Off ice of Water
Fiscal Year 2013

-------
Table  of Contents
      Executive Summary	i
      I. Introduction	1
      II. Strategies to Protect Public Health	6
      ^] 1. Water Safe to Drink	6
      g 2. Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat	19
      ^   Water Safe for Swimming	20
      III.Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands	22
      [J] 1. Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis	22
      pjq 2. Improve  Coastal and Ocean Waters	35
      ^ 3. Increase Wetlands	37
      IV. Strategies to Protect and Restore the Health of Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems....41
      ^ 1. Improve  the Health  of the Great Lakes	41
        I 2. Improve  the Health  of the Chesapeake Bay	43
      [^] 3. Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico	45
        ] 4. Restore and Protect Long Island Sound	48
      0 5. Restore and Protect the Puget Sound	50
        j 6. Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health	53
        ] 7. Sustain and Restore Pacific Islands Territories	54
      |i| 8. Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem	55
        I 9. Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin	57
          10. San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary	59
      V. National Water Program and Grant Management System	61
      VI. National Water Program and Tribes	68
      VII.  National Water Program and Environmental Justice	69
      VIM.National Water Program and Children's Health	74
      IX. National Water Program and the Urban Waters Program	75
      X. National Water Program and Climate Change	76
      APPENDICES	78
          A) FY 2013 Measures Summary Appendix
          B) Office of Water American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Measures
          C) Explanation of Key Changes Summary
          D) Additional Guidance for CWA Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients
          E) FY 2013 Detailed Measures Appendix
          F) List of Acronyms (see http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning/FY-2013-National-Water-Program-Guidance.cfm.)

-------
Executive Summary
     Executive  Summary

     I. PROGRAM OFFICE: NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
     This National Water Program Guidance (Guidance) for fiscal
     year (FY) 2013 describes how the Environmental Protection
     Agency (EPA), states, territories, and tribal governments
     will work together to protect and improve the quality of
     the Nation's waters, including wetlands, and ensure safe
     drinking water. Within EPA, the Office of Water (OW)
     oversees the delivery of the national water programs, while
     the regional offices work with states, tribes, territories, and
     others to implement these programs and other supporting
     efforts.

     II. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT
     The Guidance describes the key actions needed to accom-
     plish the public health and environmental goals in the EPA
     FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan, published on September 30,
     2010. These goals are:
     •  Protect human health by improving the quality of drink-
       ing water, making fish and shellfish safer to eat, and
       assuring that recreational waters are safe for swimming;
     •  Protect and restore the quality of the Nation's fresh
       waters, coastal waters, and wetlands; and
     •  Protect and restore the health of large aquatic ecosystems
       across the country.

     III. WATER PROGRAM PRIORITIES
     The Office of Water recognizes that EPA regional offices,
     states, and tribes need flexibility in determining the best
     allocation of resources for achieving clean water goals and
     safe drinking water at the regional, state, and tribal level.
     From a national perspective, however, EPA, states, and
     tribes need to give special attention in FY 2013 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
       America'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 priorities of Taking Action
     on Climate Change, Assuring the Safety of Chemicals,
Expanding the Conversation of Environmentalism and
Working For Environmental Justice, and Building Strong
State and Tribal Partnerships through participation in the
Agency's cross-cutting fundamental strategies. More infor-
mation 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 2013 to reach
the public health and water quality goals that are proposed
in the EPA FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan. In the Guidance,
these public health and environmental goals are organized
into 15 subobjectives and one large aquatic ecosystem. Each
subobjective or large aquatic ecosystem is supported by a
specific implementation strategy that includes the following
key elements:
• Environmental/Public Health Results Expected. Each
  subobjective strategy begins with a brief review of
  national goals for improvements in environmental condi-
  tions or public health, including national "targets" for
  progress in FY 2013.
• Key Strategies. For each subobjective, the key strategies
  for accomplishing environmental goals are described. The
  role of core programs (e.g. State Revolving Funds (SRF),
  water quality standards, discharge permits,  development
  of safe drinking water standards, and source water pro-
  tection) is discussed and a limited number of key pro-
  gram activity measures are identified. A comprehensive
  summary, listing all strategic target and program activity
  annual measures under each subobjective, is  in Appendix A.
• FY 2013 Targets for Key Program Activities. For some
  of the program activities, EPA, states, and tribes will
  simply report progress accomplished in FY 2013 while for
  other activities, each EPA region will define specific "tar-
  gets" (Appendix £). These targets are a point of reference
  for the development of more binding commitments to
  measurable progress in state and tribal grant workplans.
  In the Guidance, national or programmatic targets are
  shown, where applicable, in Appendix A and E.
• Grant Assistance. Each of the subobjective strategies
  includes a brief discussion of EPA grant assistance that
  supports the program activities identified in the strat-
  egy. In FY 2010, the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 106
  Grant Guidance for Water Pollution Control Programs
  was incorporated within the Water Quality Subobjective
  and Appendix D to streamline the approach to the grant
  guidance issuance. In FY 2011, EPA incorporated the
  grant guidance for the Public Water System Supervision
  and Underground Injection Control grants within the
  Water Safe to Drink Subobjective to continue to pilot a
  more streamlined approach to issuing the grant guidance.
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Executive Summary
       In FY 2013, EPA added the grant guidance for the Drink-
       ing Water State Revolving Fund grants. The National
       Water Program's approach to managing grants for FY
       2013 is discussed in Part V of this Guidance.
     •  Environmental Justice (EJ). For FY 2013, OW is con-
       tinuing to align the development of this Guidance with
       the development of the E J Action Plan and the imple-
       mentation of elements of the cross-cutting fundamental
       strategy, Working for Environmental Justice and Children's
       Health. The year 2010 ushered in a new era that raised the
       level of outreach and protection of historically underrep-
       resented and vulnerable subpopulations to a top priority
       for all Agency activities. To undertake this top priority, EJ
       principles must be included in our entire decision making
       processes. Expanding the conversation on environmental-
       ism and working for E J is a key priority for the National
       Water Program.
     •  A Strategic Response to a Changing Climate. The
       National Water Program released the public comment
       draft of the National Water Program 2012 Strategy:
       Response to Climate Change (2012 Strategy) in April
       2012. The 2012 Strategy addresses the impacts of cli-
       mate change (e.g. warming water temperatures, changes
       in rainfall amounts and intensity, and sea level rise)
       in the context of EPA's clean water and drinking water
       programs. The 2012 Strategy also emphasizes assessing
       and managing risk and incorporating adaptation into
       EPA's core water programs. Additional information on
       the Strategy and the National Water Program's efforts
       to build a resilient program are in Section X as well as at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange.

     V. MEASURES
     The National Water Program uses three types of measures
     to assess progress toward the proposed goals in the EPA FY
     2011-2015 Strategic Plan:
     •  Measures of changes in environmental or public health
       (i.e., outcome measures);
     •  Measures of activities to implement core national water
       programs (i.e., program activity measures); and
     •  Measures of activities to restore and protect large aquatic
       ecosystems and implement other water program  priori-
       ties in each EPA region (i.e., ecosystem outcome and
       program activity measures).
     In 2006 - 2010, EPA worked with states and tribes to
     align and streamline performance measures. For FY 2013,
     OW and Lead Region 6 are leading a coordinated effort to
  streamline measures to focus program performance around
  the smallest and most meaningful suite of water measures.
  The National Water Program will continue to engage states
  and tribes in the Agency's performance measurement
  improvement efforts.

  VI. TRACKING PROGRESS
  The National Water Program will evaluate progress toward
  the environmental and public health goals described in the
  EPA Strategic Plan using four key tools:
  •  National Water Program Performance Reports: OW
    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.
  •  Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Agency Priority
    Goals: OW reports the results on a subset of the Guidance
    measures, KPIs, to the Deputy Administrator. OW has
    developed two Agency Priority Goals for FY 2012 and FY
    2013 as part of the FY 2013 budget development, consis-
    tent with the Government Performance and Results Act
    (GPRA) Modernization Act, and in support of the EPA's
    FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan. In addition, headquarters
    and regional senior managers are held accountable for a
    select group of the Guidance measures in their annual per-
    formance assessments.
  •  EPA Headquarters (HQ)/Regional Dialogues: Each year,
    OW will visit up to three EPA regional offices and Great
    Waterbody offices to conduct dialogues on program man-
    agement, grant management, and performance.
  •  Program-Specific Evaluations: In addition to looking at
    the performance of the National Water Program at the
    national level and performance in each EPA region, evalu-
    ations will be conducted internally by program managers
    at EPA headquarters and regional offices; and externally
    by the EPA Inspector General, Government Accountabil-
    ity Office, and other independent organizations.

  VII. PROGRAM CONTACTS
  For additional information concerning this Guidance and
  supporting measures, please contact:
  •  Michael H. Shapiro; Deputy Assistant Administrator for
    Office of Water
  •  Tim Fontaine; Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
  •  Vinh T. T. Nguyen; Program Planning Team Leader, Office
    of Water
         Internet Access: This FY2013 National Water Program Guidance and supporting documents are available at
         http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning/index.cfm.
National Water Program Guidance
II

-------
Introduction
     I.  Introduction
     Clean and Safe Water Goals for 2015
          The EPA FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, published in
          September of 2010, defines specific environmental
          and public health improvements to be accomplished
     by 2015. With the help of states, tribes, and other partners,
     EPA expects to make significant progress toward protecting
     human health and improving water quality by 2015 for the
     following key areas:

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

     Restore and  Protect  Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters,
     and Wetlands
     •  Healthy Waters: address an increasing number of the
       approximately 40,000 impaired waters identified by the
       states in 2002;
     •  Healthy Coastal Waters: show improvement in the over-
       all condition of the Nation's coastal waters while at least
       maintaining conditions in the four major coastal regions
       and in Hawaii and the South Central Alaska Region; and
     •  More Wetlands: restore, improve, and protect wetlands
       with the goal of increasing the overall quantity and qual-
       ity of the Nation's wetlands and reduce the loss of coastal
       wetlands.

     Restore and Protect the Health of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
     Implement collaborative programs with other federal agen-
     cies and with states, tribes, local governments, and others
     to improve the health of communities and large aquatic
     ecosystems including:
     •  the Great Lakes      • U.S.-Mexico Border waters
     •  the Chesapeake Bay  • Pacific Island waters
     •  the Gulf of Mexico    • South Florida waters
       Long Island Sound
       the Puget Sound
the Columbia River Basin
the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
     Purpose and Structure of this FY 2013 Guidance
     This National Program Guidance defines the process for creat-
     ing an "operational plan" for EPA, state, and tribal water
     programs for FY 2013. This Guidance is divided into three
     major sections:
1. Subobjective Implementation Strategies: The EPA FY
  2011-2015 Strategic Plan addresses water programs in
  Goal 2, Protecting America's Waters. Within Goal 2, there
  are 12 subobjectives that define specific environmental or
  public health results to be accomplished by the National
  Water Program by the end of FY 2015. This Guidance is
  organized into 15 subobjectives (and one large aquatic
  ecosystem) and describes the increment of environmental
  progress EPA hopes to make in FY 2013 for each sub-
  objective and large aquatic ecosystem and the program
  strategies to be used to accomplish these goals.

  The National Water Program is working with EPA's Inno-
  vation Action Council (IAC) to promote program innova-
  tions, including the Environmental Management Systems
  (EMS) (http://www.epa.gov/ems/) and the Environmen-
  tal Results Program (ERP) (http://www.epa.gov/erp/).
  States and tribes may be able to use these or other inno-
  vative tools in program planning and implementation.
2. Water Measures: Appendix A, a comprehensive list of per-
  formance measures in the Guidance, includes three types
  of measures that support the subobjective strategies and
  are used to manage water programs:
•  "Outcome" Strategic Target Measures: Measures of
  environmental or public health changes (i.e. outcomes)
  are described in the EPA Strategic Plan with long-
  range targets and in this Guidance. These measures are
  described in the opening section of each of the subobjec-
  tive plan summaries in this Guidance.
•  National Program Activity Measures: Core water pro-
  gram activity measures (i.e., output measures) address
  activities to be implemented by EPA and by states/tribes
  that administer national programs. They are the basis
  for monitoring progress in implementing programs
  to accomplish the environmental goals in the Agency
  Strategic Plan. Some of these measures have national and
  regional "targets" for FY 2013 that serve as a point of
  reference as EPA regions work with states/tribes to define
  more formal regional "commitments" in the Spring/Sum-
  mer of 2012.
•  Ecosystem Program Activity Measures: These measures
  address activities to restore and protect communities
  and large aquatic ecosystems and implement other water
  program priorities in EPA regional offices.
3. Water Program Management System: Part V of this
  Guidance describes a three-step process for management
  of water programs in FY 2013:
•  Step 1 is the development of this Guidance, a draft by
  February 2012 and the final version by April 2012.
•  Step 2 involves consultation among EPA regions, states,
  and tribes, to be conducted during spring/summer 2012,
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Introduction
       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 activi-
       ties 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 2013.
     •  Step 3 involves work to be done during FY 2013 to assess
       progress in program implementation and improve pro-
       gram performance.

     In FY 2010, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution
     Control Grants from the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
     106 was incorporated into the National Water Program
     Guidance. This was a pilot effort started in FY 2010 to gain
     efficiency in the issuance of the Section 106 Grant Guidance
     within the Guidance. Text boxes with specific CWA Section
     106 grant guidance are incorporated within Section III,
     1 (Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis) of this
     Guidance. Appendix D has additional information for states
     and the interstate agencies. The Tribal Program, Monitoring
     Initiative, and Water Pollution Enforcement Activities
     for Section 106 grants are not included in this pilot, and
     grantees should follow the specific, separate guidances for
     these programs. In FY 2011, this pilot effort continued with
     the integration of the grant guidance for the Public Water
     System Supervision (PWSS) and Underground Injection
     Control (UIC) grants. In FY 2013, the grant guidance for
     the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) grants
     has been incorporated. These drinking water grant guidance
     sections are incorporated in the Water Safe to Drink
     Subobjective in this Guidance.

     FY 2013 National Water Program Priorities
     OW recognizes that EPA regions, states, and tribes need
     flexibility in determining the best allocation of program
     resources for achieving clean water goals given their specific
     needs and condition. From a national perspective, however,
     EPA, states, and tribes need to give special attention in
     FY 2013 to the priority areas identified below to protect
     America's waters. OW has two organizing themes for the
     National Water Program, Sustainable Communities and
     Healthy Watersheds.
     1. Sustainable Communities - The Nation's water resources
       are the lifeblood of the Nation's communities, support-
       ing the economy and way of life. For communities to be
       sustainable, water resources must be sustainable as well.
     •  Making America's Water Systems Sustainable and
       Secure: The Nation's water infrastructure needs are sub-
       stantial, and the ability to meet those needs in traditional
       ways and through traditional funding programs and
funding is limited. EPA is working with partners to help
communities and utilities continue to provide for their
residents by improving the sustainability of both water
infrastructure and water utility management. Improv-
ing the sustainability of water infrastructure emphasizes
helping utilities make the appropriate capital investment
decisions at the right times and helping utilities access
the financing they need.  EPA will be working with its
partners to promote the  use of tools by utilities, such
as those intended to improve asset management, and
consideration of innovative solutions, such as green
infrastructure and the WaterSense program. Improving
the sustainability of management practices emphasizes
utility adoption of peer recognized best management
practices (BMP) and the development of utility technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to adopt such prac-
tices.. The National Water Program will build upon the
successes of the sustainable water infrastructure work
to address the needs of disadvantaged urban, rural, and
tribal communities. While making water systems more
sustainable, EPA also wants to fortify their security and
resiliency by working with water utilities to prevent or
minimize disruptions in providing clean and safe water
for all citizens. The Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF
programs are cornerstones for the Agency's efforts to
make America's water systems sustainable and secure.
The Agency will continue its strong and effective over-
sight of these programs and work with its state partners
to ensure the programs expeditiously move appropriated
funds into high priority projects addressing the environ-
mental and public health protection objectives of CWA
and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Safeguarding Public Health: Using science-based stan-
dards to protect public water systems as well as ground
and surface water bodies has long been an OW 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 enforce-
ment program, the National Water Program can ensure
safe drinking water and surface water suitable for recre-
ation for all Americans.
Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters: With the water
program's new Urban Waters Program,  EPA can help com-
munities, especially those that are underserved and those
with EJ concerns, to access, restore, and benefit from
their local urban waters and surrounding land. By focus-
ing on building capacity and pairing urban water quality
restoration with community revitalization, the National
Water Program is helping to make these communities
more vibrant and strengthening the connections between
a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Additional
information on the Urban Waters Program is in Section IX.
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Introduction
     2. Healthy Watersheds - People and the natural ecosystems
       both rely on the health of watersheds. By improving pro-
       grams and tools to protect watersheds, EPA is protecting
       human health as well as the environment.
     •  Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas: America's
       largest aquatic ecosystems are seriously impaired, result-
       ing in significant losses to the diversity and productivity
       of these systems and risks to the socio-economic well-
       being of communities. The National Water Program is
       leading efforts to restore and protect these treasured
       resources, and in so doing is providing models for broader
       national applicability. The Great Lakes Restoration Initia-
       tive (GLRI), the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order and
       Strategy, the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, the
       federal Bay-Delta Workplan, the National Ocean Policy,
       and the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restora-
       tion Strategy are each designed to help communities in
       these key geographic areas address complex transbound-
       ary challenges. By engaging in innovative, collaborative
       approaches with federal, state, tribal, and local govern-
       ment and non-governmental partners, and making
       robust use of existing statutory authority, EPA helps
       make these programs more effective and restore these
       precious resources.
     •  Improving Watershed-Based Approaches: Complex
       issues, such as nonpoint source (NFS) and nutrient
       pollution, require holistic, integrated solutions that
       emphasize accountability. As stated in the March 2011
       memorandum, "Working in Partnership with States to
       Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through
       Use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions", EPA
       believes that nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is one of
       the most serious and pervasive water quality problems. In
       2013, EPA water program managers should place a high
       priority on  working with interested state governments
       and other federal agencies, in collaboration with part-
       ners and stakeholders, to accelerate near-term efforts to
       reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. EPA managers
       should also continue working with states to help develop
       numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, so that
       states have clearly measurable, objective metrics to guide
       long-term pollution reduction efforts and adaptively
       manage towards achieving long-term goals (See http://
       water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/
       nutrients/upload/memo_nitrogen_framework.pdf). EPA
       encourages states to begin work immediately setting
       priorities on a watershed or statewide basis, establish-
       ing nutrient reduction targets, and adopting numeric
       nutrient criteria for at least one class of waterbodies by
       no later than 2016. EPA added a new measure (WQ-26) to
       track progress in this area.

       The National Water Program will improve the way exist-
       ing tools, such as water quality standards (WQS), protec-
       tion of downstream uses, permits, and total maximum
  daily loads (TMDLs), are used to protect and restore
  watersheds; explore how innovative tools, such as trad-
  ing and other market-based approaches to watershed
  protection, can be applied; and enhance efforts to protect
  remaining healthy watersheds, prevent them from
  becoming impaired, and accelerate our restoration suc-
  cesses. 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.

These National Water Program priorities directly support
the Administrator's priority, Protecting America's Waters.
In addition, the National Water Program supports the
following Administrator's priority themes:

Taking Action on Climate Change
Climate change will affect multiple aspects of the National
Water Program, including threatening infrastructure invest-
ment, exacerbating water quality problems, compounding
stress to aquatic ecosystems, and placing the health and
well-being of vulnerable populations at increased risk. EPA
will 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 core water programs
to impacts from a changing climate.
OW released the public comment draft of the National Water
Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change (2012
Strategy) in April 2012. The 2012 Strategy addresses the
impacts of climate change (e.g. warming water tempera-
tures, changes in rainfall amounts and intensity, and sea
level rise) in the context of EPA's clean water and drinking
water programs. The 2012 Strategy also emphasizes assess-
ing and managing risk and incorporating adaptation into
EPA's core water programs. Additional information on the
2012 Strategy and the National Water Program's efforts
to build a resilient program are in Section X as well as at
http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange.

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
OW will partner with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pol-
lution Prevention (OCSPP) 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 part of the federal government, EPA must ensure that
communities disproportionately affected by pollution have
clean and safe water, and that  EJ informs decision-making,
including permitting and standards decisions. The Assistant
Administrator of OW wants to underscore those principles
and asks that we strive to incorporate them in our work. In
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Introduction
     addition to the Urban Waters Program which can benefit
     underserved communities, OW participates in EPA's Com-
     munity Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) pro-
     gram. CARE provides on-the-ground technical assistance
     and funding to underserved communities to help them
     understand, prioritize, and address environmental 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, WQS, and
     TMDLs. Similarly, most inspections and drinking water
     sanitary surveys are done by states. EPA has begun working
     to improve this partnership through increased collabora-
     tion on key problems, such as nutrients, and by providing
     greater opportunity to discuss strategic and program plan-
     ning through the Partnership Council of the Office of Water
     and the States. OW is also committed 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
     (NTWC) 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 CWA Compliance and Enforcement
     In October 2009, EPA issued the CWA Action Plan ("the
     Action Plan"). The Action Plan identifies steps EPA will take
     to improve enforcement efforts aimed at addressing water
     quality impairment. OW is currently working with the
     Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
     EPA regions, and states to implement the Action Plan. The
     Action Plan's three key elements are to: 1) focus National
     Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforce-
     ment 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.
     In May 2011, EPA issued its Clean Water Action Plan Imple-
     mentation Priorities: Changes to Improve Water Quality,
     Increase Compliance, and Expand Transparency. This docu-
     ment established four key changes to the program:
•  Switching existing paper reporting to electronic report-
  ing with automated compliance evaluations to improve
  efficiency and transparency.
•  Creating a new paradigm in which environmental regula-
  tions and permits compel compliance via public account-
  ability, self-monitoring, electronic reporting, and other
  innovative methods.
•  Addressing the most serious water pollution problems
  by fundamentally re-tooling key NPDES permitting and
  enforcement practices, while continuing to vigorously
  enforce against serious violators.
•  Conducting comprehensive and coordinated permitting,
  compliance, and enforcement programs to improve state
  and EPA performance in protecting and improving water
  quality.

These new approaches represent fundamental overhauls
to some of the tools, policies, and regulations by which
the states and EPA implement the NPDES permitting
and enforcement program. These major changes require
time and effort to deliver. Thus, EPA and states will be
at work for several years to complete these changes. For
more information on specific compliance and enforcement
actions for FY 2013, please see the FY 2013 OECA National
Program Guidance at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
annualplan/fy2013.html.

Agency Priority Goals
As part of the FY 2013 budget process, EPA developed
Agency Priority Goals1 for performance, consistent with
the GPRA Modernization Act and to support the EPA's FY
2011-2015 Strategic Plan. EPA has a cross-Agency Priority
Goal to increase transparency and reduce burden through
E-reporting. For the National Water Program, two Agency
Priority Goals were developed with the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB), for quarterly reporting beginning
in FY 2012, to track EPA's work to improve the long-term
sustainability of small public drinking water systems and
the enhancement of the NFS program accountability and
incentives to more effectively improve, restore, or maintain
water quality. These Agency Priority Goals continue into FY
2013.

Sustainability
OW supports the Administrator's emphasis on sustain-
ability and through a  collaborative process with other EPA
offices and regions will strive  to continuously improve
our processes to leverage sustainability concepts in
achieving OW's mission. Sustainability as a management
process emphasizes need for systems-based, integrated
tools for assistance, permitting and enforcement. As just
one example in one region, Region 1 which has created a
     1 For more information, please see http://goals.performance.gov/agency/epa
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Introduction
     functional cross-office team designed to identify how exist-
     ing EPA approaches and tools can most effectively address
     stormwater run-off. The Region has selected a combina-
     tion of assistance, permitting and enforcement, and BMP/
     technology-driving tools to promote long-term sustainable
     outcomes. Under municipal separate storm sewer systems
     (MS4) compliance for example, the Region is targeting
     enforcement, low impact develop supplemental environ-
     mental projects (SEPs) and assistance (this, through a series
     of MS4 Compliance/low impact development (LID) work-
     shops) all designed to promote long-term green infrastruc-
     ture changes in municipal approaches to compliance and
     land use practices. Additionally, EPA will continue its efforts
     to promote and educate drinking water and wastewater sys-
     tems on sustainability practices, such as asset management,
     rate analyses and review, water and energy efficiency, and
     innovative system partnerships in order to facilitate their
     long-term sustainability. For such examples to become the
     operational norm, having common understanding of these
     concepts across all staff will be critical moving forward.
     Sustainability is also an opportunity to improve com-
     munications with the public as to how human health and
     environmental protection may continue to move forward
     in a smarter manner able to achieve greater benefits at the
     same or lower cost.
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Strategies to Protect Human 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 and this Guidance, EPA has worked
          with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to define strategies for accomplishing the improvements in the environ-
          ment or public health identified for the subobjective. This Guidance draws from the Strategic Plan, but describes plans
     and strategies at a more operational level and focuses on FY 2013. In addition, this Guidance refers to measures that define
     key program activities that support each subobjective (see Appendix A andE).
            •'' \
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%
       2013 Target: 92%
                         2012 Commitment: 91%
                         2015 Strategic Target: 90%
     (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
     Appendix A andE.)
     The fundamental public health protection mission of the
     national drinking water program is to ensure that public
     water systems deliver drinking water that meets health-
     based standards to their customers. The protection of the
     Nation's public health through safe drinking water has
     been the shared responsibility of EPA, states, and tribes for
     more than 35 years. Currently, 52,079 community water
     systems (CWSs)2 nationwide supply drinking water to more
     than 300 million Americans (approximately 95% of the
     U.S. population). The development and implementation of
     health protection-based regulatory standards for drinking
     water quality to limit human exposure to contaminants of
     concern is the cornerstone of the program. The standards
     do not prescribe a specific treatment approach; rather, indi-
     vidual systems have flexibility 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 to limit con-
     taminant occurrence, various stages of treatment, proper
     operation and maintenance of the distribution and finished
     water storage system, operator certification and training,
     and customer awareness. To date, drinking water standards
     have been established and are being implemented for 91
     microbial, chemical, and other contaminants. Forty-nine
     states and the Navajo Nation have adopted primary author-
     ity for enforcing their drinking water programs.
     To continuously 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 compli-
ance. Efforts continue to be made to bring non-complying
systems into compliance and to help all systems be prepared
to comply with the new regulations and be sustainable over
the long run.
The protection of drinking water sources is a vital step in
the multiple-barrier approach to protect the public health of
the Nation's drinking water consumers (source water pro-
tection, treatment for contaminants, monitoring to ensure
that health-based  standards are met, and adequate infra-
structure maintenance). The Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (OGWDW) and EPA regions partner with
states and tribes to implement the  Source Water Protec-
tion Program and  the UIC Program in order to protect the
Nation's drinking water sources. These efforts are integral to
the Agency's sustainable water infrastructure effort because
source water protection can reduce the need for drinking
water treatment, as well as related energy use which reduces
the cost of infrastructure investments, operations, and
maintenance.
Targets for Population Served by Systems Meeting
EPA
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
National
Total
2005
Baseline
92.5%
55.3%
93.2%
93%
94.1%
87.8%
91.2%
94.7%
94.6%
94.8%
89%
2011
Actual
91%
84%
89%
96%
96%
91%
92%
94%
97%
97%
93.2%
2012 Com-
mitment
89%
78%
90%
92%
94%
85%
80%
91%
95%
91%
91%
2013
Target
89%
78%
90%
92%
94%
85%
80%
91%
95%
92%
90%*
                                                               * The FY 2013 national target is 92% while the regional aggregate is 90%.
      Although SDWA applies to 157,293 public water systems nationwide (as of October 2011), which include schools, hospitals, factories, campgrounds,
      motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system, this measure focuses only on CWSs. A CWS is a public water system that provides water to
      the same population year-round. As of October 2011, there were 52,079 CWSs. EPA also continues to focus attention on addressing compliance and
      sustainability challenges faced by non-community water systems.
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                           Water Safe to Drink
     To make sound decisions to allocate resources among vari-
     ous program areas, EPA regions 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 CWSs that receive
     water that meets all health-based drinking water standards.
     Although EPA regions should use the national FY 2013
     target of the population served by CWSs receiving safe
     drinking water as a point of reference, regional commit-
     ments to this outcome goal may vary based on differing
     circumstances in each EPA region.

     B) Key National Areas  of Emphasis
     In FY 2013, EPA will work with states, tribes, and others to
     continue to implement programs and utilize resources to
     protect and provide water safe to drink keeping with these
     key areas of emphasis in mind:
     •  Implement the Core Drinking Water Programs: EPA,
       states, and tribes support the efforts of individual water
       systems by providing a programmatic framework through
       the implementation of six core areas:
        1. Development or revision of drinking water standards/
          regulations;
        2. Implementation of drinking water standards/regula-
          tions and technical assistance to water systems;
          • Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
        3. Drinking Water SRF & Sustainable Water
          Infrastructure;
        4. Water system security;
        5. Source Water Protection; and
        6. Underground Injection Control.
     •  Improve small drinking water system technical, manage-
       rial and financial capacity.
     •  Ensure that all funds appropriated for the DWSRF move
       as expeditiously as possible from EPA through states
       and into high priority projects, consistent with sound
       program oversight, achieving the public health protection
       objectives of SDWA. This includes emphasis on expedit-
       ing/streamlining grant awards, as well as project outlay
       and billing to reduce unliquidated obligations (ULOs).
     •  Implement the new Class VI Geologic Sequestration (GS)
       rulemaking.
1. Implement Core National Drinking Water Program
  Areas that are Critical to Providing Safe Drinking
  Water.
  Collectively, these six 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 prog-
  ress being made and some measures include "targets"
  for FY 2013. For measures with targets, a national target
  and a target for each EPA region, where applicable, are
  provided in Appendix A and E.
  a. Development/Revision of Drinking Water
    Standards/Regulations
    SDWA requires the Agency to develop a list of unregu-
    lated contaminants that are known or anticipated to
    occur in public water systems and may require regula-
    tion. This list is known as the Contaminant Candidate
    List (CCL) and the Agency is required to publish this
    list every five years. SDWA also requires the Agency
    to determine whether to regulate at  least five CCL
    contaminants with a national primary drinking water
    regulation (NPDWR) using three statutory criteria. Like
    CCL, the regulatory determinations  process is also on a
    five year cycle. If the Agency decides that an NPDWR is
    appropriate, the Agency has 24 months to propose and
    18 months to finalize the NPDWR. SDWA requires EPA
    to collect data for unregulated contaminants that are
    suspected to be  present in drinking water and use this
    information to support the regulatory determination
    decision. This unregulated contaminant monitoring is
    also conducted on a five year cycle and requires avail-
    able, scientifically sound analytical methods. In addi-
    tion to the evaluation of whether standards are needed
    and the potential development of new standards,
    SDWA also requires EPA to review each NPDWR at least
    once every six years and revise them, if appropriate. The
    purpose of the review, called the Six-Year Review, is to
    identify those NPDWRs for which current health effects
    assessments, changes in technology, and/or other
    factors provide a health or technical basis to support
    a regulatory revision that will maintain or strengthen
    public health protection.
    The Agency, headquarters and  regions, will continue to
    address the development or revision of drinking water
    standards to protect human health in 2013 and will
    work with states and tribes to:
       2013 Drinking Water Program Areas of Emphasis
        EPA, states, and tribes work to support the efforts of public water systems to consistently meet the provisions of SDWA.
        Improve small drinking water systems technical, managerial and financial capabilities to achieve and maintain compliance
        with all health-based standards.
        Ensure that all funds appropriated for the DWSRF move as expeditiously as possible from EPA through states and into high
        priority projects, consistent with sound program oversight.
        Implement the new Class VI GS rulemaking.
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                             Water Safe to Drink
         •  Provide technical and scientific support for the
           development and implementation of drinking water
           regulations. This includes the development of analyti-
           cal methods for updating rules and implementing the
           Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR),
           improving the analytical method for Cryptosporidium,
           and responding to technical implementation ques-
           tions regarding the entire range of NPDWRs.
         •  Begin monitoring for the third Unregulated Con-
           taminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) after the rule
           is promulgated in 2012. Key activities for EPA
           include management of all aspects of small-system
           monitoring, approval and oversight of supporting
           laboratories, troubleshooting and providing technical
           assistance, and reviewing and validating of data.
         •  Develop technical guidance and perform other
           follow-up activities related to the Revised Total Coli-
           form Rule (TCR).
         •  Conduct a retrospective review of drinking water
           regulations in response to President Obama's recent
           call in Executive Order 13563 for each federal agency
           to "develop ... a preliminary plan, consistent with
           law and its resources and regulatory priorities, under
           which the agency will periodically review its exist-
           ing significant regulations to determine whether any
           such regulations should be modified, streamlined,
           expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's reg-
           ulatory program more effective or less burdensome
           in achieving the regulatory objectives." The retrospec-
           tive review includes the Consumer Confidence Report
           (CCR) requirements, the Long Term 2 Enhanced
           Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), the Lead and
           Copper Rule  (LCR), and the requirements related to
           carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (cVOCs).
         •  Develop revisions to the LCR. Input has been sought
           through expert panels, public workshops, an Agency
           work group, and other stakeholder meetings, as well
           as from peer reviewed scientific literature. Continue
           to evaluate the long-term issues identified in the
           national review of the revised LCR with an expecta-
           tion of publishing the final revisions to the LCR in
           2014.
         •  Address the second Drinking Water Strategy prin-
           ciple, which is fostering the development of new
           drinking water technologies to address health risks
           posed by a broad array of contaminants.
       b. Implementation of Drinking Water Standards/
         Regulations and Technical Assistance
         The implementation of programs designed to assist
         public water systems to comply with drinking water
         regulations is the cornerstone of EPA's drinking water
         program. EPA will work in concert with states and
         tribes to facilitate public water system compliance with
         drinking water  regulations through a variety of activities:
        Conduct Sanitary Surveys: Sanitary surveys are
        on-site reviews of the water sources, facilities, equip-
        ment, operation, and maintenance of public water
        systems. These surveys also can serve as a basis for
        an assessment of the financial and management
        capacities of the owner or operator of a water system.
        States and tribes will continue to conduct sanitary
        surveys for community water systems once every
        three years. For non-CWSs or CWSs determined by
        the state or tribe to have outstanding performance
        based on prior surveys, surveys may be conducted
        every five years. EPA will conduct surveys at systems
        on tribal lands, Wyoming, and the District of Colum-
        bia. This measure applies to surface water systems
        and ground water systems. In December 2009, states
        were required for the first time to conduct sanitary
        surveys for ground water systems. States were to
        complete the initial round of sanitary surveys for CWSs
        by December 2012, and have until December 2014 to
        complete the initial round of sanitary surveys for non-
        CWSs or CWSs designated as outstanding performers.
        Conduct Technical Assistance and Training:  EPA,
        states, and tribes should focus their assistance to
        water systems to address the implementation  chal-
        lenges associated with the Ground Water Rule, LCR,
        Arsenic Rule, and the Disinfection By-Products rules.
        In addition, EPA, states, and tribes should promote
        operation and maintenance best practices to small
        systems in support of long-term compliance suc-
        cess with existing regulations. EPA will continue to
        provide technical training to help state staff review
        new treatment plant upgrades under LT2, specifically
        membrane and ultraviolet disinfection. In addition,
        EPA will develop technical assistance materials and
        training to support state and water system imple-
        mentation of the revised TCR.
        Participate in Area-wide Optimization Program
        Activities: EPA's Area-Wide Optimization Program
        (AWOP), which provides compliance assistance to
        drinking water systems, continues to work with sys-
        tems and states to develop and implement a variety
        of approaches to improve water system performance.
        Optimization tools include comprehensive perfor-
        mance evaluations (CPEs) to assess the performance
        of filtration technology and distribution system
        optimization (DSO)  techniques. AWOP is a highly
        successful technical assistance and training program
        that enhances the ability of small systems to meet
        existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and
        disinfection byproducts standards. In FY 2013, EPA
        will work with four EPA regional offices and 20 states
        to facilitate the transfer of specific skills using the
        performance-based training approach that is targeted
        towards optimizing key distribution system compo-
        nents and/or groundwater system and distribution
        system integrity.
National Water Program Guidance
8

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                         Water Safe to Drink
         •  Participate in the Drinking Water Laboratory Cer-
           tification Program: EPA will continue the program
           that sets standards and establishes methods for
           EPA, state, tribal, and privately-owned laboratories
           that analyze drinking water samples. Through this
           program, EPA also will conduct three EPA regional
           program reviews during FY 2013. Headquarters visits
           each EPA regional office on a triennial basis and
           evaluates their oversight of the state laboratories and
           the state laboratory certification programs within
           their purview. In addition, EPA will deliver three (1.
           Chemistry, 2. Microbiology, and 3. Cryptosporidiurn)
           Certification Officer Training courses for state and
           regional representatives.
         •  Develop the next generation of the SDWIS and
           maintain the current SDWIS to support PWSS pro-
           gram implementation: SDWIS serves as the primary
           source of national information on compliance with all
           health-based regulatory requirements of SD WA and
           is used by most primacy agencies to assist in their
           management of the PWSS program. SDWIS/State
           provides primacy agencies with a data system that
           can manage public water system  data and that uses
           this data to calculate candidate violations of drinking
           water standards. Since SDWIS/State can manage a
           large amount of data on public water systems, many
           states connect a variety of applications (e.g. sanitary
           survey and operator certification tools) to SDWIS/
           State to  more efficiently implement drinking water
           standards. Also SDWIS data can be used to inform
           decisions on where and how to target efforts and
           resources to assist water systems in achieving compli-
           ance with public health standards.
           In FY 2013, EPA will continue to partner with states
           to develop the next generation of SDWIS in order
           to enhance and improve drinking water treatment
           technology under the legacy SDWIS platform. This
           next generation of SDWIS will improve state program
           management and enable better targeting of resources
           to systems in need; reduce the total cost of owner-
           ship; enable faster implementation of drinking water
           rules and provide tools to ensure consistent deter-
           minations for compliance with drinking water rules;
           and support efficient sharing of drinking water com-
           pliance monitoring data between states and EPA. EPA
           regions will continue to work with states to ensure
           broad state input into all aspects of the development
           of the next generation of SDWIS.
           As EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and
           General  Accounting Office (G AO) have noted in their
           reports on SDWA data quality, having adequate data
           is important to EPA's ability to understand and over-
           see state programs. The Agency and its state partners
           need to continue to look for ways to improve public
    health protection and data management and quality.
    EPA will work with states to improve data complete-
    ness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency in SDWIS
    through: 1) training on data entry, error correction,
    and regulatory reporting; 2) conducting data quality
    reviews of state data files and compliance determina-
    tions where possible; and 3) implementing quality
    assurance and quality control procedures.
  •  Coordinate with Enforcement: The EPA regional
    offices and OW will continue to work with OECA to
    identify instances  of actual or expected non-com-
    pliance that pose risks to public health and to take
    appropriate actions as necessary, particularly where
    EPA has primacy for the drinking water program.
    Collaboration across the drinking water program is
    critical to ensuring that public water systems with
    compliance issues  are addressed through the most
    effective means. These approaches include targeted
    funding, compliance assistance, and enforcement.
    OECA's drinking water Enforcement Response Policy
    represents an approach to address significant non-
    compliance at public water systems and the related
    enforcement targeting tool's prioritization of systems
    with unaddressed violations allows primacy agen-
    cies to focus compliance assistance and enforcement
    efforts on returning these systems to compliance.
    In addition, OW and OEC A will continue to track
    violations at schools and childcare centers that have
    their own water source in order to quickly bring them
    back into compliance. These public water systems are
    of special concern  as children are the subpopulation
    most vulnerable to lead and other contaminants.
c. DWSRF and Sustainable Water Infrastructure
  The DWSRF is the  cornerstone of the 1996 amend-
  ments to SDWA, and is one of the largest items in the
  Agency's budget. The DWSRF enables states to offer
  low interest loans and other assistance to help public
  water systems across the Nation make improvements
  and upgrades to their water infrastructure, or other
  activities that develop system capacity and enhance
  infrastructure sustainability. From the program's incep-
  tion in 1997 through FY 2011, nearly $15.5 billion has
  been appropriated for the DWSRF; nearly $13.7 billion
  has been awarded to states in capitalization grants; and
  $21.7 billion in project assistance has been provided
  by state DWSRFs to 9,031 projects. For every $1.00
  EPA has awarded in capitalization grants, $1.77 is
  awarded to projects by states. This exceptional "multi-
  plier effect" is achieved through state grant matching
  dollars, optional state leveraging, and the repayments
  and interest earnings from the loan portfolio, as well as
  other interest earnings resulting from prudent financial
  management.
National Water Program Guidance

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                              Water Safe to Drink
         The Agency continues to emphasize several national
         SRF priorities to strengthen the program for the long-
         term. These priorities include increasing the speed with
         which appropriated funds move to projects; ensuring
         that the highest priority projects are ready to proceed
         to funding; ensuring that the financial integrity of
         the program through strong auditing, consistent with
         overarching federal law and guidance; and enhancing
         coordination between the DWSRF and PWSS programs.
         In addition, in FY 2013, EPA in partnership with the
         states and tribes will:
         •  Strengthen the focus on ensuring that all funds
           appropriated for the DWSRF move as expeditiously
           as possible consistent with sound program over-
           sight into high priority projects achieving the public
           health protection objectives of SDWA. The Agency is
           emphasizing the importance of states managing their
           DWSRF programs to improve the speed with which
           appropriated funds are awarded and outlayed. EPA
           will work closely with states to encourage/position
           them to take their capitalization grant award in the
           first year of availability (appropriations are available
           for award in the year appropriated and in the subse-
           quent year). EPA recognizes the need to afford states
           the opportunity to exercise appropriate flexibility
           in how the state will achieve these broad program-
           matic objectives. EPA and states will work together to
           ensure the best possible outcome in each state, given
           that state's unique set of circumstances.
         •  Emphasize the need to reduce ULOs in the program
           and move these funds expeditiously to near-term
           needs as identified in state Intended Use Plans (IUP)
           to benefit communities. Cumulatively, across all 51
           DWSRF programs, ULOs stood at $2.57 billion at the
           end of FY 2011. At the end of FY 2008, ULOs stood
           at $1.99 billion. ULOs spiked in 2009 with enactment
           of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
           and have slowly been coming down as states adjust
           to the increased appropriation levels in FY 2010 and
           FY 2011. ULOs are not uniformly distributed across
           all 51 state programs and EPA will be working closely
           with those states for which ULOs are most significant
           to assist them in making program changes necessary
           to quickly reduce existing ULOs and to prevent the
           accumulation of ULOs in the future.
         •  Increase the DWSRF fund utilization rate3 for proj-
           ects (see Program Activity Measure SDW-04) from  a
           2002 level of 73% to 89% in 2013. EPA will also work
           with states to monitor the number of projects that
           have initiated operations (see Program Activity Mea-
           sure SDW-05) from a cumulative 2005 level of 2,600
           to 7,000 in 2013.
         Allocate appropriated funds to states in accordance
         with each state's proportion of total drinking water
         infrastructure need as determined by the 2007 Needs
         Survey and Assessment.4 Per statute, each state and
         the District of Columbia shall receive no less than
         one percent of the allotment.
         Submit to Congress the 2011 Needs Survey which
         will document 20-year capital investment needs
         of public water systems that are eligible to receive
         DWSRF monies - approximately 53,000 CWSs and
         21,400 not-for-profit non-CWSs. The survey reports
         infrastructure needs that are required to protect pub-
         lic health, such as projects to ensure compliance with
         SDWA. This Needs Survey will be used to establish
         DWSRF state allotments beginning in FY 2014.
         Continue to emphasize the importance of directing
         DWSRF funding to projects with the highest priority
         public health protection need. EPA will be providing
         training and technical assistance to its state partners
         on a model IUP. As part of this process, EPA will be
         implementing modified, as well as new checklists
         for EPA regions to use in their review of lUPs and
         their annual oversight of state programs. These new
         and revised checklists have been designed to ensure
         appropriate steps are being planned and taken by
         states to coordinate DWSRF funding decisions with
         the public health priority management of state drink-
         ing water programs. This is consistent with EPA's
         response to an OIG study regarding emphasizing the
         use of DWSRF funding to address systems in non-
         compliance with SDWA requirements.
         Continue implementation of the SRF Sustainability
         Policy. This policy is designed to promote technical,
         managerial, and financial capacity as a critical means
         to meet infrastructure needs, and further enhance
         program performance and efficiency, and to ensure
         compliance. State programs can utilize set-asides
         to promote asset management, system-wide plan-
         ning, and other sustainable management practices
         at public water systems aimed at reducing water loss
         and better understanding linkages between water
         production/distribution and energy use.
         Coordinate across drinking water programs, includ-
         ing the PWSS, capacity development and operator
         certification, in order to identify systems in noncom-
         pliance with SDWA requirements or challenged to be
         sustainable, and then provide loans and/or technical
         assistance to improve their capacity to provide safe
         drinking water.
     1  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
10

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                               Water Safe to Drink
       d. Water System Security
         Since the events of 9/11, EPA has been designated as
         the sector-specific Agency responsible for infrastruc-
         ture protection activities for the Nation's drinking
         water and wastewater systems. EPA is utilizing its
         position within the water sector and working with its
         stakeholders to provide information to help protect
         the Nation's drinking water supply from terrorist
         threats and all hazard events. EPA is accomplishing this
         by assessing new security technologies to detect and
         monitor contaminants as part of the Water Security
         Initiative (WSI), establishing a national Water Labora-
         tory Alliance (WLA), and planning for and practicing
         (including providing tools, training, and technical
         assistance) for response to both natural and intentional
         emergencies and incidents. All of these efforts support
         the Agency's responsibilities and commitments under
         the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), as
         defined within the Water Sector Specific Plan.
         In FY 2013, EPA will move to the next phase of the WSI
         pilot program and the WLA. EPA will, in collaboration
         with our regional counterparts, states, and utilities:
         •  Initiate a national outreach strategy under WSI to
           encourage water utilities to adopt effective, imple-
           mentable, and sustainable contamination warning
           system practices, as recommended by a stakeholder
           workgroup. This strategy will include deploying
           computer based decision support tools and guidance
           materials for water utilities on designing, deploying,
           and testing contamination warning systems based on
           lessons learned from the pilots.
         •  Conduct exercises designed to further implement the
           WLA Response Plan which provides processes and
           procedures for a coordinated laboratory response to
           water contamination incidents. In addition, EPA will
           continue to expand the membership of WLA and sup-
           port the regional laboratory networks.
         EPA will also continue working to ensure that water
         sector utilities have tools and information (includ-
         ing those that support the Water Alliance for Threat
         Reduction (WATR)) to prevent, detect, respond to, and
         recover from terrorist attacks, other intentional acts,
         and natural disasters. In FY 2013, EPA will, in col-
         laboration with our regional counterparts, states, the
         Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and water
         sector officials:
         •  Promote awareness and adoption of drinking water
           and wastewater protective programs throughout the
           Nation to further Agency priorities and the interests,
           needs, and priorities of stakeholders;
         •  Develop and conduct webcasts and exercises to
           prepare utilities, emergency responders, and
         decision-makers to evaluate and respond to physical,
         cyber, and contamination threats and events;
       •  Create, update, and disseminate tools and provide
         technical assistance to ensure that water and waste-
         water utilities and emergency responders react rap-
         idly and effectively to intentional contamination and
         natural disasters. Tools include information on high
         priority contaminants, incident command protocols,
         sampling and detection protocols and methods, and
         treatment options;
       •  Sustain operation of the Water Desk in the Agency's
         Emergency Operations Center by updating roles/
         responsibilities, training staff in the incident com-
         mand structure, ensuring adequate staffing during
         activation  of the desk, and coordinating with EPA
         regional field personnel and response partners;
       •  Support the adoption and use of mutual aid agree-
         ments among utilities to improve recovery times;
       •  Continue to implement specific recommendations
         for emergency response, as developed by the EPA
         and water sector stakeholders, including providing
         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  evolv-
         ing water security priorities; and
       •  Refine and provide outreach and training on a risk
         assessment tool that will enable utilities to address
         the risks from all hazards, including climate change
         impacts.
     e. Source Water Protection Programs
       The Source Water Protection Program is a voluntary
       program that works with states, associations and
       other organizations to protect drinking water sources
       through collaboration and partnerships that engage
       states, local governments and drinking water utili-
       ties, as well as other federal agencies, in protection
       activities. Source water includes untreated water from
       streams, rivers, lakes, or underground aquifers that is
       used to provide public drinking water, as well to  supply
       private wells used for human  consumption. A core prin-
       ciple of source water protection is that, while all  public
       water systems are responsible for providing safe water,
       no public water system should have to provide more
       drinking water treatment than required to address
       naturally occurring pollutant  concentrations.
       In FY 2013, EPA will continue supporting state and
       local efforts to address sources of drinking water
       contamination to improve the number of CWSs that
       have diminished risk to public health concerns through
       development and implementation of protection  strate-
       gies for source water areas (as determined by states)
National Water Program Guidance
11

