\l/
'ICF Collaborative
A ma. Community
OEfir\ Vulnerability
Assessment for
North Charleston
Summary
EPA/600/S-21/026
-------
North Charleston Community Resilience Workshop Summary Report
Acknowledgements, Authors, Reviewers
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to acknowledge the many
individuals who contributed their time and expertise to this project. The Authors received
essential support from local stakeholders in North Charleston, and community members in
Union Heights.
Lead Authors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Siobhan T. Whitlock, Ph.D.
Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences
Research Program (RESES)
Region 4 Superfund and Emergency Management
Division
ICF
Cassandra Bhat
Robert Kay, Ph.D.
Amanda Vargo
North Carolina A&T State University
Kristen Naney, Ph.D.
Other Project Contributors and Reviewers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stan Buzzelle
Office of Environmental Justice
Jessica Daniels
Office of Research and Development
Sheryl Good, MS
Region 4 Environmental Justice and
Sustainability Program
Brian Holtzclaw
Region 4 Brownfields Program
Sabrina Johnson
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Ntale Kajumba, MPH
Region 4 NEPA Program
Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities
(LAMC)
Charleston Community Research to Action Board
(CCRAB)
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) Brownfields Program
Suggested Citation
II
-------
North Charleston Community Resilience Workshop Summary Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
I. Introduction 4
II. Resilience Workshop Details 5
III. Resilience Workshop Findings 6
1. Resilience Walk 6
2. Resilience Objectives 9
2.1 Environment 10
2.2 Health 11
2.3 Housing 11
2.4 Transportation 12
2.5 Economic opportunity 13
2.6 Community partnerships 13
3. Resilience Challenges and Solutions 13
3.1 Environment 15
3.2 Health 19
3.3 Housing 21
3.4 Transportation 23
3.5 Economic opportunity 26
3.6 Community partnerships 28
3.7 Cross-cutting solutions 30
IV.Conclusions and Next Steps 31
Appendix A: Resilience Workshop Participants 33
Appendix B: Resilience Objective Sticky Notes 34
1. Environment 34
2. Health 34
3. Housing 35
4. Transportation 35
5. Economic Opportunity 36
6. Community Partnership 36
Appendix C: Supplemental Information 37
1. Community Demographics and Environmental Justice Screening Maps 37
1.1 EJSCREEN Standard Report for North Charleston 37
1.2 EJSCREEN American Communities Survey (ACS) Summary Report for North
Charleston 40
1.3 EJSCREEN Maps 43
2. EnviroAtlas: Identifying Risks to Populations of Concern 50
3. Extreme Events: Past, Present & Future 52
3.1 Sea level rise 52
3.2 Tidal flooding 56
3.3 Heavy rain events 56
4. Port of Charleston Activities near Union Heights 56
iii
-------
North Charleston Community Resilience Workshop Summary Report
5. Related Resilience Work in North Charleston 57
6. Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index 58
6.1 Resilience Index Session Overview 58
6.2 Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index (CSRI) Background 59
6.3 Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index Version 2.0 61
6.4 CSRI v2.0 Ranking Exercise 63
6.5 CSRI v2.0 Indicator Evaluation 66
6.6 CSRI v 2.0 Findings 67
6.7 CSRI v2.0 Discussion 71
6.8 Community Case Study 73
Appendix D: Follow-up Working Session and Community Resource Fair 75
Appendix E: Lessons Learned for the Roadmap 77
iv
-------
Executive Summary
U.S. EPA worked with the Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) to apply EPA's
Inland Port Community Resilience Roadmap to conduct a collaborative community vulnerability
assessment for North Charleston. This included three primary activities:
Desk research on community vulnerabilities
An initial community resilience workshop to discuss community resilience goals,
challenges, and opportunities
A second community resilience workshop to develop an implementation strategy and
share resources with the community
Together, these activities brought together community members and leaders in North
Charleston to:
Develop a shared understanding of community resilience
goals and objectives;
Articulate community resilience opportunities and
challenges;
Support existing resilience activities in the community;
Identify and prioritize feasible resilience strategies;
Learn about the EPA Inland Port Community Resilience Roadmap and other resources
to help address resilience challenges;
Expand community partnerships; and
Develop a feasible and actionable resilience strategy implementation plan.
At the first workshop, participants developed a set of resilience objectives for their community,
which included:
Environment:
o Maintain and enhance the environmental quality of the community, including
ensuring clean air and effective flood management by using environmental best
practices.
Health:
o Improve the health of the community by improving access to healthy affordable
food options;
o Enhance individual wellness through the availability of preventative, proactive
health care; and
o Enhance community wellness and networks through physical spaces and
wellness programs (e.g., community center).
Housing:
o Ensure a holistic approach to housing to ensure a full set of housing options and
ownership types are considered including attainable housing, transitional
housing, and emergency housing;
o Create decent, safe, healthy, and affordable housing; and
o Provide pathways to ownership.
Community Resilience
The sustained ability of a
community to withstand
and recover from adversity
1
-------
Transportation:
o Improve safe transportation across all modes, by infrastructure improvements
that covers roads, sidewalks, crossing;
o Maintain access to clean affordable transportation options;
o Enhance mobility for continued economic opportunities to allow access to
employment for the community members and to ensure connectivity; and
o Improve internal connectedness and external connectedness to other
communities and other modes of transportation.
Economic opportunity:
o Enhance economic opportunities for the community and community members
through job skills training and economic development.
Community partnerships:
o Maintain and enhance partnerships with other community organizations and
advocacy groups to improve the quality of life for the community.
Workshop participants then brainstormed a series of resilience challenges and solutions for
each objective to form the basis of the implementation plan.
At the second workshop, community members revisited these strategies, identified relevant
community partners, and developed implementation priorities, timelines, and points of contact to
ensure the North Charleston implementation plan was both actionable and feasible. Table 1
summarizes North Charleston's high priority strategies to focus implementation efforts on.
Table 1. High priority resilience strategies from North Charleston's implementation plan
Objective
Challenge
Solution
Time
Current
Potential
Lead
Frame
Partner(s)
Partner(s)
Transportation
Lack of LAMC
transportation
liaison
Identify a
transportation
liaison to take the
lead on
transportation
challenges and
foster
relationships with
various
transportation
agencies in the
region
Immediate
LAMC
Environment
Lack of true
Develop
Near-term
SC DHEC
EPA
Herb
problem
brownfields
Brownfields
(Mark
Berenbrok)
Brownfields
Rahim,
identification
inventory
(Brian
Holtzclaw,
Derek Street)
Skip
Mikell
(with help
from high
school/
college
students
and
2
-------
Objective Challenge Solution Time Current Potential Lead
Frame Partner(s) Partner(s)
summer
intern)
Community
Lack of
Showcase Near-term
College of
Thetyka
Partnership
community
tangible
Charleston
Robinson
participation
accomplishments
communication
(marketing
to increase
interns
and brand
community
consultant)
interest in
LAMC's work
(e.g., develop
factsheets and
update website)
Immediate next steps for the community are to:
Begin implementing high priority strategies outlined in the implementation plan
Identify any data gaps or resources needs that may limit implementation
3
-------
I. Introduction
U.S. EPA worked with the Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) to apply EPA's
Inland Port Community Resilience Roadmap to conduct a collaborative community vulnerability
assessment for North Charleston. LAMC is a nonprofit organization that advocates for
environmental justice and promotes community development, education, employment, quality
housing, and community involvement. LAMC services the North Charleston community in
Charleston County, South Carolina, comprised of seven neighborhoods: Accabee,
Chicora/Cherokee, Five Mile, Howard Heights, Liberty Hill, Union Heights, and Windsor Place.
The community is located near several major transportation facilities, including lnterstate-26 and
several industrial rail and port facilities. Community members are predominantly minority, low
income, and elderly.
This included three primary activities:
Desk research on community vulnerabilities (see Appendix C)
An initial community resilience workshop (held November 3, 2018) to discuss community
resilience goals, challenges, and opportunities
A second community resilience workshop (held April 26, 2019) to develop an
implementation strategy and share resources with the community
U.S. EPA and LAMC hosted the first North Charleston Community Resilience Workshop on
November 3, 2018. ICF worked closely with EPA Staff to design and facilitate the workshop.
The workshop brought together community members and leaders in North Charleston to:
Develop a shared understanding of community resilience
goals and objectives;
Articulate community resilience opportunities and
challenges;
Support existing resilience activities in the community;
Identify feasible resilience strategies; and
Learn about the EPA Inland Port Community Resilience Roadmap and other resources.
For the purposes of this workshop, community resilience was defined as the sustained ability of
a community to withstand and recover
from adversity. Adversity can include
both chronic conditions and acute
events that may exacerbate existing
conditions. Stressors of focus for this
project included flooding, extreme heat,
sea level rise, aging infrastructure,
existing inequalities, and environmental
degradation.
Recognizing that port communities,
such as Union Heights, face a unique
set of resilience challenges by virtue of
their proximity to and dependence on a
Community Resilience
The sustained ability of a
community to withstand
and recover from adversity
Figure 1. Illustrative summary of impacts of high and low water
levels on ports, communities, and economies.
4
-------
port, workshop participants were also introduced to the EPA Inland Port Community Resilience
Roadmap.1 The roadmap provides step-by-step guidance on increasing port and community
resilience to high and low water levels. The typical ripple effects of high and low water levels on
ports, communities, local and regional economies, and the national economy are summarized in
Figure 1.
As a follow-on to this work, a working session was held on April 26, 2019 in North Charleston to
prioritize resilience strategies and develop a feasible implementation plan as well as share key
resources with community members. North Charleston's implementation plan is also included in
this report.
This report provides a summary of workshop findings and actionable next steps for the Union
Heights community to implement.
II. Resilience Workshop Details
U.S. EPA and LAMC held the North Charleston Community Resilience workshop on November
3, 2018 from 9:00am-4:00pm at Calvary Senior Center (2017 Forest Ave. North Charleston, SC
29405). Seventeen community leaders participated in the workshop from the following
organizations (see full participant list in Appendix A):
City of North Charleston
Charleston Waterkeeper
Charleston Community Research to Action Board (CCRAB)
Charleston Audubon
Community First Land Trust
Lowcountry Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC)
New Alpha Community Development Corporation
Union Heights Community Council
The Whitney M. Slater Foundation
Prior to the workshop, the project team conducted desk research on resilience challenges and
activities in the City of Charleston, the City of North Charleston, and the Port of Charleston to
better inform the content of the workshop (see Appendix C). The team collected information on
topics such as:
Port of Charleston activities and the effects on near port communities
Trends in extreme events (e.g., tidal flooding, sea level rise) in Charleston and North
Charleston
Sustainability and resilience efforts in the City of Charleston
Workshop activities included:
1 While the roadmap was initially written for inland port communities, the resilience planning model is also
transferable to coastal port communities.
5
-------
Pre-workshop "resilience walk" through Union Heights on November 2, 2018 to identify
resilience challenges and opportunities for further discussion at the workshop the
following day.
A group activity to determine community resilience objectives.
A group discussion to identify resilience challenges.
A group activity to identify resilience solutions.
A presentation and ranking exercise related to the Cumulative Stressors and Resilience
Index (CSRI), the results of which are included in this report.
The North Charleston Community Resilience workshop was purposefully designed to mirror the
first three steps of the Port Community Resilience Roadmap:
1. Conduct outreach and identify resilience objectives
2. Identify and analyze resilience challenges
3. Identify strategies to improve resilience
III. Resilience Workshop Findings
1. Resilience Walk
LAMC led a neighborhood tour focused on resilience factors (i.e., a "resilience walk") the day
before the workshop to discuss resilience challenges and opportunities within Union Heights
and provide background on the community. The resilience walk included 11 participants from
EPA, LAMC/CCRAB, ICF, the City of North Charleston Planning Department, Charleston
Waterkeeper, and the Union Heights Community Council.
Major community challenges and projects that emerged from the resilience walk included:
Recent flooding and identifying the appropriate parties to address flooding
o Recent flooding caused $7,000 worth of damage to Bertha's Kitchen, attributed
to poor drainage at a nearby construction site where a new port access road is
being built (Figure 2). The community said it had complained to the South
Carolina DOT (SCDOT) that construction materials were blocking the storm drain
and causing flooding. SCDOT has since cleared the drains and there has not
been any flooding in this area since that time.
o The community has observed a shift from tidal flooding to more heavy flooding
events and is beginning to document flood events with photos and written
records.
o The community has a hard time identifying the responsible party to contact to
address various flooding concerns because ownership of stormwater
infrastructure is not easily accessible.
6
-------
Figure 2. Examples of recent construction activity and debris in Union Heights. Photo on the left shows construction
barriers that block storm drains (photo: Omar Muhammad). Photo on the left identifies construction debris left after
completion of a recent road project (photo: Cassandra Bhat, 11/2/18).
Housing condition
Affordable housing and heir properties
o The need for more affordable housing is a pressing issue in the community. On
average community members can afford about $100,000, but new construction
now starts at $150,000, excluding the cost of land. Different communities also
have different definitions of affordability. LAMC is working with communities to
define affordability in the context of their needs and build more multi-family
homes. Zoning and negative perspectives regarding higher-density housing are
challenges LAMC is currently working through.
o Much of the housing stock in
the Union Heights
neighborhood is in poor
condition. For example,
several homes have
damaged roofs, broken
windows, or are using
makeshift insulation such as
blankets to protect their
interior from the outdoors
(Figure 3). These conditions
make the community less resilient to weather events such as heavy rains or heat
waves. For example, rain could enter homes with roof damage and cause mold.
