Regional Geographic
Initiatives
Enhancing Environmental
Stewardship for Future Generations
2007
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Regional Operations
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(1301 A)
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Foreword 1
Overview 2
Introduction 4
Fostering Sustainable Communities and Empowered Citizens 6
Building Healthy Urban Communities in Boston 8
Planning for Rapid Growth in Oregon 10
Capturing Solar Energy in Minneapolis 12
Empowering Neighborhood Action in Philadelphia 14
Innovation and Sound Science 16
Preventing Pollution in the New York/New Jersey Harbor 18
Saving "America's Sea" Through Bacteria Tracking 20
Reusing Materials Through By-Product Synergy 22
Reducing Risks 24
Developing Dairy Manure Technology for the San Joaquin Valley 26
Real-Time Investigation of Air Toxics in the Gulf Coast Region 28
Restoring a Watershed in a Colorado Mining District 30
Contacts . . Back Cover
-------
-------
Foreword
I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT Enhancing Environmental Stewardship for
Future Generations, a report that showcases projects funded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Regional Geographic
Initiatives (RGI). These projects demonstrate the enormous potential for
community, state, and federal partners to work together toward our com-
mon goals of clean air, pure water, and protected land.
EPA and its partners recognize that achieving a cleaner, healthier environ-
ment requires us to look at environmental problems in an integrated way.
Not only must we address threats to air, water, and the land holistically, but
we must also work with citizens and organizations at a local level to help
them protect the environment in which they live, work, and play. RGI is one
way that EPA is fostering this integrated approach.
Each year, RGI funds a myriad of environmental and public health projects
that support new collaborations and leverage local resources to achieve
environmental results. The projects captured in this publication are repre-
sentative snapshots of what RGI is all about. I invite you to explore these
projects to see how RGI is helping people all across America work together
to improve their environment.
Christopher P. Bliley, Associate Administrator
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Operations
-------
Overview
ENHANCING ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS highlights the different types of projects that are
funded throughout the country using Regional Geographic Initia-
tive (RGI) funds.
Funding
RGI is a funding source that supports Presidential, Administrator, and
Regional priorities. RGI projects must meet national criteria. These proj-
ects can:
Address places, sectors, or innovative projects.
Be based on a regional, state, tribal, or other strategic plan.
Address problems that are multi-media in nature.
Fill a critical gap in the protection of human health and the environment.
Demonstrate state, local, and/or other stakeholder participation.
Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
Each Region administers RGI funds and has the discretion to set
Regional-specific criteria (in addition to the national criteria), which
relates to Regional, state, and/or local priorities or initiatives.
-------
Target Audience
This publication intends to inform the general
public, government agencies, nonprofit organiza-
tions, institutions, and other interested parties
about funded RGI projects and the accomplish-
ments achieved through using innovative or
multimedia approaches to solving local/regional
environmental issues.
Availability of Funds
Each Region determines annually the way they
will administer RGI resources based on Regional
priorities and needs. Eligibility, types of projects,
and availability of funds vary from year to year
and from Region to Region. In general, RGI proj-
ects support investigations, experiments, training,
outreach, education, demonstrations, surveys,
studies, and special purpose assistance that ad-
dress one or more environmental media (air, wa-
ter, waste, pollution prevention, compliance). To
get a better sense of the type of projects that can
be funded with RGI funds, contact the appropri-
ate Regional Office (see listing at the back of this
document) to find out what opportunities exist.
The following list provides a general description
of the types of entities that can and have received
RGI funding:
States, territories, Indian tribes, and possessions
of the United States, including the District of
Columbia.
Interstate, intrastate, and local government
agencies, districts, and councils.
K-12 schools and districts.
Public and private universities and colleges.
Hospitals.
Laboratories.
Research facilities.
Public or private nongovernmental, nonprofit
institutions.
Individuals.
To be considered, an entity needs to submit an
application proposing a project with significant
technical merit and relevance to EPA's mission.
-------
ntroduction
REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVES (RGI) is a funding source
designed to address complex environmental challenges through
integrated, multi-media approaches. EPA uses RGI to support in-
novative, place-based projects that reduce risks to human health and
ecosystems. RGI projects involve a wide range of stakeholders and
leverage resources from federal, state, and private sectors to find
cost-effective solutions to communities' environmental problems.
This introduction provides background information about RGI
funding and addresses Agency and Regional goals. The remainder
of this document highlights RGI projects that have been carried
out across the country. The projects are organized around three
RGI themes: fostering sustainable communities and empowered
citizens, encouraging innovation and sound science, and reduc-
ing risks. Contacts are provided for each RGI project.
-------
Background
In 1991, EPA Regional offices completed compar-
ative risk assessments of environmental problems
to estimate relative risks posed to human health
and ecosystems. These assessments identified
several place-based problems with characteristics
unique to the states in their Regions. Regional
offices then developed strategies to identify en-
vironmental risks that were not being addressed,
wholly or in part, by existing national environ-
mental programs.
The Regions proposed addressing these complex
and cross-jurisdictional problems by using geo-
graphic-based approaches. RGI funding was estab-
lished in 1994 to support these efforts and help
EPA Regional offices develop strategic approaches
to local environmental risks while achieving
national goals. The RGI funding offers the Regions
flexibility to support projects that are bounded by
the region or place in which the problem exists,
rather than projects that address a pollutant or
sector. In general, funding allows each Region to
support eight to 10 projects annually.
Innovation and Partnership
RGI is one of EPA's premiere innovation resources,
supporting local projects that have gone on to be-
come national models. Examples of such projects
include school bus diesel retrofits and agricultural
pollution prevention performance standards for
pest management. The RGI approach has been
very successful in using new and creative ap-
proaches to resolve complex environmental and
health problems across programmatic areas.
RGI funds also encourage the creation of part-
nerships to develop and carry out projects that
address local environmental and health con-
cerns. With RGI, EPA Regions are able to fund
environmental stewardship initiatives proposed
by communities and nongovernmental organi-
zations. RGI funds support collaboration with
communities and other partners to address local
environmental issues through a grassroots ap-
proach, which fosters stakeholder involvement
and participation in project development and
implementation.
Leveraging
Regions use RGI to leverage other federal, public,
and private resources to achieve the Agency's
performance priorities. In addition, the results
from RGI projects can inform Regional priorities.
Regions use RGI to further Presidential, Admin-
istrator, and Agency initiatives such as children's
health, green buildings, clean energy, agriculture,
and environmental stewardship. RGI projects
span the traditional environmental areas of air,
water, and land, and provide Regions with flex-
ibility to focus funding on projects that meet the
greatest local environmental needs.
Agency Goals
RGI funds support Goal 4, Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems, of EPA's Strategic Plan. This goal
seeks to "Protect, sustain, or restore the health
of people, communities, and ecosystems using
integrated and comprehensive approaches and
partnerships." In addition, Objective 4.2 of the
Goal is to "Sustain, clean up, and restore com-
munities and the ecological systems that sup-
port them." Goal 4 and its strategic objectives
describe a collaborative approach to addressing
a wide range of environmental issues relating
to human and/or ecosystem health. RGI-funded
projects address many of the multi-media targets
in this goal, including urban, rural, industrial,
agricultural, mountain, and coastal environments.
RGI funds serve as a flexible vehicle for Regions
to respond to strategic regional, state, and local
priorities.
-------
Fostering
Sustainable
\ Communities
\ and Empowered
Citizens
-------
FUNDS SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT empower citizens to identify environmental
problems in their communities and develop sustainable solutions. RGI helps
citizens make connections between their neighborhoods, supporting ecosys-
tems, and surrounding communities. Residents work together to educate themselves about
how to make their communities more livable, healthy, and beautiful.
Each local community has different concernsfrom promoting energy efficiency, to keep-
ing the air clean, to creating open space. RGI funds typically foster collaborations that bring
together people from many walks of life to address each local community's concerns. RGI
funding has been particularly helpful in supporting sensitive populations, such as low-income
and minority communities that face multiple environmental threats. Examples of RGI-funded
projects that foster sustainable communities and empower citizens are identified below, and
described in further detail in this chapter.
In Massachusetts, the Chelsea Green Space &
Recreation Committee received RGI funding
to create a community visioning process for
the neighborhood's last remaining salt marsh.
