NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM
MID-YEAR REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2010
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
August 2010
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Overview of FY 2010 Mid-Year Performance 4
Measures Highlighted for Discussion 6
FY 2010 National Water Program Measures Appendix 16
2
-------
Introduction
In May 2009, the National Water Program published the National Water Program
Guidance describing how EPA, States, Tribes, and others would work together in FY
2011 to implement the water elements of the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. This FY 2010
Mid-Year Performance Report describes the progress being made in 2010 towards the
goals and objectives described in the Guidance and the EPA Strategic Plan. The FY
2010 Guidance is available on the internet at
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/goals_objectives/waterplan/fy10.cfm, as is this Report.
This FY 2010 Mid-Year Performance Report is based on materials and analysis
developed by teams of Headquarters and EPA Regional staff addressing each of the
fifteen sub-objectives within the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan related to the National
Water Program (see table I, below). The materials developed by these subobjective
teams provide data concerning progress toward environmental and public health goals.
Much of the work of the National Water Program is accomplished through grants and
this Report serves as the Office of Water's primary summary of progress under the
Environmental Results Grants Order.
This report includes the following key
elements:
¦ An overview of FY 2010 mid-year
performance of National Water Program
performance measures,
¦ A report out on specific measures
highlighted for discussion during the FY
2010 Mid-Year Oversight Group
meeting, and
¦ A comprehensive appendix
displaying the FY 2009 status, FY 2010
results and FY 2011 target for all FY
2010 National Water Program
measures.
Program Contacts
For additional information concerning this
Report and supporting measures, contact:
¦ Michael Shapiro; Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water
¦ Louise Kitamura; Acting Senior Budget Officer; Office of Water
¦ Michael Mason; Senior Program Analyst; Office of Water
Internet Access: This FY 2010 Mid-Year Performance Report and supporting
documents are available at
(http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/goals_objectives/waterplan/fy10.cfm).
Table I
National Water Program - Key Subobjectives
1)
Water Safe to Drink
2)
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
3)
Water Safe for Swimming
4)
Restore and Improve Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis
5)
Protect Coastal and Ocean
Waters/Estuaries
6)
Protect Wetlands
7)
Protect Mexico Border Water Quality
8)
Protect the Pacific Island Waters
9)
Protect and Restore the Great Lakes
10)
Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay
11)
Protect the Gulf of Mexico
12)
Protect the Long Island Sound
13)
Protect the South Florida Ecosystems
14)
Protect the Puget Sound Basin
15)
Protect the Columbia River Basin
3
-------
Overview of FY 2010 MY Performance
Of the 136 performance measures in FY 2010,
¦ 74 measures reported data (62 commitment measures and 12 indicator
measures)
¦ 62 measures were exempt from FY 2010 mid-year reporting (i.e., measures that
report data on an annual basis are exempt from reporting)
At mid-year in FY 2010, 82% (51) of 2010 performance measures were on target; 13%
(8) measures were not on target; and 5% (3) measures had data unavailable. These
numbers do not include the 12 indicator measures reported at mid-year.
FY 2010 Mid-Year Results
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
82%
13%
5%
On Target
Not on Target
Data Unaxrailable
Although the Office of Water can reasonably expect performance trends to change by
the end of the year, historically speaking, FY 2010 mid-year performance indicates
improved performance at the time of mid-year than in previous years.
Mid-Year Results in FY 2008, 2009 and 2010
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
81 % 76%
82%
4 no/
16%
13%
10% 8o/n
9%
K°/-
I I
1
I
I I
2008 2009 2010
¦ On Target ¦ Not on Target ~ Data Unavailable
4
-------
Amongst the subobjectives, at mid-year FY 2010, the following subobjectives reported
the highest percentage of measures on target: Water Quality, Pacific Islands and
Chesapeake Bay. Drinking Water, Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico were reporting the
highest percentage of measures not on target at mid-year. However, Gulf of Mexico
and Great Lakes were able to report at least 50% of their data. Not all subobjectives can
be compared equally amongst each other as Fish and Shellfish, South Florida,
Columbia River, Puget Sound and a majority of the Oceans and Coastal measures were
exempt from FY 2010 mid-year reporting and did not provide mid-year data.
