ARRA
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
Protectingcleanwaterwhile preserving natural systems,
reducingenergy,andconservingvaluablewaterresources.
®EPA
**
< + ^ ^ REUVERT. V
Clean Water
Stale Revolving Fund
-------
-------
Green Project Reserve Report: Executive Summary
Environmental Benefits of the Green Project Reserve
Clean Water SRF ARRA Green Project Reserve Report
Green Project Reserve Implementation
Use of Additional Subsidies to Fund Green Project Reserve Projects
Green Project Reserve Accomplishments
Impact of the Green Project Reserve on the Clean Water SRF Base Program
Conclusion
Appendix A: Clean Water SRF Background and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Appendix B: Developing a Business Case
Appendix C: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Timeline
Appendix D: Percentage of Total CWSRF GPR Funding Per Category By State
2
6
8
15
17
31
32
33
36
37
38
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA) was signed into law by
Congress on February 17, 2009 with the goals
of preserving and creating jobs, promoting
economic recovery, and investing in
transportation, environmental protection, and
other infrastructure that will provide long-term
economic benefits. The bill appropriated $4
billion to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) and stated that "to the extent there
are sufficient eligible project applications, not
less than 20 percent of the funds appropriated
herein for the Revolving Funds shall be for
projects to address green infrastructure, water
or energy efficiency improvements or other
environmentally innovative activities". This
is generally referred to as the Green Project
Reserve (GPR).1
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has called
the GPR "one of the most exciting aspects
of the Recovery Act" and announced that
implementation of the GPR was one of her
administration's top priorities.2 To get the
funds to communities as quickly as possible,
Congress mandated that all of the SRF money
be under contract or construction within
one year of ARRA's enactment. With this
timeframe in mind, EPA acted quickly to
provide information and guidance to states
and EPA regions about ARRA implementation.
States in turn acted quickly to implement
1. United States Congress (February 17, 2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public Law 111-5. Retrieved
November 7, 2011. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-lllpubl5/pdf/PLAW-lllpubl5.pdf
2. U.S. EPA (April 29, 2009). Testimony of Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at Hearing
on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Implementation, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, United
States House of Representatives. Retrieved June 2, 2010. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427
a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/18fef58afe9e7b46852575a7005600cO!OpenDocument
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
> ,
••kiSS
m-t
strategies to address the ARRA requirements
by undertaking additional solicitation efforts
for GPR projects, establishing partnerships
and encouraging cooperative stakeholder and
agency efforts, and increasing their education
and outreach campaigns. Some states revised
their project priority ranking systems to
capture GPR elements, and many states offered
additional financial subsidization to GPR
projects.
The GPR drew significant interest from
previous CWSRF recipients and new
applicants, and the 20 percent requirement
was met by all states. In fact, 47 states and
Puerto Rico funded beyond the 20 percent
threshold. States have reported $1.1 billion
in executed funding agreements for GPR
projects, representing 30 percent of total
ARRA funding for CWSRF projects, or 50
percent more funds than required. Slightly
more than half (54 percent) of GPR funding
went to energy efficiency projects, 18 percent
for green infrastructure, 14 percent toward
water efficiency projects, and 14 percent
was allocated to environmentally innovative
activities.3 State/federal ARRA reporting
shows that in the short term, these projects
have generated thousands of jobs, as well as
economic and environmental benefits that
will continue to accrue years into the future.
3 . Data downloaded from the EPA Clean Water Benefits Reporting System on January 24, 2011 capturing ARRA
GPR data through the quarter ending 12/31/2010.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE GREEN PROJECT RESERVE
The inclusion of the GPR in ARRA highlights
existing eligibilities within the CWSRF that
have rarely or never been funded before. GPR
projects can provide numerous direct and
collateral environmental benefits and help
states address their water quality priorities.
Green infrastructure projects can improve
water quality by reducing stormwater flow
and contaminant loads, leading to reduced
wastewater treatment needs for combined sewer
systems, reduced flooding, and groundwater
recharge. Collateral benefits from green
infrastructure projects can include riparian
and wildlife habitat restoration, improved air
quality and reduced atmospheric CO2, and
reduced heat island effect. Green infrastructure
can also improve the sustainability of
communities by cost effectively addressing
local stormwater challenges, increasing
opportunities for outdoor recreation and
urban gardening, reducing noise pollution,
and improving community aesthetics.
Millions of kilowatt hours of energy will
continue to be saved each year as a result of
ARRA-funded energy efficiency improvements
at wastewater treatment plants.4 Millions of
gallons of fresh water will also be saved each
year due to renewable energy projects that
require less water to generate electricity.5
These improvements contribute to utility
sustainability through reduced operating costs
4. The Massachusetts CWSRF program alone funded energy efficiency projects under ARRA that are expected to
realize 29 million kWh of potential energy savings annually. U.S. EPA (December 2009). Massachusetts Energy
Management Pilot Program for Drinking Water and Wastewater Case Study. Retrieved April 19, 2011. Available
at: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/eparecovery/upload/2010_01_26_eparecovery_ARRA_Mass_EnergyCasyS-
tudy_lowres_10-28-09.pdf
5. Hill, Rachelle. The Intertwined Tale of Energy and Water. The Water Cooler. Virginia Water Resources Center.
Retrieved April 19, 2011. Available at: http://vwrrc.vt.edu/watercooler/watercooler_apr08.html
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
and, along with renewable energy sources for
wastewater treatment plants, reduced green
house gas emissions.
ARRA water efficiency and water reuse and
recycling projects reduce the amount of fresh
water used for irrigation and as cooling water
for treatment plants and other industrial
facilities. These types of projects also reduce
ground and surface water withdrawals, which
degrade habitats in rivers, streams, lakes and
shorelines. Water efficiency and conservation
projects also help reduce sewage system failures
caused by water overwhelming the system.
Groundwater quality and public health have
been improved through environmentally
innovative projects that replace failing onsite
septic systems with decentralized, green
solutions. Innovative biosolids projects have
reduced residual volume from wastewater
treatment and reduced energy costs associated
with disposal.
This report examines the performance of the
CWSRF ARRA GPR and highlights a number
of innovative state approaches to successfully
implement the GPR. The lessons learned by
EPA and the states through CWSRF ARRA
implementation will help states to continue
identifying green projects in the future while
attracting new applicants to the CWSRF and
cementing its status as one of the most effective
environmental infrastructure financing
programs.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
-
• Si
*
CLEAN WATER SRF ARRA GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
\ —ii2-s»X.?~i-, \ \ \
\
\
In recent years, environmental issues have
become more prominent as national concerns
about quality of life and public health protection
are increasingly linked to issues such as climate
change, water scarcity, and water quality. As
a result, the idea of "going green" has been
embraced by everyone from car manufacturers
to restaurants and hotels to local community
groups. The inclusion of the GPR in ARRA
capitalizes on this environmental awareness
and reflects the widespread interest in
promoting green infrastructure.
The GPR specified that each state allocate 20
percent of its ARRA capitalization grant to four
categories of projects: green infrastructure,
water efficiency improvements, energy
efficiency improvements, or environmentally
innovative activities. Green infrastructure
includes technologies and practices that use
natural or engineered systems that mimic
natural hydrologic processes to infiltrate,
evapotranspirate, and reuse stormwater to
improve water quality and enhance overall
environmental quality. Examples include green
roofs, rain gardens, constructed wetlands,
bioretention, and pervious pavement. Water
efficiency improvements include conservation
practices that deliver equal or better services
using less water, such as the use of low-flow
fixtures, leak detection equipment, gray water
recycling, wastewater reclamation and purple
pipe projects, as well as the installation of
water meters. Energy efficiency improvement
projects are those that substantially reduce
energy consumption at Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs), such as the
installation of high efficiency replacement
motors, or produce clean energy, such as the
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
installation of wind, solar, geothermal, and
biogas combined heat and power systems.
