the cumulative risk of pollutant exposure.
Through the CARE program, EPA programs work together
to provide technical and financial assistance to communi-
ties. This support helps them build partnerships and use
National Water Program Guidance
55
-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
collaborative processes to select and implement actions to
improve community health and the environment. CARE
helps communities choose from the range of EPA programs
designed to address community concerns and improve their
effectiveness by working to integrate the programs to better
meet the needs of communities. CARE benefits many com-
munities, some of which are experiencing disproportionate
adverse health and environmental impacts.
The Office of Water will work with CARE communities/
projects to assess and address sources of water pollution,
including the use of voluntary water pollution reduction
programs in their communities, particularly those com-
munities suffering disproportionately from environmental
burdens. The CARE Program will continue to promote
cross-media collaboration across the Agency. Regions will
use cross-media teams to manage and implement CARE
cooperative agreements in order to protect human health
and protect and restore the environment at the local level.
Regions also will identify experienced project officers/
leaders for each of the CARE projects and provide training
and support as needed. In FY 2011, the lead coordination
NPM for the CARE Program is OW, with OAR as co-lead.
OPPTS and OSWER principals and staff continue to actively
participate in this cross-Agency program, as do OE J and
OCHP. The CARE Program and regions will ensure required
reporting of progress and results in Quarterly and End of
Year Reports and other efforts to aggregate program results
on a national level. More program information is available
at www.epa.gov/CARE.
In addition, EPA will continue to work with unserved and
underserved communities in the U.S.-Mexico Border region
and Pacific Islands to improve water infrastructure to
increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
The Office of Water will promote the protection of public
health through the improvement of sanitation conditions
in Alaska Native Villages and other small and disadvan-
taged rural Alaska communities. EPA's Alaska Native Village
Infrastructure program funds the development and con-
struction of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
As projects are completed, public exposure to contaminants
is greatly reduced through the reliable delivery of safe
drinking water in compliance with public health standards
and the treatment of wastewater to meet environmental
regulations.
In addressing the challenges of climate Change, it is impor-
tant to recognize that the impacts of climate change raise
serious environmental justice issues. It is generally under-
stood that the extent and nature of climate change impacts
on populations will vary by region, the relative vulnerability
of population groups, and society's ability to adapt to or
cope with climate change.
As emphasized in the Technical Support Document accompa-
nying the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,
"within settlements experiencing climate change, certain
parts of the population may be especially vulnerable; these
include the poor, the elderly, those already in poor health,
the disabled, those living alone...and/or indigenous popula-
tions." The Office of Water will work with program offices in
EPA to address the issues facing E J communities regarding
climate change
6. Achieving Results in the Environmental Justice
Priorities
The Office of Water will track these activities through the
EJ Action Plan, Goal 2 Clean and Safe Water, Subobjective
2.1.1 (Water Safe to Drink) and Subobjective 2.1.2 (Fish and
Shellfish Safe to Eat). For the EJ water related elements, the
Office of Water will track activities through the E J 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 perfor-
mance measures for the Alaska Native Villages Program.
To document the environmental and human health
improvements achieved in areas with potential environ-
mental justice concerns, the Office of Water will continue to
develop specific performance measures for activities identi-
fied in its EJ Action Plan. These performance measures will
assist managers to fully integrate environmental justice
principles into all decision making, policies, programs, and
activities.
National Water Program Guidance
56
-------
National Water Program and Children's Health
VII. National Water Program and Children's Health
It is important that children's environmental health be an intrinsic part of decision-making at every level of the Agency.
EPA must build on existing activities and accomplishments so that children's health protection is not just a consider-
ation in Agency decision-making, but a driving force in decisions. EPA must use a variety of approaches to protect chil-
dren from environmental health hazards, including regulation, implementation of community-based programs, research,
and outreach. At the same time, EPA must periodically evaluate performance to ensure that progress is being made towards
this goal.
EPA regions, states, and tribes should identify and assess
environmental health risks that may disproportionately
affect children throughout their life stages, including fetal
development, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Regional
programs must ensure that policies, programs, activities,
and standards address disproportionate risks to children.
Each region supports a Children's Health Coordinator who
serves as a resource within the region to assist offices and
divisions with children's environmental health programs
and planning. The regional Children's Health Coordinator is
also a liaison between the region and the Office of Chil-
dren's Health Protection and Environmental Education at
headquarters.
Actions regions can take in FY 2011 to expand efforts to
protect children's environmental health include:
Reviewing existing ACS measures that are specific to or
refer to children's health to determine if they can better
report outcomes and results in children's environmental
health for inclusion in future planning and reporting;
Formulating discussions and agenda topics on children's
health outcomes for EPA programs in national meetings,
such as division directors meetings;
Implementing the Agency's Children's Environmental
Health Guidance for Human Health Risk Assessments
(http://epa.gov/risk/guidance.htm);
Sponsoring joint meetings with counterparts in state
environmental departments and health departments to
facilitate coordinated actions to better protect children's
environmental health; and
Developing region-wide strategies to focus on addressing
critical children's health issues within each region.
Schools and day care centers are a critical subset of small
systems for which EPA is also continuing to provide special
emphasis in FY 2011 to ensure that children receive water
that is safe to drink. The National Water Program has devel-
oped a separate indicator for schools and day care centers
meeting health-based standards in order to track progress
in this area.
National Water Program Guidance
57
-------
National Water Program and the Urban Waters Initiative
VIII. National Water Program and the Urban Waters Initiative
Urban environments, particularly in disadvantaged communities, are dominated by impervious surfaces, industrial
facilities, and abandoned or vacant, often contaminated lands. These characteristics, in combination with insufficient
storm water infrastructure, generate excess runoff that transports garbage, fertilizers, pesticides, and hazardous
wastes into the local bodies of water and contribute to combined sewer overflows. In addition, pollution may be introduced
to local water bodies from any existing operating facilities. Years of contamination create legacy pollutant issues, public
and environmental health hazards, and cases of environmental injustice. Urban populations are often denied access to the
water and do not reap the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits of the resource. Furthermore, historic
urban patterns of development often isolated communities from their waters.
In March 2009, in response to a charge from EPA Admin-
istrator Lisa Jackson, EPA's Office of Water, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, and Office of Environmen-
tal Justice began to develop a new Urban Waters initiative
to address these issues. This initiative falls within the Com-
munity Water Priorities and Healthy Communities initia-
tives at EPA.
The goal of the Urban Waters initiative is to help commu-
nities - particularly disadvantaged communities - access,
restore, and benefit from their urban waters and the sur-
rounding land. By promoting public access to urban waters,
EPA will help communities become active participants in
the enjoyment, restoration, and protection of these urban
waters. By linking water to other community priorities,
EPA will help make the condition of these waters more
relevant to nearby communities and help to sustain their
involvement over the time horizon needed for water quality
improvement.
In April and May 2009, during outreach to those working in
and with urban communities, EPA heard from organizations
and individuals who have successfully mobilized to address
these issues. These stakeholders indicated that important
factors in that success were: engagement of nearby resi-
dents, especially youth; robust partnerships; strong commu-
nity-based organizations; active and informed local gov-
ernment officials; effective education and communication;
economic incentives; and early, visible victories that fueled
sustained action. It was also clear from these sessions, that
stakeholders want federal agencies to better coordinate
their support to communities and that they are seeking
technical assistance and information to assist them in mak-
ing more informed choices and in influencing local decisions
about their waters and the surrounding land.
In response to key stakeholder feedback, EPA will: lead a
federal interagency working group to improve communities'
access to resources; convene national and regional forums
with state, tribal and local agencies, centers of learning, pri-
vate sector and non-governmental organizations; and coor-
dinate support to on-the-ground projects. EPA will develop
new Web 2.0 tools for community-to-community knowl-
edge sharing; conduct outreach to non-digital audiences;
and provide technical assistance to support communities in
being informed participants in local decision-making.
State, tribal, and local government agencies are encouraged
to build on their existing partnerships and develop new
partnerships with non-profits, private sector, academia and
community groups, especially those addressing environ-
mental justice to undertake activities that:
Promote equitable and safe public access to urban water-
ways and equitable development of waterfronts;
Improve the appearance, odor, health, and quality of the
water for uses including recreation, fishing, swimming
and drinking water sources; and
Improve the perception of the potential value of these
waters and encourage community involvement in their
restoration and improvement by reframing water as rele-
vant to community priorities, such as education, employ-
ment, recreation, safety, health, housing, transportation,
and livability.
Areas of activity may include green infrastructure, source
water protection, water sector workforce development,
watershed planning, land revitalization, monitoring and
assessment, fish advisories, and beach monitoring and
notification. EPA's current work in the Chesapeake Bay,
Great Lakes, National Estuary Program, and Large Aquatic
Ecosystem programs may offer additional place-based
opportunities to engage urban communities.
National Water Program Guidance
58
-------
National Water Program and Climate Change
IX. National Water Program and Climate Change
In March 2007, the National Water Program Climate Change Workgroup formed to assess the implications of climate
change for the National Water Program. This coordinated effort resulted in the September 2008 publication of the
National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change (Strategy). The Strategy describes the impacts of climate
change (e.g. warming water temperatures, changes in rainfall amounts and intensity, and sea level rise) and their implica-
tions for EPA's clean water and drinking water programs (please see www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/strategy.html).
Forty-four specific "key actions," identified in the Strategy,
lay the foundation for adapting water programs to a changing
climate. Most of these actions address adapting to climate
change impacts, while others address opportunities for miti-
gating release of greenhouse gases, improving research of cli-
mate change and water issues, and educating water program
professionals about climate change challenges.
Highlights of Climate Change activities in the National
Water Program
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation - Water programs at EPA
have been working to help control greenhouse gas emis-
sions by focusing on improving energy efficiency at drink-
ing water and wastewater utilities, reducing water use
through the WaterSense program, and improving man-
agement of stormwater flows and urban design through
the Green Infrastructure and Green Buildings programs.
In addition, the EPA Underground Injection Control
Program is developing a rule to protect groundwater sup-
plies that could be affected by geological sequestration of
carbon dioxide.
Resiliency - To improve resilience and readiness to adapt
to the impacts of climate change, the EPA Office of Water
and the EPA Office of Air and Radiation have worked
together to develop the Climate Ready Estuaries program.
The National Water Program has also formed a work-
ing group under the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council to evaluate the concept of "Climate Ready Water
Utilities" and provide findings and recommendations on
the development of an effective program that will enable
water and wastewater utilities to develop and implement
long-range plans that account for climate change impacts.
Water Program Adaptation - Climate change is being
incorporated into the base programs of the Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act as relevance and resources
allow. For example, guidance has been issued clarifying the
use of the State Revolving Funds for climate change mitiga-
tion and adaptation. The National Water Program is evalu-
ating criteria for sedimentation and velocity because of the
prospect of projected increased intensity of precipitation.
In addition, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting program has reviewed flex-
ibilities and tools within the program to identify guidance
and information needed to help permit writers consider
climate change.
Next Steps
The 2008 Strategy covers actions implemented in 2008 and
2009. During 2010, EPA is working to update the key actions
to be undertaken through 2011. The structure of the 2008
Strategy will be retained with key actions addressing mitiga-
tion, adaptation, education, research, and program manage-
ment. These actions will continue to develop the ability of the
National Water Program to address the challenges posed by
climate change. During 2011, EPA will work with stakehold-
ers to develop a new, revised strategy for publication in 2012
that lays out long-term goals under future climate scenarios.
The National Water Program's goals for climate change
related work include:
Continue implementation of updated key actions through
2011;
Revise and update the Strategy for 2012 with long-term
goals and actions;
Work closely with states, tribes and other stakeholders to
enhance communication and collaboration and build new
programs to address adaptation challenges;
Expand cooperation on climate change issues with other
federal agencies involved in water management through
multi-agency workgroups;
Ensure continuation of integrated water and climate
change research programs among EPA, other federal
agencies, water research foundations, and other inter-
ested parties; and
Continue to reach out to water program managers,
stakeholders, and the public to build awareness, increase
knowledge, and share lessons learned to expand the
national capacity to address climate change.
Water managers are encouraged to evaluate opportunities to
address climate change within their own water programs by
identifying ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to
adapt to long-term vulnerabilities. Climate change adds addi-
tional reasons to evaluate options for conserving water, reduc-
ing energy use, adopting green infrastructure and watershed-
based practices, and improving the resilience of watersheds
and estuaries. Federal interagency partnerships are being
strengthened to help states evaluate local impacts and develop
integrated response strategies. Over the next several years,
more tools and information will support and help planners
and decision makers to address this important challenge.
National Water Program Guidance
59
-------
-------
T
-------
-------
oEPA
Off ice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
FY 2011
i.^JkJtefti'V*
National 1
Program Guidance
Appendix A: FY 2011 National
Water Program Guidance
Measures Summary Appendix
--
'
April 2010
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 20 1 1 Congressional Justification.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4a
SP-4b
SP-5
SDW-18
SOW- la
SDW-lb
Percent of the population served by community water
systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through approaches
including effective treatment and source water protection.
Percent of community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based standards through approaches that
include effective treatment and source water protection.
Percent of "person months" (i.e. all persons served by
community water systems times 12 months) during which
community water systems provide drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Percent of the population in Indian country served by
community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Percent of community water systems where risk to public
health is minimized through source water protection.
Percent of the population served by community water
systems where risk to public health is minimized through
source water protection.
By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies,
reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal land
lacking access to safe drinking water.
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to safe drinking water in coordination with
other federal agencies.
Percent of community water systems (CWSs) that have
undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years
(five years for outstanding performers) as required under
the Interim Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface Water
Treatment Rules.
Number of tribal community water systems (CWSs) that
have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three
years (five years for outstanding performers) as required
under the Interim Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface
Water Treatment Rule.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
91%
90%
95%
87%
50%
8
(Long-Term
FY2011
Target)
95%
91%
90%
95%
87%
50%
57%
Indicator
100,700
95%
70
Page 1 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-2
SDW-3
SDW-4
SDW-5
SDW-7a
SDW-7b
SDW-7c
SDW-8
SOW- 11
SDW-12
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).
Percent of the lead action level data that 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.
(cumulative)
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 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.
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 report
results in both % and #. Numerical commitments from UIC
database.]
Percent of DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS serving
<500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 consumers.
Percent of DWSRF dollars awarded to small PWS serving
<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000 consumers.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
LT2011 OMB
PA Target:
90%
89%
500 Annual
(200 ARRA)
92%
89%
93%
76%
Indicator
Indicator
89%
5,726
(5,526 base)
92%
89%
93%
76%
Indicator
Indicator
Page 2 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-13
SDW-14
SDW-15
SOW- 16
SDW-17
Percent of DWSRF loans that include assistance to
disadvantaged communities.
Number and percent of PWS, including new PWS, serving
fewer than 500 persons. (New PWS are those first reported
to EPA in last calendar year).
Number and percent of small PWS (<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-
10,000) with repeat health based Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1
D/DBP, SWTR and TCR violations.
Average time for small PWS (<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-
10,000) to return to compliance with acute Nitrate/Nitrite,
Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and TCR health-based violations
(based on state-reported RTC determination date).
Number and percent of schools and childcare centers that
meet all health-based drinking water standards.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
2.1.2
2.1.2
2.1.2
SP-6
FS-la
FS-lb
Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern.
Percent of river miles where fish tissue were assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice is
necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska not
included) (Report every two years)
Percent of lake acres where fish tissue were assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice is
necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska not
included) (Report every two years)
Y
Y
4.9%
Defer for FY 20 11
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
2.1.3
SP-9
Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and Great
Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs
are open and safe for swimming.
Y
95%
95%
Page 3 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.1.3
2.1.3
SS-1
SS-2
Number and national percent, using a constant
denominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) permits
with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate
enforceable mechanism, including a permit or enforcement
order, with specific dates and milestones, including a
completion date consistent with Agency guidance, which
requires: 1) Implementation of a Long Term Control Plan
(LTCP) which will result in compliance with the
technology and water quality-based requirements of the
Clean Water Act; or 2) implementation of any other
acceptable CSO control measures consistent with the 1994
CSO Control Policy; or 3) completion of separation after
the baseline date, (cumulative)
Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that are
monitored and managed under the BEACH Act program.
Y
717
(84%)
100%
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
SP-10
SP-11
SP-12
SP-13
SP-14
SP-15
WQ-la
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining
water quality standards where standards are now fully
attained (cumulative)
Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment
identified by states in 2002. (cumulative)
Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed approach, (cumulative)
Ensure that the condition of the Nation's wadeable streams
does not degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant
increase in the percent of streams rated "poor" and no
statistically significant decrease in the streams rated
"good").
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 numeric water quality standards for total
nitrogen and for total phosphorus adopted by States and
Territories and approved by EPA, or promulgated by EPA,
for all waters within the State or Territory for each of the
following waterbody types: lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams,
and estuaries (cumulative, out of a universe of 280)
Y
Y
Y
2,910
8,670
170
Long-Term
Target
2,910
8,670
185
Deferred until 20 12
Deferred until 20 12
Indicator
47
Page 4 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-lb
WQ-lc
WQ-2
WQ-3a
WQ-3b
WQ-4a
WQ-5
WQ-6a
WQ-6b
Number of numeric water quality standards for total
nitrogen and total phosphorus at least proposed by States
and Territories, or by EPA proposed rulemaking, for all
waters within the State or Territory for each of the
following waterbody types: lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams,
and estuaries (cumulative, out of a universe of 280).
Number of States and Territories supplying a full set of
performance milestone information to EPA concerning
development, proposal, and adoption of numeric water
quality standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for
each waterbody type within the State or Territory (annual).
(The universe for this measure is 56.)
Number of Tribes that have water quality standards
approved by EPA. (cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of States and Territories that
within the preceding three year period, submitted new or
revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect
new scientific information from EPA or other resources not
considered in the previous standards.
Number, and national percent of Tribes that within the
preceding three year period, submitted new or revised water
quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific
information from EPA or other resources not considered in
the previous standards.