Figure 3. Union Heights home with roof damage
(top) and using a blanket as insulation (right)
(photos: Omar Muhammad).
7
-------
o There are also many heir properties2 in Union Heights. Many of these homes are
in poor condition, but because there is not a clear title, it is difficult offer aid in
making repairs and improvements or sell.
Food access
o Union Heights is recognized as food insecure and
many community members are reliant on public
transportation and bikes, further amplifying the need
for a grocery store within walking distance of the
community.
o LAMC is working to acquire and revive an old grocery
store that shut down many years prior (Figure 4), The
revived grocery store would source from local
businesses and farms and include two apartments
above the store.
Zoning
o Zoning is a critical challenge that affects housing and
small business development in the community.
Currently, zoning encourages single family homes in a
mostly residential environment. Zoning changes are required to allow more multi-
family duplexes to address affordable housing issues and increase housing
density. In addition, the community vision is to increase the number of small
businesses and amenities.
Other neighborhood projects discussed on the resilience walk include:
A new port access road is being built near the community, which will decrease truck
traffic on neighborhood roads.
The area adjacent to the new port access road is a brownfield, which will be developed
into a passive park for community use. The park will include walking trails, benches,
water features, and a vertical community garden. The new park has been subject to a
community-design exercise.
An old highway exit ramp to the port currently splits the Union Heights neighborhood.
The community has had discussions with SCDOT about giving the land back to the
community once the new port access road is opened rather than conveying the land to
North Charleston. If LAMC can secure the land, LAMC hopes to build senior housing.
LAMC is beginning to work with business owners to implement Community Benefit
Agreements, identifying ways the business can give back to the community. For
2 Heir property is real property owned by multiple people and informally passed down through
generations. Typically, this is from parents or other family members who leave no will. Without a clear
title, owners are more vulnerable to laws that allow developers to acquire the property, nor do they qualify
for federally funded land improvement programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southern Research
Station and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta co-hosted a meeting in July 2017 to address challenges
of heirs' property in the South. Proceedings from the meeting were compiled in a technical report and can
be accessed via: https://www.srs.fs.usda.qov/pubs/58543 .
Figure 4. Site of a former
grocery store in Union Heights
(photo: Cassandra Bhat).
8
-------
example, a seasonal business could open its doors to residents for other purposes
during the off-season or a business could invite kids in to learn about the profession or
trade.
The workshop kicked off with a series of photos from the resilience walk and a discussion
around resilience in Union Heights. Challenges focused on home maintenance and repairs,
such as properly insulating homes and repairing roofs, recognizing that available funds are often
a limitation of addressing these problems. However, without addressing these challenges, the
impacts of extreme heat and heavy rains can be more severe (e.g., leaking roof). Neighborhood
flooding is another challenge as many residents have both limited funds and mobility. If a car or
road is flooded, a resident may not be able to get to work and earn the money needed to pay for
repairs.
Workshop participants also discussed what resilience means to them considering these
challenges:
Resilience is decreasing suffering from extreme heat, flooding, and other events.
Recovery efforts following extreme events is an important component of resilience as
well.
Resilience is improving the economic viability of the community (e.g., adding a grocery
store to address food insecurity).
Resilience is changing the way the community is viewed from the city, county, and state
level so that resources are appropriately allocated to the community without having to
fight for them.
2. Resilience Objectives
To develop a set of resilience objectives specific to the community, workshop participants wrote
down their own objectives for community resilience on sticky notes and placed them on the wall
under the following categories from the Roadmap (see
Figure 5):
Environment
Health
Housing
Transportation
Other
With participant input, facilitators then arranged the sticky
notes into like clusters (subsequently referred to as
"themes") and discussed as group. See Appendix B for
the complete set of sticky note responses. The group
then jointly shaped the emerging themes into specific
objective statements for each of the categories.
During the activity, two new categories emerged from
"Other," which are used from this point forward: Figure 5. Example from resilience objectives
exercise: environment category.
Economic opportunity
nwannn/K
9
-------
Community partnerships
Figure 6. Workshop participants complete the resilience objectives activity (photo: Robert Kay).
2.1 Environment
Overall Community Environment Objective
Maintain and enhance the environmental quality of the community, including ensuring
clean air and effective flood management by using environmental best practices.
The environmental objectives fell into three primary themes:
Air quality - Participants noted the need to improve air quality in the community. A key
component of this objective is air quality monitoring: by documenting air quality (e.g.,
through mobile or stationary monitors and in specific locations such as near the port),
the community can better identify opportunities for improvement.
Stormwater management and flood control - Several participants identified the need
to reduce flooding in the community through better stormwater management and
improved drainage. Specific suggestions included collaborating with partners on
stormwater management issues and encouraging the use of green infrastructure and
streetscape design.
Brownfields - The community contains many brownfields, and community members
noted the goal to address brownfield contamination and, in particular, develop a strategy
to transition local brownfields into restoring these properties to productive re-use (e.g.,
"healthfields" and environmentally-friendly businesses) and revitalizing impacted
neighborhoods.
In addition, participants identified the following environmental objectives that didn't neatly fit into
the above categories, including:
10
-------
Reduce mold - Mold is a key issue in the community at the intersection of both air
quality and stormwater management issues. Flooding often leads to mold growth in
homes, which further reduces indoor air quality.
Improve erosion control due to construction
Increase access to green space
2.2 Health
Overall Community Health Objectives
Improve the health of the community by improving access to healthy affordable food
options;
Enhance individual wellness through the availability of preventative, proactive health
care; and
Enhance community wellness and networks through physical spaces and wellness
programs (e.g., community center).
The health objectives fell into three primary themes:
Food access - Participants noted the need for a full-service grocery store or "food hub"
in the community to improve access to affordable and quality food. Participants also
identified a need for food health education.
Health care services - Several participants identified the need for accessible health
care in the community with a particular focus on preventative and proactive health care.
Specific suggestions included creating a consistent health screening program and
increasing opportunities for fitness. The Senior Center at Dorchester was mentioned as
a model example that could be replicated in Union Heights, offering fitness programs,
wellness programs on health and diet, and an on-site registered nurse.
Community networks - Related to health care services, participants identified a goal
for more community networks to increase social interactions and connectedness.
Suggestions included a Union Heights community center, which could also encompass
the health care services and programs mentioned previously as well as outdoor
community spaces for walking, biking, and socializing.
2.3 Housing
Overall Community Housing Objectives
Ensure a holistic approach to housing to ensure a full set of housing options and
ownership types are considered including attainable housing, transitional housing, and
emergency housing;
Create decent, safe, healthy, and affordable housing; and
Provide pathways to ownership.
The housing objectives fell into four primary themes:
11
-------
Attainable housing - Participants identified increasing the availability of decent, safe,
healthy, and attainable housing as a major objective for the community. Affordable
housing brackets do not always include everyone, so the community is focused on
expanding attainable housing that meets the unique needs of the community. This effort
includes building new housing and rehabilitating existing housing stock.
Housing options - Another community objective was to have a continuum of housing
options available to meet a variety of needs, including emergency housing, post-disaster
housing, and transitional housing.
Homeowner education - Participants identified homeownership education as an
important community resilience objective, particularly for first-time home buyers. Specific
suggestions include providing information on pathways to home ownership to help
people navigate buying a home and for providing home buyers with information on how
to care for and maintain their homes. Several home improvement challenges were
identified by participants including insulation, foundation improvements and aging
infrastructure.
Zoning - Current zoning presents several challenges for improving and expanding
housing options. Re-zoning for multi-family homes would help to provide alternatives to
single family homes in the community.
2.4 Transportation
Overall Community Transportation Objectives
Improve safe transportation across all modes, by infrastructure improvements that
covers roads, sidewalks, crossing;
Maintain access to clean affordable transportation options;
Enhance mobility for continued economic opportunities to allow access to employment
for the community members and to ensure connectivity; and
Improve internal connectedness and external connectedness to other communities and
other modes of transportation.
The transportation objectives fell into three primary themes:
Road and infrastructure improvements - Several participants identified a need for
road and infrastructure improvements, including improving sidewalks and through traffic
control.
Mobility and safety - Participants identified improving mobility and safety within and
between communities as a major goal as many residents walk, bike, or rely on public
transit. Specific suggestions included increasing the connective tissue between
communities through bike paths, transit routes, and the Hospitality on Peninsula (HOP)
park and ride service and implementing signage and safety improvements to make the
community more pedestrian and bike friendly.
Alternative transportation modes - Several participants also suggested expanding
clean, affordable, alternative transportation modes. Specific suggestions included
12
-------
electric cars and buses, hydrogen-fueled cars, mopeds, and mass transit such as bus
rapid transit (BRT).
2.5 Economic opportunity
Overall Community Economic Opportunity Objective
Enhance economic opportunities for the community and community members through
job skills training and economic development.
The economic opportunity objective focuses on increasing community economic opportunities
through a variety of means. Specific suggestions included:
Increasing financial literacy
Improving job skills, including soft skills like resume writing, punctuality, and professional
dress
Increasing educational attainment for both adults and youth
Re-zoning to allow more economic development in the community
2.6 Community partnerships
Overall Community Partnership Objective
Maintain and enhance partnerships with other community organizations and advocacy
groups to improve the quality of life for the community.
The community partnerships objective emerged as a cross-cutting community objective. Several
participants identified community partnerships as a component of achieving the environment,
health, housing, transportation, and economic opportunity objectives.
3. Resilience Challenges and Solutions
Workshop participants then identified resilience challenges for each objective during a group
discussion. The discussion was framed around the question of: what are the challenges to
achieving your resilience objectives? Challenges were written on flip charts and discussed as a
group.
Later in the afternoon, participants wrote potential solutions to these challenges on sticky notes
and placed them next to the corresponding challenge from the previous discussion (see Figure
7). Participants considered the following key questions:
Are there upcoming opportunities to boost resilience?
What are the strategies for addressing challenges or seizing opportunities?
What about strategies for increasing resilience?
Who is the responsible party to implement each strategy?
13
-------
The following sections summarize the resilience challenges and solutions from these two
activities.
Figure 7. Participants identified solutions for specific resilience challenges (photo: Robert Kay).
Building on the findings from workshop one, a working session was held on April 26, 2019 to
develop an actionable implementation plan and determine priorities and next steps for the
community (see Figure 8). Where possible, community leadership identified an implementation
timeframe, current and potential partners, and a lead individual or organization for each
resilience challenge and solution. The implementation plan is structured to be a living document
that the community can continue to modify and prioritize actions as needed.
See Appendix D for additional details on the working session and resource sharing opportunity
for community members to better address resilience challenges.
Figure 8. In the April 2018 working session, LAMC/CCRAB members worked through the resilience challenges and
solutions to develop an actionable implementation plan (photo: Robert Kay).
14
-------
3.1 Environment
Participants identified five major environment-related resilience challenges and a variety of potential solutions, summarized in Table 2.
The timeframes, current and potential partners, and lead individuals or organizations columns reflect additions from the April 2019
working session.
Table 2. Environment-related resilience challenges and solutions
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current
Partners
Potential
Partners
Lead
Communication
Establish stronger relationship with EPA (lean
Ongoing EPA Office of
EPA
LAMC
challenges and lack of
more on Sheryl Good)
EJ (Sheryl
Brownfields
defined
Communicate and coordinate with
Good)
(Brian
responsibility/authority
environmental advocacy organizations
Holtzclaw,
Attend local and regional meetings and
Derek
hearings to increase understanding of what's
Street),
happening around the area and create new
NEPA
partnerships
(Ntale
Kajumba),
Stormwater
(Mike
Mitchell),
Indoor Air
(Heidi);
State
agencies
such as SC
DHEC
(Mark
Berenbrok)
Develop a communication plan to amplify the
community's voice (Brian Holtzclaw to share
communication plan template)
Near-term
LAMC, CCRAB
15
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current Potential Lead
Partners Partners
Utilize a variety of methods for sharing
information with the community:
o Reactivate street captains to distribute
information door-to-door
o Post flyers
o Send texts or emails to a list of community
members
oPost on social media (e.g., establish active
Facebook pages for LAMC, CCRAB, and
Union Heights neighborhood)
o Establish a buddy/call system to check in on
neighbors and support social networks
Near-term
High school
student or college
intern for LAMC or
CCRAB
Meet with LAMC community representatives to
better understand responsibilities
LAMC
LAMC take official position on issues so
responsibilities are clearer
LAMC
Lack of capacity/human
resources
Reach out to other communities/groups to
partner with and organize resources (Brian
Holtzclaw to investigate West Coast Org)
Ongoing
Thetyka
Robinson
(marketing
and branding
consultant);
Network for
Good
fundraising
training
West Side
Future
Funds;
West Coast
Org
LAMC
Consider how to grow LAMC as an
organization
LAMC
Lack of true problem
identification
Continue CCRAB community-based research
and data collection to take to decision-makers
Ongoing
CCRAB
16
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current Potential Lead
Partners Partners
Coordinate with Senator Senn (Chair of the
Near-term
Charleston
Allen
Skip Mikell
South Carolina legislature's task force on
legislature
Fountain
flooding) regarding flooding data
delegation
Map storm drains and identify ownership
Near-term
City of North
College of
Butch Barfield
oE.g., Color-code maps based on ownership
Charleston
Charleston
so it is easier to identify responsible parties
Develop a local brownfields inventory using
Near-term
SC DHEC
EPA
Herb Fraser-
new community-based survey tool. Research
(Mark
Brownfields
Rahim, Skip Mikell
best practices to apply for an EPA Brownfields
Berenbrok)
(Brian
(with help from
Community-Wide Assessment Grant
Gross,
high school/
($300,000; Fall 2019) in order to successfully
Brian
college students
conduct Phase I and Phase II assessments
Holtzclaw)
and summer
and conduct brownfields planning and develop
intern)
site re-use plans for N. Charleston.