Using RGI funds, residents learned the impor-
tance of an estuary, became informed about
the permitting process for redevelopment, and
developed a sense of ownership for the estuary.
Residents worked with other stakeholders to
create a community-based master plan, gener-
ated dialogue with local industry, and identified
opportunities to create community access to
Chelsea Creek.
In Oregon, the Lane County Board of Com-
missioners in the Willamette area, along with
the councils of many of the surrounding cities,
worked to develop plans to manage their com-
munities' growth in a sustainable manner. They
used RGI funding to measure and monitor the
impacts of three alternative growth scenarios
on air and water quality and rare habitat types.
The study used Geographic Information Sys-
tem models and baseline data to identify ways
to direct growth into areas that would have
the least impact on air and water quality and
important habitat areas.
In Minneapolis, RGI funding supported a city
project to increase solar power as a way to
diversify the city's energy supply, reduce depen-
dence on imported fuels, improve air quality,
offset greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate
the economy. The city of Minneapolis is exam-
ining several tools for encouraging solar power
investment in new private developments. To
demonstrate the effectiveness of solar power,
the city installed photovoltaic solar panels on
three highly visible city facilities.
In Philadelphia, the Livable Neighborhood
Program used RGI funding to empower citizens
to address environmental concerns on their
blocks. Neighbors formed teams, chose topics
of concern, and worked together to address
those concerns using the Livable Neighbor-
hood Program workbook. Focus areas included
health and safety, beautification and green-
ing, energy efficiency, resource sharing, and
neighborhood building. Training and certifica-
tion were also offered for neighborhood block
leaders to develop skills in leadership, empow-
erment coaching, group facilitation, project
management, and community organizing.
-------
Building Healthy Urban Communities
Area
Description
Chelsea and East Boston
are surrounded by Mill
Creek and Chelsea Creek,
Mystic Riv" '-'' r~J"'-
in Boston
Environmental Challenges
Region 1
lercent mixed-race
income is $31,300, and
20 percent of East Boston residents live
jercentage
of people living below poverty level in
both areas is two to three times the
statewide average.
Contact
Kristi Rea
EPA Project Officer
Rl
(617)918-8372
n urban areas throughout New England,
residents are exposed to significant environ-
mental and public health hazards every day,
including lead poisoning, rat-infested vacant
lots, contaminated rivers, asthma exacerbated
by poor indoor and ambient air quality, and
a lack of safe, useable open and green space.
These poor environmental conditions
create cumulative, disproportionate, and
inequitable health risks to urban residents, especially high-risk and sensitive
populations such as children and the elderly.
The urban communities of Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts, experi-
ence environmental injustice as typified by the cumulative environmental and
public health problems described above. The two communities are geograph-
ically located in close proximity
to large highways (e.g., the Tobin
Bridge and Route 1A) that are
a significant source of vehicle
emissions. They are also host to
Boston's Logan Airport and as-
sociated industries that generate
a high volume of truck traffic and
resulting diesel emissions. Chelsea
and East Boston contain 398 state
designated hazardous waste sites;
five major oil storage facilities; the largest rock salt pile in the Northeast; a work-
ing tannery; and more than 90 freight forwarding companies. Together, these
sources result in significant levels of air, water, land, and noise pollution.
A June 2000 report titled Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: A Preliminary
Report on Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Daniel
R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg identifies Chelsea and East Boston as the third and fifth
"most environmentally overburdened cities/towns in Massachusetts." To address these
concerns, EPA New England has made Chelsea and East Boston a focus for community-
based environmental improvement.
-------
Partners
In addition to the efforts made by Neighborhood for Affordable Hous-
ing and Chelsea Green Space & Recreation Committee, numerous other
stakeholders were part of the efforts, including EPA's Urban Environmental
Program; Chelsea Creek Action Group; Greater Boston Urban Resources
Partnership; Massachusetts Environmental Trust; Watershed Institute;
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs; Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT); Tufts University; Conservation Law Founda-
tion; Massachusetts Riverways Program; Campaign for the Water's Edge;
City of Chelsea Planning and Development Department; Chelsea Summer
Environmental Youth Crew; Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment; and the Boys & Girls Club.
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
In 2000, the Chelsea Green Space
& Recreation Committee received
RGI funding to support its Mill
Creek Restoration Project. The proj-
ect worked to revitalize Chelsea's last
remaining salt marsh through a com-
munity visioning process. Through the
project, residents became involved in
the planning and visioning phase for
renovations to the waterfront land and
made a presentation to the city's Plan-
ning and Development Department.
Residents also learned the importance
of an estuary, became informed about
the permitting process for redevel-
opment, and developed a sense of
ownership for the estuary. The project
created a model waterfront develop-
ment to demonstrate the link between
natural resources and sustainable
economic development.
In 2001, the Neighborhood of Afford-
able Housing received RGI funding to
support its Chelsea Creek Master Plan-
ning/Visioning Project. This project
brought residents together with other
stakeholders to create a community-
based master plan to help improve
dialogue with industry about improve-
ments needed for Chelsea Creek.
The project leveraged resources from
polluting businesses and other entities
to develop safe public access and open
spaces. The project also prepared resi-
dents to participate in the municipal
harbor planning process and impact
zoning decisions.
Generally speaking, dedicated pro-
grammatic funding sources are not
available to support this type of com-
munity planning and capacity-building
effort. In this case, RGI funding en-
abled the community to create a clear
plan and cost estimate for the best use
of the area. Fortunately, an opportunity
to put this plan into action arose when
EPA New England was negotiating a
supplemental environmental project
in the area. The Urban Environmen-
tal Program worked with community
partners to define a $900,000 project
to remediate and construct the Con-
dor Street Urban Wild, a 4.5-acre site
of urban vacant land. The goal of the
project was to transform this site from
a degraded, contaminated former
industrial area into a safe, attractive,
accessible natural area. As a result of
the project, East Boston and Chelsea
residents now have access to open/
green space and recreational and envi-
ronmental educational opportunities
in line with community priorities and
their master vision for the
Chelsea Creek.
Because of the strong partnership,
planning efforts, and community
infrastructure created and sustained
through RGI-funded projects, the
public was able to participate in the
planning and design process for the
site and the Chelsea Creek as a whole.
The final design reflects public priori-
ties and interests for the urban wild.
Additional trees and plants were
targeted to provide air quality ben-
efits, wildlife habitat restoration, and
water quality enhancement. A path
and boardwalk system was created for
safe public access to the Chelsea Creek,
which represents the first such access
of its kind to the Creek. The restored
property now poses no environmental
or public health risk from contamina-
tion and provides much needed green
and open space.
The site was officially opened to the
public on Saturday, October 4, 2003,
with a ceremony attended by EPA Act-
ing Administrator Marianne Lamont
Horinko, EPA New England Regional
Administrator Robert W. Varney, Bos-
ton Mayor Thomas M. Menino, and
local artist B. Amore. Even the rain
could not keep more than 100 people
from touring the site and participat-
ing in the ceremony. Since the opening
ceremony, the partners have created
local programming to continue to en-
courage safe public use of the site, and
community residents have reported an
increase in wildlife in the area.
-------
Planning for Rapid Growth in Oregon
Area
Description
Lane County is located in
the Southern Willamette Val-
ley of the Willamette Basin. The
valley is a narrow, fertile trough
between the coast and Cascade
jes in central-wests
Oregon.The region is centered ai
Environmental Challenges
0
Region 10
metropolitan area in Oregon, wmcn is
regons Southern Willamette Valley
region is growing rapidly, and with
this growth have come development
pressure, unplanned development, and
consequent impairment of the regions
water resources. By 2050, the regions
population is projected to be 463,500
(a 55 percent increase), supported
by 215,000 jobs (85,000 more than
cities and 15 rural unincorporated commu-
nities. Several rivers and streams drain from
both ranges into the Willamette River, which
divides the valley. The Willamette flows north
from the Eugene/Springfield area and empties
into the Columbia River near Portland.
Those who work and live in the basin depend
on the Willamette River and its tributaries for
drinking water and water to supply industry
and agriculture. The river and its tributaries are
also the corridors for several species of salmon
and steelhead trout, and home to a variety of
resident trout populations. The rich and fertile
lands within the Southern Willamette Valley
ustrial forestry.
