environmental protection projects: accomplishments · array of community-based environmental...

United States Office of Policy Economics EPA 100-R-02-004Environmental Protection and Innovation (1807T) March 2003Agency

Evaluation of Community-BasedEnvironmental ProtectionProjects: Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Additional copies of this document may be obtained from the following sources:

National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NCEP)11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5Cincinnati, OH 45242Phone: (513) 489-8190 or 1-800-490-9198; fax: (513) 489-8695

Office of Policy Economics and Innovation (1807T)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20460Phone: (202) 566-0495; fax: (202) 566-2220E-mail: [email protected]

When ordering copies of the Evaluation of CBEP Projects, please cite publication number EPA 100-R-02-004.

EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS

EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTSvi

AcknowledgmentsThis report, Evaluation of Community-based Environmental Protection Projects:Accomplishments and

Lessons Learned, was developed under contract for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc),of Cambridge, Massachusetts.The EPA acknowledges the assistance of Robert Black and Ann Jonesof IEc in the preparation of this report as well as the contributions of peer reviewers: Dr. JoAnnCarmin of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dr.Toddi Steelman of North CarolinaState University, and Michael Mason from EPA Office of Water.The EPA also acknowledges theassistance of the people identified in Exhibit 1-1, who provided expertise and information aboutthe five projects evaluated in this study. In the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, GeraldFilbin (202-566-2182; [email protected]) was the project manager for this study and may becontacted for additional information.

Table of Contents vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1Background and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2Overview of Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

SAN MIGUEL WATERSHED INITIATIVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

Project Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3EPA’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4Effectiveness of the CBEP Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5CBEP Value Added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

CHARLESTON / NORTH CHARLESTON CBEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2Project Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

EPA’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5Effectiveness of the CBEP Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6CBEP Value Added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

EASTWARD HO! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Project Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2EPA’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4Effectiveness of the CBEP Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8CBEP Value Added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8Summary of Key Themes and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTSviii

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMUNITY–BASEDSTRATEGIC PLANNING AND GREEN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5

Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2


ST. LOUIS GATEWAY INITIATIVE:ABANDONED BUILDINGS PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6

Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1


CROSS–PROJECT EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7How Does the CBEP Process Affect Achievement of Project Goals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2What Value-Added Benefits Does CBEP Create? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8How Can EPA Best Support CBEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ref-1

APPENDIX A

CBEP Program Evaluation General Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Introduction and Methodology Chapter 1

The EPA supports and participates in anarray of community-based environmentalprotection (CBEP) efforts throughout

the United States. CBEP refers to an integrated,place-based, participatory approach to managingthe environment that simultaneously considersenvironmental, social, and economic concerns(U.S. EPA, February 1999). In its CBEP frame-work document, the Agency describes CBEPas a process that “brings together public andprivate stakeholders within a place or communityto identify environmental concerns, set priorities,and implement comprehensive solutions. Oftencalled a place-based, or ecosystem approach,CBEP considers environmental protectionalong with human social needs, works towardachieving long-term ecosystem health, and fosters linkages between economic prosperityand environmental well-being.” The Agency hasidentified several key attributes that characterizeCBEP, including a focus on a geographic area;collaboration through a range of stakeholders;assessments that cut across environmentalmedia; integration of environmental, economic,and social objectives; use of regulatory andnonregulatory tools; and monitoring to allowadaptive management.

The EPA facilitates CBEP efforts by coordi-nating traditional regulatory programs to supportCBEP; providing tools to communities pursuingCBEP activities; and collaborating directly withstakeholders.The Office of Policy, Economicsand Innovation (OPEI) coordinates the Agency’sCBEP efforts.

The San Miguel Watershed Initiative, discussedin detail in chapter 2, provides an excellentillustration of key CBEP principles.The coalitionleading the initiative emphasized collaborationbetween diverse stakeholders representingenvironmental as well as economic interests.The EPA contributed technical assessments ofresources in the basin to provide the analytic

foundation for decisionmaking.The WatershedPlan, developed with input from citizens andinstitutional stakeholders, calls for an array ofvoluntary actions while at the same time, theSan Miguel County Planning Department hasdrawn on the CBEP project for crafting localland use guidelines.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate aset of regional CBEP projects in which EPAparticipates.The evaluation considers bothenvironmental outcomes of each of the projectsas well as the overall effectiveness of the CBEPprocess. Specifically, the evaluation focuses on aset of key questions:

▼ To what extent have the selected CBEPprojects provided measurable environmentalresults related to EPA’s strategic goals as well as improvements in the long-term sustainability of communities? Alternatively,how have the CBEP projects helped to laythe groundwork for environmental and sustainability improvements?

▼ Which CBEP attributes are prominent inthe selected projects? Overall, how are theseimportant in making the projects work well?What factors affect projects that do notwork as well?

▼ What was the value added of the CBEPapproach for EPA’s community partners andfor the Agency itself? For example, doesCBEP help foster an enduring communityprocess focused on natural resource management and environmental quality(i.e., a stewardship role)?

The evaluation is intended to assist EPA asit considers advantages and disadvantages ofcommunity-based projects and how it can tailorits role to best support CBEP efforts.

1-1

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We examine five projects as part ofthis evaluation.The projects arebriefly summarized in Exhibit 1-1.

We worked with the OPEI project manager toidentify a set of projects that met several basiccriteria, including geographic diversity and arange of EPA roles (e.g., lead versus supportrole).Although all of the projects have note-worthy successes, we also intentionally selectedprojects that encountered institutional challenges,thereby yielding useful lessons regarding how

EPA can overcome obstacles and avoid futureproblems. Furthermore, we chose projects thatfeatured EPA contacts committed to supportingand assisting with the evaluation.