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality
standards from States and Territories that are approved by
EPA.
Number of States and Territories that have adopted and are
implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping with
established schedules.
Number of Tribes that currently receive funding under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act that have developed
and begun implementing monitoring strategies that are
appropriate to their water quality program consistent with
EPA Guidance, (cumulative)
Number of Tribes that are providing water quality data in a
format accessible for storage in EPA's data system.
(cumulative)
Y
Y
(proposed)
Y
Y
64%
85%
58
19
39
36
(64.3%)
13
(37%)
85%
56
170
110
Page 5 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-7
WQ-8a
WQ-8b
WQ-9a
WQ-9b
WQ-9c
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
Number of States and Territories that provide electronic
information using the Assessment Database version 2 or
later (or compatible system) and geo-reference the
information to facilitate the integrated reporting of
assessment data, (cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a
schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to attain water quality standards. The terms
'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.
Number, and national percent, of approved TMDLs, that
are established by States and approved by EPA [State
TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to attain water quality standards. The terms
'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded
projects only).
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section
319 funded projects only).
Estimated annual reduction in million tons of sediment
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded
projects only).
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 1998/2000
or subsequent years) as being primarily nonpoint source
(NPS)-impaired that are partially or fully restored.
(cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of follow-up actions that are
completed by assessed NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) programs, (cumulative)
Percent of non- Tribal facilities covered by NPDES permits
that are considered current.
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and report
results in both % and #.]
Y
Y
Y
47,100
41,611
8.5 million
4.5 million
700,000
Long-Term
45
2,284
(72%)
2,023
(64%)
8.5 million
4. 5 million
700,000
250
Indicator
89%
Page 6 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
WQ-13b
WQ-13c
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
WQ-15b
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
Percent of tribal facilities covered by NPDES permits that
are considered current.
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and report
results in both % and #.]
Number, and national percent, of MS-4s covered under
either an individual or general permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general industrial storm water permit.
Number of sites covered under either an individual or
general construction storm water site permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general CAFO permit.
Number, and national percent, of Significant Industrial
Users (SIUs) that are discharging to POTWs with
Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements.
Number, and national percent, of Categorical Industrial
Users (CIUs) that are discharging to POTWs without
Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements.
Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance
(SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance
(SNC) at any time during the fiscal year, and of those, 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)
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.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
22.5%
86%
94%
95%
95%
88%
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
21,458
Indicator
<15%
Indicator
86%
94.5%
700
800
Page 7 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-20
WQ-21
WQ-22a
WQ-22b
WQ-23
WQ-24
Number of facilities that have traded at least once plus all
facilities covered by an overlay permit that incorporates
trading provisions with an enforceable cap.
Number of water segments identified as impaired in 2002
for which States and EPA agree that initial restoration
planning is complete (i.e., EPA has approved all needed
TMDLs for pollutants causing impairments to the
waterbody or has approved a 303(d) list that recognizes that
the waterbody is covered by a Watershed Plan [i.e.,
Category 4b or Category 5m]). (cumulative)
Number of Regions that have completed the development
of a Healthy Watersheds Initiative (HWI) Strategy and have
reached an agreement with at least one state to implement
its portion of the Region's HWI Strategy.
Number of states that have completed at least 2 of the major
components of a Healthy Watershed Initiative assessment.
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to basic sanitation in coordination with
other federal agencies.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
91%
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
91%
52,300
Subob jective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
SP-16
SP-17
SP-18
SP-19
SP-20
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.
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).
Long-Term
95%
2.8
2.4
3.6
2.4
1.7
95%
Page 8 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
CO-2
CO-3
CO-4
CO-5
CO-6
CO-7
CO-8
4.3.2
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.
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.
Working with partners, protect or restore additional acres of
habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are
part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
100,000
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
4.5
5.0
100,000
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.3.1 Increase Wetlands
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.1
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
No net loss
118,000
Target deferred for
FY2011
No Net Loss
118,000
Indicator
Page 9 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.1
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 proposed.
Number of states measuring baseline wetland condition -
with plans to assess trends in wetland condition - as defined
through condition indicators and assessments (cumulative).
Y
Y
Indicator
Indicator
21
Subobjective 4.2.4 Sustain and Restore the U.S. -Mexico Border Environmental Health
4.2.4
4.2.4
4.2.4
SP-23
SP-24
SP-25
Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed
(cumulative million pounds/year) from the U.S. -Mexico
Border area since 2003.
Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water
in the U.S. -Mexico border area that lacked access to safe
drinking water in 2003.
Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater
sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico border area that lacked access
to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
24%
33,434
cumulative
345,675
cumulative
39
300
10,300
Subobjective 4.2.5 Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
4.2.5
4.2.5
4.2.5
SP-26
SP-27
SP-28
Subobjective 4.3.3 Im
4.3.3
4.3.3
Percent of population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
served by community water systems that has access to
continuous drinking water meeting all applicable health-
based drinking water standards, measured on a four quarter
rolling average basis.
Percentage of time that sewage treatment plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories comply with permit limits for
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended
solids (TSS).
Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of
the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the
Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for swimming.
75%
63%
82%
75%
63%
82%
prove the Health of the Great Lakes
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by
preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic
ecosystems.
23.4
23.4
Page 10 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
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
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
SP-29
SP-31
SP-32
GL-5
GL-6
GL-7
GL-8
GL-9
GL-10
GL-11
GL-12
GL-13
GL-14
Subobjective 4.3.4 Iin
4.3.4
4.3.4
SP-33
SP-34
Cumulative percentage decline for the long term trend in
average concentrations of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all
management actions necessary for delisting have been
implemented (cumulative)
Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment
remediated in the Great Lakes (cumulative from 1997).
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within
Areas of Concern, (cumulative)
Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established,
mock exercises to practice responses carried out under
those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative).
Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95% or
more of beach days.
Acres managed for populations of invasive species
controlled to a target level (cumulative).
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and
endangered species self-sustaining in the wild (cumulative).
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
Number of species delisted due to recovery.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all
management actions necessary for delisting have been
implemented (cumulative).
Y
14%
7.2 million
26
1
7
87%
1,500
35%
52/147 pop
7,500
20,000
1
3
14%
Indicator
7.2 million
26
1
7
87%
1,500
35%
7,500
20,000
1
3
prove the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
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.
45
40
45
20
Page 11 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
SP-35
SP-36
SP-37
CB-la
CB-lb
CB-2
Subobjective 4.3.5 Iin
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
4.3.5
SP-38
SP-39
SP-40
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 hydrology simulations).
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. 1 5 million tons
(based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
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.
56%
70%
71%
76%
96%
68%
56%
70%
68%
76%
96%
68%
prove the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality
standards in impaired segments in 13 priority areas.
(cumulative starting in FY 07)
Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres
of important coastal and marine habitats, (cumulative
starting in FY 07)
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi
River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the
Gulf of Mexico, as measured by the 5-year running average
of the size of the zone.
2.6
128
30,000
2.6
128
30,000
Commitment
deferred
Page 12 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
4.3.5
GM-1
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
(HABs).
Complete
operational system
in Campeche, MX
Siibohjective 4.3.6 Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
4.3.6
4.3.6
4.3.6
4.3.6
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.
52%
50%
50%
52%
Commitment
deferred for FY
2011
50%
50%
Subob jective 4.3.7 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
4.3.7
4.3.7
4.3.7
4.3.7
SP-45
SP-46
SP-47a
SP-47b
Achieve 'no net loss' of stony coral cover (mean percent
stony coral cover) in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, working with
all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, tribal, and local).
Annually maintain the overall health and functionality of
sea grass beds in the FKNMS as measured by the long-term
sea grass monitoring project that addresses composition and
abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability.
At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in the
near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary will maintain Chlorophyll a(CHLA)
levels at less than or equal to 0.35 ug 1-1 and light clarity(
Kd)) levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-1.
At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in the
near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary will maintain dissolved inorganic
nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to 0.75 uM and
total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to .25 uM
Y
Y
75%
75%
Indicator
Indicator
75%
75%
Page 13 of 14
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: FY 2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY2011
ACS Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure
Text
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2011
Budget Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 20 1 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure
table in the FY 201 1 Congressional Justification.
4.3.7
4.3.7
SP-48
SL-1
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 for discharges from stormwater treatment areas.
Increase percentage of sewage treatment facilities and
onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems receiving
advanced wastewater treatment or best available technology
as recorded by EDU. in Florida Keys two percent (1500
EDUs) annually.
Y
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline and
meet discharge
limits
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline and meet
discharge limits
Indicator
Subob jective 4.3.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
4.3.8
4.3.8
4.3.8
SP-49
SP-50
SP-51
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)
Restore acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
estuarine wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
1,925
127
7,250
1,925
127
7,250
Subob jective 4.3.9 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
4.3.9
4.3.9
4.3.9
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)
16,300
60
10% reduction
16,300
60
10% reduction
Page 14 of 14
-------
oEPA
Off ice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
FY 2011
National'
Program Guidance
Appendix B: FY 2011 Water
State Grant Measures Appendix
--
'
April 2010
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OFFICE OF WATER: National Water Program
APPENDIX B: FY 2011 STATE GRANT MEASURES
Type of
Categorical
Grant
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure Text
FY2011
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2011 Pres.
Bud)
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year
performance measure table in the FY 20 1 1 Congressional Justification.
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
SOW- 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.
91%
90%
57%
95%
91%
90%
95%
Grant Program: Underground Injection Control
PWSS
PWSS
PWSS
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 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 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%
100%
95%
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Grant Program: Water Pollution Control (Section 106)
106
106
2.2.1
2.2.1
SP-10
WQ-la
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining water
quality standards where standards are now fully attained
(cumulative)
Number of numeric water quality standards for total nitrogen and
for total phosphorus adopted by States and Territories and
approved by EPA, or promulgated by EPA, for all waters within
the State or Territory for each of the following waterbody types:
lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of
a universe of 280)
2,910
47
2,910
Page 1 of 2
-------
OFFICE OF WATER: National Water Program
APPENDIX B: FY 2011 STATE GRANT MEASURES
Type of
Categorical
Grant
G/O/S
ACS
Code
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance Measure Text
FY2011
Planning
Target
National
Target (FY
2011 Pres.
Bud)
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year
performance measure table in the FY 20 1 1 Congressional Justification.
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
2.2.1
WQ-lb
WQ-lc
(new)
WQ-3a
WQ-5
WQ-8b
WQ-14a
WQ-15a
WQ-19a
Number of numeric water quality standards for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus at least proposed by States and Territories, or by
EPA proposed rulemaking, for all waters within the State or
Territory for each of the following waterbody types:
lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of
a universe of 280).
Number of States and Territories supplying a full set of
performance milestone information to EPA concerning
development, proposal, and adoption of numeric water quality
standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for each
waterbody type within the State or Territory (annual). (The
universe for this measure is 56.)
Number, 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 of States and Territories that have adopted and are
implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping with
established schedules.
Number, and national percent, of approved TMDLs, that are
established by States and approved by EPA [State TMDLs] on a
schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in
order to attain water quality standards. The terms 'approved' and
'established' refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL
itself.
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 and EPA (including tribal) NPDES
permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
58
19
36
(64.3%)
56
2,023
(64%)
21,458
<15%
700
64.3%
41,611
22.5%
95%
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)
250
Long- Term
Page 2 of 2
-------
oEPA
Off ice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
FY 2011
i,. JL
National'
Program Guidance
Appendix C: Office of Water
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Measures
'
April 2010
-------
APPENDIX C
OFFICE OF WATER
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT MEASURES
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Number of ARRA projects for which Tribes have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with IMS for the project (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Number of States that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative
funds available for projects) for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF)
Number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) projects that have
initiated operations (cumulative)
*Number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
Percent of the population served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards through approaches including effective treatment and source
water orotection.
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Number of ARRA projects for which Tribes have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with IMS for the project (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Number of States that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative
funds available for projects) for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF)
*By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50 percent
the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
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 sianificant noncompliance.)
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining water quality
standards where stsandards are now fully attained, (cumulative)
Measures in BOLD are annual measures included in Appendix A of the FY 2011 National Program Guidance.
* denotes measures that are long-term
-------
&EPA
/nice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
National Water
in
Appendix D: Explanation of
Key Changes Summary
^tffci*^
- i <
April 2010
-------
APPENDIX D: Explanation of Changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011
Office of Water - National Water Program Guidance FY 2011
Change from FY 2010 Guidance Document
Priorities
Strategies
Major changes to reflect new National Water
Program priorities
1 . Sustainable Communities - Making
Communities More Sustainable
Making America's Water Systems
Sustainable and Secure
Safeguarding Public Health
Restoring and Protecting Urban
Waters
2. Healthy Watersheds - Restoring and
Protecting America's Watersheds
Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic
Areas
Strengthening Protections for Our
Waters
Improving Watershed-Based
Approaches
Integrating the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) and Underground
Injection Control (UIC) grants within the
National Water Program Guidance.
Adding a new section for Children's
Environmental Health
Adding a new section for the Urban Waters
Initiative
Adding a new section for Climate Change
Reason for Change
Update to reflect new Administrator and
National Water Program priorities
This is a continuation of a pilot effort to
gain efficiency in the issuance of the grant
guidance within the National Water
Program Guidance (NWPG).
A new section is added to emphasize the
consideration of children's environmental
health in the National Water Program.
A new section is added to highlight efforts
to protect and restore urban waters.
A new section is added to highlight the
Affected Pages and Sections
Executive Summary, pages i-
ii.
Introduction, pages 2-4.
Introduction, page 2.
Section II, 1(B)
Section VII, page 57
Section VIII, page 58
Section IX, page 59
Appendix D - Explanation of Changes from F Y 2010 to F Y 2011 1
-------
Strategies
Adding a new section for the San Francisco
Bay Delta Estuary
National Water Program's response to
climate change.
A new section is added to discuss strategies
for the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, a
current Large Aquatic Ecosystem.
Section IV, 10, pages 47-48
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Measure modified: Measure SP-5.
Modified to an indicator in the NWPG
because the changing baseline distorted
OW s reported performance in increasing
access to safe drinking water. This measure
will be phased out of the next Strategic Plan
and replaced by the new tribal measure
below(SDW-18).
Section II, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Newly created measure: Measure SDW-18,
Number of American Indian and Alaska
Native homes provided access to safe
drinking water in coordination with other
federal agencies.
Created for OW to report progress on the
number of tribal homes that are provided
safe drinking water as a result of combined
federal investments in Indian country. This
measure will supplement SP-5 in the NWPG
and replace SP-5 in the next Strategic Plan.
Section II, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Measures deleted: Measures SDW-9, SDW-
lOa & SDW-lOb.
Deleted because reporting data from
different sources could not be easily
integrated.
Section II
Newly created measures: Measures SDW-
11, Percent of DWSRFprojects awarded to
smallPWS serving <500, 501-3,300, and
3,301-10,000 consumers; SDW-12, Percent
of DWSRF dollars awarded to small PWS
serving <500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000
consumers; SDW-13, Percent of DWSRF
loans that include assistance to
disadvantaged communities; SDW-14,
Number and per cent of PWS, including new
PWS, serving fewer than 500 persons. (New
PWS are those first reported to EPA in last
calendar year); SDW-15, Number and
percent of small PWS (<500, 501-3,300,
Created to provide additional focus on
tracking small systems. These indicators
correspond to the three major components
of the small system strategy: existing and
new small water system inventory; state
DWSRF projects targeting small systems;
and, small system noncompliance, and
capacity to quickly return to compliance
with health-based standards. Also included
is a separate indicator for schools and
daycare centers, a critical subset of small
systems, meeting health-based standards.
Section II, page 13.
Appendix A & F
Appendix D - Explanation of Changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011
-------
Annual
Commitment
Measures
3,301-10,000) with repeat health based
Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and
TCR violations; SDW-16, Average time for
smallPWS (<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000)
to return to compliance with acute
Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and
TCR health-based violations (based on state-
reported RTC determination date); SDW-17,
Number and percent of schools and childcare
centers that meet all health-based drinking
water standards.
Measure reporting modified: Measure SP-6
Measure deleted: Measure SP-8.
Measure modified: Measure SP-15.
Newly created measure: Measure WQ-24,
Number of American Indian and Alaska
Native homes provided access to basic
sanitation in coordination with other federal
agencies.
Newly created measures - replace former
measures (WQ-la & WQ-lb): Measures
WQ-la, Number of numeric water quality
standards for total nitrogen and for total
phosphorus adopted by States and Territories
and approved by EPA, or promulgated by
EPA, for all waters within the State or
Reporting deferred for FY 2011 because the
data are published only every 3 to 4 years.
Deleted because data does not reflect the
performance of Clean Water Act programs.
Modified to an indicator in the NWPG
because the changing baseline distorted
OW s reported performance in increasing
access to basic sanitation on tribal lands.
This measure will be phased out of the next
Strategic Plan and replaced by the new
tribal measure (WQ-24).
Created for OW to report progress on the
number of homes that are provided basic
sanitation as a result of combined federal
investments in Indian country. This measure
will supplement SP-15 in the NWPG and
replace SP-15 in the next Strategic Plan.
Measure created in response to OIG report
on adoption of numeric nutrient water
quality standards.
Section II, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section II
Section III, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section III, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section III, page 18.
Appendix A & Appendix F
Appendix D - Explanation of Changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011
-------
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Territory for each of the follow ing waterbody
types: lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and
estuaries (cumulative, out of a universe of
280); WQ-lb: Number of numeric water
quality standards for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus at least proposed by States and
Territories, or by EPA proposed rulemaking,
for all waters within the State or Territory for
each of the follow ing waterbody types:
lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and estuaries
(cumulative, out of a universe of 280).
Newly created measure: Measure WQ-lc,
Number of States and Territories supplying a
full set of performance milestone information
to EPA concerning development, proposal,
and adoption of numeric water quality
standards for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus for each waterbody type within
the State or Territory (annual). (The universe
for this measure is 56)
Measure deleted: Measure WQ-4b.
