URBANWATERS
FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
Restoring Urban Waters. Revitalizing Communities
river
NETWORK
connecting people saving rivers
Promoting Equitable Water Supply Management
Through Integrated Planning and Partnerships-
An Urban Waters Project
SAN ANTONIO
Rivt z?
100 Mites
March 2022
EPA842R22002
-------
Acknowledgements
This document was developed by EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds' employee Tara Flint,
ORISE Research Participant Yeana Kwagh, River Network's Diana Toledo, and Industrial Economic
Incorporated's Eric Ruder and Meagan Currie. Yeana Kwagh's role did not include establishing EPA policy,
and all final decisions were made by the Agency. The information presented here would not have been
possible without significant contributions from the Consensus Building Institute in their contracted role
for in-depth stakeholder engagement through River Network. Additionally, the project and the
information in this document depended heavily on EPA Regional Office staff, Urban Waters Federal
Partnership ambassadors and partners, and other external partners from River Network and EPA's Office
of Water. The project was designed and implemented in partnership with the National Park Service.
Disclaimer
This document is disseminated under a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service (NPS) and
River Network and an Interagency Agreement between NPS and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of information contained in this document.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily represent the EPA or NPS's
position on the topics covered or official policy. To the extent this report contains summaries and
discussions of statutory authorities and regulations, the report itself does not constitute a statute or
regulation and does not substitute for such authorities. This report does not, nor is it intended to, affect
the behavior of non-agency parties.
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Project Development 2
2A. Location Selection 2
2B. Project Approach 3
3. San Antonio Location 4
3A. Context 4
3B. Approach 5
3C. Stakeholder Engagement Process Findings 7
3D. Water Equity Mapping Findings 8
4. Verde River Location 11
4A. Context 11
4B. Approach 14
4C. Stakeholder Engagement Process Findings 14
4D. Water Equity Mapping Analysis Findings 15
5. Lessons Learned 19
5A. Lessons Learned from Stakeholder Engagement 19
5B. Lessons Learned from Mapping with the Recovery Potential Screening Tool 21
Appendix I: Stakeholder Engagement Final Report: Integrated Water Resource Management with an
Equity Lens
Appendix II: EPA Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Tool: Potential Applications for Watershed Analysis
and Water Equity Mapping
-------
1. Introduction
Water is critical to the health, economic and social vibrancy and resilience of communities, but managing
available water resources to meet a community's diverse needs is a complex exercise. Due to this
complexity of meeting so many users' demands while balancing natural environmental systems' needs,
water resource management across the United States has often taken a very siloed approach. Different
sectors work on their own without high levels of collaboration with related or overlapping sectors. For
example, environmental interests with a focus on ecological system integrity may overlook local social
needs of a community, or industrial interests that aim to maximize profits through processes dependent
on water neglect collaborative planning with local water utilities.
A useful framework for navigating these complex
dynamics is Integrated Water Resource
Management (IWRM), a comprehensive and
holistic approach to water management and
planning that integrates areas such as water
supply, wastewater, and stormwater systems. In
particular, IWRM can be applied to advance water
conservation and reuse goals in water-
constrained regions. However, traditional efforts
at IWRM have often overlooked one key
component - water equity. Goals for water equity should be built into any and all water resource
management work, including water reuse and conservation efforts.
The Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP) was established in 2011 to help urban communities
(especially those that are underserved or economically distressed) connect with their water systems and
work to improve them. With 20 designated locations, the collaboration between 15 federal agencies and
more than 60 non-governmental organizations works to reconnect urban communities with their
waterways through community-led revitalization efforts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has taken a lead role in many of the Urban Waters locations. The EPA Office of Water uses the UWFP to
pursue a systems-based approach to water conservation and management in order to maximize
economic, social, and environmental welfare in an equitable manner. IWRM strategies are prioritized
while leveraging strong multi-stakeholder relationships to address specific issues such as water scarcity,
water access, improved stormwater management, and riparian ecosystem restoration.
In 2020, EPA and other Federal and state partners established the National Water Reuse Action Plan
(WRAP) as a coordinated public/private effort to advance water conservation, flood and drought
resilience, and reuse activities across sectors and geographies. Given the focus of the Urban Waters
program on using collaborative, integrated approaches to address major water and equity issues, EPA
initiated an action in the WRAP to expand the use of established partnership programs like Urban Waters
to achieve WRAP objectives on a larger geographic scale. WRAP Action 1.4 outlined several projects to be
undertaken with the active engagement of two geographically-based water partnership programs: the
1 US Water Alliance; http://uswateralliance.org/wec/framework
WATER EQUITY
According to the US Water Alliance, water equity
occurs when communities: 1) have access to safe,
clean, and affordable drinking water and wastewater
services; 2) share in the economic, social, and
environmental benefits of water systems; and 3) are
resilient in the face of floods, droughts, and other
climate risks.1
1
-------
Urban Waters Program (https://www.epa.Rov/urbanwaters) and the National Estuary Program
(www.epa.Rov/nep).2
The project described in this report is a core element of WRAP Action 1.4. The objective of the project
was to assess data and stakeholder perspectives related to water management and equity in two
freshwater ecosystems, both of which are Urban Waters partnership locations. That assessment was used
to identify systemic barriers and strategic opportunities for collaborative actions to improve conditions in
the targeted river systems. This report draws out lessons learned from the assessment process which can
be applied and replicated in other river systems. Prospective improvements through the project model
would seek to address water conservation, capture, and reuse opportunities through IWRM and
collaborative local stakeholder engagement, with a major focus on more equitable services to
underserved communities within the two watersheds. The project was a collaboration between EPA's
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW), the National Park Service (NPS), and River Network
(RN). It is an example of how water equity can be integrated across watersheds and sectors to become a
foundational aspect of water resource management work.
This report provides the summary of the core findings of the river system project, which focused on
UWFP locations in the San Antonio River Watershed (Texas) and a critical tributary to the Rio
Reimagined's Salt River and Middle Gila watershed: the Upper Verde watershed (Arizona). This report
synthesizes information taken from more extensive analyses (attached in appendices) conducted by the
Consensus Building Institute (CBI) and Industrial Economics, Incorporated (lEc), two partners on the
project who facilitated extensive stakeholder engagement and outreach and conducted watershed
analyses via water equity mapping efforts. The report and appendix documents provide findings, lessons
learned, and a path forward for continuing work in the two watersheds with EPA support.
2. Project Development
2A. Location Selection
Project Team members developed an initial list of 18 river systems across the country to evaluate for
possible inclusion in this project. All of the locations had connections to EPA's water partnership
programs (i.e., UWFP or NEP locations) and/or the Healthy Watersheds Program; while some locations
had connections to NPS Programs (i.e., RTCA, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Water Trails, or other
designations).
In the fall of 2020, Project Team members evaluated an initial list of 18 river systems in relation to the
objectives of this project to identify 1-2 sites that met the following criteria: prioritization and relevance
of water reuse or water efficiency issues to systems' health; existence of local environmental justice or
climate resilience work already underway; and the presence of a strong cadre of local stakeholders.
Project Team members conducted extensive outreach to partners across the various locations and
engaged in detailed conversations to assess locations' fit to project goals.
^The National Estuary Program is a place-based program (similar to the UWFP) established in 1987 under the Section 320 of the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the ecological integrity of
28 estuaries of national significance.
2
-------
Team members selected San Antonio, Texas and the Verde River tributary to the Salt River in Arizona as
the sites for this project. Both locations are affiliated with UWFP locations - the San Antonio Federal
Partnership in Texas and Rio Reimagined Partnership in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition, sections of the
Verde River are designated as a Wild and Scenic River (managed by the U.S. Forest Service). To
accommodate time and budget constraints, San Antonio was selected as the "primary" project location,
in large part due to the high level of activity and engagement by the UWFP, clear "fit" with project goals,
and strength of relationships among partnership stakeholders. The project's work in the Verde River
watershed was more limited in the number and scope of stakeholder engagement activities given time
constraints for the project itself, as well as the outreach required to solidify participation in the location.
The WRAP Project incorporated two separate levels of analysis: one grounded in extensive stakeholder
engagement, led by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), and a separate but parallel analysis based on
water equity mapping, led by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (lEc).
Stakeholder Engagement - River Network engaged consulting firm CBI to facilitate the WRAP project in
the San Antonio and Verde River basins. CBI followed a phased approach to exploring key challenges and
opportunities for advancing equity-focused integrated water planning, including water reuse, in each
watershed. The effort was also expected to highlight lessons for strengthening collaborative, integrated
water management approaches at Urban Waters Partnership locations more broadly.
Phgse I - CBI conducted preliminary stakeholder interviews and facilitated discussions with UWFP
members to explore how water planning efforts might be expanded to include important and previously
underrepresented stakeholders and to further emphasize water reuse activities.
Phgse II - Recommendations from Phase 1 activities informed the goals, key messages, logistics, and
support needed to promote further engagement with key stakeholders.
Phgse ///-CBI drafted the report included in Attachment 1 in consultation with the Project Team. The
report includes a set of recommendations for advancing existing collaborative efforts, promoting more
inclusive IWRM and addressing barriers to water conservation and reuse.
Water Equity Mapping / Recovery Potential Screening Application
Throughout the project phases discussed above, a parallel workstream in the project was advanced by lEc
to provide visualizations integrating both social and environmental data in order to identify the most
2B. Project Approach
Phase 1:
Stakeholder
Assessment and
Process Design
Phase a:
Identifying Key
Issues and IWRM
Priorities
Phase 3:
Recommendations
and Path Forward
3
-------
vulnerable areas in the two locations. This project referred to these vulnerable areas as hot spots -
geographic areas in which challenges with a nexus to water are being experienced disproportionately by
low-income and BIPOC (Black, indigenous, and person of color) communities.
lEc worked with the EPA to utilize the Recovery Potential Screening Tool (RPS) to create numerous maps
of social and environmental indicators for both the San Antonio and Verde River watersheds. The RPS tool
was originally developed by the EPA's Healthy Watersheds Program to help states, territories and tribes
identify priority areas for watershed restoration. It houses 284 unique indicators from many national
database sources, including the National Hydrography Dataset, the US Census Bureau, and National Land
Cover Database. The data are stored by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) at the HUC12 regional level, which
delineate regional watershed boundaries at the local, sub-watershed level. lEc and EPA sought feedback
throughout CBI's stakeholder engagement to establish which environmental and social indicators were
the most appropriate for mapping.
lEc then took the RPS tool data and integrated it into GIS software to generate index scores that ranked
the watershed regions for each location according to chosen indicators. The maps created were used to
profile the watershed and to offer a more comprehensive and holistic view into each location with
respect to integrated water management. Ultimately, this work also illustrates how the RPS tool could be
applied in other UWFP locations around the country.
3. San Antonio Location
3A. Context
Since 2011, the San Antonio community, local agencies, and federal partners have worked together
through the San Antonio Urban Waters Federal Partnerships (UWFP) and other local initiatives to
promote watershed health, improving community connections to waterways and restoring damaged
ecosystems.
The 240-mile San Antonio River springs from the Edward Aquifer in Bexar County and flows through 15
counties in southern Texas to its confluence with the Guadalupe River towards the San Antonio Bay and
the Gulf of Mexico. The San Antonio River Basin includes the Medina, Cibolo, Upper San Antonio, and
Lower San Antonio watersheds. (See Exhibit 1 for a map of the full river basin.) The San Antonio River
watershed holds significant value for the region, supporting native species, migratory birds, and other
wildlife. The river and interconnected aquifer system provide drinking and irrigation water to urban and
rural communities. The river's network of trails and parks also hold significant scenic, historic, and
recreation values to locals and visitors alike. However, increased pressures on the river and
interconnected aquifer system from trash, polluted runoff, rapid urban growth, and changing climate
conditions have damaged the riparian ecosystem and pose serious water quality and quantity concerns.
4
-------
Exhibit 1. The San Antonio River Basin includes four major river basins: the Medina, Cibolo, Upper and Lower San Antonio.
3B. Approach
In the San Antonio River watershed, the focus of the project was to strengthen and revitalize the San
Antonio UWFP, including broadening participation to include previously underrepresented communities
in water resource management. In recent years, the San Antonio UWFP experienced a brief period of
inactivity as a result of key staff transitions, and this project offered an opportunity to re-engage
stakeholders and identify areas ripe for collaboration to advance shared goals. Expected outcomes of this
project included (1) identification of water challenges that could benefit from increased collaboration and
engagement of historically underrepresented groups, and (2) an expansion of stakeholders engaged in
IWRM and water reuse through the Urban Waters Federal Partnership.
Following stakeholder interviews and consultation with the UWFP Ambassador, EPA Region 6 project
lead, and key UWFP members, CBI and the Project Team convened an ad-hoc UWFP work group focused
on equity and community engagement to guide the UWFP's update of its work plan. Over the course of 3
meetings, the Work Group explored ways in which the UWFP can promote integrated approaches to
watershed-wide issues of concern to historically disadvantaged communities.
For water equity mapping efforts, lEc staff selected the full San Antonio Basin to broaden the scope of
watershed understanding around the San Antonio urban center. lEc incorporated data from 21 of the
indicators available through the RPS tool and combined them to generate index scores for social
vulnerability, human land and water use, watershed health, present and future climate
vulnerability and toxicant load. For the fuli list of indicators, see the text box on the following page.
5
-------
Vulnerability Indicators Applied from the RPS Tool
For the purpose of this combined report and the RPS Tool Analysis, a total of 21 indicators were
incorporated into the analysis of the two regions. These indicators are categorized and listed below.
Social Vulnerability
1. % Low-Income Population in Watershed
2. % Minority Population in Watershed
3. % Linguistically Isolated Population in Watershed
4. % < High School Educated Population in Watershed
5. % Vulnerable Age Group Population in Watershed
Human Land and Water Use
6. Population Density in Watershed
7. Domestic, Agricultural and Industrial Water Demand in Watershed
8. Groundwater Source Protection Areas in Watershed
Watershed Health
9. % Natural Land Cover (N-lndexl) in Watershed
10. Change in % N-lndexl in Watershed (2001-16)
11. Soil Stability, Mean in Watershed
12. Preliminary Healthy Watershed Analysis (PHWA) Watershed Health Index, State
Present Vulnerability
13. % 100-Year Flood Zone in Watershed
14. PHWA Water Use Vulnerability Index, State
15. Wildfire Hazard Potential, Mean in WS (2018)
Toxics Load
16. Toxic Release and Exposure Potential in WS
17. Hazardous Waste Management Sites, Count in WS
18. Risk Management Plan Sites, Count in WS
Projected Vulnerability
19. Projected Change in Annual Temperature
20. % Projected Change in Annual Precipitation, Inverse
21. % Projected Change in Annual Evaporative Deficit
6
-------
3C. Stakeholder Engagement Process Findings
The following findings emerged through discussions with UWFP members, local stakeholders and Work
Group members led byCBI:
• The water challenges of greatest shared interest and priority for stakeholders in the San Antonio
watershed include issues at the intersection of water quality, stormwater, and equity; rural and
urban water dynamics; urban growth and integrated water and land-use planning; and climate
resilience (e.g., drought and flood preparedness).
• Key water priorities and watershed-wide challenges in San Antonio are intertwined, creating
opportunities to advance multi-benefit projects. Rapid urban growth and land-use changes,
coupled with climate change, have led to growing demands on local water supplies (i.e., the
Edwards Aquifer) and increased stormwater runoff. In addition, trash and other pollutants carried
by stormwater contaminate local water supplies. Stakeholders strongly support projects designed
to address issues at the intersection of water management, trash and solid waste management,
pollution, air quality, biodiversity, etc.
• The San Antonio UWFP plays an important role promoting communication and connection across
agencies and can bring value to the various collaborative efforts already underway. These include
IWRM efforts, water reuse initiatives and water equity efforts that are currently spearheaded by
the City of San Antonio and local water agencies.
• There is a need to incorporate considerations of equity and environmental justice more directly
into the UWFP's work. Consider prioritizing projects using equity mapping and tools such as EPA's
EJSCREEN or the RPS tool. Stakeholders highlighted that these wealthier areas tend to be more
flood resilient and have more green space, while historically disadvantaged communities tend to
be disproportionately and negatively impacted by water issues. BIPOC communities tend to rely
on older infrastructure, flood more often, suffer greater water quality concerns, and rely on
concrete-lined flood infrastructure.
• There is a need to expand community outreach and education efforts. Most stakeholders agreed
that community engagement, equity, and public education could be a central element of the
UWFPs work. They pointed to neighborhood associations as natural partners to engage with on
issues, particularly those that result from historical inequities, and identified the need to connect
with communities lacking neighborhood associations.
• There is a need to better coordinate and leverage funding, and to work across silos to identify
cross-cutting funding opportunities for multi-benefit projects and water initiatives.
• More can be done to integrate urban growth and water planning across the San Antonio
metropolitan area. This may include steering new development in unincorporated areas to better
use, reuse and protect water resources, and promoting stormwater containment in areas of rapid
growth.
• Additional support is needed for the San Antonio UWFP Work Plan Update. Stakeholders voiced a
shared vision in moving from a project-based work plan towards a thematic approach, using
equity as a guiding principle for the UWFP. Stakeholders identified the following areas as being
ripe for promoting water equity: messaging/education, technical support, funding, and spanning
7
-------
institutional boundaries. Topicaiiy, they suggested the UWFP focus on watershed health and
resilience; stewardship, education and outreach; economic revitalization/prosperity; and
collaboration and true partnerships.
3D. Water Equity Mapping Findings
The maps generated for the San Antonio region are designed to offer a holistic understanding of the
watershed and to identify areas that experience comparatively high levels of social and environmental
stress. To better understand population vulnerability, a series of five social indicators were equally
weighted and a 100-point comparative index was generated using the RPS tool, henceforth referred to as
the "broad social vulnerability index". Metrics included in these index scores include the percent of the
population identified as:
• Low-income
• Minority population (non-white)
• Linguistically isolated (non-English household with low English proficiency)
• Less than a high-school education
• Vulnerable age group (below 5 and above 64).
The heatmap in Exhibit 2 illustrates the areas with the highest index scores.
Kendall
Fayette
[SarTAntonro
Uvalde
WifBon
DeWitt
Victoria
laJhour
Exhibit 2. The top [10th] decile of vulnerable HUC12 regions in the watershed include the central and southern portion of the city
of San Antonio and the HUC12 regions south of the city along the Medina River and directly south of the intersection between
the San Antonio and Medina Rivers. Other socially vulnerable regions include the Hondo Creek region of Karnes County and
central Goliad County along the San Antonio River, both downstream of the City of San Antonio.
8
-------
Broad social vulnerability is more significant when considering watershed health alongside the social
hotspots. Exhibit 4 visualizes the overlap between the top decile of socially vulnerable HUGH regions and
those with the lowest watershed health. The watershed health index was generated by combining three
environmental indicators: the % natural land cover (N-lndexl) in watershed, mean soil stability in
watershed, and Preliminary Healthy Watershed Analysis (PHWA) water quality sub-index.
Combined Score
The scores that range from 2 to 10 are
a combined score of the race and
income tabs, indicating that the higher
the number, the higher the
concentration of both people of color
and low income households in that
census tract. Click on a census tract to
see the overall combined score that it
recerved and the total population for
that tract
Exhibit 3. Equity Atlas low income and minority populations (left) within the city of San Antonio compared to RPS broad social
vulnerability by HUC12 (right). The granularity of the San Antonio Equity map is finer and more clearly illustrates the population
divisions within the city boundaries. The RPS map includes more indicators to generate the final score (percent linguistically
isolated and percent vulnerable age group in addition to percent low income and percent minority). The RPS map also includes
all HUC12 regions with a majority area in Bexar County, rather than only regions within the San Antonio city boundary. The map
trends overlap and both indicate that central and Southern Bexar County are home to some of the most vulnerable populations.
As the hotspot maps displaying social and watershed vulnerability indicate, the HUC12 regions within the
upper San Antonio River Basin through the city have the potential to benefit the most from water
planning that supports environmental wellbeing arid protects socially vulnerable populations. Increased
green spaces, the development of water reuse systems, and the creation of community-driven efforts to
protect the vulnerable communities against current and future environmental strain and natural disasters
will help the city of San Antonio and surrounding counties to protect the population and shared water
resources. Within Bexar County, communities in the central Southeast regions of San Antonio have
consistently higher rates of non-high school graduates, and lower life expectancy. As of 2019,15.6% of
Bexar County received cash assistance or food stamps compared to 13.1% of Texas residents.3 The 2019
Poverty Report also found that census tracts with the lowest life expectancy also had the highest poverty
levels.4 These high poverty levels contrast the high-income levels in surrounding areas that include
military bases. Bexar County includes a series of military bases collectively known as Joint Base San
Antonio (which comprises Fort Sam Houston, JBSA-Lackland and JSBA-Randolph). These military bases
^ https://www.sanantonio.gOv/Portals/0/Files/HiirnanServices/FaithBased/20igpovertvReport.pdf
^ https://www.sanantonio.gOv/Portals/0/Files/HumanServices/FaithBased/20igPovertvReport.pdf
9
-------
provide direct and indirect jobs and increase revenue in the surrounding area. Major water infrastructure
investment has been spent on wealthier areas of Bexar County, including these military bases.
The map on the right side of Exhibit 3 illustrates the broad social vulnerability index in Bexar County
based on data from RPS. The map on the left side is taken from the San Antonio Office of Equity mapping
project, which compiles data by census tract within the San Antonio city boundaries to show areas with
the greatest low income and percent minority populations. Each census tract is scored from two to ten.
These two maps show a similar distribution of vulnerable populations in Bexar County.
Outside of the city, regions south of San Antonio in central Karnes and Goliad Counties also face social
and environmental vulnerability and lower resiliency compared to the rest of the watershed (see Exhibit
4). These hotspots are worth investigating more thoroughly to identify ways that water management may
alleviate environmental and socioeconomic strain.
Guadalupe
Driver
San'Antonio
Wilson
DeWitt
Social and Watershed Vulnerability Crossover
Social Vulnerability Top Decile
Karnes
Watershed Health Vulnerability Top Decile
Top Decile Crossover
Exhibit 4. This exhibit shows the top deciles for broad social vulnerability (red) and watershed health vulnerability (yellow), and
the overlap between these top deciles (striped). Areas of overlap indicate regions that fall within the top decile for both
categories.
10
-------
4. Verde River Location
4A. Context
As of September 2020, Rio Reimagined became the newest UWFP location, bringing together eight river
communities to protect, restore and revitalize the river corridor. Initially, the project was intended to
focus on the Rio Reimagined UWFP location, which is located in the Phoenix area encompassing a 58-mile
stretch of the Salt and Gila Rivers in Arizona's Middle Gila watershed.
