xs*EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy Economics EPA IOO-R-02-004
and Innovation (I807T) March 2003
Evaluation of Community-Based
Environmental Protection
Projects: Accomplishments
and Lessons Learned
-------
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 I -800-490-9198;fax: (513) 489-8695
Office of Policy Economics and Innovation (1807T)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 566-0495; fax: (202) 566-2220
E-mail: CBEP.handbook@epa.gov
When ordering copies of the Evaluation of CBEP Projects, please cite publication number EPA IOO-R-02-004.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
5322
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TON L:-C 20-100
MAR 23
-: f i !" I !• :i ! ,
y . . '••••-i • r,r.. .'..* ii::r,
ME! MORAN'DUM
Sl."B.f F.CT: fatilitiitwn i>f{ ^fminuuuti'-lkixctf Fnvirtmtnt'iihi! PmSt-vti'fiH
Acci)mf)IiJihmctils anil l.L'xxans Lvurncil
KKOM: JavBcnlbradof '"''i .Q, ( (
Director -^ ^^.^-— -----
National! < 'enlLTi'fojr FnvirortrncnLLiI [nnf fux1 Agency
place-ba-seJ pruiecLs. Tlii.- iludy. Eitiittutitjn ufCumnuinitr-Ba^fd Eiivirunmi'fiftii Prttfectifm
Protects: ArromfiiishrHt'ntj; anti L&svils LwiUL'tl. vvjis completed with £issis«4ince iroill Regions 3. 4.
7 ajiJ S, as well as slate and local governments iind community organizations, t his project was one
f the CMI]U;I lions scloctod for funding m the OChO;OPtl 2fi(i| Program tvulmition Competition
o
A.s yuu kiULn*., HI1 A su]j]joils and panicjpittcs in a rich array of community-based
environmental protection efforts tlirouchoul the L. S. A community-biiscd approach emphasises
huilcting eapiicily a! the local level lo achtevt" more inle^raled envirDnmcrilal pro^-clion and LusLers
licikj^es beuvecn ecoiKuiue pm-sperily, and social and cuviirotuiicntal well-beiny. In 1999, tPA's
"Framw.'rt, for {.'wyitmtuiiy tinned KwitannH'mni Pmii'eti'au ," I he bl]A idcnlificd several
altribules Lhul charnelcri/c the comnmniiy-hiiseLl nppnwch. including;
* i.i focus on a Lici>ynaphic area;
• collahorakon aiuony a wide run^u of sluXcholdeis;
dial em across environmental media to suppon intoLriHcd decision making;
ol environ mentul. econumic.. iirul cial ohi
uf regulatory and iRHi-rctiLiUiHirv tooJs und
i m e« rat i on of adaptive manage meni approac hcs dri \ en hy ongo i n g mo n i tori n g i n format i on
I'tip .'
-------
Kncwv
This reptiil evaluates fhe commumly-h-B&cd projects in which F.PA Regions participated,
either as a piojoct leader or in a supporting role I'lii: objective of this, .siudy v. as in iilrntil'v the
advantages and disadvantages of the com muni ly-hased approach HI these prcijecls; [lcs lo. ii.. Jcad x'crsus supporl n>fc). TliLm pri)|ctl.s we evaluak'd VN-LTC:
San Mi^ud Wuiershetl Initialive: A mulli-sukcholdcr ct'fon to address impacts nl'
H and oilier ittessors on ;i .sparsely popuUiled western Colorado w.nershed.
N&rlli C'harlcston/C'hurtcjilcm ranirnuiiily-Da^ed Ettvirou mental Protection Project
A iniilli-Makelialdt.-! pnijtu? H) addiess CfO&s-i'nedii'L eiu iiOJUiicnuE and other quality oflifc
ibr Lillian cosnnuirsslics on thcCliJirit^ldn. Snulli Carol inu peninsula.
Ha!: A rcyatuml paTlii'jrslilp to address &(>ru\.vl llirouth rcvitali^Uion of'cuicson
lliL- eastern .side ol'South J-'loridu.
York, Pttinsylvjiiiist Conimupily-Bascd Slratcgic P] aiming and Green Development:
A eoinprcJiensivc plannirjg process mvolviny aulivc einnniunity parlietpatiOil,
reuse, ,'ind other Liretn duvcloprncul
• St. Luuis Ahillldonccl Hui Mings Prnjcct: A multi-agency partin.Ts.hip iti asKiKl ihe city in
ab^ndoricd huiltlin.iidcnioliiidn und .complijnec ^ith hazardous subslLuiec
rci|iiirenn:n.Ls
Key r.vjlujtioii Fill dill as ^
[he Ijjldin^s oif ibis cvalualiim SLIL'.U^H| thai cotnniuiiity-lia.sed t'sHJr'oiirtseiilal
strategies can he \-cry effective. pn>\ ided ihat the process is carefully designed lo organize mpin of
participiinlH arid delineate eleaj lolcs and resell sih-lliUcs, The approach can iilsa yield ,1 vitnely
-------
These overall fi ndings along with a summary of (he report's recommendations arc further
in the attachment H> ini-i memo. The findings of (he study for 1 lie individual projects arc in
it-purl it-idf. Thwc finitiri^ and ret-ummeniblions suggest a number of oppcnlunilics for the
EPA tu proruute Lliu curninuilily-ba.'iod erU irtniiiiCritLil prDietlion apprtiath and (iplimi/.t the re.suIts
tor communities.
AUiuchmunts:
Kc>' Find ings an J Recomnicudations
H.valuation Report
-------
KvaluiUion ofComrnunily-HuNcH Rnv iron men Lil PrulcttUm Projects
A • Key Findings and
/J - The Carnmunay-Baxeti Approach P Oifi Unique Cliatttttgrs ttlit Can Positively Affect
Achievement of Project (iottlx:
• a meaningful geographic boundary can enhance project success,
• community-based proiecti require eurcf 'uliy destined dee IK ion-making processes
• -vlakehoiders' ink's arid leadership responsibilities require clear definition.
* community-based piojqseti may require mveslrnenl oi time., resource, :snd k-isiieiship
* dew pert'onrunce indifalurs are esieritiiil K^ munuging lor results,
2 - The L'tHiiMunity-&astd Approach Pravide\ \'altuf*A.dded Benefits:
* community-hj.scd :i[>pnjaL-he.s curl \ield new forms ol intcgratmn und t:wrtlinu!iori.
• the approach provides pjirtncrship hcnefus ihuc c^Lciid beyond the project,
• the approach promotes enpiinly huildrns and su:suinal>i]ity.
• thu cur!iniuiiity-buscd appronch can crease Icigitirmicv arid siynul community support.
iun il v - liased uipprouchcs c un I nil ucncc hraailcr puh 1 1 c pul ic y .
3 - /:/*.•! (.'an /''tMttr Iff tier Vsvisfthe Cumuiunily-Rasfti Approach:
* us. u pail ic i pan? in L'dmmunin-liased projects, EPA should identify "mchi;" mles.
(e.g.. provutc ii:j?u or analyliu support) (hiit LLi'C COmplcniCflUiry lo project needs.
* EPA fundiing (even in small umoanlsl. arid hmv it is provided, cun he cntical lo
F.PA can he inMiunK"llUil in organising diverse interests ujid |K>leiltial partners around
arv j.ssut;s arid approaches.
Kei'inmiieiidutiuJls:
These fji'idin^h iij^c&t some possible ['ulure jclkms fJliit tile Aeency Citn lukc lo be a more
eHccisvc cummunily partner istnJ to promote atkvpimn of the cumniuruty-baiied approach m mtire
communities:
• EP.i often support* c»nimttitity-baxt by being a partner in it nifftf-role
rather titan leading every effurL Otti1 of the EPA niche rok% communiiiey Jlnd useful /.v
tf* (lit wformafian rexourfe. To improve its v;iltic us un information resume?.* and ?o maSif
ih ertons more hroadl\ anaibbL- lu CLininmilitios. tiPA could pniniiile the de\c]upmeilt.
isnd u«l of yeuspatia] ltx>ls L»nd int'omialKin Ic-ti.. geographic snfurmution
thin help communities identify leioutces und risk? so th;il cornmanilies CLHI plan und
manage nioreclTcelivclyK F.PA can Ixi usetul :n helprng communities identify a variety of
stralet^es I'm achieving Ibcir goals. HPA could uliO develop inloiTnalion and yuidauce on
hou- cumiTLUriiti^Si call identify and use inleeraled syitemi o^ meiisurcs. of c
progress. These measures couid help ^uide eonsni unities" ci'J'orTS toward s
-------
EPA t annul he ti hanth-an partner with every community, but H can provide assistance to
a targe number of cammuuity-basetl enl'iriiiintentitl efforts indirectly through State and
Tribtti government*. FPA has neither the resources nor ifiu authority Lo be directly involved
in most common i lies, l:.HA miyht e \iunJ Us effeLuvenu.ss and build stronger partnership
with Si uses anilTntKS- by fasten ni: ihe development of Center^ of E\ pen i s-e fur Community
Development at Ihc S(;ilc and I'nhal levck us LI rtsouree fur Lechntc^J iS-srslatiLX1 und
mcrnonnc lo kitim mum lies ihul are lookinu Itir UJVH ID pktn arid pixiinutu eru luniiiietLtaliy
compatible1 economic dexcloprrtcnt. One minlel might fe (he crculicm al' assislura't: ctificoi^ ul
the Stale and Tribal level 10 assist unct advise comrnum'Mes Ic.g... us an Jithuncl tu ihj; Lund
Gum College system) through mtcgnnion ol m,iny areas o(" aunicmiu cjcpcnisi: and a
knowledge of lucuJ conditions and issues, similar la the Office of Water's Local
Ciovcmrncnts F.MS Pet-r As.sis^riL-u Centeis. EPA could exploit cooperatjon with the
Natural Resource Cons^rvuHon Stn'icc Districts ID sup^H>il "one-stop ihopp«ng" tor Federal
e on emironmcnUil mailer*
There tiff c onnnunity-bastd projfctx where EPA fv direct iavniveintuii has been wefeonte
and bfiicjifiul, C&n&i&tftit with thf problfm*xah'ing orientation identified in the
AgettfV 's Innovation Strategy, KPA could identify priorities far ifc direct involvement in
cot am unity-based pr ojec t s. In partnership with Siutes, Tnbes, urid other Federal Aseneies.
F.PA could idenury priority places bused; upon cnlcna such s»s:
thf naiHHiiil o: iiiEionu] sieniMcanee of ccosysiemsi and landscapes und ihtrtrnaiural
rci'Hirvt;^ untl ihc .M^rulicarjce ut riski to those systems.
- the Ilkehriciod thiU acnrnmLinily-husi-d paitnership a])]n'0ach will address human
health risks, und tn her environmental risks mure urrectivL-ly llun itieulacory
approaches ulone;
the l«keUhoo
-------
Acknowledgments
This report, Evaluation of Community-based Environmental Protection Projects: Accomplishments and
Lessons Learned, was developed under contract for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (lEc),
of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The EPA acknowledges the assistance of Robert Black and Ann Jones
of lEc in the preparation of this report as well as the contributions of peer reviewers: Dr. JoAnn
Carmin ofVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dr. Toddi Steelman of North Carolina
State University, and Michael Mason from EPA Office of Water. The EPA also acknowledges the
assistance of the people identified in Exhibit 1-1, who provided expertise and information about
the five projects evaluated in this study. In the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Gerald
Filbin (202-566-2182; filbin.gerald@epa.gov) was the project manager for this study and may be
contacted for additional information.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER I
Background and Objectives 1-1
Methodology 1-2
Overview of Document 1-3
SAN MIGUELWATERSHED INITIATIVE CHAPTER I
Project Description 2-1
Background 2-1
Goals and Objectives 2-2
Project Activities 2-3
EPA's Role 2-4
Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls 2-4
Effectiveness of the CBEP Process 2-5
CBEP Value Added 2-6
Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations 2-7
CHARLESTON / NORTH CHARLESTON CBEP CHAPTER 3
Project Description 3-1
Background 3-1
Goals and Objectives 3-2
Project Activities 3-3
EPA's Role 3-4
Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls 3-5
Effectiveness of the CBEP Process 3-6
CBEP Value Added 3-7
Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations 3-9
EASTWARD HO/ CHAPTER4
Project Description 4-1
Background 4-1
Goals and Objectives 4-1
Project Activities 4-2
EPA's Role 4-3
Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls 4-4
Effectiveness of the CBEP Process 4-8
CBEP Value Added 4-8
Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations 4-10
Table of Contents
-------
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMUNITY-BASED
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND GREEN DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 5
Project Description 5-1
Background 5-1
Goals and Objectives 5-2
Project Activities 5-3
EPA's Role 5-4
Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls 5-5
Effectiveness of the CBEP Process 5-6
CBEP Value Added 5-7
Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations 5-8
ST, LOUIS GATEWAY INITIATIVE:
ABANDONED BUILDINGS PROJECT CHAPTER 6
Project Description 6-1
Background 6-1
Goals and Objectives 6-1
Project Activities 6-2
EPA's Role 6-2
Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls 6-4
Effectiveness of the CBEP Process 6-4
CBEP Value Added 6-6
Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations 6-7
CROSS-PROJECT EVALUATION CHAPTER?
How Does the CBEP Process Affect Achievement of Project Goals? 7-2
WhatValue-Added Benefits Does CBEP Create? 7-8
How Can EPA Best Support CBEP? 7-11
REFERENCES Ref-l
APPENDIXA
CBEP Program Evaluation General Interview Questions A-l
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
INTRODUCTION AND
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER I
The EPA supports and participates in an
array of community-based environmental
protection (CBEP) efforts throughout
the United States. CBEP refers to an integrated,
pkce-based, participatory approach to managing
the environment that simultaneously considers
environmental, social, and economic concerns
(U.S. EPA, February 1999). In its CBEP frame-
work document, the Agency describes CBEP
as a process that "brings together public and
private stakeholders within a pkce or community
to identify environmental concerns, set priorities,
and implement comprehensive solutions. Often
called a place-based, or ecosystem approach,
CBEP considers environmental protection
along with human social needs, works toward
achieving long-term ecosystem health, and
fosters linkages between economic prosperity
and environmental well-being." The Agency has
identified several key attributes that characterize
CBEP, including a focus on a geographic area;
collaboration through a range of stakeholders;
assessments that cut across environmental
media; integration of environmental, economic,
and social objectives; use of regulatory and
nonregulatory tools; and monitoring to allow
adaptive management.
The EPA facilitates CBEP efforts by coordi-
nating traditional regulatory programs to support
CBEP; providing tools to communities pursuing
CBEP activities; and collaborating directly with
stakeholders. The Office of Policy, Economics
and Innovation (OPEI) coordinates the Agency's
CBEP efforts.
The San Miguel Watershed Initiative, discussed
in detail in chapter 2, provides an excellent
illustration of key CBEP principles. The coalition
leading the initiative emphasized collaboration
between diverse stakeholders representing
environmental as well as economic interests.
The EPA contributed technical assessments of
resources in the basin to provide the analytic
foundation for decisionmaking. The Watershed
Plan, developed with input from citizens and
institutional stakeholders, calls for an array of
voluntary actions while at the same time, the
San Miguel County Planning Department has
drawn on the CBEP project for crafting local
knd use guidelines.
The purpose of this report is to evaluate a
set of regional CBEP projects in which EPA
participates. The evaluation considers both
environmental outcomes of each of the projects
as well as the overall effectiveness of the CBEP
process. Specifically, the evaluation focuses on a
set of key questions:
T To \vhat extent have the selected CBEP
projects provided measurable environmental
results related to EPA's strategic goals as
•well as improvements in the long-term
sustainability of communities? Alternatively,
how have the CBEP projects helped to lay
the groundwork for environmental and
sustainability improvements?
T Which CBEP attributes are prominent in
the selected projects? Overall, how are these
important in making the projects work well?
What factors affect projects that do not
work as well?
T What was the value added of the CBEP
approach for EPA's community partners and
for the Agency itself? For example, does
CBEP help foster an enduring community
process focused on natural resource
management and environmental quality
(i.e., a stewardship role)?
The evaluation is intended to assist EPA as
it considers advantages and disadvantages of
community-based projects and how it can tailor
its role to best support CBEP efforts.
Introduction and Methodology Chapter I
-------
METHODOLOGY
We examine five projects as part of
this evaluation. The projects are
briefly summarized in Exhibit 1-1.
We \vorked with the OPEI project manager to
identify a set of projects that met several basic
criteria, including geographic diversity and a
range of EPA roles (e.g., lead versus support
role). Although all of the projects have note-
worthy successes, we also intentionally selected
projects that encountered institutional challenges,
thereby yielding useful lessons regarding how
EPA can overcome obstacles and avoid future
problems. Furthermore, we chose projects that
featured EPA contacts committed to supporting
and assisting with the evaluation.
Phone interviews served as the primary
source of information for this evaluation.
Exhibit 1-1 lists the people interviewed and
their affiliations. We attempted to gather
perspectives from a cross section of people. We
contacted at least one EPA participant to get
the Agency's perspective and gather adequate
EXHIBIT l-l
PROJECTS INCLUDED IN EVALUATION
Project Name
San Miguel Watershed
Initiative
North Charleston/
Charleston CBEP
Control
EastwanJ Ho!
Project Description
Multistakeholder effort to address development
and other stressors in sparsely populated western
Colorado watershed.
Multistakeholder project to address cross-media
environmental and other quality-of-life concerns
for urban communities on the Charleston,
South Carolina, peninsula.
Regional partnership to address sprawl through
revitalization of cities in South Florida.
York, Pennsylvania, Comprehensive planning process involving active
Community-Based Strategic community participation and drawing on brownfield
Planning and Green reuse and other green development strategies.
Development
St. Louis Abandoned Multiagency partnership to assist city in abandoned
Buildings Project building demolition and compliance with hazardous
substance management requirements.
People Interviewed
Michael Wireman, EPA Region 8
April Montgomery, San Miguel County Planning Department
Linda Luther, San Miguel Watershed Coalition
Stacey Wright, Sawpit Town Board
Genne Boles, Last Dollar Community Representative
Cynthia Peurifoy, EPA Region 4
Daphne Neel, SC Department of Health and Environmental
Marcy Guerriero, SC Coastal Conservation League
Lonnie Gleeten, Community Advisory Group (CAG)
Industry Representative
Wilson Gautreaux, CAG Industry Representative
Dr. Elfonzo Evans, CAG Community Representative
Carolyn Stribling, Medical University of South Carolina
Terry Manning and Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional
Planning Council
Betsy LaRoe, EPA Office of Water (HQ)
Lee Rawlinson, Miami-Dade County Planning Office
Donna Masson, ChamberSOUTH
Eric Menzer, City of York Office of Economic Development
Susan McDowell, EPA Region 3
Tim Fulton, Susquehanna Real Estate
Kerry Herndon, EPA Region 7
Art Spratlin, EPA Region 7
Julie Stone, St. Louis Mayor's Office/Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Timothy Dee, St. Louis Air Pollution Control Department
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
detail on EPA's role. We also contacted at least
one project manager from a local partner
organization to characterize the community's
perspectives. However, time and resource
constraints precluded contacting the complete
set of relevant project participants. Studies on the
effectiveness of program evaluation techniques
suggest that conducting evaluations on the
basis of interviews or surveys of a limited set
of participants can lead to significant biases
(Leach et al. May 2000). In addition, other
studies emphasize the importance of fully
representing diverse stakeholders in evaluation
interviews (Kellogg Foundation 1998;
Muraskin 1993). Therefore, although we have
attempted to implement representative interviews,
conclusions presented in this report should be
considered preliminary and potentially subject
to revision if additional research is pursued.
We constructed a basic set of questions that
served as a foundation for the interviews, and
we sent them to most of the contacts prior to
our conversations. These basic questions are
included as Appendix A to this report. In advance
of each interview, we also assembled questions
that we customized to the role of the interviewee
on the project.
The evaluation incorporates information
from a wide variety of written material on the
projects, including formal project reports, online
project descriptions, and internal tracking
materials made available by the interviewees.
In one case (Eastward Ho!), a formal evaluation
of the project had already been completed. All
relevant written materials are listed in the
references section at the end of the report.
OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENT
The remainder of this report is divided into six
chapters. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 discuss the
different CBEP projects by addressing the fol-
io-wing seven components:
T Project Description: Reviews the origins
and objectives of the project.
T Project Activities: Examines in detail key
activities pursued under the project.
T EPA's Role: Reviews EPA's contributions
to the project and discusses project participants'
views and recommendations regarding the
Agency's involvement.
T Project Accomplishments and
Shortfalls: Examines quantitative and
qualitative indicators of project accomplish-
ments, including environmental and
socioeconomic outcomes. Also addresses
aspects of the project that have fallen short
of stated objectives.
T Effectiveness of the CBEP Process:
Focuses on measures of how the process of
community-based environmental protection
has succeeded or failed.
T CBEP Value Added: Considers additional
benefits of CBEP projects that would not
be realized under traditional regulatory
approaches. For example, CBEP projects
may foster cross-agency coordination, enhance
local capacity to address future environmental
challenges, and improve the cost-effective-
ness of environmental management efforts.
T Summary of Key Themes and
Recommendations: Briefly reviews key
findings for each project
The final chapter of the report synthesizes
the findings for each project into a single
evaluation that identifies themes that emerge
across all the projects and makes practical
recommendations for the Agency's future
CBEP efforts.