Newly created measures: Measures WQ-
22a, Number of Regions that have completed
the development of a Healthy Watersheds
Initiative (HWI) Strategy and have reached
an agreement with at least one state to
implement its portion of the Region 's HWI
Strategy; WQ-22b, Number of states that
have completed at least 2 of the major
components of a Healthy Watershed Initiative
assessment.
Newly created ANV measure: Measure WQ-
Measure created to track incremental state
progress in adopting numeric nutrient
standards.
WQ-lc is proposed as a new state grant
measure.
Deleted because it no longer provides useful
management information as OW has
reported a 100% performance score for four
years.
Created to assess OW's performance with
regard to the Healthy Watershed Initiative.
Measure added to align with performance
Section III, page 18.
Appendix A & Appendix F
Section III
Section III, pages 24.
Appendix A & Appendix F
Section III, Appendix A &
Appendix D - Explanation of Changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011
-------
Annual
Commitment
Measures
23, Percent of serviceable rural Alaska
homes with access to drinking water supply
andwastewater disposal.
Measure deleted: Measure CO-1.
Measure modified: Measure SP-29.
Measure deleted: Measure SP-30.
Measure modified: Measure SP-31.
Newly created measures: (six Great Lakes
measures) Measures GL-6, Number of
nonnative species newly detected in the Great
Lakes ecosystem; GL-7, Number of multi-
agency rapid response plans established,
mock exercises to practice responses carried
out under those plans, and/or actual response
actions (cumulative); GL-8, Percentage of
beaches meeting bacteria standards 95% or
more of beach days; GL-9, Acres managed
for populations of invasive species controlled
to a target level (cumulative); GL-10,
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-
threatened and endangered species self-
sustaining in the wild (cumulative); GL-11,
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-
associated uplands protected, restored and
enhanced (cumulative); GL-12, Number of
acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced
(cumulative); GL-13, Number of species
delisteddue to recovery; GL-14, Number of
reporting in the budget.
Measure is deleted due lack of data
availability.
Changed reporting requirements to be
consistent with the recent Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan.
Measures deleted to in lieu of new GLRI
measures.
Modified to become a long term measure.
Deleted from budget, but will be tracked in
GLRI.
Measures created in order to align with
budget measures from the GLRI.
Appendix F
Section III
Section IV, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section IV
Section IV, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section IV, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Appendix D - Explanation of Changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011
-------
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Tracking
Process
Contacts
Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where
all management actions necessary for
delisting have been implemented
(cumulative).
Measures deleted: Measures GL-1, GL-2 &
GL-3.
Measures deleted: Measures GL-4a & GL-
4h
Measures deleted: Measures GM-3a & GM-
3b
Measures modified: Measures SP-45 & SP-
46.
Measures modified: Measures SP-47a & SP-
47b.
Newly created measure: Measure SF-1,
Increase percentage of sewage treatment
facilities and onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems receiving advanced
wastewater treatment or best available
technology as recorded by EDU. in Florida
Keys two percent (1500 EDUs) annually.
Potential Future Measures for Improving
Water Quality on a Watershed Basis under
subobjective 2.2.1 Restore and Improve
Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
No change
Measures deleted to in lieu of new GLRI
measures.
Measures no longer being used for the
reporting process for which it was created.
Measures no longer being used for the
reporting process for which it was created.
Measures modified from a target to an
indicator to align with budget performance
reporting.
Modified to reflect OW's performance in
improving wastewater treatment and
stormwater.
Measure created to track performance in
reducing effluent from sewage systems.
These measures are being considered for
inclusion in the FY 20 13-20 18 EPA
Strategic Plan and/or the FY 2012 National
Water Program Guidance.
New measures are needed to give credit for
water quality improvement short of full
WQS attainment. The major gap is tracking
progress after TMDLs or other planning is
complete, but before standards are fully
met.
Not applicable
Section IV
Section IV
Section IV
Section IV, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section IV, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section IV, Appendix A &
Appendix F
Section III, pages 26.
Appendix D - Explanation of Changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011
-------
oEPA
Off ice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
FY 2011
i,. JL
National'
Program Guidance
Appendix E: Additional Guidance
for Section 106 State and
Interstate Grant Recipients
--
'
April 2010
-------
APPENDIX E: Additional Guidance for Section 106 State and
Interstate Grant Recipients
This appendix, along with the text boxes found in Section III.1.B.1, provide
guidance for state and interstate grant recipients of grants for water pollution
control programs under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Together,
Section 111.1, the text boxes, and Appendix E replace the corresponding portions
of the biannual Section 106 grant guidance.
Base Program Measures: Section 106 funding supports many of the strategic
targets and goals outlined in the National Water Program Guidance. These
measures include:
SP-10
SP-11
SP-12
SP-13
WQ-1a, b, c (proposed)
WQ-3a
WQ-5
WQ-8b
WQ-10
WQ-12a
WQ-13a, b, c, d
WQ-14a
WQ-15a
WQ-19a
WQ-20
SS-1
Guidance for Core Programs: Guidance for core programs funded through
grants for water pollution control programs under Section 106 of the CWA is
provided in text boxes in Section 111.1. Restore and Improve Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis.
Other programs in the NWPG that can utilize Section 106 Funds: State and
interstate agencies can use Section 106 Grants to carry out a wide range of
water quality planning and management activities. Agencies have the flexibility
to allocate funds toward priority activities. Other activities that may be funded
with Section 106 funds include:
Source Water and Ground Water: EPA regions and states are reminded
that Section 106 grant funds are an essential funding source for the states'
drinking water protection activities. The Agency recommends that states
continue to direct a portion of their Section 106 funding to source water
protection and wellhead protection actions that protect both ground water
-------
and surface water used for drinking water. States should ensure that
there are protective water quality standards in place, and being attained,
for each waterbody being used as a public water supply. Also, EPA
encourages states to allocate a reasonable share of water quality
monitoring resources to assess attainment of the public water supply use,
and consider using water quality or compliance monitoring data collected
by public water systems in assessing water quality and determining
impairment. States should consider placing a high priority on (a)
waterbodies where state or local source water assessments have
identified highly threatening sources of contamination that are subject to
the Clean Water Act and (b) the development and implementation of
TMDLs to address impairments of the public water supply use. In
particular, states should consider the relationship between point source
dischargers and drinking water intakes in setting permit requirements and
inspection and enforcement priorities. In addition, EPA encourages state
programs to consider using their allocation to leverage the resources of
Source Water Collaborative members and allies, found on:
www.protectdrinkingwater.org. See Section 11.1 ,B,5 for additional
discussion on the Source Water and Ground Water.
Non-point Source: States, territories, and tribes may use Section 106
funds to develop watershed-based plans and to conduct monitoring on a
watershed basis. States' integrated monitoring designs should use a
combination of statistical surveys and targeted monitoring to cost-
effectively evaluate the health of watersheds and the effectiveness of
protection and restoration actions, such as nonpoint source
implementation projects. In addition, EPA encourages, consistent with the
scope of Section 106, broader efforts to protect and maintain healthy
watersheds, so that costly implementation measures are not required to
restore water quality and aquatic habitat.
Protecting Wetlands: Some states have utilized Section 106 funds for
program implementation, including wetlands monitoring and protection
projects.
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat: See the grant program guidance at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan
Water Safe for Swimming: See the grant program guidance at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan
Other Guidance: Guidance for the Tribal Program, the Monitoring Initiative, and
Enforcement is provided separately and can be found at:
Tribal water pollution control programs. See
http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106tgg07.htm
-------
State and interstate use of Monitoring Initiative funds. See
http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106-guidelines-monitor.htm
Office of Compliance and Enforcement Assurance National Program
Manage Guidance. In October, 2009, EPA issued the Clean Water Act
Action Plan ("the Action Plan"). The Action Plan identifies steps EPA will
take to improve enforcement efforts aimed at addressing water quality
impairment. The Office of Water is currently working with the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), EPA regions, and
states to implement the Action Plan. For more information on specific
enforcement actions for 2011, please see the 2011 OECA National
Program guidance at: 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.
-------
&EPA
/nice of Water
Fiscal Year 2011
National Water
in
Appendix F: FY 2011 Detailed
Measure Appendix
^tffci*^
- i <
April 2010
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
jPercent of the population served by community
jwater systems that receive drinking water that
2.1.1 jmeets all applicable health-based drinking
jwater standards through approaches including
i effective treatment and source water protection.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
JFY 2010 UNIVERSE (in millions)
jNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of community water systems that meet
i all applicable health-based standards through
| approaches that include effective treatment and
I source water protection.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
|Percent of "person months" (i.e. all persons
| served by community water systems times 12
<-,p , |months) during which community water
|systems provide drinking water that meets all
japplicable health-based drinking water
i standards.
iFY 2010 COMM11MENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iFY 2010 UNIVERSE (in millions)
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of the population in Indian country
iserved by community water systems that
|receive drinking water that meets all applicable
Ihealth-based drinking water standards.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2010 UNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD
SG
NPMStat
ARRA
The univers
OMB PA
BUD
SG
91%
e represents
90%
91%
89.9%
92%
92%
89%
90%
=
293.5 |
the population serve
90%
87%
89.1%
89%
89%
51,388
89%
89%
92%
91%
92.5%
15.0
75%
79%
82%
55.3%
30.4
88%
89.9%
89.6%
93.2%
25.4
93%
91.7%
93.7%
94.1%
93.0%
57.7
d by community water systems. The National target for FY 201 1 is
87%
==
83%
83%
Qj. I/O
85.7%
2,714
82%
82%
86.0%
86%
86.4%
3,624
80%
80%
90.7%
91%
91.8%
4,462
90%
90.4%
90.9%
91%
91 .0%
8,808
95%
95%
95.4%
94.9%
94.1%
43.3
88%
89.7%
89.4%
87.8%
37.8
higher than the regional
91% 85%
90%
93.0%
91 .4%
92.0%
7,332
85%
86.8%
86.2%
8,231
New measure starting in FY 08. FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. The National target for FY 201 1 is higher than the regional aggi
OMB PA
BUD
SMM
95%
95%
94.9%
97.2%
97%
97%
3,525.1
95%
94%
94%
97.5%
95.9%
96%
180.2
90%
90%
91.9%
91.2%
92%
365 6
Indicator measure in FY 07.
BUD
SMM
87%
87%
82.2%
81.2%
83%
86%
879,658
87%
=
95%
95%
!99.9%
100%
100.0%
90,594
95%
95%
99.6%
53.1%
100.0%
11,071
95%
95%
96.9%
98.2%
99%
305.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
96%
95 2%
98.3%
98.2%
98%
6931
90%
89%
100.0%
89.8%
100.0%
20,962
96%
96%
97.8%
97.3%
97%
599
95%
95%
99.3%
96.9%
99.5%
106,972
94%
94%
96.2%
95.7%
97%
454.1
80%
78%
83.6%
90.4%
71,173
93%
92%
94.1%
83%
91.2%
11.9
90%
90%
95.8%
96%
94.7%
10.5
aggregate target to be co
87% 90%
87%
88%
86.8%
4,106
90%
90.0%
90%
90.3%
3,223
95% i 91% i
95% i 91% i
96.9% 1 96.4% i
97.5% ! 96.1% i
94.6% I 94.8% 1
50.2 | 11.3 i
nsistent with the FY 201 1 budget target
88% 90% |
90% ! 88% |
87.9% 1 88.0% i
88.7% I 87.9% 1
91.6% ! 87.3% i
4,492 I 4,396 1
93%
90%
egate target to be consistent with the FY 201 1 budget target
95%
95%
98.2%
97%
98%
142.8
80%
83.3%
87%
86.5%
5,394
95%
95%
99.0%
99%
99%
1260
98% 95% |
98.6% ! 98.7% i
99.1% ! 98.3% i
97% | 98% i
6020 i 1355 i
97%
, . .
87%
87%
90.4%
88.2%
82.6%
90,832
70% 87% |
75°/ '> 87°/ *
73.4% 1 99% i
80.9% i 88.1% 1
433,933 I 48,727 1
88%
The universe represents the population in Indian country served by community water systems.
-------
FY201li
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jPercent of community water systems where risk
SP-4a i to public health is minimized through source
iwater protection.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iFY 2010 UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of the population served by community
SP-4b iwater systems where risk to public health is
jminimized through source water protection.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2010 UNIVERSE (in millions)
iNational Program Manager Comments
jBy 201 5, in coordination with other federal
<-,p - iagencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of
ihomes on tribal land lacking access to safe
i drinking water.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 COMMITMENT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2003 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of American Indian and Alaska Native
SDW-1 Sihomes provided access to safe drinking water in
i coordination with other federal agencies.
iFY 2009 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
iPercent of community water systems (CWSs)
ithat have undergone a sanitary survey within
ithe past three years (five years for outstanding
jperformers) as required under the Interim
jEnhanced and Long-Term I Surface Water
i Treatment Rules.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
OMB PA
50%
50%
35.4%
35%
20%
51,388
39%
64%
64%
64%
64%
Ji /O
2,714
60% I 25% 38% 38% 50% 18% 45%
60% i 25% | 38% | 38% I 36% I 18% I 44%
60% i 27% | 38% | 38% I 38% I 9% I 38%
58% ! 25% i 30% i 40% i 25% i 17% i 37%
30% I 12% 1 21% 1 19% 1 19% 1 13% 1 20%
3,624 i 4,462 | 8,808 | 7,332 | 8,231 | 4,106 | 3,223
9% 40% I
8°/ ^ 35°/ i
8% | 38% i
CO/ i ^S°/ ''
1% 1 28% I
4,492 | 4,396 i
50%
FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. The universe is the number of community water systems. The National target for FY 201 1 is higher than the regional aggregate target to be consistent with the FY 201 1
budget target
SG
57%
52.4%
54.0%
48%
293.5
54%
93%
95%
93.0%
1 95%
| 15.0
80% 58% 49% 65% 62% 20% 40%
80% i 58% i 51% i 64% i 60% i 20% i 35%
80.0% i 63.0% I 51.0% I 65.0% i 63.0% i 15.0% i 37.0%
81% i 57% I 40% I 64% I 44% i 16% i 35%
30.4 i 25.4 | 57.7 I 43.3 I 37.8 I 11.9 I 10.5
12% 65%
12% i 72% i
12.0% I 82.0% i
12% ! 71% i
50.2 | 11.3 i
62%
SP-4b is a new measure starting in FY 08. Note: "Minimized risk" is achieved by the substantial implementation, as determined by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy. The universe is the
most recent SDWIS inventory of community water systems. FY 07 end-of-year adjusted data not from ACS.
OMB PA
ARRA
I
8
(Long-
Term FY
2011
Target)
Indicator
27,367
(8.58%)
43,437 |
28,977 (9.0%)
34,855(11%)
38,637
319,070 |
| 27,367
i 1 (8.58%)
I 43,437
i 28,977
i 34,855
i 38,637
i 319,070
19,319
This measure involves coordination with other federal agencies. Measure is converted into an indicator for FY 201 1 and supplemented by SDW-1 8.
ARRA
100,700
80,900
360,000
136,100
New measure for FY 201 1 , to supplement SP-5 in the NWPG and replace SP-5 in the new Strategic Plan.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
95%
95%
88.6%
89%
90%
90%
95% 91% 87% 91% 93% 87% 95%
95% ! 91% i 87 7% i 91% i 93% i 87% i 95%
70% 95% 1
75% i 66% i
-------
FY201li
4r~ 1 FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region
2 3
Region Re;
4
ion Region
5 6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of tribal community water systems
|(CWSs) that have undergone a sanitary survey
Iwithrn the past three years (five years for
I outstanding performers) as required under the
ilntenm Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface
| Water Treatment Rule.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IFY 2009 UNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of the data for violations of health-
|based standards at public water systems that is
|accurate and complete in SDWIS-FED for all
jmaximum contaminant level and treatment
itechnique rules (excluding the Lead and Copper
|Rule).
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of the lead action level data that for the
SDW- ILead and Copper Rule, for community water
3 isystems serving over 3,300 people, that is
icomplete in SDWIS-FED.
IFY 2005-2007 END OF YOUR RESULTS
IFY 2002-2004 END OF YEAR RESULTS
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
iFund utilization rate [cumulative dollar amount
4 l°f loan agreements divided by cumulative funds
javailable for projects] for the Drinking Water
i State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
88%
11,038
88%
99.0%
479
95.0% 1 93.2%
1,019 1 1,215
*Pnor to FY 07, this measure tracked states, rather than CWSs, in compliance with this regulation.
NPMStat
70
55
63
47
22
74
62
55
2
i
2
1
n/a
1
2 | n/a
2 1 n/a
2 | n/a
2 | n/a
1 1 n/a
2 | n/a
87.0% I 92.9% I 92.0%
1,750 ! 1.356 ! 2.109
91.0%
780
90.0%
808
67.0% I 80.0% 1
936 i 586 1
The national FY 07 end-of-year result provided is an estimate.
i ;
8
127
1 ! 2 ! 9
1
1
1
I ! 5
I I 1
1 \ 9
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
7
13
16
0
25
23 8
26 i 8 i
25 ! 8 |
12 ! 7 |
9 ! 7 |
23 ! 10 |
A sanitary survey is an on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of a public water system for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of the facilities for producing and
distributing safe drinking water.
OMB PA
I
LT2011
OMB PA
Target:
90%
Indicator
64.0%
62%
60%
n/a
n/a
The FY 07 end-of-year result is based on audits conducted during 2005 and 2006. Future results w
I
Indicator
87%
80%
n/a
8,954
88%
89%
435
!
ill be based on three-year rolling data from data verification audits conducted during the past 3 calendar years.
97% i 93%
97% I 86%
85% ! 98% ! 83%
87% ! 83% ! 47%
71%
68%
89%
90%
699 I 676
2,006 ! 1,594 ! 1,438
440
366
76% ! 90% i
88% ! 85% I
913 ! 387 I
*This measure is calculated every three years to match the requirements for lead sampling. The 2008-201 0 results will be calculated in April 201 1 .