However, when information about the WRAP project was shared with Rio Reimagined partners, many did
not feel the Salt and Middle Gila River watershed was in a position to pursue a project in the near term
due to: local sensitivities surrounding source water management; the short project timeline; and the
UWFP location's limited staff capacity, given its recent addition to the UWFP system and its lack of a
designated Ambassador. The WRAP project team was advised to shift the focus to the Upper/Middle
Verde, due to existing collaborative efforts underway and opportunities to build on their momentum and
expand water reuse in an integrative way. While stakeholder engagement through CBI focused on
portions of the Verde River basin, lEc undertook a larger scope for data visualization and mapping across
the entire Salt/Gila/Verde watershed to provide greater context for regional IWRM with utility to a
greater number of stakeholders working with the UWFP. Water equity mapping for the Arizona location
of the project therefore encompassed the three river systems (see Exhibit 5).
The 192-mile Verde River is one of the last vibrant and flowing rivers in Arizona. It passes through federal,
state, tribal and private lands, before reaching the confluence with the Salt River near Phoenix. Given its
upstream location from the Rio Reimagined UWFP location, it is a direct supply of water to the entire
river corridor (tied to the Salt and Gila Rivers). Water from the Verde River accounts for approximately
40% of the surface water delivered by the Salt River Project to the Phoenix-area for municipal and
agricultural use. The Verde River watershed is generally divided into three subsections (see Exhibit 6
below) including the Upper, Middle and Lower Verde. Given existing stakeholder collaboration and
interest in the project, CBI focused their stakeholder engagement in the Upper and Middle portions. The
Upper Verde base flow is fed by interconnected aquifers in the Big Chino basin, flowing through red-rock
canyons and supporting a lush riparian habitat. Further along, a series of tributaries (i.e., Sycamore Creek,
Oak Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, and West Clear Creek) and washes feed in the Middle Verde River/Verde
Valley, supporting local communities and economies. Downstream, a stretch of the Lower Verde is
designated a National Wild and Scenic River. The river continues to flow into two major reservoirs, the
Horseshoe and Bartlett dams, before joining the Salt River north of Mesa, Arizona.
11
-------
HAVASUFfcl
Coconino
HUALAPAI
^YAVAPAI-'APACHE NATION
YAVAPAI-PRE SCOTT
Yavapai*
"SvXa4 V4
TONTO APACHE
FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATlONj 7
*» ( h?' Phoenix
w T [ ^T^SALT RIVER
GILA RIVER
Mancopal
Monave
Yuma
NAVAJO NATION
HOPI
Navajo
Apache
^MARICOPA (AK CH IN >
Pinal
SAN CARLOS
Green
Graham
80 Miles
Exhibit 5. The Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers converge just north of Phoenix, and each is a part of one or more watersheds that
comprise the central and southern regions of Arizona. This area includes the Verde River Basin to the North (yellow), the Salt
Basin to the West (red), and the Lower Gila-Agua Fria Basin to the Southeast (blue). This entire area Includes 634 distinct HUC12
regions.
12
-------
Rio Verde-Sub watersheds
I 1
| | Upper Verde
Middle Verde
Lower Verde
0 10 20 40
1 I I I I I I I I
Exhibit 6. i he subwatershed regions of the Verde River Watershed are the Upper, Middle and Lower Verde. The Verde River
flows through these sub-watersheds to its intersection point with the Salt River.
13
-------
4B. Approach
In the Verde River watershed, the goal of the project was to explore opportunities to support current
collaborative efforts while identifying potential gaps for water reuse and other integrated water planning.
A concurrent goal was to highlight water-related challenges for smaller, under-resourced communities
and opportunities to engage those who have not historically been at the table in regional water resources
planning. Similar to the San Antonio location, water equity mapping was also created for the larger region
in Arizona encompassing the Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers in order to provide more regional context on
current social demographics, watershed health and land use change.
As described in the previous section on San Antonio, CBI used a multi-phase approach to engage
stakeholders in Arizona, specifically in the Upper and Middle Verde River basin. CBI first conducted
stakeholder interviews to identify key water issues and opportunities and then designed a more targeted
engagement effort that culminated in a meeting with a small group of representatives from local non-
profit organizations, watershed coalitions, and one of the tribal government representatives to outline
the second phase of the WRAP project in the Verde River watershed. The strong take-away from that
discussion was that the most promising forum through which to advance water equity, reuse, and
integrated planning in the region is through an update to the Section 208 Water Quality Management
Plan.
Although stakeholder conversations for the project primarily concerned the Upper Verde River Basin, the
visualization scope taken on by lEc was designed to analyze the broader watershed area comprised of the
Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers. Applying the same approach as used for the San Antonio watershed,
indicators were selected from the RPS tool to help the Project Team identify watershed vulnerability
hotspots for this region. These were then combined to create a set of indicator indices to allow the
overlay of environmental and social factors tied into water equity concerns.
4C. Stakeholder Engagement Process Findings
The following findings emerged through discussions with UWFP members and local stakeholders:
• Major watershed-wide challenges in the Verde include rapid growth and land-use changes,
unregulated groundwater pumping, and a lack of coordinated land-use and water planning. A
significant proportion of the population relies on septic tanks, which in turn limits regional
capacity for water reuse, recharge, and storage and presents a water quality hazard. Stakeholders
echoed concerns about climate impacts on local water resources, such as increased water stress,
sustained drought, and increased risk of wildfire risk and flooding.
• The Verde River watershed is ripe for integrated planning. Stakeholders suggested building on
successful collaborative efforts underway, such as the Watershed Improvement Plan (2009-
2013), the Verde Watershed Restoration Coalition, the SustaininR Flows Council, the Verde Front,
the Verde River ExchanRe, the Northern Arizona Climate Action Plan, among others. However, the
funding and resources needed to support equitable IWRM need to be made available.
Stakeholders pointed to a lack of sustained statewide funding and leadership to support IWRM at
a larger watershed or regional scale.
14
-------
• The Gila River general stream adjudication process will impact all water users and uses in the
Verde River by determining their water rights allocation and priority date. The adjudication
process includes the quantification and settlement process for the Yavapai-Apache Tribal water
rights. Any/all conversations about water availability and demands will be inextricably linked to
the legal adjudication process, which has been underway for 45 years and has yet to be settled.
• There is a massive need to secure new state or federal funding to advance IWRM and water
equity, prioritizing multi-benefit projects (i.e., restore riparian corridors and fostering water
conservation/reuse); enhanced community outreach on IWRM and sustainable growth; and
improved climate resiliency.
• Efforts to promote IWRM, water conservation and water reuse need to be longer-term and have
clear follow through. The state of Arizona lacks the resources invested in similar initiatives in
California and could benefit from EPA support. That said, efforts need to be sustained and longer
term to gain people's trust. Further, some watershed groups have struggled to engage
municipalities and local leaders in these types of discussions. A process like this would be a heavy
lift and require a longer scope.
• Updating the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) is a prime opportunity to
leverage the existing partnerships and incorporate water reuse into integrated planning, as the
current plan is almost 20 years old. There is a need for federal partners to provide funding,
technical and facilitation support to address the existing resource and capacity limitations for
such an effort. Specifically, the Verde watershed would benefit from EPA advocating to the
Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) and the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that an updated 208 plan is a priority.
o An updated 208 plan would foster water reuse and provide certainty and clarity around
effluent discharge, consistent with the Clean Water Act. The plan could (1) help identify
multi-benefit solutions (e.g., maximize water reuse, improve stormwater capture and
management, retire septic systems); (2) assess barriers and constraints for implementation of
multi-benefit strategies (e.g., regulatory obstacles, funding); and (3) foster strategic thinking
at a watershed scale. For a detailed list of the key issues that stakeholders suggested for
inclusion in the 208 Plan, see the full CBI Report (Appendix I).
4D. Water Equity Mapping Analysis Findings
As with the San Antonio location, lEc combined a series of indicators from RPS to create index scores and
map overlays in order to better visualize the areas with the highest relative vulnerability across multiple
social and environmental categories. They calculated the broad social vulnerability index and the
watershed health vulnerability index using the same combination of indicators as
used for San Antonio. The results are shown in Exhibit 7 and 8.
As can be seen in the exhibit, particularly high values for social vulnerability occur north of the Salt River
around the Fort Apache-White Mountain Reservation. Additional vulnerability hotspots fall within the
central and southern boundaries of the city of Phoenix, as well as the western half of Maricopa County
along the Gila River. Some additional areas of vulnerability include northwestern Maricopa County and in
the upper reaches of the Verde River watershed.
15
-------
Coconino
Hualapai
Social Vulnerability Index
1st Decile
2nd Decile
Navajol
Apache
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
8th Decile
Yavapai
Yavapai-Prescott
9th Decile
10th Decile
Tonto Apache
Eomffipache
black
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Phoenix
San Carlos
Gila River
Greenlee
Maricopa
^/VER
Maricopa (Ak Chin)
Graham
Yuma
Exhibit 7. This heatmap displays the broad social vulnerability index across the Verde, Salt and Lower Gila watersheds, by decile.
These scores integrate data from five indicators: the population identified as low-income, the percent minority (non-white),
percent linguistically isolated, percent with less than a high-school education, and the percent vulnerable age group (below 5 and
above 64).
Regions with the greatest watershed health vulnerability in the Salt, Gila and Verde River watersheds
include the series of IIUC 12 regions along and north of the Gila River, ranging from Phoenix through
central Maricopa County, the Middle Verde subwatershed and parts of the Salt River (see Exhibit 8).
Maricopa county is the most populous county in Arizona, with over four million inhabitants, most of
whom reside within and surrounding the city borders of Phoenix. In August 2021, 86% of Maricopa
County was classified as a severe drought region by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,5 Water management practices in the Upper Rio Verde and along the Salt River to the
west ultimately impact the water flowing downstream towards Maricopa County via the Gila River. This
water is needed to support the substantia! agricultural land use in Maricopa and in Pinal County to the
west.
Hisfotfeal Co'd fl'Vvi vr MarieopaiGtSanty, DrdUght.gov
16
-------
The Centrai Arizona Project (CAP) supplies water to neariy 80% of the state's population and significantly
benefits Pinal County and to a lesser extent the population of Phoenix.6 This said, regions within and just
outside of the northern Phoenix city boundary (through which the CAP canal system runs) fall into the top
deciie of most vulnerable areas for watershed health based on natural land cover, soil stability and the
EPA water quality index (Exhibit 8). Although these regions have access to water via the canal system, the
health of these subwatershed is worthy of consideration in future water management planning.
Subwatersheds outside of the Phoenix area with greater watershed vulnerability include those around
Cottonwood near the border between Yavapai and Coconino counties extending to the west and East
from the upper Verde River. Additional watersheds with high vulnerability include the HUC12 regions
surrounding Roosevelt Lake, the largest visible lake along the Salt River in Exhibit 8.
Maricopa
Greenlee
Yuma
Yavapai
Watershed Health
Vulnerability Index Score
| 1st Decile
| 2nd Decile
| 3rd Decile
| 4th Decile
| 5th Decile
] 6th Decile
7th Decile
| 8th Decile
~ 9th Decile
10th Decile
La Paz
Coconino
Exhibit 8. This map displays the watershed health vulnerability index, which was generated by combining three environmental
indicators: the % natural land cover (N-lndexl) in watershed, Soil stability mean in watershed, and Preliminary Healthy
Watershed Analysis (PHWA) water quality sub-index. The top decile (darker colors) indicate areas with the highest vulnerability,
or the lowest scores for these combined indicators.
^ https://www.caD-az.com/water/cap-svstetn/water-operations/svstem-maD/
17
-------
The map beiow (Exhibit 9) shows the crossover between the sociai vulnerability and watershed
vulnerability indices. As with the San Antonio mapping, this allows us to identify some portions of the
subwatersheds that could be considered "hotspots" in need of the most attention regarding water equity
issues.
Yavapai
R/u,
slack
Phoenix
Maricopa
80 Miles
Graham
Yuma
Social and Environmental Vulnerability Crossover
Social Vulnerability Top Decile
Watershed Health Vulnerability Top Decile
Exhibit 9. Top decile crossover between socially vulnerable HUC12 regions and those with the greatest watershed vulnerability
based on the watershed health indicators. Striped HUC12 regions indicate areas of crossover between the HUC12 regions within
the top decile for both indices,
The two indices are closely correlated across the map - areas of high social vulnerability along the Gila
River south of Phoenix and the Salt River east of the city also have high watershed vulnerability index
scores. Additional areas to consider that suffer from watershed vulnerability or social vulnerability are the
Upper Verde subwatershed and areas upstream along the Salt River (e.g., the northern section of Graham
County and the southern regions of Navajo County. These areas fali within the San Carlos and White
Mountain Apache Tribal lands. It will be of particular importance when developing water reuse action
plans to consider tribal communities, especially those that are not served by the CAP system. Policy and
management changes in hotspot areas that focus on human equity are likely to support surrounding
ecosystem health and vice versa. Additionally, the environmental stresses that occur in portions of the
Verde River watershed are likely to adversely impact areas downstream of vulnerable subwatersheds.
18
-------
5. Lessons Learned
5A. Lessons Learned from Stakeholder Engagement
Over the course of the project, the project team held iterative discussions on how to improve processes
moving forward within the current timeline, as well as lessons learned for future endeavors tied to water
equity, IWRM, and water reuse. The following section provides a summary of the most pertinent lessons
learned from the start of project development all the way through the stakeholder engagement and
water equity mapping efforts. These points are meant to provide useful feedback to EPA, other Federal
partners, and partners in each location, on how to more successfully advance water reuse and IWRM
efforts through a water equity lens.
• There is enormous value in investing time and resources upfront to build transparent and
effective relationships with communities on-the-ground for sustainable outcomes. This project
exemplified the amount of time it takes to build trust with community partners for effective
engagement, something which EPA's existing partnership programs (i.e., UWFP and National
Estuary Program) are well-versed in. This project created a space to learn about and provide an
analysis of current barriers and motivators to advance IWRM and water reuse in both localities,
with the long-term objective to enable consensus-based and effective strategic planning in these
watersheds. More time is required to:
1) build additional trust with community partners;
2) demonstrate a commitment to meaningful long-term outcomes;
3) establish the credibility for partners to engage in creative, multi-purpose, multi-stakeholder
planning across traditional siloes;
4) engage those most impacted by historic water-related inequities and those who may stand to
gain the most from water reuse and IWRM efforts; and
5) work through existing structures and processes to develop new sustainable approaches to
water planning at the neighborhood, local and/or regional levels.
• There is a need to develop a clearer definition of 'underrepresented' or 'under-served' groups in
any given location upfront and be clear that using a water equity lens changes the conversation.
For example, in the Verde River watershed rural communities tend to be underrepresented in
state water planning processes, yet in other instances, these communities have louder voices and
greater influence. Participants suggested focusing particularly on low-income neighborhoods,
including Tribes and other communities of color when discussing 'underrepresented' or 'under-
served' groups.
• The EPA's role may vary depending on how far along stakeholders are in embedding equity into
their work. In San Antonio, equity is part of the City's overarching policy and therefore a
commitment to integrate equity into water planning is shared. In Arizona's Verde watershed,
these conversations are newer, more contested, and playing out differently. In some locations, it
may make sense for EPA to support water equity by probing and asking questions to better
understand what equity looks like and what communities are considered underserved or
19
-------
underrepresented, while refraining from taking a prescriptive or directive stance. In other cases,
EPA may need to play more of a supportive role while learning from local experts and efforts.
• Begin with an assessment to understand what efforts are already underway and to ensure
alignment between Federal goals and local priorities. Federal support is more effective when
building on existing work and when efforts are tailored to address local stakeholder needs, fill
gaps, and scale successful efforts. Prior to selecting locations, and during the early phases of a
project, Federal partners should have clear conversations with UWFP locations about the various
parties' interests, goals, and basic definitions (e.g., water reuse, IWRM, water equity), to ensure
there is mutual understanding and alignment of objectives.
• Demonstrate a longer-term commitment and communicate the government 'stake' in the issue
or effort. This includes outlining clear, consistent opportunities for continued engagement. Local
water planners may be understandably skeptical of government efforts to encourage or support
them to be 'integrative' or 'equity-focused,' particularly when project timelines are short, and
communities are already doing some of this work. This is exacerbated by what is frequently seen
as agencies 'parachuting in' with new ideas but leaving under-resourced communities without
infrastructure or support for sustaining initiatives over time. Further, with other collaborative
initiatives underway, stakeholders need a clear reason and incentives to engage.
• UWFPs can play important roles in advancing water equity through IWRM and water reuse
planning. They can provide members with technical assistance and develop cross-cutting
resources (e.g., equity mapping tools), share funding opportunities, offer support and guidance
(e.g., endorsement letters) to help partners secure funding, and serve as a vehicle to
communicate consistent, credible messaging across the watershed. The partnership provides a
venue for reflection, strategic planning, and exchange of best practices to align and maximize
efforts underway.
• Consider the value of 'equity mapping" as a first step in 'setting the table' among stakeholders,
supporting later developments and improvements upon watershed spatial analysis through the
use of local watershed and infrastructure data. Questions related to water equity can be initially
explored through a stakeholder assessment process that engages a discussion on the
communities that have been historically missing from water planning efforts. Preliminary water
equity mapping can be a useful springboard for early conversations about how different
communities experience water challenges and/or disparities, how to identify or measure these
disparities, how these issues might be addressed through water reuse or other integrated
planning, and what lessons can be learned from other communities regarding potential
approaches and solutions. While tools such as RPS are useful to generate broad snapshots of any
river system in the U.S., maps could become more impactful when paired with local information.
• Equitable investments in infrastructure, including maintenance of existing infrastructure for
water resource management, should be a top priority for all public and private partners.
Specifically, in the Verde River project location, stakeholders pointed to the disparities in
maintenance of water infrastructure throughout the watershed as a significant equity concern.
Given the high number of septic tanks still being utilized throughout the basin, the replacement
or removal of the septic tanks should be a high priority. Additionally, funding and human capital
20
-------
investment could be provided to build capacity in low-income areas to initiate their own small
water projects.
• Tribes need to be at the forefront of integrated water planning efforts, particularly when focusing
on equitable water management and engagement. The Verde River flows through four Tribal
Nations (Yavapai-Prescott, Yavapi-Apache, Fort McDowell Yavapi Nation, and Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community). When expanded to the larger scope of the mapping efforts from
this project, the Salt and Gila Rivers flow through two additional Tribal Nations: the Gila River
Indian community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community. Federal and state
partners must support Tribal efforts to promote innovative, integrated water planning and
maximize water reuse in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
• Promoting inter-agency dialogue (across federal and state agencies) and using water equity
mapping to identify "hot spots" can help prioritize multi-benefit/multi-use projects that advance
equity. Hot spots can inform areas to prioritize for funding, projects, and community
engagement. The EPA and other Federal and state agencies affiliated with the UWFP could
provide facilitation and technical support to advance equity mapping efforts in various ways:
o Continue facilitating meetings to support local efforts to layer the City's equity matrix with
existing water indicators such as those included in the EPA's RPS tool, in coordination with
local water agencies (i.e., SARA and SAWS). Help identify and fill gaps in the data.
o Support the UWFP to identify priority areas and most vulnerable communities in the city and
connect with local, trusted partners in those areas. The Partnership could find ways to
engage those priority communities and broaden representation to include their perspectives
in UWFP meetings.
o Support the UWFP in working with community partners to ground truth data, co-host various
community engagement efforts, and refine equity/watershed maps to better reflect
community lived experiences, priorities, needs, and preferences.
o Provide facilitation and strategic support to UWFP leads to identify partners who can help
fund, design, and implement community-based projects in key areas, based on local
priorities.
o Work with the UWFP to maintain a feedback loop between community, local, state, and
federal agencies through the Partnership meetings. Make space in meetings to share best
practices and provide support communicating, sharing funding opportunities, and scaling
efforts.
5B. Lessons Learned from Mapping with the Recovery Potential Screening
Tool.
The RPS tool is extremely valuable as a public repository of data for 284 social, environmental and
stressor indicators. Given this, it has great potential to supplement IWRM and efforts such as this project,
as it can help to jumpstart the visualization process to improve the understanding of social and
environmental dynamics that impact water equity within and across watersheds. The tool is also
21
-------
accessible to the public and downloadable directly from the EPA RPS website.7 Lessons learned through
this project about using the RPS tool to visualize water equity at the watershed level are outlined below.
• RPS is a comparative tool, meaning that index scores are based on the raw data for the specific
watershed region chosen by the user. The index scores provide valuable insights into water
equity within the selected region.
• The tool's visualization display capabilities are limited in producing clear visualizations of a given
watershed. The tool has a user-friendly map function that is useful for quickly visualizing
indicators. These maps are low resolution and cannot be used for water equity visualization.
Fortunately, RPS data and results can be readily integrated into ArcGIS to produce higher-
resolution maps that can be used effectively to convey water equity at the watershed and
subwatershed levels.
• Combining too many indicators to generate an index can lead to a significant amount of "noise."
The RPS tool allows users to incorporate as many social, stressor and environmental indicators as
they choose. However, selecting too many indicators may obscure the relative contribution of
any indicator(s) to each HUC12 index score.
• Data stored in RPS may not be as recent or as granular as the most recent data collected locally.
Much of the data in RPS is from 2016 to 2019, while some indicators use even older data. Local
agencies or communities may have more recent data that will better represent their communities
and watershed as a whole.
• Using the techniques developed through the course of this project, the RPS tool could be applied
at any of the other UWFP locations. The data in RPS is easily exportable and can be used with
other software tools such as GIS to create visuals that could range in geographic scale from the
full state to a handful of HUC12 regions. The modular nature of the RPS tool allows the user to
easily select the region of interest and to identify data-driven hotspots within it. The tool,
updated in August of 2021 to include a number of EJ social indicators, provides data from
national data sources. For regions with little local data, RPS may serve as a first step toward
identifying disadvantaged areas and areas that would benefit most from IWRM.
Find state specific RPS tools at: https://www.epa.gov/rps/dowriioadabie-rps-tools-cornparirig-watersheds
22
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
WRAP Pilot Project | Final Report
Integrated Water Resource Management with an Equity Lens|
San Antonio River (Texas) & Verde River (Arizona)
Version: August 31, 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. WRAP Pilot Project Background, Team, Coals, and Desired Outcomes 3
3. CBI Approach & Methodology 5
4. Location 1: San Antonio River Watershed 7
5. Location 2: Verde River Watershed 22
6. Lessons Learned 30
8. Appendices 33
1
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
1. Introduction
Water is critical to the health, economic and social vibrancy, and resilience of communities, but managing
available water resources to meet a community's many diverse needs is a complex exercise. Integrated
Water Resource Management (IWRM), a comprehensive and holistic approach to water management
and planning that integrates water supply, wastewater, ecological, and stormwater systems, provides a
useful framework for navigating this complexity. IWRM principles can help advance water conservation
and reuse goals in water-constrained regions in particular.
