&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
- Agency
Office of
The Administrator
EPA-1OO-R-97-003
July 1997
People, Places, and Partnerships
A Progress Report on Gommunity-
Based Environmental Protection
-------
Front cover (clockwise from top left}:
(1) Redwood forest preserve in Northern California—one
of our natural resources of national significance (Richard
Frear photo, U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service);
(2) Clean water depends on controlling polluted runoff
from urban and agricultural sites such as this dairy farm
near Red Wing, Minnesota (Don Breneman photo,
Minnesota Extension Service);
(3) Cleveland's restored Cuyahoga riverfront presents a
marked contrast to the severely polluted river that
caught fire 25 years ago (Joan Tiefel photo. Convention
& Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland);
(4) in Baltimore, Maryland, a residential neighborhood
abuts an industrial site (Steve Delaney photo, EPA);
(5) As part of the Summer Orientation About Rivers
(SOAR) project, students collect samples from the Platte
River and learn to do laboratory analysis work (photo
courtesy of Prairie Plains Resource Institute, Aurora,
Nebraska).
Acknowledgments: This report mis prepared by the
Administrator's Community-Based Environmental Protection
(CBEP) Coordination Team, a transitional group convened in
December 1995 to coordinate EPA headquarters and regional
CBEP activities. Responsibility for CBEP coordination
activities has recently been transferred to the Office of
Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC), created
within EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. The
CBEP Coordination Team was directed by Wendy Cleland-
Hamnett (Director, OSEC) and Louise Wise {Director, Policy,
Communications, and Resource Management, Office of
Wetknds, Oceans, and Watersheds). Contributing CBEP
Coordination Team members: Andy Spielman (Team Leader),
Karen Flagstad (Executive Editor), Sandra Eberle, jane
Metcalfe, Donna Sefton (EPA Region 7), and Denise Zvanovcc
(EPA Region 9). Layout design by Robert Flanagan. Special
thanks to Ruth Barker, Office of Communications, Education,
and Public Affairs, for pMo search assistance and to Jeff
Morin, EPA Reinvention Team, for Internet research.
For additional copies of this report, call 513 489-8190.
Written requests may be sent by fax to 513 489-8695
or by mail to: NCEPI, 11029 Kenwood Road,
Building 5, Cincinnati, OH 45242,
-------
People, Places, and Partnerships:
A Progress Report on Community-Based Environmental Protection
CONTENTS
SECTION i
Toward Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities—
Community-Based Environmental Protection 1
WhyCBEP? 1
Remaining Problems 2
Elements of CBEP 6
Benefits of CBEP 10
An Approach Whose Time Has Come 10
Regional Priority Setting—Urban Sprawl in Cleveland 5
New York City: Case Study in Watershed Management 8
SECTION 2
Working in Places: EPA as Leader or Partner
in Community-Based Efforts 11
Natural Resources of National Significance 12
Areas that Cross State Boundaries 12
Areas of Exceptional Risk 14
CBEP and Environmental Justice 16
Integrating EPA Program Efforts Through CBEP 16
Middle Platte River Watershed 12
South Florida and the Everglades 14
A Vision for Southern Appalachia 16
Long Island Sound: Testing Watershed Innovations 18
The Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS)
Project in Central California 19
A Future for the Coeur d'Alene River Watershed, Idaho .. 20
CBEP in the South Bronx: An Open Forum for
Environmental Justice Concerns 21
East St. Louis, Illinois: The Gateway Initiative 22
Pulling Together in Henryetta, Oklahoma 24
Partnership for Urban Restoration
in Providence, Rhode Island 26
SECTION 3
Helping Others Protect Local Environments 27
Communication Networks—Sharing Data, Tools, and
Lessons Learned 29
Providing Training and Technical Assistance 35
Grants and Other Financial Resources 36
Further Resources 39
Science Support for CBEP—Strategic R&D Goals 27
South Platte River Watershed—Inventory
of Critical Biological Resources 28
The Great Plains International Data Network 32
Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned 33
EPA's Green Communities Assistance Kit 34
Gateway: East St. Louis, Illinois 35
The New England Environmental Assistance Team 35
EPA Region 2 Community Grants Program 36
Jobs Through Recycling Grant: The Hualapai Tribe 37
Sustainable Development Challenge Grants 37
Targeted Grant Helps Remove Barrier to Salmon Habitat. 38
Joint Center for Sustainable Communities-
Support Services Offered 39
SECTION 4
CBEP and Reinvention 40
Watershed Protection 40
Performance Partnerships 42
Project XL: A Laboratory for the Future 44
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment 46
Flexible Attainment Regions 48
Supplemental Environmental Projects 50
Watershed Support from EPA 41
Utah Performance Partnership 43
Project XLC in Clermont County, Ohio 45
Brownfields Pilot: Baltimore, Maryland 47
Brownfields Pilot: Dallas, Texas 47
Tulsa, Oklahoma: Flexible Attainment Region 49
Supplemental Environmental Projects
in South Side Chicago 50
-------
-------
SECTION 1
Toward Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities—
Community-Based Environmental Protection
Healthy and well functioning ecosystems are vital to the protection of our nation's
biodiversity, to the achievement of quality of life objectives, and to the support of econo-
mies and communities. The ecosystem approach recognizes the interrelationship be-
tween healthy ecosystems and sustainable* economies. It is a common sense way for
federal agencies to carry out their mandates with greater efficiency and effectiveness....
—White House Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, December 1995
Why CBEP?
In the quarter-century since EPA was chartered
as a federal agency, the United States has
achieved remarkable progress through the
imposition of uniform national standards to
protect the environment. However, there are
still many disturbing environmental trends that
are not addressed effectively through these
national standards—and would not be reversed
even with perfect compliance with all environ-
mental laws and regulations.
One difficulty is that our most persistent
environmental problems result from a multi-
tude of dispersed sources of environmental
stress (examples include polluted runoff from
rain and snowmelt in cities, suburbs, and
farmland, and losses of open space and habitat
due to urban sprawl). Because these problems
are more diffuse in origin, they are more
difficult to control from a federal vantage point
than are large, industrial sources of pollution.
A second consideration, increasingly recognized
in recent years, is the need to treat all the
resources in a particular place—air, water, land,
and living resources—as interconnected parts of
an ecosystem. A third consideration, related to
the second, is the practical recognition that not
all parts of the country have the same problems
or need the same kind of solutions. For these
and other reasons, in order to continue to make
environmental progress, we must lay the
foundation for a new generation of environmen-
tal protection.
CBEP, to use the acronym, has an important
role to play in the next generation of environ-
mental protection. It is an approach that EPA is
taking to improve our efforts to protect the
environment. Through the CBEP approach,
EPA is looking to achieve the following objec-
tives:
• To promote progress toward sustainability at
the community level by helping communities
solve environmental problems in ways that
integrate environmental, economic, and social
objectives
• To assess and manage the quality of air, water,
land, and living resources in a place as a whole
• To better reflect regional and local conditions
• To work more effectively with our many
partners, both public and private, to achieve
environmental results.
*Note: The concept and terminology of sustainability, or sustainable development, were first put forward by the 1987 report of
the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), Our Common Future (Oxford Univ.
Press, 1987). The Brundtland report defined sustainability as the ability "...to meet the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (p. 43).
-------
The CBEP objective of helping communities
move toward sustainability is consistent with the
recent findings and recommendations of the
President's Council on Sustainable Development
(PCSD). The Council—made up of officials with
diverse affiliations in industry, environmental
and other nonprofit groups, and federal and state
government—was convened by the president in
1993 to advise him on ways to meet the challenge
of building a sustainable future for America. In
February 1996, the PCSD published its report,
Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosper-
ity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the
Future. The title of the report reflects the three-
pronged consensus of the PCSD concerning the
basic elements, all interrelated, of sustainability
in the United States—a cleaner, more resilient
environment; a more equitable society; and a
more productive and efficient economy—one
that is competitive internationally. This three-
pronged philosophy underlies all of the PCSD's
recommendations concerning national goals and
policy choices, including the goal of achieving
sustainable communities. Many of the PCSD
recommendations support, and are supported by,
the CBEP approach.
In an important sense, environmental protec-
tion began as a community-based movement.
The first Earth Day (April 22,1970) became a
historic event when 20 million people in commu-
nities across the country turned out in an unprec-
edented show of support for environmental
causes. From the momentum of Earth Day came
the passage of our current national environmen-
tal statutes and the December 1970 creation of
EPA as a federal agency with responsibility for
implementing many of those statutes.
Since Earth Day 1970, dramatic environmental
gains have been made. Through regulatory
programs authorized by the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, and other key environmental
laws, we have set and implemented national
baseline standards of environmental protection.
The United States no longer has rivers catching
on fire, as it once did. Our skies are cleaner.
Wetlands losses still diminish our ecosystems,
but the rates of loss have dropped dramatically.
Since that first Earth Day, EPA has banned
lead in gasoline, lowering lead levels in our air
by more than 90 percent and protecting millions
of children from harm. We banned dangerous
and widely used pesticides like DDT. We
provided American towns with substantial
funding for wastewater treatment—the second
biggest public works effort in U.S. history—
resulting in cleaner waters all over the country.
New cars and trucks had to meet rigorous
standards for air pollutants. And EPA has played
an important role in ensuring that companies
and others comply with our environmental laws
or face stiff penalties.
Remaining Problems
The large, industrial pollution problems that sent
the nation a wake-up call nearly 30 years ago are
no longer commonplace. Yet much work re-
mains to be done, and EPA and the nation must
retool for the 21st century. Despite our successes
in controlling obvious sources of water pollu-
tion—such as factory outfalls and discharges of
untreated sewage into waterways—nearly 40
percent of our rivers and lakes are not suitable
for fishing or swimming. Despite great strides
made under the Clean Air Act, two in five
Americans live in areas where the air fails to
meet the standards EPA has set to protect public
health.
Why these disturbing trends when in many
ways our national environmental laws and
regulations have been successful in curbing
pollution? There is a sense in which the "easy"
work has been done. The top-down approach
embodied in most of our regulations has been
very effective in controlling major industrial
sources of pollution and raw sewage discharges.
These so-called "end-of-pipe" sources of pollu-
tion are relatively easy to track down and, once
identified, they can be controlled by across-the-
board regulatory standards backed up by strong
enforcement. However, this kind of regulatory
approach reaches a point of diminishing returns
in the face of today's more complex and far-flung
pollution problems, which tend to be embedded
-------
in the ways in which people live, work, produce,
commute, and consume in their daily lives. To
address highly complex problems, we need a
more flexible way of doing business; we need to
match complex problems with appropriately
tailored solutions.
What are some of the problems challenging
EPA to reinvent the ways in which it does busi-
ness? Nowadays our biggest remaining water
quality problem—the largest remaining source of
water pollution—is polluted runoff (so-called
nonpoint-source pollution) that carries pollutants
from many diverse sources into our streams,
lakes, and rivers. The pollutants carried by runoff
may be anything that compromises water qual-
ity—for example, pesticides, fertilizer nutrients,
household chemicals, gasoline, and used motor
oil. The sources of polluted runoff can be just
about anywhere within a watershed that lacks
forestation or ground cover to absorb heavy rain
or snowmelt—farm fields, urban streets and
parking lots, suburban lawns, golf courses,
construction sites. To make matters more compli-
Discharges from obvious
sources of pollution such as
this outfall are no longer
commonplace.
Documerica photo. National Archives.
Runoff from parking lots
and other impermeable
surfaces carries pollutants
into our waterways.
Polluted runoff is our
largest remaining water
quality problem.
Steve Delaney photo, EPA.
-------
With increased
urban sprawl, viable
habitat for wildlife is
diminished.
Bill Painter photo, EPA.
Increased commuter
traffic is one of the
consequences of
urban sprawl.
Stwt Dtlaneyphoto, EPA.
cated, we also know that waterborne pollutants
sometimes vaporize to become airborne pollut-
ants carried by prevailing winds from one water-
shed to another.
As previously mentioned, many Americans
live in metropolitan areas that still fail to meet
national air quality standards for smog and other
pollutants. One reason for this is that progress in
curbing automobile emissions—consider today's
vastly cleaner-burning cars as compared to those
on the roads 30 years ago—is being outpaced by
increases in population and in vehicle miles
traveled per person.
One increasingly recognized common denomi-
nator of persistent environmental problems
including polluted runoff, substandard air
quality, and habitat fragmentation, is urban
sprawl. Urban sprawl contributes to polluted
runoff in various ways, such as by replacing
green open spaces and farmland with paved
surfaces and by requiring the building of addi-
tional roads and commuter highways. It contrib-
utes to air pollution by boosting commuter
distances and vehicle miles traveled per person.
And it results in losses of viable habitat for
animals and plants.
The implications of urban sprawl in the
Cleveland metropolitan area, for example, were
brought to light as a result of a recent exercise in
environmental priority-setting and local consen-
sus-building. (EPA was one of several partners
providing funding and technical assistance for
this project; other participants included the Ohio
EPA, Case Western Reserve Institute for Public
Health Sciences, and the George Gund Founda-
tion.) On completing the ranking exercise and
related deliberations, an ad hoc Cleveland public
committee reached the conclusion that many of
their highly ranked problems were directly or
indirectly driven by urban sprawl; it was decided
that urban sprawl—which was not on the origi-
nally compiled working list of 16 problems—
should take priority as the "umbrella issue" to be
addressed during the implementation phase of
the project. (See box.)
-------
In a Cleveland suburb,
a housing development
abuts a cornfield.
Photo by David Beach, EcoCity
Cleveland. Copyrighted.
Regional Priority Setting—
Urban Sprawl in Cleveland
In spring 1994, a regional "Public
Committee" consisting of commun-
ity, industry, and environmental
leaders from northeast Ohio and
Case Western Reserve University's
Center for the Environment began a
three-year project with the follow-
ing objectives:
• To characterize and rank environ-
mental problems facing the greater
Cleveland area
• To set environmental priorities
for the region
• To develop coalition approaches
and action strategies for addressing
environmental problems.
As a first order of business, mem-
bers of the committee collectively
crafted the following 20-year vision
statement, articulating shared
environmental values and goals for
the greater Cleveland community:
Over the next 20 years, the region
consisting ofCuyahoga, Lake,
Lorain, and Summit counties will
strive to achieve a high level of
environmental quality such that air,
water, land use, and the food supply
all contribute to a safe and healthy
lifestyle for all our citizens and the
ecological system more generally.
This work is of great urgency because
many irreversible processes have
already been set in motion. To
accomplish this we need to develop:
• A sense of community in which all
sectors, public, private, nonprofit,
and business, work together toward
common goals for present and future
generations through community
decision-making that strongly consid-
ers local, regional, national, and
global environmental impacts of all
major policy decisions
• An environmentally educated and
positively motivated population of
responsible citizens and organizations
*A healthy and sustainable
regional economy, that creates
jobs which promote pollution
prevention while minimizing the
consumption of nonrenewable
materials and energy
• An accessible human habitat
promoting safety from hazards to
-------
(Continued from page five)
health and from violence; a habitat
which balances the needs of humans
while preserving the ecological
integrity of nature in the region.
Reflecting input from the public
and from a variety of organizations,
16 issues were characterized and
included in the ranking of environ-
mental problems:
Quality of ground water
Quality of surface waters used for
drinking or for aquatic habitat
Quality of outdoor air
Quality of indoor air
Stratospheric ozone loss
Acid rain
Global warming
Food contamination
Hazards in households and schools,
including lead poisoning
Environmental and economic
impacts of outmigration from
the urban core
Quality and use of natural areas
Quality of urban environment
Solid waste disposal
Use of resources/energy
Ecological balance
Radiation exposure from human
sources
During the provisional ranking
process, each problem was ranked
low-, medium-, or high-risk in each
of three categories: public health,
ecological resources, and other
"quality of life" aspects.
Which of the above issues ranked
as the top-priority problem overall?
In fact, none of them did. Instead,
during the deliberations of the
Public Committee, it became clear
that many of the problems receiv-
ing high rankings were directly or
indirectly driven by urban sprawl.
This shared insight led to the
consensus decision that urban
sprawl should take priority as the
"umbrella issue" to be addressed
during the implementation phase of
the project. As a result, the area
covered by the project has been
expanded to include Gesuga,
Medina, and Portage counties—
which are part of the greater
Cleveland sprawl area. Over 10
focus groups were convened across
the region, with different stakehold-
ers to define the key barriers and
opportunities. A regional Work
Group was formed on Urban
Sprawl/Quality of the Urban
Environment to promote near-term
actions to alleviate urban sprawl,
working with existing programs
wherever possible, and also to
convene existing actors to stimulate
long-term collaborations beyond the
duration of the Priorities Project.