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                               Water Safe to Drink
         from a baseline of 20% of all areas in FY 2005 to 50% in
         FY 2013 (see measure SDW-SP4a). EPA also has a goal
         of increasing the percent of the population served by
         these community water systems to 57% in FY 2013 (see
         measure SDW-SP4b).
         Specifically in FY 2013, the Agency will work with
         states, tribes, and the multi-partner Source Water Col-
         laboratives as appropriate to:
         •  Facilitate participation with state conservation and
           local conservation districts to leverage U.S. Depart-
           ment of Agriculture (USDA) funding for source water
           protection from NFS pollution through state and
           local decision making.
         •  Provide training, technical assistance and technol-
           ogy transfer capabilities to states and localities,
           and facilitate the use and sharing of Geographic
           Information System (CIS) databases to support local
           decision-making.
         •  Characterize current and future pressures on source
           water quality and availability (particularly the
           increased frequency of severe drought and/or severe
           storms), and assess adaptation options to address
           those impacts, and explore opportunities to mutually
           leverage resources among federal, state, interstate,
           and local agencies to protect and preserve drinking
           water resources.
         •  Align source water conservation and protection
           with state priorities. In particular, EPA will work to
           integrate source water protection into CWA pro-
           grams, such as the Healthy Watersheds Initiative
           (HWI), and storm water management through Green
           Infrastructure.
         •  Work with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to main-
           tain healthy land cover and USDA to promote land
           conservation programs and BMPs to protect water
           quality.
       f. Underground Injection Control
         SDWA requires EPA to develop minimum federal
         requirements for UIC programs and other safeguards to
         protect public health by preventing injection wells from
         contaminating underground sources of drinking water.
         As such, the UIC program is responsible for developing
         and overseeing the implementation of regulations to
         protect underground sources of drinking water through
         the management of injection wells used to contain
         hazardous, industrial, and other fluids (including those
         that use diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing purposes);
         sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2); and store water
         for future use and aquifer recharge.
         The mechanical integrity of an injection well is criti-
         cal to assure that there are no  significant leaks in the
         well components and that there is no significant fluid
       movement into underground source of drinking water
       through vertical channels adjacent to the injection well-
       bore. EPA, states, and tribes have historically had three
       separate measures for reporting on the number of Class
       I, II, and III wells that lost mechanical integrity and are
       were not returned to compliance within 180 days. We
       no longer tracked these separately for each class start-
       ing in FY 2012, they were tracked as a combined group.
       This will enable better target setting and evaluation of
       program performance.
       Continuing in FY 2013, states and EPA (where EPA
       directly implements the UIC program) will continue to
       carry out implementation of the regulations for each
       class of injection wells by:
       •  Addressing high priority Class V wells. In 2012, the
         measure for Class V was changed from high priority
         wells, as defined by each program, to only those high
         priority well types regulated under the Class V rule
         in order to provide nationally consistent information
         about implementation of that rule.
       •  Evaluating as the direct implementation authority,
         permit applications, and process new Class VI per-
         mits  for large-scale commercial carbon sequestration
         applications following the GS regulations, finalized
         in December 2010. Starting in FY 2012, EPA now
         has two indicator measures to evaluate implementa-
         tion of the GS Rule, 1) the number of permit actions
         taken and 2) the volume of CO2 sequestered.
       •  Processing UIC permits for other nontraditional
         injection streams, such as desalination brines and
         treated waters injected for aquifer storage and recov-
         ered  at a later time.
       •  Examining and improving current practices for per-
         mitting the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing
         operations related to oil, gas, and geothermal produc-
         tion activities.
       The Agency will carry out the following responsibilities
       in permitting current and future GS of CO2 projects.
       Activities planned for FY 2013 include:
       •  Complete development of supporting GS documents
         (i.e.,  technical support documents, guidance docu-
         ments, and implementation materials) for the GS of
         CO2 recovered from emissions of power plants and
         other facilities;
       •  Continue to facilitate research in UlC-related areas
         of GS, including studies on siting 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
         (USDW);
National Water Program Guidance
12

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                              Water Safe to Drink
         •  Analyze data collected through Class II Enhanced Oil
           Recovery and Class V pilot projects and additional
           industry efforts to demonstrate, commercialize, and
           implement GS of CO2 technology;
         •  Continue to engage states, tribes, nongovernmen-
           tal organizations (NGOs), and public stakeholders
           through meetings, workshops, and other avenues, on
           technical issues related to the final Class VI rule and
           on broader climate change issues;
         •  Assure that assistance is provided to EPA regional
           offices to facilitate processing of permits for Class VI
           GS projects; and provide additional assistance (such
           as outreach and communication material) for states
           and tribes in their respective roles in the permitting
           process as necessary; and
         •  Process primacy applications from states and tribes
           seeking GS well permitting authority and approve
           revisions to UIC programs for acquiring GS Class VI
           wells in their existing state and tribal UIC programs.
         Many of these activities support the recommendations
         laid out in the President's Carbon Capture and Stor-
         age Task Force report. EPA will continue to implement
         actions responsive to the Task Force report into FY
         2013. Also in FY 2013, EPA will continue to review new
         applications for primary enforcement authority from
         states and tribes work to dissuade states from return-
         ing their UIC programs to the Agency.
     2. Improvement of small drinking water system
       technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
       Many small public water systems face many challenges in
       providing safe drinking water and meeting the  require-
       ments of SDWA. These challenges include:  (1) lack of ade-
       quate revenue or access to financing; (2) aging infrastruc-
       ture; (3) retirement of experienced system operators and
       the inability to recruit new operators to replace them; (4)
       operators who lack the requisite skills; and (5) difficulty in
       understanding existing or new regulatory requirements.
       As a result, some small systems may experience frequent
       or long-term compliance challenges to reliably providing
       safe water to their communities.
       To reinforce the critical need of improving  the protection
       of public health for people served by small systems, in FY
       2012, EPA established an Agency Priority Goal through
       the budget process to improve small drinking water
       systems capability in twenty states through increased
       participation in EPA's Optimization and Capacity Devel-
       opment Programs. In FY 2013, EPA is strengthening its
       efforts in working with states, tribes, utility associations,
       third-party technical assistance providers,  and  other
       federal partners, to enhance small system compliance and
       long-term sustainability.
     •  EPA will continue to emphasize the importance of state
       implementation of the capacity development and opera-
       tor certification programs. These programs are critical to
     assisting small system in achieving and maintaining com-
     pliance with drinking water regulations and long-term
     system sustainability. EPA will work with states and other
     partners to identify and disseminate best practices, poli-
     cies, and innovations across state programs, and promote
     sustainable practices, including asset management and
     energy and water efficiency.
     States should continue to target use of DWSRF set-asides
     for activities that enhance the technical, managerial, and
     financial capacity of small systems, thereby increasing the
     ability of these systems to consistently meet both exist-
     ing and newer drinking water standards.
     The Agency continues to  encourage state DWSRF pro-
     grams that have not yet developed a disadvantaged
     communities program to do so, as well as advocating
     that states support existing disadvantaged community
     assistance, with an emphasis on those systems requiring
     installation of treatment technology to comply with the
     Arsenic Rule and newer drinking water regulations.
     The Agency expects states to ensure that DWSRF loans
     are reserved for systems which are deemed sustainable
     or are on a pathway to sustainability through DWSRF
     support. In addition, EPA encourages states to identify
     opportunities to coordinate with other funding agencies
     (e.g. USDA Rural Development) to more effectively assist
     small systems.
     Water system partnerships can provide opportunities  for
     water systems to collaborate on compliance solutions,
     operations and maintenance activities, and share costs
     with other nearby systems, thereby enabling them to
     become sustainable and provide safe and affordable water
     to their communities. EPA will work with states, tribes,
     and other partners to educate systems on the various
     forms of system partnerships, including restructur-
     ing and shared treatment. EPA will help states identify
     opportunities to use DWSRF set-asides to achieve desired
     partnerships.
     Cross-program collaboration is essential to assisting
     many small systems with their compliance challenges.
     Regional and state capacity development, operator certi-
     fication, and DWSRF programs should increase coordina-
     tion with the enforcement program and utilize OECA's
     Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT) to help determine
     the most appropriate approach for returning systems to
     compliance.
     To support implementation of this small system effort,
     the Agency developed a suite of indicators in the FY 2011
     Guidance, with continued emphasis for use in FY 2013.
     These indicators correspond to the small system effort:
     1) existing and new small water system inventory; 2)
     state DWSRF projects targeting small systems; and 3)
     small system noncompliance and their capacity to quickly
     return to compliance with health-based standards.
     Schools and childcare centers are a critical subset of small
National Water Program Guidance
13

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                              Water Safe to Drink
       systems for which EPA is also continuing to provide spe-
       cial emphasis in FY 2013 to ensure that children receive
       water that is safe to drink. Therefore, included is a sepa-
       rate indicator for schools and childcare centers meeting
       health-based standards.
     3. Streamlining the DWSRF grant award distribution and
       program/project outlay of funds process.
       Congress and EPA continue to emphasize the urgency in
       ensuring that all funds appropriated for the DWSRF move
       as expeditiously as possible from EPA through states
       and into high priority projects, consistent with sound
       program oversight, achieving the public health protection
       objectives of SDWA. This includes emphasis on expedit-
       ing/streamlining project outlay and billing to reduce
       ULOs.
       In FY 2013, EPA will work with states to streamline the
       SRF grant award and program/project use of funds where
       feasible. The following is a list of areas developed by Office
       Wastewater Management (OWM) and OGWDW that EPA,
       regions and states, could modify or potentially accelerate
       to expedite the award and outlay of funds while ensuring
       that the financial integrity of the program is maintained.
       Not all practices identified maybe applicable to each state
       program, depending on program structure and upon the
       uncertainties associated with the annual federal appro-
       priations process.
     •  Timing related to the development and approval of lUPs
       and their Set-Aside Workplans.
     •  The award of capitalization grants in the first year of
       funds availability.
     •  Timing related to the execution of loans after bids are
       received or after contract is awarded.
     •  Project Management related to reviewing and establish-
       ing by-pass procedures that ensure projects move as fast
       as possible.
     •  The acceleration of cash draws.
     •  State use of the set-aside funds seeking to appropriately
       balance the need for set-aside balances to be as low as
       possible while at the same time being adequate to sup-
       port ongoing program needs from year to year given
       uncertainties regarding timing of federal appropriations
       and subsequent DWSRF Capitalization Grant awards.
     4. Implement the new Class VI GS rulemaking
       In December 2010, EPA finalized UIC Program require-
       ments for GS, including the development of a new class
       of wells, Class VI. These requirements (referred to as
       the Class VI rule) are designed to further protect under-
       ground sources of drinking water from endangerment.
       The Class VI rule builds on existing UIC Program require-
       ments, with extensive tailored requirements that address
       CO2 injection for long-term storage to ensure that wells
     used for GS are appropriately sited, constructed, tested,
     monitored, funded, and closed; and that well owners or
     operators maintain sufficient resources to ensure pre-and
     post-operational activities.
     In FY 2013, the drinking water program is emphasizing
     the importance of working with states and well own-
     ers to implement the Class VI rule. EPA will 1) prepare,
     revise, and finalize implementation materials including
     technical guidance documents (listed below) to support
     Class VI rule implementation; 2) conduct webinars for
     the regulated community and implementing authorities
     to facilitate rule implementation and comprehension
     of guidance (described below) recommendations, and
     prepare additional implementation materials for the rule;
     3) review and process (by rulemaking) Class VI primacy
     applications from states and tribes; and 4) provide techni-
     cal assistance to states to analyze complex modeling,
     monitoring, siting, and financial assurance data for new
     GS projects.
     GS of CO2 UIC Program Guidance documents referenced
     above include:
       •  The II-VI transition guidance.
       •  Injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and
         site closure.
       •  Injection depth waivers.
       •  Reporting and recordkeeping guidance.

   C) Grant Program  Resources
   EPA manages the following three program grants to the
   states and tribes, authorized under SDWA, to support the
   implementation of the drinking water core program and
   achieve EPA's strategic goals related to drinking water.
   Public Water System Supervision
   The PWSS grants program support the states' and EPA
   regional primacy activities related to technical assistance,
   compliance with, and enforcement of drinking water regula-
   tions.  PWSS grant guidance issued for FY 2005 will continue
   to apply in FY 2013 in addition to the guidance provided
   above. The memo entitled Guidance and Tentative Grant
   Allotments to Support Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
   Program on Tribal Lands, provided in 2008, continues to
   apply in FY 2013 to EPA regions that receive tribal PWSS
   funding to support the Tribal Drinking Water Program. Of
   the FY 2013 President's Budget request of $109.7 million,
   approximately $6.8 million will support implementation of
   the Tribal Drinking Water Programs.
   Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
   As stated previously, the DWSRF enables states to offer low
   interest loans and other assistance to help public water sys-
   tems across the Nation make improvements and upgrades
   to their water infrastructure, or other activities that develop
   system capacity and enhance infrastructure sustainability.
National Water Program Guidance
14

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                              Water Safe to Drink
     The DWSRF program provides significant resources for
     states for this purpose. Through FY 2011, the program as
     a whole provided over $15.5 billion in assistance to states,
     tribes, and municipalities. States reserved over $1.5 billion
     in set-asides to support key drinking water programs. In FY
     2013, the Agency requested $850 million for the program.
     EPA continues to emphasize the targeting of DWSRF
     resources to achieve water system compliance with health-
     based requirements.
     Tribal drinking water systems and Alaska Native Village
     (ANV) water systems face the challenge of improving access
     to safe drinking water for the populations they serve. Fund-
     ing for development of infrastructure to address public
     health goals related to  access to safe drinking water comes
     from several sources within EPA and from other federal
     agencies. EPA reserves 2.0% of the DWSRF funds for grants
     for tribal and ANV drinking water infrastructure to pro-
     vide access to safe drinking water and facilitate compliance
     with NPDWRs. EPA also administers a grant program for
     drinking water and wastewater projects in ANVs. Additional
     funding is available from other federal agencies, including
     the Indian Health Service, USDA and the Department of
     Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
   Underground Injection Control Grants
   SDWA requires EPA to develop minimum federal require-
   ments for UIC programs and other safeguards to protect
   public health by preventing injection wells from contami-
   nating USDW Each year, funds are distributed by EPA to
   assist state UIC programs manage and enforce the federal
   UIC requirements related to injection wells used to dispose
   of hazardous, industrial, and other fluids (including those
   that use diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing purposes);
   sequestration of CO2; and store water for future use and
   aquifer recharge.
   For FY 2013, EPA requested $11.1 million for grants to
   states to carry out primary enforcement (primacy) respon-
   sibilities for implementing regulations associated with UIC
   wells. In addition, emphasis is directed to activities that
   address shallow wells (Class V) in source water protection
   areas.
   For additional information on these grants, see the grant
   program guidance on the website (http://water.epa.gov/
   resource_performance/planning/index.cfm).
National Water Program Guidance
15

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                                 Water Safe to Drink
        Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grant Guidance to States, Tribes, and  EPA Regions with
        Primacy Enforcement Authority
       The PWSS program is fundamental to the implementation of SDWAand EPA and state's role in the protection of public health.This
       National Water Program Guidance for FY 2013 includes guidance for state and tribal recipients of PWSS program grants, as well as for
       EPA regions with primacy enforcement authority. Grant recipients are expected to conduct their programs to help achieve the goals,
       objectives, subobjectives, strategic targets, and program activity measures specified in Section 111.1  ofthisGu/cfance. 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:

       •  Public water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, that are currently in compliance, remain in compliance;

       •  Public water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, that are not currently in compliance, achieve compliance;

       •  Public water systems, of all types, and of all sizes, are preparing to com ply with new drinking water regulations that will betaking
          effect in FY 2013.

       Assisting public water systems in meeting this objective and achieving long-term sustainability requires grantees to adopt a variety of
       approaches and coordinate efforts across the drinking water program. Building on the ongoing efforts of grantees to implement the
       PWSS program, FY 2013 priority activities for the PWSS grantees should include the following:

       •  Timely submission of primacy program revisions for the purpose of adopting new or revised federal regulations;

       •  Completion of sanitary surveys;

       •  Microbial and Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts rules implementation;

       •  Small system compliance assistance; and

       •  Technical assistance to public water systems.

       A proportion of each PWSS grant should be devoted to ensuring that data quality and other data problems are being addressed.
       Specifically that:

       •  Water system compliance determinations are consistent with federal and state regulations

       •  Corrective actions associated with data reviews are implemented; and

       •  The required inventory, compliance, and enforcement data being provided to EPA through the SDWIS/FED data system are
          timely, accurate, and complete.

       In accordance with EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Compliance, Review and Monitoring,  effective January 1,2008, EPA regions must
       develop and carry out a post-award monitoring plan and conduct baseline monitoring for every award. This monitoring should ensure
       satisfaction of five core areas: (1) compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions; (2) correlation of the recipient's work plan/
       application and actual progress under the award; (3) availability of funds  to complete  the project, (4) proper management of and
       accounting for equipment purchased under the award, and (5) compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the pro-
       gram. In addition, this monitoring should inform regional decisions under 40 CFR 142.17 as authorized under SDWA Section 1413.

       The PWSS grant allotments are based on factors such as population, geographic area, and PWS inventory. State-by-state allotments
       and the total amount available to each region for its tribal support program will be available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/
       grants/allotments_state-terr.html.
National Water Program Guidance
16

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                                  Water Safe to Drink
        Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Grant Guidance to States
       This Guidance for FY 2013 includes guidance for state recipients of DWSRF 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 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 DWSRF Program is governed by CFR35 SubpartL, which implements SDWA Section 1452. Additional guidance has been, and
       continues to be, issued as necessary to address program implementation needs. The ARRA supplemental appropriation for the DWSRF
       contained a number of new requirements unique to that appropriation. ARRA was implemented through guidance. Federal appropria-
       tions bills for FY 2010-2012 contained specific requirements (similar to certain requirements of ARRA) on the amounts appropriated in
       each of those years and  those specific requirements have been implemented through annual "Procedures", issued jointly by OGWDW
       and OWM.

       The SDWA Amendments of 1996 establish the DWSRF Program with the central purpose of providing financial assistance to water
       systems and to state programs to help achieve the public health protection objectives of the Act. SDWA requires that priority for fund-
       ing be given to those projects that address the most serious risk to  human health; are necessary to ensure compliance with SDWA; and
       assist systems most in need on a per household basis.

       States, at their discretion, may reserve up to a total of 31 % of any DWSRF capitalization grant for "set-asides" to fund DWSRF program
       administration, small system technical assistance, state program management, and local assistance. This includes:

       •  Support for the state  PWSS program.

       •  State wide operation  certification programs.

       •  State wide capacity development planning.

       •  System source water  protection.

       •  System level capacity development actions.

       To ensure the appropriate  balance between financing capital projects to improve the delivery of safe water and funding non-capital
       set-aside assistance for water systems, the PWSS program in each state has the lead responsibility for determining the priority for
       providing these two forms of assistance to water systems. This balance of funding priorities is to be reflected in the state's IUP. SDWA
       requires that states submit an annual IUP that details how the state will use DWSRF program funds, including new capitalization grants,
       as well as other grant funds, repayments, and other resources. A Project Priority List is a required element of the IUP. The Project Priority
       List is a cornerstone of the IUP and presents all the capital projects awaiting DWSRF assistance in priority funding order. States must
       also include a "Fundable List" showing the specific projects that the state actually anticipates being ready to proceed to receiving assis-
       tance in the year ahead.  Additionally, states are required to submit  set-aside work plans that detail how set-aside funds will be used.
       Finally, states must submit, biennially, a report that explains how DWSRF funds were actually used. States are also required to submit
       annual data on program performance. Auditing is required to the extent laid out in the Single Audit Act.

       EPA regions perform annual on-sight reviews of state programs, including project file reviews and transaction testing. For ARRA, an
       ARRA specific review was added as well as ARRA specific project file reviews and transaction testing. These reviews serve as EPA's base-
       line monitoring for the DWSRF.

       The DWSRF grant allotments are based on the Drinking Water Needs Survey. State-by-state allotments, territorial funds, and the total
       amount available to each region for tribes will be available  at http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/index.cfm.

       In FY 2013, EPA and the  states will continue to ensure that all SRF funds move as expeditiously as possible from EPA through states and
       into high priority projects, consistent with sound program oversight, achieving the public health protection objectives of SDWA. This
       includes emphasis on expediting/streamlining project outlay and billing to reduce unliquidated obligations.
National Water Program Guidance
17

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                                  Water Safe to Drink
        Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grant Guidance to States and Tribes
       The UIC Prog ram, under SDWA, is vital to the protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDW). EPA works with states and
       tribes to regulate and monitor the injection of fluids, both hazardous and non-hazardous, into wells, to prevent contamination. This
       Guidance for FY 2013 includes guidance for EPA regional, state, and tribal recipients of UIC program funds. Each year. State and Tribal
       Assistance Grants (STAG) funds are distributed by the national UIC Program to help UIC programs enforce the minimum federal UIC
       requirements.These funds are authorized by Congress under SDWA Section 1443. Grant recipients are expected to conduct their pro-
       grams to help achieve the goals, objectives, sub-objectives, strategic targets, and program activity measures specified in this Guidance.
       In addition, grant resources should be focused on ensuring that the gains of the previous years'efforts are preserved and built upon.

       The overall objective of the UIC grant is to protect public health by:

       •  Setting minimum requirements for injection wells. All injection must be authorized under either general rules or specific permits;

       •  Ensuring that injection well owners and operators may not site, construct, operate, maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or conduct
          any other injection activity that endangers USDW;

       •  Ensure that injected fluids stay within the well and the intended injection zone; and

       •  No injection may occur which allows for the introduction of any contaminant into an USDW if the presence of that contaminant
          may cause a violation of any primary drinking water standard or otherwise adversely affect public health.

       Assisting owners and operators of UIC facilities in meeting these objectives require grantees to adopt a variety of approaches and to
       coordinate efforts with other groundwater protection programs. FY 2013 priority activities for the UIC grant fund recipients should
       include the following:

       •  Timely submission of primacy program revisions for the purpose of adopting new or revised federal regulations;

       •  Maintaining program capacity to implement UIC program requirements for all classes of wells;

       •  Ensuring that Class I, II and III (salt solution) wells that lose mechanical integrity are returned  to compliance;

       •  Addressing high priority Class V wells; and

       •  Populating the UIC National Database by sharing well specific data.

       In accordance with EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Compliance, Review and Monitoring, effective January 1,2008, EPA regions must
       develop and carry out a post-award monitoring plan and conduct baseline monitoring for every award. This monitoring  should ensure
       satisfaction of five core areas: (1) compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions; (2) correlation of the recipient's work plan/
       application and actual progress under the award; (3) availability of funds to complete the project; (4) proper management of and
       accounting for equipment purchased  under the award; and (5) compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the
       program.

       The grant allotments are determined by the UIC Grant Allocation Model and follow the criteria identified in SDWA Section 1443 which
       requires UIC allocations to be based on such factors as "population, geographic area, extent of underground injection practices, and
       other relevant factors." UIC Grant Guidance #42 provides more detail about the UIC Grant Allocation Model including how the model
       works and examples of how the UIC funds may be used. See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/guidance.html.
National Water Program Guidance
18

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                       Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
     2. Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
                     A) Subobjective
                     Percent of women of childbearing age
                     having mercury levels in blood above
                     the level of concern (of 4.6 percent).
     2005 Baseline: 5.7%     2012 Commitment: 4.9%
     2013 Target: 2.5%       2015 Strategic Target: 4.6%
     (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
     Appendix A andE.)

     B) Key National Strategies
     Elevated blood mercury levels pose a significant health risk
     and consumption of mercury- contaminated fish is the
     primary source of mercury in blood. Across the country as
     of 2008, states and tribes have issued fish consumption
     advisories for a range of contaminants covering 1.4 million
     river miles and over 18 million lake acres. In addition, a
     significant portion of the valuable shellfishing acres man-
     aged by states and tribes is not open for use. EPA's national
     approach to meeting safe fish goals and improving the qual-
     ity of fishing waters is described in this section.
     EPA's approach to making fish and shellfish safer to eat
     includes several key elements:
     •   Encourage development of statewide mercury reduction
        strategies;
     •   Reduce air deposition of mercury; and
     •   Improve the quality of fishing waters.
     EPA will also improve public information and notification of
     fish consumption risks in order to help people make more
     informed choices about selecting fish to eat.
     1. Comprehensive Statewide Mercury Reduction Programs
       EPA recognizes that restoration of waterbodies impaired
       by mercury may require coordinated efforts to address
       widely dispersed sources of contamination and that resto-
       ration may require a long-term commitment.
       In early March 2007, EPA established guidelines allowing
       states the option of developing comprehensive mercury
       reduction programs in conjunction with their lists of
       impaired waters developed under CWA Section 303(d).
       Under the new guidelines, 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 mer-
       cury TMDLs for these waters. These  mercury impaired
       waters would not be included in estimates of the "pace" of
       TMDL development needed to meet the goal of develop-
       ing TMDLs for impaired waters within 8 to 13 years of
       listing the waterbody.
       The key elements of a state comprehensive mercury
       reduction program are:
   •  Identification of air sources of mercury in the state,
     including adoption of appropriate state level programs to
     address in-state sources;
   •  Identification of other potential multi-media sources of
     mercury in products and wastes and adoption of appro-
     priate state level programs;
   •  Adoption of statewide mercury reduction goals and tar-
     gets, including targets for percent reduction and dates of
     achievement;
   •  Multi-media mercury monitoring;
   •  Public documentation of the state's mercury reduction
     program in conjunction with the state's CWA 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 legisla-
     tion, regulations, or other programs that implement the
     required elements  have been formally adopted by the
     state, as opposed to being in the planning or implementa-
     tion stages). States will have the option of using the "5m"
     listing approach as part of the CWA 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 prob-
     lems using core CWA program authorities, including
     TMDL and permitting programs where a state does not
     develop a comprehensive statewide reduction strategy for
     specific waters in which a local source of mercury can be
     addressed using existing tools.
   2. Reduce Air Deposition of Mercury
     Most fish advisories are for mercury, and a critical ele-
     ment 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 were expected to reduce electric-gen-
     erating unit emissions of mercury from their 2000 level
     (see EPA Strategic  Plan; Goal 1: Taking Action on Climate
     Change and Improving Air Quality).
   3. Improve the Quality of Fishing Waters
     Success in achieving improved quality in shellfishing
     waters relies  on implementation of CWA 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 iden-
     tified, expanded monitoring and development of TMDLs
     may support revision of discharge permit limits to ensure
     compliance with applicable CWA requirements.
National Water Program Guidance
19

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                         Water Safe for Swimming
     Another key element of the strategy is to expand and
     improve information and notification of the risks of fish
     consumption. As part of this work, EPA is also encouraging
     and supporting states and tribes to adopt the fish tissue
     criterion for mercury that EPA issued in 2001 and apply it
     based on implementation guidance.
     EPA is actively monitoring the development of fish con-
     sumption advisories and working with states to improve
     monitoring to support this effort. Forty-two percent of lake
     acres and 36 percent of river miles have been assessed as of
     2010 to support waterbody-specific or regional consump-
     tion advisories or a determination that no consumption
     advice is necessary (see Program Activity Measure FS-la
     and b). EPA also encourages states and tribes to monitor
     fish tissue based on national guidance and most states are
     now using EPA guidance recommendations in their fish
     advisory programs.
     In addition, a wide range of clean water programs that
     applies throughout the country will generally reduce patho-
     gen levels in key waters. For example, improved imple-
     mentation of NPDES permit requirements for Combined
     Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Concentrated Animal Feeding
     Operations (CAFOs), and storm water runoff, as well as
     improved NFS control efforts, may contribute to restoration
     of shellfish uses.

     C) Grant Program  Resources
     Grant resources supporting this goal include the state
     program grants under CWA Section 106, other water grants
     identified in the Grant Program Resources section of Subob-
     jective 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://water.epa.
     gov/resource_performance/planning/index.cfm).

     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%      2012 Commitment: 95%
     2013 Target: 95%       2015 Target: 95%
     (Note: Additional measures of progress are included  in
     Appendix A andE.)

     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 2013, 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
   •  Continue 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 implement-
     ing a science plan that will provide the support needed
     to underpin the next generation of recommended water
     quality criteria. EPA published draft criteria in Decem-
     ber 2011 and will publish final new or revised criteria in
     October 2012.
   2. Identify Unsafe Recreational Waters and
     Begin Restoration
     A key component of the strategy to restore waters unsafe
     for swimming is to identify the specific waters that are
     unsafe and develop plans to accomplish the needed
     restoration. A key part of this work is to maintain strong
     progress toward implementation of TMDLs which are
     developed based on the schedules established by states in
     conjunction with EPA. Program Activity Measure WQ-08
     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 develop-
     ing TMDLs on a water segment or watershed basis where
     appropriate (see Section II.1).
     In a related effort, OW will work in partnership with
     OECA to better focus compliance and enforcement
     resources to unsafe recreational waters. In addition, wet
     weather discharges, which are a major source of patho-
     gens, 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
     2013 to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged
     to recreational waters using three key approaches:
   •  Reduce pollution from CSOs that are not in compliance
     with final requirements of the Long Term Control Plans
     (LTCPs);
   •  Address other sources discharging pathogens under the
     NPDES permit program; and
   •  Encourage improved management of septic systems.
   Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)  and
National Water Program Guidance
20

-------
Strategies to Protect Human Health
                                         Water Safe for Swimming
     Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) most often contain high
     levels of suspended solids, pathogenic microorganisms,
     toxic pollutions, flotables, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
     organic compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants
     and can cause exceedances of WQS. Such exceedances may
     pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and its
     habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of the Nation's
     waterways. EPA is working with states and local govern-
     ments to fully implement the CSO Policy providing for the
     development and implementation of long-term CSO control
     plans. EPA expects that 752 (88%) out of the 853 CSO com-
     munities will have enforceable schedules in place to  imple-
     ment approved long-term CSO control plans, including
     sewer separation, in FY 2013 (see Program Activity  Measure
     SS-1). EPA will also work with states to resolve longstanding
     issues associated with sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and
     bypasses at treatment plants.
     Other key sources of pathogens to the Nation's waters are
     discharges from CAFOs, municipal storm  sewer systems,
     and industrial facilities. EPA expects to work with states
     to assure that these facilities are covered by permits where
     necessary. In addition, EPA expects to work with the states
     to develop approaches for monitoring wet weather dis-
     charges and impacts to surface waters, developing water
     quality-based effluent limits, and identifying effective
     control measures and BMPs. For CAFOs, NPDES regula-
     tions currently require facilities with discharges to seek
     permit coverage. Full implementation of the NPDES permit-
     ting requirement for CAFOs may result in lower pathogen
     contamination due to permitting requirements that place
     controls on discharges of manure and process wastewater.
     Finally, there is growing evidence that ineffective septic
     systems are adversely impacting water resources. EPA will
     work with state, tribal, and local governments to develop
     voluntary approaches to improving management of these
     systems.
   4. Improve Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
     Another important element of the strategy for improving
     the safety of recreational waters is improving monitor-
     ing of public beaches and notifying the public of unsafe
     conditions. Grants awarded to states in FY 2012 will allow
     most of them to continue monitoring beach water quality
     during the 2013 swimming season, notifying the public
     of exceedances, and reporting those data to EPA in early
     2014. However, with the lack of beach grants in FY 2013
     (affecting monitoring for the 2014 swimming season),
     some states might reprioritize to designate fewer Tier 1
     beaches, as they transition to state-funded beach pro-
     grams. Thus, EPA expects that 100% of "significant" pub-
     lic beaches will be monitored in accordance with BEACH
     Act requirements in 2013 (see Measure SS-2). Significant
     public beaches are those identified by states as "Tier 1" in
     their beach monitoring and notification programs.

   C) Grant Program Resources
   Grant resources supporting this goal include BEACH Act
   grants, which are slated for elimination in FY 2013. States
   have the flexibility to use CWA Section 106 grants for a wide
   range of activities, including ambient water quality moni-
   toring, to address their most pressing pollution control
   program needs. Some activities might also be eligible under
   NFS program implementation grants (CWA Section 319
   grants). For additional information on these grants, see the
   grant program guidance on the website (http://water.epa.
   gov/resource_performance/planning/index.cfm).
National Water Program Guidance
21

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                          Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
         .  Strategies  to  Protect and  Restore  Fresh  Waters,  Coastal
           Waters,  and Wetlands
           An overarching goal of the National Water Program is to protect and restore aquatic systems throughout the country,
           including rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands. Although the three subobjective strategies described below
           address discrete elements of the Nation's water resources, the National Water Program manages these efforts as part
     of a comprehensive effort. In addition, the national strategies described below are intended to work in concert with the
     efforts to restore and protect the large aquatic ecosystems described in Part IV of this Guidance.
     1) Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
                         ibobjective
A                     Use pollution prevention and restora-
                     tion approaches to protect and restore
         ._._._._._._._.._._.      the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams
                     on a watershed basis.
     (NOTE: Additional measures of progress, including mea-
     sures related to watersheds and maintaining water quality in
     streams already meeting standards are included in Appendix
     AandE.)

     B) Key National Strategies
     In FY 2013, EPA will work with states, tribes, and others to
     implement programs to protect and restore water resources
     with four 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 con-
       tinue to work with states and tribes to strengthen capaci-
       ties to identify and address impaired waters, including
       the development of integrated protection and restoration
       strategies, and to use adaptive management approaches
       to implement cost-effective restoration solutions, giving
       priority to watershed approaches where appropriate.
     •  Water Protection Goals and Strategies: EPA will work
       with states and tribes to strengthen capacities to identify
       and protect high quality waters and watersheds, and to
       integrate protection and restoration as part of a compre-
       hensive approach to achieve environmental results.
     1. Implement Core Clean Water Programs to Protect All
       Waters Nationwide
       In FY 2013, EPA, states, and tribes need to continue to
       effectively implement and better integrate programs
     established under CWA to protect, improve, and restore
     water quality. To achieve this, EPA will apply adaptive
     management principles to our core programs and initia-
     tives. Key tasks for FY 2013 include:
     •  Strengthen the WQS 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 NPSs; and
     •  Support sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
     Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
     Interstate Agencies: General Information
     This National Water Program Guidance for FY 2013 includes
     guidance for state and interstate recipients of Section 106
     grants for Water Pollution Control Programs. As a general mat-
     ter, grant recipients are expected to conduct their programs
     to help achieve the goals, objectives, subobjectives, strategic
     targets, and program activity measures specified in section
     111.1 of this Guidance. In addition, section III.1 includes specific
     guidance for State and Interstate grant recipients in text boxes
     like this. Together, section III.1, the text boxes, and Appendix D
     replace the biannual Section 106 Grant Guidance. The National
     Water Program Guidance for FY 2013 continues this practice of
     incorporating Section 106 grants guidance.

     This grant guidance covers only the core water pollution con-
     trol 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/cwfinance7106tgg07.htm.

     •  State and Interstate use of Monitoring Initiative funds.
       See http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwf/
          106-guidelines-monitor.cfm

     •  Water pollution enforcement activities.
       See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.

     *Tribes found eligible under CWA section 518(e) to be treated in
     the same manner as a state (TAS) to administer a WQS program
     are expected to follow the same guidance as states for these
     programs.
National Water Program Guidance
22

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                            Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       As part of this process, EPA will continue efforts to
       integrate across programs, media and federal agencies to
       more effectively support efforts to protect and restore
       waters. In the event that OW finds that existing pro-
       grams, initiatives, or processes are not resulting in a sig-
       nificant 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 water-
       sheds. 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 2013 in each of these program areas are
       described below.

       a. Strengthen Water Quality Standards Program

          WQS are the regulatory and scientific foundation of
          water quality protection programs (WQPP)  under
          the CWA. Under the Act, states and authorized tribes
          establish WQS that define the goals and limits for
          waters within their jurisdictions. These standards are
          then used to determine which waters must be cleaned
          up, how much maybe discharged, and what is needed
          for protection.

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

          Excess nitrogen and phosphorus can cause eutrophica-
          tion and human health problems in lakes, estuaries,
          rivers, and streams; and can degrade drinking water
          quality. EPA continues to place a high priority on state
          and territories adoption of numeric water quality
          criteria for nitrogen (N)  and phosphorus (P) pollution
          to help address these issues (see measure WQ-Ola).
          Further, an EPA policy memorandum issued in March
          2011, "Working in Partnership with States to Address
          Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a
          Framework for State Nutrient Reductions," encourages
          states to undertake a number of key actions to address
          N and P pollution, from priority-setting to full imple-
          mentation.  In accordance with this memorandum, EPA
          encourages  states to begin work immediately setting
          priorities on a watershed or statewide basis, establish-
          ing nutrient reduction targets, and adopting numeric
          nutrient criteria (and providing milestone informa-
          tion to EPA) for at least one class of waterbodies by no
          later than 2016. EPA added a new measure (WQ-26) to
          track progress in this area. EPA anticipates modifying
     Section 106 Grant Guidance to states and
     Interstate Agencies: Water Quality Standards
     It is EPA's objective for states and authorized tribes to administer
     the water quality program consistent with the requirements
     of the CWA and the WQS regulation.* EPA expects states and
     tribes will enhance the quality and timeliness of theirWQS
     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 WQS submissions. It is
     particularly important for states and tribes to keep their water
     quality criteria up to date, including considering all the scientific
     information EPA has issued for specific pollutants since the state
     or tribe last updated those criteria, and adding or revising cri-
     teria as necessary (see Program Activity Measures WQ-03a and
     03b). States with disapproved standards provisions should work
     with EPA to resolve the disapprovals promptly.

     EPA's March 2011 memorandum concerning a frameworkfor
     nutrient reductions reaffirms EPA's commitment to partnering
     with states and collaborating with stakeholders to make greater
     progress in accelerating the reduction of nitrogen and phos-
     phorus loadings to our Nation's waters. EPA encourages states
     to begin work immediately in setting priorities on a watershed
     or statewide basis, establishing nutrient reduction targets,
     and adopting numeric nutrient criteria for at least one class of
     waterbodies by no later than 2016. As part of the framework,
     EPA continues to place a high priority on states adopting
     numeric WQS for total nitrogen and total phosphorus that
     apply to all waters in each of three waterbody types - lakes and
     reservoirs, rivers and streams, and estuaries - to help reduce
     or prevent eutrophication and other problems in those waters.
     To  help EPA track state progress, states should provide EPA a
     full set of performance milestone information concerning total
     nitrogen and total phosphorus numeric criteria development,
     proposal, and adoption (see Program Activity Measures WQ-Ola
     and WQ-26).

     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 theirWQS 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 cri-
     teria. EPA has developed the Water Quality Standards Database
     (WQSDB) for this purpose. EPA will provide a copy of WQSDB
     fora state or tribe to populate, operate, and maintain locally if it
     does not have its own data base. You may request a copy of the
     WQSDB and guidance for its installation and use at http://water.
     epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqshome_index.cfm.

     *Tribes found eligible to be treated in the same manner as
     a state (TAS) to administerWQS programs under CWA sec-
     tion 518. As of January 2009,44 tribes have been found to be
     eligible forTAS status.
National Water Program Guidance
23

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
         or replacing this measure in coming years to move the
         focus from planning and priority-setting to achieving
         the targeted reductions by implementing strategies for
         reducing N and P pollution.
         Continuing degradation of previously high quality
         waters is of increasing concern. EPA's antidegradation
         policy calls for states and authorized tribes to conduct
         a public review of proposed activities that are likely
         to lower water quality in high quality waters to deter-
         mine whether the proposed degradation is necessary
         to accommodate important economic or social devel-
         opment in the area in which the waters are located.
         EPA strongly encourages states and authorized tribes
         without antidegradation implementation procedures
         to establish them as soon as possible  to ensure that
         antidegradation policies are implemented.
         EPA continues to encourage and support tribes in
         implementing one of the three approaches for protect-
         ing 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 protec-
         tion approach; and the  EPA-approved water quality
         protection approach. EPA tracks the progress  of tribes
         adopting EPA-approved WQS under the third approach
         (see Program Activity Measure WQ-02).
         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 WQS up to date with the latest scientific
         information (see Program Activity Measures WQ-03a
         and 03b) and to facilitate adoption of standards that
         EPA can approve (see Program Activity Measure WQ-
         04a). EPA encourages states, territories, and authorized
         tribes to make their WQS accessible to the public on the
         Internet in a systematic format.
       b. Improve Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
         EPA will continue to work with states, tribes, territo-
         ries, and other partners to provide the monitoring data
         and information needed to make good water qual-
         ity protection and restoration decisions and to track
         changes in the Nation's water quality over time.
         Congress designated $18.5 million in new CWA Sec-
         tion 106 funds for the Agency's Monitoring Initiative.
         Begun in 2005, this initiative builds upon states' base
         investments in monitoring to include enhancements
         to state and interstate monitoring programs and col-
         laboration on statistically-valid surveys of the Nation's
         waters. EPA recognizes that these funds represent a
         small amount of the total needed to address all state
         water monitoring needs. The basis for allotting these
         funds is found in the Amendment to the Guidelines for
         the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section
         106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes in
       the Federal Register in July 17, 2008 (http://www.epa.
       gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2008/July/Day-17/w!6385.
       pdf). Once FY 2013 funds are appropriated, EPA will
       revise the guidelines to reflect any changes made to
       the program. The guidelines specify the activities that
       states and interstate agencies are to carry out under
       the monitoring initiative. These included funding new,
       expanded, or enhanced monitoring activities as part of
       the state's implementation of its comprehensive state
       monitoring strategy. Some monitoring priorities that
       states should consider include:
       •  Integrating statistical survey and targeted moni-
         toring designs to assess the condition of all water
         resources over time;
       •  Evaluating the effects of implementation of TMDLs
         and watershed plans,
       •  Developing criteria and standards for nutrients and
         excess sedimentation;
       •  Enhancing bioassessment and biocriteria for all water
         resources; and
       •  Supporting other state  monitoring objectives, includ-
         ing monitoring of wetlands and use of landscape and
         other predictive tools.
     Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
     Interstate Agencies: Monitoring
     EPA encourages states, territories, and interstate commissions
     to use a combination of Section 106 monitoring funds, base 106
     funds, and other resources available to enhance their monitoring
     activities, and meet the objectives of EPA's March, 2003 guid-
     ance,"Elementsofa State Water Monitoring and Assessment
     Program" (http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/
     elements03_14_03.pdf), which calls for states to implement their
     monitoring strategies by 2014. During FY 2013, these efforts
     include:
     •  Implementing monitoring strategies;
     •  Undertaking statistical surveys; and
     •  Integrating assessments of water conditions, including
       reports under CWA Section 305(b), and listing of impaired
       waters under CWA Section 303(d) by April 1,2014.
     In FY 2013, states will continue to transmit water quality data
     to the national STORETWa rehouse using the Water Quality
     Exchange (WQX) framework to meet the requirement under
     CWA Section 106 (e) to report water quality data annually.
     States will also submit assessment results for the 2012 Inte-
     grated Report via the Assessment Database version 2, the Office
     of Water Integrated Report (OWIR-ATT) flow or a compatible
     electronic format, and geo-reference these assessment deci-
     sions. EPA will support states'use of WQX and WQX Web to
     submit data to the STORE! Data Warehouse and use of OWIRA-
     ATTand Assessment Database (ADB) to submit Integrated
     Report data to EPA through technical assistance and Exchange
     Network grants. Water quality assessment data are critical to
     measuring progress towards the Agency's and  states'goals of
     restoring and improving water quality.
National Water Program Guidance
24

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
         A separate CWA Section 106 workplan component
         must be submitted that includes water monitoring
         activities and milestones for both implementation of
         state strategies and collaboration on statistically-valid
         surveys of the Nation's waters, (http://www.epa.gov/
         owow/monitoring/nationalsurveys.html)
         State and EPA cooperation on statistically-valid assess-
         ments of water condition nationwide remains a top
         priority. In 2013, EPA will issue the National Rivers
         and Streams Assessment report which will contain
         the findings from the 2008-2009 rivers and streams
         survey. This report will constitute the first complete
         assessment of the Nation's flowing waters and will
         contain a comparison of stream conditions from 2004
         to 2008/2009 and evaluate change. The fifth report
         on the national coastal condition also will be drafted,
         peer reviewed, and released for public comment in
         FY 2013. It will include information from the 2010
         National Coastal Condition Assessment and evaluation
         of changes since 2000. In 2012, EPA, states, and tribes
         will conduct field sampling for the second National
         Lakes Assessment, and data collected from the previous
         year's Wetlands Survey will be undergoing laboratory
         analysis. FY 2013 CWA Section 106 Monitoring Initia-
         tive funds will be allocated for sampling for the second
         Rivers and Streams Survey. Throughout the National
         Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS) program EPA will
         continue to enhance and expand its working relation
         with states, tribes, and other partners to improve the
         administration, logistical, and technical support for
         the surveys.
         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 resto-
         ration actions have been  implemented, and integrating
         both statistical surveys and targeted monitoring to
         assess the condition of all water resources over time.
         EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring strat-
         egies 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
         Measures WQ-06a and WQ-06b). As tribal strategies
         are developed, EPA will work with tribes to implement
         them over time.
         EPA is also working with tribes towards implementa-
         tion of Strategic Plan measures WQ-SP14a.Nll and
         WQ.-SP14b.Nll. In FY 2013, EPA will continue to
         report on WQ-SP14a.Nll, which tracks improvement
         of one or more defined parameters on previously identi-
         fied monitoring stations  on tribal lands that have the
         highest potential for improvement. Also in FY 2013,
         EPA will report out on the newly defined pilot measure
       WQ-SP14b.Nll, which tracks where water quality is
       meeting benchmark criteria and showing no degrada-
       tion at identified monitoring stations on tribal lands.
       EPA will be engaging tribal communities in consulta-
       tion on WQ-SP14b.Nll prior to reporting at the end of
       FY2012.
       EPA's goal is to achieve greater integration of federal,
       regional, state, tribal, and local level monitoring efforts
       to connect monitoring and assessment activities across
       geographic scales, in a cost-efficient and effective man-
       ner, so that scientifically defensible monitoring data
       is available to address issues and problems at each of
       these scales. In addition EPA will work with states and
       other partners to address research and technical gaps
       related to sampling methods, analytical approaches,
       and data management.
       EPA will also continue to work with state and other
       partners to strengthen capacities to identify and pro-
       tect high quality waters and watersheds. In an effort
       to promote and encourage the progress made and still
       needed for statewide assessments that identify healthy
       watersheds and in some cases, provide a watershed
       condition gradient, EPA developed a technical docu-
       ment (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/
       index.cfm) that provides a systems-based  approach,
       examples of assessments of healthy watershed compo-
       nents, integrated assessment approaches,  examples of
       management approaches, sources of national data, and
       key assessment tools. The data and information gath-
       ered from both individual and integrated assessments
       of landscape condition, habitat, hydrology, geomor-
       phology, water quality and biological condition can help
       inform management approaches, including imple-
       menting water quality and other protection programs.
       Regions are currently developing and/or implementing
       healthy watersheds strategies (WQ-22a). Activities
       underway include regions working with states to: (1)
       develop state healthy watershed strategies; (2) assess
       and protect instream flow and landscape condition;
       and (3) tie this work to programs such as source water
       protection and antidegradation.
     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 pollut-
       ant budget, which is then implemented via permit
       requirements and through local, state, and federal
       watershed plans/programs. Strong networks, includ-
       ing the National Estuary Programs (NEP)  (see "Protect
       Coastal and Ocean Waters" Subobjective),  as well as the
       Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA),
       and federal land management agencies foster efficient
       strategies to address water quality impairments. EPA
National Water Program Guidance
25

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
         and USFS signed a Memorandum of Agreement (http://
         www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/usfsepamoa/) designed to
         develop approaches (e.g., TMDLs and TMDL alterna-
         tives) to address water quality impairments on USFS
         land. In addition, EPA formed a partnership with the
         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify the
         location of impaired waters and to develop a strategy
         to address and protect waters on USFWS land. Through
         a partnership with the National Park Service, EPA has
         provided geospatial analysis from the agencies atmo-
         spheric mercury deposition modeling for each of the
         National Park Service managed properties. These net-
         works 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 sched-
         ules 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-08).
         In 2013 the CWA 303(d) Listing and TMDL Program
         will continue to engage with states on a 10-year vision
         discussion for the program. As part of this effort, the
         program will evaluate WQ-08 and determine if there
         are new measures to better measure the success of the
         program in line with the outcome of the vision effort.
         It is anticipated that any new measures would be ready
         for public comment in the FY 2014 Guidance.
         As noted below, EPA is encouraging states to organize
         schedules for TMDLs  to address all pollutants on an
         impaired segment when possible. Where multiple
         impaired segments are clustered within a watershed,
         EPA encourages states to organize restoration activities
         across the watershed  (i.e., apply a watershed approach).
         To assist in the development of Watershed TMDLs,
         the TMDL program developed two tools: Handbook
         for Developing Watershed TMDLs, and a 'checklist' for
         developing mercury TMDLs  where the source is primar-
         ily 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). In addition, EPA recently released the poly-
         chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) TMDL Handbook (http://
         www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl), and the Recovery Potential
         Screening Web site, a  tool for comparing impaired
         waters restorability (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/
         lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/recovery/index.cfm).
         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
     Section 106 Grant Guidance to States and
     Interstate Agencies: Identifying Impairments
     and Developing TMDLs
     EPA encourages states to effectively assess their waters and
     make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely submittal of
     required CWA Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. For
     2013, EPA will continue to work with states, interstate agen-
     cies, and tribes to foster a watershed approach as the guiding
     principle of clean water programs. In watersheds where WQS
     are not attained, states will develop 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 Section 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 nutri-
     ent 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 georeferenced data made available to the public via the
     Assessment,TMDLTracking,and Implementation System
     (ATTAINS).
       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. Moreover,
       EPA issued an updated guidance on how to more effec-
       tively address stormwater impairments under two key
       programs of the CWA: the 303(d) TMDL Program and
       the NPDES Stormwater Program. The updated guid-
       ance will assist with the translation of TMDL Waste
       Load Allocations into NPDES stormwater permits, as
       well as support innovative approaches, such as impervi-
       ous cover surrogate TMDLs, to address the consider-
       able number of waterbodies polluted by stormwater
       discharges.
     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
       has been working closely with OEC A to implement the
       CWA Action Plan. Additional information on  the CWA
       Action Plan and 2013 activities can be found at: http://
       www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html.
       Some key NPDES program efforts include:
       •  Integrated Workload Planning: OWM and the
         Office of Compliance are jointly implementing an
National Water Program Guidance
26

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                          Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
           effort to strengthen performance in the NPDES
           program by integrating and streamlining approaches
           for oversight of NPDES permitting and enforcement,
           including a rule replacing existing paper reporting
           with electronic reporting, in order to automate com-
           pliance evaluations and improve transparency. This
           current initiative builds upon recent efforts by OECA
           and OW to strengthen implementation of the NPDES
           permit and enforcement programs under the CWA
           Action Plan.
         •  Permit Quality Reviews (PQR) and Action Items
           and Integrated PQR and State Review Framework
           (PQR-SRF) Reviews: OW conducts PQRs to assess
           the health and integrity of the NPDES program
           in authorized states, tribes, territories, and EPA
           regions. EPA manages a commitment and tracking
           system to ensure that NPDES Action Items identi-
           fied in these assessments are implemented. Imple-
           mentation is measured through Program Activity
           Measure WQ-11. Additional NPDES Action Items
           will continue to be identified and addressed through
           this process in FY 2012. Under CWA Action Plan,
           OW conducted several Transitional PQRs in the first
           half of FY 2012 while OW collaborated with OECA
           to carry out several Integrated PQR-SRF Reviews in
           the second half of FY 2012. Based on lessons learned
           from these FY 2012 reviews, region-led PQR-SRF
           integrated reviews will be conducted in FY 2013.
         •  Program Integrity: In FY 2011 and FY 2012, EPA
           increased emphasis in working with states to ensure
           the integrity of the NPDES program. Consistent
           with the CWA Action Plan, EPA has begun integrat-
           ing program and enforcement oversight to ensure
           the most significant actions affecting water quality
           are included in an accountability system and are
           addressed. In FY 2013, regional permitting pro-
           grams will coordinate with the regional enforcement
           programs to schedule and conduct CWA oversight
           reviews using the integrated permitting and enforce-
           ment oversight process, and draft integrated reports
           using HQ guidance. Regions will use NPDES pro-
           gram performance reports to inform regular discus-
           sions with states and to track performance. Some
           factors that are being reviewed in EPA's oversight
           program include sufficient progress in the implemen-
           tation of the NPDES program including permitting,
           inspections, and enforcement. In addition, EPA will
           continue the 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: EPA works with states and
           EPA regions to select high priority permits based on
           programmatic and environmental significance and
         commit to issuing a specific number of those permits
         during the fiscal year (see Program Activity Measures
         WQ-19). Currently, measure WQ-19's targets are
         based on a universe of priority permits that shifts
         each year, and those fluctuations in the measure's
         universe make trend analysis difficult. In FY 2013,
         EPA intends to use a revised selection, commitment,
         and results calculation method to allow EPA to set a
         better baseline and improve the  overall effectiveness
         of the measure.
         Watershed Permits/Water Quality Trading: Orga-
         nizing permits on a watershed basis can improve the
         effectiveness and efficiency of the program. Permits
         can also be used as an effective mechanism to facili-
         tate cost-effective pollution reduction through water
         quality trading. EPA will continue to coordinate with
         EPA regional offices, states, USDA, and other federal
         agencies to implement watershed programs.
         Green Infrastructure: EPA is collaborating with part-
         ner organizations and communities to implement
         the Green Infrastructure Strategic Agenda released
         in April 2011. Green infrastructure uses vegetation,
         soils, and sustainable stormwater practices to man-
         age water, preserve natural environmental functions,
         and provide associated community benefits. The
         Strategic Agenda  promotes the use of green infra-
         structure at the local level through research, techni-
         cal assistance, and outreach. Green Infrastructure
         management approaches and technologies infiltrate,
         evapotranspire, capture and reuse stormwater to
         maintain or restore natural hydrology. EPA supports
         use of CWA Section 106  funds to provide program-
         matic support for green infrastructure efforts, which
         promote prevention, reduction, and elimination of
         water pollution.
         Pesticides: On January 7, 2009, the U.S. Court of
         Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that NPDES
         permits are required for  discharges from the applica-
         tion of pesticides to waters of the United States. In
         response to the Court's decision, EPA issued a final
         NPDES pesticides general permit (PGP) on October
         31, 2011 for areas of the country where EPA is the
         NPDES permitting authority. EPA has been and
         will continue to assist NPDES-authorized states in
         developing their own PGPs, oversee implementation
         of those permits,  and assist in a  national effort to
         educate the pesticides application industry regarding
         the new permit requirements.
         Vessels: In December 2008, EPA issued the Vessel
         General Permit (VGP) to provide coverage for these
         vessels in U.S. waters. On November 30, 2011, EPA
         signed the Draft 2013 NPDES VGP, which, if final-
         ized, would replace the current 2008 VGP when it
         expires on December 19, 2013. The draft VGP con-
         tains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most
National Water Program Guidance
27

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                            Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       Section  106 Grant Guidance to States and Interstate Agencies: Permits, Enforcement,
       and Compliance
       States should continue to implement significant actions identified during regional program and PQRs to assure effective manage-
       ment of the permit program and to adopt efficiencies to improve environmental results. States should also implement recom-
       mended significant actions identified under the EPA/Environmental Council of the States (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. 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 CWA 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 trading and linking development of WQS.TMDLs, and permits. States are expected to ensure that stormwater permits
       are reissued on a timely basis and to strengthen the provisions of MS4 permits as they are reissued to ensure clarity on what is
       required and 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 CAFO rule, including regulations, permits and technical standards,
       and work closely with their inspection and enforcement programs to ensure a level playing field. States were required to modify
       their programs to regulate pesticide discharges by October 31,2011 and continue implementation through 2013. In general, states
       should ensure that permittees submit data that accurately characterizes the pollutant loadings in their discharge for reasonable
       potential determinations and other reporting.