Phone interviews served as the primarysource of information for this evaluation.Exhibit 1-1 lists the people interviewed andtheir affiliations.We attempted to gather perspectives from a cross section of people.Wecontacted at least one EPA participant to getthe Agency’s perspective and gather adequate

EXHIBIT 1-1PROJECTS INCLUDED IN EVALUATION

EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTS1-2

Project Name Project Description People Interviewed

San Miguel Watershed Multistakeholder effort to address development Michael Wireman, EPA Region 8Initiative and other stressors in sparsely populated western April Montgomery, San Miguel County Planning Department

Colorado watershed. Linda Luther, San Miguel Watershed CoalitionStacey Wright, Sawpit Town BoardGenne Boles, Last Dollar Community Representative

North Charleston/ Multistakeholder project to address cross-media Cynthia Peurifoy, EPA Region 4Charleston CBEP environmental and other quality-of-life concerns Daphne Neel, SC Department of Health and Environmental Control for urban communities on the Charleston, Marcy Guerriero, SC Coastal Conservation League

South Carolina, peninsula. Lonnie Gleeten, Community Advisory Group (CAG) Industry Representative

Wilson Gautreaux, CAG Industry RepresentativeDr. Elfonzo Evans, CAG Community RepresentativeCarolyn Stribling, Medical University of South Carolina

Eastward Ho! Regional partnership to address sprawl through Terry Manning and Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional revitalization of cities in South Florida. Planning Council

Betsy LaRoe, EPA Office of Water (HQ)Lee Rawlinson, Miami-Dade County Planning OfficeDonna Masson, ChamberSOUTH

York, Pennsylvania, Comprehensive planning process involving active Eric Menzer, City of York Office of Economic DevelopmentCommunity-Based Strategic community participation and drawing on brownfield Susan McDowell, EPA Region 3Planning and Green reuse and other green development strategies. Tim Fulton, Susquehanna Real EstateDevelopment

St. Louis Abandoned Multiagency partnership to assist city in abandoned Kerry Herndon, EPA Region 7Buildings Project building demolition and compliance with hazardous Art Spratlin, EPA Region 7

substance management requirements. Julie Stone, St. Louis Mayor’s Office/Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Timothy Dee, St. Louis Air Pollution Control Department

METHODOLOGY

The remainder of this report is divided into sixchapters. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 discuss thedifferent CBEP projects by addressing the fol-lowing seven components:

▼ Project Description: Reviews the originsand objectives of the project.

▼ Project Activities: Examines in detail keyactivities pursued under the project.

▼ EPA’s Role: Reviews EPA’s contributionsto the project and discusses project participants’views and recommendations regarding theAgency’s involvement.

▼ Project Accomplishments and Shortfalls: Examines quantitative and qualitative indicators of project accomplish-ments, including environmental and socioeconomic outcomes.Also addressesaspects of the project that have fallen shortof stated objectives.

▼ Effectiveness of the CBEP Process:Focuses on measures of how the process ofcommunity-based environmental protectionhas succeeded or failed.

▼ CBEP Value Added: Considers additionalbenefits of CBEP projects that would notbe realized under traditional regulatoryapproaches. For example, CBEP projectsmay foster cross-agency coordination, enhancelocal capacity to address future environmentalchallenges, and improve the cost-effective-ness of environmental management efforts.

▼ Summary of Key Themes andRecommendations: Briefly reviews keyfindings for each project

The final chapter of the report synthesizesthe findings for each project into a single evaluation that identifies themes that emergeacross all the projects and makes practical recommendations for the Agency’s futureCBEP efforts.

Introduction and Methodology Chapter 1 1-3

detail on EPA’s role.We also contacted at leastone project manager from a local partnerorganization to characterize the community’sperspectives. However, time and resource constraints precluded contacting the completeset of relevant project participants. Studies on theeffectiveness of program evaluation techniquessuggest that conducting evaluations on thebasis of interviews or surveys of a limited setof participants can lead to significant biases(Leach et al. May 2000). In addition, otherstudies emphasize the importance of fully representing diverse stakeholders in evaluationinterviews (Kellogg Foundation 1998;Muraskin 1993).Therefore, although we haveattempted to implement representative interviews,conclusions presented in this report should beconsidered preliminary and potentially subject

to revision if additional research is pursued.We constructed a basic set of questions that

served as a foundation for the interviews, andwe sent them to most of the contacts prior toour conversations.These basic questions areincluded as Appendix A to this report. In advanceof each interview, we also assembled questionsthat we customized to the role of the intervieweeon the project.

The evaluation incorporates informationfrom a wide variety of written material on theprojects, including formal project reports, onlineproject descriptions, and internal trackingmaterials made available by the interviewees.In one case (Eastward Ho!), a formal evaluationof the project had already been completed.Allrelevant written materials are listed in the references section at the end of the report.

OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENT

2-1

Background

Colorado’s San Miguel Watershed (seeFigure 2-1) covers 1 million acres andconsists of near-pristine ecosystems

ranging from alpine environments in the upperportion of the basin to desert environments inthe lower basin.Although sparsely populated(roughly 8,000 residents), development pressurein the region is significant, with much of thegrowth associated with recreational resorts. Inaddition, contamination associated with miningand agriculture threatens both surface andground water quality.

Resort-based population increases haveincreased the local water demands to the pointthat the in-stream flows in the Upper San MiguelRiver were below the levels required to supportnative fish populations.1 Long-term conflict andmisunderstanding had caused friction between

the upper basin of the watershed (home to resortcommunities and mining) and the lower basin(the location of ranches, farms, and additionalmines). In 1989, a wetlands violation related toresort development was discovered during anEPA-funded wetlands mapping project in SanMiguel County.The settlement includedrestoration activities and a wetlands managementplan under which all wetlands on propertybelonging to the defendants were placed undereasement.The continued presence of EPA activityin the Telluride area prompted the San MiguelCounty planners to request EPA assistance toprotect the fragile alpine ecosystem in the faceof ski resort expansions and 10 percent annualgrowth of new homes.

In 1995, citizens, community groups, localgovernments, and state and federal agenciesinitiated a watershed approach to addressing theenvironmental and development issues facing

Little

John

son D

raw

Sprin

g Cre

ek

Coal Canyon

Calamity Draw

San Miguel River

Clay Creek

McKenzie Creek

Howard Fork

Maverick Draw

Horsefly Creek

West ForkDry Creek

Dry C

reek

Hamilton Creek

Beav

er C

reek

Salra

do C

reek

Fall

Cre

ekLe

opard

Cre

ek

Spec

ie C

reek

Bilk

Cre

ek

Big

Bear

Cre

ek

Deep C

reek

Big B

uckt

ail C

reek

Tabeguache Creek

Naturita Creek

TELLURIDE

NORWOOD

NATURITA

NUCLA

SAWPIT

OPHIR

HIGHWAYSRIVERSTOWNS

Wyoming

UtahColorado

NewMexicoArizona

Area ofDetail

Comet

Cre

ek

Bridal Vail Creek

Bear Creek

Turkey Creek

Lake Fork

Skunk Creek

Prospect Creek

Ingram Creek

0 5 10 miles5

FIGURE 2-1SAN MIGUEL BASIN

San Miguel Watershed Initiative Chapter 2

SAN MIGUEL WATERSHED INITIATIVE CHAPTER 2PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1 “San Miguel Watershed Coalition,” River Voices,Winter 1997.

the San Miguel Basin.They were looking for abalance between environmental protection andrecreational and economic development.TheSan Miguel Watershed Coalition was formedas an outgrowth of watershed protection effortsinitiated by the Telluride Institute, a local environ-mental and cultural advocacy organization.Theapproach they chose focuses on developing athorough understanding of the ecology of thearea to inform development plans that restore,preserve, and sustain the entire watershed.

