3EPA
EPA/600/R-18/249 | September 2018 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Community Environmental
Management Tools:
A Gap Analysis
TOOLS HEP!
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land and Materials Management Division
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Community Environmental
Management Tools:
A Gap Analysis
by
G. Grissom
ORISE Research Participant
U.S. EPA/Office of Research and Development/Immediate
Office of the Assistant Administrator,
Research Triangle Park, NC
B. Dyson
U.S. EPA/National Risk Management Research
Laboratory/Land and Materials Management Division,
Cincinnati, OH
A. Brookes
.S. EPA/National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory/Western Ecology Division,
Corvallis, OR
A. Hall
ORISE Research Participant
U.S. EPA/National Risk Management Research
Laboratory/Land and Materials Management Division,
Cincinnati, OH
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Notice/Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development,
funded and conducted the research described herein. This report reviewed the stated application of
environmental management tools against common community needs and was done without the use
of secondary or existing data. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
The citation for this document is:
Grissom, G.1, Dyson, B.2, Brookes. A.3, Hall, A.2, 2018. Community Environmental Management
Tools: A Gap Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-
18/249.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Immediate Office
of the Assistant Administrator, Research Triangle Park, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC
27709.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 W.
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health, and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, 200 SW 35th St. Corvallis, OR 97333.
ii
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, US EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) within the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and management
approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-
effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments,
and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce
the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions
to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and
policy decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community
levels.
In recognition of significant advances in information technology, this report outlines processes,
resources, and opportunities for cooperative federalism and citizen engagement in the development
and deployment of digital applications supporting community and state environmental
management needs.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Abstract
This report provides an assessment of the current coverage of community environmental
management needs for decision making by existing software tools. The gap analysis provides an
assessment of 1) what software tools EPA has either developed or catalogued from others, 2) how
those tools address common management concerns raised by communities, 3) where gaps exist
between available tools and community priorities, and 4) what scientific or technical support is
needed from states, communities, and other Agency partners now and going forward. The Registry
of EPA Applications, Models, and Data Warehouses (READ), a public repository of both EPA-
developed tools and external tools screened for relevance, was cross-checked with management
action needs sourced in part by stakeholder charrettes held across a diverse set of U.S.
communities. The gap analysis results show that over half the identified management actions are
unaddressed, even superficially, by the existing suite of tools. A categorization method for
grouping management actions was devised based on the Sustainability Tools for Assessing and
Rating Communities (STAR) Communities objectives framework. The grouping showed clear
disparities between management (or STAR Objective) categories, both in terms of the number of
relevant actions and the applicability of tools toward those management actions. The results are
contextualized by presenting several avenues for tool co-production between private citizens and
government alongside guidance for building and maintaining effective tools that respond to user
needs.
This report covers a period from March 2017 to May 2018 and work was completed as of July
2018.
iv
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Acknowledgements
Scientific Contributions
Ryan Furey
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI.
Marilyn ten Brink
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI.
Melissa McCullough
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC.
External Review
Michael Steinhoff
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Boston, MA.
David Rouse
American Planning Association, Washington, DC.
Technical Review
Aaron Ferster
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
John Carriger
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
v
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
Executive Summary x
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Gap Analysis Rationale and Report Overview 3
1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control 3
2. Tools Gap Analysis Methodology 4
2.1 Tool Sources 4
2.2 Community Management Action Needs 5
2.4 When Is a Gap Met? 8
3. Gap Analysis Results 9
4. Meeting Gaps: Strategies, Guidance, and Considerations for Tool Development 41
4.1 From Interpretation to Tool Development 41
4.2 General Strategies for Tool Conception, Execution, and Implementation 41
4.2.1 Tool Production Approaches 42
4.2.2 Available Collaboration Resources 43
4.3 Guidance and Scope for Agency Tool Development 44
4.4 Software Life-Cycle Management and Considerations 46
4.4.1 Lean Tool Development 47
4.4.2 Final Considerations 49
5. References 50
6. Appendices 51
Appendix A: Report-Out from 2016 EPA Scientist-Stakeholder Charrette 51
Appendix B: OSIM Tool Development Flow Charts 63
7. Glossary 66
vi
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. READ entry for the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). 4
Figure 3.1. Counts of management actions by STAR objective. 9
Figure 3.2. Percentage of management actions gaps by STAR Objective. 11
Figure 3.3. Total count of actions both with and without tools by STAR Objective. 12
Figure 4.1. Idealized depiction of the intersection of relevant components needed
to identify new tool concepts. 45
Figure 4.2. EPA's System Life-Cycle Management (SLCM) procedure framework. 47
Figure 4.3. Lean IT Toolkit Framework. 48
Figure 4.4. Lean IT Toolkit Agile Development Process. 48
vii
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Community Stakeholder-Identified Management Goals 1
Table 1.2 Management Actions Implemented by Stakeholders 1
Table 2.1 Management Action Needs Sources 5
Table 2.2 Screening Criteria for Management Action Exclusion 6
Table 2.3 STAR Community Rating System Framework of Objectives 7
Table 3.1 Management Actions with the Most Associated Tools 10
Table 3.2 Top 20 Tools Capable of Addressing Multiple Management Actions 13
Table 4.1 Modalities of Citizen-Government Co-Production of e-Tools 42
viii
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APA American Planning Association
BMP Best Management Practice
CDC US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
COG Council of Governments
CoP Community of Practice
C2C Citizen to Citizen
C2G Citizen to Government
DASEES Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society
DDES Developing and Deploying Environmental Software
DOT Department of Transportation
EA Enterprise Architecture
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
G&C Government and Citizen
G2C Government to Citizen
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
Gov't Government
HIA Health Impact Assessment
IT Information Technology
LID Low-impact Development
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIMBY Not in My Backyard
OEI Office of Environmental Information
ORD US EPA Office of Research and Development
OSIM Office of Science Information Management
PC2 Public-Private Citizen Collaboration
READ Registry of EPA Applications, Models, and Data Warehouses
SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
SLCM System Life-Cycle Management
STAR Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities
SUSTAIN System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration
SWMM Storm Water Management Model
UX User Experience
ix
-------
EPA/600/R-18/249
September 2018
Executive Summary
Communities are faced with managing environmental, health, and quality-of-life issues ranging
from walkability of neighborhoods to aging water treatment infrastructure. The US EPA has
developed models, guidance, tools, and applications to better equip community decision-makers
with an understanding of the impacts of their actions on the resources of their surrounding
community. To continue effectively addressing these needs, a better understanding of which needs
have and have not been met with current resources and tools is warranted.
A gap analysis of the lack of coverage of community environmental management needs by EPA
software tools was conducted. The Registry of EPA Applications, Models, and Data Warehouses
(READ), a public repository of both Agency-developed tools and external tools, was cross-
checked with a comprehensive list of management action needs developed from stakeholder
charrettes held across a diverse set of U.S. communities. To facilitate analysis and interpretation,
the management actions were consolidated and then organized based on objectives from the STAR
Community Rating System.
The gap analysis results show that just over half of the management actions are unaddressed by
the existing suite of tools, suggesting the possibility of continued tool development contingent on
Agency priorities. Actions grouped by the STAR categorization scheme show that over a third of
the community management actions are in just four (Natural Resource Protection, Civic
Engagement, Transportation Choices, and Community Water Systems) out of 23 STAR categories,
indicating that community priorities are focused on these categories. Likewise, one-third of the
actions without tools are grouped in just three (Community Water Systems, Soils and Sediments,
and Energy Efficiency) of the 23 categories, showing Community Water Systems as having high
community priority and high lack of tools.
The report provides guidance and recommendations for both the EPA and current and future
external collaborators as they work to address the gaps in software and tools. Several modes for
tool co-production between citizens, private entities, and government are presented alongside
guidance for building and maintaining effective tools that respond to user needs and Agency
priorities. Overviews of Agency tool development resources, policies, procedures, and
recommendations for software life-cycle management from inception to retirement are presented.
x
-------
1. Introduction
Communities are faced with managing environmental, health, and quality-of-life issues ranging from
improving the walkability of neighborhoods to the city-wide replacement of aging water treatment
infrastructure. As part of its mandate, the EPA has developed guidance, information, databases, and digital
tools to support communities with these issues. To continue effectively addressing these needs, a better
understanding of which needs have and have not been met with current resources and tools is warranted.
A tools gap analysis was conducted with respect to representative community management needs,
including both tools created by the EPA and those created by others. This report presents the motivation,
methodology, and results of the analysis, along with suggested steps for developing the next generation
of community management tools. While a major focus of this work is to help the EPA decide on which
tools to create, it is anticipated the audience for this information will include developers working for or in
collaboration with the EPA, and individuals, Communities of Practice, and organizations external to the
EPA with similar research goals.
1.1 Background
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program (US EPA 2015) aims to provide
knowledge, data, and tools for communities to use in enhancing sustainability. Co-authors from SHC
collaborated on this report. The gap analysis described here was conceived based on prior concerns from
SHC personnel, advisory board members and community spokespeople who all pointed to the relevance
of a gap analysis study for coordinating future research efforts in SHC.
In 2016, SHC met with community stakeholders (Appendix A) to garner feedback from potential SHC
tool users on current development and future implementation of tools. The discussions were organized
around three areas of inquiry:
1. understanding common management decisions communities face;
2. assessing the utility/design of tools supporting those management decisions; and
3. identifying priority needs that SHC might address in the future.
The stakeholders identified several overarching goals for which tools and other support would be helpful.
As listed in Table 1.1, these include:
Table 1.1 Community Stakeholder-
dentified Management Goals.
Equity
Health and Safety
Well-being
Clean Air and Water
Access to Healthy Food
Healthy Economy
Several communities were already tracking progress towards those goals by implementing and tracking
the following management actions (Table 1.2):
Table 1.2 Management Actions Implemented by Stakeholders.
Decreasing Greenhouse Gases
Avoiding Displacement with
Growth
Creating and/or Maintaining
Affordable Housing
Protecting Cultural Heritage
Protecting Greenspace
The stakeholders described the types of decisions they were making on a recurring basis and they felt had
the greatest potential for impact (good and bad) in their communities. These included:
1
-------
Land Use: These decisions are of concern to community stakeholders because they can have impacts over
several generations. Tool support for the following management needs is considered useful: for land use
decisions:
• Comprehensive plans, and other regular planning efforts
• Mixed use development
• Density
• Redevelopment
• Housing
• Gentrification
• Facilities placement
• Loss of green space
Infrastructure: Infrastructure choices are of similar importance as land use, as the two are inter-related.
This is especially true in terms of transportation and stormwater management. A related concern from the
workshop is the risk of sprawl and how that can disproportionately impact underserved communities
through fragmenting and isolating neighborhoods. Pointed out is the need to plan infrastructure
development for climate resiliency, to prepare for events such as Superstorm Sandy.
Materials and Waste Management: These decisions are driven by regulations that are necessary for
communities to fulfill. Similar to the siting of transportation infrastructure, stakeholders expressed
concerns over environmental justice issues where structures such as landfills might be sited near
overburdened communities.
These decision contexts align with previously identified decision sectors discussed in the SHC Strategic
Plan (US EPA 2015). These sectors are: 1) Buildings and Infrastructure, 2) Land Use, 3) Transportation,
and 4) Waste Management. A preliminary gap analysis organized around these sectors was performed for
SHC for a Sustainability Tools Inventory report (Brookes et al. 2017); the results of which identified 72
tools potentially applicable to these decision sectors that were subsequently incorporated into the Registry
of EPA Applications, Models, and Data Warehouses (READ). READ lis a comprehensive Agency-wide
compendium of computer applications, databases, and information developed entirely by the Agency, or
in collaboration with external partners, for use in supporting EPA's mission. It is an externally-facing
repository accessible to the public, providing information about tools and other resources available for use
independently or in concert with EPA officials or researchers to address management needs.
The Sustainability Tools Inventory report introduced the STAR Community Rating System2 as an
organizational framework to enable sorting of tools by area of application. The system is structured around
eight overarching community goals, each comprised of constituent objectives. Given that this framework
is a widely recognized and understood approach to community needs assessment and is congruent with
goals and objectives mentioned by SHC's external stakeholders, it was adopted to structure and compare
tool information housed in the READ database and meaningfully communicate identified gaps in meeting
community management needs.
1 https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/systmreg/searchandretrieve/basic/search.do
2 http://www.starcommunities.org/about/framework/
-------
1.2 Gap Analysis Rationale and Report Overview
In the 2018-2022 Strategic Plan3, EPA outlines 11 objectives and 26 strategic measures for improving
organizational performance and refocusing the Agency on fulfilling its Congressional mandates. One of
those objectives, refocusing the EPA's robust research and scientific analysis to inform policy making,
directs the Agency to "emphasize the translation of its work products for end user application and
feedback" (US EPA 2018). The Lean Government4 initiative at the EPA aims to improve the overall
efficiency and effectiveness through continuous improvement and eliminating waste and unnecessary
effort in programmatic processes. The aim of conducting a community tools gap analysis is consistent
with Strategic Plan goals and the Lean Government philosophy by increasing the likelihood of achieving
stated objectives through re-focusing future tool development in areas of current community need and in
alignment with strategic Agency goals. Going forward, Lean principles will inform the maintenance of
EPA's existing investments and the creation of new tools as appropriate, holding to the principle of
cooperative federalism and coordinating more smoothly with stakeholders.
