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
------- |