EPA Region 8 is a key participant in thisbroad CBEP initiative to manage the waterand land resources of the San Miguel Riverwatershed.The San Miguel Watershed Initiativeaddressed in this evaluation consists of twoparallel and related components:

▼ San Miguel Watershed Coalition: TheSan Miguel Watershed Coalition is a broad-based partnership of citizens, municipal officials, county officials, state agencies, andfederal agencies (including EPA) dedicatedto watershed preservation and restoration.Through a variety of outreach efforts, theCoalition developed a detailed WatershedPlan (published in 1998) that makes recom-mendations for management of the watershed,focusing on conservation, sustainable resourceuse, economic development, and other policyareas (see below).

▼ Region 8 Technical Assessments: Underfunding from a variety of EPA programs,staff members in EPA’s Region 8 office havecompleted a series of technical analyses thatsupport the larger watershed protection effort.Described in more detail below, the analysesinclude an assessment of alpine ecosystemsand an analysis of drinking water resourcesand potential stressors.The analyses themselvesare community-based in nature because theywere performed in collaboration with citizens,local governments, state and federal govern-ment offices, and other stakeholders.

For the remainder of this discussion, we usethe term “San Miguel Watershed Initiative” torefer collectively to these two components ofthe CBEP effort.

Goals and ObjectivesEPA Region 8 has identified the protection

of valuable ecosystems as its primary mission.One of the six major goals of its EcosystemProtection Program is the prioritization ofecosystem protection and community-basedenvironmental protection.The needs of theSan Miguel Basin—the protection of pristineecosystems and the restoration of highlyimpacted ecosystems—were identified as beingin clear alignment with this Region 8 goal.Various project objectives also aligned well withEPA’s strategic goals:

▼ Clean Water: To develop data to supportthe updating of local zoning policy, whichwill result in restoration and preservation ofwetlands, elimination of river system sedimentation, and identification of potentialstressors/threats.These actions will enablelong-term management policies to guidefuture resource use, conservation, andpreservation.

▼ Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems: To useland acquisition and redesigned zoningrequirements to increase biologically diverseand linked land areas.

▼ Citizen Empowerment:To develop naturalresource data, and ensure its availability tothe community, that will aid communitystewards and stakeholders in makinginformed decisions.

▼ Management: To develop community-based environmental protection throughbroad-based stakeholder collaboration anddecisionmaking.

The San Miguel Watershed Coalition alsoidentified its own mission and goals.The missionof the Coalition was “to develop, through aprocess of collaborative planning and substantivepublic involvement, a basinwide managementplan that conserves and enhances . . . our communities.” Its goals include conservation,sustainable resource use, and economic develop-ment as well as preservation and restoration ofthe watershed.


PROJECT ACTIVITIESThe San Miguel Watershed Initiative

includes a diverse set of activities that rangefrom outreach to advanced ecological analysis.Although a comprehensive inventory of theproject’s activities is outside the scope of thisevaluation, we discuss key activities below.

The first major project of the Coalition wasthe development of a formal Watershed Plan,completed in 1998.The Plan describes a visionof the watershed’s future, reviewing the history,economy, and hydrology of the region andidentifying an extensive set of potential actionsthat stakeholders can take to ensure the sustainable use of resources and ecological stability.The Coalition structured the processof developing the Plan as a community-basedeffort, conducting a variety of activities thatinvolved the local stakeholders:

▼ Public outreach, stakeholder identification,and meeting facilitation;

▼ Development, organization, and staffing ofcommittees, including the Planning,Oversight, and Management Committees;

▼ Development of outreach materials, includingbrochures and newsletters.

Subsequent to the Watershed Plan, theCoalition has continued to pursue various otheractivities.A Coordinating Council, composedof 15 representatives of key interest groups(e.g., ranchers, miners, recreational interests), iscurrently implementing elements of the Plan.The Council has met monthly since October1998 to focus activities. In addition, the Coalitionhas participated in a 3-year study of instreamflows, assisted the Telluride Institute in completingan atlas for the San Miguel Watershed, and ledthe development of an educational program(Living Classrooms) focusing on hands-on learn-ing at three sites along the San Miguel River.

As noted, EPA’s primary involvementdirecting the San Miguel Initiative comes inthe form of several technical analyses. Mostnotably, it organized resources to provideexceptional scientific support for local land usecontrols and source water inventories. First,

EPA worked with San Miguel County and theUniversity of Colorado to complete an ecological assessment of 18 alpine basins, upperportions of the watershed that are critical tooverall watershed health.The EPA and its partners gathered data on landscape types andwater quality and compiled the data in a geographic information system (GIS).The GISallows identification of areas highly sensitive to perturbations and also helps identify alpineecosystems potentially affected by atmosphericnitrogen deposition.The data are accessible tothe public via a dedicated Web site.As describedbelow, the county used the results of the analysisas the foundation for land use regulationsadopted for the basin.

A second analysis developed by EPA and itspartners (San Miguel County, U.S. ForestService, Bureau of Land Management [BLM])was a pioneering source water protectionassessment completed in accordance with newSafe Drinking Water Act Amendments SourceWater Protection regulations.The analysis focusedon seven public water supplies and delineatedsource water protection areas, identified potentialcontamination sources, and developed suscepti-bility profiles. Completion of the assessmentinvolved outreach to local land owners, waterboards, local officials, and environmental groupsto enlist their participation in the analysis.

The EPA was a major source of funding forthe various activities pursued under the SanMiguel Initiative, both through the RegionalGeographic Initiative (RGI) as well as throughprogrammatic funding. Overall, funding for theperiod 1996 through the present can be roughlyallocated as follows:

▼ Watershed Coalition: $30,000 in RGIfunding (FY96); $14,000 from an EPA grantto address problems related to purple loosestrife; in-kind services from participatinglocal, state, and federal organizations.