Finally, innovative environmental activities
are those that demonstrate new and/or
innovative approaches to managing water
resources to prevent or remove water pollution
in an economically and environmentally
sustainable way. Examples of environmentally
innovative activities include projects that
facilitate adaptation of clean water facilities
to climate change, projects that identify and
quantify the benefits of using integrated
water resources management approaches, and
decentralized wastewater treatment solutions,
which can provide opportunities for onsite
wastewater reuse. Eligible GPR activities could
include stand-alone projects, or they could
be components of larger projects. While the
project types identified in the GPR have always
been eligible for CWSRF financing, funding of
these types of projects has varied by state.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE IMPLEMENTATION
Green Project Reserve
Implementation
When implementing ARRA, many states
found that they did not have a sufficient
number of eligible projects ready to proceed to
meet the requirement to provide GPR project
funding in an amount equal to 20 percent of
their ARRA grant award. Some states had
little or no history of funding the types of
eligible projects under the GPR because their
programs focused on traditional infrastructure
projects. In some other states, statutory
limitations prevented CWSRF programs from
funding certain types of GPR projects or from
offering project funding mechanisms like
principal forgiveness. As a result, states had to
act quickly to implement strategies to address
these challenges and did so by:
• Undertaking additional solicitation efforts
directed specifically toward garnering
more green project applications;
• Establishing partnerships;
• Reaching out to new applicants;
• Adding green components to traditional
infrastructure projects;
• Modifying their existing priority scoring
systems; and
• Offering subsidization for GPR projects.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
passed new rules to expressly add green infrastructure, water
efficiency, and other green project activities as required by ARRA to
the definition of eligible projects. The emergency rules also allowed
for additional subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness or
negative interest rate loans.
8
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)
capitalized on the ARRA GPR to encourage soft path, sustainable
water management by offering additional subsidization for green
infrastructure projects only, an unprecedented shift to their program's
funding approach.
These efforts helped to bring in new assistance
recipients to CWSRF programs, including
more nonprofit organizations, state agencies,
universities, and even public libraries. While
this proved to be a benefit of the GPR, it also
presented unique challenges to states as they
spent significant time and effort educating new
CWSRF recipients on the mechanics of the
CWSRF program.
Green Project
Solicitation
Reserve Project
To ensure sufficient, high quality GPR projects,
many states conducted solicitation efforts
to bring more GPR projects to the CWSRF.
In many cases states sought to identify GPR
eligible projects beyond what was required,
in part to provide a buffer in the event that
some projects on the priority list could not
meet the ARRA deadline of being under
contract or construction by February 17, 2010.
EPA worked with states to craft strategies to
develop and implement GPR outreach and
solicitation efforts. Solicitations included
briefing papers, mailings, emails and website
postings, public announcements, community
forums and workshops, and targeted meetings
with other state programs and environmental
organizations. These efforts were designed
both to educate new and existing recipients
about ARRA and the GPR and to encourage
recipients to start thinking of green design
elements and components to incorporate in
their traditional infrastructure projects. A
targeted and strategic solicitation effort is
the cornerstone of all outreach endeavors to
educate assistance recipients and stakeholders,
draw attention to the various types of projects
that are eligible for CWSRF funding, and
identify and fund GPR projects.
STATES THAT CONDUCTED A SEPARATE SOLICITATION FOR GPR PROJECTS INCLUDE:
• Alabama
• Hawaii
• Louisiana
• Mississippi
• Oregon
• South Dakota
• Alaska
• Illinois
• Maine
• Montana
• New York
• Utah
• Iowa
• Maryland
• New Mexico
• Rhode Island
• West Virginia
• Georgia
• Kansas
• Massachusetts
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Wyoming
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board (OWRB), made a concerted
effort to identify projects and meet the GPR
requirement. OWRB conducted a separate
30-day solicitation for GPR projects that was
sent to existing assistance recipients, as well as
environmental and nonprofit organizations, to
generate additional interest in GPR projects.
Also, because many of the project applications
came from assistance recipients that were new
to the CWSRF, some of whom were unfamiliar
with the process of incurring debt, Oklahoma
felt it was important that staff provide guidance
and mentoring on program requirements.
This was accomplished through multiple face-
to-face meetings between OWRB staff and
assistance recipients, during which the OWRB
staff walked applicants through the CWSRF
funding and project planning process. OWRB
provided this direct support on a weekly and
sometimes daily basis. In addition, OWRB
also hired a municipal bond attorney to assist
nonprofits in their document preparation
and in establishing legal debt authority.
According to Jennifer Wasinger, Assistant
Chief of the OWRB, "the 30-day solicitation
yielded several non-traditional projects for
consideration, including two green roofs, two
riparian restoration projects, and three water
quality improvement projects." In all, the
Oklahoma program exceeded its 20 percent
GPR requirement through a combination of
traditional and innovative green projects.
Establishing New Partnerships
and Cooperative Arrangements
Some states used the GPR as an opportunity
to encourage cooperative efforts among
stakeholders and other state and federal
agencies. For example, Hawaii collaborated
with other state and federal agencies in its
outreach efforts to promote environmentally
innovative projects and energy efficiency
improvements at wastewater treatment
facilities. They coordinated outreach with
EPA Region 9, the Hawaii State Department
of Health, the Hawaii Department of Water
Supply, and the Hawaii Department of
Business, Economic Development and
Tourism. Representatives from the Hawaii
Clean Energy Initiative and the Hawaii Solar
Energy Association also sponsored one-
day workshops about innovative energy
management on four of the Hawaiian Islands.
The workshops included presentations to
Hawaii's assistance recipients that highlighted
how ARRA recipients could save energy and
money at their wastewater treatment facilities
by implementing GPR projects. The hands-
on workshops helped the Hawaiian counties
identify green projects at their water treatment
facilities as well as upgrades to improve energy
and water efficiency. In Maui County, for
example, upgrades to the collection system
pump stations that produced significant energy
savings and improved water quality were
implemented. In addition, the information
provided in the workshops helped Kauai
County identify upgrades to their Waimea
Wastewater Treatment Plant that will produce
high-quality reclaimed water for use on the
more arid regions of the island. Both EPA
Region 9 and the Hawaii CWSRF program
believe that the information provided in these
workshops will result in the continued use
of green practices and technologies in future
projects.
10
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
Iowa and Louisiana employed similar
collaboration efforts to attract assistance
recipients. Iowa formed partnerships with
the County Boards of Health, Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, conservation
organizations, and farm groups to get the word
out about the availability of ARRA funds and
to better coordinate funding efforts between
local and state agencies. The Louisiana CWSRF
program met with stakeholders, including
mayors, state representatives, the Louisiana
Municipal Association, and the Louisiana
Police Jury Association to make them aware
of the opportunities provided by ARRA
funding. As a result of these outreach efforts,
the Louisiana CWSRF received more than 250
applications totaling more than $1.8 billion,
more than three times the ARRA requirement.6
Reaching Out to New Clean
Water SRF Program Applicants
States used the GPR as an opportunity to reach
out to new types of applicants and projects.
Many states made efforts to reach out to
assistance recipients that had never utilized
CWSRF funds before. In California, the
State Water Board received many proposals
from nonprofit organizations for innovative
green projects that spanned all four GPR
categories. The state worked closely with these
organizations to ensure that they were fully
aware of CWSRF and ARRA requirements
and committed to seeing projects through
to completion. The California State Water
Board worked with the Association of Bay
Area Governments, the San Francisco Estuary
Partnership (SFEP), and the City of El Cerrito
to construct a series of rain gardens as part
of a demonstration project for the City's San
Pablo Streetscape Improvements Initiative.
This highly visible urban retrofit project, which
was completed in summer 2010, utilizes curb
cuts to direct stormwater flows into vegetated
treatment basins that will treat the runoff from
1.23 acres of impervious area.7 The rain gardens
will be continuously monitored by SFEP to
ensure that they maintain their ability to
remove contaminants such as PCBs, pesticides,
mercury, and suspended sediment. The project
will reduce contaminant loadings into Baxter
Creek, El Cerrito Creek, and ultimately the San
Francisco Bay. The El Cerrito Green Streets
Rain Gardens project has been successful due
in part to the California State Water Board's
role in ensuring that assistance recipients were
in compliance with the ARRA requirements.
The responsiveness and commitment of
the nonprofit organizations involved also
contributed to the project's success.
ThemajorityoftheCWSRFARRAGPRprojects
funded in Maryland were from applicants that
had never received SRF funds before; many
were homeowner associations, nonprofit
organizations, and small communities. Most
6. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. CWSRF News. Retrieved May 9, 2011. Available at: http://
www.deq.state.la.us/portal/NEWS/AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentAct/CWSRF.aspx
7. San Francisco Estuary Partnership. El Cerrito Green Streets Rain Gardens. Retrieved October 7, 2010. Available
at: http://www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail.php?projectID=41
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
11
-------
of these projects were stand-alone green
infrastructure stormwater projects, rather than
green components of traditional wastewater
treatment projects. These projects are examples
of Maryland's effort to actively solicit GPR
projects that would help restore Maryland's
tidal and non-tidal water resources which is
part of the state's larger goal of Chesapeake
Bay restoration. To ensure that these projects
met ARRA requirements and were under
contract by February 17, 2010, Maryland was
in frequent communication with these project
sponsors, providing step-by-step assistance
throughout the funding process.
