United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy (21 I I) EPA 237-K-99-OOI
Office of Reinvention (1803) February 1999
.
Environmental Protection
-------
Additional copies of this document may be obtained from the following sources:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NCEP)
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or 1-800-490-9198; fax: (513) 489-8695
Office of Reinvention (1803)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
phone (202) 260-1849; fax (202) 260-1812
When ordering copies of the CBEP Framework, please cite publication number EPA 237-K-99-OOI. For the
Executive Summary, cite publication number EPA 237-S-99-OOI.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB I 1999
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Framework
TO: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Chief Financial Officer
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
Staff Office Directors
It has been almost four years since the Agency's senior management came together to
give its support to improving the EPA's ability to work with states, tribes and local governments
in implementing Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP). Since then, the Agency
has made enormous progress in integrating the principles of CBEP into its programs' activities,
developing effective tools for and providing resources to communities, and identifying places
where EPA's efforts can make a difference in helping communities improve the quality of their
lives and the environment. CBEP has become and will remain an important element of the
Agency's reinvention strategy.
I am particularly pleased with the role that EPA's Regional Offices have played in
making the CBEP approach a central feature in the way the Agency conducts its business.
Whether it is supporting urban communities such as East St. Louis and the Bronx, facilitating
multi-governmental efforts to restore large ecosystems such as the Everglades and Puget Sound,
or developing tools such as the Green Communities Toolkit and EPA web sites, Regional Offices
have used innovative approaches in creating flexibility in their programs to better respond to the
different needs of diverse ecosystems and human communities. CBEP remains a key approach
for accomplishing EPA's goals and I look forward to continuing the progress we have made.
Although EPA has made great strides in incorporating the CBEP approach at all levels of
the Agency, there is still a great deal that needs to be done in assuring that the Agency is
effectively meeting the needs of communities. With this memorandum, I am transmitting
"EPA's Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection." The purpose of the
CBEP Framework is to provide EPA with a common policy and planning foundation for
implementing the CBEP approach. The Framework is divided into two sections:
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
• Part I defines what CBEP is, and what it is not, and describes how it relates to other
Agency programs, initiatives, and approaches.
Part II of the CBEP Framework identifies EPA's CBEP goals, describes strategies for
achieving these goals, and characterizes basic guidelines for measuring progress and
accomplishments.
I am especially proud of the thorough and open process the Agency has used in
developing the Framework over the past year and a half. The Office of Policy's Office of
Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC) played the primary role in coordinating the
development of the CBEP Framework. In the true spirit of CBEP, OSEC made every effort to
involve all stakeholders - within and outside of EPA - in crafting the Framework. OSEC worked
closely with me Agency's CBEP coordinators in providing a number of opportunities - through
discussion sessions and written comment periods - for Headquarters and Regional Office
managers and staff to provide input on numerous drafts of the Framework. In addition, the
Regional CBEP Coordinators' efforts proved invaluable in obtaining feedback on the Framework
from state, tribal, and local governments, national associations, and community organizations. As
a result of working with our partners in developing the CBEP Framework, I believe that the
Agency has a solid policy and planning consensus to build on as we follow through on what we
began four years ago.
I have designated the Office of Reinvention as the new focal point at Headquarters for
CBEP as of February 1, in order to ensure that future CBEP policy and coordination issues
continue to receive attention on an Agency-wide basis. The Office of Reinvention will work with
Headquarters and Regional Offices to identify next steps for implementing the CBEP Framework.
The Office of Reinvention's assumption of the CBEP coordination role will make it possible for
us to complete the reassignment of OSEC staff to the Office of Water to support implementation
of the Clean Water Action Plan.
I am encouraged by the accomplishments achieved over the past four years with the CBEP
approach. With the CBEP Framework as our guide, I look forward to continuing our successes
in protecting human health and providing healthy, sustainable ecosystems for generations to come.
Peter D. Robertson
Acting Deputy Administrator
Attachment (CBEP Framework)
cc: Deputy Assistant Administrators
Deputy Regional Administrators
-------
Acknowledgments
The principal authors and coordinators of EPA's Framework for Community-Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP) included Michael Mason (Team Leader) and Amanda Tipton
Bassow from the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC). Over the course of
the project, OSEC's CBEP Framework Team was managed by Wendy Cleland-Hamnett (Director,
OSEC), Leonard Fleckenstein (Acting Director, OSEC), and Gerald Filbin (Acting Director,
OSEC's Policy and Coordination Division).
The following additional OSEC members also contributed to this report: Betsy Laroe, Lynn
Desautels, Glenn Eugster, Laura Gabanski, Otto Guttenson, Michael Kronthal, William Painter,
Heidi Paulsen, Marilyn Smith-Church, and Theresa Trainor.
OSEC relied on the support of the Agency's CBEP Coordinators in providing a number of
opportunities—through discussion sessions and written comment periods—for feedback on the
CBEP Framework from EPA managers and staff. OSEC would like to acknowledge the assistance
of the following past and present CBEP Coordinators: Deborah Harstedt (Region 1); Rabi Kieber
(Region 2); Dominique Lueckenhoff; Susan McDowell (Region 3); Grace Dietrick (Region 4);
Don Kathan, Marilou Martin (Region 5); Debora Browning, Cynthia Wolfe (Region 6); Kathleen
Fenton (Region 7); Karen Hamilton, Nat Miullo, Stacey Erickson, Peter Ismert, Ayn Schmit
(Region 8); Debbie Schechter, Stephanie Valentine, Denise Zvonoveck (Region 9); Richard Parkin
(Region 10); Paul Rasmussen (OAR);Walter Brodtman (OECA);TomTillman (OPPTS); David
Klauder, Claudia Walters (ORD); Karen Burgan,Will Bowman, David Nicholas (OSWER); Ben
Picks, Anne Treash (OW);Tom Marshall (OGC); Judith Koontz, Jacques Kapuscinski (OARM);
Alex Wolfe, Michael Brody (OPAA); Karen Flagstad (OR); and Danny Gogal (OEJ).
OSEC would also like to acknowledge the valuable comments received from numerous indi-
viduals representing EPA's partners in community-based environmental protection. These include
representatives from federal, local, tribal, and state governments; national associations; and commu-
nity organizations. A complete list of non-EPA organizations that commented on the CBEP
Framework is included in Appendix I. In addition, the Agency's National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council, Local Government Advisory Committee, and Tribal Operations Council pro-
vided comments on the CBEP Framework at their regular national meetings.
The photographs on the cover and on pages 2,13,16, and 28 are by EPA photographer
Stephen C. Delaney.
Special thanks to Joel AnnTodd of The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., for providing meet-
ing, analytical, and editing support, and Joan O'Callaghan of The Communications Collective for
editorial assistance and layout design and production of the final document.
Acknowledgments
-------
-------
Contents
Introduction 2
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach 4
Definition of Community-Based Environmental Protection 5
Core Principles of Community-Based Environmental Protection 5
Steps for Applying the CBEP Principles 7
What Community-Based Environmental Protection Is Not 9
Why Community-Based Environmental Protection Is Important 10
EPA's Role in CBEP Efforts 13
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals and Strategies 16
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals 17
EPA's CBEP Implementation Strategies 18
Reorient EPA Programs to Better Support CBEP
Build External Capacity
Work Directly with Stakeholders in Places
Measuring and Tracking EPA's CBEP Performance 24
Appendices 28
I. Reviewers of the Framework 29
II. EPA's Strategic Plan: Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles 30
III. Suggested Process for Targeting Places for EPA's Direct Involvement 32
IV. Suggested Elements and Supporting Information for Place-Specific Plans 33
V. Examples of CBEP Performance Measures 34
VI. Glossary of Terms 38
Table of Contents
-------
Er muf
-------
Over the last 25 years, the United States has
seen enormous improvements in environ-
mental quality. Environmental statutes,
such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and Superfund legislation,
enabled federal, state, tribal, and local govern-
ments to target major sources of pollution and
to set and enforce national environmental
quality standards under each statute—the so-
called "command-and-control" approach. The
results have been cleaner air, cleaner water,
and better waste management.
These successes have been achieved pri-
marily by controlling pollution from major
industrial facilities, increasing and improving
wastewater treatment, and cleaning up and pre-
venting contamination from hazardous waste
sites. These types of "point-source" pollution
continue to be environmental threats and
should continue to be addressed through
appropriate regulatory and enforcement poli-
cies. However, many, existing and emerging
causes of environmental pollution and ecolog-
ical degradation—polluted runoff, abandoned
low-level hazardous waste sites, urban sprawl,
and the decline of biological diversity, to
name just a few—cannot be addressed effec-
tively only through traditional, compartmen-
talized, command-and-control approaches.
Many of today's environmental problems
must be addressed by public and private stake-
holders coming together within a place or
community and taking a holistic and collabo-
rative approach to identifying environmental
concerns, setting priorities, and implementing
comprehensive solutions. In working together,
stakeholders can assess the range of environ-
mental risks and develop solutions that help
to sustain social, economic, and environmental
•well-being.
Community-based environmental protec-
tion (CBEP) emphasizes collaborative, holistic
environmental decision making tailored to
meet the needs of specific communities in
their efforts to address the remaining environ-
mental challenges. This document provides
EPA with a policy and planning framework
for supporting and implementing the CBEP
approach.
EPA's OfEce of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities (OSEC), within the Office of
Policy, played the primary role in coordinating
the development of EPA's Framework for
Community-Based Environmental Protection.
Over a year and a half, OSEC developed a
succession of draft documents based on com-
ments received from EPA and non-EPA
reviewers. In the true spirit of community-
based environmental protection, OSEC made
every effort to involve all stakeholders—
within and outside EPA—in crafting the
Framework. Reviewers provided comments to
the Framework in various formats, including:
^ Facilitated discussion sessions with EPA's
community-based managers, coordinators,
and practitioners at Agency Headquarters,
selected Regional Offices, and national
meetings;
^ A formal Agency-wide review and com-
ment period involving all of EPA's
National and Regional Offices;
^ Meetings with a selected group of the
Agency's senior managers to resolve key
issues raised during previous reviews; and
V A three-month external review and com-
ment period in which the Agency received
comments from federal, local, tribal, and
state governments; national associations;
and community organizations.
As a result of working with its partners in
developing the CBEP Framework, EPA has a
solid policy and planning consensus for con-
tinuing its implementation of community-
based environmental protection. This
document is designed to provide EPA with
the focus and direction it needs to fully
engage the CBEP approach over the coming
years. It also should help EPA's stakeholders
understand what they can expect from EPA.
However, in the eHd^-thgrnccess of this
approach will depend uponEPA and its stake-
holders working together and forming part-
nerships to identify needs, develop solutions,
and effect change.
Introduction
-------
Q. O
c c
ii
-------
Definition of Community-Based
Environmental Protection
Community-based environmental protection
(CBEP) is EPA's term for a holistic and
collaborative approach to environmental
protection. CBEP brings together public and
private stakeholders within a place or commu-
nity to identify environmental concerns, set
priorities, and implement comprehensive solu-
tions. Often called a place-based or ecosystem
approach, CBEP considers environmental pro-
tection1 along with human social needs, works
toward achieving long-term ecosystem health,
and fosters linkages between economic pros-
perity and environmental well-being. Through
CBEP, communities create a vision of environ-
mental health and quality of life and pursue
activities compatible with that vision.