       For those states for which their NPDES data has been migrated to Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) or which
       are direct users of ICIS-NPDES, states are expected to ensure data availability by fully populating ICIS-NPDES with the data elements
       that are comparable to Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) (December 28,2007 memo from Michael Stahl and James
       Hanlon/'ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 Permit Compliance System Policy Statement") for the appropriate regulated
       universes of facilities. For those states in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) rather than ICIS-NPDES, states are expected to ensure
       data availability by fully populating PCS with the WENDB data elements for the appropriate regulated universes of facilities. After
       the effective date of the NPDES electronic reporting rule, all states are required to fully comply with that regulation, including the
       reporting to EPA of required NPDES data as identified in that regulation or its appendices for the regulated  universes specified in
       that regulation and by the deadlines identified in that regulation. OECA has a separate National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance.
       States and regions should continue to conduct joint permitting and enforcement planning as outlined in the OECA NPM Guidance
       [OECA CWA-09]. In 2013, OECA's NPM Guidance continues to identify activities for improving enforcement efforts aimed at address-
       ing water quality impairment through the CWA Action Plan. OW and states will be working closely with OECA as the CWA Action
       Plan  is implemented. The final OECA NPM Guidance is available with the complete Agency set at: http://www.epa.gov/
       planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013.html.
           vessels which will reduce the threat posed by invasive
           species to U.S. waters. Ballast water discharges have
           resulted in the introduction of numerous aquatic
           invasive species, resulting in severe degradation of
           many ecosystems and billions of dollars of economic
           damages. Among other things, the draft VGP also
           contains more stringent effluent limits for oil to
           sea interfaces and exhaust gas scrubber washwater,
           which would improve environmental protection of
           U.S. waters. EPA has also improved the efficiency of
           several of the VGP's administrative requirements,
           which are expected to reduce confusion in and bur-
           den for the regulated industry. EPA also proposed
           the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) to provide
           NPDES permit coverage for vessels less than 79 feet
           in the event that the P.L.110-299 (extended by P.L.
           111-215) moratorium on NPDES permitting of inci-
           dental discharges (except ballast water) from fishing
           vessels (regardless of size) and commercial vessels
           less than 79 feet expires on December 18, 2013.
           Green Infrastructure: EPA is collaborating with part-
           ner organizations and communities to implement
           the Green Infrastructure Strategic Agenda released
         in April 2011. Green infrastructure uses vegetation,
         soils, and sustainable stormwater practices to man-
         age water, preserve natural environmental functions,
         and provide associated community benefits. The
         Strategic Agenda promotes the use of green infra-
         structure at the local level through research, techni-
         cal assistance, and outreach. Green Infrastructure
         management approaches and technologies infiltrate,
         evapotranspire, capture and reuse stormwater to
         maintain or restore natural hydrology. EPA supports
         use of CWA Section 106 funds to provide program-
         matic support for green infrastructure efforts, which
         promote prevention, reduction, and elimination of
         water pollution.
         Stormwater: In October 2008, the National Academy
         of Sciences/National Research Council (NRC) found
         that EPA's stormwater program needs significant
         changes to improve its  effectiveness and the quality
         of urban streams. EPA has evaluated the NRC find-
         ings and state permitting authorities have identified
         additional efficiencies that should be considered. EPA
         is considering national rule-making  to improve the
         overall efficiency and effectiveness of the program.
National Water Program Guidance
28

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
           CAFOs: EPA revised the NPDES regulations for
           CAFOs in 2008 to address the Second Circuit's 2005
           decision in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA. 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. 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 continue the development
           and implementation of new regulations to protect
           and restore the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will continue
           work on rulemakings under CWA to reduce nitro-
           gen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution in the Bay
           from CAFOs, stormwater discharges from new and
           redeveloped properties, new or expanded discharges,
           and other pollutant discharges as necessary. EPA will
           work with the Bay jurisdictions to facilitate imple-
           mentation of the Bay TMDL at the local level through
           the implementation of Phase 2 Watershed Implemen-
           tation Plans developed in 2012. EPA will encourage
           jurisdictional NPDES programs to incorporate more
           stringent permit provisions in stormwater permits
           prior to promulgation of a rule. Also, EPA will review
           all new or reissued NPDES permits for significant
           municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers
           submitted by Bay jurisdictions to ensure that the per-
           mits are consistent with the  applicable Bay WQS and
           the Bay TMDL wasteload allocations. EPA will also
           continue to support jurisdictions and EPA regional
           offices in effectively implementing the NPDES pro-
           gram to improve the health of the watershed. Finally,
           EPA will continue to implement a Chesapeake Bay
           Compliance and Enforcement Strategy in Regions 2,
           3, 4, and 5 to monitor compliance and take appro-
           priate federal enforcement actions to ensure that
           permittees are in compliance with their regulatory
           and statutory requirements.
           Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Bypasses: EPA will
           continue to work with states to resolve longstanding
           issues related to overflows in separate sanitary sewer
           systems and bypasses at the  treatment plant.
           Integrated Wastewater and Stormwater Planning:
           In recent years, EPA has begun to embrace integrated
           planning approaches to municipal wastewater and
           stormwater management. OW and the OECA further
           committed to work with states and communities
           to implement and use integrated planning in their
           October 27, 2011 memorandum "Achieving Water
           Quality Through Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater
           Plans."5 Integrated planning will assist municipali-
           ties in achieving the human health and water quality
           objectives of CWA by identifying efficiencies in
         implementing sometimes overlapping and competing
         requirements that arise from distinct wastewater and
         stormwater programs, including how best to make
         capital investments. Integrated planning also can
         facilitate the use of sustainable and comprehensive
         solutions, including green infrastructure, that protect
         human health and improve water quality. An inte-
         grated planning approach does not remove obliga-
         tions to comply with CWA, but rather recognizes the
         flexibilities in CWA for the appropriate sequencing
         of work. EPA is developing a framework to provide
         guidance for EPA, states, and local governments in
         developing and implementing effective integrated
         plans. The framework identifies the operating prin-
         ciples and essential elements of an integrated plan.
         EPA conducted five workshops across the country in
         January and February, 2012 to solicit stakeholder
         input on the framework to identify several cities to
         use as pilots for the integrated planning approach.
         This is a joint effort between OW and OECA.
         Green Infrastructure: EPA is collaborating with part-
         ner organizations and communities to implement
         the Green Infrastructure Strategic Agenda released
         in April 2011. Green infrastructure uses vegetation,
         soils, and sustainable stormwater practices to man-
         age water, preserve natural environmental functions,
         and provide associated community benefits. The
         Strategic Agenda promotes the use of green infra-
         structure at the local level through research, techni-
         cal assistance, and outreach. Green Infrastructure
         management approaches and technologies infiltrate,
         evapotranspire, capture and reuse stormwater to
         maintain or restore natural hydrology. EPA supports
         use of CWA Section 106 funds to provide program-
         matic support for green infrastructure efforts, which
         promote prevention, reduction, and elimination of
         water pollution.
         Current Permits: EPA will continue to work with
         states to set targets for the percentage of permits
         that are considered current, with the goal of assuring
         that not less than 90% of all permits are current (see
         Program Activity Measure WQ-12).
         Pretreatment: EPA and states will monitor the num-
         ber and national percentage of significant industrial
         users that have control mechanisms in place to imple-
         ment applicable pretreatment requirements prior
         to discharging to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
         (POTWs). EPA will also monitor the number and
         national percentage of categorical industrial users
         in non-approved pretreatment POTWs that have
         control mechanisms in place to implement applicable
         pretreatment requirements (see Program Activity
         Measure WQ-14).
     5 The October 27,2011 memorandum is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/integratedplans.cfm
National Water Program Guidance
29

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
         • Compliance and Enforcement: 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 POTWs that comply with their permitted
           wastewater discharge standards (see Program Activ-
           ity Measures WQ-15 and WQ-16). As part of the
           CWA Action Plan, in FY 2011, OECA began leading
           an effort to develop and implement an improved
           framework to identify and prioritize the most seri-
           ous NPDES violations and align it with appropri-
           ate enforcement response recommendations and
           program performance expectations. In addition, this
           effort will identify necessary tools to support the
           improved framework. This work will continue in FY
           2012 and FY 2013.
       e. Implement Practices to Reduce Pollution from all
         Nonpoint Sources
         Polluted runoff from sources, such as agricultural
         lands, forestry sites, and urban areas, is the largest
         single remaining cause of water pollution. Land applied
         nutrients represent a significant challenge to improving
         water quality. EPA, states, and tribes are working with
         local governments, watershed groups, property owners,
         and others to implement programs and management
         practices to control polluted runoff throughout the
         country.
         EPA provides grant funds  to states and tribes under
         CWA Section 319 to implement comprehensive pro-
         grams to control nonpoint pollution, including reduc-
         tion in runoff of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.
         EPA will monitor progress in reducing loadings of these
         key pollutants (see Program Activity Measure WQ-09).
         In addition, EPA estimates that more than half of the
         waters identified on states' 303(d) impaired waters list
         are primarily impaired by  NPSs and will track progress
         in restoring these waters nationwide (see Program
         Activity Measure WQ-10).
         As described in more detail in Section 2 below, EPA
         is encouraging states to use the CWA Section 319
         program to support a more comprehensive, watershed
         approach to protecting and restoring water quality. EPA
         continues to support states and tribes in developing
         comprehensive watershed plans geared towards restor-
         ing impaired waters on a watershed basis while still pro-
         tecting high quality and threatened waters as necessary.
         In FY 2013, 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 NPSs.
     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 sustain-
       ability of communities. However, the U.S. has underin-
       vested in the renewal of existing infrastructure while
       growth patterns create needs for an expanding network
       of infrastructure that communities will need to main-
       tain and replace.
       The U.S. must embrace a fundamental change in the
       way we manage, value, and invest in infrastructure.
       EPA is pursuing a Sustainable Infrastructure Program,
       designed to affect that change by institutionalizing
       practices that will help communities find sustainable
       solutions while maximizing the value of each infra-
       structure dollar spent. The suite of activities which
       comprises  the program is based on two basic tenets:
       •  To be sustainable as a community, you need sustain-
         able infrastructure.
       •  To achieve sustainable water infrastructure, you need
         sustainable utilities.
       To those ends, EPA is working to foster the integration
       of water infrastructure decisions into smart growth
       strategies that provide more livable communities and
       reduce long term infrastructure needs and costs. EPA is
       also working to promote effective and sustainable util-
       ity 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, Department of Transportation (DOT), and EPA.
       EPA is working with the partners to integrate infra-
       structure planning across water, housing, and transpor-
       tation sectors to achieve the partnership goals.
       EPA is also pursuing these goals through the DWSRFs
       and CWSRFs that provide low interest loans to help
       finance drinking water and wastewater treatment facili-
       ties, as well as other water quality projects. Recognizing
       the substantial remaining need for drinking water and
       wastewater infrastructure, EPA expects to continue to
       provide significant annual capitalization to the SRFs,
       and to encourage the leveraging of those investments
       to achieve  infrastructure and community sustainability.
       EPA will work with states to assure the effective opera-
       tion of SRFs, including monitoring the fund utiliza-
       tion rate (see Program Activity Measures WQ-17 and
       SDW-04).
National Water Program Guidance
30

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
         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 agencies, such as the Depart-
         ment of the Interior (DOI), USDA, and HUD, also play
         key roles in this area and are working with EPA in this
         effort. EPA is also working to improve access to drink-
         ing 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 CWA programs is essential
       to improving water quality but is not sufficient to fully
       accomplish the water quality improvements called for in
       the Agency's Strategic Plan. Today's water quality prob-
       lems are often caused by many significant factors that are
       not adequately addressed by these core programs, includ-
       ing loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation, hydro-
       logic alteration, invasive species, and climate change.
       Addressing these complex problems demands a watershed
       systems approach to protection that considers both habi-
       tats and the critical watershed processes that drive  the
       condition of aquatic ecosystems. The watershed systems
       approach is implemented by states and at the local level
       through an iterative planning process to actively seek
       broad public involvement and focus multi-stakeholder
       and multi-program efforts within hydrologically-defined
       boundaries to address priority resource goals.
       The National Water Program has successfully used a
       watershed approach to focus core program activities
       and to promote and support accelerated efforts in key
       watersheds. At the largest hydrologic scales, EPA and
       its partners operate successful programs addressing the
       Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and NEP
       watersheds. Many states, EPA regions, and their part-
       ners have also undertaken important efforts to protect,
       improve,  and restore watersheds at other hydrologic
       scales. Together, these projects provide strong evidence
       of the value of a comprehensive approach to assessing
       water quality, defining problems and protection priorities,
       integrating management of diverse pollution controls and
       protection measures, 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 protect and clean up their water-
     sheds 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 towards
     both maintaining water quality and achieving water
     quality goals. EPA estimates that there are approximately
     6,000 local watershed groups active nationwide.
     To increase focus on protecting and maintaining our
     Nation's remaining healthy waters, EPA has launched a
     proactive approach called HWI (http://water.epa.gov/
     polwaste/nps/watershed/index.cfm). The  HWI is
     intended to preserve and maintain natural ecosystems by
     protecting our remaining healthy watersheds, prevent-
     ing them from becoming impaired, and accelerating our
     restoration successes. The HWI will be implemented by
     states through strategic, systems approaches to identifing
     and protecting healthy watersheds based on integrated
     assessments of landscape condition, habitat, hydrology,
     geomorphology, water quality, and biological condi-
     tion. The identification of healthy watersheds can help
     inform the establishment of priorities for both protection
     and restoration. The anticipated outcomes of the HWI
     are state-level integrated aquatic ecosystem protection
     programs that result in both maintaining and increasing
     the number of healthy watersheds. Promoting a national
     water program that restores impaired waters and consid-
     ers as a priority the protection of healthy watersheds,
     including the maintenance of restored waters, is a bal-
     anced program for achieving CWA goals.
     A key element of the HWI is to work with our state and
     other partners to identify healthy watersheds state-wide
     and to develop and implement healthy watershed protec-
     tion plans that set priorities and leverage  programs and
     resources across state agencies and their partners. The
     development of EPA Regional Healthy Watersheds Strate-
     gies can assist significantly in these efforts. Developing
     these strategies involves regions working with their
     respective states to identify healthy watersheds, as well as
     intact components of other watersheds statewide and to
     implement protection and conservation programs both at
     the state and local levels (see Program Activity Measure
     WQ-22a).
     For FY 2013, EPA will implement its National Strategy,
     including HWI, for building the capacity of state, tribal,
     and local government and watershed groups to protect
     and restore water quality. The Strategy emphasizes four
     activities to accelerate local watershed protection efforts:
     •  Target training and tools to areas where existing groups
       can deliver environmental results;
National Water Program Guidance
31

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                           Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       •  Work with states to develop and begin implementation
         of Healthy Watersheds programs;
       •  Enhance support to local watershed organizations
         through third party providers (e.g., federal partners,
         EPA assistance agreement recipients), including 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 part-
       nerships with federal agencies to encourage their partici-
       pation in watershed protection and to promote delivery
       of their programs on a watershed basis. For example, EPA
       is working with other federal agencies (e.g., USFS, U.S.
       Geological Survey (USGS), USFWS, & others) to lever-
       age their healthy watersheds programs (e.g., Landscape
       Conservation Cooperatives, National Fish Habitat Plan,
       National Water Census, and Green Infrastructure Com-
       munity of Practice). In FY 2013, EPA will build upon the
       collaborative process already underway among federal
       partners to demonstrate substantial improvements in
       water quality by coordinating efforts between USDA and
       EPA programs, such as EPA's CWA Section 319 and 106
       grants and USDA's Farm Bill conservation programs.
       This coordination will allow for more effective, targeted
       investments at the federal and state level during a
       time of constrained budgets, and will ensure continued
       improvements in water quality. EPA is also working with
       USFS and USFWS to foster efficient strategies to address
       water quality impairments by maintaining and restoring
       watersheds on federal lands. EPA and the USFS will work
       to advance a suite of water quality related actions, TMDL
       alternatives (i.e., including category 4b watershed plans)
       that will build partnerships between agencies and among
       states.
     3. Define Waterbody/Watershed Standards Attainment
       Goals and Strategies
       In 2002, states identified some 39,503 specific waterbod-
       ies as impaired (i.e. not attaining state WQS) on lists
       required under CWA Section 303(d). Although core pro-
       grams, as described above, provide key tools for improv-
       ing these impaired waters, success in restoring the health
       of impaired waterbodies often requires a waterbody-spe-
       cific focus to define the problem and implement specific
       steps  needed to reduce pollution.
       Nationally, EPA has adopted a goal of having 3,360 of
       those waters identified as attaining WQS by 2015 (about
       8.2% of all impaired waters identified in 2002). EPA,
       working with the states, will exceed that goal. Regions
     have indicated the progress they expect to make toward
     this goal in FY 2013 (see measure WQ-SP10.N11 and the
     following table).
•Kl(itH4plfiumlilli[i|>irliliMiiMlilMiliHiri4ilVm£rtV
(Measure WQ-SP10.N11)6
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Total Impaired
Waters (2002)
6,710
1,805
8,998
5,274
4,550
1,407
2,036
1,274
1,041
6,408
39,5037
FYs 2002-2011
Waters in
Attainment
117
127
557
504
646
190
353
270
105
250
3,119
FY2012
Commitment
(cumulative)
140
171
575
514
665
200
383
314
109
253
3,324
20 13 Target
(cumulative)
152
176
600
524
665
220
394
316
109
257
3,41 38
     Regions will work with states to set commitments for this
     measure, to be developed over the summer of 2012 based
     on the targets in the table above. This process 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 signifi-
     cant contribution to national goals, the EPA region should
     work with states to rethink and redesign the  delivery of
     clean water programs to more effectively restore water-
     bodies and watersheds. Regions will also develop targets
     and commitments for progress under measures related
     to improvement of impaired waters short of full stan-
     dards attainment (see measure WQ-SP11) and in small
     watersheds where one or more waterbody is impaired (see
     measure WQ-SP12.N11).
     In FY 2013, EPA will no longer request states and EPA
     regions to report on the number of impaired water seg-
     ments where restoration planning is complete (formally
     referred to as WQ-21). However, the completion of
     planning remains an essential, intermediate step toward
     full restoration of a waterbody and can be documented
     more quickly than actual waterbody improvement. As
     discussed under the section, Implement TMDLs and
     Other Watershed Related Plans, the CWA 303(d) Listing
     and TMDL Program will engage with states on a 10-year
       Note that a previous measure reported 1,980 waters identified as impaired in 1998-2000 to be in attainment by 2002. These estimates are not
       included in the table above.
       39,503 updated from 39,768 to reflect corrected data.
       Although the regional aggregated target is 3,413, EPA's national target is set at 3,524.
National Water Program Guidance
32

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                          Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       vision discussion for the program. As part of this effort,
       the program will evaluate WQ-08 and determine if there
       are new measures to better measure the success of the
       program in line with the outcome of the vision effort. It is
       anticipated that new measures would be ready for public
       comment by FY 2014.
       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, water-
       shed approach  that results in completion of TMDLs for
       multiple waterbodies within a watershed and the devel-
       opment of a single implementation plan for restoring all
       the impaired waters in that watershed. EPA has identified
       some 4,800 small watersheds where one or more water-
       bodies are impaired and the watershed approach is being
       applied. The goal is to demonstrate how the Watershed
       Approach is working by showing a measurable improve-
       ment in 330 such watersheds by 2015 (see measure
       WQ-SP12.N11). EPA expects to exceed this target in 2013.
       Regions are encouraged to use some or all of the following
       strategies in marshalling resources to support waterbody
       and watershed  restoration:
       •  Realign water programs and resources as needed,
         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 CWA
         Section 319 funds reserved for development of water-
         shed plans;
       •  Make effective use of SRFs provided under CWA Title
         VI;
       •  Make effective use of water quality planning funds
         provided under CWA Section 604(b);
       •  Leverage resources available from other federal agen-
         cies, including the USDA;
       •  Apply funds appropriated by Congress for watershed or
         related projects; and
       •  A goal of ATTAINS is to track several strategic plan
         measures. In a continuing effort to improve the ability
         of the ATTAINS data system to track measures using
         the 2002 baseline waters, EPA will continue to work
         with regions  to ensure that the 2002 baseline waters
         data available in ATTAINS accurately reflects the state
         reports. This quality assurance effort may result in cor-
         rections to the data component of the 2002 baseline.
         The goal is for ATTAINS to become the repository for
         measures WQ-SP10.N11 and WQ-SP11.
       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 implementation 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 restora-
     tion efforts are focused on these waters as well as those
     on the 303(d) list, facilitate integration of activities to
     incorporate these waters into watershed plans, and iden-
     tify mechanisms for tracking progress in restoring them.

     Development of Measures for Improving Water Quality
     on a Watershed Basis
     Incremental Progress in Restoring Water Quality
     EPA has a suite of existing measures that track progress
     in water quality restoration:
     •  Previously impaired waters now fully attaining WQS
       (WQ-SP10.N11).
     •  Previously impaired waters for which a cause of impair-
       ment has been removed (WQ-SP11).
     •  Impaired watersheds with water quality improvement
       (WQ-SP12.N11).
     EPA has another measure aimed at tracking progress in
     protecting and maintaining water quality:
     •  Net water quality restoration or maintenance by
       waterbody type (e.g., rivers, lakes)  (WQ-SP13.N11 for
       wadeable streams).
     EPA has been working with state partners to address
     concerns that these existing measures do not fully
     capture investments in water quality restoration that do
     not result in achievement of full WQS attainment. Most
     waters take years to recover fully, and although incremen-
     tal improvements represent progress these are currently
     not well represented. Initially, EPA heard 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 standards are fully met) and mainte-
     nance of water quality.
     In August 2009, EPA worked with ACWA to establish
     an EPA/State workgroup to develop a set of indicator
     measures to track and report on the progress towards full
     attainment of WQS. In December 2010, the workgroup
     developed a measure for tracking incremental water
     quality improvements that was proposed in the draft
     Guidance. EPA received many comments that the improv-
     ing measure needed to be better defined.  To address the
     concerns raised during the public comment process, EPA
     engaged the EPA/State Monitoring Assessment Partner-
     ship (MAP) forum to refine this measure.
     In the process of continuing to work on and refine the
     draft measure, EPA heard concerns about the burden of
National Water Program Guidance
33

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                      Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       adding new reporting requirements. Some made sug-
       gestions to reexamine and use the existing reporting
       mechanisms under CWA. Through the CWA Section
       303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report (IR), states provide
       water quality information for individual assessment units
       and statistical survey results representative of state-wide
       conditions across a waterbody type.
       The information states report for individual assessment
       units is the basis of the current measures, WQ-SP10.
       Nil and WQ-SP11, which track previously impaired
       waters restored to fully attaining WQS or for which a
       cause of impairment has been removed. One of the two
       approaches the workgroup developed for reporting incre-
       mental improvements in water quality proposes to use
       the state-wide statistical survey results states are asked to
       report through the IR. The other approach the workgroup
       developed proposed to establish additional reporting
       requirements for trends at individual monitoring sta-
       tions. While many states maintain long term monitoring
       stations suitable for this option, many others would need
       to redirect resources to implement it.
       A number of states have already begun reporting state
       scale survey results in the IR and more expect to in 2012
       and beyond. Therefore, the Agency proposes to estab-
       lish an indicator measure based on reporting state  scale
       survey results starting in FY 2014. EPA remains com-
       mitted to helping the states demonstrate the results of
       water quality protection and restoration investments. To
       address the reporting burden concerns, the Agency plans
       to work with the states to use the IR process to report on
       the incremental measure.
       319 Program Study and Potential Program Improve-
       ments and Accountability
       NFS pollution, caused by runoff that carries excess nutri-
       ents, pesticides, pathogens, toxics, and other contami-
       nants to waterbodies, is one of the greatest remaining
       source of surface and ground water quality impairments
       and threats in the  United States. Grants under CWA
       Section 319 are provided to help states, territories, and
       tribes implement their EPA-approved NFS management
       programs. The programs are designed to: (1) protect water
       quality by preventing or minimizing new NFS pollution,
       (2) improve impaired waters so that they ultimately meet
       WQS, (3) restore impaired waters so that they meet WQS,
       and (4) improve or restore those waters with deteriorated
       water quality that  may not have been formally assessed by
       a state and added to the state's CWA Section 303(d) list of
       impaired waters. To better understand the effectiveness
       of various state NFS programs in reducing or eliminating
       NFS pollution, EPA in FY 2011 coordinated with state
       partners to complete a detailed study (A National Evalua-
       tion of the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program, November
       2011) of how states are implementing their CWA Section
       319 NFS programs to protect and restore NFS-impaired
       waters. From the study, EPA developed a detailed
understanding of the ways that states utilize the CWA
Section 319 funding to implement successful state NFS
programs. The study provides valuable information on the
range, extent, and effectiveness of a broad variety of pro-
gram tools currently being used by the states to control
NFS pollution, such as the development and implemen-
tation of watershed-based plans to remediate impaired
waterbodies; the use of state-wide non-regulatory and
regulatory approaches to achieve broad-scale implemen-
tation or compliance to address broadly pervasive issues
(e.g. Animal Feeding Operations, cropland, and urban
runoff); use of State Revolving Loan Funds, state funds,
and other  state-wide financial incentives/disincentives
to achieve broad-scale implementation; and effectiveness
of state-wide leveraging of authorities and resources of
other federal and state agencies.
EPA concluded that states rely on both base and incre-
mental Section 319 funding to develop and implement
watershed-based plans, as well as fund the wide range of
NFS activities (including staffing support, implementa-
tion of statewide regulatory and non-regulatory NFS
programs, and other statewide efforts) to sustain and
implement an effective state NFS program. Additionally,
EPA identified a number of opportunities for Section 319
program improvement.
To address these opportunities for improvement, a work-
group of EPA and State Water Division Directors devel-
oped a set of potential recommendations for improving
the Section 319 NFS Program. Based on these recom-
mendations, as well as findings from the Government
Accountability Office's FY 2012 evaluation of the Section
319 Program and ongoing coordination with OMB, EPA
is working closely with the states and other partners in
FY 2012 to maximize program effectiveness in protecting
and restoring water quality, assure program accountabil-
ity, and improve the states' and EPA's ability to demon-
strate program success, including incremental progress
made towards improving and/or maintaining water qual-
ity. EPA will revise the CWA section 319 grant guidelines
in FY 2012 to reflect program enhancements.
EPA's Agency Priority Goal: Section 319 Program
One of the EPA's Agency Priority Goals for FY 2012-
2013 calls for EPA to release new CWA Section 319 grant
guidelines by November 2012 and for 50% of the states
to revise their NFS programs according to new Section
319 grant  guidelines by September 30, 2013. Also as part
of this goal, EPA will work collaboratively with USDA in
high priority, focused watersheds to address agricultural
NFS pollution. The goal of our collaboration is to coordi-
nate Agency efforts, thereby increasing conservation on
the ground to better protect water resources from NFS of
pollution,  including nitrogen and phosphorus. This EPA
and USDA collaboration will support ready and willing
stakeholders (including agricultural producers, NGOs,
universities, and state and local water quality, resource,
National Water Program Guidance


-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                                  Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
       and agricultural leaders) to implement watershed plans
       in priority watersheds. In 50-150 watersheds, USDA will
       apply Environmental Quality Incentives Program finan-
       cial assistance funds on systems of conservation practices
       in small (HUC-12) watersheds impaired by nutrients and/
       or sediment. States will provide monitoring support to
       gauge water quality progress as a result of these concen-
       trated practices.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     Key program grants that support this Subobjective are:
     •  The CWA Section 106 Water Pollution Control State Pro-
       gram grants;
     •  The CWA Section 319 State program grant for nonpoint
       pollution control, including set-aside for tribal programs;
     •  Alaska Native Village Water and Wastewater Infrastruc-
       ture grants;
     •  CWSRF  capitalization grants, including set-asides for
       planning under CWA Section 604(b) and for grants to
       tribes for wastewater treatment infrastructure.

     For additional information on these grants, see the grant
     program guidance on the website (http://water.epa.gov/
     resource_performance/planning/index.cfm).

     2) Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
                     A) Subobjective
                     Prevent water pollution and protect
                     coastal and ocean systems to improve
                     national coastal aquatic ecosystem
                     health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of
                     the National Coastal Condition Report.
     (Rating is a system in which 1 is poor and 5 is good.)
     2009 Baseline: 2.8      2012 Commitment: 2.8
     2013 Target: 2.8        2015 Target: 2.8
     (NOTE: Additional measures of progress are included in
     Appendix A andE.)

     B) Key National Strategies
     Estuaries,  coastal waters, and oceans are among the most
     productive ecosystems on earth, providing multiple ecologi-
     cal,  economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits and services.
     They are also among the most threatened ecosystems,
     largely as a result of rapidly increasing population growth
     and development. About half of the U.S. population now
     lives in coastal areas, and coastal counties are growing three
     times faster than counties elsewhere in the Nation. The
     overuse of natural resources and poor land use practices
     in upland as well as coastal areas have resulted in a host of
     human health and natural resource problems.
     For FY 2013, 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 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
   maintain a national coastal condition score of at least 2.8
   — the national baseline score in the FY2009 National Coastal
   Condition Report (NCCR) III (see measure CO-222.N11).
   Another objective is to assess conditions in each major
   coastal region — Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Puerto
   Rico, Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, and South Central Alaska and
   to work with states, tribes, and other partners over the next
   five years to at least maintain each region's coastal condi-
   tion rating. The NCCR IV is expected to be released in 2012
   with an updated condition ranking.
   EPA works with diverse partners to implement region-
   specific protection and restoration programs. For example,
   EPA manages 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
    conditions a top priority for coastal as well as inland
    waters. Some of these data were collected by the Ocean
    Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold. In FY 2010, states completed
    field sampling under EPA's National Coastal Condition
    Assessment program. Results of the sampling will serve
    as the basis for NCCR V. In FY 2013, states will analyze
    sampling data and the National Water Program will
    work with states, tribes, and the Office of Research and
    Development to draft the NCCR V, which is planned for
    release to the public for comment in May 2013. Build-
    ing on coastal condition assessment reports issued in
    2001, 2004, 2008 and on the NCCR IV now scheduled for
    release in April 2012, 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 measures of progress in
    estuarine and coastal water quality used in the current
    EPA Strategic Plan.
   2. State Coastal Programs
    States play a critical role in protection of coastal waters
    through the implementation of core CWA programs,
    ranging from permit programs to financing of wastewater
    treatment plants. States also lead the implementation of
National Water Program Guidance
35

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                                  Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
       efforts to assure the high quality of the Nation's swim-
       ming beaches; including implementation of the BEACH
       Act (see the Water Safe for Swimming Subobjective).
       In FY 2013, EPA will continue to coordinate with states
       interested in establishing "no discharge zones" to control
       vessel sewage. EPA will track total coastal and noncoastal
       statutory square miles protected by "no discharge zones"
       (see Program Activity Measure CO-2).
     3. Implement the National Estuary Program
       NEP is a local, stakeholder-driven, and collaborative
       program that protects and restores the water quality and
       ecological integrity of estuaries of national significance.
       The goals and objectives of each of the NEPs are identified
       in their Comprehensive Conservation and Management
       Plans (CCMPs). The NEP is comprised of 28 estuar-
       ies along the east, west, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean
       coasts. During FY 2013, EPA will continue supporting the
       NEPs' implementation of their individual CCMPs.
       The overall health of the Nation's estuarine ecosystems
       depends on the protection and restoration of high-quality
       habitat, EPA tracks the number of habitat acres that the
       NEPs and their partners annually protect and restore in
       their estuarine watersheds, or study areas. The numbers
       appear as environmental outcome measures under the
       Ocean/Coastal Subobjective. EPA has set a FY 2013 goal
       of protecting or restoring an additional 100,000 acres of
       habitat within the NEP study areas.
     EPA also tracks the annual and cumulative amount of cash
     and in-kind resources that NEP directors and/or staff are
     influential in obtaining. The measure depicts the level of
     resources leveraged by the CWA Section 320 base grants
     annually provided to the NEPs (see Program Activity Mea-
     sure CO-4).
Estuaries in the National Estuary Program
Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds, NC
Barataria-Terrebonne, LA
Barnegat Bay, NJ
Buzzards Bay, MA
Casco Bay, ME
Charlotte Harbor, FL
Coastal Bend Bays &
Estuaries, TX
Lower Columbia River,
OR/WA
Delaware Estuary, DE/NJ
Delaware Inland Bays, DE
Galveston Bay, TX
Indian River Lagoon, FL
Long Island Sound, NY/CT
Maryland Coastal Bays, MD
Massachusetts Bay, MA
Mobile Bay, AL
Morro Bay, CA
Narragansett Bay, Rl
New Hampshire Estuaries, NH

New York/New Jersey
Harbor, NY/NJ
Peconic Bay, NY
Puget Sound, WA
San Francisco Bay, CA
San Juan Bay, PR
Santa Monica Bay, CA
Sarasota Bay, FL
Tampa Bay, FL
Tillamook Bay, OR

   4. Ocean Protection Programs
     The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
     (MPRSA, also known as the Ocean Dumping Act) is the
     primary federal environmental statute governing trans-
     portation of dredged material and other material for the
     purpose of disposal into ocean waters, while CWA Section
     404 governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into
     "waters of the United States". Several hundred million
     cubic yards of sediment are dredged from waterways,
     ports, and harbors every year to maintain the Nation's
     navigation system. This sediment must be disposed with-
     out 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 designating and
     monitoring disposal sites, involving local stakeholders in
     planning to reduce the need for dredging, and increasing
     the beneficial use of dredged material. EPA will continue
     to monitor compliance with environmental requirements
     at ocean disposal sites (see Program Activity Measure
     CO-06). In addition, the Strategic Plan includes a measure
     of the percent of active ocean dredged material disposal
     sites that have achieved environmentally acceptable  con-
     ditions (see CO-SP20.N11).
     One of the greatest threats to U.S. ocean waters and eco-
     systems is the uncontrolled spread of invasive species. A
     principal way invasive species are introduced or spread in
     U.S. waters is through the discharge of ballast water from
     ships. In FY 2013, EPA will continue to work with other
     agencies on ballast water discharge standards or controls
     (both through EPA's VGP and coordination with U.S.
     Coast Guard (USCG) regulatory efforts under the Nonin-
     digenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as
     amended), and participate in activities with other nations
     for effective international management of ballast water.
     In July of 2008, Congress passed the Clean Boating Act
     of 2008  (P.L. 110-228) amending CWA to provide that no
     NPDES permits shall be required under the CWA for dis-
     charges incidental to the normal operation of recreational
     vessels. Instead, the Clean Boating 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
     developing those regulations.

   C) Grant Program  Resources
   Grant resources directly supporting this work include
   NEP grants and coastal nonpoint pollution control grants
   under the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
   administered jointly by EPA and the National Oceanic and
   Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Section 6217 grant
   program).  In addition, clean water program grants identi-
   fied under the watershed Subobjective support this work.
National Water Program Guidance
36

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                                                 Increase Wetlands
     For additional information on these grants, see the grant
     program guidance on the website (http://water.epa.gov/
     resource_performance/planning/index.cfm).

     D) A Strategy for Addressing Climate Change
     Support Evaluation of Sub-seabed and Ocean Sequestra-
     tion of CO2: EPA will work with other interested agencies
     and the international community to develop guidance
     on sub-seabed carbon sequestration and will address any
     requests for carbon sequestration in the sub-seabed or
     "fertilization" of the ocean, including any permitting under
     MPRSA or the UIC program that may be required.
     "Climate Ready Estuaries": EPA will continue to build
     capacity within NEP to adapt to the changes from climate
     change on the coasts. EPA will provide additional assistance
     to individual NEPs to support their work to develop adapta-
     tion plans for their study areas or technical assistance to
     support implementation of those plans. Climate Ready Estu-
     aries will continue to improve resources for NEPs and other
     coastal communities working to adapt to climate change.
     3) Increase Wetlands
                      A) Subobjective
                      Working with partners, achieve a net
                      increase of wetlands nationwide, with
                      additional focus on coastal wetlands,
                      and biological and functional measures
                      and assessment of wetland condition
     (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
     Appendix A andE.)

     B) Key National Strategies
     Wetlands are among the Nation's most critical and produc-
     tive natural resources. They provide a variety of benefits,
     such as water quality improvements, flood protection,
     shoreline erosion control, and ground water exchange.
     Wetlands are the primary habitat for fish, waterfowl, and
     wildlife, and as such, provide numerous opportunities for
     education, recreation, and research. EPA recognizes that
     the challenges the Nation faces to conserve our wetland
     heritage are daunting and that many partners must work
     together in order for this effort to succeed.
     By 1997, the U.S. had lost more than 115 million acres of
     wetlands9 to development, agriculture, and other uses.
     Today, losses still continue albeit at a  slower rate. Further-
     more, 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
   Report10, released by the USFWS, reported overall gains in
   wetland acres in the conterminous U.S. that exceeded over-
   all losses from 1998 through 2004; this gain was primar-
   ily 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.
   In a 2008 follow-on report11, the NOAA's National Marine
   Fisheries Service, in cooperation with USFWS, analyzed the
   status and recent trends of wetland acreage in the coastal
   watersheds of the U.S. adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean,
   Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes between 1998 and 2004.
   Results indicated that Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast
   watersheds experienced a net loss in wetland area at an
   average annual rate of about 60,000 acres over the 6-year
   study period. The fact that coastal watersheds were losing
   wetlands despite the national trend of net gains during the
   same study period points to the need for more assessment
   on the natural and human forces behind these trends and
   to an expanded effort on conservation of wetlands in these
   coastal areas. To that end, EPA, USFWS, NOAA's National
   Marine Fisheries Service and Coastal Resources Center,
   USAGE, USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service
   (NRCS), and the Federal Highway Administration have
   begun working in partnership to determine the  specific
   causes of this coastal wetland loss and to more specifically
   understand the tools, policies, and practices to successfully
   address it.
   The 2011 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends
   Report12, released by USFWS, once again reports over-
   all losses in wetland acres in the conterminous U.S. that
   exceeded overall gains from 2004 through 2009 for a loss
   of roughly 13,800 acres/year. This net loss is primarily
   attributable to a decrease in estuarine vegetated wetlands
   (e.g. saltmarsh) and major losses of freshwater forested
   wetlands. The reasons for the overall decline in wetland
   area were complex and potentially reflected economic
   conditions, land use trends, changing wetland regulation
   and enforcement measures, conservation initiatives, the
   impacts of the 2005 hurricane season, and climatic changes.
   The results emphasize the need for clear CWA protections,
   as well as, voluntary restoration and protection  efforts. The
   report does not assess the quality or condition of wetlands.
   As a complement to the USFWS Status and Trends report,
       Dahl, I.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
       Service, Washington, D.C.
     1 ° Dahl, I.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife
       Service, Washington, D.C.
     11 Stedman, S. and I.E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. National Oceanic
       and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
     12 Dahl, I.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife
       Service, Washington, D.C. 108 pp.
National Water Program Guidance
37

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                                               Increase Wetlands
     EPA is working with states, USFWS, and other federal agen-
     cies to complete a National Wetland Condition Assessment
     by 2014 to effectively complement the USFWS Status and
     Trends Reports and provide, for the first time, a snapshot of
     baseline wetland condition for the conterminous U.S.
     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
     CWA Section 404 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 determinations, 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 wet-
       lands through the wetlands regulatory program estab-
       lished under CWA Section 404. USAGE and EPA jointly
       administer the CWA Section 404 program, which regu-
       lates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
       of the U.S., including wetlands. EPA tracks performance
       through budget measure WT-SP22.
       EPA will continue to work with USAGE to ensure appli-
       cation of the CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines which
       require that discharges of dredged or fill material into
       waters of the U.S. be avoided and minimized to the extent
       practicable and unavoidable impacts are compensated
       for. EPA regions should identify whether USAGE issu-
       ing a CWA Section 404 permit would result in adverse
       human health or  environmental effects on low-income
       and minority populations, including impacts to water
       supplies and fisheries. Where such effects are likely, EPA
       regions should suggest ways and measures to avoid and/
       or mitigate such impacts through comments to USAGE.
       In FY 2013, EPA will continue to track the effectiveness of
       EPA's environmental review of CWA Section 404 permits
       (see Program Activity Measure WT-03). Each EPA region
       will also identify  opportunities to partner with USAGE
       in meeting performance measures for compliance with
       404(b)(l) guidelines. At a minimum, these include:
       •  Environmental review of CWA Section 404 permits to
         ensure wetland impacts are avoided and minimized;
       •  Ensure when wetland impacts cannot be avoided
         under CWA Section 404 permits, that the unavoidable
         impacts are compensated for;
       •  Participation in joint impact and mitigation site inspec-
         tions, and Interagency Review Team activities;
     •  Assistance on development of mitigation site perfor-
       mance standards and monitoring protocols; and
     •  Enhanced coordination on resolution of enforcement
       cases.
     On October 6, 2011, the Federal District Court for the
     District of Columbia set aside the Enhanced Coordina-
     tion Procedures (ECP) developed by the Department
     of the Army and EPA to expedite review of 79 pending
     Appalachian surface coal mining permit applications.
     (See Section IV of the Memorandum of Understanding
     Among the US Department of the Army, US Depart-
     ment of the Interior, and US Environmental Protection
     Agency: Implementing the Interagency Action Plan on
     Appalachian Surface Coal Mining, dated June 11, 200913.)
     As a result of this decision and pending potential action
     by the U.S. government to seek an appeal in this matter,
     the agencies will no longer use the ECP process for any
     purpose. In specific:
     The ECP process was set aside, so EPA regional offices
     should  have ceased coordination under the ECP. Regions
     should  continue to work with USAGE consistent with
     existing statutory and regulatory authorities and roles.
     Regions continue to have a  critical role under CWA Sec-
     tion 404 to provide comments to USAGE about areas in
     which EPA has expertise, including water quality matters
     CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines.
     Consistent with CWA and existing regulations and
     interagency memoranda, regions should continue their
     collaboration with USAGE, as appropriate, to review
     proposed discharges of dredged or fill material pursuant
     to CWA Section 404. It is through regular interaction
     that the agencies work together most effectively to share
     information, identify issues of concern, and reach envi-
     ronmentally responsible permit outcomes.
     In FY 2012, the Wetlands Division expects to  conduct
     a pilot project to examine how wetland monitoring and
     assessment information can inform wetland regulatory
     decision-making, especially with Interagency Review
     Teams that review documentation for the establishment
     and management of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee pro-
     grams. Working with state and federal  regulatory scien-
     tists, the pilot envisions a series of working sessions to: 1)
     evaluate regulatory data needs; 2) determine where exist-
     ing assessment methods and data can help meet those
     needs; and 3) establish a procedure for regulatory agen-
     cies to use wetland monitoring methods and assessment
     data in  their decision-making processes. While this pilot
     could potentially include a broad range of aquatic resource
     regulatory decisions, the initial focus of this work will be
     review of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation
     proposals. Depending on the results of the pilot, regions
     may be  asked to work with Interagency Review Teams in
     their areas to implement the recommendations of the pilot.
       http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11-09.pdf
National Water Program Guidance
38

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                                               Increase Wetlands
     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 acquisi-
       tion and restoration programs, including those adminis-
       tered by USFWS and non-federal programs. EPA will work
       to improve levels of wetland protection by states and via
       EPA and other federal programs through actions that
       include:
       •  Working with and integrating wetlands protection into
         other EPA programs, such as CWA Section 319, SRF,
         NEP, and Brownfields;
       •  Providing grants and technical assistance to state,
         tribal, or local organizations;
       •  Developing technical assistance and informational tools
         for wetlands protection; and
       •  Collaborating with USDA, DOI, NOAA, and other
         federal agencies with wetlands restoration programs to
         ensure the greatest environmental outcomes.
       For FY 2013, EPA expects to track the following key
       activities for accomplishing its wetland goals:
       •  Wetlands Restored and Enhanced Through Partner-
         ships: EPA will track this commitment as a sub-set of
         the overall net gain goal and will track and report the
         results separately under Program Activity Measure
         WT-01. These acres may include those supported by
         Wetland Five-Star Restoration Grants, NEP, CWA Sec-
         tion 319 NFS grants, Brownfield grants, EPA's Great
         Waterbody Programs, and other EPA programs. This
         does not include enforcement or mitigation acres. EPA
         exceeded its target for this Program Activity Measure
         between 2009 and 2011, mainly due to unexpected
         accomplishments from NEP enhancement projects.
         Based on five year trend data, the target will be at
         180,000 cumulative acres for FY 2013, as measured
         against a FY 2005 baseline.
       •  State/Tribal Programs: A key objective of EPA's
         wetlands program is building the capacity of states
         and tribes in the following core elements of a wetlands
         program: wetland monitoring; regulation including
         401 certification; voluntary restoration and protection;
         and WQS for wetlands. EPA is enhancing its support
         for state and tribal wetland programs by providing
         more directed technical assistance and making refine-
         ments to the Wetland Program Development Grants.
         Program Activity Measure WT-02a14 reflects EPA's goal
         of increasing state and tribal capacity in these core wet-
         land management areas. In reporting progress under
       measure WT-02a, EPA will assess the number of states
       and tribes that have substantially increased their capac-
       ity in one or more core elements. This is an indicator
       measure.
       Regulatory Program Performance: Data on Aquatic
       Resources Tracking for Effective Regulation (DARTER)
       is EPA's system to manage its workflow in CWA Sec-
       tion 404 permit program. CWA Section 404 requires
       a permit from USAGE, or an EPA-approved state, for
       the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
       of the U.S. DARTER allows EPA staff to track agency
       involvement in pre-application coordination, review of
       public notices for proposed permits, and access shared
       data from USACE's national regulatory program data
       management system, known as OMBIL15 Regulatory
       Module (ORM2).
       Using ORM 2.0 and DARTER as a data source, Pro-
       gram Activity Measure WT-03 documents the annual
       percentage of 404 standard permits where EPA coor-
       dinated with the permitting authority and that coor-
       dination resulted in an environmental improvement
       in the final permit decision. This measure will remain
       an indicator until enough data is  collected to define a
       meaningful target.
       In January 2010, the Wetlands Division within OW and
       all regional offices agreed to the minimum expected
       level of data entry in DARTER for the review of pro-
       posed CWA Section 404  projects. These requirements
       included all public notices for standard permits, and
       any "significant coordination events" completed during
       the review of proposed standard permits. "Significant
       coordination events" are defined  as: site visits; meet-
       ings; and letters completed during both the pre-appli-
       cation and public notice  period of CWA Section 404
       application review. In addition, regions are expected
       to complete final review, for all applications that EPA
       coordinated on, to determine if EPA's involvement
       resulted in environmental improvements in USACE's
       final application decision. For USAGE Standard Permit
       decisions made in FY 2011 (i.e., a permit was issued,
       denied, or withdrawn), 88% of the time EPA provided
       comments and recommendations during the permit
       review and documented  environmental improvements
       in the final permit outcome.
       Wetland Monitoring: In 2006, EPA issued "The Ele-
       ments of a State Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment
       Program" to assist EPA and state  program managers in
       planning and implementing a wetland monitoring and
       assessment program within their broader water quality
       monitoring efforts. Since that time, EPA has worked
       In December 2011,OWOW decided to suspend use of measure WT-2b in FY 2013. Measure WT-02b will be deferred to the future after a good number
       of state programs have adopted the full program. At that point, OWOW will replace WT-02a with WT-02b, or will develop a new replacement measure.
       Operations and Maintenance Business Information Link (OMBIL)
National Water Program Guidance
39

-------
Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands
                                                Increase Wetlands
         actively with states and tribes to advance wetlands
         monitoring and the use of assessment data to better
         manage wetland resources. EPA chairs the National
         Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Work Group,
         comprised of more than 35 states and tribes along with
         other federal agencies, to provide national leadership
         in implementing state and tribal wetlands monitoring
         strategies. The Work Group played a prominent role in
         informing the design of the National Wetland Condi-
         tion Assessment (NWCA). The NWCA will provide the
         first statistically valid assessment of the ecological
         condition of the Nation's wetlands, providing a base-
         line data layer that could be used in subsequent years
         to gauge changes in wetland condition and potentially
         the impacts of climate change on wetland ecological
         integrity. Field work was concluded in 2011, and data
         analysis concluded in 2012. The final NWCA report is
         expected in 2014.
         EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to
         build the capability to monitor trends in wetland condi-
         tion as defined through biological metrics and assess-
         ments. States should also have plans  to eventually
         document trends in wetland condition over time. Prog-
         ress by states in developing their monitoring capacity is
         measured in WT-02a (see State/Tribal Programs section
         above)16. 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 NWCA;
       •  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
         evaluating baseline wetland condition. Baseline
         condition maybe established using landscape assess-
         ment (Tier 1), rapid assessment (Tier 2), or intensive
         site assessment (Tier 3).

