National Water Proi
i
Best Practices and End of Ye.
Performance Report
T^ ^r ^
11
Fiscal Year 2014
..>
June 2015
-------
This report is based primarily on FY 2014 end-of-year per-
formance data reported by states, tribes, and EPA regional
and headquarters offices. The report presents materials and
analysis developed in December 2014 and January 2015
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
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 area is available on the
Internet at http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/per-
formance/. 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 com-
mitments and results for all performance measures.
For additional information regarding this report and support-
ing measures, contact:
This report includes four key elements:
An overview of FY 2014 national performance results and
trends for all National Water Program measures.
Highlights of performance trends for key commitment
measures.
Descriptions of innovative approaches and best practices
in program implementation.
An appendix of FY 2014 national commitments and re-
sults for environmental and program-related measures.
Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Tim Fontaine, Senior Budget Officer, Office of Water
Michael Mason, Planning and Evaluation Team Leader,
Office of Water
INTERNET ACCESS: This FY 2014 National Water
Program Best Practices and End-of-Year Performance
Report and supporting documents are available
at http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/
performance/index.cfm.
EPA's 2014-2018 Strategic Plan
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
l
Objective 1: Protect Human Health
Objective 2: Protect and Restore Watersheds
and Aquatic Ecosystems
Safe Drinking Water Fish and Shellfish Water Quality
Safe Swimming Coastal/Oceans
Great Lakes
Wetlands
j
U.S./Mexico Border
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico Long Island Sound
- ^^^^^^^__^_^__^*?-' >.«.^^_^^_^^_^^^^^^^»»-'
South Florida Columbia River
Puget Sound
Pacific Islands
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
What's New in FY 2014 5
Overview of Performance Results and Recent Trends 6
Total Measures by Subobjectives 6
Total Commitment Measures 6
Commitment Measures by Subobjective 8
Commitments by National Core Water Program vs Geographic Programs 10
National Water Program Long-Term Performance Trends 10
Changes in Measure Performance Status From FY 2013 to FY 2014 15
Commitment Measures by EPA Regions 16
Measuring the Ambitiousnessof Regional Commitments 20
Tribal Commitment Measures 24
FY 2014 Performance Highlights 25
National Water Program FY 2014 Best Practices 34
A New Framework for Evaluating Seismic Potential Associated with Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II Permits 35
Supporting Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring in the New York-New Jersey Harbor 37
Teaming Up To Optimize Wastewater Treatment for Nutrient Reduction 39
Performance-Based Training (PBT) for Drinking Water Resiliency and Sustainability 41
EPA Region 4's Rain Catcher Award for Green Infrastructure Projects 43
Virginia's Nutrient Credit Trading Program 45
Tribal Drinking Water Plan Review, Training, Technical Assistance, and Outreach Program 47
Pennsylvania Local Government Tackles Water Pollution Sources Using a Public Utility Approach 49
Enhancing the Availability of Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to States 51
Reducing Public Health Risks from Bromide through Integrated Use of Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act Authorities 53
Massachusetts Designates No Discharge Zone in Coastal Water through Novel Stakeholder Agreement 55
EPA's Cross-Regional Sharing of Expertise on Grants Management 57
Appendices
A. National Water Program FY 2014 End-of-Year Performance Measure Commitments, Results, and Status 59
B. Performance Measures Changes from FY 2013 and FY 2014 68
C. Methodology for Measuring Ambitiousness of Regional Commitments 69
-------
&
, - A 'n " , i /.A ^SESry-j
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
National Water Program FY 2014 Performance Results
Executive Summary
Overview
EPA met 82.9% of its commitments for all National Water
Program performance measures in FY 2014. About seventeen
percent (17.1%) were not met. The FY 2014 results repre-
sented a significant increase in the number of measures met
from the previous year's results (69%). Other overarching
highlights include:
The national core drinking water and water quality pro-
grams were more successful than the geographic-based
aquatic programs in meeting their commitments in 2014
(92% vs. 68%). This was the significant improvement for
the core programs from the previous year's results, where
71% of the core program measures met their annual
commitments compared to 65% of the geographic-based
programs.
Programs under the Wetlands, Great Lakes, Safe Swim-
ming, and Long Island Sound subobjectives were most
successful in meeting their commitments.
On average, 87.5% of performance commitments set by
the EPA regional offices were met in 2014, while 12% of
commitments were missed. This was a noticeable increase
over the previous year's results of 79% met.
Protect Public Health
EPA met 92% of its commitments for all drinking water mea-
sures in FY 2014. This is the highest level of attainment in the
last seven years. Of these:
Approximately 93% of the population was served by
community water systems (CWSs) with drinking water that
met all applicable health-based drinking water standards
(commitment 92%).
Ninety-two percent (92%) 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 seven years in
a row.
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 2014 commitment 95%). EPA has consistently met this
commitment over the past seven years.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal
Waters, and Wetlands
EPA met 93% of its commitments under the Water Quality
subobjective in FY 2014 and fell short on 7%. The percentage of
commitments met increased significantly in FY 2014 over the FY
2013 results (67%). Performance highlights include:
3,866 of the waters listed as impaired in 2002 met water
quality standards for all the identified impairments in
FY 2014 (commitment 3,779). Of a universe of 39,503
waterbodies, 9.8% were attaining water quality standards
by the end of FY 2014.
For the seventh 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 2014 commitment 86%).
EPA and authorized states were also successful in meeting
the annual national commitment for issuing high-priority
permits, with 556 permits issued (commitment 532).
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 (537), with 560 waterbodies that were
partially or fully restored.
The Clean Water SRF utilization rate reached 98% in
2014. Of the $105.1 billion in funds available for proj-
ects through 2013, $100 billion have been committed
to 33,325 loans. Project assistance reached $4.6 billion,
which funded 1,477 loans in a single year.
EPA faced several management challenges in restoring and
improving freshwater quality in FY 2014. These include:
For the second time in five years, states and territories did
not meet the national commitment for submitting new or
revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect
new scientific information (29 vs. 37 states/territories).
For the third consecutive year, EPA failed to meet its
national commitment of reducing 4.5 million pounds of
phosphorus from non-point sources to waterbodies (2.7
million pounds reduced in FY 2014).
The 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs) and their partners
protected or restored almost 94,000 acres of habitat within
the NEP study areas slightly more than 6,000 acres below
the goal of 100,000 acres. In FY 2014, the 28 NEPs played
the primary role in directing approximately $578 million in
additional fundsleveraged from approximately $18 million
in EPA Section 320 and earmark fundstoward Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) implemen-
tation. This represents a ratio of $32 raised for every $1
provided by EPA, which exceeds the historic ratio of $15:$1
measured 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 221,000 acres have been restored and
enhanced since 2002. As of FY 2014, 36 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:
Almost eighty-nine percent (88.6%) of the population
in Indian Country was served by CWSs that receive drink-
ing water meeting all applicable health-based standards,
exceeding the national stretch goal of 87% in FY 2014.
EPA, in coordination with other federal agencies, provided
113,656 American Indian and Alaska Native homes with
access to safe drinking water and over 75,000 homes
with access to basic sanitation.
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 (LAEs). The following are high-
lights and challenges for each LAE or place-based program
with performance measures in the National Water Program
Guidance:
U.S.-Mexico Border. Infrastructure construction proj-
ect completions through FY 2014 resulted in the removal
of 131 million pounds of biochemical oxygen demand
loadings annually from the U.S.-Mexico border area, less
than its commitment of 137.3 million pounds. EPA pro-
vided access to safe drinking water for 1,468 additional
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
homes along the U.S.-Mexico border. This was below
the annual goal of 1,700 additional homes but resulted
from a project being completed ahead of schedule and
providing a public health benefit in FY13. EPA provided
adequate wastewater sanitation to an additional
12,756 homes over the past year, which was also below
the FY 2014 goal of 39,500 additional homes.
U.S. Pacific Island Waters. Last year, 97.7% of
the population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories was
served by community drinking water systems that meet all
applicable health-based drinking water standards through-
out the year, compared with the commitment of 80%.
Great Lakes. EPA worked with other federal and state
agencies to protect, restore, and enhance more than
102,000 acres of wetlands and wetland-associated
uplands across the Great Lakes Basin. This was well above
the FY 2014 commitment of 88,000 acres. In FY 2014
EPA, states, and other partners reported remediation of a
cumulative 13.3 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments, including more than 1.8 million cubic yards in
2013.
Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program
reported 59,200 acres of submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion in the bay. This represents approximately 32% 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) that was established in December 2010.
Gulf of Mexico. The size of the hypoxic, or "dead,"
zone1 in the Gulf of Mexico decreased slightly from 5,838
square miles at the end of FY 2013 to 5050 square
miles in FY 2014. A number of hydrological, climate, and
monitoring factors impact the hypoxic zone from year to
year. For the second time, the Gulf of Mexico Program
ended the year slightly below its cumulative target to
restore, protect, or enhance 30,800 acres of coastal and
marine habitats. Previously funded projects resulted in 13
acres for a cumulative 30,319 acres.
Long Island Sound. The Long Island Sound Program
met its commitment (410 acres) by restoring or protecting
410 acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands,
dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands. The size
of the hypoxic zone in Long Island Sound slightly in-
creased from 80 square miles to 87 square miles, which
was below the five-year rolling average of 137.3 square
miles.
South Florida. The health and functionality of the sea
grass beds in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) were maintained above 2006 baseline levels in
2014. Water quality of the near shore and coastal waters
of the FKNMS showed some improvement in 2014, with
positive results for chlorophyll a, light clarity, and total
phosphorus. Elevated dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels
due to polluted runoff into waterways, however, continue
to be a subject of concern.
Puget Sound Basin. More than 41,000 acres of
tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands have
been restored in the Puget Sound Basin since FY 2006.
The program exceeded its 2014 goal of 33,818 acres. The
Puget Sound program improved water quality and lifted
harvest restrictions for only 46 additional acres (cumula-
tive total of 3,249) of shellfish bed growing areas. This
was short of the program's cumulative goal of 4,000 acres
of unrestrictive commercial and recreational harvesting
area in the Sound.
Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River Program
has cleaned up a total of 82 acres of contaminated sedi-
ment in the Lower Columbia River as of FY 2014. These
cleanups provide a significant contribution to reducing
toxics in the Columbia River. EPA measured a 90% reduc-
tion in contaminants of concern in the water and fish at
several key sites on the Columbia River.
1 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.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Introduction
The FY 2014 National Water Program Best Practices and End-of-Year Performance Overview Report describes the progress made
in fiscal year 2014 by EPA, states, tribes, and others toward the objectives and subobjectives described in the FY 2014 National
Water Program Guidance (NWPG) and the FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (Table 1, "National Water ProgramKey Subob-
jectives"). The Strategic Plan and the FY 2014 NWPG are available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan.
EPA's FY 2014-2018 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 measures," 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 measure includes a
long-range quantitative goal for FY 2018 (see pages 63-66 in the FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan).
In Apri 2013, the National Water Program published guidance that described the program strategies to be used to implement
Goal 2 of the EPA Strategic Plan in FY 2014, including specific measures to be used to assess program implementation. The FY
2014 NWPG is divided into 15 subobjectives and includes strategic measures and national Program Activity Measures (PAMs)
to assess progress toward the goals in the Strategic Plan:
Strategic measures: Measures of environmental or public health changes (i.e., outcomes) that include long-range and, in
most cases, annual commitments in the FY 2014 NWPG.
National PAMs: Core water PAMs (i.e., output measures) address activities implemented by EPA, states, and 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 many had regional commit-
ments for FY 2014.
Performance Measure Architecture
/
V EPh Strategic Plan
' (four years)
Strategic Measures
National Water
Program Guidance
(annual)
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
What's New in FY 2014
The FY 2014 NWPG included several changes in performance measures from the FY 2013 Best Practices and End-of-Year
Performance Report. Some of the key changes to performance measures were:
EPA modified two drinking water measures on tribal and non-tribal community water systems that have undergone a sani-
tary survey within the past three years (SDW-01a and SDW-01b). The measures were updated to reflect the Ground Water
Rule requirements. EPA changed the methodology for calculating results to include territories and updated the baseline
year from FY 2008 to FY 2012.