Leverage university partnerships and low to
On-going
UMD,
CUPP
Dr. Crabtree -
no-cost labor to conduct studies and identify
College of
(Michael
educational PLC
root causes of problems using participatory
Charleston;
Burns)
for LAMC
research methods
NC A&T
State
University
Lack of stormwater Implement green infrastructure designs in new
See Local
Charleston
Mike
Jessica Norris
control community development projects, including
Food Local
Waterkeeper;
Mitchell
(Audubon
Mary Lee Davis park to help with stormwater
Places action
Calvary AME
(EPA); Bob
Society); Steering
control
plan
Church;
Rosen/Brian
committee/task
Charleston
Holtzclaw
force for park
County
(EPA); EPA
ORD
17
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current Potential Lead
Partners Partners
Contact stormwater management personnel in Near-term
North Charleston to inquire about ownership
and drainage capacity
Skip Mikell
Contact responsible agencies to create a
stormwater management plan
Mike
Mitchell
(EPA)
Skip Mikell
Identify, create, and enforce storm system
codes
CCRAB, College
of Charleston
Leverage National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
process
Mark Nuhfer
(EPA)
Herb Rahim
Lack of community input
on zoning decisions
Develop a community plan that documents the Ongoing
wants of the community and identifies the type
of necessary zoning
oWhen zoning decisions or development
projects don't align with the plan, push back
Update LAMC's revitalization plan from April
2009, which was adopted by the city
o Justify use of technical assistance funds to
LAMC/CCRAB board to update revitalization
plan (a lot of new development coming to
the area)
Chloe Stuber
Establish a group to document and share Ongoing
zoning decisions with the community and
collect comments on decisions to bring back to
the City
Identify a point person, someone with a good
understanding of zoning
Chloe Stuber
18
-------
3.2 Health
Participants identified three major health-related resilience challenges and a variety of potential solutions, summarized in Table 3. The
timeframes, current and potential partners, and lead individuals or organizations columns reflect additions from the April 2019 working
session.
Table 3. Health-related resilience challenges and solutions
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame
Current
Partners
Potential
Partners
Lead
Lack of quality food
options near the
community
Develop a food-hub in the community
oLAMC purchase old grocery store and turn into
functioning grocery store sourcing local
products
oCity of North Charleston could subsidize a food
co-op
Long-term
Lowcountry
Local Firsts;
Grow Foods;
Fresh Future
Farms; Adam
McConnell
(City of North
Charleston)
Rodly Millet
Make the business case to grocers:
oFind examples/case studies of other
communities with similar demographics who
have grocery stores
o Collect data on purchases and the successes
of the grocery store to show others why they
should come here
o Educate the community to lower theft
Long-term
City of North
Charleston
City of North
Charleston
Rodly Millet
Offer buyers good quality food at affordable prices
to increase the number of customers (recognize
that this may mean an initial loss of profits until
the number of customers increases)
Long-term
Rodly Millet
Lack of physical
spaces
Raise funds for a fitness center or sports field
Done
Metanoia
LAMC
Add bike/walking trail to Mary Lee Davis park
See Local
Foods Local
Kaboom
19
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame
Current
Partners
Potential
Partners
Lead
Places action
plan
Lack of wellness
programs and
resources
Create a local wellness initiative
Ongoing
Pfizer
Tawana
Muhammad
LAMC, CCRAB,
UHCC
Educate the community on healthy living (e.g.,
diet, exercise)
Ongoing
Pfizer
Tawana
Muhammad
LAMC, CCRAB,
UHCC
20
-------
3.3 Housing
Participants identified four major housing-related resilience challenges and a variety of potential solutions, summarized in Table 4. The
timeframes, current and potential partners, and lead individuals or organizations columns reflect additions from the April 2019 working
session.
Table 4. Housing-related resilience challenges and solutions
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame
Current Partners Potential
Partners
Lead
Challenges with heir
properties
Identify heir properties and partner with
Center for Heirs Preservation (CHP) to work
through properties one-by-one
Ongoing
CHP
Henrietta
Woodward; Rodly
Millet
Establish a dedicated person to deal with heir
properties (e.g., an internship for a student at
Charleston Law School)
Henrietta
Woodward
Competition from
developers leading to
less attainable
housing
Zoning advocacy:
o Inclusionary zoning
o Environmental preservation
Henrietta
Woodward
Continue to establish community benefit
agreements (CBA)
Done
Chicora/Cherokee;
Metanoia,
Reynolds Avenue
Association
Henrietta
Woodward
Set up meeting with city to see how taxes are
adjusted for existing properties
Set up meeting with city to discuss taxes and
prevent residents from being priced out
Henrietta
Woodward; Adam
(Special Assistant
to the Mayor);
Ryan Johnson
(Special
Assistant)
21
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current Partners Potential Lead
Partners
Challenges with
increasing
homeownership
Increase access to capital
Ongoing
Charleston County
Housing Tax
Force
Henrietta
Woodward;
LAMC/Charleston
County Housing
Tax Force
Educate community to report capital denials,
such as loan rejections (e.g., Community
Reinvestment Act)
oCollect information on capital denials at
community meetings (e.g., spotlight
meeting topic) or at pop up meetings
LAMC
Offer first-time buyer/homeowner education
opportunities (e.g., provide binders with
information on how to care for your home)
Ongoing
Charleston Trident
Urban League;
Metanoia; Origins
Henrietta
Woodward
Current zoning limits
rebuilding and mixed
use
See solutions related to zoning in Table 2
Chloe Stuber
22
-------
3.4 Transportation
Participants identified six major transportation-related resilience challenges and a variety of potential solutions, summarized in Table 5.
The timeframes, current and potential partners, and lead individuals or organizations columns reflect additions from the April 2019
working session.
Table 5. Transportation-related resilience challenges and solutions
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current
Potential
Lead
Partners
Partners
Lack of LAMC
transportation liaison
Identify a transportation liaison to take the lead on
transportation challenges and foster relationships
with various transportation agencies in the region
Immediate
LAMC
Patchwork of
ownership of roads
and storm drainage
infrastructure
Work with College of Charleston professor/Chloe
(in progress) to review and compile GIS data for
zoning and flooding
Send Chloe additional ideas for where
GIS/visualization would be helpful
o Storm drains - where are they, who owns them,
what is the capacity
o Roads and other infrastructure - which
transportation agencies own what
Ongoing
College of
Charleston
Mike Mitchell Chloe Stuber
(EPA);
Local/regional
transportation
agencies;
CUPP
(Michael
Burns)
Connectedness
Connect different modes of transportation to
provide safe quick access to work, neighboring
communities, food, etc.
SC Livable
Communities
Alliance;
BCDCOG
SCDOT Safe
Routes to
Schools
(Rodney)
Better connect Spruill Avenue to the city and to the
Hop (e.g., bike path)
Ongoing
City of North
Charleston
Conduct a local transit study in the seven LAMC
neighborhoods to identify transit demand, gaps,
and challenges. Bring a transit proposal to CARTA
based on data from the study.
CUPP;
University
(CC, NCAT,
UMD)
23
-------
Challenge
Solutions Time Frame
Current
Partners
Potential
Partners
Lead
Lack of engagement
with transportation
agencies
Contact CARTA and request participation in
meetings (e.g., planning meetings) to express
community concerns and ascertain how community
can be better accommodated
BCDCOG,
SC Livable
Communities
Alliance
FHWA SC
Division;
SCDOT
Collaborate with transportation agencies and
advocacy groups to work on transportation
concerns with a regional approach
BCDCOG,
SC Livable
Communities
Alliance
FHWA SC
Division;
SCDOT
Contact local government to hear issues and plan
for reasonable solutions
Contact Sharon Hollis at Berkeley-Charleston-
Dorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG) to
request a presentation on BRT and Regional
Transportation Plan
BCDCOG
Lack of investment in
existing
transportation
infrastructure
Identify appropriate parties and reach out to all
levels of government who are responsible for
resolving transportation issues in the community
Add more parking in neighborhood
Launch a tactile urbanization campaign, focusing
on improving existing infrastructure:
o Complete streets
o Build a Better Block initiative
o Community-built bus shelters
Lack of
bike/pedestrian
safety
considerations
Coordinate with Charleston Moves regarding bike
safety
Charleston
Moves
Coordinate with BCDCOG/SCDOT regarding bike
and pedestrian safety
BCDCOG
SCDOT
24
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current Potential Lead
Partners Partners
Provide adequate protection to bikers/pedestrians
from vehicular traffic, such as through:
o Protected bike lanes
o One-way streets
o Speed bumps
o Painted cross walks
o Streetscaping
BCDCOG;
SCDOT;
Charleston
Moves
Lack of political will Meet with legislative representatives for 29405 zip
code
o Establish regular communications
o Meet outside of election season
Ongoing
LAMC
Partner with other advocacy groups and address
legislators
Ongoing
SC Livable
Communities
Alliance
LAMC
Attend City Council meetings and express
community concerns
Ongoing
LAMC
Host candidate forums in the community
Ongoing
LAMC
Bring candidates/legislators/decision-makers on
"walk and talk" through the community to discuss
issues and show them firsthand how they can help
oReframe existing EJ tours to be more appealing
to candidates (e.g., livable communities, healthy
communities, resilience walk)
Rodly Millet
25
-------
3.5 Economic opportunity
Participants identified four major economic opportunity-related resilience challenges and a variety of potential solutions, summarized in
Table 6. The timeframes, current and potential partners, and lead individuals or organizations columns reflect additions from the April
2019 working session.
Table 6. Economic opportunity-related resilience challenges and solutions
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame
Current
Potential
Lead
Partners
Partners
Lack of workforce
development
Form partnerships with companies that will offer
skills trainings
Ongoing
SC Works;
Trident
Literacy;
Pfizer;
Turning Leaf
Open a technical school to provide skills training
Ongoing
Charleston
Country
School
District
Charleston
Country School
District
Create opportunities for workforce development
near unemployed and underemployed residents
Ongoing
LAMC
Create partnerships between high schools and
possible employers for summer internship
opportunities and later employment
Ongoing
LAMC
Lack of soft skills
Provide a high school course that teaches
students how to prepare for a job (e.g., write a
cover letter and resume, dress professionally)
Near-term
SC Works
Lack of access to
capital
Expand LAMC revolving loan program
Ongoing
LAMC
Identify lenders that are willing to work with
LAMC to make additional funds available to
LAMC
Ongoing
Coastal
Community
Foundation;
26
-------
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame
Current
Partners
Potential
Partners
Lead
Network for
Good
Encourage and recruit new small business
investment
Ongoing
UHCC, City
of North
Charleston,
Charleston
County,
South
Carolina
Government
UHCC, LAMC,
City of North
Charleston,
Charleston
County, South
Carolina
Government
Educational
inequality
Other
Raise awareness of how to get flood insurance
Done
27
-------
3.6 Community partnerships
Participants identified three major community partnership-related resilience challenges and a variety of potential solutions, summarized
Table 7. The timeframes, current and potential partners, and lead individuals or organizations columns reflect additions from the April
2019 working session.
Table 7. Community partnership resilience challenges and solutions
Challenge
Solutions
Time Frame Current
Partners
Potential
Partners
Lead
Lack of communication
between partners and
groups and
competition for
Improve the business case for partnerships
Ongoing
Define clear roles and responsibilities to limit
overlap and duplication of services
Ongoing
resources
Integrate solutions into LAMC communication
plan
Near-term
Lack of community
participation
Showcase tangible accomplishments to
increase community interest in LAMC's work
o Develop fact sheets that highlight LAMC's
accomplishments that can be handed out at
meetings
o Update website and use social media to raise
awareness of LAMC's accomplishments
Near-term
College of
Charleston
communication
interns
Thetyka
Robinson
(marketing and
brand consultant)
Include community in decision-making
processes and assign community members
specific tasks so they feel more involved
Involve community members in the development
of a community disaster/emergency
management plan and train residents in
emergency response
Near-term College of
Charleston
Clemson
Emergency
Management
Center
Clemson
Create a junior board to mirror organizations like
LAMC
Ongoing
LAMC
28
-------
o Pilot in Union Heights first at a community
level
Lack of tangible
Develop and share annual reports, revitalization Ongoing
College of
Thetyka
accomplishments or
plan, factsheets, story maps
Charleston;
Robinson
"champion" examples
Update website and social media (good
Benedict
(marketing and
opportunity for a high school or college student)
College
brand consultant)
Develop a podcast
(Sheryl Good
is an active
alumna)
29
-------
3.7 Cross-cutting solutions
Several cross-cutting resilience solutions also emerged during the discussion, including:
Voting for individuals who will support the community and having a more active
relationship with elected officials.