Introduction and Methodology Chapter I
-------
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
SAN MIGUEL
WATERSHED INITIATIVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 2
Background
Colorado's San Miguel Watershed (see
Figure 2-1) covers 1 million acres and
consists of near-pristine ecosystems
ranging from alpine environments in the upper
portion of the basin to desert environments in
the lower basin. Although sparsely populated
(roughly 8,000 residents), development pressure
in the region is significant, with much of the
growth associated with recreational resorts. In
addition, contamination associated with mining
and agriculture threatens both surface and
ground water quality.
Resort-based population increases have
increased the local water demands to the point
that the in-stream flows in the Upper San Miguel
River were below the levels required to support
native fish populations.1 Long-term conflict and
misunderstanding had caused friction between
the upper basin of the -watershed (home to resort
communities and mining) and the lower basin
(the location of ranches, farms, and additional
mines). In 1989, a wetlands violation related to
resort development was discovered during an
EPA-funded wetlands mapping project in San
Miguel County. The settlement included
restoration activities and a wetknds management
plan under which all wetlands on property
belonging to the defendants were placed under
easement. The continued presence of EPA activity
in the Telluride area prompted the San Miguel
County planners to request EPA assistance to
protect the fragile alpine ecosystem in the face
of ski resort expansions and 10 percent annual
growth of new homes.
In 1995, citizens, community groups, local
governments, and state and federal agencies
initiated a -watershed approach to addressing the
environmental and development issues facing
FIGURE 2-1
SAN MIGUEL BASIN
1 "San Miguel Watershed Coalition," River Voices, Winter 199'
San Miguel Watershed Initiative Chapter 2
-------
the San Miguel Basin. They were looking for a
balance between environmental protection and
recreational and economic development. The
San Miguel Watershed Coalition was formed
as an outgrowth of-watershed protection efforts
initiated by the Telluride Institute, a local environ-
mental and cultural advocacy organization. The
approach they chose focuses on developing a
thorough understanding of the ecology of the
area to inform development plans that restore,
preserve, and sustain the entire -watershed.
EPA Region 8 is a key participant in this
broad CBEP initiative to manage the -water
and land resources of the San Miguel River
•watershed. The San Miguel Watershed Initiative
addressed in this evaluation consists of two
parallel and related components:
T San Miguel Watershed Coalition: The
San Miguel Watershed Coalition is a broad-
based partnership of citizens, municipal
officials, county officials, state agencies, and
federal agencies (including EPA) dedicated
to -watershed preservation and restoration.
Through a variety of outreach efforts, the
Coalition developed a detailed Watershed
Plan (published in 1998) that makes recom-
mendations for management of the -watershed,
focusing on conservation, sustainable resource
use, economic development, and other policy
areas (see below).
T Region 8 Technical Assessments: Under
funding from a variety of EPA programs,
staff members in EPA's Region 8 office have
completed a series of technical analyses that
support the krger -watershed protection effort.
Described in more detail below, the analyses
include an assessment of alpine ecosystems
and an analysis of drinking -water resources
and potential stressors. The analyses themselves
are community-based in nature because they
were performed in collaboration with citizens,
local governments, state and federal govern-
ment offices, and other stakeholders.
For the remainder of this discussion, we use
the term "San Miguel Watershed Initiative" to
refer collectively to these two components of
the CBEP effort.
Goals and Objectives
EPA Region 8 has identified the protection
of valuable ecosystems as its primary mission.
One of the six major goals of its Ecosystem
Protection Program is the prioritization of
ecosystem protection and community-based
environmental protection. The needs of the
San Miguel Basin—the protection of pristine
ecosystems and the restoration of highly
impacted ecosystems—were identified as being
in clear alignment -with this Region 8 goal.
Various project objectives also aligned well with
EPA's strategic goals:
T Clean Water: To develop data to support
the updating of local zoning policy, -which
will result in restoration and preservation of
wetlands, elimination of river system
sedimentation, and identification of potential
stressors/threats. These actions -will enable
long-term management policies to guide
future resource use, conservation, and
preservation.
T Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems: To use
land acquisition and redesigned zoning
requirements to increase biologically diverse
and linked land areas.
T Citizen Empowerment: To develop natural
resource data, and ensure its availability to
the community, that -will aid community
stewards and stakeholders in making
informed decisions.
T Management: To develop community-
based environmental protection through
broad-based stakeholder collaboration and
decisionmaking.
The San Miguel Watershed Coalition also
identified its own mission and goals. The mission
of the Coalition -was "to develop, through a
process of collaborative pknning and substantive
public involvement, a basin-wide management
plan that conserves and enhances . . . our
communities." Its goals include conservation,
sustainable resource use, and economic develop-
ment as well as preservation and restoration of
the -watershed.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The San Miguel Watershed Initiative
includes a diverse set of activities that range
from outreach to advanced ecological analysis.
Although a comprehensive inventory of the
project's activities is outside the scope of this
evaluation, we discuss key activities below.
The first major project of the Coalition was
the development of a formal Watershed Plan,
completed in 1998. The Plan describes a vision
of the -watershed's future, reviewing the history,
economy, and hydrology of the region and
identifying an extensive set of potential actions
that stakeholders can take to ensure the
sustainable use of resources and ecological
stability. The Coalition structured the process
of developing the Plan as a community-based
effort, conducting a variety of activities that
involved the local stakeholders:
T Public outreach, stakeholder identification,
and meeting facilitation;
T Development, organization, and staffing of
committees, including the Planning,
Oversight, and Management Committees;
T Development of outreach materials, including
brochures and newsletters.
Subsequent to the Watershed Plan, the
Coalition has continued to pursue various other
activities. A Coordinating Council, composed
of 15 representatives of key interest groups
(e.g., ranchers, miners, recreational interests), is
currently implementing elements of the Plan.
The Council has met monthly since October
1998 to focus activities. In addition, the Coalition
has participated in a 3-year study of instream
flows, assisted the Telluride Institute in completing
an atlas for the San Miguel Watershed, and led
the development of an educational program
(Living Classrooms) focusing on hands-on learn-
ing at three sites along the San Miguel River.
As noted, EPA's primary involvement
directing the San Miguel Initiative comes in
the form of several technical analyses. Most
notably, it organized resources to provide
exceptional scientific support for local land use
controls and source water inventories. First,
EPA worked with San Miguel County and the
University of Colorado to complete an
ecological assessment of 18 alpine basins, upper
portions of the -watershed that are critical to
overall -watershed health. The EPA and its
partners gathered data on landscape types and
•water quality and compiled the data in a
geographic information system (GIS).The GIS
allows identification of areas highly sensitive to
perturbations and also helps identify alpine
ecosystems potentially affected by atmospheric
nitrogen deposition. The data are accessible to
the public via a dedicated Web site. As described
below, the county used the results of the analysis
as the foundation for land use regulations
adopted for the basin.
A second analysis developed by EPA and its
partners (San Miguel County, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management [BLM])
•was a pioneering source water protection
assessment completed in accordance with new
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments Source
Water Protection regulations. The analysis focused
on seven public water supplies and delineated
source water protection areas, identified potential
contamination sources, and developed suscepti-
bility profiles. Completion of the assessment
involved outreach to local land owners, water
boards, local officials, and environmental groups
to enlist their participation in the analysis.
The EPA was a major source of funding for
the various activities pursued under the San
Miguel Initiative, both through the Regional
Geographic Initiative (RGI) as well as through
programmatic funding. Overall, funding for the
period 1996 through the present can be roughly
allocated as follows:
T Watershed Coalition: $30,000 in RGI
funding (FY96); $14,000 from an EPA grant
to address problems related to purple loose
strife; in-kind services from participating
local, state, and federal organizations.
T Technical Assessments: $45,000 in initial
RGI funding (FY96); additional RGI funding
of $38,000 (FY98); staff support from
participating agencies, including one EPA
full-time equivalent (FTE) divided across
several EPA staffpersons.
San Miguel Watershed Initiative Chapter 2
-------
ERA'S ROLE
The EPA's involvement in the San Miguel
Watershed Initiative demonstrates how the
Agency can play different roles on different
facets of a CBEP project. On the one hand,
EPA took the lead with the technical assessments,
integrating its efforts with a rektively limited set
of partners (e.g., the county, BLM, U.S. Forest
Service) and bringing its technical expertise to
bear. In contrast, EPA participated in the overall
efforts of the Watershed Initiative as an equal
partner, coordinating its contributions with those
of numerous other organizations (see below).
Project leaders highlighted two lessons
regarding the success of EPA's involvement in
the initiative:
T The importance of EPA staffbringing unique
and relevant skills to the effort. The Agency
brought "technical horsepower" to the table
and focused that expertise on specific analyses
that form an analytic foundation for the
overall -watershed protection effort.
T The importance of working with local groups.
The EPA further enhanced its role by meeting
exhaustively with local officials and citizens
and working with them collaboratively
rather than in isolation. These meetings
yielded critical information for the technical
assessments and garnered the support and
confidence of local residents. Furthermore,
EPA staff consciously worked to make technical
analyses understandable by the general public,
recognizing how important the support of
the public was to the project.
Staff members from San Miguel County and
the Watershed Coalition voiced great satisfaction
•with EPA's involvement on the overall initiative.
They stressed that the Coalition probably would
never have formed if not for the initial RGI
funding. They also applauded EPA's -willingness
to assume its role as a niche player on the effort,
the technical sophistication of Agency staff, and
EPA's efforts to establish a physical presence at
public meetings in this relatively remote area.
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND SHORTFALLS
The San Miguel Initiative has realized a variety
of environmental accomplishments. Although
the primary goal of ecological protection and
recovery will be achieved only over the course
of many years, a variety of intermediate,
programmatic measures demonstrate the success
of the initiative:
T Under the alpine ecological assessment, EPA
has recorded about 200 baseline water quality
observations; developed 18 GIS maps identify-
ing 45 landscape types; and identified tens of
thousands of acres of sensitive ecological
areas. These accomplishments directly satisfy
Region 8's goal of developing data to assist
local zoning efforts.
T Source water assessments were completed
for the seven pilot communities well in
advance of other communities in EPA
Region 8. This accomplishment meets the
Region's goals of water protection and
development of data for use in local zoning.
T The technical assessments served as the
foundation of local land use protection
ordinances controlling development in sensitive
areas. Although exact figures are not avaikble,
more than 10,000 acres are likely to be
protected.
The success of the initiative is further
demonstrated by a series of awards recognizing
the project's accomplishments, both internal to
and external to EPA. For example, the
National Association of County Commissioners
presented San Miguel County with its award
for outstanding government. Like-wise, EPA
Region 8 awarded the county the Regional
Administrator's Environmental Excellence
Award in 1998. Furthermore, the effort has been
featured in EPA publications and at conferences
such as the Aldo Leopold Conference in
October 1999.
Small communities have noted additional
benefits of the project. One benefit is the ability
to apply for -waivers on certain -water supply
tests, a direct result of the source -water assessments
conducted during the Coalition research. For
example, the unincorporated community of
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
Last Dolkr indicated that it will likely be able
to waive certain annual tests of the community's
•water supply and was happy with the information
and assistance from EPA.
The impacts of the work go beyond the
immediate San Miguel Watershed. The research
process undertaken to change the land use
codes helps fill a scarcity of scientifically based
management tools available for setting Western
water resources policy (Inyan and Williams 1999).
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CBEP PROCESS
The San Miguel Initiative exhibits many
attributes associated with community-based
environmental protection. A variety of measures
and descriptive information demonstrate that
CBEP was a central organizing principle for
the project and that the project was successful
in implementing this alternative approach to
environmental management:
T The boundaries of the geographic area—in
this case, the -watershed—are well delineated
and help in identifying the appropriate set
of stakeholders. In addition, the boundaries
transcend the traditional jurisdictional
boundaries to allow the different stakeholders
in the -watershed to come together.
T Multistakeholder partnerships are the
essence of the project, -with a wide array of
organizations taking part in one or more
facets of the project (see Exhibit 2-1). These
partnerships are crucial because of the large
number of groups that had jurisdiction for
resource management in the area.
T Community participation is critical to the
San Miguel efforts. As an indicator of the
project's success in this regard, roughly 70
people attended the first -watershed planning
meeting, -which -was followed by a series of
successful issue-identification meetings in
several towns. In addition, participants
reviewed and commented on the initial draft
of the Watershed Plan. This type of partici-
pation is significant given that the population
of the basin is small (about 8,000) and
scattered across the region. The EPA and
county officials felt that the numbers reflect
involved communities, particularly in the
smaller towns and unincorporated areas that
do not have a large town staff to handle
environmental management issues.
The success that the initiative has had in
involving active local participants directly satisfies
goals established by EPA Region 8. Specifically,
the initiative has contributed to citizen
empowerment through provision of key data
and has fostered collaboration among local
stakeholder groups (see "Goals and Objectives").
EXHIBIT 2-1
ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE
SAN MIGUEL WATERSHED INITIATIVE
National Park Service
Telluride Institute
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
San Miguel County*
U.S. Forest Service
Town ofTelluride
The Nature Conservancy
Town of Mountain Village
Town of Norwood
Montrose County
Town of Naturita
Town of Nucla
Town of Ophir
Town of Sawpit
Town of Placerville
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Colorado Division ofWildlife
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Colorado Department of Local Affairs
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
* Interviewed for this assessment.
San Miguel Watershed Initiative Chapter 2
-------
CBEP VALUE ADDED
Watershed-based approaches such as the San
Miguel Watershed Initiative directly address
many of the shortcomings of traditional environ-
mental and water resource management programs.
Traditional approaches are characterized by
fragmented decision processes that focus on
narrowly defined environmental problems (e.g.,
•water supply, point source pollution control,
nonpoint source pollution control), often over-
looking the rektionships between these problems.
Furthermore, traditional approaches may create
competition between key resource managers
and interest groups, pitting neighboring munici-
palities, landowners, regulators, and other groups
against each other.
The San Miguel Watershed Initiative over-
comes many of these pitfalls through a cooper-
ative, -watershed-based approach. Several aspects
of the project illustrate the benefits of CBEP:
T Integration and Coordination: San Miguel
shows how the CBEP process can serve as a
meeting point to integrate diverse ongoing
research and resource management efforts in
a given geographic area. Project staff noted
how the Watershed Coalition was a forum
for federal regulators, state regulators, county
land-use officials, and others to assemble their
collective knowledge on the ecology and
sustainability of the region. Furthermore, in
the San Miguel Basin, the public held valuable
information, and the CBEP efforts represented
a means to elicit and apply this information.
For example, in the source water assessment,
local landowners assisted in identifying possible
sources of contamination such as abandoned
mines on their knd. Overall, such integration
and coordination likely yields resource
savings by pooling expertise and avoiding
redundant efforts.
T Acquiring Funding: Project staff also noted
how the integration that comes from CBEP
efforts can aid in acquiring grant funds for
the region. The Watershed Coalition represents
a focus for regional efforts as well as a forum
for ensuring that research findings are applied
to real-life problems. Furthermore, action
items that are part of the Watershed Plan are
assured to have the support of the community
because of the stakeholder-directed process
by which the Pkn was developed. All of these
factors help to attract grant funding and may
even be explicit criteria/conditions in the
grant award process. Similarly, the number
of agencies involved with the initiative is an
asset in funding the Coalition's activities;
that is, small contributions from involved
agencies can be pooled.
T Capacity Building and Sustainability:
The EPA and other agencies that lead CBEP
efforts often seek to create long-term expertise
in an area to ensure that a locality can manage
its own environmental affairs in the future.
For example, this type of capacity for steward-
ship is being achieved through the source
•water assessment pilot. The seven participating
communities are acquiring tools (e.g., source
•water maps and data) that will help them
address discrete land use and water protection
issues. One such community is the town of
Telluride; it used the source water assessment
data in its recent sediment mitigation effort,
demonstrating the community's enhanced
ability to address local issues using new tools.
In addition, all of the alpine and source
•water maps (and underlying data) have been
made available on a Web site. Like-wise, as
mentioned, the Watershed Coalition has
established a continuing coordinating council
to implement the action pkn, further illustra-
tion that initial CBEP efforts have produced
enduring institutional changes.
T Public Education and Support for
Environmental Initiatives: The CBEP
approach has also helped educate the public
in the San Miguel Watershed and has garnered
support for environmental protection initiatives
in an area that normally resists government
involvement in land use decisions. The very
words used by the communities, "resort" or
rural, have changed; project staff have noted
how concepts such as "-watershed," "steward-
ship", and "excess nitrogen" have made their
•way into public discourse and feel that the
initiative's outreach efforts have contributed
to these changes. Furthermore, they believe
that the public's enhanced understanding of
environmental issues has increased the
credibility and reputation of the Agency and
may have improved EPA's ability to operate
in the region.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
Early Identification of Future
Environmental Work: The water quality
data obtained through the ecological studies
revealed unexpectedly high levels of nitrates
in alpine waters. The Coalition suspected
airborne deposition from coal-burning power
plants and worked to obtain air monitoring
equipment from EPA's Research Triangle
Park. In partnership with the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the Coalition is monitoring
the quantities, potential sources, and effects
of external nitrates on this -watershed
ecosystem. These studies would not have
been undertaken as soon, and possibly not
at all, \vithout the research conducted under
the San Miguel Initiative.
SUMMARY OF KEYTHEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed, the San Miguel Watershed
Initiative reveals a variety of useful lessons on
the successful implementation of a CBEP proj-
ect. The folio-wing are most noteworthy:
T The EPA's niche is often the provision of
technical analysis that serves as the founda-
tion for community-based decisionmaking.
T CBEP projects can act as an umbrelk to
integrate ongoing research and environmen-
tal management efforts. This integration can
help in acquiring funding because of the
demonstrated community support for the
initiative.
T The tools yielded by CBEP projects can
help communities independently manage
their own resources and craft policies for
local environmental issues such as land use.
CBEP projects can educate the public on
the importance of key environmental issues
and foster a clearer understanding and
appreciation of EPA's mission.
Initial EPA funding can represent critical
seed money that enables a project to get off
the ground.
Long-term involvement can enhance the
Agency's effectiveness in CBEP activities,
making EPA a trusted partner.
Interaction -with and use of local experts
(e.g., a professor at the University of
Colorado—Boulder) can lead to long-term
partnerships -with people who have a vested
interest in the community.
San Miguel Watershed Initiative Chapter 2
-------
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
CHARLESTON /
NORTH CHARLESTON
CBEP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 3
Background
The Charleston/North Charleston CBEP
project focuses on the 17 square-mile
neck area of the Charleston, South
Carolina, peninsula that is bordered on the west
by the Ashley River and on the east by the
Cooper River (see Figure 3-1).The area consists
of more than 20 neighborhoods in the cities of
Charleston and North Charleston and is home
to more than 40,000 people, roughly 70 percent
of whom are minority and 40 percent of
•whom live at or below the poverty level.
Running throughout the area is an industrial
corridor in close proximity to the residential
population as well as to the peninsula's abun-
dance of tidal creeks, marshes, and rivers.
Heavily industrialized since the 1800s, the
neck area faces a complex set of environmental
problems, including historical releases of
hazardous waste and former and active industrial
and commercial sites.
Environmental contamination at one of
these industrial properties, the site of a former
wood-treating facility, brought EPA Region 4's
Superfund program to the Charleston/North
Charleston area in the mid-1990s. As part of
the program, EPA provided a grant for hiring
a community technical advisor to meet with
area residents and respond to questions about
the site cleanup. Based on environmental justice
and other concerns raised by several of the
area neighborhoods, EPA began exploring the
value of helping to organize a CBEP project.
FIGURE 3-1
CHARLESTON CBEP PROJECT STUDY AREA
N
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Chapter 3
-------
The EPA held initial conversations and
brainstorming sessions with the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) and other partners, and in
the spring of 1997, assisted in the formation of
a multistakeholder group to guide the CBEP
project. Based on the Agency's earlier CBEP
experiences, EPA suggested that a Community
Advisory Group (CAG) could provide an
effective vehicle for the community to develop
and guide its community-based environmental
protection project. The resulting CAG consisted
of representatives from neighborhoods and
businesses in the CBEP area, local environmental
and social advocacy organizations, and local,
state, and federal agencies. The EPA provided
funding to the Medical University of South
Carolina (MUSC) to support the organization
of the CAG. Through a detailed organizational
process, a 25-member self-nominated group
emerged, complete with a chairperson and other
elected officers to serve 2-year terms, a mission
and a vision statement, and a comprehensive set
of bylaws. The CAG consisted of voting commu-
nity and business representatives and nonvoting
ex officio members, including MUSC and the
other founding partners. The CAG also estab-
lished subcommittees (e.g., a group addressing
business/industry issues) to solidify its operation.
Once organized, the CAG confronted a
complicated, overlapping set of human health,
socioeconomic, environmental, and other quality-
of-life issues in the Charleston neck area. The
environmental concerns cut across all media,
including air, surface water, groundwater,
sediments, and soil. Residents had long-standing
concerns about cancer rates, childhood lead
poisoning, and other health problems in their
communities and the potential for links to
chemical releases, contamination, and other
effects of improper environmental compliance
and management. Although the original idea
for the project arose because of concerns
expressed by a handful of central neck-area
neighborhoods, the CAG set the project
boundaries to cover the 7 square mile area
described above, which encompasses the historical
industrial corridor and also approximates the
boundary lines of Charleston's Enterprise
Community (now the Greater Charleston
Empowerment Corporation), a distressed area
targeted for economic and cultural revitalization.