EPA deleted five measures under the Water Quality, Wetlands, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico subobjectives. The wet-
lands measure ("net increase wetlands achieved" -WT-SP21.N11) and the Gulf of Mexico measure ("ecosystem health
index" - GM-435) were deleted because the Agency did not have annual targets or results for FY 2014. The two Great
Lakes measures ("days beaches open and safe for swimming"- GL-08 and "loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus"- GL-
15) were deleted due to data uncertainties.
Overall, the Office of Water deleted 5 measures, and modified 3 measures in its FY 2014 NWPG. As a result, the number of
total measures decreased from 116 in FY 2013 to 111 in FY 2014. More information about measure changes can be found in
Appendix B of this report.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Overview of Performance Results and Recent Trends
Total Measures by Subobjectives
Among the 15 subobjectives outlined in the FY 2014 NWPG, Water Quality had the largest share of performance measures at
34%; Drinking Water was next with 16%; and the Great Lakes was third with 12%. The remaining 38% of the measures were
spread among the other 12 subobjectives (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Total FY 2014 Measures by Subobjective
Water Quality
Drinking Water
Great Lakes
South Florida
Coastal and Ocean
Chesapeake Bay
Long Island Sound
Wetlands
Fish and Shellfish
Mexico Border
Safe Swimming
Gulf of Mexico
PugetSound
Columbia River
Pacific Islands
0%
38 measures
18 measures
13 measures
6 measures
6 measures
5 measures
4 measures
4 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
2 measures
2 measures
1 measure
10%
20%
30%
40%
Total Commitment Measures
Overall, the National Water Program's performance was more successful in FY 2014 than the previous year. Of 82 performance
measures with commitments, over three quarters (82.9%) met their commitments. About seventeen percent (17.1%) were not
met (Figure 2).2 Long-term trend data show that the percentage of commitment measures met has remained fairly consistent
over the past six years, averaging about 74% (with a range between 69% and 83%). The average of commitments not met
is 22% (range of 17% to 29%), and data unavailability/nonreporting is at 3% (range of 2% to 6%, not counting FY 2014)
(Figure 3).
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 2014
Figure 2: FY 2014 Commitment Measures Met and Not Met
i Met
i Not Met
Figure 3: FY 2009-FY 2014 Commitment Measure Performance Trend
Not Met
Data Not
Available
Met
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Commitment Measures by Subobjectives
When the FY 2014 results are presented by subobjective, six of 15 subobjectives (Fish and Shellfish, Wetlands, Great Lakes,
Safe Swimming, Pacific Islands, and Long Island Sound) were successful in meeting 100% of their commitments. This is up
from four subobjectives with a similar status in FY 2013. Seven subobjectives fell below the FY 2014 national average of com-
mitments met (82.9%): Coastal and Ocean (67%), Chesapeake Bay (67%), Puget Sound (50%), South Florida (33%), Gulf of
Mexico (0%), Mexico Border (0%), and Columbia River (0%). 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. As was noted earlier, the Water Quality subobjective has the most measures, represent-
ing about 34% of all commitment measures.
Figure 4: FY 2014 Commitment Measures Met and Not Met by Subobjective
Fish and Shellfish
Wetlands
Great Lakes
Safe Swimming
Pacific Islands
Long Island Sound
Water Quality
Drinking Water
Coastal and Ocean
Chesapeake Bay
Puget Sound
South Florida
Gulf of Mexico
Mexico Border
Columbia River
50%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
When comparing the FY 2014 results from Figure 4 with the long-term averages of commitments met for each subobjective
(Figure 5), eight subobjectives did better in FY 2014 compared with their long-term average. This was up from 6 subobjectives
with a similar status in FY 2013. The Coastal and Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, South Florida, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico
Border, and Columbia River subobjectives fell below their long-term averages in FY 2014. The Fish and Shellfish subobjective
has consistently had the greatest problems with data availability.
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Figure 5: FY 2009-FY 2014 Average Commitments Met and Not Met by Subobjective
Fish and Shellfish
Wetlands
Chesapeake Bay
Long Island Sound
Coastal and Ocean
Great Lakes
Columbia River
Safe Swimming
Drinking Water
Water Quality
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Islands
Mexico Border
Puget Sound
South Florida
57%
84%
16%
11% 5%
12%
10%
79%
29%
61%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
« Met Data Not Available Not Met
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Commitments by National Core Water Program vs. Geographic Programs
The National Water Program comprises core drinking water and water quality programs and LAEs or place-based programs.
Sixty percent (60%) of all commitment measures pertain to core water programs, and 40% track progress in LAE or place-
based programs. In FY 2014, 68% of commitments were met for the LAEs and place-based programs (higher than the 65%
met in FY 2013). National core programs increased from 71% of commitments met in FY 2013 to 92% in FY 2014 (Figure 6).
Figure 6: FY 2009-FY 2014 National and Place-Based Programs Trend
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
i Not Met
Data Not
Available
i Met
2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014
National Place- National Place- National Place- National Place- National Place- National Place-
Based Based Based Based Based Based
National Water Program Long-Term Performance Trends
One way to capture long-term performance trends for individual measures is through a "heat map." The charts in Figure 7
represent a history of the status of annual results of all the core drinking water and water quality program measures over a
seven-year period (FY 2008 to FY 2014). The colors on the map represent the status of each measure in a given year (green
for commitments met, orange for not met, gray for data unavailable or not reporting, and white for measures not in existence
in a given year). Although the status of the results does not take into account the level of ambitiousness or "stretch goals" of
the commitments from measure to measure, there are some interesting patterns in the trends. For example, 43% of all core
program measures have met their commitments every year for the past six to seven years.
10
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Figure 7: FY 2008-FY 2014 Core Water Program End-of-Year Status History
Drinking Water
SDW-211
SDW-SP1.N11
SDW-SP2
SDW-SP3.N11
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-18.N11
Number Indian & Alaska Native homes provided safe drinking
water
SDW-01a
SDW-01b
SDW-04
SDW-05
SDW-07
SDW-08
Abbreviated Measure Description
Percent population served by CWSs
Percent CWSs meeting safe standards
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
Percent CWSs with sanitary survey
Number Tribal CWSs with sanitary survey
DWSRF fund utilization rate
Number DWSRF projects initiated (cumulative)
Percent Class I, II, or III wells with mechanical integrity
Number High Priority Class V wells closed/permitted
(cumulative)
Fish and
Shellfish
FS-SP6.N11
Percent Women and mercury blood levels
Safe Swimming
SS-SP9.N11
Percent beach days safe for swimming
SS-1
Number enforceable long-term CSO control plan with specific
dates and milestones in place
SS-2
Percent significant public beaches monitored
Coastal and
Ocean
CO-222.N11
Improve coastal aquatic system health (index)
CO-SP20.N11
Percent ocean dumping sites acceptable conditions
CO-432.N11
Number additional NEP acres habitat protected or restored
Wetlands
WT-SP22
No net loss of wetlands
WT-01
Number wetland acres restored and enhanced (cumulative)
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 7: FY 2008-FY 2014 Core Water Program End-of-Year Status History (cont'd)
Abbreviated Measure Description
Water Quality
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP13.N11
WQ-SP14aN11
WQ-24.N11
WQ-01a
WQ-26
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
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
Number formerly impaired waterbodies now meeting standards
(cumulative)
Number causes of waterbody impairment removed (cumulative)
Number impaired watersheds improved water quality
(cumulative1)
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
iromulgated by EPA
umber states/territories implementing nutrient reduction
strateacies
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 Tribes implementing monitoring strategies
Number Tribes providing water quality data
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') ,r,^^^^^^^
Number pounds phosphorus reduced tram non-pount sources
(millions')
Number tons sediment reduction reduced from non-point
sources (thousands')
Number NPS-impaired waterbodies restored (cumulative)
Number/Percent Nontribal NPDES permits current
Number/Percent Tribal permits current
Number/Percent POTWs SlUs control mechanisms in place
Percent major dischargers in SNC
Number/Percent POTWs comply wastewater discharge
standards
CWSRF Fund utilization rate
Number high priority state NPDES permits
Number high priority state & EPA NPDES permits
Percent Alaska homes access to drinking water & sanitation
Number urban water projects initiated addressing water quality
issues in the community
12
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Figure 8 shows that 17% of all place-based program measures have met commitments every year for six to seven years.
Figure 8: FY 2008-FY 2014 LAE and Place-Based Programs End of Year Status History
Great Lakes
GL-433.N11
GL-SP29
GL-SP31
GL-SP32.N11
GL-05
GL-06
GL-07
GL-09
GL-10
GL-11
GL-12
GL-13
GL-16
Improve health-Great Lakes ecosystem (index)
Reduce PCBs in Great Lakes fish (cumulative)
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
(ava. since 20101
Response plans established, response exercises, and/or
response actions (cumulative)
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)
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
Percent increase in acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA
conservation practices implemented
CB-SP35
Chesapeake Bay
CB-SP36
CB-SP37
Percent Bay nitrogen reduction practices implemented
Percent Bay phosphorus reduction practices implemented
Percent Bay sediment reduction practices implemented
13
-------
Figure 8: FY 2008-FY 2014 LAE and Place-Based Programs End of Year Status History (cont'd)
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island
Sound
GM-SP38
Number of impaired Gulf water segments and habitat restored
(cumulative1)
GM-SP39
LI-SP41
Percent reduction Long Island Sound nitrogen
LI-SP43
Number acres Long Island Sound coastal habitat restored
LI-SP44
Number miles river and streams for fish passage reopened
Abbreviated Measure Description
Number of Gulf Acres restored or enhanced (cumulative)
Puget Sound
Mexico Border
PS-SP49.N11
Number acres of Puget Sound shellfish areas improved
cumulative1)
PS-SP51
MB-SP23
umber acres of Puget Sound estuarine wetlands restored
itive) _^ ^^ __^_
r million pounds BOD loadings removed Mexico Border
luml
;umulativ
MB-SP24.N11
MB-SP25.N11
(cumulative)
Number additional Mexico Border homes access to safe drinking
Number
r additional Mexico Border homes access to adequate
sanitation
Pacific Islands
PI-SP26
Percent Pacific Islands population served by CWS
South Florida
SFL-SP47a
Percent South Florida monitoring stations maintain coastal water
quality for chlorophyll a & light clarity
SFL-SP47b
Percent South Florida monitoring stations maintain coastal water
quality for nitrogen and phosphorous
SFL-SP48
Maintain Everglades water quality measured by total phosphorus
Columbia River
CR-SP53
Percent reducuction Columbia River contaminants in waters
fish
CR-SP54
Number acres Columbia River contaminated sediments cleaned
up (cumulative)
14
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Changes in Measure Performance Status from FY 2013 to FY 2014
The performance status of 23 of the 82 commitment measures changed between FY 2013 and FY 2014. Seventeen measures
switched from not meeting to meeting their annual commitments, whereas 5 previously met measures did not meet their
commitments in the past year. This is a significant reversal in performance from the previous year, where 3 measures switched
from "not met" to "met" status and 15 changed from "met" to "not met." Core water programs had 11 measures that
changed their status from not met to met and 1 from met to not met between 2013 and 2014. LAEs or place-based programs
had 6 measures with a change in status from not met to met and 5 from met to not met (Table 1).
Table 1: Measures with Changes in Performance Status from FY 2013 to FY 2014
Subobjective
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
Performance Status
15
-------
Commitment Measures by EPA Regions
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, 87.5% of performance commitments set by the EPA regional offices for ac-
tivities in their geographic areas were met in 2014, while an average of 12% of commitments were missed. This was an 8.5%
increase from the FY 2013 average of 79% of commitments met. Nine out of 10 regions saw an increase in commitments met
in 2014. The biggest increases were in Region 2 (+22%) and Region 5 (+14%). Only Region 3 (-6%) saw a decrease in their
performance in 2014 compared to 2013. Regions 1 (94%) and 4 (93%) had the highest percentage of measures met in FY
2014, and Regions 3 (82%) and 10 (77%) had the lowest (Figure 9).
