All Grantee Clean Water Act §319 Equity Listening Sessions
DRAFT Combined Commentary and Notes
January - February 2022
EPA hosted eight listening sessions with §319 grantees from January 25 through February 16th. Listening
sessions included four discussions for all grantees and four discussions for tribal/nation grantees. A total
of 338 attendees participated in a facilitated discussion across the eight sessions. The purpose of these
listening sessions was to:
1. provide state, territory, and tribal/nation §319 grantees with an opportunity to share their
experiences, including successes and challenges, and perspectives on equity and inclusion in
nonpoint source (NPS) program work; and
2. help EPA identify specific actions the national NPS program could consider to support
integrating equity and environmental justice (EJ) in their programs (e.g., via technical assistance,
training, and §319 program reforms).
These notes are specific to the four all grantee discussions. A total of 176 participants attended and
included: 65 participants from EPA, 71 state grantees, 38 tribe/nation grantees and 2 territory grantees.
Grantee participants were invited to provide responses to five discussion questions via Jamboard (a
virtual whiteboard that allows participants to provide comments anonymously via 'sticky notes'), verbal
feedback by unmuting their microphone, and/or via the Zoom meeting room chat. Notes are organized
by discussion question and summarized below1.
EPA is transitioning into the planning phase of our national engagement for integrating environmental
justice considerations into the nonpoint source program. The themes that emerged from the listening
sessions fell into two major categories. These themes will inform work groups for the planning phase.
Technical Themes:
• Pollutant concerns impacting EJ communities such as nitrates in drinking water, failing septics,
pathogens in recreational water, and impacts on fish for sustenance.
• Community engagement challenges for building technical capacity related to NPS. Technical
aspects include watershed-based planning, monitoring, quality assurance project plans (QAPPs),
the nexus between water quality concerns and community priorities. Options on how to
improve the transfer of technical expertise (e.g, from community college/nonprofit to
underserved community) were suggested and requested.
• Sustainability of efforts included challenges regarding long term operation and maintenance.
Partnerships and Funding Themes:
• Grantees indicated the possibility of improved coordination of funding sources within federal
and state programs (e.g. SRF and 106) and improved partnerships between state agencies,
states with 501c, or learning institutions.
1Detailed notes of each discussion were shared with each discussion group for feedback and then finalized. They
are available upon request. Contact Curtis.cvnthiaffiepa.gov
Page 1 of 11
-------
• Many comments noted the challenges and varied approaches to assisting communities in
meeting match requirements and the administrative burdens associated with applying for and
administering NPS grants in communities.
• Partnership challenges also highlighted the importance of people in supporting large-scale
program maintenance (i.e., sustaining longer term efforts) and the challenges of staff turnover.
Funding concerns also noted the lack of certainty around municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4), lack of staff/ability to apply, and coordinate, sustain, and maintain work.
Legend
Check marks (^) are included to capture the frequency of topics (Jamboard and verbal commentary)
across listening sessions.
Discussion Questions and Responses:
1. What types of equity/environmental justice issues related to NPS pollution are present in your
State/Territory/Tribe/Nation?
• Septic system issues (i.e., leaking or replacement) in low-income and coal field areas S).
• E.coli issues in rural communities or in areas with groups of people experiencing homelessness
and lack of facilities (S J).
• E.coli in water at public lake beaches. E. coli in recreational waters of Iowa effects a diverse
range of populations because access is free. We are starting a study to identify sources. It is
important to note that practices that address a beach-shed do not address the entire
watershed. Beach shed projects are being considered to address bacteria in swimming areas.
• Lack of recreational access to waters and the need to develop connections in EJ communities to
address issues.
• Nutrient driven harmful algal blooms (HABs) at public beaches.
• High nitrate in drinking water (S). High nitrate in public drinking water supplies is an issue
especially in cities, towns, and small rural communities. This issue effects all income levels. 319
staff are now starting to develop phase 2 source water protection plans to help address some of
these issues. State dollars are being directed to wellhead protection. 319 dollars would be for
best management practices (BMPs) in those areas. Examples could be as simple as well casings
(not necessarily a full water treatment plan).