The following chapters present the methods for the gap analysis, including descriptions of the
current suite of available tools and a spectrum of management actions that communities might
undertake along with a description of the process for matching tools to actions. Results are presented with
the management actions organized into separate sections sorted to the STAR Community objectives to
which they primarily contribute. For each objective, the actions covered by available tools are provided
with the relevant tools listed, and the actions unaddressed (i.e. tool gaps) are highlighted. Discussed in the
results are general trends across objectives and limitations of the extant tools regarding their real-world
application. The report concludes by synthesizing lessons learned from developers and end-users into best
practices for developing tools to meet the gaps. Additional details about the report background and
toolmaking guidance is presented in the Appendices.
1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
This report does not contain environmental data or use existing data and therefore no discussion of the
quality of the data or limitations on the use of the data with respect to their original intended application
is included. Peer reviews were completed and discussed for all research described herein. The conclusion
of the QA and peer review process is that results presented in this report accurately reflect the course of
the research and are scientifically valid and defensible.
3 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan
4 https://www.epa.gov/lean/lean-governinent
3
-------
2. Tools Gap Analysis Methodology
The gap analysis was conducted by cross-checking tools in EPA's public READ database against a list of
community management action needs that were sorted along the objectives developed for the STAR
Communities Rating System. While READ is primarily a database of EPA tools and databases, it contains
references to non-EPA tools relevant to community management actions. A management action need is
deemed met if at least one tool from the database can address it. The proportion of action needs being met
by tools per objective is reported in Chapter 3, with the proportion of actions unmet comprising the gap
per objective. More specifically, the unmet management action needs themselves are listed per objective.
2.1 Tool Sources
To determine whether gaps exist in the landscape of tools serving community management actions, an
assessment and compilation of existing tools must first be completed. Compiling such a list is non-trivial,
since that entails cataloguing not only tools created and maintained by the EPA, but all relevant tools to
the best practical attainment. The gap analysis cannot be conducted with a complete list, but with the list
available at a given time, based on leveraging several sources that attempted to compile comprehensive
lists within their domains.
The search/data gathering involved three parts: 1) evaluating review articles or reports on related topics;
2) searching databases and directories of tools identified by reports, articles, or discussions with
knowledgeable parties such as planners, EPA personnel, and modelers, and; 3) searching professional
association web sites for additional databases and directories. As previously reported, 17 reports and 57
websites were reviewed for collections of sustainability tools (Brookes et al. 2017). Gathered references
were screened for relevance and entered into the EPA's Registry of EPA Applications, Models, and Data
Warehouses (READ). READ is intended to be a complete inventory of all EPA software applications (e.g.
information systems, models) and databases, providing back-end documentation and details for EPA's
public resource venues. The addition of a comprehensive list of external tools (Brookes et al. 2017) should
provide as close to a comprehensive list as possible at a given time. We acknowledge that even careful
searches may not find all existing tools, so we do not claim that our list is completely exhaustive. If readers
are aware of other tools, they should consider these as well. READ provides descriptive information as
well as information on locating and accessing tools. In addition, READ provides information on costs of
using the tool as well as skill levels required for using tools (Figure 2.1).
SWMM Details
General
Inter dependencies
Mission Support
Architecture
Data Standards
Documents
Description
Keywords
Contacts
Access
Life-Cyde
Investment
Users
Records
description
Information Resource Identifier 12085
Information Resource Title Storm Water Management Model
Information Resource Short Title SWMM
Acronym SWMM
Short Description [Max 255 chars] A comprehensive computer model for analysis of quantity and quality problems associated with urban runoff.
Description [ Max 4000 chars]
\ comprehensive computer model for analysis of quantity and quality problems associated with urban runoff. Hydrology and hydraulics model that aids In the design of
Figure 2.1. READ entry for the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).
4
-------
2.2 Community Management Action Needs
The management action needs used in the gap analysis are sourced from an existing list of actions
compiled by SHC researchers over the course of working with partners and stakeholders and are reflective
of community needs, i.e. issues common to a broad cross-section of communities (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Community Management Action Needs Sources.
Community Mangement Action Sources
American Planning Association
Cape Cod Commission
High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines: Best Practices forthe Public Right-of-Way; American Planning Association
National Estuary Program Means Objective
Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Honey Creek, Oklahoma
Norfolk, Virgina
Seattle, Washington DOT
Stormwater Guidelines for Green, Dense Redevelopment: Stormwater Quality Solutions forthe City of Emeryville, California
EPA's SystemSketch tool
US EPA National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices
The intent of the action list was to catalog a collection of community management actions that respond to
a wide variety of community needs. Management actions were sourced from individual communities
(Cape Cod, MA; Seattle, WA; Emeryville, CA; Honey Creek, OK; and Norfolk, VA) with unique
geography, economic conditions, environmental concerns, demographics etc. and from sources with a
wider lens such as the US EPA's National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater5
and the American Planning Association6 (APA). It is anticipated the diversity of sources and the quantity
of compiled actions will offer a robust overview of common management actions used by communities.
The management action database is comprised of 731 community management actions. Two-thirds (468)
of these actions were removed, leaving a final count of 263 actions for analysis. Management actions were
removed from the database for any of three reasons: duplication, specificity, or scope. To avoid "double-
counting," management actions that were very similar, or redundant actions, were eliminated from the
analysis. For example, the database contains residential water conservation practices, residential water
conservation programs, and just water conservation practices. Given the similarity in these actions and
the pedantic difference between a practice and program, the first two actions were removed given the
water conservation practices action encompasses all three actions. Some management actions were
considered too vague to meaningfully assess with any specificity what tool may or may not address that
action. For example, municipal landscaping was a management action considered too vague and was
removed. Additionally, some management actions were outside of the scope of EPA's mission (i.e. city
tour information, community policing, digital marketing) or too geographically broad (i.e. establish state
wetlands protection policies) and were removed. These consolidations were made using the authors'
discretion. Table 2.2 provides definitions of the management action exclusion criteria.
5 https://www.epa.gOv/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater#edu
6 https://www.planning.org/
5
-------
Table 2.2 Screening Criteria for Management Action Exclusion.
Criterion
Description
Duplication
Management actions which are similar from one another in terms
of their meaning or execution were considered duplicative. These
were consolidated from two or more actions into one
management action for the matching to tools.
Specificity
Specific management actions that are applicable to a problem
common across communities were accepted. Actions were
excluded if they addressed issues unique to one city or region, or
if a specific action by a government agency, community group, or
professional was not identified.
Scope
Management actions were considered outside the scope of the gap
analysis if they extended beyond one or more metropolitan areas
or watersheds (e.g. policy adoption at the state or national level),
or beyond the EPA's purview in communities (i.e. community
policing).
2.3 STAR Community Objectives
For organizational purposes and to provide greater meaning to the reader, management action needs, both
met and unmet with tools, were sorted into STAR categories (Table 2.3). It should be stressed the use of
the STAR objectives is not to rate communities but to better communicate gaps in meeting needs by
applying a widely used and recognized classification convention. For comparison, a similar framework to
the STAR ratings is the APA's Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places7, which provides a
breakdown of lessons learned via overarching principles and specific underlying practices that
municipalities can incorporate into their long-term strategic plans.
Using the STAR Community Rating System Framework8, Version 2.0, as a guide, management actions
were assigned the most appropriate STAR Objective. While the STAR Objectives categories proved
useful for organizing management actions, the authors found that objectives relating to soil conservation
and sediment management were not accounted for by STAR. An additional "STAR" Objective was added
to the Natural Systems goal, Soil & Sediments, to account for management actions dealing with this
subject matter. The STAR Community Rating System framework can be found in Table 2.3.
7 https://www.planning.org/sustainingplaces/compplanstandards/
8 http://www.starcoimnunities.org/about/framework/
6
-------
Table 2.3 STAR Community Rating System Framework of Objectives.
STAR Goal Area
STAR Objectives
Built Environment
Ambient Noise & Light
Community Water Systems
Compact & Complete Communities
Housing Affordability
Infill & Redevelopment
Public Parkland
Transportation Choices
Climate & Energy
Climate Adaptation
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Greening the Energy Supply
Energy Efficiency
Water Efficiency
Local Gov't GHG & Resource Efficiency
Waste Minimization
Economy and Jobs
Business Retention & Development
Green Market Development
Local Economy
Quality Jobs & Living Wages
Targeted Industry Development
Workforce Readiness
Education, Arts, and Community
Arts & Culture
Community Cohesion
Educational Opportunity & Attainment
Historic Preservation
Social & Cultural Diversity
Aging in the Community
Equity and Empowerment
Civic Engagement
Civil & Human Rights
Environmental Justice
Equitable Services & Access
Human Services
Poverty Prevention & Alleviation
Health and Safety
Active Living
Community Health
Emergency Management & Response
Food Access & Nutrition
Health Systems
Hazard Mitigation
Safe Communities
Natural Systems
Green Infrastructure
Biodiversity & Invasive Species
Natural Resource Protection
Outdoor Air Quality
Water in the Environment
Working Lands
Innovation & Process
Best Practices & Processes
Exemplary Performance
Local Innovation
Good Governance
7
-------
2.4 When Is a Gap Met?
The analysis in this report should be considered as a first step. The authors indicate gaps by identifying
management actions that have no associated tools. However, an action having an associated tool does not
mean the tool is completely suitable for that action in every context. Obstacles for the application of tools
to actions taken in a community include the scope of the tool (relative to the action in question), as well
as the costs (in time, money etc.) of acquiring and applying that tool. In the first instance, the tool may be
designed for so specific or narrow a purpose that it will not provide the complete answer that a community
might need for satisfying that action without supporting tools. A tool may be too expensive, either in direct
costs or in the cost to provide other required software or data. A tool may be too difficult to use in that it
may require scientific, technical, or professional expertise that community employees do not possess, or
it may require hardware resources that are not available to the community (Appendix A).
Further, the presence of a gap does not imply the only or best solution for addressing the identified need
is to create a new tool or modify an existing tool, software-based or otherwise. As described by SHC's
external stakeholders, many communities are limited in terms of staffing, time, and expertise that can be
dedicated to collecting data for decision-making tools. For local governments and organizations facing
such limitations, useful information can be delivered through guidance documents prescribing general
rules for commonly-faced decisions, such as the management actions listed in this report. Another simpler
vehicle might consist of a matrix showing community types, general issues, decision options, and
implications of each option (Appendix A). Examples of management actions without relevant tools that
could sometimes be addressed with "low-tech" options like guidance sheets include use alternatives to
chemical pesticides and herbicides in park and facility maintenance and provide access, support,
information, and services to adult populations living in poverty.
Gap analysis at that detail is beyond the scope of this report and depends on the community and the
decision problem as much as on the tool. Communities using this document to consider tools to use, as
well as developers looking to develop tools, should consider these additional criteria.
8
-------
3. Gap Analysis Results
A community management action without a
READ database tool that can wholly or
partially address its outcome is defined as a 52% of common community management
gap. Of the 263 management actions refined actions are not addressed by EPA tools
from the original action list, about half -
52% (138) of management actions - had no
corresponding tool. In other words, 52% of common community management actions designed to improve
the quality of the environment, civic life, economic conditions, or community cohesion are unaddressed
by EPA's tool inventory. Examples of these 138 management actions include detection of illicit discharges
of environmental contaminants, watershed-based zoning, septic system maintenance, creation of wildlife
habitat corridors, and urban heat island provisions. Conversely, 125 management actions had one or more
corresponding tool(s). Examples include stormwater education and outreach, pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood design, and prediction of the impact of sea-level rise on the built environment.
By assigning management actions to STAR Objective, one can assess, in general terms, which objective
categories communities most prioritize and concomitantly in which categories communities may desire
tools. From the analysis, it is shown that management actions relating to Natural Resource Protection were
the most common, followed by Civic Engagement, Transportation Choices, and Community Water
Systems (Figure 3.1). Over a third of the management actions came from these four objectives, suggesting
that water systems, transportation, resource protection and civic participation are major priorities for
communities.
Management Action Count by Star Objective
30
20 • 22 22
15
15
14
12
10
7 .
6 '
4
3 B Hi Hi
1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 .
Figure 3.1. Counts of management actions by STAR Objective.
9
-------
Over 1/3 of management actions came from only four STAR objectives: Water
Systems, Transportation, Natural Resource Protection, and Civic Engagement
Among the management actions with supporting tools, some actions had better coverage than others.