The valley lands include valuable remnant
' -'-'-- -c------ ------- Bottomland gallery
today). Residential development is booming in the small cities, while job opportuni-
ties remain concentrated around Eugene/Springfield.
This projected growth cannot be accommodated within the existing urban growth
boundaries (UGBs). Unplanned development threatens surface water, ground
water, and air quality in the region. Localized high nitrate levels in ground water
are expected to become more widespread as higher density development contin-
ues to rely on septic systems. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has identified many of the waters within the region, including the Wil-
lamette River, as impaired for temperature, mercury, and bacteria. DEQ recently
adopted the Willamette Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters.
The Regional Growth Management Strategy 2050 is intended to help guide
growth management in the region, specifically in Lane County, Oregon.
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
Dak-savannas in the surrounding
Contact
T
EPA Project Officer
Seattle, WA
(541)687-7360
henning.alan@epa.'
he Lane County Board of Commissioners and the councils of many of
the surrounding cities passed formal resolutions endorsing the concept
of a Regional Growth Man-
agement Strategy. The Lane Council
of Governments (LCOG) was di-
rected to seek funding and develop the
strategy. LCOG brought key technical
experts and community decision-mak-
ers together to identify key issues and
agree on a vision and actions to address
growth issues such as housing, jobs, schools,
transportation, water, and other public facili-
ties, while protecting natural resources and the
environment. From this effort, three alternative growth scenarios and seven land use maps
were produced using historic and scientific data. The maps showed footprints of the 100-year
floodplain, wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats. They also depicted ecosystem services
provided by these areas. Areas with native vegetation were identified as "possible native habitats"
to help identify habitats available for selective species. The maps showed some of the threats posed by
-------
development and potential mitigating
approaches. The maps also identified
priority areas in which conservation
and restoration would be desirable in
order to provide permanent protection
for Oregon's unique plant and
wildlife species.
LCOG used the three alternative
growth scenarios to facilitate a com-
munity involvement process to discuss
growth in each community and the
region: 1) the Compact Urban Growth
Scenario, which depicted growth in
the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan
area; 2) the Satellite Communities
Scenario, which targeted growth in the
surrounding small cities; and 3) the
Rural Growth Scenario, which showed
growth in rural residential lands in
rural communities.
Citizens, planners, and elected officials
discussed and evaluated the relative
merits of the three growth scenarios
using seven quality of life categories:
land use, housing, economy, natural
resources, community facilities and
services, transportation, and educa-
tion. Of these, land use and develop-
ment, transportation, and environ-
ment have the most profound effect on
the region's open spaces and natural
resources. Several key environmental
concerns emerged, including:
Nitrates, bacteria, and elevated tem-
peratures in surface and ground water
threaten the quality of drinking water.
Pollution threatens livelihoods of
fishermen and others dependent on
clean water.
Water pollution increases costs for
all users.
Conserving and restoring certain
critical habitats can aid in improv-
ing water quality.
Urbanization and development
almost inevitably lead to fragmenta-
tion and degradation of habitat with
resulting loss of biodiversity.
As the population of the area
increases and density within cities
increases, recreational areas will
become over-populated and over-
used. With increasing travel costs,
recreational opportunities should
be close to cities and accessible by a
variety of travel modes.
In July 2003, LCOG received RGI
funding to measure and monitor
impacts of the three alternative growth
scenarios on air and water quality
and rare habitat types. The study used
Geographic Information System (GIS)
models and baseline data to compile
information on air and water quality
and rare habitats; improve the likeli-
hood that growth would be directed
into areas least impacting air and wa-
ter quality and rare habitats; transfer
the lessons learned into the broader
land use and planning process; and
promote similar planning activities
by sharing methods and results with
outside organizations and regional
agencies.
Several key milestones were achieved:
developing the three alternative
growth scenario maps; securing
needed additional baseline data;
establishing a greater understanding
of the scenarios and the impacts to the
environmental resources; adjusting
scenario maps to meet land use needs;
and completing a quantitative and a
qualitative evaluation of the alterna-
tives using GIS models. LCOG also
scored each alternative growth scenar-
io relative to key criteria using baseline
data and community input.
The results of this study helped guide
the development of a final preferred
growth scenario, which encompassed
elements of all three scenarios. The
scenario became part of the Regional
Growth Management Strategy 2050. In
September 2005, EPA awarded LCOG
additional RGI funding to contrib-
ute to the ongoing development of
the strategy. More than $200,000 of
Partners
The following stakeholder groups contrib-
uted to the success of this effort:
LCDG
The 10 planning commissions and
elected bodies from Lane County and
the 10 cities in the region: Coburg,
Cottage Grove, Creswell, Eugene, Junc-
tion City, Lowell, Oakridge, Springfield,
Veneta, and Westfir
Regional Technical Advisory Committee
Regional Policy Advisory Board
Lane County Homebuilders Association
Lane Economic Committee
Lane Transit District Board
Emerald People's Utility District Board
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Eugene Chamber of Commerce
McKenzie Watershed Council
Middle-fork Willamette Watershed
Council
1,000 Friends of Oregon
League of Women Voters of Lane
County
Oregon Planning Institute
University of Oregon
Oregon Department of Land Conserva-
tion and Development
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Oregon Water Resources Department
Office of the Governor of Oregon
U.S. EPA
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
More than 1,000 dedicated citizens
from the Southern Willamette Valley
in-kind staff and local support, and
over $500,000 in direct revenues, have
also been committed to the effort from
six cities, several utilities, and other
stakeholders.
11
-------
Capturing Solar Energy in Minneapolis
Environmental Challenge
Region 5
The city of Minneapolis has set a goal to
improve air quality by reducing emis-
sions of criteria pollutants, air toxics,
and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases. Solar power is an important tool to
meet this goal. Solar energy can diver-
sify the energy supply, reduce depen-
dence on imported fuels, improve air
quality, offset greenhouse gas emis-
sions, and stimulate the economy
by creating jobs in the manufactur-
ing and installation of solar energy
systems.
The city of Minneapolis believes that private investment in solar power is ac-
celerating in Minnesota, and the city is examining several tools for encouraging
solar power investment in new private developments. Before asking for invest-
ments from the private sector, however, the city decided to demonstrate that
solar power is feasible in Minneapolis and lead by example by installing solar
-------
Partners
The Minnesota solar project is part of Region 5's Great Cities Program, cre-
ated in 2003 to serve as a vehicle to build partnerships with the six oldest,
largest cities in the Region (http://www.epa.gov/Region5/greatcities/). The
program focuses on the city's environmental and public health priorities, as
defined by each city's mayor. Great Cities is designed to shift resources to
opportunities that exist for accelerating environmental progress and filling
regulatory gaps through innovative ideas and collaborative partnerships.
With the assistance of RGI funds, the city of Minneapolis partnered with the
state to leverage existing rebate and tax programs to encourage solar power.The
Minnesota Energy Office within the Department of Commerce offers partnership
contributions in the form of rebates of $2,000 to $8,000, depending on the size
of the power systems. For this demonstration project, because of its comprehen-
sive nature, the city was able to obtain the maximum rebate of $23,000, which
exceeded all original projections.This rebate funding was used to increase the
capacity of the photovoltaic power system installed and to purchase software
for a real-time data system for the solar installation. In addition to the rebate
program, the project took advantage of the state sales tax exemption (5 percent)
on solar panels and electric systems.
The city is also partnering with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to
assess barriers, incentives, education, and outreach regarding the feasibility
and benefits of solar energy. Through its "Million Solar Roofs" partnership
program, DOE will work with the city to explore regulatory barriers and
market incentives to promote solar energy and energy efficiency applica-
tions in buildings.
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
panels on city facilities.
The city installed photovoltaic so-
lar panels on three highly visible
city facilities to demonstrate the
feasibility and benefits of solar energy
in Minneapolis. Specific installations
included:
5.0 kilowatt (KW) solar panels on
the roof of Fire Station #6.
2.6 KW solar panels in the yard of
the Royalston Maintenance Facility.
4.0 KW solar panels on the roof of
the Currie Equipment Maintenance
Facility
This project will displace the use of
power generated through the burning
of fossil fuels and is expected to offset:
9,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides
per year.
17,400 pounds of sulfur dioxide
per year.
2,500,000 pounds of carbon dioxide
per year.