The Urban Waters Federal Partnership was established in 2011 as a collaborative effort supported by 15
federal agencies and more than 28 non-governmental organizations to focus on critical water resource
issues existing in urban spaces across the United States. There are currently 20 designated locations
where the partnership works to reconnect urban communities, especially those that are under-resourced
and disproportionately burdened by impacts of poverty, industrial development and/or climate, with their
waterways through community-led revitalization efforts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has taken a lead role in many of the 20 Urban Waters locations via the Office of Water and pursues
a systems-based approach to water conservation and management to maximize economic, social, and
environmental welfare in an equitable manner. Through the Urban Waters program, EPA and its partners
prioritize IWRM strategies while leveraging strong multi-stakeholder relationships to address specific
issues such as water scarcity, water access, improved runoff management, and riparian ecosystem
restoration.
In 2020, EPA published the National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP) as a coordinated effort across the
federal government, to advance water conservation and reuse activities across sectors and geographies.
Given the focus of the Urban Waters program, it made sense for there to be a specific action within the
WRAP to leverage existing work of the program. Action 1.4 of the WRAP Collaborative Implementation
Plan outlined several milestones to be achieved across both the Urban Waters and National Estuary
Programs to further advance existing IWRM efforts, as well as providing support to locations with an
interest in the topic of water reuse.
The WRAP Pilot Project described in this report is one of the milestones established by Action 1.4. The
Pilot Project set out to consider water conservation and reuse in the context of IWRM in EPA's water
partnership programs in the San Antonio River Watershed (Texas) and Verde River Watershed (Arizona)
with a focus on water equity. The Pilot Project is the result of a collaboration between the EPA Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW); the National Park Service (N PS); and two national nonprofit
organizations, River Network (RN) and the Consensus Building Institute (CBI). The project has also
benefited from OWOW's partnership with the consulting firm Industrial Economics. Incorporated (IEc),
which provided water equity mapping and analysis to support the Pilot and its potential application to
IWRM efforts in other Urban Waters Federal Partnership locations.
2
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
2. WRAP Pilot Project Background, Team, Goals, and Desired
Outcomes
Project Background
The National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP) is an ambitious effort to advance consideration of water
reuse to ensure the security, sustainability, and resilience of our Nation's water resources, in light of their
increasing vulnerability to a myriad of challenges.
As defined in EPA's report, Promoting Water Reuse through Partnership Programs: National Estuary
Program and Urban Waters Partnerships Delivering on EPA's Water Reuse Action Plan, the term "water
reuse" is broad and generally incorporates concepts such as "recycled water," "reclaimed water,"
"alternative water supplies," and "water resource recovery." Through an integrated approach, water
reuse strategies may be coupled with the management of municipal wastewater, industry processing or
cooling water, stormwater runoff, or agricultural runoff, so that any of these water sources can be
captured, treated, and "reused" or "recycled" for a different application. As described in the WRAP
Collaborative Implementation Plan, "water reuse can be a valuable, perhaps necessary component of
integrated water resources planning to ensure safe and reliable sources of water at the federal, state,
and local levels well into the future."
To maximize the benefits of IWRM to promote the sustainable use of water resources - including water
conservation and reuse -the broad array of stakeholders who have a role in a community's water resource
management must be involved. Partnerships are key to the success of IWRM and water conservation and
reuse. EPA's Partnership Programs, which support 48 place-based, multi-stakeholder partnerships
through the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP, or 'Partnership') and the National Estuary
Program (NEP), provided the Project Team with a starting point for identifying locations to pilot this
project to apply IWRM to address local water reuse and other water management concerns.
Project Team
This WRAP Pilot Project was launched in the fall of 2020 and was led by a Project Team made up of
representatives of the EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Partnership Program Branch; the
NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (NPS-RTCA); and River Network. The Project
Team later secured the consulting services of the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), who served as
overall project facilitators, and of lEc, which provided mapping support for the project.
Project Goals & Outcomes
The overall goal of the WRAP Pilot Project was to support collaborative efforts to promote healthy
watersheds at the river-basin scale through local action in 1-3 locations. Specifically, the Project sought
opportunities where government agencies, nonprofit organizations, community groups, and others
across rural and urban aspects of river systems could come together to identify common goals and plan
for continued cooperation related to water supply, water conservation, water reuse, and pollution
reduction.
The expected outputs of this Pilot Project initially included: (1) the creation of plans that embody an
integrated approach to water resource management for one or more of the pilot locations selected that
represent a river, basin, sub-basin, or watershed that includes rural and urban aspects; and (2) the
3
-------
* CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATIC
development of recommendations on how to launch or strengthen existing collaborative efforts and
approaches for IWRM at the watershed level that incorporate an analysis of water equity and that bring
together rural and urban considerations and concerns. To better align with the timeline, the Project Team
refined the desired outcomes of this Pilot Project as follows: (1) an expansion of stakeholders engaged in
IWRM (including water reuse activities) at the pilot location(s), and (2) increased awareness of the value
of collaborative and inclusive approaches to achieve IWRM goals among agencies, nonprofit
organizations, community groups, and others exposed to the recommendations from this effort.
Pilot Location Selection
In the initial stages of the project, Project Team members developed a list of 18 river systems across the
country to evaluate for possible inclusion in this Pilot Project. All the locations included in this initial list all
had connections to EPA's Partnerships Programs (i.e., UWFP and NEP locations) and/or the Healthy
Watersheds Program; and some locations had connections to NPS Programs (i.e., RTCA, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, National Water Trails or other designations).
In the fall of 2020, Project Team members evaluated the initial list of 18 river systems in relation to the
objectives of this project to identify 1-2 pilot sites that met the following set of criteria: the priority and
relevance of water reuse or water efficiency issues to systems' health; the extent of local environmental
justice or climate resilience work underway; and the presence of a strong cadre of local stakeholders.
Project Team members conducted extensive outreach to partners across the various locations -
government agency staff, nonprofit and community organizations, utility representatives, and others -
and engaged in detailed conversations using a standardized set of discussion questions as a guide. Over
the course of multiple meetings and discussions, Project Team members gradually narrowed down the
list of river systems and selected San Antonio, Texas and the Verde River tributary to the Salt River in
Arizona as the pilot sites for this project. Both locations are affiliated with UWFP locations - the San
Antonio Federal Partnership in Texas and Rio Reimagined Partnership in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition,
sections of the Verde River are designated as a Wild and Scenic River (managed by the U.S. Forest
Service).
From the outset, Project Team members recognized that to abide by the limitations in project funding
and meet the 9-month time frame for completing the project, project activities would have to be carefully
scoped across both pilot locations. In response, San Antonio was selected as the "primary" project
location, in large part due to the high level of activity and engagement by the UWFP, clear "fit" with Pilot
Project goals, and strength of relationships among Partnership stakeholders. In practice, this also allowed
CBI and the Project Team to hold additional stakeholder meetings in that location. The Pilot Project's work
in the Verde River watershed was more limited in the number and scope of stakeholder engagement
activities.
4
-------
« CBI
CATALYZING COLL/
3. CBI Approach & Methodology
CBI was engaged by the River Network, EPA, and the National Park Service to facilitate the WRAP Pilot
project in the San Antonio and Verde River basins with the purpose and goals outlined in the section
above. CBI followed a phased approach to exploring key challenges and opportunities for advancing
Phase 1: Stakeholder Assessment and Process Design (January-June 2021)
Kickoff and internal convenings
CBI participated in a series of internal meetings with the Project Team (River Network, EPA, and NPS) to
better understand the context, project goals, watershed dynamics, substantive issues, and relevant past
efforts. CBI coordinated closely with the Project Team, EPA regional staff, and UWFP Ambassadors and
location leads to refine the approach in light of the project goals, local opportunities, and anticipated
challenges related to IWRM and meaningful, equitable engagement with communities. Initial discussions
expressly focused on identifying engagement opportunities for underrepresented populations within
both watersheds.
Stakeholder Assessment
CBI conducted approximately eight interviews with major stakeholders in each subbasin. In addition, CBI
presented at UWFP meetings early in the process to share the purpose and goals of the Pilot and gather
input on the scope, potential outcomes, and key stakeholders in each location. These discussions
explored the possibilities of expanding water planning efforts to include important and previously
underrepresented stakeholders, as well as greater emphasis on water reuse activities. The goals of the
stakeholder assessment were to:
• Ensure the right stakeholders are at the table and identify what voices were missing
• Understand key issues and areas of concern related to the watersheds, past and current management
or governance issues, and relevant stakeholder dynamics
• Gauge the willingness of stakeholders to engage in discussions related to water reuse and/or other
integrated, inclusive water planning strategies and goals
• Understand how stakeholders envision successful and inclusive participation and learn more about
past efforts to engage members of underrepresented communities
5
-------
* CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATIC
• Identify existing opportunities and challenges for effective participation, including consideration of
Covid-19 pandemic limitations
• Understand other stakeholder needs and interests (e.g., circumstances or principles under which
folks might feel more comfortable or empowered to participate)
CBI worked with the Project Team to identify interviewees and refine interview questions. CBI shared the
major themes from the interviews, without attribution, and worked with the Project Team to refine next
steps. Assessment findings are further discussed in the location-specific sections of the report.
Phase 2: Identifying Key Issues and IWRM/Water Reuse Priorities for San Antonio Watershed
and Developing Engagement Strategies for Verde Watershed - June-July 2021
The approach for Phase 2 in each watershed was closely tied to the Stakeholder Assessment findings.
Recommendations emerging from the assessment interviews conducted in Phase 1 informed the goals,
key messages, logistics, and support needed to promote an initial round of engagement with key
stakeholders. The Assessment interviews helped inform the topics explored during the next phase and
determined whether and how the team proceeded in each watershed.
In the San Antonio watershed, based on input from the UWFP Ambassador, EPA Region 6 project lead,
and key UWFP members, the WRAP Project Team proposed forming an UWFP work group focused on
equity and community engagement to guide the Partnership's update of its Work Plan. Expected
outcomes included (1) an expansion of stakeholders engaged in water reuse and IWRM at large through
the UWFP, and (2) identification of water challenges that could benefit from increased collaboration and
engagement of historically underrepresented groups. The effort was also expected to highlight lessons
for strengthening collaborative, integrated, water management approaches at Urban Waters Partnership
locations more broadly.
In the Verde River watershed, CBI worked with the Project Team and regional EPA staff to contact key
stakeholders and groups to assess interest in the Pilot and identify opportunities for future engagement
on key water challenges. Outreach strategies included targeted conversations with key constituent
groups as described in Section 5 below.
Phase 3: Recommendations and Path Forward (August 2021)
CBI drafted this report in consultation with the Project Team. The Project Team may consider
opportunities for knowledge exchange among the two river basins or other UWFP locations, as learnings
from one watershed are likely to inform efforts elsewhere.
6
-------
#CBI
W CATALYZING COLL/:
4. Location 1: San Antonio River Watershed
Background
The 240-mile Sari Aritonio River springs from the Edward Aquifer in Bexar County and flows through
15 counties in southern Texas to its confluence with the Guadalupe River towards the San Antonio Bay
and the Gulf of Mexico, The San Antonio River Basin includes the Medina, Cibolo, Leon Creek, Salado
Creek, Upper San Antonio, and Lower San Antonio watersheds. The maps below show the San Antonio
River and Bexar County,
Figure 2. San Antonio River
Watershed Divided by (JSCS
Hydrological Code Unites (HUC)
12 and Bexar County
Source: Industrial Economics,
Incorporated
Guadalupe
40 Miles
Atascosa
Wlson
Bexar
7
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
The San Antonio River watershed holds significant value for the region, supporting native species,
migratory birds, and other wildlife along its way. River flows have sustained vibrant and diverse
communities and economies for thousands of years. The river and interconnected aquifer system
provide drinking and irrigation water to urban and rural communities. The river's network of trails and
parks also hold significant scenic, historic, and recreation values to locals and visitors alike. However,
increased pressures on the river and interconnected aquifer system from trash, polluted runoff, rapid
urban growth, and changing climate conditions have damaged the riparian ecosystem and pose
serious water quality and quantity concerns.
Since 2011, the San Antonio community, local agencies, and federal partners have been working
together through the San Antonio Urban Waters Federal Partnerships (UWFP) and other local
initiatives to promote watershed health, improving community connections to waterways, and
restoring damaged ecosystems.
CBI Approach and Findings
In the San Antonio River watershed, the focus of the WRAP Pilot was to strengthen and revitalize the
San Antonio UWFP, including broadening participation to include previously underrepresented
communities. In recent years, the San Antonio UWFP had experienced a brief period of inactivity as a
result of key staff transitions, and this project offered an opportunity to re-engage stakeholders and
identify areas ripe for collaboration to advance shared goals. In doing so, the project also aimed to
highlight relevant learnings for EPA's work in other watersheds. Expected outcomes of this project
included (1) an expansion of stakeholders engaged in IWRM and water reuse/conservation through
the Urban Waters Partnership, and (2) identification of water challenges that could benefit from
increased collaboration and engagement of historically underrepresented groups. The effort
highlighted lessons learned for strengthening collaborative, integrated, water management
approaches at UWFP locations with increased community engagement.
Phase 1: Stakeholder Assessment
Refining the Scope
The WRAP Pilot Project Team initially held a few meetings with the San Antonio UWFP leads and EPA
Region 6 staff to refine the scope and identify key stakeholders in the watershed. Based on these
conversations, CBI suggested narrowing the scope to focus on the topic(s) of greatest interest to local
UWFP Partners in fostering an IWRM approach, including (1) the intersection of water quality,
stormwater, and equity, (2) rural and urban water dynamics, (3) urban growth and integrated water
and land-use planning, and (4) climate resilience (e.g., drought and flood preparedness). Initial
discussions also suggested a need for increased community engagement and data-sharing related to
local needs and watershed issues.
The WRAP Pilot Project Team then attended a UWFP meeting to share its initial findings and gather
preliminary feedback. UWFP Members engaged in real-time polling to rank areas of opportunity and
key water challenges in San Antonio, in relation to their timeliness and the anticipated impact towards
the UWFP goals. UWFP members raised additional opportunities and ideas for the Partnership to add
value to support existing integrated water planning approaches.
The following priorities emerged from the initial meetings and conversations:
8
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
• Bring in a stronger equity and environmental justice lens. Consider prioritizing projects using
environmental justice layers in GIS, as part of the UWFPworkplan. EPA uses EJScreen and can host
a webinar to help the SA partnership implement the tool at a local level. Partners suggested
looking at examples in other geographic locations, such as the Los Angeles Equity Index.
• Prioritize multi-benefit projects. Address the intersection between water issues, trash and solid
waste management, pollution, air quality, biodiversity, etc. Explore the relationship between
waste and urban water systems. For example, Alamo Area Council of Governments has programs
that deal with Solid Waste Management across 13 counties. Consider opportunities that protect
cultural and historic assets close to the San Antonio River, such as the San Antonio Missions (World
Heritage Site).
• Expand community outreach and education efforts. Invite neighborhood associations to engage
with issues that impact their neighborhoods, particularly those that reflect historical inequities.
Connect with the communities without existing neighborhood associations (e.g., Missions San
Juan and Espada).
• Coordinate and leverage funding: Work across silos to identify cross-cutting grant funding
opportunities for multi-benefit projects and water initiatives. Set specific goals to work towards
interagency coordination, such as partnering with AACOG to promote Camp Bullis Sentinel
Landscape Initiative. Consider aligning the UWP workplan with the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).
• Support integration of urban growth and water planning: Work across the San Antonio
metropolitan area to steer new development in unincorporated areas to better use, reuse, and
protect water resources. Connect rapid growth and stormwater containment.
Stakeholder Interviews and Assessment
CBI conducted six stakeholder interviews with representatives from federal agencies, water agencies,
and non-profit organizations in San Antonio between February and April to identify key water issues
and opportunities that could benefit from integrated, landscape-level discussions. CBI shared the
major themes from the interviews (without attribution) with EPA, those interviewed, and the San
Antonio UWFP. The goal was to collaboratively shape future multi-stakeholder collaboration efforts
for the second phase of the Pilot and beyond. Key findings from the interviews are summarized below.
The full Assessment presentation can be accessed and at this link.
Key Assessment Findings
• The San Antonio UWFP is valued for its role in providing opportunities for communication and
connection across agencies. Bringing major stakeholders together has been critical for the
partnership's success. In terms of improvements moving forward, interviewees highlighted the
need for greater structure and accountability, sustained leadership (i.e., full-time staffing), and
clearer expectation and direction for UWFP efforts. Interviewees suggested following a more
programmatic focus, exploring opportunities for broader education on multi-use and multi-benefit
projects, leveraging partners' expertise and funding opportunities, and working towards
removing some San Antonio streams from the Section 303(d) impaired streams list.
• Key water priorities and watershed-wide challenges in San Antonio are intertwined. Rapid urban
growth and land-use changes, coupled with climate change, have led to growing demands on local
water supplies (i.e., the Edwards Aquifer) and increased stormwater runoff. Increased quantity
and speed of runoff exacerbates the risk and magnitude of flooding events. In addition, trash and
other pollutants carried by stormwater contaminate local water supplies, as polluted streams and
9
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
waterways feed into the river and local aquifers, negatively impacting people and local
ecosystems.
• Equity is a fundamental tenet cutting across the most concerning water challenges in San
Antonio (See Appendices 4-7). Interviewees highlighted wealthier areas tend to be more flood
resilient and have more green space, while historically disadvantaged communities, comprised
more significantly of low-income, black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), tend to be
disproportionately and negatively impacted by water issues. BIPOC communities tend to rely on
older infrastructure, flood more often, suffer greater water quality concerns, and rely on concrete-
lined flood infrastructure as opposed to green infrastructure projects. One interviewee
highlighted the emotional pain connected to some large concrete flood infrastructure, due to past
fatal incidents following large rain events. The risk is especially high for individuals and
communities experiencing homelessness who reside by the waterways and are therefore at
greater risk during storm events. Lastly, the recent winter storm in February of 2021 that left
millions of Texans without electricity and safe water highlighted infrastructure disparities and
equity challenges in the state and city.
• Prioritize community engagement and equity in the UWFP's work. Most interviewees agreed
integrating community engagement, equity, and public education could be a central element of
the Partnership's work. This could be done by engaging people and organizations with more on-
the-ground experience with disadvantaged communities and/or direct lived experiences to
participate in Partnership efforts (e.g., community engagement specialists from partner agencies
and representatives of community-based organizations and neighborhood associations). Lastly,
interviewees suggested the need for increased engagement in local communities and with
regional environmental organizations as part of larger scale multi-benefit projects (e.g., San Pedro
Creek, past Mission Reach).
• Build on past and current water collaboration and integrative planning efforts. San Antonio has
a long-standing history and investment in multi-stakeholder collaboration, community
engagement, and IWRM (e.g., conservation, water reuse, water quality, stormwater management,
restoration, etc.). Stakeholders suggested building on successful collaborative efforts underway:
> Existing IWRM Efforts. Interviewees referred to various state-wide and local efforts to
promote IWRM, including the Bexar Regional Watershed Management Plan, the Mitchell
Foundation's One Water Initiative, and other efforts spearheaded by the Greater Edwards
Water Alliance. Stakeholders also pointed to a series of local intergovernmental
collaboration projects such as the San Pedro Creek Culture Park, improvements to the San
Antonio Riverwalk area (15 miles of hiking and biking trails loved by the community) for
local users around the Mission Reach, as well as improvements to the Western Side of the
river using 319 Non-Point Source Pollution and Abatement Grants.
> Water Reuse. Local water utilities and the City have invested significantly in innovation and
water reuse; San Antonio Water System (SAWS) runs one the largest water reuse facilities
in the country and has maintained low costs for customers. Effluent is used through an
extensive network for golf courses and to support flows in the San Antonio River and San
Pedro Creek. Stormwater is diverted and used in the river walk underneath downtown,
then diverted and discharged downstream. In times of drought, water is recirculated and
discharged near the museum reach for wildlife habitat and in the Salado reach to maintain
base flows. Nonetheless, interviewees highlighted concerns with the level of nutrients in
the water leading to blooms. The City is currently exploring the idea of constructed
10
-------
* CBI
CATALYZING COLLABOR
wetlands and sees significant opportunities to expand the use of water reuse to support
habitat and stream restoration. Local agencies have invested in rainwater capture, with
mixed results, and may explore direct potable reuse in the future.
> Water Equity. Interviewees suggested building on local water equity efforts spearheaded
by the City of San Antonio (COSA) and local water agencies (SARA and SAWS). They
suggested continuing to invest in community outreach and mapping techniques to overlay
social and water indicators. SARA has a variety of interactive mapping tools through the
River Authority's Open Data Portal. COSA uses equity maps, referred to as Equity Atlas.
that can be used to help inform equity approached to guide projects and programs to
account for equity considerations (See Appendix s).
> Community Engagement Efforts. Several interviewees pointed to the "Arbol de la Vida
Project", funded by the San Antonio River Foundation, as a success story that brought
together communities and neighborhoods across the city. The project reconnected
communities to the river and waterways through art.
• The WRAP Pilot project could add value by promoting inter-agency dialogue to prioritize multi-
benefit/multi-use projects that advance equity. UWFP could support equity mapping efforts to
identify 'hotspots' (i.e., geographic areas in which challenges with a nexus to water are being
experienced disproportionately by low-income and BIPOC communities), priority areas, and
community partners within those areas (See Appendix 6 and Appendix 7). Further, the Partnership
could use a collective impact approach to potential projects, focusing on economic development
and environmental justice. Collective impact refers to a commitment to cross-sectoral
collaboration on projects focused on solving a specific social problem. Further, the UWFP could
strengthen its community engagement, education, and messaging by working alongside trusted
community-based organizations and by promoting and sharing best practices among the member
agencies. Stakeholders highlighted the need for a more equitable geographic distribution of multi-
use and multi-benefit projects (e.g., green infrastructure), prioritizing the most impacted
communities. These projects need to be accompanied by significant public education efforts, as
some communities may not see the value in green infrastructure projects.
• Promote shared messaging and tailor communication strategies to community needs. The
UWFP could build on San Antonio's "river culture" and illustrate how water issues connect with
people's lives by communicating the value of projects based on community needs and priorities
(e.g., water quality, recreation, art, quality of life, habitat restoration, economic development,
etc.). This could take the form of a web-based "Water Hub" where partners could contribute
information, share educational resources, and highlight work done with the broad public.