Some management actions had a single tool that addressed the action, and some had multiple tools.
Hazardous materials life-cycle management, for example, had the most number of associated tools, with
twelve covering this action. A list of the top 20 management actions with the most number of associated
tools can be found in Table 3.1. These management actions represent domains where the gaps are filled.
Table 3.1 Management Actions with the Most Associated Tools
Management Action
Number of Associated
Tools
Hazardous materials life-cycle
management
12
Hydrologic or hydraulic analysis
9
Integrated stormwater management
planning
7
Brownfield remediation and redevelopment
6
Hazard data collection and mapping
6
On-lot treatment
6
Rain gardens
6
Bus rapid transit
5
Comprehensive flood risk assessment
5
Establish avenues for meaningful
participation in decision-making for all
citizens and for historically disadvantaged
people
5
Infiltration basins
5
Designate protection zones for threatened
or endangered species
4
Detention ponds (wet and dry)
4
Grass-lined/open channels
4
Improve and maintain parks, greenways,
cemeteries, and other open space within
the city
4
Land re-use/re-purposing
4
Life cycle analysis for building materials
and construction
4
Low-impact development (LID) or green
design strategies
4
Permitting for well construction, operation,
and closure
4
Spill prevention and control plans
4
Every STAR Objective category contained management action gaps, with the exception of Environmental
Justice (n =1), Infill & Redevelopment (n = 3), and Hazard Mitigation (n = 4). A finding of no gaps in
these categories does not necessarily imply a lack of need for tools. Instead, the low number of expressed
10
-------
management action needs were met by at least one tool in the READ database. These categories may be
areas where further engagement with communities is needed to include actions with greater specificity.
Figure 3.2 shows the percentage of management action gaps by STAR Objective. The blue bars represent
management actions with tool coverage, and the hashed bar represents tool gaps. Moving left to right, one
can see the gaps increase from 0% gaps with Hazard Mitigation, 50% gaps with Public Parkland, to 100%
gaps with Poverty Prevention & Alleviation. This figure highlights categories where tool development is
potentially needed.
Percent of Management Actions with Tools by STAR Objective
¦ Management Actions with Tools Management Actions without Tools
Figure 3.2. Percentage of management actions gaps by STAR Objective.
While figure 3.2 represents the percent of management action coverage for each STAR Objective
category, it is important to assess the total number of gaps for each category. By looking at management
action count totals we can see where daylight exists between the number of READ tools matching and not
matching actions. The hashed bars in figure 3.3 represent the number of actions without tools. By count
totals, Community Water Systems has the most number of unmet actions (16), followed by Soils and
Sediment (14), Energy Efficiency (13), and Natural Resource Protection and Biodiversity & Invasive
Species (both with 11). The Ambient Noise & Light, Food Access & Nutrition, Historic Preservation, and
Poverty Prevention & Alleviation categories, although they share small sample sizes, have no management
actions with tools (blue bars).
11
-------
Count of Management Actions With and Without Tools by STAR
Objective
¦ Mangement Action with Tools f; Management Actions without Tools
Figure 3.3. Total count of actions both with and without tools by STAR Objective.
Some tools could address multiple management actions. This suggests that some tools are more versatile
than others or were broad enough in their design to cover a variety of common community management
needs. One such tool is the System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN).
SUSTAIN is a decision-support system that assists stormwater management professionals with
developing and implementing plans for flow and pollution control measures to protect source waters and
meet water quality goals. The gap analysis showed this tool to be flexible enough to cover 17 different
management actions, including green roof programs, permeable pavement implementation, in-line
storage, detention ponds, and rain garden construction, to name a few. Table 3.2 provides a list of the top
20 tools covering the most management actions.
12
-------
Table 3.2 Top 20 Tools Capable of Addressing Multiple
Vlanagement Actions
Tool Name
Number of Management Actions Tool Covers
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis
Integration (SUSTAIN)
17
Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool
(WMOST) v. 1
11
Environmental Education and Information Clearinghouse -
Region 10
10
Conservation Planning System (C-PLAN)
9
NatureServe Vista
8
Source Loading and Management Model for Windows
(WinSLAMM)
8
Envision Tomorrow
7
Materials Management Wizard (MWiz)
7
National Stormwater Calculator Mobile Web Application
7
Stormwater & Wastewater Management Model (SWMM)
7
VELMA ecohydrological model and decision support
framework
6
Green Infrastructure Wizard (GlWiz)
5
IDRISI
5
Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Analysis (L-THIA)
5
SmartGAP
5
UrbanSim
5
Climate Ready Water Utilities Framework (CRWUF)
4
Nonpoint Source Outreach Tool
4
StreetMix
4
Urban Footprint
4
The summary results of this gap analysis provided a broad picture of where gaps may lie across STAR
Objectives. The detailed results are described on pages 15-41 including the management-action-to-tool-
matching exercise conducted in this analysis. The latter are useful for interpreting the summary figures
presented above. These pages are organized by STAR Objectives. Each Objectives page contains a
comprehensive list of:
• Management actions with tools
• Management actions without tools
• Relevant tools that are either wholly or partially covered by management actions
Contained in these pages are the data used to complete the quantitative side of this gap analysis. For
enhanced interpretability, each management action was numbered and matching numbered subscripts
were given to each corresponding tool. This provides future users of this information with a way to quickly
assess which management actions would benefit from tool development, which tools can be used to
address management actions, and what broad STAR Objective categories need service via further tool
development.
13
-------
Minimize and manage ambient noise and light levels to protect public
hValth and the integrity of ecological systems
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
ELEVANT TOOLS
ITH TOOLS
WITHOUT TOOLS
Noise reducing berm construction
Establish municipal streetlighting standards
BIENT NOISE & LIGHT
15
-------
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RELEVANT TOOLS
v?
^^WITH TOOLS
1 Rapid assessment of invasive species risk
yll^
^^WITHOUT TOOLS
• Fish passage structures in streams or rivers
• Identify performance measures for management
of target species
• Conserve ecologically important species
• Carrying capacity assessment of priority species
• Habitat loss Assessment
• Integrated pest management
• Prevention and control strategies for invasive
species
• Wildlife habitat corridors
• Identify current or potential nesting areas
• Native plant programs
• Turfgrass alternatives
TOOL
3
Risk Assessment Portal1
This site is a portal to all things about risk from
EPA's perspective. For an ecological risk
assessment, this tool evaluates the likelihood
that the environment may be impacted as a
result of exposure to one or more environmental
stressors such as chemicals, land change,
disease, invasive species and climate change
EPA uses risk assessment to characterize the
nature and magnitude of health risks to humans
and ecological receptors from chemical
contaminants and other stressors that may be
present in the environment.
16
-------
Recognize important local government practices and processes that underpinthe
implementation of sustainability measures and accelerate community-scale achievement
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITH TOOLS
1. Permitting for well construction., operation, and closure
2. Spill prevention and control plans
3. Hazardous materials life cycle management
4. Spill prevention and control plans
5. Farm pollution management planning
6. Construction site housekeeping BMPs
7. Concrete washouts
8. Pavement lifecycle management
9. Community emergency operations plan
10. Assess condition of critical infrastructure and facilities
11. Solar-oriented design
9V
WITHOUT TOOLS
Certification program for BMP implementation
Utility cut restoration and management
Low maintenance landscape design standards
Implement Lean and Six Sigma process methods
Good municipal vehicle fueling practices
Implement construction demolition and deconstruction
best practices
T renchless technologies
Cost-benefit analysis
Septic system maintenance
17
TOOLS
Underground Injection Control - R61
Underground Injection Control - R81
Underground Injection Control - R91
SimaPro34'8
Emergency Management Portal2 4
Hydrologic and Water Quality System5
AgDRIFT5
Multi-sector Evaluation Tool for
Resilience Options510
Life Cycle Assessment Access System3
MO FAT2 4
I
Region 3 Well Information Management
System
-------
Recognize important local government practices and processes that underpinthe
implementation of sustainability measures and accelerate community-scale achievement
RELEVANT TOOLS
RE-Powering's Electronic Decision
Tree11
Incident Command Tool For Protecting
Drinking Water2 4
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment
of Chemical and other Environmental
Impacts3
Automated Geospatial Watershed
Assessment5
Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool5 |
Environmental Assessment System for
Environmental TECHnologies3
Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support
Tool3
ORD Life Cycle Assessment Database3
Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization
Tool3
Nanoproduct Life Cycle Inventory
Database3
Human and Ecological Exposure and
Risk in Multimedia Environmental
Systems3
International BMP Database and EPA
Geoplatform6 7
RIVERINE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT MODEL24
GREENSCOPE3 |
Open Source Software for LCA3 |
Guiding Actions for Sustainability
Interface3
Community emergency operations plan9
Toxics Release Inventory Processing
System10
Climate Ready Water Utilities
Framework10
The Riverine Emergency Management
Model (REMM) is a computer program
and associated river, chemical, and
geographic data files which computer the
time of travel, and optionally, the fate of a
chemical spill, on a river system for
various flow conditions.
-------
Ml-..
inclusiye cK^engagement^throughJh^empowerrrient
members to participate in local decision making
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
rtfh
^^WITH TOOLS
1. Education about conservation of
endangered species
2. Education about waste reduction at the household and
community levels
3. Hazardous materials storage education & outreach
4. Low impact development (LIDVgreen design education &
outreach
5. Non-point source pollution education and outreach
6. Pest management outreach & education
7. Pet waste management education & outreach
8. Pollution prevention for businesses education & outreach
9. Stormwater education & outreach
10. Adopt-a-Rain Garden Program
11. Adopt-a-stream programs
12. Automobile maintenance outreach and education
13. Collaborative decision making
14. Community watershed stewardship grants
15. Volunteer water quality monitoring program
^^WITHOUT TOOLS
City dashboard
Community design charrette
Stakeholder meetings
Parking management: parking enforcement and education
Residential car washing education & outreach
• Promote recycling
RELEVANT TOOLS
v?
^^TOOLS
Environmental Education and
Information Clearinghouse' 2'3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
National Directory of Volunteer
Monitoring Programs15
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for
Watershed Protection14
Nonpoint Source Outreach Tool' 59
Green Infrastructure Wizard4 91011
Materials Management Wizard2 3
Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy, and Society13
DASEESisan open-source, web-based
decision analysis framework. It focuses on
sustainable systems and communities.
DASEES creates a formal framework so
common sense decision-making principles can
be applied to more complex environmental
issues.
-------
e of communities to climate
economic, health, and social
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
Climate Ready Water Utilities
Framework2
Climate Resilience Evaluation
& Awareness Tool2
EPA has developed CREAT a software
tool to assist drinking water and
wastewater utility owners and operators
in understanding potential climate
change threats and in assessing the
related risks at theirindividual utilities
V§
TOOLS
Multi-sector Evaluation Tool for
Resilience Options3
Sea Level Rise Coastal Property Model1
Climate Change Inland
Flooding Damages Model2
3*
^^WITHOUT TOOLS
• Monitor tidal patterns and its effect on flooding
throughout the community
• Predict future shoreline conditions
• Require shade trees in parking lots within
landscaping regulations
• Urban heat island provisions
ITH TOOLS
1 Integrate sea-level rise into development
regulations
2. Predict impact of sea-level rise on built environment
3. Climate resilience assessment
20
-------
-Provide a cleaaancTsecure water supply for all local users through the management
^^of'pdtable water, wastewater, stormwater, and other piped infrastructure
5
5 /o °F ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITH TOOLS
RELEVANT TOOLS
TOOLS
Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Analysis1
1. Integrated management of ground and surface water
2 Decentralized wastewater treatment
3. Wastewater Management Plan
4. Sewer infrastructure analysis and rehabilitation
WITHOUT TOOLS
Catch basin inserts (storm drain or curb inlets)
Check dams
Cluster treatment systems
Graywater reuse systems
Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Metering and leak detection
Advanced wastewater treatment
Scalable wastewater treatment system design
Regular drinking water system maintenance
Regular wastewater system maintenance
Storm drain maintenance
Wastewater infrastructure planning
Alum injection
Clear debris from drainage ditches and drain
structures each year
Community hotline to report illicit discharges and
dumping
Title 5 septic system replacement
Hydrologic and Water Quality System1 |
Watershed Management Optimization
Support Tool2 ^
System for Urban Storm water Treatment
and Analysis Integration1
Storm and Sanitary Analysis4
Water Finance Clearinghouse2
MIKE URBAN4
MIKE URBAN is urban water modelling
software for modelling sewers, storm water
drainage systems, and water distribution
systems.
21
-------
r
iatUnauJ.1
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
5© (*i I'cLjUO l'lHH>]llUtlUViiJk
e kef
RELEVANT TOOLS
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
7>
WITH TOOLS
1. Pedestrian-oriented neighborhood design
TOOL
WITHOUT TOOLS
Mixed-use neighborhood development
Assess City codealignmentwith comprehensive
plan
Compact development
Derelict structures program
Urban growth boundaries (UGB)
Infrastructure extension limits
Watershed-based zoning
Overlay zones
Mixed income housing
StreetMix1
StreetMix is a streetscape design
visualization tool. Add bike paths. widen
sidewalks or traffic lanes, and learn how
all of this can impact your community.