Figure 9: FY 2014 Commitments Met and Not Met by Region
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Met Data Not Available Not Met
16
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Over the past six years, Regions 1, 6, 9 and 2 have had the highest percentages of commitments met. Regions 7, 8, and 10
have had the highest percentages of commitments not met (Figure 10).
Figure 10: FY 2009-FY 2014 Average Commitments Met and Not Met by Region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Met Data Not Available Not Met
A trend analysis of individual regional performance over the past six years reveals that EPA Regions 7 and 4 have exhibited the
most improvement in meeting their annual commitments between FY 2009 and FY 2014. Region 7 increased its performance
by 18% (69% to 87% commitments met), and Region 4 raised its performance by 10% (83% to 93%). EPA RegionIO showed
the most decline in commitments met between FY 2009 and FY 2014, declining by 8% (85% to 77%). Region 2 exhibited the
greatest variability in percent commitments met over the past six years, with a range of 33%. The region with the least vari-
ability in performance over the past six years was Region 9, with a range of only 8%. (Figure 11). Note that these regional
trend analyses do not factor in the level of ambitiousness of individual regional commitments or stretch
goals, which may or may not contribute to performance status.
Another way to look at the EPA regions' FY 2014 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 performance status for core program
measures in each region for FY 2014. As the chart shows, 12.5% (4/32) of all core program measures met commitments by
all regions in FY 2014 (SDW-211, SDW-SP1.N11, SDW-SP2, and SDW-SP4a). Some measures are problematic, with three or
more regions not meeting annual commitments (WQ-SP10.N11, WQ-SP12.N11, WQ-03a, and WQ-04a). For several measures,
such as the national numeric nutrient measure WQ-01a, 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.N11, SDW-01b,
WQ-SP-14aN11, WQ-02, WQ-03b, WQ-06a, WQ-06b, and WQ-12b). More information about these measures can be found in
the subobjective chapters and Appendix D on the Office of Water performance website.
17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 11: FY 2009-FY 2014 Regional Performance Trends
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Region 1
Region 2
87%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Region 3
Region 4
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Region 5
Region 6
89%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Region 7
Region 8
79%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Region 9
Region 10
89%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
I Met
Not Met
Data Not Available Six-Year Average Met
18
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Figure 12: FY 2014 Regional Commitment Performance Status
Drinking
Water
Water Quality
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
WQ-SP10.N11
WQ-SP11
WQ-SP12.N11
WQ-SP14aN11
WQ-01a
WQ-02
WQ-03a
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-08a
WQ-08b
WQ-10
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-14a
WQ-17
WQ-19a
WQ-19b
Percent population served by
CWSs
Percent CWSs meeting safe
standards
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
Percent CWSs with sanitary
survey
Number Tribal CWSs with
sanitary survey
DWSRFfund utilization rate
Number DWSRF projects
initiated (cumulative)
Percent Class I, II, or III wells
with mechanical integrity
Number High Priority Class V
wells closed/permitted
Number formerly impaired
waterbodies now meeting
Number causes of waterbody
impairment removed
Number impaired watersheds
improved water guality
Identify number monitoring
stations in tribal waters with no
Number of numeric nutrient
water guality standards
Number Tribes with approved
water guality standards
Number/Percent
states/territories with updated
Number/Percent Tribes with
updated water guality criteria
Percent states/territorial water
guality standards revisions
Number Tribes implementing
monitoring strategies
Number Tribes providing water
guality data
Number/Percent total TMDLs
established/approved EPA
Number/Percent TMDLs
developed by states/approved
Number NPS-impaired
waterbodies restored
Number/Percent Nontribal
NPDES permits current
Number/Percent Tribal permits
current
Number/Percent POTWs SlUs
control mechanisms in place
CWSRF Fund utilization rate
Number high priority state
NPDES permits
Number high priority state &
EPA NPDES permits
FY 2014 Commitment Status
= Met | = Data Not Available
h^ Measure Did Not Exist
= Not Met = or Not Applicable
R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
19
-------
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 Na-
tional Water Program Best Practices and End-of-Year Performance Overview 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 used three methods to evaluate the relative ambitiousness of regional commitments for a set of 28 performance measures.3
The method or methods used 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 2014 regional commitments and FY 2014 national commitments, and
The difference between FY 2014 regional commitments and FY 2013 regional end-of-year results.
For each commitment expressed in numeric units, EPA computed:
FY 2014 regional commitments as a percentage of FY 2014 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 generate
an average weighted rank per region. (The underlying methodology is described in more detail in Appendix C.)
The average weighted ranks for each region are shown in Figure 13, with regions sorted from high to low rank. Regions 2, 5,
and 3 appear to have developed the most ambitious commitments or stretch goals based on this analysis.
3 The Office of Water 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 LAEs and place-based programs, which are often reported by only one or
two regions.
20
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Figure 13: Regional Commitment Ambitiousness: Average Weighted Rank (FY 2014)
Regions Sorted From Highest to Lowest Rank
Cross-Region Average
To compare the regions' level of ambitiousness in setting commitments between FY 2012 and FY 2014, the Office of Water
developed a trend chart comparing the average weighted ranking for each region for the past three years (see Figure 14). In
2014, four regions dropped in rank (Regions 5, 8, 9, 7), five regions increased their rank (Regions 2, 3, 6, 4, 1) and one region
stayed in the same rank (Regions 10).
Figure 14: Change in Regional Ambitiousness Rank FY 2012 to FY 2014
JC
d
ro
<£
1
2-
3
4
5
7-
8
9
10
A
R8
R10
21
-------
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 2014 (Figure 15).4 As
the figure illustrates, two of the three regions with the highest ranking for ambitiousness, Regions 2, 5, and 3 tended to rank
lower than average in the percentage of annual commitments met in FY 2014. The regions ranked in the middle on ambitious-
ness generally ranked about the same in commitments met. The regions ranked ninth and tenth in ambitiousness (Regions 1
and 7) are ranked second and fourth in commitments met.
Figure 15: FY 2014 Regional Ranks of Ambitiousness vs. Commitment Met
Regions Sorted by Ambitiousness Rank
Ol
c
1
2
m
R2
+
R5
3-
_l_
B
R3
4
R8
5-
R10
6
7
+
p
_l_
_|_
B
R9
8
9-
_|_
10
DO
1
D^
DQ
DQ
R4
R1
_
D^n DR DQ
Dyl
D^
R7
DV
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
01
c
Overall Ambitiousness Rank
Avg. Commitment Met Rank
Another way to examine the impact of ambitiousness on the ability to meet commitments is to compare changes in regional
rank between FY 2013 and FY 2014 (Figure 16).5 In terms of ranking on commitments met, five regions declined (Regions 3,
8, 10, 9, and 1) and five regions increased (Regions 2, 5, 6, 4, and 7). For commitment ambitiousness, four regions dropped in
rank (5, 8, 9, 7), five regions increased in rank, (2, 3, 6, 4, 1) and one region stayed in the same rank (10). Of the five regions
that increased in commitment ambitiousness (Regions 2, 3, 6, 4, 1), three regions increased and two decreased in commit-
ment met rankings. Alternately, of the four regions that showed declines in relative ambitiousness between 2013 and 2014,
two regions' rankings on commitments met went up (5, 7) and two decreased (8, 9).
1 Because this ambitiousness analysis focused only on a subset of the Office of Water'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.
' The FY 2013 rankings for ambitiousness and commitments met were calculated in the same manner as described earlier for the FY 2014 rankings.
22
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Figure 16: Change in Regional Rank in Ambitiousness and Commitments Met
Regions Sorted by FY 2014 Ambitiousness Rank
2
4
01
c
12
c
10-
R2
2013 2014
R5
\
2013 ' 2014
R3
R8 R10
\
\
R6
/Re
R9
R4
R1
\
R7
2013 2014 2013 ' 2014 I 2013 ' 2014 I 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 I 2013 ' 2014 2013 2014
2
4
K C
6
-10
I Overall Ambitiousness Rank
Avg. Commitment Met Rank
The analysis suggests a relationship between the level of ambitiousness in setting commitments and the percentages of
commitments met at end of year. 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 (23 to 28) and focuses on only two to three 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 measure universe, region-specific
priorities, region-state oversight relationships). All of these factors are important in the ultimate outcome of negotiations
among headquarters, regions, and states in setting annual commitments. The purpose of EPA's analysis in assessing
ambitiousness is not 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.
23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
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 significant increase in the number of commitments met for Tribes in 2014 over the results in 2013 (Figure 17).
The only commitment missed in FY 2014 was the number of American Indian and Alaska Native homes provided access to
safe drinking water in coordination with other federal agencies. For more information on tribal performance results, see the
"American Indian Drinking Water and Water Quality FY 2014 Performance" chapter on EPA's Water Program Performance
Page (http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/performance/index.cfm).
Figure 17: FY 2009-FY 2014 Tribal Commitments Met and Not Met
Not Met
i Met
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
24
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
FY 2014 Performance Highlights
The National Water Program tracks the results of 111 commitment and non-commitment (indicators) performance measures
for a diverse set of individual programs. Programs can be national or regional in scale and produce a multitude of outputs
and outcomes. The following section provides historical trend data of many of the key performance measures in the national
program. For more in-depth information about any of the measures or charts in this section, please refer to the specific sub-
objective chapter contained in the comprehensive Best Practices and End-of-Year Performance Report on EPA's website (http://
water.epa.gov/resource_performance/performance/index.cfm).
Water Safe to Drink
Ninety-two and a half percent (92.5%) 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 92%.
Figure 18: Percent Population with Drinking Water Meeting Standards
by (SDW-211) Fiscal Year
Commitment
94.7%
89.5%
92.0%
25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Close to 3,900 of the waters listed as impaired in 2002 met water quality standards for all the identified impairments
(commitment 3,779).
Figure 19: Formerly Impaired Waterbodies Meeting Water Quality Standards
(WQ-SP10.N11) by Fiscal Year
-Commitment
2,272
3,779
EPA established and approved 3,329 TMDLs (Figure 20). More than 71,000 TMDLs have been completed since 1996.6
Figure 20: TMDLs Established or Approved on a Schedule Consistent with
National Policy (WQ-08a) by Fiscal Year
Commitment
3,097
2,592
2,433
2,215
12,708
2,177
5 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.
26
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
For the seventh consecutive year, EPA and states achieved the national goal of having current NPDES permits in place
for 86% of non-tribal facilities (Figure 21).
Figure 21: Non-Tribal NPDES Permits Considered Current (WQ-12a) by Fiscal Year
100.0%
90.0%
89.4%
89.3%
90.4%
89.7%
90.0%
Result
^ Commitment
2009
90.0%
89.5%
2010
89.4%
89.0%
2011
89.3%
88.4%
2012
90.4%
88.0%
2013
89.7%
88.0%
2014
90.0%
86.0%
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
The 28 NEPs and their partners protected or restored just over 93,500 acres of habitat within the NEP study areas
falling short of EPA's goal of 100,000 acres. Since 2002, the NEPs and their partners have protected or restored more
than 1.4 million habitat acres within the NEP study areas.
Figure 22: NEP Acres Protected or Restored (CO-432.N11) by Fiscal Year
140,000 -,
120,000 -
100,000
80,000 -
60,000 -
40,000 -
20,000 -
125,437
127,594
Result
Commitment
2009
125,437
46,121
2010
89,985
100,000
2011
62,213
100,000
2012
114,579
100,000
2013
127,594
100,000
2014
93,557
100,000
27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Increase Wetlands
EPA continues to exceed expectations in wetlands restoration with 221,000 acres restored and enhanced since 2002
(WT-01).
Figure 23: Wetland Acres Restored and Enhanced (WT-01) by Fiscal Year
50,000
Result
^^Commitment
2009
103,507
88,000
2010
130,000
96,000
2011
154,000
150,000
2012
180,000
1 70,000
2013
207,000
190,000
2014
221,000
220,000
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
In FY2014, EPA, states, and other partners reported remediation of 13.3 million cubic yards (cumulative) of con-
taminated sediments in the Great Lakes through 2013, including more than 1.8 million cubic yards for the most recent
year reported (Figure 24).