Goals and Objectives
The long-term goal of the Charleston/
North Charleston Community Project is to
improve the quality of the land, air, water, and
living resources to ensure human health,
ecological, social, and economic benefits. To
achieve the multiple aspects of this goal, project
managers have established many short-term
objectives through partnerships with citizens,
industry, conservation groups, and other stake-
holders. Initiating outreach and collecting data
for setting priorities and developing environmen-
tal indicators were two early objectives, and the
end results of those projects yielded further
objectives for addressing the overall goal.
The CAG developed its own mission and
vision statements to guide it in its activities. Its
stated mission is "to address environmental quality
programs and concerns as they relate to the
community's well-being and that of the
environment. It exists to increase environmental
awareness through education and effective
collaboration with diverse groups and to promote
and cultivate cooperation with industry and
government. Finally, the group exists to empower,
create, and sustain a healthy, livable community that
will positively impact residents' quality of life."
The CAG's initial objective for the project
was to characterize the concerns of residents
and other stakeholders in the neck area. Both
the CAG and the overall CBEP project have
environmental improvements and human health
concerns as long-term goals as well as ecological,
social, and economic well-being. To accomplish
these overall goals, CAG members have
established the following short-term objectives:
T To develop a baseline for environmental
conditions;
T To reduce both lead contamination of soil
and childhood lead poisoning;
T To identify and remediate locations with
elevated indoor radon levels;
T To minimize the effects of environmental
contamination from former phosphate/
fertilizer facilities; and
T To provide targeted compliance assistance
and pollution prevention information for
small businesses.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
In developing and carrying out efforts to
address these objectives, the CAG has drawn
on several partnerships with industry,
government, academic institutions, and other
stakeholders. Numerous activities and indicators
have been developed to facilitate progress
toward these objectives.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The first activities undertaken by the CAG
were the development of the above objectives,
•which emerged from its neighborhood
research. To begin to address all of the challenges
facing the more than 20 neighborhoods in the
targeted area, the CAG and its partners embarked
on outreach, research, environmental remediation,
and other activities. Through monthly gatherings,
public forums, and subcommittee meetings, the
CAG developed several short-term and long-
term initiatives to help in the achievement of its
goals. The short-term activities, the full set of
which is beyond the scope of this evaluation, have
included river cleanup events, Earth Day fairs,
and other outreach events aimed at increasing
understanding of community-based environmen-
tal protection and environmental awareness in
general. Long-term initiatives led by or associated
\vith the CBEP project are as follows:
T Characterization of Community
Concerns: As previously mentioned, the
first major activity of the CAG was dedicated
to community outreach events and gathering
concerns from the neighborhoods. The priority
concerns as determined by the CAG are the
ones addressed by the activities described
below. Other issues identified among residents
relate to crime; excessive noise; poor air
quality; the need for economic development;
a lack of safe playgrounds and open spaces;
improper drainage and flooding; contamination
of open ditches and associated safety risks;
environmental justice concerns; and poor
environmental compliance among local
commercial and industrial facilities.
T Baseline Environmental Data
Compilation: CAG partners undertook an
extensive effort to assemble data about
regulated industrial facilities, chemical
releases, water quality, and other environmental
conditions to meet their first objective of a
baseline environmental characterization of
the CBEP area. The collected data were to
represent baseline conditions for the CBEP
project. The CAG also intended to complete
an outreach effort to make the information
available to residents in the surrounding
communities.
T Lead Poisoning Prevention: The purpose
of this effort was to provide education to new
and expectant mothers to meet the objective
of reducing childhood lead poisoning. Much
of the housing stock within the neck area
dates from the early and mid-1900s, when
lead paint was still used widely With the
help of EPA grant money, MUSC provided
training to community members (termed
"advisors") hired to conduct outreach with
new and expectant mothers and other family
members about how to protect their children
from lead exposure in homes and other
locations. The introduction of lead exposure
tracking will provide indicator data for the
success of the initiative.
T Testing for and Mitigation of Elevated
Indoor Radon Levels: Because of past
phosphate mining (a factor in the presence
of elevated radium levels in soil), the CBEP
area is considered to be at risk for elevated
indoor radon levels. CAG members began a
radon testing survey and a related educational
outreach effort and will provide mitigation
in homes where elevated levels are discovered.
These efforts address both radon reduction
objectives and broader goals of community
involvement.
T Assessment and Remediation of
Former Phosphate/Fertilizer Facility
Sites: The goal of this initiative is to evaluate
the contamination present at nine former
phosphate/fertilizer facilities. Where
unacceptable risk is found, CAG partners
will ensure that an adequately protective site
management strategy is implemented.
T Small Business Compliance Assistance:
In light of the number of industrial and
commercial facilities, including many small
businesses, two CAG partners, EPA Region 4
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Chapter 3
-------
and DHEC, have collaborated to address
compliance assurance issues. This initiative
focuses on providing targeted compliance
assistance to two industries, dry cleaners,
and auto paint and body shops, which
appear to present the greatest potential for
environmental impacts to the CBEP area.
Researchers are using behavioral change,
compliance records, and environmental and
human health improvements as indicators of
success in meeting the compliance objective.
T Environmentally Friendly Small
Business/Pollution Prevention
Initiative: Focusing mostly on auto paint
and body shops, CAG partners undertook an
outreach effort to inform small businesses of
pollution prevention opportunities. Outreach
team members conducted site visits and
provided small business owners with informa-
tion on environmental performance beyond
that relating to regulatory compliance. This
initiative will ensure that environmental gains
are sustained and enhanced in the future and
that small businesses are part of the process.
While several of these initiatives are still
ongoing, the CAG and its partners are currently
evaluating the results of the CBEP efforts thus
far and determining next steps. One of the
most significant developments since the CBEP
project's inception is the decision to incorporate
the CAG as an environmental subcommittee
of the Greater Charleston Empowerment
Corporation to take advantage of issue and
organizational overlap.
Like the initial CAG formation process, the
majority of CBEP activities have been fully
funded by EPA. The lead poisoning prevention,
radon reduction, and small business pollution
prevention projects were all funded by EPA
through the RGI.The project has also leveraged
in-kind contributions and other resources from
a variety of sources, including MUSC; the
USGS; DHEC; other local, state, and federal
health agencies;Youth Build and other local
nonprofit organizations; and businesses, such as
Lowe's and Home Depot. Part of the rationale
for making the CAG part of the Greater
Charleston Empowerment Corporation is to
leverage resources between efforts with similar
sustainable development goals.
ERA'S ROLE
According to everyone involved, EPA has
acted as the driving force within the
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP project
from the beginning. The Charleston site
became a major EPA project when it was listed
on the Superfund National Priority list (NPL).
The Agency has supplied specialized information,
facilitation support, and sources of funding to
kunch and carry out all of the activities
detailed above.
At the same time, the key role pkyed by EPA
has had both positive and negative implications,
as viewed from the perspectives of different
CAG members and project stakeholders. Given
the project's multifaceted nature and the number
of stakeholders and partnerships involved, a
truly comprehensive evaluation of EPA's role
would require additional participant interviews
beyond the scope of this evaluation. Working
within the limitations of this evaluation, we
chose interviewees who represented some of
the different viewpoints existing among project
participants (e.g., that of EPA, local government
institutions, community members, and local
NGOs). While the sample size for this evaluation
is clearly not large enough to determine the
specific extent of concern or other more precise
details about particular views, the following
observations emerged from the interviews:
T Impact of Operational Differences
Between EPA and Other Stakeholders:
Some participants feel that the project has
been influenced by differences in expectations
and approach between EPA (as well as other
institutional members) and community
members. Although the priority of everyone
involved has always been to improve the
area's quality of life, some residents expected
more immediate results (e.g., health screenings,
repair work to address risks posed by
drainage ditches). Some feel that EPA and
others have been overly concerned with
developing the project itself, such as
through formation of CAG procedures, use
of resources to publicize the project, and so
on. Some participants noted, for example,
that the communities had previously voiced
their priority issues, so they felt that the effort
to record resident concerns was not the most
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
efficient use of time and resources. For some
participants, EPA-facilitated developmental
process was perceived as only further
bureaucracy rather than a process to build
credibility and trust, and added to the cynicism
of residents who viewed previous partnership
efforts as failing to deliver concrete results.
However, some CBEP participants viewed
the structured CAG process as an asset. In fact,
these participants credit the CAG structure
•with gathering different community view-
points at the table and keeping participants
engaged when differences of opinion arose.
T Ensuring that EPA Funding Best Fits
CBEP Needs: EPA financial resources have
played a critical role within the project, in
large part because the CAG, which does not
have official nonprofit status, cannot receive
grants directly. All participants agree that fund-
ing is one of the most helpful aspects of EPA's
involvement with the Charleston/North
Charleston CBEP project. At the same time,
some participants have offered constructive
criticism as to how and to whom the Agency
supplies financial resources. In particular,
one participant expressed the view of some
community members that instead of funding
MUSC, EPA should have provided resources
more directly to the CBEP area neighborhoods
by hiring a resident to act as an organizer
for the project.2 In the opinion of this
observer, empowering residents to assume
more tangible CBEP project leadership
roles may have overcome issues of trust and
helped to increase public participation in
many of the project's activities. Along these
lines, participants point to the project's hiring
of the lead outreach advisors (rather than
appointing them to voluntary positions, as
originally planned) as an example of
successfully increasing ownership of and
accountability for CBEP efforts among
residents by providing financial resources
directly to the community.
Striking a Balance Between EPA Support
and Facilitation: The EPA has always
expressed the desire that the Charleston/
North Charleston efforts be community-led
and thus has encouraged operational mech-
anisms such as the CAG. From the perspective
of some participants, however, the project
has been neither community-directed nor
particularly responsive to community voices.
This sentiment originates from perceptions
about a lengthy CAG formation process
dominated by EPA and other institutional
partners, which may have helped lead to a
subsequent kck of involvement from residents
(e.g., lack of public attendance at CAG-
sponsored meetings and events). Participants
holding this view would have preferred that
EPA provide less overall facilitation in
exchange for more up-front support for
existing community priorities (e.g., techni-
cal assistance for targeted health screenings,
repair of drainage ditch hazards, etc.). Some
participants also suggested performance
tracking and evaluation as a valuable niche
role for EPA within CBEP projects.
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND SHORTFALLS
Confronted with a complex set of environ-
mental problems and other challenges, some of
which are described above, EPA and its partners
have established an ambitious agenda of objectives
and strategies for the Charleston/North
Charleston CBEP project. Tracking of some of
the project's completed initiatives remains
unfinished, and other efforts are still ongoing.
Measuring progress toward the project's overall
goals of improving the environmental quality
to ensure human health and ecological, social,
and economic benefits is a long-term process.
Nevertheless, participants can point to several
environmental and other accomplishments to
2 In the case of the Charleston project, the direct role of MUSC created a lack of credibility from the perspective of some
community members (uncertainty exists as to exactly how many) because of perceptions about the institution's record in
handling previous grants (e.g., a Department of Energy grant). To be successful in the long run (and avoid similar credibility
and trust issues), the community organizer hiring process would need to be as transparent as possible and attempt to take
community "politics" into account perhaps through a combination of an open resume collection, nomination process, and
final selection by a multistakeholder panel.
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Chapter 3
-------
characterize the projects progress in meeting
the previously stated objectives:
T In the summer of 1999, CAG partners finished
the environmental data compilation effort
to meet their objective of determining the
baseline environmental conditions. They
released a draft document titled Summary of
the Environmental Information Collected for the
Charleston/North Charleston Community -
Based Environmental Protection Program. The
document contains more than 20 maps and
tables with data ranging from a summary of
area Toxic Release Inventory (TRJ) releases to
the location of facilities with NPDES permits
discharges. The CAG has provided comments
on the document as well as recommendations
for the next phase of the effort. Based on
these recommendations, the CAG is making
plans to use the information to assess certain
environmental conditions, create maps showing
the data points on a neighborhood-specific
level, and develop a user-friendly system to
enable community access to the data.
T To address the lead poisoning prevention
goal, MUSC trained eight area residents
•who were hired to be community educators
or advisors. The purpose of the outreach
\vas to inform new and expectant mothers
and other family members about childhood
lead poisoning and preventative behavioral
measures (e.g., frequent washing of hands).
By the summer of 2000, the advisors had
reached more than 900 community members
in interactions that ranged from brief one-
on-one conversations to group meetings in
residents' homes. To the surprise of the
advisors and their CBEP partners, a large
percentage of young mothers were unaware
of lead poisoning risks and reported that
their children were not being screened at
their regular medical check-ups. As a result
of the outreach efforts, many families have
reported taking their children in for lead
level screening. In addition, DHEC CBEP
participants are investigating the adequacy
of regular lead level screenings within the
Charleston area.
Identification of homes with elevated radon
levels is under way. Thus far, testing is complete
at 200 out of a targeted 2,000 residences for
which test kits have been obtained. CAG
members have secured support from the
Southern Regional Radon Training Center,
which \vill provide training to the localYouth
Build program to complete the mitigation
work, and Home Depot and Lowe's have
offered to contribute mitigation materials.
The minimization of impacts from former
industrial sites is under way. Preliminary
environmental assessments are now complete
at the nine former fertilizer/phosphate facilities
targeted by CAG partners. Additional results
to date under this initiative include a removal
action at one site, a remedial investigation at
another site, a Superfund NPL designation
and subsequent remediation plan at one site,
and voluntary cleanup agreements with several
responsible parties.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CBEP PROCESS
The Charleston/North Charleston project
exhibits effective CBEP attributes in the lever-
aging of resources to complete assessments,
remediations, and other environmental outcomes;
increase capacity-building within the community
(e.g., lead poisoning prevention training); and
nurture multistakeholder partnerships (e.g.,
through the CAG). Although in some ways the
CAG represents the most controversial aspect of
the project, its continued operation is perhaps
the strongest demonstration of the effectiveness
of the CBEP process. Despite the group's
difficulties, many local organizations have
participated in the CAG (with some requesting
to join following its initial formation). In fact,
several participants noted that the CAG represents
a significant first in terms of bringing diverse
community viewpoints to the table to discuss
environmental issues. They noted that -without
the unique collaborative, comprehensive nature
of the CBEP approach, this enlarged discussion
could not have occurred. Although some project
participants questioned the extent to which
community voices are represented on the CAG,
the group's membership includes the leadership
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
of diverse organizations, most of which are new
CBEP recruits. DHEC, for instance, which had
no previous CBEP experience, has maintained
active CAG participation all along and has
implemented changes suggested by the group
(e.g., providing better public access to an
environmental release log within its offices).
Exhibit 3-1 provides a partial listing of groups
involved in the CBEP project, including several
of those represented on the CAG.
Although many of the project's objectives were
either accomplished or are in progress, frustrations
•with the initial stages of the CBEP process were
still evident. The EPA respondent noted that
EPA's method of ensuring community involve-
ment from the ground up—to start from scratch
with community members and groups—may not
have been the most effective method. In retro-
spect, the groundwork kid by a local organization
such as the Greater Charleston Empowerment
Corporation might have been more effective at
facilitating long-term community support and
involvement. The EPA is still assisting the
community in the CBEP process; for example,
in early 2002, EPA organized and delivered a
workshop for planning boards and citizens on the
planning process and methods for encouraging
public participation.
CBEP VALUE ADDED
One reason for the effectiveness of the
CBEP approach is that it brings into focus
issues that affect conventional environmental
protection programs yet remain largely ignored.
These issues can include the role of EPA and
other institutions versus that of the community
at large, the impacts of differing viewpoints,
and the connections between environmental,
socioeconomic, and other quality-of-life issues.
CBEP projects face these types of issues head
on. Even the project participants most critical
of the Charleston/North Charleston efforts
recognize much value in the CBEP approach.
In addition, project participants acknowledge
the following value-added aspects of the
Charleston/North Charleston activities:
T Community Capacity Building and
Environmental Protection Goals:
Although systematic performance tracking
EXHIBIT 3-1
PARTIAL LIST OF GROUPS INVOLVED OR
REPRESENTED IN THE CHARLESTON / NORTH
CHARLESTON CBEP PROJECT
AKA Parenting Center
ACLU
NAACP
Bayside Neighborhood
League of Women Voters
Charleston County Metro Chamber of Commerce
Charleston Naval Shipyard
US. EPA*
SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control*
National. Employee Trades of America
Sierra Club
SC Aquarium
SC Coastal Conservation League*
Rosemont Neighborhood
Union Heights Neighborhood
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Westside Neighborhood Association
Palmetto Community Hope Foundation
Youth Build
U.S. Geological Survey
City of Charleston
City of North Charleston
Medical University of SC*
College of Charleston
Office of Congressman J. Clyburn
Enterprise Community
Southern Regional Radon
Training Center
* Representative interviewed for this assessment.
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Chapter 3
-------
is not yet complete, participants are confi-
dent that the CBEP area's capacity to
address its environmental concerns is being
enhanced through the project's various out-
reach efforts and through education of CAG
representatives. For example, participants
report that the lead poisoning outreach has
helped to fill an important information gap,
increasing the awareness of a large number
of young families, motivating mothers to
take their children in for lead level screen-
ing, and driving CBEP partners to investi-
gate the adequacy of regular lead level
screenings within the Charleston area. This
type of community capacity building has
the added benefit of helping EPA work
toward its environmental protection goals.
EPA Region 4 pointed to examples in
•which businesses have approached the per-
mitting process differently (e.g., providing
more up-front public notice and dialogue)
in communities that understand and organ-
ize around environmental issues. Job training
and brownfield development have been
encouraged by the CBEP process, which
has helped the overall goal of improving the
quality of life and the environment in
Charleston.
T Reorientation of EPA Programs: EPA
Region 4 points to the reorientation of its
programs toward greater integration across
environmental media and issue areas. In one
example, the Charleston/North Charleston
project established a workgroup from
among EPA programs operating in
Charleston. As a result of this -workgroup,
EPA programs have a better understanding
of the overall environmental quality of the
CBEP area and the cross-media concerns
faced by residents.
Groundwork for Collaborations: The most
important value-added aspect, as described
by participants in Charleston's project, is the
extent to which CBEP has worked to build
partnerships (e.g., via CAG participation
and resource sharing) among the leadership
of local groups and institutions and laid the
groundwork for further collaborations. The
CAG, for instance, has provided the first
opportunity for some stakeholders to hear
first-hand the perspectives of other stake-
holders. Participants noted that although
many conflicts about specific issues remain,
several personal relationships (i.e., person to
person) now exist where there were none
before, and these participants feel that this is
a critical development for the day-to-day
work needed to reach effective, consensus-
based environmental protection. The
groundwork laid by the CBEP process will
serve the community most immediately in
the form of an environmental subcommittee
of the Greater Charleston Empowerment
Corporation, which is planned to assume
the CAG's activities.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
SUMMARY OF KEYTHEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Charleston/North Charleston project
offers a rich CBEP case study, especially with
regard to issues concerning the interaction
among EPA, other institutional partners, and
the community at large. The complexity of the
area's environmental problems, the historical
interaction between community residents and
institutions, and several other factors all have
presented challenges to EPA and its partners in
determining appropriate and effective roles
\vithin the project. Important themes that
emerge from the Charleston experience
include the following:
T To the degree possible, CBEP projects
should try to build upon ongoing commu-
nity efforts and address priority issues that
stakeholders have already identified. This
type of initial approach may help the proj-
ect to quickly achieve some visible results
and thus win community support. However,
project managers must also plan carefully to
resist implementing short-term localized
efforts inconsistent with relative health and
ecological risks in the CBEP area.
T Funding residents to perform community
education and fill other CBEP roles may be
useful in responding to trust and credibility
issues. Along these lines, EPA may want to
consider pilot testing the use of paid com-
munity coordinators hired from among
CBEP project area residents.
T CBEP partners should strive for a balance
between (1) ensuring that decisionmaking
processes are as transparent as possible and
possess enough structure to encourage ade-
quate representation, communication, and
strategic planning, and (2) avoiding deci-
sionmaking processes that are overly bureau-
cratic in operation from the perspective of
participants.
T Even if they encounter conflict or other dif-
ficulties, community advisory groups and
similar decisionmaking bodies provide ben-
efits by allowing stakeholders to hear diverse
perspectives and build better relationships
with one another, a CBEP priority in and
of itself.
Finally, given the collaborative, comprehen-
sive nature of CBEP efforts and the complexi-
ty of issues they are meant to address, EPA and
its partners may need to employ a longer
timeframe than normally used when evaluating
the results of CBEP projects. The Charleston
project highlights several inherent difficulties
associated with developing a definitive evalua-
tion of CBEP project performance. Because
the project is in a relatively early stage and
many of the anticipated environmental and
human health improvements have not yet been
realized, this evaluation relies on participants'
observations, which are subjective and there-
fore can vary a great deal. For example,
although some participants commend the
accomplishments of the CAG process, others
point to overly structured procedures and a
kck of overall community participation. The
interviews conducted with program managers,
CAG members, and other partners reveal dif-
ferences of opinion on how the CBEP process
should be structured, what actions should take
priority, and -whether the project has succeed-
ed in meeting its initial goals. Although such
mixed findings are to be expected when
diverse interests collaborate on an innovative,
far-reaching initiative, a complete evaluation of
the project (i.e., the CBEP process and envi-
ronmental accomplishments) will be more fea-
sible once the initiative has matured and all
project elements (e.g., the lead poisoning pre-
vention effort, the radon testing effort) have
been fully established.