There was also a parallel Work
Group focusing on energy usage
issues.
Public Committee participants and
others have been working to follow
through with several implementation
projects in the Cleveland area. These
include several resource- and
information-sharing initiatives and
collaborative efforts to develop
criteria for funding highway projects
that are sensitive to land-use and
economic and health implications.
EPA has incorporated the findings of
the Regional Environmental Priori-
ties Project into its Northeast Ohio
Initiative and is following up on
various needs identified by the
project, such as the need for tools to
assist the community in assessing the
environmental impacts of urban
sprawl.
Project contacts: Deb Martin, EPA Headquarters,
at 202 260-269 (phone) or
MARTIN.DEBORA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail);
Dr. Norman Robbins, CWRU Center for the
Environment at 216 368-2194 (phone);
Rich Winklhofer, EPA Region 5,
at 216 522-7260 (phone) or
WINKLHOFER.RICH@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail).
Elements of CBEP
Is CBEP, then, an updated approach slated to
replace EPA's traditional environmental regula-
tory programs? The answer is decidedly no.
CBEP does not represent a retreat from national
goals or standards, nor does it imply an aban-
donment of the regulatory approach. A working
assumption of CBEP is that the nation's baseline
environmental standards must be kept in place;
to do otherwise would invite a return to the
pollution problems of previous decades.
CBEP is a holistic approach to environmental
protection that is sensitive to local conditions and
employs multi-level, cross-sector partnerships to
-------
achieve results. It supplements, rather than
replaces, EPA's existing media-specific and
statutory programs. CBEP efforts sometimes go
by other names, such as ecosystem management
or place-based and geographically targeted
environmental protection. The CBEP approach is
based on the conviction that it is necessary to
both maintain nationally applicable standards
and accommodate other important concerns that
are locally driven.
CBEP can facilitate priority setting, planning,
and decision making in cases where several
agencies at different levels of government are
involved and private parties also have some
degree of responsibility. An example is the
National Estuary Program, which involves
stakeholders—local citizens as well as partici-
pants from government, industry, and
academia—in developing Comprehensive
Conservation and Management plans.
CBEP efforts may be organized around a
neighborhood, a town, a city, or a region (such as
a watershed, valley, or coastal area). They may
be defined by either natural geographic or
political boundaries. The key factor is that the
people who live and/or work in the community
(the local stakeholders) have a common interest
in protecting an identifiable shared environment
and quality of life.
While there are no prescriptions for CBEP, it
usually includes the following elements:
• Identifying the geographic area which is the
focus of the environmental protection efforts,
usually using natural boundaries or ecological
features of the place
•Involving diverse stakeholders in developing a
vision, goals, priorities, and strategies
* Assessing the local ecosystems, including the
ecological, human health, economic, and socio-
cultural aspects of the community that relate to
the environment
* Developing a plan aimed at meeting environ-
mental, economic, and social goals in a sustain-
able manner
• Taking actions through a potentially wide
array of voluntary, educational, and regulatory
activities
* Monitoring conditions, evaluating results, and
re-directing efforts through adaptive manage-
ment
* Increasing EPA's efficiency and effectiveness
by building partnerships and leveraging re-
sources, and developing better ways of inform-
ing, assisting, and involving the public we serve.
CBEP, then, affords a vehicle for integrating
environmental goals with economic and social
goals at the community level.
The CBEP approach builds on the proven
successes and substantial experience of federal
and state agencies with geographically focussed
efforts in places such as the Chesapeake Bay, the
Great Lakes, and the estuaries of the National
Estuary Program. Like these earlier "place-
based" initiatives, CBEP recognizes the impor-
tance of local stakeholder involvement and
responsibility and the benefits and leveraging
power of working through partnerships. In
addition, CBEP builds on EPA's experience—
successes and lessons learned—with the water-
shed approach, which is a form of community-
based environmental protection. The watershed
approach uses the natural boundaries of drain-
age basins to define an area of interest for the
purpose of protecting shared water resources.
Guiding principles of the watershed approach, as
synopsized in EPA's June 1996 publication
entitled the Waterstied Approach Framework,
include working through partnerships, a geo-
graphic focus, and sound management tech-
niques based on strong science and data.
(See box on New York City watershed experience
on next page.)
-------
New York City: Case Study
in Watershed Management
New York State law authorizes New
York City to regulate the two upstate
watersheds—the Croton and the
Catskill-Delaware—that provide the
city's drinking water. These two
watersheds contain within their
boundaries parts of eight counties,
60 towns, one city, and 11 villages,
and more than 500 agricultural and
horticultural units. The two water-
sheds, together, produce 1,2 billion
gallons of water daily, providing
drinking water for 9 million consum-
ers—roughly half the population of
the state. The water traditionally has
been of such high quality that it
often won contests. Eight million
people served by this water supply
reside or work in New York City
itself; the remaining million reside
upstate in the watersheds.
The natural beauty of the water-
sheds, however, and their proximity
to the metropolitan area have
encouraged land development,
particularly on the East Side of the
Hudson River. Close to the city,
development has been aggressive
and suburban encroachment has
caused serious degradation of the
Croton reservoirs. This, in turn, has
triggered an EPA requirement that
filters must be installed to protect
against the threat of microbial
contamination in water from the
Croton system.
The Croton system produces only
about 10 percent of the water
consumed by New York City. If
similar degradation were to occur in
the more remote Catskill-Delaware
system, and filters became necessary,
the costs would be enormous.
Construction costs could exceed $5
billion; annual operating costs
would approximate $300 million.
In 1993, EPA agreed to postpone
the decision on filtering the Catskill-
Delaware supply while the city
attempted to demonstrate that it
could maintain the quality of the
water through watershed control.
As a backup measure, the city is
required to complete the preliminary
design of the filters. Recently, the
terms and conditions of the original
agreement were reviewed in light of
progress made since 1993; in January
1997, an updated agreement was
signed which includes a number of
specific mandates, such as wastewater
treatment plant upgrades and a
review of the existing water quality
monitoring program.
Following the 1993 agreement, a
comprehensive farm management
program was established under the
title, "Whole Farm Planning Pro-
gram." The program was endorsed
by New York State agencies, New
York City, the farmers themselves,
and EPA. The program assumed that,
in a populated rural landscape, well-
managed agriculture was the best
protection for water quality. Further,
compulsion was unlikely to succeed
with fiercely independent farmers,
and the program had to be a volun-
tary one based on providing incen-
tives to farmers to participate.
Finally, farming practices adopted to
protect water quality had to be based
upon sound scientific principles.
New York City provided $4 million
for the first two years of the program,
during which the objective was to
develop plans on 10 demonstration
New York City Watersheds
Schoharie County
Pattsrsln
Delaware County
Westchester County —
Sullivan County
Catskill/Delaware Watershed
Croton Watershed
-------
The continued safety of
New York City's water
supply hinges on upstate
farmers' use of watershed
protection practices.
New York City Watershed
Agricultural Council photo.
farms. Of the roughly 500 farms in
the watersheds, the majority are
dairy farms, and the 10 selected for
demonstration were all dairy.
Each farmer worked with County
Project Teams comprising staff from
Cornell Cooperative Extension, Soil
and Water Conservation Districts,
and the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. These teams received advice
and training from scientists at
Cornell University. Administrative
coordination was provided by the
New York City Soil and Water
Conservation Committee. Leader-
ship later passed to a Watershed
Agricultural Council comprising
watershed farmers, watershed
agribusiness, and the New York City
Department of Environmental
Protection (NYCDEP).
In the second phase of the pro-
gram, now underway, the city
expects to implement Whole Farm
Planning on 85 percent of the
remaining farms. Funding for this
phase was set at $35 million.
As Whole Farm Planning pro-
gressed, inter-agency and commu-
nity groups sought to establish a
Whole Community Planning
Program. Local government was
represented by the Coalition of
Watershed Towns. Technical
working groups and a policy
dialogue group, involving about 300
individuals, were created to seek
technical and institutional agree-
ments.
To demonstrate how community
planning might protect water
quality, six towns assumed a pilot
role. Each town formed a Citizen
Advisory Committee; the commit-
tees were supported by technical
staff from County Health and
Planning Departments, by Cornell
Cooperative Extension, the New
York State Water Resources Institute,
and the NYCDEP. Each committee
identified and assessed priorities for
their town. On-site wastewater
disposal, stormwater and drainage
and land-use management were
shared major priorities. The towns in
the Catskill-Delaware watershed
were also concerned with streambed
and streambank management.
The programs negotiated under the
New York City Watershed Agreement
should enable the city to protect its
water supply while avoiding the
multi-billion dollar cost of a filtration
plant. The city will finalize regula-
tions for watershed land uses,
acquire sensitive lands to protect key
reservoirs and waterways, conduct
water quality testing in the water-
shed, and support upstate/down-
state partnership programs. New
York State will establish a new
Watershed Inspector General's office
to ensure that the city's regulations
are implemented to protect public
health. EPA will continue to oversee
New York City's filtration waiver and
the city and state's action to imple-
ment the agreement.
EPA Region 2 contact: Maureen Krudner at
212 637-3519 (phone) or
KRUDNER.MAUREEN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e mail).
-------
Benefits of CBEP
CBEP is results-oriented. Its geographic focus
has practical advantages in that definable
geographic areas have proven to be effective
units of work, as measured in environmental
results. Communities are manageable entities for
defining collaborative goals and developing
plans and implementation strategies tailored to
specific ecological systems, economic circum-
stances, and socio-cultural situations.
The stakeholder involvement element of CBEP
offers multiple benefits. One of the working
premises of CBEP is that neither EPA nor any
other government agency has all the answers for
solving local or regional problems. Local stake-
holders have specific knowledge and expertise
about local social, economic, and environmental
conditions. Moreover, it is important for those
who will live with environmental decisions to be
involved in the decision-making process. Stake-
holder involvement creates a sense of local
ownership of issues and solutions and encour-
ages long-term community support and account-
ability. It is also cost-effective in that it augments
federal resources with the leveraged resources of
participating public and private stakeholders—
not funding only, but technical data and exper-
tise as well. In addition, improved communica-
tion and collaboration through integrated action
can enhance the efficiency of government ser-
vices by reducing costly duplication of efforts
and conflicting actions.
CBEP strengthens teamwork between the
public and private sectors at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels to achieve the greatest
environmental benefits with the resources
available. By fostering partnerships among
public and private stakeholders, CBEP helps
reconnect government agencies and their em-
ployees with the people and places they serve.
An Approach Whose Time
Has Come
As the preceding discussion suggests, there are
many reasons why CBEP is an approach whose
time has come. Moreover, increasing numbers of
tools that support community-based manage-
ment are being developed, including information
technologies such as geographic information
systems (GIS), mapping, and community vision-
ing methods. At the same time, the public
appears to be more informed, knowledgeable,
and involved in environmental issues than ever
before.
EPA's role in CBEP projects varies consider-
ably from community to community. As ex-
plained in Section 2 of this report, in some
instances (e.g., in communities that cross state
boundaries or in places that are nationally
significant), EPA may lead a CBEP effort or be an
active partner in designing and implementing
environmental solutions. Often, however, EPA's
role will be limited to providing communities,
states, and the public with essential "capacity-
building" resources. Section 3 describes how
EPA is working to help communities help
themselves with tools such as the following:
environmental information and monitoring
systems; science and socio-economic analysis
and information; flexible grants; direct technical
assistance; negotiation and facilitation; or train-
ing. Section 4 profiles regulatory reinvention
initiatives at EPA that are designed to promote
CBEP. Q
10
-------
SECTION 2
Working in Places—
EPA as Leader or Partner in Community-Based Efforts
Our regulators have rolled up their sleeves and actually joined
with us to become part of the solution.
—Mayor of Henryetta, Oklahoma
One of the key features of CBEP is a
geographic focus, which encourages a
more integrated approach to environ-
mental protection in a particular place than can
be achieved through across-the-board modes of
environmental protection. By definition, CBEP is
place-based in orientation, whether the place is a
small town, an urban neighborhood, or a major
metropolitan area—whether a community shares
an endangered watershed, a fragile ecosystem, or
In Utah's Arches National Park, Delicate Arch
perches on the brink of a canyon—a monument to
the unique geology of the area.
M.W. Williams photo. National Park Service.
perhaps a coastal region that is experiencing
development pressures. The key factor is a
commonality of interest among people who have
a stake in a particular environment.
It is important to acknowledge the leading
roles that community groups and local and state
governments are playing in place-based environ-
mental projects across the country; EPA is
contributing indirectly to these CBEP efforts, as
explained in Section 3, by making technical tools,
information, and other "capacity-building"
resources available to them. Clearly, EPA need
not and cannot be involved directly in every
community-based effort in the United States.
However, EPA is directly and actively involved,
as a leader or partner in CBEP efforts, in selected
communities around the country. These commu-
nities generally fit one or more of the following
categories for "priority" places where EPA may
be directly involved in a CBEP initiative:
• Natural resources of national (or international)
significance
• Areas with transboundary (i.e., interstate or
international) environmental concerns
• Areas with exceptional risk to human health
or the environment
• Communities with environmental justice
concerns—i.e., communities where environmen-
tal effects are disproportionately felt by minori-
ties and/or economically disadvantaged citizens.
In places where EPA is already present due to
ongoing efforts—such as a Superfund-related
cleanup, a Brownfields site (see Section 4, page
46, concerning the Agency's Brownfields Rede-
velopment Program), or the need to address
11
-------
health risks due to water quality problems—
CBEP serves as an organizing principle to better
integrate environmental initiatives.
Natural Resources of National
Significance
The United States is fortunate to have many
natural resources of national and even interna-
tional significance. These resources, when
threatened, receive priority consideration for
direct EPA involvement in CBEP efforts. Two
examples of stressed natural resources where
EPA is directly involved in place-based work are
described in this section. The first is the Middle
Platte River watershed in south-central Ne-
braska, renowned as the staging area for half a
million migrating sandhill cranes and several
million migrating ducks and geese each year. The
river and the biological diversity of the water-
shed, which depends on a complex web of
interdependent habitats, are endangered by
multiple stressors and competing uses of re-
sources. (See adjoining box .) The second case is
the ecologically rich Everglades ecosystem in
South Florida. Decades of drainage and
channelization have halved the area of the South
Florida Everglades, and current restoration
efforts could be undercut if present urban sprawl
trends continue. (See box on pages 14-15.)
Areas That Cross State Boundaries
Areas that cross state boundaries but need
holistic consideration as integral ecological
systems are also priority places for possible
direct EPA involvement. This does not mean, of
course, that all transboundary ecosystems
automatically become sites for EPA's direct
involvement as a leader or partner in place-based
work. For example, one of the largest
transboundary ecosystems in the United States is
the Great Plains ecosystem, which extends across
several states, the tribal lands of more than 60
Native American tribes, three Canadian prov-
inces, and portions of Mexico. Rather than direct
place-based involvement, EPA is supporting
CBEP in the Great Plains primarily through a
comprehensive information-sharing and capac-
ity-building project called the Great Plains
Project (see Section 3, page 32).
NATURAL RESOURCES OF
Middle Platte River
Watershed
As the Platte River flows eastward
across central Nebraska, it provides
water for agricultural irrigation,
electric power production, and
recreation, as well as community and
industrial uses. It also provides
important habitat for fish and
wildlife. The Middle Platte watershed
has hemispherical significance as a
stopover point for spectacular
numbers of migrating birds. It is the
major staging area for 500,000
sandhill cranes and several million
ducks, geese, and other birds that
migrate annually through the area.
Many other species of mammals,
birds, and fish—including several
endangered or threatened fish and
bird species (such as the whooping
crane, bald eagle, and peregrine
falcon)—use the water, woodlands,
remaining native grasslands, and wet
meadows in the Middle Platte River
valley. The area is a virtual mosaic of
interdependent habitats that support
diverse biological communities.
Surface and groundwater flows from
this segment of the Platte River
system are also important to the
economic stability of central Ne-
braska, irrigating about 2 million
acres of land, primarily for corn
production.