Subobjectives - FY 2010 Mid-Year Performance
100% -
80% -
60% -
40% -
20% -
0% -
DW FS SS WQ CO WT MB PI GL CB GM LIS SF CR PS
1e
¦
¦ On Target ¦ Not on Target ~ Data Unavailable ~ Exempt
Summary
¦ The FY 2010 mid-year results indicate that most performance measures are on
track to meet or exceed their FY 2010 commitments.
¦ Of those subobjectives that reported measures, all of them reported at least 50%
of measures on track to meet their FY 2010 commitments at mid-year.
¦ Measures showed higher performance results at mid-year FY 2010 than in
previous fiscal years, suggesting that programs are making improvements in their
data collection and program implementation through the years.
5
-------
Measures Highlighted for Discussion
The following twelve measures were selected (out of a universe of 74 reported
measures) for discussion at the Office of Water Oversight Council meeting on June 14,
2010. These measures were selected mostly where mid-year data was indicating
under-performance, prompting concern about reaching the FY 2010 commitment at the
end of the year. However, measures were also discussed where performance
exceeded past year trends - what was being done right? And, ultimately, a discussion
about the possible negative impacts on performance measures (specifically those that
target the Gulf of Mexico) as a result of the disastrous BP oil spill. A full list of all FY
2010 performance measures and their mid-year results can be found in Appendix A.
For each selected measure (organized by subobjective), the specific findings
highlighted at the Oversight Council meeting and the discussion which followed in
response to each finding is depicted below.
Water Safe to Drink
SDW-1a: Percent of CWSs that have undergone a sanitary survey within three years of
their last sanitary survey (five years for outstanding performers) as required under the
Interim Enhanced and Long-Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rules.
SDW-1a (annual trend)
> 96% -
8
c 94% -
03
« 92% -
& | 90% -
¦S = 88% -
c w
^ 86% -
£2
§ 84% -
o
gS 82%
2008 EOY 2009 EOY 2010 EOY
i i End-of-Year » Target
Oversight Council Concerns:
SDW-1a has consistently missed it's commitment in past years. Though it was exempt
from mid-year reporting, it appears that OGWDWwill meet its commitment by EOY.
Response:
¦ Sanitary surveys are resource-intensive efforts because state staff or contractors
must physically visit the system. State budget shortfalls and lack of resources (such
as fuel and labor costs) have made it difficult for states to fill positions.
¦ Regions are working with states to more efficiently leverage their available
resources, and encourage greater use of set asides.
6
-------
SDW-1b: Number of tribal CWSs that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past
three years (5 yrs for outstanding performers) as required under the interim enhanced
and long-term one surface water treatment rules.
SDW-1b (annual trend)
>
I
'c
ra
w
v
70
60
50
O)
o o 40
(n
W
O
ro
.a
w
30
20
10
0
63
47
47
54
t 55
--
34
--
2008 2009 2010
i i Mid-Year End-of-Year » Target
Oversight Council Concerns:
There is concern about this measure not being on track to meet its commitment at the
end of the year.
Response:
¦ SDW-1 b is on track to meet the 2010 commitment. The number of several tribes
decreased causing a regional total to decline and giving the appearance of a low
result at mid-year.
¦ The Office of Water is working to reflect these changes in the national SDWIS
database.
SDW-7c: Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt solution mining (Class III)
that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days, thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
SDW-7c (annual trend)
120%
100%
8
80%
c
ra
Q.
60%
E
8
40%
20%
0%
99% 99%
100% 100%
83%
89%
2008
I Mid-Year |
-+ 90%
67%
2009 2010
I End-of-Year + Target
7
-------
Oversight Council Concerns:
SDW-7c does not appear to be on target. Is there additional information that might
indicate that the measure will meet its commitment at the end of the year?
Response:
¦ This measure will not meet the target of 93% for 2010. A more likely result
(assuming the other regions remain at 100%) is six out of seven (86%) of wells
returned to mechanical integrity.