Intrinsic to CBEP is an understanding of
"community." The definition of community
endorsed by EPA for CBEP efforts includes
places and people that are associated with an
environmental issue(s).The community may
be organized around a neighborhood, a town,
a city, or a region (such as a watershed, valley,
or coastal area). It may be defined by either
natural geographic or political boundaries.
The key factor is that the people involved
have a common interest in protecting an
identifiable, shared environment and quality of
life. Any "community" will include a variety
of differing values, perceptions, priorities, and
complex interrelationships around environ-
mental protection, as well as other issues.
CBEP practitioners are encouraged to define
and understand the appropriate scope of
"community" for each particular place.
Core Principles of Community-
Based Environmental Protection
CBEP is implemented in varying ways in
different places. By design, CBEP projects
have differing attributes to fit the needs of
specific places. Although no one description
can characterize all CBEP activities, the fol-
lowing key principles can guide EPA's and
community stakeholders' efforts to implement
the approach.
Focus on a Definable Geographic Area
The boundaries of a geographic area can
be based on the natural landscape, such as the
land that drains to a river or bay (a watershed)
or specific types of ecosystems; or social com-
munities, including urban and suburban
neighborhoods; or political subdivisions, such
as a town, city, county, or tribal land. For a
CBEP approach to be fully effective, the geo-
graphic area should include the area of envi-
ronmental concern and, whenever possible,
the source(s) of the problem(s).
By definition, any geographic area will be
embedded in a larger natural system (e.g., a
watershed, river basin, ecosystem, or eco-
region).Therefore, CBEP efforts should be
aware of the larger context in which their pro-
jects occur and, when appropriate, work to
coordinate activities with CBEP activities out-
side their focus area. For example, CBEP pro-
jects on the Anacostia Pover in the Washington,
DC, area impact communities downstream in
Maryland and Virginia and are impacted by
upstream communities in Maryland—all of
which are part of the greater Chesapeake Bay
watershed. While focusing on the immediate
vicinity, the Anacostia group's efforts would be
'The term "environment" as used in this document refers to the human, built environment, as well as the nat-
ural environment. As a result, "environmental protection" includes protecting the quality of human health as
well as conserving and restoring natural resources.
EPA's Community-Based Approach to Environmental Protection
-------
^ Wflrk cdlaboratively with a full range of stakeholders through effective partnerships.
i*!ji^
*, Assess the quality of the air, water, land, and living resources in a place as a whole.
quality of the air, water, land, and living resources in a place as a whole.
.,. ''f^ap^g^?:,^ ,'?•;•- :iY.:••;-;; ••'••--•••^
•„ jnje,grate environmental, economic, and social objectives and foster local stewardship of all community resources.
" ''ie apprpgriate public and private, regulatory and npnre|uiatpry tools.
|L;;Zg*ji|55335I5liS3E^iS
Hgnitor and redirect efforts through adaptive management.
tifSS'f^S"?^
shared responsibility among all stakeholders
for implementing all decisions.
Assess the Quality of
All Resources in a Place
Many environmental problems today could
be better addressed by taking an integrated
and systematic approach, assessing the cumula-
tive impacts of various human activities, rather
than focusing solely on one pollutant, con-
cern, or natural resource. A basic assumption
underlying the CBEP approach is that all the
resources in a place—the air, the water, the
land, and the living resources—are intercon-
nected parts of a system. The state of science
for conducting integrated, systemic assessments
sometimes lags behind the regulatory demand
for these complex approaches to decision
making. As the science evolves, EPA managers
and coordinators should openly acknowledge
the uncertainties and complexities associated
with multimedia approaches and be prepared
to explain these uncertainties to stakeholders.
Integrate Environmental,
Economic, and Social Objectives
The CBEP approach seeks to ensure that
decisions are consistent with the related goals
of sustainable development2: a cleaner, health-
ier, more resilient-environment; an improved
quality of life for all citizens (including an
equitable distribution of environmental bur-
dens and access to environmental benefits);
and a stable, more efficient economy. For
these conditions to be sustainable, CBEP must
foster local stewardship of all social, economic,
and natural resources in a community.
enhanced by coordinating with efforts in
neighboring communities, as well as with
larger regional efforts.
Work Collaboratively
with Stakeholders
The term "stakeholder" is generalized to
mean the full range of people who are inter-
ested in, are affected by, or could affect activi-
ties related to community-based environmental
protection efforts. Residents of a place cer-
tainly are stakeholders, as are nonresidents
who have an interest in the place's human and
natural resources and infrastructure. Potential
stakeholders include community members,
landowners, tribes, civic and religious organi-
zations, businesses and industry associations,
environmental and conservation groups, acad-
emic institutions, and governmental agencies
at all levels. CBEP requires an open, inclusive
decision-making process and emphasizes a
business owners
jvernments business/industry
governments
SIPP
ahizatioris
groups
public health groups
S'S'acldemic institutions
cffb'berative'extension
ssmmmsassfs*:
2No singular definition of "sustainable development" has emerged. However, there is consensus on its funda-
mental tenets: "a concern for sustainable development counsels long-term horizons consistent with our responsi-
bilities to others, recognition of the interdependence of the economy and the environment, and more
comprehensive, integrated approaches to economic development and environmental protection." [Sustainable
Development and the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (EPA/230-R-93-005), Washington, DC-June 1993.]
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
Use the Most
Appropriate Tools
CBEP seeks to bring the most appropri-
ate public, private, and nonregulatory tools
to bear in a community by integrating regu-
latory and nonregulatory approaches, along
with natural resource planning and manage-
ment efforts. CBEP enables communities to
access a diverse array of existing policy and
management approaches (e.g., training and
education, assistance agreements, informa-
tion sharing, and technical assistance) and to
develop innovative approaches. This combi-
nation of tools will help forge more effec-
tive solutions to community and regional
concerns.
Monitor and Redirect Efforts
Through Adaptive Management
CBEP is an iterative approach that recog-
nizes the value of innovation and risk-taking.
Therefore, projects and partnerships need to be
monitored for effectiveness, and CBEP efforts
need to be revised and refined when necessary
to incorporate lessons learned from experience,
new data, and advanced technology.
Steps for Applying
the CBEP Principles
Each CBEP project will not exhibit all of
these fundamental principles. The princi-
ples are intended to be a guide, pointing to
areas for development and directions toward
which to grow.
Single Program, Single
Medium, Single Issue
On the bottom step, stakeholders may
organize and address one or two issues within
their community, such as suburban sprawl and
the loss of open space, water quality in a par-
ticular stream segment, or contaminated soil
or poor ambient air quality in an urban
neighborhood. Communities may address
each issue individually and request assistance
from state, local, or federal regulatory agencies
to help characterize the problem and imple-
ment solutions. EPA may incorporate stake-
holder involvement into a single-program,
single-medium, single-issue approach to help
address the problem. For example, EPA may
involve the community in assessing option's
for remedial action in a Superfund cleanup
effort.
Generally, the smaller the geographic scale
of a CBEP project, the fewer issues or con-
cerns stakeholders may need to address. For
example, an urban neighborhood may be
concerned about the water quality of a stream
running through the community and may
identify runoff from impervious surfaces as a
primary contributor to the problem. In this
case, a single source is contributing to the
impairment of a single environmental
medium. The neighborhood may address this
problem adequately; however, without similar
efforts to address impacts on water quality
upstream or within the entire watershed, there
may be a limit on how much water quality
will be improved.
jigaging the principles is a step-by-step process, with each step
; on the last.
Long-Term Sustainability
Environment + Economy + Society
Ecosystem Focus
Multi-program, Multimedia, Multi-issue
Single Program, Single Medium, Single Issue
EPA's Community-Based Approach to Environmental Protection
-------
Multi-program, Multimedia, Multi-issue
Following this path, a "CBEP project" ini-
tially may address a single issue. But after
undertaking a comprehensive assessment, a
community may need multiple sets of tools
and regulatory authorities to address a range
of causes.
As the geographic scale of a project
becomes larger—from a stream to a water-
shed, for example—water quality may be
affected by multiple pollutant sources and
stresses from the surrounding geographic area.
As a result, CBEP projects that address an
entire watershed or ecosystem will generally
require a multimedia, holistic approach to
ensure all environmental problems and their
sources are adequately addressed.
Moving up from the bottom step, stake-
holders begin to realize connections among
the issues within their community and the
root causes of their public health or environ-
mental concerns. For example, lack of open
space or inadequate riparian zones may be
contributing to poor water quality within a
stream, or poor air quality could be due to
traffic congestion and lack of public trans-
portation. In another case, soil and groundwa-
ter contamination from a cluster of
abandoned hazardous waste sites could be
degrading the water quality of a watershed.
Similarly, EPA may become aware of other
programs or non-EPA efforts underway in the
same place and begin to use a multi-program,
multimedia, multi-issue approach to leverage
resources through partnerships, and addressing
multiple problems simultaneously. In the
Superfund example, EPA may seek help from
the Air Program OfEce to address an air
deposition problem affecting the site.
CBEP places particular emphasis on ecosystem management, which often includes habitat protection and
restoration.
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
Ecosystem Focus
Eventually, the community may assess
issues more systematically, adopting an
ecosystem approach. The community and
EPA work together, along with other stake-
holders to comprehensively assess the quality
of their environment and prioritize issues and
activities.
Environment + Economy + Society
Finally, the community may begin to
address the relationship among economic,
quality-of-life, and environmental issues, and
to shift its time horizon from solving only the
immediate problems to pursuing long-term
sustainability. By taking a holistic approach,
EPA can apply its regulatory authorities
and/or nonregulatory assistance to help
address all the stressors and causes of a com-
munity's concerns. In many cases, this will
require improved coordination among federal,
state, and local environmental and economic
development programs to address the multiple
causes of a problem.
Certainly all CBEP efforts do not follow this
path exactly, and many successful projects may
never rise above the first step. However, the
principles can serve to guide new and ongoing
CBEP projects that may be stuck on one of the
lower steps and looking for new directions.
What Community-Based
Environmental Protection Is Not
To avoid misunderstandings within EPA and
among its partners, it is important to clar-
ify for EPA's programs and activities what
CBEP is not. It is:
^ Not regulatory reliefer a replacement of regula-
tory authority and base program activities. CBEP
does not represent a retreat from national
goals or standards. A CBEP approach takes
advantage of and builds upon EPA's existing
media-specific, statutory programs.
^ Not a separate new program, a special limited
initiative, or a pilot project. CBEP represents a
different way of approaching EPA's mission
that requires a change in how the Agency
does business. It is not limited to one EPA
program; rather, it is incorporated into all
EPA programs. It is not a newly delegated
program to states, and it does not require
separate, new funding sources; instead, it is
funded through existing programs. And it is
not a pilot or demonstration project; in
fact, it already has proven effective in many
areas of the Agency and is ready to be
adopted throughout EPA.
^ Not focused on one environmental medium,
problem, or component of a community. In the
long run, CBEP does not focus solely on
public health or pollution affecting a single
environmental medium, but involves all
components of an ecosystem. It emphasizes
systems-oriented, coordinated action
within a place, and requires taking a col-
laborative approach to addressing a com-
munity's concerns.
^ Not solely doing a better job of community out-
reach or public relations in traditional EPA
single-medium programs. CBEP is not about
stakeholder participation for its own sake.
Nor is it about doing a better job of
informing stakeholders of decisions that
already have been made. Rather, it is about
getting useful public participation to inform
Agency decisions and developing a shared
responsibility to improve environmental
decision making and implementation.