The Middle Platte River watershed
has been significantly transformed
over the last century. In addition to
irrigation and other water withdraw-
als, dams in Colorado, Wyoming, and
Nebraska have reduced the volume
and variability of water flows to the
middle segment of the Platte River.
Agriculture has replaced most of the
native prairie and indigenous river-
dependent vegetation. Reductions in
quality and quantity of water and
habitat have prompted concern for
the welfare of the sandhill crane,
other migratory bird populations,
and threatened and endangered fish
and bird species.
12
-------
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
For decades, efforts to protect this
south-central Nebraska watershed
have been inhibited by controversies
over the proper uses of its resources
together with jurisdictional, financial,
and technical obstacles. Agricultural,
urban, industrial, and environmental
interests have frequently clashed in
disputes over water allocations and
resource uses,
EPA is working in the Middle Platte
River subbasin to analyze the stres-
sors and resulting ecological effects in
the watershed and to promote
community awareness of watershed-
related issues. With the participation
of many state, federal, and locally
based partners, the Agency is con-
ducting an ecological risk assessment
to evaluate the following key stres-
sors and their effects in the region:
* Changes in the magnitude, timing,
and frequency of Middle Platte River
flows
* Loss or disturbance of critical
wildlife habitat
» Changes in stream channel charac-
teristics
* Degraded water quality due to
agriculture-related activities.
A whooping
crane readies
for flight.
Photo courtesy of
Nebraska Gam 6 and
Parks Commission.
The results of the risk assessment
will provide a foundation for strategic
resource management by providing
key information to resource managers,
so they can make environmentally
knowledgeable decisions. Through
studies and surveys, EPA and its
partners are working to assess some
of the social, cultural, and economic
links between the ecologically rich
resources of the Middle Platte and the
local communities.
Middle Platte Subbasin in Nebraska
Continued economic development in
the central Platte River valley is
essential to maintaining local and
regional prosperity. Agriculture will
continue as a mainstay in the region.
In addition, there is potential for
economic benefit to the watershed
from resource-dependent recreational
tourism, namely wildlife watching. In
response to an EPA-sponsored survey,
visitors who traveled to the Platte
valley to observe the migrating birds
indicated that they were very satisfied
with their experiences. Many said
they would return to the area to watch
wildlife again. These survey results are
preliminary. Additional recreation
surveys will be conducted in order to
profile existing and potential links
between the local economy and the
region's ecological resources. If these
links are widely recognized by com-
munity stakeholders, they are more
likely to be reflected in long-term
resource management strategies for
the watershed.
EPA Region 7 contact: Robert Fenemore at
913 551-7745 (phone) or
FENEMORE.ROBERT@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail).
13
-------
Two examples of transboundary areas where
EPA is more directly involved on an ongoing
basis are Southern Appalachia, where there are
extensive federal lands (see box on pages 16-17),
and Long Island Sound, which is part of the
National Estuary Program (see box on page 18).
In addition to being a transboundary area, the
Southern Appalachians have also been desig-
nated by the United Nations as one of the
world's finest remaining ecological systems.
Areas of Exceptional Risk
Another category of places that are priority
candidates for direct EPA involvement includes
areas where there may be exceptional risk to
human health or the environment, or to both.
Such areas would include, for example, water-
sheds with high PCB contamination in sedi-
ments, areas subject to advisories against fish
consumption, or ecosystems at particular risk of
collapse. An ecosystem may be at risk of collapse
due to extreme stresses such as extensive habitat
losses or severe disruption of key processes such
as the cycle of nutrients.
The particular examples presented in this
section are the Biologically Integrated Orchard
Systems (BIOS) Project in Central California, and
ongoing CBEP work in the Coeur d'Alene River
basin in Idaho. The BIOS Project began after
widespread toxic effects were seen in sensitive
"indicator species" in California rivers, raising
concerns about chemicals used in Central Valley
agriculture and their effects on local ecosystems
and human health. (See box on page 19.) In the
Coeur d'Alene River basin—where decades of
mining activities have left a legacy of toxic metal
contamination that threatens the area's ecosys-
tems and presents significant health risks—the
CBEP approach is being used to develop a plan
for ecosystem management. (See box on page 20.)
NATURAL RESOURCES OF
South Florida and the
Everglades
The once-vast South Florida Ever-
glades ecosystem has been reduced to
half its original area due to years of
channelization and drainage. Efforts to
protect and restore the Everglades have
been under way for several years, and
as of December 1996, a consensus-
driven plan for Everglades restoration
was approved and sent to Congress.
However, what now remains of this
fragile and ecologically rich ecosystem
is still at risk from the consequences of
urban sprawl and a population
growing so fast that it is expected to
triple in the next 50 years.
In 1996, following three years' work,
the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida, the Federal
Everglades Restoration Task Force,
state and local governments, and
private sector and public interests
reached a consensus agreement on a
comprehensive Everglades restoration
Everglades Ecosystem
16 County Region
Eastward Ho! Study Area
Agricultural Area
CZI3
Conservation Area
H
-------
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
plan, called the Central and South
Florida Project Comprehensive
Review Study ("Restudy" for short).
The plan, which began implementa-
tion in January 1997, includes a
"modified water deliveries" compo-
nent, the purpose of which is to
restore more natural water flows in
the Shark River Slough and else-
where. The plan also provides for
creation of a buffer area between
agricultural lands to the east and
Taylor Slough to the west; among
other things, the buffer zone will
maintain flood control for remaining
agricultural land to the east, maintain
higher water levels in lands adjacent
to Taylor Slough, and eliminate
damaging freshwater flows into
Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound. Also,
Everglades National Park will be
expanded to include 107,600 acres of
what is now known as the "East
Everglades."
If South Florida's current trends
toward urban sprawl continue—
accelerated by rapid population
growth—current Everglades restora-
tion work could be undermined.
Therefore, EPA is working with other
Visitors at Corkscrew swamp in
the Everglades.
Photo courtesy of Florida Department of
Commerce, Division of Tourism.
Great White Heron, South
Florida Everglades.
Photo courtesy of Florida Department of
Commerce, Division of Tourism.
federal agencies, the state of Florida,
and local governments, in an initia-
tive called "Eastward Ho!", to redirect
future settlement patterns. The
objective is to direct development
away from Southeast Florida's
remaining environmentally sensitive
prime water resources and agricul-
tural lands into partially developed
areas that were either passed over or
underutilized for development, or
into previously developed areas that
were allowed to deteriorate. The
Eastward Ho! urban corridor is 85
miles long and includes Palm Beach,
Broward, and Dade counties.
The Florida Department of Com-
munity Affairs (DCA) is the lead state
agency for the urban component of
Everglades restoration efforts. The
Florida DCA has requested EPA's
assistance in key areas including
Brownfields, transportation, fiscal
impact analysis, and public participa-
tion. In order to move forward, the
South Florida partners also need
assistance in enlisting the participa-
tion of other federal agencies with
applicable authorities to help restore
the "human ecosystem," the cities and
communities. EPA has detailed a
senior-level employee to the area to
work with the Florida DCA, the
Governor's Commission, and the
Federal Everglades Restoration Task
Force to build federal connections and
local capacity to address urban issues
that affect the Everglades.
The Eastward Ho! challenge is
multi-faceted: to promote revitalized,
livable communities where citizens
can enjoy quality education, safe
neighborhoods, jobs with opportunity,
viable transportation options, and
equitable environmental quality—in
short, to achieve sustainability in
central and south Florida. As a
cornerstone of sustain- ability efforts,
EPA is working to build the Eastward
Ho! Brownfields Partnership, which
will work together to achieve the
Eastward Ho! vision through the
coordinated efforts of federal agen-
cies, state and local governments, and
community stakeholders.
EPA contacts: Elisabeth LaRoe in South
Florida at 305 348-1659 (phone) or
LAROE.ELISABETH@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail);
Karen Metchis at EPA headquarters
at 202 260-7069 (phone) or
METCHIS.KAREN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e mail).
15
-------
CBEP and Environmental Justice
On February 11,1994, President Clinton signed an
Executive Order concerning environmental justice
that reads as follows:
To the greatest extent practicable and permit-
ted by law, and consistent with the principles
set forth in the report on the National Perfor-
mance Review, each Federal agency shall make
achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects
of its program, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income popula-
tions in the United States and its territories and
possessions, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
Commonwealth of the Mariana islands....
Because environmental justice issues are nearly
always place-based or community-based, CBEP is
particularly appropriate as a method of addressing
environmental justice issues that may slip through
the cracks of the nation's baseline environmental
protection programs.
Two communities where EPA is directly involved
in CBEP efforts where environmental justice issues
are predominant are the South Bronx in New York
City and metropolitan East St. Louis. (See boxes on
pages 21 and 22-23.)
Integrating EPA Program Efforts
Through CBEP
Early CBEP progress reports indicate tangible
benefits where EPA's involvement in an area or
community has evolved from a focus on a single
facility or source of pollution, to a more holistic,
community-based approach. In such cases, CBEP
operates as an organizing principle that unifies
initiatives under separate environmental laws and
EPA programs—such as clean drinking water
requirements, solid waste (trash) disposal require-
ments, wastewater treatment standards, clean air
standards, or pesticide regulation.
One example of a community where EPA first
became involved in a limited way, through prelimi-
nary site assessment activities on an abandoned
industrial site, and then began working in a collabo-
rative relationship with residents and state and local
officials to address a panoply of related environ-
AREAS THAT CROSS
A Vision for Southern
Appalachia
The recently completed Southern
Appalachian Assessment (SAA), a
multi-agency project co-led by EPA
Region 4 and the U.S. Forest Service,
is the ecological equivalent of a
thorough medical checkup for the
ecosystem known as the Southern
Appalachians. This vast ecological
"community" covers some 37.4
million acres of mountains, foothills,
and valleys stretching from northern
Virginia and eastern West Virginia to
northwestern South Carolina,
northern Georgia, and northern
Alabama. The original impetus for
the project was the need for high-
quality data to support forest
management planning in this
internationally recognized
bioreserve, but SAA results will have
broad applications in community-
based efforts.
During the 20th century, the
Southern Appalachians have experi-
enced dramatic changes. In the early
1900s, land management practices
routinely destroyed the area's natural
resources. The consequences in-
cluded rapidly eroding cropland and
pasture, heavily logged forest in
which little of value remained—and
an exodus of people looking to find
better opportunities in a more
hospitable environment.
Toward mid-century, the nation
took steps to restore and conserve the
natural resources of the Southern
Appalachians. National forests were
created to protect the headwaters of
major rivers in the Southeast from
land uses that encourage flooding,
erosion, and stream sedimentation.
The Great Smoky Mountains and
Shenandoah National parks were
established to preserve certain
special places in the Southern
Appalachians. Due to efforts such as
these, the area regained esteem as a
16
-------
STATE BOUNDARIES
desirable place to live or to spend
recreation time. As the 21st century
approaches, however, human develop-
ment pressures are again taking a toll.
As a significant step toward sustain-
able resource management in Southern
Appalachia, the SAA—which began
in the summer of 1994 and was com-
pleted in May 1996—meets a need for
more comprehensive and scientifically
credible data to support sustainable
decision making. The assessment does
not recommend particular solutions to
particular problems; rather, its pur-
pose was to provide the best informa-
tion available for a productive public
discussion of identified problems. It
also identifies data limitations that
warrant attention in the future. The
cross-agency team adopted the
foliowing vision statement:
Our vision for the Southern Appala-
chian region is an environment for
natural resources management that
applies the best available knowledge
about the land, air, water, and people
of the region. Applied on public lands,
this knowledge would provide a
sustainable balance among biological
diversity, economic uses, and cultural
values. All would be achieved through
information gathering and sharing,
integrated assessments, and
demonstration projects.
Public participation was an impor-
tant part of the SAA. In 1994, public
meetings were held in the SAA study
area to solicit public concerns about
specific issues. Based on these con-
cerns, questions were formed that
directed the work of the four technical
teams formed to assess major resource
groups: terrestrial, atmospheric,
aquatic, and social/cultural/eco-
nomic.
Although the assessment reveals no
major crises, some of its findings are
worrisome. Forest pests are causing
some serious damage, particularly in
northern Virginia. Ecological changes
are occurring in the region's forests.
Pollution has made some streams
Southern Appalachian Assessment Area
Alaba
unsuitable for human use. Acidity has
significantly affected water quality
and fish species in certain streams.
Human development pressures are
causing serious effects on natural
resources around the region's cities,
and conflicts over uses of the area's
natural resources are brewing.
On the other hand, the assessment
highlights some ecological treasures,
such as an extraordinarily high level
of species diversity in the Southern
Appalachians, particularly in the
aquatic arena. The findings of the
SAA are available in a series of five
publications: a Summary Report and
four technical reports covering forest
health, air quality, aquatic environ-
ments, and social/cultural/economic
history (available from the National
Forests of North Carolina at 704 257-
4200). SAA results are also accessible
on three Internet sites:
» SAMAB homepage: http://
www.lib.utk.edu/samab
* U.S. Forest Service homepage;
http: / / www.ffs.fed .us
* Info South homepage: http://
www.fs.libs.uga.edu
EPA's Region 4 office has devel-
oped a Geographic Information
System (CIS) demonstration tool
based on SAA data, together with a
reference guide on the use of GIS
analysis in a project area. Also
building on SAA findings, a pilot
assessment and restoration project
has been launched in the Hiwassee
River Basin, as a cooperative effort
among several agencies.
EPA Region 4 contact: Cory Berish at
404 562-8276 or
BERISH.CORY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail).
17
-------
mental and economic issues is Henryetta,
Oklahoma. Henryetta is a small town in
Okmulgee County which has begun to rebound
from a series of environmental and economic
problems. Henryetta appears to be on its way
to becoming a revitalized community, thanks to
coordinated efforts that could not have come
together without a community-based frame-
work. (See box on pages 24-25).
Another example of CBEP where EPA
programs have been addressing seemingly
disparate environmental issues is the highly
urbanized metropolitan area of Providence,
Rhode Island, which includes a disadvantaged
community among its population. As Providence
and other examples illustrate, integrating envi-
ronmental efforts is a necessary step for the kind
of coordinated results needed to move a commu-
nity toward a sustainable future in the face of
existing disadvantages. (See box on page 26.) In
this respect, Providence is not unlike many inner-
city communities. Q
AREAS THAT CROSS STATE BOUNDARIES
Long Island Sound:
Testing Watershed
Innovations
Several states contribute to the drainage
basin of Long Island Sound, including
New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu-
setts, New York, and Connecticut. The
sound's 16,000-square-mile watershed
also extends into Canada. Under the
National Estuary Program (NEP), New
York and Connecticut share resource-
management responsibility for Long
Island Sound with two EPA regions:
Region 1 (New England) and Region 2
(headquartered in New York City).
Through the stakeholder-based NEP
process, a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) was
developed and subsequently approved
by EPA, New York, and Connecticut in
September 1994.
The CCMP identified several priority
problems in Long Island Sound: low
dissolved oxygen in the water as a
result of excess nutrient loads (espe-
cially nitrogen), toxic contamination,
pathogen contamination, floatable
debris, diminished water quality, and
natural habitat degradation and loss,
and adverse impacts on living resources
as a consequence of water quality
problems and habitat degradation.
Although much work remains to be
done, progress has been made on
several fronts. For example, nitrogen
loads to the estuary have been reduced
5,000 pounds per day below 1990
baseline levels; sewage treatment
retrofit projects have been completed
or are under way at a number of
sewage plants; a new denitrification
plant is on line in Connecticut; and in
both Connecticut and New York,
increased funds have been targeted
to reducing nitrogen runoff into Long
Island Sound.
In addition to efforts already under
way under the umbrella of the Long
Island Sound CCMP, EPA, the
Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) have
recently formed a partnership to
address land-use issues on a water-
shed basis. The first initiative under
this new partnership is the Norwalk
River Watershed effort, which will
serve as a test model for more
comprehensive watershed manage-
ment in the Long Island Sound
watershed. EPA, the NRCS, and the
FWS are working together with the
Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection, the Westchester
County Department of Planning, the
Connecticut municipalities of
Norwalk, Wilton, New Canaan,
Redding, Weston, and Ridgefield,
and the New York municipality of
Lewisboro to develop and implement
a watershed management plan for
this coastal drainage basin, which
has been identified as contributing to
the problem of low dissolved oxygen
in the western part of the sound. The
Norwalk River watershed has a mix
of environmental issues—including
chronic flooding, historical habitat
degradation and destruction, and
ongoing water quality problems—
that make it a useful model for
testing comprehensive watershed
planning in the larger watershed of
Long Island Sound.