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Chapter 3
-------
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
EASTWARD HO/
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 4
Background
The Florida Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida released a report
in 1995 that provided recommendations
on restoring the Evergkdes ecosystem, including
how to approach issues of water management,
transportation, and urban sprawl. The report
emphasized that without curtailment of the
westward spread of urban sprawl into the
Evergkdes, any efforts to restore and protect the
South Florida ecosystem would have limited
effect. The Eastward Ho! Initiative, the urban
counterpart of Evergkdes restoration, was under-
taken in 1996 as a result of these recommen-
dations. Initially administered by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
Eastward Ho! is spearheaded by the South
Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC)
and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council (TCRPC), in partnership with local,
state, and federal agencies as well as Florida cit-
izens. Eastward Ho! focuses on the 150-mile
long corridor running from Fort Pierce in St.
Lucie County to Florida City in Miami-Dade
County, near the southern tip of Florida (see
Figure 4-1). Major cities in the corridor include
Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach.
Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of the Eastward Ho! project
has been to create sustainable communities in
Southeast Florida. One of the major tenets to
meeting this goal has been smart growth through
redevelopment. The goals of Eastward Ho! are
to "revitalize and improve the quality of life in
Southeast Florida's historic urban areas and
attract a portion of future regional growth back
toward [the] communities to the east" through
innovative redevelopment strategies.3 Infill
development and redevelopment, both of
brownfields and other areas, were identified as
major components of minimizing sprawl and
enhancing urban revitalization.
FIGURE 4-1
EASTWARD HO! CORRIDOR AND SURROUNDING AREAS
•JJ
Source: Eastward Ho!: Revitalizing
Southeast Florida's Urban Core,
July 1996.
3Building on Success:A Report from Eastward Ho! South Florida Regional Planning Council andTreasure Coast
Regional Planning Council, 1998, p. 10.
Eastward Ho! Chapter 4
-------
Consistent with this overall goal, Eastward
Ho! has identified several specific objectives:
T To support the creation of communities that
are environmentally, economically, and
socially healthy;
T To improve the regional quality of life for exist-
ing and future residents, particularly the quality
of life in Southeast Florida's historic urban
areas, and attract a greater portion of future
regional growth to the urban infill corridor;
T To lessen sprawl and development pressure
on sensitive lands that are important to the
Everglades ecosystem and regional ground-
water supply through the revitalization of
Southeast Florida's historic urban communities.
Parallel to these local efforts, EPA has pursued
a variety of activities under its South Florida
Initiative. The broad objective of the initiative
is to protect key ecosystems in Florida (e.g.,
the Everglades) by addressing stressors such as
agriculture and land development resulting
from population growth in the region. The urban
component of the initiative focuses primarily on
control of suburban sprawl through promotion of
environmentally sound transportation and site
redevelopment policies. Hence, EPA Region 4
Regional Administrator and Florida officials
agreed to have EPA participate in the Eastward
Ho! program, drawing on Region 4 resources as
well as resources available from EPA Headquarters.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Many of the Eastward Ho! activities most
relevant to CBEP are focused on brownfield
assessment, remediation, and redevelopment.
The Brownfields Partnership's brownfield strategy
is a component of the larger Eastward Ho!
program. Under the Partnership, municipal
governments, state and federal organizations,
private interests, and other participants collab-
orate on brownfield-related community
revitalization efforts. In addition, a portion of
the Eastward Ho! corridor was designated as a
National Brownfields Showcase Community
in 1998. Although a complete chronology of
all the initiatives under the Brownfields
Partnership is beyond the scope of this evaluation,
examples of recent or ongoing brownfield-
related activities include the following:
T Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup
Projects: The Brownfields Partnership
manages and supports numerous site-specific
projects that demonstrate innovative
approaches to assessing contamination,
remediation, and redevelopment at under-
utilized industrial and commercial properties.
These efforts rekte directly to the urban infill
and sprawl prevention goals of the project.
T Inventory and Assessment of Miami
River: The Partnership completed an environ-
mental inventory and assessment of the Miami
River to guide potential redevelopment along
the river. This effort addresses the goal of
environmental health and ultimately influences
the ability to attract infill development.
T Brownfields Toolbox and Information
Guide: The Partnership will release a guide
to developing brownfields in Southeast
Florida, providing both information on key
contacts as well as step-by-step information
on completing a redevelopment project.
T Job Training: Eastward Ho! was involved with
two job training initiatives for residents of
brownfield areas, one sponsored by EPA and
one by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences. This capacity-
building project involves training enrollees
in skills such as site assessment and recon-
struction techniques. A total of 88 students
have been trained under the two programs.
These efforts directly address the objective
of economic health and ultimately affect the
goals of urban revitalization.
T Brownfields Partnership GIS: Currently
under development, Eastward Ho!'s planned
geographic information system will include
data on waste sites and waste generators
combined with aerial photographs and
other GIS layers. Targeted users include
developers searching for land parcels most
conducive to certain types of redevelop-
ment. SFRPC has established a Web site
(www.sfrpc.com/brwnflds.htm) to accom-
pany this effort. Information available as of
October 2002 includes maps of brownfield
sites throughout Miami-Dade County.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
T Brownfields Conferences: Eastward Ho!
sponsors a variety of conferences on brown-
fields. For example, the Eastward Ho!
Brownfields Partnership Summit was held in
September 1999 to address lessons learned
and problems encountered in brownfield
redevelopment, drawing on case studies of
actual projects in South Florida. In May 2000,
symposia were held for the banking and
business sectors to assist them in understanding
•what constitutes a brownfield project and to
examine brownfield financing issues.
Eastward Ho! conducts a variety of other
activities that extend beyond brownfield
redevelopment into broader areas of smart growth
and sustainable development. Examples include
the following:
T Technical Assistance: The SFRPC and
TCRPC have designated full-time staff to
specifically support Eastward Ho! activities.
The Regional Coordinator, Brownfield
Coordinator, and Project Facilitators prepare
newsletters and technical reports and conduct
public outreach, project coordination, data
collection, and GIS analysis to help promote
and facilitate demonstration projects and
other local smart growth activities.
T Community Investment Grants: The
SFRPC manages grant funds to assist local
governments, nonprofits, and tribes in
community revitalization projects. In 1999,
about $175,000 in Community Investment
Grants were awarded and more than $1 million
in local matching funds leveraged.
T Design Charrettes and Workshops:
Eastward Ho! organizes design charrettes and
other workshops for cities interested in giving
residents, businesses, and other stakeholders
a direct voice in the planning and design of
key development projects.
Consistent with these diverse participants
and activities, Eastward Ho! is funded from an
array of sources. It is primarily implemented
by local government and private sector activities
and local investment in the region's historic
communities. Eastward Ho! activities are also
supported by dues paid by member counties to
the regional pknning councils. In years past, the
State of Florida provided funding to support
Eastward Ho! activities and dedicated staff at
the regional planning councils. Additional
funding has been received from several federal
agencies including EPA (see below), private
foundations, and developers.
ERA'S ROLE
The EPA's efforts in the Eastward Ho! project
centered on forming and facilitating the
Brownfields Partnership and on providing technical
support to specific Eastward Ho! redevelopment
efforts. These functions are consistent with the
Eastward Hoi's overall goals of infill development
and redevelopment. The EPA has provided
technical support and funding to various aspects
of the Eastward Ho! project since 1996. Key
elements of this support include the following:
T In the 1996 through 1998 period, EPA's
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities (OSEC) provided funding,
contractor support, and staff to Eastward Ho!
Specifically, OSEC provided $900,000 in
funding to the Growth Management Institute
and its subcontractors to facilitate meetings
and analyze transportation issues such as
upgrading the existing rail system for use in
mass transportation in the corridor. OSEC
also deployed staff (one FTE) in South
Florida (primarily to support the Brownfields
Partnership) and maintained an additional FTE
at Headquarters for other program support.
T The Brownfields Partnership received
resources from EPA through its designation
as a Brownfields Showcase Community.
Resources provided include $400,000 as well
as a federal employee assigned to the SFRPC
office to provide technical support.
T The EPA also has provided numerous grants
for brownfield assessment and redevelopment.
For example, the cities of Miami, Opa-Locka,
and Fort Lauderdale as well as Miami-Dade
County have been the focus of approximately
$1 million in EPA funding for assessments
and demonstration pilots.
T The South Florida Regional Pknning Council
and the Eastward Ho! Brownfields Partnership
have received a $2 million grant from EPA
Eastward Ho! Chapter 4
-------
to capitalize a revolving loan fund that will
be used to assist in the cleanup and reuse of
brownfield sites in Southeast Florida.
T The EPA provides $200,000 for a job training
demonstration program run through Miami-
Dade Community College. The training
focuses on construction techniques applicable
at brownfield sites.
T EPA Region 4 and its South Florida Office
have provided technical assistance on several
brownfield issues, including implementation
of an environmental assessment and land
parcel inventory for a portion of the Miami
River and a similar parcel inventory for the
Model City area.
Project managers contacted for this evaluation
offered several observations and suggestions
regarding EPA's role in the Eastward Ho! project.
On the positive side, SFRPC staff pointed out
that EPA involvement in the project has had
clear benefits beyond the fact that EPA is a
direct source of funding for various activities.
In particular, EPA has provided legitimacy and
visibility to Eastward Ho!, creating momentum
for the project and assisting in securing funding
from other organizations.
Other observations regarding EPA's involve-
ment have been more critical and reveal signif-
icantly different perspectives on how the Agency
can best support CBEP projects. SFRPC staff
members stress the importance of local leader-
ship on a project such as Eastward Ho! Their
suggestion is that EPA find a strong local partner
and provide funding not just for specialized
activities but for core functions of the local
organization (e.g., staff, outreach), allowing local
project staff to use its expertise to manage the
funding as it sees fit as long as the local partner
works within the constraints established by EPA.
Although community members do not expect
or suggest that EPA provide a blank check,
fewer restrictions on EPA funds would provide
the maximum flexibility to design programs that
leverage local funds and engage communities.
Additionally, local partners emphasized the
insight, perspective, and resources that federal
agencies can bring to a joint collaboration but
also expressed concerns that federal partners
and contractors at times presume that local
partners are unsophisticated.
In contrast, EPA headquarters staff highlighted
several factors affecting how the Agency interacts
with local organizations:
T The Agency recognizes an obligation to bring
national expertise to bear on policy problems;
hence, the decision to involve contractors
and Headquarters staff. The EPA points out
that many technical policy issues benefit from
broad expertise and that local entities cannot
be left to solve all problems for themselves.4
T The EPA needs to operate within the limits
of its statutory authority and support the
objectives outlined in the Agency's strategic
plan. Because of its focus, EPA cannot simply
provide funding to local organizations with-
out directing how the money is to be spent.
T Direct involvement of EPA Headquarters in
projects such as Eastward Ho! is suboptimal.
Strong support from the EPA Region is
preferable to direct Headquarters participation,
and those interviewed felt that the resources
and commitment from the EPA Regional
office have been insufficient.
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND SHORTFALLS
Several accomplishments demonstrate how
Eastward Ho! has helped improve the quality of
life in South Florida and protect the resources
on which the region depends. Most notable is
the success that the project is having in
encouraging the fundamental land use and
demographic shifts that are at the core of the
Everglades protection strategy (i.e., reclaiming
and revitalizing the urban corridor of eastern
Florida).The activities listed in the preceding
sections demonstrate the myriad directions in
which the project is progressing. Below, we
discuss additional redevelopment efforts under
way, the influence these projects are having, and
other measures of Eastward HoFs accomplishments.
4 It is noteworthy that, in some cases, local leadership and national expertise may not be mutually exclusive;for example, a
national expert may be available at a local university to assist with a CBEP project.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
Demonstration Projects Under Way
As noted, Eastward Ho! has provided assistance
to an array of community redevelopment
demonstration projects that seek to improve the
environmental quality and overall livability of
urban areas. Projects currently under way include
revitalization efforts in Stuart, Overtown, North
Miami, North Miami Beach, Ojus, Homestead,
Goulds, Little Haiti, El Portal, Miami Shores,
Oakknd Park, Boca Raton, San Castle, Kendall,
Fort Pierce, Hollywood, and Pompano Beach.
Although most of these projects are still in
process, several have moved on to the advanced
planning stage, including the following:
T The city of Fort Pierce has identified a
developer and approved the proposed design
of the $18 million Marina Square Project
on the city's waterfront. The waterfront hotel
complex will include restaurants, meeting
facilities, and retail stores. Fort Pierces
redeveloped downtown will include a new
public library, mixed-income apartments,
offices, and a waterfront park.
T In April 2002, the city of North Miami Beach
celebrated the opening of Hanford Boulevard,
a key boulevard anchoring the city's down-
town business district revitalization. Planning
for this effort began in 1999 when the city
was awarded an Eastward Ho! design charrette
(a collaborative process, often a series of
meetings for empowering people who are
important to a project to work together and
support the goals and results) and engaged the
public in planning. The city followed up this
community planning effort by developing a
revitalization strategy featuring revised knd
development regulations, updated zoning codes
to allow mixed uses, business incentives, and
grants to help pay for improvements.
T Developers have planned a nine-story
residential, retail, and office building on the
site of the old Boca Raton News building
in downtown Boca Raton. This site is near
the Royal Palm Plaza, a shopping center
that is already being redeveloped as apartments,
condominiums, and office space.
In promoting these projects, developers have
been promoting many of the same advantages
of urban living that environmental proponents
highlight: shorter commuting distances, decreased
dependence on automobiles, and efficient use
of underutilized urban land. Other advantages
of infill development include the aesthetic appeal
of older, more established neighborhoods as
well as socioeconomic considerations such as
increased racial and economic diversity.
Kendall Redevelopment Project
The redevelopment vision for the suburban
region of Kendall in south Miami-Dade County
is perhaps one of the most dramatic examples
of the development strategies implemented under
Eastward Ho! What began as a local chamber of
commerce discussion over where the
community could hold a parade became a crusade
to develop a city center and a town identity.
The area had been epitomized by the extremely
successful Dadeland Mall, a sprawling suburban
complex that draws shoppers from the
community, from Miami, and from all over the
world (more than half of the clientele are
shoppers who have come to the community
specifically to shop). ChamberSOUTH, which
covers approximately half of Miami-Dade
County, spearheaded a revamping of the zoning
ordinances with the support of the community,
the Miami-Dade County Planning Office, and
SFRPC.The Kendall project is different from
many redevelopment projects nation-wide in
that it is proposed for an area that is currently
undergoing a sustained economic boom, despite
downturns in the general economy. Rather
than being a solution for urban blight and urban
flight, the Kendall vision is to recreate an
economically successful area to include environ-
mental and social concerns.
An initial weeklong charrette led to a vision
for the area that focused on developing a
pedestrian-friendly town center. Objectives
included redesigning streets to provide shade trees
and pedestrian cross-ways, adding colonnades to
buildings to encourage outdoor transit, and
replacing current residential areas -with denser
structures. The local knd development rules were
amended to require new or replacement
construction to meet an updated set of codes
that would require increased public open
space, increased pedestrian thru-ways, and
denser development. The Kendall area already
had the benefit of being near two major transit
stations, -which provide greater flexibility in
Eastward Ho! Chapter 4
-------
planning to reduce the number of cars used
for daily commuting.
With buy-in from the public, businesses, and
local government, the Kendall area has developed
a 30-year plan for redevelopment. Officials at
the Miami-Dade County Planning Office
emphasized the importance of having a local
business group (ChamberSOUTH) spearhead
this effort. This choice validated the project's
importance from a community perspective and
created a unique public—private collaboration.
Currently, redevelopment plans are under way
for more than 200 acres of land, resulting in
4,000 new residential units. Primarily, the plans
involve removing low-rise (2- to 3-story)
apartment buildings and replacing them with
25- to 30-story buildings. More than 300,000
square feet of commercial units are also currently
proposed by developers. The continuing growth
and expansion demands in the South Florida
area are fueling this redevelopment surge.
Demographic and Land Use Impacts
A major goal of the Eastward Ho! effort is to
attract people and development back to
Southeastern Florida's historic urban areas. The
influence that infill development is having is
evidenced by trends in South Florida's real
estate market. Although systematic data for the
Eastward Ho! corridor are not readily available,
a variety of articles in local newspapers and
magazines demonstrate that demographic
changes are under way:
T Observers point out that "a small but growing
number of Floridians are heading back down-
town, choosing new and renovated condo-
miniums, apartments, and townhomes that are
close to jobs, shopping, and entertainment." 5
T This influx of homebuyers is having a direct
impact on real estate markets. One article
states that "agents are scrambling for listings
and sellers getting full-price offers—or
above—within hours or days." 6
T Many of these changes, including notable
increases in property values, are occurring in
areas where Eastward Ho! has focused its
efforts—such as in Kendall. For example, one
article notes that "a $250,000, four-bedroom,
three-bath, 2,800-square-foot home with a
pool in the west would cost $400,000 in
East Kendall." 7
The real estate boom in the Eastward Ho!
corridor extends beyond just single-family
residential housing. Multifamily residential, retail,
and office space are in demand as well. For
example, along Miami's Brickell Avenue, near
the Miami River, a variety of mixed-use and
krger condominium projects are under way.
Similarly, downtown Boca Pvaton is attracting
mixed-used development, including conversion
of old office buildings into retail/residential/
office complexes (see above).8 Considered
together, these changes offer indirect evidence
that development pressure may be decreasing
in areas near the Everglades and groundwater
supplies, thereby fulfilling the primary environ-
mental objectives of the Eastward Ho! initiative.
Although the move eastward has its detractors,
who point to increased traffic congestion and
other issues, support for redevelopment of
urban centers is -widespread. Examples of this
support include the following:
T Commissioners for Miami-Dade County
voted 10 to 0 to approve the zoning plan
for downtown Kendall.9
T Local newspapers and other publications have
praised Eastward Ho! in editorials that
recognize the need for redevelopment and
that call attention to how the program fits
into the larger Everglades protection plan.10
The evidence remains anecdotal, and quanti-
tative change is difficult to show because there
\vas no system of direct measures incorporated
into the project.
5 "Heading Back Downtown," Florida Trend Magazine, August 2000.
6 "Real Estate on the Move," Miami Herald, August 13, 2000.
7 "Real Estate on the Move," Miami Herald, August 13, 2000.
8 "Nine-Story Residential, Retail Building Proposed in Downtown Boca," Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, August 11, 2000.
9 "Zoning Approved to Change Look of Kendall Community," Miami Herald, December 17, 1999.
10 "Making Environmental Peace Saving Water, Managing Growth," Miami Herald, January 5, 2000.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
Other Measures of Success
In addition to the demographic and land
use changes noted above, the success of
Eastward Ho! can be gauged in other ways:
T Eastward Ho! has produced several environ-
mental and socioeconomic assessments of
the corridor that have assisted in characterizing
the problems facing the region and guided
allocation of project resources. For example,
as mentioned, the effort has produced a variety
of site inventories and assessments. Some of
these assessments have been completed with
direct community involvement; the Model
City site inventory will be completed with
support from senior citizens trained by the
Miami-Dade County Department of
Environmental Management. In addition,
under DCA and EPA funding, Eastward Ho!
contracted with the Center for Urban Policy
Research at Rutgers University to analyze
alternative development scenarios in and
around the Eastward Ho! corridor.
T Participation in the brownfield training
programs also provides measures of success.
The training program funded by EPA recently
graduated seven students and began the second
class in January 2000. Another program
funded by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences graduated
19 students kst year and also began its second
session in January 2000. A total of 88 students
have been trained under the two programs.
Approximately 75 percent of the students
were initially employed in environmental
cleanup-related jobs.
T Local governments in the Eastward Ho!
Brownfields Partnership area have designated
21 sites and areas, totaling 47,578 acres, under
the Florida Brownfields Program. This accounts
for 70 percent of the acreage identified in
Florida as brownfields. Furthermore, the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and EPA have signed a Superfund
Memorandum of Agreement under which
EPA will forego enforcement at brownfield
sites. This provides greater certainty to develop-
ers undertaking brownfield rehabilitation.
T Brownfields assessments and remediation
have had positive environmental and
economic effects on the area. Approximately
400 sites have received some level of
contamination assessment. Approximately
78 sites need no further assessment and will
not require remediation. Five sites have under-
gone remediation and are either undergoing
redevelopment or will shortly undergo
redevelopment. The redevelopment activities
will create 375 to 500 new permanent jobs.
Finally, both Eastward Ho! and the Brownfields
Partnership have established measures of success
that they plan to track to gauge future progress.
Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 summarize these measures.
Project managers have not yet compiled formal
findings using these measures, but the discussion
above suggests that many of the goals are being
met. For example, the demographic information
reviewed above indicates that the goals to
increase the percentage of the region's popuktion
EXHIBIT 4-1
MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR EASTWARD HO!
Adequate, and eventually improved, level of service for public
facilities in the corridor, such as transit, parks, water, and sewer.
An increasing share of the region's public and private investment
in the corridor.
An increasing share of trips using transportation alternatives, such as
public transit, biking, and walking, instead of single-occupant vehicles.
An increasing number of residential and commercial projects featuring
pedestrian-friendly, energy-efficient, and transit-oriented design.
An increasing percentage of home ownership in the corridor.
A decreasing rate of per-capita consumption of resources such
as water and electricity.
An increasing number of local residents participating in Eastward Ho!
activities.
Adoption of state/federal/local legislation and regulations to provide
incentives and resources to improve the corridor.
An increasing percentage of the region's employment growth in areas
within the corridor.
An increasing personal income in every socioeconomic group.
Source: Building on Success:A Report from Eastward Ho!,
December (998.
Eastward Ho! Chapter 4
-------
and employment in the corridor are being met.