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
89%
89%
85.7%
92%
89%
(87% base)
89%
94%
90% 1 87%
1(86% base)
90% | 85%
90% | 95%
90% |C
(89% base) ^
)% 1 87%
1(89% base)
89% ! 78% ! 85%
95% | 79% | 93%
95%
(94% base)
94%
99%
90%
(87% base)
89%
93%
85% I 92% I
(94% base) i
75% ! 94% |
83% i 86% i
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE (FY 2007 in millions)
iNational Program Manager Comments
|Number of Drinking Water State Revolving
SDW-5 |Fund (DWSRF) projects that have initiated
ioperations. (cumulative)
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of deep injection wells that are used to
iinject industrial, municipal, or hazardous waste
| (Class I) that lose mechanical integrity and are
ireturned to compliance within 1 80 days thereby
ireducing the potential to endanger underground
i sources of drinking water.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
lUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of deep injection wells that are used to
|enhance oil/natural gas recovery, or for the
jinjection of other (Class II) fluids associated
, iwith oil and natural gas production, that have
jlost mechanical integrity and are returned to
icompliance within 180 days thereby reducing
ithe potential to endanger underground sources
iof drinking water.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
90%
84.7%
$14,419.7
97.2%
78.5%
$1,378.1
94%
93.0%
$2,686.4
91.5%
83.3%
$832.3
89.5%
88.0%
$1,527.6
81 .8%
87.0%
$2,81 2.2
88.1 %
64.5%
$1,283.7
102%
91.0%
$978.8
85.9%
84.0%
$1,006.8
85.7%
80.0%
$1,321.7
93%
94.3%
$592.1
Universe represents the funds available for projects for the DWSRF through 2007, in millions of dollars (i.e., the denominator of the measure). FY 2011 targets include two numbers: 1) total with ARRA and 2) base
(in parenthesis), unless noted otherwise.
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
500
Annual
(200
ARRA)
5,726
(5,526 base)
4,424
4,576
4,082
2,611
5,231
4,424
4,576
4,082
2,611
1624
(61 2 base)
500
564
465
320
410
405
396
383
311
486
(482 base)
440
464
418
261
615
(565 base)
530
564
522
369
1050
(900
ARRA)
935
936
847
557
235
(207 base)
182
160
135
59
This measure was annually reported in ACS starting in FY 2009. FY 2011 targets include two numbers: 1) total with ARRA and 2) base
OMB PA
BUD
SG
92%
92%
89%
100%
8
88%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
90%
100%
1
50%
100%
2
93%
93%
100%
2
542
(487 base)
462
427
380
229
490
(460 base)
450
479
418
242
330
(310 base)
280
225
207
123
(in parenthesis), unless noted otherw
90%
90%
100%
0
95%
95%
100%
2
100%
90%
100%
0
500 !
(450 base) |
361
307
140
ise.
75%
75%
100%
0
Measure revised for FY 09. FY 2009 EOY Result is the new baseline. Universe for FY 09 will be updated to reflect the forecasted number of mechanical integrity failures.
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08. The National target for FY 201 1 is higher than the regional aggregate target to be consistent with the FY 201 1 budget target.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
89%
89%
85%
90%
2,816
86%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
90%
100%
1
75%
45%
57%
30
70%
70%
83%
52
60%
57%
67%
269
90%
90%
96%
1,086
85%
85%
310
95%
95%
95%
159
90% 85% |
90%
100%
896
85%
100%
13
Measure revised for FY 09. FY 2009 EOY Result is the new baseline. Universe for FY 09 will be updated to reflect the forecasted number of mechanical integrity failures.
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08. The National target for FY 201 1 is higher than the regional aggregate target to be consistent with the FY 201 1 budget target.
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region
2 3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
jPercent of deep injection wells that are used for
jsalt solution mining (Class III) that lose
imechanical integrity and are returned to
jcompliance within 180 days thereby reducing
jthe potential to endanger underground sources
! of drinking water.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
lUNTVERSE
! National Program Manager Comments
JPercent of high priority Class V wells identified
Jin sensitive ground water protection areas that
iare closed or permitted, (cumulative)
| [Measure will still set targets and commitments
land report results in both % and #. Numerical
icommitments from UIC database.]
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2009 UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of DWSRF projects awarded to small
SDW-1 1 |PWS serving <500, 501 -3,300, and 3,301 -
|l 0,000 consumers.
JFY 2009 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE (Total number of projects)
iNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of DWSRF dollars awarded to small
SDW-12|PWS serving <500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000
i consumers.
JFY 2009 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE (Millions)
|National Program Manager Comments
mTTr , JPercent of DWSRF loans that include
oDW-131 . ,. , ,
|assistance to disadvantaged communities.
JFY 2009 BASELINE
OMB PA
BUD
SG
93%
93%
90%
100%
86%
=
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
95% | n/a
95% ! 99%
100% | 100%
0 ! n/a
100%
100%
100%
0
50%
100%
2
94%
94%
100%
0
85%
100%
0
95%
95%
100%
4
90% n/a |
90% ! n/a |
100% | 100% |
In/a]
Measure revised for FY 09. FY 2009 EO Y Result is the new baseline. Universe for FY 09 will be updated to reflect the forecasted number of mechanical integrity failures.
*The universe reflects FY 07 end-of-year and is subject to change in FY 08. The National target for FY 201 1 is higher than the regional aggregate target to be consistent with the FY 201 1 budget target.
OMB PA
BUD
76%
76%
71%
82%
53,074
90%
90%
99.9%
15,189
86% | 85%
86% | 85%
97.0% 1 94.0%
286 | 4,031
70%
75%
65.0%
1,692
81%
75%
87.0%
3,585
86%
86%
100.0%
271
93%
93%
100.0%
7,893
85%
80%
89.0%
2,751
55% 70% |
43% | 50% |
42.0% 1 71.0% 1
5,211 12,165 |
Measure revised for FY 09. FY 2009 EO Y Result is the new baseline. Universe for FY 09 will be updated for the revised measure. Note: Measure will still set target and commitment and report results in both
percent and number.
"Sensitive ground water protection areas" are defined by the UIC primacy program director, but at a minimum must include ground water based community water system source water areas. This measure does not
report all of the high priority wells that are being closed or permitted because some states do not distinguish between high priority wells in ground water based community water system source water areas and other
areas.
I
Indicator
71%
623
138
75% 1 70%
44 I 56
30%
43
68%
126
33
80%
70
87
81% i 80% i
26 I 75 I
New measure starting in FY 201 1 .
I
Indicator
40%
1,420.5
24%
127.7
38% ! 40%
251.5 ! 137.2
16%
176.9
42%
246.6
36%
211.7
54%
105.7
52%
108.0
60% ! 79% !
55.2 ! 101.8 !
New measure starting in FY 201 1 .
I
Indicator
34%
22%
55% ! 43%
33%
20%
42%
27%
43%
23% ! 32% !
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber and percent of PWS, including new
JPWS, serving fewer than 500 persons. (New
JPWS are those first reported to EPA in last
jcalendar year).
|FY 2009 BASELINE (CWS & NTNCWS
|
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
JNational Program Manager Comments New measure starting in FY 201 1 .
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
IPercent of women of childbearing age having
SP-6 jmercury levels in blood above the level of
| concern.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
|National Program Manager Comments
iPercent of river miles where fish tissue were
|assessed to support waterbody-specific or
,-, jregional consumption advisories or a
1 determination that no consumption advice is
|necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately;
jAlaska not included) (Report every two years)
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of lake acres where fish tissue were
|assessed to support waterbody-specific or
jregional consumption advisories or a
i determination that no consumption advice is
Inecessary. (Great Lakes measured separately;
|Alaska not included) (Report every two years)
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
iPercent of days of the beach season that coastal
|and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state
jbeach safety programs are open and safe for
| swimming.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
BUD
4.9%
Defer for FY 2011
5.1%
data n/a
data n/a
57%
| Defer for FY
1 2011
! 5.1%
! data n/a
i data n/a
1 5.7%
SP-6 is a new measure starting in FY 08.
I
*This is the
I
actual FY C
Indicator
39%
26%(91 0,000)
26%(91 0,000)
24% (840,000)
100%(3.5 million)
6 end-of-year result
Indicator
43%
38%(15.2 million)
38%(15.2 million)
35%(14 million)
100% (40 million)
An estimated FY
06 end-of-y
ear result had been entered in ACS.
*This is the actual FY 06 end-of-year result. An estimated FY 06 end-of-year result had been entered in ACS.
BUD
SG
95%
95%
95%
91%
98%
98%
95% 98n/6%
95%
95%
98.0%
97.9%
95%
95%
99.2%
98%
92%
92%
96.8%
96.4%
88%
85%
93.7%
91%
80%
85%
82.0%
85%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
86% 1 95% 1
86% ! 95% !
93.0%
93.3%
98.0%
95.4%
4.6%
96%
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE (2006)
hiNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber and national percent, using a constant
! denominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow
i(CSO) permits with a schedule incorporated
jinto an appropriate enforceable mechanism,
! including a permit or enforcement order, with
! specific dates and milestones, including a
| completion date consistent with Agency
Iguidance, which requires: 1 ) Implementation of
ja Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) which will
jresult in compliance with the technology and
i water quality -based requirements of the Clean
! Water Act; or 2) implementation of any other
iacceptable CSO control measures consistent
|with the 1 994 CSO Control Policy; or 3)
! completion of separation after the baseline date.
l(cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches
SS-2 jthat are monitored and managed under the
JBEACH Act program.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
96.0%
709,170
98.0%
89,355
97.2% ! 98.5% ! 96.3% ! 95.5% ! 93.0% n/a ! n/a
105,772 i 19.357 i 180.965 i 52,559 i 14,266 n/a i n/a
95.3%
233,000
92.8%
13,896
Universe changes annually. Per ACS, Region 9's FY 07 commitment reflects the inclusion of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas for the first time. These territories have a higher percentage of
beach season day closures resulting in a lower commitment at the regional and national levels.
Universe equals the total number of beach season days that beaches were open. The National target for FY 201 1 is higher than the regional aggregate target to be consistent with the FY 201 1 budget target.
NPMStat
717
(84%)
702 (82%)
693(81%)
610(72%)
536(63%)
853
732
702
693
610
77
76
76
76
75(91%)
82
72 ! 220 18 304 n/a 22 1
70 ! 211 ! 17 ! 290 ! n/a ! 19 ! 1
67 1 206 17 i 294 i n/a i 14 1
62 ! 197 ! 15 ! 232 ! n/a ! 9 | 1
51(48%) | 175(74%) j 9(38%) j 200(55%) j n/a j 7(29%) j 1(100%)
106 i 236 24 1 362 1 n/a 1 24 1
3
3
3
3
3(100%)
3
15
15
15
15
15(100%) |
15 i
Measure revised for FY 08. FY 07 numbers are based on a slightly different definition.
Beginning in FY 08, OECA and OWM agreed on common language and data collection procedures to streamline this measure. While the definition is slightly different for OWM, the past data is still valid for
comparison with future data. We have included a revised base ine to demonstrate the real progress for FY 08. While national numbers are fairly stable, the Regional baselines did change.
SG
100%
99%
97.6%
99.1%
96.5%
2,690
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
905
100% | 100% 100% 100% 95% n/a n/a
100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 95% n/a 1 n/a
100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% n/a 1 n/a
100% ! 100% ! 100% ! 100% ! 100% n/a ! n/a
100% ! 100% ! 100% ! 100% ! 92% n/a ! n/a
365 ! 89 ! 481 | 320 79 | n/a | n/a
85%
100%
100%
93%
93%
81%
93%
100% I 80% I
376
75
States may change their designation of beaches at any trine. Therefore, these numbers may change from year to year.
""Universe for FY 2008 Tier I beaches may be adjusted.
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
JNumber of waterbodies identified in 2002 as
SP-10 inot attaining water quality standards where
istandards are now fully attained (cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
OMB PA
BUD
SG
SMM
ARRA
2,910
2,910
2,809
"> ^0^
2,857
106
90
84
132 | 560 460 621 182 302 227
119 ! 550 ! 460 ! 621 ! 182 ! 295 ! 227
113 i 431 1 418 1 537 \ 170 \ 289 \ 222
72
195
72 ! 193 !
51
190
3,250
-------
FY201li
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , i Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region Re;
4
ion Region
5 6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iUNTVERSE (2002)
INational Program Manager Comments
iRemove the specific causes of waterbody
SP-1 1 iimpairment identified by states in 2002.
i(cumulative)
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jlmprove water quality conditions in impaired
SP-1 2 jwatersheds nationwide using the watershed
! approach, (cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jEnsure that the condition of the Nation's
iwadeable streams does not degrade (i.e., there
|is no statistically significant increase in the
ipercent of streams rated "poor" and no
1 statistically significant decrease in the streams
irated "good").
|FY 2006 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jlmprove water quality in Indian country at
imomtoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
jimprovement in one or more of seven key
SP-1 4 iparameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water
jtemperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
ipathogen indicators, and turbidity).
| (cumulative)
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
2,165
39,503
84
6,710
87
1,805
358
8.998
418 I 528 I 144
5.274 ! 4.550 ! .407
226
2,036
222
1,274
45 I 53 I
.041 i 6,408 i
FY 07 data from regiona staff and is not reflected in ACS since this measure begins in 2008. FY 08 targets in the FY 09 Budget Congressional Justification and OMB PA are rounded to 1 ,550.
SP-1 0 differs from previous Measure L, since SP-1 0 uses an updated 2002 baseline. Note: 2000-2002 results equal 1 ,980 waters - not included above. The FY1 0 Planning Target is higher than the Regional
aggregrates because the planning target aligns with our target included in the FY1 1 President's budget.
BUD
8,670
8,670
8,512
7,530
6,723
8,669
=
326
i257
1
69,677 I | 8,826
443
391
384
243
2,567
1,600
1,575
1,403
1,232
13,958
1,003 3205 410
1,003 | 3,2
05 | 410
912 1 2,666 1 395
912 2,665 346
9,374 | 10,155 | 3,005
341
332
324
240
4,391
470
470
465
465
3,502
419 452 |
419 | 450 |
310 1 447 1
303 1 100 1
2,742 | 11,157 |
9,200
FY 07 data from Regional staff and is not reflected in ACS since measure is new starting inFY 08.
BUD
170
185
141
104
60
4,767
185
6
1
246
21
20
14
8
300
18
16
12
8
300
48 20 21
40 ! 15 12
32 1 10 9
20 i 5 i 3
2,000 ! 3
8 ! 213
6
5
4
3
169
26
20
17
12
684
9 10 |
4 ! 4 !
02!
0 i 0 i
27 ! 450 !
300
FY 07 data is from Regional staff and is not reflected in ACS since measure begins in FY 08.
Deferred until 201 2
28% good; 25%
fair; 42% poor
Maintain or
Improve the
Baseline
The Wadeable Streams Survey will be updated in 201 1 . There will be no reporting on this measure until 201 2.
OMB PA
Long-
Term
Target
Deferred until 201 2
1 661 085)*
160(14)
1 4 (n/a)
n/a
37(2) i 729(44) i 68(1)
82(4)
100(10)
203 (43) i 268 (67) i
75
There will be no reporting on this measure until 201 2. "'Numbers in parentheses are the number of stations with suspected depressed water quality and restoration activities underway.
Note: EPA estimates that improvement is most attainable at 1 85 stations.
-------
FY201li
4r~ 1 FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Reg
2 3 '
ion Region
\ 5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
iBy 201 5, in coordination with other federal
<-,p - |agencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of
jhomes on tribal lands lacking access to basic
i sanitation, (cumulative)
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2003 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
iNumber of numeric water quality standards for
|total nitrogen and for total phosphorus adopted
jby States and Territories and approved by EPA,
w_ |or promulgated by EPA, for all waters within
|the State or Territory for each of the following
iwaterbody types: lakes/reservoirs,
irivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of
|a universe of 280)
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2010 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
INumber of numeric water quality standards for
itotal nitrogen and total phosphorus at least
Iproposed by States and Territories, or by EPA
iproposed rulemaking, for all waters within the
| State or Territory for each of the following
iwaterbody types: lakes/reservoirs,
Irivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of
ja universe of 280).
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2010 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
ARRA
I
Indicator
18,985 (5.95%)
28,052
data n/a
n/a
26,777
319,070
=
| 18,985
i (5.95%)
| 28,052
i data/na
n/a
26,777
N/A
(Indicator)
This measure involves coordination with other federal agencies. Measure is converted into an indicator for FY 201 1 and supplemented by WQ-24.
SG
47
13
11
8
31
280
47
1
3
3
0
3
34
7862
Oil
Oil
Oil
1
1
1
5 1 o ! o ! i
20 1 34 i 44 i 24
Measure revised in FY 201 1 . If a state or territory has adopted nutrient water quality standards for some,
SG
58
32
32
35
31
280
58
3
3
3
3
3
34
0
1
1
1
0
24
1
2
0
0
o
16
0
o
0
0
o
24
22 0 |
4 ! 0 1
4 i 0 i
4 ! 0 |
22 ! 0 |
38 i 22 i
but not all of its applicable waters, it may be counted in both WQ-1 a and WQ-1 b.
7984
4 I 2 1 6 1 5
4 i 2 I 6 I 5
3 1 3 ! 6 ! 6
5 1 0 I 0 I 1
20 | 34 | 44 | 24
Measure revised in FY 201 1 . If a state or territory has adopted nutrient water quality standards for some,
but not all of its a]
0
5
5
5
0
24
3
1
1
3
0
16
0
3
3
4
0
24
24 0 |
3 1 0 I
3 I 0 i
1 ! 1 1
22 I 0 i
38 | 22 |
plicable waters, it may be counted in both WQ-1 a and WQ-1 b.
-------
FY201li
i FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , i Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Reg
3 '
ion Region
1 S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
jNumber of States and Territories supplying a
ifull set of performance milestone information to
JEPA concerning development, proposal, and
WQ-lc iadoption of numeric water quality standards for
jtotal nitrogen and total phosphorus for each
iwaterbody type within the State or Territory
| (annual). (The universe for this measure is 56.)
