&EPA
Office of Water
National Water Program
Best Practices and End of Year
Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2012
^'-c=
April 2013
-------
This report is based primarily on FY 2012 end of the year
performance data reported by states, tribes, and EPA regional
and headquarters offices. The report presents materials and
analysis developed in December 2012 and January 2013
by EPA headquarters and regional staff working together
on Subobjective Teams. These materials provided data on
progress toward environmental and public health goals of
key program activities, along with management challenges in
meeting or not meeting program commitments. Much of this
work is accomplished through grants, and this report serves PrOQrcHTI COPlt3CtS
as the Office of Water's primary summary of progress under
the Environmental Results Grants Order.
Additional information on the performance highlights and
challenges for each subobjective under the National Water
Program Goal of EPA's Strategic Plan (see Table 1) is available
on the Internet at: http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/
performance/. In addition, the website includes an overview of
the National Water Program measure universe and a detailed
appendix with historical data on national and regional commit-
ments and results for all performance measures.
This report includes three key elements:
Overview of performance for all 2012 National Water
Program measures.
Description of innovative approaches and best practices in
program implementation.
An appendix of FY 2012 national commitments and re-
sults for environmental and program-related measures.
For additional information concerning this report and
supporting measures, contact:
Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Tim Fontaine, Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
Michael Mason, Evaluation and Accountability Team
Leader, Office of Water
INTERNET ACCESS: This FY2012 National Water
Program Best Practices and End of the Year
Performance Report and supporting documents
are available at: http://water.epa.gov/resource_
performance/performance/index.cfm.
Table 1: National Water Program: Goal, Objectives, and Subobjectives
EPA's 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
Goal 2
J
L
Objective L Protect Human Health
Objective 2: Protect and Restore Watersheds
and Aquatic Ecosystems
Subobjective:
Safe Drinkin Water
Subobjective:
Fish and Shellfish
Subobjective:
Safe Swimming
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Subobjective:
Coasts/Oceans
Subobjective:
Great Lakes
A
A
A
Subobjective:
Wetlands
Subobjective:
U.S. Mexico
Subobjective:
Chesapeake Bay
L
Subobjective: Subobjective:
Gulf of Mexico _J\^ Long Island Sound j
Subobjective: Subobjective:
South Florida ^/V Columbia River J
Subobjective: Subobjective:
Puget Sound J\^ Pacific Islands J
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
What's New in FY 2012 5
Overview of Performance Results and Recent Trends 6
Total Measures by Subobjective 6
Total Commitment Measures 6
Commitment Measures by Subobjective 8
Commitments by National Core Water Program vs. Geographic Programs 9
National Water Program Long-Term Performance Trends 10
Changes in Measure Performance Status From FY 2011 to FY 2012 14
Commitment Measures by EPA Region 15
Measuring the Ambitiousness of Regional Commitments 19
Tribal Commitment Measures 21
FY 2012 Performance Highlights 23
National Water Program FY 2012 Best Practices 32
Nonpoint Source Watershed-Based Plan Review Guide 33
Closing the Gap in Anticipated/Obligated Funds for CW/DW SRF 35
Advancing Large-Scale Green Infrastructure Through Collaborative Partnership Agreements 37
Watershed Resources Registry 39
Institutionalizing Green Infrastructure via Municipal Stormwater Permits 41
Iowa's Expeditious Use of Clean Water State Revolving Funds 43
Going Really Green: Sea Farming for Environmental and Economic Benefits 45
Use of Novel Low Technology Solutions for On-Farm Nutrient Removal 47
Salmon Falls Watershed Collaborative 49
Appendices
A. National Water Program FY 2012 End of Year Performance Measure Commitments, Results, and Status 51
B. Performance Measurement Changes from FY 2011 to FY 2012 62
C. Methodology for Measuring Ambitiousness of Regional Commitments 64
-------
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
National Water Program FY 2012 Performance Results
Executive Summary
Overview
EPA met 78% of its commitments for all National Water Pro-
gram performance measures in FY 2012. Approximately 17%
were not met, and 5.2% either did not have enough data
available to assess progress or no reporting was expected by
the end of the fiscal year. The FY 2012 results represented an
increase in the number of measures met from the previous
year's results (69%). Other overarching highlights include:
The geographic-based aquatic programs were more suc-
cessful than the national core drinking water and water
quality water programs in meeting their commitments in
2012 (87% vs. 72%). This was the reverse of the previous
year's results, where 77% of the core program measures
met their annual commitments compared to 57% of the
geographic-based programs.
The Mexico Border, Coastal and Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
Fish and Shellfish, Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound,
and Pacific Island subobjectives were most successful in
meeting their commitments.
On average, 87% of performance commitments set by the
EPA regional offices were met in 2012, while 12% of com-
mitments were missed. This was a noticeable improve-
ment over the previous year's results of 83% met.
Protect Public Health
EPA met 62% of its commitments for all drinking water mea-
sures in 2012. Of these:
Approximately 95% of the population was served by com-
munity water systems (CWSs) with drinking water that
met all applicable health-based drinking water standards
(commitment 91%).
Ninety-one percent (91%) of the cumulative amount of
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs) available
had loan agreements in place (commitment 89%). EPA
has met its commitments for this measure six years in a
row.
EPA did not meet 38% of its drinking water commitments in
2012. Challenges confronted by EPA and states include:
Eighty-nine percent (89%) of community systems received
a sanitary survey last year, falling short of the Agency's
stretch goal of 95%.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Class , II, and III under-
ground injection wells maintained their mechanical
integrity, thereby reducing the impact of contaminants on
underground sources of drinking water. This was below
the annual goal of 90%.
For coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state-
based beach safety programs, EPA is reporting that 95% of
days of the beach season were open and safe for swimming
(FY 2012 commitment 95%). EPA has consistently met this
commitment over the past six years.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal
Waters, and Wetlands
EPA met 72% of its commitments under the Water Quality
subobjective in FY 2012 and fell short on 15%; data were
not available for 12%. The percentage of commitments met
declined in FY 2012 over the FY 2011 results (77%). Perfor-
mance highlights include:
More than 3,500 of the waters listed as impaired in
2002 met water quality standards for all the identified
impairments in FY 2012 (commitment 3,324). Of a
universe of 39,503 waterbodies, 9% were attaining water
quality standards by the end of FY 2012.
For the fourth consecutive year, states and territories
met regional commitments for submitting new or revised
water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information.
EPA approved 89% of water quality standard revisions
submitted by states and territories (FY 2012 national
commitment 85%).
For the sixth consecutive year, EPA and states achieved
the national goal of having current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in place for
90% of non-tribal facilities (FY 2012 commitment 88%).
In addition, EPA and authorized states have exceeded
their annual commitments for issuing high-priority permits
for the past six years.
EPA and states made significant gains in documenting the
full or partial restoration of waterbodies that are impaired
primarily by nonpoint sources. Nationally, EPA exceeded
its commitment (394), with 433 waterbodies that were
partially or fully restored.
The Clean Water SRF utilization rate reached 98% in
2012. Of the $97.4 billion in funds available for projects
through 2012, $95.4 billion have been committed to
nearly 32,000 loans. In 2012, project assistance reached
$5.8 billion, which funded 1,947 loans in a single year.
EPA faced several management challenges in restoring and
improving freshwater quality in FY 2012. These include:
EPA did not meet its commitment for state and territories
supplying performance milestones to EPA on the
development, proposal, and adoption of numeric water
quality standards for total nitrogen and phosphorus. Many
states have not provided complete information due to
the scientific, programmatic, and policy complexities of
developing nitrogen and phosphorus criteria.
The 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs) and their partners
protected or restored almost 115,000 acres of habitat
within the NEP study areas15,000 acres above the
goal of 100,000 acres. The 28 NEPs played the primary
role in directing $324 million in additional funds toward
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
implementation (leveraged from approximately $22 million in
EPA Section 320 and earmark funds).This represents a ratio of
$15 raised for every $1 provided by EPA, which matches the
historic ratio measures over the 2003-2012 period.
EPA, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
states, and tribes, was able to report "no net loss" of
wetlands under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program. More than 180,000 acres have been restored and
enhanced since 2002. As of FY 2012, 44 states and tribes
have built capacities in wetlands monitoring, regulation,
restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance,
and partnership building.
Improve Drinking Water and Water Quality on
American Indian Lands
Safe drinking water and water quality on tribal lands con-
tinues to be a concern for the water program. Some key
highlights and challenges include:
EPA failed to achieve its national stretch goal of 87% of
the population in Indian Country served by CWSs that
receive drinking water meeting all applicable health-based
standards (84% in FY 2012). This challenge is especially
important considering that 93% of the population in
Indian Country is served by small systems.
EPA, in coordination with other federal agencies, fell just
short of reaching its annual commitment of providing
110,000 American Indian and Alaska Native homes with
access to safe drinking water.
EPA, in coordination with other federal agencies, provided
access to basic sanitation to over 63,000 American and
Alaskan Native homes, exceeding the FY 2012 commit-
ment.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Improve the Health of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
EPA implements collaborative programs with other federal
agencies, states, and local communities to improve the health
of large aquatic ecosystems. The following are highlights and
challenges for each Large Aquatic Ecosystem or place-based
program with performance measures in the National Water
Program Guidance:
U.S.-Mexico Border. Infrastructure construction project
completions through FY 2012 resulted in the removal
of 119 million pounds of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) loadings annually from the U.S.-Mexico border
area, slightly more than its commitment of 115.2 million
pounds. EPA provided access to safe drinking water for
5,135 additional homes along the U.S.-Mexico border,
which was above the annual goal of 1,000 additional
homes. EPA provided adequate wastewater sanitation to
an additional 31,000 homes over the past year, which was
well above the FY 2012 goal of 10,500 additional homes.
U.S. Pacific Island Waters. Last year, 80% of the
population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories was served
by community drinking water systems that meet all appli-
cable health-based drinking water standards throughout
the year. Sixty-four percent (64%) of sewage treatment
plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories complied with
permit limits for BOD and total suspended solids (TSS).
This was above the previous year's result of 50%.
Great Lakes. Average long-term total PCB concentrations
in whole Great Lakes top predator fish at sites on each
Great Lake declined 43% between 2000 and 2009, meet-
ing the target for declines in concentration trends. EPA,
states, and other partners remediated a cumulative 9.7 mil-
lion cubic yards of contaminated sediments through 2011,
including more than 1.3 million cubic yards in FY 2011.
Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program
reported 63,074 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) in the bay. This represents approximately 34% of
the program's long-term goal of 185,000 acres, which is
the amount necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water
quality standards. EPA expects enhanced implementation
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution control
measures as a result of the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) thatwas established in December 2010.
Gulf of Mexico. With the support of numerous federal,
state, local, and private partners, EPA has restored water
and habitat quality to 316 impaired waterbodies in 13
priority coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico since 2007.
This exceeded the 2012 goal of 290 impaired waterbod-
ies. The size of the hypoxic, or "dead," zone in the Gulf of
Mexico decreased from 17,520 km2 in FY 2011 to 7,483
km2 at the end of FY 2012. A number of hydrological,
climate, and monitoring factors impact the hypoxic zone
from year to year.
Long Island Sound. The Long Island Sound Program
significantly exceeded its 2012 commitment (218 acres)
by restoring or protecting 537 acres of coastal habitat,
including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and
freshwater wetlands. The size of the hypoxic zone in Long
Island Sound increased from 130 to 289 square miles,
which was above the five-year rolling average.
South Florida. The health and functionality of the sea
grass beds in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu-
ary (FKNMS) were not maintained in 2012. The Agency
did not meet the water quality measure of 10 ppb of
total phosphorus in the Everglades ecosystem. However,
progress is being made in determining the necessary next
steps toward restoring water quality.
Puget Sound Basin. More than 23,000 acres of tid-
ally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands have
been restored in the Puget Sound Basin since FY 2006.
The program significantly exceeded its 2012 goal due
to a considerable number of habitat projects receiving
funds over the past few years. The Puget Sound program
improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions for
964 additional acres of shellfish bed growing areas. Un-
fortunately, this was not enough to reach the program's
cumulative goal of 3,878 acres of unrestrictive commercial
and recreational harvesting area in the Sound.
Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River Program
cleaned up an additional 16 acres of contaminated sedi-
ment at the Zidell cleanup site in the Lower Columbia
River in FY 2012. These cleanups provide a significant
contribution to reducing toxics in the Columbia River. Due
to limited finding, EPA was unable to complete its moni-
toring for contaminants of concern in fish and the water in
the Columbia River.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Introduction
The FY 2012 National Water Program Best Practices and End of the Year Performance Report describes the progress made
in 2012 by EPA, states, tribes, and others toward the objectives and subobjectives described in the FY 2012 National
Water Program Guidance (NWPG) and the FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan (Table 1, "National Water ProgramKey
Subobjectives"). The Strategic Plan and the FY 2012 NWPG are available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/water/
waterplan.
EPA's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan is divided into five goals. The National Water Program is addressed in Goal 2, "Clean and
Safe Water." Each goal is divided into objectives and subobjectives, which include a limited number of targeted areas, or
"strategic targets," where the Agency believes new or significant changes in strategies or performance measurement are most
critical to helping EPA better achieve and measure environmental and human health. Each strategic target includes a long-
range quantitative goal.
In April 2011, the National Water Program published guidance that described the program strategies to be used to
implement Goal 2 of the 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan in FY 2012, including specific measures to be used to assess program
implementation. The FY 2012 NWPG is divided into 15 subobjectives and includes strategic target measures and national
Program Activity Measures (PAMs) to assess progress toward the goals in the Strategic Plan:
Strategic Target Measures: Measures of environmental or public health changes (i.e., outcomes) that include long-
range and, in most cases, annual commitments in the FY 2012 NWPG.
National Program Activity Measures (PAMs): Core water PAMs (i.e., output measures) address activities
implemented by EPA and states/tribes that administer national programs. They are the basis for monitoring progress in
implementing programs to accomplish the environmental goals in the Agency's Strategic Plan. Most of these measures had
national and regional commitments for FY 2012.
Performance Measure Architecture
\ EPA Strategic Plan
f (four years)
Program Activity Measures (PAMs)
National Water
Program Guidance
(NWPG)
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
What's New in FY 2012
The FY 2012 NWPG consisted of a number of changes in performance measures from the FY 2011 Guidance and End of the
Year Performance Report. Some of these key changes were:
Several performance measures for the Underground Injection Control program under the Water Safe to Drink subobjective
were revised in FY 2012 in order to consolidate the universe of Class I, II, and III salt solution mining wells (SDW-7a/b/c).
The Agency also created two new measures that track the sequestration of carbon dioxide in underground injection wells
(SDW-19a/b).
EPA added two new performance measures under the Water Quality subobjective on the national Urban Waters program,
one of the Administrator's priorities in FY 2012 (WQ-25a/b).
EPA deleted six measures under the Coastal and Oceans subobjective pertaining to the ecosystem health of six regions
(Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Central Alaska) (CO-SP-16, CO-SP-17, CO-SP-18, CO-SP-19,
CO-7, CO-8). Environmental results for these regions can be found in the National Coastal Condition Reports published on
EPA's website.1 The measure that captures national results is still included (CO-222.N11).
Three measures tracking changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction were modified (CB-SP-35, CB-SP-36,
CB-SP-37) and two were deleted (CB-1a, CB-1b) under the Chesapeake Bay subobjective. These changes reflect the adop-
tion in December 2010 of the Bay-wide TMDL and the use of a new watershed model for calculating annual nutrient reduc-
tions
Overall, the Office of Water added five new measures, deleted 15 measures, and modified 12 measures in its FY 2012 NWPG.
As a result, the number of commitment measures decreased from 105 in FY 2011 to 96 in FY 2012. More information about
measure changes can be found in Appendix B of this report.
National Coastal Condition Report IV (May 2012).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Overview of Performance Results and Recent Trends
Total Measures by Subobjective
Among the 15 subobjectives outlined in the FY2012 NWPG, Water Quality had the largest share of performance measures at
34%; Drinking Water was next with 18%; and the Great Lakes was third with 11%. The remaining 37% of the measures were
spread among the other 12 subobjectives (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Total FY 2012 Measures by Subobjective
Water Quality
Drinking Water
Great Lakes
Coastal and Ocean
Wetlands
South Florida
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
Safe Swimming
Pacific Islands
Mexico Border
Fish and Shellfish
Puget Sound
Columbia River
46 measures
15 measures
leasures
7 measures
6 measures
6 measures
5 measures
4 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
2 measures
2 measures
National
Place-based
10%
20%
30%
40%
Total Commitment Measures
Overall, the National Water program had a successful year in FY 2012. Of 96 National Water Program measures with com-
mitments, more than three-fourths (78.1%) met their commitments. About seventeen percent (16.7%) were not met, and for
5.2%, either not enough data were available to assess progress or no reporting was expected for 2012 (Figure 2).2 Long-term
trend data shows that the percentage of commitment measures met has remained fairly consistent over the past six years,
averaging about 70% (Figure 3).
1 Data for FY 2012 is what has been reported as of March 2013. Due to a lag in reporting, several measures will not have FY 2012 end of year data until later in FY
2013. It is important to note that when reviewing trend data for previous years in this report, the results will include data for measures that routinely report late.
As a result, this year's trend charts may not reflect the same results as shown in previous end of year reports.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 2: FY 2012 Commitment Measures Met & Not Met
I Met Data Not Available Not Met
Figure 3: FY 2007-FY 2012 Commitment Measures Trend
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Not Met Data Not Available "Met
2012
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Commitment Measures by Subobjective
When the FY 2012 results are presented by subobjective, eight of 15 subobjectives (Fish and Shellfish, Coastal and Ocean,
Mexico Border, Pacific Island, Chesapeake Bay, Columbia River, Gulf of Mexico, and Long Island Sound) were successful in
meeting 100% of their commitments. Five subobjectives fell below the national average of commitments met (78%): Wet-
lands, (75%), Water Quality (74%), Drinking Water (62%), Puget Sound (50%), and South Florida (33%). Note, however, that
some subobjectives have more commitment measures than others. The dark blue line in Figure 4 represents the percentage of
the total number of commitment measures that each subobjective encompasses. The Water Quality subobjective has the most
measures, representing about 34% of all commitment measures.
Figure 4: FY 2012 Percent Measures Met & Not Met by Subobjective
Fishand Shellfish
Coastal and Ocean
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
Mexico Border
Pacific Islands
Columbia River
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Wetlands
Safe Swimming
Drinking Water
Puget Sound
South Florida
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Not Met
Data Not Available
I Met
When comparing the FY 2012 results from Figure 4 with the long-term averages of commitments met for each subobjective
(Figure 5), 11 subobjectives did better in FY 2012 compared with their long-term average. Only the Puget Sound and the
Drinking Water subobjectives fell below their long-term averages in FY 2012. The Fish and Shellfish subobjective has tradition-
ally had the greatest problems with data availability.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 5: FY 2008-FY 2012 Average Commitments Met & Not Met by Subobjective
Columbia River
Fish and Shellfish
Coastal and...
Safe Swimming
Gulf of Mexico
Wetlands
Drinking Water
Long Island Sound
Great Lakes
Mexico Border
Puget Sound
Water Quality
Pacific Islands
Chesapeake Bay
South Florida
100%
73%
3% 20%
13% ^20%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Met Data Not Available Not Met
Commitments by National Core Water Program vs. Geographic Programs
The National Water Program comprises core drinking water and water quality programs and large aquatic ecosystem (LAEs) or
place-based programs.3 Sixty-six percent (66%) of all commitment measures pertain to core water programs, and 34% track
progress in LAE and place-based programs. The LAEs and place-based programs improved significantly in FY 2012, with 87%
of commitments met (up from 57% in FY 2011). National core programs declined from 77% of commitments met in FY 2011
to 72% in FY 2012. This was the reverse of the previous year, with core programs at 77% commitments met and LAE and
placed-based programs at 57%. The geographic programs' improvement was primarily due to an increase in measures met for
the Great Lakes (four) and Chesapeake Bay (three) from data not available to commitments met (Figure 6).
' EPA defines "place-based programs" in this report as those programs that may not include an ecosystem focus. For example, U.S.-Mexico Border and the Pacific
Islands programs may be considered place-based.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 6: FY 2007-FY 2012 National and Place-Based Programs Trend
2007 2007
National Place-
Based
2008 2008
National Place-
Based
2009 2009
National Place-
Based
2010 2010
National Place-
Based
2011 2011
National Place-
Based
2012 2012
National Place-
Based
I Not Met
Data Not Available
i Met
National Water Program Long-Term Performance Trends
One way to look at long-term performance trends is through a "heat map." The charts in Figure 7 below represent a history
of the status of annual results of all the core drinking water and water quality program measures over a six-year period (FY
2007 to FY 2012). The colors on the map represent the status (green for commitments met, orange for not met, gray for data
unavailable or not reporting, and white for measures not in existence or not applicable in a given year). Although the status
of the results does not take into account the level of ambitiousness of the commitments from measure to measure, there are
some interesting patterns in the trends. For example, about one-third (36%) of all core program measures have met their com-
mitments every year for the past five to six years. These include:
Population served by CWS (SDW-211)
CWS meeting safe standards (SDW-SP1.N11)
Person-Months with CWSs safe standards (SDW-SP2)
CWS and source water protection (SDW-SP4a)
Tribal CWSs with sanitary survey (SDW-01b)
DWSRF fund utilization rate (SDW-04)
DWSRF projects initiated (SDW-05)
Beach days safe for swimming (SS-SP9.N11)
Improve coastal aquatic system health (CO-222.N11)
Wetland acres restored and enhanced (WT-01)
10
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Impaired waterbodies attaining water quality standards (WQ-SP10.N11)
Improve water quality with watershed approach (WQ-SP12.N11)
Tribes submitted water quality criteria (WQ-03b)
States/territories water quality standards submissions (WQ-04a)
Tribes providing water quality data (WQ-06b)
Total TMDLs (WQ-08a)
Reduction in nonpoint source nitrogen (WQ-09a)
Reduction in nonpoint source sediment (WQ-09c)
Current NPDES permits (WQ-12a)
CWSRF utilization rate (WQ-17)
High-priority state NPDES permits (WQ-19a
A number of measures have had a history of problems meeting targets. These include:
Indian Country population meeting drinking water standards (SDW-SP3.N11)
State sanitary survey (SOW-01 a)
Net increase in wetlands (WT-SP21.N11)
Tribal WQS (WQ-02)
State/tribal monitoring strategies (WQ-05)
State/territories using assessment database (WQ-07)
Estimated reduction in pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources (WQ-9b)
Tribal NPDES permits (WQ-12b)
Percent major NPDES dischargers in Significant Noncompliance (WQ-15a)
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 7: FY 2007-FY 2012 Core Water Program End of Year Status History
Drinking Water
Fish and Shellfish
Safe Swimming
Coastal and Ocean
Wetlands
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-18.N11
SDW-01a
SDW-01b
SDW-04
SDW-05
SDW-07
SDW-08
FS-SP6.N11
SS-SP9.N11
SS-1
SS-2
CO-222.N11
CO-SP20.N11
CO-432.N11
WT-SP21.N11
WT-SP22
WT-01
WT-04
Water Quality
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13.N11
WQ-SP14aN11
WQ-24.N11
WQ-01a
WQ-01b
WQ-01c
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-05
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-07
WQ-08a
WQ-08b
WQ-09a
WQ-09b
WQ-09c
WQ-10
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-14a
WQ-15a
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
WQ-23
WQ-25a
WQ-25b
12
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 8 shows that 21% of all placed-based program measures have met commitments every year for five to six years. These
include:
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes fish (GL-SP-29)
Remediate cubic yards of contaminated sediment in Great Lakes (GL-SP-32)
Impaired Gulf water segments and habitat restored (GM-SP-38)
Gulf acres restored or enhanced (GM-SP-39)
Restore Long Island Sound coastal habitat (LI-SP-43)
Restore acres of Puget Sound estuarine wetlands (PS-SP-51)
Pacific Island population served by CWS (PI-SP-26)
Clean up Columbia River contaminated sediments (CR-SP-53)
Several placed-based measures have missed commitments at least four times in the past six years:
Great Lakes AOC (GL-SP-31)
Chesapeake Bay nitrogen reduction practices (CB-SP-35)
Everglades water qualitytotal phosphorus (SFL-SP-48)
Figure 8: FY 2007-FY 2012 LAE and Place-Based Programs End of Year Status History
Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay
GL-SP29
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
CB-SP35
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
CB-2
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island
Sound
Puget Sound
Mexico Border
Pacific Islands
South Florida
Columbia River
GM-SP38
GM-SP39
GM-1
LI-SP41
LI-SP43
LI-SP44
PS-SP49.N11
PS-SP51
MB-SP23
MB-SP24.N11
MB-SP25.N11
PI-SP26
SFL-SP47a
SFL-SP47b
SFL-SP48
CR-SP53
13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Changes in Measure Performance Status from FY 2011 to FY 2012
The performance status of 21 of the 96 commitment measures changed between FY 2011 and FY 2012. Fifteen measures
switched from not meeting to meeting their annual commitments, whereas six previously met measures did not meet their
commitments in the past year. Half of the measures that changed their commitment status from met to not met were under
the Drinking Water subobjective. More than half (60%) of the measures that upgraded their commitment status from not met
to met were from the geographic program subobjectives (Great Lakes had four and Pacific Islands had two) (Table 1).
Table 2: Measures With Changes in Performance Status
Subobjective ACS Code Abbreviated Measure Description
2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
2.2.1 Water Quality
2.2.1 Water Quality
2.2.1 Water Quality
2.2.1 Water Quality
2.2.2 Coastal and Ocean
Waters
2.2.2 Coastal and Ocean
Waters
2. 2.4 Great Lakes
2. 2.4 Great Lakes
2. 2.4 Great Lakes
2. 2.4 Great Lakes
2. 2.4 Great Lakes
2.2.6 Gulf of Mexico
2.2.7 Long Island Sound
2. 2.10 Pacific Islands
2. 2.10 Pacific Islands
2.2.11 South Florida
2.2.11 South Florida
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4b
SDW-01a
WQ-01a
WQ-01b
WQ-01c
WQ-02
CO-SP20.N11
CO-432.N11
GL-433.N11
GL-SP31
GL-08
GL-10
GL-12
GM-435
LI-SP44
PI-SP27
PI-SP28
SFL-SP47a
SFL-SP47b
Population served by CWSs Indian Country
Population and source water protection
CWSs with sanitary survey
Numeric nutrient water quality standards approved
Numeric nutrient water quality standards proposed
State/territories providing nutrient water quality standards mile-
stones
Tribes with approved water quality standards
Percent of active ocean dumping sites with environmentally accept-
able conditions
NEP acres habitat protected or restored
Improve health-Great Lakes ecosystem
Restore Areas of Concern (AOCs)
Percent of days of the beach season that monitored Great Lakes
beaches are open and safe for swimming
Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and
endangered species self-sustaining in the wild
Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected,
restored, and enhanced
Improve health-Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
Re-open river and streams for fish passage
Pacific Islands treatment plans w/ BOD limits
Pacific Islands beach days open for swimming
Maintain South Florida coastal water quality-chlorophyll a
Maintain South Florida coastal water quality-nitrogen/phosphorus
Performance Status
HO mm
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Met
14
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Commitment Measures by EPA Region
The 10 EPA regional offices, the states, and tribes are primarily responsible for implementing the programs under the Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. On average, 87% of performance commitments set by the EPA regional offices for
activities in their geographic areas were met in 2012, while an average of 12% of commitments were missed. This was a
4% increase over the FY 2011 average of 83% of commitments met. Five regions (1, 2, 5, 9, and 10) showed a decline in
the percentage of commitments met in FY 2012 compared to seven regions showing a decline in FY 2011. Region 1 had the
highest (97%) percentage of measures met in FY 2012, and Region 8 had the lowest (74%) (Figure 9).
Figure 9: FY 2012 Commitments Met & Not Met by Region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Met Data Not Available Not Met
90% 100%
Over the past six years, Regions 1, 2, 9, and 6 have had the highest percentages of commitments met. Regions 7, 8, and 10
have had the highest percentages of commitments not met (Figure 10).
15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 10: FY 2007-FY 2012 Average Commitments Met & Not Met by Region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Met Data Not Available Not Met
80% 90% 100%
A trend analysis of regional performance over the past six years reveals that EPA Regions 7 and 3 have exhibited the most
improvement in meeting their annual commitments between FY 2007 and FY 2012. Region 7 increased its performance by
18% (67% to 85% commitments met), and Region 3 raised its performance by 24% (66% to 90%). Region 1 also experi-
enced an improvement in performance, with an increase of 14% of commitments met over the past six years. EPA Regions 2
and 5 showed the most decline in commitments met between FY 2011 and FY 2012. Region 2 declined by 6% (95% to 89%),
and Region 5 dropped by 4% (88% to 84%). Region 3 exhibited the greatest variability in percent commitments met over the
past six years, with a range of 24%. Regions 7, 4, and 1 had ranges of 18%, 17%, and 14%, respectively, in commitments
met. The region with the least variability in performance over the past six years was Region 6, with a range of only 7% (Figure
11). Note that these regional trend analyses do not factor in the level of ambitiousness of individual regional
commitments, which may or may not contribute to success.