Likewise, the various redevelopment demonstra-
tion projects are evidence of progress toward
Brownfields Partnership goals of increased
brownfield identification, assessment, cleanup,
and redevelopment.
EXHIBIT 4-2
MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP
Number of Brownfield Properties Identified:
Number of properties estimated in brownfield pilot jurisdiction
Number of properties reported to be contained in pilot
inventories (if applicable)
Number of properties reported to be targeted by pilot
Number of Brownfield Property Assessments;
Property assessments started with pilot funding
Property assessments completed with pilot funding
Property assessments completed with other funding
Number of Brownfield Property Cleanups:
Number of properties with brownfields assessment that do not
require cleanup
Number of properties with brownfields cleanup activities started
Number of properties with brownfields cleanup activities completed
Number of Properties with Redevelopment Activities Under Way
Number of Cleanup/Construction Jobs Leveraged
Number of Cleanup Dollars Leveraged
Number of Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged
Number of Redevelopment/Construction Dollars Leveraged
Number of Brownfield-Related Partnerships with
Other Organizations:
Number of partnerships with other federal agencies
Number of partnerships with state and tribal agencies
Number of partnerships with local government agencies
Number of partnerships with private entities and nongovernmental
organizations
Brownfield-Related Funding Received from Other Sources:
Funding received from other federal agencies
Funding received from state and tribal agencies
Funding received from local government agencies
Funding received from private entities and nongovernmental
organizations
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CBEP PROCESS
Eastward Ho! exhibits many attributes associated
•with community-based environmental protection.
Several of these attributes can be measured and
help to demonstrate the success of the CBEP
process. Examples include the following:
T The Brownfields Partnership has successfully
integrated the efforts of numerous organiza-
tions. The signatories to the Brownfields
Partnership Agreement (see Exhibit 4-3)
illustrate the number and diversity of
participants involved with this aspect of
Eastward Ho/This collaboration has grown
over time, as evidenced by the total number of
partnerships that the Brownfields Partnership
has instituted with federal, state, regional, local,
and private organizations (see Exhibit 4-4)
following Brownfields Showcase designation.
T The response to SFRPC's Community
Investment Grant Fund is also an indicator of
the community-based nature of Eastward Ho!
and the level of community involvement. In
1999, more than 49 grant proposals were
received from local governments, nonprofit
organizations, Native American Tribes, and
other groups. The grant proposals totaled
$1.2 million, a significant figure when
contrasted with the $175,000 in funding that
\vas available.
T As noted, Eastward Ho! partners have conducted
several workshops and design charrettes to
involve citizens directly in the selection and
design of redevelopment sites. Although
complete data are not available, SFRPC staff
indicate that turnout at these sessions is good,
•with some sessions attracting more than one
hundred people.
CBEP VALUE ADDED
The value added offered by the Eastward Ho!
CBEP approach is best understood in the context
of conventional land use pknning. Throughout
the United States, sprawling development is
prevalent because it is perceived to be cost
effective rektive to redevelopment in urban areas.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
The collective result of individual decisions by
municipalities and developers is loss of rural
open space and continued neglect of defunct
industrial, commercial, and inner-city residential
areas. In South Florida, this sprawl pattern is
especially detrimental because of the threat it
poses to the sensitive Everglades ecosystem. As
discussed below, however, Eastward Ho! offers a
distinct alternative by supporting cooperative
decisionmaking across municipalities and educating
planners on the advantages of brownfield
redevelopment and regional land use planning.
One positive outcome of the CBEP process
as it was applied in Eastward Ho! pertains to the
collaboration between neighboring municipalities
and counties. SFRPC staff noted that munici-
palities typically compete to attract development
and other forms of business activity. Eastward Ho!
represents a more collaborative model of regional
pknning whereby city and county governments
recognize shared environmental and social
concerns and develop regional solutions. SFRPC
staff note how the regional cooperation inspired
by Eastward Ho! has been transferred over to
other programs and policy areas. For example,
staff point out that the Empowerment Zone
designation recently awarded to Miami-Dade
County resulted from a joint application effort
by the county and five municipalities. The
application explicitly cited the Eastward Ho!
principles and the success realized by the cooper-
ative efforts implemented under Eastward Ho!
Eastward Ho! offers other value-added benefits
in that it enhances the long-term capacity of
the corridor to manage its own environmental
problems. For example, the Brownfields
Partnership's Toolbox/Information Guide is
directly targeted to giving region-specific guidance
to South Florida municipalities considering
brownfield redevelopment. The brownfields
conferences sponsored by Eastward Ho! have
similar objectives. This transfer of practical and
technical knowledge provides momentum for
brownfield redevelopment and helps develop
self-sustaining institutions in corridor cities.
Eastward Ho! has produced further value by
promoting the smart growth concepts that EPA
and other federal agencies espouse. The basic
themes of Eastward Ho!—urban revitalization
and sprawl reduction—are central tenets of smart
growth as well. Through successful demonstra-
tion projects and other activities, the Eastward
EXHIBIT 4-3
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT SIGNATORIES
UES
Miami-Dade County*
Broward County
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
(Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties)
Palm Beach County
Florida Department of Community Affairs
South Florida Housing and Community Development Coalition
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Liberia Economic and Social Development
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
South Florida Regional Planning Council*
Greater Miami Neighborhoods, Inc.
John D. and Catherine! MacArthur Foundation
Broward Soil and Water Conservation District
National Audubon Society Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Campaign
Cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Hialeah, North Miami Beach,
and Pompano Beach
Florida International University, Hemispheric Center for
Environmental Technology
Miami/Miami-Dade County Weed & Seed
The Conservation Fund
The Trust for Public Land
Interviewed for this assessment.
Source: Evaluation of EPA's Community Based Efforts in South Florida,
ICF Consulting Group, January (999.
EXHIBITS
NUMBER OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
UNDERTHE BROWNFIELDS SHOWCASE PILOT
(THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1999)
IONS
Number of Partnerships with other Federal Agencies 15
Number of Partnerships with State Government Agencies 4
Number of Partnerships with Regional Government Agencies 2
Number of Partnerships with Local Government Agencies 12
Number of Partnerships with Private Sources and
Nongovernmental Organizations
31
Eastward Ho! Chapter 4
-------
Ho! project provides a working example of
smart growth concepts in action, illustrating
the links between knd use planning, brownfield
redevelopment, sustainable economic growth,
and ecosystem protection. Without community
input and acceptance, the changes to land use
and development patterns in South Florida
may never have been undertaken.
Another value-added aspect of supporting
specific CBEP efforts is the potential for influ-
encing broader local and state policy. In 1997,
the Florida Legislature passed brownfield
redevelopment legisktion that incorporates many
of the recommendations generated by the
Eastward Ho! legislative task force teams. The
legislation provides financial incentives to
municipalities and businesses to redevelop infill
sites and introduces a process for community
participation. In addition, in 1999, the Florida
Legislature passed the Urban Infill and
Redevelopment Grant Assistance Program that
provides funding, in part, to Brownfields
Showcase Communities.
Finally, performing the Eastward Ho! project
as a community-based, collaborative effort was
instrumental in revealing and addressing key
impediments to the region's redevelopment goals.
For example, initial brownfields development
efforts in South Florida were not successful
because of the outdated water infrastructure in
the region (e.g., many properties still use septic
systems and private ground-water supplies), and
this discouraged potential reinvestment. Direct
collaboration with developers and local officials
diagnosed this problem. Through on-the-ground
place-based efforts such as Eastward Ho!, EPA
can better understand these types of cross-media
obstacles and apply this knowledge in broader
regional and national policymaking.
SUMMARY OF KEYTHEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The experience of Eastward Ho! highlights
several themes instructive to the Agency's
future CBEP efforts:
T On CBEP projects, there is a delicate balance
to be struck between allowing local leadership
versus incorporating national expertise on
an issue, especially when EPA Headquarters
is participating directly.
T CBEP projects can foster colkboration (rather
than competition) between neighboring
municipalities that produces more efficient
regional solutions to problems. These
alliances can be useful in addressing other
regional problems beyond the environmental
policy arena and can generate momentum
for legislation at the state level.
T Eastward Ho! demonstrates how CBEP efforts
rely heavily on outreach and development
of partnerships between existing stakeholders
in a given area. These partnerships ensure
broad participation in program activities
(e.g., conferences), provide a pool of funding,
and produce continued results after the
Agency's involvement is complete.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA,
COMMUNITY-BASED
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND
GREEN DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
In 1995,York, Pennsylvania, began the process
of updating the strategic comprehensive plan
that would lead it into the 21st century.
Before undertaking the process, city officials
had recognized that the standard planning process,
focused solely on land use zoning and related
matters, would not suffice for York, a city that
already had three centuries of development
history (Figure 5-1). An established center of
manufacturing by the late 19th century,York,
like many other U.S. cities, underwent a dramatic
industrial decline in the 1980s characterized by
facility consolidations and closings. When the
time arrived to update York's strategic plan in
the 1990s, city leaders faced a wide host of
challenges, including many abandoned or under-
utilized former industrial properties and the need
to bring in new economic development to
replace lost manufacturing jobs. Although still
a community with a rich architectural and
historical legacy and active civic involvement,
York had an unemployment rate of more than
7 percent and was approaching a poverty rate
York, Pennsylvania, Community-Based Strategic Planning and Green Development Chapter 5
-------
of 20 percent by the late 1990s. The popuktion
had dropped by a third in 50 years, from nearly
60,000 in 1950 to just over 40,000 in the 1990s.
To address York's challenges and opportunities,
city officials embarked on designing a truly
comprehensive, or holistic, planning process
characterized by extensive community involve-
ment. Although the process is similar to standard
participatory town planning,York is a relatively
large city to undertake participatory planning
on such a large scale. The resulting strategic
planning effort, spearheaded by the York City
Planning Bureau and other city staff, consisted
of two different focal points:
T Community-Wide Visioning Process:
Through several different opportunities for
public involvement, such as community
meetings and participation on a community
partnership advisory board and other
committees,York residents produced an overall
community vision statement as well as policy
and action plans. These plans addressed a
range of social, economic, and quality-of-life
priorities, including expansion of employment
opportunities, inner-neighborhood revital-
ization, and establishment of greenway
linkages.
T Redevelopment Efforts for Brownfields
and Other Sites: With multistakeholder
participation through planning workshops and
other opportunities,York crafted redevelop-
ment strategies for city sections of special
concern, including its downtown area and
Rail Corridor district. For its underutilized
industrial Rail Corridor district, for example,
York developed a strategy to recruit new
environmentally friendly businesses and to
address environmental concerns about
abandoned properties through brownfield
technical assistance.
The 4-year planning process culminated in
production of a strategic comprehensive plan
document, which was officially adopted by York's
City Council in August 1999.
In 1997, EPA Region 3 recognized York's
community-based, holistic pknning process and
brownfield redevelopment work by naming the
city the first Green Community under its Green
Communities CBEP Program. As part of the
Green Community designation, EPA Region 3
partnered with York to further the city's efforts in
green development and brownfield reuse. In this
evaluation, we discuss activities that EPA andYork
have completed together as part of the Green
Communities Program as well as CBEP-related
initiatives that York began on its own as part of
the strategic comprehensive planning process.
Goals and Objectives
The overall vision developed by the city of
York included a 20-year plan to restore York to
"a vibrant urbanized community in which people
live, work, play and visit."11 This covers housing
opportunities, safe and efficient transportation,
attractive neighborhoods, improved public
services, and a healthy local and regional economy.
The vision specified various economic and
neighborhood goals:
T Creation of investment opportunities in the
downtown area for entertainment, shopping,
business services, tourism, and housing;
T Enhancement of the infrastructure in the
Rail Corridor for manufacturing facilities
and business expansions;
T Facilitation of redevelopment of special
planning districts within the city through
improved public services, facilities, and
infrastructure;
T Strengthening and connection of residential
neighborhoods through "cleaner, greener, and
safer streets, pathways, greenways, and parks";
T Promotion of historic preservation efforts
and quality architectural design;
T Provision of employment and public and
private services within the city;
T Upgrade and maintenance of public spaces
and recreation and park facilities.12
In the development of specific projects to meet
the overall goals and objectives,York officials
established various subobjectives related to
environmental quality. These include targets for
"' The City of York Strategic Comprehensive Plan, Vision Summary (1999), p. 8.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
creation of greenways and open space, goals rekted
to cleaner transportation modes, and environ-
mental goals focusing on the Rail Corridor.
The EPA's goal as a partner with the city of
York was similar to the general overall goal of
the EPA Green Communities Program: to
make the necessary tools for sustainable planning
and development accessible to communities as
well as to integrate environmental goals into
the economic planning process.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
In designing the city's strategic comprehensive
planning process,York officials drew on existing
public and private partnerships and other com-
munity strengths to put public opinion at the
forefront. The pknning approach helped the city
reach the goal of community involvement through
a variety of activities, as demonstrated below:
T Publicizing the status and results of the
planning process through a supplement to
the local newspaper and through distribution
of information handouts at locations
throughout York;
T Assembling a community partnership advisory
board, planning area committees, neighbor-
hood committees, and technical advisory
committees to represent specific community
areas and to advise York city staff on particukr
areas of concern for the planning process,
such as land use/historical preservation,
housing, and community services;
T Holding town meetings and "visioning
sessions" to gather input about York's assets and
challenges and to map out what community
members want the city to be like in the
year 2015;
T Mailing a survey to all households in York
to give all residents a chance to agree or
disagree with the opinions expressed at the
public meetings;
T Convening review sessions for the public to
comment on the policy pkns, action pkns, and
the complete strategic comprehensive plan.
The priorities identified through community
outreach were used to shape redevelopment
goals. Several efforts have already started in York
to respond to the priorities expressed by the
community during the planning process:
T Rail Corridor Revitalization Initiative:
York's Office of Economic Development
and other local agencies are partnering with
businesses and others to restore brownfield
sites along the 400-acre Rail Corridor that
runs through the city. York is leveraging
assistance from Pennsylvania's Land Recycling
Program and Enterprise Zone and Federal
Trade Zone designations to encourage
businesses to locate within the corridor.
T Rail Trail and Greenways Expansion:
York's local agencies are working to develop
interconnected networks of trails to provide
city-wide opportunities for recreation and
alternative commuting (e.g., walking,biking).
This initiative involves expanding the existing
rail trails and greenways and making safety
and other kinds of improvements. The 20-mile
Heritage Rail Trail County Park was dedicated
in 1999 with the completion of the Codorus
Creek extension.
T Downtown Action Plan Implementation:
Private and public partners are focusing on
implementing strategies from the compre-
hensive planning process to preserve and
enhance the neighborhoods, public spaces,
and cultural and economic opportunities
within downtown York.
T Codorus Creek Enhancement: The city
is partnering with local and regional groups
to develop strategies for improving the water
quality, odor, and appearance of the Codorus
Creek and its banks to expand recreation and
other opportunities along the urban waterway.
A $2 million endowment from the Glatfelter
Paper Company, situated on the banks of the
creek, has been leveraged into multimillion-
dollar support from the Army Corps of
Engineers for environmental improvements
along the creek.
Interestingly, in neither the comprehensive
planning process nor the earlier urban redevelop-
ment efforts didYork officials see themselves as
undertaking a CBEP-related project. Rather,
York, Pennsylvania, Community-Based Strategic Planning and Green Development Chapter 5
-------
the city viewed itself as responding to citizens'
concerns about economic opportunity and
quality-of-life issues, some of which "by accident"
turned out to be environmental in nature.
When EPA Region 3 heard about these efforts,
it recognizedYork as a CBEP leader and, as
previously mentioned, designated the city as its
first Green Community.
The EPA's direct involvement in York has been
primarily through the Green Communities
program. As part of its CBEP Program, Region 3
has given York technical assistance, including an
opportunity to pilot test the Green Communities
Assistance Kit, as well as other resources to help
the city with its green development and brown-
field redevelopment projects. The ongoing
partnership is now mainly characterized by
information exchange, as Region 3 provides York
•with networking opportunities by inviting city
officials to talk at CBEP conferences and other
events. Other specific examples of EPA
involvement with York include the following:
T Green Development Workshop: In the
fall of 1997, EPA sponsored a workshop that
brought national experts to York to speak on
environmentally sound construction practices,
energy-efficient design, and other green
development topics. The event also featured
a 2-day charrette devoted to redevelopment
options for the Rail Corridor.
T Green Development Strategy: The EPA
funded consultants to assist York in developing
a green economic development strategy.
Although still ongoing, this project thus far
has identified green industry targets with
favorable growth potential in the York area
and suggested strategies that the city can adopt
to increase its share of sustainable develop-
ment opportunities.
In addition to EPA funding for the Green
Development Workshop and Strategy work,
York has leveraged resources from several other
public and private partners to fund its redevelop-
ment work. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protections Site Reuse Program,
for example, provided two grants totaling
$165,000 for site assessment and cleanup plan
development activities along the Rail Corridor.
Other sources of funding for Rail Corridor
brownfield redevelopment include the
Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority,
the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce,
the Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development, and the U.S.
Department of Commerce Economic
Development Administration. Community
Development Block Grants through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
also have been used to restore particular
neighborhoods within York. For the strategic
comprehensive planning process itself,York used
$250,000 of its Community Development Block
Grant funds, and the city supplied approximately
$200,000 from its own general fund. Perhaps
most important, hundreds of York businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and private citizens
donated their time and services throughout the
multiyear comprehensive planning process.
EPA'S ROLE
In its involvement with York, Region 3 has
illustrated how to mold EPA assistance to suit
the individual shape and developmental stage
of a particular CBEP project. The activities listed
above demonstrate EPA's role in addressing
environmental objectives in York. Although the
York story may be unique in terms of the city's
"accidental" progress as a CBEP pioneer, it
shows that EPA can assume a useful role in a
CBEP project even if only on a limited or
intermittent basis. Moreover,York demonstrates
that the most desirable approach in some cases
may be to introduce the CBEP concept and then
use the ideas behind it to build upon relevant
work already taking place in a community. In
this way, both EPA and the CBEP community
can leverage their resources effectively and work
together to determine the most valuable niche
for the Agency's expertise and other assets.
Both EPA andYork expressed great satisfaction
with the niche role played by Region 3's Green
Communities Program. As important as the
funding provided were the new ideas and
information that the Green Communities
Program brought to York's brownfields and green
development work. City of York staff members
reported that without EPA, they would never
have been able to draw on the national expertise
that was made available to them through the
Green Development Workshop and that the
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
technical assistance provided directly influenced
the way they think about redevelopment issues.
Finally, EPA's recognition alone of the city's
CBEP-relevant work has helpedYork staff
leverage the comprehensive planning and
redevelopment initiatives into CBEP speaking
engagements and networking opportunities,
something that is beneficial to both York and
the Green Communities Program.
York is now continuing the redevelopment
process on its own, meeting EPA's goal of giving
communities the tools for sustainable develop-
ment. The public portion of York's redevelop-
ment money now comes primarily from the
State of Pennsylvania.
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND SHORTFALLS
Because the planning process finished in the
summer of 1999, it will likely be several years
before York can document achievement of many
of the longer-term goals outlined in the strategic
comprehensive plan. That said, several of the efforts
undertaken since York started its comprehensive
planning process have begun to show signs of
progress in reaching the city's revitalization
objectives and in laying the groundwork for
future successes. The activities listed above and
the projects described below demonstrate
York's progress:
T The 2-day brownfields charrette sponsored
by EPA involved the Rocky Mountain
Institute, the University of Maryland
Environmental Finance Center, and other
national experts and was attended by more
than thirty representatives from York city
agencies and the business and real estate
communities. The charrette succeeded in
generating a redevelopment design for a
Rail Corridor property: the former Columbia
Gas/Smokestack site. The York City
Redevelopment Authority obtained $650,000
from the State of Pennsylvania to acquire
the site, and environmental assessment and
remediation of portions of the property is now
complete. The original $12 million multitenant
office development project envisioned for
the site at the charrette was expanded to a
$23 million adaptive reuse/new construction
project, with the support of State Brownfields
legislation and private investors. The adaptive
reuse portion was completed and occupied in
August 2001, and the remaining new construc-
tion was set for occupation in October 2002.
T Redevelopment is now complete at two other
Rail Corridor properties: the Industrial
Plaza and the former Thonet Furniture
Manufacturing facility. These redevelopment
projects resulted in restoration of 7 acres of
brownfield land; construction of 2 modern
manufacturing facilities and commercial office
space, including facilities offering services for
minority entrepreneurs; creation of more
than 250 jobs; and an increase of more than
$2 million in the tax assessment value of the
properties. Perhaps the most telling indicator
of all is a statement from one of the site's
developers, who noted that without the efforts
of Pennsylvania's Land Recycling Program
and the other partnerships involved in the
Rail Corridor revitalization work, "we would
have built on 5 acres of land at some green-
fields site outside of the city. We would have
ploughed under five acres of agricultural
land." Additional milestones established for
the Rail Corridor efforts include completion
of a marketing pkn for the area (set for 2003)
and acquisition and resale by the city of all
key abandoned properties targeted for
redevelopment (set for 2001).
T York and its partners have begun to implement
several of the initiatives called for in the down-
town action plan developed by the city's
residents. In one example, the city of York has
joined together with the State of Pennsylvania's
Communities of Opportunity program and
a corporate partner, Danskin, Inc., to begin
redevelopment of a blighted downtown mill
site and renovation of surrounding side-walks
and residential properties. The city has also
completed connection of the Codorus Creek
Bikeway with the Heritage Rail Trail and
made other enhancements to this recreational
and open space resource, including adding
bike storage and wayfinding amenities as well
as improved lighting and landscaping.