IFY 2010 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
,, ,_ _ iNumber of Tribes that have water quality
istandards approved by EPA. (cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
1
iNumber, and national percent, of States and
! Territories that within the preceding three year
iperiod, submitted new or revised water quality
WQ-3a icntena acceptable to EPA that reflect new
jscientific information from EPA or other
iresources not considered in the previous
istandards.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber, and national percent of Tribes that
iwithin the preceding three year period,
isubmitted new or revised water quality criteria
i acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific
| information from EPA or other resources not
i considered in the previous standards.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE (FY08)
iNational Program Manager Comments
SG
proposed
New measu
re for FY 2(
19
3
56
)11.
39
38
35
35
26
55
19
39
0
o
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
0
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
1
461
000
6 1 8 1 6
n/a ^
n/a 1 ;
n/a ! ;
5
! 4
! 3
n/a 2 3
n/a 2| 2
n/a | ;
! 5
0
o
5
10
10
10
10
9
11
4
0
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
0
o
6
3
3
2
2
2
6
4
3
8
8
0
0
4
10
10
7 ! 10 !
7 i 10 i
3
16
8
14
The universe reflects all federally recognized Tribes who have applied for "treatment in the same manner as a state" (TAS) to administer the water quality standards program (as of September 2007).
OMB PA
BUD
SG
64.3%
36
(64.3%)
37 (66%)
35
35 (62.5%)
38(68%)
56
37
1
37 2
33
4
1 6
3
3
3 t
5
31815
2131614
2 1 4 1 5 1 4
1
4
4 !
5
6 ! 8 ! 6
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
4
6
5
4
6
3
2
3 i 2 i
3
3
4
7
1
3
4
*FY 05 and 06 end-of-year results are from the WATA database.
13
(37%)
16(46%)
17
19(61%)
12(40%)
35
13
16
17
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
1
n/a ;
2
| n/a | 2 | 2
1 n/a 1 2 1 3
! n/a ! 2 ! 1
n/a
n/a
n/a | ;
1
! 3
F Y 08 universe for WQ-3b is the number of authorized tribes that have at least initial EPA approved water quality standards
1
3
2
5
5
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
42
5
4
4
0
8
2
3
4
3
9
as of September 2007.
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
jPercentage of submissions of new or revised
WQ-4a |water quality standards from States and
! Territories that are approved by EPA.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
JUNTVERSE (FY 08)
jNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of States and Territories that have
WQ-5 |adopted and are implementing their monitoring
jstrategies in keeping with established schedules.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
JNumber of Tribes that currently receive funding
junder Section 1 06 of the Clean Water Act that
|have developed and begun implementing
jmomtoring strategies that are appropriate to
jtheir water quality program consistent with
|EPA Guidance, (cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
jNumber of Tribes that are providing water
WQ-6b jquality data in a format accessible for storage in
|EPA's data system, (cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
I National Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD
SMM
NPMStat
Based on si
annually ba
SG
85%
ibmissions r
sed on num
85%
85%
93.2%
92.5%
52
eceived in the 1 2 mo
3er of water quality s
56
56
56
53
51
56
74%
73.4%
nth period ending
andards submiss
56
56
75%
75%
75.0%
100%
i
April 30 of
ons.
6
6
6
6
6
6
85%
85%
100.0%
96%
90%
78%
83.0%
100%
87%
87%
100.0%
88.6%
75%
80%
100.0%
100%
75%
75%
91.7%
85%
50%
50%
55.0%
99%
79%
79%
96.7%
90%
1
the fiscal ye
4
4
4
4
3
4
3 1 10 1 10 1 16 1 2 1 3
ar. Partial approvals receive fractional credit. **FY 06 end-of-year data is
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
6
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
"In keeping with established schedules" means that states inc ude in their annual Section 1 06 Monitoring Initiative workplai
demonstrate that they are making a good faith effort to do these activities.
A cumulati
/e measure
170
158
134
101
0
242
liat counts tribes tha
110
94
86
60
3
242
177
158
have developed,
139
94
6
6
6
6
0
6
submitted to
6
1
1
1
0
6
1
1
0
0
o
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
2
2
1
1
0
5
32
29
29
24
0
32
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
3
6
6
75%
75%
97.0%
100%
50%
50%
50.0%
33%
6 1 0 1
rom the WATA database. Universe cha
7
7
4
4
7 ! 4 !
7 ! 4 !
7
7
4
4
mges
is specific actions that are intended to implement their monitoring strategies and that states
20
14
14
14
0
40
4
4
2
2
0
5
15
15
19
4
0
23
the Region, and begun implementing water monitoring strategies that are consistent w
1 | n/a 2 29 15 3 | 16
1
1
0
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
1
1
0
5
21
20
18
0
32
7
7
7
2
40
2
1
1
0
5
16
21
15
1
23
60
50
30
18
37
37
33
32
o ! o !
93
37
th the EPA 1 06 Tribal Guidance.
45 22
30
20
14
14
10 i 7 i
0
93
0
37
A cumulative measure that counts tribes that are providing surface water data electronically in a format that is compatible with the STOPJiT/WQX system.
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
..FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Regional
Target Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Me
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 Q
,,,SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
isure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
jNumber of States and Territories that provide
I electronic information using the Assessment
jDatabase version 2 or later (or compatible
jsystem) and geo-reference the information to
ifacilitate the integrated reporting of assessment
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber, and national percent, of TMDLs that
iare established or approved by EPA [Total
jTMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national
! policy.
JNote: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing
ipollutants in order to attain water quality
istandards. The terms 'approved' and
I'established' refer to the completion and
iapproval of the TMDL itself.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber, and national percent, of approved
iTMDLs, that are established by States and
japproved by EPA [State TMDLs] on a schedule
i consistent with national policy.
iNote: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing
ipollutants in order to attain water quality
istandards. The terms 'approved' and
I'established' refer to the completion and
iapproval of the TMDL itself.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
45
44
42
56
45
5
45 | 6
6
5
1 6
4:666326
4I6I6I6I3I2I6
4
4
4
Universe is fifty states and six territories, including the District of Columbia
OMB PA
BUD
SMM
NPMStat
47,100
2,284
2,592 (77%)
5,887(162%)
9,135(105%)
2,267
2,592
5,887
9,135
205
245
340
5,454
40
100
126
125
4
5
6
585
797
3,413
912
7
7
8
337
290
675
835
6
5
6
325
325
530
878
3
3
5
192
222
186
170
2
1
4
108
108
49
185
6
6
6
4 ! 2 1
4!2l
412!
4 I 2 I
7 | 4 |
185
185
178
168
50 240 |
50 | 270 |
80 | 310 |
96 1 312 i
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. Annual pace is the
number of TMDLs needed to be established consistent with national policy, i.e. generally within 13 years of listing of the water as impaired. *Cumu
ative total commitment numbers are calculated at about 80% of
pace for OMB PA. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, "Detailed Information on the Surface Water Protection Assessment," available at
http://www.whitehouse.gOV/omb/expectmore/detail/l 0004380.2005.html). Annual total numbers are memoria
zed and static whereas cumulative total OMB PA numbers are open to semi-annual updates.
Our FY 201 1 targets are still draft numbers and do not represent final targets. Projecting state TMDL production numbers several months in advance continues to be a challenge when Regions have not yet engaged
the states in planning for 201 1 . We expect that the regions will work with states this summer to develop and finalize appropriate FY1 1 te
irgets. Note that we may encounter challenges rn setting the frnal FY1 1 targets
as states have suffered staff cutbacks and/or need to focus their efforts solely on consent decree TMDLs. We do recognize the importance of achieving
the target if at all possible and will work with Regional program staff to negotiate targets that come as close as possible to meeting the national goal.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
41,611
2,023
(64%)
2,491 (76%)
5,829(162%)
8,973(105%)
1,925
2,491
5,829
8,973
205
245
340
5,454
40
100
126
125
397
794
3,413
911
252
270
661
783
325
325
530
878
177
198
146
66
84
84
49
185
185
185
178
168
25 ! 235 !
25 | 265 |
76 1 310 1
92 I 311 I
-------
FY201ll
4r~ 1 FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region
345
Region
6
Region Region
7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
|National Program Manager Comments
IEstrmated annual reduction in million pounds
WQ-9a jof nitrogen from nonpoint sources to
iwaterbodies (Section 319 funded projects only).
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
jNational Program Manager Comments
IEstrmated annual reduction in million pounds
WQ-9b jof phosphorus from nonpoint sources to
iwaterbodies (Section 319 funded projects only).
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 COMMITMENT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
|National Program Manager Comments
iEstrmated annual reduction in million tons of
WQ-9c |sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
!(Section 31 9 funded projects only).
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of waterbodies identified by States (in
11 998/2000 or subsequent years) as being
jpiimanly nonpoint source (NPS)-impaired that
|are partially or fully restored, (cumulative)
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing po
number of TMDLs needed to be established
pace for OMB PA. (Source: Office of Mana
tittp://www.whi tehouse.gov/omb/expectm or
IDur FY 201 1 targets are still draft numbers
the states in planning for 201 1 . We expect ti
as states have suffered staff cutbacks and/or
the target if at all possible and will work wn
OMB PA
BUD
8.5 million
8.5 million
8,500,000
9,100,000
11,300,000
3.7 million Ibs
lutants in order t
consistent with n
gement and Budg
e/detail/1 000437 S
rnd do not represe
lat the regions wi
need to focus the
i Regional progre
1
3 attain water quality standards. The terms 'approved' and 'established refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself. Annual pace is the
ational policy, i.e. generally within 13 years of listing of the water as impaired. "'Cumulative total commitment numbers are calculated at about 80% of
3t, "Detailed Information on the Surface Water Protection Assessment," available at
.2005.html). Annual total numbers are memoria ized and static whereas cumulative total OMB PA numbers are open to semi-annual updates.
nt final targets. Projecting state TMDL production numbers several months in advance continues to be a challenge when Regions have not yet engaged
1 work with states this summer to develop and finalize appropriate FY1 1 targets. Note that we may encounter challenges in setting the final FY1 1 targets
ir efforts solely on consent decree TMDLs. We do recognize the importance of achieving
im staff to negotiate targets that come as close as possible to meeting the national goal.
_
I 8.5 million
| 8,500,000
| 9,100,000
i 11,300,000
F Y 05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY 06, a full year of data reported. End-of-Year results are received mid-February of the following year.
OMB PA
BUD
4.5 million
4.5 million
4,500,000
3,500,000
4,500,000
3,500,000
558,000 Ibs
! 4.5 million
i 4,500,000
| 3,500,000
i 4,500,000
| 3,500,000
F Y 05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY 06, a full year of data reported. End-of-Year results are received mid-February of the following year.
OMB PA
BUD
700,000
700,000
700,000
2,300,000
2,100,000
1.68 million tons
1
| 700,000
| 700,000
| ! ! ! ! i | ! | 2,300,000
ill! 2,100,000
F Y 05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY 06, a full year of data reported. End-of-Year results are received mid-February of the following year.
OMB PA
SG
NPMStat
Long-
Term
250
188
147
97
15
222
188
24
19
16
13
1
13
10
6
6
0
22 44 27
19 ! 50 22
16 ! 36 18
9 ! 24 ! 11
2 ! 5 ! 3
19
12
11
8
0
24 22
20 ! 16
16 ! 13
14 ! 6
4 ! 0
8 19 |
5 ! 15 |
3 ! 12 |
2 ! 4 |
0 ! 0 |
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
e
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber, and national percent, of follow-up
WQ - jactions that are completed by assessed NPDES
1 1 ! (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
| System) programs, (cumulative)
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
lUNIVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of non- Tribal facilities covered by
JNPDES permits that are considered current.
! [Measure will still set targets and commitments
land report results in both % and #.]
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of tribal facilities covered by NPDES
ipermits that are considered current.
| [Measure will still set targets and commitments
land report results in both % and #.]
|
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2009 COMMITMENT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
JUNIVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
Regions re]
time a new
from ACS.
I
ort results.
303(d) list i
Only a natic
The universe is the e
5 developed, so this i
nal FY 06 end-of-ye
Indicator
229
216(100%)
62.0%
18.0%
100.0%
stimated waterbo
igure is only an e
ar result shown ir
229
216
dies impaire
stimate. On
ACS. Indie
26
26
22
6
36
i primarily by nonpoint sources from the 1 998 (or 2000 if states did not have a 1 998 hs
y waters on the Success Story website (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319/) ar
ator measure in FY 06.
18
18
16
5
27
22
21
17
4
32
23
23
20
9
41
40
34
28
16
66
17
15
10
2
23
18
18
16
6
47
27
26
23
3
39
t) 303(d) lists. Note that this universe si
3 counted. Regional FY 06 end-of-year
15 i 23 i
13 ! 22 i
13 i 19 i
i ! 2 !
21 ! 36 !
lifts each
results not
Regional annual commitments and action items are confirmed by HQ action item database. Assessed programs include 45 authorized states, 5 unauthorized states (MA, NH, NM, AK, ID), 1 authorized territory
(VI), 3 authorized territories (DC, PR, Pacific Island Territories), and 1 0 Regions (tota of 64 programs) assessed through the Permits for Environmental Results (PER) program.
Universe of 298 includes all follow-up actions for which a schedule was established. The universe increases as additional action items are identified by the Regions and through HQ program review. An updated
universe will be available in March 2009.
89%
106,052
89%
104,623
90% (102,1 96)
90% (105,089)
87. 8% (96,851)
119,733
88.9%
106,426
104,623
80%
1,430
76%
1,423
81.0%
(73.5%)
1,165
| 1,787
87%
2,721
87%
2,742
89.0%
(90%)
2,885
94%
3,128
89%
16,526
89%
16,423
89.0%
(86.9%)
15,710
86%
18,569
85%
15,908
90%
17,237
91.0%
(90.1%)
17,431
18,715
89%
15,813
90%
13,334
88.0%
(85.5%)
12,660
17,939
94%
24,569
94%
25,143
97.0%
(97.7%)
26,288
93%
26,137
94%
16,928
90%
15,935
90.0%
(91%)
16,384
82%
18,009
85%
5,061
85%
4,841
83.0%
(88%)
4,879
5,954
75% 80% i
1,895 ! 5,575 j
79% I 80% i
1,909 ! 5,636 i
84.0% ! 83.0% !
(88.6%) ! (81.3%) !
2,407 5,280 |
91% i 77% i
2,526 6,969 |
Targets, commitments, and results will be reported in both percent and number. This measure includes facilities covered by all permits, including State and EPA issued permits. Due to the shifting universe of
permitees, its is important to focus on the national percent. *FY 05 data not from ACS. Universe for WQ-12a is based on FY 2010 Commitments.
88%
338
86%
333
83% (321)
88%
(340/388)
85% (329)
80% (261)
386
86.5%
334
86%
333
100%
2
100%
2
100%
100%
(2/2)
(100%) 2
0
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
100%
(2/2)
(100%) 2
2
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
12
100%
12
100%
(13/13)
(100%) 13
16
12
95%
42
95%
40
100%
95%
(42/43)
(100%) 42
37
44
90%
12
90%
12
90%
(9/10)
(100%) 10
8
13
94%
16
100%
16
100%
100%
(16/16)
(100%) 16
1
16
92%
176
90%
176
91%
95%
(188/198)
(95%) 189
140
196
80% | 64% |
40 ! 32 !
79% i 64% 1
40 ! 33 |
76% 46% i
73% ! 61% |
(36/49) (34/56) |
(79%) 38 ! (30%) 17 i
41 | 16 i
51 i 50 i
Targets, commitments, and results will be reported in both percent and number. This measure includes facilities covered by all permits, including State and EPA issued permits. Due to the shifting universe of
permitees, its is important to focus on the national percent. (WQ-1 2b) FY 07 Region 8 commitment adjusted due to counting error. Universe for WQ-1 2b is based on FY201 0 Commitments.
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6
Region Region
7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
JNumber, and national percent, of MS-4s
WQ-1 Sajcovered under either an individual orgeneral
jpermit.
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of facilities covered under either an
WQ-13b|individual orgeneral industrial storm water
| permit.
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
!FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of sites covered under either an
WQ-1 3c 1 individual orgeneral construction storm water
isite permit.
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of facilities covered under either an
irndividual orgeneral CAFO permit.
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
|Number, and national percent, of Significant
jlndustrial Users (SIUs) that are discharging to
iPOTWs with Pretreatment Programs that have
WQ-1 4a:
| control mechanisms in place that implement
i applicable pretreatment standards and
jrequirements.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
I
Data did no
I
t exist prior
Indicator
6,541
7,080
Indicator
to 2007 for WQ-1 3 £
Indicator
81,660
89,530
100%
6,541
7,080
&b.
81,660
89,530
517
517
3,548
1,654
1227 | 1016 ! 503 j 1813 j 526
1101 i 964 ! 758 ! 1813 | 161
4,605 i 6,500 18,477 20,508 13,508
5,160 i 6,436 | 18,323 | 20,508 | 11,940
284 ! 250
257 ! 384
7,068 4,198
6,623 | 4,372
179 ! 226 |
584 ! 541 i
766 2,482 i
11,273 | 3,241 i
Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-1 3 a & b.
I
Indicator
200,732
204,341
n/a
n/a
200,732
204,341
7,704
4,321
17,671 i 19,317 1 75,311 j 7,738 j 17,403
9,742 ! 23,799 | 75,317 | 9,879 | 16,308
12,480 1 12,444
18,210 ! 12,051
i
24,069 1 6,595 |
27,409 ! 7,305 j
i
Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-1 3c.
I
*FY 05 CA
SG
FO data is n
Indicator
7,900
7,830
8,623
18,972
ot from ACS. Note
21,458
99%
21,298(98%)
21,264(99%)
21,830(99%)
22,226 (97.8%)
21,710
7,900
7,830
It is likely the R
21,417
99.6%
21,298
21,264
6
2
0
33
egions overe
1,314
,314
,314
,367
,589
397
602 i 277 I 1,021 I 2,129 I 890
609 i 269 ! 966 ! 2,024 ! 895
624 ! 175 ! 2,131 | 1,488 | 1,391
632 i 770 1 3 621 1 2 523 1 4 190
1,443 I 618
1,438 ! 581
1,239 ! 448
3,777 i 841
stimated the number of CAFOs covered by a general permit in 2005.