¦ In order to achieve the national target, many Class III wells would need to lose
mechanical integrity and regain it. It is very unlikely that the universe of wells losing
mechanical integrity will increase much above last year.
¦ Low universe numbers are problematic for SDW-7a (Class I wells). Region UIC
managers are proposing that for FY 2012 that SDW-7a, 7b and 7c be combined for
the purpose of setting more achievable targets.
SDW-8: Percent of high priority Class V wells identified in sensitive ground water
protection areas that are closed or permitted (Cumulative).
SDW-8 (annual trend)
¦D
-------
¦ OGWDW is recommending that Regions increase their targets for FY 11 to be
consistent with mid-year FY 2010 performance. The Regions are discussing
proposing a change to this measure for FY 2012 that will result in more national
consistency in the universe being measured.
Water Quality
SP-10: Number of waterbodies identified in 2002 as not attaining water quality
standards where standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
SP-10 (cumulative trend)
£ 3000
| 2500
¦d 2000
03
T3
C
43
c/)
>
¦O
o
n
1500
1000
e 500
-------
WQ-2: Number of tribes that have water quality standards approved by EPA
Oversight Council Concerns:
This measure does not appear to be on target for meeting its commitment at the end of
the year.
Response:
¦ This measure is currently not on target, falling two tribes short of meeting the
national commitment as of June 2010. EPA is hopeful that the measure will be met
at the end of the year.
¦ Regions 5 and 8 each have one tribe which may count toward WQ-2 for FY10,
depending on when the tribes are able to submit their final adopted standards to
EPA for review. The Regions have been working closely with the tribes, and believe
EPA review can be completed expeditiously once the standards are received.
WQ-5: Number of States & Territories that have adopted and are implementing their
monitoring strategies in keeping with established schedules.
WQ-5 (cumulative trend)
ft 51.5-1 1 1 —
2008 2009 2010
i i Mid-Year End-of-Year ~ Target
10
-------
Oversight Council Concerns:
The FY 2011 target is the same as the FY 2010 commitment - it does not appear that
the measure is expected to reach its commitment in FY 2010.
Response:
¦ The role of monitoring in water quality management is so fundamental to the
Clean Water Act that the only eligibility requirement for Section 106 funding is that
states have an adequate monitoring program.
¦ Two 2002 reports by ASIWPCA document that the funding resource gap
between available resources and needs for monitoring is wide and that ambient
water quality monitoring activities are usually the first to be cut when budgets are
tight.
¦ At mid-year FY 2010, one of the territories (Puerto Rico) in Region 2 is having
difficultly with implementing its monitoring strategy. The Region is working with the
territory to assist it, but the territory may not be able reach this target by the end of
the fiscal year.
WQ-12b: Percent of tribal facilities covered by NPDES permits that are considered
current.
WQ-12b (annual trend)
>
-Q
T3
O
if
° i
o
O Q_
= CO
o w
C3 O
Li- Q_
75 z
•Q
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
^92%
88%
--
91%
85%
82%
85%
--
52%
2008
2009
2010
~ Mid-Year End-of-Year.
-Target
Oversight Council Concerns:
This measure has struggled to meet its commitment in the past and may follow suit in
FY 2010.
Response:
¦ The FY10 national commitment is 86% and the FY10 mid-year status is 52%.
The measure is expected to improve dramatically by end of year, but may slightly
miss the commitment.
¦ Region 8 is currently at 23%, but by the end of this FY they should reach
approximately 90% after they issue a general permit for sewerage systems on Tribal
lands within several states and approximately 9 other individual permits. This
improvement will increase the national percentage to approximately 85%.
11
-------
¦ Region 10 will likely maintain their mid-year status and FY09 end of year status
of 46%. They will miss their target of 64%. Although there will not be much progress
before the end of this year, after the completion of their 3-year plan, they should
reach 70%.
WQ-14a: Number and national percent of significant industrial users that are
discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that have control mechanisms in
place that implement applicable pretreatment standards and requirements.