Additional work planned for the future
includes completion of a downtown market
assessment and initiation of a public spaces
sponsorship program.
York, Pennsylvania, Community-Based Strategic Planning and Green Development Chapter 5
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OFTHE
CBEP PROCESS
York's community-based planning process
and urban redevelopment initiatives demonstrate
several measurable CBEP attributes of the kind
that earned the city its Green Community
designation and its other successes thus far:
T Throughout its more than 4 years of activity,
the strategic, comprehensive pknning process
produced several socioeconomic and quality-
of-life assessments of York, all of which
included some degree of direct community
involvement. In just one example, the city of
York \vorked with outside consultants to
develop a baseline site assessment and design
prospectus for 14 priority sites, including
several brownfield properties in need of
redevelopment and greenway sites in need of
enhancement. The priority sites and their pro-
posed revitalization options were identified in
part through input received from York citizens
during the comprehensive planning process.
T Multistakeholder partnerships drove the
planning process. Early on, the city of York
planning team articulated the principle that
"pknning [is best] undertaken with a diverse
group of individuals, residents, businesses, and
private, public and nonprofit sector partners
representing the entire knowledge base of
the city"13 York later attributed much of the
success of its planning to the active private
and public partnerships that were a corner-
stone of all aspects of the process, from the
facilitation of town meetings to the technical
analyses developed around the issues and assets
identified as significant for the city's future.
For example, the 70-member community
partnership advisory board and other planning
committees drew their membership and
other support from a wide array of nonprofit
associations, businesses, municipal organiza-
tions, and other groups, some of which are
listed in Exhibit 5-1.
T Active community participation was key to
informing the process. In the first round of
town meetings alone, more than 380 citizens
expressed at least 2,000 opinions about York
assets and issues, all of which were incorpo-
rated into the pknning committees' analyses.
Later, the followup survey that the planning
team mailed to every household in York
exhibited a response rate of more than
30 percent.
T The comprehensive planning process and
follow-on activities it helped generate are
illustrations of an adaptive, holistic approach
for management of issues related to a com-
munity's sustainable development. York's
strategic pknning process successfully integrated
social, economic, and environmental objectives
by performing holistic assessments of the
city that helped to produce policy strategies
on a range of issues, from brownfield devel-
opment in the Rail Corridor to neighborhood
PARTIAL LIST OF GROUPS INVOLVED OR
REPRESENTED INYORK'S PLANNING PROCESS
AND FOLLOW-ON ACTIVITIES
South George Street Partnership
Crispus Attacks Community Development Corporation
York Office of Econ. Development*
York County Industrial Dev. Corp.
University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center
Rocky Mountain Institute
York Christ Hope Church
York Grace Lutheran Church
Enterprise Community Task Force
Goodridge Business Resource Center
York City School District
Historic York
Main Street York
York Foundation
YorkYMCA
Martin Library
York County Chamber of Commerce
Unitarian Society of York
US. EPA Region 3*
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
* Interviewed for this assessment.
City of York, Pennsylvania, The City of York Strategic Comprehensive Plan,_/n/y 1999.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
enhancement to cultural and recreation
opportunities. Perhaps most importantly, the
104 strategies on more than 40 policy topics
adopted in the strategic comprehensive plan
•were shaped directly by a combination of
citizen input and the holistic assessments
performed by York.
T The ongoing CBEP process in the community
facilitatedYork's selection as a Keystone
Opportunity Zone (KOZ), which opened up
additional business and investment incentives.
The program was introduced in Pennsylvania
in 1999 and reduces state taxes and provides
other incentives for business relocation to
selected areas. Requirements to be considered
as a KOZ include having a development
vision and strategy and having both public
and private resource commitment. The
community support and direction garnered
through its planning process enabledYork to
be a key contender for a KOZ designation.
CBEP VALUE ADDED
In many ways, the vision and strategic plan
development in York epitomized the standard
participatory planning process. However, the
community-based strategic pknning process and
urban revitalization initiatives that originally grew
out of necessity have gone on to provide the
city and its residents additional and sometimes
unexpected benefits. Chief among these gains is
progress associated with the private and public
collaborations that took root during the com-
prehensive planning process and rekted efforts.
Although multistakeholder partnerships are a
hallmark of CBEP activity itself, the nature of
collaboration is such that partnerships lay the
groundwork for more partnerships. In this way,
York's strengthened emphasis on partnerships
has brought value-added benefits both within
and outside of the city's boundaries:
T Partnerships Within York: The serious
attention devoted within the planning process
to the building and utilization of colkborations
among a diversity of municipal, nonprofit,
and business groups set the stage for expanded
partnering afterward. City officials point to
these new and strengthened civic partnerships
as a key factor behind the last few years of
success in implementing the downtown action
plan and other redevelopment strategies and
in accomplishing other collaborative efforts,
such as earning a spot as a finalist in the
National Civic League's 2000 All-American
City Award competition.
T Partnerships Beyond York: Both York
and EPA Region 3 representatives rate the
partnership that has grown up over the years
between the city and the Agency as highly
valuable. When first approached by EPA about
the Green Communities Program,York
officials already knew from the strategic
comprehensive planning process that the time
commitments and other resources required for
such collaborations are well rewarded by the
new ideas and tools that can result. In fact,
when interviewed by the local newspaper
about the city's Green Community designation,
York officials, including the mayor, pointed to
opportunities to build these kinds of partner-
ships as the greatest benefit of CBEP activities.
The director of York's Office of Economic
Development characterized participation in
the Green Communities CBEP Program as
"a way to build relationships. . . . Success
happens when you build relationships."14
Although it is perhaps still too soon to tell,
York is hoping that future benefits of its
CBEP-related activities will include new
partnership opportunities similar to those it
has experienced with EPA Region 3 and
the Green Communities Program thus far.
Another value-added aspect of CBEP-rekted
activities that York has experienced is the potential
for greater degrees of policy buy-in resulting
from active community involvement in the policy
formation process. Demonstrating consensus was
the swift city council approval of the strategic
comprehensive plan and its detailed policy
initiatives and strategies for taking York to the
year 2015. Additional proof cited by York is the
fact that just over 6 months after the official
adoption of the plan, the majority of its action
items are already undergoing implementation.
14 Menzer, Mike, "EPA Has City Officials Seeing Green," York Dafly Record, October 1997.
York, Pennsylvania, Community-Based Strategic Planning and Green Development Chapter 5
-------
Active citizen buy-in also has significant impli-
cations for day-to-day, less formal policy
implementation matters. In one example,York
officials believe that the designation of improving
the condition of a local waterway as a city
priority within the strategic comprehensive
plan—and its ensuing endorsement by the city
government and the citizens—has brought into
focus water quality concerns associated with a
local industrial facility and affected that facility's
attitude toward the issue.
Related to this aspect of buy-in is the value-
added significance of holistic, integrated policy-
making in helping to achieve sustainability
improvements. As previously discussed,York's
development history and interconnected social,
economic, and quality-of-life challenges had
naturally pushed the city in the direction of
integrated planning and policy formation. York
understood, for instance, that key to solving its
economic problems was addressing its abandoned,
contaminated brownfield sites. York has since
learned that this integrated type of approach has
additional benefits through collaborations and
resource sharing in solving overkpping problems
(e.g., environmental and economic development
groups \vorking together to address both sets
of interests through achieving a cleaner, greener
revitalized downtown). Thro ugh mechanisms such
as requiring all local Keystone Opportunity
Zone (i.e., state-sponsored tax-free development
projects) applications to follow the development
guidelines contained within the strategic
comprehensive plan,York's integrated planning
approach can prevent future environmental and
other quality-of-life problems that might arise
from ad hoc or poorly planned development.
By codifying its social, economic, environmental,
and other quality-of-life priorities and strategies
within one plan,York has taken a major step
toward addressing current challenges and ensuring
a long-term outlook toward overall sustainability.
SUMMARY OF KEYTHEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The York CBEP project may be unique in
its rektively organic development, but the city's
experience illustrates some useful themes for
CBEP efforts in general, especially regarding
successful involvement of EPA and community
partners. The following are a few of the most
important themes:
T Projects will succeed more readily if local
officials and community leaders possess the
vision and willingness to try out the new ideas
and approaches central to CBEP efforts.
T EPA involvement in CBEP projects can be
most valuable when it builds upon ongoing
efforts in the community and fills a niche
role (e.g., providing specialized information
or analysis).
T Active multistakeholder involvement through
CBEP efforts can enhance community buy-in
of relevant public policy and create enduring
partnerships that extend beyond CBEP projects
to provide benefits in other policy areas.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
ST. LOUIS GATEWAY
INITIATIVE: ABANDONED
BUILDINGS PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 6
Background
Aging infrastructure, urban flight, and a
collapsed industrial base have led to
extensive environmental and health
problems in the St. Louis, Missouri, metropolitan
area. High childhood asthma rates, high lead
poisoning rates, and low life expectancy all served
as indicators of the problems. To help address
these issues, EPA Regions 5 and 7 manage several
community-based environmental protection
projects under the umbrelk effort of the St. Louis
Gate-way Initiative. This initiative joins the cities
of St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois,
to identify environmental concerns, set priorities,
and develop comprehensive solutions.
With funding from the EPA's Regional
Geographic Initiative, Region 7 conducted a
Listening Tour in 1997, which gathered public
perspectives on the most pressing environmental
concerns around St. Louis. The Listening Tour
comprised 12 public meetings held in neighbor-
hoods around St. Louis, allowing residents to
identify and discuss those environmental problems
they saw as most pressing. Key areas identified
included air pollution, vacant and abandoned
properties, brownfield redevelopment, lead
poisoning, and illegal dumping. The EPA then
began working with neighborhoods to implement
projects to address these concerns. The Gate-way
Initiative has grown to include projects covering
diverse issues such as childhood lead poisoning,
air quality, household hazardous -waste manage-
ment, brownfields, urban ecosystem restoration,
and the development of environmentally friendly
building codes.
This evaluation focuses on the first project
of the overall initiative, the Abandoned Buildings
Demolition Project, which -was a partnership
to address the problem of abandoned structures
in the urban core of St. Louis. Like many mid-
western cities, the city of St. Louis had
experienced an exodus of economic activity
and residents over the course of recent decades,
leaving many buildings (especially multifamily
residential structures) to decay. By Missouri law,
all properties that are in arrears in taxes for more
than three years convert to municipal ownership,
resulting in a huge inventory of city-owned
buildings. Many of the abandoned buildings
contain asbestos insuktion, lead-based paint, and
other hazardous materials. Because asbestos
removal is regukted under the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), city officials perceived significant
cost and enforcement risk associated -with
demolishing the buildings. They demolished only
a few buildings each year, and as a result, the
problem of abandoned buildings grew, bringing
with it an array of related health, safety, crime,
social, and aesthetic issues.
Goals and Objectives
In evaluating how best to approach the
multimedia problems of the city of St. Louis,
EPA decided on a community-based approach.
The Agency established the folio-wing general
goals for the Gate-way Initiative:
T Identify environmental concerns at the
neighborhood level;
T Establish priorities among participants and
government agencies;
T Assist residents and other partners in
resolving environmental issues that -will
improve the quality of life in the St. Louis
metropolitan area.
The initial Listening Tour gave EPA a guide-
book to follow to address the first two goals. The
third goal is being met by the series of projects
within the Initiative, each of which has its own
St Louis Gateway Initiative; Abandoned Buildings Project Chapter 6
-------
objectives. The objective of the Abandoned
Buildings Project is to assist municipal officials
and other involved parties in developing a
program for safely and cost-effectively demolishing
abandoned buildings. The project accomplishes
this objective through a cooperative effort
involving EPA, the St. Louis mayor's office,
municipal agencies, local politicians, and federal
agencies with relevant expertise (e.g., Housing
and Urban Development [HUD], the Army
Corps of Engineers [the Corps], and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[OSHA]). Demolishing the abandoned structures
not only will address health and safety concerns
but also will facilitate new development and
overall economic investment in the urban core
of St. Louis.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The EPA and the city of St. Louis have
engaged in a series of activities to test and codify
methods of effectively demolishing abandoned
buildings. These activities reflect the overall
goals of the Gate-way Initiative, from identifying
concerns and priorities among all stakeholders to
completing projects that improve the environ-
ment and residents' quality of life. During the
course of the Abandoned Buildings Project,
project activities have proceeded in several key
stages in the following order:
T EPA project managers met with city officials,
community leaders, and EPA program man-
agers (such as experts in EPA's Air, RCRA,
and Toxics Divisions) to better understand
the root causes and scope of the abandoned
buildings problem in St. Louis.
T The EPA established the partnership of key
stakeholders to implement the Abandoned
Buildings Project. This partnership included
EPA, the St. Louis mayor's office, several city
departments, the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MoDNR), the chamber
of commerce, a regional planning organization,
a neighborhood organization, and partners
at other federal agencies.
T The EPA and its partners implemented a
process for selecting the buildings to be
demolished in the pilot project. This process
began with an inventory of abandoned
buildings around St. Louis that would help
with the determination of high-priority areas
for additional projects beyond the pilot. Based
on the inventory, the partnership selected a
neighborhood (or ward) to serve as the focus
of the Abandoned Buildings Pilot Project.
The partnership worked with elected
neighborhood officials (including an alderman)
to select specific buildings to be demolished.
The alderman served as a link to the neighbor-
hood association, ensuring that residents'
knowledge and preferences were reflected in
the buildings selected. Figure 6-1 shows the
general location of the selected buildings.
The EPA worked with the Army Corps of
Engineers through an interagency agreement
to perform structural inspections of the build-
ings and determine the amount and location
of asbestos or other hazardous materials. The
Corps then developed cost estimates for the
deconstruction and demolition of the proper-
ties and provided these to the city.
Based on the inspections and input from the
neighborhood, the project partners selected
a final set of 18 buildings for demolition.
City officials contracted with private firms
to demolish the buildings. The St. Louis
Community Development Corporation is
now assembling the properties as part of a
sustainable neighborhood plan. As of April
2002, no new construction had begun.
EPA'S ROLE
First, staff from EPA Region 7 initiated and
managed the Abandoned Buildings effort, taking
a lead role in most stages of the process described
above. The EPA's team included staff from
Region 7's Superfund Division and the Region's
Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division. People contacted
for this evaluation, including those inside and
outside EPA, discussed how EPA's primary
contribution was its leadership in organizing
the program and building coalitions to address
a large problem. The EPA was involved in the
development of the stakeholder partnership
and in working with local leadership.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
Second, EPA, the Corps, and OSHA provided
technical assistance through the identification of
cost-effective methods of complying with
NESHAPS and OSHA regulations.
Last, EPA staffbrought an outside perspective
on the problem of abandoned buildings. City
departments in charge of building inspection,
permitting, and demolition kcked the resources
to conduct day-to-day operations and simultane-
ously evaluate internal procedures.
EPA funding for the Abandoned Buildings
Project came both through the RGI and the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER).The money funded various studies,
including inspections, improvements of specifica-
tions, and improvements to the contracting
process. The EPA contributed $170,000 through
the RGI to fund the interagency agreement with
the Corps to inspect the buildings and develop
demolition cost estimates. Over the 3 years the
project operated, EPA also devoted roughly
one-quarter of a full-time equivalent staff person
to managing the effort. As a complement to
EPA's investments, the city of St. Louis funded
the contracts for the actual demolition work
(approximately $120,000), and other organizations
such as Missouri DNR, HUD, OSHA, and the
city contributed in-kind funding through their
work on the project.
Representatives of the St. Louis mayor's office
and Missouri DNR offered praise for EPA
project managers and the Abandoned Buildings
Project overall. They noted that the "federal
presence" EPA brought to the project was
instrumental in elevating the profile of the
abandoned buildings problem and in lending
legitimacy and authority to efforts aimed at
refining the assessment and demolition process.
When asked if there were any downsides to
EPA's involvement, however, one city official
noted that federal involvement in a local issue
\vas at times awkward. His preference would
be for EPA to restrict its role to traditional
funding and enforcement activities rather than
involve itself directly in municipal affairs.
FIGURE 6-1
LOCATION OF ST. LOUIS ABANDONED BUILDING PILOT DEMOLITIONS
f ^f~--y .*/
•
— • •-jsn' :
^^ '; '•'-•W..
St Louis Gateway Initiative; Abandoned Buildings Project Chapter 6
-------
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND SHORTFALLS
The primary accomplishment of the
Abandoned Buildings pilot is the demolition
of 18 buildings and the refinement of a process
for similar assessment and demolition in the
future. The success of this initiative is best
appreciated in the context of historical efforts
to remove abandoned buildings in St. Louis.
The city had acquired responsibility for many
abandoned buildings as a result of foreclosures
on tax-delinquent properties and condemnation
of structurally unsound buildings. For many
years, city officials chose not to demolish these
buildings for fear of the expense and enforcement
risk associated with the demolition. Instead,
the city took advantage of an exemption in the
NESHAPS regulations that allows the demolition
of one building per block per year without
asbestos inspection, testing, and removal. The
number of abandoned buildings far outstripped
the pace of these demolitions, causing the
problem to grow.
The Abandoned Buildings pilot helped the
city remediate and demolish a larger group of
buildings in one neighborhood and plan for
similar krger-scale demolition projects. In
particukr, EPA and the Corps of Engineers have
demonstrated how more surgical removal of
asbestos prior to demolition can reduce the cost
of building demolition. If asbestos is removed
carefully and shipped to the appropriate hazardous
•waste management facility, demolition contractors
can dispose of high-volume demolition waste
at less costly, nonhazardous landfills.
The parties interviewed for this assessment
feel that the environmental and public health
accomplishments of the Abandoned Buildings
pilot are significant. Using approved methods
to remove asbestos before demolition reduces
exposures to both workers and the general
public, thereby ensuring compliance with EPA's
asbestos NESHAPS requirements. In addition
to satisfying EPA's programmatic goals, the public
safety, aesthetic, and economic benefits of the
project are also significant. Although no formal
benefits assessment has been completed, probable
benefits include:
T The reduction of drug use and other criminal
activity associated with abandoned buildings;
T Aesthetic improvement from removal of neigh-
borhood eyesores and creation of open space;
T Increased supply of salable land for new
public and private development; and
T Removal of derelict properties from city
management and potential increases in tax
revenue associated with private sale and
development of the improved properties.
Although sufficient resources for them do not
currently exist, project managers noted that the
Abandoned Buildings Project would benefit
from more systematic assessments of the health,
safety, and economic impacts of the program.
One shortfall in the project has been follow-
through on the redevelopment process. The
alderman initially supporting the project locally
is no longer in office and was not as successful
in attracting buyers and developers as he and EPA
had hoped. Additionally, EPA involvement in
the pilot has ended. The Agency is focusing its
limited resources on the other projects in the
Gate-way Initiative.
An initial objective was the creation of a
guidebook for asbestos management and building
demolition. During the project, EPA discovered
that the city already had a guidebook and gave
its information on asbestos management to an
Army Corps of Engineers employee who was
intending to redesign the existing guidebook
materials to make them more appropriate for
kyperson's use. Although the Corps employee
subsequently left the project, the city intends
to finish the guidebook.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CBEP PROCESS
The effectiveness of the CBEP process on the
Abandoned Buildings Project is best understood
by first considering how the asbestos problem
•was addressed under conventional procedures.
As noted, the city pursued few building demo-
litions because of fears about viokting asbestos-
removal rules, in turn leaving contaminated
buildings in pkce and increasing health risks. This
status quo condition was largely the result of
the institutional divisions and misunderstandings
that existed between EPA, state regulators, and
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
city officials. Solving the problem required a more
integrated, multidisciplinary vision to recognize
the linkages among public works functions
(such as building demolitions), environmental
policies and enforcement, and public health
outcomes. The effectiveness of the CBEP
process should be considered in this context.
One of the core CBEP principles calls for a
project to forge effective partnerships across a
range of stakeholders. The Abandoned Buildings
Project satisfies this criterion in three ways,
described below.
First, the success of the CBEP process can
be assessed based on the number of partners
cooperating on the effort. Exhibit 6-1 summarizes
the diverse set of organizations participating in
the project.
Second, the success is further demonstrated
by the ability of the project managers to use
existing institutions to involve key parties in the
effort. To this end, the staff interviewed for this
assessment highlighted the importance of work-
ing through the St. Louis mayor's office to engage
the support of the many municipal departments
responsible for various aspects of the abandoned
buildings problem. The EPA recognized that
the individual departments may be resistant to
procedural changes or skeptical of EPA's role
PARTIC
EXHIBIT 6-1
PARTICIPANTS IN ST. LOUIS ABANDONED
BUILDINGS PROJECT
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
EPA Region 7*
St. Louis Mayor's Office*
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri Department of Natural Resources*
St. Louis Municipal Departments:
- St. Louis Building Division
- St. Louis Development Corporation
- St. Louis Community Development Agency
- St. Louis Air Pollution Control Department*
- St. Louis Health Department
St. Louis Association of Community Organizations
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
Regional Chamber and Growth Association
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
* Interviewed for this assessment.
had Region 7 attempted to work directly with
them. Instead, the mayor's office helped provide
the authority and on-the-ground management
needed to implement the pilot project.
Third, EPA elicited the input of residents in
the affected neighborhoods. Again, rather than
perform direct outreach, EPA worked closely
with the alderman for the chosen neighborhood
as well as the St. Louis Association of Community
Organizations to get residents' perspectives on
the abandoned buildings problem and which
properties should be targeted for demolition.