The city has also installed a real-time
interactive data system on the city's
Web site to showcase power savings
and potential cost savings to highlight
the difference between using solar
power and fossil fuels.
This demonstration project served
to educate the public about renew-
able energy and jumpstart the city's
partnership with the Minnesota
Department of Commerce to encour-
age private interests to install similar
equipment. The city will also encour-
age other building owners to consider
using solar energy by involving them
in partnerships and through education
and outreach.
Great Cities Project Goals
1) Achieve tangible environmental results for all projects in a timely manner, preferably
within one to two years.
2) Build collaborative partnerships and relationships among cities, states, and public and
private sectors to address public health and environmental issues.
3) Leverage resources that allow projects to be sustainable beyond the range of
Agency funding.
4) Develop transferable work products, best practices, and lessons learned to promote
innovative actions in other areas.
5) Focus on each city's environmental and public health priorities to fill critical gaps in
EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment at the local level.
13
-------
Area
Description
Empowering Neighborhood Action
in Philadelphia
Region 3
The Livable Neighborhood
Program operates within
low-income, "row home"
neighborhoods in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is a city
Contact
Barbara Latsios
EPA RGI Coordinator
Philadelphia, PA
(215)814-5384
latsios.barbara@epa.gc
-c
Environmental Challenge
Too often, neighborhoods wait
for the appropriate government
agency to show up and fix their
problems. Yet, government at every
level is stressed to meet the public s
demands. The Livable Neighborhood
Program offers an alternativea de-
tailed menu of actions that citizens
can take to address environmental
problems on their own, while
interacting with local government as efficiently as possible.
The Livable Neighborhood Program is designed so that any level of activity
will produce benefits, and these successes can increase over time. It can be
used in any neighborhood settingurban, suburban, or rural. The ideal situ-
ation combines energetic grassroots initiative with strong partnerships with
government, community service organizations, and businesses.
The city of Philadelphia faces many environmental and health challenges due
to poor air quality (both outdoor
and indoor), polluted stormwa-
ter runoff, hazardous waste and
Brownfields sites, and solid waste
issues. These issues result in critical
human health concerns for some
middle- and low-income residents,
including lead poisoning in chil-
dren, radon exposure, and increased
asthma cases due to toxics found in
the home and garden. The time had
come for some kind of neighborhood program to provide residents with practical
tools and easy-to-learn skills for making their communities healthier places to live.
The Livable Neighborhood Program was born.
The birth of this program gave EPA Region 3 the opportunity to provide RGI funding
for the Livable Neighborhood Program and meet RGI goals, such as identifying multi-
media problems in the protection of human health and the environment, partnering with
various stakeholders, addressing a specific geographic area, and providing "start-up" fund-
ing to complement other EPA national programs.
-------
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
Participation in the Livable
Neighborhood Program began
with neighbors knocking on
doors and inviting other neighbors to
a block meeting. At the first meeting,
participants assessed their most criti-
cal needs, selected actions to pursue,
divided up responsibilities, and created
a plan. The teams met seven times over
four months to carry out their plans.
The actions each team chose to pursue
came from the Philadelphia Livable
Neighborhood Program workbook,
which covers five topics: health and
safety, beautification and greening,
energy efficiency, resource sharing, and
neighborhood building. Also included
in the workbook are step-by-step
instructions for establishing a meeting
format and an easy-to-use planning
guide for taking actions.
The Livable Neighborhood Program is
designed to help people take personal
responsibility for the communities in
which they live. Neighbors, working
together, keep their environment clean
and safe. The hope is that this behav-
ior change will become habitual with-
in individual families and communi-
ties, fostering a new way of living and
being in a community. The Livable
Neighborhood Program is based on a
state-of-the-art understanding of how
to change individual and group be-
havior. The secret is clear incentives
and immediate rewards. Using the
program's proven methods, neighbors
work together to make their blocks
safer, cleaner, healthier, more beautiful,
friendlier, and a better place to raise
their children.
An outgrowth of the Livable Neighbor-
hood Program is the development of
the Block Leadership Academy, which
offers training and certification for
neighborhood block leaders to develop
skills in leadership, empowerment
coaching, group facilitation, project
management, and community orga-
nizing. RGI funding contributed to
tuition costs that supported more than
100 residents' training in the Block
Leadership Academy.
The Livable Neighborhood Program
boasts very impressive recruitment
statistics: 87 percent of all households
invited to participate in the program
indicate an interest in attending a
meeting. Of those interested house-
holds, 74 percent commit to attending
a meeting, and 88 percent of those
who commit to attending actually do
so. In all, 60 percent of all households
originally invited to attend a meet-
ing and join a team actually do so and
actively participate in the program.
The program's original goal of creat-
ing 60 teams was far exceeded by the
actual creation of over 90 teams. This
translates into hundreds of individ-
ual actions getting completed within
Philadelphia neighborhoods.
Many environmental issues are being
addressed through the program, includ-
ing poor indoor and outdoor air quality,
polluted stormwater runoff, hazardous
waste and Brownfields sites, solid waste,
radon, lead poisoning in children, and
asthma. The environmental actions be-
ing taken to address these issues include
calming traffic, curbing dogs, conserv-
ing water and energy, cleaning storm
drains, planting neighborhood gardens,
Partners
The following stakeholder groups are
contributing to the success of this effort:
City of Philadelphia
- Mayor's Office
- Managing Director's Office
- Health Department
- Streets Department
- Municipal Energy Office
- Transportation Office
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
University of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Protection
U.S. EPA
Hundreds of Philadelphia residents
who attend neighborhood training
sessions, recruit fellow neighbors, serve
as block leaders, and conduct Livable
Neighborhood Program activities to
improve the health and safety of family,
friends and neighbors.
and conducting lead and radon safety
workshops. The program also has im-
proved the quality of life for residents
in many ways. Blocks have been turned
into safe, supervised play areas during
the summer months; abandoned houses
have been sealed; and street signs, light-
ing, and potholes have been fixed or im-
proved. The city has also conducted fire
and safety inspections, and residents
participate in Town Watch programs.
RGI funds contributed to the success
of the Livable Neighborhoods Pro-
gram. This success is due to the com-
mitment of truly dedicated neighbors
who are empowered to take action,
assume responsibility for the environ-
mental challenges in their neighbor-
hood, and gain the knowledge neces-
sary to eventually create the kind of
neighborhood that is safe, clean, and a
joy in which to live.
15
-------
Innovation and
I \f
-------
PROJECTS BRING COMMUNITY MEMBERS into the scientific process, both by giving
them the scientific tools to participate with researchers and by helping them
inform researchers about their environmental concerns. RGI also fosters sound
science by promoting collaborations across the scientific community. Finally, RGI fosters inno-
vation by funding emerging tools to help solve environmental problems. For example, indus-
trial ecology is a systems-based approach that analyzes the interrelationships between the
economy and the environment, focusing on the impact of human activity on the environment.
This approach can be effective in generating pollution prevention strategies and reducing the
use of raw materials. Examples of RGI-funded projects that promote innovation and sound
science are identified below and described in more detail in this chapter.
In a project focusing on the New York/New
Jersey Harbor, RGI funds have supported a
multi-year project designed to identify pollution
prevention strategies for five contaminants
of concern entering the harbor: mercury (and
methylmercury), cadmium, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). RGI funds enabled
community members to participate in the
research process by helping scientists identify
areas to sample and potential exposure routes.
At the University of Southern Mississippi,
state and local agencies are identifying which
animals contribute to bacteria-containing
fecal material that is impairing Gulf of Mexico
waters. RGI funding enabled the university
to convene a group of scientists who work
in the bacterial source tracing field in the
coastal waters of the southern United States to
discuss, develop, and test the most appropriate,
effective methods for identifying bacterial
sources in the Gulf of Mexico.
In Kansas City, a regional By-Product Synergy
project has brought 12 companies together
to match unwanted by-products as resources
for new products and by-products. Individual
companies have been transformed into a cross-
industry team focused on turning every gram
of material running through their plants into
usable products.
-------
Area
Description
Preventing Pollution in the
New York/New Jersey Harbor
The New York/New Jersey
Harbor's airshed and water-
shed are vast, covering about
95,000 and 13,400 square miles,
respectively. Overall, the environ-
ast North Carolina
work for this project was focusei
watershed, which includes the states i
New York and New Jersey.