▼ Technical Assessments: $45,000 in initialRGI funding (FY96); additional RGI fundingof $38,000 (FY98); staff support from participating agencies, including one EPAfull-time equivalent (FTE) divided acrossseveral EPA staffpersons.

San Miguel Watershed Initiative Chapter 2 2-3

EPA’S ROLE The EPA’s involvement in the San Miguel

Watershed Initiative demonstrates how theAgency can play different roles on differentfacets of a CBEP project. On the one hand,EPA took the lead with the technical assessments,integrating its efforts with a relatively limited setof partners (e.g., the county, BLM, U.S. ForestService) and bringing its technical expertise tobear. In contrast, EPA participated in the overallefforts of the Watershed Initiative as an equalpartner, coordinating its contributions with thoseof numerous other organizations (see below).

Project leaders highlighted two lessonsregarding the success of EPA’s involvement inthe initiative:

▼ The importance of EPA staff bringing uniqueand relevant skills to the effort.The Agencybrought “technical horsepower” to the tableand focused that expertise on specific analysesthat form an analytic foundation for theoverall watershed protection effort.

▼ The importance of working with local groups.The EPA further enhanced its role by meetingexhaustively with local officials and citizensand working with them collaborativelyrather than in isolation.These meetingsyielded critical information for the technicalassessments and garnered the support andconfidence of local residents. Furthermore,EPA staff consciously worked to make technicalanalyses understandable by the general public,recognizing how important the support ofthe public was to the project.

Staff members from San Miguel County andthe Watershed Coalition voiced great satisfactionwith EPA’s involvement on the overall initiative.They stressed that the Coalition probably wouldnever have formed if not for the initial RGIfunding.They also applauded EPA’s willingnessto assume its role as a niche player on the effort,the technical sophistication of Agency staff, andEPA’s efforts to establish a physical presence atpublic meetings in this relatively remote area.

PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTSAND SHORTFALLS

The San Miguel Initiative has realized a varietyof environmental accomplishments.Althoughthe primary goal of ecological protection andrecovery will be achieved only over the courseof many years, a variety of intermediate,programmatic measures demonstrate the successof the initiative:

▼ Under the alpine ecological assessment, EPAhas recorded about 200 baseline water qualityobservations; developed 18 GIS maps identify-ing 45 landscape types; and identified tens ofthousands of acres of sensitive ecologicalareas.These accomplishments directly satisfyRegion 8’s goal of developing data to assistlocal zoning efforts.

▼ Source water assessments were completedfor the seven pilot communities well inadvance of other communities in EPARegion 8.This accomplishment meets theRegion’s goals of water protection anddevelopment of data for use in local zoning.

▼ The technical assessments served as thefoundation of local land use protection ordinances controlling development in sensitiveareas.Although exact figures are not available,more than 10,000 acres are likely to be protected.

The success of the initiative is furtherdemonstrated by a series of awards recognizingthe project’s accomplishments, both internal toand external to EPA. For example, theNational Association of County Commissionerspresented San Miguel County with its awardfor outstanding government. Likewise, EPARegion 8 awarded the county the RegionalAdministrator’s Environmental ExcellenceAward in 1998. Furthermore, the effort has beenfeatured in EPA publications and at conferencessuch as the Aldo Leopold Conference inOctober 1999.

Small communities have noted additionalbenefits of the project. One benefit is the abilityto apply for waivers on certain water supplytests, a direct result of the source water assessmentsconducted during the Coalition research. Forexample, the unincorporated community of


Last Dollar indicated that it will likely be ableto waive certain annual tests of the community’swater supply and was happy with the informationand assistance from EPA.

The impacts of the work go beyond theimmediate San Miguel Watershed.The researchprocess undertaken to change the land usecodes helps fill a scarcity of scientifically basedmanagement tools available for setting Westernwater resources policy (Inyan and Williams 1999).

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CBEP PROCESS

The San Miguel Initiative exhibits manyattributes associated with community-basedenvironmental protection.A variety of measuresand descriptive information demonstrate thatCBEP was a central organizing principle forthe project and that the project was successfulin implementing this alternative approach toenvironmental management:

▼ The boundaries of the geographic area—inthis case, the watershed—are well delineatedand help in identifying the appropriate setof stakeholders. In addition, the boundariestranscend the traditional jurisdictionalboundaries to allow the different stakeholdersin the watershed to come together.

▼ Multistakeholder partnerships are theessence of the project, with a wide array oforganizations taking part in one or morefacets of the project (see Exhibit 2-1).Thesepartnerships are crucial because of the largenumber of groups that had jurisdiction forresource management in the area.

▼ Community participation is critical to theSan Miguel efforts.As an indicator of theproject’s success in this regard, roughly 70people attended the first watershed planningmeeting, which was followed by a series ofsuccessful issue-identification meetings inseveral towns. In addition, participantsreviewed and commented on the initial draftof the Watershed Plan.This type of partici-pation is significant given that the populationof the basin is small (about 8,000) and scattered across the region.The EPA and

county officials felt that the numbers reflectinvolved communities, particularly in thesmaller towns and unincorporated areas thatdo not have a large town staff to handleenvironmental management issues.

The success that the initiative has had ininvolving active local participants directly satisfiesgoals established by EPA Region 8. Specifically,the initiative has contributed to citizenempowerment through provision of key dataand has fostered collaboration among localstakeholder groups (see “Goals and Objectives”).


EXHIBIT 2-1ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE

SAN MIGUEL WATERSHED INITIATIVE

National Park Service

Telluride Institute

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

San Miguel County*

U.S. Forest Service

Town of Telluride

The Nature Conservancy

Town of Mountain Village

Town of Norwood

Montrose County

Town of Naturita

Town of Nucla

Town of Ophir

Town of Sawpit

Town of Placerville

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Colorado Department of Natural Resources

Colorado Department of Local Affairs

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

* Interviewed for this assessment.

CBEP VALUE ADDEDWatershed-based approaches such as the San

Miguel Watershed Initiative directly addressmany of the shortcomings of traditional environ-mental and water resource management programs.Traditional approaches are characterized byfragmented decision processes that focus onnarrowly defined environmental problems (e.g.,water supply, point source pollution control,nonpoint source pollution control), often over-looking the relationships between these problems.Furthermore, traditional approaches may createcompetition between key resource managersand interest groups, pitting neighboring munici-palities, landowners, regulators, and other groupsagainst each other.