16
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 11: FY 2007-FY 2012 Regional Performance Trends
Region 1
Region 3
Region 5
Region 7
Region 9
100% n
90%
91%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Region 2
5%
Region 4
87%
Region 6
Region 8
Region 10
2007
2008 2009
2010
2011
2012
I Met Not Met Data Not Available Six Year Average Met
17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Another way to look at regional performance is to focus on the status of end of year results of individual measures. This works
best when the focus is on the core drinking water and water quality measures, as almost all regions set annual commitments
and report on these measures. Figure 12 displays the end of year regional status for core program measures for FY 2012. As
the chart shows, all regions met almost 40% (14/36) of all core program commitment measures in FY 2012. Some measures
are problematic, with three or more regions not meeting annual commitments (SOW-01 a, SDW-SP-3, SDW-04, WQ-12a,
WQ-17, WQ-SP-11). For several measures, such as the national numeric nutrient measures WQ-1a and WQ-1b, a few regions
do not set commitments or report annual results. Also, because Region 3 has a limited tribal population, it does not report on
national tribal measures (SDW-SP-3, SDW-01b, WQ-SP-14a, WQ-02, WQ-03b, WQ-06b, and WQ-12b). Additional information
about these measures can be found in the subobjective chapters and Appendix D on the Office of Water performance website.
Figure 12: FY 2012 Regional Commitment Performance Status
Subobjective ACS Code
FY 2012 Commitment Status
= Data Not Available
Measure Did Not Exist
Or Not Applicable
R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Subobjective ACS Code
FY 2012 Commitment Status
= Data Not Available
Measure Did Not Exist
Or Not Applicable
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Drinking
Water
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-01a
SDW-01b
SDW-04
SDW-05
SDW-07
SDW-08
Water
Quality
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP14aN11
WQ-01a
WQ-01b
WQ-01C
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-05
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-07
WQ-08a
WQ-08b
WQ-10
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-14a
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
18
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Measuring the Ambitiousness of Regional Commitments
For many years, EPA has published the percentage of commitments met and not met nationally and by region in its annual
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report. Although this information can be useful in
determining to what extent regions are setting and meeting realistic goals, it is limited in that it does not account for the level
of ambitiousness or number of "stretch goals" a specific region attempts to undertake in a given year. In an effort to provide
some context to the measure results, the Office of Water has developed a method that attempts to assess the ambitiousness
of regional commitments, regardless of whether those commitments were met or not met.
EPA employed three methods to evaluate the relative ambitiousness of regional commitments for a set of 32 performance
measures.4 The method or methods utilized depended on whether the commitment is expressed as a percentage or as a
numeric value.
For each commitment expressed as a percentage, EPA computed both:
The difference between FY 2012 regional commitments and FY 2012 national commitments, and
The difference between FY 2012 regional commitments and FY 2011 regional end of year results.
For each commitment expressed in numeric units, EPA computed:
FY 2012 regional commitments as a percentage of FY 2012 regional universes.
For each measure, within each of the analyses above, each region was assigned a rank based on its result relative to other
regions (1 = most ambitious, 10 = least ambitious). For instance, for a particular numeric measure, the region committing to
the greatest share of its universe would be ranked #1 for that measure. These measure-level rankings were combined to gener-
ate an average weighted rank per region. These average weighted ranks are shown in Figure 13, with regions sorted from
high to low based upon the overall average weighted rank. Regions 5, 2, and 8 appear to have developed the most ambitious
commitments based on this analysis. (The underlying methodology is described in more detail in Appendix C.)
Figure 13: Regional Am biliousness Average Weighted Rank (FY2012)
Regions Sorted From Highest to Lowest Rank
o n
3n
4.0-
5.0
6.0-
7 n
8n
9.0-
10.0
3.4
4.0
.
4.4
4.8
4.8
5.2
Cro
5.3
5s-Rec
5.3
ion Av
5.4
'erage
5.8
R5 R2 R8 R9 R6 R3 R10 R1 R4 R7
1 OW focused only on those measures with eight or more regions setting commitments and reporting results, so that the meaning of different ranks would remain
fairly constant across measures. This choice excluded measures for large aquatic ecosystems and placed-based programs, which are often reported by only one
or two regions.
19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
EPA also explored the relationship between each region's level of ambitiousness for commitments and the degree to which
commitments are met. To do so, EPA gave each region two overall rankings: one based upon its overall ambitiousness, using
the average weighted rank discussed above, and one based upon its rate of commitments met for the same set of measures.
EPA then compared the rankings for ambitiousness and commitments met across all 10 regions for FY 2012 (Figure 14).5 As
the figure illustrates, two of the three regions with the highest ranking for ambitiousness, Regions 5 and 8, tended to rank
lower than average in the percentage of annual commitments met in FY 2012. The regions ranked in the middle on ambitious-
ness (4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th) generally ranked about the same in commitments met (3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th, respectively). The
regions ranked 8th and 9th in ambitiousness are ranked 1st and 2nd in commitments met.
Figure 14: FY 2012 Regional Rank of Ambitiousness vs. Commitments Met
Regions Sorted by Ambitiousness Rank
O)
c
^
c
CD
CL
1-
2
3
4-
C
_ _|_
1
2
+
3
7
8
9
10
+
+
4
+
5
6
7
+
8
9
R5 R2 R8 R9 R6 R3 R10 R1 R4 R7
-1
-2
3
-4
r
p
7
8
9
1
O)
c
c
cc
10 Ranking
Commitments Met Rank
Overall Ambitiousness Rank
Another way to examine the impact of ambitiousness on the ability to meet commitments is to compare changes in regional rank
between FY 2011 and FY 2012 (Figure 15).6 In terms of ranking on commitments met, four regions declined (Regions 5, 2, 8, and
9), three regions increased (Regions 3, 4, and 7), and three regions stayed the same in their rank in commitments met (Regions
6, 10, and 1). Six regions ranked higher in commitment ambitiousness between 2011 and 2012 (Regions 5, 2, 9, 6, 3, and 1), and
four ranked lower (Regions 8, 10, 4, and 7). Of the six regions that increased in commitment ambitiousness (Regions 5, 2, 9, 3, 6,
and 1), all but Region 3 declined or remained the same in commitments met rankings. Alternately, of the four regions that showed
declines in relative ambitiousness between 2011 and 2012, three regions' rankings on commitments met went up or stayed the
same (Regions 4, 7, and 10) and one region's ranking on commitments met declined (Region 8).
s Because this ambitiousness analysis focused only on a subset of OW's measures, the rankings for commitments met may be different than those presented
earlier in this document (Figure 9). This approach helps ensure appropriate comparability, in this analysis, between the ambitiousness ranks and commitments-
met ranks.
5 The FY 2011 rankings for ambitiousness and commitments met were calculated in the same manner as described earlier for the FY 2012 rankings.
20
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 15: Change in Regional Rank of Ambitiousness & Commitments Met
Regions Sorted by FY2012 Ambitiousness Rank
Ranking
Commitments Met Rank
Overall Ambitiousness Rank
The analysis suggests that there may be a relationship between the level of ambitiousness in setting commitments and
the percentages of commitments met at end of year. It is important to note, however, that there are several key caveats in
interpreting the results of this analysis. It is based on a relatively small set of measures (32) and focuses on only two years of
data. Other methodological approaches probably could be used and might produce different results. And finally, a multitude
of factors influence regions in terms of setting commitments for individual measures (e.g., resource availability, size of mea-
sure universe, region-specific priorities, region-state oversight relationships). All of these factors are important in the ultimate
outcome to negotiations among headquarters, regions, and states in setting annual commitments. The purpose of EPA's
analysis in assessing ambitiousness is not intended to "punish" or embarrass any region whose rankings might be lower than
other regions. The goal is simply to provide additional benchmarking information for headquarters and regions to use during
commitment negotiations.
Tribal Commitment Measures
Ten of the National Water Program measures focus specifically on drinking water and water quality on American Indian lands.
There was a slight increase in the number of commitments met (eight) in 2012 over the results in 2011 (Figure 16). End of the
year results indicate that management of water quality and access to sanitation on tribal lands showed some improvement
over the past year. The drinking water program, however, fell short of meeting both its tribal commitments in FY 2012 (tribal
populations in compliance with safe drinking water standards and tribal access to drinking water). For more information on
tribal performance results, see the chapter on "American Indian Drinking Water and Water Quality FY 2012 Performance" on
EPA's Water Program Performance Page at http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/performance/index.cfm.
21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 16: FY 2007-FY 2012 Tribal Commitments Met & Not Met
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Not Met Data Not Available "Met
2012
22
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights
The National Water Program tracks the performance of more than 90 commitment measures for a diverse set of individual
programs. Programs can be national or regional in scale and can produce a multitude of outputs and outcomes. The following
section provides trend data for annual commitments and results for many of the key measures for the National Water Program.
For more in-depth information about any of the measures or charts in this section, please refer to the specific subobjective
chapter contained in the comprehensive End of Year Performance Report on EPA's website (http://water.epa.gov/resource_
performance/performance/index.cfm).
Water Safe to Drink
Approximately ninety-five percent (94.7%) of the population was served by CWSs with drinking water that met all
applicable health-based drinking water standards. This was above the annual commitment of 91%.
Figure 17: Percent Population with Drinking Water Meeting Standards
by Fiscal Year (SDW-211)
100.0% -
90.0% -
80.0% -
70.0% -
60.0% -
50.0% -
40.0% -
30.0% -
20.0% -
10.0%
93.2%
94.7%
u.u/o -
^B Result
^^ Commitment
2007
91 .5%
90.0%
2008
92.0%
90.0%
2009
92.1%
89.5%
2010
92.0%
89.9%
2011
93.2%
91.0%
2012
94.7%
91.0%
2013
92.0%
23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
More than 3,500 of the waters listed as impaired in 2002 met water quality standards for all the identified impair-
ments (commitment 3,324).
Figure 18: Formerly Impaired Waterbodies Meeting Water Quality Standards
by Fiscal Year (WQ-SP10.N11)
u -
^Result
9 Commitment
2008
2,165
1,552
2009
2,505
2,272
2010
2,909
2,809
2011
3,119
2,973
2012
3,527
3,324
2013
3,608
EPA established and approved 2,922 TMDLs. More than 52,000 TMDLs have been completed since 1996.7
Figure 19: TMDLs Established or Approved on a Schedule Consistent with
National Policy by Fiscal Year (WQ-08a)
14,000
12,000
10,000
u
Result
^^~ Commitment
2007
4,191
2,940
2008
8,696
7,819
2009
5,887
3,097
2010
4,951
2,592
2011
2,846
2,433
2012
2,922
2,215
2013
12,708
7 ATMDL 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.
24
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis (continued)
For the fifth consecutive year, EPA and states achieved the national goal of having current NPDES permits in place for
88% of non-tribal facilities.
Figure 20: Non-Tribal NPDES Permits Considered Current by Fiscal Year (WQ-12a)
100.0%
90.0%
88.0%
U.U7o -
^H Result
Commitment
2007
90.0%
87.0%
2008
90.0%
87.0%
2009
90.0%
89.5%
2010
89.4%
89.0%
2011
89.3%
88.4%
2012
90.4%
88.0%
2013
88.0%
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
The 28 NEPs and their partners protected or restored almost 115,000 acres of habitat within the NEP study areas
exceeding EPA's goal of 100,000 acres. Since 2002, the NEPs and their partners have protected or restored more than
1 million habitat acres within the NEP study areas.
Figure 21: NEP Acres Protected or Restored by Fiscal Year (CO-432.N11)
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
u -
^H Result
^^ Commitment
2007
102,462
40,950
2008
82,828
43,114
2009
125,437
46,121
2010
89,985
100,000
2011
62,213
100,000
2012
114,579
100,000
2013
100,000
25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Increase Wetlands
EPA continues to exceed expectations in the number of acres of wetlands restored and enhanced, with 180,000 acres
restored and enhanced since 2002 (WT-1).
22: Wetland Acres Restored and Enhanced by Fiscal Year (WT-01)
Commitment 7,200
190,000
26
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
EPA, states, and other partners remediated 9.7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes
through 2011, including more than 1.3 million cubic yards for the most recent year reported.
Figure 23: Cubic Yards of Remediated Sediment by Fiscal Year (GL-SP32.N11)
12.0 n
2.0
u.u
^Result
^ Commitment
2007
4.5
4.5
2008
5.5
5.0
2009
6.0
5.9
2010
7.3
6.4
2011
8.4
7.2
2012
9.7
9.1
2013
10.3
The Great Lakes Program met its commitment to reduce seven additional Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) at Great
Lakes Areas of Concern. Examples of impairments removed include restrictions on drinking water consumption, eutro-
phication, added costs to agriculture and industry, and degradation of benthos.
Figure 24: Beneficial Use Impairments Restored by Fiscal Year (GL-05)
u -
Result
» Commitment
2009
12
21
2010
12
26
2011
26
26
2012
33
33
2013
41
27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
Based on annual monitoring from the prior year, the Chesapeake Bay Program reported 62,900 acres of underwater
grasses in the bay. This represents approximately 34% of the program's long-term goal of 185,000 acres.
Figure 25: Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restored by Fiscal Year
(CB-SP33.N11)
Restore and Protect the Gulf
The size of the hypoxic, or "dead," zone in the Gulf of Mexico decreased from 17,520 square kilometers in 2011 to
7,483 square kilometers in 2012. A number of hydrological, climate, and monitoring factors lead to variability in the
size of the hypoxic zone from year to year.
Figure 26: Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone 5-Year Average Size (Square Kilometers)
by Fiscal Year (GM-SP40.N11)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
28
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
The maximum area of hypoxia in Long Island Sound measured 288 square miles. Warm weather conditions in the
summer were partly responsible for the result exceeding the five-year rolling average maximum area of hypoxia of 174
square miles.
Figure 27: Reduction in Size (Square Miles) of Long Island Sound Hypoxic Zone
by Fiscal Year (LI-SP42.N11)
Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
EPA provided adequate wastewater sanitation to an additional 31,092 homes over the past year, achieving its annual
commitment (10,500 additional homes).
Figure 28: Homes with Safe Drinking Water in the U.S.-Mexico Border Area
by Fiscal Year (MB-SP24.N11)
25,000
20,000 -
15,000
21,650 A 21,899
3,000
u -
^Result
2007
1,276
9 Commitment
2008
5,162
2,500
2009
1,584
1,500
2010
21,650
21,899
2011
2,604
2,000
2012
5,185
1,000
2013
3,000
29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
The Puget Sound program improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions for 964 additional acres of shellfish
bed growing areas. Unfortunately, this was not enough to reach the program's cumulative goal of 3,878 acres of
unrestrictive commercial and recreational harvesting area in the Sound.
Figure 29: Increased Acres of Puget Sound Shellfish Areas
by Fiscal Year (PS-SP49.N11)
9,000 -r
Result
Commitment
2008
1,566
450
2009
1,730
600
2010
4,453
1,800
2011
1,525
4,953
2012
2,489
3,878
2013
7,758
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Due to the implementation of upgraded wastewater management, water quality in the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary
improved, as measured by the percent of monitoring stations with dissolved nitrogen and total phosphorus at or below
unhealthy levels.
Figure 30: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN)
and Total Phosphorus (TP) Levels by Fiscal Year (SFL-SP47b)
Commitment
75.0%
75.0%
30
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Ensure Safe Drinking Water and Protect Water Quality on Tribal Lands
EPA set an ambitious commitment of 87% of the population in Indian Country served by CWSs that receive drinking
water meeting all applicable health-based standards. The Agency fell short of this goal, mostly due to violations result-
ing from the Total Coliform, Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts, and Nitrates Rules.
Figure 31: Population Served by CWSs In Indian Country by Fiscal Year (SDW-SP3.N11)
^Result
^^Commitment
2007
87.0%
87.0%
2008
83.0%
87.0%
2009
81.2%
81 .6%
2010
87.2%
82.2%
2011
81.2%
80.0%
2012
84.0%
87.0%
2013
87.0%
The Agency and its partners provided access to basic sanitation to more than 63,000 American Indian or Alaskan
Native homes.
Figure 32: Number of American Indian and Alaska Native Homes
with Access to Basic Sanitation by Fiscal Year (WQ-24.N11)
80,000
70,000
10,000 -
u -
^Result
^^ Commitment
2011
56,875
52,300
2012
63,087
62,300
2013
67,600
31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
National Water Program FY 2012 Best Practices
Introduction
Achieving continuous improvement in programmatic activities
and environmental outcomes requires a process of planning,
implementation, measurement, and analysis. This section
highlights a number of best practices that have resulted in
successful drinking water, surface water quality, wetlands,
coastal and oceans, and large aquatic ecosystem programs.
A best practice is defined as a process or methodology that
consistently produces superior or innovative results. To propa-
gate their impact widely and encourage their adoption, it is
important to identify and analyze these approaches.
The six best practices highlighted in this section were selected
from proposals submitted by the water divisions in EPA's
headquarters or regional offices. The proposals were evalu-
ated based on the following criteria:
Success Within the Program: How has the activity
resulted in improvements? Are the activity results clear?
Does the activity have a direct or catalytic impact on
program success?
Innovation: How does the activity differ from existing
approaches? Replicability: Can the activity be adopted by
other regions/offices/states? Does it have the potential for
expansion?
Direct Relation to the Administrator's
Priorities
The selected best practices do not represent a comprehensive
ist of the innovative activities that are being implemented.
Rather, the selection is intended to provide examples of
different types of activities taking place in different regions
addressing different subobjectives. In selecting these best
practices, special emphasis was placed on identifying activi-
ties or approaches that have resulted in measurable success-
ful outcomes.
The vision for this report is to promote the widespread use of
these successful activities and scale up the benefits of their
implementation by sharing information on them among the
program and regional offices.
Further activities will be identified and analyzed on a bian-
nual basis. Furthermore, activities that have been selected
will continue to be monitored to study their long-term
effectiveness. This is part of a continuous learning process
that is expected to yield even more innovation and successful
outcomes.
,<* -^
1 «i'** *t~i*
32
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Nonpoint Source Watershed-Based Plan
Review Guide
Brief Description:
A cornerstone of the national guidelines is the requirement
to develop and implement WBPs as a condition for eligibil-
ity of a large portion of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319
funding. WBPs require nine elements, including sufficient
understanding of the water quality conditions, causes of NFS
impairments, load reduction measures, funding sources, and
implementation and monitoring to determine improvements
to or restoration of water quality.
Region 6 reviews approximately 10 WBPs annually. The
technical quality of these WBPs and the degree to which they
meet national guidelines has differed because they are devel-
oped by many organizations with varying capacities. In ad-
dition, the states expressed a concern that different regional
reviewers did not review WBPs in a consistent fashion (some
being more critical than others). To clarify regional expecta-
tions for WBP acceptance and to improve the consistency
of WBP reviews, a WBP review guide was developed. The
review guide briefly explains the nine elements in the national
guidelines and incorporates questions under each element on
the types of data and information that may be appropriate.
Reviewers can insert their comments and feedback into the
guide itself. The resulting Word file can then be emailed to
the originator. The Region 6 team worked together on the
guide, allowed states the opportunity for input, and com-
pleted it in early 2010. To check reviewer consistency, the
region conducted an exercise in which five program manag-
ers reviewed the same WBP and, afterwards, compared and
discussed all written reviews. All participants felt this was
enlighting and would likely help with review consistency in
the future.
The WBP review guide is available at http://www.epa.gov/
region6/water/ecopro/watershd/nonpoint/watershed-plan-
review.pdf.
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Planning/Assessment
Highlights:
What: EPA Region 6 developed a watershed-based
plan (WBP) review guide to encourage consistency in its
reviews of WBP, improve the quality of the plans, and
increase the restoration of impaired waters.
Who: EPA Region 6
Why: Protecting America's waters and building strong
state and tribal partnerships are two of the Administra-
tor's priorities. At a biannual region/states nonpoint
source (NPS) workshop in FY2010, states indicated
that the region needed to be more consistent in its
reviews of submitted WBPs. The need for consistency
was also pointed out in the General Accountability Of-
fice's review of EPA's NPS Program in 2011. The region
developed the review guide to ensure that WBPs are
in harmony with national nonpoint source program
guidelines, to strengthen partnerships with states, and
to better protect America's waters.
Current Status:
Currently, the WBP review guide is used routinely by Region 6
NPS program managers. Written comments embedded in the
review guide are shared with the state or watershed group to
aid in further developing or revising WBPs.
Outcomes:
As a result of the application of the WBP review guide,
Region 6 is better equipped to achieve one of the Adminis-
trator's priorities: protecting America's waters. Staff reviews
of WBPs have been more consistent. States are developing
better WBPs as well. One state, New Mexico, now uses the
33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
review guide for its own use prior to submitting their WBP
to the region for acceptance. Arkansas uses the information
provided from the region's review to improve in-house staff
capacity on WBP reviews and shares the information with
their own watershed partners.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
EPA Region 6 has learned that through the use of the review
guide, the region's relationships with state and tribes can be
improved if the evaluation of plans is conducted fairly and
consistently. Having a follow up review exercise for staff is
valuable. The review guide can be used by other regions and/
or states. It is already being utilized by some Region 6 state
partners.
Contact Information:
Brad Lamb, 214-665-6683
Tina Hendon 214-665-6619
34
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Closing the Gap in Available and Obligated
Funds for Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds
Brief Description:
The key elements of the approach include 1) analyzing histori-
cal drawdown trends; 2) understanding and offering more
efficient grants management practices; 3) negotiating with
state partners' best management practices and optimistic
stretch goals for drawing down funds; and 4) analyzing prog-
ress and revisiting management practices and targets.
In lieu of responding to drawdown reports, EPA established
targets at the beginning of the fiscal year. This brought imme-
diate attention to construction projects that were stalled or
not being funded, suggestions for improving invoice payment
processes, and efforts for revising application processes. As
a result, several state SRF programs developed short- and/or
long-term revisions that helped expedite drawdowns. Several
states revised their rules to accommodate a greater amount
of construction project applications. Additionally, webinars
were offered to all entities on the draft SRF project priority
list, and consultants were available to explain changes to
invitation process and Intended Use Plans (lUPs).
In developing the stretch goals, the Region 6 SRF team met
with each state at the beginning of the fiscal year to discuss
the feasibility of the stretch goals. Staff from EPA and the
state collaborated on determining the most realistic yet ambi-
tious stretch goal. Once staff had agreed on the stretch goal,
senior management from all parties was briefed, and then
official correspondence documented the decision. A series
of check-in meetings throughout the year ensured that the
stretch goals received appropriate attention and provided
forums for discussing program challenges.
Current Status:
Apart from the reductions in unliquidated funds that were
seen in each of the SRF programs (in particular the Clean
Water SRF program), states have continued focus on the need
to draw down SRF funds expeditiously. The Region 6 SRF
program continues to track progress toward goals quarterly
and evaluate the revised management practices. Region 6
also emphasizes the unliquidated obligation (ULO) issue at
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Financial Management
Highlights:
What: EPA establishes drawdown targets or "stretch
goals" for states in reducing the amount of unobligated
funds for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolv-
ing Fund (SRF) grant programs.
Who: The EPA Region 6 SRF program worked with
its state partners to negotiate stretch goals for each
quarter.
Why: To "close the gap" between amount obligated in
the federal SRF capitalization awards and total amount of
outlays against that obligation.
annual state onsite evaluations and in Performance Evalua-
tion Reports (PERs); during one-on-one meetings with the
state agencies; in its comments on states' lUPs, set-aside
work plans, and annual reports; and during all other opportu-
nities for dialogue.
Outcomes:
The primary outcome of the region's effort has been an
increase in the majority of states' expenditure rates, resulting
in a reduction of the states' balances of ULOs. The region
expects this practice to continue to positively impact the
program by further reducing ULOs in the upcoming years as
it continues to partner with the states on this issue. Some
changes put in place by this effort, such as a revision to a
state rule to accommodate a greater amount of construction
project applications, were not able to be implemented this
fiscal year and promise to show even further reduction in the
near future.
35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Clean Water SRF Stretch Goal Impact for FFY 2012
... 3YearAverage rvmn n * %of3Year
State Outlay FY 201 2 Outlays Average Out|ay
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
$4,978,313
$15,816,864
$2,192,430
$8,432,017
$20,725,824
$13,674,503
$33,952,103
$10,661,768
$22,635,548
$171,729,833
275%
215%
486%
268%
829%
Region 6
$52,145,447
$252,653,756
Drinking Water SRF Stretch Goal Impact for FFY 2012
3 Year Average
Actual
% of 3 Year
Average
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
$12,621,037
$19,778,726
$7,937,932
$18,996,410
$63,900,044
$11,606,021
$17,230,785
$8,156,518
$10,681,173
$80,419,285
92%
87%
103%
56%
126%
Region 6 I $123,234,147 $128,093,781 104%
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Region 6 believes that its approach can be replicated in other
regions as long as it has strong management support from
all parties. Collaboration with states on ULOs encouraged
planning and dialogue at the beginning of the fiscal year as
stretch goals were developed in consultation with the states.
Region 6 SRF Project Officers keep a ULO tracking chart that
is updated monthly, and they are familiar with the amount
of federal money each agency is spending and from which
grants and set-aside accounts are being drawn. This gives the
Project Officer a more intimate connection with the financial
activity of the state agencies that manage the SRF programs
and enables the Project Officer to identify potential problems
(e.g., no federal draws after the first fiscal year quarter) and
counsel the states about these potential problems in their
infant stages. This has proven to be tremendously beneficial
in accelerating federal draws.
Contact Information:
Ashley Howard, 214-665-7597
36
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Advancing Large-Scale Green Infrastructure
Through Collaborative Partnership
Agreements
Brief Description:
Regulated entities can be hesitant to adopt new environmental
protection practices because they are unsure about how ef-
fectively these practices will work and how regulatory agencies
like EPA will respond. They may also be reluctant to accept the
risk of emerging practices even when these practices may pro-
vide additional environmental, economic, and social benefits.
This has been the case with cities that wish to use green infra-
structure practices as a key element of their Long Term Control
Plan to address stormwater and reduce CSOs.
Shifting the relationship among EPA, states, and cities from
regulator and regulated to a partnershipwhereby EPA
and the regulated entity mutually agree to work toward the
desired outcome and share some risk, while maintaining
regulatory responsibility and accountabilityhelps move the
green infrastructure initiative forward more quickly; leverages
additional support; and creates an atmosphere of coopera-
tion, education, and success.
The partnership agreement approach:
1. Provides a framework that describes the working relation-
ships between EPA and partner cities/jurisdictions imple-
menting green stormwater infrastructure for achieving
specified goals.
2. Demonstrates a joint commitment to green infrastructure
and this emerging green economy.
3. Allows for "real-time" collaborative discussion about
what each partner can do to support achievement of the
desired outcome.
4. Does not eliminate environmental responsibilities and
requirements under the CWA but demonstrates a willing-
ness to approach those responsibilities and the associated
risks in a collaborative, solutions-oriented fashion.
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Partnership Agreement
Highlights:
What: The partnership agreements advance large-
scale green infrastructure (Gl)8 implementation through
an innovative Urban Retrofit Partnership "model" by
aggressively addressing combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) and water quality while demonstrating multiple
sustainable benefits to impacted watersheds and
communities.
Who: EPA Mid-Atlantic Region 3 (Water Protection
Division), Philadelphia Mayor's Office, and the
Philadelphia Water Department.
Why: To demonstrate EPA support for adoption and
use of large-scale decentralized green stormwater
management for addressing CSOs and wet weather,
along with other urban impacts through the use of
innovative collaboration and sustainable development.
This approach is best captured and demonstrated by the
"Green City, Clean Waters Partnership Agreement" between
the city of Philadelphia and EPA and the recent "Clean Rivers,
Green District Partnership Agreement" between the District
of Columbia, DC Water, and EPA (modeled after the Phila-
delphia agreement). While these partnership agreements
are slightly different, they both represent a new approach to
early adoption of green infrastructure and a best practice for
building positive partnerships to protect human health and
the environment.
3 Green infrastructure refers to a range of soil-water-plant systems that intercept stormwater, infiltrate a portion of it into the ground, evaporate a portion of into
the air, and in some cases, release a portion of it slowly back into the sewer system. The benefits of green infrastructure are particularly enhanced in urban areas
where green space is limited and environmental damage may be more extensive.
37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Each agreement outlines the roles of each partner and the
strategy for early adoption of green infrastructure, assessing
the performance of green infrastructure, future adoption of
green infrastructure, and ongoing communication between
the partners. The agreements also identify specific collab-
orative actions, such as green design challenges, that will
be used to build capacity and understanding around green
infrastructure. These agreements are innovative because they
provide an alternative to the strictly regulatory approach.