   C) Grant Program Resources
   Examples of grant resources supporting this work include
   the Wetland Program Development Grants, Five Star Res-
   toration Grants, CWA Section 319 Grants, the Brownfields
   grants, and NEP Grants.  For additional information on
   these grants, see  the grant program guidance on the website
   (http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning/
   index.cfm). In addition, some states and tribes have utilized
   CWA Section 106 funds for program implementation,
   including wetlands monitoring and protection projects.
     16 In December 2011, OWOW decided to suspend use of measure WT-04 in FY 2013 because measure WT-02a essentially reports the same activity.
National Water Program Guidance
40

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                              Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
     IV. Strategies  to  Protect Communities and  Large Aquatic

          Ecosystems

         The core programs of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are essential for the protection of the nation's
         drinking water and fresh waters, coastal waters, and wetlands. At the same time, additional, intergovernmental
         efforts are sometimes needed to protect and restore communities and large aquatic ecosystems around the county. For
     many years, EPA has worked with state and local governments, tribes, and others to implement supplemental programs to
     restore and protect the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the  waters along the U.S.-Mexico Border.
     More recently EPA has developed new, cooperative initiatives addressing Long Island  Sound, South Florida, Puget Sound,
     the Columbia River, San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, and the waters of the Pacific Islands.
     1) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
                             ective:
                    Improve the overall ecosystem health of
                    the Great Lakes by preventing water pol-
                    lution and protecting aquatic ecosystem
                    (using the Great Lakes 40-point scale).
     2005 Baseline: 21.5 points  2012 Commitment: 23.9
     2010 Result: 22.7          2013 Target: 23.4
     2011 Result: 21.9          2015 Strategic Target: 24.7
     (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
     Appendix A and £.)

     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.
     The goal of EPA's Great Lakes program is to restore and
     maintain the environmental integrity of the  Great Lakes
     ecosystem, as mandated by GLRI, the Great Lakes Water
     Quality Agreement, and CWA. As the primary means of
     accomplishing this goal, EPA leads the Interagency Task
     Force in implementation of the FY 2010 to FY 2014 GLRI
     Action Plan. This interagency collaboration accelerates
     progress, avoids potential duplication of effort, and saves
     money. Through a coordinated interagency process led
     by EPA, implementation of GLRI is helping to restore the
     Great Lakes ecosystem, enhance the economic health of
     the region, and ultimately improve the public health  of
     the area's 30 million Americans. As outlined  in the GLRI
     Action Plan released by the Administrator and governors,
     GLRI targets five focus areas: eliminating or mitigating
     toxic substances and restoring designated Areas of Concern
     (AOC); preventing and reducing the destructive impacts of
     invasive species; improving nearshore health and reducing
     NFS pollution; improving habitat and reducing species loss;
     and emphasizing and instilling the concepts  of accountabil-
     ity, education, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and
   partnership throughout the implementation of GLRI. In FY
   2013, the President has proposed $300 million for GLRI to
   support programs and projects which, in accordance with
   the GLRI Action Plan, target the most significant environ-
   mental problems in the Great Lakes. Special priority will be
   placed on cleaning up and de-listing AOCs, reducing phos-
   phorus contributions from  agricultural and urban lands
   that contribute to harmful algal blooms and other water
   quality impairments, and invasive species prevention.
   EPA works with its GLRI partners to select the best com-
   bination of programs and projects for Great Lakes restora-
   tion and protection based on criteria, such as feasibility of
   prompt implementation and timely achievement of measur-
   able outcomes. GLRI funds  are used to implement federal
   projects and projects done in conjunction with public enti-
   ties like states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and with
   private entities such as non-governmental organizations.
   GLRI grants are generally issued competitively. However,
   the EPA also distributes funds for federal projects to other
   federal agencies to supplement (but not supplant) the base
   funding for these agencies'  Great Lakes activities. Tradi-
   tional infrastructure financing under Clean and Drinking
   Water  SRFs, and Superfund cleanup enforcement are impor-
   tant examples of work which, though outside GLRI's scope,
   will also continue to be essential to  Great Lakes protection
   and restoration. EPA is working with states and tribes to
   ensure that these high priority activities are targeted to
   help further clean up the Great Lakes.
   Continued progress is dependent on continued work to
   implement core CWA programs and appropriately targeted
   supplementation of those programs. These programs pro-
   vide 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 pol-
   lution  problems (extensive  sediment contamination and
   atmospheric deposition) they also face problems common
   to most other waterbodies around the country. Effective
   implementation of core programs, such as discharge per-
   mits, nonpoint pollution controls, wastewater treatment,
   wetlands protection, and appropriate designation of uses
   and criteria, must be fully and effectively implemented
   throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
National Water Program Guidance
41

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                                Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
     In its fourth year, GLRI will support programs and projects
     which, in accordance with the GLRI Action Plan, target the
     most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes.
     Special priority will be placed on cleaning up and de-listing
     AOCs, reducing phosphorus contributions from agricultural
     and urban lands that contribute to harmful algal blooms and
     other water quality impairments, and invasive species pre-
     vention. Interagency Task Force members will issue requests
     for proposals as soon as possible to maximize the number of
     projects that will be able to be started during the 2013 field
     season. Key expected activities are described below.
     • Prevention and Reduction of Toxics. EPA, in conjunction
       with federal, state, tribal, and local government partners
       (as well as non-governmental organizations and academia)
       will take steps to mitigate the use and release of toxic
       substances into the Great Lakes. The EPA will issue grants
       to address legacy pollutants, such as PCB or mercury in
       products, as well as chemicals of emerging concern. The
       USFS will plant trees on brownfield sites to enhance plant
       uptake to prevent pollution from entering the Great Lakes
       basin. The National Park Service will accelerate remedia-
       tion of contamination in national parks. The USCG will
       accelerate needed remediation of toxic pollutants on light
       house properties which put the surrounding coast and
       adjacent waters at risk and will develop special capabilities
       necessary to respond to oil spills on ice and submerged oil
       in the freshwater of the Great Lakes.
     • Areas of Concern Restoration. EPA and the USFWS
       will issue grants to stakeholders to remove Beneficial
       Use Impairments (BUIs) in AOCs. EPA, USFWS, USAGE,
       USGS, and NOAA are working together to accelerate
       action at several AOCs where delisting is within reach.
       Through the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA), sediment
       remediation projects will begin and will be supplemented
       with navigational channel dredging by USAGE and habitat
       enhancements by USFWS.
     • Invasive Species. GLRI has supported priority Asian
       carp work including; the installation of structures by
       USAGE at the electric barrier site to reduce the risk of
       bypass by Asian carp; and USFWS and Illinois Depart-
       ment of Natural Resource efforts to detect and remove
       Asian Carp from the system. As needed, GLRI will invest
       in additional efforts to keep Asian carp from becoming
       established in the Great Lakes. DOT's Maritime Adminis-
       tration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA will fund develop-
       ment of ballast water treatment systems for use in fresh-
       water ecosystems. Further, USFS and USFWS will deploy
       portable boat washing units to limit the spread of inva-
       sive species by recreational boaters. EPA and USFWS will
       continue to conduct monitoring surveys that will detect
       new invaders in Great Lakes locations. USFWS and the
       Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will support on-the-ground
       implementation of Aquatic Nuisance Species Management
       Plans for Great Lake  states and tribes, which includes
       conducting rapid response exercises to demonstrate and
     refine multi-agency response capabilities. NRCS, USFS,
     and National Park Service will work with agricultural
     producers and other landowners to implement practices
     that reduce terrestrial invasive species. The Great Lakes
     Fishery Commission will advance sea lamprey control
     methods using pheromones and telemetry, and USAGE
     will enhance the use of barriers to further reduce sea
     lamprey populations. EPA will issue competitive grants
     to communities and organizations to reduce or control
     terrestrial invasive species.
   •  Identification and Remediation of Sources of
     Impairments. NRCS, USFS, USAGE, National Park Ser-
     vice, USGS, NOAA, and EPA will collaborate to: under-
     stand linkages between nearshore impairments and their
     causal agents; enhance or implement practices to reduce
     the causal agents, including the export of nutrients and
     soils to the nearshore waters; establish and implement
     TMDL and Watershed Action Plans for phosphorus and
     other non-toxic pollutants; and evaluate the effectiveness
     of such efforts. The agencies will focus primarily on three
     geographic watersheds highlighted in the GLRI Action
     Plan: Maumee River, Lower Fox River/Green Bay, and
     Saginaw River.
   •  Enhanced Public Health Protection at Beaches. To assist
     local health officials in better protecting beach-goers,
     NOAA, USGS, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Ser-
     vice (APHIS), and EPA will collaborate with state, local,
     and tribal governments to: remediate identified sources
     of pollution or bacteria at beaches; increase the effective-
     ness of monitoring for pathogens; model environmental
     conditions likely to result in elevated levels of bacteria;
     and enhance communications to the public about daily
     swimming conditions.
   •  Protection and Restoration of Native Species and
     Habitats. Agencies will implement protection and res-
     toration actions to improve habitat and restore wildlife.
     Federal agencies, including USAGE, BIA, EPA, Federal
     Highway Administration, USFWS, Great Lakes Fishery
     Commission, NOAA, National Park Service, NRCS, USFS,
     USGS, and APHIS will continue to implement projects
     to reduce sedimentation and nutrient inputs, restore
     natural hydrological regimes, improve water quality, and
     protect and restore habitat including islands, beaches,
     sand dunes, and upland areas.
   •  Improvement of Aquatic Ecosystem Resiliency. USFS,
     USFWS, USGS, USAGE, Federal Highway Administration,
     BIA, and National Park Service will begin implementation
     of projects to remove large woody debris in floodplains
     and streams, replace barrier culverts to restore fish pas-
     sage and stream/river connectivity, and restore forested
     edges in riparian areas.
   •  Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and the Health
     of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Using the Best Available
     Science. EPA will work with all GLRI agencies to continue
     implementation of the  Great Lakes Accountability System
National Water Program Guidance
42

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                            Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
       to incorporate transparency and accountability through-
       out GLRI. Federal agencies will improve existing pro-
       grams that assess the physical, biological, and chemical
       integrity of the Great Lakes. EPA will continue to imple-
       ment the Coordinated Science and Monitoring Initiative
       with other federal agencies, state agencies, and Environ-
       ment Canada to address lake-specific science and moni-
       toring needs in Lake Ontario in 2013 (to be followed by
       Lakes Erie, Michigan, Superior, and Huron in consecutive
       years). EPA and USGS will continue to develop the neces-
       sary infrastructure for uniform data quality management
       and real-time information access.
     • Enhanced Communication, Partnerships, and Outreach.
       EPA and NOAA will directly engage in education and
       outreach activities, including the incorporation of Great
       Lakes protection and stewardship criteria into a variety of
       educational materials. EPA and NOAA will foster additional
       engagement and communication of stewardship principles
       through the Bay Watershed Education & Training program, a
       program new to the Great Lakes. EPA will lead and support
       coordination and collaboration among Great Lakes part-
       ners to ensure that GLRI actions, projects, and programs
       are efficient, effective, and consistent with the US-Canada
       Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Department of
       State  will support the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
       ment through cooperative efforts with Canadian partners
       on issues of binational importance. Partnerships will be
       advanced and resources and capabilities leveraged through
       existing collaborative efforts such as the Great Lakes
       Interagency Task Force and its Regional Working Group,
       the US-Canada Binational Executive Committee, the State
       of the Lakes Ecosystem  Conference, the US-Canada Great
       Lakes Binational Toxics  Strategy, Lakewide Management
       Plans, the Coordinated Science Monitoring Initiative and
       Great Lakes Fisheries  management. With and through the
       Lakewide Management  Plans, partner agencies will imple-
       ment Lakewide Management Plans programs and projects,
       using public fora to assist with the transfer and dissemina-
       tion of information.

     C) Grant Program Resources:
     EPA grants will generally be issued competitively. Other
     members of the Interagency Task Force are also expected to
     select proposals, issue grants, and provide other assistance
     with funding from GLRI.
     In addition, the Great Lakes National Program Office negoti-
     ates grants resources with states and tribes, focusing on joint
     priorities, such as AOC restoration, pursuant to Remedial
     Action Plans, and Lakewide Management Plans implemen-
     tation. 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 GLLA.
   2) Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
                   A) Subobjective:
                   Improve the Health of the Chesapeake
                   Bay Ecosystem.
                   (Note: Measures of progress are identified
                   in Appendix A and £.)
   B) Key Strategies
   The Chesapeake Bay - the largest estuary in the United
   States - is a complex ecosystem that includes important
   habitats17 and food webs18. The Chesapeake Bay watershed
   includes more than 64,000 square miles of land, encom-
   passing parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsyl-
   vania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the entire District of
   Columbia. Threading through the Bay watershed are more
   than 100,000 tributaries that flow into the Bay. The com-
   munity, environmental, and economic health and vitality
   of the Bay and its watershed are impacted by the quality of
   the Bay's waters and the biological, physical, and chemical
   conditions of the Bay watershed.
   The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional
   partnership that has coordinated and conducted the res-
   toration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. CBP partners
   include the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Penn-
   sylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; the District of Colum-
   bia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC); EPA, represent-
   ing the federal government; and advisory groups of citizens,
   scientists, and local government officials. EPA is the lead
   federal agency on the Chesapeake Executive Council (EC).
   In addition to the EPA Administrator, the EC consists of
   the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the
   mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of CBC, and for
   the past few years, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Gov-
   ernors of New York, West Virginia, and Delaware have been
   invited to participate.
   In the last 25 years, the CBP partners have achieved impor-
   tant progress:
   •  Promulgated the Nation's largest TMDL with excellent
     supporting science;
   •  Adopted the Nation's first consistent WQS and assess-
     ment procedures, prompting major state and local invest-
     ments  in nutrient removal technologies across hundreds
     of wastewater treatment facilities;
   •  Established nutrient management plans on more than
     three million farmland acres;
       http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fieldguide
       http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/bayecosystem/foodwebs
National Water Program Guidance
43

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                            Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
     •  Preserved more than one million acres of forests, wet-
       lands, farmland and other natural resources, meeting the
       Program's Land Preservation goal two years early;
     •  Developed science, data monitoring, models, and mea-
       sures that are recognized as some of the best and most
       extensive in the country and  often around the world;
     •  Placed moratoria on striped bass harvests, leading to
       restoration of the stock that supports 90 percent of the
       Atlantic Coast population;
     •  Advanced use of conservation tillage, now practiced on
       more than two million acres;
     •  Planted more than 7,000 miles of streamside forested
       buffers;
     •  Restored nearly 15,000 acres of wetlands; and
     •  Removed blockages to more than 2,000 miles of spawn-
       ing grounds to help restore migratory fish.
     Despite 25 years of progress, the health of the Bay and its
     watershed remains in poor condition.
     In May 2009, the EC pledged to put all Bay management
     mechanisms necessary to restore the Bay in place by 2025
     and agreed to use short-term goals, called milestones, to
     increase restoration work. Every two years, the Bay juris-
     dictions will meet milestones for implementing measures
     to reduce pollution, with the first set of milestones due in
     December 2011.
     On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order
     (EO) 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.
     The EO has brought the Chesapeake Bay Program to a new
     level of interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO
     establishes the purpose of concerted, coordinated federal
     agency action: "to protect and restore the health, heritage,
     natural resources and economic value of the Nation's largest
     estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its
     watershed."
     On May 12, 2010, in response to EO 13508, EPA and the
     other federal agencies, identified in the EO released Strategy
     for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
     [EPA-903-R-10-003], a plan to coordinate, expand, and
     bring greater accountability to efforts to help speed the
     Bay's recovery. The coordinated strategy defines environ-
     mental goals and milestones, identifies key indicators of
     progress, describes specific programs and strategies to be
     implemented, identifies mechanisms to ensure coordinated
     and effective activities, and outlines adaptive management
     to make necessary adjustments.
     In June 2010, EPA launched ChesapeakeStat, a systematic
     process within the partnership for analyzing information
     and data to continually assess progress towards goals and
     adapt strategies and tactics when needed. ChesapeakeStat
     includes a public website that promotes improved account-
     ability, fosters coordination, and promotes transparency
     by sharing performance information on goals, indicators,
     strategies, and funding.
   In September 2010, the EO agencies released their first
   annual action plan with more detailed information about
   the EO strategy initiatives to be undertaken in 2011; the FY
   2012 Action Plan and the first annual EO progress report
   were issued in March 2012. Also in early 2012, federal agen-
   cies joined the states in establishing two-year milestones
   with many federal efforts designed to support the state and
   the District in meeting their current and future water qual-
   ity milestones. Federal agencies also developed appropriate
   two-year milestones for other outcomes outlined in the
   strategy, beyond those for water quality.
   On December 29, 2010, EPA established the Chesapeake
   Bay TMDL, a historic and comprehensive "pollution diet"
   with rigorous accountability measures to initiate sweep-
   ing actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay
   and the region's streams, creeks, and rivers. The TMDL was
   prompted by insufficient restoration progress over the last
   several decades in the Bay. The TMDL is required under
   federal law and responds to consent decrees in Virginia
   and D.C. dating back to the late 1990s. It is also a keystone
   commitment of the EO strategy. The TMDL - the largest
   ever developed by EPA - includes pollution limits to meet
   WQS in the Bay and its tidal rivers. The TMDL is designed
   to ensure that all nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pol-
   lution control efforts needed to fully restore the Bay and
   its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with controls, practices,
   and actions in place by 2017 that would achieve 60 percent
   of the necessary reductions. The TMDL is supported by
   rigorous accountability measures to ensure cleanup commit-
   ments are met, including short-and long-term benchmarks,
   a tracking and accounting system for jurisdiction activities,
   and federal contingency actions that can be employed if
   necessary to spur progress.

   The Year Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
   EPA's focus in FY 2013 will be to continue to improve the
   rate of progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay by meet-
   ing the President's expectations as described in EO 13508,
   using the Agency's existing statutory authority, developing
   more rigorous regulations, providing states with the tools
   necessary for effective regulatory implementation, creating
   better tools for scientific analysis and accountability, and
   supporting regulatory compliance and enforcement.
   EPA will work with the states to build and refine a trans-
   parent accountability system. This system is expected to
   provide EPA, the states, local governments, and the public a
   clear understanding of how the TMDL is being implemented
   and attained through appropriate point and NFS controls
   to meet the basin-jurisdiction loading targets identified in
   two-year milestones. The system is also expected to track
   any offsets that are relied upon to achieve the TMDL alloca-
   tions and build appropriate accountability for implementa-
   tion of such offsets.
   EPA monitoring of the states' progress under the TMDL
   will include evaluation of whether the states two-year
   milestones are  consistent with the expectations and the
National Water Program Guidance
44

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                               Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
     load and wasteload allocations in the TMDL. EPA will also
     monitor whether a jurisdiction has implemented point and
     NFS controls to meet the basin-jurisdiction loading targets
     identified in its two-year milestones.
     The EO specifically cites the need for strengthening the
     scientific support for actions to better protect and restore
     the water quality and ecological integrity of the entire Bay
     watershed, and calls for focused and coordinated habitat
     and research activities directed toward living resources and
     water quality. EPA is working with the other CBP partners
     to expand the scientific capabilities  of the program. New
     decision support tools, such as an expanded non-tidal moni-
     toring network, and an expanded set of models will allow
     for better prioritization and adjustment of management
     activities.
     In FY 2013, EPA will use its technical and scientific analysis
     capabilities to provide support and guidance to the jurisdic-
     tions as they work to involve thousands of local govern-
     ments that will be affected by the TMDL. EPA will assist the
     jurisdictions in making scientifically informed determina-
     tions of the most effective ways to meet their TMDL obliga-
     tions that will provide individually tailored solutions.
     In FY 2013, EPA also will continue the development and
     implementation of new regulations to protect and restore
     the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will continue work on rulemak-
     ings under the CWA to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and
     sediment pollution in the Bay from  CAFOs, stormwater
     discharges from new and redeveloped properties, new or
     expanded discharges, and other pollutant discharges as
     necessary.
     EPA will use its resources to develop the scientific under-
     pinnings of the new regulations, which likely will include
     enhanced understanding of the loads contributed by various
     pollution sources in specific geographies. EPA has com-
     mitted to reducing air deposition of nitrogen to the tidal
     waters of the Bay from 17.9 to 15.7 million pounds per year
     through federal air regulations during the coming years.
     To ensure that the jurisdictions are able to meet EPA's
     expectations under the TMDL and new rulemakings, EPA
     will continue its broad range of grant programs. Most signif-
     icantly, EPA will continue funding for state implementation
     and enforcement, directing recipients to give preference to
     priority strategies, practices, and watersheds that will result
     in the greatest benefits to water quality in the Bay, consis-
     tent with CBP's ongoing efforts to use the most accurate
     and appropriate science to  identify priority watersheds and
     practices. Priority strategies and practices would be those
     identified in jurisdictions' Watershed Implementation Plans
     as necessary to achieve nutrient and sediment reductions to
     meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations. Priority practices
     are also  those proven,  cost-effective practices that reduce
     or prevent the greatest nutrient and sediment loads to
     the Chesapeake Bay. EPA also will work with the states to
   ensure that local governments are adequately supported in
   their efforts to implement the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
   Ensuring that the regulated community complies with the
   appropriate regulations is an essential responsibility for
   achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake Bay and
   its watershed. In FY 2013, OECA will use its Chesapeake
   Bay-related resource allocation in Regions 2, 3, 4, and 5
   to focus on sectors contributing significant amounts of
   nutrients, sediment, and other contaminants to impaired
   watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay, including CAFOs, storm-
   water point source discharges (including discharges from
   municipal separate storm sewer systems and stormwater
   discharges from construction sites and other industrial
   facilities), municipal and industrial wastewater facilities,
   and air deposition sources of nitrogen, including power
   plants. EPA also will identify appropriate opportunities for
   compliance and enforcement activities related to dredge
   and fill operations, federal facilities, and Superfund sites,
   including remedial action and removal sites, and Resource
   Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action
   facilities.
   In addition, enforcement resources will support  the
   Agency's priority to restore the Chesapeake Bay  by provid-
   ing information about wet weather sources of pollution.
   This will result in an increase in knowledge, use,  transpar-
   ency, and public access to data about wet weather sources
   through: a) building an electronic reporting module for
   getting non-major permit data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot
   with states in the Chesapeake Bay; b) building and deploy-
   ing targeting tools to help identify the most significant
   sources of noncompliance and discharges of pollutants most
   responsible for the impairment of this important water
   body; and c) making all non-enforcement confidential data
   available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in the public's ability
   to use and understand the data.

   C) Grant  Program Resources
   Resources supporting this goal include grant authorities
   under CWA Section 117. For additional information on
   these grants, see the grant program guidance at  http://
   www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.htm.

   3) Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
                   A) Subobjective:
                   Improve the overall health of coastal
                   waters of the Gulf of Mexico (by 0.2) on
                   the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
                   Coastal Condition Report (a 5-point sys-
                   tem in which 1 is poor and 5 is good):
   2004 Baseline: 2.4          2012 Commitment: 2.4
   2011 Actual: 2.4            2013 Target: 2.4
   (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
   Appendix A andE.)
National Water Program Guidance
45

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                           Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
     B) Key Strategies
     The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Water-
     shed". Its U.S. coastline is 1,630 miles; it is fed by 33 major
     rivers, and it receives drainage from 31 states in addition to
     a similar drainage area from Mexico. One sixth of the U.S.
     population now lives in Gulf Coast states, and the region
     is experiencing remarkably rapid population growth. In
     addition, the Gulf yields approximately 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.
     1. Conserve and Restore Habitat
       Healthy and resilient coastal habitats sustain many ecosys-
       tem services upon which humans rely. Reversing ongoing
       habitat degradation and preserving the remaining healthy
       habitats is necessary to protecting the communities,
       cultures, and economy of the Gulf Coast. For decades, the
       Gulf Coast has endured extensive damage to key habitats,
       such as coastal wetlands, estuaries, barrier islands, upland
       habitats, seagrass beds, oyster reefs, corals, and offshore
       habitats. 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 30,600 cumu-
       lative acres of habitat by FY 2013 and is working with the
       NOAA, environmental organizations, the Gulf of Mexico
       Foundation, and area universities to identify and restore
       critical habitat. EPA will enhance cooperative planning and
       programs across the Gulf states and federal agencies to
       protect wetland and estuarine habitat.
       The wise management of sediments for wetland creation,
       enhancement, and sustainability is of critical importance
       to the Gulf Coast region, especially given locally high
       rates of subsidence, or settling, and the region-wide
       threat from potential future impacts of climate change.
       To successfully sustain and enhance coastal ecosystems,
       a broad sediment management effort is needed that
       incorporates beneficial use of dredge material,  and other
       means of capturing all available sediment resources. EPA
       and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Habitat Conservation
       and Restoration Team, have worked extensively with the
       five Gulf states to develop and implement a Gulf Regional
       Sediment Management Master Plan that endorses best
       practices for sediment management, outlines technical
       considerations, and recommends solutions for the most
       beneficial use of this resource (i.e. dredged material). The
       "Technical Framework" document has been developed
       and is posted for review.19
       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 spe-
cies. An excess amount of nutrients is identified as one
of the primary problems facing Gulf estuaries and coastal
waters. Over the next several years, the Gulf states will
establish criteria for nutrients in coastal ecosystems that
will guide regulatory, land use, and water quality protec-
tion decisions. Nutrient criteria could potentially reverse
current trends in nutrient pollution to coastal waters and
estuaries, but the challenge is to prevent or reduce the
man-made sources of nutrients to levels that maintain
ecosystem productivity and restore beneficial uses. In FY
2013, EPA will support coastal nutrient criteria and stan-
dards development with Gulf state pilots  and will develop
science and management tools for the characterization
of nutrients in coastal ecosystems. Because the five Gulf
states face similar nutrient management challenges at
both the estuary level and as the receiving water for the
entire Mississippi River watershed, the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance Partnership is an important venue to build and
test management tools to reduce nutrients in Gulf waters
and achieve healthy and resilient coastal ecosystems.
Any strategy to improve the overall health of the entire
Gulf of Mexico must include a focused effort to reduce
the size of the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf. Actions
to address this problem must focus on reducing both
localized pollutant addition throughout the Basin and
on nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River. EPA,
in cooperation with states and other federal agencies,
supports the long-term target to reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone from approximately 17,350 square kilo-
meters to less than 5,000 square kilometers, measured
as a five-year running average. In working to accomplish
this goal, EPA, states, and other federal agencies, such as
USDA, will continue implementation of core clean water
programs and partnerships and efforts to coordinate
allocation of technical assistance and funding to priority
areas around the Gulf.
Specifically in FY 2013, EPA will address excessive nutri-
ent loadings that contribute to water quality impairments
in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic conditions in
the Gulf of Mexico. Working with the Gulf Hypoxia Task
Force, Gulf of Mexico Alliance and other states within
the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins, other federal
agencies, and the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force, EPA will help develop and implement nutri-
ent reduction strategies that include an accountability
framework for point and nonpoint sources contributing
nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Gulf, as well as
watershed plans that provide a road map for addressing
NPSs. EPA will continue to coordinate with USDA and
with federal and state partners  to support monitoring
BMPs and water quality improvement through work
with the partner organizations  and states and to leverage
       http://www.gulfofm exicoalliance.org/pd fs/GRSMMP_Technical_Framework_Dec_09.pdf
National Water Program Guidance


-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                               Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
       resources to focus wetland restoration and development
       and habitat restoration efforts towards projects within
       the Mississippi River Basin that will sequester nutrients
       as appropriate from targeted watersheds and tributaries.
       Education and outreach are essential to accomplish EPA's
       goal of healthy and resilient coastal habitats. Gulf resi-
       dents and decision makers need to understand and appre-
       ciate the connection between the ecological health of the
       Gulf of Mexico and its watersheds and coasts, their own
       health, the economic vitality of their communities, and
       their overall quality of life. There is also a nationwide need
       for a better understanding of the link between the health
       of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. economy. The EPA's
       long-term goal is to  increase awareness and steward-
       ship of Gulf coastal resources and promote action among
       Gulf citizens. In 2013, the Gulf of Mexico Program will
       foster regional stewardship and awareness of Gulf coastal
       resources through annual Gulf Guardian Awards; and
       will support initiatives that include direct involvement
       from underserved and underrepresented populations and
       enhance local capacity to reach these populations.
     2. Restore Water Quality
       CWA provides authority and resources that are essential
       to protecting water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and
       in the larger Mississippi River Basin, which contributes
       pollution, especially oxygen demanding nutrients, to the
       Gulf. Enhanced monitoring and research is needed in the
       Gulf Coast region to make data more readily available.
       The EPA regional offices 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. These efforts will assure the continued
       effective implementation of core clean water programs,
       ranging from discharge permits, to nonpoint pollu-
       tion controls, to wastewater treatment, to protection of
       wetlands. The Gulf of Mexico Program is working with
       NOAA, USAGE, and USGS in support of this goal.
       A central pillar of the strategy to restore the health of the
       Gulf is restoration of water quality and habitat in prior-
       ity coastal watersheds. These watersheds, which include
       impaired segments identified by states around the Gulf,
       will receive targeted technical and financial assistance
       to restore impaired waters. The FY 2013 goal is to fully
       attain WQSs in at least 360 of these segments.
     3. Enhance Community Resilience
       The Gulf Coastal communities continuously face and adapt
       to various challenges of living along the Gulf of Mexico
       such as storm risk, sea-level rise, land and habitat loss,
       depletion of natural resources, and compromised water
       quality. 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 pros-
     perity, individuals, businesses, communities, and ecosys-
     tems all need to be more adaptable to change. In FY 2013,
     EPA will assist with the development of information, tools,
     technologies, products, policies, or public decision pro-
     cesses that can be used by coastal communities to increase
     resilience to coastal natural hazards and sea level rise. The
     EPA is working collaboratively with multiple agencies that
     share responsibility in this area, including NOAA Sea Grant
     Programs and USGS in support of this goal.
   4. Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine
     Resources
     Living coastal and marine resources are showing visible
     signs of distress, such as depleted species population
     and degraded habitats. Decision makers must protect
     these resources and allow them to survive and thrive in
     a changing environment, while supporting the needs of
     communities who depend on them for their livelihoods. A
     primary focus should be to strengthen and build programs
     to promote resource management that focuses on the
     needs and functions of the ecosystem as a whole, facilitat-
     ing improved fisheries management and species protec-
     tion efforts and restoring depleted populations of living
     coastal and marine resources. The natural resources of the
     Gulf are rich and diverse; however, the varying needs for
     and use of these resources are sometimes in conflict with
     one another, and this has resulted in negative impacts for
     those very resources that sustain the Gulf. For example,
     the need to provide pathways and pipelines supporting
     the oil and gas industry often runs counter to efforts to
     promote intact wetlands and nursery areas. Land use prac-
     tices and development can often result in water quality
     degradation of estuarine and coastal environments, home
     to species that are the foundation of commercial and
     recreational fishing industries. Maintaining and returning
     healthy living resources back to resilient and sustainable
     populations depends on how well we can address the cur-
     rent challenges and those they will face in the future.

   C) Grant Program Resources
   The Gulf of Mexico Program issues an annual competitive
   Funding Announcement for Gulf of Mexico Regional Part-
   nership projects that improve the health of the Gulf of Mex-
   ico by addressing improved water quality and public health,
   priority coastal habitat protection/recovery, more effective
   coastal environmental education, improved habitat identifi-
   cation/characterization data and decision support systems,
   and strategic nutrient reductions. Projects must actively
   involve stakeholders and focus on support and implementa-
   tion of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Strategy.
   For additional information on these grants, see the grant pro-
   gram guidance on the website (http://www.epa.gov/gmpo).
National Water Program Guidance
47

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                               Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
     4) Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
                     A) Subobjective:
                     Prevent water pollution, improve water
                     quality, protect aquatic ecosystems, and
                     restore habitat of Long Island Sound.
                     (Note: Additional measures of progress
                     are identified in Appendix A andE.)
     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 swim-
     ming. In 2011 dollars, that value is now $8.91 billion. The
     Sound also generates additional billions of dollars through
     transportation, ports, harbors, real estate, and other cultural
     and aesthetic values. The Sound is breeding ground, nursery,
     feeding ground, and habitat to more than 170 species of fish
     and 1,200 invertebrate species that are under stress from
     development, competing human uses and climate change.
     The key environmental and ecological outcomes for Long
     Island Sound include  marine and tributary waters that meet
     prescribed state WQS - waters that are fishable, swimmable,
     and that support diverse habitats of healthy, abundant, and
     sustainable populations of aquatic and marine-dependent
     species in an ambient environment that is free of sub-
     stances that are potentially harmful to human health or
     that otherwise may adversely affect the food chain. An
     educated and informed citizenry that participates in the
     restoration and protection of the Long Island Sound is
     essential to achieving these goals.
     EPA will continue to work with the Long Island Sound
     Study (LISS) Management Conference partners - the states
     of New York and Connecticut and other federal, state, and
     local government agencies, academia, industry, and the pri-
     vate sector — to implement the 1994 CCMP to restore and
     protect the Sound. Because levels of dissolved oxygen (DO)
     are critical to the health of aquatic life and viable public use
     of the Sound, a CCMP priority is controlling anthropogenic
     nitrogen discharges to meet these WQS.
     1. Reduce Nitrogen Loads
       The Long Island Sound bi-state nitrogen TMDL, approved
       by EPA in 2000, relies on flexible and innovative
       approaches, notably bubble permits, management zones,
       and exchange ratios that allow sewage treatment plant
        (STP) operators to trade nitrogen reduction obligations
       with each other. This approach helps attain water quality
       improvement goals, while allowing communities to save
       an estimated $800 million by allocating reductions to
       those STPs where they can be achieved most economically,
       and to STPs that have the greatest impact on water quality.
     The States of New York and Connecticut will continue to
     allocate resources toward STP upgrades to control nitro-
     gen discharges to meet TMDL requirements. These states
     will monitor and report discharges through PCS and Dis-
     charge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). A revised TMDL will
     incorporate updated state marine WQS for DO, as well as
     other refined or updated technical data.
     The State of Connecticut will continue to implement its
     Nitrogen Credit Exchange program, first instituted in 2002.
     Reductions in nitrogen discharges at STPs that go beyond
     TMDL requirements create the State's system of market
     credits, which will continue to assist municipalities in reduc-
     ing construction costs and more effectively address nitro-
     gen reductions to the Sound. New York City will continue
     its STP nitrogen upgrades and will minimize the impact of
     nitrogen discharges to the Sound as construction proceeds
     through 2017. Westchester County will continue construc-
     tion upgrades at its two affected STPs to  control its nitrogen
     discharges to the Western Sound (see measure LI-SP41).
     EPA will continue to work with the upper Long Island
     Sound watershed States of Massachusetts, New Hamp-
     shire, and Vermont to implement state plans that identify
     and control nitrogen discharges to the Connecticut River.
     As sources are identified and control strategies developed,
     the states will modify discharge permits to incorporate
     appropriate load allocations. A continuing challenge to
     EPA and states is to address NPSs of nitrogen deposi-
     tion to the Sound, including atmospheric deposition and
     groundwater infiltration. These sources  contribute many
     thousands of pounds of nitrogen and which are more diffi-
     cult and complex to identify and control. To address  these
     sources, the LISS supports local watershed protection pro-
     grams and projects that 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 antici-
     pated; however, ecosystem response is not  linear spatially
     or temporally in some systems. While other factors also
     affect the timing, duration, and severity of hypoxia,
     including weather conditions such as rainfall, solar
     radiation and light, temperature, and winds, continued
     reductions in nitrogen loads will help to mitigate these
     uncontrollable natural factors. As the states continue
     implementing STP upgrades for nitrogen and NFS con-
     trols, the new applied technologies will reduce nitrogen
     inputs, limit algal response, and intervene in natural
     cycles of algal growth, its death, decay, and resulting loss
     of DO (see measure LI-SP42.N11).
   3. Restore and Protect Critical Habitats and Reopen
     Rivers to Diadromous Fish
     EPA will continue to work with Management Conference
     partners as they restore and protect critical and degraded
     habitats and reopen rivers and streams to diadromous fish
National Water Program Guidance
48

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                               Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
       passage. The states and EPA will continue to direct efforts
       at the most vulnerable coastal habitats and key areas of
       high ecological value, such as coastal wetlands. The states
       will lead these efforts, using EPA's and a variety of public
       and private funds, and cooperate with landowners, to
       construct fishways, remove dams, or otherwise mitigate
       impediments to diadromous fish passage. Where feasible
       and as funding allows, fish counting devices will provide
       valuable data on actual numbers of fish returning to
       breeding grounds. Restoration of the diadromous fishery
       and increasing the higher trophic levels in the Sound are
       longer-term goals of the Sound's federal and state natural
       resource managers (see measure LI-SP43). The states and
       EPA will continue work to plan for, address, and mitigate
       climate change impacts on coastal estuarine environments
       through the Long Island Sound Sentinel Monitors program.
       Key environmental sentinels of ecological change will be
       identified and tracked to monitor changes from baselines.
       Through this program, managers and decision makers
       will be alerted to potential effects on the vital ecological
       resources at risk or vulnerable to climate change, and miti-
       gation options maybe developed and implemented.
     4. Implement through Partnerships
       In 2013, New York, Connecticut, and EPA will continue to
       cooperate in implementing the Long Island Sound Action
       Agenda, 2011-2013. The Action Agenda identifies priority
       actions to implement the 1994 CCMP and is organized
       around four themes: Waters and Watersheds; Habitats
       and Wildlife; Communities and People; and Science and
       Management. EPA will also continue to work with New
       York and Connecticut to comprehensively revise the 1994
       CCMP. The new Plan will build upon the 1994 CCMP goals
       and targets, and will include new areas for action, such as
       climate change impacts, urban waters, underserved com-
       munities, and stewardship of sensitive areas of exemplary
       scientific, ecological, or public significance.
       The states and EPA will continue to address the highest
       priority environmental and ecological problems identified
       in the CCMP - the impact of hypoxia on the ecosystem,
       including living marine resources; the effects of reducing
       toxic substances, pathogens, and floatable debris on the
       ambient environment; identification, restoration and pro-
       tection 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 Con-
       ference will work to improve riparian buffers in key river
       reaches and restore submerged aquatic vegetation in key
       embayments; reduce the impact of toxic substances, patho-
       gens, and floatable debris on the ecology; and improve the
       stewardship of these critical areas (see measure LI-SP44).
       EPA and the states will continue to support the Citizens
       Advisory Committee and the Science and Technical
     Advisory Committee, which provide technical expertise
     and public participation and advice to the Management
     Conference partners in the implementation of the CCMP.
     An educated and informed public will more readily recog-
     nize problems and understand their role in environmen-
     tal stewardship.
   5. Core EPA Program Support
     The LISS supports, and is supported, by EPA core envi-
     ronmental management and regulatory control programs,
     as well as one of the Administrator's key priorities -
     urban waters. Long Island Sound itself is known as the
     "Urban Sea,"20 because of its proximity in the Northeast
     population corridor and its vulnerability to the impacts
     of human usage. All of Connecticut's 24 coastal towns
     are urbanized, as are Westchester, Queens, Nassau, and
     Suffolk counties in New York that border the Sound. The
     CCMP, established under CWA Section 320, envisioned
     a partnership of federal, state and local governments,
     private industry, academia and the public, to support
     and fund the cleanup and restoration of the Sound. This
     cooperative environmental partnership relies on existing
     federal, state and local regulatory frameworks, programs,
     and funding to achieve restoration and protection goals.
     For example, in 2012, the LISS incorporated EPA's Urban
     Waters initiative as a qualifying project category in its
     Futures Fund subgrant program to solicit local on-
     the-ground projects that help implement the CCMP. A
     number of projects in New York and Connecticut have
     been funded that support Urban Waters objectives. Such
     projects range from bringing urban children to the Sound
     for an educational and on-the-water experience to con-
     struction and installation of bioretention basins to help
     filter runoff before it enters the Sound.
     EPA and the states use authorities and funding provided
     under CWA Section 319 to manage watersheds that are
     critical to the health of the Sound. Under CWA 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.
     EPA's SRF under CWA Section 601 is used by states to
     leverage funding for STP upgrades for nitrogen control,
     and NPDES permits issued under CWA Section 402 pro-
     vide enforceable targets to monitor progress in reducing
     nitrogen and other harmful pollutants to waters entering
     the Sound. Because of the LISS nitrogen TMDL, devel-
     oped under CWA Section 303(d), both the states of Con-
     necticut and New York revised their ambient WQS for DO
     to be consistent with EPA's national guidance for DO in
     marine waters. With EPA funding through the LISS, Con-
     necticut conducts the Long Island Sound ambient water
     quality monitoring (WQM) program, and has participated
     with the State of New York in EPA's National Coastal
       L.Koppelman, The Urban Sea: Long Island Sound, 1976; ISBN 0-275-28863-8
National Water Program Guidance
49