1,639 | 1,733 3,460 4,964 1,990 995 647
1,850 i ,699 | 3,619 I 4,540 I 1,976
1,756 i ,728 1 3,601 j 4,540 j 1,997
2,101 | ,685 3,619 4,721 2,081
1,882 i ,790 | 3,932 | 4,899 | 2,132
1 665 i 734 i 3460 i 4976 i 2010
989 | 647
1,006 1 658
1,003 647
829 1 592
1 009 i 658
203 I 711 i
222 ! 824 !
296 ! 831 !
1 670 1 915 i
4,088 587 |
4,088 | 576 i
4,088 1 576 i
4,088 576 |
4,019 | 562 i
4,214 ! 587 !
All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from year to year.
-------
FY201li
4r~ 1 FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2345678
Region Region
9 10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
INumber, and national percent, of Categorical
ilndustrial Users (CIUs) that are discharging to
|POTWs without Pretreatment Programs that
ihave control mechanisms in place that
|implement applicable pretreatment standards
land requirements.
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of major dischargers in Significant
WQ-1 5a INoncompliance (SNC) at any time during the
| fiscal year.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
lUNIVERSE (FY 06)
iNational Program Manager Comments
iPercent of major dischargers in Significant
INoncompliance (SNC) at any time during the
WQ-15bjfiscal year, and of those, the number, and
|national percent, discharging pollutant(s) of
|concern on impaired waters.
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNIVERSE
INumber, and national percent, of all major
ipubhcly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that
WQ-1 6 Icomply with their permitted wastewater
Idischarge standards, (i.e. POTWs that are not in
! significant non-compliance)
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
|Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan
w_ ,_ lagreement dollars to the cumulative funds
lavailable for projects] for the Clean Water State
|Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
I
Indicator
1,315
1,363
91 .2%
100%
1,315
1,363
1,015
1,602
45
44
44
45
72 | 68 | 299 I 542 I 124 I 81 I 36
68 | 67 | 316 | 580 I 120 I 84 I 36
117 | 74 1 31 1 458 17 j 31 j 45
72 i 75 ! 321 1 630 1 120 1 243 1 42
6 | 42 |
6 ! 42 |
0 1 198 |
6 1 48 i
All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from year to year.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
22.5%
<15%
<22.5%
n/a
23.9%
19.7%
6,643
n/a
39.8%
25.0%
426
n/a i n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
29.3% 1 18.4% i 25.9% i 19.1% i 23.3% i 34.4% i 10.5%
28.7% | 15.0% ! 20.7% j 17.7% j 23.7% j 17.7% j 8.0%
582 i 757 1,345 1,167 1,087 396 260
<15%
I <22.5%
n/a n/a i
19.8% i 14.1%
23.9%
13.7% ! 15.3% |
347 1 276 i
HQ reports results by Region. FY 08 commitment for WQ-15a of <22.5% is a 3 yr. average that shows overall trends.
I
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
86%
Indicator
n/a
TBD
1,735(1,041)
86%
4,256 (86%)
n/a
3,645 (86%)
3,670
4,238
1,735
155
67 1 256 i 147 I 773 I 189 i 81 i 43
12 i 12 1
| 86%
1 4,256(86%)
1 n/a
| 3,645 (86%)
I ! ! ! ! : I ! I 3,670
III 4,238
*FY 06 end-of-year data not from ACS.
OMB PA
BUD
ARRA
94%
94.5%
94.5%
98%
94%
(90% base)
94%
102%
90% | 92% 96% ° 94% 92% 95%
ARRA | (92% base) (base 95%) /j^f, ARRA ARRA ARRA
90% I 92% I 95% I 92% \ 91% \ 92% \ 94.5%
90% 1 92% ! 102% ! 98% ! 94% ! n/a ! 93%
94% (90% base) |
93% I 95% 1
109% ! 104% 1
-------
FY201li
4r~ i FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
k IUNTVERSE (in billions)
JNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of high priority state NPDES permits
ithat are issued in the fiscal year.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
INumber of high priority state and EPA
WQ-19b|(rncluding tribal) NPDES permits that are
Iissued in the fiscal year.
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
INumber of facilities that have traded at least
lonce plus all facilities covered by an overlay
Ipermit that incorporates trading provisions with
i an enforceable cap.
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE (FY 07)
^Universe i
base (in par
OMB PA
BUD
SG
SMM
NPMStat
epresents th
enthesis), ui
95%
98%
94.7%
$75.2
e funds available for
i ess noted otherwise
700
710
1,026
930(120%)
601 (104%)
709
projects for the C
568
709
1,026
930
601
107%
110%
$7.5
WSRF throi
7
12
16
16
9
12
95%
94%
94%
89%
103%
95%
96%
98%
95%
91%
93%
88%
95%
91%
$15.1 I $6.5 ! $8.7 ! $15.8 j $7.1 j $4.0 j $2.3
igh 2007, in billions of dollars (i.e., the denominator of the measure). FY 2011 targets i
30
30
42
40
22
30
130
142
125
168
21
142
72
120
253
198
91
120
90
110
204
252
265
110
47
51
122
84
125
51
119
119
164
104
32
119
50
62
56
47
22
62
103%
93%
103%
98%
$6.0 | $2.2 i
aclude two numbers: 1 ) total with ARRj
15
36
17
3
8
41
8
4
11
22 | 41 |
\and2)
In FY 201 0, the measure will be revised to provide a universe of priority permits in time for the setting of national and regional commitments in September 2009, consistent with the Agency target and commitment
schedule. Regions will commit to issue a certain number of permits from the fixed universe of priority permits in FY 201 0. The national target will be the sum of all Regional commitments. There will be no
percentage goal for this measure. The universe of priority permits will be updated annually.
HQ reports results by Region. WQ-1 9a conforms to 106 OMB PA measure. FY 2006 measure, formed prior to OMB PA, reported in 2 parts (non-tribal and tribal). FY 2006 results: 98.5% (non-tribal) & 63.2%
(tribal). FY 2007 measure reported in 3 parts (State issued, EPA non-tribal, and EPA tribal permits). *FY 2007 Regional commitments & results are not from ACS. * *FY08 measure was reported as State Issue
(WQ-19a) and EPA issued (WQ-19b) priority permits. Starting inFY 2008, the universe of priority permits candidates is expanded to capture a larger universe of environmentally significant permits.
BUD
95%
800
792
1,118
61 (109%)
59(104%)
792
650
792
1,118
313
324
13
35
36
9
16
35
39
39
54
14
9
39
132
145
130
1
0
145
73
120
253
1
0
120
90
110
204
255
265
110
48
57
132
3
1
57
120
120
165
0
8
120
50
62
58
3
6
62
18
37
48
1
0
37
67
67
38
26
19
67
In FY 201 0, the measure will be revised to provide a universe of priority permits in time for the setting of national and regional commitments in September 2009, consistent with the Agency target and commitment
schedule. Regions will commit to issue a certain number of permits from the fixed universe of priority permits in FY 201 0. The national target will be the sum of all Regional commitments. There will be no
percentage goal for this measure. The universe of priority permits will be updated annually. HQ reports results by Region. WQ-19a conforms to Surface Water Protection OMB PA measure. FY 2006 measure,
formed prior to OMB PA, reported in 2 parts (non-tribal and tribal). FY 2006 results: 98.5% (non-tribal) & 63.2% (tribal). FY 2007 measure reported in 3 parts (State issued, EPA non-tribal, and EPA tribal
permits). *FY 2007 Regional commitments & results are not from ACS. "FY08 measure was reported as State Issue (WQ-1 9a) and EPA issued (WQ-1 9b) priority permits. Starting in FY 2008, the universe of
priority permits candidates is expanded to capture a larger universe of environmentally significant permits. Starting in FY 2009, WQ-1 9b will measure the sum of all priority permits (State issued and EPA issued inc
I
Indicator
406
368
127"
98**
365
407
368
127
98
80
80
80
79
80
25
1
1
0
25
165
152
1
1
127
30
30
30
8
30
22
22
7
3
87
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
61
60
4
6
8
23
19
1
1
5
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
jNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of water segments identified as
| impaired in 2002 for which States and EPA
i agree that initial restoration planning is
! complete (i.e., EPA has approved all needed
WQ-21 iTMDLs for pollutants causing impairments to
jthe waterbody or has approved a 303(d) list that
jrecognizes that the waterbody is covered by a
! Watershed Plan [i.e., Category 4b or Category
|5m]). (cumulative)
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE (2002)
JNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of Regions that have completed the
jdevelopment of a Healthy Watersheds Initiative
WQ-22a ! (HWI) Strategy and have reached an agreement
iwith at least one state to implement its portion
jof the Region's HWI Strategy.
JFY 2010 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of states that have completed at least 2
WQ-22b|of the major components of a Healthy
! Watershed Initiative assessment.
JFY 2010 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with
WQ-23 iaccess to drinking water supply and wastewater
1 disposal
|
IFY 2010 BASELINE
JUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
Note: WQ-20 was a two part measure inFY 07; (a) was a Target measure until early FY 07, and has subsequently been dropped. Universe is the number of dischargers covered under anNPDES permit that allows
trading. InFY 07, measure was: "Number of permits providing for trading... .and the number of dischargers that carried out trades." ***FY 07 end-of-year results are based on the number of dischargers that
carried out trades and are not from ACS.
*The trading measure counts all point source permitted facilities that have traded at least once using either individual or general permits that allow trading. Facilities covered under an overlay permit (sometimes
called an 'aggregate,' 'watershed,' 'bubble,' or 'umbrella' permit) that set an enforceable cap on specific pollutant discharges are all automatically counted as having traded.
I
For FY 200
to Region 6
I
9, geo-refer
universe.
Indicator
13,515
12,856
6,792
n/a
39,503*
encing data will be r
Indicator
0
n/a
13,515
12,856
6,792
39,503
quested for repor
4,866
4,978
529
6,710
;ed segment
0
1
266
266
332
2,596
2,240
1,313
1,804
1,799
1,322
947
868
506
n/a
n/a
263
1,759
1,698
1,637
206
206
200
1,805
8,998
5,274
4,550
1,407
2,036
1,274
. Universe consists of waters identified as impaired in state submission in 2002. *Adju
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
96 | 975 |
96 ! 705 !
47 ! 643 !
1,041 | 6,408 |
stments made to Region 3 FY 06 end-ye
0 ! 0 ! 0
1 | 1 | 1
ar result and
New measure for FY 201 1 .
I
Indicator
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
o
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0 | 0 | n/a
n/a n/a i n/a
New measure for FY 201 1 .
OMB PA
BUD
New measu
91%
re for FY 2(
91%
91%
N/A
)11. Since this is a n
H
ew measure, the 1
aseline is th
e current yea
\r. The universe is not applicable since this units a]
re percent of serviceable
lomes.
100%
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jNumber of American Indian and Alaska Native
Ejhomes provided access to basic sanitation in
i coordination with other federal agencies.
JFY 2009 BASELINE
luNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
active 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
jPrevent water pollution and protect coastal and
jocean systems to improve national and regional
2.2.2 | coastal aquatic system health on the
! 'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal
! Condition Report.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2004 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
iMaintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
SP-1 6 |'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal
jCondition Report in the Northeast Region.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2004 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
iMaintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
SP-1 7 I 'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal
iCondition Report in the Southeast Region.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2004 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
IMaintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
SP-1 8 ! 'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal
iCondition Report in the West Coast Region.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2004 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
ARRA
SP
52,300
mr
New measure for FY 201 1 , to supplement SP-1 5 in the NWPG and replace SP-1 5 in the new Strategic Plan.
OMB PA
Long-
Term
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.3
5
1 2.8
I 2.8
I 2.4
1 £
! 5
67,900
2.8
Rating consists of a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
2.4
2.4
2
1.8
1.8
5
1 2.4
| %
\ 1.8
! 1.8
1 5
2.4
FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. (For Gulf of Mexico, see Subobjective 4.3.5)
FY 07 end-
of-year data
3.6
3.6
4
3.8
3.8
5
not from ACS. (For
2.4
2.4
2
2
2
5
Gulf of Mexico, s
ee Subobjec
tive 4.3.5)
1 3-6
1 3.6
! 3.8
! 3.8
! 3.8
1 5
1 2-4
i 2
i 2
1 2
1 5
3.6
2.4
-------
FY201li
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, 1 Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jNational Program Manager Comments
IMarntain aquatic ecosystem health on the
SP-1 9 i 'good/fair/poor' scale of the National Coastal
i Condition Report in Puerto Rico.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2004 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of active dredged material ocean
jdumping sites that will have achieved
jenvrronmentally acceptable conditions (as
jreflected in each site's management plan and
imeasured through on-site monitoring
jprograms).
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
12010 UNIVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jTotal coastal and non-coastal statutory square
CO-2 Imiles protected from vessel sewage by "no
jdischarge zone(s)." (cumulative)
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2009 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of National Estuary Program priority
jactions in Comprehensive Conservation and
jManagement Plans (CCMPs) that have been
i completed, (cumulative)
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
FY 07 end-
of-year data
not from ACS. (For
1.7
1.7
2
0
1.7
5
Gulf of Mexico, see Subobjective 4.3.5)
1 !-7
! 1.7
1 1.7
! 1.7
| 5
1.7
FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. (For Gulf of Mexico, see Subobjective 4.3.5)
BUD
95%
95%
98%
99%
99%
94% (60)
65
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5
5
100% | 100% 90% n/a 100% n/a n/a
100% i 100% 1 90% 1 n/a 1 100% n/a 1 n/a
100% 1 100% ! 95% ! n/a ! 100% n/a ! n/a
100% 1 100% ! 90% ! n/a ! 100% n/a ! n/a
3 | 2 | 17 | n/a | 15 | n/a | n/a
3 | 2 | 19 | n/a | 15 | n/a | n/a
100% 100% |
100% 1 100% i
100% ! 100% 1
100% I 100% 1
11 1 7 I
11 1 10 I
95%
FY 07 end-of-year data is shown numerically in ACS. Indicator measure in FY 07.
I
This is the
the total are
Measure re
I
Trst reportin
a of water e
/ised for FY
Indicator
33,966,989
6,100
33,966,990
6,100
52,607 j 52,607
163,129 163,129
g year in which both
igible to be designa
09.
Indicator
145
330
557
225
2,038
1,897,585
1,241
2,511
6,453
821,490 | 41,711 | 1,775,702 j 29,248,806 j 1,280 j 0 j 162,560
276 1 80 ! 1,830 ! 2,606 ! 2 ! n/a ! n/a
1,271 1 65 ! 2,775 j 45,701 j 2 0 j 254
5,995 1 7,882 ! 24,128 ! 55,419 ! 9,905 ! 568 ! 1,749
17,856 | 0 |
65 0 |
28 ! 0 1
9,883 ! 41,145 1
inland and coastal no discharge zones (NDZs) will be tracked. In addition, NDZs will be measured in area, not coastline miles. As a result, the "universe" will consist of
ed as a NDZ under the current regulations.
145
330
557
225
2,038
0
164
159
135
289
0 | 0 | 92 | n/a ! 31 | n/a | n/a
15 1 12 ! 110 ! n/a ! 29 ! n/a ! n/a
60 | 1 37 | n/a | 31 n/a | n/a
11 I 0 ! 9 ! n/a ! 13 ! n/a ! n/a
468 | 214 | 365 | n/a | 183 | n/a | n/a
22 ! 0 |
0 I 0 1
0 269 1
46 ! 11 I
250 | 269 |
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region Region Region Region Region
4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
jDollar value of "primary" leveraged resources
|(cash or in-kind) obtained by the NEP Directors
i and/or staff in millions of dollars rounded to the
jnearest tenth of a percent.
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of dredged material management plans
jthat are in place for major ports and harbors.
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of active dredged material ocean
CO-6 idumping sites that are monitored in the
| reporting year.
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
jMaintam aquatic ecosystem health on the
CO-7 1 "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
i Condition Report in the Hawaii Region.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
tiFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
I
Indicator
$514.6
$160.9
$208.1
$158.8
n/a
$514.6
$160.9
$208.1
$158.8
$337.6
$12.4
$53.6
$12.3
$14.8
$14.8
$2.8
$46.9
$10.1
$6.0
$4.5
$7.7
$65.6 n/a $12.5 n/a n/a
$101.7 n/a $8.3 n/a n/a
$114.7 ! n/a j $11.2 n/a j n/a
$19.1 n/a $4.5 n/a n/a
$21.0 $53.0 |
$11.2 ! $6.5 !
$10.3 ! $11.0 !
$51.0 ! $17.3 |
(Dollars in millions and rounded to nearest tenth of a percent).
Note that "primary" leveraged dollars are those the National Estuary Program (NEP) played the central role in obtaining. An example of primary leveraged dollars would be those obtained from a successful grant
proposal written by the NEP.
FY 06 end-of-year data is not from ACS.
I
Indicator
38
37
30
15
104
38
37
30
15
104
5
5
8
2
10
3
1
1
1
3
8
7
5
2
8
2 n/a 14 n/a n/a
2 n/a ! 14 n/a ! n/a
2 ! ! 6 ! n/a ! n/a
0 ! ! 3 ! n/a ! n/a
18 ! 28 ! 14 ! n/a ! n/a
3 ! 3 !
216!
216!
215!
12 ! 11 !
*This number represents major coastal/Great Lakes ports/harbors (commercially significant/deep draft and regionally significant). Deve opment of a dredged material management plan
for all ports and harbors in the universe.
I
Indicator
38
28
33
n/a
61
4.5
4.5
4.5
0
0
38
28
33
15
61
2
1
5
2
5
1
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
6 n/a 11 n/a n/a
6 1 n/a 1 4 1 n/a 1 n/a
5 ! n/a ! 5 n/a n/a
0 | n/a | 3 | n/a | n/a
19 n/a 14 n/a n/a
s not necessary or feasible
6 | 10
4 1 9 1
3 | 9 !