Re-zoning Union Heights to allow for multi-family homes, small business development,
and community amenities.
Developing a communication plan to address communication challenges among various
organizations and levels of government.
Assigning clear roles and responsibilities for each community organization to limit
duplicative actions.
30
-------
IV. Conclusions and Next Steps
Three immediate and high priority next steps emerged from the resilience challenges and
solution discussion at the first workshop:
Problem identification - Additional data collection and monitoring is needed to identify
the main cause of environment, health, housing, transportation, economic opportunity,
and community partnership challenges. Otherwise resources are spent treating
symptoms and surrounding issues rather than the root cause. In addition, an effort
should be made to identify these problems proactively, such as proactively identifying,
inventorying and prioritizing all brownfields in the community before redevelopment.
Role, responsibilities, and coordination - Duplicative work is being done by different
organizations in the community. Defining clear roles and responsibilities for each
organization will help to limit overlap and provide ownership of certain tasks. In addition,
identifying opportunities for community groups to work together in a coordinated effort
could increase efficiency and productivity.
Stormwater mapping - The College of Charleston is beginning a GIS project to map
zoning and flooding locations for LAMC. Workshop discussions revealed that there is
limited knowledge and data regarding what organizations are responsible for what
elements of the stormwater drainage system making it challenging for the community to
know who to contact when there are issues. As a result, the College of Charleston team
should also consider mapping storm drain locations, the ownership body, and capacity of
each storm drain.
At the follow-up working session, the community worked through the resilience challenges and
solutions tables from Section III.3 and assigned responsibilities for each strategy. In addition,
community participants began to prioritize strategies and develop implementation targets and
timelines. A few high priority resilience strategies that emerged include:
Identifying a transportation liaison to build relationships with the various local, regional,
and state transportation organizations and lead the implementation of the other
transportation strategies.
Conduct a brownfields inventory with help from high school students or college interns
and conduct a later brownfields prioritization exercise with community partners.
Showcase tangible accomplishments to increase community interest in LAMC's work
(e.g., develop factsheets and update website)
Immediate next steps for the community are to:
Begin implementing high priority strategies outlined in the implementation plan
Identify any data gaps or resources needs that may limit implementation
Finally, several existing LAMC efforts are already helping to address the resilience challenges
(see Figure 9 for one example), many of which are noted as "ongoing" solutions in Table 2-
Table 6. LAMC can take advantage of the community resilience benefits of these actions as
articulated in this report to continue to build support for their programs.
31
-------
Figure 9. LAMC-purchased home in Union Heights, set aside to
become quality affordable housing in the community (photo:
Cassandra Bhat).
Figure 10. EPA presented a Certificates of
Appreciation to Omar Muhammad and to LAMC for
the significant work in the community to date, and
successfully implementing the resilience roadmap
planning process, (photo: Amanda Vargo).
32
-------
Appendix A: Resilience Workshop Participants
Table 8. Resilience Workshop participants (November 8, 2018)
Name
Organization (if applicable)
Rodly Millet
Community Advocate
Michael Brown
City of North Charleston/Commissioner
Jaleel A. Bradley
LAMC
Herbert Maybank
LAMC
Skip Mikell
CCRAB/UHCC
Loretta Slater
The Whitney M. Slater Foundation
Rev. Leo Woodberry
New Alpha CDC
Roosevelt Mouzoi
19TO Glolawd
Barbara Fordham
LAMC
Henrietta Woodward
LAMC/CFLT
Melvin Smalls
LAMC
Rahim Karriem
LAMC
Jessica Norris
Audubon
Kent Griffin
Charleston Waterkeeper
Omar Muhammad
LAMC
Chloe Stuber
LAMC
Sheryl Good
EPA Region 4
Siobhan Whitlock
EPA Region 4 (by phone)
Robert Kay
ICF
Cassandra Bhat
ICF
Amanda Vargo
ICF
Kristen Naney
North Carolina A&T State University
33
-------
Appendix B: Resilience Objective Sticky Notes
The following sections list participant's verbatim sticky note responses from the Resilience
Objectives activity at the workshop.
1. Environment
Table 9. Sticky note responses for environment objectives
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Air quality
Cleaner air
Air quality (x2)
Maintain/improve air quality
Air quality monitors (stationary and mobile) to improve air quality
Monitor air quality near port
Stormwater
management
Stormwater management (x2)
Flood control
Collaborate with partners for stormwater management
Improve flood water draining
Reduce flooding
Green infrastructure
Streetscape design
Brownfields
Brownfield contamination
Brownfield to "healthfield" strategy for area brownfields
Other
Erosion control due to construction
Increase access to green space
Mold
2. Health
Table 10. Sticky note responses for health objectives
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Food access
Full service grocery store
Food education
Food hub community can have access to necessities
Improve food sources - stores and water
Health care
services
Accessible health care in the community
Create consistent health screening program
Preventative/proactive health care
Fitness options
34
-------
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Community Places to support social networks
networks Increase opportunity to walk and bike our community
3. Housing
Table 11. Sticky note responses for housing objectives
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Attainable
housing
Increase housing
Affordable housing
Erect/rehab affordable housing
Build housing that is safe and affordable
Provide decent, safe, healthy, attainable housing
Housing options
Provide continuum of housing options
Emergency housing (during periods of repairs)
Post-disaster housing
Transitional housing
Home ownership
Homeowner education
Pathways to homeownership
Insulation of homes
Foundation improvement of homes
Housing rehab (those who need assistance)
Improve better housing stock
Improve aging infrastructure
Zoning
Re-zoning
4. Transportation
Table 12. Sticky note responses for transportation objectives
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Road and
Through traffic control
infrastructure
Road improvement
improvements
Road and infrastructure improvements
Sidewalks
Designated parking areas
Improve signage
Mobility/safety
Improve mobility within the community
Ability to walk safely around the community
35
-------
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Connecting communities
Improve signage
Alternative
Clean, affordable options
transportation
Electric cars and buses
modes
Non-fossil fuel-based transport (hydrogen-fueled cars)
Bike lanes/trails
Mopeds (improve safety, acknowledge use)
BRT mass transit
5. Economic Opportunity
Table 13. Sticky note responses for economic opportunity objectives
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Economic
Increase community economic opportunities
opportunities
Financial literacy
Increase educational attainment for both adults and youth
Identify job skills
Re-zoning issues
6. Community Partnership
Table 14. Sticky note responses for community partnership objectives
Theme
Objectives (as written on sticky notes)
Community
More community partnerships
partnerships
36
-------
Appendix C: Supplemental Information
This appendix provides additional information on the resilience context and challenges in North
Charleston, gathered through desk research that may be useful for the community in supporting
their resilience efforts moving forward.
1. Community Demographics and Environmental Justice
Screening Maps
EPA's EJSCREEN tool provides a useful first step in understanding or highlighting locations that
may be a candidate for analysis, outreach, and in some cases further review. EJSCREEN
provides numerical estimates for a specified location, for both environmental and demographic
data, such as the traffic proximity indicator, or the percentage of residents who are racial/ethnic
minorities.
EJSCREEN offers three types of standard reports for different geographies, as well as maps
showing different demographic and environmental indicators by census tract. The EJSCREEN
reports and maps for North Charleston are provided below.
1.1 EJSCREEN Standard Report for North Charleston
&EPA EJSCREEN Report (Version 2018)
City: North Charleston
SOUTH CAROLINA, EPA Region 4
Approximate Population: 106,147
Input Area (sq. miles): 76.86
Selected Variables
Percentile in State
Percentile in EPA Region
Percentile in USA
EJ Indexes
EJ Index for Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)
B3
78
79
EJ Index for Ozone
82
77
78
EJ Index for NATA* Diesel PM
92
85
84
EJ Index for NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk
8S
79
81
EJ Index for NATA" Respiratory Hazard Index
92
34
85
EJ Index for Traffic Proximity and Volume
96
34
81
EJ Index for Lead Paint Indicator
86
84
79
EJ Index for Superfund Proximity
94
89
87
EJ Index for RMP Proximity
96
90
89
EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity
96
94
86
EJ Index for Wastewater Discharge Indicator
98
98
97
37
-------
EJ Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/Region/US
100
EJ Indexes
State Percentile Regional Percentile H USA Percentile
This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJSCREEN indexes It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g.. the estimated concentration of
ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire
state. EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the
average person in the location being analysed The years for which the data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to
this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for
discussion of these issues before using reports
April 15.2019
| Known Geography
0 * 0 16 km
Sa.mt£si f-fit 5a nr. usss "snx. iVC^sEMEV f- MftCan. £sn
- e»n cm*
38
-------
Sites reporting to EPA
Superfund NPL
1
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)
14
Selected Variables
Value
State
Average
Percentile
in State
EPA
Region
Average
Percentile in
EPA Region
USA
Average
Percentile
in USA
Environmental Indicators
Particulate Matter (PM 2 5 in ugiVn3)
9.25
9.84
17
9.48
36
9.53
41
Ozone (ppb)
36 5
39.3
10
39 4
27
42 5
14
NATA* Diesel PM (pg/m3)
1.21
0.7
35
0.755
80-90lh
0.938
70-80th
NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk (risk per MM)
46
44
63
42
60-70th
40
70-80th
NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index
2.5
1.6
95
1.7
90-95th
1.8
80-90th
Traffic Proximity and Volume (daily traffic count'distance to road)
190
£3
94
290
71
600
62
Lead Paint Indicator (% pre-iKOs housing)
0.17
0.14
70
0.15
69
0 29
47
Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance)
0.13
0.071
90
0.079
85
0.12
78
RMP Proximity (facility count/km distance)
1.2
0.43
90
0.58
85
0.72
80
Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance)
1.9
0.52
94
0.5
93
4.3
76
Wastewater Discharge Indicator (toacity-weighted conce-ntrationfm distance)
0.6
0.32
96
0.27
97
30
94
Demographic Indicators
Demographic Index
54%
37%
79
38%
76
36%
77
Minority Population
62%
36%
32
38%
77
38%
75
Low Income Population
46%
33%
66
38%
65
34%
72
Linquistically Isolated Population
4%
2%
87
3%
75
4%
68
Population with Less Than Hiqh School Education
18%
14%
68
14%
68
13%
73
Population under Aqe 5
8%
6%
74
6%
73
6%
71
Population oyer Age 64
9%
16%
22
16%
26
14%
30
*The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is EPA's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States EPA developed the NATA to prioritize air toxics, emission
sources and locations of interest for further study. It is important to remember that NATA provides broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country, not definitive risks to
specific individuals or locations. More information on the NATA analysis can be found at: https:/Aww.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment.
For additional information, see: www.epa. gov environmental!*ustice
EJSCREEN is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only It can help identify- areas that may warrant additional consideration analysis or outreach It does not provide a basis for decision-
making. but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and environmental
data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on
appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports This screening tool does not
provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJSCREEN outputs should be supplemented with additional information and
local knowledge before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns
39
-------
EJSCREEN American Communities Survey (ACS) Summary Report for
North Charleston
~SCREEN ACS Summary Report
location: Lrtf. HlWlh ttiHteCKtft Lily
HhB0bufthr|c D-mltrAdui
Description:
Summary of ACS tstimates
2012 2 016
Population
106,147
Population Density (per sq. mdeji
1,454
Minority Population
66,045
% Minority 62?*
Households
30, DOG
Housing. Units
44,1 B0
Housing Units Huiit Before 19S0
3.14B
Per Capita Income
21,143
Land Area |sq. miles | (kurt*:£#j)
72.H
% Land Area 95%
Waler Area fsq. miies| |SaunL«: £#1)
3.57
% Water Area
5%
2012 2016
Percent
MDfc [i\
ACS Estimates
Population by Race
Total
106 147
100%
036
Population Reporting One Race
102 929
97%
2435
White
47 637
45%
702
Black
50 307
47%
9W
American Indian
212
0%
60
Asian
2271
2%
2iB
Pacific blander
60
0%
33
Some Other ftace
2L4Z3
2%
5G5
Population Reporting Two or More Races
3218
3%
225
Total Hispanic Population
10,583
10*
500
Total Non-Hispanic Population
mjm
White Alone
40 102
3ff*
705
Slack Alone
49 306
502
American Indian Alone
220
0%
m
Non-Hispanic Asian Aone
2271
2%
21B
Pacific Islander Alone
60
0%
33
Other Race Afcjne
219
0%
55
Twa or Mare Races Alone
2 336
3%
243
Population by Sex
Male
52,133
43%
501
female
54 014
51%
4E6
Population by Age
Age 0-4
3 437
B%
330
Age 0-17
25 735
24%
4B5
Age 1&+
30 412
76%
563
Age 65+
9 990
9%
156
CUbi Hut* Dirt. 1 miY MM SMW lu totals diw lu rutahdiflg. Ki|uui poaubliah LArt |M of iff fM.it
N/A lYiuifri. iWt SflUfC*: U.S. CwittuS iMAa, A1M1 Lifi CMMnutiiy StJV^V (ACS I JOli - 2{Jit
April 15,20i9> ifi
40
-------
syEPA ~SCREEN ACS Summary Report
location: Qtv: htartti Cturierancit,
fengiaurtcrl: 0-m"*
86 353
58%
744
11327
12%
348
Speak English "very we#*
61B5
5%
243
JSpeak English "welf
2463
3%
178
*Speak Engksh'rtat welT
2251
2%
191
''Speak Engitsh "not at all"
425
0%
137
i_{>Speak English "less than wdf
2575
3%
203
J"**4Speak En^sh "less than very well"
5139
5%
243
Linguistically isolated Households'
Total
1,960
100%
31
Speak Spanish
1,266
B-1%
50
Speak Other Indo-European Lar^uages
90
6%
50
Speak Asian-Pacific Island Languages
194
12%
55
Speak Other Languages
10
1%
17
Households by Houselwld lr:omc
Household Income Base
39 005
100%
251
c;$lS,fiOQ
6E52
17%
175
$1S.X)00 -$2£,G0G
5725
15%
152
£2£jOGG» $SD.CXjO
10 775
25%
276
$.50.000-$?S/M)0
7255
15%
217
$7 SJWQ +
£540
22%
210
Occupied Housing U nits by Tenure
Total
39G05
100%
251
Owner Occupied
1S14&
47%
219
Renter Occupied
20 SGI
53%
259
Employed Population Age 16+- Years
Total
12,531
100%
725
In Labor Force
55,520
67%
533
Civilian Unemployed in Labor Force
4,548
E%
225
Not In Labor Force 27,012 30* 431
Note Daur -ar«i tun u loufcAit ts MuMim. HU0MK paMaowi cm b» of am net.
il01 iviiiUfc- kru>£t. LLS. U"-,L'. Bu'iilu, Ami-'tin Gortrriimlt Su?«»t->)A£S|
'HsuMhalai in wNcli no an8l4 andfl<«r is*ita.E«glrti*Tftfr ft guMi Fatfift arty.