Figure 24: Cubic Yards of Remediated Sediment (GL-SP32.N11) by Fiscal Year
14.0 -,
12.0 -
10.0 -
8.0 -
6.0 -
4.0 -
2.0 -
Result
> Commitment
2009
6.0
5.9
2010
7.3
6.4
2011
8.4
7.2
2012
9.7
9.1
2013
11.5
10.3
2014
13.3
12.0
28
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes (continued)
The Great Lakes Program exceeded its commitment to reduce five additional Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) at
Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) (Figure 25). From GLRI's inception through FY 2014, 44 Beneficial Use Impair-
ments (BUIs) have been removed at 14 AOCs in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin - quadrupling the total number of BUIs removed in the preceding 22 years. Thirteen were removed
in FY2014: restrictions on dredging at Waukegan Harbor AOC; degraded fish and wildlife populations at White Lake
and Ashtabula River AOCs; loss offish and wildlife habitat at White Lake, Ashtabula River, and Saginaw Bay AOCs;
aesthetics at St. Louis River, St. Marys River, and White Lake AOCs; restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption at
Deer Lake and Ashtabula River AOCs; restrictions on drinking water at White Lake AOC; and bird or animal deformities
at St. Marys River AOC.
Figure 25: Beneficial Use Impairments Restored (GL-05) by Fiscal Year7
Result
^^ Commitment
2009
12
21
2010
12
26
2011
26
26
2012
33
33
2013
41
41
2014
52
46
7 An intensive review of this metric conducted during the preparation of GLRI Action Plan II in FY 2014 determined that the number
of beneficial use impairments removed prior to the implementation of the GLRI was overstated by two. The 2014 review determined
that the delisting of the Oswego AOC in 2006 resulted from the removal of four BUIs, not six. Consequently, the number of "actual"
BUIs reported in the table for FYs 2009 through 2013 included the six BUIs believed to have been removed at the Oswego AOC.
For FY2014, the number of actual BUIs reported as removed has been corrected to reflect the true number of BUIs removed at the
Oswego AOC. However, the number of actual BUIs reported in FY2010 is accurate since the intensive review also revealed that two
BUIs had been removed in FY2010 but had not been reported until FY 2011.
29
-------
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 over 59,940 acres of underwater
grasses in the bay. This represents approximately 32.4% of the program's long-term goal of 185,000 acres (Figure 26).
Figure 26: Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restored (CB-SP33.N11)
by Fiscal Year
Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
The size of the hypoxic, or "dead," zone in the Gulf of Mexico decreased from 15,120 square kilometers in 2013 to
13,080 square kilometers in 2014 (Figure 27). A number of hydrological, climate, and monitoring factors lead to vari-
ability in the size of the hypoxic zone from year to year.
Figure 27: Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone 5-Year Average Size (Square Kilometers)
(GM-SP40.N11) by Fiscal Year
25,000
5,000
^m Result
2009
8,000
^^ Commitment
2010
20,000
2011
17,520
2012
7,483
2013
15,120
2014
13,080
30
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
The maximum area of hypoxia in Long Island Sound measured 87 square miles (Figure 28). Ambient environmental
conditions in the summer of 2014 led to one of the lowest maximum area of hypoxia in the Sound since 1992.
Figure 28: Reduction in Size (Square Miles) of Long Island Sound Hypoxic Zone
(LI-SP42.N11) by Calendar Year
350.0
Result
2009
169.0
Commitment
2010
101.0
2011
130.0
2012
288.5
2013
80.0
2014
87.0
Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
EPA provided adequate wastewater sanitation to an additional 12,756 homes over the past year, less than half of its
annual commitment (39,500 additional homes) (Figure 29).
Figure 29: Homes Provided Adequate Wastewater Sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico Border
Area (MB-SP24.N11) bv Fiscal Year
50,000
Result
Commitment
2009
43,594
105,500
2010
75,175
100,720
2011
259,371
207,000
2012
31 ,092
10,500
2013
25,695
24,000
2014
12,756
39,500
31
-------
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 46 additional acres of shellfish bed
growing areas. Unfortunately, this was not enough to reach the program's cumulative goal of 4,000 acres of unrestric-
tive commercial and recreational harvesting area in the Sound (Figure 30).
Figure 30: Increased Acres of Puget Sound Shellfish Areas
(PS-SP49.N11) by Fiscal Year
9,000 -i
8,000 -
7,000 -
6,000 -
5,000
4,000
3,000 -
2,000
1,000 -
4,453
Result
Commitment
2009
1,730
600
2010
4,453
1,800
2011
1,525
4,953
2012
2,489
3,878
2013
3,203
7,758
2014
3,249
4,000
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Due to the implementation of upgraded wastewater management, water quality in the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary
showed mixed progress in FY 2014, as measured by the percent of monitoring stations with dissolved nitrogen and
total phosphorus at or below unhealthy levels. Dissolved nitrogen levels were at healthy levels at less than 75% of
monitoring stations (72.6%) in near shore and coastal waters of the Marine Sanctuary (Figure 31).
Figure 31: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN)
and Total Phosphorus (TP) Levels (SFL-SP47b) by Fiscal Year
100.0% i
90.0% -
80.0% -
70.0% -
60.0% -
50.0% -
40.0% -
30.0% -
20.0% -
10.0%
84.3%
89.5%
87.60%
^DIN Result
E3Z3TP Result
^^ Commitment
2011
84.3%
73.6%
75.0%
2012
81 .0%
89.5%
75.0%
2013
60.0%
82.3%
75.0%
2014
72.6%
87.60%
75.0%
32
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Ensure Safe Drinking Water and Protect Water Quality on Tribal Lands
EPA set and met (88.6%) an ambitious commitment of 87% of the population in Indian Country served by CWSs that
receive drinking water meeting all applicable health-based standards (Figure 32).
Figure 32: Population Served by CWSs In Indian Country (SDW-SP3.N11) by Fiscal Year
Result
Commitment
2009
81 .2%
81 .6%
2010
87.2%
82.2%
2011
81 .2%
80.0%
2012
84.0%
87.0%
2013
77.0%
87.0%
2014
88.6%
87.0%
The Agency and its partners provided access to basic sanitation to 75,140 American Indian or Alaskan Native
homes in FY 2014 (Figure 33).
Figure 33: Number of American Indian and Alaska Native Homes
with Access to Basic Sanitation (WQ-24.N11) by Fiscal Year
80,000 i
70,000 -
60,000 -
50,000
40,000
30,000 -
20,000 -
10,000
Result
^^ Commitment
2011
56,875
52,300
2012
63,087
62,300
2013
69,783
67,600
2014
75,140
72,700
33
-------
National Water Program FY 2014 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 twelve best practices highlighted in this report were
selected from proposals submitted by the water divisions in
EPA's regional offices. The proposals were evaluated 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 dif-
ferent types of activities taking place in different regions ad-
dressing different subobjectives. In selecting these best prac-
tices, special emphasis was placed on identifying activities
or approaches that have resulted in measurable successful
outcomes. These best practices are in addition to a number of
activities identified in the FY 2014 End of Year Report.
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.
34
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
-
A New Framework for Evaluating Seismic
Potential Associated with Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Class II Permits
Brief Description:
Scientists have long recognized that human activities, such
as construction of dams and water reservoirs, mining and
oil and gas production, can trigger seismic events, includ-
ing those that are felt by humans. Under certain conditions,
disposal of fluids through injection wells has the potential to
cause human-induced seismicity. However, induced seismicity
associated with fluid injection is uncommon, as additional
conditions necessary to cause seismicity often are not pres-
ent. Seismic activity induced by Class II wells is likely to occur
only where all of the following conditions are present: (1)
there is a fault in a near-failure state of stress; (2) the fluid
injected has a path of communication to the fault; and (3)
the pressure exerted by the fluid is high enough and lasts
long enough to cause movement along the fault line. Seismic
events due to underground injection are rare (in less than
one percent of disposal wells), but the number of events has
increased in recent years.
Region 3 developed the Seismicity Framework to provide
permit reviewers with key criteria that must be considered
during the review of permit applications for Class II-D brine
disposal wells that could have a bearing on whether seismicity
occurs during injection. Some of the factors to consider in-
clude: geologic features, especially faults, which exist near the
proposed injection well location; evidence of historical seismic
activity; and permit conditions, such as injection pressure and
injection volume. Addressing the problem of seismic incidence
in a systematic way will help maintain the public's confidence
in underground injection as a sound method for brine disposal
from conventional and unconventional well operations.
Region 3 technical staff and attorneys from the Office of
Regional Counsel worked in close cooperation to develop this
Framework. The criteria in the framework, used to analyze
the potential for seismicity, was developed from the review
of peer-reviewed research such as that published by the
National Academy of Sciences. The Region has shared this
framework with other EPA regions and primacy states.
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink
Type:
Assessment
Highlights:
What: EPA Region 3 staff who review Underground
Injection Control (UIC) permit applications are using a
new framework to evaluate the potential for induced
seismicity from brine disposal injection wells.
Who: EPA Region 3 Ground Water and Enforcement
Branch staff of the Water Protection Division and Office
of Regional Counsel staff developed the framework. It is
being implemented by the Ground Water and Enforce-
ment Branch technical staff and has been shared with
other primacy states and EPA Regions that directly
implement the UIC program.
Why: A series of seismic events caused by disposal
well practices have occurred in a number of locations
throughout the United States, including eastern Ohio.
EPA Region 3 is involved in the development and issu-
ance of a growing number of Class II-D brine disposal
well permits due to unprecedented growth in uncon-
ventional gas well drilling. The public has expressed
concerns about the likelihood of these injection wells
triggering seismic events. EPA's Environmental Appeals
Board (EAB) also expressed their desire that the Region
document how the potential for seismicity was con-
sidered and evaluated during the course of UIC permit
review and issuance to avoid future appeals.
Current Status:
The Seismicity Framework is currently being utilized by Region
3 UIC program staff when reviewing permit applications
for Class II disposal wells in Pennsylvania and Virginia. EPA
Region 3 directly implements both state's UIC programs. The
Region provided the framework for use to West Virginia, who
35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
has UIC program primacy, and other EPA regions that also
directly implement the UIC program.
Outcomes:
Due to its use of the Framework, the public is able to better
understand how EPA Region 3 accounts for potential seis-
micity during the review of a Class II permit application. The
Framework is a "living" document that can be updated as new
research in the area of seismicity becomes available. Other
states and regions will also be able to modify this framework
according to the specific geologic parameters and historical
seismic events that are pertinent to their area of the country.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Induced seismicity from Class II disposal operations has been
documented in a number of locations throughout the United
States. Research is currently being done to help understand
why these events have occurred and prevent them from
happening in the future. It is important to have a document
like the Seismicity Framework available so that technical staff
reviewing permit applications can have relevant criteria avail-
able that will assist in the development of a permit designed
to prevent induced seismicity. The Framework will assist in
building and maintaining public confidence and understand-
ing in underground injection as an option for brine disposal
in the US. For a more detailed approach on the prevention of
induced seismicity from injection, EPA Region 3 recommends
that permit reviewers should review the document, "Minimiz-
ing and Managing Potential Impacts of Induced Seismicity
from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches." EPA's
Underground Injection Control Program National Technical
Workgroup developed this document and it can be found
on the following website: http://www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/
techdocs.htm
Contact Information:
S. Stephen Platt
UIC National Technical Expert
215-814-5464
platt.steve@epa.gov
36
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Supporting Citizen Science Water Quality
Monitoring in the New York-New Jersey Harbor
Brief Description:
This project connected EPA scientists with citizen scientists
from the New York-New Jersey Harbor area who were trained
to collect and analyze water quality data. Region 2 worked
with the four citizen science groups and the regional WQX/
STORE! team to develop a single data template for use in
collecting the data. Before sampling began, EPA held a train-
ing session on use of the data template. Citizen scientists
monitored local streams and rivers from June through August
2014, gathering water quality data on-site using a multi-
parameter probe (dissolved oxygen, conductivity, tempera-
ture, and pH) and collecting samples that they analyzed for
Enterococcus using the IDEXX Enterolert test kit. Partners
collaborated with staff from state environmental agencies
to determine how collected data could be useful to ongoing
state environmental programs. After the sampling period
concluded, EPA held another training session with the citizen
groups on how to successfully upload the data into the WQX/
STORE! system.