The Norwalk partnership is
considering a range of innovative
options for protecting flood-prone
areas and restoring water quality and
fish and wildlife habitat, including
expanded open spaces and more
recreational use opportunities.
EPA contact (Long Island Sound Office):
Carolyn Hughes at 203 977-1541 (phone) or
HUGHES.CAROLYN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail).
18
-------
AREAS OF EXCEPTIONAL RISK
The Biologically
Integrated Orchard
Systems (BIOS)
Project—Central
California
The Biologically Integrated Orchard
Systems (BIOS) project is an innova-
tive, agricultural pollution-preven-
tion program in the heart of the
world's richest agricultural region,
California's Central Valley. In a broad
collaboration between California's
$900 million almond industry,
nonprofit organizations, farmers,
private foundations, state agencies
and EPA, the BIOS program takes an
innovative approach to addressing
widespread findings of acute toxic
effects in central California rivers.
The toxicity was traced to organo-
phosphate pesticides blown by winter
storms from Central Valley Orchards.
Rather than focusing on traditional
modes of managing and regulating
farm chemicals, the BIOS project
reflects the kind of farming systems
approach recommended by the
National Research Council in 1993,
which recognizes the inherent links
between farm system components,
such as tillage practices, nutrient
applications, water uses, and pest
management practices.
Under the farming systems
approach, a farm is managed as a
biological system, taking into account
multiple environmental impacts.
Supported by a grant from EPA
Region 9's Central Valley Agriculture
Initiative, a grassroots organization—
the Community Alliance with Family
Fanners—manages the BIOS project
on site.
Working with growers of almonds
and walnuts, which represent a
billion dollar-plus industry in
California, the BIOS Project promotes
farm plans that replace chemical
inputs with biologically intensive
pest control, nutrient enrichment, and
soil management systems. Farmers
are offered financial and technical
incentives to join the BIOS project,
including technical
assistance in developing
a comprehensive farm
transition plan tailored to
the needs of a particular
grower. BIOS farmers use a
system of pollution-prevention
practices, adapted to their
particular needs. Most of these
practices are biologically based,
such as the following:
• Biologically intensive integrated
pest management (DPM)
* Soil building with composting and
cover cropping
* Cover cropping with nitrogen-
fixing legumes
* Water quality testing for back-
ground nitrogen levels
» Perennial insectary plantings
• Habitat maintenance for raptors
(birds of prey), for rodent control.
To date, participating farmers,
representing 1,000 acres of farmland
in the Central Valley, have achieved
the following results:
* Reduced and/or eliminated use of
pesticides known to be contaminating
ground water, surface water, and air
• Reduced use of synthetic nitrogen
* Eliminated open-air burning of
orchard pruning debris
* Enhanced soil quality.
Through reductions in chemical use
and the elimination of open-air
burning, the BIOS Project is reducing
contaminants in all environmental
media—water, air, and land—in the
Agricultural
consultant
Steve Foiada confers
with almond
growers Diane
Goodman and John
Lagier concerning
cover cropping, one
of the practices
being promoted
by the BIOS Project.
Mam'i Kate photo. Nut Grower
magazine.
19
Central Valley Because minority
farmworkers and low-income rural
workers have been disproportion-
ately exposed to the toxic contamina-
tion that gave impetus to the BIOS
project, the environmental gains
being made include gains in environ-
mental justice.
Through the recent passage of
California Assembly Bill 3383 (the
"BIOS Bill"), the BIOS model will be
extended to five additional commodi-
ties throughout California.
EPA Region 9 contacts:
Paul Feder at 415 744-2010 (phone) or
FEDER.PAUL® EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail)
and Tim Hatten at 415 744-1983 (phone) or
HATTEN.TIM@EPAMA1L.EPA.GOV (e-mail).
-------
AREAS OF EXCEPTIONAL RISK
A Future for the
Couer d'Alene River
Watershed
Over the years, mining and ore
processing activities in the South
Fork of Coeur d' Alene River
drainage area in Idaho produced
approximately 104 million metric
tons of trace element-enriched
tailings. Approximately 65 million
metric tons of the tailings were
discharged directly into the river.
These toxic discharges represent
significant risks to human health
and to aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystem in the Coeur d'Alene
watershed. In addition, oxygen
depletion (caused by the presence
of excess nutrients in lake water)
threatens to release toxic heavy
metals trapped in the sediments of
Lake Coeur d'Alene, also as a result
of earlier mining activities.
Of particular concern are the
elevated blood lead levels in
children and adults in the area and
the failure of local water bodies to
support designated uses. Other
environmental effects also are
widespread, including soil erosion,
destabilized stream banks, losses of
habitat, and nutrient enrichment
from polluted runoff.
EPA Region 10 began using a
community-based approach in the
Coeur d'Alene basin in 1996 and
will be working with stakeholders
and partners to develop a compre-
hensive Ecosystem Management
Coeur d'Alena
Basin
Plan for the watershed. The follow-
ing long-term environmental goals
have been set;
• Reduce blood lead levels in
children to less than levels sug-
gested by the Center for Disease
Control
* Restore and maintain water bodies
to fully support their intended uses
* Ensure environmental monitoring
and data management systems are
adequate to support overall environ-
mental management activities for
the basin
• Develop a Strategic Ecosystem
Management Plan that guides
environmental management activi-
ties in the basin.
The following are long-term
measures, or environmental indica-
tors, for use in gauging progress
toward the health and environmen-
tal goals cited above:
* Trends in blood lead levels of
study participants (outside the
Bunker Hill remedial site)
• Trends in chemical water quality
compared to Water Quality Stan-
dards Criteria at reference locations
in the basin
* Trends in number of water bodies
formally designated as "impaired"
• Number of water bodies in the
basin assessed for whether they can
support healthy aquatic ecosystems
• Normalized number/percent of
assessed water bodies that support
healthy aquatic ecosystems
* Improvements in the long-term
quality of ground and surface-
water quality as monitored both
uphill and downhill from mine waste
repositories
• Compliance by operating mine
sites with an approved "Operation
and Maintenance Plan"
* Periodic surveys of users' satisfac-
tion levels with the quality and
quantity (and accessibility and
usability) of environmental monitor-
ing data and information concerning
the Coeur d'Alene basin.
* Adoption and implementation of
an Ecosystem Management Plan by
all stakeholders in the basin.
EPA Region 10 contact: Earl Uverman at
208 664-4858 (phone) or
LIVERMAN.EARLeEPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
(e-mail).
20
-------
CBEP AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CBEP in
the South Bronx:
An Open Forum for
Environmental
Justice Concerns
In the South Bronx, located in one
of New York City's five Boroughs,
EPA, along with city and state
agencies, is using a community-
and partnership-based process to
address citizens' concerns about
environmental problems and to
respond in a timely way to wide-
ranging questions and issues they
have raised about the mixed
industrial-residential area where
they live.
Of particular concern to South
Bronx residents are the many waste
handling facilities in their commu-
nity. These include solid waste
transfer stations, a municipal
wastewater treatment plant, and a
sewage sludge treatment plant—all
of which residents believe contrib-
ute to odors and health problems in
their neighborhoods. Residents
have complained that the odors
compromise their quality of life.
They have also expressed concerns
about air pollution and its possible
effect on health.
Asthma is a major public health
concern in the South Bronx.
Residents have a higher rate of
asthma than in other areas of New
York City, which itself has one of
the highest asthma rates in the
United States. Some residents of the
Hunts Point community in the
South Bronx believe that emissions
from the nearby waste facilities are
a significant cause of the high rate
of asthma.
As a starting point, EPA and the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (state
DEC), the New York City Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection
(city DEP), and the New York City
Department of Sanitation (city
DOS) conducted more than 350
compliance inspections in 1994.
Included were the waste handling
facilities noted by the community.
Where any noncompliance was
found, appropriate enforcement
actions were initiated.
To address citizens' concerns about
odors, the city DEP and state DEC
have worked with the operators of
both the privately owned New York
Organic Fertilizer Company
(NYOFCo) and the city-
operated Hunts Point Water Pollu-
tion Control Plant to improve
operations. In response to a city DEP
enforcement order to NYOFCo to
conduct an odor assessment and
make improvements in its opera-
tions, the fertilizer company hired a
consultant to investigate methods to
further reduce odor releases. An
operational problem found at
NYOFCo involved the maintenance
of negative air pressure. The com-
pany upgraded its operations in
March 1996, at a cost of $2 million.
Since then, say residents, the inci-
dence of odors has been reduced
significantly.
In April 1996, EPA inspected the
Hunts Point sewage treatment plant
and the surrounding neighborhood.
EPA identified several potential
South Bronx
residents have
multiple
concerns
about their
community
Environment.
Photo by David
Valdu, eourtwy of
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
sources of odors within the facility,
and recommended changes in
procedures for maintaining negative
air pressure and managing treatment
tanks. These changes, together with
upgrades made by the city DEP
involving its sludge dewatering
building and existing odor-control
systems, have resulted in dramati-
cally reduced odors. Upgrades at the
facility are ongoing, with continuing
oversight by EPA and the state DEC.
As part of its work with the New
York City Department of Health (city
DOH) and the New York State
Department of Health (state DOH) to
study and address asthma in the
South Bronx, EPA conducted an in-
depth review of existing scientific
literature and medical research. The
prevalence and severity of asthma
have risen dramatically worldwide
over the past several decades, with
the greatest reported increase among
children in minority and low-income
communities. While scientists and
doctors do not completely under-
stand the reasons for this trend, they
suspect that asthma is the result of
multiple factors, including poor
access to medical care, stress, hered-
(Continued on page 22)
21
-------
CBEP AND
(South Bronx continued)
ity, and both outdoor and indoor air pollution. For
this reason, the problem of asthma in the South
Bronx is being addressed on several fronts concur-
rently:
• EPA and the state DEC have monitored ambient
air in the South Bronx to compare pollutant levels
with those in other areas of New York City where
asthma rates are lower. Pollutant levels were not
found to be higher in the South Bronx than other
parts of the city. However, the federal Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is
funding a state DOH study of ambient air quality
and asthma hospital admissions in the South Bronx
and northern Manhattan to look for any relation-
ship between asthma and ambient air quality in
these areas which, although geographically similar,
have different asthma rates.
* Since indoor air pollution has been widely
reported to contribute to asthma attacks, EPA has
awarded grants totaling $235,000 for investigatory
studies on indoor air pollutants and outreach and
training on asthma management and control of
potential asthma triggers in the home. Rutgers
University, the American Lung Association, the
state DOH, and Columbia University are grant
recipients.
• The city DOH is conducting a $375,000 childhood
health promotion initiative in the South Bronx,
sponsoring free asthma clinics citywide and
training more than 100 school nurses to teach
children how to avoid asthma triggers and manage
their condition.
Education and community outreach are impor-
tant to ongoing work in the South Bronx. Under its
Community University Partnership environmental
justice grant program, EPA has awarded $375,000 to
the Hostos College Center for a Sustainable Urban
Environment to support development of a geo-
graphic information system (GIS) incorporating
regional environmental, health, and demographic
data to be shared with local hospitals, community
boards, and libraries. The grant also supported
public outreach seminars on environment and
health. EPA staff regularly exchange information
with Hunts Point community representatives and
attend monthly community board meetings. EPA
has established an information repository at the
Hunts Point Community Board 1 office.
EPA Project Coordinators; Leonard Grossman at 212 637-4153
or GROSSMAN.LENNY«EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail); Irene Purdy
at 212 637-4176 or PURDY.1RENE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-mail).
East St. Louis, Illinois:
The Gateway
Initiative
The Gateway Initiative is a commu-
nity-based effort focusing on 18
communities in metropolitan East St.
Louis, many of which have environ-
mental justice problems. More than
70 industrial facilities, including oil
refineries, chemical companies, a
steel mill, a commercial hazardous
waste incinerator, five active or
closed hazardous waste landfills, and
copper, lead, and zinc smelters lie in
this 60-square mile area on the
eastern flood plain of the Mississippi
River. The metropolitan area does
not meet health-related air quality
standards for ozone and lead;
ambient air concentrations for
cadmium are among the highest in
the country. In addition, citizens of
underserved communities in metro-
politan East Louis have deep con-
cerns about the prevalence of illegal
dumping, open burning, abandoned
and deteriorating houses, and
persistent flooding.
The goals of the Gateway Initiative
are to improve the quality of life and
protect the natural resources of these
communities while building sustain-
22
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
able public involvement in local
environmental issues. EPA is
furthering these goals by building
partnerships with other agencies, by
awarding grants to develop environ-
mental stewardship at the local
level, and by offering education and
opportunities for increased public
involvement. In addition to EPA,
Gateway Initiative partners include
the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Illinois EPA,
the Illinois Department of Public
Health, the University of Illinois,
several local agencies, and numer-
ous neighborhood organizations. In
fiscal year 1996, more than $300,000
in grants supported environmental
activities by local groups such as
New Spirit Neighborhood Organiza-
tion, Neighbors United for Progress,
Project HOPE, Stop Pollution in
Illinois, Clean Sites, East St. Louis
Community Action Network, the
American Lung Association, and the
St. Clair Sheriff's Department.
Metropolitan East St. Louis has
made great strides through leverag-
ing of resources. The following
progress can be attributed to the
synergy and partnerships generated
by the Gateway Initiative:
• More than 17,000 illegally dumped
tires from at least five communities
have been collected and shredded for
use as fuel supplement by local
plants.
• Twenty of the 1,800 abandoned
and derelict structures in East St.
Louis have been demolished, funded
by a $20,000 donation from
Monsanto to a neighborhood organi-
zation. Demolition of 66 more
structures was sped up significantly
as a result of involvement by East St.
Louis Community Action Network,
an EPA grantee.
• Community gardens have been
sampled for heavy metals of concern
to the community (lead, cadmium,
arsenic). Most came up clean.
Information on ways to reduce
exposure to these metals in gardens
with elevated levels has been shared
with neighborhood groups.
• Site assessment work was done at
20 abandoned sites in East St. Louis
at the request of the community. The
majority do not appear to be con-
taminated. However, one—-an old
lead smelter—warranted off-site
sampling. The results of the site
assessments and sampling have been
made available to the economic
redevelopment office in East St.
Louis and will be communicated to
the general public in a newsletter this
summer.
• Grants and training initiatives
have been developed for the purpose
of capacity-building (see Section 3) in
East Louis citizens. Grant-sponsored
projects include lead-abatement
training provided by St. Louis
University to nonprofit organizations
like Habitat for Humanity, a new
environmental crimes unit in the
County Sheriff's Office, and a grants-
writing workshop held in summer
1996 for community leaders.
EPA Region 5 contact: Karen Lumino,
Gateway Initiative Team Manager, at 312
886-0981 or
LUMINO.KAREN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.
Illegally
dumped tires in
East St. Louis
communities
have been
collected and
shredded for
use as a fuel
supplement by
local plants.
Karen Lumino photo,
EPA.
23
-------
INTEGRATING EPA PROGRAM EFFORTS THROUGH CBEP
Pulling Together in
Henryetta, Oklahoma
Although it has had its share of
environmental and economic set-
backs, Henryetta, Oklahoma—
located about 60 miles south of Tulsa
and 80 miles east of Oklahoma
City—is actively building its own
sustainable future. In, doing so, this
municipality of 6,200 has sought and
received help from EPA and other
federal and state agencies, which
have formed a working partnership
to help Henryetta help itself.
From 1916 to 1968, Eagle-Picher
Mining and Smelting, Inc. operated a
lead and zinc smelter on 70 acres of
land on the northeast side of
Henryetta. Over SQ-plus years,
smelter emissions contaminated the
surrounding area with lead and other
metals. Local people unknowingly
spread the contamination by using
spoils piles, which had been left at
the abandoned site, for fill dirt in
construction projects, such as
driveways, in Henryetta and nearby
Dewar. When Eagle-Picher closed
the facility in 1968, it donated the 70
acres to Henryetta for industrial
development. However, it turned
out that after several decades,
smelter operations had left an
environmental legacy that hindered
commercial redevelopment.
Faced with significant environmen-
tal problems/diminished economic
prospects, and limited local financial
and technical resources, community
officials sought aid from the Okla-
homa Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) and, through DEQ,
from EPA's Region 6 (Dallas) office.