Information needs it could serve include the following:
> Where does my water come from? Better communication around water resources in the
area, and how they are intertwined (groundwater, surface water, water quality,
availability, reuse, conservation, ecosystem health, upstream/downstream users, etc.).
> Why should I care? Understanding what communities need and value, especially when
investing in multi-benefit projects (this may be less about "run-off" and more about
shade, mobility, safety, etc.). Communicate how these issues impact and play a role in
stakeholders' and community members' daily lives.
> What might the future look like? Understanding how local users view water resources in
the area. Water reuse will no doubt increase in the future. What is the public's
perception?
11
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
• Interviewees shared their thoughts on what inclusive and equitable engagement means in the
context of water projects in San Antonio.
> Sustained. Efforts need to be backed up by continued funding to maintain relationships
and work on building on solutions together. When neighborhoods participate, they
embrace the project in a different way. Efforts should ensure the community is considered,
comes together, and is invested in the outcome.
> Accessible. When sharing information, it is important to provide materials in multiple
languages, avoid text heavy documents, and use images and maps. Successful
engagement efforts have included interactive activities, such as mapping community
flooding by asking communities to identify areas of the community that flood during storm
events with symbols and arrows. Interviewees suggested bringing food and fostering safe
and comfortable spaces; further, they highlighted the challenges of reaching low-income
stakeholders during the Covid-19 pandemic.
> Reciprocal. Efforts must be centered in communities, in which community leaders and
organizations are considered partners and co-creators. Agencies are encouraged to listen,
beyond information-sharing, and to ground-truth goals and priorities with the
communities. This means asking questions to identify what communities value and how
they want to be engaged. Community-based organizations can often be the anchors and
hosts for such efforts.
> Mindful. The work should be centered in communities in ways that honor and respect
people's connection to water, the river and waterways. It should prioritize relationships
and acknowledge the relevant history and context.
> Respectful engagement involves compensating communities fairly for their time, for
sharing lived experience, and for guiding, informing, and improving decision-making.
Agencies are encouraged to compensate community advisors' time and effort as they
would other consultants and experts.
> Expand notion of what constitutes "public engagement." This can mean meeting people
where they are, grounding and tailoring engagement to individual communities. Providing
a public notice is not enough. Conveners should consider engaging churches, faith-based
organizations, and community advocates as part of the conversation to foster a sense of
ownership. They should hold meetings or events outdoors, near the river, and remind
people how it feels to be connected to the resource and their environment.
> Follow through. Engagement efforts must ensure input is considered and incorporated
into decisions. This can be challenging, as it takes time and resources to build relationships,
get community buy-in, and foster trust. Interviewees highlighted the importance of
securing support from regional organizations and elected officials and of better
communicating the benefits of multi-benefit projects that may seem diffuse. Lastly,
stakeholders acknowledged that equity conversations are challenging, particularly in light
of the history of racial segregation and discrimination in the City.
Phase 2: Integrated Water Resources Management with an Equity Lens
Convening Equity and Engagement Work Group
As a result of the significant interest in increasing the equity focus of the San Antonio UWFP, the WRAP
Project Team convened a Work Group within the UWFP that focused on equity and community
engagement to guide the Partnership's update of its Work Plan. The Work Group's purpose was to
help the Partnership update its Work Plan to promote and support multi-benefit water projects and
strategies, with the goal of enhancing integrated water planning to promote equity in the watershed.
12
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
The Work Group explored ways in which the Partnership can promote integrated approaches to
watershed-wide issues of concern to historically disadvantaged communities (e.g., access to safe and
reliable water, pollution, flooding, neighborhood quality-of-life, etc.).
As shown in Figure 3 below, the Urban Waters Equity and Engagement Work Group met (virtually)
three times for two hours from late June to early August 2021. Through the meetings, participants:
• Gained understanding of each other's interests, needs, and concerns
• Shared a joint vision for water equity in San Antonio
• Suggested strategies to map and address water inequities in the watershed
• Shared best practices and lessons related to community engagement in water planning processes
• Identified who may be missing from the 'table,' what barriers exist to their participation, and how
to best engage them; in particular, identified engagement opportunities for under-represented
populations within the system
Meeting 1 (6/30)-
Envisioning Water
Equity
•What does water
equity look like in SA?
What examples can we
build on?
•What role can the
UWFP play to
enhance water
equity?
• How can we map
inequities around
water?
Meeting 2 (7/14)—
Engaging Communities
•What have we
learned? Best
practices, challenges,
tools, and
opportunities
• How can we engage
communities in equity
mapping?
Meeting 3 (8/4) -
Bringing it all together
»Where do we go from
here?
• Next steps for the
UWFP work plan
development.
Figure 3. Equity and Engagement Work Group Meetings
The Work Group was composed of approximately 12 individuals who represented diverse interests and
could address linkages between water planning and historically disadvantaged communities (see
Appendix 2). The Work Group served as a "brain trust" that fostered rich dialogue and brainstorming
among a diverse composition of individuals from diverse organizations (federal agencies, local
agencies, and community organizations), experiences, roles, and ages. CBI structured the
conversation to encourage active participation, shared visioning, reflection, and opportunities to draw
on individual and collective experiences. The Work Group's discussions and recommendations are
summarized in the sections below.
Water Equity Mapping
Start by envisioning what 'water equity' looks like.
Crafting a shared vision can create a space for inspiration, creativity, and shared understanding,
revealing participants' key interests. During the first meeting, Work Group participants crafted a
shared vision for water equity in San Antonio, informed by the US Water Alliance's Water Equity
Framework. The framework outlines three pillars for water equity: (1) Accessing safe, clean, and
affordable drinking water and wastewater; (2) sharing in the economic, social, and environmental
benefits of water systems; and (3) fostering community resilience in the face of floods, drought, and
13
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
other climate risks. The Work Group's vision for water equity in San Antonio includes the following
themes:
• Water resources are of good quality and affordable for everyone, including the environment.
This means considering the costs of pollution (e.g., trash, micro-plastics), balancing the needs of
nature and people, including public health and safety impacts related to potable and non-potable
water quality.
• Multi-benefit flood control management. This includes following the "do no harm principle,"
particularly related to flood control infrastructure, and ensuring stormwater management does
not disproportionately impact some communities.
• Restored relationship and connection between communities and their waterways. Communities
feel a sense of ownership, pride, and integrity across all waterways.
• Creeks and rivers are clean, safe, beautiful, and enjoyable for everyone. Access to nature and
recreation is equitable (e.g., trails, open spaces, parks, kayaking, etc.) and promotes safe
harvesting of fish, plants, and other cultural/traditional values.
• No part of the city is overlooked. Due attention and appropriate funding is allocated to maintain
public spaces in all neighborhoods, in a way that is safe, designed for all users, supports local
biodiversity, and improves public perception around waterways (not concrete ditches, but rather
beautiful public spaces).
• Equitable engagement. Agencies hear directly from community voices what they value and need.
All voices are heard.
• Equitable education and stewardship. This includes (1) a collective sense of responsibility to
restore and care for waterways, (2) equitable access to data, information, and knowledge, (3)
sufficient resources and opportunities to engage communities around water, and (4) education
programs that provide opportunities for kids across San Antonio to be exposed to healthy rivers
and understand the value of riparian systems.
• Honest reckoning with the City's history of injustice and inequity. There is a true exploration of
the root causes of existing disparities, with an acknowledgement of the current-day impacts of
redlining and segregation. Projects and funding prioritize the most impacted communities.
Build on work underway to develop equity mapping tools.
After creating a shared vision for equity, stakeholders can begin identifying the desired approach,
purpose, and use of water equity mapping tools. At a national level, there are a series of tools and
guides available (see Appendix 3).
In San Antonio, equity is part of the City's overarching policy and commitment. The City's equity
index guide's efforts and resource allocations. The Work Group received presentations from Murray
Myers, City of San Antonio, and Michelle Garza, San Antonio River Authority (SARA), on equity
mapping work underway used to identify priority areas in the city for specific climate and water
strategies [Access City of San Antonio Slides | SARA Slides]. Then, participants identified potential
indicators to map water inequities, focused on the three pillars identified by the US Water Alliance.
The table below summarizes initial ideas.
14
-------
« CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Table 1. Potential Equity Mapping Indicators
Water Equity Pillar
Potential Indicators
1. Access to safe,
clean, affordable
drinking water and
wastewater services
• Age of pipes/infrastructure
• Cost of water utilities (equitable rates) /as a percentage of household income
• Demographic data (i.e., income level, education, ethnicity)
• Distribution of incentives provided (e.g., access to rebate programs, etc.)
• Health data disparities
• Map delinquent accounts/shut offs
• Mapping recreational water uses
• Rainwater harvesting
• Real cost of potable water for irrigation
• Sanitary Sewer Overflow Data (SSO)
• Stormwater fees - or other variables (e.g., property values)
• Use of reclaimed/recycled water to identify areas of opportunity
• Water contamination sites
2. Share in the
economic, social,
and environmental
benefits of water
systems
• Access to and quality of parks/green spaces - distance from recreation entry
points
• Air quality changes
• Awareness/knowledge of city outdoor amenities and resources
• Demographic data (i.e., income level, education, ethnicity)
• Gentrification trends
• Heat mapping
• Investments in habitat restoration
• Jobs/unemployment data
• Location of flooding and other water quality challenges
• Water availability for wildlife - much of the river is made up of wastewater reuse,
reduce use of potable water for irrigation.
3. Foster community
resilience in the face
of a changing
climate
• Access to flood insurance and other recovery support services
• Access to generators and cooling appliances (AC, shade structures, etc.)
• Age of infrastructure and access to capital
• Areas of past flooding /flood risk
• Cooling centers
• Density of green infrastructure projects (recharge/absorption capacity)
• Distance to waterways / qualitative assessment of river stretches
• Education curricula - particularly access to environmental education
• Flood damage centers
• Food security - percentage of kids in school lunch programs
• Green/open space - access to parks, rivers, and other natural environments
• Healthy riparian/floodplain protection
• High priority water quality areas
• Income/financial distress
• Tree canopy
• Urban heat hot spots
15
-------
JfcCBI
CATALYZING COLL*
A subset of the Work Group then met to discuss next steps to use equity mapping to inform the Urban
Water Partnership's work to advance equity through local water projects (collectively and
individually). This group discussed how local, existing equity data and maps can (1) be augmented or
improved with federal data and tools, and (2) used by the UWFP to identify hot spots and priority areas
to focus and develop water projects and/or programmatic approaches to water and equity in San
Antonio. Participants included representatives from SARA, EPA Headquarters and Region 6, Bexar
County/Salado Creek Restoration Oversight Committee, and Industrial Economics (IEc). IEc supported
the WRAP Pilot Project Team by exploring opportunities to use EPA's Recovery Potential Screening
(RPS) Tool developed by Healthy Watersheds program to identify disproportionate impacts on
Environmental Justice communities, as well as finding ways to present information in accessible
manner for community education and engagement. lEc maps are available in Appendices 4-7.
The group discussed the following desired use and focus for water equity mapping in San Antonio:
• The UWFP can build off ongoing work with the City, SARA and SAWS (e.g., water quality data,
flood damage centers, access to infrastructure), and then overlay data layers to identify areas of
neglect. It may be useful to consider using the Title VI Overlay, which includes housing,
infrastructure, flood control, public safety, enhancement projects, infrastructure, and other
indicators. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and
national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
• A water equity mapping tool can be used to identify hotspots and priority areas in the watershed.
When equity maps are used to identify and prioritize projects that have the greatest impact
mitigating existing inequities, they can help ensure the Partnership's focus and efforts are leading
to concrete benefits to underserved communities. Stakeholders suggested sharing definitions
clearly and being explicit about the intersectionality between race and income. Underrepresented
communities tend to be low-income communities of color.
• This tool could help the UWFP be better positioned to pursue multiple funding opportunities
focused on advancing equity and environmental justice. The UWFP can identify potential partners,
NGOs, community organizations, and neighborhood associations in priority areas.
• Equity maps can be shared with partners to guide decisions, prioritize their existing funding,
pursue additional future opportunities in priority areas, and influence policy discussions. Data
could help develop services, use funds to improve water connections, and be able to impulse
economic development and map environmental impacts.
• The data and maps can be used to tell a compelling study and guide IWRM efforts in San Antonio
and beyond. The WRAP Pilot Project Team can support equity mapping in other locations
following the tiered approach outlined below, as part of a process to assess local priorities and
opportunities related to water management.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC ~ SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
16
-------
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
1. EPA tools (e.g., Recovery
Potential Screening or RPS) can
be used to create watershed-
scale maps and identify key
priority areas (see Appendix 4).
2. Initial maps can be
augmented and improved with
granular level data from local
water agencies to identify
hotspots and priority areas (see
Appendix 5).
3. Local agencies can engage
communities to ground truth
data, refine the list of key
indicators, and identify trusted
individuals and community-
based organizations in priority
areas.
Figure 4. Equity Mapping Tiered Approach
2. Meaningful Community Engagement
Engaging communities in meaningful ways is key to advance water equity.
The Equity and Engagement Work Group also discussed their experiences with community
engagement in water projects in San Antonio. Participants reflected on the elements that contributed
to the success and failure of past experiences, as well as shared their suggestions for how to apply
those lessons learned in the Partnership's work to advance water equity through upcoming projects.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
17
-------
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Table 2. Lessons Learned from Community Engagement Experiences
Works Well
Does Not Work Well
Educate people on the rationale behind decisions (e.g., why
was the infrastructure constructed, expected benefits, etc.).
Offer various forms of engagement (e.g., workshops,
charettes, community meetings, direct mail, mobile messages,
advertisements, storytelling, social media, etc.).
Engage communities actively throughout the process (in the
design, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation).
Listen first, then incorporate input in decisions (e.g., modify
design based on community feedback).
Design water projects for all users (e.g., make projects ADA
accessible).
Ensure sustained and ongoing engagement to build and
maintain trust (e.g., begin with public meetings to inform the
community about the inconvenience with constructions and the
longer-term benefits of a given project).
Go back to the community after implementation. Just because
your project is done, it does not mean your work is done. Find
ways to show the value of the projects, go back to the
community to gather input, assess design flows, and
opportunities for improvement.
Build community partnerships and maintain trust by following
through. Move beyond lip service. Find the resources to
implement community ideas to improve projects.
Start small, prioritize personal relationships, and listen to what
communities want/need. Communities are underserved in
different ways. Show up, work with schools and community
organizations, and begin with feasible projects.
Acknowledge native and indigenous culture, connect with
traditional values, celebrate diversity and multi-ethnic roots.
Broaden engagement efforts in a way that connects with
diverse communities, in different languages.
Make engagement accessible. Offer verbal and non-verbal
translations.
Engagement as an after-
thought. Lack of
communication and
participation from the
start. Informing the
community last minute.
"Retrofit engagement",
bring the community in
after decisions are made
and people are upset with
the process.
Inaccurately depict
community engagement
efforts to maintain a
positive image.
Lack of signage and
education to inform
communities of existing
threats or benefits of
specific projects (e.g.,
failure to indicate
degraded water quality or
other public health
hazards).
Token participation,
check the box and move
on.
Virtual engagement only.
During Covid-19,
community engagement
has been challenging
given the digital divide.
Not all households have
access to the technology
needed to participate.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
18
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Incorporating Equity into existing Planning Efforts
Find actionable ways to incorporate equity and community engagement into existing plans.
During its last meeting, the Equity and Engagement Work Group discussed potential updates to the
UWFP work plan to better integrate water planning across agencies in ways that meaningfully engage
and prioritize the needs of historically disadvantaged communities. The most recent UWFP Work Plan
was updated during the summer of 2017 (access here). While the Work Plan was focused on specific
large-scale projects, the hope for the new Work Plan is to pursue a "living document" approach,
focused on thematic areas based on local priorities and concerns.
Work Group participants brainstormed the Partnership's future to help address the needs of
historically disadvantaged communities and improve connections between communities and their
waterways. Participants reflected on opportunities for the UWFP to promote water equity in San
Antonio. Five key themes emerged:
1. Messaging/education - Coalesce the federal 'family' and local agencies around a cohesive
messaging and unified support for projects that advance water equity. A key focus would be
communicating the "why" behind projects and policies, as well as the value of healthy
waterways and the implications of neglect. Promoting consistent messaging through the
Partnership's umbrella can increase legitimacy and show unity across agencies. The UWFP can
support educational projects and initiatives that generate pride in the neighborhood, such as
signage that recognize community contributions as families walk along rivers and creeks.
2. Technical support - Assist local community members, living near waterways, with technical
support and other opportunities that foster stewardship and communicate the value of
preserving and restoring waterways through natural strategies. Help develop tools (i.e., water
equity maps) to support partners and guide efforts.
3. Funding -Share funding opportunities and help advance work led by local agencies, NGOs, and
community associations. Help mobilize funding to support projects that meet many federal
agencies' priorities and provide multiple needs (water quality, economic development, flood
management, etc.). Share funding opportunities and guide partners through grant applications
to increase odds of securing funding (e.g., letters of support, invite funders to meet with UWFP
and local groups).
4. Span Boundaries- Connect federal agencies, local entities, and community organizations to
collaborate on projects. All levels of government (federal, state, and local) would work towards
the same direction in prioritizing climate change mitigation and environmental protection.
Starting at a federal level, organizations can help set the intention and approach, state and local
organizations can help connect with grassroots efforts and CBOs to identify community needs,
priorities, and engage citizens in long term monitoring, oversight, and stewardship.
5. Support Small, Community-Based Projects - Support smaller projects that communities can see
and feel, projects that are more accessible and tangible to the community. Instead of prioritizing
mega water projects, pursue smaller-scale multi-benefit projects that promote connection with
local waterways (e.g., low impact development, community gardens, community art projects
like the Arbol de La Vida) in historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities.
Small projects can help build community buy-in for work that improves people's lives and
supports pride and ownership in neighborhoods. Further, this approach can help build support
for bigger water initiatives.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
19
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Thematic Areas based on Local Priorities
Work Group participants brainstormed potential thematic areas for an updated UWFP Work Plan,
detailed below (Figure 5). Participants like the idea of following New Orleans'Work Plan approach and
assigning co-leads per thematic area, emphasizing that this approach promotes shared accountability.
Further, they would like to consider using a "report card" approach to assign grades to specific themes
to measure progress. The Work Group recommended embedding equity as its own 'statement of
principle' or pillar throughout the document and across the themes (rather than as its own theme of
Equity/Engagement). They also recommend indicating how equity will be enhanced and considered in
the implementation of projects under each specific theme. Equity mapping could help guide and
prioritize projects in specific thematic areas.
Figure 5. Potential Themes for UWFP Work Plan
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
20
-------
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Phase 3: CBI Recommendations and Path Forward
Work Group members expressed overwhelming appreciation for the UWFP's interest in breaking
down silos, bringing agencies together, and engaging communities in meaningful ways. There was
strong feedback that the Equity and Engagement Work Group discussions advanced through the
WRAP Pilot project were both valuable and meaningful. The participants shared a deep commitment
for advancing equity and expressed desire for continued engagement in future efforts. We
recommend building on current momentum to support the UWFP as outlined below.
1. Support the San Antonio UWFP Work Plan Update
As detailed in the sections above, participants supported the idea of moving from a project-based
Work Plan towards a thematic approach, using equity as a principle behind the Partnership's work.
Further, stakeholders expressed interest in moving from large water projects towards community-
based projects that offer multiple benefits. They emphasized that community-based projects should
be in line with collectively defined thematic areas, grounded in local values and priorities, and pursued
in partnership with community leaders and community-based organizations in priority areas or equity
"hotspots." The updated Plan would engage a more robust partnerships to identify new projects and
be better equipped to secure funding for implementation.
2. Support Water Equity Mapping Efforts in San Antonio
The Equity and Engagement Work Group strongly advocated advancing efforts focused on water
equity by identifying hotspots and most impacted areas in the watershed, then, prioritizing funding,
projects, and community engagement in those areas. The WRAP Pilot Project Team could provide
facilitation and technical support to move equity mapping efforts forward in various ways:
1. Continue facilitating meetings to support local efforts to layer the City's equity matrix with existing
water indicators in coordination with local water agencies (i.e., SARA and SAWS), and help identify
and fill gaps in the data.
2. Once maps are completed, support the UWFP to identify priority areas and most vulnerable
communities in the city and connect with local, trusted partners in those areas. The Partnership
could find ways to engage those priority communities and broaden representation to include their
perspectives in UWFP meetings.
3. Support the UWFP in working with community partners to ground truth data, co-host various
community engagement efforts, and refine maps to better reflect community lived experiences,
priorities, needs, and preferences. Community partners would be considered anchors and hosts,
shaping the content and logistics of engagement efforts.
4. Provide facilitation and strategic support to UWFP leads to identify partners to help fund, design,
and implement community-based projects in key areas (based on local priorities).
5. Help develop educational resources and update the website to share resources and information
about ongoing initiatives and upcoming opportunities with the broader community.
6. Work with the UWFP to maintain a feedback loop between community, local, state, and federal
agencies through the Partnership meetings. Make space in meetings to share best practices and
provide support communicating, sharing funding opportunities, scaling efforts.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
21
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
5. Location 2: Verde River Watershed
Background
The Verde River is one of the last vibrant and flowing rivers in Arizona, The 192-mile desert river flows
through federal, state, tribal, and private lands in the heart of Arizona, before reaching the confluence
with the Salt River near Phoenix. The Verde holds important historic, cultural, religious, economic,
recreational, scenic, and ecological value for the region.
The headwaters of the Verde are north of
Prescott. The Upper Verde base flow is fed by
interconnected aquifers in the Big Chino basin,
flowing through red-rock canyons and
supporting a lush riparian habitat. Further
along, a series of tributaries (i.e., Sycamore
Creek, Oak Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, and West
Clear Creek) and washes feed in the Middle
Verde River/Verde Valley, supporting local
communities and economies. Downstream, a
stretch of the Lower Verde is designated a
Nationa Wild and Scenic River. The river
continues to flow until it reaches two major
reservoirs, the Horseshoe and Bartlett dams,
before joining the Salt River north of Mesa,
Arizona. Water from the Verde River accounts
for approximately 40% of the surface water
delivered by the Salt River Project to the
Phoenix-area for municipal and agricultural use.
The Verde River's watershed health is key to
sustain life for both communities and
ecosystems in the region. However, increased
demands on the river and interconnected
aquifer system, rapid growth, and land-use
changes, and changing climate conditions are
threatening the Verde river's health and vitality.