Contact
Irene Purdy
EPA Project Officer
New York, NY
(212)637-3845
purdy.irene@epa.go
Environmental Challenges
This is a dynamic time for the
entire Hudson Valley watershed,
and the New York/New Jersey
Harbor in particular. Currently, plan-
ners, regulators, and lawmakers are
shaping the environmental future
of the harbor through their deci-
sions on issues such as land-use
practices, dredging to increase
capacity of port facilities, and
cleanups of Superfund sites.
These decisions will profound-
ly affect pollution levels in
Region 2
TheNY-NJ
Harbor
frrahcd
NJ
search Findings:
Hg 101.11 r*ta*H« lo nil mgdii,
the harborwith far-reaching consequences for the economic future of the
region.
The harbor has been a key manufacturing and shipping center since the
early 19th century, and the harbor's industrial pollution is one of the region's
most pressing environmental problems. Despite the great strides that have
been made in reducing pollu-
tion in the harbor, continued
high levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, mer-
cury, and other toxicants in fish,
such as striped bass and bluefish,
have resulted in numerous fish
consumption advisories. Consum-
ing contaminated fish can result
in adverse health effects, including
increased incidence of cancer as well
as endocrine, immune, and nervous systems impairments. Children and developing
fetuses are at the highest risk.
In addition to human health threats, the harbor ecosystem's health and productivity
are threatened by toxicants, pathogens, and nutrient and organic enrichment, as well
as by habitat loss and degradation. This environmental damage has led to declines in fish
and shellfish populations and a reduction in diversity of the watershed's wildlife, including
birds.
-------
Partners
The New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) is an independent, nonprof-
it, membership-based organization created to advance the understand-
ing of science, technology, and medicine. To address the problem of
contaminant pollution in the New York/New Jersey Harbor, NYAS has
been convening a consortium of regional and national stakeholders,
including local, community, and environmental conservation groups;
industry and small business associations; local, state and federal
government (including the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey and
EPA); academia; and labor from the entire harbor watershed.
Each of the partners provided technical expertise and, when feasible, fi-
nancial support. EPA Region 2 awarded NYAS several years of RGI funding
totaling over $200,000 for the harbor project. This funding helped to lever-
age more than $1.5 million from other partners and sources, including the
Port Authority of New York/ New Jersey and the Harbor Estuary Program.
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
Utilizing an industrial ecol-
ogy approach, this multi-year
project aims to identify pollu-
tion prevention (P2) strategies for five
contaminants of concern entering the
harbor: mercury (and methylmer-
cury), cadmium, PCBs, dioxins, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
The project uses materials flow analy-
sis coupled with mass balance and eco-
nomic analyses to identify economi-
cally feasible P2 strategies with the
greatest environmental impact. The
three-pronged approach includes: 1)
thorough review of available scientific
research, 2) outreach to and com-
munication with key stakeholders to
facilitate public participation in devel-
oping and implementing P2 measures,
and 3) promotion of the stakeholders'
recommended strategies to achieve
implementation.
The project's specific outputs include:
1) Four contaminant reports have
been published on mercury,
cadmium, PCBs, and dioxins. (See
www.nyas.org for full reports.)
2) The project has identified leverage
points for intervention, control
technologies, and P2 alternatives
to reduce contaminant inputs to
the harbor. The project has also
developed cost estimates for these
alternatives and technologies.
3) Harbor-specific P2 recommenda-
tions have been developed for
mercury, cadmium, PCBs, and
dioxins. Research findings on
sources of mercury in the region
were unexpected, as national
trends indicate that large quan-
tity generators are the primary
contributors of mercury to the
environment. However, the sub-
stance flow assessment used in this
project showed that the cumula-
tive contributions from small
generators in the New York/New
Jersey region are the most signifi-
cant contributors of mercury to
the harbor. To reduce mercury
contributions to the harbor, the
project developed P2 plans target-
ing these small quantity genera-
tors, including 8,500 dentists using
or removing mercury amalgams;
more than 143 regional hospitals;
and 270 laboratories.
Through sound science and collabora-
tive decision-making, the project has
generated viable harbor-specific P2
recommendations that will help pro-
mote a cleaner harbor and watershed
environment, reduce the exposure
route and accumulations of various
contaminants in the harbor, and im-
prove recreational fishing. The project
has also shared the recommendations
with local stakeholders who could
implement and/or benefit from them.
For example, a workshop was held for
New York City area dentists to educate
them about the proper handling of
of Mercury JO
\/t Rntt outflow*
mercury-containing dental amalgams.
Outreach efforts to communities have
helped raise public awareness about
watersheds, aquatic systems, and water
quality issues. Other efforts have in-
cluded conducting pubic meetings
and workshops, developing a project-
specific Web site, and publishing toxi-
cant reports and scientific background
materials.
Representatives of the New York Acad-
emy of Sciences (NYAS), which led
the harbor project, have been asked to
speak about its successes both nation-
ally and internationally. The National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable
awarded the NYAS and the Harbor
Consortium the Most Valuable Pol-
lution Prevention Writing Award in
2004 for the Pollution Prevention and
Management Strategies for Mercury
in the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
NYAS was also honored by "Trees for
the Future," which planted a grove
of 100 trees as a living tribute to the
harbor project.
19
-------
Area
Description
Saving "America's Sea" Through
Bacteria Tracking
Region 4
The Gulf of Mexico is
sometimes called "America's
Sea" because it is the source
of many of the United States'
renewable and nonrenewable
resources. Covering 3,400 miles of
shoreline, the 600,000-square-mile
Gulf is bordered by five states (Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
..s of communities. The
Gulf's bottom topography includes broad
continental shelves, submarine canyons,
abyssal plains, and ancient reefs. The Gulf
is of tremendous economic, ecological, and
social value to the Southeast and the nation.
The specific project area included three coasta
Mississippi counties: Hancock, Harrison, and
Jackson, and the metropolitan areas of Bay St.
Environmental Challenge
;an Springs,
and Pascagoula. All of these commur
severely impacted by Hurricane Katrir
2005 and are experiencing increased
development and population growth.
Contact
Melanie Magee
EPA Project Officer
Atlanta, GA
(228)688-1191
magee.melanie@epa.gov
n 2004, 85 percent of the nearly 20,000
beach closures in the United States were
due to high bacterial levels. Over the
past 25 years, pollution source studies have
revealed that in spite of the enormous
improvements in physical wastewater
treatment facilities, the rapid growth
of residential, commercial, and indus-
trial developments still overwhelm the
treatment systems. Scientists assess
microbiological impairment of water
by monitoring concentrations of fe-
cal-indicator bacteria, such as fecal
coliforms and enterococci. These microorganisms are associated with fecal
material from humans and other warm-blooded animals, and their presence
in water is used to indicate potential presence of enteric pathogens that could
cause illness in exposed persons. Reliable and accurate tools to identify the
sources of the bacteria are imperative for developing best management prac-
tices to control fecal contamination, protect recreational water users from
waterborne pathogens, and preserve the integrity of drinking source water
supplies.
The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) Microbial Source Tracking
Initiative assists state and local agencies in identifying which animals contrib-
ute to fecal material containing E. coli and enterococci bacteria. The initiative
builds infrastructure, develops and
validates methods, builds networks,
and educates the public. RGI funding
enabled USM researchers to convene
a group of scientists who work in the
bacterial source tracing (BST) field in
the coastal waters of the southern United
States to discuss, develop, and test the most
appropriate and effective methods. This
gathering provided a better understanding of
the geographical range of the bacterial sources
in the Gulf of Mexico.
-------
Partners
The Gulf of Mexico Program's mission is "to facilitate collaborative actions
to protect, maintain, and restore the health and productivity of the Gulf of
Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the region."
The partnership includes representation from state and local governments;
the citizenry in each of the five Gulf states; business and industry; federal
agencies responsible for research, monitoring, environmental protection,
and natural resource management; and the academic community.
The Microbial Source Tracking Initiative is a collaborative initiative sup-
ported by the partners in the Gulf of Mexico Program. This and other
projects are used to achieve the goals of engaging many people across the
Gulf region and coordinating projects that move the Region in an environ-
mentally and economically sound direction.
