Office of Water
National Water Program
Performance, Trends
and Best Practices Report
Fiscal Year 2015
. v
June 2016
-------
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Key Changes in FY 2015 4
Performance Results and Recent Trends 6
Regional Performance 19
Regional Ambitiousness 20
Tribal Measures 23
National Water Program FY 2015 Best Practices 24
New England Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program 25
Real-Time Water Quality Buoy Data Website 27
Reducing Land-Based Aquatic Trash Pollution 29
Chesapeake Bay Watershed States Data Sharing Program 31
Communicating Successful SRF Projects 33
Nonpoint Source Watershed Web Application 35
Monitoring Water Quality at Proctor Creek, An Urban Waters Success Story 37
Little Rock: Main Street Redevelopment Using Green Infrastructure 39
Promoting Energy Management for Water and Wastewater Utilities 40
Delaware Drinking Water Asset Management Grant Program 41
Ambassadors-A Framework for Promoting Long-term Productive Partnerships 42
-------
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
National Water Program FY 2015 Performance Results
Executive Summary
This report presents performance results and trends for the
National Water Program using FY 2015 end-of-year data
reported by states, tribes, and EPA regional and headquarters
offices.
The report includes three key elements:
« An overview of FY 2015 national performance results
and trends for all National Water Program measures,
* Highlights of performance trends for a subset of key
performance measures, and
» Descriptions of innovative approaches and best practices
in program implementation.
Additional information on performance is available at the
National Water Program's performance webpage.1
Overview
The EPA's National Water Program (NWP) tracks 108 per-
formance measures, 78 of which are commitment measures
with specified annual targets. Commitment measures are
further divided into two categories: 1) outcome measures,
which are tied to environmental or public health impacts
described in the EPA Strategic Plan, and 2) program activity
measures, which track the outputs resulting from program
implementation by EPA, states and tribes. For example, the
number of permits issued or inspections undertaken are
output measures. The remaining 30 measures are program
activity measures that are designated as indicator measures,
which do not have annual performance commitments.
For FY 2015 the NWP improved its performance with regard
to its outcome measures, meeting 87.5% compared to a
historic (2010-2014) range of 63% to 76%, and also met
100% (10 out of 10) of its Tribal Commitments. However,
looking at all commitment measures, 68% met their targets,
21% did not meet their targets, and for the remaining 12% of
the measures, data were not available or were not reported
at the time this report was published. These results represent
a decrease in the number of measures that met their commit-
ments, down from 82.9% in 2014.
However, due to the high proportion of measures with data
not available, it is difficult to compare the performance of FY
2015 to FY 2014, which had data for all measures. In addition,
previous to 2015, end of year results had been compared to
the aggregate of regional commitments, and not the budget
targets in the EPA Congressional Justification2. In an effort
to improve transparency and accountability, for FY 2015 and
future fiscal years, end of year results in 2015 and in the future
are being compared to the budget targets and not the aggre-
gate of regional commitments.
1 https://www.epa.gov/water-plann ing-evaluation
2 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2017
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Introduction
This report describes the progress made in fiscal year 2015
(FY 2015) toward the objectives and subobjectives described
in the FY 2015 National Water Program Guidance (NWPG)
and the EPA Strategic Plan.
EPA's Strategic Plan is divided into five goals. The National
Water Program addresses Goal 2, "Protecting America's
Waters." Each goal is divided into objectives and subobjec-
tives (see Figure 1). EPA has developed 108 performance
measures and indicators, which address all 15 subojectives,
to monitor its progress towards protection of America's
waters. These measures can be further divided into two cat-
egories: outcome measures and program activity measures
(PAMs).
Outcome measures: Measures of environmental or
public health changes (i.e., outcomes) that include long-
range and, in most cases, annual commitments in the
FY 2015 NWPG. These are measures where the Agency
believes new or significant changes in strategies or perfor-
mance measurement is most critical to helping EPA better
achieve and measure environmental and human health.
PAMs: Core water PAMs (i.e., output measures) address
activities implemented by EPA, states, and tribes that
administer national programs (e.g., tracking the number of
permits issued or the number of inspections undertaken).
They are the basis for monitoring progress in implement-
ing programs to accomplish the environmental goals in
the Agency's Strategic Plan. Most but not all PAMs have
associated commitments; those without commitments are
referred to as indicators.
This report includes three key elements:
An overview of FY 2015 national performance results and
trends for all National Water Program measures,
* Highlights of performance trends for key commitment
measures, and
Descriptions of innovative approaches and best practices
in program implementation.
Additional information on the performance highlights and
challenges for each subobjective area is available online at:
http://water.epa.gov/resource_performance/performance/. In
addition, the website includes an overview of the National
Water Program measure universe and a detailed appendix
with historical data on national and regional commitments
and results for all performance measures.
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 1. EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2: Protect America's Waters
r A
EPA's 2014-2018
.
Strategic Plan
Goal 2: Protecting
America's Waters
J
Objective 1: Protect Human Health
Safe Drinking Water
Fish and Shellfish
\
Objective 2: Protect and Restore Watersheds
and Aquatic Ecosystems
^ ^
Water Quality
Wetlands
Safe Swimming
Coastal/Ocean
U.S./Mexico Border
Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
South Florida
Columbia River
Puget Sound
Pacific Islands
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Key Changes in FY 2015
The FY 2015 NWPG Addendum and this report include several changes in performance measures compared to the FY 2014
Best Practices and End-of-Year Performance Report. Some of the key changes to performance measures for certain subobjec-
tives are noted below:
Great Lakes Program: Six performance measures were added and two were modified in FY 2015 to be consistent with the
new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.
Chesapeake Bay: A new measure (CB-05.N14) has been added to track the attainment of water quality standards and
to track progress toward Presidential Executive Order 13508 (Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration). This measure
replaced two previous measures: percent of submerged aquatic vegetation (CB-SP33) and percent of oxygen dissolved
(CB-SP34).
The South Florida Ecosystem: The NWP deleted a measure that tracked the improvement of water quality in the Everglades
ecosystem (SFL-SP48) and replaced it with a measure that tracks incremental progress of Everglades Stormwater Treatment
Areas (SFL-02).
Drinking Water Program: Two drinking water measures were added. SDW-20 was proposed to provide greater consistency
in measuring progress of tribal community water systems within the full universe of community water systems. SDW-21
was added to track the number of utilities and government officials.
Water Quality: A new Urban Waters measure (WQ-25b) was created to track the number of urban water projects com-
pleted. In addition, two new TMDL measures were added: WQ-27 tracks efforts to identify and restore impaired waters,
and WQ-28 measures the activities to restore and protect impaired waters. These measures were created to replace one
measure tracking the number of TMDLs established by states and approved by EPA (WQ-08a) and another that tracked the
number of TMDLs established and approved by EPA on a schedule consistent with national policy (WQ-08b).
In addition, this report reflects a change in the methodology used when comparing end of year results against targets. Histori-
cally, end of year results were compared to the aggregate of regional commitments, and not the budget targets in the EPA
Congressional Justification.3 In an effort to improve transparency and accountability, for FY 2015 and future fiscal years, end of
year results will now be compared to the budget targets and not the aggregate of regional commitments.
Over the course of 8 years, the National Water Program has worked toward a smaller and more meaningful set of measures
and has strived to align its focus areas with what is important to EPA headquarters, EPA regions, states, and tribes. The
National Water Program deleted 16 measures, modified six measures, and added 13 measures in its FY 2015 NWPG
Addendum.4 As a result, the total number of performance measures decreased from 111 in FY 2014 to 108 in FY 2015 (see
Figure 2).
3 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2017
4 https://www.epa.gov/water-planning-evaluation/fy-2015-national-water-program-guidance-addendum
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 2. Number of Performance Measures Over Time
2008
2009
2010
2011 2012
Fiscal Year
2013
2014
2015
Commitment
Indicator
Total
Linear (Total)
Of the 108 measures, 55 are part of EPA's Congressional Justification. These "budget" measures are a subset that helps to
show EPA's progress toward the strategic objectives of protecting human health and improving water quality on a watershed
basis. More information about the 55 measures can be found in EPA's FY2015 Annual Performance Report.5 The budget mea-
sures are identified with an asterisk in the heat maps shown in the "National Water Program Long-Term Performance Trends"
section later in this document.
5 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy-2015-annual-performance-report
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Performance Results and Recent Trends
National Performance for Commitment Measures
The FY 2015 results represent a decrease in the number of commitment measures that met their targets compared to FY 2014.
Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of results between met, not met, and data not available.
Two noteworthy highlights:
In FY 2015, the NWP met 87.5% of the 16 measures aligned to the strategic plan. This is an increase from previous years;
from 2010-2014, measures met ranged between 63%-76%.
The NWP met 100% of its Tribal Commitments; all ten of its tribal performance measures were met.
Figure 3. National FY 2015 Performance for its 78 Commitment Measures
i Met Data not available Not Met
Trend data shows that between 2010 and 2015, the NWP has averaged about 74% measures met (range 69%-83%),
22% not met (range 17%-29%), and 4% with data not available or not reporting (range 0%-12%), see Figure 4.
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 4. FY 2010-FY 2015 Commitment Measures Performance Trend
(78 measures for FY 2015)
-Not Met
Data not
available
i Met
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Performance by Subobjective
Figure 5 shows the number of measures for each of the 15 subojectives.
Figure 5. Number of Performance Measures Per Subobjective
Water Quality
Drinking Water
Great Lakes
South Florida
Coastal and Ocean
Long Island Sound
Chesapeake Bay
Wetlands
Fish and Shellfish
Mexico Border
Safe Swimming
Gulf of Mexico
Puget Sound
Columbia River
Pacific Islands
37 measures
20 measures
10 measures
6 measures
6 measures
4 measures
4 measures
4 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
3 measures
2 measures
2 measures
1 measure
National
Place-
based
10
20
30
40
As shown in Figure 5, Water Quality has the largest share of performance measures at 34%; Drinking Water is next with 19%;
and the Great Lakes is third with 9%. The remaining 38% of the measures were spread among the other 12 subobjectives.
See the blue line in Figure 6. Seventy-three measures, or 70% of all commitment measures, pertain to core water programs
(e.g., water quality or safe swimming) and 35 measures (30%) track progress in large aquatic ecosystems (LAEs) or geographic
programs (e.g., Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay).
In FY 2015, 71% of commitments were met for the LAEs or geographic programs. The number of national core program
measures that met their targets decreased from 92% of commitments met in FY 2014 to 66% in FY 2015. Figure 6 shows the
FY 2015 results by Subobjective.
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 6. Commitment Measures Met and Not Met by Subobjective
Fish and Shellfish
Wetlands
Pacific Islands
Coastal and Ocean
Mexico Border
Columbia River
Great Lakes
Drinking Water
Water Quality
Long Island Sound
South Florida
Puget Sound
Gulf of Mexico
Safe Swimming
Chesapeake Bay
£
D0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Met
Data Not Available
Met
Percent of Total Commitment Measures
Commitments were fully met for six of 15 subobjectives (Fish and Shellfish, Wetlands, Pacific Islands, Coastal and Ocean,
Mexico Border and Columbia River), representing 19 measures.
National Water Program Long-Term Performance Trends
The next figures, referred to as heat maps, illustrate the performance history, for different subobjectives over an eight-year
period (FY 2008 to FY 2015). The heat maps below indicate whether or not the measure was met in a given year and report
the actual result for that measure. The colors on the map represent the commitment status; green for commitment met,
orange for commitment not met, blue for performance indicators, gray for data not available or not reporting, and white for
measures not in existence in a given year. Below each heat map is a discussion of key points for different subobjectives.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 7: Heat Map for Objective 2.1 - Water Safe to Drink, Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat,
and Water Safe for Swimming
ACS PERS
Code Code
SDW-211*
SDW-
SP1.N11*
SDW-SP2*
SDW-
SP3.N11*
SDW-20
SDW-SP4a
SDW-SP4b
SDW-18.N11
SDW-01a*
SDW-01b
SDW-04*
SDW-05
SDW-07*
SDW-08*
SDW-11
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Results and Commitment Status
= Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
apm
dw2
Percent "person months" with CWSs safe
standards
Percent population served by CWSs Indian
country
Percent "person months" with CWSs safe
standards in Indian country
dw6
aph
ape
aps
apt
Percent population served by CWSs
Percent CWSs meeting safe standards
Percent CWSs and source water protection
Percent Population and source water
protection
Number Indian & Alaska Native homes
provided safe drinking water
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 (cumulative)
Percent DWSRF projects awarded to small
PWS
SDW-15
Number/Percent small CWS w/health-based
violations
SDW-17
Number/Percent schools/childcare meet safe
standards
SDW-19a
Volume of CO2 sequestered through injection
SDW-19b
SDW-21
FS-SP6.N11'
FS-1a
FS-1b
SS-SP9.N11
SS-1
SS-2
Number of permit decisions that result in CO2
sequestered through injection
Number of utilities and officials receiving
training and technical assistance
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
fs1
Percent Women and mercury blood levels
Percent River miles fish consumption advisory
Percent Lake acres fish consumption advisory
39%
43%
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
Percent beach days safe for swimming
36%
42%
ming
36%
42%
NA
NA
36%
42%
Number enforceable long-term CSO control
plan with specific dates and milestones in
place (cumulative)
Percent significant public beaches monitored
95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 95%
693 724 734 748 758 775 785
98% 99% 100% 100% 98% 98% 99%
10
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.1
Protect Public Health
EPA met 80% of its commitments for all drinking water measures with reported results in FY 2015. Among the highlights are
the following:
94% of the cumulative amount of Drinking Water State Revolving Funds available had loan agreements in place (commit-
ment 89%). EPA has met its commitment for this measure eight years in a row.
The cumulative number of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund projects that have initiated operations increased to 8,625
(previous commitment was 8,251).
90% of community water systems met all applicable health-based standards through approaches that include effective
treatment and source water protection.
95.9 % (versus a commitment of 95%) of "Person-Months" (i.e. all persons served by community water systems times
12 months), during which community water systems provided drinking water, met all applicable health-based drinking
water standards.
Improve Drinking Water and Water Quality on American Indian Lands
Safe drinking water and water quality on tribal lands continues to be a concern for the NWP. Some key highlights and
challenges include:
Approximately 88% of the population in Indian country was served by community water systems with drinking water that
met all applicable health-based drinking water standards (commitment 77%).
EPA, in coordination with other federal agencies, provided over 81,081 American Indian and Alaska Native homes with
access to basic sanitation.
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 8. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis,
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters, and Increase Wetlands
ACS PERS
Code Code
WQ-
SP12.N11*
WQ-
SP13.N11
WQ-
SP14a.N11
WQ-
SP14b.N11
WQ-24.N11
WQ-01a
WQ-26
WQ-02
WQ-03a*
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-06a
WQ-06b
WQ-09a*
WQ-09b*
WQ-09c*
WQ-10
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Number causes of waterbody impairment
removed (cumulative)
Results and Commitment Status
= Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
Number impaired watersheds improved water
quality (cumulative)
2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 2014 | 2015
7,530 8,446 9,527 11,134 11,754 12,288 12,640
104 168 271 332 376 411 450
Maintain and Improve nation's stream
conditions
wq7
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
bpw
bpp
bpg
bpf
bph
bpj
Number of numeric nutrient water quality
standards approved or promulgated by EPA
(cumulative)
Number states/territories implementing
nutrient reduction strategies (cumulative)
Number Tribes with approved water quality
standards (cumulative)
56,875 63,087 69,783 75,140 81,080
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 (cumulative)
Number Tribes providing water quality data
(cumulative)
Number pounds nitrogen reduced from non-
point sources (millions)
Number pounds phosphorus reduced from
non-pount sources (millions)
Number tons sediment reduction reduced
from non-point sources (millions)
Number NPS-impaired waterbodies restored
(cumulative)
Number/Percent NPDES follow-up actions
completed (cumulative)
Number/Percent Nontribal NPDES permits
current
196 214 224 228 248
171 184 193 199 221
12.8 10.5 10.4 11.3
4.8 4.4 3.5 2.7
2.0 1.0 1.2 1.7
358 433 504 560 604
90% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90%
Number/Percent Tribal permits current
Number facilities covered by MS-4 permit
6,541 6,919 6,952 6,888 7,774 7,851
WQ-13b
WQ-13c
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
WQ-14b
WQ-17*
Number facilities covered by industrial storm
water permit
Number facilities covered by construction
storm water permit
81,660
88,788
84,718
87,060
94,447
93,042
200,732
186,874
168,744
166,031
158,525
164,494
Number facilities covered by CAFO permit
7,900
7,882 7,994 7,587 6,684 6,946
Number/Percent POTWs SI Us control
mechanisms in place
Number/Percent POTWs ClUs control
mechanisms in place
bpb
CWSRF Fund utilization rate
12
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 8. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis,
Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters, and Increase Wetlands (cont'd)
ACS PERS
Code Code
WQ-19a*
WQ-19b*
WQ-22a
WQ-23*
WQ-25a*
Results and Commitment Status
bpv
Opb
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Number high priority state NPDES permits
= Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
Number high priority state & EPA NPDES
permits
2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015
1,309 1,008 943 850 404 516 506
1,118 1,063 1,005 925 449 556 547
Number regions completed Healthy
Watershed Initiative strategy
Percent Alaska homes access to drinking
water & sanitation
Number urban water projects initiated
uw1 addressing water quality issues in the
community
Number of urban water projects completed
WQ-25b* uw2 addressing water quality issues in the
community
WQ-27*
WQ-28
bpx
Percent priority areas retored to achieve water
quality standards
Percent state-wide activities leading to
completed TMDLs, restoration of impaired
waters, or protection of unimpaired waters.
CO-222.N11
CO-
SP20.N11*
CO-02
CO-04
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
P2
co5
Improve coastal aquatic system health (index)
Percent ocean dumping sites acceptable
conditions
Number coastline miles protected vessel
sewage (cumulative)
Rate of return federal investment for NEP
(million dollars)
33,966,98
514
CO-06
CO-432.N11'
WT-SP22*
WT-01*
WT-02a
WT-03
Number active dredged material sites
monitored annually
38
202
Number additional NEP acres habitat
| protected or restored
114,579 127,594 93,557 111,584
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
4E
4G
No net loss of wetlands
Number wetland acres restored and enhanced
(cumulative)
No Net No Net No Net No Net No Net No Net No Net
Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss
103,507 130,000 154,000 180,000 207,000 221,000 275,555
Number states/tribes increased wetland
program capacity in one or more core
elements
Percent CWA 404 permits with greater
environ, protection
22
47
54
88%
44
85%
37
78%
36
77%
30
85%
13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.2
Restore and Improve Fresh Waters, Coastal and Ocean Waters, and Wetlands
EPA met 67% of its commitments under the Water Quality objective in FY 2015 and either did not meet or data was
unavailable for 19% and 15% of the measures, respectively. The percentage of commitments met decreased in FY 2015
over the FY 2014 results (93%). Performance highlights include:
For the eighth consecutive year, EPA and states achieved the national commitment of having current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits in place for non-tribal facilities (FY 2015 commitment = 85%, result = 87%).
EPA and authorized states were also successful in meeting the national commitment of issuing high-priority permits, with
547 permits issued (commitment 526).
EPA and states made significant gains in documenting the full or partial restoration of waterbodies impaired primarily by
nonpoint sources. Nationally, EPA exceeded its commitment (600), reaching a cumulative 604 waterbodies documented as
partially or fully restored.
The Clean Water SRF utilization rate reached 98% in 2015.
The 28 National Estuary Programs and their partners protected or restored 111,584 acres of habitat within the NEP study
areas in 2015-11,584 acres above the goal of 100,000. This is an improvement to lastyear's performance, as they missed
the goal of 100,000 by almost 6,000 acres.
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 275,555 acres have been restored and enhanced
since 2002.
New measures are under development to track restoration of previously impaired surface waterbodies. EPA and the states
are encountering significant hurdles to tracking progress of waterbody restoration using existing measures. Current mea-
sures compare the number of restored waterbodies to the number of waters that states listed as impaired in section 303(d)
reports prepared in 2002. As a result, these measures do not capture progress achieved for more recently-listed waters.
For the second time in seven years, states and territories did not meet the national target of meeting water quality stan-
dards for formerly impaired waterbodies (FY 2015 target = 4,016, result = 3,944).
For the first time in seven years, EPA failed to meet its national cumulative target of removing specific causes of waterbody
impairments identified by states in 2002 (FY 2015 target = 12,788, result 12,640).
14
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 9. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Geographic Programs
ACS PERS Abbreviated Measure
Code Code Description
GL-SP31*
GL-05*
GL-09*
GL-17*
GL-18*
GL-19*
GL-21*
GL-22*
CB-05.N14
CB-SP35*
CB-SP36*
CB-SP37*
GM-SP38*
GM-SP39*
GM-
SP40.N11
LI-SP41*
LI-SP42.N11
LI-SP43*
LI-SP44*
Results and Commitment Status
= Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Subobjective 2.2.4 Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
625
Number Areas of Concern (AOCs) with all
management actions implemented
(cumulative)
Number Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs)
removed (cumulative)
Response plans established, response
GL-07* 629 |exercises, and/or response actions
(cumulative)
628
Number acres managed for populations of
invasive species controlled to a target level.
(cumulative)
638
Projected percent phosphorus reductions from
GLRI-funded projects in targeted watersheds
639
640
Projected volume of untreated urban runoff
captured or treated by GLRI-funded projects.
(Cumulative)
Number of miles of Great Lakes tributaries
reopened by GLRI-funded projects
(cumulative)
Number of miles of GL shoreline and riparian
GL-20* 641 corridors protected, restored, and enhanced
by GLRI-funded projects. (Cumulative)
642
643
Number of acres of GL coastal wetlands
protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-
funded projects. (Cumulative)
Number of acres of other habitats in the Great
Lakes basin protected, restored, and
enhanced by GLRI-funded projects.
(Cumulative)
13,045 31,474 35,924 84,500 101,392
Subobjective 2.2.5 Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay
cb6
cb7
cb8
Percent attainment of water quality standards
in Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries.
Percent Bay nitrogen reduction practices
implemented
Percent Bay phosphorus reduction practices
implemented
Percent Bay sediment reduction practices
implemented
Subobjective 2.2.6 Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico
xg1
xg2
22c
Number of impaired Gulf water segments and
habitat restored (cumulative)
Number of Gulf Acres restored or enhanced
(cumulative)
Reduce hypoxic zone Gulf of Mexico (sq
kilometrs)
Percent reduction Long Island Sound nitrogen
Reduce Long Island Sound hypoxic zone (sq
miles)
Number acres Long Island Sound coastal
habitat restored
Number miles river and streams for fish
passage reopened
8,000 20,000 17,520 7,483 15,120 13,080 10,419
Subobjective 2.2.7 Restore and Protect the Long Island Sound
15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 9. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Geographic Programs (cont'd)
ACS PERS
Code Code
Abbreviated Measure
Description
= Met = Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met | = Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Subobjective 2.2.8 Restore and Protect the Puget Sound
PS-
SP49.N11*
PS-SP51*
ps1
ps3
Number acres of Puget Sound shellfish areas
improved (cumulative)
Number acres of Puget Sound estuarine
wetlands restored (cumulative)
Subobjective 2.2.9 Sustain and Restore the U.i
MB-SP23*
MB-
SP24.N11*
MB-
SP25.N11*
4pg
xb2
xb3
Number million pounds BOD loadings
removed Mexico Border (cumulative)
Number additional Mexico Border homes
access to safe drinking water
Number additional Mexico Border homes
access to adequate sanitation
Subobjective 2.2.10 Sustain and Restc
PI-SP26*
pi1
Percent Pacific Islands population served by
CWS
5,751 10,062 14,629 23,818 30,128 41,006 43,002
1,584 21,650 2,604 5,185 3,400 1,468 878
43,594 75,175 259,371 31,092 25,695 12,756 44,070
Subobjective 2.2.11 Restore and Prote
SFL-SP45
SFL-SP46
SFL-SP47a*
SFL-SP47b*
SFL-1
SFL-2*
-
-
sf3
sf4
-
sf6
Achieve no net loss in South Florida stony
coral
Maintain health of South Florida sea grass
Percent South Florida monitoring stations
maintain coastal water quality for chlorophyll a
& light clarity
Percent South Florida monitoring stations
maintain coastal water quality for nitrogen and
phosphorous
Increase percent sewage treatment systems
receiving advanced wastewater treatment in
Florida Keys
The number (STAs) with (TP) outflow less
than or the same as the five-year annual
average TP outflow
Subobjective 2.2.12 Restore and Pro
CR-SP53
CR-SP54
-
-
Number acres Columbia River contaminated
sediments cleaned up (cumulative)
Percent reducuction Columbia River
contaminants in water & fish (cumulative)
a Ecosystem
No Net
Loss
Not
Maintained
7%
m,in,,in,d
No Net
Loss
maintained
7%
Maintained
16
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
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 summaries are highlights and challenges for each LAE or place-based
program with performance measures in the FY 2015 NWPG\
U.S.-Mexico Border
Infrastructure construction project completions through FY 2015 resulted in the removal of 142.9 million pounds of
biochemical oxygen demand loadings annually from the U.S.-Mexico border area, more than its commitment of 141.1
million pounds.
EPA provided access to safe drinking water for 878 additional homes along the U.S.-Mexico border. This was above the
annual goal of 600 additional homes.
EPA provided adequate wastewater sanitation to 44,070 additional homes over the past year, which was above the
FY 2015 goal of 40,750 additional homes. The program continues to identify opportunities for expediting construction
schedules whenever feasible, resulting in the FY 2015 completion of a project originally scheduled to be completed in
FY 2016. In addition, preliminary connection estimates on a large project were exceeded and additional homes in need
of services were connected.
U.S. Pacific Island Waters
98% 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 throughout the year, compared with the commitment of 80%.
Great Lakes
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, EPA and its partners removed 42 Beneficial Use Impair-
ments (benchmarks of environmental harm) in 17 Areas of Concern quadrupling the number of Beneficial Use Impair-
ments removed in the preceding 22 years.
Through FY 2015, EPA and its partners also protected, restored, and enhanced almost 150,000 acres of wetland, coastal,
upland, and island habitat across the Great Lakes Basin, exceeding the FY 2015 commitment of 134,000 acres for these
measures.
The Great Lakes program continues to work to address the challenge of reducing phosphorus loadings that contribute to
harmful algal blooms.
Chesapeake Bay
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. All jurisdictions are on-track to meet the short-
term TMDL goal to have practices in place by 2017 that will result in 60% of phosphorus reductions; four jurisdictions are
on target for nitrogen and four for sediment reductions.
EPA is working with jurisdictions to accelerate the pace of nitrogen and sediment reductions and is taking actions where
necessary, such as objecting to permits, increasing enforcement and directing grants to priority agriculture and stormwater
sectors.
17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico Program continues to strive toward its cumulative target to restore, protect, or enhance 30,800 acres of
coastal and marine habitats.
Previously funded projects resulted in 255 acres restored for a cumulative 30,574 acres. The program also restored 411
impaired segments in FY 2015.
EPA continues to work with states and partners in the region to identify restoration projects as the gulf recovers from the
BP oil spill.
Long Island Sound
The Long Island Sound Program restored or protected 1,678 acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes,
riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands as of FY 2015.
In FY 2015 there was a 40% decrease in the hypoxic zone from the pre-TMDL baseline and a reduction of 40 million
pounds of nitrogen from point sources.
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 2015.
Water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS showed some improvement in 2015, 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.
The goal to upgrade all wastewater facilities is 80% complete.
The South Florida program is challenged to continue long-term (twenty year) monitoring, the Special Studies research
program, and water quality planning grants.
Puget Sound Basin
The effects of climate change negatively impact salmon habitat and shellfish production in the Puget Sound area.
Nevertheless, as of the end of FY 2015, 43,002 acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands have been
restored in the Puget Sound Basin since FY 2006 and water quality has been improved in these areas. In addition,
143,000 acres of shellfish beds were protected for safe harvesting in FY 2015.
Columbia River Basin
The Columbia River Program has cleaned up a total of 89 acres of contaminated sediment in the Lower Columbia River
as of the end of FY 2015. These cleanups provide a significant contribution to reducing toxins in the Columbia River. EPA
measured a 90% reduction in contaminants of concern in the water and fish at several key sites on the Columbia River.
18
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Regional Performance
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, 68% of performance commitments set by the EPA regional offices for
activities in their geographic areas were met in 2015, while an average of 8% of commitments were missed, and 24% of the
data was unavailable. All regions (except regions 7, 5, and 1) saw a decrease in commitments met in FY 2015 and an increase
in the amount of data unavailable.
Regional performance has varied significantly over the last seven years (see Figure 10 below); 77% - 95% of performance
commitments set by the EPA regional offices were met between FY 2010 and FY 2015. This variation results from a number
of challenges facing each region in meeting its commitments or providing data on the measures. Below are four examples of
challenges that can keep regions from meeting their commitments:
Grant cycles do not align with the NWP reporting cycle and therefore appear as data not available at the time of reporting.
Project plans are delayed until after the NWP reporting period has ended; regions, therefore, do not meet their commit-
ment unti the following fiscal year, consequently, reporting results in an unintended fiscal year.
Progress for some measures is not inear; meaning, progress is dependent on external factors such as weather and sea-
sons, and therefore it is difficult to forecast commitments.
Results for some measures are only available once a year making it difficult to monitor progress.
Figure 10. FY 2010-FY 2015 Average Percent Commitments Met/Not Met by Region
10% 20%
30%
i Met
40% 50% 60%
Data not available
70% 80%
Not Met
90% 100%
19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Regional Ambitiousness
For many years, the NWP has published the percentage of commitments met and not met nationally and by regions in its
End-of-Year reports. 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 NWP 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.6 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 2015 regional commitments and FY 2015 national commitments, and
The difference between FY 2015 regional commitments and FY 2014 regional end-of-year results.
For each commitment expressed in numeric units, EPA computed:
FY 2015 regional commitments as a percentage of the 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 re-
gions (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.
EPA explored the relationship between each region's level of ambitiousness for commitments and the degree to which com-
mitments 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 2015 (Figure 11 ).7 As
Figure 11 illustrates; two of the three regions with the highest ranking for ambitiousness (Regions 3 and 8) ranked lower than
average in the percentage of annual commitments met in FY 2015. The regions ranked in the middle on ambitiousness gener-
ally ranked about the same in commitments met. The regions ranked ninth and tenth in ambitiousness (Regions 1 and 7) are
ranked second and first in commitments met. Figure 12 shows the change in a Region's ambitiousness and commitments met
rankings from FY 2014 to FY 2015.
6 The focus is 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/Geographic programs and place-based programs, which are often reported by only one
or two regions.
7 Because this ambitiousness analysis focused only on a subset of measures, the rankings for commitments met may be different than those presented earlier in
this document. This approach helps ensure appropriate comparability, in this analysis, between the ambitiousness ranks and commitments-met ranks.
20
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Figure 11. FY 2015 Regional Ranks of Ambitiousness vs. Commitments Met
*-
B
R3
2
3
4-
5
6
7- +
8-
g.
10
no
R8
4-
no
R9
nn
|
R2
+
|
+
nn
R5
nc
+
|
R4
nvi
R6
-}-
nc
|
R10
+
nnn
+
fl
ni
+
B
R7
HT
1
-2
-3
-4
-5 i
-6 £
7
-8
-9
10
Overall Ambitiousness Rank Avg. Commitment Met Rank
21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 12. Change in Regional Rank in Ambitiousness and Commitments Met
FY2014-FY2015
R3
R8
/R8
R9
R2
R2
R5
Ri
R4
R10
Ril
2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015
R1
(M
R7
R7
2014 2015 2014 2015
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 the end of the year. Note, however, that there are several key caveats in interpreting the results of this
analysis. First, 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. Second, 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, etc.). 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 as-
sessing 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.
22
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Tribal Measures
Ten of the NWP measures focus on drinking water and water quality in American Indian lands. There was a significant in-
crease in the number of commitments met for Tribes in FY 2015 over the results in FY 2014 (Figure 13). In FY 2015, the NWP
met 100% its Tribal commitments. For example, 88.4% (versus a commitment of 87%) of the population in Indian Country
served by community water systems receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Figure 13. FY 2015 Percent of Tribal Commitments Met or Not Met
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Not Met
Met
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
National Water Program FY 2015 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 eleven 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
different types of activities taking place in different regions
addressing different subobjectives. In selecting these best
practices, special emphasis was placed on identifying activi-
ties or approaches that have resulted in measurable suc-
cessful outcomes. These best practices are in addition to a
number of activities identified in the FY 2015 Performance,
Trends, and Best Practices 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.
24
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
New England Cyanobacteria Monitoring
Program
Brief Description:
Cyanobacteria and their associated toxins are a risk to human
and ecological health. A recent example of the potential im-
pacts was the shutdown of the Toledo drinking water system
due to the presence of cyanotoxins from a bloom in Lake
Erie. Increased nutrient loads to aquatic systems are setting
the stage for recurring algal blooms, resulting in the loss of
recreation and the increased expenses for public water supply
treatment investments. There is a critical need for real-time
advanced monitoring and forecasting of Cyanobacteria, in
order to address and remediate blooms before they become a
human health risk or the environment.
Over the past two years, EPA Region 1 has convened a
region-wide (including NY) Cyanobacteria monitoring and
"Bloom Watch" workgroup of stakeholders to establish a
consistent regional approach to monitoring Cyanobacteria.
Workshops included taxonomic identification, methods, and
instrument training and calibrations. Monitoring occurred
in six states involving over one hundred water bodies. The
2015 monitoring season built on lessons learned, expanded
coverage, added more stakeholders, refined techniques, and
produced a more reliable and credible monitoring program.
The current program is flexible enough to be easily incorpo-
rated into existing monitoring programs, yet rigorous enough
to ensure uniformity in the monitoring methods and protocols
so that data can be aggregated across the region and utilized
by all. The three principal components are: 1) in-lake monitor-
ing, 2) shore-side monitoring, and 3) a qualitative "Bloom
Watch" observation component. The site locations are fixed,
and additional sites can be added at the discretion of the
sampling entity. Samples may be easily analyzed on site or
frozen to be analyzed later.
The "Bloom Watch" component tracks the frequency and
spatial occurrence of Cyanobacteria blooms. Bloom Watch
consists of documenting the time and location of a per-
ceived bloom accompanied by photo documentation using
smartphone and crowdsourcing technology. Citizen science
Highlights:
What: Region 1 worked with partners to
collaboratively design and establish a consistent
regional approach to the challenge of predicting
and monitoring Cyanobacteria; now seen as a
prototype across the country.
Who: Region 1's New England Regional Laboratory
in collaboration with ORD's Atlantic Ecology Division,
New England states, drinking water suppliers, and
academic and NGO partners.
Why: Cyanobacteria and their associated toxins are
a risk to human and ecological health, a coordinated
monitoring approach which aggregates and shares data
to understand the characteristics and behavior
of Cyanobacteria will benefit everyone and advance the
protection of public health.
is being utilized to educate people on Cyanobacteria issues
and promote quality assured data submitted by the public.
Photo documentation is verified by experts and enhanced by
providing additional photos at a microscopic level for algal
identification.
A geo-referenced database was developed by ORD's At-
lantic Ecology Division to incorporate the regional data.
Smartphone apps have been developed and tested, and
additional funding secured to develop a series of additional
tools including on-site hands-on training, video training clips,
digital image libraries, and Cyanobacteria monitoring field kits
complete with digital field microscopes and Cyanobacteria
samplers. It is anticipated that in the future, the database will
have the capability of providing "vulnerability assessments"
of waterbodies based on hydro-geomorphic characteristics
and land use/precipitation patterns in the watershed.
Current Status:
After piloting this approach during 2014 and 2015, the moni-
toring protocol has been refined and participation expanded.
The current focus of the program is on developing the
25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
database of field data and photos. Region 1 has is providing
assistance to implement this program in other areas of the
country.
Outcomes:
The New England Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program, has
developed a simple and affordable, yet effective, monitor-
ing protocol that can be used nationally, engaged various
partners from citizens to federal agencies, and improved our
understanding of the extent and severity of hazardous algal
blooms in New England.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Collaborative partnerships provide an opportunity to aggre-
gate diverse expertise and knowledge in addressing com-
plex problems. Engaging all levels of stakeholders provides
additional benefits of building trust between the agency and
the public, and opens more doors to collaboration, education
and outreach.
Contact Information:
Hilary Snook, 617-918-8670
26
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Real-Time Water Quality Buoy Data Website
Brief Description:
Starting in 2010, the Region 1 Laboratory deployed two
buoys to collect real-time water quality data in urban areas,
specifically the Mystic River and Charles River watersheds in
the Boston metropolitan area. Data transparency and involv-
ing the public to both educate and engage them in discus-
sions on the management of these two important natural
resources was identified as a high priority for Region 1. The
program is designed to both assess water quality condi-
tions and also determine how remote monitoring can help in
tracking the occurrence, severity, and duration of cyanobac-
teria (blue-green algae) blooms. For this project, monitor-
ing sondes with water quality sensors are used to measure
temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
Fluorescent Dissolved Organic Matter (FDOM), phycocyanin
and chlorophyll. The last two factors are used to assess the
severity and progress of algal blooms. Cyanobacteria and
their associated toxins are a priority issue in New England
and of particular concern from a human and ecological health
perspective. Cyanobacteria blooms often occur in these urban
watersheds and have led to closure of beaches, posted warn-
ings and cancelled swimming races.
During the first years of buoy deployment, the data gener-
ated every 15 minutes were transmitted via telemetry to a
password protected webpage paid for by EPA. Data were
available to project partners; however, EPA was unable to
make the provided webpage available to the public due to
internal policies. Moreover, the data on the external webpage
were not available in a form that was accessible to the public.
Development of a publicly available EPA webpage to display
the real-time water quality data with the necessary descrip-
tive information became the key objective for convening a
Buoy Website Team.
There were two main tracks to the effort; to determine how
to flow the data from the buoy datalogger to a webpage and
to develop a new webpage that would conform to the new
EPA format and display the data in a user-friendly format with
Highlights:
What: The first-ever EPA webpage displaying real-time
water quality data to the public.
Who: Region 1 with assistance from the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI).
Why: To provide web-based access, to Region 1's real-
time water monitoring data, that is both accessible to
the general public and appropriate for technical users.
some graphing presentation tools. The website also needed
to have clear descriptions and information so it could be
understandable by the general public. As part of this effort,
EPA was working with the Boston Museum of Science to help
develop a new Charles River Exhibit that would showcase the
buoy and display the real-time data.
Following much discussion with several HQ offices, including
OEI and ORD, the decision was made to flow the raw data
directly from the buoy into the agency IT infrastructure via
the EPA's exchange network. Region 1 IT staff developed
multiple automated scripts to process the data, run QA/
QC protocols, and finally push the data to the EPA public
facing webpage. The webpage dynamically displays the data
through a program that allows users to manipulate how it is
displayed graphically.
The webpage design team identified, tested and implemented
a new charting tool that could clearly and accurately present
the raw data to the public. The site design work, complicated
by the dynamic nature of the information being displayed,
resulted in a user-friendly display of water quality information
that will help the public make informed decisions about their
use of the river.
Data from the buoys are now being uploaded to the
EPA website, making it directly available to the public.
Charles River data was made available in May of 2015
and can be viewed at http://www2.epa.gov/charlesriver/
27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
live-water-quality-data-lower-charles-river; Mystic River data
went live in July and can be seen at http://www.epa.gov/
regionl/mysticriver/livewaterqualitydata.html.
Current Status:
In 2016, EPA will again be operating its buoys with deploy-
ment in May, adding another station, updating the websites
and working with the Museum of Science to share data from
the buoy for their new Charles River exhibit.
Outcomes:
The public can now view real-time water quality data on the
Region 1 webpage, to educate and engage them in discus-
sions on the management of these important natural re-
sources. Data is also available for easy download for technical
users and decision-makers. This project is a model for other
continuous water monitoring projects and the approach has
been shared with other Regions.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
We learned early in the process that the solution required a
team approach which included strong IT support and com-
mitment, buy in from our Regional administrator's office, and
sound data collection. We tested several software packages
for displaying the data on the website and decided on one
that was powerful, user friendly, and licensed to EPA which
was key to the success of the project. At the insistence of the
Regional Administrator's Office Communication Team, the
website had to have clear descriptions and information for
the general public.
Contact Information:
Tom Faber, 617-918-8672
Region 1 Buoy Public Website Data
Flow - 2015 ^^^^
i -'. -.'drills
SWOT LOC»I
Softmnwo
v i > n.il i.-. h.niiii-
Sonfcra
L data based last Pufcd
C5V,
28
MoS Exhibit
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Reducing Land-Based Aquatic Trash Pollution
Brief Description:
There are currently 35 regional bodies of water impaired
due to floatable trash pollution. Additionally, microplas-
tics (plastic particles 5mm or smaller) have also emerged
as a regional water quality threat. Microplastics can enter
a water body as a small particlevia Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSO) and Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP)
effluentsor can be generated by the breakdown of pieces
of larger plastic trash due to photodegradation, wave action
and species interaction.
In response, EPA Region 2 initiated a Trash Free Waters
(TFW) Program that focuses on two distinct geographies
within the Region; namely, Puerto Rico and NY/NJ. The TFW
program places a strong emphasis on collaboration and
serves as a catalyst for issue analysis, facilitated dialogue,
strategic planning, and project implementation.
The goal of the TFW Program is to eliminate "PB5" (Plastic
Bags, microBeads/microplastics, beverage Bottles, single-use
food service Boxes, and cigarette Butts) trash discharged into
receiving waterbodies within the Region by the year 2025.
Specifically, the Program's strategy entails: (1) providing Clean
Water Act regulatory guidance in the development of regional
MS4 permits and CSO long-term control plans; (2) supporting
and conducting related research, including citizen science; (3)
promoting education and outreach; and, (4) building capacity
through participation in a stakeholder-driven TFW Partner-
ship, by assisting the implementation and management of
achievable and measurable short-term collaborative PB5
reduction projects.
To maximize program effectiveness, TFW program efforts
have been integrated with other Region 2 initiatives and pro-
grams, including Environmental Justice, Citizen Science, Green
Infrastructure, Making a Visible Difference, the New York-
New Jersey Harbor and Estuary Program, and Urban Waters.
Highlights:
What: A regional Trash Free Waters (TFW) Program
to reduce land-based aquatic trash pollution. The core
components include: permitting/regulation guidance,
research, and stakeholder capacity building.
Who: EPA Region 2, the New YorkNew Jersey
Harbor & Estuary Program (HEP), the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIW-
PCC), the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP), the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), and
various universities, citizen groups, non-profits, and
private businesses.
Why: Land-based trash and floatables pollution has
plagued Region 2 for decades, at times rendering sur-
face waters unsafe for swimming. Trash and floatables
have been targeted for reduction since 1989 in the
implementation of the (ongoing) NY Bight Floatable Ac-
tion Plan, which is carried out by multiple federal, state
and municipal agencies
Current Status:
TFW Partnership members have initiated low-cost land-based
aquatic trash reduction projects, and have begun taking ef-
fectiveness measurements. Additionally, EPA Region 2 has se-
cured funding for an Aquatic Trash Reduction Grant Program
that will support future project implementation.
Outcomes:
NYC's recent (2015) MS4 SPDES permit for stormwater dis-
charges requires the "control of floatable and settleable trash
and debris." This permit requires an upstream source reduc-
tion media campaign, along with establishing a base load of
trash pollution to receiving waters, as well as an analysis of
new methods to best eliminate trash discharges.
29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Research has been conducted to show marine debris preven-
tion costs to NY and NJ municipalities within the Hudson-
Raritan watershed to average $60M, or $6.16 per capita
per year. Additionally, there has been extensive stakeholder
microplastics research focused throughout NY and NJ; as of
now, microplastics have been found in the Great Lakes, Hud-
son River, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, East River,
Newtown Creek, Upper Hudson River Bay, Lower Hudson
River Bay, Sandy Hook Bay and various locations throughout
the NJ Shore. Beyond research, stakeholders have also in-
stalled water refill stations to reduce single-use plastic bottle
waste in public parks with access to water, as well as waste
fishing line receptacles.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Showing progress in aquatic trash reduction requires a multi-
faceted strategy, namely: analyzing permits and long-term
control plans to provide greater trash capture; conducting
research to characterize the impact of trash on local surface
water ecosystems, as well as to establish baseline trash load-
ing rates; and, involving stakeholders in the process.
Contact Information:
Joshua Kogan, PE
212-637-3733
Coordinator, Trash Free Waters Program
USEPA Region 2
Clean Water Division
290 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
30
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Chesapeake Bay Watershed States Data
Sharing Program
Brief Description:
Onsite (individual and cluster) wastewater treatment
commonly known as septic systemsserve approximately
25% of residents and businesses in the United States. For
many years the industry has been improving and developing
advanced treatment systems that remove nitrogen. In some
cases, these new systems can treat wastewater just as well,
if not better, than municipal wastewater treatment. Excess
nitrogen loading can cause harmful algal blooms and hypoxic
conditions, impairing water quality and aquatic habitat.
The process for approving advanced onsite wastewater tech-
nologies is long and expensive for the manufacturer, a drain
on dwindling state staff and resources, and expensive for
homeowners to purchase. These new technologies can help
reduce the nitrogen loading to the Chesapeake Bay, which is
the goal of the President's Executive Order issued in 2009.
For the first time in the onsite wastewater treatment industry,
states came together to cooperatively and voluntarily develop
protocols to share the data collected during the approval pro-
cess for advanced onsite treatment technologies. The states
(DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)* in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
signed the agreement on April 16, 2015 after only a little
more than a year with the support and leadership of OWM's
Decentralized Wastewater Management Program staff. The
Agreement is for a five-year term.
Manufacturers wanting to make their system(s) available
need approval by each state individually. Prior to the signing
of this agreement the states in the watershed (as in the rest
of the country), reviewed and approved these advanced tech-
nologies from manufacturers individually and separately, and
most states do not share and/or use data collected in another
states. Approval for stormwater and green infrastructure best
management practices (BMPs) have similar challenges.
Highlights:
What: First ever state agreement signed to share data
for the approval of advanced onsite wastewater treat-
ment systems.
Who: Region 3, Region 3 states Chesapeake Bay
Program.
Why: States came together to cooperatively and
voluntarily develop protocols and formally agree to
share data for advanced onsite treatment technologies.
Current Status:
A similar initiative is currently being pursued at the national
level with the formation of a steering committee represented
by industry stakeholders and lead by OWM's Decentralized
Wastewater Management Program staff. Also, Region 1 is
pursuing a mechanism for the states in New England joined
by Suffolk County, New York to develop something similar
to the Chesapeake Bay states. Additionally, application of
this agreement is being suggested as a potential process for
stormwater water BMPs approvals within Region 3's Chesa-
peake Bay Program Office.
Outcomes:
This project is part of EPA's Decentralized Wastewater Man-
agement Program that collaborates with federal, state, local,
industry and non-profit organizations under a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU). The MOU began in 2005 and has
grown to 18 signatory partners as of November 2014 for
the purpose of effectively, collaboratively, and voluntarily
addressing management and performance issues pertaining
to decentralized systems across the nation. In addition, the
MOU Partners support and help expand the EPA's home-
owner education program, SepticSmart (https://www.epa.
gov/septic). Prior to this MOU, all states nationwide approved
31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
systems on an individual basis and many do not take into
account data collected by other state programs. The benefits
of sharing this data are:
Provides certainty with agreed upon protocols that can be
used by manufacturing community and shared between
states;
Can bring new technologies, via additional manufacturers,
to market more quickly and expand the use of nitrogen
reducing treatment systems;
Reduces burden on states to individually monitor and
evaluate performance data; and
* Reduces costs associated with technology approval which
can reduce the costs of systems provide savings to the
consumer.
These advanced treatment systems reduce nitrogen loading
by an average minimum of 50 percent when compared to
conventional on-site systems. Onsite systems are the smallest
source of nutrient loading to the Bay at 3-4 percent accord-
ing to modeling efforts at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
Additional Information:
« Memorandum of Cooperation (http://executiveorder.ches-
apeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2015%2f4%2fchesapeake_
moc_signed.pdf)
Test Plan Application Template (http://executiveorder.
chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2015%2f4%2flnitial+Dat
a+Collection+Protocol.pdf)
Initial Data Collection Protocol (http://executiveorder.
chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2015%2f4%2fTest+Plan
+Application+Template.pdf)
Contact Information:
Diane McNally, Region 3, 215-814-3297
Jim Edward, CBO 410-267-5705
Kristina Heinermann, Region 2
* New York State participated in the discussions but was
unable to sign the agreement as advanced treatment
systems are approved at the County level in New York; this
is the case in other states across the nation.
32
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Communicating Successful SRF Projects
Brief Description:
Documentation of environmental outcomes is required for
all agency grant programs. Additionally, due to SRF funding
levels, the SRF programs are often asked to provide specific
input/examples regarding program support for regional and
national priorities and goals. Since construction projects take
time to complete and require additional time to measure
results, it is difficult to document the success of SRF projects.
In response, prior to the annual review, Region 3 identifies
completed projects in operation for at least twelve months.
To better quantify the environmental benefits achieved, data
on metrics such as greenhouse gas reductions, water and
energy savings are obtained to more clearly demonstrate
how the projects contribute to the Agency's overall goals and
priorities. At times, Regional staff follow-up directly with the
community to supplement State information and to confirm
results. Using project information, specific success stories
are prepared and shared. By detailing success stories, the
approach provides more information than that included in the
Agency's SRF environmental benefits reporting databases.
Current Status:
As of January 31, 2016, the Region collected project specific
data on 43 SRF projects and prepared one-page success sto-
ries for 22 of these projects. Region 3 is preparing a summary
report, to be completed by October 31, 2016 that will include
all of the success stories developed during the fiscal year. The
Region will share this report with our State partners to use as
an additional SRF marketing tool. The Region is continuing to
collect data on two projects per State SRF program.
Outcomes:
There are multiple benefits from this effort, including that the
region:
Demonstrates the benefits of the federal investment in the
SRF Programs;
Highlights:
The Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
(SRF) Loan Fund Programs are the largest grant programs
administered by EPA. The programs provide much needed
funds to local communities and accomplish significant
environmental and public health protection. To market
program benefits, Region 3 Water Protection Division, as
part of its required SRF annual review site visits, collects
data on projects in order to prepare success stories and
track metrics. The Region is gathering project specific data
on at least two projects, per state SRF program, related to
topics of importance to the Region, including:
Sustainable/Resilience
Green Infrastructure
Water and Energy Efficiency
Environmental Justice
Enforcement Targeting Tool
Chesapeake Bay goals
Making a Visible Difference Communities
Contributes to National efforts such as the Climate High-
lights Report and Green Infrastructure efforts;
Contributes to regional efforts such as projects funded in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
Shares the success stories so they are carried in Regional
and National communications; and
Uses the information to plan and schedule recognition
events to acknowledge and celebrate success.
This best practice is transferrable to other regions and flexible,
such that regions could identify categories of success stories
appropriate for their respective Regional priorities or do only
one project per state (instead of the two currently planned in
Region III) based on the resources available in each region.
33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The States have expressed a great deal of interest in the
success stories.
Since the regional staff time is somewhat limited during the
actual site visit, it is important to identify projects in advance
so the States have the project files available.
While the SRF staff was collecting project data, the Water
Division's communications coordinator (C2) created a tem-
plate for progress stories that were developed throughout the
Division's programs and offices. The SRF team used this same
template for the SRF projects.
The Division's C2 worked with the SRF staff on several
projects; he contacted the local officials and enhanced the
stories by obtaining quotes and information on the difference
the SRF project made in the communities. By revealing the
human interest behind the SRF project, the communications
coordinator elevated the basic SRF success story of facts as a
Division Progress Story.
Contact Information:
Magdalene Cunningham, 215-814-2338
\ ,
34
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Nonpoint Source Watershed Web Application
Brief Description:
The National Nonpoint Source Program (NFS) began requiring
the development and implementation of Watershed Based
Plans in 2002. Since then, states in Region 3 have developed
over 105 watershed based plans that cover over 270 water-
sheds; when fully implemented over 3,000 impaired streams
are targeted for restoration. In addition, State Management
Plans and current State Annual Reports are available. The
Nonpoint Source Watershed Web Application was devel-
oped to provide a synthesized and innovative way for states,
stakeholder and residents to easily identify nonpoint source
watersheds, their plans and implementation progress reports
in a web-based mapping application. Prior to the develop-
ment of this application, the resources associated with each
watershed plan were hosted on multiple state agency web-
sites and there was no single source geospatial technology
that identifies the location and extent of these watersheds.
In partnership with state agencies, EPA Region 3 created a
database of state nonpoint source watersheds, delineated
by the states to create a multi-state database of all nonpoint
source watersheds in Region 3. The Nonpoint Source Water-
shed Application was the first application created in Region
3 utilizing EPA's GeoPlatform as a tool to help streamline
complex data for a public facing website. The application is
available for public use on EPA's Nonpoint Source Pollution
web page under Technical Resources.
The application provides a generous amount of services and
information and is user friendly. Users can click on the delin-
eated state or watershed boundaries of interest and a pop-up
appears that provides descriptive data, as well as hyperlinks
to the pertinent documentation and reports. Corresponding
attribute tables are also available for viewing to provide more
information. Users can also change the base maps or toggle
on/off data such as watersheds or hydrology.
Highlights:
What: Interactive GeoPlatform-based web application
that maps Nonpoint Source (NPS) Watersheds within
states.
Who: Region 3 Water Protection Division Office of
State and Watershed Partnerships
Why: The application was developed to geographically
manage, maintain and graphically display important
links to the NPS management plans, annual reports,
watershed implementation plans and watershed prog-
ress reports developed by the Region 3, Mid-Atlantic
states.
Current Status:
This application is currently being managed in Region 3's
Office of State and Watershed Partnerships. Future releases
of this application will be made available as new or updated
data comes available. The application can be accessed on
EPA's Nonpoint Source Pollution Technical Resources page
(https://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollu-
tion/watershed-approach-technical-resources).
Outcomes:
By displaying plans, goals and progress, the public is able
to see the effectiveness of Nonpoint Source program activi-
ties. This transparency showcases accomplishments and
provides an opportunity for the public to view the materials
that show activities to achieve the goals that have been set.
The watershed plan tracker's linkage to CRTS process can be
implemented nationally and is easily adoptable.
35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The development and success of the application has led
to additional opportunities and internal support to provide
creative and innovative ways to geographically display
programmatic data and story maps using EPA's GeoPlatform.
New opportunities will allow more data to be shared publicly
and provide creative ways to highlight the successes of EPA's
nonpoint source program.
Contact Information:
Kelly Somers, 215-814-2719
EPA Region 3 Office of State and Watershed Partnerships
FredSuffian, 215-814-5753
EPA Region 3 Office of State and Watershed Partnerships
U.S. EPA Region 3
Water Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Watershed
Implementation Plans
The National NPS Program began requiring
the development and implementation of
Watershed Based Plans in 2OO2. Since then,
States in Region 3 have developed over 105
watershed based plans that cover over 270
watersheds; when fully implemented over
3000 impaired streams will be restored.
However, the estimated cost to fully
implement these plans exceeds 2.7 billion
dollars. This mapping service is designed to
show users the watersheds that have NPS
implementation plans. It also will provide
information from NPS reports at the state
scale. To use this service, click on the
delineated state or watershed boundaries of
interest and a pop-up will appear that
provides descriptive data, as well as
hyperlinks to pertinent documentation and
reports. Corresponding attribute tables are
also able to be viewed to provide more
information. The user can change the base
maps or toggle on/off data such as
watersheds or hydrology to aid in using this
service.
'^~ \orme, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA, NPS | USGS The N,..
http://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7ed40b035aa54c618e72874cbe0408f9
36
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Monitoring Water Quality at Proctor Creek,
An Urban Waters Success Story
Brief Description:
The watershed includes 11 Neighborhood Planning Units,
38 neighborhoods, 15 Small Business Corridors, 300 urban
streams and 69,000 residents. In addition to being an Urban
Waters Federal Partnership location, it is also one of EPA's
"Making a Visible Difference Initiative" communities. EPA
Region 4's Proctor Creek MVD Team works to empower
communities, and especially overburdened communities, in
the area. Its efforts benefit neighborhoods by reconnecting
people with local waterways, strengthening the economy,
supporting a healthier environment and building community
capacities.
Based on extensive outreach and meetings with local leaders,
EPA staff provided residents and leaders with detailed
information about projects and activities in the watershed as
well as available resources. They also worked hand-in-hand
with the community to develop and implement environmental
monitoring projects and help people understand permitting
decisions.
EPA Region 4's Proctor Creek MVD Team's efforts in FY
2015 included community trainings on grant applications
and management. The Team developed an intensive three-
step plan for community engagement in the watershed.
The Team helped source $20,000 for a local nonprofit's
work as a lead collaborator and community facilitator
with EPA. The Team then worked with the community,
nonprofits, academia, churches, small business leaders, City
Council members, the Mayor's Office, City's Department
of Watershed Management, musicians, artists, media,
stakeholders and federal agencies. Team members spent
more than 80 overtime evening and weekend hours
meeting with 11 Neighborhood Planning Units across the
watershed's 38 neighborhoods, hosting five community
roundtable discussions and co-hosting a community-wide
showcase highlighting environmental activities and services
in the Proctor Creek watershed. More than 700 residents,
stakeholders, partners and community leaders attended the
discussion and showcase.
Highlights:
What: Watershed and community outreach projects
- including a citizen science water quality program
funded by EPA's Urban Waters Program with extensive
support from EPA Region 4 - have successfully fostered
community investment in the Chattahoochee River and
its tributaries and resulted in significant water quality
improvements.
Who: EPA's Urban Waters Program, EPA Region 4's
Proctor Creek MVD Team (including staff from the
Water Protection Division, the Office of Environmen-
tal Justice and Sustainability, the Office of Policy and
Management, the Air, Pesticides, Toxics Management
Division, the Resource Conservation and Restoration
Division, the Office of the Regional Administrator;
and the Office of External Affairs), the Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper (CRK), a nonprofit environmental organiza-
tion based in Georgia, and the West Atlanta Watershed
Alliance (WaWa).
Why: The Proctor Creek watershed, a priority Urban
Waters location, is the only major watershed located
entirely within Atlanta's city limits, encompassing an
area rich in history, culture and environmental resourc-
es. Pollution sources in the watershed have resulted in
environmental degradation and public health threats.
Today, Proctor Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee
River, is besieged by unsafe bacteria levels, illegal trash
dumping, pollution and erosion. EPA partnered with
CRK and other local organizations to focus on these
problems, supporting outreach and citizen monitoring
efforts to promote community education and improved
water quality.
Current Status:
In FY 2016, EPA is using information from the community
roundtables and other recent engagement efforts to host a
community leadership and partners meeting that will identify
additional priority restoration and revitalization projects. A
follow-on community forum will provide an opportunity to
review project progress, address challenges, share lessons
learned and discuss next steps.
37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Outcomes:
Communities in the Proctor Creek watershed are benefiting
from increased local capacities, enhanced understanding of
environmental issues, new partnership opportunities and
meaningful engagement in environmental decision-making.
EPA's community outreach work is pivotal to the success of
these watershed revitalization projects. Region 4's Proctor
Creek MVD team members are proud that they are help-
ing area neighborhoods have a stronger voice in decisions
that affect local quality of life. As one community leader
said recently, " imagine a place that's a beautiful, fishable,
swimmable creek where kids can safely play. I imagine [it]
being a positive amenity and not a dumping ground for scrap
tires. Not a place where raw sewage flows, think of a place
that can help transform the neighborhoods." Among other
benefits, the projects have resulted in swift and significant
improvements in water quality for neighborhoods affected by
pollution in the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries.
CRK's Neighborhood Water Watch program illustrates these
efforts in action. It engages and educates area communities
while working to eliminate pollution in the Chattahoochee
River and its tributaries. Community members are trained to
collect water quality samples, with weekly sampling leading
to specific actions to improve water quality. The number of
samples collected has grown from 288 in 2010 to more than
6,000 across 100+ sites in 2015. Data collection is guided
by an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, developed
with support from an EPA Urban Waters Small Grant.
All data is made publicly available on CRK's website and
provided to the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream database and EPA's
STORE! database. To date, numerous sewer leaks have been
reported and thousands of gallons of raw sewage have been
prevented from reaching the Chattahoochee River. CRK's
program is remarkable for its scale and effectiveness, leading
to innovative collaborations and improved water quality.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Project outcomes are leading to best practices and lessons
learned that EPA can apply nationwide. For example, CRK's
Neighborhood Water Watch program illustrates how sus-
tained partnerships and citizen science efforts can help local
governments rapidly identify and address infrastructure and
water quality issues. Engaging communities through training
and awareness campaigns promotes watershed stewardship
and leads to cleaner waterways.
In turn, watershed outreach efforts have connected area
neighborhoods and built community relationships and part-
nerships, strengthening local commitments to work together
for improved public health and environmental outcomes
across the Proctor Creek watershed. Collaborative efforts,
meetings and trainings have enabled EPA and its watershed
partners to build trust, enhance information sharing, identify
and address key issues, and work through challenges.
Contact Information:
Surabhi Shah, 202-564-3833
Director, EPA Urban Waters Program
shah.surabhi@epa.gov
Cynthia Edwards, 404-562-9340
Project Officer, EPA Region 4
edwards.cynthia@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners/proctor-creek-
watershedatlanta-georgia
From Left: A trained volunteer collects water samples from a public bridge (Source: CRK). Community Engagement Images
38
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Little Rock: Main Street Redevelopment Using
Green Infrastructure
Brief Description:
In 2010, the city of Little Rock was awarded a Greening
America's Capital technical assistance grant which allowed
the city to design concepts to increase green space and
parks, attract more pedestrian traffic, and to improve storm
water capture on Main Street in downtown Little Rock. In
2012, EPA and ANRC worked collaboratively to select the city
of Little Rock to receive a $900,000 Clean Water Act Section
319(h) grant to implement green practices in the corridor, in-
cluding rain gardens and bio-swales to reduce run-off and in-
crease infiltration. In addition, the Little Rock Arts district on
Main Street received a Brownfields cleanup loan of $900,000
from Pulaski County Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
Grant. The city and Pulaski County have also received ad-
ditional brownfields grants/loans to increase the number of
available residential units on Main Street. EPA's investment
has served as a catalyst for economic development along the
Main Street Corridor totaling over$41 million dollars.
EPA's investment in Little Rock's Main Street Redevelop-
ment, which now serves as a sustainability model for others
nationwide, has spurred interest from other federal agencies
including HUD, USDA, and FHWA under the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities. These agencies are now looking
for opportunities to invest in the Main Street Corridor. The
cross-media Little Rock Arkansas Main Street Redevelop-
ment Team's dialogue, collaboration, information sharing and
cooperation among federal, state, and local entities promoted
sustainability and increased economic local opportunities,
thus ensuring future sustainable redevelopment along the
Main Street Corridor.
Current Status:
Little Rock's Main Street Low Impact Development project
funded under CWA Section 319(h) was officially dedicated in
August 2015. EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator Ron Curry
and Administrator Gina McCarthy visited the project area dur-
ing the dedication to showcase Little Rock as a model.
Highlights:
The Region 6 Water and Superfund Divisions, working
in conjunction with the Arkansas Natural Resources
Commission (ANRC), Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality and the city of Little Rock,
revitalized the dreary downtown Main Street corridor with
$3 million dollars in green infrastructure practices and
healthy buildings. EPA's investment of Clean Water Act
319(h) grants and Brownfields Cleanup loans and grants
in Little Rock's Main Street corridor served as a catalyst
for over $41 million dollars in private investments which
now makes downtown a live, work and play community for
present and future generations.
Outcomes:
By implementing the low impact development practices in the
downtown corridor there will be reduced sediment loading
to the Arkansas River watershed. In addition, the project has
been able to yield economic benefit totaling $41 million dol-
lars in private investment. The success of this project can be
replicated in other areas.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The success of this project can be replicated in other areas,
when local governments, the State and EPA conduct early
planning.
Contact Information:
Claudia Hosch (Water), 214-665-7170
Anthony Talton (Superfund), 214-665-7205
Curry Jones (Water), 214-665-6793
39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Promoting Energy Management for Water
and Wastewater Utilities
Brief Description:
The key elements of conducting these workshops are:
EPA Region 6 takes a leadership role in organizing and
facilitating the workshops.
Technical information is disseminated based on EPA mate-
rial and assessment tools, ISO 50,001 Energy Management
Systems, and the Department of Energy assessment tools.
Workshops are held at least annually, allowing utilities to
report out and provide updates on their systems' efforts.
The workshops provide a means for networking among
utility staff promoting peer-to-peer learning.
Utilities are in close geographic proximity to each other
which facilitates greater engagement and follow-up
visits by staff to see energy management practices being
implemented.
This approach succeeds by providing current technical
information on energy management practices to utility staff.
The advantage of conducting workshops for water and
wastewater uti ities in a geographic area is that it helps build
a "community of practice" in implementing energy manage-
ment activities.
The region has co-hosted these meetings, through an informal
partnership, with the Border Environment Cooperation Com-
mission (BECC), an agency that funds water and wastewater
infrastructure projects in Mexico along the U.S. Mexico border.
Current Status:
Energy management workshops are conducted annually for
13 communities along the US - Mexico border and twice a
year for 12 communities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. These
workshops have been conducted since 2009. Guest speak-
ers include staff from water or wastewater utilities, energy
service providers, and the State Revolving Funding Agency.
Highlights:
EPA Region 6 Water Division promotes Energy Efficiency
throughout the Region by hosting semi-annual Energy
Management Workshops. The workshops target water
and wastewater utilities units in given geographical areas.
The knowledge obtained in the Workshops has resulted
in a reduction in the amounts of energy consumed by
water utilities, which helps decrease the impact of climate
change, while simultaneously lowering energy costs for
the utility.
Outcomes:
Water or wastewater utilities are adopting more energy
management practices such as measuring and monitoring
energy consumption, co-generation and using produced
methane gas, developing an energy management plan, and
establishing an energy management baseline to benchmark
continuous energy improvement. A mentoring relationship
among utilities facilitates the sharing of information on the
cost of investment and savings realized in reducing energy
consumption.
The workshop is scalable to the number of water and waste-
water utilities in a given geographic area allowing for the
logistical consideration in securing a meeting location and
establishing the workshop agenda.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
There is value gained in conducting workshops with water
and wastewater utilities in a geographic area. The proximity
of uti ities provides greater opportunity for networking and
on-site observation of energy management practices. Work-
shops held on a regular basis allow utility staff to network,
provide system updates, and build a "community of practice"
focused on energy management practices.
Contact Information:
David Reazin, 214-665-7501
Reazin.david@epa.gov
40
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
Delaware Drinking Water Asset Management
Grant Program
Brief Description:
Asset Management is a strategic process for acquiring,
maintaining, rehabilitating and replacing water system
equipment and components in a manner that maintains
a desired level of customer service at the best appropri-
ate cost. Municipal drinking water systems (DW), although
willing to perform the work required, often lack time and
staff for meaningful AM planning and budgeting. Using the
DWSRF non-federal Administration Fee account as a funding
source, the Delaware Division of Health and Social Services
(DHSS)/Division of Public Health (DPH), with approval from
the Water Infrastructure Advisory Council, is providing up to
$100,000 per municipality for the development of a Drink-
ing Water Asset Management Program. The non-Federal
Fee Account is a special account, separate from the DWSRF,
funded by fees collected from Delaware DWSRF borrowers.
The AM grants allow systems to hire staff or contractors to
prepare AM plans. The plans identify needs and set priori-
ties for the repair and replacement of critical infrastructure
including budgeting for major capital improvements; the
DWSRF is designed and intended to assist with the financing
of such projects through the issuance of low interest loans.
The DE Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program
offers an identical program.
Current Status:
Currently, there are 4 Delaware grant recipients preparing to
commence AM plan preparation. The DE DWSRF program has
an additional five grant applications pending approval. Com-
bined, 23 percent of the state's municipalities are involved in
AM planning.
Outcomes:
Outcomes/results are positive. Municipalities are mapping
and locating assets as the first step. Mapping/identification
is motivating upper management to concentrate on buried
assets and is bringing drinking water infrastructure needs to
the forefront of local decision makers.
Highlights:
As a part of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Program (DWSRF), Delaware is providing funding for the
development of asset management (AM) plans to local
water utilities. Asset Management is a widely recognized
tool used to manage water and wastewater infrastructure
such as pipelines, tanks, pumps and other facilities.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The program is transferable in all states where funding is
available.
The DWSRF small systems (2%) and local assistance (15%)
set-aside accounts, as well as a matching program, in which
the DWSRF program provides an equal amount of funding
for every dollar spent by the DW system for an AM plan, are
additional options for AM plan funding.
EPA's five core components are universal. These are: Current
state of utility assets; The required sustainable level of service
of assets; Critical assets; The minimum life-cycle costs; and,
The best financing strategy.
As an incentive, a state DWSRF program could consider
offering a one-half percent reduction on the loan in the form
of a rebate.
Contact Information:
Heather Warren, 302-744-4739
Heather.warren@state.de.us
VinceGallo, 215-814-5773
EPA Region 3
41
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
-
Ambassadors - A Framework for Promoting
Long-term Productive Partnerships
Brief Description:
Funded by EPA and Federal agency partners through the
UWFP, Ambassadors, among other roles, support planning
and implementing on-the-ground projects as well as com-
munity engagement in stewardship of urban watersheds.
The Ambassadors position can start as a federally funded
position and can transition to a locally supported position.
Having a long-term Ambassador in a community can lead to
better coordination among all stakeholders and agencies and
accelerate project completion.
Current Status:
The Ambassador position is key to successful local urban wa-
ters partnerships. Currently,! 5 of the 19 UWFP locations in-
clude an Ambassador position. Thirteen positions are funded
through a variety of federal agencies, with two funded locally
with no federal resources.
Outcomes:
In two UWFP locations, the Ambassadors implemented all of
their duties in such an excellent fashion leading for four years
collaboration among Federal agencies, state and local agen-
cies, non-profits and businesses. Projects were implemented
through negotiated work plans addressing a set of diverse
needs and priorities.
In New Orleans, an EPA-funded full-time Ambassador, who
previously worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New
Orleans District, worked in City's Deputy Mayor's office. With
the Ambassador in place, the local partnership was able
to move forward on the five initial focus areas in the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin. One of the priority projects is the city-
led Lafitte Greenway project. The Lafitte Greenway project
transformed three miles of fallow land into a multi-use trail
and inear park that will link several neighborhoods, including
communities with environmental justice concerns, to the Mis-
sissippi River, Bayou St. John and Lake Pontchartrain.
In Los Angeles, the Ambassador coordinated the ef-
forts of the Los Angeles River Watershed Partnership. The
Highlights:
The EPA Urban Waters Program created and funded
Urban Waters Ambassador (Ambassador) positions in
New Orleans and in Los Angeles to accelerate and coor-
dinate on-the-ground projects that advance waterway
protection and restoration goals.
The Ambassador position in New Orleans, Louisiana,
created a model for community involvement and for
moving from a federally funded Ambassador position to
a more sustainable position that is funded locally, while
sustaining the location partnership for four years.
Ambassadors at the Urban Waters Federal Partnership
(UWFP) 19 locations serve as coordinators, facilitators,
leaders, and reporters coordinating among Federal
agencies and other organizations and providing support
in both strategic planning, project implementation and
communicating results. One goal of the Ambassador
program relative to water quality is to accelerate and
prioritize on-the-ground projects, through a process to
achieve a negotiated overall workplan, that improve
water quality, restore outdoor spaces, and foster com-
munity stewardship in urban-related watersheds.
Ambassador has engaged and involved new local partner
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in the
Partnership, growing the number of 10 initial partners to 30.
As a result of the Ambassador's work, projects, studies and
outreach in the Los Angeles area are coordinated and now
focus on a wide range of local issues, including: green space
initiatives, solutions for urban stormwater runoff, waterway
channelization in communities with environmental justice
concerns, and wetlands and river restoration, among others.
Specifically, for several projects, the Ambassador worked
closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete a
Restoration Feasibility Study, and engaged new local partners
to support a new initiative regarding "Brownfields to Health-
fields" in Los Angeles' underserved communities.
Both Locations demonstrate the value of the Ambassador
position. Indeed, in New Orleans, the local partners
42
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2015
realized the value and need for the Ambassador functions
and transferred them to local partners through an extensive
planning process. All of partners met regularly and negoti-
ated a transition so that the key functions (as coordinator,
facilitator, leader and reporter) were picked up by several
local agencies while state and federal agencies continue
participation in the Partnership.
The transfer of funding from Federal to local sources for the
Ambassador position can be replicated in any location. The
image below depicts a focus on adapting the Ambassador
position to the needs of the local partnership and communi-
ty. This best practice reflects and supports the EPA Admin-
istrator's priority of launching a new era of state, tribal, and
local partnerships.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
An Ambassador provides the linchpin for local urban waters
partnerships building and maintaining relationships and
capacity for long-term collaborative successes on projects.
Funding by Federal agencies involved in the UWFP, therefore,
catalyze support for Ambassadors and seed the process
leading to funding from local organizations for support critical
Ambassador functions.
Contact Information:
Surabhi Shah, 202-564-3833
Director, EPA Urban Waters Program
shah.surabhi@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners
TRENDING MODELS FOR AMBASSADOR PROCUREMENT
Federally
Funded
Ambassador
(current
New
Orleans
structure)
Combined
Federal, local,
and NGO
funding (i.e.
Anacostia
Location)
Established
Fellowship or
Internship
Programs (i.e.
CDC Fellow
assigned as
Ambassador in
San Antonio, TX)
Foundation or
Privately
Funded
Ambassador
(fe. Grand
Rapids, Ml)
43
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA800-R-16-003
June 2016
www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper that has been manufactured with Wind Power
------- |