• Agricultural runoff focus on Mississippi River and agricultural impairments in rural communities.
Agricultural pollution (including legacy nutrients) is major source of NPS. However, many
farmers operate on tight margins. Installing BMPs in agricultural lands is very challenging to
balance [SSSS).
• Impaired water in urban areas (urban stormwater) (SS).
• Low-income communities and tribes/nations often consume fish from polluted urban streams
[¦/¦/~). This would be a good angle for education. Other examples included:
o Salmon and shellfish are very culturally significant in Region 9 and 10 and have historically
(or currently) provided a primary food source for some communities.
o Methylmercury bioaccumulation in communities that rely on subsistence fishing; California
recently adopted a subsistence fishing beneficial use (designated use).
Page 2 of 11
-------
o Mercury contamination of wild caught fish disproportionately effects tribes/nations with
sustenance fishing rights and high fish consumption rates.
• Native American communities are impacted by issues in the watershed and downstream along
the Rio Grande. Tribal/Nation lands in Region 9 and 10 are often situated downstream on the
receiving end of watershed practices upstream. Therefore, increased loads can be an issue.
• Areas with acid mine drainage and impacts from abandoned hardrock mines for private, lower-
income landowners (SS).
• In Hi/Pacific Islands, cesspools MAY be more prevalent in underserved communities.
• Relating instream water quality to its impact on communities. Especially when census groups
cover large areas and multiple watersheds.
• Legacy military contamination (heavy metals, fuel oils, unexploded ordnance) comprise difficult
and expensive cleanups.
• Legacy impacts from timber harvest found in northern region of California state; communities in
that area are typically not considered "environmental justice" communities because air quality is
high and population is low.
• Topics noted without additional discussion:
o Land use and hydromodification {^)
o Climate impacts on watershed
o Unregulated and underregulated pollutants limit the effectiveness in solving problems
2. In your experience, what obstacles prevent communities from engaging with the §319 program) ?
(Overarching themes were used to group comments)
Awareness and Engagement
• The bulk of applicants or projects in Maine go to areas of the state that have entities with the
ability to develop and implement projects. In Texas the same entities apply (universities or
council of governments) because they have the administrative capacity to handle the grant
functions/billing. They also can use salary as match. Typically, the more populated areas are not
EJ areas, but have more water quality issues because of development. Underserved areas,
typically agriculture, don't have the ability to develop and implement projects (^).
• Lack of awareness of funding opportunities, funding requirements, and opportunities to
participate in planning, designing, etc. regarding projects {SSS). Additionally, there is lack of
knowledge regarding NPS pollution and/or direct benefits to the community if the waterbody is
not classified as source water.
• Limited staff resources to do outreach and education to the communities.
• Many communities are remote and difficult to reach so not much is known about NPS pollution
in these areas.
• Relationship building with disadvantaged communities. For example, some communities do not
want/fear government support (^). Additionally, depending upon the community, there can be
a lot of hand holding to get them interested in funding, through the grant application, and the
project administration process.
Page 3 of 11
-------
• Some NPS priorities may not intersect with an overburdened/underserved community (i.e.,
private waterfront property). Nearly all of our grants are awarded to partners on lakes, ponds,
estuaries, and rivers who have cash or in-kind match in hand. Making it a struggle to hit EJ
targets.
• Language barriers and lack of translation services, especially for non-profits and small rural
entities.
Urban MS4
• Urbanized areas with potential EJ populations are constrained by the EPA prohibition to use 319
funds for stormwater and green infrastructure in MS4 communities (SS).
o In Pennsylvania (PA), municipalities with MS4s may apply for other PA Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) grant funds for these kinds of projects.
• Lack of BMP or green infrastructure adoption in low-income or disadvantaged areas and
neighborhoods (SS).
Capacity
• Lack of capacity (i.e., staff, funding, technical expertise) to help understand and apply for 319
grants (~WVWWV'/S). Additionally, many underserved communities don't have the
capacity accept free resources related to NPS BMPs and services.