The San Miguel Watershed Initiative over-comes many of these pitfalls through a cooper-ative, watershed-based approach. Several aspectsof the project illustrate the benefits of CBEP:

▼ Integration and Coordination: San Miguelshows how the CBEP process can serve as ameeting point to integrate diverse ongoingresearch and resource management efforts ina given geographic area. Project staff notedhow the Watershed Coalition was a forumfor federal regulators, state regulators, countyland-use officials, and others to assemble theircollective knowledge on the ecology andsustainability of the region. Furthermore, inthe San Miguel Basin, the public held valuableinformation, and the CBEP efforts representeda means to elicit and apply this information.For example, in the source water assessment,local landowners assisted in identifying possiblesources of contamination such as abandonedmines on their land. Overall, such integrationand coordination likely yields resource savings by pooling expertise and avoidingredundant efforts.

▼ Acquiring Funding: Project staff also notedhow the integration that comes from CBEPefforts can aid in acquiring grant funds forthe region.The Watershed Coalition representsa focus for regional efforts as well as a forumfor ensuring that research findings are appliedto real-life problems. Furthermore, actionitems that are part of the Watershed Plan areassured to have the support of the communitybecause of the stakeholder-directed process

by which the Plan was developed.All of thesefactors help to attract grant funding and mayeven be explicit criteria/conditions in thegrant award process. Similarly, the numberof agencies involved with the initiative is anasset in funding the Coalition’s activities;that is, small contributions from involvedagencies can be pooled.

▼ Capacity Building and Sustainability:The EPA and other agencies that lead CBEPefforts often seek to create long-term expertisein an area to ensure that a locality can manageits own environmental affairs in the future.For example, this type of capacity for steward-ship is being achieved through the sourcewater assessment pilot.The seven participatingcommunities are acquiring tools (e.g., sourcewater maps and data) that will help themaddress discrete land use and water protectionissues. One such community is the town ofTelluride; it used the source water assessmentdata in its recent sediment mitigation effort,demonstrating the community’s enhancedability to address local issues using new tools.In addition, all of the alpine and sourcewater maps (and underlying data) have beenmade available on a Web site. Likewise, asmentioned, the Watershed Coalition hasestablished a continuing coordinating councilto implement the action plan, further illustra-tion that initial CBEP efforts have producedenduring institutional changes.

▼ Public Education and Support forEnvironmental Initiatives: The CBEPapproach has also helped educate the publicin the San Miguel Watershed and has garneredsupport for environmental protection initiativesin an area that normally resists governmentinvolvement in land use decisions.The verywords used by the communities,“resort” orrural, have changed; project staff have notedhow concepts such as “watershed,”“steward-ship”, and “excess nitrogen” have made theirway into public discourse and feel that theinitiative’s outreach efforts have contributedto these changes. Furthermore, they believethat the public’s enhanced understanding ofenvironmental issues has increased the credibility and reputation of the Agency andmay have improved EPA’s ability to operatein the region.



▼ Early Identification of FutureEnvironmental Work: The water qualitydata obtained through the ecological studiesrevealed unexpectedly high levels of nitratesin alpine waters.The Coalition suspectedairborne deposition from coal-burning powerplants and worked to obtain air monitoringequipment from EPA’s Research Triangle

Park. In partnership with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS), the Coalition is monitoringthe quantities, potential sources, and effectsof external nitrates on this watershedecosystem.These studies would not havebeen undertaken as soon, and possibly notat all, without the research conducted underthe San Miguel Initiative.

As discussed, the San Miguel WatershedInitiative reveals a variety of useful lessons onthe successful implementation of a CBEP proj-ect.The following are most noteworthy:

▼ The EPA’s niche is often the provision oftechnical analysis that serves as the founda-tion for community-based decisionmaking.

▼ CBEP projects can act as an umbrella tointegrate ongoing research and environmen-tal management efforts.This integration canhelp in acquiring funding because of thedemonstrated community support for theinitiative.

▼ The tools yielded by CBEP projects canhelp communities independently managetheir own resources and craft policies forlocal environmental issues such as land use.

▼ CBEP projects can educate the public on

the importance of key environmental issuesand foster a clearer understanding andappreciation of EPA’s mission.

▼ Initial EPA funding can represent critical

seed money that enables a project to get offthe ground.

▼ Long-term involvement can enhance the

Agency’s effectiveness in CBEP activities,making EPA a trusted partner.

▼ Interaction with and use of local experts

(e.g., a professor at the University ofColorado–Boulder) can lead to long-termpartnerships with people who have a vestedinterest in the community.

SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Background

The Charleston/North Charleston CBEPproject focuses on the 17 square-mileneck area of the Charleston, South

Carolina, peninsula that is bordered on the westby the Ashley River and on the east by theCooper River (see Figure 3-1).The area consistsof more than 20 neighborhoods in the cities ofCharleston and North Charleston and is hometo more than 40,000 people, roughly 70 percentof whom are minority and 40 percent ofwhom live at or below the poverty level.Running throughout the area is an industrialcorridor in close proximity to the residentialpopulation as well as to the peninsula’s abun-dance of tidal creeks, marshes, and rivers.

Heavily industrialized since the 1800s, theneck area faces a complex set of environmentalproblems, including historical releases of hazardous waste and former and active industrialand commercial sites.

Environmental contamination at one ofthese industrial properties, the site of a formerwood-treating facility, brought EPA Region 4’sSuperfund program to the Charleston/NorthCharleston area in the mid-1990s.As part ofthe program, EPA provided a grant for hiring a community technical advisor to meet witharea residents and respond to questions aboutthe site cleanup. Based on environmental justiceand other concerns raised by several of thearea neighborhoods, EPA began exploring thevalue of helping to organize a CBEP project.

Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Chapter 3 3-1

CHARLESTON /NORTH CHARLESTON CBEP CHAPTER 3PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FIGURE 3-1CHARLESTON CBEP PROJECT STUDY AREA

North Charleston

Charleston

The EPA held initial conversations andbrainstorming sessions with the South CarolinaDepartment of Health and EnvironmentalControl (DHEC) and other partners, and inthe spring of 1997, assisted in the formation ofa multistakeholder group to guide the CBEPproject. Based on the Agency’s earlier CBEPexperiences, EPA suggested that a CommunityAdvisory Group (CAG) could provide aneffective vehicle for the community to developand guide its community-based environmentalprotection project.The resulting CAG consistedof representatives from neighborhoods andbusinesses in the CBEP area, local environmentaland social advocacy organizations, and local,state, and federal agencies.The EPA providedfunding to the Medical University of SouthCarolina (MUSC) to support the organizationof the CAG.Through a detailed organizationalprocess, a 25-member self-nominated groupemerged, complete with a chairperson and otherelected officers to serve 2-year terms, a missionand a vision statement, and a comprehensive setof bylaws.The CAG consisted of voting commu-nity and business representatives and nonvotingex officio members, including MUSC and theother founding partners.The CAG also estab-lished subcommittees (e.g., a group addressingbusiness/industry issues) to solidify its operation.