Apr115, 2013 J,' j
41
-------
SEPASr1"
Locaton
Ring |bafl*r|
Description
Qly: North Charleston cty
C-rmte radus
EJSCREEN ACS Summary Report
2a 11 itt14
A£S Estimates
Percent
MOt(±)
~piilation by La nguage Spoken at (tome'
31 a; {persons age S and above)
57,711
10F&
S33
English
N/A
N'A
N'A
Spanish
N/A
N'A
N/A
french
N/A
N/A
N/A
French Creole
N/A
N'A
N/A
Italian
N/A
N'A
N/A
Portuguese
N/A
N/A
N/A
German
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yiddish
N/A
N'A
N/A
Other West Germanic
N/A
N'A
N/A
Scandinavian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Greek
N/A
N/A
N/A
Russian
N/A
N'A
N/A
MUi
N/A
N'A
N/A
Seriio-Croatian
N/A
N/A
N.A
Other Slavic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Armenian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Penan
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gujarat hi
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hindi
N/A
N/A
N/A
Urdu
N/A
N'A
N/A
Other Indie
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Irtdo iuropean
N/A
N/A
N/A
din se
N/A
N/A
N/A
Japanese
N/A
N'A
N/A
Korean
N/A
N/A
N/A
Men-Khmer, Cambodian
N'A
N/A
N/A
Hmong
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thai
N/A
N/A
N/A
Laotian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Vietnamese
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Asian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tagalqg
N/A
N'A
N/A
Other Pacific Island
N/A
N'A
N/A
Naua|ci
N/A
N'A
N/A
Other Native American
N/A
N'A
N/A
Hungarian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Arabic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hehrew
N/A
N/A
N/A
African
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other arid non-specified
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Non-£rigiah
N/A
N/A
N/A
tUU tMM-. Dillrfil niiiry DDI tuffi 111 tdUh du0 Ui ROUfldiAg. HifUiiit pCgaitlieri £1(1 56 Of Kir
N/A niWrri riul ArtiJatolt. SfllMft U.S. GartiuS SuivAu, *r**r
-------
1.3 EJSCREEN Maps
EJSCREEN includes several maps to identify potential Environmental Justice issues in
communities across the country.
The maps below show how the census tracts in North Charleston compare to census tracts
nationwide in terms of:
Demographic Index - a combination of percent low income and percent minority
PM 2.5 - Fine particulate matter levels in the air, combined with the Demographic Index
Ozone - Ozone levels in the air, combined with the Demographic Index
NATA Diesel PM - Diesel particulate matter levels in the air, combined with the
Demographic Index
NATA Cancer Risk - Cancer risk from inhalation of air toxics, combined with the
Demographic Index
NATA Respiratory HI - Air toxics respiratory hazard index, combined with the
Demographic Index
Traffic Proximity - Count of vehicles per day at major roads divided by the distance,
combined with the Demographic Index
Lead Paint Indicator - Percentage of housing built before 1960, combined with the
Demographic Index
Superfund Proximity - Count of National Priorities List/Superfund sites divided by the
distance, combined with the Demographic Index
RMP Proximity - Count of facilities with Risk Management Plans divided by the distance,
combined with the Demographic Index
Hazardous Waste Proximity - Count of transfer, storage, and disposal facilities divided
by the distance, combined with the Demographic Index
Wastewater Discharge Indicator - Toxicity-weighted concentration/meter distance,
combined with the Demographic Index
The maps show that at least one census tract in North Charleston is in the nationwide 95th
percentile for every single EJ indicator.
43
-------
Demographic Index (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREEN Indexes |~]
I | Data not available
] Less than 50 percentile ipi
50 -60 percentile Q
60 -70 percentile [
70 -80 percentile [
80 - 90 percentile
90 - 95 percentile
95 - 100 percentile
1:288.895
5
"f 1 '
EJ Index PM 2.5 (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREEN_ Indexes
I Data not available
] Less than 50 percentile
EJSCFEEN2018
44
~
P
50 -60 percentile
60 -70 percentile
70 -80 percentile
| | 80 - 90 percentile
| ] 90 - 95 percentile
B 95 - 100 percentile
-------
EJ Index Ozone (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJ SCREEN Indexes |~]
I | Data not available
] Less than 50 percentile ipi
50 -60 percentile
60 -70 percentile
70 -80 percentile
~
~
80 - 90 percentile
90 - 95 percentile
95 - 100 percentile
EJ Index NATA Diesel PM (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREEN_lndexes [~] 50-60 percentile Q] 80 - 90 percentile
~ Data not available jj] 60 .70 percentile ~ 90 - 95 percentile
~ Lessthan 50 percentile g 70 -80 percentile ~ 95 - 100 percentile
1:288,895
5
\ '
45
-------
EJ Index NATA Cancer Risk (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJ SCREEN Indexes
|~l 50-60 percentile Q 80 - 90 percentile
~ Data not available q i6o-70 percentile ~ 90 - 95 percentile
70 -80 percentile | 95 - 100 percentile
] Less than 50 percentile
EjSCtEENj 201S
EJ Index Respiratory HI (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREENIndexes
] Data not available
] Less than 50 percentile
[~] 50 -60 percentile Q] 80 - 90 percentile
H 60 -70 percentile [H| 90- 95 percentile
70 -80 percentile
95 - 100 percentile
E-'SCn£ES 2013
46
-------
EJ Index Traffic Proximity (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJ SCREEN Indexes |~]
I | Data not available
] Less than 50 percentile ipi
50 -60 percentile
60 -70 percentile
70 -80 percentile
~
~
80 - 90 percentile
90 - 95 percentile
95 - 100 percentile
EJ Index Lead Paint Indicator (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREEN_ Indexes
[ | Data not available
I | Less than 50 percentile ipi
50 -60 percentile
60 -70 percentile
70 -80 percentile
~
~
80 - 90 percentile
90 - 95 percentile
95 - 100 percentile
47
-------
EJ Index Superfund Proximity (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJ SCREEN Indexes |~| 50 -60 percentile Q 80 - 90 percentile
~ Data not available q 60 _70 percenffle Q M - 95 percentile
~ Lessthan 50 percentile g 70-BO percentile ¦ 95 - 100 percentile
1:288 895
5
"f 1 '
EJ Index RMP Proximity (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREEN_ Indexes
[ | Data not available
I | Less than 50 percentile ipi
50 -60 percentile Q 80 - 90 percentile
60 -70 percentile Q 90 - 95 percentile
70 -80 percentile | 95 - 100 percentile
-------
EJ Index Hazardous Waste Proximity (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJ SCREEN Indexes |~| 50 -60 percentile Q 80 - 90 percentile
~ Data not available q 60 _70 percenffle Q M - 95 percentile
~ Lessthan 50 percentile g 70 -80 percentile ¦ 95 - 100 percentile
2.5 5
SaicerEs.it ffC.Garwv uses, nseimap mcsementp
EjSCtEENj 201S
EJ Index Wastewater Discharge Indicator (National Percentiles)
April 15,2019
EJSCREEN_lndexes [~] 50-60 percentile Q] 80 - 90 percentile
~ Data not available p 60-70 percentile ~ 90 - 95 percentile
~ Lessthan 50 percentile g 70 -80 percentile ~ 95 - 100 percentile
2.5 5
E-'SCn£ES 2013
49
-------
2. EnviroAtlas: Identifying Risks to Populations of Concern
Demographic data can be used to identify vulnerable populations. The maps below in Figure 12
show two demographic variables from the 2012 - 2016 American Community Survey (ACS)
accessed in EPA's EnviroAtlas. The map on the left shows the Percent Household Income less
than $15,000 per year; Percent Minority Population is on the right. In both cases, darker block
groups represent a higher percentage of the population of concern. North Charleston has a high
percentage of both low-income and minority populations.
Percent Household Income
<15K (2012-2016 ACS)
by Block Group
0-5
5-11
¦ 11-17
¦ 17-25
¦ 25-36
¦ 36-52
¦ 52-100
Percent Minority Population
(2012-2016 ACS)
by Block Group
0-10
10-23
23-37
37-53
¦ 53 - 70
¦ 70-87
H 87-100
Figure 11. Demographic maps from EPA's Enviro Atlas mapping application.
Vulnerable groups, including low-income, minority, and elderly populations may be
disproportionately affected by nearby environmental burdens. The map in Figure 12 shows
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites and limited preliminarily identified and assessed
brownfields sites (as reported in EPA's ACRES database by one local EPA Brownfields
grantee) in North Charleston. Both site types are concentrated in communities with higher
percentages of populations of concern.
50
-------
Ladscin
»se Creek
f 101 ti
"-GharleS
~ Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)
% Brownfields Grantees (ACRES)
Percent Minority Population Percent Household Income <15K
(2012-2016 ACS) (2012 - 2016 ACS)
by Block Group by Block Group
0-10 O 0-5
10-23 ¦ 5-11
¦ 23-37 ¦ 11-17
¦ 37-53 ¦ 17-25
¦ 53-70 ¦ 25-36
¦ 70-87 ¦ 36-52
¦ 87.100 ¦ 52-100
JAMES ISLAND
5 Island
OHNS ISLAND
Figure 12. Map showing Superfund NPL Sites (includes actual and proposed sites, and those being screened for
inclusion) and preliminarily identified and assessed brownfields sites (as reported in EPA's ACRES database by one
local EPA Brownfields grantee). Map zoom shows both site types, overlaid with percent minority and percent low-
income populations.
EnviroAtlas can also be used to assess flood risk. Figure 13 shows the area assessed by FEMA
to determine flood hazard area (shown as areas in purple and cream). At present, these data do
not include the entire North Charleston area. However, North Charleston is prone to flooding
and much of the area likely exists in a floodplain.
The EnviroAtlas Estimated Floodplains map fills in the area that is potentially the 100-year
floodplain and is not currently covered in FEMA's map. There are several NPLs (green
diamonds) in North Charleston that are in the floodplain (indicated in medium blue) and may be
prone to inundation during heavy rain events. Using maps like these can help planners identify
areas that may be prone to flood and sites that may be priority areas for special attention during
heavy rain and flooding. Using these maps with demographic data can identify populations that
may be especially vulnerable during these events.
51
-------
£
X~\
bse Ci-eeR
nark
FEMA Flood Hazard Areas
11 % Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
~
Regulatory Fioodivay
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined
Flood Hazard
¦ 0.2% Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
I, Future Conditions 1 %
J Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk
Due to Levee
Area of Minimal Flood
Hazard
~
~
EnviroAtlas Estimated
Floodplains
Not flood plain
Floodplain
Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL)
~
North Charleston
Boundary
Bl
~
A Si
ml
ryP , '.
mr?.l
V r-S-4^1
Figure 13. Map image showing FEMA USA Flood Hazard Areas, EnviroAtlas Estimated Floodplains in the US and
Superfund NPLs (includes actual and proposed sites, and those being screened for inclusion). FEMA has developed
preliminary flood hazard data that will cover North Charleston once it becomes effective.
3. Extreme Events: Past, Present & Future
Flooding and drainage have been challenges for the Charleston area since the City of
Charleston's founding in 1680. Sea level rise, more frequent heavy rain events, tidal flooding,
and increased development have worsened flooding and flood drainage issues over time.3
3.1 Sea level rise
Global sea level has been rising over the past century and continues to rise at an increasing
rate. Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations (local level readings) and satellites
(average height of ocean). Absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per
3 NOAA. 2017. Stories from the Field: Building the Case for a Comprehensive Sea Level Rise Strategy in
Charleston, South Carolina. NOAA Office for Coastal Management, DigitalCoast.
https://coast.noaa.qov/digitalcoast/stories/charleston-slr.html
52
-------
year from 1880 to 2013. Since 1993, however, the rate of sea level rise has doubled at 0.11 to
0.14 inches per year.