They demonstrate the EPA's willingness to work with cities
(and other regulated entities) that show good faith effort in
protecting human health and the environment. For terms of
the agreements, see Web links below.
Current Status:
Both partnership agreements have been signed, and the
partners are moving forward with implementation. The Phila-
delphia partnership agreement was signed on April 10, 2012.
The DC partnership agreement was signed on December
10, 2012. These partnership agreements are still in the early
stages, yet they are already yielding positive results.
Outcomes:
The Philadelphia partnership agreement has served as a
springboard for multiple activities in the Philadelphia area,
including a green infrastructure design initiative, green infra-
structure research, green streets,9 and work to develop the
"Next Generation Big Green Block". The Green City, Clean
Waters Partnership Agreement (along with the leadership and
staff in the Philadelphia Water Department and the efforts
of the Region 3 Water Protection Division) has made Phila-
delphia a national model of green stormwater management.
Philadelphia has also become the focus of an EPA Science
To Achieve Results (STAR) grant, which will help support
research and advance the science of green infrastructure.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
While each partnership agreement will necessarily have
unique local variations, the partnership approach provides an
alternative to the standard practice. Partnerships demonstrate
a willingness to consider new ideas and new practices while
maintaining accountability to regulatory requirements. While
EPA maintains its responsibility as regulator, the partner-
ship approach has changed the tone of the discussion and
made it possible to establish shared goals and a clear path to
collaborative success. The partnerships are bringing positive
national attention to these cities and to the topic of green in-
frastructure, helping to leverage both expertise and funding.
Visual Diagram:
http://issuu.com/phillyh2o/docs/green-city-clean-waters-
2012-year-in-review?mode=window&backgroundColor=
%23222222
Contact Information:
Jon Capacasa, Director, Water Protection Division,
215-814-5421
Dominique Lueckenhoff, Associate Director, 215-814-5810
"Green City, Clean Waters Partnership Agreement"
http://phillywatersheds.org/doc/EPA_Partnership_Agreement.
pdf
"Clean Rivers, Green District Partnership Agreement"
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/
GreenPartnshipAgreement.pdf
9 The simplest definition of "Green Streets" is "combining multiple Gl practices along a street corridor." http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/
upload/gi_mun ichandbook_green_streets.pdf
38
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Watershed Resources Registry
A Data-Driven, Integrated Decision Support
Framework and Tool
Brief Description:
The WRR is a CIS-based mapping tool designed to address
priority resources goals, identify watershed needs, and to
facilitate the integration of multiple local, state, and federal
environmental program goals at a watershed level. The WRR
identifies ecological opportunity areas throughout the State
of Maryland and scores each opportunity area with a score
from one to five stars with five stars indicating the greatest
ecological value. These scores are based upon eight suit-
ability analyses including: wetland preservation, wetland
restoration, upland preservation, upland restoration, ripar-
ian preservation, riparian restoration, stormwater natural
infrastructure preservation, and stormwater compromised
infrastructure restoration.
Current Status:
The WRR outreach website was recently released and made
available to the public. The website provides information
regarding the history of the WRR project, methodologies
used, a guided WRR training video, contact information of
TAG members, and frequently asked questions, along with
other information and links to assist the user with the WRR.
The outreach website serves as the platform to access the
Web application. It is also where users can provide feedback
on the usability of the application. The WRR is now available
to the general public via the WRR outreach website and Web
application found atwww.watershedresourcesregistry.com.
Partner agencies, as well as other agencies that have recently
become familiar with the WRR, are currently using it for
an array of activities, such as targeting strategies for Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation and CWA §404
NEPA-related projects, targeting ecological opportunities for
preservation and restoration, and supporting MDE's In-Lieu
Fee program for tidal and non-tidal wetland permitting activi-
ties, among other things. Additionally, EPA uses the WRR
to gather information prior to conducting site visits and to
provide supportive materials for briefings and other projects.
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Assessment-Database
Highlights:
What: The Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) is
an interactive, comprehensive geographic information
systems (CIS) mapping tool and replicable framework
that analyzes watersheds to find and score ideal
opportunity areas for protecting high-quality resources;
restoring impaired resources; and supporting
sustainable, integrated watershed management and
regulatory efficiencies.
Who: Led by EPA Region 3 (Water Protection Division),
current partner agencies include the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Baltimore District), the Federal Highway
Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
(State Highway Administration, Environmental Services,
and Department of Natural Resources). A Technical
Action Committee (TAC) consisting of individuals from
these partner agencies collaboratively strategizes the
development, progress, and future of the WRR and
uses it as a vehicle to discuss how to reduce cost and
maximize environmental benefit.
Why: The WRR was developed through the Mid-
Atlantic Green Highways Partnership as an exercise in
interagency collaboration to streamline information
collection and preparation for permit processes; achieve
program integration and watershed goals; prioritize
watershed needs; and increase stakeholder efficiency
in utilizing limited resources to achieve multiple goals
within a watershed.
39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Members of the WRR TAG completed agency-specific training
sessions within each partner agency to instruct their staffs on
how to efficiently use the WRR in their daily project activities.
Staff members were also shown how to provide feedback
on their experiences with the WRR through a feedback page
provided on the WRR outreach website. This feedback is be-
ing compiled into a tracking document to be used to improve
the WRR.
Outcomes:
The WRR was recognized by the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board
in its "Practitioner's Handbook: Optimizing Conservation
and Improving Mitigation Through the Use of Progressive
Approaches" as a model approach that "provides a publicly
accessible platform that analyzes specific ecosystem functions
and suggests priority restoration projects that accommodate
multiple regulatory or non-regulatory programs."
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Aligning strongly with the goals set forth in President
Obama's Executive Order for the Chesapeake Bay, the WRR is
a powerful tool with the capabi ity of assisting state, federal,
and local entities in meeting the requirements of the bay's
TMDL. However, the WRR provides a transferrable framework
that could be employed in other regions as a means to over-
come limitations of existing regulatory frameworks that often
result in a stovepipe approach to managing resources. The
framework requires that individuals from an array of agen-
cies be proactively engaged up front in order to cooperatively
identify shared, overlapping, or complementary goals of the
traditionally competing regulations that govern their work.
The comprehensive program coverage and buy-in during the
development of the tool helped to ensure its functionality and
utility in achieving synergistic ecological benefits within the
scope of a diverse set of programs. The framework can there-
fore serve as a strategy to be used by entities as they move
forward to develop unique registries tailored to the needs of
their specific regions.
Contacts:
Dominique Lueckenhoff, 215-814-5810
Ralph Spagnolo, 215-814-2718
http://www.watershedresourcesregistry.com
40
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Institutionalizing Green Infrastructure
via Municipal Stormwater Permits
Brief Description:
This permit uses a 90th percentile rainfall performance stan-
dard approach to implement the onsite retention framework.
Under natural conditions in the DC region, approximately
90% of the storms (those under about 1.2") will not gener-
ate runoff; in other words, all of the rainfall from small to
medium-sized storms will stay on site, either soaking into the
ground or taken up by vegetation. The performance standard
in the permit seeks to mimic the natural hydrologic cycle by
requiring the implementation of stormwater management
measures thatwill handle 1.2" on site.
The permit also supports the framework, with specific
implementation requirements for green roofs and tree plant-
ings, a numeric drainage area retrofit requirements, a green
landscaping incentive program provision, a manual to guide
implementation of the new standard, and an offsite mitiga-
tion and payment-in-lieu program. Quantifiable, enforceable
language is also a critical element to ensure that these provi-
sions are implemented without exception by specific dates to
meet robust standards.
Current Status:
The permit was issued in September 2011. The region suc-
cessfully defended challenges to two aspects of the permit
(not the ones outlined here), which pushed back the effective
date of the permit but did not compromise its integrity. To
date, the District of Columbia (the permittee) has proposed
changes to stormwater ordinances to implement the per-
formance standard and the offsite mitigation/payment-in-
lieu program, has published the Stormwater Management
Guidebook in a public notice, and has held numerous public
training sessions on the new requirements.
Outcomes:
All development in the District of Columbia will soon be sub-
ject to this performance standard. The tree planting require-
ments are already being met, and the District of Columbia
is on track to comply with the other elements as well. EPA
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Stormwater Management
Highlights:
What: The District of Columbia's Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer (MS4) permit requires onsite retention of
1.2" of rainfall from all 24-hour storms for all new and
redevelopment projects 5,000 square feet or larger,
as well as for most retrofit projects. Implementing the
performance standard necessitates the use of green
infrastructureapplying vegetation, soils, and natural
processes to manage stormwater and create healthier
urban environments. In addition, the permit includes an
annual tree planting requirement and a square footage
green roof installation requirement over the permit
term.
Who: EPA Region 3 issued this MS4 permit.
Why: Most stormwater program water quality
objectives cannot be met without onsite retention of
the rainfall from all small to medium-sized storms.
Simulations using the Chesapeake Bay Program
watershed models indicate that timely attainment
of the relevant wasteload allocations for nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment will result when performance
standards and practices, as quantified in this MS4
permit, are applied to all development in the District of
Columbia.
Region 3 believes this type of framework can be replicated
elsewhere and has promoted it as a successful example for
several Region 3 state programs reissuing MS4 permits. With
adjustments for rainfall depth based on local or regional
climate conditions, this framework can be used in any MS4
permit.
41
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
This approach has been demonstrated to be "practicable."
Permit writers should not be wary about setting clear, nu-
meric, and enforceable provisions.
Contact Information:
Kaitlyn Bendik, 215-814-2709
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/npdes/dcpermits.htm
42
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
-
Iowa's Expeditious Use of Clean Water State
Revolving Funds
Brief Description:
Several milestones affect the CWSRF grant timeline
When Congress finalizes appropriations and EPA an-
nounces funding availability.
When the state submits a grant application.
When EPA awards the grant funds.
When the grant funds are fully disbursed.
The key features of the Iowa CWSRF program include:
Improvements and streamlining in the wastewater con-
struction permitting process, which reduced timelines for
project review and approval.
Allowing applicants to pursue a phased approach to
projects to enable individual projects to proceed timely
to construction instead of waiting for approval on a large
project.
Planning and design loans at 0% interest for three years
to provide upfront capital to get projects started and
ready for construction and loan closing.
Year-round application process with quarterly updates to
the Intended Use Plan, which keeps projects in the loan
pipeline on a continual basis.
Expansion of nonpoint source and green infrastructure
programs to include loans for farmers, livestock produc-
ers, watershed organizations, and others.
Extended term financing, based on project useful life,
which allows more utilities to benefit from the CWSRF.
Environmental review services to complete assessments of
impacts to natural and cultural resources, reducing costs
and barriers to participating in the loan program.
Focus on marketing, customer and consultant education,
and coordination with other funders.
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Financial Planning
Highlights:
What: The state of Iowa's Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) uses its federal capitalization grant funds
as expeditiously as possible by implementing various
innovative approaches, such as streamlining permitting
processes, short-term low interest loans, expanding
eligibility of nonpoint source loan programs, and
coordinating marketing with other funders.
Who: State of Iowa
Why: The Iowa CWSRF is committed to improving and
streamlining its program in order to generate more
interest from potential borrowers, and to continue
to use the CWSRF funds in a timely and expeditious
manner.
Grant Timelines
(number of months between milestones)
20
10
Award-Full Disbursement
Application-Award
State Submission
2010
2011
2012
43
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Financial management also contributes to the timely use of
federal funds. The Iowa CWSRF program uses its principal
and interest repayments to originate new loans. When ad-
ditional funds are needed, the SRF program issues bonds,
backed by those CWSRF loans, and uses the bond proceeds
to replenish the equity fund.
Iowa's SRF program generally issues bonds annually. These
bond issues include the state match for the next federal
capitalization grants. After the bonds are issued, the state
match is spent first so that the capitalization grant can be
drawn down at 100% when it is received. Iowa chooses
several large projects to receive grant disbursements, thus
allowing the grant to be drawn down more quickly. Loan
disbursements are made weekly. Iowa's CWSRF disburse-
ments average about $14 million per month. Iowa's CWSRF
capitalization grant in FY 2012 was $19,128,000.
CWSRF Sources-Iowa
Outcome:
The timeline in Iowa has been reduced significantly over the
last three grant cycles.
Iowa has been able to use its federal capitalization grant
funds in a a timely manner due to a robust and sustained
demand for loans. Iowa's annual loan commitment amounts
have increased from an average of $30 million per year to an
average of $190 million in recent years.
Growth in Loan Commitments, Iowa CWSRF
$1,600,000,000
$1,100,000,000
$600,000,000
$100,000,000
$(400,000,000)
Nonpoint
Wastewater
Repayments/interest
$483,000,000
31%
Federal Grants
$395,000,000
25%
Leveraged bonds
$600,000,000
39%
State match bonds
$81,000,000
5%
Iowa statute directs the Iowa Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) and the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) to jointly
operate the CWSRF. DNR handles program prioritization,
project permitting, environmental review, and EPA compli-
ance. IFA covers financial management, issues bonds, and
disburses loan funds. While each partner carries out its
individual responsibilities, the two coordinate on program-
matic and financial strategies to make the most effective use
of the funding.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Both the Iowa DNR and IFA are committed to continuous
improvement and streamlining efforts to adapt to changes in
the program requirements and needs. Many of the strate-
gies for timely use of funds are also recommended by the
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA) in the
white paper, "Potential State and Regional Best Practices to
consider in Accelerating SRF Funds." As CIFA points out, not
all practices are applicable to each state program, depend-
ing on program structure and state statutory requirements.
The practices described above are currently working well for
Iowa.
Contact Information:
Patti Cale-Finnegan
Department of Natural Resources
515-725-0498
Patti.cale-finnegan@dnr.iowa.gov
Lori Beary
Iowa Finance Authority
515-725-4965
lori.beary@iowa.gov
44
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
-
Going Really Green: Sea Farming for
Environmental and Economic Benefits
Brief Description:
The key elements of this best practice are: 1) key partners'
recognition of the need for a comprehensive approach that
combines traditional water pollution control methods with
innovative strategies in a cost-effective and economically sus-
tainable manner; 2) the vision to foresee a different approach
that combines science and business in synergistic partner-
ships to achieve mutual goalsclean water and economic
benefits, including new jobs; 3) the willingness and ability
to use limited resources to conduct on-the-ground scientific
empirical experiments in cooperation with the business
community; and 4) moving from practical experimentation to
actual implementation and development.
This multi-partner project has shown that sea farming in
highly urbanized waters is feasible and practical. Conflicts
with recreation can be minimized or avoided. Farming
seaweeds and shellfish species improves water quality while
developing new consumable and nonconsumable products
and markets that enhance the economic value of the water-
body. Sea farming can provide new jobs in a very vulnerable
commodity sector, as well as new sources of revenue for local
and state governments. Sea farming in urban coastal areas
has demonstrated scientifically that seaweed and shellfish
production is viable and sustainable, can provide safe and
nutritious feedstock for both human and animal consumption,
and can produce a stable source of stock for nonconsumable
products such as biofuels.
Current Status:
The best practice consists of essentially three parts: Part
1, Seaweed Demonstration, which has been successfully
implemented on a pilot-scale; Part 2, Shellfish Demonstra-
tion, which also has successfully undergone pilot-scale
implementation; Part 3, Economic Analysis Modeling, or
10 New York State Office of the Attorney General and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), under the Bronx River
Watershed Initiative Memorandum of Agreement, executed by and between
the New York State Office of the Attorney General, the NYSDEC, and the
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, as of April 20, 2007.
Subobjective:
Long Island Sound
Type:
Nutrient ReductionEcological Services
Highlights:
What: This best practice demonstrates the potential
for sea farms, shellfish, and seaweeds to improve
water quality in coastal areas of the United States.
Pilot projects on Long Island Sound are evaluating the
feasibility of sea farming in coastal waters, quantifying
the potential for nutrient bioextraction, evaluating use
conflicts, and researching new markets for products,
considering suppliers and consumers. Enhancing sea
farming can reduce nutrient pollution, have ancillary
ecosystem benefits by creating habitat, support
sustainable jobs, and potentially reduce the national
seafood trade deficit.
Who: EPA and its Regional Ecological Services (REServ)
program; the University of Connecticut (UConn)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
(School of Business and Stamford Learning Accelerator);
NOAA's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program (Aquaculture Program, National Marine
Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Milford Laboratory, Center for Coastal Monitoring and
Assessment, and Aquaculture Program); the Bronx River
Watershed Initiative;10 and the Connecticut Sea Grant
College Program.
Why: Nutrient pollution impairs coastal water quality.
EPA is focused on reducing nutrient pollution through
comprehensive and innovative strategies. This best
practice focuses on restoring the assimilative capacity
of coastal water bodies to nutrients that have been
lost from changes in habitat and living resources, such
as a reduction in shellfish populations. Enhancing sea
farming of shellfish and seaweeds can complement
nutrient control as part of a comprehensive strategy to
attain water quality standards.
45
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
ecosystem-scale seaweed and shellfish modeling and eco-
nomic benefits efforts, which are underway and ongoing.
Outcomes:
The annual nutrient-reduction capabilities of shellfish and
seaweed aquaculture have been scientifically demonstrated;
aquaculture techniques in general are well established, and
these approaches are applicable in a wide range of aquatic
environments in urban coastal waters throughout the U.S.
Coastal Zone and its Exclusive Economic Zone. Economic
incentives for aquaculture expansion still need to be develop
(e.g., payment to sea farmers for ecosystem services cre-
ated, sustained inclusion in nitrogen trading programs). For
instance, in a nitrogen trading scheme, cultivated seaweeds
and shellfish can increase the nitrogen carrying capacity
of the waterbody, creating a new market source for trad-
ing credits. Currently, in the Connecticut nitrogen trading
program, only sewage treatment plant nitrogen reductions
qualify as credits for purchase. Projections for Long Island
Sound show a potential for as much as 10,500 tons (dry
weight) of annual seaweed (Gradlaria) production, with a
5% nitrogen capture rate at extraction. Using the Connecti-
cut Nitrogen Credit Trading Board's 2011 price per pound of
nitrogen of $5.42, there could be a potential market value in
the nitrogen removed to operators of $5,691,000 annually.
The total Connecticut nitrogen credit pool in 2011 was $6.8
million by comparison. The additional market and non-market
benefits of seaweed and shellfish farming and bioextraction
are being reviewed.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Limits to aquaculture expansion come primarily from social
sources rather than ecosystem carrying capacity, so inform-
ing the public and gaining acceptance and understanding is
critical to this enterprise. It is important to engage the local
communities in explaining both the physical processes and
the environmental and social benefits of these initiatives. It
is also important to engage federal, state, and local leaders,
regulators, and, potentially, legislators.
Contact Information:
Mark A. Tedesco, Director, EPA Long Island Sound Office,
203-977-1541
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net
r »
Dr. Charles Yarish (center) with UConn and Bridgeport Center researchers and
students collecting farmed kelp.
Shellfish and seaweed suspension raft off the Bronx River, New York Regional
Aquaculture Science and Technology Education.
46
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
1 Mississippi Delta Partnership Use of Novel
Low Technology Solutions for On-Farm
Nutrient Removal
Brief Description:
Delta F.A.R.M., an association of growers and landowners
that strives to implement recognized agricultural practices
that will conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of
northwest Mississippi (with expertise from MSU and several
partners), has been implementing innovative low-cost and
low-technology solutions for controlling on-farm water con-
servation. The strategies being implemented include slotted
inlet pipes as an edge of field practice, vegetated drainage
ditches that directly receive agricultural runoff, and low-
grade weirs in ditches to enhance retention time and improve
wetland-like conditions. Sediment accumulation behind the
structures has been quantified, and these low-technology
solutions have begun demonstrating the ability to mitigate
nutrient and sediment loads to downstream aquatic systems.
In a recent semi-controlled field study, low-grade weirs imple-
mented in drainage ditches were found to increase hydraulic
residence times, which is an essential component to enhancing
nutrient reduction. Research has shown that vegetated drain-
age ditches reduce agricultural runoff concentrations and loads
of total inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus by 47% and 53%,
respectively. Further manipulations of wetland-specific plant
uptake within ditches have suggested that certain plants have
greater nutrient assimilatory capacity than others. Experi-
mentally, it has been shown that weirs significantly decrease
nutrient concentrations and loads over conventionally drained
fields. Data from weirs used in the field show 35 to 60%
reductions for nitrogen (nitrate-N) from where the water enters
the drainage until it exits the weir. As agriculture shifts and be-
comes more focused on sustainability, new best management
practices (BMPs) that are integrated within the landscape will
be needed that attain water quality improvements, but also are
beneficial to production agriculture.
Current Status:
This Mississippi Delta Partnership is innovative because of its
farmer-driven desire to simultaneously improve the environ-
ment and agriculture. The spark for this partnership began in
the late 1990s when a group of Delta farmers got together
Subobjective:
Gulf of Mexico
Type:
Nutrient ReductionPartnership
Highlights:
What: A four-year Mississippi Delta partnership to
decrease nutrients and sediment leaving farm fields to
help protect the Gulf of Mexico.
Who: Mississippi State University (MSU), Delta
F.A.R.M. (Farmers Advocating Resource Management),
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ); USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS); U.S. EPA
Why: This best practice partnership was implemented
as a result of local farmers wanting to proactively
protect on-farm water resources through voluntary
means while generating scientific measures of success.
to discuss growing environmental issues surrounding produc-
tion agriculture. That initial group reached out to federal,
state, and private partners to help develop what is now Delta
F.A.R.M. Building on the meeting of those initial farmers
more than 15 years ago, the Delta F.A.R.M. methods were
expanded to extend outside the Mississippi Delta as a formal
program called REACH (Research & Education to Advance
Conservation and Habitat). REACH will be "steered" by MSU,
with approximately 30 business, nonprofit, state, and federal
partners. REACH is a farmer-driven and farmer-led program
for farmers to proactively address on-farm and downstream
resource concerns. Using the model that is already successful
in the Mississippi Delta, volunteer farmers throughout Missis-
sippi will use scientifically defensible data to document their
water resource conservation and landscape stewardship, not
only to improve their farms, but also to protect the livelihoods
of their downstream neighbors.
47
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Outcomes:
These on-farm, low-tech solutions have already experimental-
ly shown that both sediment and nutrients can be decreased
from farm field drainage as compared to conventionally
drained systems. This model partnership in the Mississippi
Delta is being expanded throughout Mississippi through the
REACH program. These solutions also create downstream
benefits to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico while
improving efficiencies for nutrient reductions within the
agricultural landscape.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Farmer-led and farmer-driven water conservation is a proac-
tive solution for successful voluntary programs that are a
staple in the agricultural community. Planning, developing,
and measuring success of these farmer-led programs provides
unique expertise and funding opportunities for partners with
federal and state agencies, businesses, universities, and
nonprofit organizations. A great lesson learned from this
partnership is the need to have experts in natural resource
conservation willing and able to provide hands-on support to
the farming community on conservation ideas that are farmer
led.
Contacts:
Robbie Kroger, MSU, 662-325-4731
Dan Prevost, Delta F.A.R.M., 662-686-3370
Kay Whittington, MDEQ, 601-961-5729
Kevin Kennedy, NRCS, 662-453-2762
Troy Pierce, EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, 228-688-3658
Credit: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior/USGS, U.S. Geological Survey/photo by K. L. McKee
48
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Salmon Falls Watershed Collaborative
Brief Description:
This best practice was implemented as part of a pilot project
selected by the national Source Water Collaborative (SWC)
(http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/) Spearheaded by
EPA and other key partners, the SWC was originally formed in
2006 with the goal of combining the strengths and tools of a
diverse set of member organizations to act now and protect
drinking water sources for generations to come. Currently
consisting of 24 federal, state, and local partners, the SWC
has come together to further the goals of protecting sources
of drinking waterrecognizing that resources are extremely
limited, authorities are split, and the actors who can actually
protect source waters are diffuse.
In October 2010, more than 80 stakeholders from Maine
and New Hampshire collaborated to identify priority action
areas for the SFWC. As a result, an action plan was devel-
oped covering five key principles: 1) conserving undeveloped
lands; 2) employing low impact development and stormwater
management practices; 3) applying state and local source
water protection rules; 4) identifying and cleaning up poten-
tial sources of contamination; and 5) engaging and inspiring
governments, organizations, and citizens in collaborative ac-
tions to sustain the Salmon Falls watershed. Each strategy in
the action plan includes detailed information about 1) issues
addressed, 2) lead organizations, 3) cooperators, 4) funding
sources, and 5) metrics. This level of detail establishes expec-
tations for task completion and incorporates accountability
for all project partners. The action plan is available at http://
www.prep.unh.edu/sfwc.htm.
Current Status:
The implementation of the project's action plan is ongoing
and continues to produce results. The efforts include conserv-
ing forested lands; implementing low impact development or-
dinances and stormwater management practices; and target-
ing underground storage tanks, RCRA, and SPCC inspections
in drinking water protection areas. The core group, consisting
of EPA and state drinking water staff, a project manager from
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink
Type:
Source Water Planning
Highlights:
What: The Salmon Falls Watershed Collaborative
(SFWC) demonstrates how to improve water quality in a
river that is a source of drinking water for 47,000 people
and serves as the headwaters of the Great Bay Estuary,
an ecosystem of national importance.
Who: EPA Region 1 Drinking Water staff; Maine and
New Hampshire Drinking Water and Nonpoint Source
Programs; New Hampshire and Maine Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) state programs; Wells
National Estuarine Research Reserve; Piscataqua Region
Estuaries Partnership (PREP); Granite State and Maine
Rural Water Associations; Acton Wakefield Watersheds
Alliance; Berwick (Maine) Water Department; the City
of Somersworth, NH; local land trusts; and County Soil
and Water Conservation Districts.
Why: Conceived by the Maine and New Hampshire
drinking water protection programs, the SFWC brought
together regional, state, and local stakeholders and
experts to develop and implement an action plan to
protect clean drinking water for current and future
generations. The watershed is threatened by an
increase in polluted stormwater runoff resulting from
rapid population growth and conversion of forested
land to developed areas.
PREP (NH), and a facilitator from the Wells (Maine) Research
Reserve programs, participates in monthly conference calls
to update each other on action plan implementation. Other
collaborative members stay informed via "Basecamp," an
interactive tool that allows the group to communicate and
post documents.
49
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Outcomes:
Through the partnership with Maine and New Hampshire
NRCS, the project has leveraged more than $300,000 in
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), through
funding of Forestry Conservation Activity Plans for private
landowners, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).
In FY 2012, Maine and New Hampshire NRCS staff targeted
projects in this watershed and funded 22 EQIP applications
for Forest Management Plans on 3,976 acres of private forest
lands. In FY 2013, NRCS will fund more plans as well as con-
servation practices, including BMPs for riparian areas, logging
roads, and stream crossings.
In 2012, key elements of the project were replicated by New
Hampshire NRCS in the Merrimack River watershed, which
provides drinking water to 500,000 people. This project could
be replicated in other watersheds that are experiencing rapid
population growth and development pressures. In particular,
the 2009 U.S. Forest Service report, Private Forests, Public
Benefits, provides a roadmap for prioritizing best practices
in other watersheds. EPA also worked closely with NRCS to
develop a toolkit for USDA/EPA collaboration: http://www.
sourcewatercollaborative.org/swp-usda/.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
It is important to identify and include all partners, including
EPA and state colleagues in the Drinking Water, Nonpoint
Source, and National Estuary Programs, who have a stake in
achieving project goals. EPA's regional office was instrumen-
tal in coordinating water quality data management between
the two states and providing CIS support to ensure that
the bi-state watershed data was consistent. The successful
partnership with NRCS was also critical. Lastly, the timing of
the project coincided with USDA's High Priority Performance
Goal for Water (to improve water quality on 6 million acres
nationwide), further incentivizing NRCS participation.
Contact Information:
Kira Jacobs, 617-918-1817
http://www.prep.unh.edu/sfwc.htm
SALMON FALLS WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE
Cl**n, urt* L iui.tBJiuh[# «>»* li
50
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Appendix A: National Water Program FY 2012
End of Year Performance Measure Commitments,
Results, and Status
FY12 ACS FY 2012
_ . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _, ..
Code 3 . EOY Result
Commitment
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Subobjective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-SP5
SDW-18.N11
SDW-01a
SDW-01b
SDW-03
Percent of population served by CWSs that will 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 during which community water
systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-
based standards.
Percent of the population in Indian Country served by community
water systems that receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Percent of community water systems where risk to public health
is minimized through source water protection.
Percent of the population served by community water systems
where risk to public health is minimized through source water
protection.
Number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking
water.
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 that have undergone
a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for
outstanding performance).
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.
Percent of the Lead and Copper Rule action level data for
community water systems serving over 3,300 people that is
complete in SDWIS-FED.