22
-------
Minimize energy use and demand in the residential, commercial, and
industrial sectors as a means to increase energy efficiency in the community
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
ITH TOOLS
1. Cleaner fuel construction equipment
2. Solar energy installations
3. Climate resilience assessment
4. Energy efficient building design and retrofits
5. Analyze energy use patterns and trends in municipal
facilities and city-owned properties
WITHOUT TOOLS
Incentivize alternatives to gas-powered vehicles
Clean energy financing programs
Community Energy Policy
Convert to high-efficiency LED street lighting
Encourage development of renewable energy sources
Energy cogeneration or combined heat and power
Energy efficient lighting
Geothermal heating and cooling technologies
Green building certification
Greenhouse gas inventory
Greenhouse gas reduction targets
Home weatherization
Renewable energy installations on municipal property
ARE ADDRESSED BY
RELEVANT TOOLS
TOOLS
Diesel Emissions
Quantification for Retrofits1
RE-Powering's Electronic Decision Tree2!
RapidFire:
I
Targeted Retrofit Energy Analysis Tool4
Quick Energy Simulation Tool5
eQuest is a building energy analysis tool
that can perform detailed analysis of
buildingdesign technologies using
buildingenergyuse simulation
techniques, but without requiring
extensive experience in the "art" of
building performance modeling.
23
-------
STAR OBJECTIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Ensure no neighborhoods or populations are
overburdened by environmental pollution
l< .... \
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITH TOOLS
1. Establish avenues for meaningful participation in
decision-making for all citizens and in particular for
historically disadvantaged people
WITHOUT TOOLS
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
ELEVANT TOOLS
TOOLS
Ml RA/Decision Consequences Model1
Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy, and Society
MetroQuest1
Community Cumulative Assessment
Tool1
24
Environmental Justice Screening
and Mapping Tool1
EJSCREEN is an environmental justice
mapping and screening tool that provides EPA
and the public with a nationally consistent
dataset and approach for combining
environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN users choose a geographic area;
the tool then provides demographic and
environmental information for that area. All of
the EJSCREEN indicators are publicly-available
data. EJSCREEN simply provides a way to
display this information and includes a method
for combining environmental and demographic
indicators into EJ indexes.
-------
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
RELEVANT TOOLS
WITHOUT TOOLS
Local food production and agriculture
Urban agriculture
Urban gardens and community gardens
25
-------
to human populations
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
ELEVANT TOOLS
WITH TOOLS
1. Vegetated buffer/filter strips
2 Floating constructed wetlands
3. Cisterns
4. Detention ponds (wet and dry)
5. Grass-lined/open channels
6. Green/Permeable parking and sidewalks
7. Green roof program
8. Rain gardens
9. Low impact development (LID) or green design
strategies
10. Use of chemical-free and toxic-free building
materials
WITHOUT TOOLS
Blue roofs
Green walls
Hydroponic wastewater treatment
Plant trees in trenches or continuous soil zones
TOOLS
Stormwater & Wastewater Management
Model4^
VELMAecohydrological model
and decision support framework12
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment
and Analysis Integration3'42'576'81
National Stormwater Calculator6 8
Watershed Management Optimization
Support Tool9
Eco-Bat1° j
ATHENA Impact Estimator for Buildings10 |
InfoSWMM98
CivilStorm45
PCSWMM9'8
Source Loading and Management
Model4'5'68
-------
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
TOOLS
WITH TOOLS
1. Hazard data collection and mapping
2 Hazard mitigation planning
3. Flood protection hard infrastructure
4. Relocate utilities in at-risk flood zones
o\
WITHOUT TOOLS
CommunityViz4
_!
Urban Footprint4
All Hazards Waste Management
Planning Tool2
Tool to aid State, Local and Tribal planners
prepare waste management plans for homeland
security incidents
stools
CERCLIS Database Online/CPAD1
Superfund Enterprise Mngmt System1 |
Air Quality System Data Mart1 |
Toxics Release Inventory1
RIVERSPILL1
]
Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool2 |
Climate Resilience Evaluation
& Awareness Tool3
27
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators11
Climate Ready Water Utilities Framework3]
Scenario Planning Analytical Resources
Core INDEX4
SPARC is a cloud-served data transformation
service that supports urban and regional
scenario planning with INDEX Online
-------
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITH TOOLS
RELEVANT TOOLS
^^WITHOUT TOOLS
• Allow adaptive reuse of historic structures within
the zoning ordinance
• Guidelines for maintenance and rehabilitation of
structures in historic districts
• Historic preservation education and outreach
28
-------
FocusTgrowth
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITH TOOLS
TOOLS
1. Brownfield remediation and redevelopment
2 Phytoremediation
3. Land re-use/re-purposing
WITHOUT TOOLS
Assessment, Cleanup, Redevelopment,
Exchange System1
Hazardous Waste Clean-Up
Information Websites2
CommunityViz13
I
Cleanups In My Community II1 I
Envision Tomorrow13 I
Scenario Planning Analytical Resources
Core INDEX13
29
Urban Footprint13
The UrbanFootprint model is a powerful land use
planning, modeling, and data organization
framework designed to produce results for the
following metrics: land consumption; vehicle miles
traveled (VMT); greenhouse gas emissions; building
energy and water consumption; household costs for
housing, transportation and utilities; public health
impacts and costs; local fiscal impacts.
-------
NATURAL RESOURCE
PROTECTION
Protect, enhance and restore natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes to
confer resilience and support clean water and air, food supply, and public safety
tM \<<,i r' •'*' -W
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
ELEVANT TOOLS
WITH TOOLS
Adopt a "no net loss" policy of wetland acreage
Restore degraded wetlands
Restore river or stream channels
Develop a shoreline protection, restoration, and
management plan
5. Implement coordinated landscape-scale restoration
of hydrological function
6. Surface water remediation wetlands
7. Restore and protect natural floodplains
8. Guide development away from floodplains
9. Acquire land for conservation
10. Conservation easements
11. Define and map ecologically sensitive areas to
target for conservation and/or restoration
12. Designate protection zones for threatened or
endangered species
13. Protect natural features and resources during and
after development
14. Develop a conservation plan
15. Habitat vegetation survey
16. Construct biological condition gradient (BCG)
model and report on ecosystem condition
TOOLS
1,2
Wetlands Information Layer
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program16
Water Quality Exchange3
EnviroAtlas16
Bulletins Live! Two12
Marine Debris Prevention Toolkit4
VELMAecohydrological model and
decision support framework3 5 6
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment
and Analysis Integration6
30
IDRISI10,11'12'13'14
Widely used for the prioritization of conservation
and planning efforts, Land Change Modeler
allows you to rapidly analyze land cover
change. simulate future land change scenanos,
model REDD emission scenarios, and model
species impacts and biodiversity.
-------
PROTECTION
Protect, enhance and restore natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes to
confer resilience and support clean water and air, food supply, and public safety
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
^^WITHOUT TOOLS
• Beach nourishment (beach and dune restoration)
• Create or improve migration routes
• Encourage agricultural practices that enhance
habitat
• Maintain a well-defined "edge" around each
community that is permanently protected from
development
• Maintain natural terrain , drainage, and vegetation,
minimizing disruption of natural systems
• Plant native tree species in wetland buffer zones
• Proper discharge of chlorinated water
• Restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
• Shoreline restoration
• Living shoreline stabilization
• Funding for open space acquisition
RELEVANT TOOLS
^^TOOLS
Watershed Management Optimization
Support Tool7
NatureServe Vista7,9'10'11'12'13'15
NatureServe Vista is a scenario-based desktop
application that allows users to weight and
integrate diverse values and goals for
alternative land uses, making it suitable for
complex projects that integrate multiple
conservation elements (species: ecosystem
types and cultural features), objectives, and
land-use scenanos including climate change.
Conservation Planning
System7-9-10'11'12'13'14-15
C-Plan is a conservation decision support
software that links with GIS to map options for
achieving explicit conservation targets The
system calculates the irreplaceability value of
landscape elements in terms of characteristics
such as species composition and vegetation
types.
Stormwater & Wastewater
Management Model8
31
-------
STAR OBJECTIVE
I I u
'OUTDOOR AIR QUALITY
R %
1 nin H'PRm
: I ,! L iFffl
_
ti jq
% ki rr* ~
HMI
Ensure that outdoor air quality is healthy for all segments of the human
mSS*1^ mWM 'i * ; tf * & I
9 >1 population! and protects^tne^welfare of the community T| |
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
<3!
TH TOOLS
1. Reduced-emission materials in construction and
maintenance
WITHOUT TOOLS
Vehicle idling policy
ETC?
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
ELEVANT TOOLS
TOOLS
Materials Management Wizard1
MWiz is an interactive web application that
connects public users and communities to EPA
Sustainable Materials Management tools &
resources.
ATHENA Impact Estimator for Buildings1
An impact assessment and decision-support
tool for selection of material mixes and other
design options that will minimize a building's
potential life cycle environmental impacts.
SOLVENT ALTERNATIVES GUIDE1
The SAGE system is a PC-based expert system
that recommends surface cleaning alternatives
The recommended alternatives are
charactenzed by their potential to reduce the
discharges of toxic, hazardous, volatile, and
ozone depleting pollutants into the atmosphere.
32
-------
STAR OBJECTIVE
POVERTY PREVENTION &
ALLEVIATION
Alleviate the impacts of poverty, prevent people from falling into poverty, and proactively
enable those who are living in poverty to obtain greater, lasting economic stability and security
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITH TOOLS
WITHOUT TOOLS
Affordable housing trust fund
Provide access, support, information, and
services to adult populations living in poverty
ELEVANT TOOLS
TOOLS
33
-------
Create a system of well-used and enjoyable public parkland that
features equitable and convenient walkable access for residents
throughout the community
J
wtVi
.,4t fcjJ
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
RELEVANT TOOLS
NatureServe Vista3
Social Values for Ecosystem Services1
En viro Atlas1
Urban Footprint1
^^WITH TOOLS
1 Improve and maintain parks, greenways,
cemeteries, and other open space within the city
2 Add seating to pockets of shaded outdoor green
space
3. Cultivate trees for reforestation in public and private
nurseries
3^
WITHOUT TOOLS
Protect and create urban green space
Urban forestry
Use alternatives to chemical pesticides and
herbicides in park and facility maintenance
34
EcoSpot12
EcoSpotwill allow a user to quickly identify
specific locations and attnbutes of nature from
which they derive aesthetic or cultural value.
Conservation Planning System3
C-Plan is a conservation decision support
software that links with GIS to map options for
achieving explicit conservation targets. The
system calculates the irreplaceability value of
landscape elements in terms of charactenstics
such as species composition, vegetation types,
etc.
-------
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
ITH TOOLS
1. Soil retention
2 Infiltration trenches (infiltration galleries)
3 Conservation tillage
4 Gradient terraces
5. Permanent slope diversions
WITHOUT TOOLS
Chemical stabilization
Construction sequencing for erosion and sediment control
Crop nutrient management
Determine the relative contribution of sediments to overall
water quality and light extinction curves
Erosion and sediment filters
Hydroseeding
Plant cover crops
Pond and estuary dredging
Sediment traps
Soil amendments
Soil analysis
Structural or engineered soils
Use dredged material for land creation, construction fill,
and caps
Wind fences and sand fences
STOOLS
Retention Curve Computer Code1
Environmental Policy Integrated Climate
Model13
Explicit Green-Ampt Model2
The initial Green-Ampt model was the first
physically-based model/equation describing the
infiltration of water into soil.
Source Loading and Management Model
for Windows4 5
WinSLAMM has been used to quantify
stormwater runoff volume and pollution loading
and evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater
control measures.
35
-------
Rigmote diverse transportation modes, including walking, biking^ and
transit, that are safe, low-cost, and reduce vehicle miles traveled
Mternative
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
ITH TOOLS
v§
TOOLS
1. Car-sharing programs/services
2 High-Occupancy-Vehichle (HOV) lanes
3 Promote transit use and carpooling: get low cost or
free transit passes into more people's hands
4 Improvement of streetscapes for surface mass
transit
5. Bus rapid transit
6 Complete Streets policy
7 Long range transportation planning
8. Road diets
9 Street designs that support/enhance access
between neighborhoods and to neighborhood
-based commercial developments
10. Traffic management
11 Multi-modal transportation network, including high
quality connections across metropolitan regions
12 Add sidewalks and bicycle facilities where needed
13. Bicycle and pedestrian connectors
BARRIERS4
Travel Demand Management1
,3
UrbanSim5'7'89
Envision Tomorrow5 7 910
The Energy and Emissions Reduction
Policy Analysis Tool5
Surface Transportation Efficiency
Analysis Model5
STEAM uses information developed through the
travel demand modeling process to compute the
net value of mobility and safety benefits
attributable to regionally important
transportation projects.