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                                Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
       Assessment monitoring program. The data compiled by
       the LISS WQM program is one of the most robust and
       extensive datasets on ambient conditions available to
       scientists, researchers, and managers. The LISS nitrogen
       TMDL sets firm reduction targets and encourages trading
       at point sources, and NPDES/SPDES permits have been
       modified to incorporate TMDL nitrogen limits on a 15
       year enforceable schedule. The states of New York and
       Connecticut recognize the significant financial invest-
       ments required to support wastewater infrastructure and
       have passed state bond act funding to sustain efforts to
       upgrade STPs to reduce nitrogen loads. These actions are
       primary support of CWA core programs, and are ongoing
       and integral to LISS CCMP implementation to  restore and
       protect Long Island Sound, the Urban Sea.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     EPA grant resources supporting this goal include the Long
     Island Sound CCMP implementation grants authorized
     under CWA Sections 119(d) and 320(g) as amended.
     Ninety-nine percent of the funds appropriated annually for
     Long Island Sound under these sections of law are made
     available as grant funds to eligible entities. These grants
     include sub grants for 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 program administered by the
     New England Interstate Water Pollution Control  Commis-
     sion, and the Long Island Sound Research Grant  program
     administered by the New York and Connecticut Sea Grant
     programs. The LISS web page provides grant information
     and progress toward meeting environmental results at:
     http://longislandsoundstudy.net/about/grants/.
     5) Restore and 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: Additional measures of progress
                     are identified in Appendix A andE.)
     B) Key Program Strategies
     The Puget Sound in Washington State, the Strait of Juan
     de Fuca, and the Georgia Basin to the north in Canada,
     together make up the Salish Sea; The Salish Sea ecosystem
     is the homeland of the Coast Salish people, comprising 19
     tribes in the U.S. and 55 First Nations in Canada. Residents
     and governments on both sides of the international border
     share a commitment to steward the ecosystem's resources.
     The pressures from the Salish Sea basin's seven million
     inhabitants (expected to increase to over nine million by
     2025) on the ecosystem are substantial. EPA's Puget Sound
     program works to ensure that the natural, cultural, and
   economic benefits of the Puget Sound ecosystem are pro-
   tected and sustained, today and into the future. The Puget
   Sound basin represents the largest population and com-
   mercial center in the Pacific Northwest and the waters of
   Puget Sound provide a vital system of international ports,
   transportation systems, and defense installations. The
   Puget Sound ecosystem encompasses roughly 20 rivers and
   2,800 square miles of sheltered inland waters that provide
   habitat to hundreds of species of marine mammals, fish,
   and sea birds. The waters in this basin also provide a signifi-
   cant source of seafood for both commercial and recreational
   harvesters. In 2010, over 23 million pounds of salmon were
   harvested commercially by treaty tribal and non-treaty fish-
   ers21. The Puget Sound is a traditional place of subsistence
   harvesting for tribal communities currently living in the
   basin and whose ancestors have lived near the shores of the
   Puget Sound for thousands of years. However, continued
   declines in wild salmon and increasing pollution threats
   to shellfish beds require that focused efforts be made in
   watershed and habitat protection and restoration, as well as
   pollution prevention so that salmon species and safe shell-
   fish harvests can be recovered and maintained. OW perfor-
   mance measures for the Puget Sound program reflect EPA's
   commitment to protect water quality and restore habitat to
   levels that reverse these trends (see measures PS-SP49.N11
   andPS-SP51).
   Although Puget Sound currently leads U.S. waterways in
   shellfish production, approximately 36,000 acres of an
   estimated 190,000 acres of classified shellfish beds are
   closed due to pollution sources, primarily fecal bacteria
   from humans, livestock, and pets (Puget Sound Partnership,
   December 9, 2011). These closures affect local economies
   and cultural and subsistence needs for these traditional
   resources. In addition, excess nutrients from a variety of
   sources (e.g., on-site septic systems, agricultural, and other
   sources) have created hypoxic zones that further impair
   shellfish and finfish populations. Toxic contaminants also
   enter the Puget Sound, with an estimated loading of at least
   1.7 million pounds per year being released into the water.
   Stormwater is the major pathway for these contaminants
   to enter Puget Sound. Many of these pollutants are find-
   ing their way into the Puget Sound food web. Studies have
   found that many marine species, including orca whales,
   have high levels of toxic contaminants, such as PCBs,
   polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polycyclic
   aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
   Growing recognition that protecting the Puget Sound
   ecosystem requires increased capacity and sharper focus,
   resulted in a new state approach to restoring and protect-
   ing the Puget Sound basin. In 2006, a broad partnership of
   civic leaders, scientists, business and environmental group
   representatives, state and local agency directors and tribal
   leaders developed a new approach to protecting the Puget
     21 http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/commercial_fisheries_harvest.php
National Water Program Guidance
50

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                                 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
     Sound. This work resulted in the creation of a new state
     agency in 2007, the Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership).
     The Partnership adopted a CCMP in 2009, the "2020 Action
     Agenda", for protecting and restoring the Puget Sound eco-
     system. The Action Agenda was updated in 2012 to bring an
     even sharper focus on the strategies and near term actions
     that will bring about the  changes needed to achieve the
     aggressive targets set for Puget Sound restoration.
     State and tribal partnership with EPA was significantly lev-
     eraged in 2011 when EPA awarded multi-year cooperative
     agreements to competitively-selected entities to act as "lead
     organizations" (LOs) to facilitate efficient implementation
     of priority work in the Action Agenda at the basin-wide and
     local level. The selected state agencies and tribal organiza-
     tions are effectively working together with local govern-
     ments and other stakeholders in the Puget Sound Partner-
     ship Management Conference to improve conditions in the
     Puget Sound basin within the following areas of emphasis:
     •  Management of implementation of the Action Agenda;
     •  Marine and nearshore  protection and restoration;
     •  Watershed protection and restoration;
     •  Toxics and nutrients prevention, reduction, and control;
     •  Pathogen prevention, reduction, and control;
     •  Projects in tribal areas; and
     •  Outreach and education.
     Additionally, EPA chairs and convenes a Puget Sound
     Federal Caucus with 13 other agencies to coordinate and
     optimize federal work that supports Puget Sound restora-
     tion and protection objectives.
     This local, state, tribal, and federal partnership in the Puget
     Sound region has grown significantly stronger and more
     effective by EPA's ongoing support of the Puget Sound Part-
     nership Management Conference through NEP, and the lead
     organization funding model.
     Key program strategies for FY 2013 include:
     Improving Water Quality and Restoring Shellfish Beds
     and Wild Salmon Habitat through Local Watershed
     Protection
     •  EPA will continue to support and partner with state and
       local agencies and tribal governments to build capacity
       for protecting and restoring local watersheds, particu-
       larly in areas where shellfish bed closures or harvest area
       downgrades are occurring or where key salmon recovery
       efforts are being focused.
     •  In recent years, FY 2009 - FY 2011,  more than 70
       substantial watershed  protection grants have been
       awarded to protect and restore commercial, subsistence,
       and recreational shellfish growing areas; to protect and
       improve habitat in watersheds supporting wild salmon
       populations; and to guide development patterns and
       management practices associated with a growing human
     population in a way that protects the habitats and water
     quality of local watersheds into the future.
   •  EPA is working with tribes and Puget Sound Federal
     Caucus to develop an action plan to improve the protec-
     tion and restoration of habitat critical to salmon recovery
     and shellfish harvest. This plan will better integrate the
     habitat work of federal agencies.
   Building Strong Tribal Partnerships
   •  The 19 federally recognized tribes and three tribal
     consortia in the Puget Sound basin have consistently
     and effectively led programs to protect and restore the
     resources of the Puget Sound ecosystem, upon which
     their cultures depend. Many of the region's most notable
     environmental victories originate from the vision, leader-
     ship, and effort of tribes: Elwha Dam removal; restoration
     of the Nisqually Estuary and protection of the Nisqually
     watershed; restoration of the Skokomish River estuary;
     restoration of the Hansen Creek floodplain; restoration
     of habitat in the Nooksack River; and protection of Salish
     Sea waters from potential oil spills. Region 10 is commit-
     ted to continuing to uphold our trust responsibility to
     Puget Sound tribes through several specific activities:
      •  Working through the Puget Sound Federal Caucus
        to maintain an active, results-oriented dialogue with
        the Tribal Caucus on the protection of tribal treaty-
        reserved rights;
      •  Supporting the capacity of Puget Sound tribes to
        engage in the  CWA Section 320 Management Confer-
        ence; and
      •  Maintaining a government-to-government rela-
        tionship with  each federally recognized tribe in the
        ecosystem.
   Addressing Stormwater Issues through Local Watershed
   Protection Plans
   •  EPA is continuing to work with state and local agencies
     and the tribes using watershed protection approaches
     to reduce stormwater impacts to aquatic resources in
     urbanizing areas  currently outside of NPDES Phase I and
     II permit authority. Of particular concern are sensitive
     and high value estuarine waters such as Hood Canal, the
     northern Straits, and south Puget Sound.
   •  EPA will also continue to work with the state to increase
     support to local and tribal governments and the devel-
     opment community to  promote smart growth and LID
     approaches in the Puget Sound basin. In 2010 and 2011,
     more than a dozen substantial watershed protection
     and technical study grants were awarded to help reduce
     stormwater impacts and promote LID approaches.
   •  Watershed protection and land use integration projects
     continue to be a focus of EPA's stormwater work. These
     activities are included in actions eligible for funding in
     EPA's Puget Sound grant programs, consistent with prior-
     ity actions identified in the Puget Sound Action Agenda.
National Water Program Guidance
51

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                                 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
     •  Region 10 is working with Joint Base Lewis McChord
       to develop a model stormwater permit for Puget Sound
       and with the State to support its aggressive stormwater
       permitting efforts.
     •  EPA is working with the Partnership and other state
       agencies in developing a comprehensive stormwater
       monitoring program for the Puget Sound basin so that
       information gathered can be used to adaptively manage
       the next round of permits and implementation actions.
       Through monitoring programs and Region 10's Puget
       Sound Financial Ecosystem Accounting Tracking System
       (FEATS) reporting tool, EPA will assist with evaluating,
       quantifying, and documenting improvements in local
       water quality and beneficial  uses as these watershed pro-
       tection and restoration plans are implemented.
     Reducing Sources of Toxics and Nutrients
     •  EPA will work with partners to implement the findings
       from an EPA funded study completed in November 2011
       that identified the major sources of toxics entering Puget
       Sound and the major pathways. This work will include
       strategies to reduce and control the toxics identified,
       with an  emphasis on stormwater runoff. In addition, EPA
       will continue its clean-up efforts of contaminated sites
       throughout Puget Sound.
     •  EPA will work with stakeholders to prevent toxic con-
       taminants (especially persistent bioaccumulative toxics
       (PBTs))  from entering the fresh or marine waters of Puget
       Sound and to identify less toxic alternatives for products.
     •  EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to develop and
       refine a mass balance model of nutrient sources, reservoirs,
       pathways, and risk to local ecosystems in Puget Sound.
     •  EPA will work to  identify specific nutrient reduction
       strategies within priority areas, including both Hood
       Canal and South Puget Sound with an emphasis on reduc-
       ing the impacts from on-site septic systems and agricul-
       tural practices.
     Restoring and Protecting Marine and Nearshore
     Aquatic Habitats
     •  EPA will work closely with state and local agencies and
       tribes to enhance and leverage their resources to protect
       and restore Puget Sound marine and nearshore habitat.
     •  Efforts will focus on: (1) effective regulation and steward-
       ship, including updating  Shoreline Master Programs and
       ensuring their effective implementation; (2) targeting
       capital investments in habitat restoration and protection
       consistent with the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
       Restoration Program and other analyses; and (3) tackling
       high priority threats including invasive species, oil spills,
       derelict  fishing gear removal, and climate change.
     •  Protection programs, restoration strategies, project lists,
       and outcomes will be evaluated against current condi-
       tions and ongoing habitat loss to determine net changes
       in extent and function of estuary habitats.
   Improving Ecosystem Monitoring, Applying Science, and
   Communicating Results
   •  EPA is supporting the development of a basin-wide, coor-
     dinated ecosystem monitoring and assessment system.
     Working with stakeholders in the Puget Sound National
     Estuary Program Management Conference through the
     Partnership, ambient ecosystems conditions are assessed
     and the results of Puget Sound funded programs and
     projects are evaluated for effectiveness. Adaptive manage-
     ment can then inform decisions, making current protec-
     tion and restoration activities as effective as possible and
     steering future resources to identified priorities.
   •  A Strategic Science Plan for Puget Sound was adopted by
     the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council in June
     2010 and was updated for FY 2012. The Strategic Science
     Plan  provides the overall framework for development and
     coordination of specific science activities necessary to
     support Puget Sound ecosystem protection and restora-
     tion. The Science Plan is a key foundation for evaluating
     all of the priority actions and strategies in the  Puget
     Sound Action Agenda.
   •  EPA continues to support the lead organization coopera-
     tive agreement awarded to the Partnership in FY 2010 to
     coordinate and implement a Puget Sound-wide environ-
     mental education and outreach program. This outreach
     and education program brings regular communication on
     the science, monitoring data, and results of actions taken
     to preserve and restore Puget Sound to the public.
   Ensuring Focused and Productive Transboundary
   Coordination
   •  EPA Region 10 continues to maintain an extremely
     constructive working relationship with transboundary
     partners in the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin ("Salish Sea")
     ecosystem.EPA 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
     Ecosystem (SoC).
   •  As in previous years, the EPA-Environment Canada
     chaired SoC working group, comprising state, provincial,
     tribal, and first nation representatives, will work toward
     sharing scientific information on the ecosystem, develop-
     ing joint research initiatives, ensuring coordination of
     environmental management initiatives, and jointly con-
     sidering longer term planning issues including air quality
     and climate change.
   •  A significant FY 2012 activity will be the planning of
     the biennial Salish Sea Ecosystem Research Conference
     (Seattle, 2013). In 2011 this transboundary conference
     attracted registration from over 1100 scientists, policy
     makers, and stakeholders.
National Water Program Guidance
52

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
         Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
     Supporting the Working for Environmental Justice
     Cross-Cutting Strategy
     •  EPA Region 10 is conducting an environmental jus-
       tice analysis for the Puget Sound's Lower Duwamish
       Waterway Superfund Cleanup. This analysis will include
       baseline screening for environmental justice concerns, an
       assessment of cumulative impacts from pollution sources
       in the area, and an evaluation of potential dispropor-
       tionate adverse impacts to individuals who live, work,
       and play on or near the site as a result of the cleanup
       alternatives currently under consideration, together with
       potential mitigations for such impacts. A strong outreach
       and coordination effort driven largely by environmental
       justice is being focused on local communities in plan-
       ning and developing the cleanup plans in the Lower
       Duwamish. This work, which included the Muckleshoot
       and Suquamish Tribes, is addressing the cultural interests
       and usage of the River by tribal members and local fishers
       for subsistence fishing, as well as those who recreate on
       the River.
     •  EPA has funded two projects in FY 2012, one of which
       continues funding into FY 2013, that are aimed at build-
       ing community capacity and identifying the environmen-
       tal health issues in South Seattle near the Duwamish
       estuary. The results of these projects will provide input to
       EPA on how to best address environmental justice issues
       in FY 2013 and beyond, and enable the Tribe to address
       specific environmental health issues in FY 2013.
     •  EPA is encouraging the State of Washington to re-exam-
       ine Puget Sound fish consumption rates to address com-
       munities that rely upon subsistence fishing practices.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal are
     provided through NEP grants under CWA Section 320 and
     under the "Geographic Program: Puget Sound  Program
     Project" appropriation. EPA expedites the use of these
     funds by awarding multi-year lead organization awards to
     competitively selected Washington state agencies and  tribal
     organizations who then make subawards addressing prior-
     ity implementation projects and actions consistent with the
     Puget Sound Action Agenda. Lead organizations are using
     EPA grant resources to implement toxic and nutrient reduc-
     tion strategies, to protect and restore shellfish resources,
     as well as local watersheds and nearshore areas. These  lead
     organization awards also include a grant to the Northwest
     Indian Fisheries Commission for implementing priority
     tribal ecosystem projects and tribal capacity building, as
     well as grants to the Partnership for its ongoing work in
     managing implementation of the Action Agenda, and for
     outreach and education work. EPA has conducted program
     reviews and advanced post award monitoring on lead
     organization grant recipients to assess program effective-
     ness and identify efficiencies. For example, with the tribal
     lead organization grant, EPA established a coordinated
     single-point-of-contact process for environmental data
   Quality Assurance reviews that reduced the amount of time
   needed to establish and approve tribal data quality plans.
   Additional program effectiveness was realized as a result
   of EPA's 2011 administrative review of NEP grants to the
   Partnership. In that review, EPA identified opportunities for
   significant improvements in the management of subawards
   and established a comprehensive and consistent policy of
   subaward requirements for lead organizations across the
   Puget Sound program. In addition to NEP grants and the
   "Geographic Program: Puget Sound Program Project" appro-
   priation, other water program grants supporting Washing-
   ton state and tribal water quality and infrastructure loan
   programs assist in the achievement of this subobjective.

   D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
   The Partnership's Action Agenda recognizes that climate
   change will exacerbate the existing threats to Puget Sound
   and calls for actions that adapt to and mitigate potentially
   harmful effects. The Partnership used funds awarded under
   the FY 2010 Climate Ready Estuaries grants to develop
   climate change indicators and guidance for climate-sensitive
   habitat restoration and further address climate change in
   its 2012 update of the Action Agenda. EPA's review of the
   2012 Action Agenda update has focused on the inclusion of
   climate change considerations in near and long term actions
   to protect and restore the Puget Sound
   Since 2009, EPA's funding criteria have included climate
   change adaptation and mitigation. Grant awards made
   under the Puget Sound program require that applicants con-
   sider climate change and highlight climate-related activities
   in workplans and performance reports. Additionally, the
   lead organizations implementing focused efforts to improve
   conditions in Puget Sound are incorporating climate change
   response, mitigation, and adaptation in their criteria for
   project funding. EPA tracks climate change activities and
   outputs in FEATS.
   For additional information, please visit: http://www.epa.
   gov/pugetsound/index.html.

   6) Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border
   Environmental Health
                   A) Subobjective:
                   Sustain and restore the environmental
                   health along the U.S.-Mexico Border
                   through the implementation of the
                   Border 2020 Plan.
   (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
   Appendix A andE.)

   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
National Water Program Guidance
53

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                          Sustain and Restore Pacific Islands Territories
     in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region is the Border 2020 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 CWA and related
       authorities, ranging from discharge permit issuance, to
       watershed restoration, to nonpoint pollution control.
     2. Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Financing:
       Residents of the U.S-Mexico Border Region face dispro-
       portionate  exposure to inadequately treated wastewater
       and unsafe drinking water. EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border
       Water Infrastructure Program enables communities in
       the Border  Region, defined as 100 kilometers north and
       south of the international border, to develop, design, and
       construct infrastructure projects that provide safe drink-
       ing water and wastewater collection and treatment.
       In FY 2013, EPA plans to provide approximately $10 mil-
       lion for planning, design, and construction of drinking
       water and wastewater facilities. EPA will continue work-
       ing with all of its partners, including Mexico's National
       Water Commission (CONAGUA), to leverage available
       resources to meet priority needs. The FY 2013 targets will
       be achieved through the completion of prioritized Border
       Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) drinking water
       and wastewater infrastructure projects. Future  progress
       in meeting  this subobjective will be achieved through the
       completion of other border drinking water and wastewa-
       ter infrastructure projects as well as through the collabor-
       ative efforts established through the Border 2020 Water
       Task Forces.
     3. Build Partnerships: Partnerships are critical to the suc-
       cess of efforts to improve the environment and public
       health in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. Since 1995, the
       NAFTA22-created institutions, the Border Environment
       Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North Ameri-
       can Development Bank (NADB), have worked closely
       with communities to develop and construct environ-
       mental infrastructure projects. BECC and NADB support
       efforts to evaluate, plan, and implement financially and
       operationally sustainable drinking water and wastewater
       projects. EPA will continue to support these institutions
       and work collaboratively with CONAGUA.
     4. Improve Measures of Progress: During FY 2013, EPA
       will work with Mexico, states, tribes, and other institu-
       tions to improve measures of progress toward water qual-
       ity and public health goals.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     Many border  communities are financially disadvantaged
     and cannot bear the debt burden necessary to rebuild water
     infrastructure through conventional assistance channels.
     EPA grants are made available to communities that have
   exhausted all other available funding sources, such as USDA
   grants and loans and SRF loans. EPA uses a collaborative
   and public prioritization process to fund those projects that
   address the most urgent environmental and public health
   concerns. See section VII for a discussion of environmental
   justice concerns and strategies to address these concerns in
   the U.S.-Mexico Border Region.
   7) Sustain and Restore Pacific Islands Territories
   ^^^^^^•^  A) Subobjective:
          Mfek    Sustain and restore the environmental
     Xjl W^      health of the U.S. Pacific Island Territo-
       f I 1       ries of American Samoa, Guam, and the
      j          Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
     ^^^^^^™  Islands.
   (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
   Appendix A andE.)

   B) Key Program Strategies
   The U.S. Pacific Island territories of Guam, American Samoa,
   and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
   (CNMI) struggle to provide adequate drinking water and
   sanitation service. For example, the island of Saipan in the
   Northern Marianas, with a population of about 50,000,
   may be the only municipality of its size in the U.S. without
   24-hour drinking water. When residents of Saipan do get
   water, it is too salty to drink. In the Pacific Island territo-
   ries, poor wastewater conveyance and treatment systems
   threaten to contaminate drinking water wells and surface
   waters. Island beaches, with important recreational, eco-
   nomic, and cultural significance, are frequently polluted and
   placed under advisories.
   One of the root causes of drinking water and sanitation
   problems in the U.S. Pacific Island territories is inadequate
   and crumbling infrastructure. Recent studies estimate that
   it would take over one billion dollars in capital investments
   to bring the Pacific territories drinking water and wastewa-
   ter systems up to U.S. standards. EPA is targeting the use
   of existing grants, enforcement, and technical assistance to
   improve the drinking water and wastewater situation in the
   Pacific Islands.  In pursuing these actions, EPA will continue
   to use the available resources and to work with partners
   at both the federal and local levels to seek improvements.
   These efforts will, at the very least, keep the infrastructure
   and situation from worsening, and will slowly move the
   systems up toward U.S. standards.
   •  Use of Existing Grants: EPA is working in partnership
     with other federal agencies, such as DOI to optimize
     federal grants to improve priority water and wastewater
     systems. EPA and other federal grants have led to signifi-
     cant improvements in the recent past. However, existing
     grants fall far short of the overall capital needs in the
     Pacific Islands.
       North American Free Trade Agreement
National Water Program Guidance
54

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                       Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
     • 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 are down more than 90%; and drinking
       water now meets all EPA health-based standards. In
       2009, EPA entered into a comparable Stipulated Order
       in CNMI. EPA will continue to assess judicial and admin-
       istrative 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 addi-
       tion to periodic on-site training, EPA will continue to use
       details and contractor assistance to build capacity in the
       Islands to protect public health and the environment. For
       example, in recent years, EPA has used on-site EPA-man-
       aged contractors and 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 (DOD)  in its Guam
       Military Expansion project to improve the environmental
       infrastructure on Guam.  The  U.S. and Japan have agreed
       to relocate Marines from Okinawa, Japan to Guam. The
       relocation could ultimately result in a significant number
       of additional troops and dependents on Guam, putting
       additional pressure on the drinking water and wastewa-
       ter systems. 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 drinking water and
       wastewater infrastructure.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     A range of grants funds and set-asides from the national
     SRF appropriations are available to implement projects to
     improve drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in
     the Pacific Islands. EPA has historically provided about $3
     million total to the Pacific territories in drinking water and
     wastewater grants annually through the SRF programs. SRF
     funding under ARRA provided approximately an additional
     $4 million per territory in infrastructure funding in FY 2009.
     Beginning in FY 2010 EPA appropriations language estab-
     lished an SRF set-aside for territories of 1.5%, which, along
     with an overall increase in SRF funding, resulted in an
     increase in infrastructure funding for the Pacific territories,
     to approximately $37 million total in FY 2010, and $28
     million in FY 2011. However, 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 has been working to address climate change and water
   issues by focusing on three main areas in the Pacific Islands:
   water quality protection and improvement; outreach,
   education and collaboration on climate change issues; and
   sustainable military buildup on Guam. Projects include:
   •  Promoting water conservation and efficiency at public
     utilities through innovative SRF projects;
   •  Coordinating with territorial energy offices and Energy
     Task Forces; and
   •  Working with DOD and other federal resource agen-
     cies 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 LEED and green
     infrastructure 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/

   8) Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
                   A) Subobjective:
                   Protect and restore the South Florida
                   ecosystem, including the Everglades
                   and coral reef ecosystems.
                   (Note: Additional measures of progress
                   are identified in Appendix A andE.)

   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 U.S., and the largest com-
   mercial 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 throughout the
   region have had a major impact on the ecosystem.
   EPA is working in partnership with numerous local, regional,
   state, and federal agencies and tribes to ensure the long-
   term sustainability of the region's varied natural resources
   while providing for extensive agricultural operations and a
   continually expanding population. EPA's South Florida Geo-
   graphic Initiative (SFGI) is designed to protect and restore
   communities and ecosystems affected by environmental
   problems. SFGI efforts include activities related to the CWA
   Section 404 wetlands protection program; the Comprehen-
   sive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP); the WQPP for
National Water Program Guidance
55

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                       Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
     the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS); the
     Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI), 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 essen-
       tial but not adequate for accelerating progress toward
       maintaining and restoring water quality and the associ-
       ated biological resources in South Florida. Water quality
       degradation is  often caused by many different and diffuse
       sources. To address the complex causes of water quality
       impairment, we are using an approach grounded in sci-
       ence, innovation, stakeholder involvement, and adaptive
       management - the watershed approach. In addition to
       implementing  core clean water programs, we will con-
       tinue to work to:
       •  Support and  expand local watershed protection efforts
         through innovative approaches to build local capacity; and
       •  Initiate or strengthen through direct support water-
         shed protection and restoration for critical watersheds
         and water bodies.
     2. Conduct Congressionally-mandated Responsibilities
       FKNMS and Protection Act of 1990 directed EPA and the
       State of Florida, in consultation with NOAA, to develop
       a WQPP for the Sanctuary. The purpose of the WQPP is
       to recommend priority corrective actions and compliance
       schedules addressing point and NPSs of pollution in the
       Florida Keys ecosystem. In addition, the Act also required
       development of a comprehensive water quality monitor-
       ing program and provision of opportunities for public
       participation. In FY 2013, EPA will continue to implement
       the WQPP for the FKNMS, including the comprehensive
       monitoring projects (coral reef, seagrass, and water qual-
       ity), special studies, data management, and public educa-
       tion and outreach activities (see measures SFL-SP45, SFL-
       SP46, SFL-47a and SFL-47b). 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 (see measure
       SFL-1). In addition, we will continue to assist with imple-
       menting the comprehensive plan for eliminating sewage
       discharges from boats and other vessels.
     3. Support the Actions of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
       In October 2002, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force passed
       a resolution to improve implementation of the National
       Action Plan to  Conserve Coral Reefs. Among other things,
       the resolution recommended development of local action
       strategies (LAS) to improve coordinated implementation
       of coral reef conservation. In 2004 and 2005, EPA Region
       4 staff worked with SEFCRI to develop a LAS for south-
       east Florida calling for reducing "land-based sources of
       pollution" and increasing the awareness and appreciation
       of coral habitat. Key goals of the LAS are:
     •  Characterize the existing condition of the coral reef
       ecosystem;
     •  Quantify, characterize and prioritize the land-based
       sources of pollution that need to be addressed based on
       identified impacts to the reefs;
     •  Identify how pollution affects the southeast Florida
       coral reef habitat;
     •  Reduce the impacts of land-based sources of pollution; and
     •  Work in close cooperation with the awareness and
       appreciation focus team.
     Detailed action strategies or projects for each goal have
     been developed. For example, one priority action strat-
     egy/project is  to assimilate existing data to quantify and
     characterize the sources of pollution and identify the rela-
     tive contributions of point and nonpoint sources.
   4. Other Priority Activities for FY 2013
     •  Support development of TMDLs for various South
       Florida waters including the watershed for Lake
       Okeechobee, the primary or secondary source of drink-
       ing water for large portions of South Florida.
     •  Continue to work with Florida Department of Environ-
       mental Protection in developing numeric water quality
       criteria for Florida water bodies. EPA in accordance
       with a consent decree established numeric nutrient
       criteria for all Florida lakes and flowing waters (except
       South Florida flowing waters) in 2010. EPA is to pro-
       pose numeric nutrient criteria for all Florida estuaries
       and coastal  waters and South Florida flowing waters by
       March 15, 2012, and finalize these criteria by Novem-
       ber 15, 2012.
     •  Assist the State of Florida and South Florida Water
       Management District in evaluating the appropriate-
       ness 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
       USAGE to evaluate proposed ASR projects.
     •  Support state actions to remediate residential canals in
       the Florida  Keys that are impaired from development
       that has increased turbidity and bacterial numbers
       while suppressing DO concentration.
     •  Continue implementation of the South Florida Wet-
       lands 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
       USAGE and the State of Florida to facilitate expedited
       review of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
       regulatory permit actions associated with the ongoing
       implementation of CERP. Several large water storage
       impoundments will be under construction during the next
       few years.
National Water Program Guidance
56

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                          Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
       •  Continue to work with the State of Florida, the South
         Florida Water Management District, the Seminole Tribe
         of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,
         and federal agencies to implement appropriate phos-
         phorus control programs that will attain WQS through-
         out the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe and the Mic-
         cosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida both have federally
         approved WQS which may differ from the State WQS.
         To insure the identification of the appropriate WQS
         criteria, both tribes should be involved in the activities,
         especially in nutrient control, water quality activities,
         and development of TMDLs effecting tribal waters.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     Region 4 uses available resources to fund priority programs
     and projects that support the restoration and maintenance
     of the South Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades
     and coral reef habitat. These programs and projects include
     monitoring (water quality, seagrass, and coral reef), special
     studies, and public education and outreach activities.
     Federal assistance agreements for projects supporting the
     activities of the SFGI are awarded under the authority of
     CWA Section 104(b)(3). Region 4 issues announcements of
     opportunity for federal funding and "requests for proposals"
     in accordance with EPA Order 5700.5 (Policy for Competi-
     tion of Assistance Agreements).

     9) Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
                     A) Subobjective:
                     Prevent water pollution and improve
                     and protect water quality and ecosys-
                     tems in the Columbia River Basin to
                     reduce risks to human health and the
                     environment.
     (Note: Additional measures of progress are identified in
     Appendix A andE.)

     B) Key Program Strategies
     The Columbia River Basin is one of the world's great river
     basins in terms of its land area and river volume, as well as
     its environmental and cultural significance. It is vital to the
     more than eight million people who inhabit the area. The
     Columbia River Basin spans two countries, seven states,
     roughly 259,000 square miles. It is  our country's fourth
     largest watershed, containing the largest river input into
     the Pacific Ocean in North and South America and once
     boasted the largest salmon runs in  the world. The Columbia
     River Basin is home to many native tribes - high fish con-
     sumption and increased exposure to toxics by tribal people
     is a significant EJ issue. The Columbia River Basin also
     serves as a unique and special ecosystem, home to many
     important plants and animals.
     Challenges
     The river is economically vital to many Northwest indus-
     tries, such as sport and commercial fishing, agriculture,
   hydropower, wind energy, recreation, and tourism. Tribal
   people have depended on the Basin for physical, spiritual,
   and cultural sustenance for centuries. Public and scien-
   tific concern about the health of the Basin ecosystem is
   increasing. Salmon runs have been reduced from a peak of
   almost 16 million fish annually to a fraction of their origi-
   nal returns. There is significant habitat and wetland loss
   throughout the Basin. There are several Superfund sites in
   the Basin (Portland Harbor, Hanford, Coeur d'Alene River
   Basin and Lake Roosevelt) and there are growing concerns
   about toxic contamination in fish, aquatic life, and wildlife.
   Based on concern raised by a 1992 EPA national survey of
   contaminants, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Com-
   mission and EPA conducted two studies. A fish consumption
   survey in 1995 showed tribal members eat 6-11 times more
   fish than the EPA national average; and a fish contamina-
   tion study in 2002 showed the presence of 92 contaminants
   in fish consumed by tribal members with some levels above
   EPA levels of concern. Recent studies and monitoring pro-
   grams have found significant levels of toxic chemicals in fish
   and the waters they inhabit, including dichlorodiphenyltri-
   chloroethane (DDT), PCBs, mercury, and emerging contami-
   nants, such as PBDE.
   EPA joined with other partners in 2005 to form the
   Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group (Work-
   ing Group). The Working Group consists of representatives
   from tribal, federal, state, local, and non-profit partners and
   provides a forum to share information and collaborate  on
   toxics reduction. Through the Working Group, EPA Region
   10 is working closely with the states of Oregon, Washing-
   ton, Idaho, Columbia Basin tribal governments, the Lower
   Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP), local govern-
   ments, citizen groups, industry, and other federal agen-
   cies to implement a collaborative action plan to assess and
   reduce toxics in fish and water in the Columbia River Basin
   and to restore and protect habitat.
   LCREP, one of EPA's NEPs, 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 LCREP. The Lower Columbia
   River Estuary Monitoring Program, developed and over-
   seen by LCREP, provides critical work for understanding
   the lower river and estuary, including toxics and habitat
   characterization, essential for Columbia River human
   health protection and salmon restoration. LCREP developed
   a management plan in 1999 which was updated in 2011
   into a streamlined partnership based regional strategy for
   estuary recovery focused on habitat loss, land use practices,
   water quality and contaminants, education and informa-
   tion, and regional coordination.
   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:
National Water Program Guidance
57

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                          Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
     •  Clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated sedi-
       ments in the Portland Harbor and other sites in the
       Lower Columbia River (see Measure CR-SP53); and
     •  Demonstrate a ten percent reduction in mean concentra-
       tion of certain contaminants of concern found in water
       and fish tissue in five sites where baseline data is available
       (see Measure CR-SP54).
     Future Directions and Accomplishments
     EPA Region 10 is leading the Columbia River Toxics Reduc-
     tion Strategy, a collaborative effort with many partners, to
     better understand and reduce toxics in the Columbia River
     Basin. Actions include:
     •  The Working Group has been convened as a collaborative
       watershed based group consisting of local communities,
       non-profits, tribal, state, and federal government agen-
       cies to develop and implement an action plan for reducing
       toxics in the Columbia River Basin.
     •  EPA, with the Working Group, completed a Columbia
       River Basin State of the River Report for Toxics, in January
       2009. This report provided a characterization of the cur-
       rent status and trends of toxics pollution and serve as a
       catalyst for a public dialogue on enhancing and accelerat-
       ing actions to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin.
     •  In September 2010,  EPA and the Working Group released
       the Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan. The
       Action Plan presents 61 actions that can be accomplished
       over the next five years to reduce toxics in the Basin,
       focusing around five initiatives:
        •  Increase public understanding and political commit-
          ment to toxics reduction;
        •  Increase toxic reduction actions;
        •  Increase monitoring for source identification and then
          focus attention to reduce toxics;
        •  Develop regional, multi-agency monitoring; and
        •  Develop a data management system to share toxics
          information around the Basin.
     •  In August 2011, Columbia River Basin tribal, state, fed-
       eral, and non-governmental executives convened for the
       first time to discuss toxics reduction accomplishments
       throughout the Basin. Executives  at the meeting signed a
       statement committing entities to  formalize the Working
       Group and committing to continue to work together on
       toxics reduction throughout the Basin. The accomplish-
       ments information will be part of a Columbia River Basin
       Toxics Reduction Action Plan Progress Report planned to be
       finalized for 2012. EPA has held workshops around the
       Basin to engage citizens; tribal, local state, and federal
       governments; industry; agriculture; and NGOs on tox-
       ics and toxics reductions in the Columbia River Basin.
       Five workshops have focused on agricultural successes
       and technology transfer; PCBs; the development of a
       monitoring framework; and flame retardants, a growing
     concern in the Columbia River Basin. A workshop focused
     on identifying priority toxic reduction actions is currently
     being planned for June 2012.
   •  States and tribes are reducing toxics with regulatory
     tools: WQS; water quality improvement plans TMDLs;
     and NPDES permits.
      •  On October 17, 2011, EPA approved Oregon's revised
        WQS for toxic pollutants to protect human health,
        based on a fish consumption rate of 175 grams/day,
        or approximately 23 fish meals per month. The new
        standards are the most protective of any state in the
        U.S. (although some tribes have more protective stan-
        dards for tribal lands). This standard protects the most
        vulnerable populations, tribes, and EJ communities
        that rely on subsistence fishing for their food sources.
        The Oregon fish consumption rate project will have
        national technical and policy implications, for EPA,
        Pacific Northwest states, and other states with tribal
        subpopulations and high fish consumers.
      •  State and local governments are removing toxics from
        communities, including a Washington State 2007 PBDE
        ban; a 2009 Oregon State decabromodiphenyl ether
        (deca-BDE) ban; and mercury reduction strategies
        by Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, to help communities
        reduce toxic chemical use and ensure proper disposal.
      •  The State of Washington has launched a public dia-
        logue to discuss how to reduce toxics in fish which
        includes a revision of sediment clean-up standards,
        the development  of water quality implementation
        tools and a revision of human health criteria to
        address high fish  consumers and protect public health.
   •  States, tribes, and local partners are improving  farming
     practices;
      •  Oregon's Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Program
        in the Walla Walla Basin has shown a decline of 95% -
        100% in bioaccumulative organophospate pesticides in
        2006-2011 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.
   •  Federal and state governments are cleaning up contami-
     nation at Portland Harbor, Hanford, Upper Columbia/
     Lake Roosevelt, Bradford Island, Coeur d'Alene  Basin, and
     other sites.

   C) Grant Program Resources
   EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal are
   limited to NEP Grants under CWA Section 320 (approx.
   $600 K annually in recent years) which funds work only
   in the lower part of the Columbia River, which is less than
   2% of the Columbia River Basin. A range of other water
National Water Program Guidance
58

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                                     San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
     program grants also support many activities that assist in
     the achievement of this subobjective. These include grants
     supporting Oregon, Idaho, and Washington state and tribal
     water quality programs.

     10) Restore and Protect the San Francisco Bay
     Delta Estuary
     A) Subobjective:
     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 (Bay Delta) is the larg-
     est estuary on the west coast of North America. Its 4-mil-
     lion acre watershed covers more than 40% of California and
     includes the drainage basins for the Sacramento and San
     Joaquin Rivers, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the
     San Francisco Bay (including Suisun and San Pablo Bays).
     The Bay Delta is a valuable economic and ecological
     resource. It provides drinking water to 25 million Califor-
     nians, irrigation to 4.5 million acres of agriculture, and
     hosts important economic resources such as the hub of
     California's water supply infrastructure, Port of Oakland,
     deep water shipping channels, major highway and rail-
     road corridors, and energy lines. The Bay Delta ecosystem
     supports 750 species of plants, fish, and wildlife including
     several endangered and threatened aquatic species, such as
     delta smelt, steelhead, spring run Chinook salmon, winter
     run Chinook salmon, and others. Two-thirds of California's
     salmon  pass through Bay Delta waters, and at least half of
     its Pacific Flyway migratory water birds rely on the region's
     wetlands.
     The Bay Delta is confronted by a wide range of challenges
     that are magnified and concentrated in the Delta, the heart
     of California's water system. Delta resources are in a state
     of crisis. Decades of pollution and resource extraction have
     lead to sharp declines in Bay Delta fisheries contributing to
     the collapse of California's salmon fishing industry. Multiple
     years of drought conditions have reduced water supply for
     agriculture and cities contributing to difficult economic
     conditions. Sub-sea level Delta islands are protected only by
     aging levees, leaving homes, communities, farms, transpor-
     tation corridors, and energy infrastructure vulnerable to
     sea level rise, levee collapse, and flooding. A major earth-
     quake would cause a catastrophic failure of the levee system
     jeopardizing lives, cities, and water supplies from the Delta
     to San Diego.
     The federal government has recently re-committed to
     robust engagement on restoring the Bay Delta ecosystem
     and addressing California's water needs. In 2009, EPA was
     one of six federal agencies who signed a Memorandum of
   Understanding23 and produced an Interim Action Plan24
   describing a coordinated set of actions to restore the ecolog-
   ical health of the Bay Delta ecosystem while providing for a
   high-quality, reliable, sustainable water supply for the State.
   Under the Action Plan, EPA has work underway to address
   critical water quality issues, including assessing the effec-
   tiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms to address
   the key water quality issues, developing a comprehensive
   regional water quality monitoring program, and integrating
   climate change into regional water management planning.
   Since FY 2008, EPA has administered a competitive grant
   program, the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improve-
   ment Fund (SFBWQIF), to support partnerships that pro-
   tect and restore San Francisco Bay watersheds as directed by
   congressional appropriations. EPA has prioritized activities
   to protect and restore habitat including riparian corridors,
   floodplains, wetlands, and the Bay; reduce polluted run-off
   from urban development and agriculture; and implement
   TMDLs to restore impaired water quality. To date, EPA has
   awarded $22 million, leveraging an additional $25 million
   and involving nearly 53 partners working on 38 projects
   throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
   In FY 2013, the San  Francisco Bay Delta Estuary program
   will focus on:
   •  Providing scientific support for Bay Delta restoration to
     improve the  understanding of:
      • The causes and methods for reversing the decline of
       pelagic organisms in the Delta;
      • Restoring the health of the San Joaquin River (San
       Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Public Law
       111-11); and
      • Pesticide and mercury pollutant loading;
   •  Participating in a state/federal partnership to balance the
     competing water needs between agriculture, urban uses,
     and the environment, especially the Agency commitments
     in the Interim Federal Action Plan of December 2009;
   •  Continuing a competitive grant program to implement
     projects that improve water quality and restore habitat in
     San Francisco Bay watersheds;
   •  Strengthening ongoing implementation of the San Fran-
     cisco Estuary Partnership's CCMP by supporting a new
     strategic plan. Encourage focus on reducing urban runoff
     impacts on water quality through watershed planning,
     LID and TMDL implementation;
   •  Supporting the California Water Boards in implement-
     ing their Bay Delta Strategic Plan, particularly reviewing/
     improving WQS;
   •  Increasing effectiveness of regulatory programs to restore
     water quality and  to protect wetlands  and streams;
       http://www.doi.gov/documents/BayDeltaMOUSigned.pdf
       http://www.doi.gov/documents/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf
National Water Program Guidance
59

-------
Strategies to Protect Communities and Large Aquatic Ecosystems
                                      San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
     •  Continuing efforts to support studies that focus on pre-
       paring for the effects of climate change;
     •  Continuing to support restoration of wetlands acreage
       and the development of measures to minimize the meth-
       ylation of mercury in wetlands; and
     •  Strengthening monitoring to assist in CWA reporting and
       TMDL implementation, particularly aimed at establishing
       a San Joaquin Regional Monitoring Program.
     For additional information see http://www.epa.gov/
     region9/water/watershed/sfbay-delta/index.html.

     C) Grant Program Resources
     Historically, EPA grant resources directly supporting this goal
     have been limited primarily to the NEP grants under CWA
     Section 320 (approx. $600,000 annually in recent years). More
     recently, the FY 2008- 2011 appropriations bills included close
     to $23 million, collectively, for partnership grants to improve
     San Francisco Bay water quality. Proposals have been solicited
     through an open competition, attempting to leverage 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, floodplains, wetlands, and the
   Bay. In FY 2012 and 2013, resources will also be directed to
   support the water quality issues beyond the immediate San
   Francisco Bay, i.e., in the Delta and its tributaries, as well as to
   the continuation of the San Francisco Bay grant program.

   D) A Strategic Response to Climate Change
   Within San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Estuary Partner-
   ship, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
   (BCDC), and EPA Global Change Research Program com-
   pleted a pilot project with the Climate Ready Estuaries Pro-
   gram to identify key vulnerabilities of the San Francisco Bay
   Delta Estuary to climate change. BCDC is proposing new poli-
   cies for their Bay Plan to better address climate change and
   EPA will work to support adoption of appropriate policies.
   For additional information, please visit
   http://www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail2.php?projectID=4.
National Water Program Guidance
60

-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
     V. National  Water Program  and  Grant
         Management  System
     1. National Water Program
         This National Water Program Guidance document describes the general approaches that EPA, in consultation with states
         and tribes, expects to be most effective in attaining the environmental and public health improvements identified in
         the EPA 2011-2015 Strategic Plan. This Guidance, however, is part of a larger, three part management process.
     •  Part 1: Develop the National Water Program Guidance:
       During the fall of 2011, EPA reviewed program measures
       and made improvements to many measures. These mea-
       sures were included in the draft Guidance. Public com-
       ments were due to EPA on March 19, 2012. EPA reviewed
       comments and made changes and clarifications, where
       appropriate, to  measures and the text. A summary of
       responses to comments is provided on OW's performance
       planning Web site at (http://water.epa.gov/resource_
       performance/planning/index.cfm). EPA regional offices
       provided regional targets in mid March. After discussion
       among headquarters and regional offices, national targets
       for FY 2013 were revised to reflect regional input, where
       applicable.
     •  Part 2: EPA Region/State/Tribe Consultation/Planning:
       EPA regions will work with states and tribes to  develop
       FY 2013 Performance Partnership Agreements or other
       grant workplans, including commitments to reporting
       key activities and, in some cases, commitments to specific
       FY 2013 program accomplishments (May through Octo-
       ber of 2012).
     •  Part 3: Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management:
       The National Water Program will evaluate program prog-
       ress in 2013 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
       beginning in April of 2012 to develop agreements con-
       cerning program priorities and commitments for FY 2013
       in the form of Performance Partnership Agreements or
       individual grant workplans. The National Water Program
       Guidance for FY2013, including program strategies and FY
       2013 targets, forms a foundation for this effort.
       The National Water Program Guidance for FY 2013 includes
       a minimum number of measures that address the criti-
       cal program activities that are expected to contribute to
       attainment of long-term goals. Between FYs 2007 and
       2008, the total number of water measures was reduced
       and EPA 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
     AandE). In addition, some of these measures include
     annual national "targets" while others are intended to
     simply indicate change over time.
     During the Spring/Summer of 2012, EPA regions will work
     with states and tribes to agree on reporting for all the mea-
     sures in the FY2013 Guidance, including both target and
     indicator measures. For the target measures, EPA regional
     offices will develop FY 2013 regional "commitments" based
     on their discussions with states and tribes and using the
     "planning  targets" in the FY 2013 Guidance as a point of
     reference.  Draft regional "commitments" are due July 6th
     and, after  review and comment by National Program Man-
     agers, EPA regions are to finalize regional commitments
     by October 3rd. These final regional "commitments" are
     then summed to make the national commitment, and both
     the regional and national commitments are finalized the
     Agency's Annual Commitment System (ACS) by October
     19, 2012.
     A key part of this process is discussion among EPA
     regions, states, and tribes of regional "commitments"
     and the development of binding performance partner-
     ship agreements or other grant workplan documents that
     establish reporting and performance agreements. The
     goal of this joint effort is to allocate available resources
     to those program activities that are likely to result in the
     best progress toward accomplishing water quality and
     public health goals for that state/tribe (e.g., improved
     compliance with drinking water standards and improved
     water quality on a watershed basis). This process is
     intended to provide the flexibility for EPA regions to
     adjust their commitments based on relative needs, priori-
     ties, and resources of states and tribes in the EPA region.
     The tailored program "commitments" that result from
     this process define, along with this Guidance, the "strat-
     egy" for the National Water Program for FY 2013.
     As EPA regional offices work with states and tribes to
     develop FY 2013 commitments, there should also be
     discussion of initial expectations for progress under key
     measures  in FY 2014. The Agency begins developing the
     FY 2014 budget in the spring of 2012 and is required to
     provide initial estimates of FY 2013 progress for mea-
     sures included in the budget in August of 2012. These
     estimates  can be adjusted during the fall before they go
National Water Program Guidance
61

-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
       into the final FY 2014 President's budget in January/
       February 2013. OW will consult with EPA regions in
       developing the initial FY 2014 budget measure targets in
       August 2012, and regions will be better able to comment
       on proposed initial targets if they have had preliminary
       discussions of FY 2014 progress with states and tribes.
       Regions should assume stable funding for the purposes of
       these discussions.
       Final commitments are used as a management internal
       control to communicate performance expectations to
       programs in regions and headquarters. The account-
       ability to these commitments is tracked through annual
       and interim reporting by responsible programs. HQ and
       regional managers are responsible for translating the
       measured commitments into appropriate tasking for
       their staffs, reviewing progress against these tasks, and
       accounting for their completion.
     2. State Grant Results and Reporting
       In FY 2013, EPA remains committed to strengthening
       our oversight and reporting of results in state grants, not
       only linking state work plan commitments to EPA's Stra-
       tegic Plan, but also enhancing transparency and account-
       ability. EPA and states will continue working in FY 2013
       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) convened a State/EPA workgroup
       of grant practitioners to identify Essential Elements to be
       included in grant workplans and related grant progress
       reports for the 14 identified state categorical grant pro-
       grams. On January 24, 2011, OGD issued Grants Policy
       Issuance (GPI) 11-03 State Grant Workplans and Progress
       Reports. The GPI requires that workplans and associated
       progress reports prominently display three Essential Ele-
       ments (the Strategic Plan Goal; the Strategic Plan Objec-
       tive; and the Workplan Commitments plus time frame) to
       further accountability, strategic plan alignment, and con-
       sistent performance reporting. To  further transparency,
       the GPI calls for the establishment of an Information
       Technology application to electronically store workplans
       and progress reports. The State/EPA workgroup is cur-
       rently exploring prototypes for the application.
       In consultation with the practitioners workgroup and rec-
       ognizing that the requirements for the GPI will need to be
       phased in over time to allow  regions and  states to adjust
       to the new requirements. The GPI will go  into effect
       for awards for the 14 identified state categorical grant
       programs made on or after October 1, 2012. The Agency's
       goal is to have all covered grants awarded on or after
       October 1, 2012 comply with the GPI. Regions and states,
       however, should begin their planning now to transition to
       the new approach and, at a minimum, the GPI should be
       considered in FY 2012 workplan negotiations. National
       Program Managers are expected to modify sections of
     their grant guidance for the 14 identified state categorical
     grant programs to comply with the GPI. In addition, the
     Agency is committed to providing state and tribal part-
     ners with the resources they need to implement environ-
     mental programs in a timely manner. National Program
     Managers should describe efforts to streamline the grant
     distribution process in their guidance, as appropriate.
     As the GPI is implemented, it will be important for
     National Program Managers and Regional Program
     Offices to provide appropriate outreach, assistance and
     education to state recipients. In  addition, OGD will work
     with regions on a case-by-case basis to address any imple-
     mentation challenges. Please contact Jennifer Bogus,
     OARM/OGD, at 202-564-5294 should you have questions
     related to the GPI.
     Measuring Results in State Grant Work Plans and
     Progress  Reports: OW program offices and regions
     should begin working with state grant recipients to
     ensure compliance with the new GPI when it becomes
     effective in FY 2013. As the policy is implemented, it
     will be important for OW program offices and regions to
     provide appropriate outreach, assistance, and education
     to state grant recipients. In addition, OGD will work with
     the regions on a case-by-case basis to address any imple-
     mentation challenges.
     The current set of measures flagged as State Grant Mea-
     sures in ACS will be retained for FY 2013 reporting. As
     in FY 2012, the use of the template to capture results for
     these measures is not required. However, reporting on the
     results remains the responsibility of EPA regions and states.
     For FY 2013, regions and states will continue to report
     performance results against the  set of state grant mea-
     sures into ACS. For a subset of the measures for which
     FY 2013 targets and commitments are established, EPA
     is asking that states and EPA regions provide OW with
     state specific results data at the end of FY 2013. These
     measures are associated with some of the larger water
     program grants. The water grant programs and the FY
     2013 "State Grant" measures supporting the grant are:
     a. Water Pollution Control State and Interstate
      Program Support (106 Grants). State Grant Measures:
      WQ-SP10.N11; WQ-Ola; WQ-03a; WQ-08b; WQ-14a;
      WQ-15a; WQ-19a, WQ-26.
     b. Public Water System Supervision (PWSS Grants).
      State Grant Measures: SDW-211; SDW-SP1.N11;
      SDW-SP4b; and SDW-Ola.
     c. State Underground Water Source Protection (UIC
      Grants). State Grant Measures: SDW-07.
     d. Beach Monitoring and Notification Program
      Implementation Grants. State Grant Measures:
      SS-SP9.NllandSS-2.
     e. Nonpoint Source Grants (319 Grants). State Grant
      Measure: WQ-10.
National Water Program Guidance
62