A once-adversarial relationship with
government officials (over wastewa-
ter compliance problems) was
replaced by a cooperative partner-
ship able to bring leveraged re-
sources to bear on the contamination.
The Eagle Picher site is not a full-
scale "Superfund site" (an aban-
doned hazardous waste site that
poses an imminent and substantial
threat to public health and the
environment, as specified under the
Comprehensive Emergency Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability
Act), However, when soil contami-
nation by heavy metals (arsenic,
cadmium, lead, and zinc) was
confirmed by laboratory analyses,
the site did qualify for emergency
Henastta
approach. In November 1995,
technical experts began analyzing all
aspects of the environmental infra-
structure, identifying specific
problems, and setting priorities for
action. In short, they concluded that
existing infrastructure deficiencies
(not just contamination at the Eagle-
Picher site) could undermine future
development. As the wider prob-
lems of the community came into
perspective, the working partnership
expanded to include not only
Henryetta officials, DEQ, and EPA,
but also the Oklahoma Water Re-
Daily Free-Lance
Agencies Join to Help Henryetta
Participants Pleased with Accomplishments
"
removal and remediation assistance
by EPA. In August 1995, EPA,
working with the state DEQ, con-
ducted preliminary site assessment
activities on the former Eagle-Picher
site and the cleanup phase of the
work was kicked off with a public
ceremony on September 18,1996.
EPA's sponsorship of the cleanup
through its Superfund program has
been augmented by state and local
funds—and a local citizen's donation
of soil cap material needed for the
site once cleanup is complete.
But the Eagle-Picher site cleanup is
not the whole story. While work at
the former smelter site was still at the
assessment stage, the community-
based collaborations prompted the
partnership to assess overall environ-
mental conditions in Henryetta,
taking a holistic, community-based
sources Board, the University of
Oklahoma, the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, the Natural Resource Conser-
vation Service, a nonprofit organi-
zation called Community Re-
sources Group, Henryetta city
officials, local citizens, Okmulgee
County officials, and others.
Rather than setting their sights
on the minimum requirements to
meet baseline environmental
standards, the Henryetta partners
came up with a vision: to achieve
the highest level of public health
protection practically available for the
community. Goals have been set and
actions taken on several fronts;
drinking water treatment and
distribution, sewage collection and
treatment, sewage sludge disposal
(some of which will be beneficially
disposed of at the former smelter
24
-------
site), garbage collection, recycling,
and public education. Along with
on-site technical assistance, EPA has
provided $20,000 and D1Q $42,000 to
support Hemyetta's community-
based projects.
Some economic gains have already
accrued from actions taken to correct
environmental problems. For
example, to correct "water hammer"
effects (uneven water pressure that
results in a hammering effect and
leaks that contaminate the water
supply) and problems with broken
water lines in the community's
drinking water distribution system,
EPA provided diagnostic engineering
assistance, and Henryetta personnel
received technical assistance and
training on contract with the Okla-
homa Rural Water Association. As a
result, an estimated $30,000 was
saved over an eight-month period. If
preliminary stream flow modeling
results are on target, a $2 million
expenditure to upgrade Henryetta's
existing wastewater treatment
system can be avoided, thanks to a
community-action project: clearing
debris from nearby Coal Creek.
Jane Metcalfe photo, EPA.
As Henryetta Mayor Wayne
Francis has testified, "our regulators
have rolled up their sleeves and
actually joined with us to become
part of the solution."
EPA Region 6 contacts: Shirley Bruce at 214
665-6547 or
BRUCE.SHIRLEY®EPAMAIL.EPA.COV or
CINDY WOLFE AT 214 665-7291 or
WOLFE.CINDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.
25
-------
INTEGRATING EPA PROGRAM THROUGH CBEP
Partnership for Urban Restoration
in Providence, Rhode Island
The Woonasquatucket River, which
winds through Providence, Rhode
Island, once provided power and all-
too-convenient waste disposal to
19th- century textile mills, which
dammed its waters at several sites
upstream. The mills are now closed
and abandoned, and many former
mill and other industrial sites are so-
called "Brownfields." Whether
contaminated or just suspected of
contamination, Brownfield sites
present obstacles to economic revital-
ization because environmental risk
and liability concerns deter develop-
ers who might renovate these sites
for beneficial uses. The Woonasqua-
tucket, having served for decades as
an industrial workhorse, still fails to
meet the "fishable, swimmable, drink -
able" criteria of the Clean Water Act.
Since 1995, EPA's Region 1 (New
England) office has been working
with other agencies and organiza-
tions to revitalize Providence and
help citizens reclaim their communi-
ties and their river. EPA is focusing
its technical resources on problem
areas that could otherwise become
obstacles to progress in ongoing
initiatives. For example, EPA is
working with the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental
Management to revitalize two
Brownfield sites that stand in the
path of the Woonasquatucket River
Greenway Project, The purpose of
the greenway project is to restore the
hidden beauty of the river and
revitalize the river corridor, as a
catalyst for promoting growth and
stability in local neighborhoods.
In addition to Brownfields efforts,
EPA Region 1 is working in the
Providence metropolitan area as part
of its Urban Environmental Initiative
(UEI), an umbrella project focusing
on inner-city communities in Provi-
dence and two other New England
cities (Boston, Massachusetts, and
26
Hartford, Connecticut). Through
environmental data-gathering and
site-specific technical assistance, UEI
works to promote "urban areas where
rich and poor alike share in the benefits
of a healthy environment and a strong
local economy. In these urban areas, the
natural balance of all living things is not
threatened and urban residents are
committed to the prevention of pollution
at work, home, and play" (EPA vision
statement for UEI/Providence).
When completed, the greenway
project will significantly increase
access to the river. Part of the vision
EPA shares with the greater Provi-
dence community is to make the
Woonasquatucket River fishable and
swimmable, as mandated by the
Clean Water Act. In the meantime,
EPA and its partners are working to
identify contaminants in fish from
the river, to educate citizens concern-
ing EPA scientists' findings from fish
tissue sampling and analyses, and to
identify potential sources of contami-
nation. Since contaminants tend to
concentrate in fish through
bioaccumulation, fish tissue analyses
provide an important indicator of
river health as well as a basis for
estimating potential dietary risks to
subsistence consumers of fish from
the river.
A risk-screen analysis done by EPA
scientists indicated that daily
consumption of 70 grams or more of
sunfish and/or eels could result in an
elevated cancer risk, due to dioxins
and PCBs. The Rhode1 Island Depart-
ment of Health (DOH| therefore
advised a "catch-and-release" policy
for fish caught from the
Woonasquatucket River. On October
16,1996, EPA and the state DOH
issued a joint press release announc-
ing the catch-and-release policy and
explaining the findings from the fish
tissue analyses. Several of EPA's local
partners are conducting public
outreach concerning the advisory.
Effective risk communication is
particularly important in order to
dissuade citizens from consuming
fish caught from the river, without
unduly alarming the public and
discouraging further investment in
revitalization efforts. And since the
affected community is multilingual,
outreach must be conducted in at
least three languages (Spanish,
Cambodian, and English).
Project contact: Indira Balkissoon at 617
565-9123 (phone) or
BALKISSOON.INDIRA@EPAMAILEPA.GOV
(e-mail).
-------
SECTIONS
Helping Others Protect Local Environments
Our vision is ... environmental programs and resources focused and coordinated to
achieve positive environmental results in human and natural communities. The
enthusiasm of citizens for protecting community health and natural places will provide
the energy and commitment necessary to foster successful collaborative efforts with
stakeholders.
EPA Region 4 CBEP Mission Statement
August 1996
meeting
of Cahaba
River Basin
stakeholders
in Alabama.
Dr. Mindi La/or
appears in the
foreground.
Grace Deatrick photo,
EPA Region 4.
One of the basic components of Com-
munity-Based Environmental Protec-
tion (CBEP) is "capacity-building" in
the sense of providing local stakeholders with
tools, information, and technical assistance to
equip them to become active partners or leaders
in community-based efforts. As it would be
impractical for EPA to work directly in all the
nation's communities, the Agency can best
promote CBEP in the majority of communities
by providing states, local governments, private
businesses, and the general public with re-
sources needed for sustainable, democratic
planning and decision making at the local level.
Strong science and information management
are essential for environmental decision-making
in any context, and this holds true for CBEP
efforts at every stage. At early visioning and
goal-setting stages, for example, environmental
data are needed to assess existing risks and
environmental trends and conditions. Scientifi-
cally based environmental indicators are also
key tools for community trends analyses. As
communities work toward CBEP goals, environ-
mental monitoring information is needed to
track progress toward those goals. Through
research and development, EPA is continuing to
build the information and technology base
available to support CBEP (see box).
Science Support for
CBEP—Strategic
R&D Goals
EPA's Office of Research and
Development has adopted the
following science support goals
for building EPA's own CBEP
capacity and that of its partners:
* Increased access to, and
integration of, spatially related
data (data sorted by geographic
area)
• Indicator development for
human health and environmen-
tal quality
» Promotion of innovative
technologies for risk manage-
ment
• Development of methods for
factoring costs and social issues
into local environmental
management decisions
* Development of skilled
methods to communicate the
risks, costs, and benefits of
environmental management
options to local officials and
their constituencies.
27
-------
"Spatially related" data, specifically cited as
an R&D building block to support CBEP, can
include everything from descriptions and
locations of regulated facilities in a given area,
the regulatory compliance histories of those
facilities, and information on chemicals stored
and released in communities, to inventories of
natural resources and environmentally vulner-
able sites in a given area, and demographic and
economic profiles of communities.
In a given community, the kinds of spatially
related data needed for informed planning and
decision making depend on local conditions and
resources. Where essential data are inad-
equate, EPA may join forces with other
agencies and organizations to develop or
upgrade a specialized database. One example
of this kind of technical capacity-building
partnership is the collaboration that resulted
in the recently completed Inventory of
Critical Biological Resources for the South
Platte River Watershed—where accurate
biodiversity data are needed for informed
decision making in the face of often conflict-
ing proposals for land and water uses. (See
box.)
South Platte River
Watershed—
Inventory of Critical
Biological Resources
In early 1994, EPA's Region 8
(Denver) office joined in a working
partnership with The Nature
Conservancy, the Natural Heritage
Programs of Colorado, Wyoming,
and Nebraska, and the Denver
Water Board to update and synthe-
size information on the biological
resources of the South Platte River
Watershed, where there is rich
biodiversity as well as a number of
threatened and endangered species.
The project had three major phases:
• Phase 1: Locate, compile, and eval-
uate existing data on threatened and
endangered species, species that are
candidates for threatened or endan-
gered status under the Endangered
Species Act, species otherwise of
concern, critical and essential
habitats, and/or "Potential Conser-
vation Sites" (areas within which
conservation attention is needed)
under the Natural Heritage Pro-
gram. Rank the sites according to
their global biodiversity signifi-
cance. Evaluate sources of data
according to their usefulness for
identifying locations of these
elements on the landscape.
• Phase 2: Digitize the information
collected in Phase 1, and enter it into
The Nature Conservancy's regional
Geographic Information System
(GIS) systems.
• Phase 3: Verify and assess data
quality through on-site evaluation
("ground-truthing").
The final inventory report, pub-
lished June 1996, catalogues occur-
rences of "elements of biological
diversity" (Natural Heritage
methodology units designating
plants, animals, and ecological
communities of concern) of the
following kinds: fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, mammals, inverte-
brates, plants, and ecological
communities. At the end of the
project, 490 Potential Conservation
Sites—sites encompassing ecologi-
cal processes that support specific
biodiversity elements—were
documented in the South Platte
Watershed. ,
The inventory results are being
made widely available to the public
and are expected to aid decision
making under programs and
initiatives including the following:
county and other local planning;
community involvement in land
and water use decisions; Denver
Water Board and Water Conserva-
tion District watershed manage-
ment programs; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service listed species
protection programs; the Western
Governors' Association Great
Plains Initiative; and The Nature
Conservancy's bioreserve and
natural heritage inventory pro-
grams.
EPA Region 8 contact: Karen Hamilton
at 303 312-6236 or
HAMILTON.KAREN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
(e-mail).
Biodiversity Significance Ranks
Outstanding
Very High
High
Moderate
General Bio. Interest
28
-------
Communication Networks—
Sharing Data, Tools, and
Lessons Learned
To date, 26 years of EPA research and informa-
tion collection have resulted in a considerable
amount of environmental quality data. Agency
efforts to understand and use this data have
yielded numerous mapping, modeling, and
other analytic tools which, in addition to assist-
ing national regulatory efforts, can facilitate
informed local decision-making. Technological
advances such as the Internet have recently
made it possible to share data and tools with
anyone who has access to a computer,
EPA programs and regional offices will
continue to provide information directly to our
many customers—members of the general
public, the regulated communities, and other
governmental bodies. In addition to more
traditional printed publications, such as this
report, the Agency is tapping into the tremen-
dous potential of Internet technologies to
disseminate information via the World Wide
Web. For example:
• Since 1996, a centralized CBEP Internet Home
Page has been up and running, with easy links to
environmental tools and geographic informa-
tion, and with directories of other federal
resources. Data on "hits" to the CBEP Home
Page indicate that nearly 50 percent of visitors
are from commercial, educational, or nonprofit
organizations. To access EPA's CBEP Home
Page:
http: / /www.epa.gov/ecocommunity
* In addition, several EPA regional offices have
developed CBEP Home Pages tailored to
particular regions of the country: Regions 4
(Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Through the Internet, even the
community's youngest stakeholders
can gain access to environmental data
and tools,
Steve Otlaney photo, EPA.
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and
Mississippi), 5 (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota), 6 (New Mexico,
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana), and
8 (Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, North
Dakota, and South Dakota). These EPA Regional
CBEP Home Pages are accessible from EPA
Headquarters' CBEP Home Page at the Internet
address cited above.
* EPA's New England Regional Office (Region
1) has established a Listserver, which enables
school teachers to exchange information about
local environmental protection.
• Surplus EPA computers are being provided to
community groups needing Internet connections
to access environmental databases and libraries.
* Public comments on EPA actions can now be
submitted to the Agency via e-mail.
To think through environmental management
options, local decision-makers and other con-
cerned community members require easy access
to environmental data. In addition, they need to
be able to compare and integrate different kinds
of data in order to get a holistic picture of trends
and problems in their community EPA is
making a concerted effort to provide convenient
access to the many kinds of information needed
by communities, as well as tools to help them
use the data in a problem-solving context.
29
-------
A consolidated Storefront of Community Envi-
ronmental Tools is now available online. (See
opposite page.) This diverse collection of tools
can be accessed through the EPA Headquarters
CBEP Home Page (click on Integrated Ap-
proaches, and then on A Collection of CBEP
Tools). Alternatively, to reach the storefront
directly:
http://www.epa.gov/ecosystems/storefront/
Following are some of the tools available
through the Storefront:
• Envirofacts—a national information system that
provides an integrated single point of access to
data extracted from five major EPA programs:
Air, Water, Superfund, Hazardous Waste, and
Toxic Chemicals. It contains data, updated
monthly, that is available under the Freedom of
Information Act. This information includes:
> Data on airborne pollution in the United
States and various World Health Organiza
tion (WHO) member countries
EPA's online
Envirofacts
system includes
information on
the status and
location of
hazardous waste
sites.
EPA Region 2 photo.
Pesticide monitoring information from
states and other federal agencies is^
available through EPA's online
Storefront of Community
Environmental Tools.
Charles O'Rear photo, USDA.
> Water-discharge permit data for more than
75,000 facilities nationwide
> Information on hazardous waste site
assessments and remediation from 1983 to
the present(Superfund data)
> Tracking information concerning handlers
of hazardous waste, regulatory compliance,
and cleanup activities under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
> Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data:
Annual information about manufacturers'
releases and transfers of more than 300
toxic chemicals and compounds to the
environment.
• Surf Your Watershed—an online service to help users
locate, use, and share environmental information on
their watersheds or communities. To access their
watershed, users must enter a postal code or an 8-digit
U.S. Geologic Service hydrologic code. To access Surf
Your Watershed directly:
http://www.epa.gov/surf
• Build Your Own Map—a simple-to-use Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) application (entitled
SITEINFO) which can create and map displays of
information reports of EPA management concerns,
regulated sources, and ecosystem information for
areas surrounding any given location in the United
States. To get started, users must provide a latitude/
longitude coordinate within the lower 48 states. Users
can search for a latitude/longitude coordinate for an
EPA facility by clicking on Envirofacts Form.