The primary lesson learned was that, while direct
outreach may sometimes be appropriate, it may
be most effective to utilize established institutions
that are trusted within the community and that
garner community cooperation.
Project managers stressed the care that must
be exercised when working with local people
and groups, including elected officials such as
the city aldermen. Two key factors contributed
to the success of the CBEP process in this area.
First, project managers noted that part of working
at the local level involves knowing when to move
on when receiving insufficient local support.
Initially, the partnership identifed a pilot ward
but the alderman was not fully convinced of
the value of the Abandoned Buildings effort
and EPA's involvement. The partnership quickly
identified another ward and alderman rather
than trying to push the project on uninterested
parties, which helped to get the project off the
ground. By identifying and working with sup-
portive partners, the partnership developed a
useful model for other jurisdictions in the city to
consider. Second, project managers emphasized
the importance of timing when engaging the
support of local participants. CBEP managers
should be sure to refine project pkns and present
local stakeholders with a concrete proposal. At the
same time, however, early involvement of local
stakeholders will help garner trust and support.
For example, presenting the overall Abandoned
Buildings Plan to several aldermen earlier in
the process may have helped avoid the false start
experienced with the initial ward selected.
Discussions with one city department—the
Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC)—
highlight the difficulty of communication and
coordination on CBEP projects, especially those
involving municipal offices. City departments
usually work under a set of operating procedures
St Louis Gateway Initiative; Abandoned Buildings Project Chapter 6
-------
that have developed over the history of the
organization. These procedures usually focus on
a particular mission or delivery of a particular
city service. The introduction of initiatives
such as the Abandoned Buildings Project can,
in contrast, require greater interaction and
coordination among departments. Although the
partnership involved the Air Commissioner
during the planning stages of the Abandoned
Buildings Project, the Commissioner felt that
this communication was not maintained
throughout the effort. Specifically, he felt that
the mayor's office should have kept the DAPC
informed of how the project was progressing.15
As a result, the DAPC was unable to review the
inspection reports for the selected buildings,
leading to subsequent concerns over the accuracy
of the reports and the safety of the demolitions.
This experience demonstrates how CBEP efforts
must be sensitive to the culture and operating
procedures of local organizations such as city
departments. Once an organization is invited to
be part of the project team, clear and consistent
communication is essential to maintain support
for the effort and to avoid creating the impression
that EPA and other partners are interfering with
local affairs.
The interaction and relationship developed
through the CBEP process have led EPA and
the city of St. Louis to work more on changing
asbestos regulatory compliance. This had long
been an enforcement struggle, and it was high-
lighted during the demolition process on the
pilot project, with conflicts between EPA and
the city, and within the city, as highlighted by
the DAPC problems above. The lack of record-
keeping by the city-hired contractors led to
uncertainties in potential risk. Now the city and
EPA are sharing information, and they have
created a joint enforcement effort to encourage
increased compliance, including close involvement
with the DAPC.
Apart from all these aspects of stakeholder
outreach and coordination, the Abandoned
Buildings Project satisfies other core CBEP
principles. Most notably, it presents an excellent
example of how CBEP initiatives can simultane-
ously integrate environmental, economic, and
social objectives in a way that more traditional
policy approaches cannot. As noted, beyond the
asbestos management benefits, the project also
provides social benefits (e.g., crime reduction) and
clears the way for community revitalization
and economic development in a depressed St.
Louis neighborhood. In addition, the project
adheres to the basic CBEP principle of focusing
on a well-defined geographic area (the pilot
phase of the effort targeted a single city ward).
The Abandoned Buildings effort by itself is less
relevant to the remaining CBEP principles such
as holistic ecosystem management and adaptive
program management, although the Gate-way
Initiative as a whole embraces those principles.
CBEP VALUE ADDED
The Abandoned Buildings Project has yielded
several benefits that typify the value added that
CBEP efforts can produce:
T Internal Capacity Building: The abandoned
buildings issue cuts across the jurisdiction of
numerous municipal departments as well as
state and federal regulatory agencies. An
important product of the Abandoned Buildings
Project has been to assemble these groups
and focus them on a targeted problem and
geographic area. For instance, until the
Abandoned Buildings Project was in place,
coordination and communication between
the city Building Department (responsible
for permitting demolitions) and DAPC
(responsible for air quality management) had
been limited; the Abandoned Buildings Project
helped reveal their common jurisdiction on
asbestos exposure and create procedures for
collaborating on demolitions that involve
asbestos. By establishing these procedures,
the pilot project helps build capacity at the
city level and create a sustainable system for
addressing multidisciplinary problems such
as asbestos removal.
T Refinement of City Functions:
Interviewees also suggested that the effort may
help reveal and correct flaws in city operations
15 This may be largely attributable to staff turnover in the mayor's office during the latter stages of the Abandoned
Buildings Project.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
indirectly rekted to the Abandoned Buildings
Project. Most notably, the city's process for
contracting with demolition firms may be
reconsidered based on the pilot project
experience, since in the final stage of the pilot,
many of the buildings were demolished
•without thorough asbestos removal actions.
EPA Legitimacy: The success of a municipal-
level project such as Abandoned Buildings
improves EPA's image with key constituencies.
Rather than seeing the Agency purely as a
regulatory enforcement organization, city
officials and the public come to see EPA as
a creative problemsolver and partner.
SUMMARY OF KEYTHEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Abandoned Buildings Project demonstrates
several broad themes that may be instructive to
future CBEP initiatives:
T The EPA often is uniquely equipped to
organize potential partners around multidis-
ciplinary environmental problems to help
build coalitions and enlist the help of
diverse federal, state, and local interests.
T When collaborating with municipal officials
and the general public, it is often best to rely
on existing institutions to channel communica-
tion. For instance, the Abandoned Buildings
managers were able to work with the mayor's
office in coordinating among several city
departments and with aldermen and the
Association of Community Organizations
•when performing public outreach.
T Municipal departments typically adhere to a
set of accepted procedures that are established
over years of experience, making the depart-
ments skeptical of involvement by other levels
of government. Frequently they are reluctant
to change procedures without a proven
rationale. CBEP projects should be carefully
structured to respect these procedural and
cultural norms, and to understand why the
current procedures are in place even as they
seek to refine certain practices.
T Pilot-level municipal initiatives can have the
added benefit of helping city governments
build capacity to comply with federal regula-
tions and maximize the protection of public
health. For example, the Abandoned
Buildings Project highlighted the need for
coordination between city departments
handling aspects of the abandoned buildings
problem. Like-wise, the project revealed
inefficiencies in the process that the city
uses to contract with demolition firms and
the need to perform greater oversight of
demolition contractors.
T The failure to attract redevelopment to the
areas where demolitions have been completed
highlights possible improvements in the CBEP
process. Projects may face some uncertainties
in their political support when elected offices
change hands. Furthermore, sustained EPA
involvement in a project may be critical to
ensure that the ultimate objectives of the
project are pursued. EPA brownfields expertise
might be helpful in attracting development
to the cleared areas, but limited resources
have forced the Agency to turn its attention
to other aspects of the Gate-way Initiative.
St Louis Gateway Initiative; Abandoned Buildings Project Chapter 6
-------
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
CROSS-PROJECT
EVALUATION
CHAPTER 7
In this final section, we take a broader
perspective on the five CBEP projects in an
attempt to distill key themes. Consistent with
the structure of the overall evaluation, we focus
on three questions:
T How does CBEP help or hinder achievement
of basic project goals?
T What added benefits do CBEP approaches
provide that would not be realized under tradi-
tional environmental management programs?
T How can EPA tailor its role to best support
CBEP efforts?
Exhibit 7-1 lists significant themes associated
with these questions that have emerged in our
evaluation. In the sections that follow, we elaborate
upon these themes and provide examples from
the five CBEP projects.
How Does the CBEP Process Affect
Achievement of Project Goals?
The individual project evaluations considered
the success of the CBEP process and how this
process helps or hinders the environmental and
social objectives of the project. Exhibit 7-2
summarizes some of the key findings. Looking
across projects, several themes emerge.
EXHIBIT 7-1
CROSS-PROJECT EVALUATION THEMES
How Does the CBEP Process Affect Achievement of Project Goals?
A meaningful geographic boundary can enhance project success.
CBEP projects require carefully designed decisionmaking processes.
Clear roles and leadership responsibilities are essential.
CBEP projects may require special time, resource, and leadership commitments.
Clear performance indicators are essential to project management.
What Value-Added Benefits Does CBEP Create?
CBEP can yield new forms of integration and coordination.
CBEP provides partnership benefits that extend beyond the project.
CBEP promotes capacity building and sustainability.
CBEP efforts create legitimacy and signal community support.
CBEP can influence broader public policy in areas such as community planning, public health, and community spending
decisions and priorities by informing public opinion and stimulating public dialogue.
Community-based approaches can help leverage resources and expand community commitment.
How Can EPA Best Support CBEP?
EPA funding, and how it is provided, is of crucial importance.
In its CBEP involvement, EPA should play a niche role (e.g., provide data, technical assistance, or analytic support).
The EPA may be well equipped and positioned to organize diverse interests around multidisciplinary issues.
Cross-Project Evaluation Chapter 7
-------
I
o
o
•n
n
O
z
•z.
m
D
m
m
H
3
o
m
n
EXHIBIT 7-2
SUCCESS AND VALUE ADDED OF CBEP PROCESS: OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL CBEP PROJECTS
Project
Project Accomplishments
Effects and Overall Success
of the CBEP Process
Value Added of CBEP Approach
San Miguel Watershed
Initiative
-Water quality assessments
- Survey and mapping of alpine
landscapes
- Source water assessments
for seven communities
- Completed Watershed Plan
- Meaningful boundary (watershed) helps in
defining stakeholders and encouraging
involvement
- Participation of diverse organizations critical
to development ofWatershed Plan
- Direct citizen involvement in Watershed Plan
development and source water assessments
- Integration of studies and local expertise under one umbrella
- Integration of information and pluralistic planning assist in acquiring
grant funding
- Public education and enhanced appreciation of EPA mission
- Community capacity building ensures long-term sustainability of
results (e.g., source water assessment tools)
-Technical assessments form foundation for newly adopted rules
on development in the watershed
-Watershed coalition group continues on to independently implement
elements of the Watershed Plan
North Charleston/
Charleston CBEP
- Completion of a baseline
environmental quality data
compilation effort
-Training of residents to serve
as lead poisoning prevention
community educators
- Lead poisoning outreach
conducted with more than
nine hundred community
members
-Testing of homes for elevated
indoor radon levels
- Preliminary environmental
assessments complete at
former fertilizer/phosphate
facilities
- Community advisory group includes
representation from a variety of community
organizations; state, federal, and local agencies;
and other groups
- Leveraging of resources from different agencies
and other groups helped complete the
baseline data compilation and other project
efforts
- Brings into focus differing viewpoints toward environmental
problems and other important issues that tend to be ignored by
more conventional policy approaches
- Placing residents in project roles can help overcome trust and
credibility issues faced by traditional environmental and health
risk reduction efforts
- Behavior of regulated facilities positively affected by organized,
knowledgeable community, creating better dialogue during permitting
processes, etc.
- EPA program offices oriented toward more integrated under
standing of cross-media concerns facing communities
- Collaborative process lays groundwork for further partnering
and allows stakeholders to develop better relationships with one
another and learn about different perspectives
Eastward Ho.'
- Numerous brownfield site
inventories and assessments
- Several major site redevelop-
ments
-Two brownfield training
programs under way;
88 students graduated
- Numerous partnerships with city, state, and
federal organizations
- Direct citizen involvement in site inventories
and design charrettes
- Fostering collaborative efforts between neighboring cities
- Impact on local and regional land use planning policies
- Deeper understanding of impediments to brownfield development
may aid regional and national policymaking
- Community capacity building ensures long-term sustainability of
results (e.g.,Toolbox/Information Guide)
- Demonstrates smart growth by integrating land use planning
with environmental and socioeconomic decisionmaking
-------
EXHIBIT 7-2 (CONTINUED)
SUCCESS AND VALUE ADDED OF CBEP PROCESS: OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL CBEP PROJECTS
Project
Project Accomplishments
Effects and Overall Success
of the CBEP Process
Value Added of CBEP Approach
York, Pennsylvania,
Community-Based
Strategic Planning and
Green Development
- Redevelopment of two Rail
Corridor properties (and
creation of 250 jobs and a
$2 million increase in the tax
assessment value of the sites)
- Environmental assessment and
remediation begun at Columbia
Gas site; redevelopment set to
begin in the summer of 2000
- Enhancements to recreational
bikeways and greenways
- Established redevelopment,
other milestones within the
approved strategic plan (e.g.,
a Rail Corridor marketing plan
to be developed in 2003)
- Earned EPA Green
Community designation
- Comprehensive, multidisciplinary planning
process has produced assessments that guide
project implementation
- Planning process driven by diverse stakeholder
involvement, including that of residents,
businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies
- Initial York stakeholder partnerships reach beyond the CBEP
project to provide benefits in other policy areas
- Community involvement in planning creates legitimacy for
policies generated; community buy-in influences behavior of local
industrial facilities
- Improved capacity of city to address multidisciplinary problems;
improved capacity of local developers and other community
members to carry out green development aims
- Integration of economic, social, environmental, and other quality-
of-life priorities within strategic plan adopted by the city council
St. Louis Abandoned
Buildings Demolition
Project
- Demolition of 18 buildings
- Reduction in probability of
asbestos exposure
- Reduction of crime and
aesthetic impacts associated
with abandoned buildings
- Creation of salable land for
new development
- Reduction of property
management burden on city
and potential for increased
tax revenue
- Coordination of diverse stakeholders,
including several city departments
- Effective reliance on established institutions
such as mayor's office and ward representatives
- Simultaneously addresses environmental,
social, and economic concerns
- Improved capacity of city departments to manage asbestos in
abandoned buildings; established linkages between departments
with shared responsibilities
-Assisted city in refining internal functions indirectly related to
asbestos management (e.g., demolition contracting practices)
- Municipal participants developed more positive image of EPA as
a program partner and creative force
o
-------
A Meaningful Geographic Boundary Can
Enhance Project Success
The geographic area chosen for the project
has subtle but important implications for project
success. First, the geographic area defined for a
CBEP project is instrumental for identifying
stakeholders that should be included in the efforts.
The diverse partnerships formed in CBEP
projects are a direct product of clearly defining
a meaningful geographic area and securing
representation from a variety of interests within
that area. As seen by the diversity of projects
assessed, communities may not always choose
•watershed or other environmental boundaries to
provide definition for community-based projects
but may turn to political, neighborhood, or other
types of physical or cultural definitions as the
basis of coalescing partnerships. Regardless, active
stakeholder participation and commitment is a
function of a sense of shared mission or fate.
Stakeholders must feel that their quality of life
will be directly influenced by a project's outcome.
The sense of place and mission is clear, for
example, in the case of the San Miguel -watershed,
a well-defined geographic area with highly visible
issues (e.g., source water protection for towns'
•water supplies). In contrast, confusion existed
among some Charleston CBEP participants when
the project's boundaries were set beyond the
five or six neighborhoods originally involved
in the effort. Some residents of these core neigh-
borhoods stopped participating because they felt
the project had been diluted once its boundaries
encompassed the entire neck area of the
Charleston peninsula. The potential lesson is not
that smaller project areas lead to better results but
that managers must be careful to set boundaries
so that they are both meaningful to participants
and well-suited to the project's overall goals.
Eastward Ho! is an example of effective part-
nering across multiple municipalities for the
purpose of regional economic planning. In that
case, the partnerships between municipalities
helped define the Eastward Ho! study area. This
approach allows different regions within the study
to approach the sustainability and redevelopment
goals in different ways, choosing projects and
methods that are consistent with the constituents'
needs and desires. At the same time, data, expertise,
and funding can be shared across the member
regions through groups such as SFRPC.
CBEP Projects Require Carefully
Designed Decisionmaking Processes
All CBEP projects can benefit from baknced
decisionmaking and operational processes
designed to fit the colkborative nature of CBEP
efforts. CBEP projects should strive for a balanced
decisionmaking approach that is simple yet offers
enough structure to provide adequate communi-
cation and representation. For example, although
some Charleston CBEP participants felt that
their priority concerns were being lost within
an overly structured, bureaucratic process, others
credited the CAG structure with enabling
dialogue to occur among such a diverse set of
stakeholders. In the case of York, the CBEP
project also undertook a fairly structured, system-
atic process. However,York project leaders have
stressed establishment of and accountability to
a timetable of milestones to assure participants
that concerns have not fallen off the agenda.
The St. Louis Abandoned Buildings Project also
was structured to ensure the satisfaction of key
constituencies. Because EPA worked directly with
an alderman for the target neighborhood, residents
could influence what buildings would be demol-
ished and how the land would be redeveloped.
Clear Roles and Leadership
Responsibilities Are Essential
Closely related to the characteristics of an
effective CBEP decisionmaking process is the
need to determine clear roles and leadership
responsibilities for project partners. Three main
lessons were learned. First, both the Charleston
and Eastward Ho! experiences illustrate the impor-
tance of trying to clarify differing expectations
about project leadership and control among
institutional partners before involving the rest of
the stakeholders. On these projects, valuable
energy appears to have been devoted to over-
coming misunderstandings about how different
agencies should contribute to the efforts.
Second, it is important to determine how
much control is assumed by institutional partners
and how much by the community. This is an
inevitable issue for CBEP projects because the
efforts have a community focus but can be
dominated by EPA and other institutional
partners because of the specialized information
and technical knowledge often required and by
the specifics of their regulatory missions and
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
goals. Furthermore, even after operational issues
about community versus institutional leadership
are resolved, consensus may not always exist
among stakeholders about which local voices
actually speak for the community.
Third, technical assessments, data collection
and dissemination, and simikr work may be best
left to professional partner agencies (e.g., SC
DHEC assembling the data for the Charleston
baseline environmental conditions report), while
project facilitation often may be best handled
by local groups and residents to the extent
possible. At the same time, the diversity existing
among the small sample size of five projects also
suggests a caveat—EPA's appropriate leadership
role on a CBEP project can vary a great deal
depending on specific circumstances (e.g., the
need for direct versus indirect EPA participation,
•whether the issues addressed by a project fit
\vithin EPA's mandate, etc.). Regardless of the
situation, projects should make an attempt to
utilize as open and transparent a leadership
selection process as possible to work toward
acceptance of CBEP leadership within the
community at large (also see EPA role section
below for discussion of related lessons).
CBEP Projects May Require Special Time,
Resource, and Leadership Commitments
To be successful, CBEP projects require
time, resource, and leadership commitments
beyond those needed for more conventional
environmental policy and protection programs.
For instance, partners in the York, San Miguel,
and Charleston projects all noted the significant
amount of time taken for stakeholder meetings
and the frustration and resource drain that can
result. At the same time, these participants
acknowledged that the -willingness to meet
and discuss issues was a chief determinant of
project success.
In some cases, CBEP projects rely heavily
on special leadership commitments from city
leaders and other local officials who are often
accustomed to more streamlined roles or per-
haps no involvement at all under traditional
environmental policy programs. Observers
point to local officials' vision and -willingness
to test new ideas and CBEP approaches as key
to the successes of the San Miguel, York, and
St. Louis projects. For instance, EPA relied on
the St. Louis mayor's office for communicating
with the numerous city departments having
jurisdiction over building demolition and
asbestos management.
Clear Performance Indicators Are
Essential to Project Management
Clear performance measures allow project
managers to systematically evaluate the progress
being made toward identified objectives and
goals. Once indicators are identified, the project
progress should be assessed on a regular basis.
Particularly in CBEP projects, -where the local
stakeholders play such an integral role in the
project, managers should be sure to select clear,
relevant indicators and report results plainly to
all interested parties.
This evaluation -was made more complex by
the absence of clear performance measures on
many of the projects. Although some projects
(e.g. Eastward Ho!) identified simple, quantitative
performance measures for tracking future
progress, others did not. The lack of discrete,
mutually accepted metrics requires that evalua-
tions such as this one rely on more qualitative
descriptions and subjective judgment regarding
whether the project has achieved its goals.
Managers of CBEP projects should seek group
consensus on clear performance measures and
make tracking these measures an explicit
component of the project activities.
What Value-Added Benefits Does CBEP
Create?
Beyond facilitating the achievement of basic
environmental policy and protection goals, the
CBEP process may yield other benefits that
would not be realized under traditional
regulatory strategies. Below, we discuss key
themes that emerge across all five projects.
CBEP Can Yield New Forms of
Integration and Coordination
CBEP is uniquely suited to multidisciplinary
and multimedia problems. Related to this
characteristic, interviewees noted how a CBEP
project is often an "umbrella" that merges a
variety of disparate environmental, social, and
economic policy efforts. Most of the case study
projects involved integrated assessments of the
CBEP area that informed future environmental
management actions. For example, in the case of
Cross-Project Evaluation Chapter 7
-------
Eastward Ho!, the study of alternative development
scenarios influenced brownfields cleanup and
redevelopment efforts. For York, a planning
process characterized by multistakeholder
coordination resulted in a strategic comprehensive
plan that integrates economic, social, environ-
mental, and other quality-of-life priorities that
•will take the city into the year 2015. Similarly,
addressing the abandoned buildings problem in
St. Louis simultaneously yielded environmental
benefits, social benefits (e.g., crime reduction),
and economic benefits (e.g., redevelopment
opportunities). Narrowing the scope of a project
to a particular geographic area allows this kind
of holistic management and policymaking. A
pkce-based strategy makes it feasible to consider
environmental, social, and economic factors in
a single project.