91%
90%
95%
87%
40%
57%
Indicator
110,000
95%
76
Indicator
94.7%
91%
97.8%
84%
43.3%
55.9%
Data Not Avail-
able
104,266
89%
82
Data Not Avail-
able
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Indicator
Measure Not
Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Indicator
51
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
SDW-04
SDW-05
SDW-07
SDW-08
SDW-11
SDW-12
SDW-13
SDW-14
SDW-15
SDW-16
SDW-17
SDW-19a
SDW-19b
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
Number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
projects that have initiated operations.
Percent of Class I, II, and 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) [approximately 23,640 in FY
2010] that are closed or permitted (cumulative).
Percent of DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS serving <500,
501-2,200, and 2,201-10,000 consumers.
Percent of DWSRF dollars awarded to small PWS serving <500,
501-3,300, 3,301-10,000 consumers.
Percent of DWSRF loans that include assistance to disadvantaged
communities.
Number and percent of CWS and NTNCWS, including new
PWS, serving fewer than 500 persons. (New PWS are those first
reported to EPA in last calendar year.)
Number and percent of small CWS and NTNCWS (<500,
501-3,300, 3,301-10,000) with repeat health-based Nitrate/
Nitrite, Stage 1D/DBP, SWTR, and TCR violations.
Average time for small PWS (<500, 501-3,300, 3,301-10,000)
to return to compliance with acute Nitrate/Nitrite, Stage 1 D/DBP,
SWTR, and TCR health-based violations (based on state-reported
RTC determination data).
Number and percent of schools and childcare centers that meet
all health-based drinking water standards.
Volume of C02 sequestered through injection, as defined by UIC
Final Rule.
Number of permit decisions during the reporting period that
result in C02 sequestered through injection, as defined by the
UIC Final Rule.
89%
6,080
90%
22,853
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
90.7%
6,781
85%
25,225
71%
37%
32%
44,860 (64%)
1,230(2.0%)
130
6,991 (93%)
40,380
0
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
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.
4.90%
2.3%
Measure
Met
52
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
FS-1a
FS-1b
Percent of river miles where fish tissue will be assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories
or a determination that no consumption advice is necessary.
(Great Lakes measured separately; AK not included.)
Percent of lake acres where fish tissue will be assessed to
support waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories
or a determination that no consumption advice is necessary.
(Great Lakes measured separately; AK not included.)
Indicator
Indicator
Data Not Avail-
able
Data Not Avail-
able
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Indicator
Indicator
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
SS-SP9.N11
SS-1
SS-2
Percent of days of 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
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) that will
result in compliance with the technology and water-quality-
based requirements of the CWA; 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.
95%
752 (88%)
95%
95.2%
748 (88%)
100%
Measure Met
Not Met
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-SP10.
N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13.
N11
WQ-
SP14aN11
WQ-
SP14bN11
Number of waterbody segments identified by states in 2002 as
not attaining standards, where water quality 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 decrease in the
streams rated "good").
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 phosphorous, 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).
3,324
10,161
312
Maintain or
Improve Stream
Conditions
13
Indicator
3,527
11,134
332
Not Maintained
15
7
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Not Met
Measure Met
Indicator
53
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
WQ-SP15
WQ-24.N11
WQ-01a
WQ-01b
WQ-Olc
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-05
WQ-06a
By 201 5, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by
50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to
basic sanitation (cumulative).
Number of 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 total phosphorus adopted by states and territories and
approved 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 numeric water quality standards for total nitrogen
and total phosphorus at least proposed by states and territories,
or by EPA proposed rulemaking, for all waters within the state
or territory for each of the following waterbody types: lakes/
reservoirs, rivers/streams, and estuaries (cumulative, out of a
universe of 280).
Number of states and territories supplying a full set of
performance milestone information to EPA concerning
development, proposal, and adoption of numeric water quality
standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for each
waterbody type within the state or territory (annual). (The
universe for this measure is 56.)
Number of tribes that have water quality standards approved by
EPA (cumulative).
Number and 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 sources not considered in 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.
Percent of submissions of new or revised water quality standards
from states and territories that are approved by EPA.
Number of states and territories that have adopted and are
implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping with
established schedules.
Number of tribes that currently receive funding under Section
1 06 of the Clean Water Act and that have developed and
begun implementing monitoring strategies that are appropriate
to their water quality program, consistent with EPA Guidance
(cumulative).
Indicator
62,300
41
46
25
39
39 (69.6%)
14(38%)
85%
56
213
Data Not Avail-
able
63,087
42
46
14
39
39 (69.6%)
14(38%)
88.90%
55
214
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Indicator
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
54
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
WQ-06b
WQ-07
WQ-08a
WQ-08b
WQ-09a
WQ-09b
WQ-09c
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
WQ-13b
Number of tribes providing water quality data in a format
accessible for storage in EPA's data system (cumulative).
Number of states and territories that provide electronic
information using the Assessment Database version 2 or later
(or compatible system) and geo-reference the information
to facilitate the integrated reporting of assessment data
(cumulative).
Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA (total
TMDL) on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative).
(A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order
to attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and
"established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL
itself.)
Number of TMDLs that are established by states and approved
by EPA (state TMDL) on schedule consistent with national policy
(cumulative). (A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants
in order to obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved"
and "established" referto the completion and approval of the
TMDL itself.)
Estimated additional reduction in million pounds of nitrogen
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded
projects only.)
Estimated annual reduction in millions of pounds of phosphorus
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded
projects only.)
Estimated additional reduction in thousands of tons of sediment
from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. (Section 319 funded
projects only.)
Number of waterbodies identified by states as being primarily
nonpoint source imparied that are partially or fully restored.
Number and national percent of follow-up actions that are
completed by assessed NPDES programs.
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 MS4s covered under either an
individual or general permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or general
industrial stormwater permit.
178
48
2,215(60%)
2,123 (67%)
8.5
4.5
700
394
Indicator
88%
85%
Indicator
Indicator
184
46
2,922(91%)
2,702 (85%)
10.5
4.4
919
433
344 (70.6%)
90%
86.1%
6,888
87,060
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Indicator
Measure Met
Measure Met
Indicator
Indicator
55
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
WQ-13C
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
WQ-20
WQ-21
WQ-22a
WQ-22b
WQ-23
Number of sites covered under either an individual or general
construction stormwater site permit.
Number of facilities covered under either an individual or general
CAFO permit.
Number, and national percent, of Significant Industrial Users
(SlUs) 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 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.
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
Number of high-priority state NPDES permits that are issued in
the fiscal year.
Number of high-priority EPA and state NPDES permits (including
tribal) that are issued in the fiscal year.
Number of facilities that have traded at least once, plus all
facilities covered by an overlay permit that incorporates trading
provisions with an enforceable cap.
Number of water segments identified as impaired in 2002 for
which states and EPA agree that initial restoration planning is
complete (i.e., EPA has approved all needed TMDLs for pollutants
causing impairments to the waterbody or has approved a 303(d)
list that recognizes that the waterbody is covered by a Watershed
Plan [i.e., Category 4b or Category 5m]) (cumulative).
Number of regions that have completed the development of a
Healthy Watersheds Initiative (HWI) strategy and have reached
an agreement with at least one state to implement its portion of
the region's HWI strategy.
Number of states that have completed a Healthy Watershed
Protection Strategy or have completed at least two of the major
components of a Healthy Watershed Initiative assessment.
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking
water supply and wastewater disposal.
Indicator
Indicator
20,814 (97.9%)
Indicator
<22.5%
3,645 (86%)
94.50%
650
720
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
92.50%
166,031
7,587
20,733 (98.4%)
1,667(94.1%)
Data Not Avail-
able
Data Not Avail-
able
98%
850
925
481
14,985
7
13
Data Not
Available
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Indicator
Indicator
Measure Met
Indicator
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Data Not
Available
56
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
WQ-25a
WQ-25b
Number of urban water projects initiated that address water
quality issues in the community.
Number of urban water projects completed that address water
quality issues in the community.
3
0
46
Data Not
Available
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Measure Met
Data Not
Available
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
CO-222.N11
CO-SP20.N11
CO-02
CO-04
CO-05
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.
Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that
will have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as
reflected in each site's management plan).
Total coastal and noncoastal 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 dredged material management plans that are in place
for major ports and harbors.
Number of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that are
monitored in the reporting year.
Acres protected or restored in National Estuary Program study
areas.
2.8
96%
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
100,000
3
97%
58,929
$323
37
35
114,579
Measure Met
Measure Met
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Indicator
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
WT-SP21.N11
WT-SP22
WT-01
WT-02a
WT-02b
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.
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 five-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.
Number of core elements (regulation, monitoring and assess-
ment, water quality standards, and restoration and protection)
developed and implemented by (number) of states/tribes.
Net Increase
and Maintain
Coastal
No Net Loss
170,000
Indicator
Indicator
62,300 Acres
Lost Over Five
Years
No Net Loss
180,000
44
33
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Indicator
Indicator
57
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
WT-03
WT-04
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 2008 documents re-
quirements for greater environmental protection* than originally
proposed.
Number of states measuring baseline wetland condition with
plans to assess trends in wetland condition as defined through
condition indicators and assessments (cumulative).
Indicator
28
85%
31
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Indicator
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
GL-433.N11
GL-SP29
GL-SP31
GL-SP32.N11
GL-05
GL-06
GL-07
GL-08
GL-09
GL-10
GL-11
GL-12
GL-13
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by
preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic systems (using
a 40-point scale).
Cumulative percentage decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all man-
agement actions necessary for delisting have been implemented.
Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative
from 1997) in the Great Lakes.
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of
Concern.
Number of non-native species newly detected in the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Number of multiagency 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 nonthreatened and
nonendangered species self-sustaining in the wild.
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.
21.9
40%
3
9.1
33
0.8
12
90%
2,600
33%
11,000
15,000
1
23.9
42.80%
2
9.7
33
0.8
23
93.50%
31,474
33%
65,639
28,034
1
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
58
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
GL-15
GL-16
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
pesticides.
0.50%
8% increase
Data Not Avail-
able
70%
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Data Not
Available
Met
Subobjective 2.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
CB-SP33.N11
CB-SP34
CB-SP35
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
CB-2
Percent achieved of the 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic
vegetation necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality
standards.
Percent achieved of the long-term restoration goal of 100%
attainment of the dissolved oxygen water quality standards in all
tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen reduction
actions to achieve the final TMDL allocations, as measured
through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus reduction
actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through
the phase 5.3 watershed model.
Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment reduction
actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through
the phase 5.3 watershed model.
Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved.
Long-Term
Measure
Long-Term
Measure
15%
15%
15%
73%
34%
34%
21%
19%
30%
75%
Long-Term
Long-Term
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
GM-435
GM-SP38
GM-SP39
GM-SP40.
N11
GM-1
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 coastal areas
(cumulative starting in FY 2007).
Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres of
important coastal and marine habitats.
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 five-year running average of the size
of the zone.
Implement integrated bi-national (U.S. and Mexican Border
States) early-warning system to support state and coastal
community efforts to manage harmful algal blooms (HABs).
2.4
290
30,600
Deferred for FY
2012
Complete tax-
onomy training
in all 6 Mexican
states
2.4
316
30,796
7483
Training Com-
plete
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Long-Term
Measure Met
59
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
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 <3 mg/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.
74%
Deferred for
FY2012
218
28
83.3%
288.5
537
72.3
Measure Met
Long-Term
Measure Met
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
PS-SP49.N11
PS-SP51
Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by
degrading or declining water quality.
Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine
wetlands.
3,878
19,063
2,489
23,818
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
MB-SP23
MB-SP24.N11
MB-SP25.N11
Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed (million
pounds/year) from the U.S.-Mexico border area since 2003.
Number of additional homes provided with safe drinking water in
the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking
water in 2003 (cumulative).
Number of additional homes provided with adequate wastewater
sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to
wastewater sanitation in 2003 (cumulative).
115
1,000
10,500
119
5,185
31,092
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
PI-SP26
PI-SP27
PI-SP28
Percent of population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
(served by community water systems) that meet all applicable
health-based drinking water standards, measured on a four-
quarter rolling average basis.
Percentage of time sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific
Island Territories comply with permit limits for biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of the
U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the Beach Safety
Program will be open and safe for swimming.
80%
64%
82%
80%
64%
82%
Measure Met
Measure Met
Measure Met
60
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY12 ACS FY 2012
- . FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance Measures National _- ..
Code 3 _ EOY Result
Commitment
FY 2012 EOY
Status
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
SFL-SP45
SFL-SP46
SFL-SP47a
SFL-SP47b
SFL-SP48
SFL-1
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, and local).
Annually maintain the overall health and functionality of sea
grass beds in the FKNMS, as measured by the long-term sea
grass monitoring project that addresses composition and
abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability.
At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near-shore and
coastal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will
maintain Chlorophyll a (CHLA) levels of less than or equal to 0.35
ugl-1 and light clarify (KD) levels of less than or equal to 0.20
m-1.
At least 75% 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 of less than or
equal to 0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels of less than or
equal to 0.25 uM.
Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem, as
measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 10 ppb
total phosphorus criterion throughout the Everglades Protection
Area marsh.
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, 2% (1,500 EDUs) annually.
Indicator
Indicator
75%
75%
Maintain
Indicator
No Net Loss
Not Maintained
CHLA-70.9%
KD-72.5%
DIN-81%
TP-89.5%
Did not maintain
or meet limits
13.1%
Indicator
Measure Not
Met
Measure Not
Met
Measure Met
Measure Not
Met
Indicator
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 2006).
Demonstrate a reduction in mean concentration of certain
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue
(cumulative starting in FY 2006).
63
Deferred Until
2014
79
Data Not
Available
Measure Met
Data Not
Available
61
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Appendix B: Performance Measurement Changes from
FY2011 to FY 2012
ACS Code Abbreviated Measure Description Change in FY 2012
Water Safe to Drink
SDW-2
SDW-07a,
SDW-07b &
SDW-07C.
SDW-08.
SDW-19a
SDW-19b
Percent of the data for drinking water violations in SDWIS-
FED.
Percent of Class , II, III wells returned to compliance within
180 days.
Number of high-priority Class V wells and cesspools closed
or permitted.
Volume of C02 sequestered through injection.
Number of permit decisions that result in C02 sequestered
through injection.
Deleted
Modified and combined into one measure,
SDW-7.
Modified to include large-capacity cesspools.
New measure
New measure
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-SP13.
N11
WQ-SP14a.
N11
WQ-SP14b.
N11
WQ-15b
WQ-22b
WQ-25a
WQ-25b
Ensure that nation's streams do not degrade.
Show improvement in tribal waters.
Identify tribal waters with no degradation in water quality.
Reduce the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access
to basic sanitation.
Number of states that completed Healthy Watersheds Pro-
tection Strategy or Assessment components.
Number of urban water projects that initiated addressing
water quality issues in the community.
Number of urban water projects completed that addressed
water quality issues in the community.
Modified by deleting "wadeable."
Modified
New measure
Deleted
Measure modified to include components of
Healthy Watersheds assessment.
New measure
New measure
Improve Coastal and Oceans Waters
CO-3
CO-SP16
CO-SP17
CO-SP18
CO-SP19
Number of National Estuary Program priority actions in
CCMPs completed.
Aquatic ecosystem health in Northeast.
Aquatic ecosystem health in Southeast.
Aquatic ecosystem health in West Coast.
Aquatic ecosystem health in Puerto Rico.
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
62
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
ACS Code Abbreviated Measure Description Change in FY 2012
CO-7
CO-8
Aquatic ecosystem health in Hawaii.
Aquatic ecosystem health in Central Alaska.
Deleted
Deleted
Wetlands
WT-SP21.N11
Net increase of wetlands achieved nationwide.
Measure modified
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
GL-08
Percent of days of the beach season that monitored Great
Lakes beaches are open and safe for swimming.
Measure modified
Chesapeake Bay
CB-SP35
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
CB-1a
CB-1b
Bay nitrogen reduction practices implemented.
Bay phosphorus reduction practices implemented.
Bay sediment reduction practices implemented.
Point source nitrogen goal.
Point source phosphorus goal.
Measures modified
TMDL.
Measures modified
TMDL.
Measures modified
TMDL.
to reflect Bay-wide
to reflect Bay-wide
to reflect Bay-wide
Deleted
Deleted
Long Island Sound
LI-SP42.N11
LI-SP43
LI-SP44
Reduce Long Island Sound hypoxic zone.
Restore Long Island Sound coastal habitat.
Reopen river and stream for fish passage.
Measure modified
Measure modified
Measure modified
Puget Sound
PS-SP50
Remediate acres of contaminated sediments in Puget Sound.
Deleted
Columbia River
CR-SP52
Protect, enhance, or restore acres of habitat in Lower Colum-
bia River watershed.
Deleted
63
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Appendix C: Methodology for Measuring Ambitiousness
of Regional Commitments
This methodological description supplements, but does not replace, the description provided in the Overview chapter of
the report. EPA employed three methods to evaluate the relative ambitiousness of regional commitments for a set of 32
performance measures.1 The method or methods utilized depended on whether the commitment is expressed as a percentage
or as a numeric value.
For each commitment expressed as a percentage, EPA computed both:
1) The difference between FY 2012 regional commitments and FY 2012 national commitments.
2) The difference between FY 2012 regional commitments and FY 2011 regional results.
For each commitment expressed in numeric units, EPA computed:
3) FY 2012 regional commitments as a percentage of FY 2012 regional universes.
Then, for each measure, within each of the analyses above, each region was assigned a rank based on its result relative
to other regions (1 = most ambitious, 10 = least ambitious). For instance, for a particular numeric measure, the region
committing to the greatest share of its universe would be ranked #1 for that measure, using analysis #3. On the other hand,
for a particular percentage measure, regions would each receive two different ranksone each for analysis #1 and analysis
#2. Then, each region was given a weighted ambitiousness rank for each measure, as follows: for percentage measures, this
measure-level weighted rank was the sum of ranks for analysis #1 and analysis #2, divided by 2; for numeric measures, this
measure-level weighted rank was just the value of the rank for analysis #3. This weighting approach was taken in order to
avoid giving undue influence to the percentage measures in the overall comparison. EPA repeated this approach with FY 2011
data for the same set of measures.
Figure 1, below, shows the range and distribution of the FY 2012 measure-level weighted ranks within each region. This type
of graphic is a variation on a traditional statistical box plot or "box and whiskers" plot, and is intended to help understand the
range and distribution of measure-level rankings within each region, as follows:
Blue dots. Each blue dot indicates that the particular region in question received a measure-level weighted ranking of
that value for at least one measure. The size of each dot gives a rough indication of the number of measures within each
region at that particular rank, ranging from one to nine measures. The larger the dot, the greater the number of measures.
Gray boxes. The gray boxes in the chart represent where the middle 50% of each region's measures are ranked.2 For ex-
ample, by examining the gray box in the far right column in Figure 1, we see that the middle 50% of Region 7's measures
had a ranking between 4 and 8. On the other hand, at the far left, we see that Region 5's middle 50% is higher, ranging
from 1 to 5. (This also tells us that the top 25% of Region 5's measures all had a ranking of 1.)
Light gray lines. The light gray lines represent the median rank within each region. 50% of all measures rank at or
above the median.
1 OW focused only on those measures with eight or more regions setting commitments and reporting results, so that the meaning of different ranks would remain
fairly constant across measures. This choice excluded measures for large aquatic ecosystems and placed-based programs that are often reported by only one or
two regions.
2 This middle 50% of values is typically called the "interquartile range" in statistics.
64
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Red dashed lines. Each dashed red ine in the chart represents, for each region, the average of all its measure-level
weighted ranks. This is referred to elsewhere in the report as the average weighted rank for each region. The regions in the
chart are sorted by this measure, which is the basis for Figure 13 in the Overview chapter.
Orange dashed line. The orange dashed line indicates the average of all weighted ranks, across all regions and measures.
Figure 1: Weighted Ambitiousness Ranks, By Region and Measure
Regions Sorted by FY 2012 Average Weighted Ambitiousness Rank
1 o- (~) Q » O O O
075thPercentile 0 ^arge^Ot Shows
2.0 o o O O O
=-OQ 00
| 3.0-1 e o^o o o
=5 Median
gj 4.0 0 0 0 o O
& 0 .......... Q
| 5.0 0 0 0 "~3r " "
01 O O O
8 \
S 6.0 O O O
g 25th Percentile
3 ° O
_a
| 7.0 0 0 0 O
5J O o
-^ ^
c" 8 0 o o f )
0 v J
9 oo
9.0 o O o O O
o
10.0-
R5 R2 R8 R9 R6
0
the region ha
; at this rank.
o
o
o
0
«.
O
O
o
O
o
0
o
R3
0
d
0
o
o
0
O
-at
o
o
0
Average
o
o
o
R10
(FY2012)
o o
0 0
o 0
O Average (Cross-Region)
0 /O o
* */ °
5"
O s^ O
o ,/ o
/6 o
(Within Region)
o 0
0 0
O 0
R1 R4
°
o
O
o
O
O
o
R7
In addition to the calculations described above, regions were rank-ordered by this average weighted rank, with the region
with the highest average weighted rank receiving a rank of 1, etc. Table 1, below, provides details on the number of measures
and average weighted rank, for each region. These average weighted ranks are the basis for the overall ambitiousness ranks,
displayed in the table and in Figures 14 and 15 in the Overview chapter.
65
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 2: Number of Measures and Rankings By Region and Year
Regions Sorted by FY 2012 Ambitiousness Rank (Final Column)
2011
2012
Region
R5
R2
R8
R9
R6
R3
R10
R1
R4
R7
# of Measures
Ranked
25
24
25
25
24
20
25
23
25
22
Average
Weighted Rank
(Across
Measures)
3.72
4.33
3.10
5.04
4.75
4.78
4.74
5.35
4.60
4.39
Overall
Ambitiousness
Rank
2
3
1
9
7
8
6
10
5
4
# of Measures
Ranked
31
30
28
31
30
26
30
29
31
29
Average
Weighted Rank
(Across
Measures)
3.39
3.95
4.36
4.77
4.83
5.19
5.28
5.33
5.44
5.84
Overall
Ambitiousness
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
To compare the regions' level of ambitiousness in setting commitments beween FY 2011 and FY 2012, EPA developed a trend
chart comparing the average weighted ranking for each region for the two years (See Figure 2). Five regions dropped in rank
while five regions increased their rank.
66
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 3: Change in Regional Ambitiousness Rank FY 2011 to FY 2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
2011
2012
For the same set of measures used to assess commitment ambitiousness, EPA also developed regional rankings for the percent
of commitments met for FY 2011 and FY 2012. Because this ambitiousness analysis focused only on a subset of OW's mea-
sures, the rankings for commitments met may be different than those presented elsewhere in this report. (See, for instance,
Figure 9 in the Overview chapter of the report.) This approach helps ensure appropriate comparability, for this analysis, be-
tween the ambitiousness ranks and commitments-met ranks. EPA compared the rankings for ambitiousness and commitments
met to each other to understand whether ambitiousness in setting of commitments appears to be correlated with the meeting
of commitments. Figures 14 and 15 in the Overview chapter show comparisons of these ranks.
67
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report
Subobjective Chapters
Table of Contents
Introduction i
Water Safe to Drink 1
Fish and Shellfish 12
Safe Swimming 14
Water Quality 18
Coastal and Oceans 41
U.S.-Mexico Border 49
Pacific Islands 55
Wetlands 57
Great Lakes 60
Chesapeake Bay 70
Gulf of Mexico 74
Long Island Sound 79
South Florida 83
Puget Sound 87
Columbia River 91
American Indian Drinking Water and Water Quality 93
-------
FY 2012 National Water Program End of Year
Performance by Subobiective
The following chapters provide a summary of the progress made toward accomplishing
environmental and program goals for each subobjective described in the FY 2012
National Water Program Guidance. Each subobjective chapter includes the following
information:
An overview of performance over the past six years for measures under each
subobjective.
A description of performance highlights in FY 2012, including what
commitments were met and what factors contributed to success.
A description of management challenges, if appropriate, identifying key
factors that led to measures not being met and next steps to improve
performance for the future.
Each subobjective section focuses primarily on measures with FY 2012 commitments.
Indicator measures are discussed where trends significantly differ from previous year's
results. Annual Commitment System (ACS) measure codes (e.g., SDW-SP-1.N11) are
provided in the text in parentheses.
Key for Reading Performance Measure Charts and Tables
For all charts with national trend results, commitments are reflected by blue trend lines
and results by vertical bars. For charts with regional FY 2012 results, a dotted line (in
orange) indicates the national FY 2012 commitment for that particular measure.
Although regions use the national commitment as a point of reference in setting their
annual commitments, regional commitments may vary based on specific conditions
within each region. Green bars in both national and regional charts identify
commitments met, and orange bars identify measures not met. A purple bar indicates
that the Agency did not set a commitment for that year.
For the measure summary tables in each subobjective chapter, a green colored box
means that a measure met its FY 2012 commitment, and an orange colored box
indicates that the annual commitment was not met. A blue colored box means that the
measure is an indicator measure and did not have an annual commitment for FY 2012
or has a long-term goal and does not have an annual commitment. Measures without
data or not reporting in FY 2012 are indicated by a gray colored box. And finally, the
appendix number represents the page in Appendix D (A-00) on the website where
additional details about the measure can be found, and the figure number is the number
of the chart in the chapter.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Water Safe to Drink
Sixty-two percent (62%) (8 of 13) of all drinking water measures met their commitments in FY 2012. Thirty-eight percent (38%)
(five of 13) of measures did not meet their commitments. EPA has maintained an average of 78% of commitments met and
reported on all measures over the past six years under the Water Safe to Drink subobjective (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Drinking Water Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Not Met
I Met
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
ixcouno ai iu vsUMMiMUMd 11 oiaiuo AnrwinHiv
_ Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment) "
= Measure Did Not Exist Numbef
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available FidLire
2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 12011 12012 Number
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
Percent population served by CWSs
Percent CWSs meeting safe standards
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-SP5
Percent "person months" with CWSs safe standards
Percent population served by CWSs Indian country
Percent CWSs and source water protection
Percent Population and source water protection
Number tribal households lacking safe drinking
water
SDW-18.N11
SDW-01a
SDW-01b
SDW-03
SDW-04
Number Indian & Alaska Native homes provided
safe drinking water
Percent CWSs with sanitary survey
Number Tribal CWSs with sanitary survey
Percent Lead/Copper Rule data in SDWIS-FED
DWSRF fund utilization rate
SDW-05 Number DWSRF projects initiated (cumulative)
SDW-07
SDW-08
Percent Class I, II, or III wells with mechanical integrity
Number High Priority Class V wells closed/permitted
(cumulative)
SDW-11
Percent DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
SDW-12
Percent DWSRF dollars to small PWS
SDW-13
Percent DWSRF loans to disadvantaged
communities
SDW-14
Number/Percent CWS serving < 500 people
SDW-15
Number/Percent small CWS w/health-based
violations
SDW-16
Ave. Time small CWS returned to compliance (days)
SDW-17
Number/Percent schools/childcare meet safe
standards
SDW-19a
Volume of C02 sequestered through injection
SDW-19b
Number of permit decisions that result in C02
| sequestered through injection
*Notes: Figures for these measures can be found in the End of Year Report chapter, "American Indian Drinking Water and Water Quality
FY2012 Performance." CWS=community water system; SDWIS= Safe Drinking Water Information System; SDWIS-FED=Safe Drinking
Water Information System/Federal; DWSRF=Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
Compliance with Drinking Water Standards: The overall objective of EPA's national drinking water program is to protect
public health by ensuring that public water systems (PWSs) deliver safe drinking water to their customers. The drinking water
program measures compliance with drinking water standards in three ways: 1) the percent of the population served by
community water systems1 (CWSs) that meet drinking water standards, 2) the percent of CWSs meeting standards, and 3)
the length of time a given population is served by a water system that is in violation of drinking water standards. EPA, states,
and CWSs work together to increase the percentage of the population served by CWSs that meet all health-based standards.
Despite a growing population and an increasing demand for safe drinking water, EPA met its FY 2012 commitment (91%) by
providing 94.7% of the population that was served by CWSs with drinking water that met all applicable health-based drinking
water standards (Subobjective 2.1.1) (Figure 2). All 10 EPA regional offices met their FY 2012 commitments (Figure 3).
Although regions use the national target of the population served by CWSs receiving safe drinking water as a point of
reference, regional commitments to this outcome goal might vary based on differing conditions in each EPA region.
Figure 2: Percent Population with Drinking Water Meeting Standards
by Fiscal Year (SDW-211)
100.0%
Commitment 90.0%
1 A CWS is a public water system that provides water to the same population year-round. As of January 2012, there were 52,079 CWSs.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 3: Percent Population with Drinking Water Meeting Standards (SDW-211)
by Region for FY 2012
94.0%
96.0% 97.0%
94.0% 94.0%
98.0% 98.0%
.0%
R2
R3
Result
R4 R5
Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9
R10
EPA met its commitment for the percent of CWSs meeting all applicable health-based standards (91% versus 90%) (SP-1).