36
-------
Rigmote diverse transportation modes, including walking, biking^ and
transit, that are safe, low-cost, and reduce vehicle miles traveled
Mternative
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WITHOUT TOOLS
Add bike and walk time information to downtown
attractions along transit routes, and in tourist and
dining guides
Bike share program
Bus shelters
City bike map
Congestion pricing
Guidance for flexible parking requirements
High-speed passenger rail
Parking management
Re-use former rail lines and/or underutilized
rights-of-way for trails and bicycle/pedestrian
network.
V8
^^TOOLS
StreetMix81213
SmartGAP57-9'11
SmartGAP is a tool for evaluating the impact of
various smart growth policies SmartGAP is
designed to be a high-level evaluation at a
regional scale that can bhdge the distance
between evaluating smart growth policies dunng
a regional visioning process and evaluating
smart growth policies at a project or alternative
level in a regional transportation plan.
37
-------
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RELEVANT TOOLS
Itf
WITH TOOLS
ri(St
TOOLS
1. Trash and debris management
2. Life cycle analysis for building materials and
construction
3. Re-use of byproducts
4 Anti-littering campaign
5. Discourage use of products that utilize packaging
derived from non-renewable, non-degradable resources
6. Employ proper chemical disposal and recycling
mechanisms
7 Use recycled and reclaimed materials for building
8. Residential recycling program
9. Use of composting for biosolids management
10. Municipal or industrial-scale composting systems
5^
WITHOUT TOOLS
Alternatives to toxic substances
Indirect potable water reuse system (IPR)
Innovative/Alternative (l/A) on-site denitrifying
systems
New wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) that
incorporate biological nutrient removal (BNR)
Used oil recycling program
38
Marine Debris Prevention Toolkit1
Open Source Software for LCA2
Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support
Tool3
Materials Management Wizard4'5 6 7
Environnemental Assessment System for
Environnemental TECHnologies2
Waste and Resources Assessment Tool
for the Environment18 9
Food Waste Assessment Tool810
Sustainable Materials Management
Prioritization Tool Suite7
ATHENA Impact Estimatorfor Buildings2
Green Engineering Materials
Management Tool for Life Cycle
Assessment (E4S)23
-------
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
vz
WITH TOOLS
1. Commercial water conservation programs
2 Impervious surface disconnection
3. Industrial water conservation programs
4 In-line storage
5. Rainwater harvesting and re-use
6. Reuse ponds (irrigation)
7 Water-efficient landscape design
8^
WITHOUT TOOLS
Agricultural water conservation programs
Direct potable water reuse system
Fertigation wells
Manufactured products for stormwater inlets
Piped and pressurized irrigation systems
Re-use processed water
Water recycling centers (WRCs) and water
recycling infrastructure
Water conservation practices
39
v§
TOOLS
Green Infrastructure Wizard5
Hydrological Simulation Program2
National Stormwater Calculator2 5 7
System for Urban Stormwater
Treatment and Analysis Integration4 6 7
SUSTAIN is a decision support system that
assists stormwater management professionals
with developing and implementing plans for flow
and pollution control measures to protect source
waters and meet water quality goals.
Watershed Management
Optimization Support Tool137
The objective of WMOST is to serve as a tool
for local water resources managers and
planners to screen a wide-range of potential
water resources management options across
their watershed or jurisdiction.
-------
AR OBJECTIVE
WATER IN THE
c*
v
ENVIRONMENT
Protect and restore the biological;
liiotar in tha n
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
$
WITH TOOLS
1. Integrated stormwater management planning
2. Hydrologic or hydraulic analysis
3. Integrated stormwater management planning
4. On-lot treatment
5. Use of recycled water for groundwater recharge
6. Infiltration basins
7 Watershed management plan
8. Creation of absorbent landscapes
9. Comprehensive flood risk assessment
10. Daylighting streams
11. Reduce directly-connected impervious surface area
(DCIA)
12. Constructed wetlands
13. Stormwater master plan
14. Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs): injection well
method
5^
WITHOUT TOOLS
Engineered aquatic buffers
Inlet/culvert widening
Sand filters
Credit for use of vegetated channels
Pond and estuary circulators
OF ACTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY
WLW
RELEVANT TOOLS
TOOLS
Long-Term Hydrologic Impact
Analysis2345
Soil Conservation Service Model6
Layered Green-Ampt Model6
Infiltration / Exfiltration Model6
Watershed Plan Builder7
VS2DI6
HexSim8
Automated Geospatial Watershed
Assessment4
OpenTERRAworks GIS-Tool8
I
40
Climate Ready Water Utilities Framework9]
Continues to Next Page
-------
(jfe.ulfe.tk
RELEVANT TOOLS
Well Head Protection Area Delineation
Model14
CivilStorm2
I
Source Loading and Management Model
for Windows2 4
PCSWMM2
Stormwater & Wastewater Management
Model234^
Water Finance Clearinghouse313
Explicit Green-Ampt Model6
National Stormwater Calculator2'3'411
Watershed Management Optimization
Support Tool2 3 7-13
InfoSWMM4
Storm and Sanitary Analysis2
4i
^•TOOLS
Nonpoint Source Outreach Tool3
Watershed Academy Web (WAW)7
Climate Change and Bridge Infrastructure
Model9
Climate Change Impacts on Urban
Drainage Model9
Climate Resilience Evaluation &
Awareness Tool9
VELMA™
I
Climate Change Inland Flooding
Damages Model9
Hydrological Simulation Program11
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment
and Analysis Integration2 3'1213
-------
4. Meeting Gaps: Strategies, Guidance, and Considerations
for Tool Development
4.1 From Interpretation to Tool Development
The results of the gap analysis indicate how community management needs may or may not be
supported by the representative selection of tools analyzed. A gap in supporting a management
action denotes no tool was identified as meeting that need. As shown in the STAR Objective
summary pages, management actions "with tools" indicate that at least one tool was identified as
supporting that action. The STAR Objective pages present the percentage of actions per category
that are met, giving a general assessment of past tool development activity in that area. While not
the focus of the report, these pages provide some additional information as to extant tools (EPA
and external) that may support community management action needs, facilitating identification of
needed support.
Individuals, Communities of Practice, and external organizations seeking to independently
develop tools meeting gaps will find this report instructive as to potential areas of endeavor. For
them, it is hoped the following discussion on strategies, guidance, and considerations will be of
benefit, even as the intended audience is envisioned as being those already working for or seeking
to work in collaboration with the EPA, particularly with its Office of Research and Development9
(ORD). Once a community, researcher, organization etc. sees a gap which they may be able to
address - either directly for, or in some collaboration with, the EPA - a better understanding of
salient development strategies, federal implementation requirements, and considerations for long-
term support and maintenance need to be factored into the deliberations used in determining
whether tool development should be attempted.
4.2 General Strategies for Tool Conception, Execution, and
Implementation
As in economics, the drivers of tool development broadly begin with the juxtaposition of unlimited
wants and needs against limited resources and opportunities. The needs of communities to meet
both emerging environmental challenges and regulatory compliance, within contexts modified by
social and economic concerns, and in an era of projected governmental austerity10, points to the
potential benefits of novel tool development strategies (Ziegler et al. 2016; Taisch et al. 2013)
and/or proposals for tools better aligned with Agency and governmental priorities. As Abraham
Lincoln opined (1854), the legitimate function of government is to assist communities in areas
where they "cannot do, ... or cannot so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual
capacities." Assisting communities at any point along the continuum—as a private entity, in a
collaborative private-public enterprise, or as a legitimate government activity—requires first
developing or identifying successful strategies, before delving into the more specific tool
development methods and standards used for actual tool creation, deployment, and maintenance.
9 https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-research-and-development-ord
111 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/fy-2018-budget-in-brief.pdf
41
-------
4.2.1 Tool Production Approaches
Depending on who a tool developer is representing, the degree of collaboration and direction of
information/services transfer may already be well-characterized. Citizen Co-Production (Linders
2012) is a term formalized in the 1970s describing the relationship between citizens and
government where citizens are active partners rather than passive consumers of public services.
Linders (2012) notes that traditionally this could be viewed as civic volunteerism, such as citizens
donating time and effort to organizations for crime and fire prevention (e.g. neighborhood watches
and auxiliary fire departments). In the information age, however, this participation lends itself to
new avenues of participation in collaborative e-governance and provision of public services.
Table 4.1 describes a matrix with four columns of e-service co-production modalities with
increasing citizen self-action moving from left to right. Each modality presents a possible
collaborative strategy supporting delivery of e-tools for community environmental management
needs. Moving top to bottom, there are three rows outlining the stages of e-service delivery ranging
from development, deployment, and long-term maintenance. Each modality has differing
expectations of the level of information shared by each partner, and the expected level of
autonomy/accountability.
Table 4.1: Modalities of Citizen-Government Co-Production of e-Tools
Citizen to Government
(C2G)
Government and Citizen
(G&C)
Government to Citizen
(G2C)
Citizen to Citizen
(C2C)
Design
Citizen sharing ideas
with Government
Co-governance
Provide information and
tools to communities for
informed decision-
making
Self-governance
Delivery
Crowd-source delivery
of information to
Government
Co-delivery of public
services
Greater integration and
access of Government
services with
communities
Self-provision of
public services
-t—'
C
CD
E
Citizen provided
feedback on
performance
Co-evaluation of tools
and services
Increased transparency
of Government function
Self-monitoring
i_
Q_
E
Adapted from Linders (2012).
A traditional approach for private developers not seeking private-public collaboration would be
the Citizen to Citizen (C2C) mode, in which government involvement is expected to be low.
Private-public options include Citizen to Government (C2G) and Government and Citizen (G&C),
with one caveat being that government agencies with regulatory mandates such as the EPA may
be unable to grant co-development and delivery of services to an extent desired by the citizenry.
42
-------
Historically, government development and delivery of e-tools and services to the public employs
the Government to Citizen (G2C) mode where agencies provide tools and information with the
expectation that communities will adopt them to solve their management needs, often using these
resources in concert with the government. Potential problems with this approach are low adoption
rates by communities, typically due to the perceived high cognitive burden (Simon 1956),
mismatch in user needs (Appendix A, Brookes et al. 2017), or inadequately designed user
experience (UX) (Taisch et al. 2017). Options to avoid these eventualities include improved tool
development methods (Agile) which are discussed later in the report. One strategy, consistent with
Agile methods is a hybrid of the C2G and G2C modes whereby, government tool developers get
timely and continuous feedback from citizen tool users throughout the tool development process.
A similar approach (Hui and Hayllar 2010) describes a Public-Private-Citizen Collaboration (PC2)
framework that envisions C2G and G2C collaboration additionally informed by ongoing C2C
communication through various social media platforms.
4.2.2 Available Collaboration Resources
Communities of Practice (CoPs) are one such C2C approach. Wenger and Snyder (2000) denote
the benefits of CoPs to organizations as helping to solve problems faster, communicating best
practices, professional skill development, and identifying new areas of research. CoPs are
organized around three elements (Wenger et al. 2009): 1) having a common domain of interest, 2)
a community of individuals helping each other learn about that domain, and 3) members being
practitioners in the domain of interest. Within the EPA, there are two CoPs with which potential
tools developers seeking to collaborate with the Agency will find useful. As these are Agency
CoPs, the amount of information available to potential external partners may be limited.
Developers' Guild: This CoP is associated with the Office of Environmental Information11 (OEI).
The OEI manages the life cycle of environmental information through providing information
technology and management support for the Agency. The Developers' Guild12 is a cross-Agency
collaborative CoP for sharing the information and tools for developers. It is a clearinghouse for a
wide range of information, support, and services both internal and external to the Agency.
Resources of interest to external developers include: Developer Central13, EPA Developers
Guidance14, and Reusable Component Services15. The last resource is part of the EPA System of
Registries16 which houses the READ database used in the gap analysis.
Developing and Deploying Environmental Software (DDES): The DDES17 is an Agency-wide
CoP associated with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) with a more specific focus
for practitioners developing scientific environmental software. Interest in this domain is spurred
by issues such as integrated modeling, software component re-use, and software interoperability
(US EPA 2008). DDES has four focus areas: 1) Software Life-Cycle, 2) Managing the Software
Enterprise, 3) Building Community, and 4) Community Platform. It is a continually evolving CoP.
11 https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-environmental-information-oei
12 https://usepa.sharepoint.com/sites/oei_Community/developers_guild/Lists/FAQ/AllItems.aspx
13 https://developer.epa.gov/
14 https://developer.epa.gov/guide/
15 https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry2/reusereg/searchandretrieve/
16 https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/sysofreg/home/overview/home.do
17 https://usepa.sharepoint.com/sites/ORD_Community/DDES/SitePages/DDES%20Home.aspx
43
-------
For more information regarding current activities, future direction, and options to access the CoP,
please refer to the EPA Scientific Knowledge Management Assessment and Needs report (Ziegler
et al. 2016).