Once organized, the CAG confronted acomplicated, overlapping set of human health,socioeconomic, environmental, and other quality-of-life issues in the Charleston neck area.Theenvironmental concerns cut across all media,including air, surface water, groundwater,sediments, and soil. Residents had long-standingconcerns about cancer rates, childhood leadpoisoning, and other health problems in theircommunities and the potential for links tochemical releases, contamination, and othereffects of improper environmental complianceand management.Although the original ideafor the project arose because of concernsexpressed by a handful of central neck-areaneighborhoods, the CAG set the projectboundaries to cover the 7 square mile areadescribed above, which encompasses the historicalindustrial corridor and also approximates theboundary lines of Charleston’s EnterpriseCommunity (now the Greater CharlestonEmpowerment Corporation), a distressed areatargeted for economic and cultural revitalization.

Goals and ObjectivesThe long-term goal of the Charleston/

North Charleston Community Project is toimprove the quality of the land, air, water, andliving resources to ensure human health,ecological, social, and economic benefits.Toachieve the multiple aspects of this goal, projectmanagers have established many short-termobjectives through partnerships with citizens,industry, conservation groups, and other stake-holders. Initiating outreach and collecting datafor setting priorities and developing environmen-tal indicators were two early objectives, and theend results of those projects yielded furtherobjectives for addressing the overall goal.

The CAG developed its own mission andvision statements to guide it in its activities. Itsstated mission is “to address environmental qualityprograms and concerns as they relate to thecommunity’s well-being and that of the environment. It exists to increase environmentalawareness through education and effective collaboration with diverse groups and to promoteand cultivate cooperation with industry andgovernment. Finally, the group exists to empower,create, and sustain a healthy, livable community thatwill positively impact residents’ quality of life.”

The CAG’s initial objective for the projectwas to characterize the concerns of residentsand other stakeholders in the neck area. Boththe CAG and the overall CBEP project haveenvironmental improvements and human healthconcerns as long-term goals as well as ecological,social, and economic well-being.To accomplishthese overall goals, CAG members have established the following short-term objectives:

▼ To develop a baseline for environmentalconditions;

▼ To reduce both lead contamination of soiland childhood lead poisoning;

▼ To identify and remediate locations withelevated indoor radon levels;

▼ To minimize the effects of environmentalcontamination from former phosphate/fertilizer facilities; and

▼ To provide targeted compliance assistanceand pollution prevention information forsmall businesses.


In developing and carrying out efforts toaddress these objectives, the CAG has drawnon several partnerships with industry,government, academic institutions, and otherstakeholders. Numerous activities and indicatorshave been developed to facilitate progresstoward these objectives.

PROJECT ACTIVITIESThe first activities undertaken by the CAG

were the development of the above objectives,which emerged from its neighborhoodresearch.To begin to address all of the challengesfacing the more than 20 neighborhoods in thetargeted area, the CAG and its partners embarkedon outreach, research, environmental remediation,and other activities.Through monthly gatherings,public forums, and subcommittee meetings, theCAG developed several short-term and long-term initiatives to help in the achievement of itsgoals.The short-term activities, the full set ofwhich is beyond the scope of this evaluation, haveincluded river cleanup events, Earth Day fairs,and other outreach events aimed at increasingunderstanding of community-based environmen-tal protection and environmental awareness ingeneral. Long-term initiatives led by or associatedwith the CBEP project are as follows:

▼ Characterization of CommunityConcerns: As previously mentioned, thefirst major activity of the CAG was dedicatedto community outreach events and gatheringconcerns from the neighborhoods.The priorityconcerns as determined by the CAG are theones addressed by the activities describedbelow. Other issues identified among residentsrelate to crime; excessive noise; poor airquality; the need for economic development;a lack of safe playgrounds and open spaces;improper drainage and flooding; contaminationof open ditches and associated safety risks;environmental justice concerns; and poorenvironmental compliance among localcommercial and industrial facilities.

▼ Baseline Environmental DataCompilation: CAG partners undertook anextensive effort to assemble data about regulated industrial facilities, chemical

releases, water quality, and other environmentalconditions to meet their first objective of abaseline environmental characterization ofthe CBEP area.The collected data were torepresent baseline conditions for the CBEPproject.The CAG also intended to completean outreach effort to make the informationavailable to residents in the surroundingcommunities.

▼ Lead Poisoning Prevention: The purposeof this effort was to provide education to newand expectant mothers to meet the objectiveof reducing childhood lead poisoning. Muchof the housing stock within the neck areadates from the early and mid-1900s, whenlead paint was still used widely.With thehelp of EPA grant money, MUSC providedtraining to community members (termed“advisors”) hired to conduct outreach withnew and expectant mothers and other familymembers about how to protect their childrenfrom lead exposure in homes and otherlocations.The introduction of lead exposuretracking will provide indicator data for thesuccess of the initiative.

▼ Testing for and Mitigation of ElevatedIndoor Radon Levels: Because of pastphosphate mining (a factor in the presenceof elevated radium levels in soil), the CBEParea is considered to be at risk for elevatedindoor radon levels. CAG members began aradon testing survey and a related educationaloutreach effort and will provide mitigationin homes where elevated levels are discovered.These efforts address both radon reductionobjectives and broader goals of communityinvolvement.

▼ Assessment and Remediation ofFormer Phosphate/Fertilizer FacilitySites: The goal of this initiative is to evaluatethe contamination present at nine formerphosphate/fertilizer facilities.Where unacceptable risk is found, CAG partnerswill ensure that an adequately protective sitemanagement strategy is implemented.

▼ Small Business Compliance Assistance:In light of the number of industrial andcommercial facilities, including many smallbusinesses, two CAG partners, EPA Region 4


and DHEC, have collaborated to addresscompliance assurance issues.This initiativefocuses on providing targeted complianceassistance to two industries, dry cleaners,and auto paint and body shops, whichappear to present the greatest potential forenvironmental impacts to the CBEP area.Researchers are using behavioral change,compliance records, and environmental andhuman health improvements as indicators ofsuccess in meeting the compliance objective.