^ Not an abandonment of the best available sci-
ence (e.g., human health and ecological risk
assessments) for environmental decision making.
CBEP is not about replacing science with
public opinion. It emphasizes making sci-
entific data and information available to all
stakeholders and decision makers so that
choices at all levels are better informed.
EPA's Community-Based Approach to Environmental Protection
-------
^ Not intended to disrupt existing state—local or
federal—tribal government relationships. CBEP
is not about EPA's bypassing states to work
with local governments. EPA must ensure
that states maintain primacy in areas either
for which they have been delegated
authority or that operate under state
statutes. Nor is it about abandoning the
federal trust responsibility for tribes. EPA
must work in partnership with tribes,
states, local governments, and citizens in
targeting areas for action, setting priorities,
and selecting EPA's role, and EPA efforts
should be coordinated with state and tribal
laws, policies, and programs.
Not a panacea. CBEP is not the one solu-
tion to all of the country's remaining
environmental challenges. Just as some
environmental problems lend themselves
more easily to enforcement actions and
litigation, others will prove more amenable
to a CBEP-type approach. These solu-
tions, along with others, including
approaches yet to be explored, should be
used where experience shows each can
deliver environmental results. As EPA
learns from its experiences, it will adapt
where and when it makes sense to apply a
CBEP approach and/or other approaches.
Why Community-Based Environmental
Protection Is Important
In the quarter century since EPA was char-
tered as a federal agency, the United States
has achieved remarkable improvements in
environmental quality. These improvements
have been hard fought, primarily targeting
point-source pollution by setting and enforc-
ing national environmental standards. If the
command-and-control approach has proven so
successful in improving the quality of air,
water, and waste management, why does EPA
need the CBEP approach? What are the com-
parative advantages of CBEP?
The Need: Remaining and Emerging
Environmental Challenges
In many cases, progress has revealed addi-
tional environmental challenges not addressed
by regulatory approaches. Some of today's
most pressing existing and emerging causes of
pollution and ecological degradation differ
from those of earlier decades, as do their
social, political, and economic contexts.
Today's environmental protection priorities
include such problems as polluted urban and
agricultural runoff; regional air pollution;
abandoned hazardous waste sites; urban sprawl
patterns of development; habitat loss; declin-
ing biological diversity; global climate change;
and the deposition or recycling of pollutants
among air, land, and water. While these chal-
lenges vary widely, they have some common
characteristics that distinguish them from
more familiar environmental problems:
^ The sources or causes often are individual
behaviors and choices, rather than the
actions of a few dozen large corporations.
^ The problems are local and unique to a
region or area and require tailored solutions,
rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.
^ The impacts cut across environmental
media—air, water, land, and living
resources—rather than targeting one dis-
tinct medium.
^ The economic and social impacts are inex-
tricably linked to the environmental impacts.
^ The solutions require an emphasis on pol-
lution prevention, preservation, and plan-
ning, rather than end-of-pipe fixes and
remediation.
These types of problems cannot be solved
using only media-specific, command-and-
control approaches.
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
The Context: EPA's
Movement Toward CBEP
The CBEP approach was not invented out
of thin air by EPA alone. It has its origins in
the concepts of ecosystem management,
watershed management, sustainable develop-
ment, and comparative risk assessment, as well
as the Vice President's reinventing government
initiative. These pioneering theories and prac-
tices, over the past 10—15 years, have explored
alternative approaches to environmental pro-
tection, examining the role of stakeholder
involvement, the relationships among environ-
mental media in ecosystems, and the relation-
ships between the economy and the
environment. The development of these con-
cepts has helped EPA to adapt and expand its
traditional approaches to environmental pro-
tection to meet present and future environ-
mental challenges. The table below summarizes
many of the new directions in which the
Agency is moving. Many of the new directions
help to characterize CBEP, and are the foun-
dation upon which CBEP is being built.
These new directions have resulted in
EPA's launching a number of programs and
initiatives that support place-based, commu-
nity-driven efforts to address environmental
issues. Examples of these include:
^ The Brownfields Initiative. Funded by EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), this initiative re-
develops abandoned low-level hazardous
waste sites.
Sustainable Development Challenge Grants.
EPA provides seed funds to communities to
support sustainable development solutions.
Environmental Justice.
The Agency pro-
vides assistance and
funding to commu-
nities with minority
and/or low-income
populations that are
disproportionately
affected by environ-
mental threats or do
not have equal
access to environ-
mental benefits.
^ The Watershed Approach. This community-
based approach has watersheds as the geo-
graphic unit.
There are a number of similarities and dif-
ferences among these and other EPA place-
based, community-driven programs and
approaches. Each is focused on a geographic
area and promotes stakeholder participation.
Although none of the Agency's place-based
approaches includes all of the principles of the
CBEP approach on their own, they represent
"BROAD-BASED ACTION IS
NEEDED BECAUSE GOVERN-
MENT ALONE CANNOT
ACCOMPLISH LONG-TERM
SOLUTIONS TO COMMUNITY
PROBLEMS."
— President's Council on
Sustainable Development
t TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
Focus on Single Environmental Medium
Jegulatory Emphasjs
gr Facility Focus
4- Focus on Small Set ofjfajor Sources of Pollution
'p. Emphasis on Human Health
Comparative Risk
? Federal Control , L- ...... .'.
|j: Success Defined by Activities
i^Environrnent.inIsolation „ ,..:•..'.
E Focus on Immediate Environmental Problems
NEW DIRECTIONS
Multimedia Focus
Regulatory and Nqnregulatory Emphasis
Place-based and Sector^based Focus
Focus on Large Set of Smaller and Noripoint Sources
^Emphasis on Human and Ecological Health
Cumulative Risk
Partnerships with State/Tribal/Local Governments
Success Defined by Results
Environmentjj- Economy + Society
' J
•-1
FocuionPreventjon and Long-term Sustainability
EPA's Community-Based Approach to Environmental Protection
-------
CBEP "OFFERS EPA AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
THOSE PROBLEMS OVER
WHICH IT HAS LITTLE
EFFECTIVE AUTHORITY. IF THE
AGENCY LISTENS WELL AND
PROVIDES USEFUL HELP TO
COMMUNITY-BASED
PROCESSES, AND IF THE
PARTICIPANTS IN THOSE
PROCESSES ARE WILLING TO
TAKE NATIONAL GOALS
SERIOUSLY, THE RESULT CAN
BE BETTER LOCAL
DECISIONS."
- National Academy of
Public Administration
pieces of the larger CBEP puzzle. When these
programs and approaches are implemented at
—————— the local level, however,
they often begin to
move up the "CBEP
staircase" and adopt
many of the CBEP
principles (see page 7).
In addition, several pro-
jects can be coordinated
and integrated within a
geographic area and
become part of a larger
CBEP effort.
For example, a CBEP
project may begin as an
effort to protect a
watershed or address
environmental justice
concerns surrounding
redevelopment of an
abandoned waste site. As
a local decision-making
process progresses, how-
— ever, a number of fac-
tors—such as an increase in the geographic
boundaries of the project or an increase in the
diversity of the stakeholders—could result in a
coalition of separately funded but related pro-
jects. From EPA's perspective, a CBEP project
could consist of a coordinated collection of
other placed-based projects—such as an envi-
ronmental justice effort or a sustainable devel-
opment activity—within a fairly large
geographic area. The CBEP approach encour-
ages the Agency to coordinate and, where
appropriate, integrate its place-based funding
and assistance programs and approaches within
defined geographic areas.
Movement toward such community-based
approaches is not limited to EPA.Various gov-
ernmental agencies, as well as the public, have
increasingly recognized that all resources in a
particular place (air, water, land, and living
resources) are interconnected parts of a sys-
tem, and they need to be addressed holisti-
cally. The "White House, the EPA Administrator,
and other governmental and advisory organiza-
tions have expressed support for this type of an
approach in numerous reports and documents.3
In addition, the American public has become
more environmentally aware and has become a
more active participant in local environmental
decision making. With this awareness comes
the recognition that each area has unique prob-
lems thatiiemand unique solutions. This recog-
nition has been a catalyst for the development
of CBEP at EPA.
The Advantages of CBEP
While initially CBEP can be more time-
consuming, in the long-run it can be more
effective, more efficient, and yield more
enduring, sustainable solutions for addressing
our more challenging environmental problems
(e.g., diffuse sources, localized issues, multime-
dia impacts) than a strictly regulatory-
approach. Among CBEP's advantages, it:
^ Is responsive to unique community characteris-
tics. CBEP addresses problems where they
arise and where the authority and interest
to solve them often lies—in communities.
^ Pools stakeholder resources. Rather than hav-
ing a dozen separate organizations pursue
distinct environmental goals, CBEP brings
those organizations together, to pool
resources to achieve common goals.
^ Minimizes duplicate EPA efforts and efforts
that might be at cross-purposes. CBEP brings
different EPA programs together in places
to work to find comprehensive solutions.
^ Builds infrastructure for problem solving. CBEP
helps build a sense of stewardship and
community infrastructure for environmen-
tal problem solving—a benefit whose value
long outlives the initial project.
3EPA Science Advisory Board's pivotal report, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environ-
mental Protection (1990); the Vice President's National Performance Review report, From Red Tape to
Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less (1993), which recommended that fed-
eral agencies adopt "a pro-active approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment through
ecosystem management"; EPA's five-year strategic plan, The New Generation of Environmental Protection
(1994); the National Academy of Public Administration's (NAPA's) report, Setting Priorities, Getting Results:
A New Direction for EPA (1995); the White House Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force's report,
The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies (1996); the President's Coun-
cil on Sustainable Development's report, Sustainable America: New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity,
and a Healthy Environment: An Agenda for EPA, Congress, and the States (1997); and the Enterprise for
the Environment's report, The Environmental Protection System in Transition (1998).
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
EPKs Environmental Justice (EJ) program is an example of another place-based approach at EPA that com-
plements and often is a part of a broader CBEP effort. Under the E] program, the Agency provides assis-
tance and funding to communities with minority and/or low-income populations that are disproportionately
affected by environmental threats or do not have equal access to environmental benefits.
EPA's Role in CBEP Efforts
EPA's role in any given CBEP effort may
range from nonexistent, to technical assis-
tance, to a leadership role. And the Agency's
role may vary greatly in one place over time.
The following four interests drive the degree
of EPA's involvement in CBEP efforts:
^ EPA's statutory requirements. EPA may
become involved because environmental
standards are not being met. EPA may ini-
tiate a CBEP effort or bolster an existing
effort to help a community meet regula-
tory requirements.
^ Ecological and human health risks. If a com-
munity faces exceptional ecological or
human health risks, or if a community has
natural resources of national significance,
EPA may become involved in a CBEP
effort to address the underlying environ-
mental problems and to protect natural
resources.
^ Community needs and desires. EPA may
respond to a community's request for assis-
tance and involvement in a CBEP effort.
K Other government roles. EPA shares its
responsibility for environmental protection
with tribal, state, and local governments, as
well as other federal agencies.The roles
these institutions are playing in a commu-
nity and their need and desire for EPA
assistance will influence the role EPA plays.