The success of this measure reflects the work by states and tribes to ensure that systems are in compliance with standards.
Nine of 10 regions achieved their commitment for this measure, with six regions setting commitments above the national level
EPA also measures the percent of "person months"2 during which CWSs provide drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards. The purpose of this measure is to capture the length of time a given population is
served by a water system that is in violation of drinking water standards. In FY 2012, almost 98% of the population was served
by CWSs over a 12-month period that was in compliance with drinking water standards (SP-2) (Figure 4). All EPA regions met
their commitments for this goal (Figure 5). The measure continues to be successful, exceeding the goal of 95% as well as the
previous year's performance for each of the last five years.
2 "Person-months" for each CWS is calculated as the number of months in the most recent four-quarter period in which health-based
violations overlap, multiplied by the retail population served.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 4: "Person Months" with CWSs Meeting Safe Standards by Fiscal Year (SDW-SP2)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
96.8%
97.0%
97.2%
97.3%
97.4%
97.8%
95.0%
Figure 5: "Person Months" with CWSs Meeting Safe Standards (SDW-SP2)
by Region for FY 2012
98.0%
95.0% 97.0% 98.0% 99-0% 960o/o 98.0% 98.0% 99-0%
99.0%
95.0%
R1
R3 R4 R5
Result Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9
R10
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
According to EPA regulations,3 CWSs are required to undergo a sanitary survey within three years of their last survey (five
years for outstanding performers). Sanitary surveys are onsite reviews of the water sources, facilities, equipment, operation,
and maintenance of PWSs. EPA estimates that in 2012, 89% of community systems underwent a survey (SDW-1a) The
Agency fell short of its commitment of 95%. (Figure 6). Seven of 10 regions met their targets (Figure?).
Figure 6: CWSs with Sanitary Surveys by Fiscal Year (SDW-01a)
no no/
«/ £. U /O
Commitment 94.0%
Figure 7: CWSs with Sanitary Surveys (SDW-01a) by Region for FY 2012
98.0%
98.4%
95.0%
R2
R3 R4 R5
Result Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9
R10
3 Interim Enhanced and Long-Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rules.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Source Water Protection: CWSs minimized the risk4 to public health for more than 43% of the nation's source water areas
(both surface and ground water) (SP-4a) (Figure 8). This was above the FY 2012 commitment of 40%. EPA met its
commitment for this measure for the sixth year in a row and has made significant progress against the FY 2005 baseline of
20%. Eight of 10 regions met their commitment in FY 2012 (Figure 9). When looked at on a population basis, 55.9% of the
population was served by CWSs where risk to public health is minimized through source water protection (SDW-SP-4b).
Although the program failed to meet its annual commitment of 57%, the Agency considers this goal to be a stretch and feels
confident that the performance measure is moving in the right direction.
Figure 8: CWSs and Source Water Protection by Fiscal Year (SDW-SP4a)
50.0%
Commitment 25.0%
4 "Minimized risk" is achieved by the substantial implementation, as determined by the state, of source water protection actions in a source
water protection strategy.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 9: CWSs and Water Protection (SDW-SP4a) by Region for FY 2012
40.0%
R2
R3 R4 R5
Result Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9
R10
Water System Financing: Financing is a key component of the national drinking water program. The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF), in place since 1997, provides low-interest loans to communities for building and upgrading drinking
water facilities. The SRF fund utilization ratethe dollar amount of loan agreements per funds available for projectsis a
valuable way to measure states' effectiveness in obligating grant funds for drinking water projects. EPA met its FY 2012 goal
by establishing loan agreements for 90.7% of the cumulative amount of funds available (commitment of 89%). EPA has met its
commitments for this measure for six consecutive years (SDW-4) (Figure 10). Six of 10 regions met their commitments in FY
2012, with a range from 82.3% to 103% of funds obligated (Figure 11). More than 6,690 SRF projects have initiated
operations to date, up from 6,076 in FY 2011 (SDW-5).
Figure 10: Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF by Fiscal Year (SDW-04)
100.0%
88.0%
90.0% 92-0/0 91-3% 90.0% 90.7%
89.0%
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 11: Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF by Fiscal Year (SDW-04)
96.0%
89.0%
R2
R3 R4 R5
Result Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9
R10
Underground Injection Control: EPA works with states to monitor the injection of fluidsboth hazardous and
nonhazardousto prevent contamination of underground sources of drinking water. One way to prevent contamination is for
states to maintain the mechanical integrity of underground injection wells. EPA fell short of meeting its FY 2012 commitment
(90%), with 85% of Class I, II, and III wells (SDW-7) that lost mechanical integrity returning to compliance within 180 days. As
a newly reported measure, EPA will analyze the performance results and work to improve the measure targets. As the
measure evolves and more data is available to develop a performance trend, the program will revisit the target and adjust it as
appropriate.
EPA also works with states to monitor the number and percentage of high-priority Class V wells identified in ground water-
based CWS source water areas that are closed or permitted. High-priority Class V wells include motor vehicle waste disposal
wells, cesspools, industrial wells, and other wells so designated by the state or regional program. More than 25,000 high-
priority Class V wells were closed or permitted in 2012 (SDW-8). This was above the 2012 commitment of 22,650 wells.
Supporting Small CWSs: Small CWSs face many challenges in providing safe drinking water and in meeting the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some of these challenges include lack of adequate revenue, aging
infrastructure, and difficulty understanding existing or new regulatory requirements. As a result, small systems may experience
frequent or long-term compliance challenges in providing safe water to their communities. In FY 2012, EPA continued its
efforts to enhance small system capacity through a comprehensive small system strategy.
http://water.epa.gov/type/drink/pws/smallsystems/basicinformation.cfm
To support implementation of the strategy, the Agency developed a suite of new indicators in FY 2011 to track small CWSs
serving fewer than 10,000 people. These indicators correspond to the three major components of the small system strategy:
existing and new small water system inventory; state DWSRF projects targeting small systems; and small system
noncompliance and capacity to quickly return to compliance with health-based standards. Schools and daycare centers are a
critical subset of small systems for which EPA continues to provide special emphasis to ensure that children receive water that
is safe to drink.
The results in Table 1 provide a snapshot of key indicators regarding the level of support provided by the DWSRF program to
small systems and the violation rate of small systems with regard to health-based drinking water standards. Seventy-one
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
percent (71%) of the projects funded by the DWSRF went to small PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people. This was almost
identical to the FY 2009 baseline of 72%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the DWSRF funds awarded as of FY 2012 went to
small PWSs. This was slightly below the FY 2009 baseline of 44%. Thirty-two percent (32%) of DWSRF loans went to
disadvantaged communities.
Two percent (2%) (1,230) of small systems had repeat health-based violations5 in FY 2012, with an average of 130 days
spent in violation before returning to compliance. This was an increase over the FY 2009 baseline of 99 days in violation but
an improvement over the FY 2011 result of 167 days (Figures 12 and 13). Ninety-three percent (6,991) of schools and
childcare centers met all health-based drinking water standards in FY 2012.
Figure 12: Small CWS and NTNCWS with Repeat Health-Based Violations
by Fiscal Year (SDW-15)
5 Repeat violations are defined as repeats of the same combination of violation code (e.g., 21-Total Coliform Rule maximum contaminant
level) and contaminant type (e.g., Total Coliform Rule) occurring at a particular system more than once in a fiscal year.
10
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 13: Number of Small Public Water Systems with
Repeat Health Based Violations (SDW-15)
R9
R10
Table 1: FY 2012 Indicators of Small Public Water Systems
FY11ACS
Code
SOW- 11
SOW- 12
SOW- 13
SOW- 14
SDW-15
SOW- 16
SOW- 17
Abbreviated Measure Description
DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
% DWSRF dollars to small PWS
% DWSRF loans to disadvantaged
communities
#/% CWS serving <500 people
#1% small CWS with health-based violations
Average time small CWS returned to
compliance
$% schools/childcare meet safe standards9
FY2012
Result
71%
37%
32%
44,860
CWS (650
new)
64%
1230 CWS
2%
130 days
6,991
93%
FY2009
Baseline
72%
44%
31%
44,6736
65%
1.9047
3%
99«
88
7,260
94%
Universe
698
$1,522.3 million
698
70,377 CWS and
NTNCWS <500
66, 165 CWS and
NTNCWS <10,000
66, 165 CWS and
NTNCWS <10,000
7,703
6 CWSs and nontransient, noncommunity water systems (NTNCWS) serving a population less than 500.
7 CWSs and NTNCWS serving a population less than 10,000 with repeated health-based violations.
8 CWSs and NTNCWS serving a population less than 10,000 with acute health-based violations.
9 Schools are defined as CWS or NTNCWS with a primary service area equal to SC (school) or DC (daycare). Puerto Rico systems were
not included. California systems were based on a list of school systems provided by California
11
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Fish and Shellfish
For the first time in five years, EPA was able to report on its only commitment measure under this subobjective (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Fish and Shellfish Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Data Not
Available
Met
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
A i-o i- j Abbreviated Measure Description
ACS Code K
Results and Commitment Status Appendix
i Indicator/Long-Term p
(No Commitment) ^
= Not Met = Measure Did Not Exist Number
= Data Not Available
= udid NUI Hvdiidum Finiirn
20071 20081 2009120101201112012 Number
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
FS-SP6.N11 Percent Women and mercury blood levels
FS-1a
Percent River miles fish consumption advisory
26%
39%
36%
D-13
D-13
FS-1b
Percent Lake acres fish consumption advisory
38%
43%
42%
D-14
12
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
Elevated blood mercury levels pose a significant neurodevelopmental risk, and consumption of mercury-contaminated fish is
the primary source of mercury exposure. Across the country, states and tribes have issued fish consumption advisories for a
range of contaminants, covering 1.26 million river miles and more than 16.8 million lake acres. These data are based on the
National Listing of Fish Advisories, which was issued in 2010 and covered the years 2009 and 2010. EPA is still reviewing
states' fish tissue assessment data for rivers and lakes in support of consumption advisories and is unable to report a final
result for 2012 at this time (FS-1a/b).
For the first time in five years, EPA was able to report on the percentage of women of childbearing age having mercury levels
in blood above the level of concern (SP-6). Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's most recent report
(with 2009-2010 data), 2.3% of women of childbearing age had mercury levels in blood above the level of concern. This was
below the 2012 commitment of 4.9%.
13
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Safe Swimming
EPA was successful in meeting two of its three commitments under the Water Safe for Swimming subobjective in FY 2012.
There has been a great deal of variability in the number of commitment measures met and not met over the past six years
(Figure 15).
Figure 15: Safe Swimming Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Not Met
Data Not
Available
i Met
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Status
Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Not Met
- _
(No Commitment) "
= Measure Did Not Exist Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available Fiaure
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
SS-SP9.N11
SS-1
SS-2
Percent beach days safe for swimming
Number enforceable long-term CSO control plan
with specific dates and milestones in place
Percent significant public beaches monitored
Note: CSO=combined sewer overflow.
14
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The nation's waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational opportunities for millions of
Americans. Swimming in some recreational waters, however, can pose a risk of illness resulting from exposure to microbial
pathogens.10
Beach Monitoring and Safety: For coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state-based beach safety programs, EPA
found that 95.2% of beach season days were open and safe for swimming. This result met the FY 2012 target of 95%, and
EPA has consistently met its annual targets over the past six years. Seven of eight EPA regions met their FY 2012 target
(Regions 7 and 8 do not have beaches under the program) (SP-9). States monitored and managed 100% of all Tier 1
(significant) public beaches covered under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act program
in 2012, which exceeded the annual goal of 95% (SS-2). All regions met their commitments in 2012.
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs): Overflows from combined storm and sanitary sewers in urban areas can result in high
levels of pathogens being released during storm events. Because urban areas are often upstream from recreational waters,
these overflows are a significant source of unsafe levels of pathogens. Over the past five years, EPA and the states have
made consistent progress in increasing the number of CSO permits or enforcement orders with compliance schedules in place
(Figure 16). As of 2012, approximately 88% (748 of 853) of the CSO permittees have approved or accepted CSO long-term
control plans (LTCPs) with enforceable compliance schedules in place, which is approximately a 38% improvement over the
2008 baseline (Figure 18). Each year, progress toward the ultimate goal of 100% of CSOs approved has become more
difficult because the remaining permits still needing LTCPs are often held up in various legal and political issues, even though
the overall universe of these permits has decreased. As the Agency moves forward, the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) and the Office of Water (OW) plan to work together to refine this measure to ensure
consistency and consider a possible evaluation of the effectiveness of plans already put into place.
Seven of nine EPA regions with CSOs (Region 6 does not have any CSOs) met their commitment for this measure in 2012
(Figure 17). Region 3 missed their target by just 1 permit, which did not end up being reissued before the end of the fiscal year
in Pennsylvania. In Region 5, the reissuance of a number of municipal permits was delayed, so even though several additional
LTCPs have been approved, they have not yet been included in permits at this time.
10 By "recreational waters," EPA means waters officially designated by states, authorized tribes, and territories for primary contact
recreational use or similar full-body contact use.
15
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 16: CSO Permit Schedules in Place by Fiscal Year (SS-1)
Figure 17: CSO Permit Schedules in Place (SS-1) by Region for FY 2012
312
R2
R3
R4 R5 R6
Result -Comrritment
R7
R10
16
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Figure 18: CSO Permit Schedules as a Percent of Universe
and Percent Over Baseline (SS-1)
Universe
Baseline
17
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Water Quality
EPA and states met 74% of their commitments under the Water Quality subobjective in FY 2012 and fell short on 15%; data
were not available for 12%. The number of measures with commitments that were not met in FY 2012 was lower than 2011
(20%).11 The FY 2012 results were close to the six-year average for the percent of commitment met (70%) (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Water Quality Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Not Met
Data Not Available
I Met
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
11 Although the percentage of measures with data unavailable appears higher in 2012, this is misleading. The FY 2012 results are
incomplete due to data lags for some measures at the time of publication of this report. Previous year results include data received
following the publication of each year's end of year report.
18
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
Results and Commitment Status
Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
Appendix
Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available Fidure
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
WQ-SP10.N11
Number formerly impaired waterbodies now meeting
standards (cumulative)
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13.N11
Number causes of waterbody impairment removed
(cumulative)
Number impaired watersheds improved water
quality (cumulative)
Maintain and Improve nation's stream conditions
WQ-SP14aN11
WQ-SP14bN11
WQ-24.N11
WQ-01a
WQ-01b
WQ-01c
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-05
WQ-06a
WQ-07
WQ-08a
WQ-08b
WQ-09a
WQ-09b
WQ-09c
Number of monitoring stations in tribal waters with
improved water quality (cumulative)
Identify number monitoring stations in tribal waters
with no degradation in water quality (cumulative)
Number Indian & Alaska Native homes with access
to sanitation
Number of numeric nutrient water quality standards
approved or promulgated by EPA
Number of numeric nutrient water quality standards
proposed by states/territories
Number State/Territories providing nutrient water
quality standards milestones
Number Tribes with approved water quality
standards
Number/Percent states/territories with updated water
quality criteria
Number/Percent Tribes with updated water quality
criteria
Percent states/territorial water quality standards
revisions approved
Number states/territories adopted monitoring
strategies
Number Tribes implementing monitoring strategies
WQ-06b Number Tribes providing water quality data
Number states/territories using Assessment
Database (ADB) (cumulative)
Number/Percent total TMDLs established/approved
EPA
Number/Percent TMDLs developed by
states/approved by EPA
Number pounds nitrogen reduced from non-point
sources (millions)
Number pounds phosphorus reduced from non-
pount sources (millions)
Number tons sediment reduction reduced from non-
point sources (thousands)
D-23/Fig.29
D-23/Fig.31
D-24/Fig.99
D-24
19
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
Results and Commitment Status
Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
Appendix
Number
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13b
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available Fidure
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Number NPS-impaired waterbodies restored
(cumulative)
147 215 358 433
D-28/Fig.41
Number/Percent NPDES follow-up actions
completed
Number/Percent Nontribal NPDES permits current
Number/Percent Tribal permits current
184 216
90% 90% 90% 89% 89% 90%
83% 85% 85% 88% 87% 86%
D-28
D-29/Fig.35
D-29/Fig.100*
WQ-13a Number facilities covered by MS-4 permit
Number facilities covered by industrial storm water
permit
6,632
86,826
7,080
89,530
6,541
81,660
6,919
88,788
6,952
84,718
6,888
87,060
D-30
D-30
WQ-13c
Number facilities covered by construction storm
water permit
242,801
204,341
200,732
186,874
168,744
166,031
D-31
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-15a
WQ-16
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
WQ-20
Number facilities covered by CAFO permit
8,729
7,830
7,900
7,882
7,994
7,587
D-31
Number/Percent POTWs SlUs control mechanisms
in place
22,062 21,830 22,270 17,948 20,977 20,733
D-32
Number/Percent POTWs ClUs control mechanisms
in place
1,547
21,830
1,338
1,241
1,229 1,667
Percent major dischargers in SNC
22.6% 24.0% 23.0% 24.0% 23.0%
Number/Percent POTWs comply wastewater
discharge standards
3,645 3,645 86%
D-32
D-33
D-33
CWSRF Fund utilization rate
97% 98% 98% 100% 98% 98%
Number high priority state NPDES permits
484 930 1,309 1,008 943 850
Number high priority state & EPA NPDES permits
Number facilities providing trading
127
368
118 1,063 1,005 925
407
442
461
481
D-35
WQ-21
Number impaired segments restoration planning
complete
6,792
12,479
13,515
13,932
14,898
14,985
D-36
WQ-22a
WQ-22b
Number regions completed Healthy Watershed
Initiative strategy
D-36
Number state completed Healthy Watershed Initiative
strategy
13
D-37
WQ-23
Percent Alaska homes access to drinking water &
sanitation
D-37
WQ-25a
WQ-25b
Number urban water projects initiated addressing
water quality issues in the community
Number urban water projects completed addressing
water quality issues in the community
*See "American Indian Drinking Water and Water Quality FY 2012 Performance" chapter.
Notes: NPS=nonpoint source; CAFO=concentrated animal feeding operation; POTW=publicly owned treatment works; SIU=significant
industrial user; CIU=categorical industrial user; SNC=significant noncompliance; CWSRF=Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
20
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
Attaining Water Quality Standards in Impaired Waters: The Agency continues to make progress in ensuring that water
quality standards are fully attained in waterbodies listed as impaired. At the end of 2012, a cumulative 3,527 of the waters
listed as impaired in 2002 met standards for all the impairments identified, thus exceeding the FY 2012 commitment of
3.32412 (SP-10) (Figure 20). Nine of the 10 EPA regions met their 2012 commitments (Figure 21). The Agency has already
achieved its FY 2015 goal of 3,360 waterbodies. Of a universe of 39,503 impaired waterbodies identified in 2002, about 9%
were attaining standards by the end of FY 2012 (Figure 22).
By the end of 2012, EPA and states had removed 11,134 specific causes of waterbody impairments that states had identified
in 2002 (SP-11). Factors contributing to exceeding the commitment in FY 2012 included removal of causes of impairments
from impaired water lists that were submitted late in the biennial water quality assessment cycle. Some of the challenges EPA
faces include:
Reduced state budgets are slowing implementation activities that are necessary to improve impaired waterbodies.
Meeting standards in a single waterbody segment impaired by multiple pollutants is more difficult than if just one or
two pollutants were impairing the segment.
In the future, EPA expects results to be lower because many of the impairments that remain in waters identified in 2002 will
require many years before restoration strategies result in full recovery of the waterbody segment. This is borne out by noting
the gradual leveling off of yearly results over the past few years.
12 Information for this commitment is based on CWA 305(b) reports submitted by states on a biannual basis. To some extent, EPA
exceeded its commitment for this measure due to receiving late FY 2008 and timely FY 2010 Integrated Reports (IRs).
21
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 20: Formerly Impaired Waterbodies Meeting
Water Quality Standards by Fiscal Year (WQ-SP10.N11)
Commitment
1,552
2,272
2,809
2,973
3,324
3,608
Figure 21: Formerly Impaired Waterbodies Meeting Water Quality
Standards (WQ-SP10.N11) by Region for FY 2012
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
22
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 22: Formerly Impaired Waterbodies Meeting Water Quality Standards as a Percent of
Universe and Long-Term Goal (WQ-SP10.N11)
120.0%
100.0% -
80.0% -
60.0% -
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Universe Long -Term Goal
EPA and states were successful in improving water quality conditions in 332 impaired watersheds nationwide cumulatively
through 2012 using the watershed approach (SP-12) (Figure 23). This was a 23% increase over the 2011 result of 271
improved watersheds nationwide. Despite setting the most ambitious commitment in five years, EPA met its goal by a
comfortable margin. Nine of 10 regions met their commitments last year (Figure 24). The majority of the increase was due to
improvement within the Tualatin watershed in Oregon. In the future, EPA anticipates that the results for this measure will be
steady or lower.
23
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 23: Impaired Watersheds Showing Improved Water
Quality Conditions by Fiscal Year (WQ-SP12.N11)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Result 21
^^ Commitment
60
40
104
102
168
141
271
208
332
312
370
Figure 24: Impaired Watersheds Showing Improved Water
Quality Conditions (WQ-SP12.N11) by Region for FY 2012
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
24
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Water Quality Criteria and Standards: Water quality standards are the regulatory and scientific foundation of water quality
protection programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes establish
water quality standards that define the designated uses (and water quality criteria to protect those uses) for waters within their
jurisdictions. The standards are used to determine which waters must be cleaned up, how much may be discharged, and what
is needed for protection.
For the fourth year in a row, states and territories met regional commitments for submitting new or revised water quality criteria
acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information (WQ-3a) (Figure 25). The FY 2012 result of 39 states and territories
met the national goal, with all regions meeting their commitments (Figure 26). However, complex science and policy issues-
including those raised in litigation and difficult Endangered Species Act consultationswill continue to pose challenges.
Figure 25: States/Territories with Updated Water
Quality Criteria by Fiscal Year (WQ-03a)
u
Commitment
2007
39
41
2008
35
38
2009
38
33
2010
38
37
2011
39
37
2012
39
39
2013
36
25
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 26: States/Territories with Updated Water
Quality Criteria (WQ-03a) by Region for FY 2012
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
The adoption and proposal of numeric water quality standards for total nitrogen and phosphorus by states and territories was
a top priority for the National Water Program in FY 2012. In FY 2012, one state adopted a total phosphorus criterion for its
lakes that was EPA-approved, bringing the cumulative total for WQ-1a to 42 criteria; no new proposed criteria were added
under WQ-1b.13 Commitments for WQ-1a and WQ-1b were met. EPA did not, however, meet its commitment for state and
territories supplying performance milestones to EPA on the development, proposal, and adoption of numeric water quality
standards for total nitrogen and phosphorus (WQ-1c) (Figure 27). Many states have not provided complete information due to
the scientific, programmatic, and policy complexities of developing nitrogen and phosphorus criteria. Additionally, this measure
does not allow partial credit to acknowledge state milestone accomplishments toward the criteria development for major water
types.14
13 During FY 2012, the results for FY 2011 were adjusted because some criteria did not fully qualify under the WQ-1a and WQ-1b
definitions.
14 While measure WQ-1c was discontinued for FY 2013, it has been adapted as part of the new Nutrient Framework measure to include
more flexibility (see FY2013 National Water Program Guidance, http://water.epa.gov/resourcejDerformance/planning/FY-2013-National-
Water-Program-Guidance.cfm).
26
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 27: States/Territories Supplying Performance
Milestones by Fiscal Year (WQ-01c)
30
10
0 Commitment
2011
21
19
2012
14
25
Figure 28: States/Territories Supplying Performance Milestones
(WQ-01c) by Region for FY 2012
R2 R3
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Result -Commitment
27
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
EPA exceeded its FY 2012 national commitment (85%) by approving 89% of water quality standard revisions submitted by
states and territories (WQ-4a) (Figure 29). EPA has exceeded commitments for this measure for the past six years.
Nonetheless, the trend declined slightly in FY 2012 from 92% in FY 2011. This may reflect the fact that states are tackling
more difficult environmental problems and issues in their standards revisions. All regions met their commitments for this
measure in FY 2012 (Figure 30).
Figure 29: States/Territories with Water Quality
Standards Revisions Approved by Fiscal Year (WQ-04a)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Result
85.6%
91.8%
88.9%
85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0%
m rv
76.7%
2007
85.6%
2008 2009 2010 2011
92.5% 93.2% 90.9% 91.8%
2012
88.9%
87.0%
2013
Commitment
76.7%
74.1%
85.0%
85.0%
85.0%
85.0%
87.0%
28
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Figure 30: States/Territories with Water Quality Standards Revisions
Approved (WQ-04a) by Region for FY 2012
100.0%
97.0%
96.0% 96.3%
100.0%
85.0%
R1
R2
R3
Result
R4 R5
' Commitment
R6 R7 R8
*~ National Commitment
R9
R10
Water Quality Monitoring: Throughout FY 2012, EPA continued to work with states, tribes, interstate agencies, and
territories to strengthen their monitoring programs. Activities included technical support from EPA regions and the Office of
Water in monitoring, data management, assessment and reporting. To expand access to ambient water quality data, EPA
continues to support states and tribes in joining the Water Quality Exchange. In FY 2012, EPA, in partnership with the National
Water Quality Monitoring Council and the U.S. Geological Survey, launched the Water Quality Data Portal providing seamless
access to data holdings managed by both agencies. This includes more than 100 million records from states, tribes, EPA, and
others housed in the WQX/STORET data warehouse.
One of the long-standing gaps in EPA and state monitoring is being addressed through the National Aquatic Resource
Surveys (NARS), an EPA, state, and tribal partnership to produce cross-jurisdictional, representative assessments of the
condition of the nation's waters. These statistical surveys are a cost-effective and scientifically credible means for assessing
and reporting on the current status of a water resource and, over time, changes and trends for that water resource. Initiated in
2005, the NARS program relies on collective EPA, state, and tribal efforts to conduct annual surveys that rotate through each
waterbody type (streams, rivers, lakes, coasts/estuaries, or wetlands) and repeat on a five-year cycle. In March 2013, EPA
published the results of the second survey of streams (see text box). In FY 2012, EPA, states, and tribes also completed
sampling for the second survey of lakes. Samples collected at more than 1,000 lakes have been sent to laboratories for
processing.
29
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
NARS National Rivers and Streams Assessment
On March 26, 2013, EPA released the draft National Rivers and Streams Assessment for public comment. This
report is the first combined report on rivers and streams. It is the second national assessment of streams. Key
findings include:
More than half (55%) of river and stream miles are in poor condition for aquatic life. Key stressors
include nutrients that increase the risk of degraded biology.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are at excessive levels. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the nation's rivers
and streams have excessive levels of nitrogen, and 40% have high levels of phosphorus. High levels of
nutrients have local and downstream impacts. Nutrients stimulate algal growth. Severe algal blooms can
produce unpleasant odors and create algal mats, reducing the appeal of lakes for recreational activities.
As algae die and decompose, they remove oxygen from the water, reducing the amount available to fish
and other organisms. Removing algae from drinking water can significantly increase water treatment
costs.
Streams and rivers are at an increased risk due to decreased riparian vegetation cover. Vegetation
along rivers and streams is a key factor in slowing the velocity of rainwater so it doesn't scour and erode
stream banks, removing pollutants carried by rainwater, and providing shade to maintain temperatures
that support healthy stream biology. Almost one-quarter (24%) of rivers and streams are rated as poor
because of the loss of healthy vegetative cover.
Increased bacteria levels. High bacteria levels were found in 9% of stream and river miles, making those
waters potentially unsafe for swimming and other recreation.
Elevated mercury levels. A subset of rivers and larger streams was sampled for fish tissue
contaminants. Many of those waters, equivalent to more than 13,000 miles of rivers, have fish with
mercury levels that may be unsafe for human consumption.
Compared to a 2004 assessment of wadeable streams, this new assessment finds that stream condition is different
than it was during a similar survey that focused only on streams. The new survey reports that 7% fewer stream
miles rate good for biological condition based on the same macroinvertebrate indicator of stream health. For
nutrients, the results are mixed, with a 9% increase in stream miles rated good for low levels of nitrogen, but 19%
fewer stream miles rated good for having low levels of phosphorus. Looking at indicators of habitat quality, the new
survey finds improvements for streams, with 17% more stream miles in good condition for fish habitat and 12
percent more stream miles in good condition for vegetation along the banks.
The number of states and territories implementing comprehensive monitoring strategies in keeping with established schedules
has remained just short of its annual goal for the past three years (WQ-5) (Figure 31). This is primarily due to the U.S. Virgin
Islands' (VI) struggle to manage a successful monitoring program. The VI is currently under a Corrective Action Plan (CAP),
and all monitoring work funded by the CWA Water Pollution Control (Section 106) grants program will be conducted by
contractors in FY 2013.