Sea level rise is caused by melting glaciers and ice sheets, which add more water volume to the
ocean and rising temperatures and thermal expansion.
Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local
factors, such as:
Subsidence
Upstream flood control
Erosion
Regional ocean currents
Variations in land height
In Charleston, sea level has risen more than one foot over the last 100 years (see Figure 14).
NOAA estimates an additional of 2-7 feet of sea level rise in Charleston over the next 100 years
(Figure 15).4
Figure 14. Observed sea level trends in Charleston, SC.:
0.45
0.30
0.15
w
Z o.oo
-------
01
CTi
C
*
X
u
CI
>
l_
0)
*
0)
<*
o>
i/i
CJ
>
'£
2
g
' 4
~/r
1
| NO&A High
I U5ACE High
NCAA Ink High
|USACE Inl, NOAA
Int Low
| U5ACE/NOAA
Current Trend
2020 293Q 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
Figure 15. Sea level rise projections for Charleston based on analysis from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and NOAA. Box indicates the planning parameters for the 50-year outlook in the Charleston Sea Level Rise
Strategy.6
A map of modeled inundation at current mean higher high water and 2 feet of sea level rise are
shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively.
6 City of Charleston. 2015. Sea Level Strategy, https://www.charleston-
sc.qov/DocumentCenter/View/10089
54
-------
Figure 16. Current mean higher high-water level (blue = inundated, green = low-lying).7
Figure 17. Two feet of sea level rise relative to the mean higher high water (blue = inundated, green = low-lying).
7 NOAA, 2018, Sea Level Rise Viewer, https://coast.noaa.gOv/slr/#
8 NOAA, 2018, Sea Level Rise Viewer, https://coast.noaa.gOv/slr/#
55
-------
Sea level rise in inland areas such as Union Heights can have a number of impacts, including:
Raised groundwater tables, which may inundate underground infrastructure, including
drainage infrastructure
Drainage issues as ocean water may move up through the drainage pipes and into the
streets
Storm surge father inland
More frequent nuisance flood events
3.2 Tidal flooding
Tidal flooding has also increased in recent decades in Charleston. In the 1980s, the City of
Charleston experienced an average of 4 days of tidal flooding a year.9 In 2016, Charleston
experienced 50 days of tidal flooding.10 By 2045, the City of Charleston is projected to
experience 180 days of tidal flooding a year.11 This projection assumes 2.5 feet of sea level rise
over the next 50 years.12
3.3 Heavy rain events
Union Heights and other communities in North Charleston often experience repeat flood events
from heavy rain, the most recent of which occurred in July 2018.13 The frequency and severity
of heavy rain events is projected to increase due to climate change.
4. Port of Charleston Activities near Union Heights
The Port of Charleston is the 4th largest U.S. container port,14 with two terminals and a proposed
railyard in the vicinity of Union Heights:
9 Elizabeth Fly, Laura Cabiness, and Carolee Williams. No date. Charleston takes on Sea Level Rise:
Strategies, Projects, Funding, and Progress. PowerPoint presentation. http://www.charleston-
sc.qov/DocumentCenter/View/12347
10 Glenn Smith and Tony Bartelme. September 18, 2017. A fix to flood-proof Charleston could top $2
billion and take a generation to complete, https://www.postandcourier.com/news/a-fix-to-flood-proof-
charleston-could-top-billion-and/article a353083e-9c9c-11 e7-86b9-4b51391 dde5c.html
11 City of Charleston. 2015. Sea Level Strategy, https://www.charleston-
sc.qov/DocumentCenter/View/10089
12 Abigail Darlington. January 29, 2017. Charleston's new resilience director starts work to brace city for
sea level rise. The Post and Courier, https://www.postandcourier.com/charleston sc/charleston-s-new-
resilience-director-starts-work-to-brace-citv/article f694959e-e3fb-11e6-b39d-1fbf07151109.html
13 Hannah Alani. July 25, 2018. After floods swamp neighborhoods, no hope in sight for these North
Charleston residents. The Post and Courier, https://www.postandcourier.com/news/after-floods-swamp-
neiqhborhoods-no-hope-in-siqht-for-these/article 07b855d6-8f72-11 e8-aac4-679a6fd80409.html
14 Sue Kimbrough, Gayle Hagler, Jonathan Steffens, Timothy Barzyk, Vlad Isokov, Ryan Brown, and Alan
Powell. 2015. Measuring the Impact of Port of Charleston Activities on Local Air Quality. AWMA 108th
Annual Conference, Raleigh, NC, June 22-25, 2015.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntrvld=320510
56
-------
Veterans terminal - 110-acre bulk,15 break-bulk,16 roll-on-roll-off,17 and project cargo18
facility.19
Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr. Terminal - 280-acre container terminal. This terminal is under
construction with phase one expected to be complete in mid-2020.20
Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility - 118-acre railyard to transfer cargo
on and off freight transportation. This facility just received a permit and will be located
near Veterans Terminal.
A new port access road is also being built over the Union Heights neighborhood, which will help
to decrease truck traffic in the community.
The port is also vulnerable to extreme events, which can have ripple effects on the community.
The Veterans Terminal in particular is expected to experience flooding from 2 feet of sea level
rise and be inundated by 3 feet of sea level rise. Flooding or sea level rise impacts to the port
could include:21
Damage to port infrastructure
Inundation of critical infrastructure
Ships unable to access the port due to high/fast waters and excess sediment in shipping
channels
Trucks and employees unable to access the port due to flooded access roads
Decreased bridge clearance, preventing some larger ships from passing under bridges
Hazardous working conditions
In extreme cases, port closure
5. Related Resilience Work in North Charleston
There are a few examples of existing resilience work in the North Charleston area including:
The Lowcountrv Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) is actively working to increase
the resilience of North Charleston communities with initiatives such as:
o Increasing attainable housing options
o Collecting flood data information
o Working to acquire and open a grocery store in Union Heights
15 Bulk - Commodity cargo transported unpackaged in large quantities.
16 Breakbulk - General cargo or goods that do not fit in or utilize standard shipping containers or cargo
bins. Breakbulk cargo is transported individually, often times on a skid or pallet or in a crate.
17 Roll-on Roll-off - Cargo rolls on or off the vessel as opposed to being lifted using cranes. Some cargo
rolls on and off with its own wheels (e.g. cars) or cargo is placed on handling equipment with wheels to
roll on and off.
18 Project cargo - Term used to broadly describe the national or international transportation of large,
heavy, high value, or complex pieces of equipment. Primarily used by oil and gas, wind power, mining,
engineering, and construction industries.
19 South Carolina Ports. 2018. Veterans Terminal, http://www.scspa.com/locations/veterans-terminal/
20 South Carolina Ports. 2018. Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr. Terminal, http://www.scspa.com/locations/huqh-
k-leatherman-sr-terminal/
21 EPA. 2018. Inland Port Community Resilience Roadmap.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.eg i/P100UA4W.PDF?Dockev=P100UA4W.PDF
57
-------
The Charleston Resilience Network, which LAMC is a member of, is a collaboration of
public, private, and non-profit organizations in the Charleston area. The mission of the
network is to foster a unified regional resilience strategy and provide a forum to share
science-based information, educate stakeholders, and enhance long-term planning
decisions that result in resilience.
6. Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index
The following sections provide a high-level summary of the Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency
Index (CSRI) v2.0 discussion and survey findings from the workshop.
6.1 Resilience Index Session Overview
EPA, LAMC, community residents, and non-community stakeholders participated in an
interactive "Resilience Index" workshop session.
Resilience Index Session Purpose
Provide an overview of the original CSRI;
Introduce new indicators proposed for the CSRI v2.0;
Discuss the new methodology that distinguishes the original CSRI from the CSRI v2.0;
Rank CSRI v2.0 indicator domains; and
Finalize the master list of indicators to be included in the CSRI v2.0 model.
Details were presented during the workshop on the original CSRI, which was developed in 2016
to rank human health and environmental risk at the census tract level for communities in South
Carolina (SC). The initial index was informed by North Charleston community stakeholders who
participated in a ranking exercise to determine the environmental stressors and resiliency
factors that most influenced health in their respective neighborhoods. The CSRI v2.0 emanated
from the growing need to include additional indicators that could quantify resilience based on
more weather-related environmental impacts. Updates to the original CSRI indicators, domains,
and methodology were discussed throughout the workshop session.
Thirteen stakeholders completed a paper-based CSRI v2.0 survey to rank the four domains of
the index according to the degree of negative influence each domain had on community
resilience using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. The ranking exercise was an expert
elicitation process that allowed each stakeholder to use their community expertise to participate
in one aspect of weighting the indicators for the CSRI v2.0 model. The CSRI v2.0 indicators
were divided into the following four interrelated domains: 1) Environmental Stressors, 2)
Environmental Hazards, 3) Vulnerability Factors, and 4) Health-Promoting Factors (Figure 19).
Community stakeholders had an opportunity to evaluate all the indicators within each domain to
finalize the master list of CSRI v2.0 variables.
58
-------
Vulnerability
Factors
Figure 18. CSRI v2.0 domains.
Environmental
Hazards
Environmental
Stressors
Health-Promoting
Factors
6.2 Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index (CSRI) Background
The CSRI is a community-informed screening tool
Environmental
Stressors
Resiliency
Buffers
Environmental
Hazards
Environmental
Exposures
Pathogenic
Factors
Salutogenic
Factors
Figure 19. CSRI domains and sub-domains.
that was developed to comprehensively assess the
cumulative burden of environmental stressors while
accounting for resilience or health-promoting factors
(i.e., grocery stores, health insurance, and primary
healthcare).22 Specifically, the CSRI screens for
cumulative risk based on a multiplicative
relationship between chemical and non-chemical
stressors and resiliency buffers that may counteract
the negative impacts of exposures to various
environmental hazards. Environmental stressors
and resiliency buffers have been designated as
primary domains in this index while the four sub-
domains include the following: 1) Environmental Hazards, 2) Environmental Exposures, 3)
Pathogenic Factors, and 4) Salutogenic Factors (Figure 20). Pathogenic factors are defined as
features in one's environment that may increase vulnerability by negatively influencing health
and resiliency.23'24 In contrast, salutogenic factors represent assets in one's environment that
may strengthen resiliency by promoting health and wellness.25 26
During the resilience index workshop session, community and non-community stakeholders
were presented with information on the indicators and methods used to calculate the original
CSRI. For the original CSRI, community stakeholders from North Charleston, SC participated in
a research study that allowed them to rank or prioritize environmental stressors and resiliency
factors that most influenced health using a Likert scale questionnaire. Twenty-six indicators
22 Burwell-Naney K, Wilson SM, He X, Sapkota A, Puett R. Development of a Cumulative Stressors and
Resiliency Index to Examine Environmental Health Risk: A South Carolina Assessment. Environmental
Justice. 2018; 11:165-175.
23 Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well (1st ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1987.
24 Wilson, S. An Ecologic Framework to Study and Address Environmental Justice and Community Health
Issues. Environmental Justice. 2009; 2:15-24.
25 Antonovsky A. 1987.
26 Wlson, S. 2009.
59
-------
were identified from the literature and included in the questionnaire. The participant's responses
coupled with a statistical procedure known as principal component analysis (PCA) were used to
condense the twenty-six proposed variables to twenty that best represented indicators of
environmental stress and resilience (Table 15).
Table 15. Proposed CSRI indicators* (Start = 26, End = 20)
Environmental Stressors Resiliency Buffers
Environmental Exposures
Pathogenic Factors
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
Lead Paint
Ozone (O3)
Fine Particulates (PM25)
Traffic Density
Toxic Releases from Facilities
Un^uisticall^Jsola^
Low Birth Weigh
Long-Term Unemployment
Low-Income
Gini Index
Violent Crime
Alcohol Outlet Density
Residential Segregation
Environmental Hazards
Brownfields
Superfund Sites
Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)
Salutogenic Factors
Green Space
CT . l\/lpntal H^althr^ ^
Primary Healthcare
Grocery Stores
Fitness Facilities
Educational Attainment
Health Insurance Coverage
*Removed indicators:
CSRI scores were calculated for all census tracts in South Carolina and had a possible range of
0 to 100. Specifically, CSRI scores were calculated by multiplying environmental stressors
(exposures + hazards) by resiliency buffers (pathogenic + inverse of salutogenic factors) (Figure
20) to derive a more accurate value of risk that could characterize a community's state of
resilience. In version 1.0, higher CSRI scores were indicative of communities with several
resilience challenges while lower scores represented high resilience communities. The inverse
value for salutogenic factors in the equation meant lower scores were assigned to community
assets on the higher end of the spectrum (i.e., high access to grocery stores) to represent
greater resilience, and higher scores given to assets on the lower end of the spectrum (i.e.,
percent of uninsured population) to reflect lower resilience.
Figure 20. CSRI equation.
60
-------
High-risk communities were identified as those with CSRI scores in the 90th percentile for their
respective Environmental Affairs (EA) region (Lowcountry, Pee Dee, Upstate, and Midlands). A
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated to examine regional differences, and a
linear regression model was used to assess racial disparities in CSRI scores.
CSRI scores ranged from 7.4 to 64.0 (M = 29.1) across the state, and statistically significant
differences were found in regional scores except between the Lowcountry and Pee Dee area.