▼ Environmentally Friendly SmallBusiness/Pollution PreventionInitiative: Focusing mostly on auto paintand body shops, CAG partners undertook anoutreach effort to inform small businesses ofpollution prevention opportunities. Outreachteam members conducted site visits andprovided small business owners with informa-tion on environmental performance beyondthat relating to regulatory compliance.Thisinitiative will ensure that environmental gainsare sustained and enhanced in the future andthat small businesses are part of the process.

While several of these initiatives are stillongoing, the CAG and its partners are currentlyevaluating the results of the CBEP efforts thusfar and determining next steps. One of themost significant developments since the CBEPproject’s inception is the decision to incorporatethe CAG as an environmental subcommitteeof the Greater Charleston EmpowermentCorporation to take advantage of issue andorganizational overlap.

Like the initial CAG formation process, themajority of CBEP activities have been fullyfunded by EPA.The lead poisoning prevention,radon reduction, and small business pollutionprevention projects were all funded by EPAthrough the RGI.The project has also leveragedin-kind contributions and other resources froma variety of sources, including MUSC; theUSGS; DHEC; other local, state, and federalhealth agencies;Youth Build and other localnonprofit organizations; and businesses, such asLowe’s and Home Depot. Part of the rationalefor making the CAG part of the GreaterCharleston Empowerment Corporation is toleverage resources between efforts with similarsustainable development goals.

EPA’S ROLEAccording to everyone involved, EPA has

acted as the driving force within theCharleston/North Charleston CBEP projectfrom the beginning.The Charleston sitebecame a major EPA project when it was listedon the Superfund National Priority list (NPL).The Agency has supplied specialized information,facilitation support, and sources of funding tolaunch and carry out all of the activitiesdetailed above.

At the same time, the key role played by EPAhas had both positive and negative implications,as viewed from the perspectives of differentCAG members and project stakeholders. Giventhe project’s multifaceted nature and the numberof stakeholders and partnerships involved, atruly comprehensive evaluation of EPA’s rolewould require additional participant interviewsbeyond the scope of this evaluation.Workingwithin the limitations of this evaluation, wechose interviewees who represented some ofthe different viewpoints existing among projectparticipants (e.g., that of EPA, local governmentinstitutions, community members, and localNGOs).While the sample size for this evaluationis clearly not large enough to determine thespecific extent of concern or other more precisedetails about particular views, the followingobservations emerged from the interviews:

▼ Impact of Operational DifferencesBetween EPA and Other Stakeholders:Some participants feel that the project hasbeen influenced by differences in expectationsand approach between EPA (as well as otherinstitutional members) and communitymembers.Although the priority of everyoneinvolved has always been to improve thearea’s quality of life, some residents expectedmore immediate results (e.g., health screenings,repair work to address risks posed bydrainage ditches). Some feel that EPA andothers have been overly concerned withdeveloping the project itself, such asthrough formation of CAG procedures, useof resources to publicize the project, and soon. Some participants noted, for example,that the communities had previously voicedtheir priority issues, so they felt that the effortto record resident concerns was not the most


efficient use of time and resources. For someparticipants, EPA-facilitated developmentalprocess was perceived as only furtherbureaucracy rather than a process to buildcredibility and trust, and added to the cynicismof residents who viewed previous partnershipefforts as failing to deliver concrete results.However, some CBEP participants viewedthe structured CAG process as an asset. In fact,these participants credit the CAG structurewith gathering different community view-points at the table and keeping participantsengaged when differences of opinion arose.

▼ Ensuring that EPA Funding Best FitsCBEP Needs: EPA financial resources haveplayed a critical role within the project, inlarge part because the CAG, which does nothave official nonprofit status, cannot receivegrants directly.All participants agree that fund-ing is one of the most helpful aspects of EPA’sinvolvement with the Charleston/NorthCharleston CBEP project.At the same time,some participants have offered constructivecriticism as to how and to whom the Agencysupplies financial resources. In particular,one participant expressed the view of somecommunity members that instead of fundingMUSC, EPA should have provided resourcesmore directly to the CBEP area neighborhoodsby hiring a resident to act as an organizerfor the project.2 In the opinion of thisobserver, empowering residents to assumemore tangible CBEP project leadershiproles may have overcome issues of trust andhelped to increase public participation inmany of the project’s activities.Along theselines, participants point to the project’s hiringof the lead outreach advisors (rather thanappointing them to voluntary positions, asoriginally planned) as an example of successfully increasing ownership of andaccountability for CBEP efforts among residents by providing financial resourcesdirectly to the community.

▼ Striking a Balance Between EPA Supportand Facilitation: The EPA has alwaysexpressed the desire that the Charleston/North Charleston efforts be community-ledand thus has encouraged operational mech-anisms such as the CAG. From the perspectiveof some participants, however, the projecthas been neither community-directed nor particularly responsive to community voices.This sentiment originates from perceptionsabout a lengthy CAG formation processdominated by EPA and other institutionalpartners, which may have helped lead to asubsequent lack of involvement from residents(e.g., lack of public attendance at CAG-sponsored meetings and events). Participantsholding this view would have preferred thatEPA provide less overall facilitation inexchange for more up-front support forexisting community priorities (e.g., techni-cal assistance for targeted health screenings,repair of drainage ditch hazards, etc.). Someparticipants also suggested performancetracking and evaluation as a valuable nicherole for EPA within CBEP projects.


Confronted with a complex set of environ-mental problems and other challenges, some ofwhich are described above, EPA and its partnershave established an ambitious agenda of objectivesand strategies for the Charleston/NorthCharleston CBEP project.Tracking of some ofthe project’s completed initiatives remainsunfinished, and other efforts are still ongoing.Measuring progress toward the project’s overallgoals of improving the environmental qualityto ensure human health and ecological, social,and economic benefits is a long-term process.Nevertheless, participants can point to severalenvironmental and other accomplishments to


2 In the case of the Charleston project, the direct role of MUSC created a lack of credibility from the perspective of somecommunity members (uncertainty exists as to exactly how many) because of perceptions about the institution’s record inhandling previous grants (e.g., a Department of Energy grant).To be successful in the long run (and avoid similar credibilityand trust issues), the community organizer hiring process would need to be as transparent as possible and attempt to takecommunity “politics” into account perhaps through a combination of an open resume collection, nomination process, andfinal selection by a multistakeholder panel.

characterize the project’s progress in meetingthe previously stated objectives:

▼ In the summer of 1999, CAG partners finishedthe environmental data compilation effortto meet their objective of determining thebaseline environmental conditions.Theyreleased a draft document titled Summary ofthe Environmental Information Collected for theCharleston/North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Program.Thedocument contains more than 20 maps andtables with data ranging from a summary ofarea Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) releases tothe location of facilities with NPDES permitsdischarges.The CAG has provided commentson the document as well as recommendationsfor the next phase of the effort. Based onthese recommendations, the CAG is makingplans to use the information to assess certainenvironmental conditions, create maps showingthe data points on a neighborhood-specificlevel, and develop a user-friendly system toenable community access to the data.