WQ-14a (annual trend)
| 22200
g 22000
O g 21800
¦8 Q- 21600
O) C
~ ' 21400
® g
J? jr 21200
o
5 21000
= 20800
W 2008 2009 2010
i i Mid-Year End-of-Year ~ Target
Oversight Council Concerns:
This measure has already been met. There is a data discrepancy - the FY 09 MY was
23,481 in the spreadsheet and 21,469 in ACS.
Response:
¦ The FY10 target for this measure is to maintain at least 98% of the significant
industrial users (SlUs) with pretreatment programs to have control mechanisms in
place to implement pretreatment standards and requirements. The FY10 mid-year
result is 21,417 or 99% of the current universe.
¦ The universe of SlUs fluctuates constantly because they are industrial facilities
discharging into a sewer system and are constantly going in and out of business.
Since the goal is maintain at least 98% throughout the fiscal year, the mid-year
result is not a guarantee that the measure will be met by the end of FY10.
Coastal Oceans
SP-20: 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).
12
-------
SP-20 (annual trend)
c
ro
at
o
O
15
'C ">
S £!
ro
OT
O)
¦D c
O
<
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
95%,
77%
99%
98%
98%
99%
85%
+ 98%
2008 2009 2010
ZZI Mid-Year End-of-Year ~ Target
Oversight Council Concerns:
The mid-year result is a little bit lower than previous years (FY09 was 97.7%, and FY 08
was 90.2%) and there are concerns about meeting the commitment at the end of the
year.
Response:
¦ The Agency is on target to meet the commitment of 98%. Results are currently
low because Region 3's field season has not yet begun. As of the mid-year point,
EPA has no reason to believe the Regions will not meet their targets.
Long Island Sound
SP-43: Percent of goal achieved in restoring, protecting or enhancing 240 acres of
coastal habitat from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres.
SP-43 (annual trend)
¦a
o
a
o
JS -a
— S?
ra 2
X in
_ 0)
jS 0C
i-
ro o
o
o
in
at
o
<
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3595
1023
1199
1376
1614
1304
2008
I Mid-Year |
2009
I End-of-Year •
2010
-Target
13
-------
Oversight Council Concerns:
There is some concern about this measure surpassing its commitment over 100% at
mid-year.
Response:
¦ 2,595 cumulative acres have been restored or protected at mid-year, or 1,396
acres above the baseline, which is 582% towards the goal established by the Long
Island Sound Study Management Conference. The partners have surpassed the
goal of 240 acres by 1,156.
¦ The goal for SP-43 seemed reasonable based on past progress, but EPA
received additional appropriations in which the timing enabled the leveraging of
funding for key stewardship projects years earlier than expected. 80% of the
completed projects are acres protected; 20% are acres restored. Notable key
projects include:
• Connecticut: Barn Island State Wildlife Management Area: 48
acres
• New York: "Diocese" property: 28 acres leveraged with $5.0 million
in NY state environmental penalty funds
• Connecticut: Goss Property, 624 acres protected
SP-44: Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river and stream miles to diadromous
fish passage from the 2008 baseline of 124 miles.
SP-44 (annual trend)
1
o
250
E
rc
200
0)
a.
O
100
a:
H—
O
50
-------
LISS Management Conference. Many of the projects are multi-year so yearly results
are variable and are affected by many external factors making annual target setting
a challenge.
• In 2010, LISS will report on % towards 2014 goal rather than average acres since
this will be more useful in tracking progress towards the long-term goal. One of the
reasons this measure will now be reported in percentage of target rather than miles
or acres was to avoid this situation where there is no annual target for acres/miles
set by the Management Conference; rather we just report the current percentage
toward the ultimate long-term target.
Impact of the BP Oil Spill on Gulf of Mexico Performance Measures
• It is expected that the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score will
decrease
• Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Zone:
• Northern Gulf hypoxia is a shallow water phenomenon and the oil spill and
much of the dispersant use is occurring a mile deep.
• The oil spill may exacerbate the shallow-water hypoxia through a variety of
physical and biological processes
• In the deeper Gulf, the oil is having a host of potential oxygen-depleting
effects from the surface waters all the way to the seafloor.
• Oil may inundate vulnerable fringe wetlands and Submerged Aquatic habitats
(SAVs) from Texas to Florida
15
------- |