CBI Approach & Findings
In the Verde River watershed, the goal of the WRAP Pilot was to explore opportunities to support
current collaborative efforts while identifying potential gaps for water reuse and other integrated
water planning. A concurrent goal was to highlight water-related challenges for smaller, under-
resourced communities and opportunities to engage those who have not historically been at the table
in regional water resources planning.
Figure 6. Verde River Watershed
Upper Verde
n Middle Verde
Lower Verde
0 10 20 40
1 I I I I I I I I
C8I.ORG C CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC ~ SAN FRANCISCO, CAD DENVER, CO ~ SANTIAGO, CHILE C MONTREAL, CANADA
22
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Phase 1: Stakeholder Assessment
Refining the Scope
The WRAP Project Team initially held a few meetings with Rio Reimagined UWFP leads and EPA Region
9 staff to refine the geographic scope and identify key stakeholders in the watershed. Initially, the Pilot
Project was intended to focus closer to the geographic focus area for the Rio Reimagined UWFP
location. However, when the Rio Reimagined Partnership shared information about the WRAP Pilot
project to its members, many Rio Salado/ Rio Reimagined corridor partners and public agency
stakeholders did not feel the Salt and Gila watersheds were in a position to pursue a pilot in the near
term due to the local sensitivities surrounding source water management and the short project
timeline. The WRAP pilot team was advised to shift the focus towards Upper/Middle Verde, due to
existing collaborative efforts underway and opportunities to build on the momentum and expand
water reuse in an integrative way. Furthermore, the Verde River is situated upstream from Rio
Reimagined as a direct supply of water to the river corridor and therefore has significant implications
for the UWFP location.
Stakeholder Interviews and Assessment
CBI conducted eight stakeholder interviews in the Verde watershed in April-May to identify key water
issues and opportunities that could benefit from integrated, landscape-level discussions. CBI
presented the major themes from the interviews (without attribution) with EPA staff, interviewees,
the Rio Reimagined/Urban Waters Partnership, and the Sustaining Flows Council, with the goal of
identifying opportunities for future multi-stakeholder collaboration, and to gage the level of interest
in exploring these ideas through collaborative discussions during the summer of 2021. Several key
findings from the interviews are summarized below. The full Assessment presentation can be accessed
at this link.
Key Assessment Findings
• The Upper, Middle, and Lower Verde River face unique challenges and opportunities. Major
watershed-wide challenges in the Verde include rapid growth and land-use changes, unregulated
groundwater pumping, and a lack of coordinated land-use and water planning, which negatively
impact water quality, availability, and reliability. Some interviewees expressed growing concerns
with the lack of attention given to water quantity issues that threaten the river's perennial flows,
due to their political sensitivity. In addition, stakeholders pointed to the disparities in maintenance
of water infrastructure throughout the watershed as a significant equity concern. Small, under-
resourced cities lack resources to make needed capital investments. A significant proportion of
the population relies on septic tanks, which in turn limits regional capacity for water reuse,
recharge, and storage and present a water quality hazard. Stakeholders echoed concerns about
climate impacts on local water resources, such as increased water stress, sustained drought, and
increased risk of wildfire risk and flooding.
• The Verde River watershed is ripe for integrated planning. The Verde is a very special place, where
people come together around their love of the river and their genuine interest to protect its flows
and health. There is an array of past and ongoing multi-stakeholder collaboration focused on
conservation, reuse, restoration, recreation, stormwater management, and climate resilience.
Stakeholders suggested building on successful collaborative efforts underway, such as the
Watershed Improvement Plan (2009-2013), the Verde Watershed Restoration Coalition, the
Sustaining Flows Council, the Verde Front, the Verde River Exchange, the Northern Arizona Climate
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
23
-------
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Action Plan, among others. Stakeholders highlighted the value of going beyond and convening an
integrated watershed-wide planning process to add value to the region by fostering relationships
and understanding across interest groups, addressing/uncovering root causes of persistent water
challenges, and working towards collective solutions. This could entail hosting integrated planning
efforts and dialogues focused on bringing together small, dispersed, under-resourced
communities to address watershed-wide issues, identify opportunities for collaboration, pursue
"low-hanging-fruit" projects with watershed-wide benefits, and share the otherwise high-cost
burden of multi-benefit projects.
• Efforts in the Verde are strongly influenced by larger policy processes and dynamics. Specifically,
the ongoing Gila River general stream adjudication process will impact all water users and uses in
the Verde River by determining their water rights allocation and priority date. The adjudication
process includes the quantification and settlement process for the Yavapai-Apache Tribal water
rights. Any/all conversations about water availability and demands will be inextricably linked to the
legal adjudication process, which has been underway for 45 years and has yet to be settled.,
Meanwhile, the legal process may limit stakeholders' ability to share information or have candid
conversations about projected supplies and demands. Further, although tangential, the
implications and impacts of drought and shortage triggers on the Colorado River Basin can impact
the Verde by diverting state funding and attention, and potentially increasing reliance on the Verde
River in the Phoenix metro area.
• Tribes need to be at the forefront of integrated planning efforts in the Verde, particularly when
focusing on equitable water management and engagement. The Verde River flows through four
Tribal Nations: the Yavapai-Prescott, Yavapai-Apache, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, and Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community at the confluence of the Salt and Verde rivers. Tribes need
to be consulted and invited to help shape and participate in any efforts undertaken in the
watershed. The Verde River is core to Tribal Nations' identity, and Tribes like the Yavapai-Apache
are leaders in integrated thinking and reuse in the watershed and are committed to protecting
healthy river flows.
• Federal funding could support integrated water planning with an equity lens. Stakeholders
pointed to the lack of sustained statewide funding and leadership to support an integrated
approach to water resources management (IWRM) on a strategic, watershed scale. Interviewees
shared the following ideas and opportunities to advance IWRM and leverage the momentum
created by existing collaborative efforts in the watershed:
o Showcase, fund, and scale multi-benefit projects (e.g., restore riparian corridors and
wetlands, improve water quality, enhance groundwater recharge, and flood resilience,
foster water conservation and reuse, maintain recreation opportunities, enhance public
health, and quality of life).
> Provide technical assistance and funding to enhance water resiliency and equity. EPA and
its partners could support efforts to bring together local officials, planners, water
managers, non-governmental organizations, and community groups to foster sustainable,
water-smart growth. This could also include identifying equity hotspots to guide future
water projects and engagement efforts, offering technical support grants to assess
barriers and constraints to implementing multi-benefit projects, and collaborating with
low-income communities to fund and build capacity for small water projects.
> Support Tribal efforts to promote innovative, integrated water planning and maximize
water reuse in compliance with the Clean Water Act, particularly to meet the nutrient
standards. The Pilot project could help identify long-term water needs and key
opportunities for multi-benefit solutions at a watershed level to support those needs.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
24
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Further, EPA and its federal partnerships could support and enhance the Tribe's integrated
model.
> Provide funding and support to enhance community outreach. Small, dispersed, under-
resourced communities need funding, facilitation support, and technical support to
conduct IWRM planningto ensure sustainable growth and water supply reliability, in a way
that reaches and engages key stakeholders and historically
marginalized/underrepresented communities. Interviewees mentioned that much work
remains to bring in an equity lens to the Verde watershed in Arizona. Tribal and non-Tribal
communities alike lack the resources and technical expertise needed to plan and prepare
for climate resilience. Low-income and Hispanic communities tend to be absent from
water planning processes and conversations. Intentional and meaningful engagement
efforts require time and sustained resources. An interviewee shared the project
Disadvantaged Community Outreach Evaluation Study pursued in Los Angeles, California,
as an example of successful effort that could guide work in the Verde.
• Interviewees emphasized the urgent need to support and fund an updated Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan (208 Plan). The current Plan is almost two decades old. Federal partners
could support this through funding, technical and facilitation support to address the existing
resource and capacity limitations for such an effort. An updated 208 plan would foster water reuse
and provide certainty and clarity around effluent discharge, consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Currently stakeholders do not fully understand the rationale behind existing nutrient standards
and have faced challenges in meeting those standards. Existing regulations limit stakeholders'
ability to directly discharge water into the River or recharge water near the River to support its
flows. As a result, they have been unable to fully utilize and reuse effluent in the watershed.
Interviewees mentioned the need to clarify the River's nutrient loading capacity and develop
management strategies accordingly. In addition, an updated 208 plan would add certainty and
clarity around potential opportunities to maximize water reuse and enhance integrative water
planning. The plan could (1) help identify multi-benefit solutions (e.g., maximize water reuse,
improve stormwater capture and management, retire septic systems); (2) assess barriers and
constraints for implementation of multi-benefit strategies (e.g., regulatory obstacles, funding);
and (3) foster strategic thinking at a watershed scale.
Phase 2: Integrated Water Resources Management with an Equity Lens
Overall Direction from Key Stakeholders
As initially envisioned, this phase consisted of targeted engagement efforts to further explore
opportunities identified through the initial Assessment with a broader, diverse array of watershed
stakeholders. On July 1, 2021, CBI convened a meeting with a small group of representatives from local
non-profit organizations, watershed coalitions, and one of the Tribe's attorneys, to outline the second
phase of the WRAP Pilot project in the Verde River watershed. CBI sought participants' input on
engaging a diverse group of stakeholders to explore possibilities to advance IWRM and equity work
through this Pilot project. CBI proposed convening a multi-stakeholder workshop in August to present
assessment findings, determine priorities, and explore possible next steps for furthering this work.
The strong take-away from the July 1 discussion was that such a discussion was not yet ripe, and that
the most promising forum through which to advance water equity, reuse, and integrated planning
in the region was an update to the 208 plan.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
25
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Stakeholder Input for EPA Regarding Integrated Planning More Broadly
• Engaging communities directly takes time and resources. To illustrate this point during a group
discussion, one stakeholder highlighted a nearly 20-year-old process in Los Angeles to engage
communities in integrative water management, which has included roughly $1 million in planning
grants and $150 million in project grants. The process started as an agency-level planning effort,
resulting in an improved understanding of needs and priorities tied to Integrative Water Resource
Management (IWRM). The agencies then realized key voices were missing and began investing in
community-based initiatives to hear directly from communities. The project employed community
organizers to go directly to people in the communities, including Tribes, to get a better
understanding of their needs and priorities. It has been a successful effort through the
commitment of significant time, resources and long-term vision.
• Efforts need to be longer-term and have clear follow through. Arizona lacks the resources
invested in similar initiatives in California and could use EPA support. That said, efforts need to be
sustained and longer term to gain people's trust. Further, some watershed groups have struggled
to engage municipalities and local leaders in these types of discussions. A process like this would
be a heavy lift and require a longer scope.
• A broader assessment may be needed. One participant suggested conducting a longer assessment
process to hear from a larger array of regional stakeholders and their needs, as well as to identify
political issues, challenges, and barriers. He suggested finding ways to assess residents'
perceptions of the value of the watershed. Roughly 30 groups regularly attend meetings in the
Verde, but many others, including small jurisdictions, are not engaged.
• Start at a high level and determine the steps needed to do integrative planning in the Verde.
Water policy challenges in Arizona make implementing projects in the watershed very difficult.
Current policy obstacles interfere with stakeholders' ability to expand reuse and maximize the use
of effluent. The Verde has many planning needs. The first step could be to focus at a broader level,
with less outside time pressure, and build the foundation for a regional integrative planning effort
that involves the cities and Tribes on both sides of the mountain (including the Upper Verde Valley,
if Prescott stakeholders want to engage). Efforts can focus on further exploring integrative
planning opportunities in the Verde. Many currently believe this could be best achieved by
updating the 208 plan. (The latest 208 plan is from 2004.)
• Efforts should aim to address practical problems and identify low-hanging fruit. When the
Yavapai-Apache Nation looked at septic and wastewater issues regionally, they realized that 60%
of the communities are on septic tanks. This is potentially a ripe opportunity for regional
cooperation. It would require setting aside politics and identifying what communities need to do
to connect septic systems with existing wastewater infrastructure.
• Establishing a more progressive 208 plan is a great starting point. The goal would be to move
beyond traditional strategies (e.g., concrete channeling) towards more innovative strategies (e.g.,
water reuse, low-impact development, LID, green and multi-benefit infrastructure) through a
competitive process. EPA could support cities in advocating to the Northern Arizona Council of
Governments (NACOG) that an updated 208 plan is a priority. Arizona is advancing its thinking on
reuse and regional wastewater management, and state leaders are pursuing a One Water
approach to water management. The Verde watershed should be a particular priority for
integrated water planning due to the lack of alternative renewable supplies.
• Greater clarity is needed about what projects like this are 'piloting.'While one of the goals of the
WRAP Pilot project was clearly to explore ways for EPA to help advance integrative planning and
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
26
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
water equity at the various Urban Water Federal Partnership locations, it was unclear what the
Pilot proposed to do at this particular location and why.
• Develop a clearer definition of what is meant by 'underrepresented' or 'under-served' groups in
the area. In the context of the Verde River watershed, participants shared that small, rural
communities tend to be underrepresented in state water planning processes. Some cautioned that
some small communities have louder voices than others and have greater influence over decision-
making. Participants suggested focusing particularly on low-income neighborhoods, including
Tribes and other communities of color. When talking about reuse, Pilot efforts such as this should
focus on towns and cities that are able to make those choices, with a focus on benefiting those
neighborhoods at greatest risk (e.g., poor water quality, unreliable potable water and/or
wastewater systems) and in most need of support.
Based on feedback from the July 1 stakeholder discussion, CBI recommended that rather than
convening a multi-stakeholder meeting in August, the WRAP Pilot Project Team explore pathways to
attain funding and assistance to move towards a more regional, integrative, and innovative 208 plan
in the Verde. This could align with the One Water priorities at EPA and at the state level in Arizona in
such a way that could maximize reuse while protecting water quality in the river.
Phase 3: CBI Recommendations and Path Forward
Support and Fund Integrated Water Planning Through a Regional 208 Plan
Interviews and discussions with key stakeholders in the Verde watershed pointed to numerous
planning needs related to water quality and quantity in the watershed, which they believe could and
should be addressed through a regional 208 plan. Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) directs
state agencies to conduct water quality management planning in specifically designated areas. The
Verde River falls under the Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) purview. In addition to
the current plan being nearly 20 years old, growth and water planning challenges are urgent in the
Verde. Further, the State's innovative, one-water approach to water planning has evolved significantly
in those two decades and is reflected in the creation of the Governor's Water Augmentation Council.
Stakeholders pointed to the Pima Association of Government's approach as a potential model for the
Verde watershed to follow (https://pagregion.com/sustainability/water-quality/208-plan/).
Key Issues to Potentially Address through a 208 Plan
While the primary focus of 208 plans tends to be that of maintaining alignment and consistency for
water reuse and reclamation facilities, 208 plans can also address other potential pollutants, including
stormwater runoff and solid waste disposal. An updated regional water quality management program
could encourage integrated water planning, including wastewater, stormwater, surface water,
groundwater, and solid waste. This could be done through innovative and nature-based strategies,
such as water reuse, green infrastructure, and other multi-benefit projects.
As previously mentioned, Verde stakeholders encouraged EPA's support to advocate and encourage
NACOG to set an update to a 208 plan as a priority, as well as to provide funding, technical, and
facilitation support for small, under-resourced communities. Some key issues to be addressed through
the update could include:
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
27
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
• Fostering clarity and consistency related to effluent discharge into the rivers and creeks, with the
goal of aligning regulations with parallel structures at a state and federal levels and streamlining
permitting processes.
• Considering strategies to encourage water reuse in compliance with the Clean Water Act
(particularly related to nutrient standards) to support river flows and riparian ecosystems.
• Describing historical and anticipated point and nonpoint source water quality issues and long-term
water needs, as well as potential solutions, control measures, and multi-benefit solutions at a
watershed level to support those needs. This can include low-hanging-fruit projects, such as
strategically retiring septic systems, connecting them to existing infrastructure, and increasing
water reuse/recharge.
• Assessing barriers and constraints to implement specific projects.
• Creating a strategic action plan to recommend financial, coordination, and institutional measures
necessary to implement recommended strategies
• Bringing in additional resources and capacity to share the cost burden from planning and
implementing projects, particularly when considering infrastructure development and
modernization. Craft policies that promote cost-effective regional planning and follow a
watershed-level approach to protect the river, local ecosystems, and public health.
• Bringing in an equity and environmental justice lens to prioritize most vulnerable and impacted
communities, encourage participation of historically underrepresented communities, and assess
the cost and benefit of specific policy and project alternatives.
• Enhancing integrative models, such as the Yavapai-Apache Nation's watershed model to improve
understanding of long-term water sustainability in the basin.
• Creating safe spaces in which diverse communities and stakeholders with divergent interests can
come together, think strategically about long-term sustainable growth, and identify strategies
within their control to improve watershed conditions.
• Reduce conflicts and develop guiding principles that reflect regional values and priorities.
Additional Considerations for Supporting an Updated 208 Plan
Any updates to a 208 Plan update would need to be closely coordinated with the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and NACOG, the Designated Planning Agency (DPA). In Arizona there
are currently eight DPAs, as illustrated in the map below. Stakeholders in the Verde would benefit from
EPA's assistance/guidance to encourage NACOG and ADEQ to prioritize the 208-plan update, as well
as to find and secure adequate funding for an innovative and integrated regional water quality
planning effort as proposed above.
CBI recommends coordinating with NACOG and ADEQ to determine whether pursuing a regional,
watershed-level 208 plan or similar integrative water quality planning effort is possible in the near
future. It would likely be beneficial to hire a consultant and a third-party facilitator to support the
planning process for an innovative 208 plan in the Verde. The process could include convening a multi-
stakeholder advisory group, composed of key stakeholders and partners that could help draft specific
sections of the report, share data, and develop and analyze potential strategies to promote
sustainable long-term growth. Strategic consultation and dialogue with Tribal Nations in the
watershed will be critical to identify areas of support and partnership. This will be particularly
important with respect to financial, technical, and facilitation support needed to support ongoing
efforts aimed at strengthening integrated planning (e.g., integrated hydrological model), as well as
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
28
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
supporting collaboration with other non-tribal entities to plan and implement watershed-wide efforts
to maximize water reuse and bolster resilience.
COCONINO
MOHAVE
COUNTY
NACOG
MOHAVE
NAVAJO
YAVAPAI
LA PAZ
COUNTY
MARICOPA
YUMA
COUNTY
PINAL
GRAHAM
PAG PIMA
Highways/lnterstates
- Native American Lands
[A CRUZ
ADEQ
208 Designated Planning Areas
County Boundaries
APACHE
&
Map available at: https://static.azdeq.gov/wqmwg/wifa_dpa_map.jpg
CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
29
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
6. Lessons Learned
Cross-cutting lessons for EPA and partners, across its Urban Waters locations, to (1)
successfully engage with stakeholders in integrated water reuse planning and (2) identify
and address issues of equity in those planning efforts
Selecting project locations
• Provide clear focus and specificity from the outset. As described in Sections 4 and 5, CBI spent an
important portion of the initial stages of the Pilot clarifying the purpose/goals and scope of the
project with EPA and communicating this to local stakeholders. Having a nexus with the Urban
Waters program, including existing relationships, will help contextualize EPA's goals and set
expectations with stakeholders at future locations.
• Ensure there is strong local interest/opportunity to (1) advance equity, (2) promote integrative
and multi-benefit water projects, and (3) maximize water reuse. Federal funding and technical
support can play a key role in advancing integrative efforts in an inclusive/equitable manner to
address the needs of historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities.
• Begin with an assessment to understand what efforts are already underway to enhance
integrative water management, and what relevant gaps or needs exist. Federal support is more
effective when building on existing work and efforts are tailored and focused to address local
stakeholder needs, fill gaps, and scale successful efforts.
• Select locations with an active UWFP or National Estuary Program area in place that has
prioritized water reuse and integrated planning, and that has capacity to support the effort. To
be effective, there needs to be a multi-stakeholder "home" for the effort with a nexus to EPA. We
recommend working with locations with active EPA partnerships that have expressed interest in
the Pilot and have long standing relationships with key stakeholders in the area (local agencies,
non-profits, etc.).
• Ensure there is alignment between EPA goals and local priorities. Water reuse and integrated
planning can signify different concepts to different stakeholders. Prior to selecting locations, and
during the early phases of a project, EPA should have clear conversations with UWFP locations
about the various parties' interests, goals, and basic definitions (e.g., water reuse, IWRM, water
equity), to ensure there is mutual understanding and alignment of objectives. Parties' goals may
include, for instance, integrating traditionally siloed aspects of water planning (e.g., water
quantity and water quality, surface- and groundwater, rural and urban, water and broader
community planning, and/or others) and/or addressing regional water scarcity and water quality
challenges through innovative, multi-purpose strategies such as green stormwater capture. It is
important to understand how local communities' needs and priorities relate to or differ from EPA's
understanding and priorities regarding water reuse and integrated planning.
• Consider the potential role and/or impact of water-related litigation and regulatory challenges.
These can range from decades-long adjudication processes to outdated regulations that preclude
creative water reuse or collaborative IWRM approaches. In some cases, it may make sense to allow
those to resolve or achieve more clarity before supporting new or revived IWRM efforts. In other
cases, certain legal constraints may present important opportunities for creative, integrated water
solutions.
CBI.ORG E CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO ~ SANTIAGO, CHILE ~ MONTREAL, CANADA
30
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
• Offer third-party assistance to support and coordinate with local UWFP lead(s) to help move
efforts forward (considering frequent local funding/capacity limitations).
Providing effective support to advance local efforts
• Demonstrate a longer-term commitment and communicate EPA's 'stake' in the issue or effort.
This includes outlining clear, consistent opportunities for continued engagement. Local water
planners may be understandably skeptical of federal government efforts to encourage or support
them to be 'integrative' or 'equity-focused,' particularly when project timelines are short, and
communities are already doing some of this work. This is exacerbated by what is frequently seen
as federal agencies 'parachuting in' with new ideas but leaving under-resourced communities
without infrastructure or support for sustaining initiatives over time. Further, with other
collaborative initiatives underway in many locations, stakeholders need a clear reason and
incentives to engage. Be prepared to address questions such as, e.g., What are EPA's specific
interests in this local or regional effort? What resources can EPA provide and/or help secure, now and
over time? What are the proposed tangible outcomes? What are the funding opportunities and/or
other incentives to participate? How does this effort build on past initiatives and connect with future
needs?
• Be clear that promoting water equity looks very different depending on location, and that using
an equity lens changes the conversation. Local efforts will inevitably be at different stages of
embedding equity into their work. In San Antonio, equity is part of the City's overarching policy
and commitment; the City established an equity index to guide its efforts and resource allocations.