Region 2 helped to develop a "tool kit" for citizen science
water quality monitoring activities and provided it to the
citizen groups for their monitoring projects in the Harbor. The
tool kit includes 1) a Quality Assurance Project Plan tem-
plate for planning monitoring projects; 2) field and labora-
tory data sheets to record observations/results and method
information; 3) Standard Operating Procedures for common
water quality measurements; 4) YouTube videos on sample
collection procedures; and 5) an equipment loan program
to provide critical monitoring equipment for the collection
of environmental data. EPA and HEP developed a common
project database and mapping application for all four groups.
They provided training and assistance in archiving the final
data in EPA's WQX/Storet database to facilitate data sharing
with state and federal agencies.
The project involved a collaboration of nearly 30 members
from four citizen science groups and a coalition of employ-
ees from the states of New York, New Jersey, academia,
Subobjective:
Oceans and Coastal Protection
Type:
Monitoring, Partnership
Highlights:
What: This practice consists of a collaboration among
the EPA, state regulatory agencies, and environmental
groups to gather water quality data in tributaries to the
New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary, with a focus on
pathogen indicators. The data is made publicly avail-
able on an interactive website and through the EPA
WQX/STORET system to enable communities, regula-
tory agencies and the general public to gain knowledge
about the health of their local waterways.
Who: EPA Region 2, the New York- New Jersey Harbor
& Estuary Program (HEP), the New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), the
New York State Department of Environmental Conser-
vation (NYSDEC), the New Jersey Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (NJDEP) and four citizen scientist
groups.
Why: Government agencies often have limited use for
the citizen's monitoring data because of concerns about
its quality. In this project, EPA Region 2 supported
the formation of citizen science groups and provided
them with technical guidance and assistance in order
to improve the quality of their monitoring efforts to
increase knowledge about pathogen contamination in
the Harbor. This pilot can serve as a blueprint for future
citizen science efforts in the region.
the Harbor Estuary Program Office, and NEIWPCC. Region
2 provided funding through the use of discretionary Clean
Water Act Section 106 funds. The Region also developed an
umbrella quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and helped
citizen scientists develop addenda to the QAPP specific to
37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
their sites and project objectives. Region 2 provided lab
space, staff support and equipment and trained citizens
in field sampling, instrument use, lab techniques and data
management procedures. HEP, a National Estuary Program
housed at the Hudson River Foundation, coordinated all proj-
ect activities and provided technical and logistical support to
the citizen groups. NYSDEC and NJDEP helped to scope the
project and provided feedback about the utility of data col-
lected and how future citizen science monitoring can be most
helpful to state water quality monitoring programs.
Current Status:
Region 2 and the HEP program invited state environmental
staff and citizen scientists from the four community groups to
a presentation and forum at EPA's offices in November 2014.
Forum participants discussed next steps for monitoring in the
Harbor and how future data collection efforts might be useful
to state and federal governments. Region 2, HEP, NYSDEC
and NJDEP continue to seek opportunities to support citizen
science activities in the Region.
Outcomes:
The four citizen groups collected valuable data on pathogens
that will serve the communities in which they monitored.
Each of the groups has presented their results to their com-
munities and relevant agencies and the data is being used
to characterize and address the key water quality issues in
their communities. This project also successfully deployed
and tested the citizen science tool kit, which will be refined
and will be made available for use by future citizen science
groups. A similar approach can be employed in other areas
and regions.
Lessons Learned:
This citizen science effort was a rewarding one for all in-
volved, especially the citizen scientists themselves. Although
all four citizen groups were interested in collecting data for
their own purposes, it was also important for them to know
that their data would be used by other partners. The impor-
tance of data quality assurance, use of a single structured
data template and the need for training and/or assistance in
the use of WQX/STORET are important lessons learned from
this project that can be shared with other organizations and
future monitoring projects. For future efforts, partnerships
with other organizations that bring complementary resources
to the table will be especially helpful. Depending on the com-
plexity of the citizen science initiative, a project may require
some initial funding and/or in-kind support by partners. Fi-
nally, it is imperative that future groups coordinate with state
and local agencies during the planning process to ensure the
most beneficial uses of the data and the streamlining of data
collection and data management.
Contact Information:
More information about this project is available on the HEP
website at http://www.harborestuary.org/citizenscience-
2014project.htm.
38
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Teaming Up To Optimize Wastewater
Treatment for Nutrient Reduction
Brief Description:
Region 3's Optimization Team (EPA, State, NGO) reaches out
to communities and WWTPs to offer assistance and schedule
onsite visits. The onsite visit consists of a brief tour of the
facility by the superintendent, a discussion of permit param-
eters, recent violations, future plans, and staff/WWTP needs.
A follow-up report or email identifying findings is sent to the
superintendent requesting their response to gauge their inter-
est in working together on specific projects.
Examples of a follow-up project may be onsite training on
process control, tracking and trending processes (mixed
liquor settleability, nutrient levels in each process, food
to mass ratio, sludge wasting, etc.), or offering guidance
material and calculation sheets, which assist operators
with data collection and interpretation. After the operators
understand process control they can begin to experiment
with optimizing a process one step at a time. The Region
has process control testing equipment, from which data
can be used by the operators to make process changes. The
Region also has two Pennsylvania-certified WWTP opera-
tors on staff.
One recent project involved optimizing the sludge processing
of a 0.5 million gallon per day (mgd) WWTP to reduce the
amount of Nitrate N decanted back to the main stream treat-
ment, thereby reducing the potential for TN or N03 viola-
tions. The sludge is aerobically digested 24/7 for a few weeks
until the tank is full, then the air is shut off and the sludge is
allowed to settle. The liquid above the settled sludge is de-
canted back to the main Biological Nutrient Removal stream.
The sludge is then pumped to a holding tank to be hauled to
another WWTP for further treatment.
Before Optimization: Aerobic digestion. N03 in decant
approximately 80mg/L. High energy use from blowers
operating 24/7.
After Optimization: Aerobic/Anoxic digestion. N03 in
decant approximately 0.2mg/L. Energy use cut in half (ap-
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink
Type:
Technical Assistance, Partnership
Highlights:
What: Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) represen-
tatives can benefit by teaming up with EPA, State, and
Non-governmental Organization (NGO) technical assis-
tance providers to identify opportunities for optimizing
treatment processes, and to further educate themselves
on process control and utility management. Optimiza-
tion includes two steps; first, improve the efficiency
of each treatment process to maximize chemical and
energy savings, and second, look for areas for increased
nutrient removal.
Who: EPA Region 3, Water Protection Division, Office
of Infrastructure and Assistance, state, NGOs, and
partners. EPA is currently focusing on areas of interest
in Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.
Why: By helping them optimize treatment processes,
EPA can assist communities to reduce the contaminants
(Total Suspended Solids, Total Nitrogen, Total Phospho-
rus) discharged through less capital-intensive means.
Also, the project results in educating WWTP staff and
management on means to reduce energy and chemical
use, and save operating and capital expenses.
proximately 50,OOOkWh savings). Alkalinity sent back to
the main stream treatment which may offset the chemi-
cals needed for nitrification.
Current Status:
Region 3 continues to implement this practice using
WPD staff and is planning to expand the assistance via
39
-------
contractor support to meet the demand. We are very active
in wastewater operator training, regional and state train-
ing, and wastewater operator association events to get the
message out.
Outcomes:
The outcomes for this practice tend to be customized to the
community; the WWTP staff receive a free service to assist
them in improving their skill as operators and managers, as
well as reducing the contaminants discharged, energy used,
chemicals used, and operational dollars spent. Region 3
earns the trust of state and NGO counterparts and municipal
engineers.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Region 3 will continue to assist states in facilitating optimiza-
tion through technical assistance to WWTPs. While regional
staff are unable to be available throughout the region due to
the number of WWTPs, our participation has been an impor-
tant way to demonstrate teamwork with our states and trade
organizations in providing technical support, lessons learned
and outreach to communities in need.
Contact Information:
Walter Higgins
215-814-5476
higgins.walter@epa.gov
40
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Performance-Based Training (PBT) for
Drinking Water Resiliency and Sustainability
Brief Description:
This training is innovative in that it uti izes the Performance-
Based Training (PBT) approach established by the drinking
water Area-Wide Optimization Program (AWOP) to address
programmatic drinking water resiliency rather than just
technical water optimization issues. This training bridges the
"knowing" and "doing" gap by implementing a hands-on
approach to learning about water system resi iency and con-
sists of 9 one-day sessions with a minimum of four uti ities
committed to the training program. During each session, the
participants learned the principles and tools of resiliency and
were encouraged to apply the principles at their utility using
a homework implementation plan. After each PBT session,
the participants applied the classroom concepts and reported
on progress at the subsequent training session with the
other participants. They were provided access to facilitators
from the state primacy agency to assist with but not solve
homework issues. Progress throughout the resiliency PBT was
tracked as compared to the resiliency baseline established
prior to the first training session. Training modules included:
Resource Management, Training and Exercises, Communica-
tions, Continuity of Operations Planning, Climate Resiliency,
Recovery & Mitigation & Cybersecurity.
Current Status:
This pilot project completed its ninth and final training ses-
sion in early February 2015, at which participants compared
their current status to the resi iency baseline set prior to the
first session in September 2012. Committed participants
include DC Water, the City of Manassas in Virginia, and the
Calvertand Charles Counties in Maryland, each of which
operate numerous water utilities in their counties.
Outcomes:
Resiliency planning is essential to ensuring that water systems
can provide safe water to drink and may not always be
included in strategic planning activities due to water sys-
tems' commitment of resources to day-to-day drinking water
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink
Type:
Training
Highlights:
What: Interactive Performance-Based Training (PBT)
for water treatment plant operators to improve drinking
water resiliency
Who: Developed by Region 3 Drinking Water Branch
and implemented for water utilities in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area.
Why: Increase drinking utilities ability to plan for and
respond to service interruptions caused by all types of
hazards via resiliency tool training and required imple-
mentation planning.
compliance. Throughout the PBT training process utilities
reported completion of homework assignments, so it is
expected that the resiliency status reported at the last session
will have improved due to this training program. The training
was developed so that it could be implemented by others.
Region 3 intends to provide the training documentation via
the Association of State Drinking Water Agencies (ASDWA)
website. Since all of the training tools have been developed,
implementation by other regions or states is easily replicable,
including those that do not participate in AWOP.
41
-------
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The water systems appreciated this opportunity to address
their resiliency needs and had stated that implementing this
PBT has allowed water systems to enhance their relationships
with the primacy agency. As always with PBT, the interac-
tive nature of simultaneous participation by numerous water
systems ensures that homework is completed and provides a
network of collaboration.
Contact Information:
Patti Kay Wisniewski
215-814-5668
Wendy Gray
215-814-5673
42
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
EPA Region 4's Rain Catcher Award for
Green Infrastructure Projects
Brief Description:
The EPA Region 4, Water Protection Division, launched the
Rain Catcher Award in June 2014 to collect information on
implemented practices, and to recognize those projects that
exemplify green infrastructure excellence. It is anticipated
that, over time, this award program will provide information
regarding region-specific best practices that will be used for
knowledge transfer and building a green infrastructure com-
munity of practice.
Projects submitted for consideration need to include basic
background information on the project, a brief narrative
that explains how specific environmental criteria are being
met, and photographs of the site. All projects submitted for
consideration have to meet all of the following criteria: (1)
installed in the ground within the last 10 years; (2) located
in EPA Region 4, that is, located in North or South Caro-
lina, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama or
Kentucky; and (3) provides a unique, nontraditional solution
for the management or mitigation of stormwater. There
are seven key elements under which the nominees for the
award are judged:
1. The Quality of the Nomination - Nominations are
evaluated based on the design of a project in the water-
shed context and whether the approach was innovative in
some way.
2. Results - Staff also review any water quality and/or wa-
ter quantity results that were documented as a result of
the project, and the extent to which the project demon-
strates a social result or change in behavior (i.e., changes
in land use or political support for Green Infrastructure
ordinances).
3. Environmental Significance - projects are evaluat-
ed on how they solve important environmental problems
reflecting state and federal environmental priorities.