-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
     3. Use of the Exchange Network for Reporting Water
       Quality Monitoring Results
       The Environmental Information Exchange Network has
       provided the foundation for EPA, states, and tribes to
       now move aggressively to convert from old fashioned
       paper reporting to electronic reporting. To reduce burden,
       improve compliance, expand the information available to
       the public about pollution that affects them, and improve
       the ability of EPA, states, and tribes to implement
       environmental programs, the Agency has commenced a
       comprehensive initiative to convert to electronic report-
       ing. EPA is focusing this initiative in two main areas: (1)
       developing an Agency wide policy to ensure that new
       regulations include electronic reporting in the most effi-
       cient way; and (2) developing and then implementing an
       Agency plan to convert the most important existing paper
       reporting to electronic, while also looking for opportuni-
       ties to reduce or streamline outdated paper reporting.
       Since this work is cross-cutting, EPA has established an
       Agency Electronic Reporting Task Force to lead and man-
       age this work.
       The Agency is interested in learning from the states and
       tribes about their successes and challenges in converting
       from paper reporting to electronic. And, the Agency will
       keep states and tribes informed about its progress in this
       initiative. If a state or tribe would like to share informa-
       tion with the Electronic Reporting Task Force, please
       contact David Hindin (OECA) and Andy Battin (Office of
       Environmental Information) for more information.
       In 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson issued
       a memorandum stating her strategic vision that the
       National Environmental Information Exchange Network
       (Exchange Network) becomes the preferred means of
       environmental data sharing between EPA, states, tribes,
       and others. This memorandum affirmed the unanimous
       ECOS resolution  calling for full implementation of the
       Exchange Network, and represented a renewed joint com-
       mitment to success of the Network.
       OW supports this goal and will continue our outreach
       efforts in FY 2013 to achieve full implementation for the
       WQX, SDWIS, and UIC systems. OW and regional offices
       will work with the Office of Environmental Informa-
       tion and state and tribal partners to meet the strategic
       targets necessary to achieve network implementation for
       WQX, SDWIS, and UIC. OW has committed to having 47
       states flowing WQX, 39 states flowing SDWIS, and 41
       states flowing UIC. OW is actively working to support a
       transition to the Exchange Network Services Center and
       expects to eliminate the legacy Central Data Exchange
       (CDX) web application for SDWIS and the Beach Notifica-
       tion system by the third quarter FY 2012. As a reminder,
       data systems operations and maintenance for Exchange
       Network data flows remain eligible activities for funding
       under categorical program grants.
   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 2012 in most cases. For most grants,
     guidance for FY 2012 is being carried forward unchanged
     to FY 2013. Grant guidance documents can be found on
     the Internet at  (http://water.epa.gov/resource_
     performance/planning/index.cfm). More information
     about grant management and reporting requirements is
     provided at the end of this section.
     In FY 2010, the grant guidance for the Water Pollution
     Control Grants from CWA Section 106 was incorporated
     into this National Water Program Guidance. This was a
     pilot effort to gain efficiency in the issuance of the CWA
     Section 106 Grant Guidance within the National Water
     Program Guidance. Text boxes with specific CWA Section
     106 guidance are incorporated within Section III, 1, B, 1
     of this Guidance. Appendix D has additional information
     for states and the interstate agencies. The Tribal Program,
     Monitoring Initiative, and Water Pollution Enforcement
     Activities are not included in this pilot, and grantees
     should follow the specific, separate guidances for these
     programs.
     In FY 2011, EPA incorporated the grant guidance for the
     PWSS and  UIC grants within the Water Safe to Drink
     Subobjective to continue to pilot a more streamlined
     approach to issuing the grant guidance. For FY 2013, EPA
     added the grant guidance for the DWSRF grants to this
     Subobjective.
   5. Work Sharing Between EPA and States
     Both EPA and states fulfill critical roles in protecting
     and improving human health and the environment.
     By law and through shared experience, EPA and states
     must effectively collaborate in the planning and imple-
     mentation of environmental programs, and by ensuring
     compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements
     to succeed.
     The current economic challenges facing states are requir-
     ing the Agency  to seriously consider alternate approaches
     in work planning to maintain the current levels of deliv-
     ery of its environmental and public health programs.
     Further, the Administrator has placed renewed emphasis
     on improving the Agency's relationships with the states
     through the Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamental
     Strategy, Strengthening State, Tribal and International
     Partnerships.
     To maintain program performance nationally and to
     ensure the success of the Partnerships Strategy, EPA
     regional offices and their state partners are to expand the
     utilization of work sharing in developing their FY 2013
     program performance commitments.
National Water Program Guidance
63

-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
     6. Better Serving Communities
       In FY 2013, EPA will institutionalize its commitment to
       support communities both through the resources EPA
       offers and the means by which we coordinate among
       programs. Since March 2010, when Deputy Administrator
       Bob Perciasepe convened a multi-region, multi-program
       effort, led by the Office of Policy (OP), to steer the Agency
       towards using communities as one of the Agency's "orga-
       nizing principles," significant progress has been made.
       For example, a subset of 27 "community-based programs"
       have been identified that, while not exhaustive, illustrate
       the investment  the Agency has made across offices in
       direct assistance to communities. Additionally, geomap-
       ping capabilities were completed in March 2012 to help
       the Agency identify and track where EPA is working in
       communities through grants and technical assistance. The
       geomapping has the potential to better coordinate Head-
       quarters and regional efforts and improve  the ability to
       identify potential gaps in service to communities. Finally,
       a new grants policy went into effect on March 31, 2012
       establishing an  'OneEPA' approach to coordinating and
       implementing community-based grant programs, includ-
       ing streamlining grants processes consistent with EPA's
       fiduciary responsibilities and providing useful grants
       information to communities.
       In implementing EPA's long-term goals for an improved
       environment and better public health in communities,
       regions should look for additional opportunities in which
       their core program activities can help the Agency achieve
       the following intermediate outcomes: 1. Provide the right
       information about EPA programs to the right people
       at the right time; 2. Facilitate communities' access to
       EPA resources; 3. Increase the capacity of communities,
       including those  that that are underserved and overbur-
       dened,  to protect their health and the environment; 4.
       Enhance effective internal coordination among all major
       EPA community-based programs; 5. Improve leveraging
       of EPA funding  by EPA programs; 6. Improve leveraging
       of partnerships  with public and private sector entities;
       and 7. Strengthen EPA staff capacity to do community-
       based work.
       In particular in  FY 2013, regions are asked to:
       •  Strengthen involvement and increase investment in
         one or more of the Agency's 27 programs that comprise
         the Community-Based Coordination Network (Contact:
         John Foster, Office of Sustainable Communities, 202-564-
         2870 orfoster.john@epa.gov).
       •  Support ongoing inter-agency partnerships that
         align resources or activities in communities (e.g. the
       Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice,
       the HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Com-
       munities, the Urban Waters partnership and others).
     •  Adhere to OGD's Community-Based Grants Policy25,
       including implementing identified best practices for
       streamlining competitions, considering combining
       competitions, and implementing protocols to geo-code
       projects for inclusion in Agency-wide mapping.
     •  Work with OGD and Office of Environmental Justice
       (OEJ) to post competition schedules and other grant
       information26.
     •  Utilize the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
       Response's (OSWER) Technical Assistance Services
       for Communities (TASC) contract to provide technical
       assistance for communities that find it difficult to man-
       age grants (Contact: Howard Corcoran, OARM, 202-564-
       1903 or corcoran.howard@epa.gov).
     •  Increase the amount of training provided to regional
       staff to work within tribes and other communities
       (for example, the Office of International and Tribal
       Affairs' Working Effectively with Tribal Governments
       online training27, the EJ Fundamentals Course available
       through http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/neti/
       index-new.html).
     •  Work with Marsha Minter of OSWER, Charles Lee of
       OECA, or John Frece of OP (co-leads for a new commu-
       nity-based KPI in FY 2012) to identify a pilot project
       in each region to implement the best practices gener-
       ated through an assessment conducted under the FY
       2012 Community-Based KPI. (Contacts: Marsha Minter,
       OSWER, 202-566,0215; Charles Lee, OECA, 202-564-
       2597; John Frece, OP, 202-56-2125)
     Recognizing that some rural communities face significant
     challenges in ensuring safe drinking water and protect-
     ing water quality, the National Water Program will focus
     on addressing rural communities' needs in efforts with
     states and USDA and work collaboratively with rural com-
     munities and technical providers in 2012 and in planning
     program activities for FY 2013.

   B) Program Evaluation and Adaptive Management (Step 3)
   As the strategies and programs described in this Guid-
   ance are implemented during FY 2013, 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:
     25 http://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policy/gpL12_02_community_based_grants_03_02_12.pdf
     26 http://www.epa.gov/ogd/training/resources_for_communities/community_grants_table.htm
     27 http://intranet.epa.gov/aieointr/training/tribal/EPA/mainmenu/launchPage.htm
National Water Program Guidance
64

-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
     1. National Water Program Mid-Year and End of Year Best
       Practice and Performance Reports
       OW 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 mea-
       sures in the Guidance;
       The reports will include performance highlights, manage-
       ment challenges, and best practices. OW 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
       OW reports to the Deputy Administrator the results on
       a subset of the Guidance measures three times per fiscal
       year. In addition, headquarters and regional senior man-
       agers are  held accountable for a select group of the Guid-
       ance measures in their annual performance assessments.
     3. HQ/Regional Dialogues
       Each year, OW will visit three EPA regional offices to
       conduct dialogues on program management and perfor-
       mance. These visits  will include assessment of perfor-
       mance in the EPA regional office and associated Large
       Aquatic Ecosystem programs against objectives and
       subobjectives in the Strategic Plan and annual state/tribal
       program activity measure commitments.
       In addition, a key topic for the HQ/regional dialogues
       will be identification of program innovations or "best
       practices" developed by the EPA region, states, tribes,
       watershed organizations, and others. By highlighting
       best practices identified in HQ/region dialogues, these
       practices  can be described in water program performance
       reports and more widely adopted throughout the country.
     4. Program-Specific Evaluations
       In addition to looking at the performance of the National
       Water Program at the national level and performance in
       each EPA regional office, individual water programs will
       be evaluated periodically by EPA and by external parties.
       EPA program evaluations include OW projects selected by
       OP, annual Program Evaluation Competition and reviews
       undertaken by the Evaluation and Accountability Team
       in OW. Program offices will provide continuing oversight
       and evaluation of state/tribal program implementation in
       key program areas (e.g., NPDES program).
     In addition, OW expects that external parties will evalu-
     ate water programs, including projects conducted by the
     EPA OIG, the Congressional Government Accountability
     Office, and projects by the National Academy of Sciences.
   Finally, improved program performance requires a commit-
   ment to both sustained program evaluation and to using
   program performance information to revise program man-
   agement approaches. Some of the approaches OW will take
   to improve the linkage between program assessment and
   program management include:
   •  Communicate Performance Information to Program
     Managers: OW will use performance information to
     provide mid-year and annual program briefings to the
     Deputy Assistant Administrator and senior HQ water
     program managers.
   •  Communicate Performance Information to Congress and
     the Public: OW will use performance assessment reports
     and findings to communicate program progress to other
     federal agencies, OMB, the Congress, and the public. OW
     has established a performance page on EPA's web site to
     display data on annual and long term performance trends.
   •  Link to Budget and Workforce Plans: OW will use per-
     formance assessment information in formulation of the
     annual budget and in development of workforce plans.
   •  Promote Wide Dissemination of Best Practices: OW will
     actively promote the wide application of best practices
     and related program management innovations identified
     as part of the  End of the Year Performance Reports.
   •  Expand Regional Office Participation in Program
     Assessment: OW will promote expanded involvement
     of EPA regional offices in program assessments and
     implementation of the  assessment process. This effort
     will include expanded participation of the Lead Region in
     program assessment processes.
   •  Strengthen Program Performance Assessment in
     Personnel Evaluations: OW will include in EPA staff
     performance standards specific references that link the
     evaluation of staff, especially the Senior Executive Service
     Corps, to success in improving program performance.
   •  Recognize Successes: In cases where program perfor-
     mance assessments have contributed to improved perfor-
     mance in environmental or program activity terms, OW
     will recognize these successes. By explaining and promot-
     ing cases of improved program performance, the organi-
     zation builds confidence in the assessment process and
     reinforces the concept that improvements are attainable.
   •  Strengthen Development of Future Strategic Plans and
     National Performance Guidance: OW will use program
     assessments to improve future strategic plans, including
     revised strategic measures. In addition, OW will use end of
     the year performance results to assist in setting regional
     and national annual commitments for the Guidance.
National Water Program Guidance
65

-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
     •  Promote Effective Grants Management: OW will con-
       tinue 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 OW that all grants are to
       comply with applicable grants requirements (described
       in greater detail in the "National Water Program Grants
       Management for FY 2013" section), regardless of whether
       the program specific guidance document addresses the
       requirement.
     •  Follow-Up Evaluation for Measure and Program
       Improvement: OW may conduct systematic assessments
       of program areas that have consistently been unable to
       meet performance commitments. The assessments will
       focus on characterizing barriers to performance and
       options for program and/or measure improvement.

     2. National Water Program Grants Management
     forFY 2013
     OW places a high priority on effective grants management.
     The key areas to be emphasized as grant programs are
     implemented are:
     •  Promoting competition to the maximum extent practicable;
     •  Monitoring assistance agreements and ensuring compli-
       ance with post-award management standards;
     •  Assuring that project officers and their supervisors ade-
       quately 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 Guidance.

     A) Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements
     OW strongly supports the Agency policy to promote com-
     petition 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 announce-
     ment, 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
     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
OMB standard formatting requirements for federal agency
announcements of funding opportunities and OMB require-
ments 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-making agencies.
On October 12, 2011, OGD issued a memorandum approv-
ing a competition exemption for awards to non-profit
co-regulator/co-implementor organizations (collectively
referred to as "co-regulator organizations") for core co-
regulator organization type activities funded with STAG
categorical appropriations under the associated program
support cost authority. The competition exemption only
applies to certain STAG funded awards and is subject to
several conditions. For EPA to use STAG funding under
the associated program support cost authority, the activi-
ties funded must support the environmental protection
programs of non-federal governmental partners and the
services the co-regulator organizations provide must be for
the direct use and of primary benefit of these entities and
not EPA. For the funds that would otherwise be allotted to
state governmental entities, EPA policy requires that EPA
obtain the prior approval of the affected state agency or
department before such funding is used for awards to co-
regulator organizations for associated program support on
their behalf.
On June 2, 2011, the Administrator issued the "U.S. EPA
Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation" which
affirmed the Agency's commitment to anticipate and plan
for future changes in climate and incorporate them into our
programs, policies and operations. Subsequently, OGD and
OP issued a memorandum on October 18, 2011, requesting
EPA headquarters and regional program offices to work to
incorporate climate change considerations into applicable
competitive funding opportunities where the outcomes
of the project are sensitive to climate or where the project
could be more effective if climate change were addressed.

B) Policy on Compliance Review  and Monitoring
OW is required to develop and carry out a post-award
monitoring plan and conduct baseline monitoring for every
award. EPA Order 5700.6A2, Policy on Compliance, Review
and Monitoring, effective January 1, 2008, helps to ensure
effective post-award oversight of recipient performance and
management. The Order encompasses both the administra-
tive and programmatic aspects of the Agency's financial
assistance programs. From the programmatic standpoint,
this monitoring should ensure satisfaction of five core areas:
•   Compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions;
•   Correlation of the recipient's work plan/application and
   actual progress under the award;
•  Availability of funds to complete the project;
•   Proper management of and accounting for equipment
  purchased under the award; and
National Water Program Guidance


-------
National Water Program and Grant Management
     •  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 OIG. Baseline monitoring activities must be
     documented in the Post-Award Database in the Integrated
     Grants Management System (IGMS). Advanced monitoring
     activities must be documented in the official grant file and
     the Grantee Compliance Database.

     C) Performance Standards for Grants Management
     Project officers of assistance agreements participate in a
     wide range of pre-and post-award activities. OGD issued
     Guidance for Assessing Grants Management and the Man-
     agement of Interagency Agreements under the Performance
     Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS) on September 30,
     2011 to be used for 2011 PARS appraisals of project officers
     who are managing at least one active grant during the rating
     period, and their supervisors/managers. The memo also
     provides guidance for the development of 2012 performance
     agreements. OW supports the requirement that project offi-
     cers and their supervisors/managers assess grants manage-
     ment 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.

   E. Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
   It is a priority of the Agency to ensure compliance with Title
   VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, http://www.epa.gov/
   civilrights/t61awrg.htm. This statute prohibits discrimina-
   tion based on race, color, and national origin, including lim-
   ited English proficiency (LEP), by entities receiving federal
   financial assistance.
   As required by implementing EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R.
   Part 7, EPA applicants must complete EPA Form 4700-4
   to demonstrate compliance with Title VI and other non
   discrimination statutes and regulations, http://www.epa.
   gov/ogd/forms/adobe/4700-4_sec.pdf. The regulations also
   impose specific obligations on grant recipients, including
   providing compliance information, establishing grievance
   procedures, designating a Title VI Coordinator, and provid-
   ing notices of non-discrimination, http://www.epa.gov/
   civilrights/docs/40p0007.pdf.
   Title VI requires EPA financial assistance recipients to
   provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. To imple-
   ment that requirement, and consistent with Executive Order
   13166, http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/eol3166.pdf,
   the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance to recipients
   entitled, "Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency
   Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohi-
   bition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
   Limited English Proficient Persons."28
   OCR also published a Title VI Public Involvement Guidance
   for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental
   Permitting Programs, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/
   pdf/06-2691.pdf.
   In coordination with the grants management community,
   OARM will work with OCR and the Office of General Coun-
   sel to develop and implement appropriate grant conditions,
   training programs and monitoring strategies to help achieve
   compliance with Title VI and implementing regulations and
   guidance.
   All recipients of EPA financial assistance have an affirmative
   obligation to implement effective Title VI compliance pro-
   grams and ensure that their actions do not involve discrimi-
   natory treatment and do not have discriminatory effects
   even when facially neutral.  Recipients should be prepared to
   demonstrate that such compliance programs exist and are
   being implemented or to otherwise demonstrate how they
   are meeting their Title VI obligations.
       http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004_register&docid=fr25jn04-79.pdf
National Water Program Guidance
67

-------
National Water Program and Tribes
     VI. National Water  Program  and  Tribes

          EPA is committed to strengthening human and environmental health in Indian country. As outlined in the EPA FY
          2011-2015 Strategic Plan, the Agency will continue to engage with tribes to build effective and results-oriented
          environmental programs. EPA continues to provide federally-recognized tribes with opportunities to develop tribal
     capacity to ensure that programs implemented by tribes or by EPA are protective of public health and the environment.
     EPA's National Water Program recognizes that as sovereign entities, and environmental co-regulators, Indian tribes are
     responsible for protecting thousands of square miles of rivers, streams, and lakes, as well as ground water. In addition,
     tribes living on or near the coast are largely dependent on coastal resources. Tribes play a major role in protecting the water
     resources vital to their existence, and many are seeking to develop comprehensive and effective water quality programs to
     improve and protect water quality on tribal lands.
     Each tribe faces a variety of challenges in protecting these
     resources and ensuring the health of their communities.
     To support and enhance tribal efforts in FY 2013, OW is
     taking actions in its programs to promote tribal participa-
     tion and program development to protect water resources.
     These actions are described throughout this guidance, and
     include helping tribes to: develop and implement water
     quality programs under the Final Guidance on Awards of
     Grants to Indian tribes under CWA Section 106; restore and
     improve water quality on a watershed basis; develop and
     manage NFS pollution program (e.g. through watershed-
     based plans, BMPs, and restoration activities); conduct
     source water protection assessments; and improve imple-
     menting core elements of a wetlands program or wetlands
     monitoring strategy. In addition, in FY 2013, OW will use
     best practices developed over the last year to optimize tribal
     consultation efforts and consistency in implementing the
     EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes
     (http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/index.htm). Fur-
     ther, to reduce the number of tribal homes lacking access
     to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, which remains
     high relative to the national average, the National Water
     Program is working with other federal agencies to ensure
     that federal infrastructure investments are integrated and
     planned to provide long-term sustainable solutions for safe
     drinking water and basic sanitation on tribal lands. OW
     will continue to support the National Tribal Water Coun-
     cil (NTWC)  to promote information exchange, sharing of
     BMPs, and analysis of high-priority water-related issues
     and actions from a tribal perspective. The NTWC serves as
     a national forum for tribal water managers to interact with
     each other, with tribes, and directly with EPA on issues
     related to ground, surface and drinking water quality.
     The National Water Program will continue to evaluate
     progress on actions in Indian country that support goals
     described in the EPA Strategic Plan. EPA will evaluate
     Summary of FY2013 National Water Program
          Guidance Measures Supporting Tribes
       SDW-SP3.N11
Water Safe to Drink
 SDW-18.N11
SDW-Olb
           Improved Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       WQ-SP14a.N11   WQ-SP14b.N11        WQ-02
       WQ-03b         WQ-06a             WQ-06b
       WQ-12b         WQ-19b             WQ-23
                      WQ-24.N11

                      Increase Wetlands
            WT-SP22                    WT-02a
   progress using the National Water Program measures,
   including a set of measures directly supporting tribes, which
   are highlighted here and further described in Appendix A
   and E. In addition, the Administrator has placed renewed
   emphasis on improving the Agency's relationships with
   tribes through the Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamen-
   tal Strategy: Strengthening State, Tribal and International
   Partnerships. EPA will also work with tribes to improve
   environmental conditions and public health in communi-
   ties overburdened by environmental pollution in support
   of the Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy:
   Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health (see
   VI. Water Program and Environmental Justice in this Guid-
   ance). Throughout 2006-2012, EPA worked with states and
   tribes to align and streamline performance measures. The
   National Water Program will continue to actively engage
   states and tribes in the Agency's performance measurement
   improvement efforts.
National Water Program Guidance
68

-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
     VII. National Water  Program  and  Environmental  Justice

        In January 2010, Administrator Jackson made Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalist™ and Working for Envi-
        ronmental Justice one of EPA's key priorities. This new priority challenges EPA to address the needs of communities that
        are underrepresented in environmental decision-making and overburdened by environmental pollution. Through this
     priority, OW will actively work to create healthy and sustainable communities by decreasing environmental burdens and
     increasing environmental benefits. To further support this priority, EJ principles must be included in the Agency's decision
     making processes.
     To implement the Administrator's EJ priority, EPA adopted
     Plan EJ 2014, its overarching EJ strategy29. This four-year
     plan is designed as a roadmap to help EPA integrate EJ into
     all of its programs. Plan EJ 2014 is helping EPA move for-
     ward to develop a stronger relationship with communities
     and increase the Agency's effort to improve the environmen-
     tal conditions and public health in overburdened communi-
     ties. The plan includes five cross-Agency focus areas, tools
     development, and program initiatives. The five areas are:
       1. Incorporating EJ into Rulemaking;
       2. Considering EJ in Permitting;
       3. Advancing EJ through Compliance and Enforcement;
       4. Supporting Community-Based Action Programs; and
       5. Fostering Administration-Wide Action on EJ.
     OW supports the Administrator's EJ priority and Plan EJ
     2014. OW also supports the Cross-Cutting Fundamental
     Strategy: Working for Environmental Justice and Children's
     Health established in the EPA FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan.
     Every national program and region has made a commitment
     to lead a cross-Agency element of Plan EJ 2014, either in a
     policy or tools development area. OW leads the Fostering
     Administration Wide Action under Plan EJ 2014.
     OW places emphasis on achieving results in areas with
     potential EJ concerns through Water Safe to Drink (Sub-
     objective 2.1.1) and Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat (Sub-objec-
     tive 2.1.2). In addition, the National Water Program places
     emphasis on other EJ Water Related Elements: 1) Sustain
     and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
     (Subobjective 2.2.9); 2) Sustain and Restore Pacific Island
     Territories (Subobjective 2.2.10); and 3) ANV Program. This
     focus will result in improved environmental quality for all
     people, including the unserved and underserved subpopula-
     tions living in areas with potential disproportionately high
     and adverse impacts on human health. OW will explore ways
     to collaborate with OEJ and other EPA offices on how to best
     develop climate change adaptation policies and strategies
     that pay closer attention to vulnerable populations.
   1. Utilization of Cross-Agency Tools Developed under
     Plan EJ 2014 and Enhancing Water Tools and Data for
     EJ Screening
     Due to the leadership provided by all national programs
     and regions, Plan EJ 2014 workgroups have made signifi-
     cant progress during FY 2011 and FY 2012 in developing
     tools to advance the integration of E J in all EPA pro-
     grams, policies and activities. These cross-Agency tools
     advance E J in the following key areas: 1) rulemaking; 2)
     legal authorities: 3) EJ screening: and 4) permitting.
     In FY 2013, OW will ensure integration of EJ in its pro-
     grams, policies, and activities by utilizing, referring to,
     and relying on:
     • the Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice in the
      Development of an Action during the development of any
      rule, regulation, or guidance;
     • the EJ Legal Tools Document to identify legal authori-
      ties under environmental statutes administered by EPA
      that may support consideration of E J in permitting,
      rulemaking, NEPA, Title VI, or other actions30;
     • EJScreen to identify areas of E J concern and integrate
      its use in OW's day-to-day activities, such as rules,
      permits, compliance and enforcement actions, NEPA
      assessments, community engagement activities, and
      grants; and guidance on enhanced public participation
      in permitting and other tools to consider EJ in EPA-
      issued permits.
   OW is working closely with other EPA offices to ensure that
   the Agency's broader E J efforts are informed by the consid-
   eration of communities' water and surface water quality. As
   called for in Plan EJ 2014, OP is leading the development
   of EJ Screen, which is envisioned as EPA's first nationally
   consistent EJ screening tool to enhance  EJ analysis and
   decision making. OW is working with OP to include water-
   related considerations in the first version of the screening
   tool. The inaugural tool will  evaluate each community's
   proximity to major NPDES dischargers as a component of
   the total environmental burden experienced by nearby com-
   munities across multiple media.
       For information concerning Plan EJ 2014, please see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/plan-ej/index.html
     30 For more information, please see EJLegalTools, issued on December 21,2011 at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/plan-ej-2014/
       ej-legal-tools.pdf
National Water Program Guidance
69

-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
       Even though there are low income and minority commu-
       nities who bear a disproportionate cumulative pollution
       burden from multiple media, there are nonetheless low
       income and minority communities which may enjoy
       relatively good air quality, for example, while still strug-
       gling to address water pollution problems. The National
       Water Program should not forget these communities and
       instead strive to address their water needs regardless of
       the magnitude of the pollution problems they may or may
       not face from other media. Currently OW is working to
       develop CIS capabilities which will allow managers of the
       various components of the National Water Program to
       identify and target where their specific program respon-
       sibilities overlap with EJ communities on a socio-demo-
       graphic basis.
     2. Achieving Results under the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
       Cross Cutting Strategy on E J and Children's Health31
       Building on measures (relating to safe drinking water and
       sanitation on tribal lands, the U.S.-Mexico border region,
       and ANVs) discussed below, OW will continue to develop
       and track measures that characterize actions taken, or
       that characterize environmental or health conditions of
       overburdened communities/children as outlined in the FY
       2012 Annual Action for the Cross-cutting Strategy for EJ
       and Children's Health, using EJSCREEN as appropriate and
       other EJ tools as needed.
     3. National Program Manager Program Initiative under
       Plan EJ 2014
       In addition to developing the policies and tools to
       integrate EJ into its programs, policies, and day-to-day
       operations,  each NPM is to identify an existing or new
       program initiative to focus their efforts on maximizing
       the environmental, health, and economic benefits to
       overburdened communities.32 OW has identified Urban
       Waters has its program initiative(s).
       Many urban waters are impaired by pathogens, excess
       nutrients, and contaminated sediments that result from
       sanitary sewer and CSOs, polluted runoff from urban
       landscapes and contamination from abandoned indus-
       trial facilities. Under the Urban Waters Program, EPA
       is seeking to support communities in their efforts to
       access, improve, and benefit from their urban waters and
       the surrounding land. This program also recognizes that
       certain communities, including minority, low income,
       and those with indigenous populations, are and have
     been particularly burdened by polluted urban waterways
     and have not reaped the benefits that healthy, acces-
     sible waters can bring. The objective of EPA's Urban
     Waters Program is to protect and restore America's urban
     waterways. This program will help promote addressing EJ
     considerations by:
     •  Addressing water quality issues in communities, such
       as those containing minority, low income,  or indig-
       enous populations, that have been adversely impacted
       by polluted urban waters; and
     •  Involving these communities and others in perfor-
       mance of projects including the design, planning, and
       performance of activities that contribute to water qual-
       ity restoration.
     Healthy and accessible urban waters can help grow
     local businesses and enhance educational, recreational,
     employment and social opportunities in nearby commu-
     nities. By promoting public access to  urban waterways,
     EPA will help communities become active participants
     in restoration and protection. By linking water to other
     community priorities, such as economic development,
     EPA will help to sustain that involvement. By more effec-
     tively leveraging existing programs, EPA aims to support
     projects and build partnerships with a variety of federal,
     state, tribal, and local partners that foster increased con-
     nection, understanding, and stewardship of local water-
     ways. As noted in the "Urban Waters Program" Section of
     this document (Section IX), this program will advance EJ
     goals through activities such as the Urban Waters Small
     Grants; the Urban Waters Federal Partnership; and the
     development of tools for local action at the community
     level. Specifically:
     •  For these Urban Waters program measures, below, the
       National Water Program will use "EJ Screen", a tool of
       EJ Plan 2014, to assess how many of the projects initi-
       ated and completed are in overburdened communities:
       1) WQ-25a: Number of urban water projects initiated
       addressing water quality issues in the community and
       2) WQ-25b: Number of urban water projects completed
       addressing water quality issues in the community. If
       funding is approved, grant recipients would be required
       to report results corresponding to these measures.
     •  The National Water Program will share both barri-
       ers and effective practices for engaging overburdened
       communities that are identified through Urban Waters
       FY 2013 NPM Guidance Process: Each of the five National Program Managers (NPMs) will work with regions and Strategy Champions to include, in
       their Draft FY 2013 NPM Guidance, qualitative expectations for both HQ and regions for incorporating EJ and Children's Health into program initia-
       tives/program activities and/or annual commitments* (i.e., ACS measures) with numeric targets. Quantitative annual commitments will address
       actions that promote EJ/Children's Health or would address environmental/health conditions of overburdened communities/children. (February 2012)
       Each NPM will identify at least one program or activity as part of Plan EJ 2014, where it will focus existing activities to maximize environmental and
       human health benefits for disproportionately burdened communities (Supports Principle2).
       • By December 2011, NPMs will identify at least one program activity based on populations served, EJ goals advanced, and other criteria.
       • By February 2012, NPMs will provide guidance in FY 2013 NPM Guidance regarding EJ program activities.
       • By June 2012, NPMs will develop plan for tailoring program activities to maximize environmental and/or public health benefits for overburdened
        communities and report on these benefits in a qualitative and quantitative manner.
National Water Program Guidance
70

-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
         program activities. These lessons learned will be shared
         within the National Water Program and with OEJ.
     4. Environmental Justice and Water Safe to Drink
       OW will promote infrastructure improvements to small
       and disadvantaged communities through DWSRF that
       reduce public exposure to contaminants through compli-
       ance with regulations and support the reliable delivery of
       safe water by CWSs, schools, and child-care centers.
       To maintain and improve water quality in rural America,
       EPA will continue its efforts to promote better manage-
       ment of water utilities through support of state capac-
       ity development and operator certification programs,
       and through initiatives on asset management, operator
       recruitment and retention, and water and energy effi-
       ciency. This also includes partnership efforts with the
       USDA Rural Utilities Service to enhance the sustainability
       of rural drinking water and wastewater systems and to
       promote a sustainable and green water sector workforce.
       On October 10, 2007, EPA published the latest changes
       to the LCR which included significant improvements to
       the Public Education (PE) requirements. Drinking water
       systems must conduct PE when they have a lead action
       level exceedance. EPA made significant modifications
       to the content of the written public education materi-
       als (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.
     5. Drinking Water on  in Indian Country
       The challenges associated with the provision of safe
       drinking water in Indian country are similar to chal-
       lenges facing other small communities: a lack of techni-
       cal, managerial, and financial capacity to operate and
       maintain drinking water systems. The magnitude of these
       challenges in Indian country is demonstrated by tribal
       water system compliance with health-based regulations
       (SDW-SP3.N11).
       •  In 2011, 81.2% of the population in Indian country
         served by community water systems received drink-
         ing water meeting all applicable health-based drinking
         water standards. In comparison; 93% of the U.S. popula-
         tion served by community water systems received drink-
         ing water that met all applicable health-based standards.
       •  Additionally, in coordination with other federal agen-
         cies, 97,311 American Indian and Alaska Native homes
         tracked by the Indian Health Service  were provided
         access to safe drinking water through FY 2011.
       The EPA National Tribal Drinking Water Program will
       continue to maintain its commitment to improve the pro-
       vision of safe drinking water in Indian country by working
       with public water systems to maintain and improve com-
       pliance with the NPD WRs through use  of infrastructure
     funding, technical assistance, and enforcement actions.
     This effort supports the Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strat-
     egy: Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health
     to highlight E J supporting work. EPA recognizes that not
     all tribal communities are disproportionately burdened
     by environmental hazards, and thus, do not present
     a universal need for EJ. However, the above measure
     (SDW-SP3.N11) indicates that a greater proportion of the
     overall population in Indian country lacks access to and
     receives drinking water that is not in compliance with all
     applicable health-based drinking water standards com-
     pared to the U.S. population on the whole. Therefore, an
     increase in the percent population receiving safe drinking
     water is indicative of an overall increase in public health
     protection in Indian country.
     The EPA will also continue to work in partnership with
     the Indian Health Service, USDA,  and HUD 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.
     To support better management and maintenance of water
     systems on tribal lands, EPA will continue to implement the
     National Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification pro-
     gram to ensure that tribal water utility staff have the train-
     ing and experience needed to provide safe drinking water.
   6. Environmental Justice and Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
     OW promotes contaminant monitoring, as well as
     risk communication to minority populations who may
     consume large amounts of fish and shellfish taken from
     polluted waters. Integration of public health advisory
     activities into the WQS Program promotes E J by ensur-
     ing that advisories and minority population health risks
     are known when states make WQS attainment decisions,
     develop TMDLs for impaired waters, and develop permits
     to control sources of pollution.
     OW will focus on activities encouraging states to assess
     fish and shellfish tissue for contaminants in waters used
     for fishing by minority and sensitive populations, particu-
     larly those that catch fish for subsistence. Such popula-
     tions may include women of child bearing age, children,
     African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics,
     Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.
     OW reaches these populations by  disseminating infor-
     mation in multiple languages  to doctors, nurses, nurse
     practitioners,  and midwives about reducing the risks of
     exposure to contaminants in fish and shellfish. OW main-
     tains 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.
National Water Program Guidance
71

-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice
     7. Environmental Justice and the U.S.-Mexico
       Border Region
       The U.S. and Mexico have a long-standing commitment to
       protect the environment and public health for communi-
       ties in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Residents of the
       border region face disproportionate exposure to inad-
       equately treated wastewater and unsafe drinking water.
       EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
       enables communities in the border region, defined as 100
       kilometers north and south of the international border,
       to develop, design, and construct infrastructure projects
       that provide safe drinking water and wastewater col-
       lection and treatment. The lack of safe drinking water
       directly impacts public health while inadequate sanitation
       and treatment facilities impact shared and transboundary
       rivers and coastal waters and threaten the public health
       and ecosystems of the region. EPA prioritizes funding
       to border communities based on the most severe public
       health and environmental conditions. These communi-
       ties are looking to EPA as a last-resort funding source
       when utilities, cities, or states are not able to fully finance
       needed infrastructure improvements.
       Through the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure
       Program, communities build and improve drinking water
       and wastewater infrastructure. Many households in the
       communities receive drinking water or wastewater service
       for the first time. These first time service connections
       are tracked by measures MB-SP24.N11 and MB-SP25.
       Nil - additional homes served by improvements in water
       services. The household connections are reported when
       infrastructure projects have completed construction and
       are operational.
     8. Environmental Justice and Alaska Native Villages
       ANVs are unique populations that have extreme sanitation
       difficulties relative to people in the lower 48 states. Limited
       federal and state funding was provided to address these
       problems, but under the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA,
       Congress formally recognized an annual appropriation that
       EPA may distribute specifically to these communities. The
       ANV Program addresses the lack of basic drinking water
       and sanitation infrastructure (i.e. flushing toilets and run-
       ning water) in rural and Native Alaska communities. In
       many of these communities, "honeybuckets" and pit privies
       are the sole means of sewage collection and disposal. Drink-
       ing water is often hauled in 50-gallon tanks from commu-
       nity watering points.
       Since 1995 the ANV program, through the State of
       Alaska, has provided grant funds to over 200 under-
       served communities to improve or to construct drinking
       water and wastewater facilities thereby improving local
       health and sanitation conditions. The ANV program also
       supports training and technical assistance programs
       related to the technical, financial, and managerial require-
       ments of managing sanitation systems in rural Alaska.
     Measure WQ-23 tracks the percentage of serviceable rural
     Alaska homes with access to safe drinking water supply
     and wastewater disposal. The number of homes served by
     a community drinking water and wastewater system has
     increased dramatically from 60% in 1998 to 92% in 2010.
     When compared to the national average, ANVs continue
     to stand out as under-served populations for both clean
     water infrastructure and wastewater treatment. Conse-
     quently, these villages experience disproportional expo-
     sure to untreated or under-treated wastewater.
   9. Environmental Justice Water Related Elements
     The CARE program is a community-based, multi-media
     collaborative Agency program designed to help local com-
     munities address the cumulative risk of pollutant expo-
     sure. Through the CARE program, EPA programs work
     together to provide technical and financial assistance to
     communities. CARE assistance agreements create and
     strengthen local partnerships, local capacity, and civic
     engagement to improve local environments and health,
     and to ensure sustainability of environmental health
     efforts over time. Technical support and training help
     communities build partnerships and use collaborative
     processes to improve their understanding of environmen-
     tal risks from all sources, set priorities, and select and
     implement actions to reduce risks.
     CARE helps communities choose from the range of EPA
     programs designed to address community concerns and
     improve their effectiveness by working to integrate the
     programs to better meet the needs of communities. The
     CARE program coordinates with a broad range of govern-
     ments, organizations and businesses to help communi-
     ties find partners they will need to succeed. In addition,
     CARE makes best practices, lessons learned and other
     tools accessible to all communities. CARE benefits many
     communities, the majority of which are experiencing dis-
     proportionate adverse health and environmental impacts.
     Since 2005, CARE grants have reached 87 communities,
     allowing for the CARE process to occur in 40 states and
     territories with over 1,700 partners engaged for a total
     of $16 million in grants. Through 2009, combined, CARE
     communities have leveraged dollar-for-dollar the CARE
     funding, although it is not required, and visited over
     4,000 homes providing information and/or environmen-
     tal testing; worked to reduce risks in almost 300 schools
     and provided environmental information to over 2,800
     businesses and 50,00 individuals.
     OW will work with CARE communities/projects to
     assess and address sources of water pollution, including
     the use of water pollution reduction programs in their
     communities, particularly those communities suffering
     disproportionately from environmental burdens. The
     CARE Program will continue to promote cross-media
     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
National Water Program Guidance
72

-------
National Water Program and Environmental Justice


       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 sup-
       port as needed. In FY 2013, the lead coordination NPM
       for the CARE Program is the Office of Air and Radiation
       (OAR), with OCSPP as co-lead. OW and OSWER prin-
       cipals and staff will continue to actively participate in
       this cross-Agency program, as do OE J and the Office of
       Children Health Protection (OCHP). The CARE Program
       and regions will ensure required reporting of progress and
       results in Quarterly and End of Year Reports and other
       efforts to aggregate program results on a national level.
       To capture some of the program successes, the CARE
       program has two indicator measures that were new in FY
       2012 and that will continue to be tracked and reported
       under OAR's National Program Guidance. The indicator
       measures are:
       •  Number and percent of communities who have devel-
         oped and agreed on a list of priority toxic and environ-
         mental concerns using the CARE partnership process
         (annual and cumulative)
       •  Number and percent of communities who, through the
         CARE Program, implement local solutions to address
         an agreed upon list of priority toxic and environmental
         concerns using the CARE partnership process (annual
         and cumulative)
       More program information is available at
       www.epa.gov/CARE.
     In addressing the challenges of climate change, it is
     important to recognize that the impacts of climate
     change raise serious EJ issues. It is generally understood
     that the extent and nature of climate change impacts on
     populations will vary by region, the relative vulnerability
     of population groups, and society's ability to adapt to or
     cope with climate change.
     As emphasized in the Technical Support Document accom-
     panying the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 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 vulner-
     able; these include the poor, the elderly, those already
     in poor health, the disabled, those living alone...and/
     or indigenous populations." OW will work with program
     offices in EPA to address the issues facing EJ communities
     regarding climate change.
National Water Program Guidance
73

-------
National Water Program and Children's Health
     VIII.  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 consideration
       in Agency decision-making, but a driving force in decisions. EPA must use a variety of approaches to protect children 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 Coordina-
     tor is also a liaison between the region and OCHP at
     headquarters.
     Actions that regions can take in FY 2013 to expand efforts
     to protect children's environmental health include:
     •  Reviewing existing ACS measures that are specific to or
       refer to children's health to determine if they can better
       report outcomes and results in children's environmental
       health for inclusion in future planning and reporting;
     •  Formulating discussions and agenda topics on children's
       health outcomes for EPA programs in national meetings,
       such as division directors meetings;
     •  Implementing the Agency's Children's Environmental
       Health Guidance for Human Health Risk Assessments
       (http://epa.gov/risk/guidance.htm);
   •  Sponsoring joint meetings with counterparts in state
     environmental departments and health departments to
     facilitate coordinated actions to better protect children's
     environmental health; and
   •  Developing region-wide strategies to focus on addressing
     critical children's health issues within each region.
   Schools and child care centers are a critical subset of small
   drinking water systems for which EPA is also continuing to
   provide special emphasis in FY 2013 to ensure that children
   receive water that is safe to drink. There are approximately
   7,700 schools and child care centers that are also public
   water systems. Similar to other small systems, schools and
   child care centers often do not have the technical, manage-
   rial, or financial capacity to comply with SDWA require-
   ments, including maintaining a certified operator. EPA will
   continue to provide technical assistance, user-friendly guid-
   ance, and training to ensure that these systems understand
   their responsibilities for providing safe drinking water. EPA
   will also continue to work with state partners to ensure that
   violations occurring at schools and child care centers are
   addressed quickly and these systems are returned to compli-
   ance. The National Water Program has developed a separate
   indicator (Measure SDW-17) for schools and child care
   centers meeting health-based standards in order to track
   progress in this area.
National Water Program Guidance
74

-------
National Water Program and the Urban Waters Program
     IX.  National Water  Program and  the  Urban

           Waters Program

           Urban environments, particularly in underserved communities, are dominated by impervious surfaces, industrial
           facilities, and abandoned or vacant, often contaminated lands. These characteristics, in combination with insuffi-
           cient storm water infrastructure, generate excess runoff that transports garbage, fertilizers, pesticides, and hazard-
     ous wastes into the local bodies of water and contribute to CSOs. In addition, pollution may be introduced to local water
     bodies from any existing operating facilities. Years of contamination  create legacy pollutant issues, public and environmen-
     tal health hazards, and cases of environmental injustice. Urban populations are often denied access to the water and do not
     reap the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits of the resource. Furthermore, historic urban patterns of
     development often isolate communities from their waters.
     In March 2009, in response to a charge from EPA Admin-
     istrator Lisa Jackson, OW, OSWER, and OEJ began to
     develop a new Urban Waters Program to address these
     issues. This effort supports the Administrator's priority,
     Protecting America's Waters.
     The goal of the Urban Waters Program is to help com-
     munities -  particularly underserved communities - access,
     restore, and benefit from their urban waters and the sur-
     rounding land. By promoting public access to urban waters,
     EPA will help communities become active participants in
     the enjoyment, restoration, and protection of these urban
     waters. By linking water to other community priorities,
     EPA will help make the condition of these waters more
     relevant to nearby communities and help to sustain their
     involvement over the time horizon needed for water quality
     improvement.
     In April and May 2009, during outreach to those working in
     and with urban communities, EPA heard from organizations
     and individuals who have successfully mobilized to address
     these issues. These stakeholders indicated that important
     factors in that success were: engagement of nearby resi-
     dents, especially youth; robust partnerships; strong commu-
     nity-based organizations; active and informed local gov-
     ernment officials; effective education and communication;
     economic incentives; and early, visible victories that fueled
     sustained action. It was also clear from these sessions, that
     stakeholders want federal agencies to better coordinate
     their support to communities and that they are seeking
     technical assistance and information to assist them in mak-
     ing more informed choices and in influencing local decisions
     about their waters and the surrounding land.
     In response to key stakeholder feedback, EPA joined USDA
     and DOI to lead a 12-member federal interagency working
     group, the  Urban Waters Federal Partnership, to improve
     communities' access to resources relevant to urban water
     restoration; convene national and regional forums with
     state, tribal and local agencies, centers of learning, private
     sector and non-governmental organizations; coordinate
     support to on-the-ground projects; and feature the work
     on the partnership at urbanwaters.gov, a new interagency
   website. EPA will develop new and interactive web tools
   for community-to-community knowledge sharing; conduct
   outreach to non-digital audiences; and provide technical
   assistance to support communities in being informed par-
   ticipants 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 E J to under-
   take activities that:
   •  Promote equitable and safe public access to urban water-
     ways and equitable development of waterfronts;
   •  Improve the appearance, odor, health, and quality of the
     water for uses including recreation, fishing, swimming
     and drinking water sources; and
   •  Improve the perception of the potential value of these
     waters and encourage community involvement in their
     restoration and improvement by reframing water as
     relevant to community priorities, such as education,
     employment, recreation, safety, health, housing, trans-
     portation, and livability.
   Areas of activity may include green infrastructure, source
   water protection, water sector workforce development,
   watershed planning, land revitalization, monitoring and
   assessment, fish advisories, and beach monitoring and noti-
   fication. EPA's current work in the Chesapeake Bay, Great
   Lakes, NEP, and Large Aquatic Ecosystem programs may
   offer additional place-based opportunities to engage urban
   communities.
   In late FY 2012, EPA expects to award Urban Waters Small
   Grants to support local efforts to address water qual-
   ity issues in urban waterways. These activities would be
   reflected in two measures: 1) WQ-25a: Number of urban
   water projects initiated addressing water quality issues in
   the community, and 2) WQ-25b: Number of urban water
   projects completed addressing water quality issues in
   the community. If funding is approved, grant recipients
   would be required to report results corresponding to these
   measures.
National Water Program Guidance
75

-------
National Water Program and Climate Change
     X.  National  Water Program and  Climate Change

          Climate change impacts include too little water in some places, too much water in other places, and degraded water
          quality. Some locations will be subject to all of these conditions during different times of the year. Water cycle
          changes are expected to continue and will adversely affect energy production and use, human health, transportation,
     agriculture, and ecosystems.33
     Climate change alters the hydrological cycle, changing the
     background conditions in which natural and man-made
     systems function. Changes have already been observed and
     are expected to continue, such as warming air and water,
     changes in the location and amount of rain and snow,
     increased intensity of rainfall and tropical storms, sea level
     rise, changes in ocean chemistry, and indirect effects related
     to energy generation and fuel production.
     However, particular changes  and impacts vary by region and
     locale, and adaptation strategies depend upon the type of
     decision being addressed. Further, while there is relatively
     strong ability to forecast temperature increases due to
     climate change, projecting changes in precipitation and its
     effects on hydrology carries large uncertainties at the local
     scale. Therefore, a key challenge will be how to help local
     decision makers understand the potential local impacts,
     and how to make long-term plans under a new range of
     uncertainty than what planners have previously learned to
     address. Water resource managers will also need to learn
     how to take into account local impacts of climate  change as
     they grapple with other challenges, including population
     growth, land use changes, economic constraints, and a vari-
     ety of stressors to the quality and quantity of our nations
     waters.
     In September 2008, the National Water Program pub-
     lished the first National Water Program Strategy: Response
     to Climate Change. This strategy identified 44 key actions
     to be taken by EPA to begin to understand and address the
     impacts of climate change on our programs.
     In 2012, the National Water Program is publishing the
     second National Water Program  2012 Strategy: Response to
     Climate Change. This 2012 Strategy builds upon the work
     done since the 2008 Strategy. It describes a set of long-term
     goals for the management of sustainable water resources
     for future generations in light of climate change and reflects
     the wider context of climate change-related activity under-
     way throughout the Nation. The 2012 Strategy is intended
     to be a roadmap to guide future programmatic planning and
     inform decision makers during the Agency's annual plan-
     ning process.
     The National Water Program collaborated with the State
     and Tribal Climate Change Council as part of the devel-
     opment of the 2012 Strategy. The Council has provided
     valuable feedback throughout the process and has assisted
   in distributing the public comment draft. Established in
   October 2009, the State and Tribal Climate Change Council
   encourages and enhances communication between state,
   tribal, and EPA water program managers on climate change
   and water issues. The Council includes members nominated
   by AC WA, the Association of State Drinking Water Adminis-
   trators (ASDWA), the Association of State Wetland Manag-
   ers (ASWM), state members of the Ground Water Protec-
   tion Council, and the National Tribal Water Council.
               Impacts of Climate Change
                   on Water Resources
      Increases in water pollution problems due to warmer
      air and water temperatures and changes in precipita-
      tion patterns, causing an increase in the number of
      waters categorized as "impaired";
      More extreme weather events, including heavier
      precipitation and tropical and inland storms, causing
      adverse effects on water quality, aquatic system health,
      and water infrastructure;
      Changes to the availability of drinking water supplies
      due to increased frequency, severity and duration
      of drought, changing patterns of precipitation and
      snowmelt, increased evaporation, and aquifer saltwater
      intrusion, increasing competition for public water sup-
      ply, agriculture, industry, and energy production;
      Waterbody boundary movement and displacement as
      rising sea levels alter ocean and estuarine shorelines
      and as changes in water flow, precipitation, and evapo-
      ration affect the size of wetlands and lakes;
      Changing aquatic biology due to warmer water and
      changing flows, resulting in deterioration of aquatic
      ecosystem health in some areas;
      Collective impacts on coastal areas resulting from a
      combination of sea level rise, increased damage from
      floods and storms, coastal erosion, salt water intrusion
      to drinking water supplies, and increasing temperature
      and acidification of the oceans; and
      Indirect impacts due to unintended consequences
      resulting from carbon sequestration and other green-
      house gas reduction strategies.
       U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S."(2009), Water Sector, at: http://globalchange.gov/publications/
       reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/climate-change-impacts-by-sector/water-resources
National Water Program Guidance
76

-------
National Water Program and Climate Change
     In addition, the National Water Program 2012 Strategy:
     Response to Climate Change reflects the findings of the Inter-
     agency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, including
     the national action plans for freshwater resources; oceans
     and coasts; and fish, wildlife, and plants. The 2012 Strategy
     is also intended to be consistent with EPA's broader adapta-
     tion planning process currently underway, as reflected in
     the "U.S. EPA Policy Statement on Climate Change Adapta-
     tion" issued by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on June 2,
     2011. In the policy statement, she affirmed the Agency's
     commitment to anticipate and plan for future changes in
     climate and incorporate them into its programs, polices, and
     operations. The policy statement directs that an Agency-
     wide adaptation plan be developed (to be completed in June
     2012), as well as adaptation implementation plans by each
     national program and regional office (to be completed in
     FY 2013). Recognizing that climate change impacts are a
     stressor among many others that water resource manag-
     ers are grappling with, the 2012 Strategy is also designed to
     build upon other EPA initiatives such as the Coming Together
     for Clean Water Strategy and the Clean Water and Safe Drink-
     ing Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy.