25
11 | 7
New measure starting in FY 201 0
4.5
^
-------
FY201li
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, 1 Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
iMaintain aquatic ecosystem health on the
i"good/farr/poor" scale of the National Coastal
| Condition Report in the South Central Alaska
I Reg ton.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 BASELINE
JUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
! Working with partners, protect or restore
i additional acres of habitat within the study
| areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the
jNational Estuary Program (NEP).
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
New measu
OMB PA
BUD
SMM
re starting 11
100,000
5.0
5.0
5.0
0
1FY2010
100,000
100,000
125,437
82,828
449,241
n/a
43,504
44,089
4,544
5,240
6,184
3,267
| 14,562
1
1,105 | 3,500 30,000 n/a 3,000 n/a n/a
1,115 | 3,100 | 30,000 | n/a I 3,000 n/a I n/a
1,690 | 4,642 1 101,792 j n/a j 3,943 n/a n/a
1,860 | 7,858.5 43,763.8 n/a 3,643 n/a n/a
15,009 | 33,793 | 232,605 | n/a | 54,378 n/a | n/a
200 1,155 |
227 | 1,407 |
4,861 1 2,325 I
21,873 562.7 i
82,363 | 16,531 |
5.0
500,000
Note: This measure is under Goal 4 in the 2006-201 1 Strategic Plan. FY 05 cumulative end-of-year regional data used for baseline is not from ACS. The FY1 0 Planning Target is higher than the Regional
aggregrates because the planning target aligns with our target included in the FY1 1 budget.
Subobjective 4.3.1 Increase Wetlands
| Working with partners, achieve a net increase
, 1 of acres of wetlands per year with additional
1 focus on biological and functional measures
land assessment of wetland condition.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
|In partnership with the U. S. Army Corps of
QTJ jEngrneers, states and tribes, achieve 'no net
jloss' of wetlands each year under the Clean
|Water Act Section 404 regulatory program.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
Target deferred for
FY 201 1
Commitment
deferred for FY
2010
n/a
32,000
32,000
i Target
1 deferred for
| FY 201 1
I Commitment
| deferred for
i FY2010
i n/a
i 32,000
1 32,000
100,000 per
year
FY 05 end-of-year data not from ACS. FY 06 result (estimated 64,000 acres) fell short based on simple extrapolation of most recent annual rate ('98-'04). The next Status and Trends Report (2011) should show a
continuation of upward trends. Data source: U. S. DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 201 0. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2005-2009, Washington, DC.
Qualifying language: The 2005-2009 reporting period of this measure reflects that the data: a) are published in 5-year increments, which creates a fixed numerical target until the next report publication; and b) are
already at least two years old upon publication. Thus, at any given time, reporting against this measure is never current.
BUD
No net
loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
data n/a
1 No Net Loss
1 No Net Loss
1 No Net Loss
1 data n/a
No Net Loss
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , 1 Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region Region Region Region Region Region
3 4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of acres restored and improved, under
WT-1 |the 5-Star, NEP, 31 9, and great waterbody
iprograms (cumulative).
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2006 BASELINE
JUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of states/tribes that have substantially
jbuilt or increased capacity in wetland
WT _ iregulation, monitoring and assessment, water
jquality standards, and/or restoration and
iprotection. (This is an annual reporting
Imeasure.)
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
|Number of core elements (regulation,
imomtoring and assessment, water quality
WT-2b jstandards, or restoration and protection)
jdeveloped and implemented by (number) of
! States/Tribes.
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of Clean Water Act Section 404
| standard permits, upon which EPA coordinated
jwith the permitting authority (i.e., Corps or
WT-3 | State), where a final permit decision in FY 08
i documents requirements for greater
jenvironmental protection* than originally
! proposed.
Data source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland Status and Trends Report.
BUD
These acres
Commitme
I
118,000
may incluc
tit represent
118,000
96,000
(revised to 11 0,00
in FY 11 Budget)
103,507
82,875
58,777
n/a
| 118,000
| 96,000
! (revised to
| 110,00 in FY
ill Budget)
! 103,507
I 82,875
n/a
e those supported by Wetland 5 Star Restoration Grants, National Estuary Program, Section 31 9 grants, Brownfields grants, or EPA's Great Waterbodies Program.
a cumulative total. Unexpected accomplishments in FY 06, particularly in the National Estuary Program, contributed significantly to the total number of wetland acres restored and enhanced.
Indicator
22
22
25
20
50
22
22
25
20
50
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
o
5 ! 3 ! 4 ! o ! l ! o
5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3
3 ! 7 ! 0 ! 0 ! 1 ! 3
2i5i8i6i5i4i6
112!
1 I 2 |
1 | 2 |
0 ! 0 i
4 ! 4 !
Substantial progress to be shown in three of the six areas identified during the last 3 years (i.e. monitoring, regulation, restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance, and partnership building). *This is
not a true baseline since this measure is evaluated annually and is more akin to a rate than a cumulative measure.
I
Substantial
not a true b
I
progress to
aseline sinct
Indicator
39
24
11
n/a
579
je shown in three of
this measure is eva!
Indicator
39
24
11
579
iie six areas iden
uated annually an
8
8
0
9
ified during
d is more ak
0
0
0
n/a ! 0 ! 22 ! 0 ! 1 0
o ! o ! 5 ! o ! l ! 3
n/a ! 0 ! 3 ! 0 ! 1 ! 0
7
0 I 6 I 36 I 68 I 9 I 27
the last 3 years (i.e. monitoring, regulation, restoration, water quality standards, mitiga
in to a rate than a cumulative measure.
3 ! 5 !
215!
2 ! 5 !
146 I 271 I
ion compliance, and partnership buildir
ig). *This is
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
|Number of states measuring baseline wetland
jcondition - with plans to assess trends in
WT-4 jwetland condition - as defined through
i condition indicators and assessments
| (cumulative).
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
n/a
New starting in FY 08. Reported on by Regions and HQ. ** FY 07 end-of-year data not available till June 2008.
""'Requirements for greater environmental protection" are counted under this measure when EPA can document that its recommendations for improvement provided in one or more of the following issue areas were
incorporated into the final permit decision:
1 . Demonstration of adequate impact avoidance, including:
a) Determination of water dependency; b) Characterization of basic project purpose; c) Determination of range of practicable alternatives; d) Evaluation of direct, secondary and cumulative impacts for practicable
alternatives; e) Identification of Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative; f) Compliance with WQS, MPRSA, ESA and/or toxic effluent standards; g) Evaluation of potential for significant
degradation.
2. Demonstration of adequate impact minimization
3. Determination of adequate compensation . .,.,, , . , . . , ,.,..,, . , . , .
Note: The documented permit decision can be in the form of an issued, withdrawn, or denied permit. The universe is the number of individual permits where EPA has the opportunity to comment (approximately
20,000/year). Regional priorities dictate the specific permits for which EPA submits comments. This number is typically less than 20,000.
21
21
20
14
25
21
5
4
3
2
0412134
0!4ili2ili3i4
Oi4ili2ili2i4
Ol5!l!2!l!l!l
14
111!
1 i 2 i
Oil!
By 201 3, a state will document within an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Report (IMR) the baseline condition of at least one wetland type for the entire state or all wetlands in one major river basin. States
may use either Level 1 , 2, or 3 methods or the combined 3-Level approach. The state a so has plans to re-survey for the purposes of eva uating trends. To maximize financial resources, states are encouraged to use a
probability survey design for measuring baseline condition.
Regions should coordinate with EPA HQ and reference the full definition for this measure to make a determination on whether a state is "on track" to meet this measure by 2013.
Measure revised for FY 09.
Subobjective 4.2.4 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
jLoading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
SP-23 iremoved (cumulative million pounds/year) from
|the U.S.-Mexico Border area since 2003.
IFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2003 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
|National Program Manager Comments
jNumber of additional homes provided safe
|drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico border area
jthat lacked access to safe drinking water in
|2003.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
OMB PA
24%
39
36
0
39
36
35.6
! ! ! 35
3.4
1 ! !
152.8
million
pounds
Measure revised in FY 2010. 2003 Baseline: zero pounds/year of BOD removed from U.S. -Mexico Border area waters as a result of new infrastructure projects.
OMB PA
BUD
33,434
cumulative
300
2,599
300
2,599
| 300
! ! ! 700
0
1,899 ! !
45,434
cumulative
-------
FY2011J
ACS |
Code I
FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
Measure Text
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
5,162
5,162
JFY 2003 BASELINE
JFY 2003 UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
98,515
Measure is regionally reported starting in FY 09. Indicator measure in FY 07.
2003 Baseline: zero additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico Border area.
2003 Universe: 98,515 known homes in the Mexico Border area lacking access to safe drinking water.
jNumber of additional homes provided adequate
iwastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico
jborder area that lacked access to wastewater
isanttation in 2003.
424,370
cumulative
10 COMMITMENT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2003 BASELINE
FY 2003 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 4.2.5 Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
iPercent of population in the U. S. Pacific Island
jTerritories served by community water systems
!that has access to continuous drinking water
FY 2010 COMMITMENT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
95% of American
Samoa; 10% of the
Commonwealth of
the Northern
Mariana Islands;
f Guam
FY 2005 BASELINE
New measure starting in FY 08.
National Program Manager Comments
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region
2 3
Region
4
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
iPercentage of trine that sewage treatment plants
Jin the U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply
SP-27 jwith permit limits for biochemical oxygen
! demand (BOD) and total suspended solids
(TSS).
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of days of the beach season that
jbeaches in each of the U. S. Pacific Island
ITemtories monitored under the Beach Safety
jProgram will be open and safe for swimming.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
Subobjective 4.3.3 Improve the Health of the Great La
jlmprove the overall ecosystem health of the
4.3.3 iGreat Lakes by preventing water pollution and
jprotecting aquatic ecosystems.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
! Cumulative percentage decline for the long
SP-29 jterm trend in average concentrations of PCBs in
|Great Lakes fish.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
BUD
63%
63%
62%
65%
67%
59%
63% |
62% ! !
65% | |
67% 1 i
59% i 1
90%
New measure starting in FY 08.
BUD
82%
82%
80%
81%
80%
84%
82% |
80% 1 1
81% ! i
80% ! i
84% I !
96%
New measure starting in FY 08.
kes
OMB PA
Subobjecti\
health, fish
OMB PA
BUD
23.4
e 4.3.3 prov
tissue conta
14%
23.4
23.0
23.9
23.7
21.5
40 0 1
ides a general indication of progress of numerous
mmation, beach closures, drinking water quality, a
14%
(old measure)
6%
23.4
1 i i 23 i I
! ! ! 23.9 ! !
! ! ! 23.7 ! !
! ! ! 21.5 ! !
! ! ! 40.0 ! !
tate and federal programs, with a specific focus on coastal wetlands, phosphorus conce
ad air toxics deposition.
14%
5%
6%
6%
ntrations, AOC sediment contamination
: 1
23.5
benthic
(old
measure)
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2345678
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
SP-31 jwhere all management actions necessary for
jdelisting have been implemented (cumulative)
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jCubic yards (in millions) of contaminated
SP-32 jsediment remediated in the Great Lakes
i(cumulative from 1997).
!FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of Beneficial Use Impairments
jremoved within Areas of Concern, (cumulative)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of normative species newly detected in
jthe Great Lakes ecosystem.
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
iNumber of multi-agency rapid response plans
~T _ Established, mock exercises to practice
jresponses carried out under those plans, and/or
jactual response actions (cumulative).
SP-29 indicates that PCBs in top predator fish (generally lake trout, but walleye in Lake Erie) at monitored sites is expected to continue an average annual decrease of 5%. A 2-year lag between measurement and
reporting means that the FY 09 target pertains to measurements made in 2007. *1 990 baseline: Concentrations evels at stations in Lakes Superior [0.45 ppm], Michigan [2.72 ppm], Huron [1.5 ppm], Erie
[1.35ppm , & Ontario 2.18 ppm].
OMB PA
I
Indicator
1
1
1
1
31
_
i 1 |l| 1
i 1 ill 1
1 ! ! i ! !
1 ! ! i ! !
1 ! 31 !
Measure changed to indicator starting in FY 201 1 . SP-31 identifies a cumulative target of taking all necessary management actions to dehst 3 of the original 31 US or brnational Areas of Concern. Only 1 AOC (in
New York) has been de-listed to date.
OMB PA
BUD
7.2 million
7.2 million
0.4 million
6 million
5.5 million
3.7milhon
46 million
| 7. 2 million
1 ! ! 6 million ! !
I ! 5. 5 million |
I ! ! 3.7milhon | |
i i i 46 million i i
9. 6 million
=
Universe identifies quantity of contaminated sediment estimated to require remediation as of 1997. This total has been revised from a previous estimate of 75 million cubic yards based on state-submitted
information and subsequent decisions, information verification, and actual remediations. Information lags behind (i.e. the 2007 commitment is for ca endar year 2006 sediment remediation).
OMB PA
BUD
New measu
BUD
New measu
BUD
26
re added foi
1
IK starting ii
26
26
(20 in FY 2011
Pres Bud)
12
11
261
1 26
26
1 ! 12 !
FY 2009 from 2007 OMB PA review.
1
1.3
181
iFY 2011, added frc
m the Great Lake
s Restoratio
1 ^a ^a i
i Initiative Action Plan.
| n/a n/a 7
46
-------
FY201ll
i FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
_,,. iPercentage of beaches meeting bacteria
istandards 95% or more of beach days.
iFY 2006 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
| Acres managed for populations of invasive
ispecies controlled to a target level (cumulative).
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of populations of native aquatic non-
GL-10 ithreatened and endangered species self-
isustaining in the wild (cumulative).
iFY 2009 BASELINE
lUNIVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jNumber of acres of wetlands and wetland-
GL-1 1 iassociated uplands protected, restored and
jenhanced (cumulative).
JFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
JNumber of acres of coastal, upland, and island
GL-12 ihabitats protected, restored and enhanced
I (cumulative).
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
GL-13 iNumber of species delisted due to recovery.
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
0
n/a
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
New measu
BUD
87%
IK starting ii
1,500
87%
86%
100%
iFY 2011, added frc
1,500
n/a
^^H
m the Great Lake
s Restoratio
1 90% n/a 88%
i Initiative Action Plan.
| n/a n/a 1,500
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
35%
52/147
pop
35%
52
27%
147
I n/a n/a 35%
1 i i 52 i i
57%
84
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate species that are self-sustaining in the
wild. Denominator: total # of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations. Baseline: 39/1 47 populations.
BUD
7,500
7,500
0
550,000
-
| n/a n/a 7,500
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
20,000
20,000
0
1,000,000
in/an/a 20,000
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD
1
1
o
28
i n/a n/a 1
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2345678
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jNumber of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
GL-14 jwhere all management actions necessary for
jdelisting have been implemented (cumulative).
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
BUD
3
3
1 ^^H
31
j n/a n/a 3
6
New measure starting in FY 201 1 , added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
Subobjective 4.3.4 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
jPercent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal
SP-33 jof 1 85,000 acres achieved, based on annual
imomtonng from prior year.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 1 00%
istandards attainment achieved, based on annual
jmonitoring from the previous calendar year and
jthe preceding 2 years.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of goal achieved for implementation of
imtrogen reduction practices (expressed as
jprogress in meeting the nitrogen reduction goal
SP-35 jof 1 62.5 million pounds from 1 985 levels to
! achieve an annual cap load of 175 million Ibs
|(based on long-term average hydrology
jsimulations).
OMB PA
45
45
Long Term
Measure
42%
(76,861 acres)
35%
(64,91 2 acres)
39% (72,945)
185,000 acres
45
I n/a
! 42% ! ! !
1 (76,861
| acres)
(64,912
I acres)
45% (83,250
acres)
Starting in 2008, the Agency no longer sets annual commitments for SAV (SP-33) due to the extreme variability in the annual results. Instead, EPA set a long term target of 45% goal achievement in 201 1 .
OMB PA
The DO me
made due t
OMB PA
BUD
40
asure (SP-3
3 the extrem
56%
20
Long Term
Measure
16% (12.27 km')
12%
(8.98 km')
30% (22.73 km)
100%(74.8km3)
4) was first used in t
e variability in the ar
56%
ie Agency's Strat
mual results. Insl
egic Plan in
ead, EPA se
20
1 n/a
| 16% I I I
1 d2.27 III
i km') I | | |
(8.98km3)
2008 (however, the Chesapeake Bay Program has been reporting results for this measur
a long term target of 40% goal achievement in 201 1 .
I 56%
e for many years). Annual commitmen
40% (29.92
cubic km)
5 are not
60% (97.43
Mlbs)
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
(UNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of goal achieved for implementation of
iphosphorus reduction practices (expressed as
jprogress in meeting the phosphorus reduction
SP-36 igoal of 14.36 million pounds from 1985 levels
ito achieve an annual cap load of 12.8 million
jibs (based on long-term average hydrology
| simulations).
1
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
iPercent of goal achieved for implementation of
jsediment reduction practices (expressed as
iprogress in meeting the sediment reduction goal
jof 1 .69 million tons from 1 985 levels to achieve
| an annual cap load of 4. 1 5 million tons (based
ion long-term average hydrology simulations).
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
All targets,
is finalized
OMB PA
BUD
commitmen
in Dec 201 C
70%
(84. 44 M Ibs)
49% (79.01 M Ibs)
47% (75. 6 M Ibs)
41 % (67 M Ibs)
100% (162.5 M
Ibs)
ts and results are cal
, CBP will begin rep
n
70%
66%
(9.48 M Ibs)
65% (9.38 M Ibs)
62% (8.9 M Ibs)
58% (8.4 M Ibs)
100%(14.36M
Ibs)
:ulated using out]
orting targets, coi
in
uts of the pi
nmitments a
1 (84.44 M 1 1 II
1 Ibs)
49% ! ! !