While EPA may play any combination of
roles, depending on the specific situation in a
community, it is more likely to take a leader-
ship role if federal statutory requirements are
the driving interest, and is more likely to play
more of a capacity-building role if a commu-
nity requests EPA's assistance with an ongoing
effort. If state and local programs already exist
in a community, EPA •will not recreate or take
over these programs. Rather, it will 'work to
EPA's Community-Based Approach to Environmental Protection
-------
support existing efforts by bringing its exper-
tise to bear when it is needed and when EPA
represents a distinct value added for the effort.
In the end, EPA must work with all of its
partners in each community to determine
appropriate roles. Following are examples of
CBEP efforts in which EPA plays a variety of
roles across the continuum.
Green Communities
EPA Region 3's Green Communities
Assistance Kit is an example of a capacity-
building tool that emphasizes holistic planning
and is accessible to all communities. The kit
walks communities through four stages of
planning:
^ Stage i: Where are we going? -+ Trend
analysis
^ Stage 2: Where do we want to be? —>
Vision statement
^ Stage 3: How do we get there? —» Action
plan
^ Stage 4: Let's go! —> Implementing the plan
A basic checklist is provided for conduct-
ing a community self-assessment, including
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, evalu-
ating the effectiveness of facilities and infra-
structure, making linkages between economics
and the environment, and demonstrating
land-use trends. The kit is available by mail
and on the Region's Web site and is being
pilot tested in York, Pennsylvania.
Sustainable Development
Challenge Grants
EPA's Sustainable Development Challenge
Grant program is an example of a capacity-
building tool that is both CBEP-focused and
place-specific. The program is designed to
challenge communities to match EPA seed
funds with private and public investments to
develop and implement community-based
environmental programs using a sustainable
development approach.
The funded projects are to be designed by
community stakeholders to ensure that those
I _E£A's role in CBEP effpjts cap.be better understood by considering its involvement on a continuum. On the far left of the
? Mntinuum, EPA supports CBEP indirectly by improving public access to various existing environmental data, information, training,
f" ::|j)(l grants. This type of support usually has a single-medium, single-discipline focus and is not targeted for particular geographic
j: |feas. It comprises the raw materials for communities to shape into useful tools. EPA's role becomes more directly supportive of
I ! CJEP as the continuum moves toward the right, by focusing more on the CBEP principles and/or by becoming more oriented
|«;;1tefd specific places. At the far right, EPA is an active stakeholder in a community, and may be taking the lead in CBEP efforts.
,;?• Supply CBEP-
focused qnd place-'
i**1 Specific info.,
Development
Challenge Grants)
Provide CBEP-
focused technical
assistance in a
community
i'( ,.•• f>
t
Direct EPA
Involvement
i-^ ^'j ;';.••••„,in- - ,,••;•..,' _ •
, Supply CBEP- Assist national,
Participate as
stakeholder or
leader in CBEP
organizations to _ project (eg,
regional, and
"state-ieyel
'if,
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
The Coeur d'Alene Basin restoration effort in Idaho originally was initiated by the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and EPA Region 10. It has grown to include local govern-
ments, additional tribes, community groups, timber and mining interests, as well as other state and federal
agencies. This group is successfully combining regulatory tools (e.g., total maximum daily load and
Superfund) and nonregulatory tools (e.g., technical assistance) to address a range of water quality concerns.
with the best insight into the problems and
opportunities are involved in creating com-
munity-based sustainable development solu-
tions. EPA encourages approaches that are
transferable or projects that can be replicated
in other communities. Successful proposals
under the challenge grant program should
become self-sustaining at the end of the pro-
ject period, without ongoing reliance on EPA
funds. In 1998, EPA awarded about $5 million
in grants to 45 different communities.
EPA Leadership in Charleston, SC
EPA has played a leadership role in
Charleston, South Carolina, because its inter-
ests initially were driven by a single program's
statutory requirements. Originally a former
wood-treating facility brought Region 4's
Superfund program to the Charleston/North
Charleston area. The program provided a
grant to hire a community technical advisor
for the site's cleanup.
As the community became more involved,
EPA helped to organize a Community
Advisory Group (CAG), and the CAG
expanded its reach to comprehensively assess
and prioritize the environmental problems in
the community. In the process, the CAG has
involved a wide range of neighborhood asso-
ciations; federal, state, and local government
partners; environmental and civil rights
groups; and academic institutions, among oth-
ers. What began as an EPA-initiated, single-
program effort has grown into a true
partnership among a wide range of stakehold-
ers who are working together to improve the
environmental conditions and the overall
quality of life in the Charleston/North
Charleston community.
EPA's Community-Based Approach to Environmental Protection
-------
^. -:•
kfflH^W*"
LLJ a.
-------
EPA's Community-Based
Environmental Protection Goals
EPA's mission is "to protect human health
and to safeguard the natural environ-
ment—air, water, and land—upon which
life depends." CBEP is one approach that can
help the Agency fulfill this mission.
Because CBEP is an approach, or way of
doing business, and not a separate program,
the specific goals of EPA's authorizing
statutes and related base programs (i.e., Air,
Pesticides and Toxics, Solid and Hazardous
Waste, and Water) are also EPA's CBEP goals.
By adopting the CBEP approach, the Agency
is supporting the implementation of EPA's
Strategic Plan, as submitted to Congress in
September 1997 under the requirements of
the Governmental Performance and Results
Act (GPRA). (See Appendix II for a com-
plete description of EPA's mission, goals, and
guiding principles, as described in the
Strategic Plan.)
The CBEP approach also supports a num-
ber of the guiding principles characterized in
the Strategic Plan, especially "emphasizing
comprehensive regional and community-
based solutions," as described in Chapter 3 of
the Plan. Other Strategic Plan principles
supported by the CBEP approach include
reducing health and environmental risks,
maximizing public participation, applying
sound science, and strengthening partner-
ships.
Because CBEP is a cross-cutting
approach, it does not lend itself easily to
tracking under any one program-specific
goal. Nor does it fit neatly under any one of
the guiding principles. Rather, CBEP sup-
ports each of the goals, in various combina-
tions at various times, depending on the
characteristics of specific projects. Achieving
all of EPA's statutory mandates and base pro-
gram goals, however, still would not produce
a sustainable environment, economy, and
quality of life. Therefore, the Agency has
developed specific goals for CBEP.
EPA's vision for CBEP is to support communities' efforts to use, protect, and restore natural resources—land, air,
water, and biodiversity—in ways that help ensure long-term ecological, economic, social, and human health benefits
for ourselves and future generations. EPA's goals to achieve its CBEP vision are fourfold:
>• Achieve environmental results consistent with EPA's mission and base program goals, as stated in EPA's authorizing
statutes and Strategic Plan.
> Address environmental concerns and issues that are not addressed under traditional federal regulatory approaches,
such as urban sprawl, urban"and agricultural runoff, and loss of biological diversity.
t Help communities develop the tools and capacity necessary to be stewards of their human and natural resources, j
V Coordinate and integrate EPA's programs and activities to increase the Agency's effectiveness in supporting sound
community environmental decision making.
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals and Strategies
-------
EPA's CBEP
Implementation Strategies
EPA, through its Headquarters and
Regional Office activities and programs,
will try to realize its goals for CBEP by
employing three principal strategies:
^ Reorient EPA programs to better support
CBEP.
K Build external capacity.
^ Work directly with stakeholders in places.
While each of the strategies emphasizes dif-
ferent aspects of the Agency's approach to
CBEP, EPA should strive to incorporate each
of the six core CBEP principles into its appli-
cation of each strategy. Some of the principles
are seemingly most applicable to working
directly with stakeholders; however, it is
important to bear the principles in mind when
working to reorient the agency and to build
external capacity as well. The principles can
guide and focus the work under these strate-
gies so that it fully supports CBEP. For exam-
ple, reorienting efforts should strive to make
the Agency more responsive to the needs of
specific geographic areas, and capacity building
should include helping communities navigate
the regulatory process, as well as making non-
regulatory tools available. Perhaps most impor-
tant, a full range of stakeholders should be
involved in helping EPA to develop and
implement each of the strategies, from identi-
fying EPA policies that hinder CBEP activi-
ties, to assessing community needs, to selecting
places in which EPA will be directly involved.
Reorient EPA Programs to
Better Support CBEP
In taking a CBEP approach, EPA is hoping
to improve the effectiveness of its nationwide
environmental programs and regulations.
Therefore, EPA must work to integrate the
CBEP principles into all Agency programs.
EPA should build upon existing programs and
initiatives within the Agency that already may
incorporate a number of key principles of
CBEP, such as the brownfields initiative, the
watershed approach, and the environmental
justice program. The Agency should reorient
its traditional programs to better support and
facilitate a CBEP approach by revising poli-
cies and rules, developing better lines of com-
munication among programs, identifying and
supporting CBEP research needs, and estab-
lishing education and training programs for
EPA staff. In doing so, EPA must engage in
conversations with its stakeholders to help
identify and prioritize areas for improvement,
and to develop the most appropriate solutions.
The Agency's senior management should sup-
port and participate in the development of
CBEP policies, plans, and projects. All of EPA's
senior managers need to demonstrate a clear,
strong commitment to community-based
environmental protection. EPA Headquarters'
senior managers should demonstrate leader-
ship at the national level and show dedication
to supporting Regional Office CBEP efforts.
EPA should integrate CBEP principles, goals,
and measures of progress into all areas of the
_£ FOOJS on a definable geographic area.
^ Work collaboratively with a full range of stakeholders through effective partnerships.
} Assess the quality of the air, water, land, and living resources in a place as a whole.
>• Integrate environmental, economic, and social objectives and foster local stewardship of all community resources.
^ Use the appropriate public and private, regulatory and nonregulatory tools.
^ Monitor and redirect efforts through adaptive management.
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
Agency's bus/ness. CBEP principles, goals, and
indicators should become a basic part of each
program's planning, budgeting, and imple-
mentation systems. The Agency should take
advantage of current oversight mechanisms
and other relationships with state environ-
mental and natural resource agencies as efFec-
tive tools for integrating CBEP within their
programs.
National Program Managers (NPMs) and
Regional Offices should agree to work
together to ensure that all EPA programs are
engaged in a CBEP approach to achieve both
program goals and place-specific goals. A
more focused.approach through Headquarters
and Regional collaboration will help engage
NPMs more directly in the CBEP approach
and ensure that Regional Office projects and
activities clearly relate to Agency goals.
Finally, EPA should work with states,
tribes, and across Agency programs in devel-
oping joint CBEP goals, principles, strategies,
and measures of performance that will be
incorporated into EPA—State/Tribal
Performance Partnership Agreements and
grants.
Each Regional and Program Office should assess
its current programs and policies to determine
ways to improve the effectiveness ofEPA's deliv-
ery of its services within places and its external
capacity-building efforts for CBEP. EPA's work
in places will require a greater emphasis on
effective coordination and enhanced flexibility
in the way the Agency allocates its resources.
For example, EPA should improve the coordi-
nation of targeting and reporting responsibili-
ties among the Agency's place-based programs
Under the umbrella of the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, EPA Regions 4 (Atlanta)
and 6 (Dallas) are working together in Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana to address a host of
water quality and habitat concerns within the Mississippi Delta, while at the same time promoting sustain-
able economic development. Some examples of projects include the development of wetlands protection
and restoration strategies and tools, and implementation of agricultural best management practices.
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals and Strategies
-------
(e.g., Sustainable Development Challenge
Grants, Regional Geographic Initiative,
Environmental Justice). EPA should also eval-
uate funding options for CBEP and develop
options for increasing funding flexibility for
multimedia, multi-program work.