     National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to
     Climate Change

     Vision: Despite the ongoing effects of climate change,  the
     National Water Program will continue to achieve its mission to
     protect and restore our waters to ensure that drinking water is
     safe; and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants and wild-
     life, as well as economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.

     New tools and information are needed to help water
     resource managers address climate change. However,
     several of our existing programs are also important strate-
     gies to both reduce greenhouse gases and to adapt to the
     impacts of climate change, including programs to  conserve
     water, reduce energy use, adopt green infrastructure and
     watershed-based practices, and improve the resilience of
     watersheds and estuaries.
     The National Water Program will continue to develop tools
     and information in collaboration with federal, state, tribal
     and local partners to build awareness, increase knowledge,
     and share lessons learned to expand the national capacity
     to address climate change and become 'climate ready'. The
     National Water Program through its National Water Program
     2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change will focus on the
     following areas:
     •  Infrastructure: Wastewater, drinking water and storm-
       water infrastructure, including continuing implementa-
       tion of Climate Ready Water Utilities, WaterSense, green
       infrastructure, and technical assistance to reduce energy
       use at water treatment plants.
              Geographic Climate Regions
      (adapted from U.S. Global Change Research
               Program) and EPA Regions
Climate Regions
Northeast
Southeast
Midwest
Great Plains
Southwest
Pacific Northwest
Montane
Alaska
Caribbean Islands
U.S. Pacific Islands and Territories
EPA Regions
1,2,3
3,4,6
2,5,7
6,7,8
6,8,9
8,10
8,9,10
10
2
9
     Watersheds and Wetlands: Landscape strategies to pro-
     tect and restore watersheds, including HWI, the Coastal
     Watersheds Initiative, and LID.
     Coastal and Ocean Waters: Programs for coastal wet-
     lands and estuaries, including Climate Ready Estuaries,
     coastal infrastructure, and ocean water quality issues
     such as ocean acidification and coral reefs, and the
     National Ocean Policy.
     Water Quality: Support for effective implementation
     of EPA's water quality programs, including, for example,
     stormwater management and protecting underground
     sources of drinking water through the UIC program.
     Working with Tribes: Building EPA's understanding and
     ability to work with tribes to incorporate "traditional
     ecological knowledge" in the development of adaptation
     strategies for tribal communities.
     Regional Strategies: In addition, EPA Regions will work
     collaboratively within their 'geographic climate regions'
     to address strategic issues posed by climate change.
     Impacts of climate change are often local. Water resource
     managers are realizing that the new hydrological context
     is nonstationary, and that adaptation strategies will need
     to take into account both near- and long-term implica-
     tions. Water program managers at the local, state, tribal,
     and federal levels will need to work collaboratively to
     develop the information, tools and local capacity to make
     decisions and implement effective programs to address
     the most critical issues in their communities.
National Water Program Guidance
77

-------
 Office of Water
Fiscal Year 2013

-------
                      OFFICE OF WATER
APPENDIX A: FY 2013 NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEASURES
G/O/S
FY 2013 ACS
Code
FY 2013 Measure Text
Non-Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
FY 2013
Budget
Target
FY 2013
Planning
Target
Italicized measure code denotes a change in measure text and/or change in reporting. FY 2013 Budget Target are from the 8-year performance
measure table in the FY 2013 Congressional Justification.
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-18.N11
SDW-Ola
SDW-Olb
SDW-04
SDW-05
SDW-07
SDW-08
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.
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.
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 Classes I, II and Class III salt solution mining
wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the
potential to endanger underground sources of drinking
water.
Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells
(MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC) that are
closed or permitted (cumulative).

















Y
Y



Y

Y



Y



92%
90%
95%
87%
LT

LT
95%

89%

90%
24,327


92%
90%
95%
87%
50%
57%
119,000
95%
79
89%
6,976
90%
24,327

-------
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
2.1.1
SDW-11
SDW-15
SDW-17
SDW-19a
SDW-19b
Percent of DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
serving <500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 consumers.
Number and percent of small CWS and NTNCWS (<500,
501-3,300, 3,301-10,000) with repeat health based
Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and TCR
violations.
Number and percent of schools and childcare centers that
meet all health-based drinking water standards.
Volume of CO2 sequestered through injection as defined
by the UIC Final Rule.
Number of permit decisions during the reporting period
that result in CO2 sequestered through injection as
defined by the UIC Final Rule.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y










Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
2.1.2
2.1.2
2.1.2
FS-SP6.N11
FS-la
FS-lb
Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern.
Percent of river miles where fish tissue were assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice
is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska
not included) (Report every two years)
Percent of lake acres where fish tissue were assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption
advisories or a determination that no consumption advice
is necessary. (Great Lakes measured separately; Alaska
not included) (Report every two years)

Y
Y



4.9%


2.5%
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
2.1.3
2.1.3
2.1.3
SS-SP9.N11
SS-1
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.
Number and national percent, using a constant
denominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
permits with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate
enforceable mechanism, including a permit or
enforcement order, with specific dates and milestones,
including a completion date consistent with Agency
guidance, which requires: 1) Implementation of a Long
Term Control Plan (LTCP) which will result in
compliance with the technology and water quality-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act; or 2)
implementation of any other acceptable CSO control
measures consistent with the 1994 CSO Control Policy; or
3) completion of separation after the baseline date.
(cumulative)
Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that are
monitored and managed under the BEACH Act program.



Y

Y



95%
773
90.6%
100%
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP1 1
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13.N11
Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining
water quality standards where standards are now fully
attained, (cumulative)
Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment
identified by states in 2002. (cumulative)
Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed approach, (cumulative)
Ensure that the condition of the Nation's streams does not
degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant increase in
the percent of streams rated "poor" and no statistically
significant decrease in the streams rated "good").




Y



3,524
10,711
352
LT
3,524
10,711
355
Deferred for
FY2013

-------
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-SP14a.Nll
WQ-SP14b.Nll
WQ-24.N11
WQ-Ola
WQ-26
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-08a
Improve water quality in Indian country at baseline
monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
improvement in one or more of seven key parameters:
dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, pathogen indicators, and turbidity).
(cumulative)
Identify monitoring stations on tribal lands that are
showing no degradation in water quality (meaning the
waters are meeting uses), (cumulative)
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to basic sanitation in coordination with
other federal agencies.
Number of numeric water quality standards for total
nitrogen and for total phosphorus adopted by states and
territories and approved by EPA, or promulgated by EPA,
for all waters within the state or territory for each of the
following waterbody types: lakes/reservoirs,
rivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of a
universe of 280).
Number of states and territories implementing nutrient
reduction strategies by ( 1 ) setting priorities on a
watershed or state-wide basis, (2) establishing nutrient
reduction targets, and (3) continuing to make progress
(and provide performance milestone information to EPA)
on adoption of numeric nutrient criteria for at least one
class of waters by no later than 2016. (cumulative)
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 Tribes that currently receive funding under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act that have developed
and begun implementing monitoring strategies that are
appropriate to their water quality program consistent with
EPA Guidance, (cumulative)
Number of Tribes that are providing water quality data in
a format accessible for storage in EPA's data system.
(cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a
schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to attain water quality standards. The terms
'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.

Y













Y
Y

Y





LT

LT



64.3%

87%


54,773
20
Indicator
67,600
47
20
43
40
71.4%
14
38%
87%
222
191
2,555
80%

-------
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-08b
WQ-09a
WQ-09b
WQ-09c
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
WQ-13b
WQ-13c
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-19a
Number, and national percent, of approved TMDLs, that
are established by States and approved by EPA [State
TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national policy.
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to attain water quality standards. The terms
'approved' and 'established' refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319
funded projects only).
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
(Section 319 funded projects only).
Estimated annual reduction in million tons of sediment
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319
funded projects only).
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 1998/2000
or subsequent years) as being primarily nonpoint source
(NPS)-impaired that are partially or fully restored.
(cumulative)
Number, and national percent, of follow-up actions that
are completed by assessed NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) programs, (cumulative)
Percent of non-Tribal facilities covered by NPDES
permits that are considered current.
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and report
results in both % and #.]
Percent of tribal facilities covered by NPDES permits that
are considered current.
[Measure will still set targets and commitments and report
results in both % and #.]
Number, and national percent, of MS-4s covered under
either an individual or general permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general industrial storm water permit.
Number of sites covered under either an individual or
general construction storm water site permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general CAFO permit.
Number, and national percent, of Significant Industrial
Users (SIUs) that are discharging to POTWs with
Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements.
Number, and national percent, of Categorical Industrial
Users (CIUs) that are discharging to POTWs without
Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements.
Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
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.





Y


Y
Y
Y
Y

Y




Y



Y







Y

Y


Y
46,331
8.5 million
4.5 million
700,000
LT









<22.5%
86%
94.5%
80%
2,550
80%
8.5 million
4.5 million
700,000
431
Indicator
90%
106,673
90%
400
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
20,724
Indicator
<22.5%
3,644.68
86%
94.5%
655
80%

-------
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.1
WQ-19b
WQ-22a
WQ-23
WQ-25a
WQ-25b
Number of high priority state and EPA (including tribal)
NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
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.
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
Number of urban water projects initiated addressing
water quality issues in the community.
Number of urban water projects completed addressing
water quality issues in the community.

Y








80%

91%
3
0
727
80%
Indicator
93%
10
N/A
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.2
CO-222.N11
CO-SP20.N11
CO-02
CO-04
CO-06
CO-432.N11
Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean
systems to improve national and regional coastal aquatic
system health on the 'good/fair/poor' scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that will have achieved environmentally acceptable
conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan
and measured through on-site monitoring programs).
Total coastal and non-coastal statutory square miles
protected from vessel sewage by "no discharge zone(s)."
(cumulative)
Dollar value of "primary" leveraged resources (cash or in-
kind) obtained by the NEP Directors and/or staff in
millions of dollars rounded to the nearest tenth of a
percent.
Number of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that are monitored in the reporting year.
Working with partners, protect or restore additional acres
of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that
are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).


Y
Y
Y







LT
95%



100,000
2.8
95%
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
100,000
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.3
WT-SP21.N11
WT-SP22
WT-01
WT-02a
WT-03
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of wetlands
nation wide, with additional focus on coastal wetlands,
and biological and functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
states and tribes, achieve 'no net loss' of wetlands each
year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program.
Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star,
NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs (cumulative).
Number of states/tribes that have substantially built or
increased capacity in wetland regulation, monitoring and
assessment, water quality standards, and/or restoration
and protection. (This is an annual reporting measure.)
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.



Y
Y






No Net Loss
180,000


Deferred for
FY2013
No Net Loss
180,000
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
2.2.4
2.2.4
GL-433.N11
GL-SP29
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes
by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic
ecosystems.
Cumulative percentage decline for the long term trend in
average concentrations of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.




23.4
43%
23.4
43%

-------
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
2.2.4
GL-SP31
GL-SP32.N11
GL-05
GL-06
GL-07
GL-08
GL-09
GL-10
GL-11
GL-12
GL-13
GL-15
GL-16
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).
Percent of days of the beach season that the Great Lakes
beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.
Acres managed for populations of invasive species
controlled to a target level (cumulative).
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened
and endangered species self-sustaining in the wild
(cumulative).
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
Number of species delisted due to recovery.
Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive
phosphorus (metric tons per year) from tributaries
draining targeted watersheds.
Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation
practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or
pesticide loading.


























4
9.6 million
41
0.8
15
90%
18,000
34%
13,000
20,000
2
1.0%
20%
4
9.6 million
41
0.8
15
90%
18,000
34%
13,000
20,000
2
1.0%
20%
Subobjective 2.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
CB-SP33.N11
CB-SP34
CB-SP35
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of
185,000 acres achieved, based on annual monitoring from
prior year.
Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards
attainment achieved, based on annual monitoring from the
previous calendar year and the preceding 2 years.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen
pollution reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus
pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment
pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
2.2.6
2.2.6
2.2.6
GM-435
GM-SP38
GM-SP39
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)


















LT
LT
22.5%
22.5%
22.5%
Long Term
Measure
Long Term
Measure
22.5%
22.5%
22.5%

2.4
360
30,600
2.4
360
30,600

-------
2.2.6
GM-SP40.N11
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.
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
2.2.7
2.2.7
2.2.7
2.2.7
LI-SP41
LI-SP42.N11
LI-SP43
LI-SP44
Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-equalized (TE)
point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound
from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE Ibs/day.
Reduce the size (square miles) of observed hypoxia
(Dissolved Oxygen <3mg/l) in Long Island Sound.
Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat from
the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to diadromous
fish passage from the 2010 baseline of 177 river miles by
removal of dams and barriers or by installation of bypass
structures.













Deferred for
FY2013

76%

480 acres
51 miles
76%
Deferred for
FY2013
480 acres
51 miles
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
2.2.8
2.2.8
PS-SP49.N11
PS-SP51
Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas
impacted by degraded or declining water quality.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
Restore acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
estuarine wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)




7,758
24,063
7,758
24,063
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
2.2.9
2.2.9
2.2.9
MB-SP23
MB-SP24.N11
MB-SP25.N11
Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed
(cumulative million pounds/year) from the U.S.-Mexico
Border area since 2003.
Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water
in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to safe
drinking water in 2003 .
Number of additional homes provided adequate
wastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico border area that
lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003 .
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
2.2.10
PI-SP26
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.
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
2.2.11
2.2.11
2.2.11
2.2.11
SFL-SP45
SFL-SP46
SFL-SP47a
SFL-SP47b
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
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












121.5
3,000
27,000
121.5
3,000
27,000

82%
82%



75%
75%
Indicator
Indicator
75%
75%

-------
2.2.11
2.2.11
SFL-SP48
SFL-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.
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
2.2.12
2.2.12
CR-SP53
CR-SP54
Clean up acres of known contaminated sediments.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentration of certain
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)

Y








Maintain P
baseline




Maintain P
baseline
Indicator

80
10%
8

-------
 Office of Water
Fiscal Year 2013

-------
                                OFFICE OF WATER
                                   APPENDIX B
         AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT MEASURES
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
DWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
CWSRF
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Number of ARRA-funded DWSRF projects for which tribes have signed a
Memorandum of Agreement with IHS for the project (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Number of states that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative funds
available for projects) for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Number of ARRA projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Number of ARRA-funded CWSRF projects for which tribes have signed a
Memorandum of Agreement with IHS for the project (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
Number and ARRA amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Number of states that have awarded all of their 20% green project reserve
Fund utilization rate (cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative funds
available for projects) for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Measures in BOLD are annual measures included in Appendix A of the FY 2013 National Water Program Guidance.

-------
 Office of Water
Fiscal Year 2013

-------
             APPENDIX C:  Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013
                      Office of Water-National Water Program Guidance FY 2013
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
Priorities
Strategies
Annual
Commitment
Measures
No change to National Water Program
priorities.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) Grant Guidance.
The National Water Program's effort in
showing incremental progress in restoring
water quality.
Environmental Information Exchange
Network
New narrative on better serving communities.
Expanded narrative for Environmental
Justice.
Streamlining measures in FY 2013.
Measure deleted: SDW-SP5. By 2015, in
Reason for Change
Not applicable
Integrating the DWSRF grant guidance in the NWPG to
gain efficiency in the issuance of the grant guidance.
Summarizing the National Water Program's effort to
capture incremental progress in improving water quality.
EPA proposes a new indicator measure based on reporting
state scale survey results starting in FY 2014.
Highlighting EPA's effort to reduce burden, improve
compliance, expand the information available to the
public about pollution that affects them, and improve the
ability of EPA, states, and tribes to implement
environmental programs.
Highlighting EPA's efforts to improve coordination of
community-based programs to be more effective at the
local level, more efficient in delivery of services, and less
duplicative in our work.
Highlighting the National Water Program's support of
Plan EJ 2014, including five cross-Agency focus areas,
tools development, and program initiatives.
For FY 2013, the National Water Program proposes to
reduce a net of 20 measures (adding one measure and
deleting 21 measures), highlighted below, to minimize
reporting burden and reach the most meaningful suite of
measures. In the core water programs (not including
geographic programs), the net reduction is 16 measures.
SDW-18.N1 1 was added in FY 201 1 to replace SDW-SP5
Affected
Sections
Executive
Summary and
Introduction
Section II, 1,
C. Page 17.
Section III, 1,
B, 3. Pages 33-
34.
Section V, 1,
A, 3. Page 63.
Section V, 1,
A, 6. Page 64.
Section VII.
Pages 69-73.
Appendix A
andE.
Section II
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013

-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
                                           Reason for Change
                                                      Affected
                                                      Sections
   Annual
Commitment
  Measures
               coordination with other federal agencies,
               reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on
               tribal land lacking access to safe drinking
               water.
                                           in the new Strategic Plan to more accurately capture tribal
                                           drinking water access. SDW-SP5 is proposed for deletion
                                           in FY 2013 as part of the streamlining effort and to help
                                           focus on the new strategic measure.	
               Measure deleted: SDW-03. Percent of the
               lead action level data that for the Lead and
               Copper Rule, for community water systems
               serving over 3,300people, is complete in
               SDWIS-FED.
                                           Suspend measure until SDWIS NextGen is fully
                                           implemented and the recommendations from the GAO
                                           report have been taken into consideration.
                                                      Section II
               Measure deleted: SDW-12. Percent of
               DWSRF dollars awarded to small PWS
               serving <500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000
               consumers.
                                           Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                           streamlining effort. Data will still be tracked in the
                                           Drinking Water National Information Management
                                           System (DWNIMS).	
                                                      Section II
Measure deleted: SDW-13. Percent of
DWSRF loans that include assistance to
disadvantaged communities.
Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
streamlining effort. Data will still be tracked in the
Drinking Water National Information Management
System (DWNIMS).	
Section II
               Measure deleted: SDW-14. Number and
               percent ofCWS andNTNCWS, including new
               PWS, serving fewer than 500 persons.  (New
               PWS are those first reported to EPA in last
               calendar year).	
                                           Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                           streamlining effort. Data will still be tracked in the Safe
                                           Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
                                                      Section II
               Measure deleted: SDW-16. 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-
               reportedRTC determination date).	
                                           Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                           streamlining effort. Data will still be tracked in the Safe
                                           Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
                                                      Section II
               Measure deleted: WQ-SP15. 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)	
                                           WQ-24.N11 was added in FY 2011 to replace WQ-SP15
                                           in the new Strategic Plan to more accurately capture tribal
                                           access to basic sanitation. WQ-SP15 is proposed for
                                           deletion in FY 2013 as part of the streamlining effort and
                                           to help focus on the new  strategic measure.	
                                                      Section III
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013

-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
                                            Reason for Change
Affected
Sections
   Annual
Commitment
  Measures
Measure deleted: 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).
Measure deleted: 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.)	
                                                           WQ-lb and c are proposed for replacement by the new
                                                           measure WQ-26 to support OW AA's March 16, 2011
                                                           Memo, Working in Partnership with States to Address
                                                           Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a
                                                           Framework for State Nutrient Reductions.
               Newly created measure: WQ-26. Number of
               states and territories implementing nutrient
               reduction strategies by (1) setting priorities
               on a watershed or state-wide basis, (2)
               establishing nutrient reduction targets, and
               (3) continuing to make progress (andprovide
               performance milestone information to EPA)
               on adoption of numeric nutrient criteria for at
               least one class of waters by no later than
               2016. (cumulative)	
                                            Measure is proposed to track the progress of states in
                                            setting priorities on a watershed or statewide basis,
                                            establishing nutrient reduction targets, and adopting
                                            numeric nutrient criteria (and providing milestone
                                            information to EPA) for at least one class of waterbodies
                                            by no later than 2016. This measure replaces WQ-lb and
                                            WQ-lc.
Section III
Section III,
Appendix A
andE.
               Measure deleted: WQ-05. Number of States
               and Territories that have adopted and are
               implementing their monitoring strategies in
               keeping with established schedules.
                                            Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                            streamlining effort. EPA regions also review state
                                            commitments through CWA 106 Monitoring Initiative
                                            grant terms and conditions, including participation in the
                                            national surveys and specific, state-defined, deliverables
Section III
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013

-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
                                            Reason for Change
                                                      Affected
                                                      Sections
   Annual
Commitment
  Measures
                                                           for the use of the program enhancement funds to enhance
                                                           a state monitoring program (or maintain an enhancement).
                                                           EPA is initiating work with states, through the MAP, to
                                                           develop a mechanism for more detailed evaluation and
                                                           determination of whether state monitoring programs are
                                                           making progress/improvement, maintaining, or losing
                                                           ground that can be captured by this measure.	
Measure deleted: WQ-07. 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)	
                                                          Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                                          streamlining effort.  This measure was originally intended
                                                          to promote the use of standardized data and submission of
                                                          geospatial data, but has outlived its usefulness.
                                                      Section III
Measure modified: WQ-19a. Number of high
priority state NPDES permits that are issued
in the fiscal year.	
               Measure modified: WQ-19b. Number of high
               priority state and EPA (including tribal)
               NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
               year.	
While measure language is not being changed, the
background permit selection and commitment processes,
as well as result calculations are being modified. To make
the measures more meaningful, we are making the
selection and commitment process more consistent and
more clearly defining the universe used to calculate
percentage results.	
Section III,
Appendix A
andE.
               Measure deleted: WQ-20. 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.	
                                            Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                            streamlining effort. Results for the measure have been
                                            fairly static and less indicative of progress in current
                                            program priorities.
                                                      Section III
               Measure deleted: WQ-21. 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 TMDLsfor
               pollutants causing impairments to the
               water body or has approved a 303(d) list that
                                            Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                            streamlining effort. As part of the FY 2014 NWPG, EPA
                                            will work with regions and states over the coming year to
                                            identify more meaningful ways to measure the success of
                                            the 303(d) Listing and TMDL Program.
                                                      Section III
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013

-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
               recognizes that the waterbody is covered by
               Watershed Plan [i.e., Category 4b or
               Category 5m]). (cumulative)
               A/Ti=>ciciiri=> rli=>1 i=>ti=>rl • \\IC\-TJY\  Ahirnhpr
                                            Reason for Change
                                                       Affected
                                                       Sections
   Annual
Commitment
  Measures
Measure deleted: WQ-22b. Number of states
that have completed a Healthy Watersheds
Protection Strategy or have completed at
least 2 of the major components of a Healthy
Watersheds assessment.
Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
streamlining effort. A discussion of state progress and
priorities regarding the development of State Healthy
Watersheds Protection Strategies and/or Healthy
Watersheds assessments is in the narrative.
                                                                                                                  Section III
               Measure deleted: CO-05. Number of dredged
               material management plans that are in place
               for major ports and harbors.
                                            Although tracking the number of dredged material
                                            management plans gives EPA an indication of regional
                                            efforts to provide comprehensive consideration of dredged
                                            material disposal options, regional sediment management
                                            techniques, and beneficial use options (which are
                                            important to the Agency); it is not clear that CO-05 is the
                                            best way to track progress for these activities and has thus
                                            been proposed for deletion as part of the streamlining
                                            effort. Ocean Protection priorities are discussed in the
                                            narrative.
                                                       Section III
               Measure deleted: WT-02b. Number of core
               elements (regulation, monitoring and
               assessment, water quality standards, or
               restoration and protection) developed and
               implemented by (number) of States/Tribes.
                                            Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                            streamlining effort. This measure tracks the efficacy of
                                            getting state wetlands programs to include the essential
                                            elements of the program. Measure WT-2b can be deferred
                                            to the future after a good number of state programs have
                                            adopted the full program.	
                                                       Section III
               Measure deleted: WT-04. Number of states
               measuring baseline wetland condition - with
               plans to assess trends in wetland condition -
               as defined through condition indicators and
               assessments (cumulative).	
                                            Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
                                            streamlining effort as it has been replaced by WT-2a.
                                                       Section III
               Measure deleted: CB-2. Percent of forest
               buffer planting goal of '10,000 miles achieved.
                                            Measure is proposed for deletion because the target is
                                            inconsistent with the forested buffer goal in the federal
                                            strategy for the Chesapeake Bay developed pursuant to
                                            Executive Order 13508 Chesapeake Bay Protection and
                                                       Section IV
Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013

-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Contacts

Measure deleted: GM-01. Implement
integrated hi -national (U.S. and Mexican
States) early-warning system to support State
and coastal community efforts to manage
harmful algal blooms (HABs).
Measure deleted: PI-SP27. 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).
Measure deleted: PI-SP28. 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.
No change
Reason for Change
Restoration, and the US Forest Service leads federal
efforts in this area.
Measure is proposed for deletion as part of the
streamlining effort. The operating system and state
training are completed.
Measure is proposed for deletion because it is a weak
management measure. The Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) compliance data is dominated by out-of-
compliance WWTPs in Guam that are being addressed
through a court order.
Measure is proposed for deletion because the beach
monitoring data is correlated more closely with the rainy
season than with Wastewater Treatment Plant compliance.
It's unclear at this point whether the unsafe beach days are
caused by stormwater, natural runoff, or another issue.
Not applicable
Affected
Sections

Section IV
Section IV
Section IV

Appendix C - Explanation of Changes from FY 2012 to FY 2013

-------
 Office of Water
Fiscal Year 2013

-------
Appendix D

Additional Guidance for CWA Section 106 State and Interstate Grant
Recipients

This appendix, along with the text boxes found in Section III. I.B.I, provide guidance for
state and interstate grant recipients when implementing water pollution control programs
under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Together, Section III. 1, the text boxes,
and Appendix D make up the CWA Section 106 grant guidance.

FY 2013 Nutrient Initiative: The  FY 2013 President's Budget requests $26.8 million in
additional Section 106 funds. If these additional funds are included in EPA's FY 2013
budget, EPA will provide $15 million of the increase to support state, interstate agencies,
and tribal activities to address water quality impairment through the reduction of nutrient
loads. This initiative will work in conjunction with activities being carried out by states
and tribes using Section 319 and USD A funding. The March 16, 2011, Nancy K. Stoner
memorandum, Working in Partnership with States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen
Pollution through Use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions, will be used as the
framework for awarding Section 106 funds to implement nutrient reduction activities. A
separate guidance will be provided for the nutrient initiative funds. EPA is also
requesting $11.8 million to support base program activities.

Base Program Measures: CWA Section  106 funding supports many of the strategic
targets and goals outlined in the National Water Program Guidance. These measures
include:
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13
WQ-la
WQ-26
WQ-3a
WQ-8b
WQ-10
WQ-12a
WQ-13a,b, c, d
WQ-14a
WQ-15a
WQ-19a
SS-1
Measures specific to tribal programs are found in Section VI of this National Water
Program Guidance.

Guidance for Core Programs: Guidance for core programs funded through grants for
water pollution control programs under CWA Section 106 is provided in text boxes in
Section III. 1.  Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis.

Other programs in the NWPG that can utilize CWA Section 106 Funds: State and
interstate agencies can use CWA 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 CWA Section
106 funds include:

Source Water and Ground Water: EPA regions and states are reminded that CWA
Section 106 grant funds are an essential funding source for the states' drinking water
                                        1
Appendix D - Additional Guidance For CWA Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients

-------
protection activities. The Agency recommends that states continue to direct a portion of
their CWA 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 CWA 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:
http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/. See Section II.1,B,5 for additional discussion
on the Source Water and Ground Water.

Non-point Source: States, territories, and tribes may use CWA 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 CWA 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 CWA 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

                                        2
Appendix D - Additional Guidance For CWA Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients

-------
       Action Plan"). The Action Plan identifies steps EPA will take to improve
       enforcement efforts aimed at addressing water quality impairment. The Office of
       Water continues to work 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 2013, please see the 2013
       OECA National Program guidance at:
       http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013 .html.

Disclaimer: The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. The
statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document  contain legally
binding 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.
                                        3
Appendix D - Additional Guidance For CWA Section 106 State and Interstate Grant Recipients

-------
 Office of Water
Fiscal Year 2013

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
* Measure categor
CongressionalJus
Subobjective2
SDW-211








SDW-
SP1.N11







SDW-SP2








SDW-
SP3.N11







SDW-SP4a








FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
es include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Performance Indicator); ARRA (Recovery Act Measure); LT (Long Term Budget Measure), and I (Indicator Measure). ** FY 2013 Budget Target is from 4-year performance measure table in the FY 2013
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
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.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2011 UNIVERSE (in millions)
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based standards through approaches that
include effective treatment and source water protection.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY2011 UNIVERSE
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.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2011 UNIVERSE (in millions)
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2011 UNIVERSE
Percent of community water systems where risk to public
health is minimized through source water protection.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY2011 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD
SG
ARRA







92%







92%
91%
93.2%
91%
91.4%
92%
89%
299.9
89.6%
89.4%
93.2%
89.8%
91.4%
92%
89%
299.9
89%
89%
91%
89%
91.3%
92%
92.5%
15
78%
78%
84%
76%
82.4%
79%
55.3%
32.2
90%
90%
89%
90%
96.6%
89.9%
93.2%
25.7
92%
92%
96%
93%
94.2%
93.7%
93%
58.6
94%
94%
96%
93%
93.2%
95.4%
94.1%
43.5
85%
85%
91%
87%
90.3%
89.7%
87.8%
38.1
80%
80%
92%
85%
81.6%
94.1%
91.2%
12.0
91%
91%
94%
91%
93.2%
95.8%
94.7%
10.9
95%
95%
97%
95%
96%
96.9%
94.6%
52.0
92%
91%
97%
91%
92.2%
96.4%
94.8%
11.5

















The universe represents the population served by community water systems. The National commitment for FY1 1 is higher than the regional aggregate commitment to be consistent with the FY1 1 budget target.
OMB PA
BUD
SG
SP







OMB PA
BUD
KPI







90%







95%







90%
90%
90.7%
88%
89.6%
89.1%
89%
52,079
95%
95%
97.4%
95%
96.7%
97.2%
97%
3.59
87.6%
87.8%
90.7%
87.8%
89.6%
89.1%
89%
52,079
94.1%
94.1%
97.4%
94.9%
96.7%
97.2%
97%
3.59
83%
83%
85%
83%
84.8%
85.7%
85.7%
2,735
94%
94%
97%
94%
98%
97.5%
96%
180.9
83%
83%
87%
83%
85%
86%
86.4%
3,733
90%
90%
95%
90%
93.5%
91.9%
92%
387.3
87%
87%
93%
87%
91%
90.7%
91.8%
4,476
91%
91%
96%
95%
91%
96.9%
99%
308.4
90%
90.5%
94%
90%
91.7%
90.9%
91%
8,891
95%
95%
98%
96%
98.3%
98.3%
98%
703.7
93%
93%
94%
91%
93.9%
93%
92%
7,369
96%
96%
98%
96%
96.6%
97.8%
96%
521.4
85%
85%
90%
86%
88.8%
87.8%
86.2%
8,358
94%
94%
96%
94%
96.6%
96.2%
97%
458.2
85%
85%
88%
87%
87.2%
87.5%
86.8%
4,128
90%
90%
97%
94%
96.9%
98.2%
98%
144.9
88%
90%
90%
90%
89.4%
90%
90.3%
3,281
95%
95%
97%
95%
98%
99%
99%
131
88%
88%
88%
88%
87.8%
87.9%
91.6%
4,646
98%
98%
99%
98%
98.6%
98.6%
97%
624
88%
88%
91%
88%
89.6%
88%
87.3%
4,462
95%
95%
99%
95%
98.4%
98.7%
98%
138.0
















90%















Indicator measure in FY07.
BUD
KPI
SP







OMB PA
BUD







87%







LT







87%
87%
81.2%
80%
87.2%
81.2%
86%
918,668
50%
40%
40.2%
36.4%
37%
35%
20%
52,079
79.8%
79.9%
81.2%
79.6%
87.2%
81.2%
86%
918,668
39.9%
39.2%
40.2%
36.4%
37%
35%
20%
52,079
90%
90%
100%
95%
100%
99.9%
100%
90,594
66%
66%
66.3%
64%
65.8%
64%
51%
2,735
90%
90%
50%
50%
100%
99.6%
100%
11,071
61%
61%
61%
61%
61%
60%
30%
3,733
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
40%
33%
35%
25%
29%
27%
12%
4,476
90%
90%
97%
90%
100%
100%
100%
25,532
56%
53%
52%
52%
38%
38%
21%
8,891
98%
98%
99%
95%
97.1%
99.3%
99.5%
114,800
39%
39%
40%
38%
38.8%
38%
19%
7,369
78%
78%
87%
80%
89.9%
87.2%
90.4%
77,740
38%
40%
40.9%
40%
40%
38%
19%
8,358
80%
80%
87%
80%
83.3%
83.3%
86.5%
5,394
9%
9%
12%
15%
9%
9%
13%
4,128
87%
87%
86%
87%
90%
90.4%
82.6%
94,153
39%
39%
45%
45%
38.6%
38%
20%
3,281
70%
70%
70%
70%
80%
68.1%
80.9%
446,179
10%
10%
9%
9%
8%
8%
1%
4,646
87%
87%
87%
87%
85.5%
87.2%
88.1%
53,205
40%
40%
42%
40%
40%
38%
28%
4,462
















88%















The universe is the number of community water systems.

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
SDW-SP4b








SDW-18.N11






SDW-Ola







SDW-Olb








SDW-04








SDW-05
FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Percent of the population served by community water
systems where risk to public health is minimized through
source water protection.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2011 UNIVERSE (in millions)
National Program Manager Comments
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to safe drinking water in coordination
with other federal agencies.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2009 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Fund utilization rate [cumulative dollar amount of loan
agreements divided by cumulative funds available for
projects] for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE (FY 2007, in millions)
National Program Manager Comments
Number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) projects that have initiated operations.
(cumulative)
SO















57%
57%
55.2%
52.3%
52%
54%
48%
299.9
55.4%
55.1%
55.2%
52.3%
52%
54%
48%
299.9
96%
96%
95.9%
93%
95.7%
93%
95%
15
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
81%
32.2
69%
63%
67%
58%
63%
63%
57%
25.7
59%
56%
55%
55%
46%
51%
40%
58.6
64%
64%
66%
62%
62%
65%
64%
43.5
62%
62%
62.9%
62%
63%
63%
44%
38.1
20%
20%
23%
20%
22%
15%
16%
12.0
37%
54%
40%
40%
51.8%
37%
35%
10.9
13%
12%
12%
12%
11%
12%
12%
52.0
80%
80%
84%
82%
85%
82%
71%
11.5
















SDW-SP4b is a new measure starting in FY08. 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.
SP
BUD





LT





119,000
110,000
97,311
100,700
809,000
^'"000


































































119,000
110,000
97,311
100,700
809,000
360,000
136,100





New measure for FYll,to supplement SDW-SP5 in the NWPG and replace SDW-SP5 in the new Strategic Plan.
OMB PA
BUD
SO






95%






95%
95%
91.6%
88%
87%
88%
11,038
88.6%
88%
91.6%
88%
87%
88%
11,038
90%
90%
96.7%
90.0%
99%
99%
479
95%
95%
96%
95.0%
95%
95%
1,019
91%
91%
95.8%
91.0%
93.7%
93.2%
1,215
93%
90%
96.3%
87.0%
90%
87%
1,750
93%
93%
94.7%
91.0%
95.5%
92.9%
1,356
91%
93%
93.6%
93.0%
78%
92%
2,109
87%
87%
90%
87.0%
94%
91%
780
90%
90%
97.9%
95.0%
92%
90%
808
70%
70%
70%
70.0%
68%
67%
936
70%
75%
71%
75.0%
64%
80%
586














Prior to FY07, this measure tracked states, rather than CWSs, in compliance with this regulation.
















79
76
74
65
63
63
22
78
79
76
74
65
63
63
22
78
2
2
2
2
2
2
n/a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1







2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
9
9
7
9
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
25
24
15
15
13
0
25
30
27
22
25
25
25
9
27
8
8
11
8
8
8
7
10
















A sanitary survey is anon-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
BUD
ARRA







89%







89%
90.7%
90%
87.7%
91.3%
92%
84.7%
$14,419.7
89.6%
90.7%
90%
87.7%
91.3%
92%
84.7%
$14,419.7
90%
90%
92%
90%
99.1%
94%
78.5%
$1,378.1
90%
90%
94%
90%
98%
90%
93%
$2,686.4
89%
86%
96%
86%
102%
95%
83.3%
$832.3
85%
90%
88%
90%
90%
95%
88%
$1,527.6
95%
95%
87.1%
80%
93.2%
79%
87%
$2,812.2
86%
85%
87%
89%
99%
93%
64.5%
$1,283.7
85%
85%
85%
95%
109%
99%
91%
$978.8
90%
90%
89%
90%
91.9%
93%
84%
$1,006.8
87%
86%
87%
85%
85%
83%
80%
$1,321.7
95%
98%
101%
92%
104.6%
86%
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).
OMB PA
ARRA

6,976
6,380
820
435
585
765
1,210
262
633
760
360
550



-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus






SDW-07



SDW-08


SDW-1 1




SDW-15




SDW-17




SDW-19a
SDW-19b
FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution mining
wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the
potential to endanger underground sources of drinking
water.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells
(MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCCl that are
closed or permitted (cumulative).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
serving <500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 consumers.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number and percent of small CWS and NTNCWS (<500,
501-3,300, 3,301-10,000) with repeat health based
Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP, SWTR and TCR
violations.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 BASELINE (CWS & NTNCWS <1 0,000 w/
repeat Health-Based Viols)
UNIVERSE (CWS & NTNCWS<1 0,000)
National Program Manager Comments
Number and percent of schools and childcare centers that
meet all health-based drinking water standards.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Volume of CO2 sequestered through injection as defined
by the UIC Final Rule.
Number of permit decisions during the reporting period
that result in CO2 sequestered through injection as
denned by the UIC Final Rule.






OMB PA
BUD
SO








90%


6,080
6,076
5,590
5,236
4,576
2,611
90%
90%
2,512
6,074
6,076
5,590
5,236
4,576
2,611
84.0%
84%

795
799
624
735
564
320
n/a
n/a

422
448
416
410
396
311
90%
90%

530
575
482
500
464
261
70%
70%

625
714
681
599
564
369
75%
75%

1,140
1,250
1,230
1,066
936
557
59%
57%

254
227
235
192
160
59
90%
90%

608
583
542
480
427
229
75%
75%

740
726
550
591
479
242
80%
80%

360
308
330
261
225
123
60%
90%

600
446
500
402
361
140
75%
75%



















Combined the 3 classes of mechanical integrity measures into one measure SDW-07a. The denominator for the number of wells with mechanical integrity losses is very small. Typically, Class I, II and III wells are
deep wells and there are many more Class II wells that lose mechanical integrity relative to Classes and III wells (2,800 compared to 8 for Class I and 7 for Class III). The revised measure should improve the
numbers in the denominator of the measure.
OMB PA
BUD

24,327

24,327
22,853
23,671
22,853
1,314
1,309
430
430
3,800
3,700
109
108
4,322
4,110
272
272
378
378
2,346
2,346
3,500
3,000
7,200
7,200




Measure revised for FY12. The measure includes all the wells covered by the EPA 1999 Class V Rule reporting on closed or permitted MVWDW wells. In addition, it allows for reporting on additional types of
high priority wells including, at minimum, Large Capacity Cess (LCC) Pools. Reporting in percentages will not provide good information on progress in closing or permitting the MVWD wells. The new measure,
cumulative numbers of wells, for the MVWDW, will show progress each year against the universe.
I







Indicator
71%
72%
698





65%
72%
138

68%
75%
44

78%
70%
56

58%
30%
43

71%
72%
126

58%
76%
33

83%
80%
70

82%
87%
87

65%
81%
26

77%
80%
75








New measure starting in FY1 1 .
I







Indicator
1,337
2.1%
1,904
3%
66,156






112
3%
164
4%
4,478

184
4%
208
4%
5,189

109
2%
113
2%
6,751

127
1%
218
2%
9,840

85
1%
102
1%
11,261

243
3%
394
4%
9,082

172
4%
288
6%
4,562

71
2%
91
2%
3,690

133
2%
154
3%
5,877

101
2%
172
3%
5,426








New measure starting in FY1 1 .
I







Indicator
7,114
92%
7,260
94%
7,664






1,017
89%
1,057
92%
1,146

708
95%
705
95%
740

1,188
92%
1,179
96%
1,228

647
92%
688
95%
724

1,872
94%
1,933
95%
2,002

334
93%
329
95%
345

195
89%
197
89%
222

236
93%
224
94%
239

505
89%
523
90%
578

412
92%
425
97%
440








New measure starting in FY1 1 .
I
I


Indicator
Indicator
























Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
FS-SP6.N11






Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
BUD
SP






4.9%






2.5%
4.9%
n/a
4.9%
n/a
2.8%














































































2.5%
4.9%
n/a
4.9%
n/a
2.8%
5.7%



4.6%







-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus

FS-la






FS-lb






FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
fication. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
National Program Manager Comments
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)
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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)
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
New measure starting in FY08.
I











Indicator
36%
n/a
39%
24% (840,000)
100%














































































The FY1 1 EOT result is based on data from 2009-2010.
I











Indicator
42%
n/a
43%
35%(14M)
100%(40M)








































































The FY1 1 EOT result is based on data from 2009-2010.
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
SS-SP9.N11








SS-1








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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2010 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of all Tier I (significant) public beaches that are
monitored and managed under the BEACH Act program.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
SO
SP







95%
95%
96%
91%
95%
95%
96%
| 752,683
91.9%
92%
96%
91%
95%
95%
96%
752,683
98%
98%
97.7%
98%
97.2%
n/a
98%
86,226
Universe changes annually. Universe equals the total number of beach se
















773
90.6%
752 (88%)
734 (86%)
736 (86%)
724 (85%)
693 (81%)
536 (63%)
853
773
752
734
736
724
693
536 (63%)
853
76
76
76
76
76
76
75(91%)
82
95%
95%
98%
95%
97%
98%
97.2%
90.834
95%
95%
97.3%
95%
98.2%
99.2%
98.5%
n.861
92%
92%
97.7%
92%
97.7%
96.8%
96.3%
184,609
90%
88%
92%
88%
94%
93.7%
95 5%
50,064
80%
80%
91%
80%
91%
82%
93%
28,146
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
90%
93%
86%
93.1%
93%
95.3%
282,149
95%
95%
99%
95%
95%
98%
92.8%
12,794
















95%







ason days associated with the swimming seasons of monitored beaches.
75
74
72
72
70
67
51(48%)
106
228
227
224
225
221
206
175(74%)
236
18
18
18
18
17
17
9(38%)
24
333
315
305
304
303
294
200(55%)
362
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
24
23
20
22
18
14
7(29%)
24
1





1(100%)
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3(100%)
3
15
15
15
15
15
15
15(100%)
15
















Measure revised for FY08. Beginning in FY08, 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 baseline to demonstrate the real progress for FY08. While national numbers are fairly stable, the Regional baselines did change.
SO





100%
95%
100%
97.5%
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
85%
85%
100%
95%
93%
100%







-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus






FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2010 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments










97%
99.1%
97.6%
96.5%
2,171
97%
99.1%
97.6%
96.5%
2,171
100%
100%
100%
100%
130
100%
100%
100%
100%
394
100%
100%
100%
100%
84
100%
100%
100%
100%
472
100%
100%
100%
100%
354
95%
100%
100%
92%
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
85%
100%
100%
100%
586
93%
93%
81%
80%
74










States may change their designation of beaches at any time. Therefore, these numbers may change from year to year. Universe equals the total number of Tier 1 beaches.
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-
SP10.N11







WQ-SP11






WQ-
SP12.N11







WQ-
SP13.N11


WQ-
SP143.N11



Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining
water quality standards where standards are now fully
attained, (cumulative)
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2002 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment
identified by states in 2002. (cumulative)
FY2012 COM Ml 1 MEM
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed approach, (cumulative)
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Ensure that the condition of the Nation's streams does not
degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant increase in
the percent of streams rated "poor" and no statistically
significant decrease in the streams rated "good").
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2006 BASELINE
Improve water quality in Indian country at baseline
monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show
improvement in one or more of seven key parameters:
dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, pathogen indicators, and turbidity).
(cumulative)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD
SO, KPI
ARRA, SP






3,524






3,524
3,324
3,119
2,973
2,909
2,505
39 503
3,413
3,324
3,119
2,973
2,909
2,505
39 503
152
140
117
117
101
84
6,710
176
171
127
127
126
113
1,805
600
575
557
555
544
431
8,998
524
514
504
504
495
418
5,274
665
665
646
640
630
537
4,550
220
200
190
190
182
170
1,407
394
383
353
302
295
289
2,036
316
314
270
270
270
222
1,274
109
109
105
72
72
51
1,041
257
253
250
196
194
190
6,408







3,360






WQ-SP10.N1 1 differs from previous Measure L, since WQ-SP10.N1 1 uses an updated 2002 baseline. Note: 2000-2002 results equal 1,980 waters - not included above.
BUD






10,711






10,711
10,161
9,527
9,016
8,446
7,530
69,677
10,427
10,161
9,527
9,016
8,446
7,530
69,677
455
420
369
339
320
224
8,826
562
554
456
456
453
384
2,567
1,935
1,835
1,814
1,725
1,703
1,403
13,958
1,210
1,160
1,110
1,110
1,018
912
9,374
3,205
3,205
2,973
3,205
2,796
2,666
10,155
630
615
595
420
412
395
3,005
638
623
550
341
340
324
4,391
611
607
541
541
529
465
3,502
653
619
600
419
419
310
2,742
528
523
519
460
456
447
11,157














The EPA will review the FY12 budget target when preparing the FY13 budget submission.
BUD
SP






352






355
312
271
208
168
104
4,767
355
312
271
208
168
104
4,767
9
8
6
6
5
4
246
25
24
23
23
22
14
300
21
20
18
18
16
12
300
62
56
48
48
40
32
2,000
35
30
23
23
20
10
378
45
45
38
28
17
9
213
9
8
7
7
5
4
169
43
37
31
24
20
17
684
31
30
28
17
15
0
27
75
54
49
14
8
2
450







330






The EPA will review the FY12 budget target when preparing the FY13 budget submission.
OMB PA
SP


SP
OMB PA
BUD



LT


LT



Deferred for FY
2013
Maintain or
improve stream
conditions
28% good; 25%
fair; 42% poor
20
13
1,729
185



20
13
1,729
185




1
160
14



n/a
n/a
14
n/a



n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a



1
1
37
2




2
729
44



1
1
68
1



1
n/a
150
4




2
100
10



8
4
203
43



3
2
268
67
Deferred
forFY
2013
Maintain
or improve
42%



Maintain or
improve
stream
conditions


50


Universe includes two numbers: 1,729 ~ the total number of monitoring stations identified by tribes that are planned for sampling (for one or more of seven key parameters) attunes during the FY12-15 period;
185 - the number or monitoring stations (out of the 1,729) that are located on waters that have a potential for improvement in one or more of seven key parameters. The EPA is targeting 50 of the 185
monitoring locations to show improvement by 2015; thus the National commitment of 13 is out of 50.