Assumptions around the need to integrate equity into water planning are shared. In Arizona's
Verde watershed, these conversations are newer, more contested, and playing out differently. In
some cases, it may make sense for EPA may be called upon to support water equity by probing
and asking questions to better understand what equity looks like in a specific location and what
communities are considered underserved or underrepresented, while refraining from taking a
prescriptive or directive stance. In other cases, EPA may need to play more of a supportive role
while learning from local expertise and efforts. Either way, prioritizing equity is a powerful way to
center integrated planning efforts.
• It takes time and resources to conduct equity-focused integrated water planning, including
ensuring that historically underserved and underrepresented stakeholders are 'at the table'.
Initial efforts to assess local integrated and water reuse planning opportunities, identify and reach
out to stakeholders, and analyze potential opportunities and barriers to advancing equity through
water initiatives can be a meaningful and crucial first step. (A six-month timeline could be realistic
for this initial stage-setting, with the goal of supporting and framing a longer-term effort.) Much
more time is required, however, to (1) build relationships and trust with community partners; (2)
demonstrate a commitment to support meaningful long-term outcomes for impacted
communities; (3) establish the necessary credibility for partners to engage in creative, multi-
purpose, multi-stakeholder planning across traditional siloes; (4) work with community-based
organizations to engage those most impacted by historic water-related inequities, who may stand
to gain the most from water reuse and other integrated water planning efforts; and (5) work
through existing structures and processes to develop new approaches and sustainable outcomes
to water planning at the neighborhood, local and/or regional levels.
• Trust is crucial not only for meaningful planning discussions, but for the long-term viability of
integrated, collaborative, multi-stakeholder water management. Having trusted partners is an
essential component of successful long-term water reuse and integrated planning initiatives.
CBI.ORG C CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE ~ MONTREAL, CANADA
31
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Taking the time and making the investment to build long-term relationships and trust in outside
partners, such as EPA, will outlive any particular project and bear fruit in terms of long-term
solutions and capacity.
• UWFPs can play important roles in advancing water equity through IWRM, water efficiency and
water reuse planning. They can help members with technical assistance and develop cross-cutting
resources (e.g., equity mapping tools), share funding opportunities, offer support and guidance
(e.g., endorsement letters) to help partners secure funding, and serve as a vehicle to communicate
consistent, credible messaging across the watershed. UWFP members have a depth and wealth of
experience and expertise to share with one another. The partnership provides a venue for
reflection, strategic planning, and exchange of best practices to align and maximize efforts
underway.
• Consider the value of 'equity mapping' as a first step in 'setting the table' among stakeholders.
Questions related to water equity can be initially explored through a stakeholder assessment, by
asking what communities, neighborhoods or community-based organizations have not been
historically at the table in water planning efforts but may have needs that could be addressed
through water reuse or other integrated planning. An assessment can be a useful springboard for
early conversations about how different communities experience water challenges and/or
disparities, how to identify or measure these disparities, how these issues might be addressed
through water reuse or other integrated planning, and what lessons can be learned from other
communities regarding potential approaches and solutions.
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
32
-------
8. Appendices
Appendix 1. Stakeholder Assessment Interviews
San Antonio River
Interview List
#
Name
Affiliation
1
Steven Schauer
San Antonio River Authority, Director of Government and Public Affairs
Brian Mast
San Antonio River Authority, Government Affairs Manager
Karen Bishop
San Antonio River Authority, Executive Services Supervisor
Melissa Bryant
San Antonio River Authority, Director of Technical Services
2
Zuleika Morales
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Field Office Director
3
Julio Beltran et al.
US Geological Survey, Urban Waters Ambassador
4
Eloisa Portillo-Morales
Natural Resources Defense Council, City Strategist
5
Martin Miller
San Antonio Water Systems
6
Nefi Garza
City of San Antonio, Assistant Director, Public Works
Interview Questions
1. Please share the history of your involvement with the EPA Urban Waters Federal Partnership
and/or other local water planning efforts.
2. What do you see as the greatest opportunities for collaboration on local water issues and/or
watershed management (e.g., water quality, equity, supply, conservation, water reuse,
other)?
3. What examples have you seen of successful integration of diverse interests to broaden
stakeholder engagement in water discussions? What was the outcome? What worked well or
poorly?
4. Have you been engaged in what you consider 'integrated' approaches to water resources
management in the past? If so, what relevant learnings can you share?
5. In what ways (if any) could the Urban Waters Partnership add value to integrated
approaches to local water challenges in ways that aren't already being pursued by individual
organizations or coalitions?
6. What stakeholders or communities should be engaged in a discussion of the water
challenges discussed above? What voices have been potentially missing?
7. How do you envision successful, inclusive, and equitable engagement of the various
stakeholders? Who would be involved? What challenges and supports are needed in light of
Covid-19?
8. What information do you feel is most important to communicate with stakeholders and
communities related to the above water challenges? In what ways?
9. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
10. Who else might you recommend that we speak with as part of this assessment? We would
like this effort to be inclusive of previously underrepresented voices.
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
33
-------
a cbi
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Verde River
Interview List
#
Name
Affiliation
1
Michael Byrd
Prescott Creeks, Executive Director
2
Kalai Kollus
Oak Creek Watershed Council, Executive Director
3
Nancy Steele
Friends of the Verde, Executive Director
4
Ashley Hullinger
Water Resources Research Center (U. Arizona), Research Analyst
5
Masavi Perea
Chispa AZ, Coalition and Trainings Director
6
Paula Randolph
Babbitt Center, Associate Director
7
Kim Schonek
The Nature Conservancy, Project Director for TNC Verde River Project
8
Sarah Porter
Kyi Center for Water Policy, ASU Director
9
Susan Montgomery
Montgomery & Interpreter, Legal Counsel for Yavapai-Apache Nation
Interview Questions
1. What do you see as current needs or opportunities for collaboration on local watershed
issues and/or water resources management that aren't already being undertaken by existing
organizations or coalitions (e.g., groundwater availability, drought resilience, reuse, water
quality, equity, conservation, stormwater management/green infrastructure, other)?
2. What examples have you seen of successful integration of diverse interests to broaden
stakeholder engagement and/or address equity in watershed issues? What worked well or
poorly?
3. What examples have you seen of successful 'integrated' approaches to water resources
management in the watershed? At what scale?
4. What stakeholders or communities should be engaged in a discussion of the challenges or
opportunities? What voices have been potentially missing?
5. What does equity mean to you in the context of integrated water resources management?
What challenges and supports are needed in light of Covid-19?
6. What information is important to communicate to or receive from stakeholders and
communities related to the above water challenges? In what ways?
7. EPA is interested in supporting the development of a road map of actions and circumstances
needed to promote a regional IWRM plan in the Verde River watershed. This could entail
using water resilience and equity mapping to identify hotspots, as well as analyzing current
collaborative efforts and stakeholders engaged to identify gaps and opportunities to
broaden collaboration and engagement of historically underrepresented groups. Would you
find this approach and possible outcomes valuable and relevant?
8. Is there anything else you'd like to share?
9. Who else might you recommend that we speak with as part of this assessment? We would
like this effort to be inclusive of previously underrepresented voices
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
34
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Appendix 2. San Antonio Urban Waters Equity & Engagement Work Group
WorkGroup Participants
Name
Affiliation
Julio Beltran
United States Geological Survey, UWFP Ambassador
Randy Rush
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Tanya Helbig
National Park Service
Steven Schauer
San Antonio River Authority
Michelle E. Garza
San Antonio River Authority
Josie Gutierrez
City of San Antonio
Murray Myers
City of San Antonio
Frates Seeligson
San Antonio River Foundation
Annalisa Peace
Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance
Robert Ramirez
Westside Creeks Restoration Oversight Committee
Renee Watson
Salado Creek Restoration Oversight Committee, Bexar County SMWBE
Debbie Reid
Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance
Sarah Gorton
San Antonio Water System
35
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC ~ SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
-------
a cbi
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Appendix 3. National Equity Mapping Tools
Name
Host Org.
Link
CDC Social Vulnerability
Index
Center for Disease
Control
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html
Census Data Equity Tools
US Census Bureau
https://covidlQ.censiis.Pov/pafes/data-eqiiitv
EJ Screen
EPA
https://ejscreen.epa.fov/mapper/
EnviroAtlas
EPA
https://www.epa.fov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-interactive-map
Recovery Potential
Screening
EPA
https://www.epa.Pov/rps
Equity Atlas
PolicyLink and USC
Equity Research
Institute
https://nationalequitvatlas.orp/
Greenlink equity map
Greenlink Analytics
https://www.eqiiitvmap.orp/how-to-use
Headwaters Economics
Neighborhoods at Risk
Headwater Economics
httns://headwaterseconomics.orp/anns/neiPhhorhoods-at-
risk /
Mapping for
Environmental Justice
UC Berkeley
https://mappinpforej.herkelev.edu/
Resilience & Analysis
Planning Tool
FEMA
https://www.fema.pov/emerpencv-
manapers/practitioners/resilience-analvsis-and-planninp-tool
~ CAMBRIDGE, MA ~ WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
36
-------
J CBI
CATALYZING COILA
Appendix 4. Broad Social Vulnerability Index: San Antonio Watershed and Bexar County
Source: Industrial Economics Incorporated using Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Data
The highest scores indicate greatest population vulnerability based on population % low income; %
minority; % linguistically isolated, and % < high school education; and % vulnerable age group (below 5
and above 64). Data sourced from the 2018 update of the US Census Bureau American Community
Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Summary.
In Bexar County, the central city region and South/Southwestern regions of the county have the
highest proportion of socially vulnerable community members. The comparative vulnerability spans
the entire San Antonio Basin watershed (107 HUC12S).
Broad Social
Vulnerability Index
0 35 7 «iasa. 14 Miles
1 I I " '1' I
CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
hi U C12_for_H U C6-121003
Mil Social Social Index/ none
¦I
1st Decile
¦
2nd Decile
j~~l
3rd Decile
~
4th Decile
~
5th Decile
I I
6th Decile
i I
7th Decile
8th Decile
¦I
9th Decile
¦¦
10th Decile
20 30 40 Miles
i
Bexar County Social Vulnerability Index
-------
CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Appendix 5. San Antonio Equity Atlas Mapping vs. Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Data
Source: Industrial Economics Incorporated using Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Data
The map on the left below is taken from the San Antonio Office of Equity, which compiles data by
census tract within the San Antonio city boundaries to show areas with the greatest low income and
% minority populations. The map on the right shows Bexar County 'social vulnerability hotspots'
divided by decile across the full watershed. These data were sourced from the US Census Bureau
American Community Survey (2013-2017) and the map generated using the Recovery Potential
Screening (RPS) tool to illustrate the same social data by HUC12 watershed regions.
The granularity of the San Antonio Equity map is finer and more clearly illustrates the population
divisions within the city boundaries. The RPS map can include more indicators to generate the final
score (including the % linguistically isolated population and % vulnerable age group, in addition to % low
income and % minority) and the scope can be broadened or narrowed. The RPS tool is useful when
taking a broad watershed approach to vulnerability mapping. RPS may also be useful in regions of the
country that do not have their own equity mapping tools.
Combined Score
The scores that range from 2 to 10 are
a combined score of the race and
income tabs, indicating that the higher
the number, the higher the
concentration of both people of color
and low income households in that
census tract Click on a census tract to
see the overall combined score that it
received and the total population for
that tract.
Census Tract Score
CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
38
-------
« CBI
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Appendix 6. Comparative Areas of Vulnerability: Bexar County
CA DENVER,
a. % 100-Year Flood Zone in WS
These heatmaps of Bexar County display the
regions of highest vulnerability by HUC12 in each
of three categories: flood risk, environmental
health, and greatest water demand. Each of the
three maps is divided by decile across the entire
San Antonio watershed. The most vulnerable
th
HUC12 areas fall within the 10 decile for each
category.
a. %100-Year Flood Zone in Watershed.
Within Bexar County, the HUC12S in the
watershed with the greatest flood risk
include the Cibolo Creek region to the
N ortheast of the county and the Lower
Medina River region to the Southwest.
b. Environmental Health Vulnerability. This
heatmap includes data from the 2016 EPA
Preliminary Healthy Watersheds
Assessment, specifically watershed health
and water quality indices. Areas with the
greatest environmental health
vulnerability (or lowest raw scores)
include the central San Antonio City
region along the river and Leon Creek in
the western region of the city. Cibolo
Creek to the west also has a high
environmental vulnerability score.
c. Combined Water Demand in Watershed.
The central San Antonio city region
experiences the greatest water demand
in the county, significantly influenced by
industrial water use. The Southwest
region of Bexar County is impacted by
agricultural water demand while water
use in the Northeast is primarily domestic.
1st Decile
2nd Decile
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
8th Decile
9th Decile
10th Decile
c. Combined Water Demand in WS
b. Watershed Health Vulnerability
CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
39
-------
CATALYZING COLLABORATION
Appendix 7. Watershed Top Deciles: Social Vulnerability, Watershed Vulnerability and Flood
Risk
Fayett*
Kendall
Caldwell
Comal
indera
Guadalupe
GUADALUPE RIVER
SAN ANTONIO RIVER
San Antonio,
kWilson
DeWitt
.Karnes1
Goliad
Top 10% Vulnerability - Full
Watershed
Social Vulnerability
Watershed Vulnerability
% 100-Year Flood Risk
Social Vulnerability & Watershed
Vulnerability Crossover
Social Vulnerability & Flood Risk
Crossover
0 4
1 1 i i
Live Oak
16 24 Miles
I I I I I I
Victoric
While flooding and environmental resiliency are flood risk, environmental health, and greatest water
demand. Each of the three maps is divided by decile across the entire San Antonio watershed. The most
th
vulnerable HUC12 areas fall within the 10 decile for each category.
a. Social Vulnerability. The largest socially vulnerable populations occur in the region south of the San Antonio
city center and along the Medina River in Southern Bexar County. Vulnerability is based on % low income, %
minority, vulnerable age group and linguistically isolated populations. Additional vulnerability occurs in the
Hondo Creek region of Karnes County and along the San Antonio River in Goliad County.
b. % 100-Year Flood Zone in Watershed. The HUC12S with the greatest risk of severe flooding include the
Cibolo creek region to the Northeast of the county and the central Marcelinas Creek region in Karnes
County. The town of Riverdale along the San Antonio River to the Southeast scores within the top 10% of
both social vulnerability and flood risk in the watershed. Data is sourced from the FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Maps National Flood Hazard Layer (acquired February 2021).
c. Watershed Vulnerability. Areas with the highest environmental vulnerability scores include the Leon and
Mud Creek regions in the North/Northwest region of Bexar County. The Salado Creek region in the
Southwestern section of San Antonio along the river face both high environmental vulnerability and social
vulnerability. Data sourced from the 2016 EPA Preliminary Healthy Watersheds Assessment and is
calculated based on aquatic habitat health and change in water and land use.
CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
40
-------
#CBI
W CATALYZING COLL/:
Appendix 8. Verde River Basiri arid Surrounding Watersheds
The Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers converge just north of Phoenix, and each is a part of one or more
watersheds that comprise the central and southern regions of Arizona. This area includes the Rio
Verde Basin to the North (HUC6 150602) the Salt Basin to the West (HUC6 150601) and the Lower
Gila-Agua Fria Basin to the Southeast (HUC6 150701). This entire area includes 634 distinct HUC125.
CAMBRIDGE, MA WASHINGTON, DC SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, CO SANTIAGO, CHILE MONTREAL, CANADA
41
-------
Appendix II
EPA Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Tool:
Potential Applications for Watershed Analysis and
Water Equity Mapping
Prepared for:
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, US EPA
March 2022
Prepared by:
Industrial Economics, Incorporated
-------
Table of Contents
Water Equity Mapping Approach 1
Introduction 1
The Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Tool 1
Data Selection: RPS Indicators 2
Water Access 2
Watershed Health 3
Water Resilience 4
Water Equity Mapping 5
The San Antonio Watershed 5
Water Access 5
Watershed Health 10
Water Resilience 11
The Verde, Salt and Gila River Basins 14
Water Access 15
Watershed Health 17
Water Resilience 19
Water Equity Mapping using the RPS Tool: Lessons Learned 22
Attachment 1. Visualizations Generated Using the EPA RPS Tool 23
Attachment 2. Indicator Summary and Source Information 25
-------
Water Equity Mapping Approach
Introduction
A primary goal of the Water Reuse Action Plan is to identify more effective methods of water reuse and
to identify barriers to this goal.1 We sought to develop a methodology and identify tools that would help
the EPA consider the broad range of local factors that impact water reuse in a particular area. This
project sought to apply the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Recovery Potential Screening Tool
(RPS), which is a tool designed to compare the condition and restoration potential of watersheds within
a given region. By comparing social, environmental, and stressor data available through RPS at the
subwatershed level, we developed visualizations to help local and national stakeholders understand and
identify vulnerability hotspots in the San Antonio River and Verde River Watersheds. The maps
presented in this report are meant to offer the
reader a broad and integrated understanding of
water equity, which refers to a populations' access
to adequate and safe water for sustaining
livelihoods, human well-being, and socioeconomic
development.2 National and local datasetsthat
profile anthropogenic and environmental threats to
water security and sustainability can help to inform
water equity priorities within these watersheds. The
indicators selected from the 284 indicators stored in
the RPS Tool were designed to capture elements of
water equity and to create a foundation on which
the EPA and other stakeholders can make informed
decisions about water management.
The Recovery Potential
Screening (RPS) Tool
The RPS Tool was originally developed to help states, territories and tribes identify priority areas for
watershed restoration and support.3 The RPS Tool is an Excel spreadsheet that calculates index scores at
the watershed and subwatershed level using data for a series of social, environmental, and stressor
indicators. As of 2021, the tool contains 284 unique indicators from many national database sources,
including the National Hydrography Dataset, the US Census Bureau, and National Land Cover Database.
Data are stored by 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC12 regions), which are watershed boundaries
1 For more information, see the Water Reuse Action Plan.
2 For more information, see the U.S. Water Alliance National Briefing Paper
3 Overview of Recovery Potential Screening (RPS). EPA.
Primary Elements of Water Equity
Water Access: A populations' access to
adequate quantities of acceptable quality
water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-
being, and socioeconomic development.
Watershed Health: Quality of the water in a
watershed to ensure an adequate, reliable,
and continual supply of clean water for human
uses and ecosystems.
Water Resilience: the capacity of a water
supply to adapt to or recover from the effects
of rapid hydrologic change or a natural
disaster.
1
-------
that divide a region at the local, subwatershed level.4 It is possible to combine multiple indicators to
produce a single comparative index score for each of the HUC12 regions in a particular state or sub-state
area. See Attachment 1 for more information about the calculations in the RPS Tool. The EPA completed
RPS updates for the lower 48 states in November 2021.
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE DIVISIONS
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs): The Watershed Boundary Dataset maps the entire U.S. surface level drainage
using a series of hydrologic units that nest within one another. This enables users to better visualize the broader
watershed or smaller units that comprise the given area. Each hydrologic unit in the Watershed Boundary
Dataset is assigned a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and the hydrologic units are therefore referred to as HUCs.
Watershed levels include:
HUC4: Divides areas at the subregion level and delineates large river basins.
HUC6: Divides a watershed at the basin level.
HUC8: Divides the watershed at the subbasin level and delineates medium-sized river basins.
HUC12: The finest level of watershed granularity, HUC12 regions are divided at the local, subwatershed level and
delineate tributary systems. The continental U.S. is comprised of about 90,000 HUC12 regions.
Modifications include updating older indicators with more recent data where possible and adding over
30 new indicators into the tool, which include a series of indicators that could be relevant to
Environmental Justice (EJ) initiatives. This report includes data and results from Texas and Arizona RPS
Tools that include the 2021 updates. Most indicators in the updated tools are comprised of data
collected between 2016 and 2020.
Data Selection: RPS Indicators
To better understand the environmental, social, and economic demands on water supplies, we selected
a subset of indicators designed to identify areas across the whole watershed that would benefit the
most from development of water reuse plans. The final selection of indicators was informed by
Consensus Building Institute's stakeholder engagement process for the WRAP pilot where partners
decided on water equity considerations to be factored into the RPS mapping. We selected a total of 21
indicators from the RPS Tool to illustrate social equity, watershed health, and climate vulnerabilities
across three elements - water access, watershed health and water resilience. See Attachment 2 for
more detailed descriptions of each indicator.
Water Access
Water access includes societal factors that impact a population's sustainable access to water for
socioeconomic development and human wellbeing. The indicators chosen to demonstrate water access
across the watershed display factors that impact whether people have access to clean, safe water. They
also capture a number of stressors that influence which groups of the population may be most
4 Hydrologic Unit Maps. USGS.
2
-------
underserved across the watershed. Although additional factors beyond those indicators listed below can
influence water security, these indicators offer insights to help stakeholders identify hotspots within the
region that may be worth investigating further. In order to characterize vulnerability associated with
water access, we selected eight indicators from the 284 available in the RPS Tool to depict the most
vulnerable areas in the watershed with respect to water access. We split these eight indicators into two
sub-categories: social vulnerability, which identifies socially vulnerable communities, and human land
and water use, which illustrates the current regional demand on water.
Social Vulnerability
1. % Low-Income Population in Watershed
2. % Minority Population in Watershed
3. % Linguistically Isolated Population in Watershed
4. % < High School Educated Population in Watershed
5. % Vulnerable Age Group Population in Watershed
Human Land and Water Use
1. Population Density in Watershed
2. Domestic, Agricultural and Industrial Water Demand in Watershed
3. Groundwater Source Protection Areas in Watershed
Watershed Health
Watershed health reflects the health of the watershed and the ability to supply sufficient clean water to
the population. Water quality, ground, and surface water supply, and natural landcover are important
indicators for watershed health. Indicators selected to visualize watershed health include:
Watershed Health
1. % Natural Land Cover (N-lndexl) in Watershed5
2. Soil Stability, Mean in Watershed
3. Preliminary Healthy Watershed Analysis (PHWA) Watershed Health Index, State6
5The % Natural Land Cover is included in this analysis as a standalone indicator. It also factored into the PHWA, and therefore,
may have a somewhat greater influence on the Watershed Health index scores.
6 The Preliminary Healthy Watershed Analysis (PHWA) Watershed Health Index is an index based on the EPA's Healthy
Watersheds Assessment Framework. It integrates data from the following sub-indices: landscape condition, habitat, hydrology,
geomorphology, water quality and biological condition data. For more information about the PHWA Watershed Health Index,
see the EPA PHWA overview report.