4.3 Guidance and Scope for Agency Tool Development
The gap analysis functions as a component of a larger three-part community stakeholder
engagement effort of the SHC Research Program described in the introduction to this report—the
other parts being understanding common management decisions communities face and getting
feedback on the utility/design of tools in supporting those management decisions. That
information, in concert with gap analysis results and alignment with current Agency research
priorities, can help to identify opportunities for tool development. Figure 4.1 depicts the alignment
considerations that should be addressed when developing a tool concept seeking to solve an
environmental management problem. Once an idea is identified, it should not be considered fixed,
but a starting point that can defensibly address multiple requirements. The differing colors of the
intersecting areas denote the need for collaborative (C2G-G2C) engagement between client needs
(orange), and Agency opportunity/drivers (blue). This interaction is mediated and executed via
developers (internal and external) and CoPs (C2C).
The EPA's mission is to improve human health and the environment. Although many of the gaps
found in this gap analysis can be construed to fit within these two aims, tools to fill some of these
gaps may not be appropriate for the EPA to develop. As resources become scarcer, it is important
the Agency prioritize projects to give the American people as much value as possible.
Some of the criteria for whether to build a new tool include: need, cost, data availability, and EPA
expertise. Need includes both the level and type of need as well as the breadth of need. If a tool
represents a high level of need but a very small audience, it may be hard to justify diverting
resources from other projects to build that tool. In the past, EPA funding has allowed the
development of tools using outside help through contracts. This can be a very expensive way to
build a tool. In addition, the institutional knowledge about the tool remains with the contractor,
not the Agency, which makes maintenance and updates more difficult and more expensive.
Limiting projects to those where EPA personnel have relevant expertise, both in science and
software development, reduces cost while improving maintenance and updates.
Many tools rely on quality data to produce results. Building a tool for which the necessary data
may not exist may require the users to collect the necessary data—making tool use more
expensive—and creates results that are not comparable with other locations, either due to lack of
data or due to inconsistencies in data collection.
44
-------
The Office of Scientific Information Management (OSIM18)
provides support and guidance for tool developers in ORD
seeking to initiate new scientific applications. The Road
Map for Software Applications19guides software developers
through the steps needed to produce and manage tools over
their life-cycle. External collaborators with ORD will need
to be apprised of and work with the Road Map.
The scope of this report is especially relevant to Steps 1
(Define Concept) and 4 (Deploy) of the Road Map.
Employing gap analysis results with other considerations
shown in Figure 4.1 can help to identify the need for a tool
and provide information as to its eventual deployment mode.
Appendix B contains a three-stage flow chart (draft and
subject to revision) from OSIM for guiding tool developers
through the Road Map steps and key decision points. Once a tool need is identified, the first
decision point in the flow chart is to determine if similar software exists by reviewing the READ
database. It is envisioned the present gap analysis predicated on the READ database will have
increased the likelihood of identifying needs appropriate for the Agency to pursue. If so,
subsequent decision points cover review requirements for funding, management support, and
deployment mode. Depending on the envisioned mode (downloadable, mobile, or Web-based), the
first flow chart will direct tool developers to the appropriate process.
Decison/Management
Needs
User Tool
Needs
Agency
Objectives
Gap Analysis Results
18 https://intranet.ord.epa.gov/osim/home
19 https://intranet.ord.epa.gov/it-resources/road-map-software-applications
Road Map for Software
Applications
STEP 1: DEFINE CONCEPT
STEP 2: PLAN
STEP 3: DEVELOP
STEP 4: DEPLOY
STEP 5: OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
STEP 6: TERMINATE/RETIRE
45
-------
Figure 4.1. Idealized depiction of the intersection of relevant components needed to identify new
tool concepts. Alignment of all the components proportionally may not be practical, but making
every effort to do so increases the viability of the proposed tool. Orange areas are client/user needs
and blue areas are Agency opportunities/drivers.
From a larger perspective, the analysis shows which objective categories have the greatest need
for tool development. Prioritizing areas or gaps of greatest need can be done more quantitatively
by assigning value or weight to incremental improvements or alignment with the three other
components in Figure 1. One of the tools categorized in the analysis, DASEES (Decision Analysis
for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society) (Civic Engagement Objective), provides
the needed functionality to do a gap prioritization exercise.
4.4 Software Life-Cycle Management and Considerations
Tool development, deployment and maintenance may require collaborative efforts within and
outside the Agency, expressed Agency support both programmatically and financially, and
availability of required technological infrastructure (US EPA 2008). To review and plan for these
contingencies, a long-term life-cycle management approach for coordinating key actors in the tool
development process and beyond is required. These include clients (EPA Regions, Program
Offices, communities), developers (within and outside the Agency) and tool infrastructure
management entities responsible for environmental information, application development,
security, and support, e.g. Office of Environmental Information, Office Scientific Information
Management, and the National Computing Center, respectively.
Publicly available EPA System Life-Cycle Management20 (SLCM) information outlines the
policy, procedures and guidance for establishing and ensuring information technology (IT)
activities are cost-effectively designed, implemented, and managed consistent with mission of the
Agency. The SLCM procedure framework (Figure 4.2) outlines the requirements for completing
the overarching steps involved in defining, developing, implementing, maintaining, and
terminating EPA IT systems and their applications (software). Depending on the application, its
IT and deployment needs will vary; thus, not every aspect of the framework will fully apply, but
each step should apply. Consideration and planning of each for a software project will be required.
211 https://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policy-procedures-and-guidance-system-life-cycle-management-slcm
46
-------
Analyze Business Needs, Develop Segment
Architecture, Control Gate #1 (Segment
Architecture Review)
Concept Exploration, System Planning
Requirements, Control Gate #2 (Compliance
Certification & System Selection)
Acquisition Design, Development, Test, Control
Gate#3 (EACompliance Certification), Control
Gate #4 (Authorization to Operate (ATO))
Implement System
Operate and Maintain, Control Gate #5 (Modify
or Terminate Review)
Retire System
Figure 4.2. EPA's System Life-Cycle Management (SLCM) procedure framework.
4.4.1 Lean Tool Development
The Lean approach to government activities mentioned in Chapter 1 can be applied to
software/tool development. The Lean management principles that help reduce waste and improve
efficiency are applicable to tool development. The EPA Lean and IT Toolkit21 outlines an
integrated approach to software development (Figure 4.3) that can help better design tools to meet
stakeholder needs (Lean Startup), improve the efficiency of the development process (Lean
Process Improvement), and make development more flexible while reducing costs (Agile
Development).
Additional external resources include guidance for developing software management plans22 from
the Software Sustainability Institute. These plans include checklists for developing plans for
shorter- and longer-term software goals that span the life-cycle management timeline.
Acquisition/
Development
21 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/lean-and-it-toolkit.pdf
22 http://www.sofitware.ac.uk/software-management-plans
47
-------
Lean Startup
Agile
Development
Lean Process
Improvement
Figure out what product
or service to develop
quickly and without
wasting resources
Improve existing
processes using
Lean & IT
Develop specific
IT solutions
through a Lean
process
~
Certainty
Figure 4.3. Lean IT Toolkit Framework.
The Agile approach to software development is an iterative, time-constrained framework for
software development guided by continuous software testing and interaction with clients and users
to adapt development easily as user needs are clarified. It is organized (Figure 4.4) around short
periods of work (Sprints) in which user requirements are gathered and the software is designed,
developed, and tested with the client within the defined Sprint period (traditionally two weeks).
Client feedback leads to adapted requirements, and the cycle repeats. This approach ensures greater
certainty the eventual completed product is in a form and has a function that is requisite for the
user and that it was produced more efficiently and cost-effectively.
Requireme0
Requireme^
Figure 4.4 Lean IT Toolkit Agile Development Process. Source: Adapted from an image by Think
Interactive, Inc.
48
-------
4.4.2 Final Considerations
The focus of this report is to identify areas of potential tool development, the various collaboration
and development strategies available, and necessary policy, procedural, and technical
infrastructure requirements. It should be stressed that, when considering new ideas for tools, this
does not imply designing and building new tools independently from existing tools. There are
several reasons to not develop tools in such a manner, one being that communities may not have
the capacity to learn and implement the use of new tools. The more a tool fits into the existing
processes the community already has in place, the more likely they will be able to use it (Appendix
A). Having tools that work together (i.e. software programs that can communicate with one another
and update their underlying data and models simultaneously) allows for finding synergies that
make for better overall planning.
Two important ideas for potential tool development are software reuse and interoperability (US
EPA 2008). Software reuse can be encouraged when either designing a new tool in such a way that
components of the software will be reusable in the future or by using existing components to
streamline the time and expense in developing new tools. The System of Registries (where the
READ database is located) has a Reusable Component Services database, for finding existing web,
mobile, and other components that can support new tool design.
Interoperability is related to reuse in that tools or services are designed to conform with existing
tool or tool platform function to facilitate the exchange and use of data and information between
tools. An example of this approach is the GeoPlatform23. Through data/information consistency,
the GeoPlatform enhances the sharing of geospatial resources across the federal government,
academia, and beyond. Interoperability makes it easier to share geospatial data for new tools,
enhancing collaboration and problem-solving.
23 https://www.geoplatforni.gov/
49
-------
5. References
Brookes, A., D. Eskew, L. Wainger, D. Catanzaro, A. Britt, M. Westin, S. Whayland, S. Bartell,
and K. Weitz. Sustainability Tools Inventory - Initial Gaps Analysis. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/R-17/169, 2017.
Hui, G. and M.R. Hallyar. Creating Public Value in E-Government: A Public-Private-Citizen
Collaboration Framework in WEB 2.0. The Australian Journal of Public Administration,
Sydney, 2010. 69 (SI), S120-S131.
Lincoln, Abraham. Fragment on Government. 1 July 1854. Available at:
[http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/lincoln/fragment-on-government-july-l-1854/], accessed
by EPA on 12 April 2018.
Linders, Dennis. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen
coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 2012. 29(4), 446-
454.
Simon, Herbert A. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review,
Washington, D.C., 1956. 63(2), 129-138.
Taisch, M., V. Sadr, G. May, and B. Stahl. Sustainability Assessment Tools - State of Research
and Gap Analysis. In: Prabhu V., Taisch M., Kiritsis D. (eds.) Advances in Production
Management Systems. Sustainable Production and Service Supply Chains. IFIP Advances in
Information and Communication Technology, vol. 415. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013.
Available at: [https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01449750/document], accessed by EPA on 5 April 2018.
US EPA. Integrated Modeling for Integrated Environmental Decision Making. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/100/R-08/010, November 2008.
Available at: [https://www.epa.gov/measurements-modeling/white-paper-integrated-modeling-
integrated-environmental-decision-making-2008].
US EPA. Sustainable and Healthy Communities Strategic Research Action Plan 2016-2019. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/601/K-15/006, November 2015.
Available at: [https://www.epa.gov/research/sustainable-and-healthy-communities-strategic-
research-action-plan-2016-2019].
Wenger, E. and W. Snyder. Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard
Business Review, Brighton, MA, January-February 2000. 78 (1), 139-145.
Wenger, E., N. White, and J.D. Smith. Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities.
CPsquare, Portland, OR, 2009. 218p. Available at: [http://technologyforcommunities.com/],
Ziegler, C.R., A. Brookes, K. Burch, A. Vega, A. Yuen, G. Laniak, E. McMahon, P. Harten, B.
Subramanian, and W. Blake-Coleman. EPA Scientific Knowledge Management Assessment and
Needs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-16/259, 2016.
50
-------
6. Appendices
Appendix A: Report-Out from 2016 EPA Scientist-
Stakeholder Charrette
US EPA Sustainable and Health Communities Research Program Stakeholder Charrette
August 31 - September 1, 2016
Meeting Summary
EPA relies on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) definition of
sustainability: The national goal of achieving "conditions under which humans
and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and
other requirements of present and future generations" (National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969).
In late summer of 2016, the US EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
(SHC) held its largest stakeholder meeting to date, continuing the ongoing dialogue between the
SHC program and its target audiences. The goal for this meeting was to engage SHC's audience
in conversation with its scientists, so those scientists can develop critical information and user-
friendly decision-support tools that best inform decisions that will advance community
sustainability. Simply put, we asked them to help us to better support them. Two half-days with
ample networking time resulted in valuable input, as well as new insights and personal
connections. This appendix provides a summary of what we heard and interpreted, as it relates to
our research.