EPA MUST WORK IN TANDEM
WITH THE STATES TO
DEVELOP A PROCESS TO
RESOLVE CONFLICTS THAT
ARISE WHEN EPA AND STATE
GOALS DIFFER.
— EPA should develop a
process for resolving con-
flicts with state environ-
mental agencies
regarding CBEP priori-
ties. Both state environ-
mental agencies and
EPA are committed to
protecting human
health and the environ-
ment, but they may not
________—__ always agree on meth-
ods to achieve their
goals or share priorities regarding CBEP pro-
jects. EPA must work in tandem with the
states to develop a process to resolve conflicts
that arise when EPA and state goals differ.
This resolution process will be paramount in
any EPA-state partnership.
The Agency should build staff skills and exper-
tise to implement CBEP through training, hiring
new staff, and/or obtaining greater access to
outside experts. Although the Agency already
has a great deal of experience and expertise to
build on, EPA needs to strengthen and
broaden its CBEP-related skills and tools
especially in areas of stakeholder involvement
and holistic planning and assessment—to be as
effective as it can be. CBEP will require the
Agency to make a greater investment in
human resources in order to ensure that it has
the necessary skills and expertise to assist
communities effectively.
The Agency should improve staff skills and
expertise through: (1) more training in areas
of social science, such as group facilitation and
building consensus, cultural sensitivity, systems
thinking, economics, goal setting, and com-
municating ecological issues; and (2) hiring
new staff, developing new career tracks, and
obtaining greater access to outside experts,
like economists, sociologists, cultural anthro-
pologists, Geographic Information System
(GIS) specialists, risk assessors, and mediators.
The Agency should provide the scientific founda-
tion to support CBEP activities by making
greater investments to develop, enhance, and
transfer scientific information and technology. In
the CBEP approach, public agencies, private
organizations, and citizens monitor and eval-
uate environmental, social, and economic
conditions holistically on various geographi-
cal scales. These groups need specific data and
information, criteria or benchmarks, guidance
materials, training, and other technical tools
to make sound environmental decisions
affecting their communities. New tools and
models that can integrate diverse amounts of
data and information (e.g., population,
income levels, landscape cover, land use, bio-
logical diversity, multi-chemical exposure,
comparative risk) and simulate the results of
community planning scenarios are required.
In addition, tools and information are needed
to identify, target, and plan work in priority
places. Communities also need measures and
indicators of environmental, social, and eco-
nomic conditions to evaluate progress toward
meeting their human health and ecological
objectives.
To meet these needs, senior management
should support efforts under way by the
Office of Research and Development to (1)
identify potential Agency CBEP science (i.e.,
research and technology) activities; (2) charac-
terize the existing Agency CBEP science
activities; (3) determine what additional sci-
ence activities are needed; (4) integrate the
science activities into the Agency's research
planning process; and (5) design, develop, dis-
seminate, and assist in the application of
Agency CBEP science support products (e.g.,
tools, models, guidance, technical support,
training).
Build External Capacity
EPA cannot be directly involved in every
community in the country, nor should it be. It
can, however, help to build the capacity of
others to engage in CBEP activities. EPA
must help communities improve their abilities
to address environmental issues and pursue
sustainability on their own, with little or no
direct EPA involvement.
Rather than concentrating all of its
resources in one place, the Agency can reach
ERA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
The Massachusetts Bays Program is a community-based partnership of more than 300 people from 49
coastal communities around Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, as well as citizen advocacy organizations,
scientists, educators, businesses, and government officials. They have committed to opening shellfish beds,
reducing toxics, and ensuring no net loss of salt marsh and wetlands habitat.
thousands of communities, sometimes as a
catalyst, helping to resolve technical problems,
or can provide information. This strategy
allows EPA to maximize the potential envi-
ronmental benefits of the CBEP approach.
Capacity building also affords the Agency an
opportunity to learn from its partners.
Capacity-building efforts at all levels are
necessary to maximize the opportunities for
CBEP. Some roles are less labor intensive or
can reach a larger audience (e.g., providing
access to existing data), while others are more
relevant to a particular audience (e.g., techni-
cal assistance). In addition, it is essential that
EPA engage communities in identifying the
most needed and most appropriate tools
before it begins developing them. The follow-
ing strategy suggests ways EPA can improve
and maximize capacity building when it
assumes less direct roles than being a full
stakeholder in a community.
EPA should build capacity in those organiza-
tions, groups, and individuals who can and will
engage the CBEP approach in places. Because
CBEP activities often are bottom-up endeav-
ors, these external parties include citizens,
community groups, nonprofit organizations,
associations, businesses and industries, as well
as local, state, and tribal governments. .
EPA's capacity-building tools should reflect and
promote the CBEP principles in order to maxi-
mize their potential benefit to communities.
EPA uses three broad tools to build external
capacity: (1) data and information, (2) training
and technical assistance, and (3) grants. These
tools should:
^ be relevant at the community level and,
when possible, be tailored for specific
places or for specific types of problems;
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals and Strategies
-------
EPA MUST HELP COMMUNITIES
IMPROVE THEIR ABILITIES TO
ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES AND PURSUE
SUSTAINAB1LITY ON THEIR
OWN, WITH LITTLE OR NO
DIRECT EPA INVOLVEMENT.
K be understandable and available to a broad
range of stakeholders;
^ include information on cross-media issues;
and
^ include economic and social, as well as
environmental, information.
Examples include EPA Region 3's Green
Communities Assistance Kit; the Office of
Policy's Community-Based Environmental
Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting
Ecosystems and Communities, which provides an
overview of tools and approaches available to
communities interested in pursuing ecosystem
management and sustainabihty; and the Office
of Policy's Community Cultural Profiling Guide,
which describes various methods for identify-
ing a community's cultural values and analyzes
how those values impact a community's rela-
tionship with the environment.
The Agency should assemble and deliver data
and information in ways that effectively inform
the community-based decision-making process,
motivate the Agency's constituencies to protect
the environment, and support performance
measurement. EPA has been working toward
improved public access to useful environmen-
tal information. The "Expansion of Americans'
Right to Know About Their Environment" is
a separate EPA goal in the Agency's Strategic
Plan. With sources like the Toxic Release
Inventory and Enviro-
facts on the EPA Web
site (http://www.epa.gov),
which provide access to
a range of existing EPA
databases, EPA works to
arm the public with
information about their
local environment.
EPA needs to con-
tinue to improve the
accessibility of existing
——•———— environmental informa-
tion to a broader range
of stakeholders. To this end, EPA should
develop strategies to improve information col-
lection, sharing, and use for communities, giv-
ing special attention to providing usable and
accessible EPA programs' data and informa-
tion to the public and communities, and to
forging stronger information-sharing partner-
ships with external organizations (e.g., federal
agencies, states, tribes, other governmental
entities, nongovernmental organizations, uni-
versities, and other information providers).
Work Directly with
Stakeholders in Places
In addition to reorienting its programs and
building state, tribal, and local capacity, EPA,
primarily through its Regional Offices, should
work directly with stakeholders in designated
priority places. For the purpose of this
Framework, "working directly with stakehold-
ers" implies hands-on involvement by EPA:
(1) as a leader among stakeholders or (2) as an
active but equal stakeholder within a place,
during the planning and implementation of a
CBEP effort. In either role, EPA may provide
direct-and substantial assistance (e.g., placing
Agency employees •within a community, or
providing funding, technical assistance, and/or
data and information) to other stakeholders
within a place. This section offers some mini-
mal guidelines for Regional Offices in devel-
oping a process for targeting and working in
priority places.
EPA Regional Offices should work with states to
establish systematic methods for identifying and
targeting priority places for the Agency's direct
involvement. To support this targeting,
Regional Offices should have access to ade-
quate resources, training, and expertise for
using GIS and other tools for mapping and
assessing community-level and regional data.
States often have a unique knowledge about
their regions, and many have developed
extensive databases of environmental indica-
tors and have used GIS to map the resources
in their areas. EPA should take advantage of
these resources, collaborating with state agen-
cies to develop methods and identify priority
places.
EPA should continue working in those
places that-already have been selected as pri-
orities for direct EPA involvement. Any
process for targeting new priority places
should include collecting and assessing infor-
mation under the key targeting categories and
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
KEY CATEGORIES/QUESTIONS
sbr Need for an EPA Role
|~' •:•''•" • • •.'•.-'
~- Will the area be significantly enhanced by direct EPA
1 assistance, and does it need or require EPA Regional-level
!' attention and resource focusing?
f Level of Ecological/Human Health Risk
I,-..' Are the risks to humans and natural resources exceptional?
s~ Likelihood of Success of EPA Efforts
fc . ' . •
§ Will the Agency's involvement produce tangible short-term
j- and long-term results?
criteria outlined in the table above. EPA
Regional Offices are not required to adopt any
of the suggested criteria within each of the
three categories, and no single category is
more important than another. Regions are
only encouraged to work with states to
develop targeting processes that include each
of the three categories. (Appendix III contains
an expanded version of the table above.)
Other decision methods may be used to
further refine the list of projects or geo-
graphic areas (e.g., weighting schemes, the
desired balance of rural and urban ecosystem
types and problems, and the number of states
represented). EPA and the states should work
together to refine the selection process,
negotiating specific selection criteria when
necessary.
Each EPA Regional Office should develop place-
specific plans or strategies that establish the
Region's objectives, roles, and milestones. Once
EPA Regional Offices have selected their pri-
ority places for direct Agency involvement,
each Region should develop place-specific
plans or strategies that establish its objectives,
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
Resources are of national significance.
Area requires a multimedia effort.
Area has transboundary concerns.
Community needs are currently unfulfilled.
* Ecosystems are at particular risk or of particular
importance.
• Area poses exceptional risk to human health.
• Impacts on minorities or low-income groups are
disproportional.
Community capacity and readiness.
Availability of Agency resources.
roles, and milestones. These plans should be
developed in coordination with the plans and
priorities of EPA regional and national pro-
grams, states, tribes, federal agencies, and
regional and local organizations. Wherever
possible, EPA's place-specific plans should be
linked to Agency program goals and objec-
tives identified in the Strategic Plan. (See
Appendix II.)
The CBEP approach often requires EPA
to have multi-year comrnitrrients with stake-
holders within specific
places. EPA Regional
Offices should try, to
the greatest extent pos-
sible, to dedicate and
use their resources on a
multi-year basis so they
can respond to the
needs of the commu-
nity and build trust in
the Agency's commit-
ment among stakehold-
ers. (Appendix IV includes descriptions of
suggested supporting information for a plan's
elements.)
.. ..
PLANJELEMENTL
;round and Reason for Selecting the Place
Performance Goals and Measures
^Inscription of EPA Role and Nature of Involvement
Resource Allocations and Milestones _ __ _
"Monitoring and Evaluation of Results
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals and Strategies
-------
Measuring and Tracking
EPA's CBEP Performance
The Agency must be able to demonstrate
the progress it makes toward realizing its
CBEP goals. EPA recognizes the difficulty
in developing measures that are sufficiently
flexible to reflect local and regional variation
in objectives, but still reflect progress toward
EPA's national CBEP goals. The Agency also
recognizes that most CBEP activities require
years before they can demonstrate actual envi-
ronmental results. Therefore, performance
measures must be capable of measuring
progress toward EPA's CBEP goals as well as
achievement of those goals.