• Databases—several data bases that maybe relevant
to community self-assessments. Examples include:
> Fish consumption advisories for the 50
states, the District of Columbia, and four
U.S. territories
> "Green Book" data—information on areas
of the country where air pollution levels
persistently exceed the national ambient
air quality standards for ozone, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
particulates, and lead
> Pesticide monitoring information from
states and other federal agencies.
30
-------
Storefront of Community
Environmental Tools
Tools Home Page O Welcome O What's New O Planning Guides O Maps and Databases O Protecting Resources O
Specific Issues Q Partnerships and Financial Resources Q Additional EPA Resources O Comments O EPA Home Page
Original graphic courtesy ofJimtown copyright
Welcome to EPA's collection of community-based environmental protection tools! The information on
this web site is designed to introduce you to a set of EPA environmental tools that will help you tailor
solutions that fit your community's needs. Included in this tool kit are Internet resources containing
guidance documents, databases, mapping tools, hot lines, and fact sheets. Many of these resources are
already available on the EPA home page; however this tool kit provides easy access to a number of tools
targeted specifically at communities.
We realize that each community is unique, thus, you, and those you are working with, are in the best
position to find the solutions that are the right fit. The information on this page has been included with
that in mind. By clicking on the categories below, you can get general and technical information. Please
be sure to let us know what you think about this site so we can continue to improve it.
EPA's Storefront of community environmental tools provides links to resources in the following broad
areas:
Comprehensive guides to community planning and management
Maps, databases and other tools
Protecting and restoring ecological resources
Tools and information to help you with specific environmental issues
Building partnerships to support your efforts
Additional EPA Resources
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
What's new!
Tools Home Page Q Welcome Q What's New Q Planning Guides O Maps and Databases Q
Protecting Resources O Specific Issues Q Partnerships and Financial Resources Q Additional EPA
Resources O Comments O EPA Home Page
June 26, 1997
http://www. epa.gov/ecosystems/storefront/welcome. htm
31
-------
Information sharing between government
agencies, nonprofit associations, and others has
proved to be an extremely valuable tool. The
Great Plains Project is an example of a major
capacity-building initiative that has been an
effective catalyst to community-based efforts in
the Great Plains area—a vast ecosystem that
encompasses parts of 13 states, three Canadian
provinces, and portions of Mexico, as well as
lands under the jurisdiction of more than 60
Native American tribes. (See box below.)
The Great Plains
International Data
Network
The Great Plains ecosystem in
North America was once the
largest grassland on Earth,
covering more than a million
square miles. The ecosystem as a
whole is under pressure from
factors including population
stresses and urban and rural land
use practices. Agricultural and
other pressures have given rise to
environmental concerns that
include water quality and quan-
tity issues, public health concerns,
and the preservation of wetlands
and wildlife habitat.
Rather than taking a strictly
traditional regulatory approach to
Great Plains environmental
problems, EPA has chosen a more
innovative role that includes
engendering partnerships and
creative sharing of tools and
information. The stated mission
of the Great Plains Partnership is
"to empower the people of the
Great Plains to define and create
their own generationally sustain-
able future."
The Great Plains Partnership—a
coalition of federal, state, and
local government agencies,
together with nonprofit organiza-
tions and private-sector partici-
pants—focuses primarily on
capacity building and information-
sharing. EPA's role in the partner-
ship has included providing
funding for The Nature Conser-
vancy to undertake a rigorous
program to identify species and
habitats at risk and thereby help
set priorities for the place-based
work of the Great Plains Program.
The project has identified a
number of areas of high priority
for protection, enhancement, or
preservation based on the existing
quality of habitats and the risk
factors threatening particular
habitats. The data generated by
The Nature Conservancy will be
made available through TNC's
home page and through the Great
Plains International Data Network
(GPIDN), accessible on the World
Wide Web.
A number of place-based
initiatives in the Great Plains area
have ties to the Great Plains
Partnership. These include
wetlands management in
Nebraska's Rainwater Basin, which
is a crucial staging area for more
than 6 million ducks and geese
annually; the work of the Belle
Fourche River Partnership in
Wyoming, South Dakota, and
Montana; conservation efforts in
the biodiversity-rich Texas Great
Plains vicinity; the Northern
Tallgrass Prairie Habitat Preserva-
tion Project in Iowa and Minne-
sota; coalition work to preserve
globally unique natural communi-
ties in Nebraska's Sandhills; and
U.S.-Canadian preservations
efforts in the Glacial Lake Agassiz
Interbeach Areain Minnesota,
North Dakota, and Manitoba,
Canada.
For more information about the
Great Plains Project (current status
and future directions), readers
should consult the Great Plains
International Data Network, which
is online at:
http://www.epa.gov/GPIDN
32
-------
Because watershed management has a longer
track record of experience at EPA than other forms
of community-based work, formulations of "lessons
learned" have come first from EPA's experience
with the watershed approach, (See box.)
Top 10 Watershed
Lessons Learned
1. Clear Visions, Goals, and
Targets Must Reflect Consensus.
Visions and goals are powerful
mechanisms to motivate and guide
action, as demonstrated by the 40-
percent nutrient reduction goal for
the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
The power of the 40-percent goal
stems from its being scientifically
sound and easily understandable.
Also, it has the buy-in of key
community players, such as local
government officials who guide
land-use decisions.
2, Good Leaders Empower.
Leaders who can empower others
are key to successful watershed
initiatives. Dennis Bowker of the
Napa Valley Resource Conservation
District sees leadership as being
catalyzed and driven by ideas,
rather than by individuals. Ideas,
embraced by the community, are
not personality-dependent and do
not collapse with the departure of
an individual.
3. Having a Full-time Coordinator
at the Watershed Level Is Ideal. A
locally based person can establish
trust with key constituencies and
maintain momentum; without a
coordinator, some watershed
groups have not been able to
maintain momentum. In
Louisiana's Tensas River Water-
shed, Mike Adcock—full-time
coordinator for over four years—
has been critical in securing
farmers' trust and in restoring
many wetlands.
4. Environmental, Economic, and
Social Needs are Compatible. The
Nashua River watershed in
Massachusetts, for example, is
integrating these needs through
initiatives such as incentives to
farmers, better management of
forests, and "ecotourism."
5. Focus and Implement the Plan.
Watershed management plans are
successful only if they are imple-
mented. Experience shows that
successful plans have a clear focus,
enjoy community support, are
based in science, and reflect clear
priorities,
6. Partnerships Can Be Powerful.
A key to successful partnerships is
giving credit where appropriate
and tapping into each others'
strengths. The Know Your Watershed
group in West Lafayette, Indiana,
nurtures such partnerships. There
are now more than 1,000 water-
shed partnerships nationally.
7. Good Tools Are Available. Of
the many excellent CBEP tools
available, one particularly useful
one for municipal officials is the
Project NEMO CIS-based tool,
which offers build-out scenarios
for projecting the amount of
impervious surface in a watershed
over time—a key indicator of
watershed health.
8. Measure, Communicate, and
Account for Progress, As a
useful aid, the Tennessee Valley
Authority has developed
"pocket-sized" watershed maps
that depict the relative health of
water bodies, indicating "good",
"fair", and "poor" conditions.
9. Education and Involvement
Drives Action. The Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
in Louisiana, for example, has
found that taking people to visit
the resource—to experience it
first hand—often prompts them
to active involvement.
10. Build on Small Successes.
For example, in Morro Bay,
California, the California Coastal
Conservancy started small by
talking to local residents and
focusing only on sedimentation
issues. Over time, the Conser-
vancy expanded involvement
and the range of issues ad-
dressed, Morro Bay is now a
National Estuary Program, due
in part to this hard work.
For more detail concerning
watershed lessons:
http: /1'www.epa.gov/
OWOW/watershed/lessons/
wll.htm
33
-------
EPA programs are continuing to work to
develop tools to help communities make in-
formed local decisions and carry out protection
strategies. In addition to environmental data
and mapping resources, tools are needed to help
communities set goals and priorities. These
include: facilitating stakeholder involvement
processes; assessing economic and socio-cultural
conditions; planning environmental protection
opportunities; and offering methods for priori-
tizing activities. One such capacity-
building tool, soon to be made available online,
is EPA's Green Communities Assistance Kit. (See
box.)
EPA's Green
Communities
Assistance Kit
When it becomes publicly avail-
able in summer 1997, EPA's Green
Communities Assistance Kit will
help local communities ask the
right questions at the right time
during five progressive stages of a
do-it-yourself integrated commu-
nity-planning process. The
program has been developed by
EPA's Region 3 (Philadelphia)
office and is being field-tested in
selected communities to ensure its
compatibility with local needs.
The first stage of this five-stage
process, for example, is a Commu-
nity or watershed self-assessment
that centers around the question,
"Where Are We Now?"
Why spend time on this ques-
tion? There are several reasons.
Answering the "Where Are We
Now?" question requires taking
stock of a community's assets—
social, economic, and environmen-
tal. "Let's see what is working,
what is not working, what is
highly valued, and what needs
improvement." A basic checklist
is provided for conducting a
community self-assessment,
including, among other things:
identifying community values,
delineating the boundaries of the
community planning area,
compiling an inventory of natural
and human-made features
(including sensitive areas and
cultural resources), determining
problem areas and opportunities,
locating the "sphere of influence"
of problem areas, evaluating the
effectiveness of facilities and
infrastructure, making linkages
between economics and the
environment, and demonstrating
land use trends. The outcome of
the self-assessment is a community
profile.
By developing a detailed commu-
nity profile, a community can better
position itself to set priorities based
on risk to the very attributes that
provide a unique sense of place and
make the community livable. In
addition, a good inventory and
assessment can help provide a basis
for answering the questions that
drive the next stages of the commu-
nity-planning process. Much as the
"Where Are We Now?" question
results in a community profile, the
succeeding questions in the series
have the outcomes listed below:
Where Are We Going?
—TrendsAnalysis
Where Do We Want to Be?
—Vision Statement
How Do We Get There?
—Action Plan
Let's Go! —Implementing the Plan
Contact: Susan McDowell, EPA Region 3,
at 215 566-2739 or
MCDOWELL.SUSAN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
(e-mail).
34
-------
Providing Training and
Technical Assistance
EPA has much to offer in terms of technical training.
EPA staff have expertise in traditional scientific
fields—e.g., water quality assessment, risk assess-
ment, and substance toxicity analysis. In addition,
the Agency's staff and contractors have other skills
needed in decision-making—e.g., socio-cultural
analysis, process management, group facilitation.
To share CBEP-related expertise, EPA offers training
to community partners, at low or no cost, as a
catalyst for more complete, rigorous, and defensible
local decisions.
Gateway:
East St. Louis, Illinois
EPA's place-based work in the
environmental justice communities
of East St. Louis is described in
Section 2. In conjunction with this
place-based work through partner-
ships, a major focus of EPA's efforts
in East St. Louis has been to em-
power individual members of the
community to steward environmen-
tal improvements. This is largely
accomplished through a series of
educational opportunities and public
involvement in decision-making.
The Citizens Environmental Academy
is a six-session seminar series for the
general public on environmental
legislation, environmental issues,
and the public participation process.
As a result of information taught in
this class, residents understood their
rights to ensure that soil tests were
completed at the site of an aban-
doned gas station before plans
proceeded to develop the site into a
city park and community garden.
Local Law Enforcement Officers from
15 agencies in the Gateway partici-
pated in EPA-sponsored environ-
mental issues such as illegal dump-
ing and open burning. The St. Clair
County Shriff's Department used an
EPA grant to establish an environ-
mental crimes unit. This unit
furthers the training by focusing on
educating the public about illegal,
but common activities.
The New England
Environmental
Assistance Team
EPA's New England Regional Office
offers a series of workshops to
provide local government officials
with an array of information about
environmental issues. In the first year
the series was offered, approximately
400 town managers, selectmen, code
enforcement officers, and water
and wastewater treatment
operators attended. The work-
shops assist officials whose
responsibilities include ensuring
compliance with environmental
laws. The actual topics ad-
dressed are diverse, such as
disposal of construction and
demolition debris, shore land
zoning, sewage transport and
disposal, and composting.
At workshops
offered by EPA's
Region 1 (New
England) office,
local government
officials acquired a
working knowledge
of environmental
requirements
affecting
wastewater
treatment and other
environmental
issues that concern
communities
EPA photo.
35
-------
Grants and other Financial
Resources
EPA financial resources are catalysts for state and
local environmental protection efforts. EPA
currently manages a wide array of program
grants which can be awarded to states or com-
munity groups. Following are examples of
programs for which grants are available:
* Environmental Justice
• Pollution Prevention
• Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
• Superfund Technical Assistance
* Environmental Education
* Solid Waste Management Assistance
• Wetland Protection
• Water Quality Planning.
Eligible applicants for these grants vary, but
may include local governments, tribes, councils
of governments, research and educational
institutions, religious organizations, community
groups, and other nonprofit organizations. Grant
awards can range from $10,000 to as much as
$300,000 or more.
EPA Region 2
Community
Grants
Program
As part of IPA's ongoing
commitment to providing
environmental protection
resources to community
groups, EPA Region 2 estab-
lished a Community Grants
Program to coordinate the
different grant programs that
serve communities, and to
respond more effectively to the
needs of potential grant
applicants. The program has
prepared a single point of
reference fact sheet, which
outlines numerous community
grant programs sponsored by
EPA and identifies eligibility
criteria. This information has
already been distributed to
over 2,000 community groups.
EPA's Region 2 is now in the
process of developing an
information kit that will make
the grant application process
more user-friendly.
36
-------
Sustainable
Development
Challenge Grants
The Sustainable Development
Challenge Grant Program, a
result of the 1995 White House
report "Reinventing Environ-
mental Regulation," provides
funds to encourage people,
organizations, and businesses
to work together in their
communities to improve the
environment while maintaining
a healthy economy. The overall
concept is that federal grant
money can be used to "chal-
lenge" communities to work
together, putting different
interests aside, and plan
development in a way which
incorporates sustainable
environmental quality. This
program is designed to:
» Catalyze community-based
and regional actions that
promote sustainable develop-
ment, thereby improving
environmental quality and
economic prosperity while
providing equitable opportuni-
ties for health, safety, and well-
being
* Leverage significant private
and public sector investments
to enhance environmental
quality by enabling sustainable
• e
community efforts to continue
past initial EPA funding
* Build partnerships that
increase a community's long-
term capacity to protect the
environment through sustain-
able development.
In 1996, the "pilot" year of the
program, EPA supported 10
local sustainable development
projects. Pilot projects
include sustainable housing
and subdivision design in
the desert southwest,
sustainable forestry prac-
tices, community-supported
organic agriculture, develop-
ment of an eco-industrial
park, and an inner-city
building materials exchange.
In 1997 EPA may provide as
much as $5 million to
communities through this
program.
Jobs Through
Recycling Grant:
The Hualapai Tribe
/~
-------
Sometimes a strategically targeted grant, based on
knowledge of local circumstances and environmental
conditions, can bring a strong environmental return
for a relatively small monetary investment in CBEP.
The case of Tassel Creek in the Olympic Peninsula,
where an EPA grant was critical to the timely restora-
tion of salmon spawning habitat, is an example.
EPA Regional Offices and the CBEP Home Page
can provide detailed information about various
community grants, who are eligible to apply, how
to apply, and by when:
http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity
Targeted Grant Helps
Remove Barrier to
Salmon Habitat
As people of the Quileute Tribe
have known for many genera-
tions, Tassel Creek, an important
tributary to the Sol Due River in
Washington's Olympic Peninsula,
is a historically rich spawning
habitat for anadromous salmon
including fall Chinook, fall coho,
and winter steelhead, and for
cutthroat trout. Today the
Quileute work in partnership with
other stakeholders to protect this
valuable watershed and its
resources. Other members of the
partnership include the Washing-
ton Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Clallam County, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service,
the U.S. Forest Service, and EPA.
The partnership recently
conducted a basin-scale watershed
analysis, under the rubric of the
Northwest Forest Plan, and
developed a Sol Due Basin
Restoration Strategy which
identified several high-priority
projects for restoring the water-
shed. One recommendation was
to remove a barrier to an esti-
mated three miles of historically
excellent fish habitat upstream in
Tassel Creek. According to
information provided by the
Quileute tribe, a culvert on the
Whitcomb-Dimmell Road was
blocking salmon migration to the
habitat. Access was partially
blocked for adult salmon, and
juvenile salmon migration was
blocked entirely.