3
-------
4. Change in % N-lndexl in Watershed (2001-16).7
Toxics Load
1. Toxic Release and Exposure Potential in WS
2. Hazardous Waste Management Sites, Count in WS
3. Risk Management Plan Sites, Count in WS
Water Resilience
Water Resilience captures the capacity of a watershed to withstand or adapt to or recover from rapid or
significant changes in the water system, including natural disasters. We selected the following six
indicators to illustrate the climate vulnerabilities within the watershed and inform considerations for
water resilience:
Present Vulnerability
1. % 100-Year Flood Zone in Watershed
2. PHWA Watershed Vulnerability Index, State
3. Wildfire Hazard Potential, Mean in WS (2018)
Projected Vulnerability
1. Projected Change in Annual Temperature
2. % Projected Change in Annual Precipitation, Inverse
3. % Projected Change in Annual Evaporative Deficit
All indicators were standardized on a percentile scale according to the range of values within the
mapping area to generate the maps in this report. The projected change in annual temperature and %
projected change in annual precipitation have relatively small ranges across both the San Antonio
Watershed and the Verde, Salt and Gila River Basins. The projected change in annual temperature, for
example, varies by just less than one degree Fahrenheit across the San Antonio region. While the maps
in the following section indicate "hotspots," these are all based on relative values across the watershed
and general projected trends. To view the full dataset for each indicator, see the RPS Tool the EPA RPS
Website.
7 The N-lndexl indicates land classified as natural land cover, according to the CDL-NLCD Hybrid Land Cover dataset. This
indicator was compared alongside the other indicators included in the Watershed Health index and was not incorporated into
the index itself.
4
-------
Water Equity Mapping
The San Antonio Watershed
While many of the stakeholders involved in this project are based in the central San Antonio area, both
federal and local stakeholders expressed interest in expanding the water equity data visualization
beyond the immediate watershed to the larger surrounding basin, including regions upstream and
downstream of the City of San Antonio. We selected the San Antonio Basin (HUC6:121003), shown in
Exhibit 1, to broaden the scope of the water equity mapping around the San Antonio urban center. This
basin extends from Kerr and Bandera counties, downstream to Victoria and Refugio counties, with the
San Antonio River at its center. It is comprised of 107 HUC12 regions, including 31 that fall within the
San Antonio city boundary.
Water Access
Social equity and human access to natural and manmade resources are essential to Integrated
Watershed Resource Management (IWRM). In order to identify the most socially vulnerable areas in the
San Antonio River Basin, we selected five indicators that equally contribute to a broad social
vulnerability index: the percent of the population identified as low-income, the percent minority (non-
white), percent linguistically isolated, percent with less than a high-school education, and the percent
5
-------
vulnerable age group (below 5 and above 64). See Attachment 2 for more information about the source
data and other details for each of these indicators.
A particular consideration, both within the city and throughout the surrounding watershed, are socially
vulnerable populations who may be disproportionately affected by water mismanagement. Exhibits 2
and 3 present heatmaps that divide the index scores by decile for the full basin and Bexar County,
respectively. The lowest scores (first decile, depicted in light red) indicate the least socially vulnerable
HUC12 regions, while the highest scores (tenth decile, depicted in dark red) show the HUC12 regions
with the highest social vulnerability index scores across the watershed,
portion of the city of San Antonio and the HUC12 regions south of the city along the Medina River and directly
south of the intersection between the San Antonio and Medina Rivers. Other socially vulnerable regions include
the Hondo Creek region of Karnes County and central Goliad County along the San Antonio River, both
downstream of the City of San Antonio.
The RPS Tool is a valuable resource for regions with little local data concerning water equity and reuse.
In the case of San Antonio, the City has invested in the collection of local data and the development of a
visualization tool called the Equity Atlas. The RPS Tool can be used to supplement or broaden this type
of local tool, or to compare national datasets with local data. Exhibit 3 compares the Equity Atlas map
for low income and minority populations (divided by census tract) and the RPS map that captures broad
social vulnerability by HUC12 region. The map trends overlap, and both local and national mapping tools
indicate that central and Southern Bexar County are home to some of the most vulnerable populations.
6
-------
Combined Score
The scores that range from 2 to 10 are
a combined score of the race and
income tabs, indicating that the higher
the number, the higher the
concentration of both people of color
and low income households in that
census tract. Click on a census tract to
see the overall combined score that it
received and the total population for
t hat tract.
Exhibit 3. The map on the right shows Bexar County social vulnerability based on RPS data: dark maroon regions
have the greatest socially vulnerable populations of the 107 HUC12 regions in the basin. Scores are based on the
five indicators included in the index (percent low-income, minority, linguistically isolated, less than high school
education and vulnerable age). The San Antonio Equity Atlas map on the left displays a combined low income
and minority population score. Higher values indicate a larger socially vulnerable population. The granularity of
the Equity Atlas map is finer and more clearly illustrates the population divisions within the city boundaries. The
RPS map includes more indicators to generate the final score (percent linguistically isolated and percent
vulnerable age group in addition to percent low income and percent minority). The RPS map also includes ail
HUC12 regions with a majority area in Bexar County, rather than only regions within the San Antonio city
boundary. The map trends overlap, and both indicate that central and Southern Bexar County are home to some
of the most vulnerable populations. See Attachment 2 for more details about individual indicators.
All HUC12 regions with the highest social vulnerability scores fall along or just south of the San Antonio
and Medina Rivers. Areas with high social vulnerability (Shown in Exhibit 3) face the greatest potential
impacts of inadequate access to green space, water management issues and old infrastructure, and
polluted or unhealthy local waterways. Identification of these social vulnerability hotspots can inform
future water management plans and strategies to improve underserved community access to clean,
safe, and affordable water services.
In addition to social vulnerabilities, water access must take into account water use patterns and water
protection areas. San Antonio, the second most populated city in Texas, is home to just over 1.5 million
people.8 The San Antonio water Systems, or SAWS, began a water conservation program in 1982 to
8 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanantoniocitvtexas
7
-------
incentivize sustainable water management practices. Water use over the past three decades has
increased by about 20% compared to the 80% growth in population over the same period,9
The San Antonio River and Medina River upstream of the city are directly affected by the higher water
demand in the city. The central city region of San Antonio has the highest water demand after
combining agricultural, industrial, and domestic water use data (Exhibit 4). In central San Antonio in
Bexar County, water demand is primarily domestic and industrial, while regions in central eastern
Medina County use water primarily for agricultural purposes.
JC Comal
Kendall
Caldwell
San Anionic
Guadalupe
Gonzales
Lavaca
Wilson
DeWitt
Victoria
Goliad
Fayette
de Medina
Humand Land and Water
Use
1st Decie
I I 2nd Decile
3rd Decile
^2 4thDeoie
II _j 5th Deole
| 6tn Deole
T| 7th Deole
| 6th Deals
^ _J 9th Deole
| | 10th Decie
Atascosa
0 5 10 20 30 Miles Karnes
Exhibit 4. Dark red regions indicate the greatest water and land use [10th decile]. Regions of greatest water use
were calculated by combining domestic, agricultural, and industrial water demand, and groundwater source
protection areas in the watershed. Hotspots include areas of the city of San Antonio and areas of Bexar County
along the Medina River. The index includes agricultural, industrial, and domestic water demand.
Exhibit 5 illustrates the top decile crossover between the greatest water demand in the watershed and
areas with the lowest groundwater source protection areas. Commercial activity and industrial
production grew over the last decade. The city is home to three Air Force bases and one army post.
Biomedical and medical industries account for a significant portion of the city's economy.10 These
industries, along with the high population density in the area, accounts for a significant portion of the
industrial and domestic water demand in the watershed. Regions south and west of Bexar County have
greater agricultural water demand than the rest of the watershed, particularly in the eastern portion of
9 https://texasiivingwaters.org/water-conservation/how-san-antonio-reduced-its-dailv-water-use-bv-85-gaiions-per-person/
10 https://www.citv-data.com/us-cities/The-South/San-Antonio-Economv.html
8
-------
Medina County. Exhibit 5 shows the crossover between regions with the highest water demand and
those with the fewest source protection areas.
Exhibit 5. The pink HUC12 regions indicate those with the lowest proportion of groundwater source protection
areas in the watershed (lowest decile). Purple regions indicate those with the highest domestic, industrial, and
agricultural water demand within the watershed.
The red areas illustrate the lowest decile of percent drinking water source protection areas - specifically
groundwater. These regions have the smallest percent of source protection areas in the basin.
Groundwater is the primary water supply source in the San Antonio River Basin and the main source is
the Edwards Aquifer which the City of San Antonio sits on. While it is important to protect regions that
have the highest water usage - especially as the majority of the population sits on the region's primary
aquifer and demand is projected to grow as population increases - the headwater regions of the Medina
River may also be important to protect in the future.
Unprotected regions will also be severely impacted by a reduction in or the mismanagement of water
distribution and access. There is no current overlap between HUC12 regions with the lowest source
protection areas and highest water demand. However, source protection areas are scarcest southeast of
the city of San Antonio along the river, with the exception of the cluster of HUC12 regions at the head of
the Medina River. Increases in population density or water demand in these regions will likely impact
groundwater distribution needs and water access and increase the need for source protection areas
near these communities.11
11 https://www.mvsoutex.com/karnes countvwide/news/water-is-there-enoush-for-evervone/article 869edb3e-7e22-lle7-
Sfb5-2ba6cce62ba4.html
9
-------
Watershed Health
Watershed health captures the watershed's ability to supply sufficient clean water to its population to
maintain socioeconomic and general wellbeing. This category includes the overall ecological health of
the watershed. Exhibit 6 presents the watershed health vulnerability index scores for each HUC12 region
were generated using the RPS Tool by combining three indicators: the % Natural Land Cover (N-lndexl)
in Watershed (2016); the mean Soil Stability in the Watershed (by HUC12); and the Preliminary Healthy
Watershed Analysis (PHWA) Watershed Health Index, State (2016).12
The darkest areas in the watershed indicate the lowest overall watershed health indices, or the areas of
highest watershed health vulnerability. Areas in central and northern San Antonio and central Wilson
County suffer from the lowest watershed health in the San Antonio Basin. Additional areas of low
watershed health include the HUC12 regions in the southern region of Karnes County.
Fayette
Kendall
guao,
tomal
Caldwell
Guadalijpe
[San Anton ia
Jvalde
Medina
Watershed Health
Wilson
Vulnerability Index
1st Decile
~] 2nd Decile
DeWitt
3rd Decile
Karnes
lava la
Victoria
9th Decile
Exhibit 6. The darkest colors in the watershed health vulnerability heatmap indicate the HUC12 regions with the
lowest index scores by decile. Watershed vulnerability trends loosely follow the broad social vulnerability
hotspots.
Exhibit 7 overlays these poor watershed health areas with the previous analysis of socially vulnerable
populations (Exhibit 2), showing that many of the HUC12 regions with the most socially vulnerable
populations lie in close proximity to those with the greatest watershed health vulnerability.
12
The PHWA Health Index is comprised of water quality, landscape condition, habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, and
biological condition sub-indices. For more information see the EPA page here.
10
-------
Guadalupe
'£ RIVER,
-------
the basin (10th decile) include portions of upper San Antonio and southern HUC12 regions along the
border of Bexar County and Atascosa County. Additional regions that experience current environmental
stress include the HUC12 regions south of the Guadalupe River in western Guadalupe county, and
central Bandera County along the Medina River.
Caldwell
GOA?^
San Antonio
DeWitt
Victofia,
0 5 10 20 30 Miles
Refugio
Exhibit 8. Present climate vulnerability index scores include three indicators: %100-year flood zone in
watershed, PHWA watershed vulnerability index, and mean wildfire hazard potential in watershed. HUC12
Regions with greatest vulnerability fall in the lowest deciles (dark red).
Present Climate Vulnerability
1st Decile
2nd Decile
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
8th Decile
9th Decile
10th Decile
Fayette
aide
Medina
Projected climate vulnerability will be impacted by many changing factors, including the projected
change in annual rainfall, increase in temperature and increase in annual runoff. Exhibit 9 captures the
projected increase in these values between 2061 and 2090 based on relative and historical conditions.
Areas with the greatest vulnerability are found toward the northern border of the San Antonio River
Basin, particularly north of the city of San Antonio. Regions in Bandera county along the Medina river fall
within the highest deciles for present climate vulnerability and projected climate vulnerability. Southern
Kendall, Comal and Guadalupe counties are also projected to have the greatest climate vulnerability
within the region in the second half of the century. For more information about climate vulnerability
indicators, see Attachment 2.
12
-------
Kendall
Caldwell
GUAO^
Fayette
San Antonio
Gonzales
Medina
Projected Climate Vulnerability
DeWltt
3rd Decile
Victoria,
6th Decile
0 5 10 20 30 Miles
Refugio
10th Decile
Exhibit 9. Projected Climate Vulnerability. Northern regions of the greater San Antonio watershed face greatest
environmental threats when considering projected temperature change, evaporative deficit, and projected
annual precipitation change (inverse). Annual precipitation change is projected to be negative (reflecting a
decrease in annual precipitation totals) in the 2061-2100 period.
A comparison of water resilience to water access and watershed health reveals that the areas of present
climate vulnerability show significant overlap with areas of watershed health and social vulnerability
throughout the central portions of the San Antonio Watershed. Projections suggest that the degree of
overlap in these vulnerabilities may decrease as the areas of highest climate vulnerability shift to the
north in the second half of the 21st century.
13
-------
The Verde, Salt and Gila River Basins
Although stakeholder conversations for the WRAP project primarily focused on the Upper Verde River
Basin, the water equity mapping was designed to visualize the broader basin area comprised of the
Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers (see Exhibit 10).
HAVASUPAI
NAVAJO NATION
Mohave
Coconino
HUALAPAI
HOPI
Navajo
Apache
-YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION
YAVAPAI-P RE SCOTT
Yavapai'
TONTO APACHE
Lake Pleasant
FORTAPACHE
Bartlett Dam
SALT RIVER
FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION
JKJ
I J Phoenix
SALT RIVER
SAN CARLOS
GILA RIVER
Maricopa
MARICOPA (AK^CHIN)
Graham
Yuma
80 Miles
Exhibit 10. Verde River arid Surrounding Watersheds. The Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers converge just north of
Phoenix, and each is a part of one or more watersheds that comprise the central and southern regions of
Arizona. This area includes the Verde River Basin to the North (HUC6 150602} the Salt Basin to the West (HUC6
150601) and the Lower Gila-Agua Fria Basin to the Southeast (HUC6 150701). This entire area includes 634
distinct HUC12 regions.
14
-------
Water Access
The heatrriap in Exhibit 11 includes the three major watershed regions. The darkest colors indicate areas
with the highest social vulnerability index scores based on five social indicators: the percent low-income,
the percent minority (non-white), percent linguistically isolated, percent with less than a high-school
education, and the percent vulnerable age group (below 5 and above 64). Particularly high values for
social vulnerability occur north of the Salt River around the Fort Apache-White Mountain Reservation
(Exhibit 11). Additional vulnerability hotspots fall within the central and southern boundaries of the city
of Phoenix, as well as the western half of Maricopa County along the Gila River. Some additional areas of
vulnerability include northwestern Maricopa County and in the upper reaches of the Verde River
watershed. Water access is important to consider in remote regions of the state that have higher
proportions of native and minority populations and low-income communities, many of whom rely on
the land through farming.
Coconino
Hualapai
Social Vulnerability
Index
1st Decile
2nd Decile
Navajol
Apache
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
8th Decile
Yavapai
Yavapai-Prescott
9th Decile
10th Decile
Tonto Apache
IjortjApache
W&ivek
black^
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
I ' i ' ¦
Phoenix
San Carlos
Gila River
Greenlee
Maricopa
^/VER
Maricopa (Ak Chin)
Graham
Yuma
Exhibit 11. This heatmap displays the broad social vulnerability index across the Verde, Salt and Lower Gila
watersheds, by decile. These scores integrate data from five indicators: the population identified as low-income,
the percent minority (non-white), percent linguistically isolated, percent with less than a high-school education,
and the percent vulnerable age group (below 5 and above 64).
15
-------
Exhibit 12 illustrates human land and water use. The areas with the greatest population and domestic,
industrial, and agricultural water use include the central Phoenix area and Peoria just west of the city
border. Additional regions along the Gila River feeding into the city, as well as those extending beyond
the city to the Southwest have among the highest use of land and water resources. The southwest
portion of the Gila River in Maricopa County has particularly high levels of agricultural water demand
compared to other HUC12 regions, while areas of highest industrial water demand include central
Phoenix and Glendale/Peoria to the west of the city. Because water demand and population are highest
in the Phoenix area, regions downstream along the southern Gila River may be affected if the city
experiences water shortages. Arizona already has a management plan that controls water access in and
around Phoenix, but by broadening understanding of water demand across multiple connected
watersheds and subwatersheds, stakeholders and policymakers may better understand the relationships
between central city water use and demand in more remote regions of the state.
Coconino
Human Land
and Water Use
Navajo
1st Decile
2nd Decile
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
Yavapai
7th Decile
8th Decile
9th Decile
10th Decile
Ri I,.
fiLACKR^l
Phoenix
a^\ver
Maricopa
80 Miles
Graham
Yuma
Exhibit 12. Dark red regions indicate the greatest water and land use [10th decile] within the Verde, Salt and Gila
River Basins. Regions of greatest water use were calculated by combining domestic, agricultural, and industrial
water demand, and groundwater source protection areas in the watershed. Hotspots include areas of central
and western Phoenix above and along the Gila River as well as those just south of the Gila River to the east of
the city border, and regions surrounding Flagstaff, Prescott, and Sedona near the Upper Verde River.
16
-------
Watershed Health
Regions with the greatest watershed health vulnerability in the Salt, Gila and Verde River watersheds
include the series of HUC12 regions along and north of the Gila River, ranging from Phoenix through
central Maricopa County, the Middle Verde subwatershed and parts of the Salt River (see Exhibit 13).
Watershed Health
Vulnerability
Mohave
Coconino
2nd Decile
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
8th Decile
Phoenix
Greenlee
Maricopa
Graham
Yuma
Exhibit 13. This map displays the watershed health vulnerability index, which was generated by combining
three environmental indicators: the % natural land cover (N-lndexl) in watershed, Soil stability mean in
watershed, and Preliminary Healthy Watershed Analysis (PHWA) Watershed Health Index, State. The top decile
(darker colors) indicates areas with the highest vulnerability, or the lowest scores for these combined indicators.
17
-------
Maricopa county is the most populous county in Arizona, with over four million inhabitants, most of
whom reside within and surrounding the city borders of Phoenix. In August 2021, 86% of Maricopa
County was classified as a severe drought region by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.14 Water management practices in the Upper Verde River and along the Salt River
ultimately impact the water flowing downstream towards Maricopa County via the Gila River. This water
is needed to support the substantial agricultural land use in Maricopa and in Pinal County to the west.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) supplies water to nearly 80% of the state's population and significantly
benefits Pinal County and to a lesser extent the population of Phoenix.15 This said, regions within and
just outside of the northern Phoenix city boundary (through which the CAP canal system runs) fall into
the top decile of most vulnerable areas for watershed health based on natural land cover, soil stability
and the PHWA Watershed Health Index. Although these regions have access to water via the canal
system, the health of these subwatersheds is worthy of consideration in future water management
planning. Subwatersheds outside of the Phoenix area with greater watershed vulnerability include those
around Cottonwood near the border between Yavapai and Coconino counties extending to the west and
East from the upper Verde River. Additional watersheds with high vulnerability include the HUC12
regions surrounding Roosevelt Lake, the largest visible lake along the Salt River in the watershed health.
Exhibit 14 shows the top deciles for both watershed health vulnerability and social vulnerability. The two
indices are closely correlated across the map - areas of high social vulnerability along the Gila River
south of Phoenix and the Salt River east of the city also have high watershed health vulnerability index
scores. The highest areas of social vulnerability fall along and above the Salt River in Navajo, Gila, and
Graham counties. Additional regions of high watershed health vulnerability occur in Maricopa County
and Western Regions of Navajo county. Areas with the highest watershed health vulnerability scores
include the regions along the Upper Verde River subwatershed and areas upstream along the Salt River
(e.g., the northern section of Graham County and the southern regions of Navajo County). These areas
fall within the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. It will be of particular importance
when developing water reuse action plans to consider tribal communities, especially those that are not
served by the CAP system. Policy and management changes in hotspot areas that focus on human equity
are likely to support surrounding ecosystem health and vice versa. Additionally, the environmental
stresses that occur in portions of the Verde River watershed are likely to adversely impact areas
downstream of vulnerable subwatersheds.
14
Historical Conditions for Maricopa County, Drought.gov
15
https://www.cap-az.com/water/cap-svstem/water-operations/svstem-map/
18
-------
Yuma
0 20 40 80 Miles Graham
1 I 1 I I 1 I I I
Social and Watershed Vulnerability Crossover
Social Vulnerability Top Decile
Watershed Health Vulnerability Top Decile
Top Decile Crossover
Cochise
Exhibit 14. Top decile crossover between socially vulnerable HUC12 regions and those with the lowest
watershed health illustrated in Exhibit 12. Striped HUC12 regions indicate areas of crossover between the
HUC12 regions within the top decile for both indices.
Water Resilience
The RPS contains datasets that, when combined to form a single index, indicate regions facing high
environmental stress levels - Present Climate Vulnerability Index. Stressor indicators included in this
index are the % 100-year flood zone (high-risk flood zone areas), the wildfire hazard potential, and the
PHWA watershed vulnerability index score (which has implications for future degradation of watershed
processes and aquatic system health).15 As shown in Exhibit 15, the eastern border of these watersheds
generally experiences the greatest present climate vulnerability, specifically the band of HUC12 regions
reaching from the border between Yavapai and Coconino counties down into northern Pinal county and
northern Graham county. The high vulnerability HUC12 regions roughly follow the expanse of the
1 For more information, see the EPA site on the Healthy Watersheds Analysis: https://www.epa.eov/hwp/download-
preliminarv-healthv-watersheds-assessments
19
-------
Coconino National Forest, which includes 1.8 million acres of wilderness and recreation areas.17 Wildfire
risk is a significant contributor to the present vulnerability scores of these regions.
Coconino
Present Climate Vulnerability
1st Decile
2nd Decile
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
8th Decile
Yavapai
9th Decile
10th Decile
SLACK R;!
Phoenix
A^tVER
'Maricopa,
80 Miles
Graham
Yuma
Exhibit 15. Present climate vulnerability based on the combination of three indicators: % 100-year flood zone,
PHWA watershed vulnerability index, and wildfire hazard potential, Mean in watershed. Dark colors indicate
areas of greatest vulnerability.