4. Broad Support - Nominations are evaluated on how
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Green Infrastructure
Highlights:
What: Annual awards for excellence in implementa-
tion of a stormwater green infrastructure project.
Who: EPA Region 4 Water Protection Division and
Watersheds and Communities Branch
Why: EPA Region 4 developed the Rain Catcher Award
to recognize stormwater projects that exemplify green
infrastructure (Gl) excellence. It is the Region's hope
that, over time, the awards program will help build a
database of region-specific best practices that will be
used for knowledge transfer and building a green infra-
structure community of practice.
the nominee leveraged collaborative partnerships and
working relationships among various stakeholders.
5. Peer Outreach and Information Transfer - The
review panel scores are based on how well the nominee
demonstrated a clear strategy for transferring the knowl-
edge or expertise gained to other groups with similar
environmental challenges.
6. Financial Integrity/Budget - Budget information
is considered in terms of cost efficiency relative to the
problem addressed.
7. Regulatory Integrity - Lastly, nominations are
evaluated on whether projects were consistent with other
authorities in effect, such as the NPDES MS4 permit,
43
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Superfund Redevelopment and Reuse Agreements,
Brownfield grants, and so forth.
In the first year of issuing the awards nearly 20 applicants
submitted proposals. The awards and the resulting database
has been extremely useful in identifying green infrastructure
and Low Impact Development (LID) projects in the Southeast
United States.
Current Status:
In August, 2014, the first recipients of the Rain Catcher
Awards received their awards and certificates. This took place
at EPA Region 4's inaugural MS4 Wet Weather Conference,
in partnership with the International Erosion Control Associa-
tion (IECA). The Rain Catcher Awards are anticipated to be
a yearly event, and the 2015 winners will be awarded at the
EPA Region 4/IECA Wet Weather MS4 Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia, in June 2015.
Outcomes:
The region's review panel selected a winner for three
different categories: the municipal level, commercial level,
and neighborhood/community level. The 2014 recipients
were the following:
Municipal Level Winner: Louisville and Jefferson
County Metropolitan Sewer District for the Combined Sewer
Overflow Green infrastructure Project
Commercial Level Winner: Volkswagen Group of
America for the Chattanooga, Tennessee Assembly Plant
Neighborhood/Community Level Winner:
Horry County for the Crabtree Swamp Floodplain Restoration
Project
These winners demonstrated a degree of excellence, and
have shared and showcased their best examples as a transfer
of technical innovation in Gl design and maintenance. This is
also important for EPA's success in assisting permittees and
the non-regulated community to achieve the protection and
restoration goals of the Clean Water Act.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
For 2015, the Region plans to advertise early to allow more
time for communities to apply. EPA has learned that early
planning and greater promotion ensures greater participation
by applicants. EPA Region 4 has received extensive inquiries
in anticipation for the 2015 Rain Catcher Awards. EPA has
also learned that communities located in Region 4 are eager
to share technical information.
Several inquiries have been made from other EPA Regions
expressing interest in the Rain Catcher Awards. Based on its
experience, Region 4 recommends that other Regions may
want to expand the categories of potential winners for award
recognition, and advertise early and often to generate inter-
est among potential municipal, commercial, and community
recipients for the awards.
Contact Information:
Mike Mitchell
404-562-9303
44
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
A Virginia's Nutrient Credit Trading Program
Brief Description:
The innovative Chesapeake Bay TMDL, issued in December
2010, provides the accountability framework for nutrient and
sediment reductions in the watershed and tributaries that
flow to the Bay. This TMDL provided the impetus for nutrient
and sediment reductions from all sectors, including construc-
tion-related activities. It also established the expectation that
all new nutrient and sediment loads and new nutrient- and
sediment-generating activities that do not have an allocation
under the Bay's TMDL must be offset by other reductions in
nutrients and sediment.
The Commonwealth of Virginia Nutrient Trading program
allows for innovative stormwater management and, in this
case, the focus was on reducing new phosphorous (P) loads
generated from new construction activities once the con-
struction is completed; what is sometimes referred to as
post-construction runoff. These new P loads from the newly-
developed sites are offset by the purchase of equivalent P
reduction credits from state-certified credit banks located in
the same major river basin.
How does the trading program work? Landowners and farm-
ers implement projects on private lands that result in a reduc-
tion of nutrients below their share of the allocation under the
Bay's TMDL. Data on the reduction of nutrients entering the
Chesapeake Bay are then submitted to the Virginia Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) for approval. The
nutrient reductions generate nutrient credits which the land-
owner can then sell and transfer to permit applicants to meet
state and local water quality permit requirements. Private
investors have created nutrient credit "banks" which advance
other goals such as habit protection, stream buffers and land
preservation, as well as fostering more cost-effective devel-
opment
The partnership in support of this trading program was
evident during a public announcement event held in De-
cember 2014 which featured EPA Administrator McCarthy,
Secretary Vilsack of USDA, the Governor of Virginia, and the
Subobjective:
Chesapeake Bay
Type:
Nutrient Reduction
Highlights:
What: Innovative, cost-effective approach of water
quality trading saves the state millions
Who: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in cooperation with EPA, United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) and Virginia Department of
Transportation (VA DOT)
Why: To address the complex and large-scale effort of
reducing nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay and its tribu-
taries, the Commonwealth of Virginia has implemented
a multi-faceted approach to its regulatory stormwater
and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs cen-
tered on nutrient trading.
head of VA DOT. EPA and USDA work together to support
such programs as demonstrated in their Inter-Agency Trading
Partnership Agreement in November 2013. The Agreement
establishes a collaborative framework to support water-
quality-based trading and other market-based approaches for
ecosystem service.
While the trading program operates within the authority
of Virginia's state regulations, EPA has provided the policy
framework and support for this offset approach to happen.
EPA regularly assesses Bay States' Watershed Implementa-
tion Plans and annual progress, in which trading and offset
programs are a component for some Bay States.
Outcomes:
The nutrient trading program allowed VDOT to meet its
nutrient-reduction goals by purchasing $900,000 in nutrient
45
-------
credits that Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
had procured for over 50 projects state-wide at an estimated
cost savings of $1 million. Without trading, VDOT would have
had to invest $2 million in nutrient controls. VDOT expects
to purchase an additional $1 million in credits in 2015. This
proposal allows for the maintenance of the TMDL load cap
for phosphorus.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
This program:
» Showcases how conservation financing and emerging
environmental markets help generate new income op-
portunities for America's working land owners while also
reducing compliance costs and improving the environ-
ment;
* Underscores agriculture's important contributions to
conservation and the role new markets can play in
maintaining complementary production and conservation
objectives;
« Emphasizes the importance of generating credits from
working farms; and
Expresses commitment to continued collaboration with
federal partners to expand water quality credit trading
opportunities throughout the Chesapeake Bay and the
nation.
A series of Trading Technical Memoranda that EPA has
developed, in consultation with a number of states within
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, can be shared with other
Regions and states to promote sound trading programs.
Contact Information:
Patricia Gleason
215-814-5740
gleason.patricia@epa.gov
46
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
w g
f j& Tribal Drinking Water Plan Review, Training,
-^0 Technical Assistance, and Outreach Program
Brief Description:
The practice consists of three key elements: review of plans,
training and technical assistance, and outreach to Tribal
leadership.
1. Plan Reviews: For plan reviews, Region 6 requested
that all Tribal water construction and modification project
plans go through the Regional Office for a courtesy review,
regardless of how the project is funded. Region 6 reviews
and provides comments to the Tribe, and to the Indian
Health Service (IMS) if it is an IMS-managed project, prior
to construction. For EPA funded projects, Region 6 has
an interagency agreement with IMS that the project be
submitted for EPA review. Region 6 conducts plan reviews
voluntarily and proactively, in the absence of regulatory
authority. This authority exists for state primacy agencies,
but not for EPA Regional Tribal Direct Implementation
programs. For projects not funded by EPA, the partnership
is informal and relies on a "gentleman's handshake" that
IMS and Tribes will provide EPA an opportunity to comment
before construction begins. The IMS, Tribes, consultants
and EPA's contractors all play a role in this effort by pro-
viding information about the projects at the facility level.
Region 6 began the Plan Review Program after determin-
ing that it was far cheaper in time and resources for all
parties (EPA, Tribes, IMS) to prevent improper construction
from occurring, than to react to it after a sanitary survey,
where funding is required to fix the issue, and enforcement
may have to get involved due to violations from improper
construction.
2. Training and Technical Assistance: Region 6 and
its contractors provide enhanced training and targeted
technical assistance to Tribes. Region 6 works with its con-
tractors to tailor trainings so that they are most useful for
Tribes. The Region's sanitary survey trainings help Tribes
prepare for a survey and then respond to the findings
after it is complete. Also, the Region leveraged its train-
ings with other Regions and entities (Inter-Tribal Council
of Arizona [ITCA] and Texas ASM Engineering Extension
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink
Type:
Assessment, Training, Technical Assistance
Highlights:
What: The EPA Region 6 Tribal Drinking Water
Program implemented a robust Plan Review Program
for new and modified water construction projects and
stepped up training, technical assistance and visibility
with Tribal leadership.
Who: The EPA Region 6 Tribal Drinking Water Program
in the Source Water Protection Branch, Water Division.
Why: The EPA Region 6's Water Division developed
its Tribal Drinking Water Plan Review, Training, and
Outreach Program as a result of finding deficiencies due
to improper construction to water treatment facilities
on Tribal lands during field visits, and to reduce Tribal
non-compliance due to poor design or construction.
Training and technical assistance are offered with
increased number of trainings and leveraging of training
opportunities with other Regions, which has enhanced
Region 6's training program.
Services [TEEX]) to provide more educational opportunities
for Tribes who cannot attend all of EPA's offerings.
3. Outreach to Tribal Leadership: Region 6 takes
a proactive effort in involving Tribal leadership early on
when water system issues start to appear. This includes
targeted phone calls and site visits, and also increased
presence at the quarterly Region 6 Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC) meetings where the Region provides
water system updates to leadership and hosts a confer-
ence exhibit to educate Tribal leaders on coliform sam-
pling and chlorine residuals. The Region's Water Division
collaborates regularly with its Tribal Affairs Office and
47
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
its Enforcement Division to make sure that the agency
maintains consistency helping the Tribes address water
system issues. Making Tribal leadership aware of water
system issues brings support to the operators who directly
improved compliance.
Current Status:
Region 6 plans on continuing to conduct plan reviews on
Tribal water projects, to develop and provide training and
technical assistance to Tribes, and to involve Tribal leadership
early on when water system issues arise.
Outcomes:
Region 6 believes that one of the outcomes of its effort has
been an improvement in Tribal compliance. The Region has
found that the percent of tribal population served by commu-
nity water systems that are in compliance with health-based
standards has improved to 89% compliance in Fiscal Year
2014 compared to 78% in Fiscal Year 2013.
Lessons learned/Recommendations:
All of elements of this practice are supported by all the
components of the Region's Source Water Protection Branch
and the Water Division. Cultivating a collaborative spirit is
important between the Technical Program, the Enforcement
Program and the Tribal Affairs Office to promote and harness
collaboration with Tribes at the leadership level as well as the
operator level. These practices can be replicated and imple-
mented by any Region. The only challenges would be finding
the resources (plan review engineers) and time to conduct
the plan reviews and working with experienced contractors
to develop and deliver training and technical assistance that
positively impact the Tribes.
Contact Information:
Kim Ngo
EPA Region 6
214-665-7158
48
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Pennsylvania Local Government
Tackles Water Pollution Sources
H Using a Public Utility Approach
Brief Description:
Broad Top Township is a rural community in Bedford County,
PA, with a population of approximately 2,000 residents. The
majority of the Township lies in the Long's Run Watershed.
Going back to the early 1990s, Long's Run had been severely
impaired by abandoned mine drainage (AMD) and bacteria
from malfunctioning private septic systems. Beginning in the
mid-1990s, Broad Top Township officials created a program
to improve the management of local septic systems. For
a service fee of $15 per month, the Broad Top Township
created its own utility to operate and maintain homeown-
ers' systems. By the mid-2000s, Broad Top had developed a
watershed-based plan and began installing passive treatment
systems such as limestone lined ponds and constructed wet-
lands to treat AMD. To install and maintain these systems in
the most cost effective manner, the Township hired 5 highly
trained staff. Where other municipal governments often bid
out public projects to contractors working for a profit, the
Township saves grant money by having its own staff do the
work.