The Agency must strive to answer three
basic questions about CBEP performance:
How much progress is EPA making in
coordinating and integrating its programs
and activities to increase its effectiveness in
supporting community environmental
decision making?
Is EPA helping communities to develop
the tools and capacity necessary to be
stewards of their human and natural
resources?
Is CBEP achieving environmental results
consistent with EPA's mission and base
program goals, and addressing environmen-
tal concerns and issues not addressed under
traditional federal regulatory approaches?
Through an extensive public involvement process, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has identified
nine priority issues that represent the Tahoe Basin's vision of environmental health and quality of life.
Working with a stakeholder group and with funding from EPA's Region 9, the TRPA has identified indicators
and is developing a monitoring program to track progress on these issues.
liilfaS
*»!.:*,*, '-»-.••>» if;; _
'- • , ' 'I
'M::;:V •':1
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
EPA'S CBEP GOALS
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
CATEGORIES
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
SUBCATEGORIES
:,,-_« * -|
| Goo/ /
I Coordinate and integrate.
I Goa/2
C Help communities.
ERA Activity Measures
These measures enable EPA to gauge
progress in the acceptance and use of
CBEP approaches within EPA.
Community Capacity
Measures
These measures track changes in a
community's capacity to engage CBEP
activities and demonstrate the :
effectiveness of EPA's efforts to build
capacity in places where it is not
directly involved.
Efforts to reorient EPA programs.
Efforts to build the capacity of
others.
Efforts to participate directly in
places.
Community infrastructure.
Governance.
Knowledge of and disposition
toward the environment.
-I
Goo; 3
Achieve environmental results
consistent with EPA's base program
goals.
Goaf 4
b. Address environmental concerns and
-Hssues not addressed under traditional
- federal regulatory approaches.
; Outcome Measures
These measures track the
environmental (including human
health), economic, and social/cultural
results of CBEP work in places. In
addition to measures tracked under
EPA's Strategic Plan, they emphasize
ecological results and measures that
focus on sustainability.
Sing|e.environmentai medium and
human health stressors and
conditions.
Ecological stressors and
conditions. ;
Economic stressors and
conditions.
Social/cultural stressors and
conditions.
Regional and Program Offices should measure,
track, and report CBEP performance. To
demonstrate answers to these questions, EPA
should use the three categories of perfor-
mance measures in the above table, which
shows how each category tracks to EPA's
CBEP goals and specifies performance mea-
sures within each category. (See AppendixV
for more details.)
EPA's Regional and Program Offices
should track office-wide activity measures. In
addition, Regional Offices should track com-
munity capacity and outcome measures in
CBEP priority places; however, specific mea-
sures and indicators should be tailored to the
specific characteristics, goals, issues, and objec-
tives in each priority place. The specific perfor-
mance measures should not be prescribed.
CBEP performance measurement should be
coordinated with and integrated into existing
Agency accountability systems. In addition to
being a valuable management tool, perfor-
mance measurement is mandated by Congress.
Under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), all federal government
programs and initiatives are being asked to
measure progress and results toward achieving
goals and objectives, as described in agencies'
strategic pkns. In addition, EPA also negotiates
Core Performance Measures with the states to
track performance for the Agency's delegated
programs.
While the Agency is interested in tracking
its own performance in using the CBEP
approach, and not necessarily that of its state
partners, any measurement system should be
consistent with the state—EPA accountability
system to enhance the ability to share and
compare performance information. CBEP is a
cross-cutting approach, however, and may not
lend itself easily to program-specific tracking
EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals and Strategies
-------
under typical governmental accountability
systems. EPA should conduct an analysis of
how cross-cutting agency strategies, like
CBEP and other place-based approaches,
should be tracked and reported under the
Agency's accountability system.
In the meantime, EPA still must measure
the environmental results attributed to the
CBEP approach, as stated in EPA's Strategic
Plan. CBEP performance tracking and report-
ing should be compatible with the GPPvA
and the Core Performance Measures when-
ever possible to minimize potential duplicate
reporting and to ensure that results attribut-
able to CBEP are accounted for.
The Agency should develop and/or access data
sources with information scalable to the local
level, especially focusing on data that can be
used to measure ecosystem health and environ-
mental sustainability. Because CBEP is place-
based and focuses on ecosystem health and
environmental sustainability, in addition to
EPA's traditional environmental media focus,
the Agency will need to develop or access
new kinds of data to support CBEP perfor-
mance measurement. In many cases, data
sources already may exist with state and local
governments and nonprofit organizations, and
EPA may only need to find the right data-
sharing partners. In other cases, the Agency
may need to develop strategies for collecting
new types of data. EPA should conduct a data
needs assessment for measuring CBEP perfor-
mance, including strategies to improve infor-
mation collection, sharing, and use, and an
assessment of funding needs for CBEP data
collection.
i t
isr~~i' i <
4i j K
td *" *"" * !l " "?
^Phrough CBEP, EPA can help communities create a vision of environmental health
j^, I and quality of life and pursue activities that will achieve that vision The ultimate
iSI"11 success of^this^ approach will depend upon EPA and its stakeholders working collab-
^raiavely and formula partnerships to identify needs, develop solutions, and effect
change. With the CBE^P Framework as a guide, EPA can loot forward to continuing its
,L" siicc'esses HI protecting human health and providing healthy, sustainable ecosystems for
ii ill I Jill I]' i i i "i * Hi * f * i * f
fir generations to come
(ff# u£ f i V li ift f I I1 I - ^ " K
1
* 1
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
-------
-------
I. Reviewers of the Framework
CBEP Grassroots/Community Organizations
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Business Council for Sustainable Development
(Gulf of Mexico)
Charleston/North Charleston Community
Advisory Group
Maine Environmental Priorities Project
Massachusetts Bay Program
The Mountaineers (Seattle, WA)
New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project
Pacific Rivers Council (Eugene, OR)
Local Governments
Alamo Area Council of Governments (TX)
City of Austin (TX)
City of Tulsa (OK)
City ofWatsonville (CA)
Columbus Health Department (OH)
Grant Soil and Water Conservation District
(Silver City, NM)
Local Government Commission
(San Francisco, CA)
Region Council of Rural Counties
(Sacramento, CA)
Seattle City Council (WA)
State and Regional Governments
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
California Resources Agency, Community
Economic Revitalization Team
Florida Environmental Protection Commission
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Maryland Department of the Environment
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Nevada Department of Environmental Quality
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation
Tennessee Valley Authority
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
National Environmental Organizations
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
Resources for the Future
The Wilderness Society
Tribes
Cheyenne River Sioux
Citizen Potawatomi Nation
Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Tribal Natural Resource
Department
Fort Peck Tribes: Assiniboine and Sioux
The Kaw Nation of Oklahoma
Lac du Flambeau Tribe
Pueblo of Jemez, Department of Resource Protection
Other Federal Agencies
Economic Development Agency
Interagency Ecosystem Management Coordination
Group
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic
Division
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division
Associations, Academic Institutions,
and Think Tanks
American Industrial Health Council
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators
Association of State Wetlands Managers
California Urban Environmental Research and
Education Center
Canaan Valley Institute
Council of State Governments
Environmental Council of the States, CBEP
Committee
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental
Democracy
International City-County Management Association
Joint Center for Sustainable Communities
National Academy for Public Administration
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
U.S. Conference of Mayors
University of Connecticut, Cooperative Extension
System
Western Center for Environmental Decisionmaking
Appendices
-------
II. EPA's Strategic Plan:
Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles
Mission
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to
safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends.
Goals
/. Clean Air
The air in every American community will be safe and healthy to breathe. In particular, chil-
dren, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments will be protected from the health risks of
breathing polluted air. Reducing air pollution will also protect the environment, resulting in many
benefits, such as restoring life in damaged ecosystems and reducing health risks to those whose
subsistence depends directly on those ecosystems.
2. Clean and Safe Water
All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to drink. Effective protection of
America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish, plants, and
wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities. Watersheds and their aquatic
ecosystems will be restored and protected to improve public health, enhance water quality, reduce
flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
3. Safe Food
The foods Americans eat will be free from unsafe pesticide residues. Children especially will be
protected from the health threats posed by pesticide residues, because they are among the most
vulnerable groups in our society.
4. Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems
Pollution prevention and risk management strategies aimed at cost-effectively eliminating,
reducing, or minimizing emissions and contamination will result in cleaner and safer environments
in which all Americans can reside, work and enjoy life. EPA will safeguard ecosystems and pro-
mote the health of natural communities that are integral to the quality of life in this nation.
5. Better Waste Management, Restorat/on of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response
America's wastes will be stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people
and to the natural environment. EPA will work to clean up previously polluted sites, restoring
them to uses appropriate for surrounding communities, and respond to and prevent waste-related
or industrial accidents.
6. Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks
The United States will lead other nations in successful, multilateral efforts to reduce significant
risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and
other hazards of international concern.
7. Expansion of Americans' Right to Know about Their Environment
Easy access to a wealth of information about the state of their local environment will expand
citizen involvement and give people tools to protect their families and their communities as they
see fit. Increased information exchange between scientists, public health officials, businesses, citi-
zens, and all levels of government will foster greater knowledge about the environment and what
can be done to protect it.
ERA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
S. Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and Greater Innovation to Address
Environmental Problems
EPA will develop and apply the best available science for addressing current and future environ-
mental hazards, as well as new approaches toward improving environmental protection.
9. A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
EPA will ensure full compliance with laws intended to protect human health and the environ-
ment.
10. Effective Management
EPA will establish a management infrastructure that will set and implement the highest-quality
standards for effective internal management and fiscal responsibility.
EPA's Guiding Principles
In addition to developing a set of goals, the Agency has developed a set of principles intended
to guide senior management in making decisions about Agency priorities as well as provide a
framework for ways in which the goals and objectives may best be reached in our day-to-day
activities. The principles include:
^ Reduce Health and Environmental Risks
^ Emphasize Pollution Prevention
^ Emphasize Children's Health
V Strengthen Partnerships
^ Maximize Public Participation and Community Pvight to Know
K Emphasize Comprehensive Regional and Community-Based Solutions
^ Place Emphasis on Indian Country
F Choose Common-Sense, Cost-EfFective Solutions
Source: EPA Strategic Plan. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (EPA/190-R-97-002),
Washington, DC: September 1991.
Appendices
-------
III. Suggested Process for Targeting
Places for EPA's Direct Involvement
EPA should continue working in those places that already have been selected as priorities for
direct EPA involvement. Any process for targeting new priority places should include collecting
and assessing information under the key targeting categories and criteria outlined in the table
below. EPA Regional Offices are not required to adopt any of the suggested criteria within each of
the three categories, and no single category is more important than another. Regions are only
encouraged to work with states to develop targeting processes that include each of the three cate-
gories.
STEP PROCESS FOR TARGETING PLACES FOR EPA'S DIKbU INYOLVhMtNl !
i^^a&^jS^j]^.,^
KEY CATEGORIES/QUESTIONS
Need for an EPA Role
- " Will the area be significantly enhanced by direct EPA
*t' assistance, and does it need or require EPA Regional-level
f attention and resource focusing?
L^JLeve/ of Ecological/Human Health Risk
i, | Are the risks to humans and natural resources exceptional?