Moreover, a one unit increase in the percentage of non-white populations per census tract
increased CSRI scores by 6.1%. This finding demonstrated that non-white populations were
more likely to live in low resilience communities. This study was published in 2018 and
additional information can be found in Environmental Justice.27
6.3 Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index Version 2.0
The CSRI v2.0 is like the original CSRI in that it is an assessment metric used to quantify
community resilience by considering the combined effects of environmental stressors and
resilience buffers in different microenvironments. One major distinction between these
screening tools is that the CSRI v2.0 includes more indicators that may be used to measure
resilience related to the effects of extreme weather events (i.e., flood risk, flood insurance, and
shelter capacity). The CSRI v2.0 is comprised of 31 indicators representing four domains (Table
16):
Environmental Hazards: These are identified as proxies of exposure that may negatively
influence health and community resilience (i.e., Superfund Sites, Toxic Release
Inventory [TRI] Facilities, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks [LUSTs]).
Environmental Stressors: These are stressors or harmful exposures that may have more
of a direct, negative impact on health and community resilience (i.e., traffic density,
ozone [O3], and fine particulate matter [PM2.5].
Vulnerability Factors: These are factors that may lower community resilience by making
individual's more susceptible to the impacts associated with exposures to environmental
hazards and stressors (i.e., disability, segregation, and flood risk).
Health-Promoting Factors: These are factors that may promote community resilience
due to their ability to counteract the physiological and psychological responses to the
cumulative impacts of environmental exposures (i.e., access to education, grocery
stores, and transportation).
Table 16. CSRI v2.0 domains and indicators
Environmental Hazards
Environmental Stressors
Brownfields
DPM
Superfund Sites
O3
TRI Facilities
PM25
LUSTs
Traffic Density
Water Discharges
Lead
Vulnerability Factors
Health Promoting Factors
27 Burwell-Naney K, Wilson SM, He X, Sapkota A, Puett R. Development of a Cumulative Stressors and
Resiliency Index to Examine Environmental Health Risk: A South Carolina Assessment. Environmental
Justice. 2018; 11:165-175.
61
-------
Linguistically Isolated
Mental Healthcare
Low-Income
Primary Healthcare
Disability
Hospitals
Vulnerable Populations (<5 and >65 Years Old)
Grocery Stores
Segregation
Transportation
Crime
Education
Flood Risk
Health Insurance
Long-Term Unemployment
Shelter Capacity
Industrial Development
Flood Insurance
Housing Quality
Homeownership
GINI Index
The CSRI v2.0 model was applied to Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties, as well as
North Charleston, SC to examine community resilience at the census tract level. A modified
version of the Analytic Network Process (ANP) model was used to inform the calculation of the
index and may be defined as a multi-criteria decision analysis method that incorporates network
structures (i.e., goals, nodes, and clusters), expert elicitation, and pairwise rankings.28 The
hybrid ANP model is best suited for the CSRI v2.0 because it can produce weights for the
indicators by using both qualitative and quantitative data.
The calculation for the CSRI v2.0 is based on EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA)
program methods for assessing risk associated with cumulative and aggregate stresses to
ultimately prioritize actionable risk management solutions.29 The strengths of using the ReVA
method are that the number of indicators included in the model are less restricted. As a result, it
can weight indicators based on their correlation, and the product of the calculation allows us to
score and rank communities at the census tract level according to their resilience status. Dual
weighting is achieved by integrating stakeholder survey responses in the ANP model with the
ReVA method of calculating weights from the correlation between indicators.
Data sources for the CSRI v2.0 are from EPA's EJSCREEN assessment tool, EPA's library
database system, U.S Census Bureau, and the original CSRI. We calculated CSRI v2.0 scores
and rankings to simulate community resilience in four different scenarios (Figure 21):
Scenario 1: Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester, SC tri-counties without community
stakeholder input from the CSRI v2.0 Survey;
Scenario 2: Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester, SC tri-counties with community
stakeholder input from the CSRI v2.0 Survey;
Scenario 3: North Charleston, SC without community stakeholder input from the CSRI
v2.0 Survey + the industrial development indicator; and
Scenario 4: North Charleston, SC with community stakeholder input form the CSRI v2.0
Survey + the industrial development indicator.
We developed color-coded maps for all four scenarios in ArcMap 10.6.1 and identified census
tracts that ranked and scored the highest and lowest for community resilience using RStudio.
The maps show the highest resilience communities in green and the lowest resilience
28 Saaty TL. The Analytic Network Process. IJOR; 2008; 1:1-27
29 Locantore NW, Tran LT, O'Neill RV, McKinnis PW, Smith ER, O'Connell M. An Overview of Data
Integration Methods for Regional Assessment. Environ Model Assess. 2004; 94:249-261.
62
-------
communities in red. Furthermore, we examined differences in community resilience rank and
score by domain for tri-county and North Charleston, SC census tracts. There are 155 total
census tracts in the tri-county area; however, one census tract was excluded since it was
assigned to a body of water and had little or no residential population. As a result, CSRI v2.0
rankings had a potential range of 1 to 154. Communities with a high CSRI v2.0 ranking are
considered more resilient than communities with lower ranks. CSRI v 2.0 rankings and scores
were mapped to depict variability in community resilience for each scenario.
Final Product = CSRI v2.0
Rankings and Scores for Tri-
Counties and North
Charleston, SC
CSRI v2.0 Survey
Administered to
Stakeholders
CSRI v2.0 Survey
Results Processed in
Super Decisions
Software
Analysis Performed in
RStudio and Four
Output Scenarios
Produced
Indicators Calculated for
each Domain and
Assigned a Direction in
RStudio Software
*
Super Decsions Output
+ Raw Indicator Data +
Indicator Direction
Imported into RStudio
Software
Figure 21. CSRI v2.0 process flow.
6.4 CSRI v2.0 Ranking Exercise
During the ranking exercise, stakeholders were asked to complete a "Cumulative Stressors and
Resiliency Index v2.0 Survey" comprised of seven questions to inform part of the weighting for
the index. Community and non-community stakeholders (13) were asked to use their expertise
as key informants to complete a paper-based survey ranking the negative influence of indicators
on community resilience across four domains: 1) Environmental Stressors, 2) Environmental
Hazards, 3) Vulnerability Factors, and 4) Health Promoting Factors.
For example, participants were asked the following question: "Do environmental stressors or
environmental hazards have a stronger negative influence on community resilience? Select
one.". Once the stakeholders selected one of two possible domain options, they were asked to
use their response to answer a secondary question of "How much more [does domain x have a
stronger negative influence on community resilience]? Circle one.". The stakeholders were then
given five choices to answer the secondary question: a. Equal, b. Moderately, c. Strongly, d.
Very Strongly, and e. Extreme (Table 17). Questions 2 through 7 corresponded with the way the
information is presented in Super Decisions so the participants' responses could easily be
entered into the software program post-workshop. In addition, participants were asked to
identify their stakeholder affiliation in question 1 and could select more than one answer choice
out of six possible options.
63
-------
Table 17. CSRI v2.0 survey results
CSRI v2.0 Survey Questions
Responses
1. Stakeholder Affiliation
Community: 8
Government: 3
Commercial/Private: 2
Academic: 1
Non-Profit: 7
Other: 2
2. Environmental Stressors vs. Environmental
Environmental Stressors: 5 (38%)
Hazards
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 1
c. Strongly: 1
d. Very Strongly: 3
e. Extreme: 0
Environmental Hazards: 8 (62%)
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 1
c. Strongly: 4
d. Very Strongly: 3
e. Extreme: 0
3. Environmental Stressors vs. Vulnerability Factors
Environmental Stressors: 1 (8%)
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 1
d. Very Strongly: 0
e. Extreme: 0
Vulnerability Factors: 8 (92%)
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 4
d. Very Strongly: 6
e. Extreme: 2
4. Environmental Stressors vs. Health-Promoting
Environmental Stressors: 5 (38%)
Factors
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 3
d. Very Strongly: 2
e. Extreme: 0
Health-Promoting Factors: 8 (62%)
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 3
d. Very Strongly: 2
e. Extreme: 2
5. Environmental Hazards vs. Vulnerability Factors
Environmental Hazards: 6 (46%)
a. Equal: 1*
b. Moderately: 1
64
-------
c. Strongly: 3
d. Very Strongly: 2
e. Extreme: 0
Vulnerability Factors: 6 (46%)
a. Equal: 1*
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 0
d. Very Strongly: 6
e. Extreme: 0
Equal: 1* (8%)
6. Environmental Hazards vs. Health-Promoting
Environmental Hazards: 3 (23%)
Factors
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 3
d. Very Strongly: 0
e. Extreme: 0
Health-Promoting Factors: 10 (77%)
a. Equal: 0
b. Moderately: 1
c. Strongly: 5
d. Very Strongly: 3
e. Extreme: 1
7. Vulnerability Factors vs. Health-Promoting Factors
Vulnerability Factors: 6 (46%)
a. Equal: 1*
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 3
d. Very Strongly: 3
e. Extreme: 0
Health-Promoting Factors: 4 (31%)
a. Equal: 2*
b. Moderately: 0
c. Strongly: 1
d. Very Strongly: 2
e. Extreme: 1
Equal: 3* (23%)
While completing the survey, stakeholders had access to the four lists of CSRI v2.0 indicators
representing each domain that were displayed on easels around the room. The CSRI v2.0
Survey responses were used to build an ANP model in Super Decisions, which is a multi-criteria
software application that can be used to implement ANP and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
models.30 The domains were entered as nodes in Super Decisions and compared to each other
to quantify and rank the degree of negative influence a specific domain has on community
resilience. The domain selected by most participants for survey questions 2 through 7 was
entered into the software as having a greater negative influence on community resilience
30 Saaty TL. The Analytic Network Process. IJOR; 2008; 1:1-27
65
-------
between the two choices. When asked "How much more?", the Likert scale survey response
with the most votes was selected.
For example, 62% of the stakeholders perceived environmental hazards as having a stronger
negative influence on community resilience than environmental stressors in question 2 (Table
17). Environmental hazards were selected in the software as well as "strongly" since that option
received the most stakeholder responses (Figure 22). This process was followed until all
domains were compared with each other to complete the six pairwise rankings. In the case of
question 5 where stakeholders equally identified environmental hazards and vulnerability factors
as having a stronger negative influence on community resilience, we selected vulnerability
factors as having a stronger negative influence but said they were equal in the secondary
question.
Each domain could receive any weighted value between 0 and 0.1 to equal 100%. Domains
with weighted values closer to 0.1 had a greater negative influence on community resilience,
meaning the contribution of those factors may have the greatest impact on whether a
community is resilient. In contrast, domains weighted closer to zero may have a lower impact on
a community's resilience status.
Met: 0
Mode:
Cluster:
/lodel Structure
Create/Edit Details
~how Priorities
/lake/Show Connections
1. Choose
Node Cluster
Choose Node
Community Resi- 0
Cluster: Goal
Choose Cluster
Environmental/- 0
2. Node comparisons with respect to Community Resilience
Graphical Verbal Matrix Questionnaire Direct
Comparisons wrt 'Community Resilience" node in "Environmental/Resilience Factors" cluster
Environmental Hazards is strongly more important than Environmental Stressors
Help for verbal mode.
1. Clickand drag to adjust the judgment.
2. Click the "Invert comparison" button
to invert.
3. Use Tab/Enter to move between judgments
or use the navigation buttons on the right.
4. Click below equals to give a zero judgment.
5. Type a number to vote.
6. Hit -or/to invert.
Invert Comparison
Figure 22. Super decisions interface for entering CSRI v2.0 survey responses.
6.5 CSRI v2.0 Indicator Evaluation
Community and non-community stakeholders were given an opportunity to review the indicators
for each domain to determine which indicators, if any, should be removed or added to the
master list of variables. While no indicators were removed from the master list, stakeholders
suggested adding "industrial development" and "housing quality." The industrial development
indicator was added to the CSRI v2.0 as a vulnerability factor and calculated as the percentage
of a census tract zoned for light and/or heavy industrial activity. This zoning data was only
assessable for North Charleston, SC census tracts and was not used in the overall tri-county
community resilience assessment. Since this particular indicator was important to the
community and they were already in the process of analyzing this data with their College of
Charleston partners, we performed an additional assessment and created separate maps for
North Charleston, SC to document the influence of this variable on the model (Scenarios 3 and
4). Housing quality was also added to the master list as a vulnerability factor using data from the
U.S. Census Bureau on the percentage of older homes within a census tract (i.e., percentage of
66
-------
homes built pre-1950's). We later included the Gini coefficient as a vulnerability factor, which
was an indicator used in the original CSRI to measure income inequality.
6.6 CSRI v 2.0 Findings
The CSRI v2.0 Survey responses were all entered into the Super Decisions software program
and the results demonstrated that vulnerability factors were perceived as having a stronger
negative influence on community resilience (0.50) (Table 18). This means that communities with
more vulnerabilities (i.e., crime, disability, and industrial development) may experience more
challenges achieving community resilience. Environmental stressors (i.e., PM2.5, traffic density,
and lead) were ranked the lowest (0.04) in terms of their ability to negatively influence
community resilience. While community stakeholders ranked environmental stressors as least
important, it was in the context of the other domains and does not mean they do not have an
impact on community resilience. Overall, vulnerability and health promoting factors accounted
for almost 80% (0.78) of the domain weights that were factored in to the CSRI v2.0 calculation.
As a result, indicators assigned to those domains had the greatest contribution in determining a
community's resilience status.