Additional examples noted include:
o Technical: Understanding technical side of work (i.e., total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs), watershed plan, BMP effectiveness), project management, and leadership
in communities to implement watershed plans/BMPs.
o Funding: Inability to pay upfront and get reimbursed. Lack of 501(c)(3) entity or
government entity to receive funds that represents the disadvantaged community.
Match/Funding
• Non-federal match requirements stop many communities from applying. Some grantees express
interest but don't put in an application because they can't meet the match requirement.
Projects are often big-ticket undertakings and match tracking is administratively burdensome
and time consuming [SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS). Small groups are often
partners, but not applicants.
• In North Carolina applicants may request a full or partial reduction in match for the projects that
benefits an underserved community and involve them in the implementation of project. We are
planning to cover this from state staff positions.
• Match requirement can be a challenge, especially during COVID, when in person events have
been curtailed.
• When we help homeowners replace/repair failing septic tanks, homeowners are hard pressed to
provide 40% match. Those that can't afford it don't have it done.
Page 4 of 11
-------
• The challenging requirements and administrative burdens of 319 request for proposals (RFPs)
also deter applicants. In New Hampshire, the Governor and Council approval process can add
three to six months of delays in getting to implementation (SSS).
• Not enough time to implement projects
• Often projects are more cost effective and more likely to get governing board support when
directing water to a project through a pipe or a ditch, but the strict definition of NPS severely
limits eligibility.
• Some groups have had trouble with the monitoring requirements (producing a QAPP, etc.). We
have found ways to deal with this, but it is still a friction point.
• Limited scope of what you can actually use 319 dollars for. For example, not able to use 319 for
implementation and limited experience.
• NPS Program funds severely limited for new initiatives (SSS).
Watersheds
• 319 funding is limited to areas with approved watershed-based plans (WBPs). Disadvantaged
communities may not have an approved WSB plan. There is now a disconnect between where
NPS project funds can go (WBP) and where they are needed (no WBPs) (SSS).
• The time and effort to develop a 9-element plan can be a challenge for some partners to
complete. Some areas not impaired due to lack of monitoring (SS).
• The EJ concerns or focus may not align with the WBP and/or water quality impairment
(~~~~).
o In urban areas, the water quality impairment might be for chloride, but the EJ
community may be concerned with stormwater runoff causing streambank erosion.
If a state does not have criteria for sediment and/or nutrients, then a streambank
restoration project would not be eligible.
o When balancing other community priority needs, NPS falls lower on list. For
example, sometimes these EJ communities are less worried about NPS and more
worried about food.
o Mismatch between current needs and the timeline for government action. For
example, pollutant in fish or shellfish. However, the time it takes government to
complete plans is decades so there is a gap in addressing the need [in a timely
fashion],
• Famers not able to afford new equipment (no-till, cover crop application). Additionally, BMPs
take land out of agricultural production and creates a situation of competing interests. This is a
contentious political and economic issue (^).
• Building capacity to maintain best management practices (BMPs) after project implementation
has been completed and for the life of the BMP. There is no local tax base to support ongoing
project maintenance (S J).
Page 5 of 11
-------
o This is also a barrier in areas with a high fire regime. For example, it is a safety issue
to leave vegetated areas unmanaged. It can be a challenge to balance the ecological
function while still maintaining a safe corridor.
Tribal/Nation Specific Challenges
• As a tribe we have not accessed state 319 funds (Maine) because they use different priorities.
Our projects would not rank high because state priorities focus on already heavily impaired
waters. Tribes/nations may have different priorities with a focus on prevention or waters that
are not meeting tribal/nation goals. We have lower tree canopy coverage in some EJ
communities compared to others. Off-reservation NPS impacts both up and downstream areas
on tribal/nation reservations.
• Turnover in tribal/nation governments
• Not enough base funding to implement tribal/nation projects, only enough to covers salaries.