The cost of replacing the culvert
with one that would not block
salmon migration, aligning the
road as necessary, reseeding and
replanting the riparian area, and
completing other related tasks was
estimated at roughly $160,000. Of
this, approximately $25,000 came
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service "Jobs in the Woods" fund;
$38,000 from the North Pacific
Regional Fisheries Enhancement
group; $50,000 from the Clallam
County Roads fund, and another
$20,000 from Clallam County's
general fund. As it turned out,
there was a shortfall of nearly
$30,000, which could have delayed
completion of the project, which
began in August 1996, for at least
a year. EPA was able to help out
by providing a grant for $30,000
at a critical time. As a result,
construction of the culvert was
completed in October 1996.
The culvert replacement has
been a success. Clallam County
officials have publicly praised the
outcome of this coordinated
partnership effort. The salmon
will now be able to reclaim their
previous habitat in Tassel Creek.
The Quileute Tribe will continue
to monitor the creek and keep
records on coho and steelhead
spawning and springtime fish-
rearing activities.
EPA Region 10 contact: Ron Lee at 206
553-4013 (phone) or
LEE.RON@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-
mail).
U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife photo.
38
-------
Further Resources
Sometimes what the public needs is easy access to
someone at EPA who can answer specific inquiries.
To help meet this need, in every EPA Regional Office,
specific staff have been designated as CBEP coordina-
tors. The Agency's CBEP coordinators serve as central
contact points on questions concerning community-
based issues and initiatives. (See inside back cover for
names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of
EPA's CBEP coordinators.)
Another significant resource is the newly
establishedjoint Center for Sustainable Communities.
EPA has formed a partnership with the National
Association of Counties (NACo) and the U.S. Confer-
ence of Mayors (USCM) to support this Joint Center.
The Departments of Commerce and Energy help
support the partnership. The center fosters sustain-
able communities by providing local elected officials
with a network of experts on how to achieve and
sustain quality communities; by providing a central
place for community leaders to share successes and
challenges; and by providing resources for support-
ing plans and actions that exemplify sustainable
communities. Q
Joint Center for
Sustainable Communities—
Support Services Offered
Following are some of the community
support services available from the new
Joint Center:
• Regional workshops, focus groups,
seminars, and national meetings
• Newsletters, electronic bulletin boards,
and other communication tools
• Demonstration projects in targeted
communities
• Ongoing evaluation of the Joint Center
and its tools and support.
Contacts: Joint Center codirectors Carol Everett at
202 861-6773 (phone) or CEVER78204@AOL.COM
(e-mail) and Nick Keller at 202 942-4224 (phone) or
NKELLER@NACO.ORG (e-mail).
39
-------
SECTION 4
CBEP and Reinvention
Watershed
protection depends
on working
partnerships and
public
participation.
Storm drain
stenciling done by
volunteers in Anne
Arundel County,
Maryland.
Citizen Water quality
monitoring Program photo.
Through regulatory reinvention, a new
generation of environmental protection
is evolving at EPA, one that encourages
innovation at state and local levels and is more
"user-friendly" to Community-
Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) than a
strictly top-down regulatory system. EPA is
working to increase the flexibility of its pro-
grams and regional operations, so that complex,
place-specific problems can more easily be met
with appropriately tailored solutions.
To support CBEP, EPA has articulated the
following operational goals for its own pro-
grams and practices:
• Integrate the delivery of EPA's services and
programs on a geographic basis
• Address the often difficult and intractable
problems that EPA's regulatory approaches
cannot, by themselves, solve
• Create the flexibility in EPA programs that
allows the Agency to respond to the needs of
diverse ecosystems and human communities
and help communities reach informed decisions
that affect their environment and quality of life
* Ensure that EPA programs and activities
promote socially, economically, and ecologically
sustainable communities
• Increase EPA's efficiency and effectiveness by
building partnerships and leveraging resources,
and developing better ways of informing,
assisting, and involving the public.
Certain flagship initiatives presage the next
generation of environmental protection at EPA.
Among others, these include the watershed
approach as embodied in EPA's water programs'
new ways of doing business; newly flexible
Performance Partnerships between EPA and the
states; Project XL (which stands for excellence
and Leadership), a pilot program for testing
innovative environmental management strate-
gies; the Brownfields program, which offers
incentives for cleanup and redevelopment of
urban centers; Flexible Attainment Regions
(FARs), which encourage community-based
solutions to air quality problems; and Supple-
mental Environmental Projects for the benefit of
communities, negotiated as part of the terms
and conditions of enforcement actions. This
section highlights these six forward-looking
initiatives as indications of new directions at EPA.
Watershed Protection
EPA's national water program has examined its
work and already instituted a number of key
operational changes to support watershed-based
CBEP efforts. EPA's Office of Water has trans-
formed a range of water quality programs to
introduce the flexibility needed to encourage
watershed approaches. In this respect, EPA's
water programs, which are continuing to evolve
to facilitate watershed efforts, are in the van-
guard of community-based environmental
protection.
For example, the Agency's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pro-
gram, which is a permitting program under the
Clean Water Act, is actively coordinating NPDES
permits, water quality monitoring requirements,
and enforcement decisions on the basis of
watersheds. EPA's drinking water program is
helping thousands of communities take water-
shed approaches to protecting both ground- and
surface-water sources of drinking water. As
evidenced by New York City and other commu-
nities working to protect their drinking water
40
-------
sources, a watershed protection approach can
sometimes save communities millions and even
billions of dollars in drinking water treatment
costs. The Agency's wetlands protection pro-
gram is working with other federal agencies to
support techniques to preserve and protect
wetlands on a watershed basis. The water
quality standards program has formally started a
process to establish standards better tailored to
watersheds.
EPA is not alone in redesigning its programs
to encourage watershed management. In fact, a
majority of state water quality agencies are in the
process of developing or implementing water-
shed approach frameworks—a paradigm shift
that EPA supports through training and techni-
cal assistance.
Through its Office of Water, EPA offers
several forms of assistance to help water quality
managers and staff in both the public and
private sectors develop and implement water-
shed approaches. The four main areas covered
include watershed management training, statewide
watershed approach facilitation, watershed program
scoping, and technical analysis assistance. Training
and facilitation have been the services most
often requested. (See box.)
Watershed Support
From EPA
* Watershed management training is
offered through EPA's Watershed
Academy, which offers a set of core
courses and related reference materi-
als about basic watershed manage-
ment principles and techniques—as
well as contact information on more
specialized and advanced courses.
The core courses cover watershed
management fundamentals, water-
shed tools, the statewide approach to
watershed management, and an
executive overview course. In
addition to the courses offered by
EPA, dozens of watershed training
opportunities are available. To share
information about watershed
training courses offered by local,
state, and other federal agencies and
private organizations, EPA's Water-
shed Academy will continue to
THE WATERSHED ACADEMY
update its Catalogue of Watershed
Training Opportunities. For further
information on EPA's Watershed
Academy, call 202 260-7017. To access
the Watershed Academy's catalogue
on the Internet:
http: / /www.epa.gov/OWOW/
watershed/wacademy.htm
* EPA offers watershed approach
facilitation to states and tribes that
intend to reorient their water re-
sources management programs along
watershed lines. Facilitation in-
volves several onsite working
meetings with water program
managers and decision makers to
help them develop a transition plan,
schedule, and comprehensive
organizational framework based on
major river basins and their compo-
nent watersheds. For further
information on watershed facilita-
tion, scoping, or technical analysis,
call 202260-2656.
« EPA's Office of Water
offers assistance in
t watershed program scoping
and technical analysis to
'!."/.' states and tribes. Scoping
projects are preliminary to
full-scale reorientations
and involve one or two
meetings with managers to deter-
mine what form a watershed ap-
proach might take, the effort in-
volved, and the next steps needed.
Technical analysis projects focus on
scientific, economic, or programmatic
analysis as related to specific water-
shed management issues. For further
information, call 202 260-2656.
The following documents may be
useful. They are available on the
Internet at the following URL:
http: / /www.epa.gov/OWOW
Except for Watershed '96 Online
Highlights (available only at the
Internet address just given), printed
copies can be obtained by calling 513
489-8190 or by sending a written
request by fax to 513 489-8695 or by
mail to NCEPI, 11029 Kenwood
Road, Building 5, Cincinnati, OH
45242.
Watershed Protection: A Statewide
Approach (EPA 841-R-95-004)
Watershed Protection: A Project Focus
(EPA 841-R-95-003)
Watershed '96 Online Highlights
Why Watersheds? (EPA 800-F-96-001)
Watershed Tools Directory (EPA841-B-
95-005).
41
-------
Performance Partnerships
Since May 1995, when EPA reached an agree-
ment with state environmental commissioners
to establish Performance Partnership Agree-
ments (PPAs), these individualized agreements
with states have afforded a mechanism for
more flexible state-EPA working relationships.
Through PPAs and the added management
flexibility they offer, states can negotiate ways
to incorporate CBEP into their programs in
innovative ways.
Based on an assessment of environmental
trends in a particular state, EPA and the state
negotiate what and how environmental work
will be performed in the state. As a result of
this more cooperative approach, states can
target and leverage their resources for greater
environmental gains including gains achievable
through CBEP, than could be achieved under
the single-media approach to environmental
protection. States can also benefit from admin-
istrative savings by combining funding from
more than one environmental program and
streamlining associated administrative and
management tasks.
Traditionally, the federal-state process of
funding and addressing environmental and
public health concerns has been conducted
with a single-media focus. Under the tradi-
tional system, individual states have submitted
multiple annual work plans and received
multiple grants to support air, drinking water,
hazardous waste, and other pollution control
programs. The pre-PPA approach diverted
resources from on-the-ground improvement
efforts because of sometimes excessive invest-
ments in administrative management and
oversight. Performance partnerships are
designed to overcome this drawback by placing
much greater emphasis on environmental
results and achieving better coordination
between federal and state environmental
programs.
Performance partnerships begin with a
comprehensive assessment of a state's problems
and conditions to establish a stronger basis for
decision-making. In some cases, this step may
be the first such undertaking. In other cases,
states may use an existing assessment, such as
an annual State of the Environment report or a
comparative risk assessment. Based on this
information, the state proposes environmental
and public health objectives and an action plan
as a basis for negotiating an annual agreement
with EPA. At this point, if not before, the state
also conducts outreach efforts to ensure appro-
priate public understanding and support. EPA
and the state then begin negotiating the actual
agreement as well as grants arrangements.
Under a Performance Partnership Agreement,
states have the option of combining two or more
single-media grants into a single Performance
Partnership grant. They also have the option of
maintaining media-specific grants or requesting
a combination of both.
To date, more than two-thirds of states have
elected to negotiate performance partnerships
with EPA. Feedback from these states indicates
that the PPA process has resulted in indirect
benefits, such as better information on environ-
mental trends in the state and how their environ-
mental programs affect those trends, and en-
hanced communications within the state on
environmental issues. Performance partnerships
are thus helping to shape a fundamentally
different and more productive relationship
between EPA and the states, one that can achieve
more effective environmental and public health
protection for communities, for states, and for
the country overall.
42
-------
Utah Performance
Partnership
One of the first Performance Partnership
Agreements (PPAs) to be negotiated and
signed was that between EPA Region 8
and the Utah Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (DEQ), Signed on November 2,
1995, this PPA—along with a Partnership
Council formed in 1993 by the Utah DEQ
and the state's 12 local health depart-
ments—provided a cooperative frame-
work for a pilot community-based
initiative known as the Southwest (Utah)
Partnership Initiative.
The Southwest Partnership Initiative
began in January 1996 as a result of a
statewide comparative environmental risk
assessment. Southwestern Utah, a
beautiful and fragile environment under
stress from rapid growth and develop-
ment, was chosen as the pilot project. The
primary goal was to listen to local officials
and the community in order to help them
improve their environment. In April 1996,
EPA, the Utah DEQ, and representatives
from local Public Health Departments met
to develop a joint vision on how to work
together to solve environmental problems.
The following vision statement and
shared values were adopted:
• Vision: EPA, the Utah DEQ, and the local
health departments work together to solve
environmental problems.
* Shared values:
> We focus our activities at the local level,
> We solve or prevent problems by using
each agency's resources and authority.
> We take risks, build trust, and listen to
community needs.
> Personal leadership, teamwork, and
follow-through will assure success.
To guide the partnership through day-
to-day challenges and decision making,
operating principles and coordination
processes were formulated. In accordance
with agreed-upon principles and pro-
cesses, proposals for action are developed
with the cooperation and involvement of
local citizens and community represen-
tatives. In this way, a model ordinance
aimed at protecting fragile ground
water resources from the impacts of
rapid growth and development has
been developed and is being brought
before the community for final consid-
eration.
The community-based "partnership
for the environment" tested first in
Southwest Utah has become a catalyst
for extending community-based efforts
throughout the state. Areas where
community-based efforts are planned
include: Jordan River/Utah Lake; Bear
River; Sevier River; Weber River; Upper
Green River; Beaver River; Virgin River;
Great Salt Lake Desert/Columbia River;
Southeast Colorado River; and the
Western Colorado River. In addition,
the approach is being considered for
other geographic areas of Utah faced
with complex environmental problems
as well as difficult community issues,
such as rapid growth and tribal re-
source management concerns,
EPA Region 8 contact: Nat Miullo
at 313 312-6233 or
MIULLO.NAT@EPAMA!L,EPA.GOV (e-mail).
New housing units being
developed in the red
rock area outside St.
George, Utah.
Carol Sisco photo, Utah Depattmtnt
of Environmental Quality.
43
-------
Project XL: A Laboratory
for the Future
What innovations can improve the current
regulatory system for protecting people and the
environment? At EPA, that question has led to
the creation of Project XL, a major reinvention
priority that is serving as a laboratory for
testing innovative environmental management
strategies for the future. Project XL, which
stands for excellence and Leadership, is a
national pilot program defined by three key
elements: superior environmental performance,
meaningful stakeholder involvement, and
regulatory flexibility. It challenges regulated
entities—communities, facilities, industry
sectors, and government agencies—with a
proven track record of environmental perfor-
mance to find cleaner, cheaper ways of protect-
ing the environment.
The offer is simple: If you have an idea that
promises superior environmental protection to
what would be achieved under the current
regulatory system, and if you use a meaningful
stakeholder involvement process, then EPA will
work with the relevant state and local agencies
to grant the flexibility needed to put those ideas
to the test. The goal is to engage those parties
affected by environmental regulation in an
unprecedented effort to find solutions that work
better than those currently mandated, and to
apply what is learned more broadly to improve
public health and environmental protection.
Project XL offers a sound way to explore
possible changes, one community at a time,
without putting those people living in or
around these areas at increased risk.
Announced in the Federal Register on Novem-
ber 1,1995, Project XL for Communities (XLC)
features additional selection criteria that have a
distinct community-based focus. These include:
• Capacity for stakeholder involvement—
builds, supports, and promotes broad-based
community involvement in determining how
project goals will be pursued
• Economic opportunity—demonstrates ways
of creating economic opportunity through, or in
conjunction with, improved environmental
quality
• Community planning—uses consensus-based
approach to build community support for
project goals which are consistent with commu-
nity planning efforts.
By emphasizing these project characteristics,
along with the other Project XL criteria, EPA
supports innovative projects that take a compre-
hensive approach (e.g., multi-facility, multi-
jurisdictional, or other community-based
environmental protection approaches) to ensure
environmental quality. Through XLC, EPA
promotes strategies that build cooperation
among citizens, businesses, non-profit organiza-
tions, and governments at the community level
to achieve superior environmental results.
To date, EPA has received 15 XLC proposals—
four are being negotiated with the project
sponsors and stakeholders; three are under
review by EPA; and eight have been withdrawn
or rejected. (See box on Clermont County, Ohio,
for an example of how Project XLC can serve
community objectives.)
For more information on Project XL, contact
the XL Information Line at 703 934-3241, or
request information over the fax by dialing our
automated phone system at 202 260-8590.
Information is also available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppe/xlcomm/
xlc home.html
UNITIES
Environmental Excellence and Leadaship
44
-------
Project XLC in
Clermont County, Ohio
Clermont County, which includes a
significant portion of the Uttle Miami
River watershed, is located in southeast
Ohio near Cincinnati and is one of the
fastest growing counties in the state.