51
-------
To achieve our goal, we set three objectives for the engagement with these important stakeholder
representatives: 1) to understand our potential users' critical decisions and associated information
needs related to advancing community sustainability, especially as that has evolved since SHC's
earlier engagement, 2) to assess the utility of existing decision-support tools, so as to identify
potential refinements and lessons to apply in developing new tools, and 3) to identify priority gaps
that research and tool-development efforts could address. The stakeholders in attendance
comprised local sustainability directors (who work across local departments), non-governmental
organizations with community sustainability goals or impacts, academics who work with
communities in tool development, community environmental justice activists, and a community
planning consultant (for the list of attendees, please see pages 63 and 64). The format utilized
directed brainstorming and open
discussions about the realities of decision-
making for communities and the
information available, used regularly, and
they want to improve their impact.
SHC presented an overview of SHC's
concepts around sustainability, especially
that of interconnectedness (see graphic at
right) and the long view of wellbeing for
future generations. We noted that, while we
built the SHC program with critical input
from stakeholders 5 years ago, much has
changed, such as the availability of big data,
people's comfort with computer
applications and the experience of
devastating storms. A better understanding
of how that has changed our stakeholders'
needs was warranted to refine present work
and design future efforts to better support
community sustainability solutions.
We noted the breadth of SHC work on
translating research into knowledge and tools for decision-making:
• GIS-based tools to look at sustainability and risk-related information;
• Index of human well-being - with data at county level and for local use with local data;
• Browsers and wizards to help find the right information and tools;
• A Health Impact Assessment assistant that plugs into existing planning tools;
• Information on impacts of built and natural environments on health and wellbeing;
• Indicators for ecological and community resilience;
• Sustainable materials management guidance;
• An approach to integrate tools and information to effectively support decisions.
The meeting included overview presentations on three SHC tools: Decision Analysis for
Figure 1. The nested relationships of a resilient
economy existing within a healthy society dependent
on an intact, functional environment illustrates the
holistic definition of sustainability that recognizes the
hard constraints imposed by environmental
limitations.
52
-------
Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES)24; the Human Well-being Index
(HWBI)25; and the Green Infrastructure Wizard (GlWiz)26 (augmenting an online seminar
presentation of the EnviroAtlas27). These brief introductions were meant to provide examples of
how research is being translated by SHC into knowledge and tools for decision making.
Discussions began with identifying the most important sustainability-related goals, the common
challenging decisions that advance or hinder achievement of those goals, the tools and information
that have been useful supporting those decisions and why are they so, and finally, what kinds of
gaps are there for critical information to guide good decisions that support sustainability-related
goals? The group then brainstormed topics for breakout scenario exploration, which served to
identify common critical decisions made affecting community sustainability.
This appendix summarizes these conversations, in the framework of the abovementioned three
objectives:
1) to understand our potential users' critical decisions and associated information needs
related to advancing community sustainability, especially as that has evolved since SHC's
earlier engagement i.e. the decision contexts;
2) to assess the utility of existing decision-support tools, to identify potential refinements and
lessons to apply in developing new tools, i.e. factors to optimize tool utility and usability;
3) to identify priority gaps that SHC research and tool-development efforts could address, i.e.
priority needs.
Decision Contexts
Decision contexts were explored by asking the stakeholders about sustainability-related goals,
challenging decisions affecting sustainability, key decision makers, and other factors that affect
decisions.
Goals: Sustainability-related goals across communities' ring familiar to us all - quality of life,
health and safety, well-being, clean air and water, access to healthy food, a healthy economy,
equity. But communities vary widely - many communities set targets for decreasing greenhouse
gases, protecting greenspace, affordable housing, avoiding displacement with growth, and
protecting cultural heritage. Further, there are difficult realities for communities regarding setting
and reaching set goals.
• If everything is a goal, then nothing is a goal, making prioritization difficult across a
community's planning or action strategies.
• Priorities can change with each election, each budget cycle, a changing economy, or in
response to catastrophe, yet sustainability-related goals are about the very long term, and
often necessitate investments that only "pay off over longer time horizons.
• Equity is critical to sustainability, and to many local goals, but is often left behind in the
conversation - it reflects issues of power, legacies of disparity, and insufficient
understanding of impactful legal issues.
• "It's always about the bottom line," "if it's not monetized, it has no value."
24 http://beta.dasees.org/
25 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=289300
26 https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/giwiz
27 https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas
53
-------
• Except when it is not... Health, especially children's health or acute health issues, will take
quick priority. And vocal, emotion-driven sub-communities - NIMBYs, "loud carers,"
effective NGOs, issue or project champions or fear (real or political) can effectively sway
decision makers, notwithstanding economics, or facts.
• Uncertainty is unsettling, and people have different perceptions about what is "enough"
information to act.
An important conclusion which the audience conveyed was that sustainability goals do not need
to be labeled as such. Instead, sustainability-related goals can be couched in how given decisions
relate to specific local social and community goals, especially economic - for example, how a
decision may affect the "soul of a place," which affects local economy, or all the interconnected
issues with traffic and congestion.
Challenging decisions: Attendees well-understand the breadth of local decisions which affect
community sustainability. These were the common decisions discussed, that create opportunity for
good outcomes or for bad, depending on how they are made.
• Land Use decisions have significant impacts that will be locked in for 100 years, and when
attendees "voted with their feet," choosing an issue to discuss in case study, this topic had
by far the most participants. The following were common relevant topics for land use:
o Comprehensive, and other regular planning efforts
o Mixed use development
o Density
o Redevelopment
o Housing
o Gentrification
o Facilities placement
o Loss of greenspace
• Infrastructure decisions are similar in import to land use, and they are often discussed
together. For example, new infrastructure can enable sprawl, adding to existing
maintenance burdens. And infrastructure systems are financially intertwined. Since it uses
power to pump and treat water and water to produce electricity, anything that uses water
or electricity is doubly burdensome. Spreading water utilities over greater distances
multiplies those costs.
• Industry and goods movement decisions may be made at the local or state levels, and can
affect local populations, especially disadvantaged or already overburdened communities.
Some impacts can include roads or facilities destroying or isolating local culture and
communities and concentrated air pollution from trucks or ships.
• Climate adaptation and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals are set in many
communities, e.g. the Mayors Climate Action Agreement28, and the efforts for local
resiliency that Superstorm Sandy catalyzed. These are easier said than done.
• Materials and waste management are significant issues in communities, as unpleasant and
expensive necessity. They are often an EJ issue, as with landfill siting or impacts from past
mismanagement.
28 https://www.usmayors.org/mayors-climate-protection-center/
54
-------
Other challenges: Goals and plans set direction and priorities, but decisions are made by human
beings under conditions that vary by place and time, so complications abound.
• Deciding requires making comparisons and often tradeoffs. This requires not only having
priorities (see above, "if everything is a goal..."), but also understanding the
interconnections between options so that tradeoffs as well as co-benefits (i.e. win-win
scenarios) can be identified and evaluated accurately. That knowledge is widely lacking,
especially as actions link back to community health, quality of life and fiscal issues.
• A related issue is "sustainable for whom?" Citizens want to know who is going to benefit,
and further, who is the "community" for whom conditions are being optimized: residents,
local government, neighborhoods, loud carers, NIMBYs?
• Human beings are susceptible to perception.
o An issue for decision makers is politically-identified language, like the words
"sustainability" or "environmental," which may be misunderstood or evoke adverse
reaction, even when the actual objects or goals, like clean air and water or avoiding
catastrophic flooding, are widely desired. Similarly, the words "land use" can evoke
fears of lost property rights. Health or ecosystem impacts can be more
understandable and acceptable entry points,
o When a decision is current and specific, more hotheads will arise, so it is better to
plan.
o People want responsive government, and resent being talked at, instead of with.
People are hard to predict, and values differ, even within communities.
• Making traditional decisions in traditional ways has its own inertia. Doing something in a
new way can carry real or perceived risks, and traditional decisions are often reinforced
through professional societies.
• Local capacity is always a significant barrier to getting more done.
o One's job of record is always the first job, and time is limited for learning and
doing more.
o Similarly, staff think about projects at hand, not systems,
o Local staff may not be aware of available tools and need training,
o Disadvantaged and rural communities have even less capacity, in terms of person-
power, breadth of expertise, and funds,
o State governments hobble some states, limiting flexibility.
• Fiscal realities can prevent holistic, long-term solutions from being the easy choice. Cost
avoidance does not come up in budget finance, and funding decisions are usually about
the short term, not the long term (for example, when capital costs limit upfront spending,
at the expense of long term cost savings from more efficient systems, e.g. cost-cutting
"value engineering" rather than true life-cycle value engineering.)
Factors for tool utility and usability
The attendees discussed how tools could be most useful by raising what they have seen work
well and what they believe would help, knowing what they do about local decisions. Those
"good examples" of tools or factors include the following:
• HIA or health impact assessments, which take available data to evaluate how an action or
decisions will affect human health
55
-------
• Cost-benefit analysis, which can be financial or otherwise
• Scenario planning tools, which allow seeing "what-if s"
• CDC's National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network29
• Case studies, which enable communities to see success stories in other places, allow
comparisons to see if they might achieve similar success, and they have preexisting "how
to" lessons
These examples of well-used tools and information, show how existing tools address some of the
issues raised above. HIAs address evaluation for a major priority, health, while cost-benefit
analysis addresses another major one, value to the community. Case studies provide problem or
decision-specific holistic information, including how-to examples, with little strain on local
capacity. Similarly, scenarios provide similar "what-if s" specific to place and, like case studies,
can minimize the risks inherent in uncertainty. These are good lessons for SHC researchers - to
consider the challenges which the reality that users' jobs create, considering how to deliver
sufficient critical information in the easiest, quickest way possible.
Priority Needs
The goal of this meeting was to help SHC develop critical information and user-friendly decision-
support tools that could be the most useful for communities to advance community sustainability
through well-informed decisions. This goal is effectively summed up as: how do we facilitate
effective storytelling about decisions and community sustainability? We know that each
community will make its own decisions, based on local values and situations of place, but we view
it as our calling to inform decision makers and citizens with facts, knowledge, and process support.
The discussions in this session revolved around tools to a large extent, as they are often a useful
way to process data and convey information, but there are significant other factors to consider
besides how to build usable tools.
To best look at priority needs, the most important issue is the audience. Who is making the
decisions, and what is the critical information about that decision that is important to them? While
each decision-maker may be affected by those "loud carers" or others mentioned earlier, their
decisions affect the whole community. Making the full picture available to everyone, helps to
address issues of accountable government or business, equity, and community values. As such,
who is the story for? And how is that best informed?
The attendees noted a full range of key players in local decisions affecting sustainability, including:
• Elected officials
• City staff or county of different departments, especially planning staff
• "The Public," especially the loudest, emotion-driven parties, like "loud carers" or
champions, who especially care about density, traffic, crime, taxes, and crowded schools
• Business, especially job-creating employers, and project developers
• State government, especially state Departments of Transportation
• Nearby places, especially when in regional collaboration around things like transportation
planning, as well as those organizations, like MPOs (metropolitan planning
organizations) or COGs (councils of government), who support those collaborations
29 https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showHome.action
56
-------
• Non-governmental organizations and advocates, who influence the public and can
provide tools and information (e.g. ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability30, who
supports local resiliency efforts, or the American Planning Association, who has the
Sustaining Places guidance for local comprehensive planning)
• Utilities, for drinking water, sewage, power, stormwater, etc. and are primarily driven by
function and cost
• Private application providers (e.g. 1776 Innovation Lab31 or planning consultants) who
assist cities with tools/solutions
• Universities, who can provide alliance and support to communities
The variety of audiences will necessitate recognizing the different levels of capacity when
targeting tools or information, but most will be at low capacity, as described earlier, and with less
knowledge of the lexicon or scientific details of sustainability, tools, or data. As such, the biggest
differences between these audiences is that of values or agendas. To be effective, those things
which they care about must be addressed in the "story" of the decision and its implications, with
attention to co-benefits (multiple wins or "two-birds" opportunities) and "co-detriments"
(unintended adverse consequences) which will tell the story across interested or affected parties.
The other main audience is the audience of users of the tools or knowledge. This may or may not
be the same as the above. For example, a mayor will not be using a tool, but a town staffer may
use a tool to develop the decision-implication story, which will be delivered to elected officials.
These users will be more informed than the elected officials or the public, but will be taking
information, addressing routine decision requirements as well as the more holistic sustainability
issues, and delivering it to decision makers. Tools and data can help to craft that message.
Attendees discussed what will make tools and data more useful to accomplish those objectives.
First, a user would need to determine what kind of information they need about a problem or
decision - how does the decision/action/plan affect people? To know that, one needs to know
interconnections/causal relationships, what are the impacts/co-benefits of options, and how do they
relate to audience priorities and values? Co-benefits were emphasized as critical information to
know and convey.
As mentioned, SHC work will be more useful if it addresses those problems and issues that
communities face regularly. For these, knowledge about causal relationships and interconnections,
mentioned earlier as a significant need to holistically understand the implications of a decision or
action, will help to determine what kind of information is needed to address given situations and
decisions. Sometimes this information is available, and tools can convey this information.