SHm ;
r
J l !( Likelihood of Success of EPA Efforts
L|,|^illlhe Agency's involvement produce tangible short-term
l|il;and long-term results?
tit*
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
1 Area includes resources of national or international
significance (e.g., the Everglades), as designated by the
U.S. Congress, the United Nations, or an appropriate
government agency or organization;
1, Area requires a concerted multimedia, multi-
programmatic effort, or an extraordinary effort from
one or a few EPA media programs;
• Area demonstrates transboundary (multi-state or
^international) concerns (e.g., the Rio Grande); and/or
1 Community needs and/or environmental concerns are
currently unfulfilled by other governmental agencies,
stakeholder groups, or other EPA efforts.
63 ....... :
HI
• Ecosystems are threatened, degraded, seriously
impaired, or important to the maintenance of
biodiversity and major ecological corridors (e.g.,
flyways supporting migratory bird populations in the
Great Plains);
• Area poses exceptional risk to human health (e.g., high
'. PCB contamination in sediments); and/or
• Environmental effects are disproportionately felt by
minority populations and/or the economically
disadvantaged and subsistence groups (e.g., dependent
upon fish for food).
• Scale and clarity of the area's geographic boundaries;
• Community capacity and readiness (e.g., existence of an
established community infrastructure for environmental
decision making, quality of environmental partnerships
and leadership);
• Public interest and partnership support for technical,
financial, and information assistance; and/or
-a. Availability of Agency resources.
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
IV. Suggested Elements and Supporting
Information for Place-Specific Plans
Once EPA Regional Offices have selected their priority places for direct Agency involvement,
each Region should develop place-specific plans or strategies that establish its objectives, roles,
and milestones. These plans should be developed in coordination with the plans and priorities
of EPA regional and national programs, states, tribes, federal agencies, and regional and local orga-
nizations. Wherever possible, they should be linked to Agency program goals and objectives identi-
fied in the Strategic Plan. (See Appendix II)
. «,, ,„„,-
MG,tESTEDELEMENTSA|DSUP
ajay.15 fejua^ AJse&SL-^ia*.
SUGGESTED PLAN ELEMENTS
J:
SUGGESTED SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Background and Reason for Selecting the
Place as a Regional Priority
Performance Goals and Measures
The environmental conditions being measured may not
change significantly on an annual basis and may represent
conditions that are only marginally affected by direct EPA
actions. The goals and measures for priority places should
be developed with partners and stakeholders.
I EPA Role and Nature of Involvement
if. ' . '•>•-.•
Resource Allocations and Milestones
Monitoring and Evaluation of Results
Regional Offices will redirect EPA funding and activities
when necessary to continue the Agency's contribution to
progress in a meaningful and substantive direction.
• Ongoing efforts within the priority place by EPA and
other partners (e.g., EPA program funding and
activities, risk assessments, and studies).
• Reasons for selecting the place as a priority (e.g.,
criteria met, selection methods used).
• Major sources, stressors, and issues related to human
health and the environment (e.g., loss of habitat,
- nutrient enrichment, metals, mining and ore
processing).
___«:_ I
• Short- and, long-term activity, human health,
environmental, and sustainability goals (e.g., restore
depressed shellfish and wildlife stocks to sustainable
levels).
• Short- and long-term measures and indicators used to
gauge progress toward achieving goals (e.g., trends in
.;-the size of depressed stocks).
.Alternative public and/or private action, if any, to EPA
involvement, and how EPA involvement will make a
difference.
Extent and type of services/activities EPA will provide.
Appropriate level of responses to place-specific projects.
Essential partnerships and minimum/optimum
requirements for collaboration.
Project assistance time periods and goals for successful
project initiation, execution, and closure.
Supplementary sources of funding, services, and
information!
Resource allocation identified for CBEP activities.
Guidance and milestones for providing funds, technical
assistance, information to communities and other
service providers.
Process to be used for periodic assessment of progress in
achieving EPA's outputs and outcomes.
Appendices
-------
Y. Examples of CBEP
Performance Measures
•Mbe following examples of performance measures are intended to improve the understanding of
I each measurement category. They may serve as a starting place for developing Region- and
I place-specific measures, to be used like a menu—a Region or priority place may select from
each list those measures that are appropriate for them. Regions are not, however, limited by these
examples in any way. The lists are not intended to be exhaustive, do not reflect the "right" number
of measures, and do not define the scope and range of the categories.
|l fJltiP inM MM I**. |H piSKiil J h'l,i'!!!l '''"'Vl 'M Jyii^t'1*'''^!''!!''!!' Hi'lil ^i^.-^^j^^a^^.-j....!^^ „ ft,»_«_ .w .,.<.. ~j~^f— , ......L^. .._,_., .^ -...™ "
p^iains aw afflvities fo mcrease its effectiveness in supporting sound community environmental decision making,
CATEGORY OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES RELATED TO CBEP GOAL I:
EPA ACTIVITY MEASURES
I Because it often takes years for environmental results to materialize, activity measures are necessary to gauge the level of CBEP implementation.
"I1 These measures will tell us how much and what kind of "CBEP" is happening.
SUBCATEGORIES OF
ACTIVITY MEASURES
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF
ACTIVITY MEASURE SUBCATEGORIES
* Reorienting ERA Programs to
Better Support CBEP
111 T1 i1 • •«* *t ii i . ,. i
' Tits category should include measures of
,i organizational change that improves EPA's
ability to work across Program Offices and
Regions, adopt multimedia approaches,
develop effective partnerships, and deliver
appropriate services to support CBEP activities.
It also should include activities that develop
EPA staff expertise in CBEP (e.g., training,
rhjrjn| practices), as well CBEP tools for EPA
>• use in communities.
Building External Capacity
This category slioulcf include measures of the
™ availability and range of EPA's CBEP tools,
i customer satisfaction with those tools, as well
^ r as the diversity among types of stakeholders
' using the tools (e.g., states vs. tribes vs.
community nonprofit^).
. Working Directly with
~ StakehoTders in Places
I - J ,4.
This category should include the range and
tf pes of places in which EPA is working, the
range and types of issues being addressed, and
" the extent to which each project is embracing
the CBEP principles. These measures should be
> expressed as raw numbers and as a percentage
i , of the total.
Ji ' i 4 i
breakdown of financial resources (e.g.,
grants/lAG, contract, travel) directed
toward CBEP activities
hours of CBEP-related training for EPA
staff and management
projects for which innovative
organizational structures or cross-
program or cross-division partnerships
were established to accommodate
cross-media work
# of users of selected CBEP tools
(e.g., training, resources,
informational materials)
customer satisfaction with EPA tools
and information systems
projects defined by geographic area,
and the breakdown by type (e.g.,
political jurisdiction, subwatershed,
watershed, ecosystem, ecoregion)
projects involving federal, state/tribal,
local government, and community
stakeholders
projects using a cross-media (i.e., air,
water, waste, and pesticides/toxics)
approach
partnerships developed with
organizations outside of EPA to
leverage resources and/or expertise
resources and expertise leveraged
through established partnerships with
organizations outside EPA
# of IPAs and details established for
the specific purpose of supporting
CBEP work
# of CBEP-related staff for whom
CBEP duties have been included in the
PERFORMS system
# and characteristics of projects in
which EPA initially took a lead, but
later became community-led
# of states entering into NEPPS
agreements that include CBEP
language and CBEP-related
performance measures
projects involving economic and/or
sociocultural goals
projects pursuing goals that were
established through a collaborative
process involving stakeholders
projects focusing on each of a range of
issues or landscapes (e.g.,
development issues, watershed
restoration, Superfund site
cleanup/restoration, threatened
'"Species, water quality and quantity)
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
, . ... ., .,,,_, !?SW»Sn4*»we".JSFt"ir-iSTJS^H*,*
,-*HSOftkl_ ™w«^, „ « „„_,«,«, w ^,„ ^^^^ ,- ,w
i^o^mumtiesjwjo£rtejtools and caj)acitynecessarytobe stewards of their human and natural resources.
*!
ir"
CATEGORY OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES RELATED TO CBEP GOAL 2:
COMMUNITY CAPACITY MEASURES
These measures will track changes in a community's capacity to engage CBEP activities. In addition to providing a profile of a
community's capabilities, they will demonstrate the effectiveness of EPA's efforts to build capacity in the communities where it is
" not directly involved. These measures should be expressed as changes from the previous measurement cycle or from a baseline.
I SUBCATEGORIES OF COMMUNITY
ft CAPACITY MEASURES
S- Community Infrastructure
*- This category attempts to measure a community's ability to
, organizationally and structurally support CBEP efforts. It
|_—should track the community's formal organizations and
fe alliances, as well as its informal partnerships. It also should
p: track the leve[pf public participation in community
iy; activities, and tfie community's access to and use of CBEP
I; tools (e.g., environmental data, technical experts).
li-
fe-
m-
Environmental Awareness
This category attempts to measure the general level of
awareness and understanding of environmental issues in the
community, as well as the relative importance of these
issues to community members.
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY
CAPACITY MEASURE SUBCATEGORIES
membership in environmental/conservation/wildlife
organizations
# of public/private partnership efforts to protect the
environment
# of participants in environmental volunteer activities
amount of class time devoted to environmental
curriculum in local schools
# and % of residents who list environmental health as
a component of a better quality of life
# and % of environment-related articles in local media
# of art exhibits/shows featuring nature, animals, etc.
Governance
"This category should gauge the ability of government
institutions.to address,a community's environmental
concerns, the relative importance government institutions
"assign to environmental issues, as well as the level of public
participation in local governance.
.#, of joint projects among municipal, county, and state
governments
government spending on environmental issues
Appendices
-------
CATEGORY OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES RELATED TO CBEP GOALS 3 AND 4:
, , ,r ,i"|i|ir OUTCOME MEASURES
** t These measures will track iLe actual enyjronniental (including human health), economic and social/cultural outcomes or results of CBEP work in places. In
-" :• addition to measures tracked under ErWsGPRA (Government Performance Results Act) Strategic Plan, emphasis will be given to ecological results and
^l^i^i'tliat^s'on'sustemabilite'Tiiese1 measures should be expressed as changes from the previous measurement cycle or from a baseline.
HtalllAir'ir! ...... h »ih^v™liMii^^ .......... '"illliT t ..... li1" I"": y'lVViii' V i i"ij ..... r"ii" nit ""I r * \ .": ...... i '.";, Hi, ,,..i v:';, " i^ 'JV^''""^^1^1 ...... t".»",;>^^:lA w 'Kr^ii A L'. t 'j1". _^«^.' ' ' ^':: .^.A.-'L" ____ i.. ., .% ...... !±
!fe.i»^:a»,«,^s»=^f^ .....
SUBCATE60RIES OF
............. ........... *****«*«<=•"'•*•- —
, ., . . _
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF
''
OUTCOME MEASURES
inlkipi _ 'l ill11'
f —. Programmatic,
ie Media-Specific,
I Environmental and
BPS'Sii: I I ill
i Human Health
a _ 11*
i ,.5, Outcomes
s;= This category should include
l;^measufesof progress toward
*! |P| Program Office goals,
§*t jH.ajjirand water quality
S'1"' indicators anS'Ieyeis'of soil
v: and food contamination.
emission reductions for
criteria air pollutant
^missions of air toxics (organic
and inorganic chemicals, heavy
metals)
# of people in clean air
nonattainment areas
average annual visibility
impairment in national parks and
wilderness areas
population served by community
dripking water systems violating
I health-based requirements
ground and surface water
<"'i«i ->'i .^/-'MNiiiM1! n,'!,^1'1;»; N, i.Y '. : ;;
population served by community
drinking water systems exceeding
* lead action levels
fish consumption advisories
biological integrity
species at risk
wetland acreage
water meeting designated uses
contaminated sediments
nonpoint-source sediment loadings
from cropland
marine debris
number and level of pesticide
residues found in food
'
pesticide use (agricultural,
household, and commercial)
% reduction in wastewater flows
hazardous waste generation
municipal waste per capita
indoor radon levels
blood lead levels
amount of hazardous waste
managed by type of method
brownfield properties cleaned up
and converted to economic reuse
amount of solid waste iandfilled,
recycled, or incinerated.
mr Ecological Outcomes
I - - «jju ";;;,;•;',;;:;:»
» This category does not track
Sf single-medium pollutants
1 that contribute to ecosystem
» degradation and poor human
, ^ ........