This rapidly urbanizing county de-
scribes one of its primary missions as
"balancing economic growth with the
preservation of the natural character
and environment of the County."
Consistent with Clermont County's
vision, the objective of its recently
submitted XLC proposal is to develop a
community-designed water resources
management strategy that achieves
water quality goals while maintaining
environmentally and economically
sustainable growth in the county.
Clermont County administrators
view the current water quality regula-
tory framework administered by the
Ohio EPA (O1PA) as inadequate. The
county argues that OEPA attempts to
regulate only "point source" pollutants
(e.g., discharges from factories and
wastewater treatment plants), which
contribute less than 30 percent of the
pollutant load on the Little Miami
River. The main part of the load,
polluted runoff—also known, more
technically, as nonpoint-source pollu-
tion—goes largely unregulated. As part
of a watershed management plan, the
county anticipates using an effluent-
trading system in which pollution
credits may be exchanged among point
and non-point source polluters.
In an attempt to improve water
quality and encourage all polluters to
share in the expense, the county
proposes to replace the command and
control regulatory framework with a
collaborative goal-setting approach.
Once businesses, citizens, and environ-
mental groups establish water quality
goals, the county wants to shift the
responsibility for achieving the goals
from OEPA to the local level.
The county believes that OEPA's
statewide rules are not conducive to the
proper management of the unique Little
Miami River watershed. They propose to
integrate the county's watershed manage-
ment plan into the broader state plan
administered by OEPA. As part of the
watershed management plan, Clermont
County will develop a sampling and
monitoring program, a computer-based
watershed model, and a county environ-
mental protection plan. The sampling
and monitoring program will, among
other things, allow the county to compile
data on existing environmental condi-
tions in the watershed. The data will help
in assessing the effects that land manage-
ment policies will have on the environ-
mental condition of the watershed and
will aid the county in establishing
permitting requirements for both point
and nonpoint sources.
46
-------
A cluttered
Brownfield site in
the Chicago area.
Photo courtesy of EPA's
Bfownfields program.
Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment
Many areas across the country that were once
used for industrial and commercial purposes
have been abandoned or are underused—some
are contaminated or perceived as such. Lend-
ers, investors, and developers have for years
been afraid that involvement with these sites
may result in environmental cleanup liability
for contamination they did not create. They are
therefore more attracted to sites in pristine
areas—called "greenfields." This situation can
result in blighted areas, rife with abandoned
properties that create safety and health risks for
residents, increase unemployment, and foster a
sense of hopelessness—these areas are called
"Brownfields."
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative is a major community-based effort
designed to empower states, cities, tribes, and
other communities to work together in a timely
manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse Brownfields. The initiative
empowers communities to use local solutions
to return abandoned industrial properties to
productive use.
This work began with the Brownfields Action
Agenda, announced by EPA in January 1995,
which included four broad categories:
• Brownfields Pilots: EPA has awarded 111
Brownfield pilot cooperative agreements to
states, cities, towns, counties, and tribes. The
pilots are intended to provide EPA, states, tribes,
cities, and other communities with useful
information and strategies as they continue to
seek new methods to approach site assessment,
environmental cleanup, and monitoring.
Pilot communities are being used to test
redevelopment models, direct special efforts
toward removing regulatory barriers without
sacrificing protectiveness, and facilitate coordi-
nated environmental assessments and cleanup
efforts at the federal, state, and local levels.
Pilot funds are used to generate interest by
pulling together community groups, investors,
lenders, developers, and other affected parties
to address the issues of assessing and cleaning
up sites contaminated with hazardous sub-
stances and returning them to safe and sustain-
able use.
• Clarification of Liability and Cleanup Issues:
EPA is addressing concerns of lending institu-
tions, municipalities, property owners, develop-
ers, prospective purchasers, and others. EPA
has issued a number of guidances to clarify
liability and other issues and has "archived"
(designated as no longer of federal interest) over
30,000 of the 40,000 sites from the Superfund site
inventory.
• Partnerships and Outreach: EPA is building
partnerships with federal agencies, states, cities,
and other organizations to assure a coordinated
approach to addressing Brownfields. The
Agency is developing the Brownfields Partner-
ship Action Agenda to provide a framework for
collaboration on brownfields by federal and
state agencies and public and private organiza-
tions.
• fob Development and Training: EPA is working
with community colleges and others to foster
workforce development in brownfields commu-
nities through environmental education and
46
-------
training models, recruitment of students from disadvan-
taged communities, and quality worker training.
For more information on the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative, visit the following Internet site:
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf
Brownfields Pilot:
Baltimore, Maryland
Many old industrial sites in
Baltimore have been abandoned,
causing Baltimore to lose more
than 50 percent of its manufactur-
ing jobs between 1970 and 1990,
The threat of contamination and
liability at these sites has inhib-
ited reuse and redevelopment. In
particular, the city was concerned
about sites located in Baltimore's
Empowerment Zone, where
contamination could present an
additional obstacle to economic
revitalization.
For over a century, the Ameri-
can Smeltering and Refining
Company (ASARCO) operated
on a 33-acre site in Baltimore. By
the late 1970s, ASARCO was
gone, and most of the site trans-
formed into a wasteland of
desolate warehouses, piles of
debris, and shattered windows.
EPA awarded a $200,000
Brownfields pilot grant to the city
in September 1995. The City of
Baltimore, EPA, and a developer,
Tom Obrecht, joined together to
create a vision that has lead to
economic growth, new jobs, and
productive reuse of the property.
The developer assembled a
$11.5 million financing package
funded by Mercantile Bank and
private investment; in addition,
the State of Maryland contributed
a $3.5 million loan guarantee, as
well as a $1 million low interest
loan. By April 1996, when the
developer's company, Obrecht
Realty Services Inc., stepped
forward and purchased the
ASARCO site, a public/private
partnership had been created
between EPA, the Maryland
Department of Economic
Development, the Maryland
Department of the Environment,
the City of Baltimore, and a host
of other, individual players.
By the conclusion of the
project, more than 100,000
square feet of old buildings will
have been razed, and 350,000 of
the 750,000 square foot complex
will have been renovated.
Currently there are 170 con-
struction workers employed on
the property. Additionally, it is
expected that more than 50
permanent jobs will be put in
place over the next three years,
The EPA Brownfield assessment
grant has helped to lead the way
for other agencies, such as the
Maryland Department of Eco-
nomic Development, to become
active in Brownfield sites through-
out Baltimore, In addition, EPA
and the state Department of
Economic Development recently
signed a memorandum of agree-
ment to coordinate efforts to
encourage voluntary cleanups of
contaminated properties in
Maryland.
EPA Region 3 contact: Tom Stolle at 215
566-3129 (phone) or
STOLLE.TOM@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV (e-
mail).
Brownfields Pilot:
Dallas, Texas
The city of Dallas, with helping hands
from EPA and a well-known sports
figure, is turning two Brownfield
properties into the focal point of a more
livable community. Local residents are
pleased by the prospects of both safer
neighborhoods and a healthier economy
due to newly spawned activity that is
taking place on formerly contaminated,
abandoned property.
The Dixon Street site and the JPI
North end site were vacant lots in
downtown Dallas that drew criminals
and blighted the surrounding commu-
nity. JPI North End, a 22-acre site that
once housed factories producing
batteries, paint, and lead products is
being transformed into a residential
area. Since available housing in
downtown Dallas is scarce, this
cleanup and redevelopment effort is a
boon to the city.
On the other hand, the Dixon Street
site is being converted from an
extremely irritating eyesore into a
valuable recreation center. The three
and one-half acre site was an apart-
ment complex until 10 years ago,
when it was torn down and left as a
vacant lot with no vegetation on one
side and weeds on the other. The site
collected trash and was a magnet for
criminal activity. Larry Johnson, the
sports celebrity, donated $1 million to
cover the cost of constructing a new
recreation center for local youth on the
property. Other redevelopment
activity is expected to follow.
-------
Flexible Attainment Regions
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ground-level ozone (smog) and other "criteria
pollutants" that commonly threaten air quality
throughout the country. Through the mechanism
of Flexible Attainment Regions (FARs), EPA is
working in parternship with local .officials to
help local communities meet national ozone
standards through flexible agreements that allow
a mix of mandatory and voluntary emission
controls tailored to local conditions.
Since the 1970 clean air statute, each state has
been required to prepare a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) describing how it will control emis-
sions from mobile and stationary sources in
order to attain compliance with the NAAQS.
State and local governments have primary
responsibility for preventing and controlling air
pollution. EPA's role includes conducting
research and development programs, setting
national standards and regulations, providing
technical and financial assistance to the states,
and in cases of "nonattainment" (cases when an
area fails to meet one or more of the NAAQS)
working with the state to develop a revised SIP
that includes additional pollution control mea-
sures targeted at bringing the area into "attain-
ment" status.
EPA and the states routinely conduct air
quality monitoring to ensure compliance with
the NAAQS. Air quality monitoring data are
used to track trends in pollution levels, and these
trends can provide early warnings that patterns
of growth and development in a community are
putting an area at risk of violating NAAQS.
However, the traditional approach has not
encouraged action until an area reached
nonattainment status, triggering a SIP revision
process that can be cumbersome and time-
consuming. Examples of supplemental require-
ments that might be included in a revised SIP
include mandatory transportation control
measures, limits on industrial growth and
development, and requirements to inventory all
emission sources.
The FARs option allows qualified localities to
develop and implement community-based
solutions to their own air quality problems, in
conjunction with technical assistance from EPA,
before these problems warrant nonattainment
status. To be eligible for the FAR approach, an
area is required to meet the following criteria:
• Must once have been designated a
nonattainment area but subsequently reached
attainment and been redesignated accordingly by
EPA
• Must have a SIP in place
• Must demonstrate commitment to identifying
and implementing measures to keep the area in
attainment status.
The FAR approach to improving air quality
gives communities flexibility to tailor their
pollution control strategies to local conditions,
such as weather, traffic patterns, industrial
activity, and local economics. A FAR plan is
48
-------
typically implemented through a Memorandum
of Agreement between the parties. In the event
of an air quality violation after an MOA is in
place, EPA allows additional, locally determined
measures to be added to the SIP and also allows
time for the measures to affect air quality before
initiating action to change the area's status to
nonattainment. To date, three FAR agreements
are in place, all for ground-level ozone—for
Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Corpus Christi, Texas, and
for a five-county region in northeast Texas. Each
MOA calls for both voluntary and mandatory
ozone-reducing measures. (See box for more
detailed information concerning the Tulsa,
Oklahoma, FAR.)
Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Flexible Attainment
Region
On August 22,1995, EPA, the city of
Tulsa, and the state of Oklahoma
signed a FAR agreement allowing the
city and state to develop solutions to
smog problems in the Tulsa area. Tulsa
had been in attainment with the ozone
standard since 1990, but a steady
pattern of one-day "exceedances"
raised the need for additional air
quality control measures.
Tulsa has a continuing program of
public health education concerning the
need to control ozone and the actions
citizens can take to reduce ozone
precursors. In addition, as part of the
1995 agreement, Tulsa committed to
notifying additional businesses on bad
ozone days and initiating a program to
identify smoking vehicles.
Tulsa also agreed that if an ozone
violation occurred, the city would
require the sale of gasoline with a
lower volatility, implement a gas-
cap pressure test as part of its
vehicle maintenance inspection
program {leaking gas caps are
known sources of VOC emissions);
and conduct and submit to EPA an
emissions inventory. The state SIP
will be revised to incorporate these
measures in the event of a viola-
tion. Acting on a proposal from the
mayor of Tulsa, the Oklahoma state
legislature has passed legislation
needed to permit adding the gas
cap pressure test to the vehicle
inspection program. This action
would not have been possible
without strong local support.
EPA staff continue to work
closely with Tulsa officials on
updating the emissions inventory.
EPA Region 6 contact: Thomas Diggs 9
214 665-7214 (phone) or
DIGGS.THOMAS@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
(e-mail).
49
-------
Supplemental Environmental
Projects
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are
environmentally beneficial projects which a violator
of an environmental law agrees to undertake in
settlement of an enforcement action (but which the
violator is not otherwise legally required to perform.)
SEPs give EPA added flexibility to craft enforcement
settlements that may benefit communities through
positive contributions to environmental or public
health protection. In return, some percentage of the
cost of the SEP is factored into establishing the final
civil penalty paid by the defendant.
Under EPA's SEP policy (first issued in 1991;
revised in 1995), SEPs must have a distinct relation-
ship to the environmental violation that triggered
an enforcement action. Typically, a SEP is designed
to remedy or reduce the probable overall environ-
mental or public health impacts to which the
violation contributed. Alternatively, a SEP may
reduce the likelihood that similar violations will
occur in the future. (See box below concerning two
community-based SEPs that are part of the same
enforcement settlement.)
Supplemental
Environmental
Projects in South Side
Chicago
On January 30,1997, EPA announced
settlement of litigation over alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Resource
Recovery and Conservation Act, and
the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-To-Know Act at a
Sherwin-Williams resin and paint
manufacturing facility on the South
Side of Chicago. The settlement
illustrates how Supplemental Envi-
ronmental Projects (SEPs) can be used
to promote community-based envi-
ronmental protection.
In addition to requiring Sherwin-
Williams to reduce the emission of
hundreds of tons of ozone-forming
VOCs into the air, the settlement
contained two SEPs. One requires
the company to contract with the
City of Chicago to perform a
$950,000 cleanup and restoration
project at a Brownfield site near the
facility in Southeast Chicago—a
predominantly minority area with a
number of active community groups.
The City of Chicago has targeted the
area as a focus for its well-estab-
lished Brownfield program, and EPA
expects the city's involvement will
help ensure the success of the
cleanup and restoration activities in
this community.
The second SEP requires Sherwin-
Williams to contract with a local
environmental group to perform a
$150,000 wetland restoration project
near the facility. The wetland
restoration project will also be
located in Southeast Chicago, near
Lake Calumet, and provides for a
local environmental group, "Open
Lands," to undertake the cleanup,
protection, and upkeep of habitat, as
well as the planting of new habitat.
Both of these projects were
suggested by, and will directly
benefit, the local community.
EPA contact: Peter Rosenberg at 202 564-
2611 or
ROSENBERG.PETER@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
(e-mail).
Restoration efforts will
help reverse a long
trend of wetland
degradation in the
highly industrialized
Lake Calumet area of
Southeast Chicago.
For many decades, the
area's rich wetland
resources—such as
O'Brien Lock Marsh
(above)—were treated
mainly as swamps and
dump sites,
Mary Rolek photo, courtesy of the
Calumet Ecological Park Association.
Copyrighted.
60
-------
EPA Regional Coordinators
for Community-Based Environmental Protection
Region 1
New England States
Deb Harstedt: 617565-3541
Rosemary Monahan: 617 565-3551
Fax: 617565-4940
Region 2
NJ, NX PR, VI
Rabi Kieber: 212 637-4448
Fax: 212 637-5045
Region 3
DC, DE, MC, PA, VA, WV
Dominique Lueckenhoff: 215 566-2738
Susan McDowell: 215 566-2739
Fax: 215566-2782/2783
Region 4
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
Grace Deatrick: 404 562-9250 (x29294)
Fax: 404562-9318 .
Region 5
IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
Marilou Martin: 312353-9660
John Perrecone: 312 353-1149
Fax: 312353-5374
Region 6
AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
Shirley Bruce: 214 665-6547
Cindy Wolf: 214665-7291
Fax: 214 665-6490
Region 7
IA, KS, MO, NE
John Houlihan: 913 551-7432
Fax: 913 551-7765
Region 8
CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
Karen Hamilton: 303 312-6236
Nat Miullo: 303 312-6233
Ayn Schmit: 302 312-6220
Stacey Erickson: 303 312-6692
Fax: 303 312-6071
Region 9
AZ,CA,HI,NV,AS,GU
Debbie Schechter: 415744-1624
Stephanie Valentine: 415-744-1178
Denise Zvanovec: 415 744-1620
Fax: 415744-1680
Region 10
AK, ID, OR, WA
Eric Winiecki: 206 553-6904
Fax: 206 553-6984
To contact EPA staff by e-mail:
LASTNAME.FIRSTNAME@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Inquiries may also be directed to EPA headquarters in
Washington, DC. To contact EPA's Office of Sustainable
Ecosystems and Communities: phone: 202 260-4002; fax:
202 260-0513.
Visit EPA's CBEP Home Page: http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity
------- |