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
Although BST has become a
research focus for many investi-
gators throughout the country,
there have been few initiatives with a
regional focus, and no previous efforts
specifically considered the problems
encountered in the southeastern
United States. BST has the potential to
focus federal, state, and local fund-
ing and conservation efforts where
they will be the most effectiveon the
actual sources of contamination. To
increase public awareness of the fecal
pollution problem and provide techni-
cal knowledge to researchers, USM has
created a Web site, available at
www.usm.edu/bst.
Specific accomplishments resulting
from this project include the following:
Improved the knowledge-base for
developing and implementing Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for
waters impaired by fecal pollution.
Developed the capability to reliably
capture, document, and analyze
bacterial DNA fingerprints.
Created a reference library of over
9,000 bacterial DNA fingerprint
profiles for determining the source
of bacteria found in the environ-
ment around the Gulf of Mexico.
Identified sewage and storm drains
as important sources of bacteria for
the coastal area.
USM received additional $600,000
to continue this important efforta
10-fold leveraging of funds.
21
-------
Area
Description
The Kansas City metropoli-
tan area includes locations
in both Missouri and Kansas,
covering an area of 7,976 square
miles. Anchored by Kansas City,
Reusing Materials Through
By-Product Synergy
Environmental Challenge
Region 7
the 27th largest in the United States
and contains 15 counties. In 2005, this
area had a
residents. Major
area include Hallmark Cards, Harley-Da-
vidson Motor Company, Honeywell F '
Manufacturing & Technologies, Ford Motor
Company, General Motors, and Sprint/Nextel.
Companies with headquarters in the area in-
clude Embark Corporation, Hallmark Cards, and
the Kansas City Power & Light Company.
Contact
EPA RGI Coordinator
Kansas City, KS
(913)551-7551
David Flora
EPA Project Officer
Kansas City, KS
(913)551-7523
flora.david@epa.gov
Otavio Silva
KC Regional BPS
Initiative Project Manager
Kansas City, MO
(816) 561-1087, ext. 111
otavio@bridgingthegap.org
As in other metropolitan areas in the
nation, companies in the Kansas
City metropolitan area accumulate
waste. However, in the Kansas City area,
Bridging the Gap (BTG), a nonprofit
organization, is helping reduce waste
through the Kansas City Regional By-
Product Synergy (EPS) Initiative. EPS
applies the principles of industrial
ecology in which companies work together to match unwanted by-products
and underutilized raw materials as resources for new products and processes.
Each project involves recruiting between 10 and 20 diverse companies as
fee-paying participants and engaging local, state, and federal government
agencies as supporters. Through the EPS process, individual companies are
transformed into a cross-industry team focused on turning every gram of
material running through their plants into product. This collaborative, busi-
ness-driven approach also enlists industry in addressing waste and pollution
issues. EPA and state regulators are working with the participants to ensure
that reuse options requiring environmental permits result in higher environ-
mental protection.
The Kansas City Regional EPS Initiative is a direct result of an event spon-
sored by the Environmental Excellence Business Network, a BTG program
that encourages environmental awareness through community education and
action. The project's goal is to bring neighboring industrial facilities and orga-
nizations together to discover
innovative ways to integrate their
operations, cut pollution, reduce
material costs, and improve inter-
nal processes.
-------
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
BTG used RGI funds to recruit
12 local companies to partici-
pate in creating a BPS network.
BTG and the BPS team developed
three different working groups in
which companies could participate:
products/processes, innovation, and
sustainable infrastructure. Reflect-
ing participants' desire to go beyond
by-product synergies and expand the
initiative to search sustainability, the
project team and working groups are
evaluating the 50 potential synergies
identified during the data collection
and analysis process, as well as other
sustainable practices within participat-
ing organizations. BTG was also able
to use the RGI funds to leverage other
local funds and in-kind contributions
to sustain and expand the project.
BTG and the BPS team developed a
process to measure where companies
were in the synergy process and to
measure their progress. A simplified
explanation of the process comprises
five stages in developing BPS:
1. Synergy idea: The parties involved
identify the potential for BPS.
2. Discussion: The parties discuss the
BPS opportunity in more detail
(e.g., costs and quantities of mate-
rials to be exchanged), including
sustainability metrics evaluation.
3. Negotiation: The parties work
towards a formal BPS agreement
and develop a business plan that
includes a sustainability perfor-
mance matrix.
4. Implementation: Once a formal
agreement is reached, the parties
are ready to implement the BPS
business plan.
5. Completion: The synergy is
complete, and the feedstock needs
of one partner are matched to
unwanted by-products of another
partner.
Currently BTG and the BPS team are
actively pursuing 29 synergies. All 29
synergies have passed through the idea
and discussion stages, while five are
in the negotiation stage, and one has
been implemented and completed.
A sustainability metric was also de-
veloped to assist the project team and
participants in narrowing down the
synergies' possibilities and ranking
them. It evaluates three main aspects:
Economic
Social/community
Environmental impacts
Participants prepared individual sus-
tainability metrics for each of the iden-
tified synergies. The project team then
compiled the data into a sustainability
performance matrix for 29 synergies.
The first implemented synergy project
is a partnership between Hallmark
Cards, a greeting card manufacturer,
and Missouri Organic Recycling, a
food waste composter. The Hallmark
Cards cafeteria serves approximately
3,000 meals a day, and Missouri
Organic Recycling collects the food
waste. Missouri Organic Recycling is
also composting food waste from the
Jackson County, Missouri, Depart-
ment of Corrections and from Whole
Foods supermarkets. In 2006, Missouri
Organic Recycling collected and com-
posted 346 tons of food waste from
these sources: 46 tons from Hallmark
Cards, 220 tons from Whole Foods,
Partners
The BPS Initiative received approximately
$90,000 in RGI funding from EPA Region
7. Leveraged resources include $100,000
in additional funds from the Missouri
Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Authority (EIERA), and $65,000
from the Mid-America Regional Council
(MARC) Solid Waste District. The private
sector has contributed equivalent funding
for each phase of the initiative.
Public Partners
EPA Region 7
Missouri EIERA Market Development
Program
MARC Solid Waste Management
District
Business Charter Members
City of Kansas City, Missouri
Cook Composites and Polymers (CCP)
Gerdau Ameristeel
Hallmark Cards, Inc.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
Jackson County, Missouri
Johnson County, Kansas
Kansas City Power & Light Company
Lafarge Corporation Cement Group
Little Blue Valley Sewage District
Missouri Organic Recycling
Systech Corporation
BPS Project Team
Bridging The Gap
Franklin Associates-a division of
Eastern Research Group
and 80 tons from the Department of
Corrections' jail. The BPS project team
is negotiating with other potential
participants to expand the food waste
composting synergy.
23
-------
-------
WORKS TO REDUCE RISKS to human health and the environment by funding
projects that identify and address pollution sources. Some RGI projects focus
on reducing risks by promoting good stewardship practices that protect natu-
ral resources and keep them from becoming polluted. Other RGI projects use scientific meth-
ods to identify and assess a diverse range of risks to local communities, including point and
nonpoint sources of air, water, and land pollution. Finally, some RGI projects focus on revital-
izing lands that have been polluted in the past. Examples of RGI-funded projects that reduce
risks to human health and the environment are identified below and described in more detail
in this chapter.
In California, RGI funding has supported a
number of sustainable agriculture projects
involving local farmers and citizens as well
as state and local government officials. RGI
projects have included demonstrating bio-
logically integrated agriculture methods that
reduce pesticide use, providing public access to
information on pesticide use and toxicity, and
promoting environmental performance certifi-
cation programs that offer market-based incen-
tives for pollution prevention. A focus has been
on preventing air and water pollution through
improved management and treatment of dairy
manure.
In the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, area, RGI funds
are supporting a project to survey ambient
air quality. The survey used EPA's Trace Atmo-
spheric Gas Analyzer mobile laboratory unit to
determine the concentration, distribution, and
sources of hazardous air pollutants. This survey
supported the efforts of EPA and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality to reduce
air pollution and protect local populations that
live in this heavily industrialized corridor.
In Colorado, RGI funds helped the residents of
the city of Creede and the surrounding portion
of Mineral County develop a community-based
effort to identify and address pollution from
historic silver mines in the Willow Creek water-
shed. The Willow Creek Reclamation Commit-
tee is directing a stakeholder effort designed
to improve surface and ground water quality,
restore physical habitat in the Willow Creek
watershed, revitalize mine-scarred lands, and
protect the Rio Grande from future fish kills.
-------
Developing Dairy Manure Technology
for the San Joaquin Valley
Region 9
Environmental Challenge
The geographic and economic
characteristics of the San Joaquin
Valley combine to create serious
environmental problems. The Valley
exhibits some of the nation's worst air
quality, with high levels of ozone and
particulate matter that contribute
to high rates of respiratory illness.
In many areas, ground water and
surface water are contaminated
with pesticides, fertilizers, animal
manure, and salts, threatening
drinking water sources.
Dairies contribute to the San
Joaquin Valley's environmental problems. The 1.3 million dairy cows in the
San Joaquin Valley produce an average of 120 pounds of manure per cow per
day, a total of 60 billion pounds per year. Air emissions from feed, cows, and
decomposing manure include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), precur-
sors to the formation of both fine particulate pollution and ozone; ammonia,
a precursor to formation of fine particulates; methane and nitrous oxide,
which are global warming gases; and odors. Nutrients, salts, bacteria, and
organic matter in manure can pollute surface water and ground water. The nu-
trient and carbon content of dairy manure, however, make it a useful feedstock
for the production of agricultural inputs and energy. More efficient manage-
ment and treatment of dairy manure could improve the quality of soil, air, and
water; create jobs and stabilize rural economies; provide a source of renewable
energy; and reduce regulatory pressures on dairies.
Cows Make More Than Meat and Milk
water
feed «^ 1
nutrients
milk
meat
t
1
fig
VOCs, NHSp HjS,
COai CH4p NaO
NPC t
flatus
salts
i p* eructua
manure
Cp N, Pp salts
-------
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
To address the environmental effects
of dairies in the San Joaquin Valley,
the Region 9 Agriculture Program and
the California Air Resources Board
formed the Dairy Manure Collabora-
tive in 2004. Participants include more
than 200 representatives of federal,
state, and local government agencies;
academia; the dairy industry; environ-
mental and community groups; utili-
ties; and technology vendors. The col-
laborative's approach is nonregulatory
and practical. Its activities, described
below, support the goal of demonstrat-
ing and implementing technologies for
managing manure as a resource, im-
proving soil quality, supplying nutri-
ents, and generating renewable energy
while reducing emissions of pollutants
to air and water.
EPA Region 9's Agriculture Program
serves as an information clearing-
house for the collaborative, providing
frequent e-mail updates on available
funding for dairy manure manage-
ment projects and other topics. An
early collaborative product, updated,
expanded, and reissued in 2007, was a
set of Geographic Information System
(GIS) maps showing the locations and
herd sizes of San Joaquin Valley dair-
ies. These widely requested maps in-
dicate areas with the greatest potential
for environmental problems as well
as for economies of scale in manure
treatment. Building on the dairy GIS
project, the collaborative sponsored a
2006 forum, supported by a $10,000
RGI grant to the Local Government
Commission, on "Developing Proj-
ects and Partners to Comprehensively
Treat Dairy Manure in the San Joaquin
Valley," at which participants identi-
fied technologies, locations, funding,
and infrastructure needed for manure
treatment pilot projects. A major
funding source introduced to the
California dairy industry at this con-
ference has since provided a $496,000
grant for a dairy manure gasification
pilot project in the state.
Dairies are a source of the VOCs that
are precursors to formation of ozone,
but the precise source of VOCs in
dairy operations has been unclear. To
address this data gap, RGI funding
supported a study to quantify VOC
emissions from cows. Results, released
in 2005, showed that cows emit only
one-eighth as much VOCs as origi-
nally estimated and that fresh feed
contributes more VOCs than manure
lagoons. This information was an
important factor in the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District's
determination of Best Available Con-
trol Technologies for dairies. In addi-
tion to EPAs $75,000 in RGI funding,
the Milk Advisory Board contributed
$65,000 and Merced County provided
$600,000.
The Dairy Manure Collaborative
formed the Dairy Manure Technology
Feasibility Assessment Panel, co-
chaired by Region 9 and the California
Air Resources Board, to assess the
environmental and economic per-
formance of the many technologies
proposed to treat dairy manure. RGI
funds supported data collection and
preparation of the panel's report, An
Assessment of Technologies for Manage-
ment and Treatment of Dairy Manure
in California's San Joaquin Valley
(www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/
dairypanel.htm). The 2005 report
provides a useful survey of currently
available technologies, and concludes
that much information on off-the-shelf
products is still needed.
Dairy Manure Collaborative par-
ticipants have established a number
of pilot projects to test a variety of
treatment technologies. Many of these
projects address the generation of re-
Partners
State and federal agencies, the University
of California and other state universities,
environmental and community groups,
dairy industry organizations, utilities, and
elected officials from the San Joaquin Val-
ley have met to plan projects that improve
manure treatment. The California dairy in-
dustry and regulatory agencies (California
Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District, EPA Region
9) keenly follow research conducted by
the University of California Cooperative
Extension. The technology assessment
panel included representatives from fed-
eral and state agencies, the University of
California, community and environmental
organizations, and the California
dairy industry.
newable energy from dairy manure. At
least 18 anaerobic digesters are now in
operation at dairies, and the captured
bio-gas reduces greenhouse gas emis-
sions and fuels electricity generators
and alternative-fuel vehicles. Another
project involves gasification of manure
to produce marketable energy. Other
projects address nutrient management,
another primary concern of the collab-
orative. Two of these projects are test-
ing denitrification technologies using
reciprocating ponds and algae tanks,
while others are demonstrating tools
to measure nitrogen content of lagoon
water and to meter its application to
fields to match crop needs. Ten dairies
are participating in a demonstration of
lagoon mixing and purple-sulfur
bacteria to reduce VOCs and odors.
The knowledge gained from these
projects in the next few years will
move the collaborative toward its
goal of demonstrating comprehen-
sive systems for managing all manure
constituents to control environmental
contamination while maintaining
economic feasibility in the California
dairy industry.
27
-------
Area
Description
Real-Time Investigation of Air Toxics
in the Gulf Coast Region
Ambient air monitoring was
conducted at various locations
siana is a neavilv
industrialize
Environmental Challenge
For more than 10 years, the Louisi-
ana Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (LDEQ) has focused
significant regulatory efforts on reduc-
ing public exposure to various toxic
and carcinogenic air contaminants
in the Louisiana Gulf Coast region.
Region 6
invironmental mstice cona
tional Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
pollutants, with the exception of o
city of Baton Rouge, air sampling in several
areas has shown significantly elevated levels of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including ben-
zene, toluene, ethylene dichloride, 1,3-butadiene
lame cnemicals. in ucton
iuqe area exc
Contact
Kyndall Barry
EPA Project Officer
Dallas, TX
(214)665-8567
barry.kyndall@epa.gc
While existing air quality samples
showed elevated levels of air
toxics, more information was needed to identify disproportionately impacted
urban areas and to quantify risks based on cumulative concentrations of air
toxics. Identifying sources of contamination that contribute to cumulative air
pollution would also support efforts for more effective and targeted enforce-
ment activities. There was also a need to establish baseline air contaminant
concentrations to support the work of the Department of Homeland Security.
Beginning in 2004, LDEQ developed a strategy to supplement its ambi-
ent monitoring network with additional highly reactive volatile organic
compound (HRVOC) monitors in the Baton Rouge area. The goal of this
monitoring is to achieve real-time data availability, similar to that achieved
with EPA's Trace Atmospheric Gas
Analyzer (TAGA). TAGA is a spe-
cialized air monitoring vehicle used
primarily for real-time detection of
pollutants, identification of pollution
sources, and when necessary, assis-
tance with emergency response activi-
ties, such as responding to chemical
spills and fires. Region 6 supported
LDEQs efforts by allocating RGI funds
to make EPAs TAGA equipment available
for use in southern Louisiana.
-------
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
In January 2005, EPA Region 6
partnered with LDEQ, through the
use of RGI resources, to conduct
a survey of ambient air quality in the
Baton Rouge area. The purpose of the
survey was to augment the ever-
growing number of stationary ambi-
ent air monitors in the area, determine
other potential sources of air pollution,
and help focus future actions to reduce
these pollutants.