• Rural tribes/nations lack technical capacity & representation in agricultural communities. Some
tribes/nations have been part of the agriculture community for decades but some are new and
haven't established capacity or connections to stakeholder groups.
• State requires a waiver of sovereign immunity in order to receive 319 funds. It is a huge barrier
we've noticed with some of our tribal/nation organizations (^).
3. Equity/environmental justice efforts currently underway: Are there additional equity or inclusion
efforts other than what we captured so far (This can include past actions, or efforts that are not as
visible as in an RFA)?
RFP
• In our new RFP, we are solicitating new watershed implementation plan (WIP) development in
EJ areas along with implementation grants.
• Translating items into Spanish has been done for outreach & education. Maybe it can/should be
done for the RFP?
• Our RFP was updated to note that an EJ community would be ranked higher for funding but
have yet to have a EJ community apply.
• Our 319 RFP includes giving extra consideration to applicants that include disadvantaged
communities in their proposals.
• 319 application includes extra points for EJ areas. However, the applications might only include
a tiny EJ area so, we need to figure out how to give priority to EJ areas on the number of
populations served versus area covered while still accounting for miles of stream or acres of lake
protected.
Capacity Building
• We have had trouble sustaining our efforts in generally disadvantaged areas.
• Some of our most impaired waters do not have local groups or associations associated with
them. In one ultra-urban area, we worked with the New Hampshire Rivers Council and they
Page 6 of 11
-------
"adopted" a watershed to protect native trout. They were a voice for the voiceless and achieved
a pair of NPS Success Stories in our largest city in the state.
• Our NPS Program is partnering with Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) with
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) to serve the agricultural community where resources
are limited and incomes are very low. Operators trust NRCS staff however they see New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) as only a regulatory arm. Working
through and with NRCS is key for us to tap that sector and get NPS dollars on the ground.
• In New York we provide grants from $2,500 - $50,000 to community-based organizations for
research and education projects that address multiple environmental harms and risks.
• State Watershed Council grants that we're trying to use to build local capacity. We have
included EJ considerations, but they are not well defined. We ask applicants to tell us about
their EJ barriers and what they plan to do to address those barriers.
Match
• While not previously identified as an "equity" issue, the Maine 319 program has been able to
reduce non-federal match requirement on selected past projects, and will continue to do so on a
case by case basis moving forward (using SRF recycled funds).
Maps. Data Layers, and Tools
• The use of EJScreen tool or other socioeconomic data layers for targeting or the development of
adding metrics to the EPA's Recovery Potential Tool (RPT). They are not quite where we would
like them to be, but may be implemented in the future (SS).
• State Environmental Health Disparities map
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/WashingtonTrackingNetworkWTN/Washin
gtonEnvironmentalHealthDisparitiesMap
• All staff in our agency recently completed required racial equity training. We've also started
using a Racial Equity Impact Assessment Tool to assess programs and projects.
Overarching Program Efforts
• Efforts are focused on a balanced approach of environment, society, and economy.
• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently named the agency's
first Deputy Commissioner for Equity and Justice. The Deputy Commissioner will oversee DEC's
Office of Environmental Justice and lead internal efforts to encourage diversity, equity, and
inclusion among incoming and current staff and enhance DEC's outreach to disadvantaged
communities across the state.
• Will include metrics (climate vulnerability and environmental justice) in the TMDL prioritization
process in late 2022.
• The assumption here is that EJ communities are NOT accessing 319 funds. But some are. Can we
recognize that in late 2022?
• Including low-income neighborhoods that might not show up in official low-income designated
areas.
• CA adopted a racial equity resolution:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board decisions/adopted orders/resolutions/2021/rs2021 0
Page 7 of 11
-------
050.pdf the resolution "Commits to making racial equity, diversity, inclusion, and environmental
justice central to our work as we implement our mission so that the access the State Water
Board creates, and outcomes we influence, are not determined by a person's race and the
benefits are shared equitably by all people".
• There are workgroups at agency, program, and unit levels working to address this. Our unit
stopped because we needed clarity on federal requirements to know how to move forward.