„,;;; ........ of pollution and other causes
; ..... ii; ..... ...... snjle.sjabjljty and viability
Sf'of urban and natural .....
-'"""ecopemt ..... "4lil"' ....... ! ................................. : ......
plant and animal diversity
(compared to a reference
condition)
population and/or health of
selected "indicator" species
degree and rate of fragmentation
of ecosystem by types
number of species experiencing
reduced, range
number of native species (aquatic,
terrestrial, plant) at risk
river and stream miles designated
as healthy, using Biological
Integrity Assessments
number of fish kills and number of
fish killed
eutrophication conditions in
estuaries, lakes, and reservoirs
% of assessed water bodies with
healthy biological communities
average seasonal soil nutrient
content by location
biotic/ecosystem assessment
indices (e.g., Index of Biological
Integrity)
rate of topsoil loss per year
iV'} i^M'biitlw'aniftW'J1
• Economic Outcomes
iiiiffiis category should include
"B measiifes of changes in eco-
lomically motivated activi-
ties and outcomes that
' i impact the environment, such
t as resource consumption,
investment patterns, employ-
rj "lent patterns and character-
istics, transportation policy,
4 and land-use policy.
l'l»!i"l|j !« iiSijJjjlliS^t^^ " ''''"'"ill' "lIV!''!*; W ' I1'' ' '*» "ir I
• land use/cover
V I i"i I*':. ; •: ! '-. ...J , :,-
• human migration and dispersal
patterns (also social)
• % of development within five
minutes of stores, transit, etc.
• % of population living in urban
areas (also social)
• energy consumption by use, per
capita (also social)
t-wiV1*1- j*, »i4i'' ^-ffliVw^""^"'"''''^.^ <,j
ratio of renewable resource energy
!" extracted vs. amount generated
# jobs dependent upon resource
extraction (also social)
materials use per capita; per
output (also social)
total and per capita water supply
withdrawal
ratio of timber harvest to timber
growth
j*jN.L,*,n., j,,,.1!;,,f'Hvv ^^•'''^"^iw.^lwsvHi***^
ratio of amount of raw resources
exported vs. value-added exports
vehicle miles traveled per capita
per year (also social)
transportation fuel consumption
per capita (also social)
modes of transportation to work
(also social)
% of commuters living within 30
minutes of work (also social)
........... , ....... ||nj ............ ........ | |.!|!|||| i.r,,||, ....... ............ ............ In,,'"
This category should include
L ..... ,#.,13(170 of people exposed to
j by ethnicig and income
% of population within 1/2 mile of
i/op
.. ..............
: tural pressures and outcomes
. ' ' that directly impact the envi-
I* 1 ronrnent, such as human set-
^ tlemeni patterns, individual
L.^ energfusei elvlronmental
- justice issues, and recre-
~ ational opportunities.
# and % of people with access to
adequate sanitation, trash pick-
up/disposal
# and % of population served by
wastewater treatment
miles of maintained walking,
hiking, biking trails per 1,000
residents
# of people engaging in outdoor
recreation
# and % of residents who
consider their community beautiful
# and % of people who express
pride in their community and
environment
perceived quality of life
-------
Sources of Example Measures
USEPA, OW, Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States. EPA 841-R-96-002.
Washington, DC. 1996.
USEPA, "Core Performance Measures for FY 1998, as developed by the National Program
Managers in collaboration with State Environmental Commissioners." August 1997.
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, Environmental Indicator Technical Assistance Series:
Volume One—Catalog of Environmental Indicators. Florida Center for Public Management,
Tallahassee, PL. October 1996.
USEPA, EPA Strategic Plan. EPA/190-R-97-002. Washington, DC. September 1997.
Sustainable Development Indicators Group, "Proposed 1997 Sustainable Development Indicators:
Indicators Inventory." Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators,
Council on Environmental Quality. October 1996.
Hart, Maureen, Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators. Ipswich, MA: QFL/Atlantic Center for
the Environment. 1996.
Appendices
-------
VI. Glossary of Terms
biological diversity (biodiversity) The variety of living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial,
marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and ecological complexes of which they are part. It considers
diversity at all levels, from genetic variants within a species, to the variety among species and
higher taxonomic levels, as well as the variety of ecosystems in which they live. [USAID Strategy
for Biodiversity Conservation, 1995.]
brownfields Abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion
or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. EPA's
Brownfields Initiative is designed to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders in eco-
nomic development to work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse
brownfields. [EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response home page, URL:
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/index.html]
community In general, community includes components and attributes of social interaction, com-
mon ties, mutual satisfaction of needs, and shared territory or place. More specifically, individuals
may define and understand what is meant by community in any particular situation. As such, any
"community" includes a variety of differing values, perceptions, priorities, and complex inter-
relationships around environmental protection as well as other community-based issues.
community-based environmental protection (CBEP) EPA's term for a holistic and collaborative approach
to environmental protection that brings together public and private stakeholders within a place or
community to identify environmental and public health concerns, set priorities, and forge compre-
hensive solutions. Through CBEP, which is often called a place-based or ecosystem approach,
stakeholders consider environmental protection along •with human social needs, work toward
achieving long-term ecosystem health, and foster linkages between economic prosperity and envi-
ronmental well-being.
comparative risk Generally, comparative risk refers to the process of estimating the risks (human
health, ecological, and/or quality of human life) of various environmental problems, and prioritiz-
ing the problems and their management based on the level of risk each poses. Comparative risk at
EPA also refers to a specific technical assistance program. Under the program, comparative risk is
"a cross-media problem assessment and planning effort that can be applied at the federal, state,
local, or watershed level.... [T]he process brings together diverse stakeholders to reach consensus
on which environmental problems pose the most risk to human health, ecosystem health, and
quality of life; and to develop consensus on an action plan to reduce those risks." ["EPA's
Comparative Risk Projects: Bridging Science and Public Values." EPA, Regional and State
Planning Division: June 1997.]
ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their non-
living environment interacting in a functional unit. [EPA's Agency-wide Strategic Plan: A New
Generation of Environmental Protection, July 1994.]
environmental justice EPA defines environmental justice as the "fair treatment for people of all races,
cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
Over the last decade, attention to the impact of environmental pollution on particular segments of
our society has been steadily growing. Concern that minority populations and/or low-income
populations bear a disproportionate amount of adverse health and environmental effects led
EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
President Clinton to issue an Executive Order in 1994 focusing federal agency attention on these
issues. EPA responded by developing an Environmental Justice Strategy.
Geographic Information Systems (CIS) GIS comprise software and hardware systems that relate and dis-
play collected data in terms of geographic, or spatial, location. The ability of GIS to quickly overlay
new information on top of existing base data and to display it in color on a computer screen is
helping users conduct analyses and make decisions related to geology, ecology, land use, demo-
graphics, transportation, and other domains in ways never before possible. For example, in search-
ing for a safe site for a landfill, a researcher may direct the computer to overlay a regional elevation
map with data on various types of soil. The soils data, in turn, can be removed or overlaid still fur-
ther, say, with data on groundwater. ["Book of the Year (1995): Earth Sciences: OCEANOGRA-
PHY: Mapmaking: Redrawing the Boundaries." Britannica Online.]
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) A statutory framework, enacted by Congress in 1993,
to change and improve management of the federal government. The GPRA seeks to shift the
focus of federal management and decision making away from a preoccupation with activities that
are undertaken to a focus on the results of those activities as reflected in citizens' lives. Specifically,
the Act requires executive agencies to prepare multi-year strategic plans (including mission, goals
and objectives, and strategies), annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. [The
Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Ee Uneven. U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO/GGD-97-109):June 1997.]
multimedia Environmental media are the building blocks of our environment—the air, water, land,
and living resources. Most of EPA's major programs are organized around individual environmental
media. This organizational structure often means that each office only concerns itself with issues as
they relate to one medium. When EPA uses the phrase "multimedia," it is referring to an approach
where multiple environmental media are assessed and addressed simultaneously and in a coordi-
nated fashion. For example, when air pollutants are deposited into surface water, the Offices of Air
and Water might work together, using a multimedia approach, to solve their combined problems.
National Environmental Performance Partnership Systems (NEPPS) A set of basic principles jointly devel-
oped by EPA and states. These principles include increased use of goals and indicators, self-assess-
ments, differential oversight, public outreach, and joint evaluations. A key element of NEPPS is the
development of Environmental Performance Agreements, sometimes called Performance
Partnership Agreements, which are broad strategic documents containing joint statements of prior-
ities and goals negotiated between states and EPA Regions.
Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) RGI began in 1991 as EPA's Regional Offices completed com-
parative risk assessments of environmental problems to estimate risks to human and ecological
health. The problems were evaluated and prioritized to identify risks that were not being
addressed, wholly or in part, by existing national environmental programs. The Regions proposed
addressing these complex and cross-jurisdictional problems by using a geographic-based, multi-
media approach. In 1994, an RGI fond was established to support these efforts.
risk assessment and risk management Each environmental problem poses some possibility of harm to
human health, the ecology, the economic systems, or the quality of human life. That is, each prob-
lem poses some environmental risk. Risk assessment is the process by which the form, dimension,
and characteristics of that risk are estimated, and risk management is the process by which the risk
is reduced. [Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. EPA Science
Advisory Board, Washington, DC: September 1990.]
Appendices
-------
stakeholders The variety of people interested in a particular place, such as individual residents and
landowners, civic and religious organizations, businesses and industry associations, environmental
and conservation groups, and governmental agencies arall levels.
sustainable communities Communities that pursue sustainable development (see definition below) at
the local level. They are "cities and towns that prosper because people work together to produce a
high quality of life that they want to sustain and constantly improve." [Sustainable America: A New
Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future. President's Council on
Sustainable Development, Washington, DC: February 1996.]
sustainable development The most widely used definition of sustainable development comes from
the United Nations "World Commission on Environment and Development, which in 1987,
defined it as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs." Beyond this no singular definition has emerged;
however, there is consensus on its fundamental tenets: "a concern for sustainable development
counsels long-term time horizons consistent with our responsibilities to others, recognition of the
interdependence of the economy and the environment, and more comprehensive, integrated
approaches to economic development and environmental protection." [Sustainable Development and
the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (EPA/230-R-
93-005), Washington, DC: June 1993.]
watershed approach A coordinating framework for environmental management that focuses public-
and private-sector efforts to address the highest-priority problems within hydrologically defined
geographic areas, taking into consideration both ground and surface water flow. [Watershed Approach
Framework. EPA, Office ofWater (EPA/840-S-96-001),Washington, DC:June 1996.]
ERA'S FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
------- |