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
WQ-
SP14b.Nll

WQ-24.N11





WQ-Ola




WQ-26

WQ-02







WQ-03a








FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Identify monitoring stations on tribal lands that are
showing no degradation in water quality (meaning the
waters are meeting uses), (cumulative)
UNIVERSE
Number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to basic sanitation in coordination with
other federal agencies.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Prosnim M;ni;i£er Comments
Number of states and territories implementing nutrient
reduction strategies by (1) setting priorities on a
watershed or state-wide basis, (2) establishing nutrient
reduction targets, and (3) continuing to make progress
(and provide performance milestone information to EPA)
on adoption of numeric nutrient criteria for at least one
class of waters by no later than 2016. (cumulative)
National Program Manager Comments
Number of Tribes that have water quality standards
approved by EPA. (cumulative)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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 fiom EPA or other
resources not considered in the previous standards.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
SP
I

SP
BUD







LT





Indicator
1,729
185
67,600
56,400
56,875
52,300
43,600
360,000










160
14







14
n/a







n/a
n/a







37
2







729
44







68
1







150
4







100
10







203
43







268
67






Indicator

67,600
56,400
56,875
52,300
43,600
360,000


67,900




New measure in FY11, to supplement WQ-SP15 in the NWPG and replace WQ-SP15 in the new Strategic Plan. The FY11 end of year (EOY) result was reported to the OW IO in January 2012. TheFYll EOY
result met and exceeded both the FY11 and FY12 EOY targets. The program recalibrated the targets in February 20 12 to help ensure that targets are accurate and the program is appropriately measuring
progress. This is a cumulative measure.
SO











47
41
45
49
31
280
46
41
45
46
31
280
1
1
1
1
3
34
7
7
7
7
5
20
5
4
5
5
0
34
6
4
6
6
0
44
4
3
4
4
1
24
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
24
1
n/a
0
1
0
16
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
24
22
22
22
22
22
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
22












Some of the 2011 results may not fully qualify and are under review. Needed adjustments are being made in 2012.
SO

20

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD


Measure is new starting FY 2013. Regional targets are underdevelopment.
















43
39
38
39
37
35
26
60
40
39
38
39
37
35
26
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
11
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
6
8
8
8
8
8
7
3
21
11
10
10
10
10
10
8
14
















Universe reflects all federally recognized Tribes who have applied for "treatment in the same manner as a state" (T AS) to administer the water quality standards program (as of September 2007).
OMB PA
BUD
SO







64.3%







40
71.4%
39 (68%)
39
38 (68%)
38
35
37
56
37
66%
39
39
38 (68%)
38
35
37
56
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
6
1
3
3
3
3
2
1
4
6
6
5
3
3
3
4
6
6
5
5
8
8
6
7
8
5
5
6
5
6
4
4
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
4
4
5
5
4
5
6
4
6
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
4
















FY05 baseline are EOY results fiom the WATA database.

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
WQ-03b








WQ-04a







WQ-06a








WQ-06b







WQ-08a


FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2008 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality
standards from States and Territories that are approved by
EPA.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of Tribes that are providing water quality data in
a format accessible for storage in EPA's data system.
(cumulative)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
















14
38%
14 (38%)
13
13 (37%)
16
17
12 (40%)
37
The universe for FY1 1 and FY12 percenta,
OMB PA
BUD






87%






87%
85%
91%
85%
90.9%
93.2%
54
13
35%
14
13
13 (37%)
16
17
12
37
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
n/a
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a








3
3
3
2
2
3
1
5
n/a
1
1
1
3
2
5
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
4
0
8
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
9
















?es for WQ-3b is the number of authorized tribes that have at least initial EPA approved water quality standards as of September 2010.
73.9%
85%
91%
85%
90%
93.2%
54
75%
75%
100%
75%
98%
75%
1
n/a
75%
100%
85%
100%
100%
1
75%
75%
100%
90%
100%
83%
3
87%
87%
75%
87%
96.7%
100%
10
83%
85%
100%
75%
99%
100%
10
75%
75%
76%
75%
100%
91.7%
16
50%
50%
63.1%
50%
47.2%
55%
2
79%
79%
91.5%
79%
79.6%
96.7%
3
75%
75%
100%
75%
100%
97%
6
66%
66%
100%
50%
77.8%
50%
2














Based on submissions received in the 12 month period ending April 30 of the fiscal year. Partial approvals receive fractional credit. Universe is not applicable because it changes annually based on number of
water quality standards submissions.
















222
213
196
176
161
134
0
261
222
213
196
176
161
134
0
261
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
7
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
5
33
32
32
32
29
29
0
33
30
30
20
20
14
14
0
45
6
5
4
4
3
2
0
7
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
23
86
80
75
55
50
30
0
101
39
38
37
37
37
33
0
39
















A cumulative measure that counts tribes that have developed, submitted to the Region, and begun implementing water monitoring strategies that are consistent with the EPA 106 Tribal Guidance.
















191
178
171
130
107
86
3
261
191
178
171
130
107
86
3
261
4
4
4
4
4
1
0
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
5
25
23
22
22
21
20
0
33
30
28
28
10
10
7
2
45
4
4
3
3
2
1
0
7
21
21
21
21
21
21
1
23
75
70
66
45
30
20
0
101
29
25
25
22
16
14
0
39
















A cumulative measure that counts tribes that are providing surface water data electronically in a format that is compatible with the STORETAVQX system.
OMB PA
BUD
KPI




54,773




2,555
80%
2,215 (69%)
2,846
2,433 (76%)
4,951
147%
1,683
61%
2,215
2,846
2,433
4,951
140
208
253
205
439
0
100
134
40
112
244
547
730
750


229
208
284
337
305
325
325
401
325
437
154
206
214
215
230
101
101
204
106
124
150
150
155
150
184
100
130
131
65
82
240
240
340
240











-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus


WQ-08b






WQ-09a






WQ-09b






	
WQ-09c







WQ-10





FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
National Program Manager Comments
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (S ection 319
funded projects only).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of
phosphorus from nonpoint sources to waterbodies
(Section319 funded projects only).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Estimated annual reduction in million tons of sediment
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (S ection 319
funded projects only).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
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)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT


5,887 (162%)
5,887
340
126
3,413
675
530
186
49
178
80
310


Annual pace is the number of TMDLs needed to be consistent with national policy, i.e. generally within 8 - 13 years of listing of the water as impaired. EPA practice has been for the National Program annual
commitment to equal the Regional Aggregate as this reflects the number of TMDLs that Regions and States are able to develop. The cumulative budget target is calculated based on 80% of pace (FY12: 2,555).
With FY11 numbers final and adjustments made to FY12 regional universe and pace numbers in accordance to WQ-08 measure definitions, EPA will need to adjust the FY12 cumulative budget target as part of
the FY13 budget submission.
OMB PA
BUD
SO





46,331





2,550
80%
2,123 (67%)
2,482
1,999 (64%)
2,262
69%
5.829(162%)
1,653
60%
2,123
2,482
1,999
2,262
5,829
140
208
253
205
439
340
0
100
134
40
112
126
244
530
454
474


3,413
204
193
255
265
249
661
325
325
401
325
437
530
154
181
195
196


146
101
101
165
84
101
49
150
150
155
150
184
178
100
100
131
25
79
76
235
235
339
235
215
310












Annual pace is the number of TMDLs needed to be consistent with national policy, i.e. generally within 8 - 13 years of listing of the water as impaired. EPA practice has been for the National Program annual
commitment to equal the Regional Aggregate as this reflects the number of TMDLs that Regions and States are able to develop. The cumulative budget target is calculated based on 80% of pace (FY12: 2,550).
With FY11 numbers final and adjustments made to FY12 regional universe and pace numbers in accordance with WQ-08 measure definitions, EPA will need to adjust the FY12 cumulative budget target as part
of the FY13 budget submission.
OMB PA
BUD






OMB PA
BUD






8.5 million






4.5 million






8.5 million
8,500,000
12,822,466
8,500,000
9,749,485
9,100,000
3,700,000
4.5 million
4,500,000
4,802,860
4,500,000
2,575,004
3,500,000
558,000


























































































































































8.5 million
8,500,000
3/2012
8,500,000
9,749,485
9,100,000
3,700,000
4.5 million
4,500,000
3/2012
4,500,000
2,575,004
3,500,000
558,000














FY05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY06, a full year of data reported. End-of- Year results are received mid- February of the following year.
OMB PA
BUD






700,000






700,000
700,000
2,006,674
700,000
2,054,869
2,300,000
1,680,000













































































700,000
700,000
3/2012
700,000
2,054,869
2,300,000
1,680,000







FY05 baseline for a 6 month period only. Starting with FY06, a full year of data reported. End-of- Year results are received mid- February of the following year.
OMB PA
BUD
SO





LT





431
394
358
251
215
147
431
394
358
251
215
147
29
27
24
24
19

18
17
15
15
12
6
60
54
49
35
31
16
66
61
57
56
52
36
37
32
27
27
22
18
32
27
26
19
17
11
32
28
21
24
20
16
28
24
20
19
16
13
17
15
14
13
9
3
112
109
105
19
17
12













-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus


WQ-11






WQ-12a








WQ-12b









WQ-13a





WQ-13b



FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Number, and national percent, of follow-up actions that
are completed by assessed NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) programs, (cumulative)
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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 #.]
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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 #.]
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number, and national percent, of MS-4s covered under
either an individual or general permit.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general industrial storm water permit.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
15 15 1025304000
Regions report results. The universe is the estimated waterbodies impaired primarily by nonpoint sources from the 1998 (or 2000 if states did not have a 1998 list) 303(d) lists. Note that this universe shifts each
time anew 303(d) list is developed, so this figure is only an estimate. Only waters on the Success Story website (epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319/) are counted.
I











Indicator
80%
85%
77%
18%
100%

293
253
229
54


29
27
26
6
36

21
21
18
5
27

27
23
22
4
32

29
27
23
9
41

51
44
40
16
66

17
17
17
2
23

33
23
18
6
47

40
28
27
3
39

19
17
15
1
21

27
26
23
2
36












Regional annual commitments and completed NPDES Action Items are confirmed by the HQ Action Items database. Assessed programs include 45 authorized states, 5 unauthorized states (MA, NH, NM, AK,
ID), 1 authorized territory (VI), 3 authorized territories (DC, PR, Pacific Island Territories), and 10 Regions (total of 64 programs) assessed through the Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) program and
subsequent Permit Quality Reviews. Universe of 372 includes all follow-up Actions for which a schedule was established. The universe increases as additional NPDES Action Items are identified through
Regional and HQ program review.
KPI















90%
106,673
88%
100,147
89%
88.4%
100,680
95.4%
108,755
90% (102,196)
87. 8% (96,851)
113,943
88%
100,391
88%
100,147
89%
88.4%
100,680
95.4%
108,755
90% (102,196)
87. 8% (96,851)
113,943
80%
1,494
80%
1,494
81%
80%
1,494
86%
1,595
81%
64%
1,867
87%
2,868
87%
2,868
87.3%
87%
2,868
91%
3,007
89%
94%
3,297
89%
16,128
89%
16,128
92%
89%
16,128
87%
15,743
89%
86%
18,121
85%
15,938
85%
15,938
94%
85%
15,938
91%
16,990
91%
87%
18,750
88%
16,879
88%
16,047
86%
90%
16,442
88%
16,067
88%
87%
18,235
90%
24,434
94%
24,434
98%
94%
24,434
98%
25,572
97%
93%
25,994
90%
8,871
90%
8,871
82.4%
90%
8,871
90%
15,742
90%
82%
9,857
80%
4,402
82%
4,512
79%
85%
4,677
82%
4,534
83%
87%
5,502
80%
2,191
80%
2,191
81%
79%
2,164
84%
2,289
84%
91%
2,739
75%
7,186
80%
7,665
76%
80%
7,665
75%
7,216
83%
77%
9,581
















Targets, commitments, and results will be reported in both percent and number. This measure includes facilities covered by all permits, including State and EPA issued permits. Due to the shifting universe of
permitees, its is important to focus on the national percent. *FY05 data not from ACS.


















90%
400
85%
351
87%
84%
345
88%
363
83% (321)
85% (329)
80% (261)
412
85%
350
85%
351
87%
84%
345
88%
363
83% (321)
85% (329)
80% (261)
412
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0%
0
100%
2
100%
(100%) 2
0
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
100%
2
100%
2
100%
(100%) 2
2
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
11
100%
11
100%
100%
11
100%
11
92%
(100%) 13
16
11
95%
42
95%
43
96%
95%
42
93%
41
100%
(100%) 42
37
45
80%
10
80%
10
93%
90%
12
100%
13
92%
(100%) 10
8
13
100%
16
100%
16
73.3%
100%
16
94%
15
100%
(100%) 16
1
16
90%
187
90%
187
94%
90%
187
97%
202
91%
(95%) 189
140
208
85%
43
85%
43
90%
85%
43
86%
43
76%
(79%) 38
41
50
60%
39
60%
39
55%
50%
33
52%
34
46%
(30%) 17
16
65




















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.
I









Indicator
6,952
6,919
6,541
n/a






520
510
517


1,262
1,262
1,227


991
1,026
1,016


744
675
503


1,813
1,813
1,813


674
626
526


208
258
284


251
263
250


262
260
179


227
226
226











Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-13 a&b.
I







Indicator
84,718
88,788
81,660





3,553
3,489
3,548

4,651
4,412
4,605

6,621
6,337
6,500

19,091
18,577
18,477

20,508
20,508
20,508

13,922
18,065
13,508

6,257
7,576
7,068

4,313
4,866
4,198

1,886
971
766

3,916
3,987
2,482









-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus



WQ-13C





WQ-13d






WQ-14a








WQ-14b






WQ-15a







WQ-16


FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY 2007 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of sites covered under either an individual or
general construction storm water site permit.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2007 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or
general CAFO permit.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
FY 2006 UNIVERSE
National Prosnim M;ni;ieer Comments
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)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT




86,826 I
100% |
























Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-13 a & b.
I









Indicator
168,744
186,874
200,732
242,801






9,127
11,177
7,704


9,955
5,669
17,671


27,974
28,983
19,317


50,835
54,607
75,311


8,172
7,477
7,738


11,643
24,463
17,403


13,931
13,254
12,480

Data did not exist prior to 2007 for WQ-13c.
I











Indicator
7,994
7,882
7,900
8,623
18,972







7
6
6
0
33

566
566
602
624
632

444
333
277
175
770

863
967
1,021
2,131
3,621

2,234
2,145
2,129
1,488
2,523

794
781
890
1,391
4,190

1,521
1,510
1,443
1,239
3,777

16,019
10,013
12,444
	

680
658
618
448
841

14,512
23,339
24,069


6,576
7,892
6,595













198
205
203
296
1,670

687
711
711
831
915












FY05 CAFO data is not from ACS. Note: It is likely the regions overestimated the number of CAFOs covered by a general permit in 2005.
SO















20,724
98.0%
20,814
97.9%
20,977
99.2%
19,782
99.6%
21,487
21,264 (99%)
22,226 (97.8%)
21,151
20,724
98.0%
20,814
97.9%
20,977
99.2%
19,782
99.6%
21,487
21,264
22,226
21,151
1,296
94.0%
1,305
1,301
1,314
1,316
1,314
1,589
1,378
1,555
98.0%
1,595
1,617


1,656
1,756
1,882
1,587
1,655
98.0%
1,696
1,662
1,690
1,710
1,728
1,790
1,689
3,470
98.1%
3,460
3,467
3,460
3,539
3,601
3,932
3,539
4,390
100.0%
4,400
4,524
3,420
4,903
4,540
4,899
4,400
1,976
98.3%
1,976
1,972
1,976
1,997
1,997
2,132
2,010
980
97.1%
980
983
980
995
1,006
829
1,009
647
98.3%
647
647
647
647
658
592
658
4,088
97.0%
4,088
4,137
4,088
4,137
4,088
4,019
4,214
667
100.0%
667
667
587
587
576
562
667
















All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from year to year.
I











Indicator
81%
77%
80%
91.2%
100%

1,306
1,278
1,315
1,015
1,606

45
45
45
44
45

64
71
72
117
72

67
68
68
74
75

267
283
299
31
321

463
521
542
458
630

124
124
124
17
124

191
84
81
31
243

36
36
36
45
42

6
6
6
0
6

43
40
42
198
48












All universe numbers are approximate as they shift from year to year.
OMB PA
BUD
SO






<22.5%






<22.5%
<22.5%
n/a
<22.5%
<22.5%
19.7%
6,643

n/a
n/a
<22.5%
<22.5%
19.7%
6,643

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
25.0%
426

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
28.7%
582

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.0%
757

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
20.7%
1,345

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
17.7%
1,167

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
23.7%
1,087

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
17.7%
396

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.0%
260

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.7%
347

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.3%
276
<22.5%
<22.5%
n/a
<22.5%










HQ reports results by Region. FY08 commitment for WQ-15a of <22.5% is a 3 yr. average that shows overall trends. No regional commitments are set.
OMB PA
BUD


86%


3,644.68
86%
86%
86 7%

3,665
4.336






























3,644.68
86%
3,665
4 336



                                                                                                                                      10

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus




WQ-17








WQ-19a








WQ-19b








WQ-22a




WQ-23





WQ-25a




FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreement dollars
to the cumulative funds available for projects] for the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE (in billions)
National Program Manager Comments
Number of high priority state NPDES permits that are
issued in the fiscal year.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of high priority state and EPA (including tribal)
NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of urban water projects initiated addressing
water quality issues in the community.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments




OMB PA
BUD
ARRA











94.5%







86%
86.9%
3,670
100%
94.5%
94.5%
98%
94.5%
100%
98%
94.7%
$84.5
4,256
4,334
3,670
4,238
95.5%
94.5%
98%
94.5%
100%
98%
94.7%
$84.5




94%
94%
104%
94%
108%
102%
110%
$8.1




90%
90%
95%
90%
95%
90%
94%
$16.6




93%
92%
95%
92%
96%
92%
89%
$7.3




95%
95%
99%
96%
100%
102%
95%
$9.9




100%
100%
97%
95%
102%
98%
98%
$18.1




97%
96%
95%
95%
94%
94%
91%
$8.0




96%
92%
98%
93%
101%
n/a
88%
$4.4




94%
95%
96%
95%
98%
93%
91%
$2.7




96%
95%
107%
94%
111%
109%
93%
$6.8




100%
98%
103%
95%
100%
104%
98%
$2.5
4,256
4,334
3,670
4,238




















Universe represents the cumulaitve funds available for projects for the CWSRF, in billions of dollars (i.e., the denominator of the measure). Targets include all funds (ARRA and Base).
OMB PA
BUD
SO







80%







655
652
943
702
1,008 (142%)
1,026
601 (104%)
824
545
653
943
702
1,008
1,026
601
792
11
14
27
13
16
16
9
13
24
29
41
24
40
42
22
24
80
137
157
167
142
125
21
167
64
80
158
80
181
253
91
80
143
124
161
93
197
204
265
179
56
56
82
57
91
122
125
57
95
95
160
116
194
164
32
116
41
54
66
67
62
56
22
67
16
20
26
16
43
36
3
20
15
44
65
69
42
8
11
69
















Starting in FY13, results can no longer exceed 100% issuance due to a refinement of the measure definition, and the target was revised accordingly. The universe used to calculate percentage results changed from
the number of permits committed to issuance in the current fiscal year to the total number of permits selected as priority.
BUD







80%







727
80%
719
1,005
763
1,097 (144%)
1,118
59 (104%)
913
583
720
1,005
763
1,097
1,118
59
852
23
31
50
29
53
36
16
29
37
39
54
37
49
54
9
37
81
138
158
169
145
130
0
169
64
80
158
80
181
253
0
80
143
124
161
93
197
204
0
179
57
59
86
59
95
132
1
59
96
108
161
121
194
165
8
121
44
57
68
69
62
58
6
69
18
23
31
20
62
48
0
23
20
61
78
86
59
38
19
86
















Starting in FY13, results can no longer exceed 100% issuance due to a refinement of the measure definition, and the target was revised accordingly. The universe used to calculate percentage results changed from
the number of permits committed to issuance in the current fiscal year to the total number of permits selected as priority.
I



New measurt
OMB PA
BUD








forFYll.
91%




Indicator
4
0
10

93%
92.5%
n/a
92%
91%











1
0
1







0
0
1







1
0
1







1
0
1







1
0
1







0
0
1







0
0
1







0
0
1







0
0
1







0
0
1











92.5%
92.5%
n/a
92%
91%










The final FY11 end of year result is sheduledto be available by May 20 12, after the State of Alaska has conducted its annual housing count in March/April. The universe is not applicable since units are percent
of serviceable homes.
BUD



3



10
3
TBD
TBD




















































New measure for FY12: will be reported on if grants funding is provided as proposed in the FY12 President's Budget. The baseline will be established with the first reporting cycle in FY12.
                                                                                                                                        11

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
WQ-25b



Subobjective 2
CO-222.N11








CO-SP20.N11







CO-02






CO-04





CO-06




CO-432.N11

FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Number of urban water projects completed addressing
water quality issues in the community.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2004 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
2012 UNIVERSE
Total coastal and non-coastal statutory square miles
protected from vessel sewage by "no discharge zone(s)."
(cumulative)
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that are monitored in the reporting year.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
2012 UNIVERSE
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).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
BUD



0



N/A
N/A
TBD
TBD




















































New measure for FY12: will be reported on if grants funding is provided as proposed in the FY12 President's Budget. The baseline will be established with the first reporting cycle in FY12.

OMB PA
SP
BUD







LT







2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.3
5


























































































2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.3
5

>2.8







Rating consists of a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
BUD
SP







I





95%













95%
96%
93%
98%
90.1%
99%
94% (60)
65
Indicator
54,494
53,635
33,966,990
52,607
163,129
95%
96%
93%
98%
90.1%
99%
60
65






100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5
5

3,019
3,132
1,897,585
2,511
6,453
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
3
3

2,340.33
1,580.33
821,490
1,271
5,995
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2
2

65.17
65.17
41,711
65
7,882
90%
90%
74%
90%
74%
95%
17
19

3,084.77
2,872
1,775,702
2,775
24,128
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

45,701
45,701
29,248,806
45,701
55,419
75%
79%
79%
94%
57%
100%
15
14

2
2
1,280
2
9,905
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0
0
0
0
568
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

254
254
162,560
254
1,749
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
12

28
28
17,856
28
9,883
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7
10

0
0
0
0
41,145














95%













As of FY10, the universe consists of the total area of water eligible to be designated as an NDZ under the current regulations (in statutory square miles). Note the change in units of measure fiom FY08 to FY10
(FY08: linear miles, FY09: acres, FY10: statutory square miles).
I









Indicator
$662
$274.3
$514.6
$158.8






$530
$71.3
$337.6
$12.3

$29
$12.6
$14.8
$46.9

$11
$9.3
$10.1
$7.7

$31
$43.1
$65.6
$19.1

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

$10
$5.8
$12.5
$4.5

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

$7
$25.1
$21
$51

$44
$107.1
$53
$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 fiom a successful grant proposal written by the NEP.
I




OMB PA
BUD
SP






100,000

Indicator
33
33
38
65
100,000
100.000





45,655
45742

1
3
2
5
2,500
2543

2
1
1
3
1,255
1,258

2
2
2
2
2,400
2 650

12
6
6
19
30,000
30000

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2
5
11
14
3,000
3 000

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2
6
6
12
1,000
1 000

12
10
10
10
5,500
5,291












600,000

                                                                                                                                      12

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus





Subobjective 2
WT-
SP21.N11




WT-SP22






WT-01







WT-02a






FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments










62,213
100,000
89,985
125,437
449,241
62,21
42,64
89,98
125,4 7
449,2 1
6,259.6
3,684
3,955.37
6,184
14,562
1,350.9
1,105
1,435.8
1,690
15,009
5,403
3,500
3,052.08
4,642
33,793
29,723.8
30,000
67,142.6
101,792
232,605
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5,269.3
3,000
740
3,943
54,378
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9,059.9
200
8,670
4,861
82,363
5,146.7
1,155
4,989.34
2,325
16,531





The FY13 planning target is higher than the regional aggregates because the planning target aligns with the target included in the FY13 budget.
.2.3 Increase Wetlands
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of wetlands
nation wide, with additional focus on coastal wetlands,
and biological and functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
National Program Manager Comments
Number of acres restored and improved, under the 5-Star,
NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs (cumulative).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2006 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
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.)
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
SP







Deferred for FY
2013
Net Increase &
Maintain
Coastal
Deferred
32.000












































Deferred
forFY
2013
Net
Increase &
Maintain
Deferred
32,000





Net
Increase



FY05 end-of-year data not from ACS. The next Status and Trends Report (2011) will show anew downward trend. Data source: U.S. DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Status and Trends of Wetlands
in the Conterminous United States 2005-09, Washington, DC. The overall decline in wetland area is complex and potentially reflected economic conditions, land use trends, changing wetland regulation and
enforcement measures, conservation initiatives, the impacts of the 2005 hurricane season, and climatic changes.
Qualifying language: The 2005-09 reporting period of this measure reflects that the data: a) are published in 5-year increments, which creates a fixed numerical target until the next report publication; and b) are
already at least two years old upon publication. Thus, at any given time, reporting against this measure is never current.
BUD





No Net
Loss





No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss


































































No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss






Data source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ORM2 Regulatory Program Database. Please note that there is a data lag with this measure. Reports for the fiscal year reflect the previous calendar year.
BUD






180,000






180,000
170,000
154,000
150,000
130,000
103,507
58,777













































































180,000
170,000
154,000
150,000
130,000
103,507
58,777







These acres may include those supported by Wetland 5 Star Restoration Grants, National Estuary Program, Section 319 grants, Brownfields grants, or EPA's Great Waterbodies Program. Commitment represents
a cumulative total. Unexpected accomplishments inFY06, particularly in the National Estuary Program, contributed significantly to the total number of wetland acres restored and enhanced.
I











Indicator
54
47
22
20
584







6
5
6
6
9

0
0
0
0
7

5
5
5
3
5

3
1
3
7
6

4
4
4
0
36

3
3
0
0
68

4
3
1
1
9

16
13
0
3
27

2
5
1
0
146

11
8
2
0
271












Intended to allow us to track work of all states/tribes (those just starting to build wetland programs and those that are improving well developed programs). Tracks the number of states/tribes that have
substantially built or increased capacity in wetland regulation, monitoring and assessment, water quality standards, and/or restoration and protection. Substantially built or increased capacity is defined as
completing two or more of the actions found in the tables found at: epa.gov/owow/estp/. This measure is evaluated annually and is an indicator of where states and tribes are focusing their wetland development
effort, the baseline resets to zero annually and is not a cumulative measure. This measure has revised measure language beginning FY10, which means FY10 results cannot be compared to previous years.
                                                                                                                                      13

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
WT-03


FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
fication. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
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.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
National Program Manager Comments
I



Indicator
88%

77%

100%

0%

85%

93%

90%

75%

82%

91%

100%

57%




Tracking capabilities began in January '10. Tracking totals will appear in FY11. Reported on by Regions and HQ.
^"Requirements for greater environmental protection" are counted under this measure when EPA can document that its recommendations for improvement provided in one or more of the following issue areas
were incorporated into the final permit decision:
1 . Demonstration of adequate impact avoidance, including:
a) Determination of water dependency, b) Characterization of basic project purpose; c) Determination of range of practicable alternatives; d) Evaluation of direct, secondary and cumulative impacts for
practicable alternatives; e) Identification of Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative; f) Compliance with WQS, MPRSA, ESA and/or toxic effluent standards; g) Evaluation of potential for
significant degradation.
2. Demonstration of adequate impact minimization
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
5,000/year). Regional priorities dictate the specific permits for which EPA submits comments. This number is typically less than 5,000.
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
GL-433.N11








GL-SP29






GL-SP31








GL-SP32.N11







Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes
by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic
ecosystems.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Cumulative percentage decline for the long term trend in
average concentrations of PCBs in Great Lakes fish.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
National Program Manager Comments
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all
management actions necessary for delisting have been
implemented (cumulative)

FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment
remediated in the Great Lakes (cumulative from 1997).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
OMB PA
SP
BUD







23.4







23.4
3.9
1.9
3.4
2.7
3.9
1.5
40








































23.4
23.9
21.9
23.4
22.7
23.9
21.5
40

















































At least
24.7







This measure provides a general indication of progress of numerous state and federal programs, with a specific focus on coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic health,
fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition.
OMB PA
BUD





43%





43%
40%
44%
37%
43%
6%






























43%
40%
44%
37%
43%
6%










































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%. 2000 is the baseline year. A 2-year lag between
measurement and reporting means that the FY13 target pertains to measurements made in 20011. In FY2012, 2010 data is compared to 2000; inFY 2013, 2012 data is compared to 2000; and so forth.
OMB PA
BUD







4







4
3
2
1
1
1
1
31








































4
3
2
1
1
1
1
31
























































This measure identifies the cumulative target for taking all necessary management actions to delistthe original 31 US or binational Areas of Concern. Through FY2011, such management actions have been taken
at 2 AOCs (in New York and Pennsylvania).
OMB PA
BUD
SP







9.6 million







9.6 million
8.7 million
8.4 million
7.2 million
7.3 million
6 million
3.7 million
46 million








































9.6 million
8.7 million
8.4 million
7.2 million
7.3 million
6 million
3.7 million
46 million
















































10.2
million







                                                                                                                                      14

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus

GL-05







	
GL-06






GL-07






GL-08





GL-09





GL-10






FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
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
National Program Manager Comments [information and subsequent decisions, information verification, and actual remediations. Information lags behind (i.e. the 2013 commitment is for calendar year 2012 sediment remediation).
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within
Areas of Concern, (cumulative)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments 	
Number of normative species newly detected in the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established,
mock exercises to practice responses carried out under
those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of days of the beach season that the Great Lakes
beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Acres managed for populations of invasive species
controlled to a target level (cumulative).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened
and endangered species self-sustaining in the wild
(cumulative).
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD







New measurt
BUD





41







added for
0.8





41
31
26
26
12
12
11
261
"Y09 from 2007
0.8
0.8
1
1.1
1
181








3MB PA review.


































































41
31
26
26
12
12
11
261

0.8
0.8
1
1.1
1
181









































































































During the ten-year period prior to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (2000-2009), thirteen new invasive species were believed to be discovered within the Great Lakes. This is a baseline rate of invasion of
1.3 species per year. NOAA scientists have since reclassified the detection dates of three species based on a reassessment and categorization of available data. This alters the baseline to 1.0 species per year (10
species from 2000-2009). The FY 2012 and FY 2013 targets of 0.8 are based on this new baseline of 1.0 species per year. These targets also assume the same rate of detection (one species over the five years of
the Action Plan) as the original targets.
BUD





New measurt
BUD




New measurt
BUD




15





starting in
90%




starting in
18,000




15
10
8
7
0
n/a
FY11, added fton
90%
90%
80%
92%
100%
FY12, replacing t]
18,000
2,600
13,045
1,500
0






the Great Lakes
92%
93%
80%


le following meas











Restoration





ure in the G











nitiative Ad
90%
94%
n/a


.RI Action P











on Plan. Tar
95%
95%
98.9%


an: "Percent











get increasec





age of beach





15
10
8
7
0
n/a
in FY 2013
90%
90%
62%
92%
55,026
es meeting b
18,000
2,600
13,045
1,500
0






President's E





cteria stand











udget.





ffds 95 perct

















nt or more o

















"beach days

















"









































The unprecedented level of funding for invasive species work capitalized on a backlog of projects and appears to have achieved economies of scale due to significantly larger projects. Approximately 4,800 acres
of this effort contribute to efforts to protect, restore, and enhance costal habitat (GL-12) and are also included in the results for that measure. Reporting for this measure relies heavily upon receiving and validating
information from funding recipients (grantees, states, federal agencies, sub-grantees).
BUD





34%
50





34%
50
35%
51
31%
35%
52
27%
147
Targets for FY12 were changed in the FY
T&E and non-candidate species that are se































34%
50
35%
51
31%
35%
52
27%
147










































3 President's Budget. New measure starting in FY1 1, added fiom the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-
f-sustaining in the wild. Denominator: total # of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations. Baseline: 39/147 populations.
                                                                                                                                      15

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
GL-11






GL-12





GL-13






GL-15




GL-16





Subobjective 2
CB-SP33.N11








CB-SP34




FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats
protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
FY2012CO\I\IIT\IKNT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of species delisted due to recovery.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive
phosphorus (metric tons per year) from tributaries
draining targeted watersheds.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
National Program Manager Comments
Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation
practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or
pesticide loading.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosys
Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of
185,000 acres achieved, based on annual monitoring from
prior year.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards
attainment achieved, based on annual monitoring from the
previous calendar year and the preceding 2 years.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
BUD





13,000





13,000
7,500
9,624
7,500
0
550,000






























13,000
7,500
9,624
7,500
0
550,000










































New measure starting in FY1 1, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
BUD





20,000





20,000
20,000
12,103
20,000
0
1,000,000








	


















20,000
20,000
12,103
20,000
0
1,000,000










































New measure starting in FY1 1, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. FY 2012 target was adjusted in FY 2013 Presidents Budget.
BUD





2





2
1
1
1
0
28






























2
1
1
1
0
28










































New measure starting in FY11, added from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. Target is cumulative starting in 2011.
BUD



1.0%



1.0%
0.5%
n/a
0.5%




















1.0%
0.5%
n/a
0.5%




























Sufficient historical data does not currently exist to allow for calculation of 5-year averages for all applicable watersheds. Measure under revision.
BUD




20%




20%
8%
62%
2%
165,000

























20%
8%
62%
2%
165,000



































New measure starting in FY11. The commitments measure annual percentage increases from the FY05 baseline of 165,000 acres. The acres tracked in this measure are not cumulative but are for new
conservation practices implemented in a given fiscal year. The percentage increase will vary considerably fiom year to year due to funding, the conservation universe, and the difficulty of conservation practices.
:em
OMB PA
SP







LT







Long Term
Measure
Long Term
43%
Long Term
46% (85,914)
42% (76,861)
39% (72,945)
185.000
























Long Term
Measure
Long Term
43%
Long Term
46%
42%
39%
185,000

































































50%
(92,500)







EPA has set a long term target of 50% goal achievement in 2015.
OMB PA




LT




Long Term
Measure
Long Term
38.5%
12%
16% (12.27
km')















Long Term
Measure
Long Term
38.5%
12%
16%













































                                                                                                                                      16

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus



CB-SP35





CB-SP36





CB-SP37





Subobjective 2
GM-435








GM-SP38






	
GM-SP39

FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
es include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Perfor
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congre
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen
pollution reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus
pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment
pollution reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
.2.6 Restore and Protect 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.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2004 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality
standards in impaired segments in 13 priority areas.
(cumulative starting in FY 07)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2002 BASELINE
TTrVTvyRgjE
Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of
acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
(cumulative starting in FY 07)
FY2012 COMMITMENT


^

100% (74.8
km')
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ss in September 2010.






30%
100%


















Historic data for measure changed due to new assessment method adopted during development of the Bay TMDL. Results from FY11 EOY reflect new method, past results reported here reflect the old method.
The revised historic results are FY05: 42%; FY08: 40.5%; FY09: 42.1%; FY10: 39.4%. Long term budget target is 40% by FY 2015. Efforts by Bay jurisdictions and EPA to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution are essential for achieving the target and will be a challenge to implement, ncreasing water temperatures (due to climate change) will add additional challenges to our ability to achieve the FY15 target.
OMB PA
BUD




22 5%




22.5%
15%
8%
0%
100%















22.5%
15%
8%
0%
100%













































FY 2013 target is based on a straighfline trajectory to achieve 60% by FY 2018.
OMB PA
BUD




22.5%




22.5%
15%
1%
0%
100%















22 5%
15%
1%
0%
100%













































FY 2013 target is based on a straighfline trajectory to achieve 60% by FY 2018.
OMB PA
BUD




22 5%




22.5%
15%
10%
0%
100%















22.5%
15%
10%
0%
100%













































FY 2013 target is based on a straighfline trajectory to achieve 60% by FY 2018.

BUD







The rating is
BUD







BUD

2.4







based on fiv
360







30,600

2.4
2.4
NCCR IV Not
Available
2.6
NCCR IV Not
Available
2.2
2.4
5
e indicators of ec
360
290
286
128
170
131
0
812
30,600
30,600








ogical condition


















water qualit


















y index, sedi


















ment quality


















index, benth


















c index, coa


















tal habitat in


















dex, and fisl


















tissue conta


















minants inde


















x










2.4
2.4
n/a
2.6
n/a
2.2
2.4
5

360
290
286
128
170
131
0
812
30,600
30,600




















                                                                                                                                      17

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus







GM-
SP40.N11





FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
fication. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
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.
FY 2012 COMM1 1 ME,N 1
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE






Coastal habit
SP












at includes n







30,052
30,000
29,552
29,344
16,000
3,769,370
narshes, wetlands
Deferred for FY
2013
Deferred
17,520km2
Deferred
20,000 km2
n/a
14,128km2






tidal flats, oyster













beds, seagra













sses, mangrc













ves, dunes a]













tid maritime













forest ridge a













reas.































































30,052
30,000
29 552
29,344
16,000
3,769,370

Deferred
Deferred
17,520
Deferred
20,000
n/a
14,128
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
LI-SP41







LI-SP42.N11








LI-SP43






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
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 1999 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Reduce the size (square miles) of observed hypoxia
(Dissolved Oxygen <3mg/l) in Long Island Sound.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat from
the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 BASELINE
BUD






76%





76%
74%
69%
55%
70% (33,703
TE Ibs/day)
55% (39,011
TE Ibs/day)
1 59,146 TE
| Ibs/day














76%
74%
69%
55%
70%
55%
59,146






































































5,000km2














Measure tracked in Trade Equalized (TE) Ibs/day TE Ibs/day are pounds of nitrogen adjusted by application of an equivalency factor assigned to each point source based on its proximity to the receiving water
body(LIS). The TMDL established a Waste Load Allocation of 22,774 TE Ibs/day from point sources, to be achieved over a 15 year period beginning in 2000. The annual commitments are calculated by dividing
the difference between the 1999 baseline and 2014 target by 15 (the TMDL period), or 2,425 TE Ibs/day per year.
SP















Deferred for FY
2013
Deferred
130 sq miles; 54
days
Deferred
101 sq miles; 40
days
169 sq. miles;
45 days
1 87 sq miles;
58.6 days
1,400 sq miles
(total); 122 days
(actually
monitored)
















Deferred
Deferred
130; 54
Deferred
101; 40
169; 45
187; 58.6
1,400; 122








































































15%
	






New measure starting in FY08. Due to inter-annual variability, annual reduction targets are not calculated for this measure. Note on Universe: The 13 year pre- TMDL year average measured maximum area of
hypoxia in the Sound is 208 square miles.
BUD






480 acres






480 acres
218 acres
890%
832%
740%
(1,361)
1,614
1,1 99 restored
& protected














480 acres
218 acres
890%
832%
740%
(1,361)
1,614
1,199






































































                                                                                                                                      18

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus

LI-SP44







FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
fication. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
National Program Manager Comments
Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to diadromous
fish passage from the 2010 baseline of 1 77 river miles by
removal of dams and barriers or by installation of bypass
structures.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
The long-term percentage goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY10. The EPA revised this measure in FY12 to measure actual acres to be restored instead of percent of goal achieved. The EPA
will establish annual targets with partners to measure annual progress.
BUD






Similes






Similes
28 miles
72%
92%
72%
147
124














51 miles
28 miles
72%
92%
72%
147
124






































































The long-term percentage goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY11. The EPA revised this measure in FY12 to measure actual miles to be reopened instead of percent of goal achieved. The EPA
will establish annual targets with partners to measure annual progress.
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
PS-SP49.N11








PS-SP51








Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas
impacted by degraded or declining water quality.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2007 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Restore acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
estuarine wetlands, (cumulative starting in FY 06)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2007 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
BUD
SP







7,758







7,758
3,878
1,525
4,953
4,453
1,730
322
30,000
















































































7,758
3,878
1,525
4,953
4,453
1,730
322
30,000









4,300







New measures starting in FY08. Baseline is the end-of-year data for FY07.
BUD







24,063







24,063
19,063
14,629
12,363
10,062.7
5,751
4,152
45,000
















































































24,063
19,063
14,629
12,363
10,062.7
5,751
4,152
45,000
















New measures starting in FY08. Baseline is the end-of-year data for FY07.
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
MB-SP23






MB-
SP24.N11








Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed
(cumulative minion pounds/year) fiom the U.S.-Mexico
Border area since 2003.
FY2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2003 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water
in the U.S. -Mexico border area that lacked access to safe
drinking water in 2003 .
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2003 BASELINE
FY 2003 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD





121.5





121.5
115
108.55
108.2
18.7
0
121.3
115
108.55
108.2
18.7
0






























95.6
93.1
87
87

0












25.7
21.9
21.55
21.2

0










18.7








Measure first reported in FY10. FYlO's target and result represent annual progress only. Starting in FY1 1, the program will report cumulative progress from 2003 to the current measure- year. 2003 Baseline:
zero pounds/year of BOD removed fiom U.S.-Mexico Border area waters as a result of new infrastructure projects.
OMB PA
BUD
SP







3,000







3,000
1,000
2,604
2,000
21,650
1,584
0
98.515
3,000
1,000
2,604
2,000
21,650
1,584
0









































3,000
1,000
2,604
2,000
19,751
1,584
0

















n/a
n/a
0
0
1,899
0
0

















73,886
cumulative







Measure is regionally reported starting in FY09. FY03 Baseline: zero additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico Border area. FY03 Universe: 98,515 known homes in the Mexico Border
area lacking access to safe drinking water.
                                                                                                                                      19

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
MB-
SP25.N11
	






FY 2013 Measure Text
"Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
fication. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
Number of additional homes provided adequate
wastewater sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico border area that
lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2003 BASELINE
FY 2003 UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
OMB PA
BUD
SP







27,000







27,000
10,500
259,371
207,000
75,175
43,594
0
27,000
10,500
259,371
207,000
75,175
43,594
0









































7,000
9,000
239,871
190,000
71,926
39,477
0

















20,000
1,500
19,500
17,000
3,249
4,117
0

















Measure is regionally reported starting in FY09. FY03 Baseline: zero additional homes provided wastewater sanitation the U.S. -Mexico Border area. FY03 Universe: 690,723 known homes in the U.S
Border area lacking access to wastewater sanitation.
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
PI-SP26







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.

FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
BUD






82%






82%
80%
87%
75%
82%
80%
95% American
Samoa; 10%
Commonwealth
ofNorthern
Mariana Islands;
80% Guam































































82%
80%
87%
75%
82%
80%
95% AS,
10%
CNMI,
80% GU














518,042
cumulative

















New measure starting in FY08.
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
SFL-SP45






SFL-SP46



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).
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National 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 monitoring project that addresses
composition and abundance, productivity, and nutrient
availability.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
I











Indicator
Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Loss
6.8% in
FKNMS; 5.9%
in SE Florida
























Indicator
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
Loss
6.8%
FKNMS;
5.9% SE
FL

















































New measures starting in FY08. Measure change to Indicator in FY 2011. Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7% was revised to 6.8%. The Coral 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 CREMP indicated that sampling a reduced number of stations at sites with low stony coral cover would still
produce statistically valid results.
I







Indicator
Maintained
Maintained
Not maintained
















Indicator
Maintained
Maintained
Not
maintained
































                                                                                                                                       20

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus


SFL-SP47a







SFL-SP47b






SFL-SP48







FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
es include: OMB PA (OMB Program Assessment); BUD (Budget Measure); SG (State Grant Measure); KPI (Key Perfor
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congre
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in
the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary will 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.

FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 1995-2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
At least seventy five percent of the monitored stations in
the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary will 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 .
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 1995-2005 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as
measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 1 0
parts per billion (ppb) total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the
effluent limits for discharges from stormwater treatment
areas.
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
1 1 El = 8.3;
| | SCI=0.48
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ss in September 2010.





SCI=0.48








New measures starting in FY08. Measure changed to Indicator in FY1 1 . El = Elemental Indicator; SCI = Species Composition Index.
BUD






75%






75%
75%
85.4%
75%
Maintained
CHLA<0.35
ug/L(75.7%);
Kd< 0.20m"1
(74.6%)
154




























75%
75%
85.4%
75%
Maintained
CHLA<
0.35 ug/L
(75.7%);
Kd<
0.20m-l
(74.6%)
154
























































New measure starting in FY1 1 .
BUD






BUD






75%






Maintain P
baseline






75%
75%
73.6%
75%
Maintained
DIN < 0.75 uM
(76.3%);
TP<0.25uM
(80.9%)
154
Maintain P
baseline
Maintain
phosphorus
baseline
Measure not
Met
Maintain P
baseline & meet
discharge limits
Not maintained
Not maintained
See comments
























































75%
75%
73.6%
75%
Maintained
76.3%;
80.9%
154
Maintain P
baseline
Maintain P
baseline
Measure
not Met
Maintain P
baseline &
meet
discharge
limits
Not
maintained
Not
maintained

















































































































New measure starting in FY08. FY05 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 18 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow - weighted total phosphorus discharges from Stormwater Treatment Areas ranged from 13 ppb for area
3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W.
                                                                                                                                         21

-------
APPENDIX E: Detailed Measures Appendix
FY 2013 ACS
Code
Congressional Jus
SFL-1




FY 2013 Measure Text
*Measure
Groups
"FY
2013
Budget
Target
FY2013
Planning
Target
Regional
Aggregates
Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
HQ
"""SP
Target
(FY2015)
ification. *** Strategic Plan targets (FY 2015) are from the EPA FY 2011-15 Strategic Plan, submitted to Congress in September 2010.
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.
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 BASELINE
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
I







Indicator
42,000
32,000
75,000
















Indicator
42,000
32,000
75,000
































New measure starting in FY1 1 .
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
CR-SP53








CR-SP54





Clean up acres of known contaminated sediments.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)
FY 2012 COMMITMENT
FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2010 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2009 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY 2008 END OF YEAR RESULT
UNIVERSE
National Program Manager Comments
Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentration of certain
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue.
(cumulative starting in FY 06)

FY 2011 END OF YEAR RESULT
FY2011 COMMITMENT
FY 2005 BASELINE
National Program Manager Comments
















80
63
63
60
20
10
0
400
















































































80
63
63
60
20
10
0
400

















New measures starting in FY08.










10%
Deferred
92%
10%
5 sites


















































10%
Deferred
92%
10%
5 sites










Measure was updated in 20 12 for 2014. Commitment deferred for FY12 however, the EPA plans to report EOY results in FY12. Sites: Oregon: West Prong, Little Walla Walla River, South of Stateline Road for
Chlorpyrifos and Azinphos methyl; Oregon: North Fork Deep Creek (Clackamas Sub-basin) for Chlorpyrifos; Washington: Walla Walla River, RM 14.3 for DDT and Washington: Yakima River, RM 18-30 for
DDT. For detailed information on the baseline, see http://www.epa.gov/regionlO/pdf/columbia/basehne document 2009-2014.pdf
                                                                                                                                       22

-------
       mental Protection Agency
      'ennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (6207J)
Washington, DC 20460

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
                     le • Printed on 100% Postconsumer, Pi
led Paper that has b

-------