The Township's work depends on state and federal grants,
which it aggressively pursues. According to Township Sec-
retary David Thomas, of the locality's roughly $2.5 million
annual budget, about $1 million is comprised of grants.
Since 2005, the Township has received over $3 million of Sec-
tion 319 Nonpoint Source Clean Water Act funds to design
and construct the passive treatment systems. Of that funding,
approximately $500,000 went toward restoration of Long's
Run. Funding from these grants was used to buy the materi-
als, rent special equipment and pay township workers to
complete the job. Township employees monitor the systems
and streams to check on how the systems are functioning
and to see if streams are improving. With access to equip-
ment and operators, the Township can perform any main-
tenance work needed to keep the system operational. Since
the Township built the infrastructure, it knows exactly how
everything functions. Up to now, the Township has used the
grant funds it has received primarily to fund new systems.
Subobjective:
Water Quality
Type:
Local Water Quality Restoration
Highlights:
What: A local Township in Pennsylvania (PA) created
its own utility to install and operate treatment systems
for homeowners' septic systems and address the im-
pacts of acid mine drainage on a local watershed.
Who: Township officials in Broad Top, PA, with EPA
Region 3 and PA Department of Environmental Protec-
tion support and guidance.
Why: The Township decided that it wanted to cost
effectively restore and protect its streams. Its lo-
cal watershed was severely impaired by abandoned
mine drainage (AMD) and bacteria from private septic
systems. The most effective approach was to provide
local leadership for both planning and implementing the
necessary controls. Developing and implementing the
watershed approach using a public utility model as a
guide provided the most cost effective process.
Once all the systems are installed, the Township will no lon-
ger need additional grant funds but will rely on its local utility
to protect its local water quality.
This Best Practice is unique in that a township, not a vol-
unteer watershed group, has led the efforts for watershed
restoration. The benefits of a township leading the cause is
infrastructure permanence with professional employees. EPA
hopes to see this idea expand to other localities.
Current Status:
Township officials continue to plan and install passive
treatment systems on abandoned mine lands throughout
49
-------
the locality. It has created a trust fund for the operation,
maintenance and repair of the existing systems. In 2015 the
Township plans to complete a 10-mile nature trail on a for-
mer railroad bed. Many watershed groups and other localities
contact Broad Top to understand how it does things so they
can try to follow its successful ways.
Outcomes:
Streams are improving within the vicinity of Broad Top Town-
ship. As a result of the Township's efforts, the Long's Run
tributary now meets designated water quality standards and
was delisted in Pennsylvania's 2014 integrated Section 303(d)
list of impaired waters.
Lessons Learned:
EPA Region 3 Nonpoint Source Program staff worked closely
with PADEP staff to assist Broad Top Township develop a Wa-
tershed Based Plan. EPA should continue to work strategically
with local leadership, who can often provide the most cost-
effective and sustainable path to restoring, protecting and
maintaining the nation's waters. Having the local govern-
ments involved in watershed restoration efforts, such as AMD
clean-up and septic system maintenance, can often be the
most cost effective approach to achieving improved water
quality. Many localities have the equipment and operators
to do much of the work that has to be completed to keep
pollution control systems working. They have permanent
professional employees to administer the grants, sample, and
monitor, and they have the vested interest in restoring local
waterways, both now and in the long term.
Contact Information:
Fred Suffian
215-814-5753
suffian.fred@epa.gov
50
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Enhancing the Availability of Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
^ Funds to States
Brief Description:
Several grant award and management processes were revised
to facilitate this best practice, including:
The SRF project officers in the Water Protection Division
work with the regional states to submit their application
packages as soon as possible after SRF grant award
amounts become available. Even 30 days earlier can make
a difference. Also, SRF project officers request states to
provide an estimated date for when the grant application
packages will be submitted. This allows for better planning
and coordination between the project officers and the
grant specialists.
An SRF grant application package includes a grant ap-
plication form with several attachments, the Intended Use
Plan, and the Project Priority List. Regional SRF project
officers review these documents independently, in draft,
and usually within 2 weeks of receipt. Previously, project
officers waited for a final complete package before initiat-
ing their review.
SRF project officers use a detailed checklist for what is
required in the grant application, Intended Use Plan and
Project Priority List. The checklist immediately identifies if
something is missing, as well as focuses the project offi-
cer's review. Also, if one project officer needs to complete a
review initiated by another project officer, the checklist fa-
cilitates this transition without adding delays that normally
occur from unexpected absences or conflicting priorities.
Another added benefit to the regional checklist is that it
includes most of the items that the Grants Office looks for
so that many potential comments are addressed before the
grants specialist completes his review.
All SRF Annual Reviews (called Advanced Monitoring for
other programs) are completed before June 30 of each
year so that project officers can focus on grant application
packages before the end of the federal fiscal year.
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink and Water Quality
Type:
Financial Management
Highlights:
What: Region 3 revised several grant management
processes in order to ensure that Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) allotments were awarded to
the states in the first year that the funds were available.
The Region has successfully awarded funds in the first
year for the past five years.
Who: Regional SRF Project Officers analyzed existing
practices and revised several processes to accelerate
review of grant application packages.
Why: By awarding funds in the first year that funds are
available, the Region has:
ensured state programs continue uninterrupted,
significantly reduce the threats of rescission and loss
of funds for the states,
significantly reduced the levels of Unliquidated
Obligations, and
state partnerships are improved.
After the first SRF Funding Recommendation (FR) is
completed each year, a template is continually updated
and available for the other project officers to use for their
respective grants, facilitating a quicker completion of this
complex document for future grants.
The Grants Office requests that every program complete a
"Year-End Grants Strategy" worksheet. This worksheet as-
sists the Grants Office in budgeting their time and resources.
51
-------
The worksheet ists all grant actions the program office
expects to forward between July 1 and September 30 of
each year, including new awards, increase amendments, time
extensions, and closeouts.
The Region 3 Grants Office has committed to reviewing and
providing comments on application packages within 30 days
of receipt. The SRF coordinators maintain frequent contact
with the SRF grant specialist during the busiest time for grant
awards to ensure that grant application packages are being
reviewed in the same order in both offices.
Outcomes:
The Region 3 CWSRF project officers successfully awarded
all funds in the first year of availability for the past five
years (2010-2014). The DWSRF Project Officers successfully
awarded all funds in the first year of availability for the past
four (2011-2014).
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
All Regions could adopt some or all of this new process to
facilitate a quicker review of grant application packages. By
awarding grants more quickly, as well as working with states
to improve their respective rates of drawing grant funds, the
Region has significantly reduced their unliquidated obligations.
Ensuring grants are awarded in the first year of availabil-
ity has improved state partnerships. States respond to the
Region's review comments very quickly because they have ex-
perienced the benefits of receiving the grant awards sooner.
Contact Information:
Magdalene Cunningham
215-814-2338
52
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Reducing Public Health Risks from Bromide
Through Integrated Use of Clean Water Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act Authorities
Brief Description:
EPA Region 3 sent a formal notification in August 2013 to
state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NP-
DES) program managers regarding the need for 1) accurate
characterization of bromide as a pollutant and implementa-
tion of discharge monitoring, 2) beyond-compliance settle-
ments holding grandfathered wastewater treatment facilities
to the same requirements as new facilities, 3) temporal and
geographic trends analysis to compare drinking water system
noncompliance and ambient water quality, and 4) disinfec-
tion byproduct formation research to identify intake bromide
levels of concern.
The research represents an innovative step toward providing
states with the science to support discharge limits protective
of downstream drinking water intakes even where ambient
water quality criteria have not been developed.
Region 3 is partnering with eight public water systems, all of
whom have sampled for a two-year period so that research-
ers can model and quantify the formation of brominated
disinfection byproducts associated with given intake bromide
levels. This research is conducted under the Regional Applied
Research Program and is supported by both the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory and the Region 3 Environ-
mental Science Center.
Current Status:
Utilities participating in the research have completed sam-
pling; data verification and validation are currently underway.
Model development is scheduled for spring 2015 and final
reporting is due by December 2015.
A number of public and private wastewater treatment facili-
ties, power plants, steel plants, and mines are now moni-
toring and reporting bromide discharges pursuant to new
monitoring requirements established by the Pennsylvania
Departments of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection in response
to Region 3's August 2013 notification.
Subobjective:
Water Safe to Drink
Type:
Monitoring, Partnership
Highlights:
What: An integrated strategy combining use of permit-
ting and enforcement authorities, total trihalomethane
(TTHM) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exceed-
ance analysis, and research to address point-source
discharges of bromide impacting drinking water quality
downstream.
Who: Led by EPA Region 3 in collaboration with states
and the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Why: Some people who drink water containing total
trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience liver, kidney, or central nervous system
problems and increased risk of cancer. The purpose of
the practice is to reduce public health risks from the
adverse impacts of TTHM, improve drinking water sys-
tem compliance with disinfection byproducts limits, and
enhance understanding of both discharges from point
sources of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and bromide
(a TDS constituent) and effects of bromide on TTHM
formation.
Outcomes:
Trends analysis, research into thresholds at which pollut-
ants cause problems for drinking water treatment systems,
enhanced monitoring through NPDES permits, and negoti-
ated pollutant control are tools that can be applied in other
areas where there is a need to protect public health from
the adverse impacts of a contaminant where ambient water
quality criteria are not in place. If the research is success-
ful in correlating source water bromide and brominated
disinfection byproduct formation, permit writers can use
53
-------
this science to support incorporation of bromide imits into
discharge permits. Increased discharge monitoring should
eventually allow inventory of all significant NPDES-permitted
bromide loadings in the region. Reductions in summertime
brominated disinfection byproducts in finished water for
Allegheny River drinking water systems are anticipated as
a result of the civil settlements that will reduce upstream
bromide discharges. Full implementation of settlement
requirements are projected to reduce bromide discharges
by over 1,000 Ibs/day, bringing monthly average ambient
bromide levels in the Allegheny to below 100 ug/l, even in
dry months. Pursuant to the administrative settlement, IDS
discharges at the three facilities will be reduced to 500 mg/l
after renewal of NPDES permits for the three facilities, for
which the operator submitted permit applications in 2013.
Region 3 has reviewed draft permits and PADEP is currently
revising permits in response to comments.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Coordination between drinking water and discharge pro-
grams is key in strategy development.
The potential for Public Water System operators to incur sig-
nificant drinking water treatment costs to address a problem-
atic pollutant can motivate them to support source reduction
efforts (in this case sound science to identify a threshold
value that may be used to support discharge permit limits)
Rapid expansion within an industrial sector can correlate to
significant increases in associated contaminants of concern,
requiring quick response if contaminants are to be addressed
Contact:
Angela McFadden
EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division
215-814-2324
54
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Massachusetts Designates No Discharge
Zone in Coastal Water through Novel
Stakeholder Agreement
Brief Description:
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act authorizes states to es-
tablish No Discharge Zones in which all treated and untreated
sewage discharges from recreational and commercial vessels
are prohibited, thereby providing a greater level of water
quality protection. The Act requires EPA to approve them
based on its determination that there are sufficient sewage
pump-out facilities to serve the area's boating population.
To date, approximately 3,947 square miles (or 59 percent) of
New England's 6,680 square miles of state coastal waters
have been designated as NDZ.
The primary obstacle to the NDZ designation for the remain-
ing area of Massachusetts coastal waters was that none of
the 15-16 ferries that regularly transit between Cape Cod and
the Martha's Vineyard Islands had sewage holding tanks and
there was no sewage pump-out infrastructure at any of the
ferry terminals. Most of the vessels used salt water for sew-
age treatment and needed to be retrofitted for fresh water
and holding tanks. Shore-side collection systems needed to
be built at the ferry terminals and connected to the local sew-
age systems. Each town in which the terminals were located
needed to ensure that their wastewater treatment system had
adequate capacity to accept the volume and flow of waste-
water from the ferries.