CBEP Provides Partnership Benefits That
Extend Beyond the Project
Directly related to the theme of enhanced
policy integration and coordination is CBEP's
key value-added aspect of long-term partnership
building. Case study participants reported that
CBEP can create enduring partnerships that
branch into and provide benefits in other policy
areas. In the case of Eastward Ho!, the newfound
regional collaboration nurtured by the CBEP
project inspired five municipalities to join together
with Dade County in applying for (and winning)
an Empowerment Zone designation.
CBEP Promotes Capacity Building
and Sustainability
Perhaps the most noteworthy value-added
aspect of CBEP projects pertains to capacity
building. By directly involving local entities,
such as county planners, developers, public health
officials, and average citizens, the projects create
a knowledge base and technique toolbox useful
after EPA's involvement is complete. Under
more traditional approaches, many of these
participants would have been on the sidelines
or would have made only narrow, specialized
contributions. Under CBEP, capacity building
encompasses both training local participants
and giving them tools to allow better and
more independent local decisionmaking. The
capacity-building and long-term sustainability
benefits of CBEP can be measured in a variety
of ways:
T The case study projects have generated tools
that can help local participants help themselves.
For example, the Brownfields Partnership's
Toolbox/Information Guide associated with
Eastward Ho! offers region-specific guidance
to South Florida municipalities about
brownfield redevelopment as well as GIS
maps showing regional brownfield sites. The
San Miguel project has generated a set of
widely accepted and publicized source-water
assessment maps that will help guide the area's
•watershed management efforts well into the
future. Likewise, the Abandoned Buildings
effort produced city asbestos management
guidelines and a forthcoming instructional
video on asbestos removal.
T The case study projects also feature training
sessions and other events that provide unique
educational opportunities to local participants.
For instance, in the case of York, the EPA-
sponsored green development -workshop
and charrette brought in national experts to
work \vith local developers and other
community members on redevelopment
ideas for brownfield sites. The work started
on the Rail Corridor and other properties
incorporates concepts from this workshop.
T Capacity building and sustainability are best
demonstrated through institutions that live
on beyond initial CBEP efforts. For exam-
ple, the San Miguel Coalition's coordinating
council has continued on after the Watershed
Plan development activities, independently
implementing elements of the Plan.
CBEP Efforts Create Legitimacy and
Signal Community Support
In large part the result of the capacity-building
and partnership efforts described above, the
CBEP approach can be highly effective at
creating community buy-in regarding environ-
mental and other policy decisions. The case
study projects demonstrate how this buy-in can
be helpful to environmental protection objectives:
T Because the approach springs from the
community's direct involvement and proceeds
with community approval, CBEP enhances
the legitimacy of policy decisions. As a
result of the legitimacy produced around
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
their efforts, San Miguel leaders report success
in attracting additional grant funding, and
York officials point to quick approval and
implementation of components from the
city's strategic comprehensive plan.
T CBEP can also influence the behavior of
the regulated community. In Charleston,
EPA representatives report that during the
permitting process, facilities are more likely
to participate in up-front dialogue with
surrounding neighborhoods when the
community is involved in CBEP efforts or
is otherwise knowledgeable and organized.
York and San Miguel participants also offer
examples in which local businesses became
more attentive to environmental issues and
actually altered an initial land use decision
in recognition of environmental priorities
expressed in the local CBEP projects.
CBEP Can Influence Broader Public Policy
in Areas Such as Community Planning,
Public Health, and Community Spending
Decisions and Priorities by Informing
Public Opinion and Stimulating Public
Dialogue
Another key value-added aspect of CBEP
exists in the extent to which efforts can influence
broader public policy decisions. For example,
the State of Florida passed brownfield redevelop-
ment regulations that incorporate many
recommendations generated by Eastward Ho!
participants. Protective local knd use ordinances
and a city strategic plan integrating sustainability
principles were approved because of the San
Miguel andYork CBEP-rekted efforts, respectively.
Community-Based Approaches Can
Help Leverage Resources and Expand
Community Commitment
Use of the community-based approach helps
leverage resources and expand community
commitment through coordination of activities
and resource use by community stakeholders
and the federal government. For example, in
the San Miguel Watershed Initiative, EPA's initial
RGI funding was key to the development of a
formal Watershed Plan. Development of the
plan and subsequent activities were undertaken
by the Coalition composed of citizens, municipal
and county officials, and other community
stakeholders. Initial activities led to grant funding
for continued work—grant funding that might
not have been awarded had it not been for EPA's
original efforts. In Charleston/North Charleston,
EPA provided initial funding for and supported
the formation of the CAG. In addition to the
initial funding, EPA provided specialized informa-
tion and facilitation support to help community
stakeholders carry out the activities of the CAG.
Similarly, in the Eastward Ho! initiative in
South Florida, the participation of community
members, businesses, and local governments
was key to bringing in greater federal support
and participation.
How Can EPA Best Support CBEP?
The CBEP case study projects also offer lessons
regarding how EPA can best support community-
based efforts that, by definition, address local
problems such as land use. Exhibit 7-3
summarizes the role that EPA has pkyed on each
of the five projects and briefly reviews obser-
vations that interviewees had on the Agency's
involvement.
Nearly all local interviewees spoke positively
of EPA's involvement (i.e., few had an overall
negative view of EPA involvement in community-
based environmental protection). Case study
participants did, however, have several suggestions
for how EPA should structure its support. The
following are the key themes that emerged
about EPA's role in supporting CBEP projects.
EPA Funding, and How It Is Provided,
Is of Crucial Importance
Funding, including EPA funding, is critical
to CBEP efforts. Representatives from all five
case studies indicated that EPA's role as a funding
source was critical to the formation and
sustenance of the projects. At the same time, the
interviewees noted that it matters how and to
whom EPA funding is awarded. Although
recognizing the limitations imposed sometimes
by statutory mandates, project-specific constraints,
and other circumstances, suggestions made about
EPA CBEP funding include the following:
T As mentioned, to the extent possible, EPA
should consider funding local community
groups and representatives to act as organiz-
ers and fulfill other roles for CBEP projects.
Cross-Project Evaluation Chapter 7
-------
Participants in the Charleston/North
Charleston CBEP project emphasized that
funding is equated with trust to many com-
munity-based organizations. In the opinion
of some, providing resources more directly to
CBEP area residents, and creating community
organizer and other jobs in the process, is an
effective approach for building credibility
around a project and encouraging active
participation from the community at large.
For example, Charleston participants report
that the hiring of lead poisoning advisors, or
EXHIBIT 7-3
ERA'S ROLE ON CBEP PROJECTS
Project
EPA's Role
Perspectives on EPA's Role in CBEP Projects
San Miguel
Watershed
Initiative
EPA Region 8 primarily provides sup-
port through technical assessments
of alpine ecosystems and source
waters; also participates as an equal
partner within the Watershed
Coalition efforts
- EPA's best niche is often providing assistance with
technical analyses that support the activities of a
larger CBEP effort
- EPA can and should be part of the CBEP effort by
sending representatives to community meetings;
on-the-ground visibility is important to acceptance
-The importance of EPA funding in forming the
Watershed Coalition should also not be ignored
North Charleston/
Charleston CBEP
EPA Region 4 served as a founding
partner and has since acted as a
guiding force through providing fund-
ing, facilitation support, and
specialized information
- EPA should take into account community perspectives
and differences between stakeholder perspectives
when determining its role within a CBEP project
- EPA funding is critical to CBEP efforts
-To the extent possible (e.g.,as allowed by statutory
mandates, the need for specialized facilitation, and
other circumstances), EPA should consider funding
local groups or community members to serve as
project organizers
- EPA should try to fulfill a niche role, such as
providing technical assistance or helping with
performance tracking and evaluation
Eastward Ho.'
EPA Headquarters initially was
involved by providing technical
support and funding for brownfields;
HQ and Region 4 continue to
support specific initiatives (e.g., train-
ing programs)
EPA involvement can provide legitimacy and
momentum to a project
Disagreement over best model for EPA HQ
involvement: (I) provide funding and allow full
local control or (2) directly involve contractors and
HQ staff to bring national expertise to bear.
Highlights desirability of EPA regional involvement
York, Pennsylvania,
Community-Based
Strategic Planning
and Green
Development
EPA Region 3 offered technical
support and funding for green
development through Green
Communities program and other
activities
• EPA involvement demonstrates how the Agency
can tailor its involvement in an ongoing project,
providing intermittent assistance as a niche player
and building upon efforts already taking place
within a community to maximize efficiency
• National expertise delivered by EPA and contractors
was useful to city officials, local developers, and
others interested in brownfield redevelopment
St. Louis
Abandoned
Buildings
Demolition
Project
EPA Region 7 has lead role in
organizing and managing the
partnership
-The EPA is often uniquely equipped to organize
partners around a multidisciplinary issue
- "Federal presence" can elevate the profile of
the project
-The EPA should be sensitive to procedural and
cultural norms of municipal departments when
organizing city-level initiatives
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
educators, from among residents enabled the
effort to overcome trust issues and reach a
larger number of families than might have
been possible had the project used medical
students or others from outside the community.
T Along these lines, EPA should consider provid-
ing funding to build upon a community's
ongoing efforts (to the extent that these
activities are well suited to the larger goals of
a CBEP project). Not only does this sort of
funding activity generate good will and trust
between the community and its government
partners but also it is an efficient way of
launching CBEP efforts. York provides a good
example of how EPA was able to assist the
community in building upon its CBEP-
relevant brownfield redevelopment efforts
through funding a targeted green develop-
ment workshop.
T To ensure accountability to community
members and other partners, EPA should
consider providing additional funding for
systematically tracking outcomes and program-
matic outputs of CBEP efforts. This sort of
performance-tracking activity is missing to
varying degrees within all the case study projects
and is critical to ensuring adaptive manage-
ment and demonstrating project success.
In Its CBEP Involvement, EPA Should
Play a Niche Role
Perhaps the most resounding theme expressed
throughout the case studies is the extent to which
EPA involvement, beyond funding, is most
helpful when it is designed to fill a special need,
or project-specific niche. This specialized role
may range from providing information to facil-
itating multistakeholder meetings; combinations
of these as well as other functions are possible.
Additional suggestions include the following:
T Providing specialized information and tech-
nical and professional expertise on topics
ranging from environmental risk assessment
to facilitation of the CBEP process itself. The
key is to determine where this sort of expertise
is lacking. York and San Miguel, which both
represent small to medium-sized communities,
provide examples of projects in which EPA's
information resources and professional expertise
were critical to meeting the communities'
CBEP-related goals. Eastward Ho! offers an
illustration of how EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff could work with a
sophisticated local partner to ensure that
national expertise is provided in a way that
complements preexisting local expertise.
T Providing measurement of project accomplish-
ments. CBEP projects involve gradual environ-
mental and social changes that are difficult
to track. Performance assessment data were
missing to varying degrees for all of the case
study projects. Beyond the need for funding
of performance evaluations mentioned above,
it would be helpful for EPA to provide
additional guidance on outcome measures,
how to design CBEP activities to accommodate
these measures, and how to ensure tracking
of these measures. The information provided
in EPA's Framework for CBEP provides a
valuable starting point on these issues, but
most CBEP projects could benefit from more
ground-level, customized assistance in this area.
The EPA May Be Uniquely Equipped to
Organize Diverse Interests Around
Multidisciplinary Issues
Somewhat in contrast to the niche role
recommendation above, EPA is sometimes well
positioned to plan and lead a multidisciplinary
CBEP project. For instance, Region 7 staff
recognized how EPA's asbestos management
regulations were at the root of the abandoned
buildings problem in St. Louis. The staff was
able to bring not only the technical expertise
needed to guide compliance but also the
strategic vision to organize the suite of federal
agencies and municipal departments that share
jurisdiction over asbestos management and
building demolition. A key feature of this lead-
ership role is that it should be temporary.
Consistent with the core CBEP objective of
capacity building, EPA should lead projects in
their pilot stage, handing over control and
responsibility to local stakeholders as proce-
dures and roles are established.
Cross-Project Evaluation Chapter 7
-------
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
REFERENCES
General
Leach, Bill; Neil Pelkey; and Paul Sabatier, "Surveying Diverse Stakeholder Groups:
Methodological Considerations," paper presented at NSF/EPA Workshop on Community-
Based Environmental Decisionmaking, May 9, 2000.
Muraskin, Lana, "Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs,"Westat, Inc.
evaluation handbook produced with U.S. Department of Education funds, 1993.
U.S. EPA, EPA's Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection, February 1999.
U.S. EPA, Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP): Accomplishments and Value Added of
CBEP Projects, January 1999.
U.S. EPA, Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP): Characterization of EPA Regional
CBEP Activities, January 1999.
WK. Kellogg Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook, January 1998.
San Miguel Watershed Initiative
Inyan, B.J., and M.W Williams, "Protection of Head-water Catchments from Future Degradation:
San Miguel River Basin, Colorado," Preliminary Report for the Institute of Arctic and
Alpine Research, 1999.
Luther, Linda, San Miguel Watershed Coordination (RGI Performance Report), January 27, 1999.
Miullo, Nat, Region 8 San Miguel Watershed Initiative (RGI Report), 1998.
River Voices, "San Miguel Watershed Coalition: Getting Citizens Involved in the Process,"
Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 16-17, Winter 1997.
San Miguel Community Rallies to Save Alpine Ecosystems, obtained online,
http://www.epa.gov/regional/highlightsfin.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)
San Miguel Watershed Coalition, The San Miguel Watershed Plan: A Collaborative Management
Framework for the San Miguel Basin, 1998.
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP
Charleston /North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Project, obtained online,
http://wwwepa.gov/region04/programs/cbep/charleston.html. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)
Charleston/North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Program, Summary of the
Environmental Information Collected for the Charleston/North Charleston Community-Based
Environmental Protection Program - Draft, September 1999.
Improving the Quality of Life for the Charleston/North Charleston Community, obtained online,
http://wwwepa.gov/regional/highlightsfin.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)
U.S. EPA Region 4, FiscalYear 1998 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, 1998.
Eastward Ho/
Florida Trend Magazine, "Heading Back Downtown," August 2000.
Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, "Nine-Story Residential, Retail Building Proposed in Downtown
Boca," August 11,2000.
Miami Herald, "Real Estate on the Move," August 13, 2000.
Miami Herald, "Zoning Approved to Change Look of Kendall Community," December 17, 1999.
Miami Herald, "Making Environmental Peace Saving Water, Managing Growth," January 5, 2000.
South Florida Regional Planning Council, The Eastward Ho! Newsletter, September 1999.
References
-------
South Florida Regional Planning Council, Building on Success: A Report from Eastward Ho!,
December 1998.
South Florida Regional Planning Council, Brownfields Showcase Communities Pilots Key
Measures (table), August 1999.
South Florida Regional Planning Council, Eastward Ho! Brownfields Showcase Community
Federal Agency Assistance Matrix (table), no date.
Southeastern Florida Urban Initiative CBEP Quarterly Report, December 15, 1999, obtained online
at http://wwwepa.gov/region04/sfla/reports.htm.
U.S. EPA, Evaluation ofEPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida
(draft), January 1999.
York, Pennsylvania, Community-Based Strategic Planning and Green
Development
City of York Downtown Action Plan, obtained online, http://wwwyorkcity.org/com/
downtown.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)
City of York, Pennsylvania, The City of York Strategic Comprehensive Plan, July 1999.
City of York, Pennsylvania,York—Building On Our Assets: A Sense of Place, January 1999.
City of York, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Planning/Engineering, "A Brighter Tomorrow: The City
of York's Strategic Comprehensive Plan Newsletter," Volume 1, Number 2, June 1996.
City of York, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Planning/Engineering, "A Brighter Tomorrow: The City
of York's Strategic Comprehensive Plan Newsletter," Volume 1, Number 1, February 1996.
City of York, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Planning/Engineering, "The Work Program" and "The
Scope of Services for the City of York's Strategic Comprehensive Plan: The Blueprint for
the Plan," July 1995.
City of York, Pennsylvania, Office of Economic Development, Press Release: "York,
Pennsylvania Charrette," October 1997.
Donald T lannone & Associates and Janssen & Associates, A Green Economic Development Strategy
for the City of York Pennsylvania: Phase 2 Report, August 9, 1999.
Mender, Mike, "EPA Has City Officials Seeing Green," York Daily Record, October 1997.
Polk-Lepson Research Group, City of York Planning Study, November 1997.
Rebuilding on Pennsylvania's Industrial Heritage, obtained online, http://www.state.pa.us/
PA_Exec/Governor/Speeches/960401.html. (Last accessed winter of 2002.)
Ridge Administration Funding Assists Danskin,York City, obtained online, http://www.state.pa.us/
PA_Exec/Governor/Press_Releases/971120b.html. (Last accessed summer of 2001.)
The Rail Corridor Revitalization Program, obtained online, http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/
success/rail_corridor.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2002.)
U.S. EPA Region 3, Frequently Asked Questions About Our Green Communities Program, March 1999.
U.S. EPA Region 3, Press Release: "Mayor Turns York into a 'Green' Community," October 1997.
York, Pennsylvania—A Participating Green Community, obtained online, http://wwwepa.gov/
/greenkit/index.html. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)
St. Louis Gateway Initiative, Abandoned Buildings Project
Gateway Introduction and Gateway Goals, obtained online, http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/.
(Last accessed winter of 2002.)
Listening Tour, Phase One: Final Report, St. Louis Community College and EPA Region 7, prepared
by Godwin Communications Corporation, April 30, 1998.
S(. Louis Community Gateway Initiative, Presentation for Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
prepared by EPA Region 7, September 7, 2000.
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
CBEP PROGRAM
EVALUATION
GENERAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CBEP)
PROGRAM EVALUATION: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
A. Project Objectives and Background
l.When did the project begin?
2. Who initiated the project?
3. Why was the project started (e.g., precipitated by a specific event, etc.)?
4. What are the projects overall goals, and how have these goals evolved?
5. What is the geographic scope of the project (i.e., what area is covered? how are the
boundaries defined?)?
6. Who is involved (i.e., how many/what kinds of organizations, individuals, etc.)? How do the
geographic boundaries or other project characteristics relate to or influence which individuals
or groups participate?
7.What is the larger context of the project within the community (e.g., one of a number of
programs/groups addressing similar issues, the only multistakeholder community-based
partnership, etc.)? To what extent were the community's concerns being addressed before
the project began?
B. EPA's Role
l.What is EPA's role on the project? (Select all of the following that apply, and elaborate.)
a Project leader?
Q Project participant or stakeholder?
Q Information provider?
Q Provider of technical assistance (e.g., meeting facilitation, data analysis)?
Q Provider of grants or other funding?
2. Overall, is EPA's role on the project best described as "direct" or "indirect"?
3. Has EPA's role on the project evolved over time? If so, what factors contributed to the
evolution (e.g., increased capacity of local groups to run the project, increased need for a
central organizer, etc.)?
4. How has EPA's involvement helped the project achieve its goals (i.e., providing unique
services or information that could not have come from other sources)?
5. Has EPA received any feedback on its involvement from project participants (e.g., user
feedback on Agency tools)? If so, describe. How do you think EPA's involvement has been
received thus far?
CBEP Program Evaluation: General Interview Questions Appendix A
-------
C. Other Areas of Project Implementation
1. How is the project structured? What organizations or groups of participants are responsible
for which major aspects of the project?
2. What are the major sources of funding? (If possible, characterize by approximate dollar figure
and source.) What in-kind contributions or other resources are provided to the project
(e.g., personnel, equipment, etc.)?
3. Has the project conducted or planned any assessments of the CBEP geographic area?
- If so, what areas did the assessment(s) cover?
Q Air, water, land quality?
Q Other ecological conditions?
Q Economic, social conditions?
Q Other quality of life conditions?
4. How have results of any of these assessments been used to redirect program implementation?
5. What do you feel to be important factors behind the project's achievements so far? Obstacles?
D. Environmental and Sustainability Results of the Project
1. Are there specific environmental goals and mechanisms for tracking performance against these
goals (e.g., number of waste site cleanups completed or soil erosion per acre of cropland)?
2. Are there specific goals and mechanisms for tracking performance for other kinds of
objectives (e.g., economic, social: vacancy rate of buildings or employment in local outdoor
recreation businesses)?
[More detailed questions to be asked about each specific CBEP project.]
E. Benefits of the CBEP Approach
l.What characteristics of this project define it as a CBEP project?
Q Focus on a geographic area?
Q Collaboration with stakeholders?
Q Integrated consideration of environmental quality across media?
Q Integrated consideration of environmental, economic, and social objectives?
Q Use of diverse tools and approaches?
Q Inclusion of long-term strategies for community sustainability?
a Other?
2. Overall, what aspects of the CBEP approach made this project more effective in achieving its goals?
3. How has the project affected EPA? Has it helped integrate CBEP into existing EPA
programs? How?
- Has the project's CBEP approach integrated the efforts of offices that don't normally
work together?
- Has the project's CBEP approach allowed EPA to address environmental problems that
cut across media or statutory lines or other problems that traditional regulatory
approaches don't address well?
EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS
-------
4. Has the project helped increase the community's capacity to study and address their
own issues? How?
- Has it helped the community develop organizationally?
- Has it increased the level of environmental awareness in the community?
- Has it facilitated participation by residents normally not active in environmental
management/civic affairs?
- Has it increased access to and the use of CBEP tools (e.g., environmental data)?
F. Miscellaneous
1. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to add?
2. Are there other sources of information not mentioned vet that we should review?
CBEP Program Evaluation: General Interview Questions Appendix A
-------
------- |