The use of additional project funding and
repayment sources through a collaborative
stakeholder approach has the potential to
attract new assistance recipients to the CWSRF
program. For example, the Cumberland
County Soil and Water Conservation District
in Maine accepted CWSRF ARRA funds to
implement a suite of stormwater management
components, such as vegetative bioswales,
tree boxes, soil media niters, and discrete
underground water quality treatment units to
reduce pollutant loadings in Casco Bay after
four town councils voted to authorize loans
to advance a Watershed Management Plan
(WMP) for Long Creek.
The project treats approximately 16.6 acres
of impervious cover in an area surrounding
Long Creek, an urban impaired stream
suffering from significant bank erosion and
loss of aquatic life. Under the WMP, private
landowners, municipalities, and state agencies
like the Maine Department of Transportation
may either pay for individual pollution permits
or pay a fee to participate in the proposed
restoration program. The permit fees are
determined based on the area of impervious
cover on the property. Because the restoration
program hadnot begun collecting participation
fees at the time of CWSRF funding for the Long
Creek ARRA project, the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection structured the
funding agreement as 100 percent principal
forgiveness to be converted back to a loan once
the funding mechanism is in place. At such
time, 27.7 percent of the loan will remain in
principal forgiveness.
Innovative and cooperative funding
arrangements such as that for the Long Creek
Restoration Project enable communities to
fund important projects quickly and provide a
valuable model for others to follow. According
to Tamara Lee Pinard, Executive Director
of the Long Creek Watershed Management
District, the timing of ARRA and the funding
mechanisms that were offered by Maine's
CWSRF program served as a crucial impetus
in pulling together the participation efforts
among district members, which has allowed
the project to be realized.
These efforts to reach new stakeholders and
potential assistance recipients are anticipated
to yield more returning assistance recipients
seeking CWSRF funding in the future.
12
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
From Gray to Green: "Greening"
Of Traditional Projects
Many states took a two-pronged approach
to meeting the GPR requirement: they
engaged in additional solicitation efforts, as
previously described, and evaluated traditional
wastewater treatment projects to identify
existing green components or opportunities
to add green components. Pennsylvania used
its administrative funds to hire a contractor to
provide energy audits free of charge to assistance
recipients that received CWSRF ARRA funds
for traditional wastewater infrastructure
proj ects and was able to quickly approve change
orders to add green components to projects.
New York partnered with the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) to identify opportunities to
incorporate energy efficiency improvements
into existing wastewater pipe and plant proj ects
scheduled for funding. NYSERDA performed
free energy audits on all POTW projects on
New York's Intended Use Plan (IUP) that were
identified to have energy components. This
effort resulted in approximately $92 million in
energy saving measures for 25 capital projects
that would not otherwise have been identified.
Energy efficient measures included in the
designs are estimated to result in an estimated
energy savings of 16.1 million kWh.8
Priority Setting
Many state priority ranking processes would
not typically rank GPR projects high enough
to be funded without bypassing higher
scoring projects. After the passage of ARRA,
however, many states acted quickly to modify
their priority setting systems to incorporate
additional points for GPR projects or project
components in their scoring and ranking
process. States such as Kansas, Maine, New
Hampshire, and Kentucky added additional
criteria to their priority ranking systems to
ensure that GPR projects scored high enough
to be ranked alongside traditional POTW
projects. These efforts proved successful,
as all states met or exceeded the 20 percent
GPR requirement. Several states had already
developed processes to promote sustainability
that took energy and water efficiency
improvements and green infrastructure
"These funds will support innovative solutions that address envi-
ronmental threats to our rivers, lakes and streams while also cre-
ating new jobs and providing taxpayer savings through reduced
energy and water use."
- Former New York Governor David A. Paterson
8. U.S. EPA (August 2010). Increasing Energy Efficiency through ARRA Funding: New York State Wastewater
Initiatives. Retrieved May 5, 2010. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/upload/10504-
ll-NYState-casestudy_v4_highres_l.pdf
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
13
-------
into account. For example, the Indiana
Finance Authority's "SRF Sustainable Design
Checklist" provides a comprehensive system
for evaluating project elements. It includes
energy reduction, wetlands restoration/
creation, and water reuse and reduction, as
well as site and material reuse and life-cycle
cost analysis. Similarly, the Arizona Water
Infrastructure Finance Authority had already
developed new sustainability criteria for its
Design and Planning Technical Assistance
Program. The sustainability criteria award
points to projects that incorporate elements
such as water conservation, energy efficiency,
and green infrastructure. The efforts these
states made to incorporate sustainability and
green components into water quality projects
in advance of ARRA helped streamline their
GPR solicitation and funding processes.
NEW YORK'S GREEN INNOVATION GRANT PROGRAM
The New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) established a new pro-
gram, the Green Innovation Grant Program (GIGP), to help provide ARRA funding to
GPR projects. New York allocated more than $38 million to the GIGP for clean water
projects. GIGP funds were directed to GPR-eligible projects that were listed on the
state's IUP in a new separate category. Applications were accepted through May 29,
2009 in a separate application and review process.
Eligible applicants included municipalities, state agencies, private and not-for-profit or-
ganizations, school districts and soil and water conservation districts. GIGP applications
were evaluated based on their readiness to proceed, amount of reduction in energy
use, water efficiency, green wet weather infrastructure, or use of innovative green tech-
nology.
The EFC received approximately 200 eligible project applications, which were reviewed
by an interagency panel that included representatives from the EFC, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Health
and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Thirty-five proj-
ects were selected for GIGP funding. Recipients received grants covering up to 90 per-
cent of eligible costs and were required to provide at least 10 percent matching funds.
Former Governor David A. Paterson praised the program and the response
rate by saying, "The Green Innovation Grant Program is a giant leap for-
ward in developing the state's 'green' industry. These funds will support
innovative solutions that address environmental threats to our rivers, lakes
and streams while also creating new jobs and providing taxpayer savings
through reduced energy and water use."9
9. New York State Governors Office (October 2009). Governor Paterson Announces $43 Million in Stimulus Funds
for Clean Water Projects. Retrieved May 9, 2011. Available at: http://www.governor.ny.gov/archive/paterson/
press/press.l 001091 .html
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
USE OF ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIES TO FUND
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE PROJECTS
ARRA included the requirement that states
provide 50 percent of their ARRA capitalization
grant as additional subsidization in the form
of grants, principal forgiveness, or negative
interest loans. It is difficult to generalize state
subsidization policies and practices because
there was considerable variability in the
amount of subsidization awarded as well as
additional considerations, such as financial
capability. However, most states chose to use
principal forgiveness to provide additional
subsidization for GPR projects. No states
offered negative interest loans, and only seven
states offered grants.10
Over three-quarters (76 percent) of CWSRF
ARRA funds awarded were in the form of
additional subsidization, well above the fifty
percent required by Congress. Nearly all states
provided some additional subsidization for
CWSRF ARRA GPR projects. Fifteen states
provided 100 percent subsidization for all GPR
projects.11
Providing additional subsidization was a way to
attract potential assistance recipients that may
not typically apply for SRF funding. Rod Geisler,
Chief of the Municipal Programs Section of
the Bureau of Water at the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment, expressed the
view that offering additional subsidization was
critical in attracting assistance recipients who
would not normally apply for CWSRF funding.
Some states expressed concerns about whether
these types of recipients would take future
CWSRF funding unless it involved principal
forgiveness. Technical assistance from states
and EPA, combined with a flexible repayment
structure may increase the probability that
these first-time recipients will come back to
the program in the future.
10. States that offered grants include: Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas.
11. Alaska, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming provided 100 percent subsidization for
all GPR projects. This number is based on information reported in the states' Intended Use Plans and the EPA
Clean Water Benefits Reporting System.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
15
-------
USING EMERGENCY RULEMAKING AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY
Several states used emergency rules or authority to allow for additional
subsidization. The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) met this challenge through the development and adop-
tion of emergency rules that would allow principal forgiveness to be used
in its CWSRF program. DENR staff indicated that the principal forgiveness
mechanism under ARRA was instrumental in the success of the GPR.
"South Dakota was able to fund a $1.8 million biogas and heat recovery
project for the city of Sioux Falls one year ahead of schedule, and the
$1.2 million project to the city of Watertown for biofiltration swales and
a pervious parking lot would never have been funded without the use of
principal forgiveness," said Mike Perkovich, DENR's Engineering Director.
16
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
$1.1 Billion in Green
Reserve Funding
Project
NATIONAL GPR FUNDING PER CATEGORY
In just one year, states provided more than
$1.1 billion in executed funding agreements
for GPR projects.12'13 According to the Clean
Water Benefits Reporting System, more than
half (54 percent) of the GPR funding went
toward improving energy efficiency. The
energy efficiency category of projects included
wastewater treatment plant upgrades with
premium efficiency motors and pumps. It
also included renewable energy, such as the
installation of solar panels, wind turbines,
biogas, and combined heat and power (CHP)
systems at wastewater treatment facilities,
as well as electrical system upgrades to
improve energy efficiency. Another 14 percent
went toward water efficiency improvement
projects that included water treatment and
conveyance upgrades for reuse facilities and
installation of water meters, among others.
Green infrastructure projects accounted for
18 percent of GPR funding and included wet
weather management techniques such as
Energy Efficiency: $606 M
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure: $209 M
Water Efficiency: $153 M
Environmental Innovations: $160 M
bioswales, green roofs, and porous pavement,
among others. Another 14 percent of GPR
funds went toward environmentally innovative
projects, which included the construction
of decentralized wastewater systems and
treatment facility improvements for biosolids
recycling, among others.14
Although energy efficiency measures received
the most GPR funding, nearly as many
green infrastructure projects and project
12. Though all states reported GPR projects up to the 20 percent requirement, many did not include additional
projects or portions thereof that qualified for the GPR in their total GPR amount. As a result, the actual amount
of ARRA funding for GPR-eligible projects exceeds 30 percent.
13. Out of a total of S4 billion allocated to the CWSRF, S3.8 billion was available for SRF projects.
14. Data downloaded from the Clean Water Benefits Reporting System on January 24, 2011 capturing ARRA GPR
data through quarter ending 12/31/2010.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
17
-------
components have been funded. ARRA
projects incorporated approximately 278
energy efficiency components, 259 green
stormwater infrastructure components, 113
environmentally innovative components,
and 103 water efficiency components.15
Total funding for energy efficiency is
significantly higher than total funding for
green infrastructure because projects with
energy efficiency components are much more
capital intensive, on average, than projects
with green infrastructure components. This
is demonstrated by the fact that the average
funding for each energy efficiency project was
$2.2 million, while the average funding for
each green infrastructure project was less than
$1 million.
States Meet the 20 Percent
Requirement
Every state reported 20 percent or more
NATIONAL AVERAGE GPR FUNDING PER
PROJECT OR PROJECT COMPLETION
Environmental Innovations: $1.4 M
Energy Efficiency: $2.2 M
Water Efficiency: $1.5 M
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure: $0.8 M
GPR funding in the national CWSRF project
reporting system - the Clean Water Benefits
Reporting (GBR) system. Forty-seven states
and Puerto Rico funded beyond the 20 percent
GPR requirement of ARRA, resulting in the use
of 30 percent of CWSRF ARRA funds for the
GPR. Kansas led the way by allocating nearly
FIGURE 1: ARRA FUNDING FOR CWSRF GREEN PROJECT RESERVE EXCEEDS 20 PERCENT
ARRA Funding for Traditional
CWSRF Projects
ARRA Funding for GPR
Energy Efficiency
Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Water Efficiency
Environmental Innovation
15. Some projects included components from more than one GPR category. Accordingly, the numbers reported
here do not match the number of assistance agreements/total number of projects (649) reported in CBR.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 2: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CWSRF GREEN PROJECT RESERVE FUNDING PER
CATEGORY BY EPA REGION
T3
C
o
0)
C
0)
u
&_
0)
Q.
100 %
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IL u
1 2
EPA Region
I J
Energy Efficiency
Water Efficiency
Green Stormwater Infrastructure
10
Environmental Innovation
85 percent of its ARRA CWSRF grant to GPR-
eligible projects or project components. This
is particularly impressive in light of the fact
that Kansas had not previously funded many
of these types of projects, particularly green
infrastructure projects, before the passage of
ARRA.
No other CWSRF program provided more than
50 percent of its ARRA funds to GPR-eligible
projects, but five states (Arizona, Arkansas,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin) and
Puerto Rico allocated at least 40 percent of their
CWSRF ARRA grant award to GPR- eligible
projects. Ten other states allocated at least 30
percent of their CWSRF ARRA grant awards
to GPR-eligible projects.16 Figure 2 shows the
percentage of total CWSRF GPR funding per
category by EPA Region; for more information
on the percentage of GPR funding per category
by state, see Appendix D.
Improving the Environment
State reporting of projected environmental
benefits information is available for $1.1 billion
in CWSRF ARRA funded projects that include
GPR activities. This information shows that
these projects contribute significantly to the
protection and restoration of rivers, lakes, and
streams throughout the country. For example,
$757 million went toward projects that protect
water quality and $162 million funded projects
to protect and restore public drinking water
sources. These projects address water quality
goals that include protecting public health,
implementing more effective controls of
polluted runoff, and promoting water quality
on a watershed basis.
16. Alabama, Idaho, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Utah, and Vermont
allocated at least 30 percent of the CWSRF ARRA grant award to GPR projects.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
19
-------
FIGURE 3: CLEAN WATER SRF ARRA FUNDING THAT INCLUDES GREEN PROJECT
RESERVE ACTIVITIES
753 Projects
Financed
...To 588
Communities
6.3 Billion Gallons
Per Day Treated
$757 Million to Improve Water Quality
$419 Million to Achieve Compliance
$900 Million to Protect and Restore
Aquatic Life and Wildlife
$162 Million to Protect and Restore
Drinking Water Sources
$895 Million to Protect and Restore
Recreational Uses
*Data downloaded from the Clean Water Benefits Reporting System on January 24,2011 capturing ARRA GPR data
through quarter ending 12/31/2010.
**Environmental benefits are underreported by states due to incomplete data submission in CBR
Both traditional wastewater infrastructure
projects and GPR eligible projects are integral
to upholding the water quality goals established
by the Clean Water Act. Traditional wastewater
facility projects have successfully enabled
communities to address point source discharge
pollutants, reduce toxic discharges, and achieve
compliance for decades. As communities and
utilities increasingly realize the environmental
benefits of green design and technology, these
green alternatives can be incorporated more
broadly and with increasing economies of scale
to enhance community and utility sustainability.
These projects represent a broad suite of project
options designed to improve water quality and
can work in concert with gray infrastructure
investments to enhance the sustainability of
wastewater treatment and collection systems.
The GPR encourages communities to think
holistically about the life-cycle cost reductions
of their utilities as well as the collateral
environmental benefits these projects can
produce: livable and walkable communities,
urban green spaces, groundwater recharge,
improved air quality, reduced heat island effect,
and the restoration of wetland and riparian
habitats that are invaluable for the water quality
functions they perform.
20
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
GPR projects also contribute to long-term
sustainability by mitigating the potential
impacts of climate change. Energy efficiency
improvements at wastewater treatment facilities
will mitigate the cause of climate change by
reducing demand for energy derived from fossil
fuels that produce greenhouse gases. Water
efficiency projects, particularly water reuse
projects, will allow communities to compensate
for diminishing water availability and supplies
in some areas. Green infrastructure design
will help manage wet weather flow, and other
environmentally innovative activities may
enhance wastewater treatment and protect
facilities from climate change impacts.
Green Infrastructure
GPR projects also contribute to long-term
sustainability by mitigating the potential impacts
of climate change. By capturing rain where it
falls, stormwater runoff flows and non-point
source pollutant loads to waterways, as well as
combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflow
events, are significantly reduced. Through
natural infiltration and treatment processes,
green infrastructure solutions offer economic
benefits to communities by eliminating the need
for expensive and energy-intensive stormwater
treatment processes. These projects can also
provide indirect sustainability benefits. For
example, increased plant cover associated
with green infrastructure can provide passive
recreational opportunities and increases in
wildlife habitat, thus improving the livability of
an area, resulting in increased property values.
Heating and cooling costs can also be reduced.
Green roofs are particularly beneficial in this
respect. They provide additional insulation
in buildings as well as mitigate the urban
heat island effect. The increased presence of
impervious surfaces causes temperatures to be
1.8 - 5.4°F warmer in urban areas than in less
developed areas.17 Increased plant cover can also
be expected to result in an improvement in air
quality. This can be attributed to plants filtering
pollutants from the air, including carbon dioxide,
and reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from
heating and cooling.
Many states actively worked to fund green
infrastructure projects to mitigate stormwater
and nonpoint source pollution. In all, 259 green
infrastructure projects or project components
were funded with ARRA funds, representing
34 percent of the total number of CWSRF
GPR projects funded by ARRA. The majority
of these projects included implementation of
stormwater BMPs and streambank stabilization
and re-vegetation. Other projects included green
design elements such as green roofs, pervious
pavement, and rain gardens.
Although states in all EPA regions funded green
infrastructure projects, Region 3 funded over
$44 million - 46 percent of total GPR funding
in the Region and 21 percent of national funding
for green infrastructure. Pennsylvania funded
34 green infrastructure projects, and Maryland
funded 27 green infrastructure projects that
will help protect and restore Maryland's tidal
and non-tidal water resources as part of the
17. U.S. EPA. Heat Island Effect. Retrieved April 19, 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
21
-------
states goal of Chesapeake Bay restoration. In Region 7, Kansas promoted innovative green stormwater
projects by providing 75 or 100 percent principal forgiveness, as compared to 50 percent principal
forgiveness for other green projects such as energy or water efficiency improvements.
Green infrastructure project case studies from New York, Maryland, and Kansas are described below.
UTICA, NEW YORK:
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY THROUGH URBAN REFORESTATION
Years ago, a dense canopy of American elm lined the streets of the City of Utica. How-
ever, an outbreak of Dutch elm disease in the 1950s killed off the trees, damaging the
urban forest and altering the appearance of the city.
In 2002, the city began planting the disease-resistant American Liberty elm in an ef-
fort to reintroduce elms to the urban landscape and revitalize the city. Since that time,
urban reforestation of the city has advanced significantly, as explained by City of Utica
Mayor David R. Roefaro in the fall of 2009:
"In just under two years, we've planted more trees than ever before.
We've rewritten history with the Elm Tree Project."
After the passage of ARRA, the City of Utica's urban reforestation efforts received a
boost with the help of New York's Green Infrastructure Grant Program (GIGP). The New
York CWSRF program provided $646,641 to the City of Utica through the GIGP to reduce
stormwater runoff flowing into the Mohawk River and to promote urban revitalization
in an economically distressed area by restoring the urban canopy. The project utilizes a
number of methods to mitigate stormwater runoff, including the installation of rain bar-
rels at local residences and the planting of over 275 trees in tree pits at various locations
throughout the city. The rain barrels will allow homeowners to disconnect their down-
spouts from the sewer system and reuse water on-site for plant irrigation. The tree pits
with associated curb alterations and the tree plantings are designed to collect and use
stormwater. The green infrastructure methods used in this project will also assist in the
reduction of combined sewer overflows, helping the city comply with a Consent Order
to reduce discharges to the Mohawk River.
22 GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
EDMONSTON, MARYLAND:
"ONE OF THE GREENEST STREETS IN THE COUNTRY"
In an effort to address stormwater issues and make its streets more pedestrian friend-
ly, the Town of Edmonston partnered with the Chesapeake Bay Trust to retrofit one
of its busiest streets using green infrastructure. The project involves narrowing the
two-lane Decatur Street to make room for landscaped areas planted with trees and a
variety of native grasses. Porous pavers will replace asphalt along the curbs to allow
more rainfall to infiltrate the ground and provide a collateral community benefit by
serving as bike lanes. The pavers and the bioswales are expected to absorb approxi-
mately 80 percent of the runoff from most rainfall.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was present at the construction launch for this project
in fall 2009 and called Decatur Street "one of the greenest streets in the country"
noting that Edmonston "can show the way for other communities across America."18
The Edmonston green street project is being funded with a $1.1 million CWSRF ARRA
loan at zero percent interest.
18. The Baltimore Sun (November 2009). Remaking Main Street. Retrieved June 22, 2010. Available
at: http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal-md.gr.street25nov25,0,2052577.story
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
23
-------
LENEXA, KANSAS:
PROTECTING WATER QUALITY AND BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WITH URBAN
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
As part of its Vision 2020 planning strategy, the City of Lenexa emphasizes sustainable,
livable communities through the proper management of wastewater and stormwater.
Lenexa's visioning strategy specifically identifies the need for innovative stormwater
management planning, maintenance programs, efficient methods of irrigation, the
use of native landscaping materials that require less water, watershed protection, and
continuing environmental education for community stakeholders.19
Lenexa received $1.1 million in CWSRF ARRA funds, with $805,073 in principal for-
giveness, to fund its Central Green Streamway Project. This project will help Lenexa
fulfill its Vision 2020 goals of providing common open space for the community while
improving water quality, providing wetland habitats, protecting surface water bod-
ies from nonpoint source pollutants, and beautifying the neighborhood. The project
includes a bioengineered streamway, a constructed wetland, native vegetation plant-
ings, and a water reuse irrigation system within the City Center North facility. The
streamway will safely convey stormwater from the City Center development through
the City Center North development and will enhance infiltration while creating a us-
able public gathering space. The constructed wetland will help mitigate the impacts
of stormwater in various neighborhoods throughout the city. Other components of
the project include constructing trails adjacent to the streamway and planting native
vegetation for improved water quality.
19. City of Lenexa, Kansas (August 1997). Lenexa Vision 2020. Retrieved January 26, 2011.
Available at: http://lenexa.com/main/pdfs/Vision2020.pdf
24
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
Energy Efficiency
Wastewater treatment systems are among the
most energy intensive facilities owned and
operated by municipalities. They require an
estimated 75 billion kilowatt hours nationally,
about 3 percent of annual U.S. electricity use.20
But these facilities have the potential to achieve
15 to 30 percent energy savings, or 15.75
to 31.5 billion kilowatt hours annually, by
incorporating energy conservation measures.21
Energy efficiency measures reduce long-term
energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions at
wastewater treatment facilities.
In many cases, thousands of dollars per
month can be saved by installing renewable
energy systems or improving efficiency at
wastewater treatment plants. Utilities can
use the cost savings from energy efficiency
and renewable energy projects to fund water
conservation, stormwater management,
and water quality improvement projects.
Implementing renewable energy approaches
and energy efficiency improvements at
existing facilities also promotes utility
sustainability by using a "fix-it-first approach"
that prioritizes repairs and upgrades to
existing infrastructure before expansion.
Energy bill savings can be directed to asset
management and preventative maintenance,
improving environmental protection and the
sustainability of infrastructure. These projects
can also improve the treatment process by
permitting more efficient operations. In the
event of a service interruption from a power
outage, for example, facilities that operate
more efficiently can recover more quickly than
facilities with inefficient energy management.
Increased efficiency improves the process of
pumping, treating, and discharging wastewater
and helps ensure the continued protection and
improvement of water quality.
States funded 278 energy efficiency projects
or project components, representing 37
percent of the total number of GPR projects
funded. Many energy efficiency components
were incorporated into projects involving
wastewater treatment facility upgrades based
on recommendations from energy audits.
The majority of these projects involved the
installation of renewable energy and combined
heat and power systems, as well as more
efficient motors, pumps, and blowers. The
implementation of these types of projects
mitigates the rising costs of traditional energy
sources, reduces greenhouse gas emissions,
conserves natural resources, protects water
quality, and improves the sustainability of our
water infrastructure.
States in EPA Regions 2 and 5 led the nation
in funding energy efficiency projects by
allocating $288 million to them - 78 percent
and 50 percent of total GPR funding for these
Regions respectively, and 47 percent of national
20. Electric Power Research Energy Institute (1999). Energy Audit for Water/Wastewater Facilities. Retrieved
August 26, 2010. Available at: http://www.ceel.org/ind/mot-sys/ww/epri-audit.pdf
21. Natural Resources Defense Council (March 2009). Water Efficiency Saves Energy: Reducing Global Warming
Pollution through Water Use Strategies. Retrieved August 26, 2010. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/files/
energywater.pdf
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
25
-------
funding for energy efficiency projects. Region 1
states allocated 86 percent of their total ARRA
GPR funds toward energy efficiency projects,
with Massachusetts directing more than $53
million of its ARRA grant to projects designed
to advance its Energy Management Pilot for
Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. This pilot program aims to reduce
energy use at treatment facilities by 20 percent.
The following ARRA project from Connecticut
details some of the benefits of implementing
energy efficiency improvements at a WWTP.
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT:
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY PROJECT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
Using CWSRF ARRA funds, the Metropolitan District (MDC) in Hartford, CT imple-
mented sludge incinerator upgrades and the construction of a heat recovery facility
at the Hartford Water Pollution Control Facility (HWPCF).22 The HWPCF is the largest
wastewater treatment plant in Connecticut. On a daily basis it uses enough electric-
ity to light 35,000 one hundred watt light bulbs.23 The heat recovery system will take
the waste heat from the incinerators and use it to generate steam and electricity for
the HWPCF. This project will allow the HWPCF to meet approximately one third of its
power demand.
The project received $9.6 million in ARRA funds, $1.9 million of which was provided
in the form of a grant. The project also received a $7.8 million loan from base CWSRF
program funds, and MDC contributed $13.9 million in local assistance.
22. In order to recover heat from the incinerator to generate electricity.
23. Connecticut Metropolitan District (2010). A Green Approach to Stormwater Management. Retrieved
January 11, 2012.Available at: http://www.thecleanwaterproject.com/mdcannual2010.pdf
Water Efficiency
Between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. population
nearly doubled while the public demand for
water more than tripled. Increased water
demand put additional stress on water supplies
and distribution systems, threatening both
human health and the environment. While
the population and the demand on freshwater
resources are increasing, supply remains
constant. Communities that currently struggle
to meet public water supply demands may
have difficulty meeting agricultural needs for
water, and drought-affected areas are at risk
of groundwater overdraft as surface supplies
dwindle. Sustainable water management is
a growing concern in the United States and
communities across the country face significant
challenges pertaining to water supply and
water infrastructure. A government survey has
found that at least 36 states are anticipating
local, regional, or statewide water shortages by
2013.24
Water efficiency is the long-term ethic of saving
24. U. S. General Accountability Office (July 2003). Freshwater Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies Could
Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages. Retrieved September 15, 2010. Available at: http://www.
gao.gov/new.items/d03514.pdf
26
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
water resources through the implementation
of water-saving technologies and activities.
Using water efficiently will help ensure the
presence of supplies for future generations,
save money, and protect the environment.
Many of the water efficiency projects funded
by ARRA will indeed conserve this resource,
recharge aquifers, help restore the viability of
flowing surface water supplies, and continue to
encourage responsible and sustainable water
management. Additional benefits associated
with water efficiency projects include energy
savings and deferred or avoided costs to
locate additional water supplies and treat and
transport the water.
There were 103 water efficiency projects
or project components funded by ARRA
as part of the CWSRF GPR. Many of these
projects involved treatment and conveyance
upgrades for wastewater reuse systems. Less
common water efficiency projects included the
installation of water efficient fixtures and water
meters.
The project includes 53,000 linear feet of
recycled water supply and return pipeline from
the municipal outfall in Jamestown. Over the
course of one year, the Jamestown Wastewater
Treatment Plant will supply over 500 million
gallons of water to the Spiritwood Station
facility. This project is estimated to create 70
construction jobs and 24 full-time positions.
The following case study from North Dakota
demonstrates the benefits of using reclaimed
and recycled wastewater for communities that
face water shortages.
JAMESTOWN, NORTH DAKOTA:
RECYCLING WATER SAVES MONEY AND ENERGY
The Stutsman Rural Water District in Jamestown, North Dakota, received $5.5 million
in CWSRF ARRA funds for a collaborative wastewater reuse project in partnership with
Great River Energy (GRE). GRE's Spiritwood Station power plant uses the Best Avail-
able Control Technologies (BACT) to control emissions for the production of 99 mega-
watts of steam-generated electricity and 555,000 pounds of steam heat per hour.
Energy development and production is a major consumer of valuable and scarce wa-
ter resources in the West, and the Spiritwood Station plant uses up to 1,200 gallons of
water per minute for industrial processes. The power plant will utilize treated munici-
pal wastewater produced by the City of Jamestown's Wastewater Treatment Plant for
cooling processes and other needs. This project will allow the plant to use recycled
wastewater to effectively offset its demand for fresh water.
The project includes 53,000 linear feet of recycled water supply and return pipeline
from the municipal outfall in Jamestown. Over the course of one year, the Jamestown
Wastewater Treatment Plant will supply over 500 million gallons of water to the Spir-
itwood Station facility. In addition, this project is estimated to create 70 construction
jobs and 24 full-time positions.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
27
-------
Environmentally Innovative
Activities
Environmentally innovative projects
demonstrate new approaches to sustainably
managing water resources. The 113
environmentally innovative projects that were
funded using CWSRF ARRA money included a
variety of innovative approaches to improving
water quality as well as the sustainability
and performance of wastewater treatment
facilities. The suite of projects funded under
this category include, but are not limited to,
biosolids recycling, constructed wetlands,
and repair and rehabilitation of decentralized
systems. The environmental benefits associated
with environmentally innovative projects
include protecting surface and ground water
quality, safeguarding public health, and natural
infiltration techniques that reduce energy
use and conserve water resources while also
creating habitat for flora and fauna. Some
of these activities offer collateral benefits
through the reduction of waste and the carbon
footprint of wastewater utilities, ultimately
translating into more sustainable operations
and communities.
States in Regions 5 and 6 spent over $85 million
in CWSRF ARRA money on environmentally
innovative projects - 22 percent and 45
percent of total GPR funding for these Regions
respectively, and 53 percent of national funding
for environmentally innovative projects. Texas
funded one of the largest environmentally
innovative projects, a $31 million project
involving upgrades at a biosolids recycling
facility to enhance the treatment process and
expand composting capabilities.
Nearly half of CWSRF environmentally
innovative projects were decentralized
wastewater solutions to repair or replace failing
septic systems. Compared to the construction
and maintenance of larger, centralized
treatment plants, the repair or replacement
of these more localized systems is frequently
much more cost effective, and when properly
designed, installed, and managed, can provide
the treatment necessary to protect public
health and the environment. They can also
help outlying communities avoid the costs of
pumping water long distances to an existing
treatment plant. These systems limit the amount
of effluent being deposited into waterways, and
protect drinking water resources while also
allowing for slower recharge of groundwater.
Decentralized wastewater systems eligible for
CWSRF funding include individual onsite
disposal systems such as septic systems
and cluster systems used to collect, treat
and disperse relatively small volumes of
wastewater. An individual onsite wastewater
treatment system relies on natural processes
and/or mechanical components that treat
wastewater from a single dwelling or building.
A cluster system collects and treats wastewater
from two or more dwellings or buildings and
conveys it to a treatment and dispersal system
located near the dwellings or buildings. Cluster
systems are typically under some form of
common ownership and are often maintained
by a local utility.
28
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
OHIO'S HOME SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM PROGRAM
Ohio's CWSRF program funded more decentralized projects under ARRA than any oth-
er state. Ohio funded forty-four decentralized wastewater treatment projects as part
of its Home Sewage Treatment System (HSTS) program. This program was created as
a cost-share assistance program to utilize ARRA funds for the replacement or repair of
failing onsite systems to homeowners whose household earnings do not exceed 200
percent of the federal poverty level. The Ohio CWSRF program entered into subsidized
loan agreements that included ARRA and other federal and state funds with counties,
municipalities or water/sewer districts. Funds were awarded as loan principal forgive-
ness in an amount equaling 75 percent of the cost of the improvements; the remaining
25 percent of project costs were the homeowner's responsibility. Local government
agencies partnered with local health districts to solicit, evaluate, and select local appli-
cants with failing onsite systems in need of repair or replacement. Local health districts
were responsible for conducting reviews of proposed system designs and performing
site inspections to ensure that system installation complied with local and state rules
as well as ARRA requirements. Once the local health district reviewed and approved
the completion of the repair or replacement work and made sure all program require-
ments were met, local government agencies could submit invoices to the Ohio CWSRF
program for reimbursement of the eligible system repairer replacement costs.
Local government agencies were responsible for implementing signed agreements be-
tween themselves, the system owner, and contractors hired for system design or instal-
lation. Agreements detailed the terms and conditions of receipt of the ARRA funds and
other requirements. Ohio's HSTS program creatively used state and local partnerships
to ensure that ARRA GPR funds were directed to projects that addressed the state's
water quality priorities and could be implemented quickly.
Integrating Green
Stormwater Infrastructure,
Energy Efficiency, and
Environmental Innovation
Some states funded projects that incorporate
design elements and components from more
than one of the four GPR categories. These
projects demonstrate the importance of holistic
planning when considering water quality and
long-term sustainability.
Wastewater systems require significant energy,
and water is used in nearly every step of energy
production. Thus, saving energy saves water
and vice versa. Similarly, green infrastructure
reduces the need for energy intensive water
treatment by providing natural infiltration
and treatment processes that eliminate volume
and pollution in stormwater, and green design
elements such as green roofs may save energy
at facilities by providing additional insulation
and reducing the urban heat island effect. As
demand for energy and water continues to
increase, the need for integration of innovative
green design that incorporates effective water
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
29
-------
and energy management and conservation will increase as well. The following case study from
California demonstrates the exciting possibilities for this type of project implementation.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA:
GREEN BUILDING PROVIDES HANDS-ON OPPORTUNITIES AT THE ECOCENTER
AT HERON'S HEAD PARK
The EcoCenter at Heron's Head Park is San Francisco's first building that is entirely
"off the grid." This 1,500 square foot facility constructed by a California nonprofit
organization, Literacy for Environmental Justice, is powered with solar and wind en-
ergy, captures and uses rainwater, and treats its own wastewater using constructed
wetlands and ultraviolet sterilization lamps. In addition, it features a green roof and
native landscaping, which conserve water and prevent stormwater runoff. The pur-
pose of the EcoCenter is to educate visitors about innovative environmental technolo-
gies, renewable energy, greenhouse gas reduction, wastewater treatment, and green
building materials.
The California State Water Resources Control Board provided Literacy for Environ-
mental Justice with a $350,160 CWSRF ARRA loan, all of which will be forgiven under
the principal forgiveness subsidy provision of ARRA. This funded the construction of
the green roof, rainwater catchments, native landscaping, and a constructed wetland
located inside the building to treat wastewater. ARRA funds also went toward devel-
oping educational signage and outreach materials.
This project, located in one of the most historically polluted and poor communities
of the Bay Area, had originally been awarded state grant funding. When these grant
funds became unavailable due to the recession, this project was put on hold for eight
months. With the availability of CWSRF ARRA funding, the EcoCenter was able to ob-
tain the funds it needed to complete this demonstration project and create an esti-
mated 35 new jobs. The EcoCenter opened its doors to the public in April of 2010,
generating significant buzz and public interest.
30
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
IMPACT OF THE GREEN PROJECT RESERVE ON THE
CLEAN WATER SRF BASE PROGRAM
In addition to ARRA, the GPR requirement
has also been included in the FY 2010, 2011,
and 2012 Appropriations bills. For FYs 2010
and 2011, the bills specified that each state
direct 20 percent of its CWSRF capitalization
grant to eligible GPR projects. For FY 2012, the
GPR amount was reduced to 10 percent for the
CWSRF program.
The availability of GPR funding and the
benefits of using the CWSRF have been
marketed to both new and existing assistance
recipients with eligible green projects. States
recognize the need to continue their outreach
efforts and include an even broader audience,
extending beyond wastewater utilities to
include nonprofit organizations, educational
institutions and even the landscape architecture
and design communities. Many states have also
encouraged existing assistance recipients to
identify GPR eligible projects or redesign/re-
engineer traditional wastewater infrastructure
projects to add green components. After the
passage of ARRA, many states also modified
their existing priority ranking systems to
incorporate GPR elements into their scoring
processes in order to more fully integrate GPR
elements into their CWSRF program.
Green Project Reserve Eligibility
EPA has developed annual GPR guidance
for FYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 that include
eligibility principles and decision-making
criteria to help states continue to identify and
fund high quality GPR projects. EPA solicited
input from the SRF community to incorporate
lessons learned from implementing ARRA
GPR into guidance for each subsequent year
to ensure that states have the flexibility needed
to take full advantage of the GPR and address
their water quality priorities.
While the same structure for the four GPR
categories has been kept in place, the list of
categorical projects has been expanded, a list
of ineligible projects has been added, and
guidelines for developing a business case and
examples of projects requiring a business case
were included.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
31
-------
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
Through the enactment of ARRA and the
GPR requirement, Congress helped to shift
federal and state investment in the water and
wastewater sector toward projects that utilize
green or soft-path practices to complement
and augment gray infrastructure projects,
adopt practices that reduce the environmental
footprint of water and wastewater treatment
systems, enhance water and energy
conservation, adopt more sustainable solutions
to wet weather flows, and promote innovative
approaches to water management problems.
After the passage of ARRA, EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson echoed the call of Congress for
innovation in water quality and public health
improvement efforts: "Right now, we have
greater opportunities to protect public health
and the environment than any other time.
Now, more than ever, we must be innovative
and forward looking. The environmental
challenges faced by Americans across our
country are immense in scale and urgency. But
they will be met."25
States embraced the challenges and
opportunities of ARRA and achieved new
heights in creativity, streamlining, and
innovation. As the GPR has continued in the
FYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 Appropriations,
states have made efforts to identify additional
green projects, find opportunities to help
assistance recipients go from gray to green, and
improved priority setting as well as marketing
and outreach efforts. As the GPR continues
to evolve, it is clear that the importance of
participation and feedback from states cannot
be understated as project eligibilities are further
defined and environmentally innovative
technologies and applications are incorporated
into CWSRF projects.
25. U.S. EPA (March 18, 2009). Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks to the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, As Prepared. Retrieved June 2, 2010. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d4
9f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/7ab7e93ea2e3elad8525759000726be7!OpenDocument
32
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
Appendix A: Clean Water SRF
Background and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009
In 1987, Congress established the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) through the
Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 to
help ensure clean water for all Americans.
Today, this highly successful program provides
communities with low-cost financing for
infrastructure construction and other activities
that restore and protect our waterways. Each
year since 1988, the federal government has
appropriated funds to EPA for the CWSRF
program. These funds are distributed to
states based on a formula set in the enabling
legislation. Today, all fifty states and Puerto
Rico have active CWSRF programs. Since
the first project received CWSRF financing
in 1988, the program has provided over $89
billion in assistance for eligible wastewater
infrastructure, nonpoint source and estuary
projects. By the end of FY 2011 states had
entered into over 30,000 assistance agreements.
On February 17, 2009, Congress passed the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA) to preserve and create jobs,
promote economic recovery, and to invest in
transportation, environmental protection, and
other infrastructure that will provide long-term
economic benefits. The bill appropriated $4
billion to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
This large and unprecedented appropriation of
funds was both a response to the staggering
water infrastructure needs in this country and
a result of the success of the SRF programs over
the last 22 years. ARRA funds were intended to
expand on the CWSRF s success in improving
the conditions of our waters for public health,
recreation, and wildlife while helping to create
and sustain jobs. ARRA's goals of preserving
and creating jobs and investing in projects
that provide long-term environmental and
economic benefits brought new opportunities
and challenges for the fifty-one state CWSRF
programs (all fifty states and Puerto Rico).
ARRA included many new requirements,
such as the requirement to provide 50 percent
of the ARRA funds in the form of additional
subsidy, a Buy American provision, a Davis
Bacon wage-rate provision, the condition that
all projects be under contract or construction
by February 17, 2010, and the requirement to
establish a Green Project Reserve (GPR).
The GPR specified that each state allocate 20
percent of its ARRA capitalization grant to four
categories of projects: green infrastructure,
water efficiency improvements, energy
efficiency improvements, or environmentally
innovative activities. Green infrastructure
includes technologies and practices that use
natural or engineered systems that mimic
natural hydrologic processes to infiltrate,
evapotranspirate, and reuse stormwater to
improve water quality and enhance overall
environmental quality. Examples include green
roofs, rain gardens, constructed wetlands,
bioretention, and pervious pavement. Water
efficiency improvements include reuse or
conservation practices that deliver equal or
better services using less water, such as the use
of low-flow fixtures, leak detection equipment,
gray water recycling, wastewater reclamation
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
33
-------
and purple pipe projects, and groundwater
recharge, as well as the installation of water
meters. Energy efficiency improvement proj ects
are those that substantially reduce energy
consumption at Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs), such as high efficiency
motors; or produce clean energy, such as
wind, solar, geothermal, and biogas combined
heat and power systems, to provide power to
POTWs. Finally, innovative environmental
activities are those that demonstrate new and/
or innovative approaches to managing water
resources to prevent or remove water pollution
in an economically and environmentally
sustainable way. Examples of environmentally
innovative activities include decentralized
wastewater treatment solutions, projects that
facilitate adaptation of clean water facilities to
climate change, and projects that identify and
quantify the benefits of using integrated water
resources management approaches, to name
a few. Eligible GPR activities could include
stand-alone projects or components of larger
projects.
While the project types identified in the GPR
have always been eligible for CWSRF financing,
funding of these types of projects has varied by
state.
Some states were already funding GPR-
eligible projects, so it was not a challenge
to integrate the GPR requirement into their
existing CWSRF program. For other states, the
introduction of the GPR was a major shift that
required broadening the focus of their program
from traditional wastewater infrastructure
to incorporate green technologies and green
project components that:
• promote water conservation through
reclamation and recycling;
• treat stormwater where it falls with green
infrastructure applications such as rain
gardens and vegetated swales;
• protect groundwater quality by
rehabilitating aging and failing septic
systems;
• and reduce demand on fossil fuels through
energy efficient upgrades and renewable
energy options.
EPA was aware that some states faced
challenges in funding green infrastructure,
water and energy efficiency improvements,
and environmentally innovative activities.
EPA acted quickly to provide information and
guidance to states on ARRA implementation.
EPA released ARRA guidance on March
2, 2009, only two weeks after the bill was
passed. The guidance covered all ARRA
requirements and included two attachments
specific to the GPR - one for the CWSRF and
one for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF). These attachments provided
descriptions and examples of projects that
categorically qualified for the GPR and projects
that required a business case in order to receive
GPR funding. EPA also released additional
guidance, memos, and examples to assist states
in implementing the GPR:
• Memo on Adequate Solicitation for GPR
Applications
• Green Project Reserve Questions &
Answers
34
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
• Guidance on how to develop a business
case including Q&As on various GPR-
related topics
• Sample Business Case for Energy Efficient
Wastewater Pumping
• GPRproject case studies from the Arizona
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
EPA also produced a series of webcasts
detailing ARRA requirements, including three
that focused specifically on the Green Project
Reserve. These all took place between March
and May of 2009. The webcasts, along with
the guidance, memos, and other information
can all be found at www.epa.gov/water/
eparecovery.
Several states also took the initiative to put
together their own webcasts and workshops
soon after the passage of ARRA to help
potential and existing assistance recipients
navigate the ARRA application process and
better understand ARRA requirements,
including the GPR. For example, the Illinois
EPA conducted a webcast to inform their
assistance recipients of all ARRA requirements
and of their application and implementation
process. Illinois EPA also produced a Question
& Answers document based on questions
received during the webcast. Afterwards,
both the webcast and the Q&A were posted
on the Illinois SRF website in order to make
the information available to communities as
soon as possible. In spring 2009, the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management
held a workshop for potential SRF applicants
interested in receiving ARRA funds. The
workshop helped to significantly increase the
number of applications it received for GPR-
eligible projects. Iowa also held an ARRA
workshop for assistance recipients with an
overview of GPR projects and information
about how to develop a business case to
demonstrate eligibility for the GPR.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
35
-------
Appendix B: Developing a
Business Case
GPR projects not considered categorically
eligible could be funded through the GPR if an
assistance recipient could present a compelling
business case that the project qualified as
a green infrastructure, energy efficiency
improvement, water efficiency improvement,
or environmentally innovative project. A
business case documents the quantitative and
qualitative justification for judging a project or
project component as eligible for the GPR.
Regardless of whether a business case addressed
energy or water efficiency improvements,
green infrastructure, or environmentally
innovative technologies and practices, there
were common elements that were incorporated
into business cases, including:
• Summary of current conditions and the
issues that the project was designed to
address;
• Description of why the proposed project
was necessary;
• Description of the environmental/water
quality benefits that could be expected
from the project;
• Summary of all green components
anticipated in the project;
• Technical data;
• Eligible costs;
• Rationale for the selection of such green
components/technologies/designs.
Effective business cases included clear
comparisons between current conditions
and the proposed project improvements to
demonstrate anticipated environmental and
economic benefits. One effective methodology
for presenting the kind of quantitative data
described above was the Baseline Standard
Practices (BSP) tool. This tool was developed
by the New York State Environmental Facilities
Corporation (EFC) in collaboration with
the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (NYSERDA). The BSP
tool provides a comparison of the technology
or equipment necessary to achieve specific
wastewater treatment performance criteria
based upon cost and energy consumption.
The EFC used the BSP tool to help develop
their business cases for energy efficiency
improvement projects at POTWs. These
business cases provided a clear explanation as
to why and how the project qualified for the
ARRA GPR requirement. In addition, their
business cases were well organized and easy to
read, providing a thorough yet brief discussion
of all GPRproject components while providing
detail on current conditions.
36
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
Appendix C: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Timeline
2009
MAR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
•Q- 2010
OCT
NOV
FEBRUARY 17, 2009: President
Obama signs American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
appropriating $4 billion to the
CWSRF to aid in the economic
recovery.
FEBRUARY-JULY2009: EPAconducts
more than 10 online webcasts for
States and municipalities on ARRA
implementation topics, including
three specifically focused on GPR
implementation.
MARCH 12, 2009: EPA Webcast:
"SRF Planning for the Green
Project Reserve" for state
programs.
MAY 14, 2009: EPA Webcast:
"Accessing the Green Project
Reserve" for funding applicants.
MAY 21, 2009: EPA Webcast:
"Funding Green Stormwater
Infrastructure with the Green
Project Reserve".
MARCH 2, 2009: EPA publishes
final guidance on ARRA
implementation.
MARCH 27, 2009: First CWSRF
ARRA capitalization grant
awarded.
MAY 13, 2009: EPA publishes
memo on Adequate Green
Project Reserve Solicitation.
MAY - NOVEMBER 2009: State SRF
programs, often with assistance from
EPA, conduct workshops for ARRA
assistance recipients on program
requirements, many with particular
emphasis on the GPR.
EPA publishes
CWSRF Green Project Reserve
Sample Business Case.
ARRA includes
goal to have 50 percent of funds
under contract or construction
within 120 days of the passage
of the bill.
EPA publishes
Green Project Reserve Business
Case Principles and Questions
and Answers.
AUGUST 17, 2009: States have
the first opportunity to certify
that they will not be able to meet
the 20 percent Green Project
Reserve requirement due to a lack
of demand. No such certification
requests were submitted.
OCTOBER 13, 2009: CWSRF
ARRA funds have been awarded
to all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
All states
commit all ARRA funds to projects
under contract, and all states
commit at least 20 percent of
their capitalization grants to green
stormwater infrastructure, water
or energy efficiency improvements,
or environmentally innovative
activities.
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
37
-------
Appendix D: Percentage of Total CWSRF GPR Funding Per Category By State
PERCENTAGE OF CWSRF GPR FUNDING FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BY STATE
100%
90%
80%
00
1 70%
£ 60%
D.
£ 50%
8? 40%
0)
D.
30%
20%
10%
0
ll
I.
1.1
I
CTMEMANH Rl VT NJ NY PR DEMDPA VAWVAL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN IL IN MIMNOHWIAR LANMOKTX IA KSMONE CO MTND SD UTWYAZ CA HI NVAL ID ORWA
PERCENTAGE OF CWSRF GPR FUNDING FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS BY STATE
00
c
D.
O
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
S? 40%
c
0)
0)
D.
30%
20%
10%
0
ll
CTMEMANH Rl VT NJ NY PR DEMDPA VAWVAL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN IL IN MIMNOHWIAR LANMOKTX IA KSMONE CO MTND SD UTWYAZ CA HI NVAL ID ORWA
38
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CWSRF GPR FUNDING FOR WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS BY STATE
100%
90%
80%
00
1 70%
c
£ 60%
D.
(D
'o 50%
f 40%
c
0)
H 30%
0)
CL
20%
10%
1. L
0 CTMEMANH Rl VT NJ NY PR DEMDPA V
1
AWVAL F
PL
LGA KYMSNCSCTN
IL IN MIMNOHWIAR LA
• •I
NMOKTX IA KSMONE
COMTN
DSD UTWY
AZ CA HI
NVAL ID OP
WA
PERCENTAGE OF CWSRF GPR FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES BY STATE
100%
90%
80%
00
^1 70%
± 60%
0)
00
50%
40%
0)
£ 30%
0)
CL
20%
10%
0
I,
o
nil
CTMEMANH Rl VT NJ NY PR DEMDPA VAWVAL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN IL IN MIMNOHWIAR LA NMOKTX IA KSMONE CO MTND SD UTWYAZ CA HI NVAL ID ORWA
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
39
-------
40 GREEN PROJECT RESERVE REPORT
-------
REPORT PHOTO CREDITS
PAGE 6: PERVIOUS PARKING - PRESERVATIONNATION.ORG
PAGE 7: LINDENHURST MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LINDENHURST, NY- LINDENHURST MEMORIAL LIBRARY
PAGE 12: STORMTREAT SYSTEM-CUMBERLAND COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PAGE 28: ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM -BIOSPHERE CONSULTING
-------
Infrastructure
m ,., ,., Asset Management
vL> Clean Water to
Performance
muoSustainability
O ^\ ^*T/^ ^* kY^ "^ V*t f* /*\
Performance
GV V V4 *-*
reen
Strategic Management
State ^
OTQ
Stormwater
Leveraging
Estuary Protection
Public Utilities
©EPA
Clean Water
State Revolving Fund
OFFICE OF WATER • JUNE 2012 • EPA-832-R-12-006
------- |