To address these problems, EPA and MCZM came up with
an innovative, voluntary agreement under which all coastal
waters around the lower Cape and the islands would be des-
ignated as NDZ in 2012, except for two "exclusionary" cor-
ridors, which were to be designated and closed by 2015. This
would allow about 99% of the total area to be designated
as NDZ, providing the clean water benefits associated with
reduced bacteria and pathogen discharges, while allowing
additional time for the ferry operators and research institu-
tions to complete the expensive retrofits and infrastructure.
It was a unique approach that was necessary because of the
high concentration of ferries operating between the Cape and
Islands, the relatively high cost of retrofitting all the ferries
(compared with small recreational vessels) and installing new
Subobjective:
Oceans and Coastal Protection
Type:
Partnership Agreement
Highlights:
What: In 2012, EPA and the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts came up with an innovative, voluntary
agreement under which all coastal waters around lower
Cape Cod and the Martha's Vineyard islands would be
designated as No Discharge Zone (NDZ) for 3 years, ex-
cept for two "exclusionary" corridors, which were to be
designated and closed by 2015. This allowed about 99%
of the total area to be designated as NDZ, providing the
clean water benefits associated with reduced bacteria
and pathogen discharges, while allowing additional
time for local ferry operators and research institutions
to complete the necessary retrofits and infrastructure.
Who: EPA Region 1, Massachusetts Office of Coastal
Zone Management (MCZM), Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, local ferry operators,
environmental groups, and municipal harbormasters.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution also were
involved due to their fleet of research vessels.
Why: Federal and state agencies were interested in
extending NDZ protection to the remaining areas of
undesignated coastal waters in Massachusetts.
shoreside infrastructure (most marinas and boatyards already
have pump-out facilities), and the fact that ferry service could
not be interrupted because they're the lifeline to thousands of
island residents and businesses.
Current Status:
In May 2014, EPA Region 1 designated as a No Discharge
55
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Zone (NDZ) for vessel sewage the last remaining areas of
undesignated coastal waters in Massachusetts. This action
seamlessly integrated the 20 individual NDZs that had previ-
ously been designated in Massachusetts since 1991 into a
single statewide NDZ.
Outcomes:
The May 2014 NDZ designation covered the two "exclusion-
ary" corridors between Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard and
the Cape and Nantucket for ferries to transit state waters
designated as NDZ while they were being retrofitted with
holding tanks, and necessary shore-side infrastructure was
being installed. The designation of the two corridors was a
success story in itself, because it allowed Massachusetts to
move closer to its goal of making all its coastal waters a NDZ,
while also giving the ferry operators time to retrofit their
vessels and install shore-side collection systems, and showed
a good faith effort by all parties to work together to meet
mutually beneficial goals.
Recommendations and Lessons Learned:
EPA and the Commonwealth worked closely with the com-
mercial ferry operators and municipal officials to address key
financial issues and complete the NDZ designation one year
ahead of the five-year schedule that was negotiated in 2010.
The ferry operators were very motivated to come into compli-
ance primarily because the rest of Massachusetts' coastal
waters were already designated, there was a lot of local
public support for the NDZ designation, and they would have
received a great deal of negative publicity if they had resisted.
While designating NDZs for areas with primarily recreational
boating is fairly straightforward, because there is a federally
authorized Clean Vessel Act grant program to fund the instal-
lation and maintenance of pump-out facilities, designating
areas with large numbers of commercial vessels that operate
in state waters is more difficult because of the high cost of
compliance for commercial operators. EPA and Massachusetts
tackled and solved this complex issue with a creative, innova-
tive approach that expedited the designation process while
enabling the ferry operators to make a positive contribution
to address the public's environmental concerns.
Contact:
Mel Cote
617-918-1553
cote.mel@epa.gov
56
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
EPA's Cross-Regional Sharing of Expertise
on Grants Management
Brief Description:
The key elements for this Best Practice are sharing informa-
tion and experience with other regions' staff through confer-
ence calls, e-mails and videoconferencing. The practice is
innovative in that Region 3 is reaching out nationally to help
its peers with specific issues. For some time, EPA's Region 3
has practiced team work and cross- divisional cooperation
within its own region, and is now taking this concept to the
national level. The Region has worked with Regions 4, 7 and
9 in the last year. Staff from the SAAP team spoke on several
occasions with project officers (PO) in Region 4 on several
grant-related issues regarding specific projects and grants.
In February 2014, the Region 3 team held a training session,
via teleconference, with Regions 4, 7, 9 and the field office
in Hawaii on procurement requirements. Several Region 3
staff have reviewed issues regarding land purchases and
disposition and addressed specific concerns as well as using
the National SAAP Coordinators' bimonthly call to further
address the issues.
Current Status:
The basic framework of the practice is simple. As issues
come up, Region 3 is available to speak with other POs and
management from other regions. As each training session
is wrapped up, Region 3 staff collaborate with the region
involved to plan for future training. On the National SAAP
coordinators calls, Region 3 makes themselves available for
assistance to anyone that asks.
Outcomes:
By implementing this Best Practice, information is getting
directly to the people that need it most, and in a timely
manner. Reading policies and regulations is one thing, but
discussing issues with project officers who have dealt with
the issues firsthand gives a much more realistic perspective.
This practice has definitely resulted in continual improve-
ments. For example, Region 9 requested the help of Region 3
with Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBF) requirements
on several grant project procurements. EPA contractors in the
Subobjective:
All
Type:
Grants Management
Highlights:
What: EPA's Region 3 is working with other regional
offices through one-on-one assistance and training to
share expertise on grants-related issues and processes.
Who: Region 3's Office of Infrastructure and Assistance
Special Appropriation Act Project (SAAP) team, with the
help of Emily Nicasio at EPA headquarters, developed
and implemented this Best Practice.
Why: During National SAAP coordinators conference
calls, questions were raised about different project
management issues. A discussion ensued that it would
be helpful if the regions could work together to educate
each other; Region 3 volunteered to begin the process
of helping other regions work together to resolve
programmatic and other issues. Regions 4, 7 and 9
requested help and Region 3 worked directly with each
of the three regions to address their issues.
field had reviewed the procurement process of several Cali-
fornia grantees and had indicated that further documentation
was needed to determine the contract eligibility. The younger
project officers in that region had many questions about the
DBF requirement process and turned to Region 3 for advice.
All the Region 3 SAAP project officers have over 25 years of
experience with procurement issues. Based on initial confer-
ence calls, which answered the immediate issues, the idea
of a teleconferencing training session on DBF requirements
was developed. This initial training session went so well
that a second one was held and more are planned for the
near future. Region 3 is working on developing a system to
expand this practice of mentor and mentee to all the regional
57
-------
offices. Each regional office has staff resources that have
strengths in different areas of project management. Matching
up the issue to the staff personnel should be easily attainable
both through the bimonthly Coordinators calls and group
e-mail requests. Region 3 will develop a reference resource of
project officers that will identify their areas of expertise to be
used by others.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Region 3 discovered in its conversations and training ses-
sions that there are areas of project management that are
confusing or that staff have no experience with in one region,
but is well understood and practiced in another region. The
exchange of information has shown the Region that assisting
other project officers, whether across the hall or across the
country, can increase productivity and also be very reward-
ing. This is a perfect example of "sharing the wealth." The
Region will continue to work with the other regional SAAP
coordinators to further develop this practice.
Contact Information:
Valerie Breznicky, 4-5765
58
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Appendix A: National Water Program FY 2014 End-of-
Year Performance Measure Commitments, Results, and
Status
I Strategic Measures in FY 2011-FY 2015 Strategic Plan
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014
EOY Result
Subobjective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink
FY 2014 EOY
Status
59
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014
EOY Result
FY2014EOY
Status
1,159
Subobjective 2.1.2: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
SS-1
Number and national percent, using a constant denominator, of Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) permits with a schedule incorporated into an appropriate enforceable mechanism,
ncluding a permit or enforcement order, with specific dates and milestones, including a
completion date consistent with Agency guidance, which reguires: 1) Implementation of
a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) which will result in compliance with the technology and
water guality-based reguirements of the Clean Water Act; or 2) implementation of any
other acceptable CSO control measures consistent with the 1994 CSO Control Policy; or 3)
completion of separation after the baseline date, (cumulative)
60
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014 FY2014EOY
EOY Result Status
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
61
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014
EOY Result
FY2014EOY
Status
4.5
62
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014 FY2014EOY
EOY Result Status
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
63
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014
EOY Result
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
FY 2014 EOY
Status
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
64
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014 FY2014EOY
EOY Result Status
Subobjective 2.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
65
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014
EOY Result
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
FY 2014 EOY
Status
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
131
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restore the Pacific Island Territories
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
66
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
FY14ACS
Code
FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance Measures
FY2014
National
Commitment
FY2014 FY2014EOY
EOY Result Status
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
67
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Appendix B: Performance Measurement Changes from
FY 2013 to FY 20148
ACS Code
Abbreviated Measure Description
Change in FY 2014
Water Safe to Drink
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Wetlands
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Columbia River
8 Explanation of changes to performance measures from F Y 2013 to FY 2014 can be found in Appendix C of the FY 2014 National Water Program Guidance, April
2012. http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning/FY-2014-National-Water-Program-Guidance.cfm
68
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Appendix C: Methodology for Measuring Ambitiousness
of Regional Commitments
This methodological description supplements the description provided in the Overview chapter of the report. EPA used three
methods to evaluate the relative ambitiousness of regional commitments for a set of 28 performance measures.9 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 2014 regional commitments and FY 2014 national commitments.
The difference between FY 2014 regional commitments and FY 2013 regional results.
For each commitment expressed in numeric units, EPA computed:
FY 2014 regional commitments as a percentage of FY 2014 regional universes for all measures with numeric commitments and
results.
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 commit-
ting 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 2012
and 2013 data for the same set of measures.
Figure 1, below, shows the range and distribution of the FY 2014 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.10 For
example, by examining the gray box at the far left, we see that the middle 50% of Region 2's measures had a ranking
between 2 and 6. On the other hand, at the far right, we see that Region 7's middle 50% is lower, ranging from 4 to 8.
Light gray lines. The light gray ines represent the median rank within each region. Fifty percent of all measures rank at
or above the median.
9 The Office of Water 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 LAEs and place-based programs that are often reported by only one or
two regions.
10 This middle 50% of values is typically called the "interquartile range" in statistics.
69
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Red dashed lines. Each dashed red line 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 mea-
sures.
Figure 1: Weighted Ambitiousness Ranks, By Region and Measures (FY 2014)
1
2
0 3-
3
CD
CD
5 4-1
c
cc
CC 5J
c
W 6-
,g
E 74
-a
£
.a
I
9
10
R5
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 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.
70
-------
National Water Program Best Practices and End of Year Performance Report Fiscal Year 2014
Table 1: Number of Measures and Rankings By Region and Year
2013
2014
Region
R2
R5
R3
R8
R10
R6
R9
R4
R1
R7
# of Measures
Ranked
28
28
23
26
28
27
28
28
27
26
Average
Weighted Rank
(Across
Measures)
4.71
3.71
5.39
4.67
4.96
5.43
4.79
5.71
6.19
5.29
Overall
Ambitiousness
Rank
3
1
7
2
5
8
4
9
10
6
# of Measures
Ranked
28
28
23
26
28
27
28
28
27
26
Average
Weighted Rank
(Across
Measures)
4.14
4.20
4.35
4.83
5.00
5.06
5.16
5.66
5.74
6.33
Overall
Ambitiousness
Rank
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
For the same set of measures used to assess commitment ambitiousness, EPA also developed regional rankings for the per-
centage of commitments met for FY 2013 and FY 2014. Because this ambitiousness analysis focused only on a subset of the
Office of Water's measures, the rankings for commitments met may be different than those presented elsewhere in this report
(for instance, see Figure 9 in the Overview chapter of the report). This approach helps ensure appropriate comparability, for
this analysis, between the ambitiousness ranks and commitments-met ranks. EPA compared the rankings for ambitiousness
and commitments met 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.
I
71
-------
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper that has been manufactured with Wind Power
------- |