Sometimes tools can analyze data to provide it.
A tool may not always be necessary for the decision at hand; rules of thumb can be enough for
some common decisions. Another suggestion was something like a matrix of community
types/issues/decisions that could show implications rather than having to use a tool, per se. (The
kinds of decisions where these options would be enough were not discussed, and SHC will need
to continue to work with stakeholders to refine these possibilities.)
30 http://www.iclei.org/
31 https://www.1776.vc/
57
-------
If a tool is needed, then which tool? Stakeholders advocated for a search engine or "one-stop shop"
where one could enter a question or topic and the program would point to different tools from
different groups. Another requested a help desk for such a function.
Tools need to be matched to need, user capacity and data availability. Stakeholders noted that, it
is better if tools are quick and easy to use and work into established work flows. Step-by-step
directions, checklists, or decision trees can simplify getting or framing decisions.
Other characteristics of useful tools include:
• Specific "enough" for its purpose (users may only need to sketch out an issue to realize,
for example, that a decision will impact health; what will be specific enough will vary
from user to user, depending on risk aversion, inclination for precaution or identifying
impacts deemed unacceptable because of held values)
• Quick "enough" for its purpose, i.e. usable within the time restrictions of the decision
• Empowering, providing information that advances the self-determination and voice of
communities and citizens
• Relevant, answering most important questions of greatest concern and impact to
communities and people
• Customizable to the place
• Interoperability helps get multiple developers and users
• Visual and/or easily understandable (e.g. conveying city data via a Dashboard32)
Data is a problem. Data is necessary as input to tools or convey conditions, trends, or progress, but
it may be hard to acquire, store, analyze or prepare as input for tools. Some aspects of data that
were described as important by the attendees included:
• Trusted, meaningful, understandable, and actionable
• Local, to be as applicable as possible
• Relevant to citizens, to gain support and enable empowerment
• At appropriate granularity or scale (neighborhood, local, regional) to be relevant for the
decision or meaningful for conveying impacts/benefits
• Specific enough - may only need to measure a trend
• For performance measures, publicly available and understandable, providing public
accountability and demonstrating successes
Lastly, what, and how can these bits of information effectively convey a story? An effective picture
should provide enough information that decision makers understand the important implication of
options, or lacking that, provide as complete an understanding as is possible with the information
available.
It may be enough to demonstrate case studies; that is, communities can learn a great deal from
what has been done elsewhere, considering "how is it relevant to us?" and "what made it work?"
32 http://blog.strom.com/wp/?p=4755
58
-------
to inform their own decisions. However, information and tools can help highlight and explain
issues that may not have been possible without detailed information, analysis, or questions.
Recognizing interconnections and co-benefits is critical! Be cognizant of the frame of reference
for an issue and look for entry points into the conversation that are relevant to the decision-makers.
For instance, when decision-makers face transportation issues (such as spending more money on
roads versus transit), it is key to convey information that helps them understand the associated
health issues (transit promotes walking, increased economic activity, and community connectivity,
while sitting in cars is associated with poor health and less social engagement). Similarly, data can
help decision-makers understand how advancing community resiliency can help avoid repeat
catastrophes.
Other aspects for creating a complete story should address the following:
• What are the options and, especially, assumptions and connections?
• What is the cost-benefit, tradeoffs, and co-benefit information critical to assess if actions
can accomplish desired outcomes? Data can include non-economic components along
with connections to financial factors, as it
o Provides entry points for expanding conversations to those who may not know
how they are affected or why they should be interested; and
o Generates support from different audiences who may value different potential
benefits.
• What are co-benefits? Multiple wins?
• What will it cost not to act?
• What are health implications?
• What would value-driven planning convey for the lifecycle of the option chosen?
• Are there issues of legal compliance?
• How do the options affect what the community values for quality of life?
• What are fiscal implications and values?
To piece together an effective story may require multiple tools, data sets, and understanding the
context of community decision-making. SHC will use this feedback from stakeholders in
considering how to refine and integrate our efforts to provide the right amount of the needed
information to users for community decision-making.
Comparison to previous input
This meeting with external stakeholders was the largest of its kind for SHC, and it builds on
previous input. This meeting emphasized much of what we have heard earlier, especially regarding
capacity issues, desire for understanding holistic implications, especially economic, and
addressing the decisions which are regularly faced in communities. Interestingly, even as people
become more facile in general with computer-based tools, the capacity to use them is still the major
limiting factor in their use. The recent propagation of such tools means that it is daunting to even
find and select the right tools for the job, not to mention learning to use them and collect needed
data. The information from this meeting will join that of previous engagement efforts, as we
compile an ever more complete picture of stakeholder priorities and constraints.
59
-------
,-/• measure Scenarios action
movement . , , legal Cobenef ltS^'l*^ sh0w
, address" mcQrt^ ti nn
climate work information %¦ JL CI X AO v^/ JL I CI tl v/ -L X
healthy works just infrastru^re i» park change housine PT)od
cnVtl|Lt' stormwater \iroct£» „
effects staffw aste water 1 fp
processiiiv-
Above: This word cloud graphic visualizes the stakeholder commentary; the size of words in the
cloud describes the frequency of their use by stakeholders in discussions (deleting context-setting
words like "community" or "tools. ") Note that variations on a word - like benefit, benefits,
Benefits, and co-benefits - are counted as separate words.
60
-------
Attendees
Name of Attendee
Affiliation(s)
Alan Steinbeck
Renaissance Planning
Andrea Fox
International City/County Management Association
Bill Keyrouze
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Carolyn Berndt
National League of Cities
David Rouse
American Planning Association
Erich Zimmerman
National Association of Regional Councils
John Kileen
City of Durham
John Richardson
Town of Chapel Hill
Ken Snyder
Place Matters
Marc Schlossberg
University of Oregon
Mark Kleinschmidt
Former Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC
Nico Larco
University of Oregon
Nicole Woodman
City of Flagstaff, AZ
Omega and Brenda Wilson
West End Revitalization Association
Oscar Alleyne
National Association of County and City Health Officials
Rob Phocas
Urban Sustainability Directors Network
and City of Charlotte
Samantha Williams
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Shannon Binns
Sustain Charlotte
Tobin Freid
Durham County
Wendell Hardin
City of Winston Salem
Allen Brookes
EPA
Andrew Geller
EPA
Annie Neale
EPA
Ben Berolzheimer
EPA
Bill Fisher
EPA
Bob Sachs
EPA
Brian Dyson
EPA
Emily Eisenhauer
EPA
Eric Hall
EPA
Greg Grissom
EPA
Intaek Hahn
EPA
Jacques Kapuscinski
EPA
Jay Garland
EPA
Jennifer Cashdollar
EPA
Ken Elstein
EPA
Lee Riddick
EPA
Lisa Smith
EPA
Marc Russell
EPA
61
-------
Name of Attendee
Affiliation(s)
Marilyn ten Brink
EPA
Melissa McCullough
EPA
Mike Nye
EPA
Mike Slimak
EPA
Mya Sjogren
EPA
Raquel Silva
EPA
Rochelle Araujo
EPA
Sarah Mazur
EPA
Sheryl Rosner
EPA
Sue Norton
EPA
Susan Julius
EPA
Tim Gleason
EPA
Tim Wade
EPA
Yuqiang Zhang
EPA
62
-------
Appendix B: OSIM Too! Development Flow Charts
High Level Software Application Flowchart
If you have any questions or concerns please contact vour OSIM App Rep
Contact your
OSIM
Application or
CSR Rep
idy have
Is it commercially
available? (check
SharePoint Store,
Google and etc)
Have you gotten
NPD approval and a
promise of funding
to develop ?
Will it be a web
based app? (i.e.
has an app
specific URL)*
Will it be a
mobile app?
Communication
downloadable
Interacting through a browser
No, this will be
on the
intranet
Follow web based
app process
See page 3
Contact the owner
of the software
application
Work with your
OSIM reo to discuss
Start IT acquisition
process
Follow the Mobile
Applications
approval process
See page 2
I want to develop some
software
For more information please visit the ORD Road Map for Software Applications
63
-------
High Level Mobile Applications Approval Flowchart
If you have any questions or concern please contact your OSIM App Rep
Contact your
OSIM
Application or
CSR Reo
Check play.google.com, iTunes
and other sources to see if
mobile app already exists
external
Register app with
MARC
Get approval from your
Web Content
Coordinator
Submit the Mobile
Application Evaluation
form f native app) or the
Mobile Web Concept
Review form (mobile
web app)
Did MARC
approve?
Develop
1 N° 1
Resubmit Concept or End
Process
Register with the MARC
For more information please visit the ORD Road Map for Software Applications
64
-------
High Level Web Based Applications Approval Flowchart
If you have any questions or concerns please contact your OSIM Add Rep
Contact your
Is it a story
Will it be a
geospatial app
on GeoPlatform?
I N° h
Follow the Story Maps Guidance.
Contact vour LCO Web Lead and
GeoPlatform Administrator and ORD
Web content coordinator.
Will it be a non-
geospatial, web-
based app on
epa.gov?*
How will the
application be
accessed?
At the concept level,
contact vour LCO Web
Content Manager and
Communication Lead to
External-Public Facing
Internal- only within
Contact vour GIS Lead
Login to the
GeoPlatform site
Login to the
Templates
Working in a
Group
Working Alone
Complete the
GeoPlatform Checklist
Discuss planned
technologies with OSIM
App Rep
and contact your
GeoPlatform Admin
Contact your WCF
Coordinator about your
planned timeline
Contact LCO Web
Contact QSIM App Rep
to help with ADC
process
Content Manager and
For any questions,
please contact
GEOServicesOepa.eov
For more information please visit the ORD Road Map for Software Applications
65
-------
7. Glossary
Agile: an IT project management approach that creates a time-limited, iterative, and service-
oriented framework for software development. Agile was developed in the 1970s as a critique of
sequential development. It hinges on the idea that customer needs may not always be clear and that
short "sprints" of development for specific parts of a tool are more efficient and effective than
traditional IT project management.
Best Management Practice (BMP): a practice or combination of practices that is determined to
be an effective and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional
considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint
sources (e.g. stormwater runoff) to a level compatible with water quality goals.
Citizen Co-Production: a relationship between citizens and government in which citizens are
active partners rather than passive consumers of public services. With the advent of the Internet
and mobile online applications, citizen co-production can now extend to digital public services and
digital tools, i.e. e-services and e-tools.
Community: as used in this report, a community entails a defined geographic area (e.g. city, town,
neighborhood, metropolitan area, or watershed) below the state or national scale and the people
who live, work, and recreate within that area.
Community of Practice (CoP): a group of people informally bound together by shared expertise
and passion for a joint enterprise (e.g. engineers engaged in deep-water drilling, environmental
modelers). In CoPs, people share their experiences and knowledge in free-flowing, creative ways
that foster new approaches to problems (Wenger and Snyder 2000).
Community stakeholder: any individual or group with a role, either explicit or implied, in
making planning decisions or taking actions that affect their communities. States, Tribes, and local
governments are considered key community stakeholders from SHC's perspective (US EPA 2015).
Crowd-source: to obtain information or input into a task or project by enlisting the services of
many people, either paid or unpaid, typically via the Internet.
Decision sector: one of four broad categories of need expressed by community stakeholders and
examined by SHC (i.e. Buildings & Infrastructure, Land Use, Transportation, and Waste
Management).
Gap analysis: a systematic assessment of service or function provided across various domains to
determine areas of deficiency (i.e. gaps). Per the analysis in this report, a gap in supporting a
management action denotes no tool was identified as meeting that need.
Green infrastructure: an approach to water management and site development that protects,
restores, or mimics the natural water cycle (e.g. planting trees and restoring wetlands rather than
building a costly new water treatment plant).
66
-------
Interoperability: the concept of designing tools or services to conform with existing tool or tool
platform function to facilitate the exchange and use of data and information between tools (e.g.
GeoPlatform).
Management action: an action, issue, or policy about which communities and decision-makers
have expressed a need for scientific or technical support (e.g. land re-use/repurposing).
Sprint: in Agile development, a short period of work in which user requirements are gathered and
the software is designed, developed, and tested with the client within the defined Sprint period
(traditionally two weeks). Client feedback leads to adapted requirements, and the cycle repeats.
STAR Objective: a clear and desired achievement intended to move a community toward one of
eight broader sustainability Goal Areas. Example STAR Objectives include Historic Preservation,
Ambient Noise & Light, and Hazard Mitigation. STAR Objectives were assigned to community
management actions as an organizing element in this report, with one category, Soils, and
Sediments, added by the authors.
Tool: a system, application, method, model, worksheet, database, guidance document, or other
resource intended to aid decision-making. A tool can be created and/or maintained by any
individual or group. While a tool can be either physical or digital, the tools examined in this report
are comprised of digital code or accessible via the Internet, i.e. they are software tools or e-tools.
67
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research
and Development
(8101R)
Washington, DC
20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |