Office of Water
National Water Program
Performance, Trends,
and Best Practices Report
-------
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Strategic Measures Progress 3
Summary of Results 8
Key Changes in FY 2017 8
FY 2017 National Performance for Commitment Measures 9
National Performance by Subobjective 10
Tribal Measures 12
Six-Year Trends of National Performance for All Measures 13
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.1 14
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.2 (Core Water Program Measures) 17
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.2 (Geographic Program Measures) 20
Regional Performance for Commitment Measures 22
Regional Ambitiousness 23
National Water Program FY 2017 Best Practices 25
Introduction 25
Executive Summary 26
Appendix A: Acronyms 47
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Introduction
The National Water Program is charged with evaluating the
progress it is making in developing and implementing effec-
tive programs to monitor, protect, and improve the waters
of the United States. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2018 EPA
Strategic Plan, the activities of the National Water Program
fall under Goal 2, "Protecting America's Waters," which
includes two objectives. These objectives are further broken
out in this report into 15 subobjectives (see Figure 1). In FY
2017, the National Water Program tracked 108 performance
measures under the 15 subobjectives. This report presents
performance results and trends for the National Water
Program using FY 2017 end-of-year data reported by states,
tribes, and EPA regional and headquarters offices, as well
as best practices in program implementation.1 The National
Water Program's performance webpage includes a detailed
appendix with historical data on national and regional com-
mitments and results for all performance measures.2
This report includes three main components:
Progress toward Strategic Measures
Summary of Results from Additional National, Regional,
and Tribal Performance Measures
Descriptions of Innovative Approaches and Best Practices
in Program Implementation
Progress toward Strategic Measures
Of the National Water Program's 108 measures, 21 are
identified as strategic measures, which have targets for
FY 2018 established in the FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic
Plan. This report includes trend charts for these 21 measures
showing results from 2014 to 2017. Note that this report will
be the final year of reporting for these 21 strategic measures.
New strategic measures will be published for the FY 2018-
2022 EPA Strategic Plan.
Summary of Results from Additional National,
Regional, and Tribal Performance Measures
The 108 performance measures include 77 commitment
measures with specified annual targets and 31 measures
designated as indicators, which are output measures that
do not have annual performance commitments. This report
includes detailed information on performance measures for
FY 2017 and the past five years. In FY 2017 the National
Water Program met 64% of the performance targets set for
commitment measures, a decrease in its five-year historic
average (2012-2016) of 73% commitments met. Additionally,
the National Water Program met 78% of its Tribal Commit-
ments in FY 2017.
Description of Innovative Approaches and Best
Practices in Program Implementation
A best practice is defined as a process or methodology that
consistently produces superior or innovative results. This
report highlights 11 best practices that have resulted in
successful programs for assisting water systems, improving
processes and relationships, and modernizing water quality
monitoring. The best practices were selected from proposals
submitted by the water divisions in EPA's regional offices.
Key Terms and Definitions
Outcome measures track
the environmental or public
health impacts a program
achieves; e.g., a change in the
number of streams restored
or in the number of people
drinking safe water.
& m
ฆV r-i
i J . "r51
1 Mi
#, It!
IS- 5
Output measures show the type and guantity of activities
completed; e.g., number of utilities and officials receiving
training and technical assistance.
Commitment measures include both outcome and output
measures for which specific targets or commitments have
been identified.
Indicators are output measures for which specific targets
have not been set.
Geographic programs focus on specific areas such as the
Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay.
Core water programs have a national focus that does not
focus on specific geographic areas.
Across all reported years, the information presented in this report is the most up-to-date information available and should be utilized over previous FY reports.
https://www.epa.aov/water-planning-evaluation
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Figure 1. EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
EPA's 2014-2018 Strategic Plan
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
Objective 2.1
Protect Human Health
Objective 2.2
Protect and Restore Watersheds
and Aquatic Ecosystems
Subobjectives:
2.1.1
Safe Drinking
Water
Subobjectives:
2.2.1
Water Quality
2.2.7
Long Island Sound
2.1.2
Fish & Shellfish
2.2.2
Coastal & Ocean
2.2.8
Puget Sound
2.1.3
Safe Swimming
2.2.3
Wetlands
2.2.9
U.S. & Mexico
Border
2.2.4
Great Lakes
2.2.10
Pacific Islands
2.2.5
Chesapeake Bay
2.2.11
South Florida
2.2.6
Gulf of Mexico
2.2.12
Columbia River
Core Water
Programs
Geographic
Programs
2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Strategic Measures Progress
The National Water Program has 21 strategic measures, which have targets for 2018 established in the FY 2014-2018 EPA
Strategic Plan. Results from 2014 to 2017 are provided below.
Strategic Measure
2014
Result
2015
Result
2016
Result
2017
Result
2018
Strategic
Target
2.1 PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH
2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
Percentage of community water systems providing
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
standards (SDW-SP1; apm)
93.0%
qnso/ # 92.0%
90^/o 90.0% 90.4ฐ/^^^
Percentage of the population in Indian country
served by community water systems providing drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based standards
(SDW-SP3; E)
90.5%
88.6% 88.4%
" 1 ^ 88.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native homes provided
with access to safe drinking water (SDW-18)
No longer reported by Indian Health Service
113,656 148'100
2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Percentage of women of childbearing age with
blood mercury levels above the level of concern
(FS-SP6; fs1)
# 2.1%
Biennial 1.8% Biennial Data Not
Available
2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal
and Great Lakes monitored beaches are open and safe
for swimming (SS-SP9)
95.4%
95-0%
3
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Strategic Measure
2014
Result
2015
Result
2016
Result
2017
Result
2018
Strategic
Target
2.2 PROTECT AND RESTORE WATERSHED AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Water body segments identified in 2002 as not
attaining standards in which water quality standards
have been attained (WQ-SP10; L)
# 4,430
3 944 4'009 4'jP
3,866 - ฆ
Impaired watersheds where water quality
conditions are improved using the watershed
approach (WQ-SP12; wq3)
485 509
~ 575
Ensure that the condition of the nation's waters
does not degrade (WQ-SP13)
WQ WQ NoWQ
Data Not In Lakes In Lakes Degradation
Available Maintained Maintained |n Rivers/Streams
Maintain
or Improve
Conditions
Baseline monitoring stations in tribal waters with
improvements in one or more of seven key water
quality parameters (WQ-SP14a)
at 50
28
American Indian and Alaska Native homes with
access to basic sanitation (WQ-24)
101,064
7"^ 1/in 81,080
75'140 ' " + 91,900
Data Not
^ Available
2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
Rating of coastal waters on the National Coastal
Condition Report's 5-point scale (CO-222)
No longer reported due to change in reporting methodology.
Survey is now included under National Aquatic Resource Surveys.
3.0
2.5 2.5
4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Strategic Measures Progress (Cont'd)
2018
Strategic
Target
2014
Result
2015
Result
2016
Result
2017
Result
Strategic Measure
Data Not Available: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed the
frequency of reporting cycle from 5 years to 10 years.
Net Increase
in Wetlands
Net increase in wetlands
2.2.4 Great Lakes
2.2.5 Chesapeake Bay
2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters (Cont'd)
Percentage of Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries
water quality standards attained for dissolved oxygen,
water clarity/underwater grasses, and chlorophyll a
(CB-05)
5
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
2018
Strategic
Target
2014
Result
2015
Result
2016
Result
2017
Result
Strategic Measure
2.2.9 U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
2.2.7 Long Island Sound
2.2.6 Gulf of Mexico
2.2.8 Puget Sound Basin
(Part 1) Percentage of homes in the U.S.-Mexico Border
area provided access to safe drinking water that
lacked access in 2003 (MB-SP24; xb2)
(Part 2) Percentage of homes in the U.S.-Mexico
Border area provided access to adequate
wastewater sanitation that lacked access in 2003
(MB-SP25; xb3)
72.0%
75%
70.4%
65.8%
66.7%
97.2% 97.3%
90.7%
84.3%
90%
6
-------
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Summary of Results
The National Water Program tracks 108 performance measures, 77 of which are commitment measures with specified annual
targets; the remaining 31 measures are designated as indicator measures, which are output measures that do not have annual
performance commitments.3 This section summarizes the FY 2017 performance results of these measures and trends over the
last six years.
Key Changes in FY 2017
This report includes several changes to the performance measures compared to the National Water Program Performance,
Trends and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2016. Some of the key changes to performance measures for certain subobjectives
are noted below:
Water Quality: Two performance measures were added and two were modified in FY 2017.
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat: Two performance measures were deleted in FY 2017.4
Water Safe to Drink: Three measures were deleted in FY 2017.
Chesapeake Bay: One measure was deleted in FY 2017.
Over the course of the last six years, the National Water Program has worked toward a smaller and more meaningful set of
measures and has strived to align performance measures with what is important to EPA headquarters, EPA regions, states, and
tribes. The overall number of measures decreased to 108 in FY 2017 (from 110 in FY 2016); this number is also substantially
lower than the 160 measures analyzed in FY 2011. The number of performance measures over time is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Number of Performance Measures over Time
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fiscal Year
Commitment Indicator Total Linear (Total)
The 21 strategic measures are included in the 108 total performance measures.
The two Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat measures deleted in FY 2017, FS-1 a and FS-1 b, were not included in the total number of measures
for FY 2016.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
FY 2017 National Performance for Commitment Measures
The FY 2017 results show a slight decrease in the number of commitment measures that met their targets compared to FY
2016. The National Water Program met 65% of its commitment measures in FY 2016, and 64% in FY 2017. Figure 3 illustrates
the distribution of results between met, not met, and data not available for FY 2017.
Figure 3. National FY 2017 Performance for 77 Commitment Measures
27%
Not Met
9%
Data Not
Available
Commitment
Measures
64%
Met
Historical trend data show that between FY 2012 and FY 2017, the National Water Program has averaged about 71%
committment measures met, 25% not met, and 4% with data not available or not reporting. Figure 4 shows the change in
overall performance over the past six years.
Figure 4. FY 2012-FY 2017 Commitment Measures Performance Trend
(77 measures for FY 2017)5
1%
2%
3%
9%
9%
2%
19%
19%
25%
27%
31%
27%
67%
73%
65%
79%
80%
64%
Not Met
Data Not
Available
Met
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Due to rounding, the sum of each commitment measure status may not add to 100%.
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
National Performance by Subobjective
Figure 5 shows the number of measures analyzed for each of the 15 subobjectives. Water Quality has the largest share of
performance measures at 39%; Safe Drinking Water is next with 16%; and the Great Lakes is third with 9%. The remaining
36% of the measures are spread among the other 12 subobjectives. For commitment measures, 61% (47 of 77) pertain to
core water programs and 39% (30 of 77) track progress in geographic programs.
Figure 5. Number of Performance Measures Per Subobjective
Coastal & Ocean
Wetlands
14
25
I
17
Core Water Programs
Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay
10
Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
Puget Sound
U.S. & Mexico Border
Pacific Islands
South Florida
Columbia River
^1
Geographic Programs
i Commitment measures
Indicator measures
10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Of the national core water program measures, 70% (33 of 47) met their targets in FY 2017. In addition, 77% (23 of 30) of the
geographic program measures were met. Figure 6 shows the FY 2017 results by subobjective. Commitments were fully met for
three of the 15 subobjectives (Gulf of Mexico, U.S. & Mexico Border, and Pacific Islands).
Figure 6. Commitment Measures Met and Not Met by Subobjective
Safe Drinking Water
Fish & Shellfish
Safe Swimming
Water Quality
Coastal & Ocean
Wetlands
Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Mexico
Long Island Sound
Puget Sound
U.S. & Mexico Border
Pacific Islands
South Florida
Columbia River
100%
Met Data Not Available ฆ Not Met
11
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Tribal Measures
In FY 2017, ten performance measures (9 commitment and 1 indicator) focused on drinking water and water quality in
American Indian lands. There was a substantial increase in the number of commitments met for tribes in FY 2017 (78%)
compared to the results in FY 2016 (50%), as shown in Figure 7. Flowever, it should be noted that for 20% of the 2016
measures, data were not available to track progress.
Figure 7. FY 2012-2017 Percent of Tribal Commitments Met or Not Met
9%
20%
30%
50%
91%
22%
78%
20%
80%
60%
40%
20%
80%
Not Met
Data Not
Available
Met
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Safe drinking water and high quality surface water on tribal lands continues to be a goal for the National Water Program.
Some key highlights and challenges include:
90.5% of the population in Indian country was served by Community Water Systems (CWS) with drinking water that met
all applicable health-based drinking water standards. [SDW-SP3]
93.8% of "person-months" (i.e., all persons served by CWSs multiplied by 12 months) during which tribal CWSs provided
drinking water, met all applicable health-based drinking water standards. [SDW-20]
Nine additional tribal water quality monitoring stations reported improved water quality. [WQ-SP14a]
12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Six-Year Trends of National Performance for All Measures
The next figures, referred to as heat maps, illustrate the performance history for the 15 subobjectives over a six-year period
(FY 2012 to FY 2017). The heat maps indicate whether or not each measure was met or not met in a given year, using green
and orange shading respectively, and report the actual result for each measure.6 Flowever, unlike the summary graphics shown
in the previous section, the heat maps also include performance data for indicator measures; these results are shaded blue.
Finally, gray shading indicates that data were not available for a given year and white is used for measures not in existence in
a given year. Below each heat map is a discussion of key results for different subobjectives.
Figure 8. Heat Map for Objective 2.1 - Protect Human Health
ACS
Code
PERS
Code
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Results and Commitment Status
= Met | = Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met | = Measure Did Not Exist
| = Data Not Available
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Subobjective 2.1.1 Water Safe to Drink
SDW-211*
aa
Percent population served by CWSs meeting safe
standards
94.7%
92.0%
93.0%
91.0%
91.2%
92.8%
SDW-SP1*
apm
Percent CWSs meeting safe standards
91.0%
91.0%
90.8%
90.0%
90.4%
93.0%
SDW-SP2*
dw2
Percent "person months" with CWSs meeting safe
standards
97.8%
96.9%
97.0%
96.0%
96.3%
96.1%
SDW-SP3*1
E
Percent population served by CWSs meeting
safe standards in Indian country
84.0%
77.0%
88.6%
88.4%
87.9%
90.5%
SDW-20 T
-
Percent "person months" with CWSs meeting
safe standards in Indian country
94.7%
92.8%
93.8%
SDW-SP4a
-
Percent CWSs with source water protection
43.3%
48.3%
48.0%
49.9%
54.0%
55.0%
SDW-SP4b
-
Percent population served by CWSs with source
water protection
55.9%
59.1%
57.7%
60.7%
61.0%
64.0%
SDW-01a*
aph
Percent CWSs with sanitary survey
89.0%
93.0%
87.0%
90.8%
91.2%
90.8%
SDW-01b T
-
Number tribal CWSs with sanitary survey
84
84
633
663
653
666
SDW-04*
ape
DWSRF utilization rate
90%
91%
92%
94%
95%
96%
SDW-05
-
Number DWSRF projects initiated (cumulative)
6,721
7,474
8,101
9,317
9,119
9,836
SDW-07*
aps
Percent Class I, II, or III wells returned to
mechanical integrity
85%
89%
89%
88%
86%
SDW-08*
apt
Number High Priority Class V wells
closed/permitted (cumulative)
25,225
26,027
26,560
27,383
28,187
28,134
SDW-11
-
Percent DWSRF projects awarded to small PWS
71%
71%
70%
70%
71%
70%
SDW-15
-
Number small CWS with health-based violations
1,260
1,282
1,159
822
754
326
SDW-17
-
Number schools and childcare centers meeting
safe standards
6,991
7,068
6,783
6,795
6,753
6,839
SDW-21
-
Number of utilities and officials receiving training
and technical assistance
2,929
4,965
6,703
|*Asterisks indicate a measure is a budget measure Bolded text and "T" indicates a tribal measure.
'' Of the 108 performance measures covered in the heat maps, 57 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 57 measures can be found in EPA's Annual Performance Reports (https://www.epa.aov/planandbudaet/). Budget measures are identified with an asterisk.
13
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Figure 8. Heat Map for Objective 2.1 - Protect Human Health (Cont'd)
Results and Commitment Status
ACS
Code
PERS
Code
Abbreviated Measure
Description
= Met | = Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met | = Measure Did Not Exist
| = Data Not Available
2012
2013 I 2014
2015
2016
2017
Subobjective 2.1.2 Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
FS-SP6*
fs 1
Percent women with high mercury blood levels
2.3%
2.3%
1.8%
Subobjective 2.1.3 Water Safe for Swimming
SS-SP9
-
Percent beach days safe for swimming
95%
96% 95%
95%
93%
94%
SS-1
-
Number enforceable long-term CSO control plan
with specific dates and milestones in place
(cumulative)
748
758 775
785
794
850
SS-2
-
Percent Tier I (significant) public beaches
monitored and managed
100.0%
98.0% 98.0%
99.0%
99.3%
99.7%
|*Asterisks indicate a measure is a budget measure Bolded text and "T" indicates a tribal measure.
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.1
Objective 2.1 is to Protect Human Health, and covers three subobjectives: Safe Drinking Water, Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat,
and Safe Swimming.
EPA met 78% (14 of 18) of its commitments under the Protect Human Health objective in FY 2017 for all commitment measures,
as shown in Figure 8. Among the highlights for this objective are the following:
96% of the cumulative amount of Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs) available had loan agreements in place.
[SDW-04]
93% of CWSs met all applicable health-based standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source
water protection. [SDW-SP1]
96.1% of "person-months" during which CWSs provided drinking water, met all applicable health-based drinking water
standards. [SDW-SP2]
14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 9. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic
Ecosystems (Core Water Program Measures)
ACS PERS
Code Code
WQ-SP10*
WQ-SP11*
WQ-SP12*
WQ-SP13
WQ-SP14a
WQ-SP14b
WQ-24
WQ-01 a
WQ-01 d
WQ-02
WQ-03a*
WQ-03b
WQ-04a
WQ-06a
WQ-09a*
WQ-09b*
WQ-09c*
WQ-10a
WQ-11
WQ-12a
WQ-12b
WQ-13a
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Results and Commitment Status
= Met | = Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met | = Measure Did Not Exist
| = Data Not Available
2012
2013 2014 2015 2016
2017
wq2
wq3
bpw
bpg
bpf
bph
Number formerly impaired waterbodies now
meeting standards (cumulative)
Number causes of waterbody impairment
removed (cumulative)
Number impaired watersheds improved water
quality (cumulative)
Maintain and improve nation's lake and stream
conditions
Number monitoring stations in tribal waters
with improved water quality (cumulative)
Number monitoring stations in tribal waters no
degradation in water quality (cumulative)
Number Indian & Alaska Native homes with
access to sanitation (cumulative)
Number of numeric nutrient water quality
standards adopted (cumulative)
Number of numeric nutrient water quality
standards planned to be adopted (cumulative)
Number tribes with approved water quality
standards (cumulative)
Percent states/territories with updated water
quality criteria
Number tribes with updated water quality
criteria
Percent states/territories water quality standards
revisions approved
Number tribes implementing monitoring
strategies (cumulative)
Number pounds nitrogen reduced from nonpoint
sources (millions)
Number pounds phosphorus reduced from
nonpoint sources (millions)
Number tons sediment reduced from nonpoint
sources (millions)
Number NPS-impaired waterbodies restored
(cumulative)
Number NPDES follow-up actions completed
(cumulative)
Percent nontribal NPDES permits current
Percent tribal NPDES permits current
Number facilities covered by MS-4 permit
3,527
3,679
3,866
11,134
11,754
12,288
332
376
411
3,944
4,009
4,162
12,640
12,910
13,140
450
485
509
No WQ
degradation
No WQ
degradation
No WQ
degradation
28
38
47
22
24
25
90.4% 89.7% 90.0% 87.0% 88.0% 89.4%
86.1% 83.4% 85.0% 84.9% 86.0% 83.3%
7,774
7,851
7,715
7,752
8,289
WQ-13b
Number facilities covered by industrial storm
water permit
87,060
94,447
93,042
89,692
95,975
93,252
WQ-13c
Number sites covered by construction storm water
permit
166,031
158,525
164,494
174,481
181,620
190,109
WQ-13d
WQ-14a
Number facilities covered by CAFO permit
7,587
6,684
6,946
6,918
5,900
Number POTWs SlUs control mechanisms in
place
20,733 20,739 20,734 20,518
16,907
"Asterisks indicate a measure is a budget measure. Bolded text and "T" indicates a tribal measure.
6,752
20,347
15
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Figure 9. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic
Ecosystems (Core Water Program Measures, Cont'd)
ACS PERS
Code Code
WQ-14b
WQ-17*
WQ-19a*
WQ-19b*
WQ-20a
bpb
bpl
bpv
Abbreviated Measure
Description
Number POTWs ClUs control mechanisms in
place
Results and Commitment Status
= Met | = Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met | = Measure Did Not Exist
ฆ = Data Not Available
CWSRF utilization rate
Number high priority state NPDES permits issued
Number high priority state & EPA NPDES permits
issued
Percent of major wastewater treatment plants with
nutrient limits in NPDES permit
1.667
1,650
1,642
1,514
1,521
2,000
97% 98% 98% 98% 98%
404 516 506 462 467
652 532 526 501 508
WQ-20b
WQ-23*
WQ-25a*
WQ-25b*
WQ-27*
WQ-28
Percent of major wastewater treatment plants with
nutrient monitoring in NPDES permit
Opb
Percent rural Alaska homes access to drinking
water & wastewater disposal
uw1
Number urban water projects initiated addressing
community water quality issues
uw2
Number of urban water projects completed
addressing community water quality issues
(cumulative)
bpx
Percent priority areas restored to achieve water
quality standards
Percent state-wide activities leading to completed
TMDLs, restoration of impaired waters, or
protection of unimpaired waters
8%
40%
WQ-29
Number of states protecting or improving water
quality conditions
21
24
WQ-30
Number of WaterSense partners working to
improve water use efficiency
1,833
1,956
WQ-31
Number of water and wastewater utilities that use
the EnergyStar Portfolio Manager
WQ-32
Number of water and wastewater utilities that
have registered to use the CREAT
431
WQ-33
Number of CWSRFs/DWSRFs that used financial
incentives to promote climate resilience
17; 15
41
Subobjective 2.2.2 Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
CO-SP20*
co5
Percent ocean dumping sites acceptable
conditions achieved
97%
96%
95%
95%
97%
97%
CO-02
-
Number square miles protected from vessel
sewage (cumulative)
58,929
63,773
64,536
64,431
64,431
64,431
CO-04
-
Rate of return federal investment for NEP (million
dollars)
323
822
577
490
465
150
CO-06
-
Number active dredged material sites monitored
35
40
41
33
31
17
CO-432*
202
Number additional NEP acres habitat protected or
restored
114,579
127,594
93,557
111,585
Subobjective 2.2.3 Increase Wetlands
WT-SP22*
4E
No net loss of wetlands under CWA Section 404
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
WT-01 *
4G
Number wetland acres restored and enhanced
(cumulative)
180,000
207,000
221,000
275,555
291,055
301,463
WT-02a
-
Number states/tribes increased wetland program
capacity in one or more core elements
44
37
36
30
57
29
WT-03
-
Percent CWA Section 404 permits with greater
environmental protection
85%
78%
77%
85%
73%
64%
*Asterisks indicate a measure is a budget measure. Bolded text and "T" indicates a tribal measure.
16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.2 (Core Water Program Measures)
Objective 2.2 is to Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems; the heat map in Figure 9 covers the following
subobjectives under this objective: Water Quality, Coastal and Ocean, and Wetlands.
EPA met 45% (13 of 29) of its commitments under the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems objective in
FY 2017. Performance highlights include:
For the tenth consecutive year, EPA and states achieved the national commitment of having current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in place for non-tribal facilities (89.4% for FY 2017). [WQ-12a]
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, reaching a cumulative 731 waterbodies documented as
partially or fully restored. [WQ-10a]
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) maintained a 98% utilization rate in FY 2017. [WQ-17]
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. [WT-SP22/WT-01]
17
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Figure 10. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic
Ecosystems (Geographic Program Measures)
Results and Commitment Status
ACS
Code
PERS
Code
Abbreviated Measure
Description
= Met H = I
= Not Met ฆ=ป
| = Data Not Available
ndicator/Long-Term
No Commitment)
Measure Did Not Exist
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Subobjective 2.2.4 Great Lakes
GL-SP31*
626
Number AOCs with all management actions
implemented (cumulative)
2
3
7
7
8
11
GL-05*
625
Number BUIs removed within AOCs (cumulative)
33
41
52
60
65
73
GL-07*
629
Number response plans established, response
exercises, and/or response actions
23
30
38
21
11
25
GL-09*
628
Number acres managed for populations of
invasive species (cumulative)
31,474
101,392
115,889
134,856
GL-17*
638
Pounds projected phosphorus reductions from
GLRI-funded projects (cumulative)
160,117
402,943
767,864
GL-18*
639
Projected gallons untreated urban runoff captured
or treated by GLRI-funded projects (millions,
cumulative)
37
116
239
GL-19*
640
Number tributary miles reopened by GLRI-funded
projects (cumulative)
3,855
4,615
4,967
GL-20*
641
Number miles shoreline and riparian corridors
protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-
funded projects (cumulative)
313
662
947
GL-21*
642
Number acres of coastal wetlands protected,
restored, and enhanced by GLRI-funded projects
(cumulative)
7,033
17,540
24,306
GL-22*
643
Number acres of other habitats protected,
restored, and enhanced by GLRI-funded projects
(cumulative)
146,815
167,218
201,075
Subobjective 2.2.5 Chesapeake Bay
CB-05
-
Percent attainment of water quality standards in
the Bay and tidal tributaries
29%
33.9%
37.2%
39.2%
CB-SP35*
cb6
Percent Bay nitrogen reduction practices
implemented
21%
21%
31%
33%
CB-SP36*
cb7
Percent Bay phosphorus reduction practices
implemented
19%
27%
43%
71%
81%
81%
CB-SP37*
cb8
Percent Bay sediment reduction practices
implemented
30%
32%
37%
25%
48%
57%
Subobjective 2.2.6 Gulf of Mexico
GM-SP39*
xg2
Number Gulf acres protected, enhanced, or
restored (cumulative)
30,248
30,306 30,319 30,574
31,276
31,554
GM-01*
xg3
Improve and/or restore water and habitat quality to
meet water quality standards
2
2
GM-02
-
Promote and support environmental education
and outreach
18,662
11,170
GM-03
-
Support programs, projects and tools which
strengthen community resilience
121
90
|*Asterisks indicate a measure is a budget measure Bolded text and "T" indicates a tribal measure.
18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Figure 10. Heat Map for Objective 2.2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic
Ecosystems (Geographic Program Measures, Cont'd)
Results and Commitment Status
ACS
Code
PERS
Code
Abbreviated Measure
Description
= Met | = Indicator/Long-Term
(No Commitment)
= Not Met | = Measure Did Not Exist
= Data Not Available
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Subobjective 2.2.7 Long Island Sound
LI-SP41*
Ii5
Percent goal achieved reducing point source
nitrogen discharges
83%
88%
94%
100%
LI-SP42
-
Reduce Long Island Sound hypoxic zone (sq
miles)
289
80
87
38
138
70
LI-SP43*
Ii8
Number acres coastal habitat restored, protected,
or enhanced
537
336
410
1,678
532
669
LI-SP44*
Ii9
Number miles river and streams for fish passage
reopened
72.3
56.0
21.6
0.0
50.0
22.0
Subobjective 2.2.8 Puget Sound Basin
PS-SP49*
ps1
Number acres of Puget Sound shellfish areas
improved (cumulative)
2,489
3,203
3,249
3,277
3,887
5,083
PS-SP51*
ps3
Number acres of Puget Sound estuarine wetlands
restored (cumulative)
23,818
30,128
41,006
43,002
45,360
49,752
Subobjective 2.2.9 U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
MB-SP23*
4pg
Number million pounds BOD loadings removed
Mexico Border (cumulative)
119
128
131
143
152
152
MB-SP24*
xb2
Number additional Mexico Border homes access
to safe drinking water
5,185
3,400
1,468
878
3,700
1,599
MB-SP25*
xb3
Number additional Mexico Border homes access
to adequate sanitation
31,092
25,695
12,756
44,070
45,000
495
Subobjective 2.2.10 Pacific Island Territories
PI-SP26*
pi1
Percent Pacific Islands population served by CWS
80.0%
81.0%
98.0%
97.7%
82.1%
82.0%
Subobjective 2.2.11 South Florida Ecosystem
SFL-SP45
-
Achieve no net loss in South Florida stony coral
Maintained
7%
Maintained
7%
Not Maintained
Maintained
SFL-SP46
-
Maintain health of South Florida sea grass
Not Maintained
Maintained
Maintained
Maintained
Maintained
Maintained
SFL-SP47a*
sf3
Percent South Florida monitoring stations
maintain coastal water quality for chlorophyll a &
light clarity
70.9%;
72.5%
84.5%;
80.4%
86.0%;
87.2%
82.0%;
77.3%
70.9%;
78.5%
76.2%;
75.9%
SFL-SP47b*
sf4
Percent South Florida monitoring stations
maintain coastal water quality for nitrogen and
phosphorous
81%;
89.5%
60.0%;
82.3%
72.6%;
87.6%
61.7%;
78.3%
70.8%;
89.1%
62.2%;
89.1%
SFL-1
-
Increase percent sewage treatment systems
receiving advanced wastewater treatment in
Florida Keys
13%
5%
4%
7%
4%
4%
SFL-2*
sf6
Number STAs with TP outflow less than or the
same as the five-year annual average
4
4
1
Subobjective 2.2.12 Columbia River Basin
CR-SP53
-
Number acres contaminated sediments cleaned
up (cumulative)
79
79
82
89
91
94
CR-SP54
-
Percent reduction of contaminants in water & fish
(cumulative)
99%
90%
95%
80%
|*Asterisks indicate a measure is a budget measure Bolded text and "T" indicates a tribal measure.
19
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Noteworthy Results for Objective 2.2 (Geographic Program Measures)
The heat map in Figure 10 covers the geographic program subobjectives under Objective 2.2. EPA implements collaborative
programs with other federal agencies, states, and local communities to improve the health of specific geographic areas. The
following summaries are highlights and challenges for each geographic program.
Great Lakes
In FY 2017, EPA and its partners removed eight Beneficial Use Impairments (benchmarks of environmental harm) from
areas of concern within the Great Lakes. [GL-05]
Since FY 2010, EPA and its partners also protected, restored, and enhanced over 225,381 acres of habitat across the Great
Lakes Basin (over 40,000 acres in FY 2017). [GL-21/GL-22]
Chesapeake Bay
The goal set in the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is designed to ensure all nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment pollution control efforts needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with controls,
practices, and action in place by 2017 that would achieve 60 percent of the necessary pollution reductions.
Practices are currently in place to achieve the following percentages of pollution reduction in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
EPA is working with jurisdictions to accelerate the pace of nitrogen reductions.
81% for phosphorus reductions [CB-SP36]
33% for nitrogen reductions [CB-SP35]
57% for sediment reductions [CB-SP37]
Gulf of Mexico
In FY 2017, the Gulf of Mexico program restored or protected 278 acres of coastal and upland habitat. [GM-SP39]
Long Island Sound
The Long Island Sound program restored or protected 669 acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes,
riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands in FY 2017. [LI-SP43]
Puget Sound Basin
Since FY 2006, 49,752 acres of tidally and seasonally influenced estuarine wetlands have been restored in the Puget Sound
Basin, and water quality has been improved in these areas (4,392 acres were restored in FY 2017). [PS-SP51]
U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health
In 2017, EPA provided access to safe drinking water for 1,599 additional homes along the U.S.-Mexico border. [MB-SP24]
In 2017, EPA provided access to sewer services for 495 additional homes along the U.S.-Mexico border. [MB-SP25]
20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Pacific Island Territories
82% of the population in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories was served by CWSs that meet all applicable health-based
drinking water standards throughout the year. [PI-SP26]
South Florida Ecosystem
The health and functionality of the sea grass beds and stony coral in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary were
maintained above baseline levels in FY 2017. [SFL-SP45/SFL-SP46]
Columbia River Basin
In FY 2017, The Columbia River program cleaned up a total of three acres of contaminated sediment in the Lower
Columbia River. These cleanups provide a significant contribution to reducing toxins in the Columbia River. EPA measured
an 80% cumulative reduction in contaminants of concern in the water and fish at several key sites on the Columbia
River. [CR-SP53/CR-SP54]
21
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Regional Performance for Commitment Measures
The 10 EPA regional offices, states, and tribes are primarily responsible for implementing the National Water Program. As
such, the national results presented above are simple aggregations of regional results. In this section, regional results for
commitment measures are briefly described.
Regional performance has varied significantly over the last six years; an average of 71% to 90% of performance commitments
set by the EPA regional offices were met between FY 2012 and FY 2017, as shown in Figure 11. This variation results from a
number of challenges facing each region in meeting its commitments or providing data on the measures. For example:
Project plans may be delayed until after the National Water Program reporting period has ended; regions, therefore, do
not meet their commitment until the following fiscal year, consequently, reporting results in an unintended fiscal year; and
Progress for some measures is not linear; meaning, progress is dependent on external factors such as weather and
seasons, and therefore it is difficult to forecast commitments.
Figure 11. FY 2012-FY 2017 Average Percent Commitments Met/Not Met by Region
c
o
O)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Regional Ambitiousness
For many years, the National Water Program has published the percentage of commitments met and not met 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 National Water
Program developed a method that attempts to assess the ambitiousness of regional commitments, regardless of whether
those commitments were met or not met.
EPA used the calculations described below to evaluate the relative ambitiousness of regional commitments for a set of 25
performance measures. These 25 measures were chosen due to the high level of regional participation associated with
them.7 The calculation(s) used for each measure 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 2017 regional commitments and FY 2017 national commitments, and
The difference between FY 2017 regional commitments and FY 2016 regional end-of-year results.
For each commitment expressed in numeric units, EPA computed:
FY 2017 regional commitments as a percentage of the regional universe.
For each measure, within each of the analyses above, each region was assigned a rank based on its result relative to other
regions (1 = most ambitious, 10 = least ambitious). For instance, for a particular numeric measure, the region committing
to the greatest share of its universe would be ranked most ambitious for that measure. These measure-level rankings were
combined to generate an average weighted rank per region (i.e., a region's ambitiousness score).
EPA explored the relationship between each region's level of ambitiousness and the degree to which commitments are met.
To do so, EPA plotted each region's ambitiousness score against its percentage of commitments met. As Figure 12 illustrates,
there tends to be a tradeoff between regional ambitiousness and the percentage of commitments met.
7 The focus is on those measures with eight or more regions setting commitments and reporting results, so that each region is analyzed for a similar number of
measures. This choice excluded measures for geographic programs, which are often reported by only one or two regions.
23
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Figure 12. FY 2017 Regional Commitments Met vs. Ambitiousness
More
Ambitious
Fewer
Commitments
Met
Region 4
(
) Region 3
# Region 2
Region 10 Re9ion9
75% 80% 85
%
90%
# Region 6
Roninn ฃ
Region 7 %
%
#
Region 5 # Region 1
More
Commitments
Met
Less
Ambitious
24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
National Water Program FY 2017 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
propagate their impact widely and encourage their adoption,
it is important to identify and analyze these approaches.
The 11 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?
The selected best practices do not represent a comprehensive
list 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.
In selecting these best practices, special emphasis was placed
on identifying activities or approaches that have resulted in
measurable successful outcomes.
The vision is to promote the widespread use of these best
practices and scale up the benefits of their implementation
by sharing them among the program and regional offices.
The Office of Water will host monthly webinars on the
Best Practices in the 12 months following the publication
of this report. To be notified about these webinars, please
subscribe online by entering your email or phone number
at the EPA OW subscription siteฎ and select from our list of
subscription topics.
Direct Relation to the Agency's Priorities ซ https://public.aovdeliverv.com/accounts/USAEPAOW/subscriber/new
25
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Executive Summary
0
Assisting Water Systems
Funding Engineering Services through the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRF) Set-aside to Help
Small Drinking Water Systems Comply with Health-Based Standards A Small Project Engineering Services program,
developed through the DWSRF Program, designed to fund engineering services at waterworks that otherwise could not
afford these services. Pg27
Training Operators in Region 8 to Develop Sampling Plans Can Reduce Exposure to Lead A field training program
on the Lead and Copper Rule to support systems that lack records to justify where they collect compliance samples. Pg 28
Implementing Low-Cost Process Changes Improves Efficiency at Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Two
Regions Efforts in Regions 4 and 8 to build capacity of municipal wastewater operators, state regulatory offices, and key
stakeholders to use low-cost process modifications to achieve improved treatment and lower operational costs. Pg29
Improving Process and Relationships
Enhanced Collaboration Leads to DWSRF Targeting Small Drinking Water Systems in Need A DWSRF and
Drinking Water Program Team meets quarterly to review and discuss ways to address drinking water systems that are in
noncompliance. Pg 32
Focusing on Past Gains and Future Goals Forges Stronger Relationships that Lead to Water Quality
Improvement A project that utilized the Appreciative Inquiry process to transform relationships between people, enhance
communication, build effective collaboration, and lead to water quality improvements in the Proctor Creek Watershed.
Pg33
Implementing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Improves Permitting Decisions Two efforts, in Region 5 and
Region 9, to develop SOPs for National Pollution System Discharge Elimination System and Underground Injection Control
permit decisions. Pg 35
Pretreatment Program Assistance Can Reduce Pollution and Improve Compliance A program to target
Pretreatment Program compliance assistance and enforcement to cities without approved Pretreatment Programs. Pg 37
ฆl Modernizing Water Quality Monitoring
Tracking Down Sources of Bacteria Pollution Helps Restore A New Jersey River A pilot project utilizing conventional
pathogen indicators coupled with microbial source tracking to identify several significant sources of human pathogen
pollution to the Second River in New Jersey. Pg39
Assisting Citizen Groups to Conduct High Quality Monitoring A program to provide water quality monitoring
equipment to citizen scientists (throughout New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Tribal Nations).
Pg41
Using a Customizable Tool to Measure Changes in Stream Function A spreadsheet and field-based method
developed to quantify changes in stream functional attributes, pre-and post-project. Pg43
Identifying Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Puget Sound to Improve Shellfish Beds A program to provide local
partners with innovative tools to protect and restore shellfish beds and protect people from water-borne pathogens. Pg45
26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Funding Engineering Services through the DWSRF
Set-aside Can Help Small Drinking Water Systems
Comply with Health-Based Standards
Brief Description:
Of the 1,118 community systems in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1,048 are small community water systems (serving
less than 10,000 people). Small systems in Virginia repre-
sent about 94% of the community systems. The Virginia
Department of Health's (VDH) Small Project Engineering
Services (SPES) program complements the state's capacity
development program and augments state technical assis-
tance services. The program achieves the dual objectives of
generating compliant water systems capable of long-term
sustainability and increasing the number of systems benefit-
ing from the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRF).
VDH contracts directly with engineering firms for each region
of the Commonwealth. Field Office staff coordinate with the
SPES program to direct the consultant engineering firms in
the initiation of needed projects through task order develop-
ment. Eligible waterworks include community and non-profit
non-transient systems serving a population of 10,000 or less.
SPES provides up to $10,000 for project design services.
Current Status:
Through the first three years of this program's implementation,
eleven waterworks were assisted utilizing funds totaling ap-
proximately $150,000. A "value engineering" service has been
added by the SPES program.
Outcomes:
Results have exceeded expectations. Services were provided
to schools that exceeded the action level for lead and/or
copper. The engineer's recommendations resulted in infra-
structure improvements that produced sampling results below
contaminate levels. Avery small municipal system used SPES
to fund an asset management study in a small town. Now
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | A Small Project Engineering Services (SPES)
program developed through the DWSRF Program Set-aside.
WHO | The Virginia Department of Health, Office of
Drinking Water
WHY | The SPES program is designed to fund engineering
services at waterworks that otherwise could not afford
these services.
this town knows the location, condition, and useful life of
all its critical infrastructure. The town developed an effective
maintenance and replacement schedule and for the first time,
a capital improvement plan (CIP) to replace infrastructure
when appropriate. The CIP will result in potential projects
for the DWSRF. In short, these examples demonstrate the
value of SPES funding in protecting public health and drinking
water supplies where the needs are critical.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
By providing access to engineering services, small systems
can more easily design and plan needed capital projects
resulting in improved drinking water quality and system
management.
Contact Information:
Vincent Gallo, gallo.vince@epa.gov
27
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
^ Assisting Water Systems
Training Operators in Region 8 to Develop Sampling
Plans Can Reduce Exposure to Lead
Brief Description:
This workshop assists water system operators who, due to a
lack of historical materials records, do not have a complete
pipe materials inventory across their distribution system and
therefore have difficulty identifying Tier 1 sampling sites.
Operators want to verify that they sample in proper locations
but do not know where to begin that confirmation.
Eight-hour Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) trainings were held
throughout the geographic area of the Region providing
operators, public health officials, and technical assistance
providers with an opportunity to have one-on-one assistance
with their tap sample plans. Attendees learned the basics of
the LCR and their responsibilities for complying with the LCR,
and now have more tools to select appropriate sampling sites
for the LCR, and assist those systems that exceed the action
level for lead and/or copper.
Current Status:
Training has been provided at ten locations for 259 water
operators and technical assistance providers. Training materi-
als are all available for other Regions/States to use, and
workshops can be scaled up or scaled down to meet specific
local needs.
Outcomes:
The workshops have improved the implementation of the LCR
and have greatly helped operators understand their role and
responsibility in complying with the LCR. The workshops have
offered a venue for operators to share ideas and ways to
gather information about their distribution system so they can
select appropriately tiered sites to monitor for LCR. This best
practice has resulted in ongoing improvements in the field as
operators continually record information they gather in the
field and verify Tier 1 sites.
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | The Drinking Water Program conducted
eight-hour field trainings on the Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR) to support systems that lack records to justify
where they collect compliance samples. Operators were
trained on developing or updating their lead and copper
sampling plans.
WHO | The EPA Region 8 Drinking Water Program,
Office of Water Protection in partnership with the Midwest
Assistance Program.
WHY | This training helped operators and other public
health professionals understand and comply with the LCR.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
This workshop benefits those operators and anyone engaged
in protecting the public from exposure to lead and copper
in drinking water. The workshop layout can be modified to
adapt to different audiences, for example schools embark-
ing on school sampling programs. Participants should bring
their sampling plans to the workshops for review before they
begin their lead sampling programs. Completed training
materials can be used directly or modified to accommodate
different projects.
Contact Information:
Natalie Cannon, cannon.natalie@epa.gov
28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
^ Assisting Water Systems
Implementing Low-Cost Process Changes
Improves Efficiency at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in Two Regions
Brief Descriptions:
Since 2011, the Region 4 Wastewater Process Optimization
Program (WPOP) team and its partners have worked with
over 70 drinking water and wastewater plants, identifying
operational changes with the potential to reduce treatment
costs by $2.8M/year, while also reducing the amount of
effluent total nitrogen (TN) by over 1,500 tons/year. Regional
funds promote optimization at wastewater treatment plants
through a three-pronged approach:
Develop capacity of state and tribal water regulatory
programs, municipalities, and stakeholders to recognize
and act on opportunities to improve treatment and reduce
costs at wastewater treatment plants;
Support development of process models to identify
optimization strategies, and data tools to target candidate
facilities and measure results over an extended period; and
Target a manageable number of facilities each year to
identify and implement optimization strategies, gather
data, measure results, and develop case studies. These
case studies and successful operators become resources
for other wastewater treatment plants interested in
pursuing optimization.
In Region 8, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality partnered with a wastewater operations consultant
to provide free classroom training to 70 Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) operators and on-site consultation
to 38 plants beginning in 2012. During 2014 and 2015, the
Montana pilot showed that operator-implemented optimiza-
tion at 11 POTWs achieved an average 59% reduction in TN
and 33% in total phosphorus (TP), all for a modest invest-
ment in training and on-site assistance. With these impressive
results, Region 8 worked with other states to roll out the
approach more broadly. On-site assistance was provided to
HIGHLIGHTS
Improving Processes at Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) in Region 4
WHAT | Staff in the Region 4 Grants and Drinking Water
Protection Branch are leading efforts to build capacity of
municipal wastewater operators, state regulatory offices,
and key stakeholders to use low-cost process modifications
to achieve improved treatment and lower operational costs.
Most modifications can be implemented at no cost, resulting
in cash flow that municipalities can use to finance needed
infrastructure improvements.
WHO | The Region 4 Wastewater Process Optimization
Program team, its partners and over 70 drinking water and
wastewater plants
WHY | The program advances the Administrator's
priorities to 1) build robust relationships with state and
local governments, and 2) leverage resources to stimulate
infrastructure investment.
Collaboration on POTW Optimization Reduces
Nutrient Pollution in Region 8
WHAT | EPA and Region 8 states collaborate to train and
assist small community POTWs to optimize their operations
to achieve low-cost reductions in nutrient concentrations
WHO | Montana, Region 8 and other Region 8 States
assisted by a consultant.
WHY | Many small communities in Region 8 lack the
resources and capacity to upgrade POTWs to reduce
nutrients in effluent. Training and individual assistance to
POTW operators is resulting in affordable and immediate
progress on nutrient pollution.
29
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
the Laramie, Wyoming POTW and optimization efforts there
have resulted in a 65% reduction in TN. A regional classroom
optimization training was offered in Denver in September
2017, with operators and state agency representatives from
Colorado, Utah, and North Dakota participating. As part
of the training, Region 8 state water directors met with the
operators to hear the benefits and share perspectives about
regulatory barriers to optimization and how to address those
barriers. The success of these efforts demonstrates a practi-
cal, cost-effective approach to achieving significant near-term
nutrient reductions, and empowers POTW operators to more
effectively utilize their existing infrastructure.
Current Status:
Region 4 actively supports Tennessee, Alabama, and Ken-
tucky in optimization activities. The Region also collaborates
with United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET), provid-
ing assistance to Tribal governments to meet the needs of
Indian people. Region 4 has partnered with USET to assess
two tribal facilities, and continues to serve as a resource
when needed. In July 2017, Region 4 hosted two trainings
to build capacity of state environmental field officers and
other technical assistance providers to recognize opportuni-
ties for optimization at wastewater treatment plants and
develop actionable strategies. Region 4 is developing strate-
gies to continue collaboration and sharing of resources to
scale up the program.
In Region 8, the results are helping demonstrate the vi-
ability of optimization to Region 8 state NPDES permitting
programs. Having succeeded with efforts to help mechanical
plants in Montana reduce nutrients, the Montana Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is beginning to ex-
plore methods for reducing ammonia and nitrogen for lagoon
systems. Region 8 hopes to secure funds to offer optimization
9 From "Low Cost Nutrient Removal in Montana," 2016, The Water Planet
Company
training in additional states, and is exploring next steps such
as conducting outreach to POTW operator forums as well
as to encourage peer-to-peer outreach. Region 8 obtained
funding to support the Wyoming and Denver trainings after
learning from Montana's experiences, which the state sup-
ported with State Revolving Funds. This innovative effort
supports state efforts to effectively reduce nutrient pollution,
and achieves cost-effective environmental results on a high-
priority issue for EPA's national water program.
Outcomes:
Region 4 staff have measured and verified results at ten
facilities, accounting for reductions of $600,000/year in
operational costs and 256,000 pounds/year of effluent total
nitrogen. Other facilities are known to have implemented
recommendations and results verification is in process.
Although training and assistance to operators in other Re-
gion 8 states is in the early stages, the MDEQ effort that has
been underway longer has demonstrated these impressive
reductions in nutrients in the effluent from 11 POTWs (see
table on the next page).9
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Existing off-the-shelf operator training is generally not
designed to help POTW operators modify the biological
processes that result in effective nutrient removal. The
process was assisted in Region 8 by using a certified
wastewater operator who understands the perspectives of
the POTW operators.
Dialogue between operators contemplating optimization
efforts and regulators setting permit limits can be helpful
in recognizing and addressing potential barriers.
Continued >
30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Nutrient Reductions at Publicly Owned Treatment Works in Montana
Montana POTW
TN (mg/L)
% reduction
TP (mg/L)
% reduction
post-optimization
in TN
post-optimization
in TP
Columbia Falls
7
32%
0.3
87%
East Helena
10
48%
NR
NA
Helena
5
31%
2
32%
Manhattan
8
21%
0.4
73%
Big Sky
14
46%
1.4
-8%
Chinook
3
85%
0.3
89%
Conrad
5
85%
0.13
94%
Hamilton
3
54%
4
28%
Hardin
4
78%
2.4
-14%
Libby
21
34%
3
35%
Lolo
21
25%
4.4
5%
This cost-effective approach can be replicated in other
states or regions with a significant number of small com-
munities that may not be able to afford costly capital
improvements available to larger municipalities with a
larger ratepayer base.
The opportunity to improve treatment at lower cost
exists for many wastewater systems, often through
operational changes that can be achieved with little
to no cost to the facility.
The success of optimization efforts depends upon lever-
aging resources outside EPA, and establishing robust
relationships with wastewater treatment plant operators
and state regulatory agencies.
Regulatory agencies can encourage adoption of established
and innovative practices by working with operators toward
a common purpose, using enforcement discretion and
unbiased analysis.
Contact Information:
Region 4
Brendan Held, held.brendan@epa.gov, 404-562-8018
Region 8
Colleen Rathbone, rathbone.colleen@epa.gov
Paul Lavigne, Montana DEQ: plavigne@mt.gov
Additional Information:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/docu-
ments/case studies on implementing low-cost modi-
fication to improve potw nutrient reduction-com-
bined 508 - august.pdf
http://www.cleanwaterops.com/wp-content/up-
loads/2016/02/Montana-Report-Final-Proof.compressed.
pdf
31
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Improving Process and Relationships
0
Enhanced Collaboration Leads to DWSRF Being
Targeted to Small Drinking Water Systems in Need
Brief Description:
Nationally, small drinking water systems represent about
97% of the community systems. Over 15,700 public water
systems in Region 3 serve a population of less than 10,000.
Although small systems serve a relatively small population
(14% nationally), small systems have the greatest number of
violations and repeat violations. In addition they often have
limited funds for infrastructure investments and for establish-
ing and maintaining technical and managerial capacity.
To more directly connect Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) funding with drinking water systems experiencing
health-based violations, Region 3 formed an inter-divisional
team. The drinking water programs conduct quarterly team
meetings to discuss the Enforcement Tracking Tool (ETT) list
with their state partners. At these meetings, systems are
evaluated considering the nature of noncompliance, possible
solutions (i.e., technical, managerial, or financial support),
and planned or intended state response actions.
Current Status:
The inter-divisional team meets quarterly to review the ETT
list. In follow-up to the quarterly team meetings, the Region
3 DWSRF representative discusses the ETT list with the State
DWSRF program; DWSRF Project officers summarize any
actions taken to assist noncompliant systems and prepare
success stories reflected in the State Program Evaluation
Reports and elsewhere.
Outcomes:
The team has achieved two significant successes thus far. A
drinking water system with no operator or responsible owner
drew drinking water from three small surface ponds that were
subject to runoff pollution. The community was at the top of
the ETT list for the state. Through a coordinated effort, $2.2
million in project funding from the DWSRF Program connected
the community with a filtered, dependable, high-quality
source of water, full fire protection, and regular maintenance.
In addition, a mobile home park ranking high on the State's
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | Region 3 formed a Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Drinking Water Program Team
that meets quarterly to review and discuss drinking water
systems that are in noncompliance. Two noncompliant
systems at the top of the Enforcement Tracking Tool list
received DWSRF funding and were returned to compliance
because of enhanced internal and external communication
and collaboration.
WHO | Representatives from the DWSRF program, the
Capacity Development program, Source Water Protection,
and the Drinking Water Enforcement program.
WHY | Need to enhance coordination and collaboration
among team partners to increase compliance with drinking
water standards.
ETT list for several years with numerous violations including
nitrate exceedances worked with DWSRF's Technical As-
sistance Provider to return to complete compliance using the
15% Set-Aside.
The actions taken by the team and its state partners
demonstrate creativity and vision in achieving the Agency's
priority of increasing compliance with health-based
drinking water standards. The team worked to codify its
action through the development of a Standard Operating
Procedure.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Collaborative efforts generate superior outcomes.
Communicating effectively internally and with state
partners, DWSRF funds are serving to increase compliance
with health-based drinking water standards.
Contact Information:
Lori Reynolds, reynolds.lori@epa.gov
32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
ฉ
Improving Process and Relationships
Focusing on Past Gains and Future Goals
Forges Stronger Relationships that Lead to
Water Quality Improvement
Brief Description:
The Appreciative Inquiry (Al) process consists of 4 key phases
or "the 4 Ds": Discover, Dream, Design, and Deploy. In Proc-
tor Creek, the Al process challenged team members to look
at the root causes of their recent successes as opposed to the
reasons for previous failures. In the initial Discover stage, dis-
cussions focus on each agency's accomplishments and what
initiatives, what feelings, and what partners contributed to
their success. During the Dream phase, team members imag-
ine, without boundaries or restrictions, ways their agency can
resolve problems within the watershed. In the Design phase,
team members create defined projects that fit into the overall
goals for the watershed and each individual organization. In
the Deploy phase, team members prioritize and agree upon
the specific details of each project and design a plan for
coordination and communication. This final phase leads to
successful implementation of the projects.
The Al process in Proctor Creek involved six meetings over
a ten-month period. Participants included representatives
from the partnership agencies, the city, the state, NGOs,
and the community. To stimulate the free exchange of ideas
and get people comfortable with each other, eight major
community challenges had been identified prior to the initial
meeting. During the morning session of the meeting, each
challenge was written on a flip chart and participants were
asked to break into eight small groups to openly discuss and
capture the issues involved with a particular challenge. The
afternoon session included presentations on what had been
discussed for each challenge. After the initial meeting, the
partnership team used consensus building to narrow down
the number of challenges from eight to four. A second meet-
ing, with the same format as the first, was held to further
discuss the selected four. By the end of these first two meet-
ings, participants felt more comfortable working together
and had a comprehensive understanding of the complexities
of each challenge.
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | Appreciative Inquiry (Al) is a process for
developing trust and implementing change within teams by
focusing on the root causes of success as opposed to the
root causes of failure.
WHO | The Region 4 Proctor Creek Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (UWFP), with the help of a Region 7 Conflict
Prevention and Resolution Center Facilitator.
WHY | The Proctor Creek watershed, designated in 2013
as one of 19 UWFPs nationwide, consists of nine federal
agencies, the City of Atlanta, the State of Georgia, and three
supporting non-government organizations. The partnership
team provides resources and assistance to improve water
quality throughout the watershed and revitalize the
communities within it. The Proctor Creek UWFP team used
the Al process to transform relationships among people,
thus enhancing communication and building effective
collaboration.
Building upon the work of the initial meetings, the team
decided to use the Integrated Water Resources Management
Plan, a document created by the U.S. Army Corp of Engi-
neers, as the umbrella under which other agencies' projects
could be coordinated across the watershed. In the follow-
ing three meetings, participants talked about how they felt
about being involved in the process and shared, in detail,
the current projects being conducted by each organization.
Subsequent discussions were then held to identify opportuni-
ties to partner on various projects and include them in the
Integrated Water Plan. By the end of the process, all partners
had a clearly defined role and knew how they contributed
to the larger goals of the watershed, identifying projects to
include in an UWFP plan. This plan, a subset of the larger
Proctor Creek Integrated Plan, includes 40 projects specific to
the UWFP team.
33
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Current Status:
The Al process will continue to be used by the Proctor Creek
UWFP Ambassador as a tool for facilitating future meetings
with the partnership and other organizations. The Region 7
facilitator spent a portion of his time training and mentor-
ing the Proctor Creek Ambassador to ensure the success of
the process and that projects become fully implemented.
Communication between partners, both in the UWFP and
throughout the community, has greatly increased and the
level of enthusiasm remains high. Participation rates have
increased and people actually look forward to meetings.
Outcomes:
The Proctor Creek UWFP is part of an award-winning Na-
tional Urban Waters Team. Member participation in partner-
ship activities has increased from 50% a year ago to 80%
since the introduction of Al process, and communication and
collaborations between federal agencies, the City of Atlanta,
and the Proctor Creek community have been strengthened.
The identification of shared priorities led to the develop-
ment of the Proctor Creek UWFP workplan, a compendium
of projects agreed to by the partnership and the community.
As a result of the Al process, the Army Corp of Engineers'
Ecological Feasibility Study for Proctor Creek was completed
with the support and participation of the UWFP. The study
was designated by the partnership as our top priority project.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Al is a widely used practice for building trust and collaboration.
With a trained facilitator, this method can be utilized any-
where there are opportunities to build partnerships and solve
problems. The Al process should be conducted over a period
of time. To be successful, participation must be consistent
and with the same groups of people.
Contact Information:
Cynthia Y. Edwards, edwards.cynthiay@epa.gov
Tami Thomas Burton, thomas-burton.tami@epa.gov
34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Improving Process and Relationships
Implementing Standard Operating Procedures Improves
Permitting Decisions
Brief Descriptions:
The Region 5 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Branch is
directly responsible for implementation of the full UIC pro-
gram in Michigan and Minnesota and parts of the program
in all other states in the Region. The permitting Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) provides clear direction to the
11 staff and three managers who are responsible for timely
development of protective draft and final permit decisions by
the Division Director. The SOP identifies the 42 steps required
to process a permit application to a final decision, identify-
ing the key milestones and timelines. The SOP includes
embedded links to key technical and legal resources that
permit writers need to make and document decisions as they
progress through the steps, and provides practical advice and
direction with respect to the six federal laws and two execu-
tive orders that apply or may apply to a UIC permit. When
combined with performance standards issued to staff, the
SOP reflects customer service values by requiring regular sta-
tus reports and feedback to a permit applicant as well as an
opportunity for applicants to review their draft Class I permit,
as well as any Class II permit that contains novel conditions,
prior to public notice of the same.
Region 9's Water Division (NPDES Permits Section) and
Enforcement Division (Information Management Section
and Wastewater Enforcement Section) carried out a LEAN
process to establish new NPDES Permit Lifecycle SOPs. The
process also identified data management tools and systems
to better coordinate the NPDES permitting process across
multiple divisions and sections in Region 9. Using the LEAN
process allowed the Region to effectively evaluate existing
coordination and data/information flow processes across
program lines and develop a new information sharing system
to enable different programs to better coordinate with each
other. This led to more efficient data and information trans-
fer, improving permit quality by ensuring fuller access by all
involved offices to relevant permit, monitoring, inspection,
and other facility information.
HIGHLIGHTS
Region 5 Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Permitting Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
WHAT | In August 2017, the Region 5 UIC Branch
completed a SOP for the work performed upon receipt of an
application for a permit to inject fluid underground.
WHO | Region 5
WHY | The SOP is one of three developed since 2014 to
improve the quality of practice in the principal lines of work
in the Branch.
Region 9 National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit Lifecycle Standard Operating
Procedures
WHAT | Completed LEAN project to delineate SOPs
that establish clear interoffice coordination procedures
and program responsibilities for NPDES permit data and
information management associated with permits issued by
EPA Region 9.
WHO | Region 9 Water Division (NPDES Permits Section)
and Enforcement Division (Information Management Section
and Wastewater Enforcement Section)
WHY | To ensure more complete and efficient information
and data transfer throughout the NPDES permitting lifecycle.
Current Status:
Staff in Region 5 are currently implementing the SOP.
In April 2017, Region 9 issued a new SOP document, with
each section formally agreeing to follow these procedures,
and then established a new SharePoint site to facilitate infor-
mation sharing. The Region has conducted training classes
for staff and started implementing the new process in late
35
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
spring 2017. In addition, they also started having monthly
NPDES Direct Implementation coordination meetings in which
staff from each section regularly participate to discuss pend-
ing issues and improve process coordination.
Outcomes:
Region 5 anticipates that the SOP will improve the quality,
timeliness, and defensibility of fluid injection permits going
forward. The SOP will provide an objective basis to evalu-
ate the performance of permit writers and the management
team in the Region 5 UIC Branch. In October, Region 10
requested and received a copy of the SOP. Region 10 wanted
to read and understand the SOP as they consider one or more
applications for permits for fluid injection in Idaho. The EPA
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water also requested
and received a copy of the SOP in October, for consideration
as the Office of Water seeks to identify and employ business
process improvement strategies under Objective 3.4 in the
draft Strategic Plan.
Following initiation of the new SOPs, program offices in
Region 9 are viewing the permits process as a continuous
lifecycle requiring an ongoing commitment of section staff to
continue improving coordination throughout the permitting
process. This new process will accelerate new permit issu-
ance with better coordination in scheduling inspections in
advance of new permit issuance and ensuring inspection and
Discharge Monitoring Report information are available in a
timely fashion prior to new permit development. The Region
will be tracking permit issuance timeframes more closely in
FY18.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Region 5 has learned that for complex projects that are
undertaken on a routine basis, development and periodic
review of SOPs provides a framework in which management
and staff can test assumptions as to the reason why a given
task is performed or performed in a given way. Committing
procedures to writing and ensuring peer, management, and
legal review promotes clarity and completeness.
NPDES Permit Lifecycle
Reapplication
Permit Drafting
Public Comment
Approvals and Certifications
V
Permit coding
Submission tracking
Significant Non-Compliance Identification
Inspections
Compliance Assistance
Enforcement Orders
In Region 9, participating in the LEAN process highlighted
that prior coordination processes were not successful and
as a result, relevant facility information and data were not
available at key steps in the permitting process. The permit-
ting lifecycle is a continuous process requiring close coordina-
tion among work teams, instead of a set of uncoordinated,
discrete steps taken by separate organizations. In addition,
it is critical to create explicit work sharing databases and the
SOPs necessary to formalize responsibilities for data/work-
flow management and timeframes for actions.
Contact Information:
Region 5
Stephen Jann, Chief, Underground Injection Control Branch,
jann.stephen@epa.gov
Region 9
Dave Smith, smith.davidw@epa.gov
Jamie Marincola, marincola.jamespaul@epa.gov
36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Improving Process and Relationships
ฉ
Pretreatment Program Assistance Can Reduce Pollution
and Improve Compliance
Brief Description:
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting and enforcement units in Region 8 began an initia-
tive in FY15 to survey and inspect industrial users (Ills) in cit-
ies without Pretreatment Programs where the EPA has direct
implementation of the Pretreatment Program. The purpose of
these inspections was to assess the Publicly Owned Treat-
ment Works's (POTW) implementation of pretreatment related
requirements in its NPDES permit, determine if any of the
Ills are significant industrial users (Sills) including categorical
SlUs, and assess the potential impact of industrial discharges
on the POTW. Based on results from the initial surveys the
initiative was further refined in the following years to target
POTWs with effluent violations that could be caused by over-
loading of conventional pollutants from the food processing
sector. These violations included those that could be related
to organic overloading.
The Region used a list of food processors pulled by Standard
Industrial Classification code from Reference USA and Dunn
& Bradstreet, and Excel formulas to match the POTWs having
conventional pollutant effluent violations with potential food
processors in their service area. The Region also pulled Bio-
chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) influent data from Integrated
Compliance Information System and highlighted POTWs with
BOD that was either higher in concentration than would be
expected from a typical domestic-only service area or that
receive more pounds of BOD per day than would be expected
based on the service population.
Current Status:
Region 8 visited over 16 municipalities without approved
Pretreatment Programs in Colorado and Montana where EPA
is the Control Authority, to provide outreach regarding their
authority and responsibility to protect the POTW under the
Pretreatment Program. Region 8 is planning to add POTWs in
Wyoming to the effort in the future.
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | An initiative targeting Pretreatment Program
compliance assistance and enforcement to cities without
approved Pretreatment Programs.
WHO | EPA Region 8 Wastewater Unit, Office of Water
Protection.
WHY | While approximately 1,600 publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) have approved Pretreatment
Programs, 90% of POTWs do not and are potentially
vulnerable to impacts from uncontrolled industrial
contributions.
Outcomes:
This initiative has identified at least two instances where Ills
have caused repeated violations and provided data for the re-
gional Pretreatment Program to consider in deciding whether
to require several cities to develop approved Pretreatment
Programs. In addition, Region 8 worked with municipal staff
and provided training in their service area on pretreatment
implementation procedures such as conducting a survey of
industrial users in the service area, performing facility inspec-
tions/sampling, determining significant pollutant loading and
the impact on the POTW, implementing best management
practices for restaurants and car washes/automotive garages,
and discussing other control strategies for Ills in the service
area. These POTW visits have opened the lines of communi-
cation and Region 8 receives significantly more phone calls
and emails for compliance assistance from these cities and
neighboring cities.
37
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Lessons Learned/Recommendations: Contact Information:
Municipalities without approved Pretreatment Programs are Colleen Rathbone, rathbone.colieen@epa.gov
required to protect their POTWs from impacts of industrial
pollutants in non-domestic wastewater to comply with their
NPDES permit. Most of these municipalities do not have
the expertise, resources, or awareness of their authority to
protect their POTWs using implementation methods under
the pretreatment regulations. Focusing this effort on cities
with effluent limit violations has increased the environmen-
tal impact and focused our limited resources for compliance
assistance to cities with the greatest need. While Region 8's
targeting has focused on food processors and conventional
pollutants, this idea can be adapted to focus on different
pollutants and IU types. The project is easily scalable up or
down depending on resource constraints and the universe of
potential cities to target.
38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
ป Modernizing Water Quality Monitoring
Tracking Down Sources of Bacteria Pollution Helps
Restore a New Jersey River
Brief Description:
EPA Region 2 partnered with the Interstate Environmental
Commission (IEC) to perform a pilot monitoring project that
incorporated an innovative microbial source tracking tech-
nique involving DNA analysis for human-associated bacteria.
The Region used the analysis, together with traditional
pathogen indicator sampling and analysis, to identify human
sources of pathogens and, as a secondary objective, to deter-
mine compliance with water quality standards in the Second
River. Although the Second River has some of the highest
pathogen indicators in the entire New York-New Jersey Har-
bor area, it has no identified sources of human pathogens.
The team employed an adaptive management strategy,
choosing approximately 20 initial monitoring sites designed
to provide a broad geographic coverage of the study area
and to collect data at locations with potentially large sources
of pathogens, such as tributaries and outfalls. After being
first analyzed for traditional pathogen indicators to determine
compliance with existing water quality standards and to
prioritize the subsequent DNA analysis for human-associated
bacteria, samples were filtered and then frozen for the
subsequent DNA analysis (Human-Associated Bacteroides
in Water by Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (QPCR)
Assay). As the study progressed, monitoring locations with
low pathogen indicator results were discontinued and ad-
ditional locations were added near sites with elevated results
to identify the specific pathogen source(s), as well as to other
areas to obtain more extensive geographic coverage. A total
of 40 sites were sampled.
The project was successful in many ways and met the project's
primary objective by identifying the sources of human-derived
pathogens at several locations. In addition, Division of
Environmental Science and Assessment (DESA) successfully
demonstrated competency in an important, new analytical
method that was critical to the project's success.
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | EPA Region 2 pilot project utilizing conventional
pathogen indicators coupled with microbial source tracking/
DNA analytical techniques to identify several significant
sources of human pathogen pollution to the Second River in
New Jersey.
WHO | EPA Region 2 Clean Water Division and Division of
Environmental Science and Assessment, and the Interstate
Environmental Commission.
WHY | To identify the contribution of human sources of
pathogens to support the subsequent implementation of
targeted pathogen control measures.
Current Status:
The team is performing outreach about project results to
regional and state partners, as well as to local municipalities,
sewage treatment plants, and community groups. We are
also conducting additional monitoring at select problematic
locations to identify specific sources of pathogen pollution.
Outcomes:
The project identified human sources as a major contribu-
tor to elevated pathogen levels in the Second River. The
project identified specific sources of human pathogens at
several sites along the Second River so that targeted control
measures may be implemented. The Region developed an im-
portant partnership with the IEC in this trackdown study. The
IEC took the lead in performing field sampling activities in all
kinds of weather and without their participation and support
the project would not have materialized. The project also
39
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Two sampling sites in the Second River.
made efficient use of scarce resources by obtaining additional
support through the involvement of interns and part-time
support through the EPA Skills Marketplace program; these
additional personnel provided key support at DESA, in the
field and in analyzing project data. We also received valuable
input from our state partner, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
We are working with our state partners to incorporate patho-
gen trackdown monitoring as a key component of their com-
pliance/enforcement strategy to find and fix human sources of
pathogens. This approach is scalable and can be replicated in
other states and regions.
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Pathogen trackdown programs utilizing microbial source
tracking/DNA techniques are effective in identifying sources
of pathogens. Many older urban areas have significant water
quality problems due to human sources of pathogens. Early
and frequent communication with regional and state agencies
involved in water programs (permitting, sampling, compli-
ance/enforcement) is critical to project success and in working
with communities to implement pathogen control measures
and strategies.
Contact Information:
Stan Stephansen, EPA Region 2 CWD,
stephansen.stanley@epa.gov
Jim Ferretti, EPA Region 2 DESA, ferretti.jim@epa.gov
40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
ป Modernizing Water Quality Monitoring
Assisting Citizen Groups to Conduct High Quality
Monitoring
Brief Description:
Launched in 2015, the Region 2 Equipment Loan Program
provides water quality monitoring equipment to citizen scien-
tists (non-governmental organizations, academia, community
groups, volunteer monitors, students, etc.) throughout New
York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Tribal Nations. The program currently has 11 sets of the fol-
lowing equipment:
Water Quality Array: multiparameter sonde, GPS unit and
turbidity tube
Bacteriological Array: Idexx Quanti-tray sealer, incubator,
thermometers, UV light box, etc.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collection Array: kick-net,
specimen tray, tweezers and magnifying glass
Two manta trawls for microplastic sampling
Recipients apply for equipment and are selected by a panel
of EPA Region 2 reviewers. Recipients receive training on all
the equipment and must prepare a Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP). Loan recipients are also bound by the terms of
the EPA Personal Property Loan Agreement (EPA 1780-1) and
must provide regular updates throughout the loan, as well as
a report outlining the work performed with the equipment
provided to them.
Current Status:
In 2017, the program added the benthic macroinvertebrate
collection array in New York and New Jersey. In 2016, with
aid from the Trashfree Waters Program, Region 2 was able to
purchase two manta trawls for microplastic collection, which
led to several Train-the-Trainer events held in New Jersey and
several locations in Puerto Rico. Region 2 is currently run-
ning pilot loans of the trawls with the San Juan Bay Estuary
Program and New Jersey Fish and Wildlife.
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | Region 2 Citizen Science Water Monitoring
Equipment Loan Program.
WHO | EPA Region 2 Division of Environmental Science
and Assessment.
WHY | Many citizen scientists do not have the resources
to purchase their own instrumentation for their work;
therefore, EPA Region 2 created this program to allow
citizen scientists access to equipment used in the agency's
own work.
Region 2 Division of Environmental Science and Assessment
(DESA) continues to work with our state and citizen scientist
partners to potentially expand the range of equipment the
agency can loan, with current options including spectropho-
tometers, continuous sensors, and other advanced monitor-
ing equipment.
Outcomes:
The Region 2 Equipment Loan Program has been success-
ful in providing equipment to citizen scientists who may
not otherwise have been able to complete their work. The
program has allowed opportunities for outreach, education,
collaboration, and better communication between the Region
and citizens.
The Region can actively expand environmental knowledge
and stewardship by providing physical resources as well as
training on equipment and project planning to our citizen
scientists. There have been ongoing improvements and
expansions to the program each year and a similar program
could be executed in other regions and applied to different
equipment and media.
41
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
2016 & 2017 Equipment Loan Recipients
New York & New Jersey
Puerto Rico & US Virgin Islands
Bard College
Desarrollo Integral del Sur, Inc.
Manhasset Bay Protection Committee
Escuela JoseAponte de la Torre
New Jersey City University
Grupo Estudios Cientificos del Caribe LLC
NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program with 2 sub-grantees
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
NYC Water Trails Association
Surfrider Foundation Rincon
Operation S.P.L.A.S.H.
University of Puerto Rico - Mayaguez
Raritan Headwaters Association
University of the Virgin Islands - St. Thomas
Rockland County Soil & Water Conservation District
Save the Sound/Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc.
Seneca Nation Environmental Protection Department
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Based on our experience in managing this program we
have learned the following:
Create requirements, not suggestions, for loan recipients
(i.e., QAPPs, reports, status updates).
Be strict once those requirements are set (i.e., QAPPs,
loan ending periods, and extensions).
Be clear on recipient responsibilities.
Always be open to expanding/modifying the program
based on the recipient's and EPA's needs.
Be aware that the program is time and resource consum-
ing: Beyond the paperwork and planning for the training
day and pickup, there is the need to maintain equipment
and to offer technical assistance for citizen scientists
throughout the loan period.
Contact Information:
Rachael Graham, Region 2 Citizen Science Coordinator,
graham.rachael@epa.gov
Additional Information:
http://www.epa.gov/citizenscience
42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
ป Modernizing Water Quality Monitoring
Using a Customizable Tool to Measure Changes in
Stream Function
Brief Description:
The Stream Quantification Tool (SQT) is an objective,
measurable, and repeatable stream assessment originally
developed in North Carolina, and tailored and adapted for
use in western streams in Wyoming and Colorado. Technical
workgroups consisting of representatives from appropriate
state agencies provided data and information to assist in
the modification.
In order to create the market for stream restoration projects
through mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs, a con-
sistent currency needs to be established and should be based
on the gains (credits) and losses (debits) of aquatic resource
function. Without a function-based approach, stream mitiga-
tion accounting has relied on linear foot measurements with
no consideration of functional changes. The SQT calculates a
new unit - functional feet - which considers stream length in
combination with an estimate of functional change within a
project area to provide a more meaningful way to determine
credits and debits.
Current Status:
A beta version of the Wyoming tool and user manual were
released for public comment and testing in July 2017, with
public comments due by December 2017. Current efforts
include developing a beta version of the tool in Colorado,
developing the technical support document outlining the
methods for developing regional performance curves within
the tool, and revising the Wyoming tool based on beta
testing results and public comment. A training session for
regional Corps, EPA, and Interagency Review Team (IRT) staff
was conducted in mid-November 2017.
Outcomes:
The SQT provides federal and state agencies and non-govern-
mental organizations an objective way to measure changes
in stream function at a project site. The tool can be used for
planning restoration projects, long-term project monitoring,
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | The Stream Quantification Tool is a spreadsheet
and field-based method developed to quantify changes in
stream functional attributes, pre-and post-project, which
can inform Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting and
mitigation decisions.
WHO | EPA Region 8 Aquifer and Aquatic Resources
Protection Unit, Office of Water Protection, the Omaha,
Sacramento, and Albuquerque Corps Districts and several
Interagency Review Team members, including Wyoming
Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, Colorado Department of Natural
Resources and Colorado Department of Public Health and
the Environment.
WHY | The 2008 Mitigation Rule defines credits and
debits in the context of accrual or attainment (lift) of aquatic
functions at a compensatory mitigation site, and the loss of
aquatic functions at an impact or project site, respectively.
While various assessments and policies have been
developed in other parts of the country, there is currently
no assessment method to quantify lift and loss of stream
functions in Colorado and Wyoming.
and setting performance standards to measure accrual and
attainment of aquatic resource functions. Additionally, it
can be used to communicate success of restoration projects
to support financing and funding of projects. The adapta-
tion of the North Carolina SQT for use in two western states
demonstrates that the tool framework is transferrable across
significantly different regions. Efforts are ongoing to regional-
ize this tool in Tennessee and Michigan, and agency partners
in other parts of the country have also expressed interest in
adapting the tool for their use. Additionally, because the tool
is informed by reference datasets, performance curves can be
developed for specific areas using region-specific data.
43
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Stream Functions Pyramid
A Guirla for Assessing & Restoring Stream Functions ป ovmitw
5 BIOLOGYป
Biodiversity ai
Biodiversity and the Irfe histories of aquatic and ripanan life
PHY5ICOCHEMICAL -
Temperature and oxygen regulation; processing of organic matter and nutrients
GEOMORPHOLOGY ป
Transport of wood and sediment to create diverse bed forms and dynamic equilibrium
HYDRAULIC ป
Transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain, and through sediments
HYDROLOGY
Transport of water from the watershed to the channel
Geology
Climate
bUeamMethanics
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
The Colorado and Wyoming regionalization processes in-
cluded convening a steering committee made up of IRT mem-
ber agencies. This steering committee contributes expertise,
regional information, and data. While convening a steering
committee can take more time than having a dedicated
contractor doing more of the research and legwork, this
approach allows integration of expertise from state resource
agencies to bring local knowledge and data to the process,
co-learning opportunities for IRT members, and facilitation of
new ideas for regionalizing the tool for a specific state.
Consideration should also be given to peer review and beta
testing for the tool. A beta testing period is recommended,
as is internal peer review (e.g., by the Corps' Environmental
Research and Development Center) and external peer review
of technical analyses and development of performance
standards.
Contact Information:
Julia McCarthy, mccarthy.julia@epa.gov
Additional Information:
https://stream-mechanics.com/streain-functions-pyramid-
framework/
44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
ป Modernizing Water Quality Monitoring
Identifying Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Puget
Sound to Improve Shellfish Beds
Brief Description:
Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) programs provide
local partners with innovative tools to protect and restore
shellfish beds and protect people from water-borne patho-
gens. PIC programs 1) collect water samples, 2) investigate
fecal bacteria sources of water pollutions, and 3) take action
to correct problems. PIC programs also offer technical and
financial assistance to help homeowners and farmers treat
their sewage and address livestock waste.
PIC programs in Puget Sound employ innovative methods.
For example:
Kitsap County's PIC program conducts shoreline
monitoring to investigate malfunctioning and failing
septic systems that could directly impact the shoreline
and/or a shellfish growing area. The program conducts
records reviews, field inspections, and sampling/dye
testing to verify septic system issues, and help to cor-
rect confirmed septic system failures.
In addition to water quality sampling to assess trends and
identify bacteria sources, Skagit County's PIC program
has brought in "Crush," a sewage sniffing dog, to detect
human sewage.
Snohomish County's PIC program works with partners
to track down and reduce discharges from onsite septic
systems and livestock. The program provides technical
assistance and cost share to help landowners correct
pollution problems.
The Hood Canal Coordinating Council's PIC program is
developing strategies to investigate and correct shoreline
hotspots and conduct parcel surveys in high priority areas
-fixing all septic system failures and correcting all other
fecal pollution sources they find. They are building on so-
cial marketing strategies to carry out a regional outreach
plan for the program.
HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT | Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC)
programs identify and remove bacteria sources to ensure
that surface waters are safe and sanitary, protecting people
who swim or eat shellfish from them.
WHO | The National Estuary Program, EPA Region 10,
and local partners in PIC programs in all 12 Puget Sound
counties.
WHY | Puget Sound PIC programs work to improve water
quality and protect people's health from fecal pollution.
Local governments have used PIC to protect and restore
commercial, tribal, and recreational shellfish growing area
closures and to reverse declining water quality trends.
Current Status:
The Puget Sound National Estuary Program supports PIC
programs in all 12 Puget Sound counties. PIC programs
contributed to a net increase of 1,196 acres of shellfish
bed openings in FY17 alone. PIC programs have helped to
improve water quality throughout Puget Sound, despite
increasing population growth and urbanization across the
region. This is an important accomplishment, since Puget
Sound is the only commercially viable shellfish growing area
in the U.S. that is located in an urban watershed.
Outcomes:
Due in part to EPA's support of Puget Sound PIC programs,
FY17 saw openings of several large shellfish growing areas
in Puget Sound, including 810 acres in Drayton Harbor, 760
acres in Liberty Bay, and 272 acres in Dungeness Bay. PIC
has been a valuable resource in the elimination of fecal pol-
lution sources and can also be used for nutrients, sediment,
temperature and other pollutants.
45
-------
National Water Program Performance, Trends, and Best Practices Report Fiscal Year 2017
Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC)
Investigate
fecal
bacterial
sources
Lessons Learned/Recommendations:
Successful PIC programs need sustained coordination
and clear roles across the various partner entities that
work together to carry out the effort (e.g., local health
jurisdictions, conservation districts, public utilities, the
Washington Department of Ecology, the Washington State
Department of Agriculture, tribes, EPA, etc.).
Adaptive management is a key component of the PIC
programs. PIC staff regularly review water quality out-
comes and the relative success of various interventions
to form a constant feedback loop.
PIC programs take the work to the local level, where
water quality staff and partners are intimately familiar
with local conditions and constraints. Locals know their
watersheds best, and are in the best position to work col-
laboratively toward solutions.
Successful PIC programs require continuous effort and
outreach as septic systems age, more residents move to
an area, and new landowners start managing a property.
Contact Information:
Catherine Gockel, gockel.catherine@epa.gov
Additional information:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/
Shellfish/EPAGrants/PathoqensGrant/PIC
46
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Appendix A: Acronyms
AOC
Area of Concern
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BUI
Beneficial Use Impairment
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CIU
Categorical Industrial User
CREAT
Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool
cso
Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA
Clean Water Act
CWS
Community Water System
CWSRF
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DWSRF
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
FY
Fiscal Year
GLRI
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
IU
Industrial User
NEP
National Estuary Program
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS
Nonpoint Source
SOP
Standard Operating Procedures
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PWS
Public Water System
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
SIU
Significant Industrial User
STA
Stormwater Treatment Area
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TN
Total Nitrogen
TP
Total Phosphorus
47
-------
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 800-R-18-002
February 2018
www.epa.gov
------- |