The survey used EPAs TAGA mo-
bile laboratory unit to determine the
concentration and distribution of
the air pollutants and identify poten-
tial sources. Specifically, the survey
focused on eight hazardous air pollut-
ants (HAPs): benzene; toluene; vinyl
chloride; xylenes; 1,2-dichloroethane;
trichloroethane; tetrachloroethane
(PCE); and 1,3-butadiene. The survey
also measured airborne concentrations
of hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide,
and mercury.
During the project, three air pollut-
ants, 1,3-butadiene, vinyl chloride,
and mercury, were found to be pres-
ent at concentrations that warranted
further investigation. The presence of
1,3-butadiene and vinyl chloride were
detected at concentrations ranging
from detectable levels up to approxi-
mately 30 parts per billion by volume
(ppbv). Mercury was detected at con-
centrations up to approximately 4,000
nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3),
and benzene was briefly detected in
several survey runs.
EPA Region 6 and LDEQ have distrib-
uted the survey report and its find-
ings to local leaders and community
groups. The survey data also have
proven useful in enforcement cases
being handled by both agencies, which
are considering many compliance
assistance and enforcement tools to
address concerns that remain after the
completion of the project. A complete
summary of the survey report and
its results can be accessed at the EPA
Region 6 enforcement Web page at:
www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6en/a7
taga-unit-results.htm.
EPA Region 6 and LDEQ also are
closely coordinating with the com-
panies emitting these pollutants to
identify next steps to address elevated
levels of pollution. For example, Pio-
neer Companies, Inc. accounted for
an estimated 18 percent of mercury
Partners
The following stakeholder groups contrib-
uted to the success of this effort:
Louisiana Department of Environmen-
tal Quality
Louisiana Environmental Action Net-
work
Various members of the petrochemical
industry participated through administra-
tive order agreements with LDEQ.
air emissions reported in the state of
Louisiana in 2005. In 2007, the com-
pany announced that it was eliminat-
ing the use of mercury at its St. Gabriel
chlorine plant by the end of 2008. By
converting from mercury cell technol-
ogy to a new membrane cell technol-
ogy, mercury emissions are expected
to be significantly reduced.
The southern Louisiana TAGA project
could not have taken place without the
funding provided by RGI. With the
RGI funding, EPA Region 6 was able
to respond to the requests of the state
and community groups like the Louisi-
ana Environmental Action Network
to bring the TAGA and its innovative
technology to the region.
-------
Area
Description
Restoring a Watershed in a Colorado
Mining District
Region 8
Willow Creek, formed by the
confluence of East and West
Willow Creeks, is a tributary of
the Rio Grande River near its head-
waters in the San Juan Mountains in
Environmental Challenge
the Willow Creek wat
Metals mining and processing
has been a major influence
on the economic and cultural
development of the western United
States, especially in many of the
major mountain ranges in Colorado,
California, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico and Arizona. Extensive
mining began in the 1880s and
1890s and continued, mostly un-
interrupted, until World War II.
In some areas, primarily Nevada and Arizona, precious metal mining contin-
ues to be a major part of the state's economy.
Historically, when mines were no longer profitable, individual mines and
whole mining districts were abandoned, with little thought about future
environmental impacts. More than 100,000 known abandoned mine sites
currently exist in the country. Many of these abandoned mines are significant
sources of heavy metals and acidity to nearby streams, associated riparian/
aquatic communities, and ground
water. Since mining has such a large
waste to product ratio, and histori-
cally very large volumes of waste rock
and tailings were disposed of without
adequate environmental controls,
abandoned mines are very hard to
clean up. Moreover, characterizing and
remediating contaminated drainage
from underground mines is difficult and
expensive.
-------
Major Milestones/Accomplishments
From 1999 through 2003, the Wil-
low Creek Reclamation Commit-
tee (WCRC) completed a rigor-
ous environmental characterization
of heavy metals contamination within
the watershed. This characterization
identified discharge from the Nelson
Tunnel as the largest source of metal
loading into Willow Creek. Approxi-
mately 70 to 80 percent of the zinc
load delivered to the Rio Grande via
Willow Creek comes from the Nelson
Tunnel discharge (200 to 275 gallons
per minute). Based on this analysis,
the project identified remediation
of contaminated discharge from the
Nelson Tunnel as one of two key ele-
ments necessary to successfully restore
Willow Creek's aquatic and ripar-
ian habitat. The other key element is
restoring the flood plain riparian zone
on lower Willow Creek.
At many precious metal and heavy
metal mines, underground source
control techniques can be effectively
applied as an element of a mine clo-
sure plan or a remedial action where
acid mine drainage is an environmen-
tal concern. Source control techniques
include the use of plugging and/or
backfilling tunnels and shafts, grouting
ground water inflow zones to tunnels
and shafts, and segregating "clean"
inflows from "contaminated" inflows.
These techniques can be used to isolate
contaminated mine pools, divert clean
inflows around mine workings, reduce
or control the volume of discharge
from tunnel portals, and reduce the
risk of tunnel blowout. The WCRC is
evaluating the use of source control
techniques for remediating the Nelson
Tunnel.
Utilizing RGI grant funds, the WCRC
investigated sources and pathways of
ground water entering the mine work-
ings associated with the Nelson Tunnel
and mine waters discharging from the
Nelson Tunnel portal. The findings
from this characterization will be used
to evaluate potential remedies to con-
trol the Nelson Tunnel discharge. A
portion of the RGI funds has also been
used to conduct a remedial feasibility
study to assess the treatment require-
ments for the water that flows into the
Nelson tunnel. A pilot treatment test
was designed and implemented, utiliz-
ing a blocked off portion of a mine
drift to temporarily store mine water
for treatment. The pilot was success-
fully completed, and data are currently
being evaluated and analyzed.
Sampling was conducted for chemical
analysis and to obtain water level el-
evation and flow rate data at a number
of locations within the Nelson Tun-
nel. These data helped to improve the
conceptual understanding of the hy-
drology of the Nelson Tunnel enough
to allow for some limited feasibility
studies related to in-situ treatment of
mine waters prior to discharge from
the Nelson Tunnel portal.
The work funded by the RGI grant
has been instrumental in developing
a sound conceptual understanding of
the hydrologic conditions that control
inflow to and outflow from the un-
derground mine workings associated
Partners
The residents of the city of Creede and the
surrounding portion of Mineral County
have developed a community-based effort
to identify and address the most press-
ing environmental concerns in the Willow
Creek watershed. The WCRC, convened
in 1999, is directing a stakeholder effort
designed to improve surface and ground
water quality, restore physical habitat in
the Willow Creek watershed, revitalize
mine-scarred lands, and protect the Rio
Grande from future fish kills. The WCRC
has partnered with numerous state and
federal agencies, including EPA, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Colorado Division
of Minerals and Geology, the Colo-
rado Department of Public Health and
Environment, and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
with the Nelson Tunnel. The Colorado
Division of Minerals and Geology
produced interim and final reports
summarizing the work completed and
the data collected and interpreted for
2003 and 2004.
31
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Regional Operations
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(1301 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Document number
October 2007
www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htm
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI.VT)
1 Congress St. Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
http://www.epa.gov/region01 /
Phone:(617)918-1111
Fax:(617)918-1809
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI)
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
http://www.epa.gov/region02/
Phone:(212)637-3000
Fax:(212)637-3526
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA,VA,WV)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
http://www.epa.gov/region03/
Phone:(215)814-5000
Fax:(215)814-5103
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
http://www.epa.gov/region04/
Phone: (404) 562-9900
Fax:(404)562-8174
Region 5 (IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH.WI)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
http://www.epa.gov/region5/
Phone:(312)353-2000
Fax:(312)353-4135
Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK.TX)
Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
http://www.epa.gov/region06/
Phone:(214)665-2200
Fax:(214)665-7113
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE)
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
http://www.epa.gov/region07/
Phone:(913)551-7003
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT.WY)
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202-1129
http://www.epa.gov/region08/
Phone:(303)312-6312
Fax:(303)312-6339
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
http://www.epa.gov/region09/
Phone: (415) 947-8000
(866) EPA-WEST (toll free in Region 9)
Fax:(415)947-3553
Region 10(AK, ID, OR.WA)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
http://www.epa.gov/region10/
Phone:(206)553-1200
Fax: (206) 553-2955
Recycled/RecyclablePrinted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled
------- |