Exhibit 16 presents projected vulnerability index scores that were generated by integrating the following
stressor indicators into a single index score: the projected change in annual temperature, the %
projected change in annual precipitation (inverse), and the % projected change in annual evaporative
deficit. The change in annual precipitation reflects average model projections from 2061-2090 relative
to historical 1971-2000 conditions.18 These indicators can be used to identify regions that are
particularly sensitive to climate change and will likely be impacted the most in the coming century. The
western border of the watersheds included in this analysis demonstrate the greatest vulnerability or
lowest projected resilience. Given that the western portion of the watershed is presently vulnerable (as
shown in Exhibit 15), immediate action to develop or strengthen long-term water reuse action plans wiil
be of particular importance. Additionally, because vulnerable populations such as tribes own a
significant portion of the land along the western Salt and Black Rivers, it will be important for the federal
17
https://www.fs.usda.gov/coconino
18
See the EPA RPS Mapping tool for indicator explanations and sources.
20
-------
government to prioritize action in these regions to increase land and watershed resiliency in the face of
climate change.
Coconino
Projected Climate
Vulnerability
1st Decile
Navajo
2nd Decile
3rd Decile
4th Decile
5th Decile
6th Decile
7th Decile
Yavapai
8th Decile
9th Decile
10th Decile
Cjj^LT R/u
Phoenix
Maricopa
Graham
Yuma
Exhibit 16. Projected climate vulnerability (2061 -2100). Darker maroon regions indicate greater vulnerability
based on three indicators: projected change in annual temperature, the % projected change in annual
precipitation (Inverse), and the % projected change in annual evaporative deficit.
21
-------
Water Equity Mapping using the RPS Tool:
Lessons Learned
The RPS Tool is extremely valuable as a public repository of data for over 200 social, environmental and
stressor indicators. Given this, it has great potential to supplement IWRM and efforts such as this
project, as it can help to jumpstart the visualization process to improve the understanding of social and
environmental dynamics that impact water equity within and across watersheds. The tool is also
accessible to the public and downloadable directly from the EPA RPS website.19 Lessons learned through
this project about using the RPS Tool to visualize water equity at the watershed level are outlined below.
• RPS is a comparative tool, meaning that index scores are based on the raw data for the
specific watershed region chosen by the user. The index scores provide valuable insights into
water equity within the selected region.
• The tool's visualization display capabilities are limited in producing clear visualizations of a
given watershed. The tool has a user-friendly map function that is useful for quickly visualizing
indicators. These maps are low resolution and cannot be used for water equity visualization.
Fortunately, RPS data and results can be readily integrated into ArcGIS to produce higher-
resolution maps that can be used effectively to convey water equity at the watershed and
subwatershed levels.
• Combining too many indicators to generate an index can lead to a significant amount of
"noise." The RPS Tool allows users to incorporate as many social, stressor and environmental
indicators as they choose. However, selecting too many indicators may obscure the relative
contribution of any indicator(s) to each HUC12 index score.
• Data stored in RPS may not be as recent or as granular as the most recent data collected
locally. Much of the data in RPS is from 2016 to 2019, while some indicators use even older
data. Local agencies or communities may have more recent data that will better represent their
communities and watershed as a whole.20
• Using the techniques developed through the course of this project, the RPS Tool could be
applied at any of the other UWFP locations. The data in RPS is easily exportable and can be
used with other software tools such as GIS to create visuals that could range in geographic scale
from the full state to a handful of HUC12 regions. The modular nature of the RPS Tool allows the
user to easily select the region of interest and to identify data-driven hotspots within it. The
tool, updated in August of 2021 to include a number of EJ social indicators, provides data from
national data sources. For regions with little local data, RPS may serve as a first step toward
identifying disadvantaged areas and areas that would benefit most from IWRM.
19
Find state specific RPS Tools at: https://www.epa.gov/rps/downloadable-rps-tools-comparing-watersheds
20 The RPS Tool is regularly updated, with another update and release anticipated for 2022.
22
-------
Attachment 1. Visualizations Generated Using
the EPA RPS Tool
The RPS Tool is extremely valuable as a repository of data for over 200 indicators in three major
categories - social, environmental and stressor. The RPS Tool also includes 31 base indicators. These
include reference metrics such as the HUC 6, HUC 8 and HUC 12 regional watershed boundaries,
watershed size, and other geographical information. For more information about the three major
categories of indicators and associated sub-categories, see the EPA RPS Indicator Overview website.21
The RPS Tool can be customized to evaluate an area as large as an entire state or as small as a handful of
HUCs at the 12-digit level, or HUC 12. Once HUC 12 regions of interest are selected, the tool uses the
data for each of these HUC12 regions to calculate index and RPI scores, both of which are generated
using comparative formulas that identify the most highly influenced HUC12 regions based on the social,
environmental and stressor indicators of interest. The tool is unique because it applies a watershed-
based approached to evaluating multiple data elements at the level of HUCs, which allows the user to
better understand the relationships among these data in these hydrologic regions. The tool allows users
to apply custom weighting for indicators when generating the index, which is valuable if the user wishes
to emphasize the impacts of certain indicators in a particular RPS data visualization.
Calculations
Index Scores: The RPS Tool categorizes all data as either base, ecological, stressor, or social indicators.
To effectively combine and compare indicators from multiple datasets that may be in different units of
measurement, the RPS Tool normalizes the data within a range of 0 to 1, then transforms the data into
an index with values ranging from 0 to 100. If combining multiple indicators into the index value (e.g., %
Wetlands Remaining in the watershed and % Forest Remaining in the watershed), the user is able to
assign weights to each indicator, if desired. The tool generates index scores by calculating the relative
value of each score within the subset of HUC12 regions selected for the analysis. The Index score
calculations are generated using the formula below:
IndNorm = Weight * (/ndi - Ind-\Miri) _j_ Weight * (7nd? - Ind?Miri)
{Ind^Max — Ind-iMiri) (Ind2Max — Ind2Min)
In tlx
Where IndNorm is the normalized index score for one of the categories (either ecological, stressor, or
environmental, depending on the indicators used), IndiMax is the maximum value within the HUC 12
regions selected for indicator l's dataset, IndiMin is the minimum value in the set for indicator 1. Indx
represents the total number of indicators (e.g., two in the example above). The social, stressor, and
environmental indices are calculated in the same way.
21
https://www.epa.gov/rps/overview-selecting-and-using-recoverv-potential-indicators
23
-------
Recovery Potential Index Score: The Recovery Potential Index (RPI) score is calculated from the
ecological, stressor and social index scores. In this way, the tool is able to generate a value for each
HUC12 region based on indicators from multiple categories. The rank ordered RPS score is designed to
support the user in identifying areas with the greatest "recovery potential/' or areas that have the
lowest stressor index scores and highest social and ecological index scores. Each RPS score is calculated
from the following formula:
RPI Score = [Ecological Index + Social Index + (100 - Stressor Index)]
3
Recovery Potential Index scores are relative in that the watersheds' scoring range and distribution is
based only on the gradient of scores for the watersheds screened. The tool does not account for or
incorporate any cutoff values (e.g., healthy or unhealthy, impaired or unimpaired), as such thresholds
are highly case-specific.22
For each of the categories identified in this report, we generated a normalized index that groups the
selected indicators into relevant categories (see the list on page 3 of this report). These values, which
range from 1 - 100, were then extracted, analyzed, and mapped using ArcGIS. Due to recent RPS Tool
updates and the goals of this project, we did not generate maps displaying the RPI scores of our two
major watershed regions. This choice was made to avoid directionality issues with the selected
indicators. For certain environmental and social indicators, high scores represent positive watershed
qualities, while for others high scores represent negative watershed qualities. We chose to illustrate the
watershed using indexes to avoid conflating index scores or combining contrasting data into one score.
22 For more information about calculations, see the RPS User Guide: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
08/documents/181001 rpstool userguide508.pdf
24
-------
Attachment 2. Indicator Summary and Source
Information
The following table summarizes the data included in each of the indicators referenced in this report and
their sources. Indicators that comprise the population vulnerability and toxics load index categories are
social indicators, indicators in the watershed health category are ecological indicators, and indicators
within present and projected climate vulnerability and land and water use are categorized as stressor
indicators.
POPULATION VULNERABILITY
% Low-Income
Population in WS
Percent of total population in the HUC12 living in a household with low-income. Low-income is
defined as a household income that is less than or equal to twice the federal poverty level.
Source data was a map layer of low-income population count by census block group from the
US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Summary, prepared by
EPA for the EJSCREEN mapping tool (2018 update; https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen). Low-
income populations were assumed to follow the same pattern of distribution as the total
population within a census block group. Calculated for each HUC12 as: Population in Low-
Income Households in HUC12 / Total Population in HUC12 * 100.
% Minority Population in
WS
Percent of total population in the HUC12 that is in a minority group. Minority groups include
individuals who define their race as other than white alone and/or list their ethnicity as
Hispanic or Latino. That is, all people other than non-Hispanic white-alone individuals. Source
data was a map layer of minority population count by census block group from the US Census
Bureau American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Summary, prepared by EPA for the
EJSCREEN mapping tool (2018 update; https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen). Census block groups
are the smallest geographic units used by the US Census Bureau to report demographic data.
Minority populations were assumed to follow the same pattern of distribution as the total
population within a census block group. Calculated for each HUC12 as: Minority Population in
HUC12/Total Population in HUC12 * 100.
% < High School Educated
Population in WS
Percent of the age 25 and over population in the HUC12 with less than a high school degree.
Source data was a map layer of population counts with less than high school education by
census block group from the US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-
Year Summary, prepared by EPA for the EJSCREEN mapping tool (2018 update;
https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen). Populations with less than high school education were
assumed to follow the same pattern of distribution as the total population within a census
block group. Calculated for each HUC12 as: Population with Less Than High School Education in
HUC12 / Age 25 and Over Population in HUC12 * 100.
% Linguistically Isolated
Population in WS
Percent of households in the HUC12 that are linguistically isolated. Households in which all
members age 14 years and over speak a non-English language and also speak English less than
'very well' are considered linguistically isolated. Source data was a map layer of linguistically
isolated household counts by census block group from the US Census Bureau American
Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Summary, prepared by EPA for the EJSCREEN mapping
tool (2018 update; https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen). Populations living in linguistically isolated
households were assumed to follow the same pattern of distribution as the total population
within a census block group. Calculated for each HUC12 as: Linguistically Isolated Household
Count in HUC12 / Total Household Count in HUC12 * 100.
25
-------
POPULATION VULNERABILITY
% Vulnerable Age Group
Population in WS
Percent of total population in the HUC12 that is under age 5 or over 64 years old. Source data
were map layers of under age 5 and over age 64 population counts by census block group from
the US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Summary, prepared
by EPA for the EJSCREEN mapping tool (2018 update; https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen).
Vulnerable age group populations were assumed to follow the same pattern of distribution as
the total population within a census block group. Calculated for each HUC12 as: (Population
Under Age 5 in HUC12 + Population Over Age 64 in HUC12) / Total Population in HUC12 * 100.
TOXICS LOAD
Risk Management Plan
Sites, Count in WS
Number of sites in the HUC12 that are in the EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database. The
TRI stores information on certain facilities that handle toxic chemicals in amounts above
established levels, including on-site or off-site land, air, or water disposal, recycling, energy
recovery, or treatment. There are 770 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical categories
covered by the TRI Program. Source data was a map layer of TRI facilities in the EPA Facility
Registry Service (FRS): Facility Interests Dataset (December 2020 version;
https://www.epa.gov/frs/geospatial-data-download-service).
Hazardous Waste
Management Sites, Count
in WS
Count of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal (TSD) facilities in the HUC12. TSD
facilities are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and either
hold hazardous waste (storage) or change the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of
waste to minimize its environmental threat (treatment and disposal). Source data was the US
EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS; December 2020 version:
httDs://www.eDa.sov/frs/seosDatial-data-download-service.
Calculated using latitude and longitude coordinates in the FRS as the count of TSD facilities
located in the HUC12. Facilities with missing coordinates in the FRS are not included in HUC12
counts.
Toxic Release and
Exposure Potential in WS
The relative potential for toxic chemical release and human exposure in the HUC12. Higher
values correspond to greater potential relative to other HUC12s for toxic release and exposure
due to a combination of: the magnitude of chemical releases, the size of exposed populations,
and the estimated dose of chemicals at points of human exposure. Quantified from 2015 to
2019 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Scores calculated by EPA for facilities that
release toxic chemicals through air emissions or wastewater discharge. RSEI scores for all
facilities nationwide were downloaded from the EasyRSEI database dashboard in December
2020; https://edap.epa.gov/public/extensions/EasyRSEI/EasyRSEI.html). RSEI scores were
assigned to HUC12s using mapped locations of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities in the
EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): Facility Interests Dataset (December 2020 version;
https://www.epa.gov/frs/geospatial-data-download-service). Calculated as the sum of 2015-
2019 RSEI Scores for TRI facilities in each HUC12.
WATERSHED HEALTH
% N-lndexl in WS (2016)
Percent of the HUC12 classified as natural land cover (including barren land) by the 2016 CDL-
NLCD Hybrid Land Cover dataset. Natural land cover classes in the N-lndexl include barren,
forest, wetlands, shrubland, and grassland; codes 131,141 through 143,152,171,190, and 195
in the 2016 CDL-NLCD Hybrid Land Cover dataset. Equation used: N-lndexl Area / HUC12 Area
* 100. See also 2016 CDL-NLCD Hybrid Land Cover glossary definition.
Soil Stability, Mean in WS
Mean soil stability in the HUC12. Soil stability is the inverse of soil erodibility. Source data was
a 100-meter resolution grid of soil map units and attributes in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (STATSG02) database, acquired from the
US Geological Survey in July 2013. Mean soil erodibility was calculated as the average of
erodibility grid values per HUC12. Mean soil stability was calculated as 1 - Mean soil erodibility.
PHWA Watershed Health
Index, State
The statewide Watershed Health Index score for the HUC12 from the 2021 EPA Preliminary
Healthy Watersheds Assessment (PHWA). The Watershed Health Index is an integrated
measure of watershed condition that combines Landscape Condition, Hydrologic,
Geomorphology, Habitat, Water Quality, and Biological Condition Sub-Index scores. Higher
scores correspond to greater potential for a watershed to have the structure and function in
26
-------
POPULATION VULNERABILITY
place to support healthy aquatic ecosystems. Source data were statewide Watershed Health
Index scores for HUC12s developed as part of the 2021 EPA Preliminary Healthy Watersheds
Assessment (August 8, 2021 version). NOTE: PHWA scores/percentiles are not suitable for
comparing HUC12s that occur in different states to one another. Scoring of a given HUC12
reflects its condition relative to all other HUC12s within the same state only. See also PHWA
glossary definition.
% N-lndexl Change in WS
(2001-16)
The change in the percentage of the HUC12 with natural cover (including barren land) from
2001 to 2016. Calculated from the National Land Cover Database 2016 (NLCD 2016) 2001 and
2016 Land Cover Datasets (January 2019 version). Natural cover classes included in the N-
Indexl are 'Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)', 'Deciduous Forest', 'Evergreen Forest', 'Mixed
Forest', 'Shrub/Scrub', 'Grassland/Herbaceous', 'Woody Wetlands', and 'Herbaceous Wetlands'
cover classes; codes 31, 41, 42, 43, 52, 71, 90, and 95 in the 2001 and 2016 Land Cover
datasets. Positive values denote an increase in N-lndexl; negative values denote a decrease in
N-lndexl. Equation used: (Area Changing to N-lndexl-Area Changing From N-lndexl)/(HUC12
Area) * 100.
PRESENT CLIMATE VULNERABILITY
Wildfire Hazard Potential,
Mean in WS (2018)
The mean wildfire hazard potential in the HUC12. Wildfire hazard potential ranges from 1 (very
low risk of wildfire) to 5 (very high risk of wildfire) and depict the relative potential for the
occurrence of wildfire that would be difficult for suppression resources to contain. Calculated
from the 2018 USDA Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential geospatial grid dataset.
Calculated as the average of wildfire hazard potential for grid pixels in the HUC12. Areas not
assigned a Wildfire Hazard Potential value (non-burnable lands and water) were excluded from
the mean calculation.
% 100-Year Flood Zone in
WS
Percent of the HUC12 that is in the 100-year flood zone. The term 100-year flood is used to
describe a flood magnitude that has a 1% chance of occurring in a given year. The 100-year
flood zone is the area that is at-risk for flooding during a 100-year flood and is used for flood
risk mapping under the National Flood Insurance Program. Source data were 100-year flood
zone map layers maintained in the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps National Flood Hazard
Layer (acquired February 2021; https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-
layer). For HUC12 analysis, portions of the 100-year flood zone were removed if they
overlapped surface waters such as rivers and lakes or wetlands.
PHWA Watershed
Vulnerability Index, State
The statewide Watershed Vulnerability Index score for the HUC12 from the 2021 EPA
Preliminary Healthy Watersheds Assessment (PHWA). The Watershed Vulnerability Index
characterizes the vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems in a watershed to future alteration based
on Land Use Change, Water Use Change, and Wildfire Vulnerability Sub-Index scores. Higher
scores correspond to greater potential vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems to future
degradation. Source data were statewide Watershed Vulnerability Index scores for HUC12s
developed as part of the 2021 EPA Preliminary Healthy Watersheds Assessment (August 8,
2021 version). NOTE: PHWA scores/percentiles are not suitable for comparing HUC12s that
occur in different states to one another. Scoring of a given HUC12 reflects its condition relative
to all other HUC12s within the same state only. See also PHWA glossary definition.
PROJECTED CLIMATE VULNERABILITY
% Projected Change in
Annual Precipitation,
inverse
Projected percent change in annual precipitation in the HUC12. Positive values indicate a
projected increase in average annual precipitation during 2061-2090 relative to historical 1971-
2000 conditions; negative values indicate a projected decrease. Annual precipitation during the
future and historical periods is calculated from results of 30 climate models summarized by the
USGS National Climate Change Viewer program
(https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv.asp). Projected future conditions reflect a high
greenhouse gas emission scenario, with continued increases in emissions through 2100 (the
Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 emission scenario). Calculated for each HUC12 as:
(Projected Future Annual Precipitation - Historical Annual Precipitation) / Historical Annual
Precipitation x 100. See also the Climate Projection Data glossary definition.
27
-------
POPULATION VULNERABILITY
Projected Change in
Annual Temperature
Projected change in annual temperature in the HUC12 (degrees Celsius). Annual temperature is
the average of daily highs across a calendar year. Positive values indicate a projected increase
in average annual temperature during 2061-2090 relative to historical 1971-2000 conditions;
negative values indicate a projected decrease. Average annual temperature during the future
and historical periods is calculated from results of 30 climate models summarized by the USGS
National Climate Change Viewer program
(https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv.asp). Projected future conditions reflect a high
greenhouse gas emission scenario, with continued increases in emissions through 2100 (the
Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 emission scenario). Calculated for each HUC12 as:
(Projected Future Annual Temperature - Historical Annual Temperature. See also the Climate
Projection Data glossary definition.
% Projected Change in
Annual Evaporative
Deficit
Projected percent change in annual evaporative deficit in the HUC12. Evaporative deficit is a
measure of atmospheric water shortage and is defined as the difference between potential
evapotranspiration and actual evapotranspiration. Positive values indicate a projected increase
in average annual evaporative deficit during 2061-2090 (i.e., drier conditions) relative to
historical 1971-2000 conditions. Annual evaporative deficit during the future and historical
periods is calculated from water balance models that simulate the hydrologic response to 30
climate models. The water balance model simulates the combined effects of precipitation and
temperature changes independent of land use and vegetation cover. Analysis of climate model
results and water balance modeling was completed by the USGS National Climate Change
Viewer program (https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv.asp). Projected future
conditions reflect a high greenhouse gas emission scenario, with continued increases in
emissions through 2100.23
HUMAN LAND AND WATER USE
Population Density in WS
Human population density in the land area of the HUC12 (persons per square kilometer).
Source data used was the EPA EnviroAtlas 'Dasymetric Population for the Conterminous United
States' raster (February 2015 version:
https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/DasymetricAllocati
onofPopulation.pdf). The dasymetric population raster is derived from 2010 US Census Bureau
census block populations using a geospatial technique called dasymetric mapping. Dasymetric
mapping uses information on land cover and slope to distribute populations to grid pixels
within each census block.
Domestic Water Demand
in WS
Daily domestic water use in the HUC12 (million gallons per day). Domestic water use includes
indoor and outdoor household uses, such as drinking, bathing, cleaning, landscaping, and
pools. Domestic water can include surface or groundwater that is self-supplied by households
or publicly supplied. Water used in a HUC12 may originate from within or outside the HUC12.
Calculated by downscaling county water use estimates for 2005 reported by US Geological
Survey ('Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 2005') using the
2006 National Land Cover Database (2006 NLCD) Land Cover dataset and 2010 US Census
population estimates from the US Census Bureau. This indicator was calculated for EPA
EnviroAtlas.
23 These indicators were recalculated after the completion of this report and offer different projections of climate and
hydrology. The most recent version of the EPA EJSCREEN tools are available on the EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/rps/downloadable-rps-tools-comparing-watersheds.
28
-------
POPULATION VULNERABILITY
Agricultural Water
Demand in WS
Daily agricultural water use in the HUC12 (million gallons per day). Agricultural water use
includes surface and groundwater that is self-supplied by agricultural producers or supplied by
water providers (governments, private companies, or other organizations). Water used in a
HUC12 may originate from within or outside the HUC12. Calculated by downscaling county
water use estimates for 2005 reported by US Geological Survey ('Estimated Use of Water in the
United States County-Level Data for 2005') using the 2006 National Land Cover Database (2006
NLCD) Land Cover dataset, the 2010 Cropland Data Layer, and a custom geospatial dataset of
irrigated area locations. Counties with zero reported water use were assigned a state-level
average value to address issues with water use reporting. This indicator was calculated for EPA
EnviroAtlas.
Industrial Water Demand
in WS
Daily industrial water use in the HUC12 (million gallons per day). Industrial water use includes
water used for chemical, food, paper, wood, and metal production. Only includes self-supplied
surface water or groundwater by private wells or reservoirs. Industrial water supplied by public
water utilities is not counted. Water used in a HUC12 may originate from within or outside the
HUC12. Calculated by downscaling county water use estimates for 2005 reported by US
Geological Survey ('Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 2005')
using a geospatial dataset on the location of industrial facilities as of 2009/10. Water use by
industrial facilities in counties that were reported to have zero industrial water use in the USGS
dataset was estimated from values for nearby facilities. This indicator was calculated for EPA
EnviroAtlas.
29
------- |