Table 18. CSRI v2.0 survey results: Node comparison values for each domain
Domains
Node Comparison Values
Environmental Hazards
0.18
Environmental Stressors
0.04
Health-Promoting Factors
0.28
Vulnerability Factors
0.50
Since the survey results were not used in the tri-county assessment without stakeholder input;
the domains received equal weights of 1.0 for one aspect of the weighting process and the
correlation between indicators completed the dual weighing feature of this model. The results for
the tri-county analysis without stakeholder input indicated that the most resilient community was
in a Berkeley County census tract (45015020403) and received the highest overall rank of 154.
When considering the individual domain rankings for this particular census tract, the highest
rank was assigned to vulnerability factors (147). The next highest rank was found in the
environmental stressors domain (143), followed by environmental hazards (120) and health-
promoting factors (79). The census tract with the most resilience challenges received the lowest
rank of 1 and was also found in Berkeley County (45015020804). Of the four domains, this
census tract performed best in the area of vulnerability factors (69) and worst regarding health-
promoting factors (12). The environmental hazards and environmental stressors domains
received low ranks as well, 24 and 32 respectively.
Figure 23 corroborates the aforementioned findings, where Berkeley County has quite a few
census tracts at the high and low ends of the community resilience spectrum. Many of the
higher resilience communities in Berkeley County seem to be concentrated in Cross, Moncks
Corner, and the very western part of the Bonneau area. The higher resilience tracts for
Charleston County are in the southwest region and encompass Edisto Island, Ravenel-
67
-------
Hollywood, and Johns Island. In Dorchester County, the most resilient communities appear to
reside in the western portion of Summerville near the border of Charleston County.
SOJUTH
A ROLi NA
¦
Berkeley
Dorchester
Charleston
¦Zg&frie,
Tri-County w/o Stakeholder Input
Tri-County CSRI v2.0 Rank
125-154
94-124
63-93
32-62
1 - 31
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and
National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau
TIGER/Line data: USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of
State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National Centers for
Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed October
2018.
Figure 23. Tri-County CSRI v2.0 rankings without community stakeholder input for Dorchester, Charleston, and
Berkeley Counties. Note: The highest resilience communities are in green and the lowest resilience communities are
represented in red.
When the tri-county analysis was performed with stakeholder input (Figure 24), there were a few
changes that occurred in census tract rankings due to the higher weighting placed on
vulnerability factors from the CSRI v2.0 Survey. The community in Berkeley County that was
most resilient without stakeholder input remained the most resilient in the model with
stakeholder input (45015020403). There was also no change in the domain rankings. In
contrast, the census tract designated as having the most resilience challenges without
68
-------
stakeholder input changed when examined with stakeholder input. While still located in Berkeley
County, this census tract (45015020405) received the lowest rank for health-promoting factors
(1) when considering all four domains. Vulnerability factors were ranked as the second lowest
(34) for this census tract, followed by environmental hazards (91) and environmental stressors
(117). The census tract previously ranked the lowest without stakeholder input is now ranked 6th
for community resilience with stakeholder input.
SOJUTH
CAROLINA
Berkeley
Dorchester
Charleston
C.oqsoiv R'
Tri-County w Stakeholder Input
Tri-County CSRI v2.0 Rank
125 - 154
94 - 124
63 - 93
32-62
1 - 31
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and
National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau
TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of
State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National Centers for
Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed October
2018.
Figure 24. Tri-County CSRI v2.0 rankings with community stakeholder input for Dorchester, Charleston, and Berkeley
Counties. Note: The highest resilience communities are in green and the lowest resilience communities are represented
in red.
69
-------
When comparing Figure 23 and Figure 24, Figure 24 shows a shift in census tract rankings for
all three counties. For example, the new assessment shows Dorchester County having more
census tracts with higher resilience rankings compared to the same geographic region without
stakeholder input. This relationship appears to be the same for Berkeley County; however, there
is a decrease in high resilience tracts located in Charleston County.
Brick\
Bound
Su a ml.
kirlestibn
IXI IL-KI -III
VI Charleston w/o Stakeholder Input
3ct Industrial Development
0-19
U 20-39
40-59
^ 60-79
^ 80-100
M Charleston CSRI v2.0 Rank
| 136-150
105-134
73-103
38-71
I 10-34
USeS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, NationljL-Hydrography
/"bataset, National Land Cover DatabaserNational Stpdptures Dataset, and
( National Transportation DataSet; USGS GlobaTvE-co^s/tems; U.S. Census Bureau
} TIGER/Line data; USFS'Road Data; Natural EarthrData; U.S. Department of
(^State HumanitaRaTTInformation Unit; and NOAA National Centers for
Efivimnme'nta! InformatiiD^ {J.^J.dd^tar^eIief^oydeI. Data refreshed
October
Figure 25. CSRI v2.0 rankings for North Charleston, SC with industrial development and without community
stakeholder input. Note: The highest resilience communities are in green and the lowest resilience communities are
represented in red.
Figure 25 shows census tracts in North Charleston have community resilience rankings ranging
from 10 to 150. There appears to be no relationship between the percentage of a tract zoned for
industrial activity and the CSRI v2.0 ranking for community resilience. The census tracts ranked
70
-------
lowest for community resilience were mostly located along the Ashley River and coincide with I-
26. With stakeholder input (Figure 27), CSRI v2.0 scores range from 3 to 149 and follow a
Airport
Latlsoi
1 r*'*j
larleston
Charigjtori
Executive
Airbort
39
59
79
100
- 149
- 130
99
76
N Charleston w Stakeholder Input
Pet Industrial Development
0-19
20
40
60
80
141
102
83 -
30-
24
US{3S The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
program, Geographic Names Information System, Natiorr^H/cTrography
/-Dataset, National Land Cover DatafeaserN&tional StprfGtures Dataset, and
/ National Transportation Dat^sit; USGS Globalt-^psy-ltems; U.S. Census Bureau
) TIGER/Line data; USFS^Road Data; Natural Eartffofata; U.S. Department of
/state Humanitar-iarTlnformatiop Unit; and NOAA National Centers for
Environme'fital Informatioh:''U.'sMcoagta^ReIie-f"^0^61. Data refreshed October
Figure 26. CSRI v2.0 rankings for North Charleston, SC with industrial development and community stakeholder
input. Note: The highest resilience communities are in green and the lowest resilience communities are
represented in red.
similar pattern of low resilience along the Ashley River and I-26. A few census tracts decreased
in community resilience while others improved due to stakeholder weighting.
6.7 CSRI v2.0 Discussion
Determining environmental differences between high and low resilience communities requires a
deeper understanding of which indicators are contributing to a community's state of resilience.
For example, the tri-county assessment showed Berkeley County contained the census tracts
71
-------
for the highest and lowest ranked communities. When we explore the census tract ranked
highest for community resilience in more detail, particularly the indicators in the vulnerability
factors domain, we are able to construct a community profile that characterizes resilience. For
example, the high resilience community may be described as a higher income community (7%
low-income) with newer housing (0% pre-1960's housing), moderate income inequality (0.43),
and a low disabled population (3%), unemployment rate (4%), and segregation (11%) (Figure
27). In contrast, the lowest resilience community had a large low-income population (45%), high
segregation (75%), older housing (11% pre-1960's housing), a larger disabled population (7%),
greater income inequality (0.53), and a higher unemployment rate (11%). The population of
vulnerable residents (<5 and >65) was also slightly higher in the lower resilience community
(23%) compared to the high resilience community (19%). Crime, flood risk, and linguistic
isolation had the same or similar values for both resilience levels and were not distinguishable
factors.
The health-promoting factors domain received the second highest weight from the CSRI v2.0
survey responses and may provide additional insight on community resilience. The greatest
differences between the two resilience levels were found in transportation, education, and
health insurance status. Specifically, the high resilience tract was more educated (98% vs.
77%), had greater access to public transportation (80% vs. 0%), and a lower percentage of
uninsured individuals (3% vs. 27%) (Figure 22). The high resilience census tract had slightly
shorter distances to hospitals, grocery stores, and shelter, and a marginally higher percentage
of homeowners (87% vs. 84%). By comparing these two communities, we can ascertain the
factors that may be driving a community's resilience status. Further analysis is necessary to
determine whether statistical differences exist between high and low resilience communities.
0)
o
c
.92
w
Figure 27. High and low resilience community features.
72
-------
6.8 Community Case Study
While the highest and lowest resilience communities were found in Berkeley County, we can
use the location of Bertha's Kitchen (2332 Meeting Street Road, Charleston, SC 29405) as a
relevant case study for Charleston County. As part of the Resilience Workshop, a few
stakeholders met at Bertha's Kitchen (restaurant) to participate in a "Resilience Walk" to identify
and photograph resilience opportunities and existing features of the community that represented
resilience. The data showed Bertha's Kitchen was located in an area (census tract
45019005400) ranking 15th for community resilience, which meant that the surrounding
community was part of the lowest resilience category in North Charleston (Figure 28).
Airport""
BricfcJ
Bound
S't'/jinif
Bertha's Kitchen
larleston
JAME£+r.LAND
Chaijctfton
Exqtutme
Airbort
N Charleston w Stakeholder Input
Pet Industrial Development
20-39
L*
40-59
60-79
Lm
80-100
141 - 149
102 - 130
83-99
30-76
3-24
US0S The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP EleVation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, Nation^UHy^rography
/-bataset, National Land Cover DatabaserNiational Structures Dataset, and
/ National Transportation Dataset; USGS Gldbal"Ecqsys/tems; U.S. Census Bureau
I TIGER/Line data; USFSrRoad Data; Natural Eartifofata; U.S. Department of
/state Huma riita r-iarfl rrform a tion Unit; and NOAA National Centers for
^^^TT^tgnm^aMnfomTatjoh^^^eobs^l^eli^^Q^e^Dat^^^she^Octobei^
Figure 28. Location of Bertha's Kitchen. Note: The highest resilience communities are in green and the lowest resilience
communities are represented in red.
73
-------
The greatest opportunity to strengthen resilience in this particular community would be to focus
on improving the vulnerability factors since they were ranked the lowest compared to other
communities in North Charleston (1). Specifically, the community surrounding Bertha's Kitchen
was the most segregated (90%) of all the tri-county census tracts, it had the 5th highest
percentage of low-income residents (70%), highest income inequality (0.64), and shared the
highest unemployment rate (11%). These vulnerability factors indicate a need for more
employment opportunities and higher paying positions for residents in this community in order to
see a positive shift in resilience. Prioritizing the mitigation of environmental stressors (54) should
be the next step, followed by increasing the presence of and access to health-promoting factors
(87). Environmental hazards (140) were the least problematic in this community. Understanding
and prioritizing opportunities for resilience will allow residents to propose neighborhood specific
solutions to decision-makers who are responsible for changing the socio-economic landscape of
their community.
74
-------
Appendix D: Follow-up Working Session and
Community Resource Fair
EPA and LAMC hosted a follow-up working session on April 26, 2019 from 2:00pm-S:00pm at
Perry Webb Community Center (3200 Appleton Ave. North Charleston, SC 29405) to develop
an actionable implementation plan and share key resources with community members to help
them address the resilience challenges and solutions identified at the first workshop.
Participants included individuals from:
Accabee and surrounding neighborhoods
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of
Governments (BCDCOG)
Charleston Community Research to Action
Board (CCRAB)
Federal Highway Administration South
Carolina Division
Ingevity
LAMC
Metanoia
New Taberwade Church
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical
State University
North Charleston City Council
Pfizer
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)
South Carolina Living Communities Alliance
Three Oaks Engineering
TriCounty Cradle to Career
U.S. EPA
Wando High School
Activities included:
A working session with LAMC board members and executive staff to prioritize resilience
strategies and develop a feasible implementation plan.
A hands-on community-based brownfields training and sharing a survey tool for
community members on how to identify, inventory, and prioritize brownfields.
A resource sharing session, which included information on:
o Cumulative Stressors and Resiliency Index
o Community engagement in NEPA
o How to identify, inventory, and prioritize brownfields
o General information on how to apply for an EPA Brownfields Grant
o Pfizer health resources
o A Healthy Environmental Actions Database (AHEAD)
Figure 29. Participants learn about the I-526 West
Corridor project at the community resource fair (photo:
Robert Kay).
75
-------
o Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance
o U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) resources for increasing access to capital,
understanding energy burden, and increasing energy efficiency
o Lowcountry Rapid Transit project
o FHWA/SCDOT 1-526 West Lowcountry Corridor Project
o Safe Routes to Schools
o SC Livable Communities Alliance
o Goods Movement Federal Resources Compendium
See the North Charleston Community Resilience Resource Compendium for detailed
information on these and other programs and resources.
Figure 30. EPA Region 4 staff conducts a community-based brownfields training (photo: Siobhan Whitlock).
-------
Appendix E: Lessons Learned for the Roadmap
Lessons learned for improving the EPA port community resilience roadmap and workshop
include:
The resilience walk was an informative and engaging component of the workshop.
The length of the workshop was appropriate for the audience and material.
Although a strong list of solutions was produced for the community, more time could be
allocated to the resilience solutions activity to discuss the implementation of each
strategy.
Two new resilience objective categories emerged from the goals and objectives
identification activity: (1) economic opportunity and (2) community partnerships. These
could be reflected in the roadmap.
Overall, the community found the workshop to be very valuable and is excited about next
steps.
77
------- |