• California EPA has an environmental justice program - https://calepa.ca.gov/enviustice/
• "Distressed communities " https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/distressed-
areas#:~:text=Distressed%20areas%20are%20counties%20where%20the%20three-
vear%20unemplovment.Code%20of%20Washington%2C%20which%20took%20effect%20in%20
2005.
• California EPA is reconsidering designation practices and the eventual issuance of a new
designation of disadvantaged communities. Accepted public comments through November 15,
2021.
4. What challenges have you encountered? Has your program taken any steps to engage and
incorporate diverse perspectives as you set NPS program goals (e.g., during 5-year NPS plan
update)? What's worked well? What challenges have you encountered?
• In New Hampshire, we have had success with symposia and roundtables for our 319 grantees
and our commercial winter salt applicator communities to get their voices and needs identified.
Those symposia help feed our NPS Plan.
• Presenting to community on past accomplishments. This was more effective than trying to
request input on a plan. NPS can be a challenge at times to explain to the general public.
• Kansas Department of Health and Environment leverages funds on soil health or regenerative
agricultural practices. However, a group of farmers approached us and expressed an interest to
focus on addressing the mental health aspect as an avenue to soil health aspects. In a few cases
this approach has worked exceptionally well. The state will continue to explore this approach
moving forward.
• We used a statewide survey to help get input on NPS issues and took extra efforts to reach as
many communities and organizations as possible to provide input.
• Our funding program holds quarterly meetings with a group of representatives from eligible
entities across the state to get input to inform funding process/policy.
• Kentucky has always tried to utilize a Basin Team model that brings together the stakeholders in
major river basins, but have never examined if we were doing a good job reaching all groups.
Currently trying to assess who isn't at the table and make sure they are involved.
• As we tweak our program we will be engaging with our EJ Coordinator.
• Georgia's statewide NPS planning process relies heavily on input from state-level organizations.
To have greater impact to EJ communities, we need to get more local input/data into our next
plan update.
• One of the challenges is the balance between water quality related priorities vs equity. Do the
communities that you are trying to include live within the watersheds/lakes that are listed as
Page 8 of 11
-------
priority waters that the state is trying to address? I don't see tribal/nation/territory waters
listed in the areas of priority watersheds in our state.
• Sometimes it feels like we write our NPS workplan in a silo and assume we know what to include
and what constituents want - but I'd like to get more input and different perspectives.
• Biggest challenge is trust and transparency in NPS Program. This likely stems from different
terminology, different information/education, and overlap with active citizen groups with an
identified mission. The 319 program tries to help in areas that will benefit long term, but groups
are interested in short term results, and we can't provide that assistance under the mission of
the 319 program.
5. What is the one change to the §319 program you'd like EPA to consider to better facilitate equity
and inclusion in the delivery of NPS program benefits?
Guidelines and Program/Project Funding
• Update the Federal Regulation Guidance regarding 319. Currently there is no mention of EJ.
• Increase funding to 319/NPS program to specifically address EJ issues. These funds should be for
program activities not just project (S).
• Make EJ projects eligible for project funds (S). Flexibility in requirement to spend 50% of grant
on project implementation. Funding for underserved communities but also for state programs
facilitating the work. Additionally, provide capacity building funding to communities.
• Allowing NPS funds to be used in areas that don't meet a state's specific priority watersheds, but
address issues that are in EJ communities. Revise 319 allocation calculation (hasn't been
updated since 1990 early 2000's) to include addressing EJ areas.
• Consider optional EJ tracking in GRTS or lumping small projects together to save time.
Measures and Definition
• Measures for 319 work in EJ communities has different criteria than other areas.
• Clearer picture on definitions of targeted communities/partner types, and examples of
suitability of certain projects in meeting EJ, etc. goals with the 319 program. Does EPA find it
reasonable for state programs to provide different interpretations (i.e., NPS vs. SRF program)?
Or is EPA looking for one definition? Identify and communicate expectations/ways to measure
success.
• It is important to consider the words we choose and how we choose to designate EJ area.
Communities have personal interpretation depending on who you engage with. Some
communities accept and embrace the recognition of EJ while others feel like it has a bad
connotation. It's important to recognize some communities are sensitive to being labeled.
Urban/MS4
• Allow 319 funds in MS4 communities for EJ areas
• We partner with local jurisdictions to participate in the 319 program to get stream restoration
done but then they back out because they can't get MS4 credits because permits are written in
percentage-based format. Additionally, we started to pursue more rural areas and older
Page 9 of 11
-------
communities that needed attention. For example, car recycling centers located adjacent to a
residential area with flooding issues.
• Set aside funds to partner with Urban Waters to focus directly on underserved communities and
help them to expand.
Watershed Plans
• 9 elements take a long time to develop and implement to see success. The challenge is to keep
momentum going in these efforts while waiting for measures of success.
• Since the 319 Grant depends upon a watershed-based plan, it seems that would be the best
place to start. Perhaps add a tenth mandated element that requires the writers of watershed-
based plans to include stakeholders from EJ communities and to identify water quality
problems in those communities along with ways to correct them.
• Set aside a percentage of NPS project funding to allow for EJ projects in areas that do not yet
have WBPs, or that could include the development of WBP in EJ area that would then lead to
implementation (like old WBP % allowance pre-2014) (S). Maybe implement a simpler
"acceptable alternative plan" (^).
• Flexibility with 319 funds in New Hampshire to be allocated outside of WBP areas to address
failing/failed septic systems within 500 feet of surface waters.
• Flexibility to assist EJ community within MS4 area without a WBP.
• Align TMDL and 319 "9 key element" watershed plan requirements (better coordination w/in
EPA) (~)¦
• Allow project-level determination of the 9 elements so it is more of a "straight to
implementation" project.
• Simplified WBP approach for emergency response (i.e., fire emergencies). It would be
important to include training to understand technical needs for emergency watershed plans.
• EPA coordination and assistance.
• Flexibility on watershed-based plan development - in some cases, a community may not be
able to do a plan that is as detailed or comprehensive as US EPA would like.
• Sometimes just getting a community to participate is the best we can do; asking for a WBP,
reporting, is too much.
Match
• Allow non-EPA federal funds to be used as match to 319 funds.
• Lower the match requirement in EJ and Disadvantaged communities without raising match in
other areas (S).
• Allowing states to offer a sliding scale match for disadvantaged communities. Our state does
not have the funds to make up the difference if we offer a lower match, so we would need to
be able to do an 80/20 or even 90/10 [percent split] depending on the need, to replace the
60/40 when necessary.
• Using SRF recycled funds to support as a means to waive match (^).
Page 10 of 11
-------
Maintenance
• I would like to see 319 funding to be available for maintenance costs for storm drains and
oil/grit separators. Find a way to allow a limited portion of funding to be used for project
maintenance.
• Contemplate long-term maintenance of projects.
Training and Technical Support
• More funding for staff resources to do outreach and education to underserved communities.
• Provide tools to help states identify disadvantaged communities.
• Collection of case studies or recommendations for how to connect NPS projects to communities
(location of work versus downstream impacts, etc).
• Provide resources for NPS project management training.
• Technical support for calculating load reductions. For example, STEPL load reduction reporting is
hard for people to use so some people avoid.
• Allow "straight to implementation" in lieu of WBP for projects with disadvantaged communities.
• Technical support for BMPs and water quality for sub-awardees.
• Is the EPA or States partnering with NRCS priority to support underserved farmers.
• It is important for EPA 319 project officers to visit grantees in person, see projects, meet with
staff, and understand issues on the ground. Many aspects of 319 cannot be done virtually.
Coordination
• 319 EJ efforts could align better with other Clean Water Act programs (e.g., CWA 106 grant) to
expand water quality monitoring and assessment in underserved communities. Safe drinking
water was also suggested. Nevada is trying to address surface water and drinking water.
Page 11 of 11
------- |