30
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 31: States/Territories That Have Adopted Monitoring
Strategies by Fiscal Year (WQ-05)
56
Figure 32: States/Territories That Have Adopted Monitoring Strategies (WQ-05)
by Region for FY 2012
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Result "Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
31
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Forty-six states and territories provided electronic information for integrated reporting of water quality assessment data in FY
2012 (WQ-7). This was two states short of the annual commitment. There is a long-standing issue with the assessment
reporting processes employed by two states in Region 3. In a change from the most recent reporting cycles, all Region 3
states submitted their draft 2012 Integrated Reports by mid-May. Several of these had significant issues for the region to work
through, and the combined effort to address these concerns and complete reviews and approvals of all six submissions did
not allow for extra time to resolve the database reporting issues for the two Region 3 states.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): Developing TMDLs for an impaired waterbody is a critical step in meeting water
restoration goals. TMDLs establish a pollutant budget, which may be implemented via permit requirements or watershed plans
through local, state, and federal programs. In FY 2012, states developed and EPA approved or established 2,922 TMDLs
(WQ-8a) (Figure 33), of which 227 were established by EPA. All regions met their annual commitments for this measure in FY
2012. (Figure 34).
EPA tracks the pace of TMDL development, which refers to the annual number of TMDLs approved or established consistent
with national policy. The national policy recommends that TMDLs be established and approved within eight to 13 years of the
water having been listed as impaired under CWA Section 303(d). The national 2012 end-of-year pace was 91%, which
significantly exceeded the commitment of 60% (WQ-8a).
Figure 33: TMDLs Established or Approved on a Schedule
Consistent with National Policy by Fiscal Year (WQ-08a)
14,000 -i
12,000 -
2007
2013
Kesult 4,191
^^ Commitment 2,940
B.B9B
7,819
Sfltif
3,097
4,9b1
2,592
i!,B4B
2,433
2,ti22
2,215
12,708
32
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 34: TMDLs Established or Approved on a Schedule Consistent
with National Policy (WQ-08a) by Region for FY 2012
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
The higher than expected results were due to a number of factors. Specifically, Connecticut developed 186 bacteria TMDLs
and Maine completed a statewide impervious cover TMDL, which accounted for 30 TMDLs. West Virginia conducts their
TMDL process at the watershed scale, and in FY 2012, completed two watershed TMDL packages, which accounted for more
than 600 TMDLs. Kansas also applies a watershed approach to TMDL development, and in FY 2012, completed and
submitted to EPA a watershed TMDL, which had not been anticipated. Lastly, several Los Angeles consent decree TMDLs
were completed, which resulted in substantially more TMDLs than anticipated.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program: The NPDES program requires all point
sources discharging into U.S. waterbodies to be covered by state or EPA NPDES permits. For the sixth year in a row, EPA
and states achieved the national goal of having current NPDES permits in place. In 2012, 90.4% of nontribal facilities (109,866
facilities) had current permits, exceeding the national commitment of 88% (100,147 facilities) (WQ-12a) (Figure 35). Despite
widespread decline in state resources causing five of the 10 Regions to miss FY 2012 commitments, some states and regional
offices were able to maintain a strong performance and issue more permits than expected, leading to an overall national result
that met the national commitment. (Figure 36)
33
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 35: Non-Tribal NPDES Permits Considered Current by Fiscal Year (WQ-12a)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0% -
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
89.4%
89.3%
90.4%
U.U7o
Commitment
2007
90.0%
87.0%
2008
90.0%
87.0%
2009
90.0%
89.5%
2010
89.4%
89.0%
2011
89.3%
88.4%
2012
90.4%
88.0%
2013
88.0%
Figure 36: Non-Tribal NPDES Permits Considered Current (WQ-12a) by Region for FY 2012
98.0%
88.0%
R2
R3
Result
R4 R5
Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9
R10
34
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
EPA has been working with states to structure the permit program to better support comprehensive protection of water quality.
A key strategy is to focus efforts on high-priority permits that need to be issued or reissued to help implement TMDLs,
watershed plans, effluent guidelines, or other environmental and programmatic actions. In 2012, both EPA and authorized
states issued 925 priority permits (128% of the universe), exceeding the national commitment of 720 permits (100%) (WQ-
19b) (Figure 37). Eight of the 10 regions met or exceeded their commitments in 2012 (Figure 38). EPA and authorized states
have exceeded their targets for issuing high-priority permits for the past four years.15 States have continued their efforts in
coordination with EPA regions to maintain strong performance in issuing high-priority permits.
Figure 37: High-Priority EPA and State NPDES Permits by Fiscal Year (WQ-19b)
2007
2013
I Result 11
Commitment 18
61
114
1,118
743
1,063
792
1,005
763
925
720
652
15To simplify the process and be more transparent, EPA developed a new policy for FY 2010 for developing the priority permits universe.
In addition, EPA shifted the time period for locking down the priority permits universe to align with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) commitment schedule. When states establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits and commit to a
certain number of these to be issued within the fiscal year. If a state is able to issue additional priority permits ahead of schedule, it
receives credit toward the current fiscal year target, which may result in more permits being issued than originally targeted. This measure
has been revised for FY 2013 so that results over 100% will no longer be possible.
35
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 38: High-Priority EPA and State NPDES Permits (WQ-19b) by Region for FY 2012
250 n
200
150
100
50
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
Clean Water Financing: The Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) provide low-interest loans to local governments
to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects. The CWSRF utilization rate hit 98% in 2012.
Six of the 10 regions met their commitments in FY 2012. Two regions9 and 10significantly exceeded their annual goals
due to the fact that a number of states were able to provide more assistance to communities than was original estimated,
given current economic conditions and the amount of funding that was expected to become available. Of the $97.4 billion in
funds available for projects through 2012, $95.4 billion has been committed to nearly 32,000 loans. In 2012, project assistance
reached $5.8 billion, which funded 1,947 loans in a single year. Nationally, since 2001, fund utilization has remained relatively
stable and strong at greater than 90% (WQ-17)
36
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 39: Fund Utilization Rate for the CWSRF by Fiscal Year (WQ-17)
96.7% 98.0% 98.0% 100.0% 980o/o 98 Oo/o
Commitment 93.4%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Figure 40: Fund Utilization Rate for the CWSRF (WQ-17) by Region for FY 2012
(Numbers reflect both base program and ARRA funded projects)
QA f|0/ no nn/ 96.0% Q J no/
94.1)70 93.0% 94.U/0
99.0%
94.0%
94.5%
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Result Commitment
R6 R7 R8
^National Commitment
R9
R10
37
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Control Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution: Polluted runoff from sources such as agricultural lands, forestry sites, and urban
areas is the largest single remaining cause of water pollution. EPA and states are working with local governments, watershed
groups, property owners, tribes, and others to implement programs and management practices to control polluted runoff
throughout the country. EPA and states made significant progress in FY 2012 in documenting the full or partial restoration of
waterbodies that are impaired primarily by nonpoint source runoff. Nationally, EPA exceeded its FY 2012 commitment (394),
with 433 waterbodies partially or fully restored. This was a 21% increase over the 2011 result of 358 improved waterbodies
nationwide (WQ-10) (Figure 41 ).16 All regions met their annual commitments (Figure 42). Some of the results are due to
Region 6 exceeding its commitment because of 11 delisted Oklahoma waterbodies. Region 7 had several success stories,
counting for 18 delisted waterbodies. In addition, one state in Region 7 updated the segmentation of their waters so that some
stories that would have previously counted for one segment or waterbody now count for multiple segments.
One of the challenges of the measure is it can be difficult to anticipate in exactly what year projects will come to fruition
because each one consists of a different scale or scope, pollutant(s) type, and monitoring cycle. In addition, factors helping or
hindering water quality progress, such as other projects currently underway or watershed development, often add more
pollutants, thus making detecting change difficult.
Figure 41: NPS-lmpaired Waterbodies Restored by Fiscal Year (WQ-10)
16 EPA continues to highlight NPS success stories on its website at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319/.
38
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 42: NPS-lmpaired Waterbodies Restored (WQ-10) by
Region for FY 2012
R2
R3
R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
R9
R10
39
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
EPA's Coastal and Oceans program met 100% (three of three measures) of its commitments in 2012. This was an
improvement over the FY 2011 results (Figure 43). It should be noted, however, that due to Agency streamlining efforts, the
number of commitment measures for the Coastal and Oceans program was reduced from nine to three in FY 2012.
Figure 43: Coastal and Ocean Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Not Met
I Met
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
41
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
Results and Commitment StatusAppen(jjx
Indicator/Long-Term ^T
(No Commitment) "39e
= Measure Did Not Exist Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available Finnrp
200712008120091201012011120121 N"mber
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
CO-222.N11
Improve coastal aquatic system health (index)
CO-SP20.N11 Percent ocean dumping sites acceptable conditions
CO-02
Number coastline miles protected vessel sewage
(cumulative)
D-39/Fig.44
39/Fig.49
53,634
54,494
58,929
D-40
CO-04
Rate of return federal investment for NEP (million
dollars)
208.1
83.2
514.0
274.3
662.0
323.0
D-40/Fig.48
CO-05
Number dredged material management plans in
place
30
37
38
37
40
37
D-41
CO-06
Number active dredged material sites monitored
annually
33
28
38
33
33
35
D-41
CO-432.N11
Number additional NEP acres habitat protected or
restored
102,462 82,828 125,437 89,985 62,213 114,579
D-42/Fig.46
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
In April 2012, the federal government released the fourth National Coastal Condition Report (NCCRIV), which highlights
EPA's National Coastal Assessment (NCA) data, collected primarily in 2003 and 2006. The findings from this report serve as a
foundation for EPA and its partners to meet their commitments to water quality and offer insights on what additional actions
are needed to better protect, manage, and restore coastal ecosystems. The NCCR provides a rating on the ecosystem health
of eight coastal regions and U.S. coastal waters overall.17 According to the NCCR IV, the overall condition of the nation's
coastal waters is rated fair, or 3.0 on a scale of 1 to 5. EPA and its partners set a commitment for an overall score of 2.8 (fair)
for FY 2012. (Subobjective 2.2.2) (Figure 44). A score below the target reflects the need for continued work to improve the
condition of the nation's coastal waters. Because EPA is not collecting annual data on this measure, it is able to maintain the
same target for the period within which a particular NCCR is applicable.
The National Coastal Condition Assessment Score provides a consistent metric that allows comparisons of regional coastal
conditions and overall condition scores from one assessment period to the next. Comparison of the scores over time shows
that the overall condition of U.S. coastal waters has improved since the 1990s. Although the overall condition is rated as fair in
all four reports, the score supporting the rating has gradually increased from 2.0 in the NCCR I to 3.0 in the most recent report
(Figure 45). The NCCR IV includes for the first time the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. If the national score
were recalculated without Alaska, Hawaii, and the island territories, however, the overall condition score would be 2.5 (rated
fair; only a slight improvement from the overall condition score of 2.3 in NCCR III).
17 This rating is based on five indicators or indices of ecological condition: water quality index (including dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a
[Chla], nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity); sediment quality index (including sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and sediment
total organic carbon [TOC]); benthic index; coastal habitat index; and fish tissue contaminants index. Each index is given a score based on
a five-point system, where a score of less than 2.0 is rated poor, 2.0 to less 2.3 is rated poor to fair, greater than 2.3 to 3.7 is rated fair,
greater than 3.7 to 4 is rated good to fair, and greater than 4.0 is rated good.
42
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 44: Overall Condition of U.S. Coastal Waters
Overall Condition
West Coast
Overall Condition
Great Lakes
Overall Condition
U.S. Coastal Waters
Overall Condition
Northeast Coast
Overall Condition
Southeast Coast
Ecological Health
Water Quality Index
SwJImcnt Quality Index
Benchic Index
Overall Condition
Gulf Coast
Coascal
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Overall Condition
Southeastern
Alaska
Overall
Condition
American Samoa
OverallCondition
Hawaii
4 Survey? completed, bur an
ndoie racing was un
l|; Surveys cgmpfafed by* no index
.iVa.il;)L-!t bMLl the ntXI :c|JOi f.
totriplcLed. but an
index '-*cm was
Overall
Condition
U.S.Virgin
Overall Condition
Guam
Overall Condition
Puerto Rico
completed, but an
ndex rating wn* unavailable
* Surveyi completed, but an
rating was unavailable
Survey* campleced, but an
racing wa
43
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 45: NCCR Scores
Category
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue Contaminants
NCCR I
1.5
2.3
1.6
1.5
O 1
NCCR II
3.2
2.1
1.7
2.0
1 -7
NCCR III3
3.2
1.6
1.7
2.1
i n
NCCR III"
3.8
2.8
1.7
2.1
O -7
NCCR IVC
3.2
1.8
1.7
2.4
O -7
NCCR IVd
3.6
2.6
2.6
2.4
A r\
Index
Overall Condition
3.1
2.0
2.7
2.3
2.9
2.3
3.7
2.8
3.7
2.5
4.0
3.0
3 NCCR III scores excluding Alaska and Hawaii
b NCCR III scores including Alaska and Hawaii (except for coastal habitat index)
c NCCR IV scores excluding Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands
d NCCR IV scores including Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands
National Estuary Program (NEP): The 28 NEPs and their partners protected or restored more than 114,000 acres of habitat
within the NEP study areasmore than 14,000 acres above EPA's goal of 100,000 acres (Measure 4.3.2) (Figures 46 and
47). The target was exceeded due to the completion of several large projects. Also, it is often difficult to predict the completion
date of protection and restoration projects because of the many factors or steps required for each project, such coordinating
with numerous partners, negotiating with landowners, obtaining all the funding from multiple sources, having the necessary
permits approved, and variability in the weather.
44
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 46: NEP Acres Protected or Restored by Fiscal Year (CO-432.N11)
140,000 -|
125,437
114,579
Result
40,000
20,000
0
2007
102,462
2008
82,828
2012
114,579
2013
Commitment 40,950
43,114
46,121 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Figure 47: NEP Acres Protected or Restored (CO-432.N11) by Region for FY 2012
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
52,801
3,589 3,017
30,438
8,776
3,000
5,291
R1
R2
R3 R4 R5 R6
Result Commitment
R7
R8
1,000
R9 R10
In FY 2012, the 28 NEPs played the primary role in directing $324 million in additional fundsleveraged from approximately
$22 million in EPA Section 320 and earmark fundstoward Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
implementation. This represents a ratio of $15 raised for every $1 provided by EPA, which matches the historic ratio measured
over the 2003-2012 period (CO-4). The leveraged funds were primarily invested in sewage treatment plan upgrades, habitat
restoration, and CSC abatements. Approximately 95% of these leveraged resources were invested in on-the-ground activities,
such as habitat restoration and stormwater management, rather than overhead or operations (Figure 48).
45
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 48:
NEP Primary Leveraging Investments (CO-4): 2012
($324 million total)
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
JP
«?
&°
^
Ocean Protection: Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from waterways, ports, and harbors every
year to maintain the nation's navigation system. All of this sediment must be disposed of without causing adverse effects to
the marine environment. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) share responsibility for regulating how and where
the disposal of dredged sediment occurs in ocean waters. In FY 2012, 97% of active ocean dumping sites for dredged
material achieved environmentally acceptable conditions, as reflected in each site's management plan and measured through
onsite monitoring programs The end-of-the-year result exceeded the annual commitment of 96%, which was an improvement
over the FY 2010 and FY 2011 results (SP-20) (Figure 49 and Figure 50).
46
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 49: Ocean Dumping Sites with Acceptable Conditions by Fiscal Year (CO-SP20.N11)
99.0%
99.0%
90.1%
93.0%
97.0%
Figure 50: Ocean Dumping Sites with Acceptable Conditions
by Region for FY 2012 (CO-SP20.N11)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
n%
I 97.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
R1
R2 R3
^Result
R4 R5
Commitment
R6 R7 R8
^National Commitment
R9
R10
47
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
The number of dredged material management plans that are in place for major U.S. coastal and Great Lakes ports and
harbors (commercially significant or deep draft and regionally significant) decreased from 40 in FY 2011 to 37 in FY 2012 (CO-
5). Developing a dredged material management plan is not necessary for all ports and harbors. EPA is no longer using this
measure as an indicator after 2013.
The number of monitored active ocean disposal sites increased from 33 in 2011 to 35 in 2012 (CO-6). The number of disposal
sites monitored on an annual basis depends on a number of factors, including resources available for monitoring in a given
year, and will vary from year to year. Note that the number of dredged material management plans is not related to the
number of active ocean disposal sites (i.e., dredged material disposal seaward of the baseline), the usage of such ocean
disposal sites, or the how the sites are monitored.
48
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: U.S.-Mexico Border
For the second consecutive year, the U.S.-Mexico Border Program met all three of its commitment measures in FY 2012
(Figure 51). Note that setting commitments for infrastructure projects can be difficult; an unanticipated project delay or an
expedited project completion can affect end of year performance reporting.
Figure 51: U.S. Mexico Border Subobjective Five-Year Trend
-Not Met
Data Not Available
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
49
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Results and Commitment Status
_ Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met
= Measure Did Not Exist
FY 2012 ACS
Code
= Data Not Available
Appendix
Page
Number
(D-0)/
Figure
Number
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico
Border Environmental Health
MB-SP23
MB-SP24.N11
Number million pounds BOD
loadings removed U.S.-Mexico
Border (cumulative)
0.0
MB-SP25.N11
Number additional Mexico
Border homes access to safe
drinking water (annual)
1,276
Number additional Mexico
Border homes access to
adequate sanitation (annual)
73,475
The United States and Mexico have a longstanding commitment to protecting the environment and public health in the U.S.-
Mexico Border Region. EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border Program will continue to implement this binational program by working with
the Mexican government, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, the North American Development Bank, the 10
border states, and border communities to improve public health and the environment in the region.
The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program provides funding for the development and construction of wastewater
and drinking water infrastructure for border residents, often for first-time services. EPA establishes annual commitments for
the safe drinking water and wastewater sanitation measures using detailed project schedules to estimate project completions.
Many variables can impact the construction schedule of a large infrastructure project. These variables may include weather
delays, local economic conditions, or the unique challenges of binationally funded and managed projects, such as political
exigencies or the complications associated with multiple funding sources working on different schedules. In prior years, these
variables have impacted the end-of-year results, with some projects completed ahead of schedule and some experiencing
delays. In FY 2012, all expected project completions were accomplished, and the program met its commitment measures
50
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) Loadings Removed: Under the U.S.-Mexico Border Program, EPA tracks the amount
of BODa measure of organic content and a standard metric of wastewater strengthremoved from wastewater as a result
of EPA investments in wastewater infrastructure. Project completions through FY 2012 resulted in the removal of 119 million
pounds of BOD loadings per year from the U.S.-Mexico Border area, slightly more than its commitment of 115 million pounds
(based on a baseline of 0 pounds in 2003) (SP-23) (Figure 52). New project completions in FY2012 contributed 10.3 million
pounds to the total 100 million pounds of BOD removed per year.
Figure 52: Loading of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removed (Cumulative Million
Pounds/Year) from the U.S.-Mexico Border Area (MB-SP23)
u.u
Commitment
2010
65.2
36.0
2011
108.5
108.2
2012
119.0
115.0
2013
126.5
Safe Drinking Water to Homes in U.S.-Mexico Border Area: EPA provided 5,185 additional homes with access to safe
drinking water in FY 2012 (SP-24) (Figure 53). Two drinking water projects that were completed in FY 2012 serve an
additional 8,000 people. Since 2003, the Agency has provided 59,919 additional homes in the border region with access to
safe drinking water (Figure 54). As a result, the Agency has achieved 81% of its long-term FY 2015 target of 73,886 additional
homes having access to safe drinking water.
51
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 53: Homes with Safe Drinking Water in the U.S.-Mexico Border
Area by Fiscal Year (MB-SP24.N11)
25,000
20,000
Figure 54:
_0
tj
HI
HI
re
-*
^c
_
ai
-a
13
Drinking water connections
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
I Drinking water connections
(cumulative)
52
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Adequate Wastewater Sanitation to Homes in the U.S.-Mexico Border Area: EPA provided adequate wastewater
sanitation to an additional 31,092 homes over the past year, more than three times the FY 2012 NWPG's targets (Figure 55).
Ten wastewater projects were completed in fiscal year 2012, providing service for more than 115,000 people. Cumulative
wastewater sanitation connections made through FY 2012 total 544,133 homes (SP-25) (Figure 56), exceeding the Agency's
long-term commitment of connecting 518,042 homes by FY 2015.
Figure 55: Homes Provided Adequate Wastewater Sanitation in the
U.S.-Mexico Border Area by Fiscal Year (MB-SP25.N11)
300,000
250,000 -
200,000
150,000 -
100,000
50,000
0 L
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Result 73,475
Commitment
31,686
15,000
43,594
105,500
75,175
100,720
259,371
207,000
31,092
10,500
24,000
53
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 56:
Wastewater connections
600,000
Wastewater Connections
(cumulative)
54
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Pacific Islands
The Pacific Islands met all three of its commitments in 2012. This was a significant improvement over FY 2011 (Figure 57).
Figure 57: Pacific Islands Subobjective Five-Year Trend
Not Met
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Status
Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
/\ppen(jjx
"
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Not Met
= Measure Did Not Exist
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available FifllirP
2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
PI-SP26
PI-SP27
PI-SP28
Percent Pacific Islands population served by CWS
Percent time Pacific Islands treatment plants comply
w/ BOD limits
Percent Pacific Islands beach days open for
swimming
79% 80% 82% 87% 80%
67% 65% 52% 50% 64%
80% 81% 80% 77% 82%
D-63/Fig.58
D-64
D-64
55
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The U.S. Pacific Island Territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI) are responsible for providing safe drinking water and adequate sanitation service to the public. In 2012, 80% of the
population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories was served by community drinking water systems that met all applicable
health-based drinking water standards throughout the year (SP-26), meeting the FY 2012 commitment of 80% (Figure 58).
The improvement for this measure was due primarily to better water service in the CNMI. EPA is continuing its efforts through
infrastructure financing, enforcement, and technical assistance to improve the water and wastewater situation in the Pacific
Islands.
Figure 58: Pacific Islands Population Served by CWS by Fiscal Year (PI-SP26)
2008
2009
2012
2013
Result 79.0%
^- Commitment 69.0%
80.0%
73.0%
82.0%
73.0%
87.0%
75.0%
80.0%
80.0%
82.0%
Sixty-four percent (64%) of sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories complied with permit limits for
biological oxygen demand (BOD) pollutants and total suspended solids (SP-27). Not only was the 2012 goal met, but the end-
of-year result was a significant improvement over the previous year's result of 50%. However, additional improvements are not
expected until infrastructure upgrades are completed over the next several years, in compliance with two court orders and one
administrative order. This measure will be deleted in FY 2013.
Monitored beaches in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories were open and safe for swimming for 82% of beach-season days in
FY 2012 (SP-28), meeting the annual commitment of 82%. This measure will be deleted in FY 2013.
56
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Wetlands
EPA's Wetlands Program met three-quarters of its commitments in FY 2012. The program has met at least 75% of its goals
over the past four years (Figure 59).
Figure 59: Wetlands Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Not Met
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Status
Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
A ____--!:
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Measure Did Not Exist Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available FifllirP
2007 1 2008 1 2009 I 2010 1 2011 1 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
WT-SP21 .N11 Net increase wetlands achieved (acres)
WT-SP22
WT-01
WT-02a
96,000 128,000
lost lost
No net loss of wetlands
Number wetland acres restored and enhanced
(cumulative)
D-42
No Net No Net No Net No Net
Loss Loss Loss Loss
103,507 130,000 154,000 180,000
D-43
D-43/Fig.60
Number states/tribes increased wetland program
capacity in one or more core elements
25
22
22
47
54
44
D-44
WT-02b
Number of core elements developed by states and
tribes
11
24
39
27
29
33
D-44
WT-03
Percent CWA 404 permits with greater environ.
protection
WT-04 Number states measuring wetland condition trend
85%
D-45
D-45
57
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
Wetlands are among our nation's most critical and productive natural resources. They provide a variety of benefits, such as
water quality improvements, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, and ground water exchange. Wetlands are the primary
habitat for fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife, providing numerous opportunities for education, recreation, and research. EPA
recognizes that the challenges the nation faces in conserving our wetland heritage are daunting and that many partners must
work together for this effort to succeed.
No Net Loss and the Number of Wetland Acres Restored/Enhanced: In 2012, EPA, in partnership with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), states, and tribes, achieved a "no net loss" of wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404 regulatory program (SP-22). EPA continues to achieve this commitment through regional involvement and coordination in
reviewing 404 permits issued by the COE. With each permit review targeted, EPA 404 permit experts assess whether their
involvement resulted in a positive environmental outcome.
EPA continues to exceed expectations in terms of the number of acres of wetlands restored and enhanced, with 180,000
acres restored and enhanced since 2002 (WT-1) (Figure 60). EPA has exceeded its commitment under this measure every
year since 2004, due mostly to the combined efforts of local groups to restore wetlands under EPA funding programs.
Although it is difficult to determine an accurate number of habitat acres that will be improved and restoredbecause projects
can sometimes take a number of years to design, fund, implement, and completeEPA has observed a long enough trend to
be able to forecast improvements.
Figure 60: Wetland Acres Restored and Enhanced by Fiscal Year (WT-01)
100.0% n
90.0% 87-0%
58
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
EPA and its partners fell short in FY2012 in achieving a net increase of wetlands on a nationwide basis. According to the
latest Status and Trends report, there are 110.1 million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States, and 62,300
wetland acres were lost over five years. The report, which represents the most up-to-date, comprehensive assessment of
wetland habitats in the United States, documents substantial losses in forested and coastal wetlands. The rate of gains from
reestablishment of wetlands increased by 17 percent from the previous study period (1998-2004), but the wetland loss rate
increased 140 percent during the same time period. Although the losses of wetlands exceeded the gains, the net change was
not statistically significant.
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. Wetland gains were due to agricultural conservation programs, wetland reestablishment and
creation involving partners, land retirement programs, and the creation of freshwater ponds.
State and Tribal Wetlands Program Capacity: As of FY 2012, 44 states and 29 tribes have built capacities in the core
program elements of wetlands monitoring, regulation, voluntary restoration and protection, and wetland water quality
standards (WT-2a/b).18
Number of States Measuring Trends in Condition: The number of states where the trend in wetland condition has been
measured, as defined through biological metrics and assessments, increased from 29 states in FY 2011 to 31 states in FY
2012 (WT-4). This measure currently counts states that are "on track" to assess trends in wetland condition for at least 20% of
their state by the end of FY 2012. Trends assessment involves establishing a baseline, then reassessing the same areas to
evaluate trends. The increase among states in building wetlands monitoring programs is due to continued active participation
by approximately 40 states on the National Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Work Group, and involvement of EPA
regions in the Regional Wetlands Monitoring Work Groups and National Wetland Condition Assessment.
18This measure was changed in 2010 to gauge the number of states and tribes that have built the core elements of their programs (WT-2a)
and have reached the point of managing fully functional wetland programs. The new measure tracks closely with EPA's Core Elements
Framework for State and Tribal Wetlands Program, which provides a more objective basis for measurement.
59
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Great Lakes
The Great Lakes National Program Office met 87% (13 of 15) of its performance commitments in 2012. This is a significant
accomplishment, with only one measure not meeting its commitment and one indicator not having data by the end of year
(Figure 61).
Figure 61: Great Lakes Subobjective Six-Year Trend
2007
l Not Met
Data Not Available
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
60
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
-_ Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available Fidure
2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 I 2011 1 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
GL-433.N11
GL-SP29
GL-SP31
Improve health-Great Lakes ecosystem (index)
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes fish (cumulative)
GL-SP32.N11
GL-05
GL-06
GL-07
GL-08
GL-09
GL-10
GL-11
Number Areas of Concern (AOCs) with all
management actions implemented (cumulative)
Number cubic yards (millions) of contaminated
sediment remediated (cumulative)
Number Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) removed
Rate of invasive species newly detected in the Great
Lakes (avg. since 2010)
Response plans established, response exercises,
and/or response actions (cumulative)
Percent of days of the beach season that monitored
Great Lakes beaches are open and safe for swimming
Number 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)
Acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands
protected, restored and enhanced, (cumulative)
GL-12
GL-13
GL-15
GL-16
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 draining from targeted watershed
Percent increase in acres in Great Lakes watershed
with USDA conservation practices implemented
As the largest surface freshwater system on the face of the earth, the Great Lakes ecosystem holds the key to the quality of
life and economic prosperity for tens of millions of people. U.S. President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson,
in collaboration with 15 other federal agencies, have made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority. Congress
appropriated $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) for FY 2012.
61
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
One of the Great Lakes National Program's key strategic targets assesses the overall progress U.S. environmental programs
are making in protecting and restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. This is
measured using the Great Lakes Index, a tool for assessing the overall condition of the Great Lakes that is based on a set of
selected ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, Areas of Concern [AOCs], sediment
contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition).
Improvements in the Great Lakes Index measures would indicate that fewer toxins are entering the food chain, ecosystem and
human health are better protected, fish are safer to eat, water is safer to drink, and beaches are safer for swimming.
From a baseline score of 20 in 2002, the Great Lakes Index increased from a score of 21.9 in 2011 to 23.9 in 2012
(Subobjective 4.3.3) (Figure 62). Although trend data indicate that the index score decreased in 2010 and 2011, this was not
necessarily due to worsening environmental conditions over the long term, but rather an adjustment to one of eight index
componentsbeach closures.
19
Figure 62: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes Ecosystem on a 40-Point Scale by
Fiscal Year (GL-433.N11)
30.0
19 The reporting standard used in 2010 (when 62% of Great Lakes beaches were reported as open more than 95% of the swimming
season) was more rigorous than that used in 2009 (when 82% of beaches were reported open), which caused the beach closure
component of the index to drop. While this gave the appearance that beach conditionsand therefore the Great Lakes' general health-
were deteriorating, approximately the same number of beaches did not meet the 95% threshold in 2010 as in 2009. Prior to 2010, states
had reported all nonmonitored beaches as open and safe for swimming for 100% of the beach season, thus raising the number of beaches
"open more than 95% of the swimming season" and increasing the percentage. Starting in FY 2012, the beach closure component of the
index only includes monitored beaches and is consistent with the national beach program measure.
62
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
The results of analyses reported in FY 2012 indicated that average long-term total PCB concentrations in whole Great Lakes
top predator fish at sites in each Great Lake declined more than 42% between 2000 and 2010, meeting the target for declines
in concentration trends (40%). EPA base programs and GLRI projects, including Great Lakes Legacy Act sediment
remediation, contribute to continued progress under this long-term measure (SP-29).
PCBs were banned in the 1970s and continue to degrade. Contaminated sediment remediation (under the Legacy Act and
Superfund) is removing additional PCBs from the environment. Based on Lake Michigan data, current concentrations in whole
body lake trout are approximately six times the wildlife protection value (0.16 parts per million [ppm]), and the majority of sport
fish collected from Lake Michigan fall into the one meal per month consumption advice category (.21-1.0 ppm) for protection
of human health.
A prominent source of pollution in the Great Lakes is contaminated sediments. From 1997 through calendar year 2011, EPA
and its partners have remediated approximately 9.7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the Great Lakes basin.
In calendar year 2011 (for FY 2012 reporting), approximately 1.3 million cubic yards were remediated through various federal
and state authorities, including the Great Lakes Legacy Act (366,000 cubic yards); Superfund (45,000 cubic yards); Superfund
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (347,000 cubic yards); Army Corps of Engineers (577,000 cubic yards); and
Wisconsin/EPA Toxic Substance Control Act (18,000 cubic yards). This is the sixth consecutive year that the Great Lakes
National Program Office has met its commitments for this measure (SP-32) (Figure 63). GLRI has achieved approximately
95% of its 2015 goal of removing 10.2 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments. The volume of sediments remediated to
date represents about 21 % of the estimated universe of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes basin (Figure 64).
Figure 63: Cubic Yards of Remediated Sediment by Fiscal Year (GL-SP32.N11)
2.0
u.u
^Result
Commitment
2007
4.5
4.5
2008
5.5
5.0
2009
6.0
5.9
2010
7.3
6.4
2011
8.4
7.2
2012
9.7
9.1
2013
10.3
63
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 64: Cubic Yards of Remediated Sediment as a Percent of Universe, Baseline, and
Long-Term Goal (GL-SP32.N11)
Universe
Baseline
Long-Term Goal
A key indicator for the Great Lakes National Program Office is to implement all management actions necessary for delisting
AOCs20 within the Great Lakes basin. A delisting indicates that the AOC meets the public's vision for that area and that it is no
longer among the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes. The first two AOCs for which all management actions were
completed were Oswego River/Harbor and Presque Isle Bay. In January 2013, EPA and its partners completed all
management actions at their third AOC (Sheboygan River), thus falling slightly short of their commitment to complete all
management actions for a cumulative total of three AOCs through FY 2012 (SP-31) (Figure 65). Unexpected additional work
was needed at the Sheboygan AOC, delaying the completion of the management actions there. The Presque Isle Bay AOC
was formally delisted in February 2013.
20 The U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol) defines AOCs as "geographic areas that fail to
meet the general or specific objectives of the agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of
the area's ability to support aquatic life." More simply put, an AOC is a location that has experienced environmental degradation.
64
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 65: Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs)
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
For the second consecutive year, the Great Lakes Program met its commitment to reduce the number BUIs at Great Lakes
AOCs. Under the GLRI, EPA collaborated extensively with state and federal partners to conduct projects supporting the
removal of 33 impairments (Figure 66), such as restrictions on drinking water consumption (or drinking water taste and odor)
at Grand Calumet River AOC; aesthetics at Kalamazoo River AOC, River Raisin AOC, and St. Glair River AOC; eutrophication
at White Lake AOC; added costs to agriculture and industry at St. Glair River AOC; and degradation of benthos at White Lake
AOC.
65
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 66: Beneficial Use Impairments Restored by Fiscal Year (GL-05)
45 n
u
^Result
Commitment
2009
12
21
2010
12
26
2011
26
26
2012
33
33
2013
41
One of the key goals of the GLRI21 is to reduce the number of invasive species entering the Great Lakes Basin. Although 10
new species were detected between 2000 and 2009, no new species have been detected since then (GL-6). The program
also measures the number of acres managed for populations of invasive species that are controlled to a specific target level.
More than 31,000 acres were managed in FY 2012, which is significantly above the annual commitment of 2,600 acres (GL-9)
(Figure 67). 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 becoming fully operational this field season. Additionally,
management efforts that involved comprehensive surveillance of large acreages with targeted treatment follow-up came to
fruition this field season.
EPA collaborated with and funded a number of other federal agencies22 to protect, restore, and enhance more than 65,000
acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands across the Great Lakes Basin (GL-11) (Figure 68). This was well above the
FY 2012 commitment of 11,000 acres. Some of the most significant completions received funding from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) for restoring wild rice and other cultural wetland resources across the basin. The unprecedented level of funding
capitalized on a backlog of projects and appears to have achieved economies of scale due to significantly larger projects. In
addition, the Great Lakes Program and its partners protected, restored, and enhanced more than 28,000 acres of coastal,
upland, and island habitats in FY 2012. These results were well above of the Agency's commitment of 15,000 acres (GL-12)
(Figure 69).
21 Seehttp://greatlakesrestoration.us/pdfs/glri_actionplan.pdf).
22 Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
66
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 67: Acres Managed for Populations of Invasive Species Controlled to a Target Level
by Fiscal Year (GL-09)
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
u
^Result
9 Commitment
2011
13,045
1,500
2012
31,474
2,600
2013
18,000
Figure 68: Wetland and Upland Acres Protected, Restored, and Enhanced
by Fiscal Year (GL-11)
70,000 n 65,639
60,000
50,000
40,000
13,000
67
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 69: Coastal, Upland, and Island Acres Protected, Restored, and Enhanced
by Fiscal Year (GL-12)
30,000
25,000
5,000
28,034
u
^^ Commitment
2011
12,103
20,000
2012
28,034
15,000
2013
20,000
In FY 2012, approximately 280,000 acres in the Great Lakes watershed were put into U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
conservation practices to reduce erosion, nutrients, and/or pesticide loadings under Farm Bill programs. This represents a
70% increase over the baseline of 165,000 acres (based on FY 2008 data) (Figure 70). The significant increase in FY 2012 is
a combined result of greater funding (base USDA programs and GLRI) and increased participation in Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs.23
23 The acres tracked in this measure are not cumulative but are for new conservation practices implemented in a given fiscal year. The
percent increase will vary considerably from year to year due to funding, the conservation universe, and the difficulty of conservation
practices.
68
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 70: Great Lakes Acres with USDA Conservation Practices by Fiscal Year (GL-16)
80.0% n
70.0%
U.U 70
^^ Commitment
2011
62.0%
2.0%
2012
70.0%
8.0%
2013
20.0%
69
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Chesapeake Bay
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program was successful in meeting 100% of its annual commitments in FY 2012 (Figure 71).
Figure 71: Chesapeake Bay Subobjective Six-Year Trend
2007
; Not Met
Data Not Available
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
t*
70
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Status
Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
Appendix
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Measure Did Not Exist Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available Finnrp
20071200812009120101201112012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
CB-SP33.N11
CB-SP34
Percent Chesapeake Bay SAV restored
Percent Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen attains
CB-SP35
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
42%
46%
43%
39%
Percent Bay nitrogen reduction practices
implemented
34%
34%
D-53/Fig.72
D-54/Fig.73
Percent Bay phosphorus reduction practices
implemented
CB-2
Percent Bay sediment reduction practices
implemented
Percent Bay forest buffer planting goal achieved
46% 47% 49% 51%
62% 62%
62% 64% 64% 69%
53% 57% 62% 69% 72% 75%
D-54
D-55
D-55
D-56
Notes: SAV=submerged aquatic vegetation.
The Bay Program adopted the current measure language for CB-SP35, CB-SP36, and CB-SP37 in FY 2011 to capture progress under the
Bay TMDL established in December FY 2010. This change occurred after the publication of the FY 2011 National Water Program
Guidance and Commitment Appendix. The program was unable to report results in FY 2011 National Water Program End of Year
Performance Report under the old measures but did report the following results for the revised measure language in the Agency's FY 2011
Annual Performance Report based on targets in the FY 2013 budget: SP-35: 8%; SP-36:1%, SP-37:11%.
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation_(SAV) and Water Quality in the Bay: The overriding goal of EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office is to work with its federal, state, and local partners to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
Two of the most important indicators for measuring the health of the Chesapeake Bay are acres of SAV (SP-33) and levels of
dissolved oxygen (DO) (SP-34). Based on annual monitoring from the prior year, the Chesapeake Bay Program reported
63,074 acres of SAV in the bay. This represents approximately 34% of the program's long-term goal of 185,000 acres, which
is the amount necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality standards (Figure 72). The fiscal year data reported in
Figure 72 are based on data from the previous calendar year. Experts agree that extreme environmental conditions in
calendar years 2010 and 2011 contributed strongly to the decline.24
24 R. J. Orth, D. J. Wilcox, L. J. R. Whiting, L. Nagey, A. L. Owens, and A. K Kenne, 2011 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in
Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays, October 2012, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Special Scientific Report Number 154" available at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav11/.
71
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Monitoring data from the previous three calendar years indicate that about 34% of the combined volume of open-water, deep-
water, and deep-channel water of the bay and its tidal tributaries met DO standards during the summer months (Figure 73).
The goal is for 100% of the tidal tributaries and the Chesapeake Bay to meet Clean Water Act standards for DO. To achieve
SAV and DO goals, program partners are implementing pollution control measures throughout the bay watershed to reduce
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the bay.
Figure 72: Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restored
by Fiscal Year (CB-SP33.N11)
50% n
46%
43%
U 70
Result
2007
32%
2008
35%
2009
42%
2010
46%
2011
43%
2012
34%
Figure 73: Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Attained by Fiscal Year (CB-SP34)
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Result
38.5%
34.0%
2011
38.5%
2012
34.0%
72
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Reducing Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment Runoff to the Bay: In December 2010, EPA established the Chesapeake
Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), a comprehensive "pollution diet" with rigorous accountability measures, to initiate
sweeping actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay and the region's streams, creeks, and rivers. The District of
Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia developed Phase I Watershed
Implementation Plans (WIPs) to identify how much pollution would need to be reduced from each source sector in order to
meet water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay, and how these reductions would be achieved and maintained. In 2011
and 2012, jurisdictions working with their local stakeholders developed Phase II WIPs that will help key partners better
understand what they need to do to improve water quality in the rivers and streams flowing to the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA strongly believes that local governments are critical partners in implementing the TMDL, and the Agency is working to
ensure that states provide necessary support to local governments as they take the on-the-ground actions necessary to
achieve the goals of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. EPA will continue to implement key initiatives under Executive Order 13508.
For additional information, please refer to the most recent Action Plan, available at
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/post/Federal-partners-outline-planned-actions-for-2013-to-protect-and-restore-the-
Chesapeake-Bay.aspx.
EPA expects enhanced implementation of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution control measures as a result of the
TMDL that was established in December 2010. Chesapeake Bay Program partners continue to implement pollution controls
necessary to restore Chesapeake Bay water quality. The program exceeded its FY 2012 targets for pollution controls (refer to
Table 1). By the end of 2017 (FY 2018), the program expects to achieve 60 percent of its goals for implementing nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment reduction actions necessary to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3
watershed model. Given that the Chesapeake Bay Program created these measures in FY 2011 as a result of the TMDL and
a new watershed model, trend data does not exist prior to FY 2011.
Table 1: Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Measures
ACS Measure Language
Code
FY2012 FY2012
Commitment Results
SP-35
Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen pollution reduction actions to
achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
15%
21%
SP-36
Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus pollution reduction actions
to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
15%
19%
SP-37
Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment pollution reduction actions to
achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3 watershed
model.
15%
30%
Restoring Forest Buffer: State and federal efforts to accelerate forest buffer restoration resulted in planting 240 miles of
forest buffers in FY 2012. A total of 7,479 miles have been planted since FY 1997, achieving 75% of the long-term goal of
planting 10,000 miles of forest buffer (CB-2). Reasons for the continuing slow progress in planting forest buffers include the
high price of crop commodities; a shortage of technical assistants, which is likely to continue due to the impact of the economy
on agency staffing levels; uninformed landowners; and the tendency of the agricultural community to plant grass buffers. All of
these issues have been the focus of recent efforts to improve forest buffer implementations.
73
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Gulf of Mexico
EPA met all of its commitments for the Gulf of Mexico Program in FY 2012. EPA has continued to meet the majority of its
commitments to protect the Gulf of Mexico for four of the past five years (Figure 74).
Figure 74: Gulf of Mexico Subobjective Six-Year Trend
Not Met
Data Not Available
I Met
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Status/\Dnendix
, ^_ Indicator/Long-Term "\r
= Met = M Panp
(No Commitment) rayc
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Not Met
= Measure Did Not Exist
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available FifllirP
2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
GM-435
GM-SP38
GM-SP39
Improve health-Gulf of Mexico ecosystem (index)
Number of impaired Gulf water segments and
habitat restored (cumulative)
Number of Gulf Acres restored or enhanced
(cumulative)
GM-SP40.N11
Reduce hypoxic zone Gulf of Mexico (sq kilometers)
GM-1
Implement warning system to manage algal blooms
74
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Watershed." Its U.S. coastline encompasses 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 of Mexico yields approximately 40% of the nation's commercial fishery landings. Gulf Coast wetlands comprise about half
the national total and provide critical habitat for 75% of the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States.
The latest National Coastal Condition Report (NCCRIV) (2012) indicates that the overall aquatic ecosystem health of the
coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is rated as fair, or 2.4 on a 5-point scale, in which 1 is poor and 5 is good (Subobjective
4.3.2). The NCCR IV assessment is based on environmental stressor and response data collected by the states of Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas from 2003 to 2006. The hurricanes of 2005 (Katrina and Rita) significantly
affected the data collected; Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana did not collect data in 2005, except for water quality
indicators in Mississippi. These factors influenced the overall condition score, which represents no significant change from the
previous ratings in NCCR II and III.
The size of the hypoxic, or "dead," zone25 in the Gulf of Mexico decreased significantly from 17,520 km2 (8,000 mi2) in 2011 to
7,483 km2 (2,889 mi2) in FY 2012 (SP-40) (Figure 75). A number of hydrological, climate, and monitoring factors impact the
hypoxic zone from year to year (e.g., lower than average Mississippi River flow, timing of monitoring during weather events).26
According to an academic research organization within the Gulf of Mexico basin, "The smaller area [in 2012] reflects the
drought conditions across the US in that the freshwater discharge and associated nutrients delivered to the Gulf of Mexico
was mostly below average in spring and approached the 80-year minimum discharge."27 The six-year running average is
currently at 15,750 km2 (6,681 mi2). The interagency Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River Watershed Nutrient Task Force goal is
to reduce the dead zone to a size of 5,000 km2 (1,900 mi2) or less by 2015, based on a five-year running average. Figure 76
provides dissolved oxygen levels by location in the Gulf of Mexico.
25 The dead zone is an area of oxygen-starved water, also known as hypoxia. It is fueled by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, principally
from agricultural activity in the Mississippi River watershed, which stimulates an overgrowth of algae that sinks, decomposes, and
consumes most of the life-giving oxygen supply in the water.
26 For more information on causes of the size of the hypoxic zone, visit:
http://www.gulfhYpoxia.net/News/documents/PressReleaseVers27JuM2.pdf.
27 Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, July 27, 2012, Press Release.
75
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
25,000
Figure 75:
Area of Mid-Summer Bottom Water Hypoxia
20,000
1
| 15,000
1
a- 10,000
5,000
n -
luissoivea uxyger
-
Igoal
J
-
-
-
^ ^
I
:.u
Tlg/LJ
5-yr average
N
s
-
s
-
-
^-
^B
Year
i Data source: N.N, Rabalais, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, R.E, Turner, Louisiana State University
Funded by: NOAA, Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research
Figure 76: Dissolved Oxygen Levels in the Gulf of Mexico
Bottom Dissolved Oxya«n Contours
SEAMAP Summer Groundflah Survey
Jun«7 -July 2. 2011 NOAA Ship Or«gon II
DIE solved Oxy
mil L
DOD-050
^| 051-1 DO
^| 1 Ot-1 50
151-200
191 201-250
| '^ i'1-J UU
1 | 9,01-a .so
I 9.51-4.0D
_ |
I | $61-500
ZTI 501-550
5.61-BOO
G01.B SO
651.700
76
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Acres Habitat Restored: The Gulf of Mexico Program ended the year slightly ahead of its FY 2012 cumulative target to
restore, protect, or enhance 30,000 acres of coastal and marine habitats. Regional collaboration through coordinated efforts
helped restore about 196 acres in 2012. Although the past three years have seen significantly less than the approximately
4,000 acres restored in 2009, the program has restored, enhanced, or protected a total of 30,796 acres in the states of
Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas since 2006 (SP-39) (Figure 77). This is a 92% improvement over the FY
2005 baseline of 16,000 acres. Slightly less than 1% of the total universe of habitat acres, however, have been restored to
date (Figure 78).
Figure 77: Gulf Acres Restored or Enhanced by Fiscal Year (GM-SP39)
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
30,600
77
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 78: Gulf Acres Restored or Enhanced as a Percent of Universe and Percent Over
Baseline by (GM-SP39)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.8%
Universe
Baseline
A central pillar of the strategy to restore the health of the Gulf is restoring water quality and habitat in 13 priority coastal
watersheds. These 13 watersheds include 755 of the impaired segments identified by Gulf states that receive targeted
technical and financial assistance to restore impaired waters. The program met its 2012 commitment (290) by restoring water
and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 316 impaired segments in priority coastal areas (Figure 79).
Figure 79: Number of Impaired Gulf Water Segments and Habitat Restored to Meet Water
Quality Standards (GM-SP38)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
^Result 109
Commitment 56
64
131
96
170
96
286
128
316
290
360
78
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Long Island Sound
The Long Island Sound Program was successful in meeting all three of its commitments in FY 2012 (Figure 80).
Figure 80: Long Island Sound Subobjective Five-Year Trend
Not Met
i Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS
Code
LI-SP41
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Results and Commitment Status Appendix
_ Indicator/Long-Term Panp
(No Commitment)
= NotMet
= Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
FifllirP
Number
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
Percent reduction Long Island Sound
nitrogen
LI- Reduce Long Island Sound hypoxic zone
SP42.N11 (sq miles)
40,440 39,011 70% 69% 83%
180
D-59/Fig.83
.. qp . Number acres Long Island Sound coastal
b 6 habitat restored
LI-SP44
Number miles river and streams for fish
passage reopened
79
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
More than 20 million people live within 50 miles of Long Island Sound's shores, and more than 1 billion gallons per day of
treated effluent enter the Long Island Sound from 106 treatment plants. A study conducted in 1990 estimated that Long Island
Sound contributes more than $5.5 billion annually to the regional economy from clean water-related activities alone-
recreational and commercial fishing and shellfishing, beach-going, and swimming. In 2013 dollars, that equates to $9.5 billion.
Long Island Sound is a breeding ground, nursery, feeding ground, and habitat to more than 170 species offish and 1,200
species of invertebrates that are under increasing stress from development and competing human uses.
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The Long Island Sound Program significantly exceeded its 2012 commitment (218 acres) by restoring or protecting 537 acres
of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands (SP-43).
In 2012, the Long Island Sound Program significantly exceeded its annual goal of reopening 28 miles of rivers and streams to
diadromous fish passage. More than 72 miles of river and stream corridors were reopened by the removal of dams and
barriers or by installing bypass structures. More habitat restoration (and riverine corridor) projects were completed in 2012
because some of them had been delayed by Hurricane Irene in August 2011. Resources were diverted to storm cleanup and
recovery at that time. In 2012, work resumed on these projects, which otherwise would have been completed in 2011. This
contributed to the measure being significantly exceeded.
The states of Connecticut and New York have listed Long Island Sound as impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO) under Section
303(d) and have developed a TMDL to control nitrogen deposition to the Sound as a means of improving DO. The TMDL calls
for a 58.5% reduction in anthropogenic nitrogen deposition from baseline levels over a 15-year period commencing in 2000
and ending in 2014. Nitrogen from sewage treatment plants has been reduced by more than 76,000 pounds per day from
baseline loads.
A key measure for assessing the states' progress in restoring water quality standards for DO in the Sound is the annually
measured size of its maximum area of hypoxia. In 2012, the maximum area of hypoxia in Long Island Sound measured 288
square miles (SP-42) (Figure 81). Summer 2012 was one of the warmest for water temperatures in the Sound. The five-year
rolling average maximum area of hypoxia is 173.6 square miles, or a 16.5% percent reduction from the 208 square mile pre-
TMDL average maximum area of hypoxia, thereby exceeding the 15% target in the Strategic Plan for 2012. Figure 82 shows
the locations of dissolved oxygen levels in Long Island Sound bottom waters.28
28 Data from the state of Connecticut water quality monitoring program.
80
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0 -
Figure 81: Reduction in Size (Square Miles) of Long Island
Sound Hypoxic Zone by Fiscal Year (LI-SP42.N11)
18QO
2885
Result
2008
180.0
2009
169.0
2010
101.0
2011
130.0
2012
288.5
Figure 82: Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound Bottom Water August 15-17, 2011
Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound Bottom Waters
August 15-17, 2011
Severe
Moderately severe
Moderate
Margina
nterim management goal
Excellent - Supportive of marine life
81
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Long Island Sound program's measurement on reduction in nitrogen discharges (SP-41) from sewage treatment plants was
83.3 percent compared with the target of 74 percent in 2012. Data is collected on a calendar year basis. This ensures that the
full seasonal variation in biological treatment methods is accounted for in the results (e.g., colder winter temperatures slow
down biological nitrogen removal processes, wet spring weather can inhibit biological controls at treatment plants).
Figure 83: Percent of Goal to Reduce Long Island Sound Nitrogen by Fiscal Year (LI-SP41)
100.0% -,
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
U.U70
Commitment
2010
70.0%
52.0%
2011
69.0%
55.0%
2012
83.3%
74.0%
2013
76.0%
82
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: South Florida
The South Florida Program and its partners had mixed results in FY 2012, failing to meet two of three of their commitments
(Figure 84).
Figure 84: South Florida Subobjective Five-Year Trend
Not Met
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Status
_ Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Not Met
= Measure Did Not Exist
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available FifllirP
2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
SFL-SP45
SFL-SP46
SFL-SP47a
Achieve no net loss in South Florida stony coral
Maintain health of South Florida sea grass
SFL-SP47b
SFL-SP48
Percent South Florida monitoring stations maintain
coastal water quality for chlorophyll a & light clarity
Percent South Florida monitoring stations maintain
coastal water quality for nitrogen and phosphorous
SFL-1
Maintain Everglades water quality measured by total
phosphorus
Increase percent sewage treatment systems
receiving advanced wastewater treatment in Florida
Loss Loss
Loss
No Net
Loss
70.9%;
bb/0 72.5%
7 A°/ 81%;
74/0 89.5%
D-65
D-65
D-66/Hg.85
D-66/Hg.86
D-67
24%
13.1%
D-67
83
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The South Florida ecosystem encompasses three national parks, more than 10 national wildlife refuges, a national preserve,
and a national marine sanctuary. It is home to two Native American Nations, and it supports the largest wilderness area east
of the Mississippi River, the only living coral barrier reef adjacent to the United States, and the largest commercial and sport
fisheries in Florida. Rapid population growth, however, is threatening the health of this vital ecosystem. South Florida is home
to about 8 million people, greater than the population of 39 individual states.
EPA and its federal, state, regional, and local partners were able to achieve an increase from 5.9% in FY 2011 to 6.6% in FY
2012 in 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 (SP-45). Note, however, that the results for this measure
have been fairly inconsistent over the past three years.29 While it is plausible that some coral recovery is occurring, it is too
early to say that cover is increasing with any statistical confidence.
For the first time, the overall health and functionality of the sea grass beds in the FKNMS fell below the baseline established in
2005 (SP-46). In FY 2012, the Species Composition Index (SCI) was 0.28 and the Elemental Indicator (El) was 5.5
significantly lower than the 2005 baseline of 0.48 and 8.3, respectively. The explanation is that less light is reaching the sea
grasses and that water quality has been degraded.
EPA and its partners measure water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS in two different ways; one
indicator measures the levels of chlorophyll a (CHLA) and light clarity, and the other indicator tracks the amount of dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and total phosphorus (TP) levels at monitoring stations throughout the sanctuary (SP-47). Seventy-
one percent (162 of 227) of monitoring stations saw CHLA concentrations maintained at healthy levels (less than or equal to
0.35 ugl-1). Light clarity (KD) levels fell below FY 2011 levels, with 150 of 207 stations exhibiting KD levels appropriate (less
than or equal to 0.20 m-1) for a result of 72.5%. This is the first time both indicators failed to meet their targets since reporting
began in 2006 Figure 85). Although the reason behind the decline in performance is unknown at this time, the South Florida
Water Quality Protection Program will continue future monitoring to discern if this is a one-time event or the start of an
emerging trend.
29 This is the second time in three years that coral coverage has increased. Coral coverage increased from 6.5% in FY 2009 to 7.3% in FY
2010. Stony coral coverage significantly decreased from 7.3 % in FY 2010 to 5.9% in FY 2011 due to an unprecedented cold snap in the
Florida Keys.
84
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 85: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary CHLA and Light Clarity (KD) Levels by
Fiscal Year (SFL-SP47a)
^CH LA Result
'KD Result
Commitment
75.0%
85.4%
75.0%
70.9%
72.5%
75.0%
75.0%
In FY 2012, 810 of 1,000 stations exhibited DIN levels less than or equal to 0.75 pM, for an 81% result that meets the annual
commitment. TP numbers also achieved the measure commitment of 75%, with 896 of 1,001 stations meeting the target, for a
result of 89.5% (Figure 86). Note that the FY 2012 results indicate a gradual improvement in water quality over the previous
five-year (2007-2012) average of 77% of stations meeting TP levels of .25 pM or less. While yearly excursions from meeting
water quality targets are expected, the trend in the long-term monitoring program is toward documentable total nitrogen and
TP water quality improvement. From the data, the trend coincides with implementation of improved wastewater management,
but further investigation is required.
85
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 86: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) and
Total Phosphorus (TP) Levels by Fiscal Year (SFL-SP47b)
Commitment
75.0%
75.0%
For the fifth consecutive year, EPA and its partners failed to meet the water quality goal for the Everglades ecosystem, as
measured by the annual TP concentration of 10 parts per billion (ppb). Inflow phosphorus concentrations to the Everglades
continue to exceed the 10 ppb criterion, in spite of significant progress over the past five years. A major factor in the failure to
meet the water quality goal is that point source controls and the storage treatment wetlands areas are not adequate for
treating all water to the discharge limits. In recognition of this, in September 2012, Florida issued a revised NPDES permit and
Consent Order for the storage treatment areas. The permit includes a new protective water-quality-based discharge limit for
phosphorus and requires additional phosphorus control measures that are projected to cost about $900 million.
In FY 2012, EPA and its South Florida partners saw a 13.1% increase over the past year in sewage treatment facilities and
onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems receiving advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) or best available technology
(BAT), as recorded by equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). The increase in EDUs by 13.1% (or 5,505) significantly exceeded the
2% (or 1,500) increase in EDUs annually called for by the EPA strategic target, as well as the overall goal to provide AWT or
BAT sewage treatment throughout the Florida Keys by December 31, 2015.
In the past 10 years, the city of Key West has moved to advance wastewater treatment and eliminate its outfall. In addition,
EPA designated all state waters of the Florida Keys a no-discharge zone to eliminate sewage discharge from vessels.
Moreover, septic tank/cesspit issues are being eliminated (63.5% complete) as homeowners and businesses connect to
advanced wastewater treatment systems as they come online. EPA and its partners have been able to make such aggressive
moves based on the strong science from an effective monitoring program and a series of special studies.
86
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Puget Sound
EPA met one of its two commitments for the Puget Sound subobjective in FY 2012 (Figure 87).
Figure 87: Puget Sound Subobjective Five-Year Trend
Not Met
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
rvcouuo anu v^uiiiiiiiuiicni oiaiuo AnnpnHjy
1 Indicator/Long-Term ^T
(No Commitment) "39e
= Measure Did Not Exist Number
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available p:
20071200812009120101201112012 Number
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
PS-SP49.N11
I Number acres of Puget Sound shellfish areas
improved (cumulative)
PS-SP51
Number acres of Puget Sound estuarine wetlands
restored (cumulative)
1,5661,7304,4531,5252,4896
4,4135,751 10,062 14,629 23,8181
EPA's Puget Sound program works to ensure that the natural, cultural, and economic benefits of the Puget Sound ecosystem
are protected and sustained, today and into the future. 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 significant source of seafood for both commercial and recreational harvesters.
87
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The Puget Sound program missed its annual commitment to improve water quality and lift harvest restrictions in 3,878 of
shellfish bed growing areas. Efforts by federal, state, and local agencies in partnership with Puget Sound tribes have resulted
in better water quality on 2,489 acres of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting area since 2007 (Figure 88). In FY
2012, these efforts resulted in an upgrade of 964 acres. Notably, in FY 2012 there were no shellfish growing area
classification downgrades.
Figure 88: Increased Acres of Puget Sound Shellfish Areas by Fiscal Year (PS-SP49.N11)
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
7,758
Maintaining water quality for approved shellfish harvesting is as important as obtaining upgrades for meeting the overall
performance measure targets. Local projects aimed at onsite sewage system maintenance and repair, agricultural best
management practice implementation, and wastewater treatment plant upgrades have helped maintain and upgrade shellfish
growing areas. In particular, the program has expanded implementation of Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC)
programs to 10 of the 12 counties surrounding Puget Sound. The program is addressing pathogen pollution in the near term,
focusing on specific geographical locations (e.g., Samish Bay), and in the long term for the universe of potentially recoverable
shellfish acres basinwide in Puget Sound.
As of 2012, EPA and its partners have upgraded 8.3% of a total of 30,000 acres of shellfish beds impacted by degraded or
declining water quality in the Puget Sound. This is a significant increase over the 2007 baseline of 322 acres (670%). The
program has achieved approximately 58% of its FY 2015 goal of 4,300 acres of harvestable shellfish beds. With continued
emphasis on pollution identification and correction, gains will be made in FY 2013 and FY 2014 that should enable the Puget
Sound program to meet its five-year strategic plan goal by FY 2015 (Figure 89).
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 89: Increased Acres of Puget Sound Shellfish Areas as a Percent of Universe,
Baseline, and Long-Term Goal (PS-SP49.N11)
800.0%
700.0%
600.0%
500.0%
400.0%
300.0%
200.0%
100.0%
0.0%
8.3%
57.9%
Universe
Baseline
Long-Term Goal
Close to 24,000 acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands have been restored in the Puget Sound Basin
since FY 2006 (SP-51). In FY 2012, the Puget Sound program tallied an annual increase of 9,218 acres, exceeding the
annual increment needed to meet the cumulative target of 19,063 acres (Figure 90). In FY 2012 the Puget Sound program
was able to report an additional 6,400 acres of restored habitat associated with the removal of the Elwha Dam. This included a
diverse assemblage of riverine, riparian, estuarine, and nearshore habitats. For the habitat measure in FY 2013, EPA is
expecting to be able to report an additional 6,500 acres in the Elwha River basin associated with completion of the Glines
Dam removal, a second dam affecting a distinct reach of the river basin. In addition, EPA is also expecting a 400-acre delta
restoration project in the Snohomish River basin to be implemented. These projects, in conjunction with a 1,500- to 2,000-acre
cumulative result from the salmon recovery projects, should result in another 8,000 to 9,000 acres restored.
89
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 90: Restored Acres of Puget Sound Estuarine Wetlands by Fiscal Year (PS-SP51)
u
Commitment
2008
4,413
2,310
2009
5,751
5,700
2010
10,062
6,500
2011
14,629
12,363
2012
23,818
19,063
2013
31,818
90
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Subobjective: Columbia River
EPA met its commitment for the Columbia River subobjective and was only able to report partial results for a second measure
(Figure 91).
Figure 91: Columbia River Subobjective Five-Year Trend
I Met
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2012
ACS Code
Results and Commitment Statu
Indicator/Lonq-Term
a
(No Commitment)
DDen(jjx
Abbreviated Measure Description
= Not Met
= Measure Did Not Exist
(D-0)/
= Data Not Available FifllirP
2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 201 2 Number
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
CR-SP53
CR-SP54
Number acres Columbia River contaminated
sediments cleaned up (cumulative)
Percent reducuction Columbia River contaminants
in water & fish
C-68
C-68
91
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
More than 1,200 miles long, the Columbia River spans portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and
Montana, as well as a substantial portion of British Columbia. The 260,000-square-mile Columbia River Basin includes
ecosystems that are home to a variety of biologically significant plants and animals and supports industries vital to the Pacific
Northwest, including sport and commercial fisheries, agriculture, transportation, recreation, and electrical power generation.
FY 2012 Performance Highlights and Management Challenges
The Columbia River Program cleaned up an additional 16 acres of contaminated sediment at the Zidell cleanup site in the
Lower Columbia River in FY 2012. The program exceeded its commitment of a cumulative total of 63 acres cleaned up since
FY 2006, with a total of 79 acres cleaned up as of 2012. This is a significant accomplishment for the health of the Columbia
River, as sediment cleanup is complicated and takes time. These cleanups provide a significant contribution to reducing toxics
in the Columbia River.
Over the past few years, EPA has measured the reduction in contaminants of concern in the water column and fish in the
Columbia River. Originally, the Agency selected five sites in the Columbia River basin to monitor, but because of limited
resources, the program was only able to monitor at the West Prong Little Walla Walla River site (South of Stateline Road,
Oregon) in FY 2012. At this site, there was a 95% decrease in the average and maximum detection levels between 2006
(baseline year) and 2011 for Chlorphyrifos and 100% reduction in azinphos-methyl. No data are available for the other sites.
92
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
American Indian Drinking Water and Water Quality FY 2012
Performance
Drinking Water
An important priority for the National Water Program is to ensure that drinking water consumers in Indian Country receive
public health and environmental protection through sustained PWS compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs). EPA's Office of Water has three measures for tracking the safety of drinking water for tribes: percent
of population in Indian Country receiving safe drinking water (SP-3), number of American Indian Alaska Native homes
provided access to safe drinking water (SDW-18), and the number CWSs undergoing sanitary surveys (SDW-1b). EPA met
one of the three commitments for these measures in FY 2012.
EPA failed to achieve its national target for the percentage of the population in Indian Country served by CWSs that receive
drinking water meeting all applicable health-based standards. The performance of this measure has been impacted in various
regions by the Total Coliform Rule, Stage 1 Disinfection By-Products Rule, and Nitrates Rule violations, as well as by data
correction to address reporting problems. (SP-3) (Figure 92).
Figure 92: Population Served by CWSs in Indian Country by Fiscal Year (SDW-SP3.N.11)
- Commitment 87.0%
FY2011 Universe: 918,668 people
87.0%
81.6%
82.2%
80.0%
87.0%
87.0%
93
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Eight of the nine regions with Safe Drinking Water Act direct implementation responsibility in Indian Country met or exceeded
their individual commitments for this measure in 2012 (Figure 93). EPA is undertaking action to market potential resource
availability for addressing infrastructure shortfalls by:
Updating the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside (DWIG-TSA) program guidelines to:
1. Clarify the goal and priorities of the program to focus on compliance
2. Changing the national funds allocation to ensure that funds are targeted to the Agency's strategic goals and
priorities.
3. Strengthening the project funding selection process to ensure that tribes have the technical, managerial,
and financial capacity to operate the drinking water infrastructure funded by the program.
Summarizing DWIG-TSA and PWSS program data in an annual report starting in FY 2014 to improve
transparency and strategic coordination of the programs.
Continuing communication with all partners via the tribal infrastructure task force (ITF) and biannual discussions
with EPA regions that focus on clarifying collected data for use in communicating program achievements.
Figure 93: Population Served by CWSs in Indian Country (SDW-SP3.N11)
by Region for FY 2012
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
97.0%
87.0%
R2
R3 R4 R5
Result Commitment
R6 R7 R8
National Commitment
R9 R10
Another perspective of tribal compliance is the tribal population in violation and the percent population in violation by region. In
the figure below (Figure 94), the focus is on noncompliance (total population in violation) rather than compliance, and it shows
the degree to which each region contributes to national noncompliance (and consequently, the result for measure SP-3).
Region 9 (including Navajo Nation) and, to a lesser extent, Region 8 dominate the tribal population served by community
water systems (CWSs) in violation. Region 7 tribes have a relatively high percent of population in violation (17%) but a small
number of CWS (nine). The bar color indicates the number of CWSs.
94
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 94: Tribal CWS Population in Violation by Region
Tribal CWS Population in Violation, by Region
Darker color indicates more systems in universe.
Region
OK 10K 20K 30K 40K 50K 60K 70K 80K 90K 100K 110K 120K
Population in Violation
Note: Region 9 total includes Navajo Nation.
Total Systems
3.0 382.0
10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Percent Population in Violation
The size of tribal and non-tribal public water systems can have an impact on the percentage of populations receiving drinking
water from systems that are in noncompliance.Jhe vast majority of systems that are in violation for tribal and non-tribal
populations are small systems. For tribal systems, a larger share of the medium systems are in violation (17%) compared to
the small systems (14%). For non-tribal systems, a slightly larger percentage of the small systems (9%) are in violation
compared to the medium non-tribal systems (8%). Fifty-eight percent of the tribal population affected by violations is served by
medium systems which is more than the percent of tribal population in violation served by small systems (42%). And finally,
59% of the non-tribal population affected by violations is served by medium systems which is significantly more than the
percent of non-tribal population affected by violations that is served by small systems (13%). (Figure 95)
Figure 95:
Role of System Size in the Population Impact of Non-Compliance
Tribal Versus Non-Tribal Areas
Tribal
or Non- SizeCatc
Tribal
Percent Systems in Violation
Total Population in Violation, as %
of Tribal or as % of Non-Tribal,
Respectively
SizeCatS
<=3:300
3,301-100,000
>100;000
95
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
This figure illustrates that there may be bang-for-the-buck opportunities in pursuing medium-sized systems, which account for
a modest share of all systems (not shown) but a large share of the population in violation. Their role relative to that of small
systems is more prominent than is often understood. This goes for both tribal and non-tribal systems. Another important fact is
that small tribal systems have a higher noncompliance rate than small non-tribal systems (14% vs. 9%). This is revealing in
the fact that it is often claimed that higher tribal noncompliance rates compared to non-tribal noncompliance is due to small
systems. Further research is necessary to determine why small tribal systems perform worse than small non-tribal systems.
In the second year of reporting, EPA, in coordination with other federal agencies, fell just short of reaching its FY 2012
commitment of achieving 110,000 American Indian and Alaska Native homes with access to safe drinking water (SDW-18)
(Figure 96). The result is due to a 20% drop in Indian Health Service and EPA tribal funding for water and wastewater
infrastructure and an increase in the average unit cost to provide drinking water access to homes.
Although this program measure missed its commitment, EPA and its partners are making progress toward decreasing the
number of homes that lack access to safe drinking water. At the end of FY 2012, the Indian Health Service reported that there
were 30,275 tribal homes lacking access to safe drinking water in Indian Country, or 7.4% of the total number of homes in
Indian Country. This represents the lowest percentage of homes lacking access to safe drinking water since EPA began
tracking this program indicator in 2003.
Figure 96: Homes on Tribal Lands Lacking Access to Safe Drinking Water
by Fiscal Year (SDW-18.N11)
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
u
9 Commitment
2011
97,311
100,700
2012
104,266
110,000
2013
119,000
Universe: 360,000 homes (2011)
For the fifth year in a row, EPA has met its annual commitment for the percent of CWSs that have undergone a sanitary
survey within the past three years, as required under the Interim Enhanced and Long-Term I Surface Water Treatment Rules.
Eighty-two tribes underwent a sanitary survey in FY 2012, which was above the commitment of 76 tribes (SDW-1b). Note,
however, that universe for this commitment measure over the past five years only represents 12.3% of the total systems and
serves just 27% of the population. The universe for this measure is likely to increase significantly next year, however, as
ground-water-based CWSs will be added to the number of systems that will potentially need to undergo sanitary surveys.
96
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Water Quality
The National Water Program has six measures for tracking access to basic sanitation on American Indian lands and
assessing the quality of tribal water quality programs. These include the number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
provided access to basic sanitation (WQ-24), the number of tribes with water quality standards (WQS) approved (WQ-2), the
number of tribes submitting water quality criteria acceptable to EPA (WQ-3b), the number of tribes implementing monitoring
strategies (WQ-6a), the number of tribes providing water quality data in an accessible format (WQ-6b), and the percent of
current tribal NPDES permits (WQ-12b). The Office of Water met its commitments for all of these measures in FY 2012.
EPA, in coordination with other federal agencies, exceeded the FY 2012 commitment of providing access to basic sanitation to
nearly 63,000 American Indian and Alaskan Native homes (Figure 97). In FY 2012, EPA continued to enhance the working
tribal water infrastructure relationships with the Indian Health Service, USDA, and Department of Housing and Urban
Development. EPA led the coordination of the ITF, composed of four federal agencies and tribal representatives addressing
the severe infrastructure needs in Indian Country. Challenges remain, given that 12% of tribal homes are without water and/or
wastewater service compared to 0.6% non-tribal homes.
Figure 97: Number of American Indian and Alaska Native Homes with Access to Basic
Sanitation by Fiscal Year (WQ-24.N11)
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
63,087
56,875
u
^Result
Commitment
2011
56,875
52,300
2012
63,087
62,300
2013
67,600
Universe: 383,674 homes (2010)
EPA is committed to assisting any tribe interested in adopting WQS under the CWA (WQ-2). Meeting the eligibility criteria and
developing the detailed standards can be a challenge for tribes and often requires them to spend some time and collaborate
with EPA. Not all tribes can meet the criteria or want WQS authority. For this measure, therefore, the universe reflects all
federally recognized tribes that have applied for "treatment in the same manner as a state" (TAS) to administer the WQS
program (as of September 2009). In FY 2012, EPA met its annual goal by approving standards for 39 tribes (Figure 98).
97
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 98: Tribes with Water Quality Standards Approved by Fiscal Year (WQ-02)
u
Commitment
2007
32
33
2008
35
33
2009
35
37
2010
35
38
2011
38
39
2012
39
39
2013
40
Universe: 62 tribes
Tribes continue to develop and implement their ambient water quality monitoring strategies. In FY 2012, 214 tribes that
currently receive funding under CWA Section 106 developed and began implementing monitoring strategies. This was an
increase of 18 tribes over the FY 2011 results and was slightly above the FY 2012 commitment of 213 tribes (WQ-6a) (Figure
99). Meeting this measure continues to be challenging as additional tribes apply for Section 106 grants and the amount of
tribal set-aside funds remains the same.
One of the most important factors contributing to the success of tribal monitoring and assessment programs is improved tools
for data submission. One hundred and eighty-four (184) tribes are providing water quality data in a format accessible for
storing in EPA's data system. This is above the FY 2012 commitment of 178 tribes (WQ-6b). In FY 2012, EPA and tribes
began reporting on a new indicator measure tracking water quality improvements at tribal monitoring stations. Fifteen stations
demonstrated improvements in one or more of seven key water quality parameters.
98
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Figure 99: Tribes That Have Implemented Monitoring Strategies by Fiscal Year (WQ-06a)
250
200
^^Commitment
Universe: 261 tribes
37
128
162
176
213
222
In the past, EPA struggled to meet annual commitments for keeping tribal NPDES permits current, but since 2010, EPA has
met its commitments each year. In FY 2012, permits for 86% of tribal facilities were considered current, which was slightly
above the national goal of 85% (WQ-12b) (Figure 100).
Figure 100: Tribal NPDES Permits Considered Current by Fiscal Year (WQ-12b)
85.0% 88.1% 86.5o/o
^ Commitment 85.0%
Universe: 412 tribal facilities
88.0%
99
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2012
Overall, EPA regional offices maintained a strong performance and met the national commitment. While two regions did not
meet FY 2012 commitments, one region missed its commitment by just two permits. In Region 7, a pending resolution
between EPA and Kansas on methodologies and procedures for determining long-term bacterial limits delayed permit
issuance in many cases. This issue has now been resolved and should not delay permit issuance in FY 2013. Various other
permits were deactivated, had enforcement actions, or were delayed due to facility reconstruction. (Figure 101)
Figure 101: Tribal NPDES Permits Considered Current (WQ-12b)
by Region for FY 2012
100.0% -,
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
72.6% 94.0%
85.0%
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Result - Commitment
National Commitment
100
-------
Appendix B. FY 2012 Performance Measure Universe
Total Measures by Commitments vs. Indicators
The National Water Program tracked a total of 148 performance measures in FY 2012
to assess progress in protecting the public health and the environment. Seventy-four
percent (74%) of these measures had annual commitments, and approximately 26% of
the measures were indicators with no commitments in 2012. The percentage of
measures with annual commitments has remained fairly steady over the past three
years. Final commitments are numeric goals that are established annually through
negotiations among EPA Headquarters, Regional Offices, and states. Commitments for
FY 2012 were published in the National Water Program Guidance Appendix in
December 2011.1
FY 2012 Commitments and Indicators
Commitments Indicators
1 National Water Program Guidance. Appendix FY 2012 Final Performance Measure Commitments, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December, 2011,
http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning/FY-2012-National-Water-Program-Guidance.cfm
-------
FY 2007 - FY 2012 Trend - Commitments and Indicators
Indicators
I Commitments
2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
FY 2012 Strategic Targets vs. PAMs
The National Water Program uses two types of measures to assess progress toward
the goals in the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan: Strategic Targets and Program Activity
Measures (PAMs). Strategic Targets are organized under individual subobjectives in the
Strategic Plan and are outcome-based measures of changes in the environment or
public health with long-term targets in most cases for FY 2014. Program Offices and
Regions also set annual commitments for almost all of these measures. Strategic
Targets represented about 17% of all 2012 performance measures. PAMs are primarily
output-based measures that track programmatic progress on an annual basis. PAMs
represented 83.1 % of all measures in 2012. Notably, the number of strategic targets
decreased dramatically from 59 in the FY 2006 Strategic Plan to 22 in the FY 2011
Plan.
-------
FY 2012 Strategic Targets vs PAMs
I Strategic Targets PAMS
FY 2007 - FY 2012 Trend - Strategic Targets and PAMs
1ST
RAM
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Measures by Subobjective
Among the 15 subobjectives outlined in the FY 2012 National Water Program Guidance,
Water Quality had the largest share of performance measures at 34%; Drinking Water
-------
was next with 18%; and the Great Lakes program was third with 11%. The remaining
37% of the measures were spread among the other 12 subobjectives
Total FY 2012 Measures by Subobjective
VV d Lei LJ,Udll Ly
Drinking Water
Great Lakes
Coastal and Ocean
Wetlands
South Florida
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
Safe Swimming
Pacific Islands
Mexico Border
Fish and Shellfish
Puget Sound
Columbia River
^^
^m 7rr
^H 7rr
6m
H 6m
^^^H 24 measures
1
easures
easures
easures
easures
^| 5 measures
4 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
| 2 measures
2 measures
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
FY 2012 Core Program vs Large Aquatic Ecosystem Measures (LAEs)
The National Water Program can be viewed as divided between core program activities
and geographic or Large Aquatic Ecosystems. Core programs are usually responsible
for activities such as funding state drinking water programs, adopting water quality
standards, developing TMDLs, and issuing NPDES permits. This would include the
water quality, drinking water, safe swimming, fish and shellfish, oceans and coastal, and
wetlands subobjectives under the national Water Program Guidance. Geographic or
LAEs usually involve partnership-based efforts focused on ecosystems surrounding
large waterbodies. This would include Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico,
U.S.-Mexico Border, Pacific Islands, Long Island Sound, South Florida, Puget Sound,
and Columbia River subobjectives. Sixty-six percent (66%) of performance measures
in the National Water Program are focused on core program activities. The remaining
34% of measures cover the LAEs.
-------
FY 2007 - FY 2012 Trend - National and Place-Based Measures
Place-based
National
2007 2008
2009 2010
2011 2012
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
*^> *
\^SZ *
\!" American Recover? and Reinvestment Act
ffj>t Mfd*
Quarterly Perfonnance Repoit
FY 2012 Quarter 4
Cumulative Results as of September 30,2012
Published October 31,2012
US EPA 190R12004
-------
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), in place since 1987, provides funds to states
to capitalize state loan revolving funds that finance infrastructure improvements for public
wastewater systems and other water quality projects. The EPA provides direct grants to
Washington, DC and the territories for similar purposes.
The EPA received $4 billion for the CWSRF that includes funds for water quality management
planning grants with up to 1% reserved for federal management and oversight and 1.5% for
Tribes. EPA awarded grants to states and Puerto Rico for their state revolving fund programs,
from which assistance is provided to finance eligible high priority water infrastructure projects.
The states play a critical role by selecting projects, dispersing funds, and overseeing spending.
Projects were selected based on public health and environmental factors, and readiness to
proceed with construction capability. In addition, states were also required to provide at least
20% of their grants for green projects (i.e., green infrastructure, energy or water efficiency
improvements, and environmentally innovative activities). States had the option to retain up to
4% of available funds for program administration. Visit www.epa.gov/water/eparecovery to
learn more about the CWSRF.
Program Results as of September 30, 2012
States certified that all project funding was under contract by the February 17, 2010 deadline and
at least 20% of their funds went to green projects. Collectively, states far surpassed the 20%
requirement, providing a national total of $1.13 billion, or 30% of all funds.
Am o unt of CWSKF Pro j e c ts
Starting and Completing Cons traction (nan-tribal)
Target
Starting
Completing
-------
.Amount of CAYSRT Projects
Starting and Co tuple ting Construction (tribal)
60-
Target
Starting
Completing
Q4
FY11
04
FYI:
Despite significant wastewater needs, there are few financial
resources available to small, rural communities. The Lincoln County
Commission, in West Virginia, used a $718,626 Recovery Act loan,
all of which was provided in the form of principal forgiveness, to
fund the construction of on-site wastewater systems for 19 residences
in the community of AlkoL in the Left Fork watershed of the Mud
River. The systems use innovative peat filters that pre-treat septic
system effluent, removing high concentrations of nutrients and
producing high quality effluent with less biological oxygen demand,
fewer total suspended solids, and reduced fecal coliform bacteria.
These on-site systems replaced direct discharges from homes or
failing septic systems and reduced pollutants that were negatively
impacting surface and ground wrater in the watershed, helping to
protect the environment and public health.
The city of Lennox, in South Dakota used to treat wastewater through
aerated ponds. However, a change in beneficial use classifications for
Long Creek resulted in a revision of effluent limits beyond the level
the old facility. As a result. Lennox invested in the construction of
new technology which lowered ammonia in the wastewater stream to
acceptable levels. The system also utilizes ultraviolet disinfection of
effluent prior to discharge, which allowed Lennox to avoid the
increased costs and risks associated with chemical treatment options.
This up-front investment had lower life-cycle costs than other
alternative treatment technologies. Nevertheless, taking on a $4
million loan was a huge commitment for a community of only 2,843.
The Recovery Act made this investment affordable to Lennox with
more than $1.5 million in principal forgiveness and 30 year extended
financing terms. The project enabled Lennox to protect water quality
in Long Creek over the long term while also keeping sanitary sewer
rates affordable for the public.
-------
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance
infrastructure improvements. Under the Recovery Act, EPA received $2 billion for the DWSRF
with up to 1% of fund reserved for federal management and oversight and 1.5% for Tribes.
The program emphasizes the provision of funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to
programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. The
DWSRF provides funds to states to establish state loan revolving funds that finance
infrastructure improvements for public and private Community Water Systems and not-for-profit
Non-Community Water Systems and direct grants to Washington, DC and the territories.
The DWSRF consists of 51 state financing programs (includes Puerto Rico) which comply with
federal statute and regulations. States must provide at least 20% of their grants for green projects
(i.e., green infrastructure, energy or water efficiency improvements, and environmentally
innovative activities) and may retain up to 4% of available funds for program administration. To
learn more about the DWSRF implementation of the Recovery Act, visit
www. epa. gov/water/eparecovery.
Program Results as of September 30, 2012
Over a thousand projects have initiated construction that will bring safe drinking water to many
people across the country. Like the CWSRF, the states certified that all project funding was
under contract by the February 17, 2010 deadline and at least 20% of their funds went to green
projects. Many states surpassed the 20% minimum with the average amount of green reserve
totaling $500 million or 29% of all funds.
Amount of DAVSRF Projects
Starting and Com pie ting Construction (no n-tribal)
Target
Starting
Completing
-------
Amount of DWSRF Projects
Starting and Co tuple ting Construction (tribal)
30 -
Target
Starting
Completing
Q4
FY12
The Central Shoshone County Water District used their
low-interest American Recovery Act loan to help correct a
long-standing problem with a local drinking water source.
The Enaville well near Kellogg, Idaho requires filtration
under the 1993 Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the loan
helped pay for the installation of a microfiltration plant to
treat drinking water and install residential meters.
Inadequate treatment of surface water that is used for
drinking water can lead to ingestion of harmful parasites,
such as cryptosporidium. Installation of filtration will
provide approximately 5,800 people with cleaner, safer
drinking water, and installation of metering will allow the
water system to become more sustainable.
The community of Whiteriver, Arizona, in the heart of the
Fort Apache Indian Reservation, has experienced
significant population growth over the past decade (61%).
The community's source of drinking water, the Miner Flat
well field, has had its production reduced by 40% in the
past few years while consumption has increased. To
ameliorate the situation, the EPA, Indian Health Service
(IMS), Department of Flousing and Urban Development,
and the White Mountain Apache Tribe have collaborated in
the planning, design, and construction of an innovative
surface diversion and treatment system that will be
completed this year.
-------
Appendix: Recovery Act Performance Measures and Cumulative Results
Program
Clean Water
State
Revolving
Fund
Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
Diesel
Emissions
Reductions
Performance Measures
Amount ($) of projects that are under contract (non -tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non-tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
States that have awarded all of their green project reserve
Amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that are under contract (non-tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that have started construction (non -tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (non-
tribal)
States that have awarded all of their green project reserve
Amount ($) of projects that have started construction (tribal)
Amount ($) of projects that have completed construction (tribal)
Projects implemented that promote diesel emissions reductions
Existing heavy duty diesel engines (including school bus engines)
that have been retrofitted, replaced, or retired
Lifetime reductions of NOX emissions (tons)
Lifetime reductions of PM emissions (tons)
Lifetime reductions of HC emissions (tons)
Lifetime reductions of CO emissions (tons)
Lifetime reductions of CO2 emissions (tons)
Q4
FY09
$.61 B
$.73 B
$.003 B
12
$9M
$.54 M
$.16 B
$.20 B
$.01 B
8
$1.7 M
$.54 M
160
415
1,402
53
109
553
11,083
Q4
FY10
$3.8B
$3.8B
$.20 B
51
$35 M
$3.0 M
$1.8B
$1.8B
$.10B
51
$23 M
$4.4 M
160
12,934
42,149
1,588
4,800
5,675
351,332
Q4
FY11
$3.8B
$3.8B
$.78 B
51
$57 M
$13 M
$1.8B
$1.8B
$.45 B
51
$29 M
$12 M
160
24,700
81,100
3,100
9,300
11,000
672,400
Q4
FY12
$3.8B
$3.8B
$1.6B
51
$59 M
$26 M
$1.8B
$1.8B
$.81 B
51
$30 M
$22 M
160
27,700
91,000
3,500
10,600
12,300
753,000
Target
$3.8 B
$3.8 B
$3.8 B
51
$60 M
$60 M
$1.8 B
$1.8 B
$1.8 B
51
$30 M
$30 M
160
30,000
100,000
4,000
12,000
13,000
850,000
17
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA850-K-13-002
April 2013
www.epa.gov
------- |