1 (79.01 Ml 1 1 1
1 Ibs) | | ||
1 47% (75.6 i i i i
i Mlbs) 1 1 ||
141% (67 Ml III
i Ibs) | | | |
! 100% III
1 (162.5 M | | ||
1 Ibs) II
lase 4.3 watershed model progress run simulations in relation to the existing long-term
nd results using the phase 5.3 watershed model in relation to a new reduction goal.
! 70%
| 66% | | ||
1 (9.48 M | | ||
1 lta) | | | |
1 65% (9.38 | | | |
i Mlbs) | | ||
1 62% (8.9 i i i i
i Mlbs) | | ||
! 58% (8.4 III
1 Mlbs) | | | |
I 100% III
1 (14.36M
| Ibs) | | |
reduction goal (162.5 Mlbs). When the
Bay TMDL
74% (10.62
Mlbs)
All targets, commitments and results are calculated using outputs of the phase 4.3 watershed model progress run simulations in relation to the existing long-term reduction goal (14.36 M Ibs). When the Bay TMDL
is finalized in Dec 201 0, CBP will begin reporting targets, commitments and results using the phase 5.3 watershed model in relation to a new reduction goal.
OMB PA
BUD
71%
68%
67%
(1.1 3 M tons)
| 68%
1 (1-13M
1 tons)
83%(1.4M
tons)
-------
FY201ll
4r~ i FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2345678
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
JUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of point source nitrogen reduction goal
I of 49.9 million pounds achieved.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
JPercent of point source phosphorus reduction
igoal of 6. 1 6 million pounds achieved.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
IPercent of forest buffer planting goal of 1 0,000
CB-2 i .. . . .
imiles achieved.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
67%
(1.1 3 Mtons)
64% (1 .07 M tons)
54% (0.9 Mtons)
100%(1.69M
tons)
I 64% (1.08 III
! M tons)
i 64% (1.07 I III
| Mtons)
| 54% (0.9
1 Mtons)
1 100% i i i i
1 0-69M 1 1 II
| tons)
All targets, commitments and results are calculated using outputs of the phase 4.3 watershed model progress run simulations in relation to the existing long-term reduction goal (4.15 Mtons). When the Bay TMDL
is finalized in Dec 201 0, CBP will begin reporting targets, commitments and results using the phase 5.3 watershed model in relation to a new reduction goal.
OMB PA
BUD
76%
76%
74%
(36.92 Mlbs)
70% (34.9 Mlbs)
69%
60.95%
100%(49.9M
lbs/yr)
i 76%
! 74% i 1 1 1
1 (36.92M 1 1 ||
1 Ibs)
70% (34.9 II
| Mlbs) | | ||
| 69% | | | |
| 61% | | | |
I 100% III
1 (49.9 M
| lbs/yr)
All targets, commitments and results are calculated in relation to the existing long-term reduction goal (49. 9 M Ibs). When the Bay TMDL is finalized in Dec 2010, CBP will begin reporting targets, commitments
and results in relation to a new reduction goal.
OMB PA
BUD
96%
96%
96% (5.92 Mlbs)
96% (5.92 Mlbs)
87%
80%
100%(6.16M
lbs/yr)
96%
1 96% (5.92 i i i i
1 Mlbs) | | ||
1 96% (5.92 1 1 ||
| Mlbs) | | ||
: 8707 ill
1 80% | | ||
i 100%
(616M
I lbs/yr)
All targets, commitments and results are calculated in relation to the existing long-term reduction goal (6. 1 6 M Ibs). When the Bay TMDL is finalized in Dec 201 0, CBP will begin reporting targets, commitments
and results in relation to a new reduction goal.
OMB PA
BUD
68%
68%
65%
(6,522 miles)
62% (6,1 72 miles)
i 68% 1 1 1 1 1
1 65% i i i i
1 (6.522 1 1 II
| miles)
1 62% | | | |
(6,172
i miles)
-------
FY201li
4r~ 1 FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region
2345
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
[FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
[FY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
[National Program Manager Comments
57%
38%
100% (10, 000
miles)
I 57% i i i
I 38% ! ! !
1 100%
1 (10,000
1 miles)
Based on preliminary results, it appears that we will meet the FY 2009 commitment for CB-2.
Subobjective 4.3.5 Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
[Improve the overall health of coastal waters of
4.3.5 [the Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor"
[scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
[FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
[FY 2004 BASELINE
[UNIVERSE
[National Program Manager Comments
[Restore water and habitat quality to meet water
SP-38 [quality standards in impaired segments in 13
[priority areas, (cumulative starting in FY 07)
[FY 2010 COMMITMENT
[FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
[FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2002 BASELINE
[UNIVERSE
[National Program Manager Comments
[Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative
SP-39 [number of acres of important coastal and
[marine habitats, (cumulative starting inFY 07)
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
[National Program Manager Comments
[Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the
[Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of
SP-40 [the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as
imeasured by the 5-year running average of the
[size of the zone.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
[UNIVERSE
BUD
2.6
2.6
2.5
2 2
2.2
2.4
5
The rating is based on five indicators of ecological condition: water quality index, sediment quality index, benthic index, co
BUD
SP-38 repla
BUD
128
ces FY 07 n
30,000
128
96
131
data n/a
0
812
ieasureGM-1. FY C
30,000
27,500
29,344
25,215
1 6,000
3,769,370 acres
7 end-of-year dat
mm
a not from A
astal habitat
2.6
index, and fish tissue contaminants index.
CS. Universe changed from 354 to 81 2.
160
32,600
Coastal habitat includes marshes, wetlands, tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrasses, mangroves, dunes and maritime forest ridge areas.
Commitment
deferred
Commitment
deferred
n/a
n/a
14,128km2
n/a
5,000
-------
FY201ll
! FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
INational Program Manager Comments
jlmplement integrated bi-national (U.S. and
iMexican Border States) early-warning system
jto support State and coastal community efforts
ito manage harmful algal blooms (HABs).
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2005 BASELINE
lUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
Targets/commitments are deferred for measure SP-40.
Complete
operational system
in Campeche, MX
Expand operational
system to
Campeche, MX
Expanded system
Pilot underway
Results are measured by the number of states that have timely access to data and information for detecting, tracking, and forecasting HAB events and their effects on public health, coastal economies, and natural
resources across the Gulf of Mexico.
Subobjective 4.3.6 Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
jPercent of goal achieved in reducing trade-
jequalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges
jto Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of
|59,146TE Ibs/day.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 1999 BASELINE
iUNIVERSE
t JNational Program Manager Comments
jReduce the size (square miles) and duration
i(number of days) of observed hypoxia
j(Dissolved Oxygen <3mg/l) in Long Island
! Sound.
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
BUD
52%
52%
52%
n/a
40,440 TE Ibs/day
21 1,724 Ibs/day
52% |
52% I I I I I I
n/a ! | | | |
40,440 TEj | | ||
Ibs/day i
211,724 | | | | | i
Ibs/day !
100%
New measure starting inFY 08. ""Measure will be tracked in Ibs/day and Trade Equalized (TE) Ibs/day. TE Ibs/day are pounds of nitrogen adjusted by application of the equivalency factor assigned to each point
source based on its proximity to the receiving water body (LIS). The TMDL established a Waste Load Allocation of 22,774 TE Ibs/day from point sources, to be achieved over a 15 year period beginning in 1999.
The annual commitments are calculated by dividing the difference between the 1999 baseline and 2014 target by 15 (the TMDL period), or 2,425 Ibs/day per year. """The Baseline and 2014 Target have been
updated from the 2006-201 1 Strategic Plan. FY 06 and FY 07 data not from ACS and has been updated.
Commitment
deferred for FY
2011
Commitment
deferred for FY
2010
169sq. miles; 45
days
180sq. miles; 79
days
Commitmej
nt deferred!
forFY
2011
Commitme!
nt deferred!
forFY I 1 1 1 1 !
2010
169 sq. ! ! ! ! !
miles; 45 |
days i
180 sq. | | | | |
miles; 79 |
days | | | | |
1 56 square
miles and 43
days
-------
FY201ll
j FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , I Measure Text
Code |
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region Region Region Region Region
4 S 6 7 8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
|FY 2005 BASELINE
b IUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
|
jPercent of goal achieved in restoring, protecting
SP-43 j or enhancing 240 acres of coastal habitat from
Jthe 2008 baseline of 1 ,1 99 acres.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 BASELINE
JUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
jPercent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river
SP-44 land stream miles to diadromous fish passage
jfrom the 2008 baseline of 1 24 miles.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
!FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
New measu
measured IT
BUB
re starting ii
laximum art
50%
187 sq miles; 58. 6
days
1 ,400 sq miles
(total) 122 days
(actually
monitored)
rFYOS. Due to into
a of hypoxia in the 5
50%
33%
(79 acres)
1,614
1,199
1,1 99 acres
restored &
protected
^1
r-annual variabili
ound is 203 squai
H
iy, annual re
re miles and
187 sq ! ! ! ! !
miles; 58.6 i
days !
1,400 sq
miles j
(total) 122|
days !
(actually J
monitored j j j j j j
duction targets are not ca culated for this measure. *FY 07 end-of-year data not from A
the duration average is 58 days.
50%
33% I | | | |
(79 acres) j
1,614 ! ! ! ! ||
1,199 i i i i i
1 ,1 99 acres j
restored & !
protected !
CS. Note on Universe: The 20 year aver
age
100%
(240 acres)
New measures starting mFY 08. For SP-43: In September 2006, the LISS Policy Committee established the goal of restoring and protecting an additional 300 acres of coastal habitat above the baseline by 2011
50 acres per year for 6 years. *FY 06 and FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. """The 201 1 targets were achieved in 2007. EPA will negotiate new 201 1 targets with the LISS Management Conference partners.
BUB
50%
50%
(17 miles)
147
124.3
124 miles
50% !
33% ! ! ! ! ! i 1 i 1
(17 miles) 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1
147 | | | | |
124.3 | | | | ||
124miles i
100%
(50 miles)
New measures starting mFY 08. For SP-44: The states of NY and CT will re-open 50 river miles above the base for a total of 131 river miles re-opened to fish passage. FY 07 end-of-year data not from ACS. The
201 1 targets were achieved in 2007 . EPA will negotiate new 201 1 targets with the LISS Management Conference partners.
Subobjective 4.3.7 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
j Achieve 'no net loss' of stony coral cover (mean
jpercent stony coral cover) in the Florida Keys
iNational Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in
SP-45 jthe coastal waters of Bade, Broward, and Palm
jBeach Counties, Florida, working with all
jstakeholders (federal, state, regional, tribal, and
| local).
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
I
Indicator
Loss
1 1 Loss III
No Net Loss
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region
234
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
| Annually maintain the overall health and
! functionality of sea grass beds in the FKNMS
|as measured by the long-term sea grass
imomtoring project that addresses composition
jand abundance, productivity, and nutrient
! availability.
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jAt least seventy five percent of the monitored
! stations in the near shore and coastal waters of
jthe Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
SP-47a jwill maintain Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at
jless than or equal to 0.35 ug 1-1 and light
!clarity( Kd)) levels at less than or equal to 0.20
m-1.
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 1995-2005 BASELINE
JNational Program Manager Comments
Small change
6.8% in FKNMS;
5.9% in SE Florida
| ! Small !!!
! change
| | 6.8% in III
1 i FKNMS; ill
5.9%mSE
i Florida
New measures starting in FY 08. Measure change to Indicator in FY 201 1 . Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7% was revised to 6.8%. The Corai Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project (CREMP) for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary was modified in 2006 by dropping one hardbottom monitoring site because of the very small percentage of stony coral cover present (less than .2%), resulting in an increase of .1 percent
in the mean percent stony coral cover for the entire Sanctuary. Statistical analyses of the CPJiMP indicated that sampling a reduced number of stations at sites with low stony coral cover would still produce
statistically valid results.
I
Indicator
Not maintained
Small change
El = 8.3; SCI=0.48
1 1 Not 1 1 1
! 1 maintained 1 1 1
1 i Sma11 ill
! change
1 i El = 8.3; i i i
! | SCI=0.48 | ||
Maintain
Baseline
New measures starting in FY 08. Measure changed to Indicator in FY 201 1 . El = Elemental Indicator; SCI = Species Composition Index.
BUD
75%
75%
CHLA<0.35
ug/L (75.7%);
Kd£ 0.20m"1
(74.6%)
New measure starting in FY 201 1 .
^^^
75%
1 1 CFiLA< III]
0.35 ug/L
! ! (75.7%); III
1 1 Kd< | | |
1 0.20m-l
(74.6%)
=
-------
FY201ll
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
_ , ! Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
**FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region Region Region
234
Region
S
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
***SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jAt least seventy five percent of the monitored
! stations in the near shore and coastal waters of
jthe Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
SP-47b iwill maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen
|(DIN) levels at less than or equal to 0.75 uM
land total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or
jequalto .25 uM .
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
|FY 1995-2005 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
INational Program Manager Comments
jlmprove the water quality of the Everglades
jecosystem as measured by total phosphorus,
i including meeting the 1 0 parts per billion (ppb)
SP-48 jtotal phosphorus criterion throughout the
jEverglades Protection Area marsh and the
jeffluent limits for discharges from stormwater
| treatment areas.
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
|FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
JFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2005 BASELINE
JUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
ilncrease percentage of sewage treatment
ifacilities and onsite sewage treatment and
c, idisposal systems receiving advanced
orl_,-l i .,
iwastewater treatment or best available
jtechnology as recorded by EDU. in Florida
jKeys two percent (1500 EDUs) annually.
JFY 2009 BASELINE
IUNIVERSE
BUD
75%
75%
DIN<0..75uM
(76.3%); TP
< 0.25uM (80.9%)
154 Stations
! 75%
1 DIN< 1 1
1 1 0..75uM III
i 1 (76.3%); III
1 TP< | |
1 0.25uM
(80.9%)
i 11 54 Stations ! !
New measure starting in FY 201 1 .
BUD
Maintain
phosphoru
s baseline
and meet
discharge
limits
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline and meet
discharge limits
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline and meet
discharge limits
Not maintained
Not maintained
| Maintain
1 phosphorus
I baseline
| and meet
! discharge
I limits
| Maintain
1 phosphorus
I baseline
| and meet
! discharge
I limits
I 1 maintained III
| 1 Not 1 | |
! maintained
i 1 1 1 1
Meet
phosphorus
criterion and
discharge
limits
New measure starting inFY 08. 2005 Baseline: Average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water Conservation Area 3 A, 13 ppb in Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge, and 1 8 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow - weighted total phosphorus discharges from Stormwater Treatment Areas ranged from 1 3 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for
arealW.
I
Indicator
32,000
75,000
| Indicator
1 1 32,000 III
1 1 75>000
-------
FY201li
| FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10
HQ
«««SP
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). ** FY 201 1 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 201 1 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan (SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 2010.
jNational Program Manager Comments New measure starting in FY 201 1 .
Subobjective 4.3.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
jlmprove water quality and enable the lifting of
jharvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed
SP-49 jgrowing areas impacted by degraded or
jdeclrning water quality, (cumulative starting in
|FY oe)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jRemediate acres of prioritized contaminated
i sediments, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
!FY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2007 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
JNational Program Manager Comments
jRestore acres of ti dally- and seasonally -
SP-51 irnfluenced estuarme wetlands, (cumulative
! starting inFY06)
|FY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
!FY 2007 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
BUD
1,925
1,925
1,800
1,730
1,566
322
30,000 acres
=
=
1,925 |
1,730 |
1,566 i
322 !
2,300
New measures starting in FY 08. ^Baseline is the end-of-year data for FY 07.
BUD
New measu
BUD
127
res starting
7,250
127
123
123.1
123
120
5,000 acres
nFYOS. 'Baseline
7,250
6,500
5,751
4,413
4,152
45,000 acres
127 |
0 i
123.1 i
123 I
120 i
5, 000 acres I
325
is the end-of-year data for F Y 07 .
7,250
6,500 !
5,751 !
4,413 |
4,152 |
45,000 |
acres i
9,500
New measures starting in FY 08. ^Baseline is the end-of-year data for FY 07.
Subobjective 4.3.9 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
jProtect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland
QTJ -o jhabitat and acres of upland habitat in the Lower
i Columbia River watershed, (cumulative starting
ImFYOS)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
IFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
IUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
BUD
16,300
16,300
16,000
15,700
12,986
96,770 acres
16,300 |
16,000 i
15,700 |
12,986 i
96,770 i
acres !
19,000
New measure starting inFY 08. FY 07 end-of year adjusted data is not from ACS. Note: 1 3,000 wetland habitat acres and 3,000 upland habitat acres totals 16,000 acres.
-------
FY201ll
4r~ i FY 2011 National Water Program Guidance
, i Measure Text
Code i
Measure
Groups
"FY
2011
Budget
Target
FY 2011 Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region Region
9 10 HQ
Proposed
Target (FY
2014)
* Measure categories include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); SMM (Senior Management Measure); EQR (EPAStat Quarterly Report Measure); NPMStat (OW EPAStat measure), ARRA (Recovery Act Measure), and I
(Indicator Measure). **FY 2011 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2011 Presidents Budget. *** Strategic Plan(SP) proposed targets are from the proposed EPA Strategic Plan, to be submitted to Congress in 20 10.
<-,p -, ! Clean up acres of known contaminated
i sediments, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
iFY 2010 COMMITMENT
JFY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
IFY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
iNational Program Manager Comments
jDemonstrate a reduction in mean concentration
jof certain contaminants of concern found in
iwater and fish tissue, (cumulative starting in FY
1 06)
JFY 2010 COMMITMENT
iFY 2005 BASELINE
iUNTVERSE
jNational Program Manager Comments
BUD
60
60
20
10
0
400 acres
=
=
60 |
20 |
10 |
0 i
400 acres i
85
New measures starting in FY 08.
BUD
10%
reduction
10% reduction
Commitment
deferred
5 sites
10% |
reduction i
Commitme i
nt deferred i
5 sites i
10%
New measures starting in FY 08. There will be no reporting on SP-54 until 201 2.
------- |