▼ To address the lead poisoning preventiongoal, MUSC trained eight area residentswho were hired to be community educatorsor advisors.The purpose of the outreachwas to inform new and expectant mothersand other family members about childhoodlead poisoning and preventative behavioralmeasures (e.g., frequent washing of hands).By the summer of 2000, the advisors hadreached more than 900 community membersin interactions that ranged from brief one-on-one conversations to group meetings inresidents’ homes.To the surprise of the advisors and their CBEP partners, a largepercentage of young mothers were unawareof lead poisoning risks and reported thattheir children were not being screened attheir regular medical check-ups.As a resultof the outreach efforts, many families havereported taking their children in for leadlevel screening. In addition, DHEC CBEPparticipants are investigating the adequacyof regular lead level screenings within theCharleston area.

▼ Identification of homes with elevated radonlevels is under way.Thus far, testing is completeat 200 out of a targeted 2,000 residences forwhich test kits have been obtained. CAGmembers have secured support from theSouthern Regional Radon Training Center,which will provide training to the local YouthBuild program to complete the mitigationwork, and Home Depot and Lowe’s haveoffered to contribute mitigation materials.

▼ The minimization of impacts from formerindustrial sites is under way. Preliminaryenvironmental assessments are now completeat the nine former fertilizer/phosphate facilitiestargeted by CAG partners.Additional resultsto date under this initiative include a removalaction at one site, a remedial investigation atanother site, a Superfund NPL designationand subsequent remediation plan at one site,and voluntary cleanup agreements with severalresponsible parties.


The Charleston/North Charleston projectexhibits effective CBEP attributes in the lever-aging of resources to complete assessments,remediations, and other environmental outcomes;increase capacity-building within the community(e.g., lead poisoning prevention training); andnurture multistakeholder partnerships (e.g.,through the CAG).Although in some ways theCAG represents the most controversial aspect ofthe project, its continued operation is perhapsthe strongest demonstration of the effectivenessof the CBEP process. Despite the group’s difficulties, many local organizations have participated in the CAG (with some requestingto join following its initial formation). In fact,several participants noted that the CAG representsa significant first in terms of bringing diversecommunity viewpoints to the table to discussenvironmental issues.They noted that withoutthe unique collaborative, comprehensive natureof the CBEP approach, this enlarged discussioncould not have occurred.Although some projectparticipants questioned the extent to whichcommunity voices are represented on the CAG,the group’s membership includes the leadership


of diverse organizations, most of which are newCBEP recruits. DHEC, for instance, which hadno previous CBEP experience, has maintainedactive CAG participation all along and hasimplemented changes suggested by the group(e.g., providing better public access to an environmental release log within its offices).Exhibit 3-1 provides a partial listing of groupsinvolved in the CBEP project, including severalof those represented on the CAG.

Although many of the project’s objectives wereeither accomplished or are in progress, frustrationswith the initial stages of the CBEP process werestill evident.The EPA respondent noted thatEPA’s method of ensuring community involve-ment from the ground up—to start from scratchwith community members and groups—may nothave been the most effective method. In retro-spect, the groundwork laid by a local organizationsuch as the Greater Charleston EmpowermentCorporation might have been more effective atfacilitating long-term community support andinvolvement.The EPA is still assisting the community in the CBEP process; for example,in early 2002, EPA organized and delivered aworkshop for planning boards and citizens on theplanning process and methods for encouragingpublic participation.

CBEP VALUE ADDEDOne reason for the effectiveness of the

CBEP approach is that it brings into focusissues that affect conventional environmentalprotection programs yet remain largely ignored.These issues can include the role of EPA andother institutions versus that of the communityat large, the impacts of differing viewpoints,and the connections between environmental,socioeconomic, and other quality-of-life issues.CBEP projects face these types of issues headon. Even the project participants most criticalof the Charleston/North Charleston effortsrecognize much value in the CBEP approach.In addition, project participants acknowledgethe following value-added aspects of theCharleston/North Charleston activities:

▼ Community Capacity Building andEnvironmental Protection Goals:Although systematic performance tracking

EXHIBIT 3-1PARTIAL LIST OF GROUPS INVOLVED OR

REPRESENTED IN THE CHARLESTON / NORTHCHARLESTON CBEP PROJECT


AKA Parenting Center

ACLU

NAACP

Bayside Neighborhood

League of Women Voters

Charleston County Metro Chamber of Commerce

Charleston Naval Shipyard

U.S. EPA*

SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control*

National. Employee Trades of America

Sierra Club

SC Aquarium

SC Coastal Conservation League*

Rosemont Neighborhood

Union Heights Neighborhood

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Westside Neighborhood Association

Palmetto Community Hope Foundation

Youth Build

U.S. Geological Survey

City of Charleston

City of North Charleston

Medical University of SC*

College of Charleston

Office of Congressman J. Clyburn

Enterprise Community

Southern Regional Radon

Training Center

* Representative interviewed for this assessment.

is not yet complete, participants are confi-dent that the CBEP area’s capacity toaddress its environmental concerns is beingenhanced through the project’s various out-reach efforts and through education of CAGrepresentatives. For example, participantsreport that the lead poisoning outreach hashelped to fill an important information gap,increasing the awareness of a large numberof young families, motivating mothers totake their children in for lead level screen-ing, and driving CBEP partners to investi-gate the adequacy of regular lead levelscreenings within the Charleston area.Thistype of community capacity building hasthe added benefit of helping EPA worktoward its environmental protection goals.EPA Region 4 pointed to examples inwhich businesses have approached the per-mitting process differently (e.g., providingmore up-front public notice and dialogue)in communities that understand and organ-ize around environmental issues. Job trainingand brownfield development have beenencouraged by the CBEP process, whichhas helped the overall goal of improving thequality of life and the environment inCharleston.

▼ Reorientation of EPA Programs: EPARegion 4 points to the reorientation of itsprograms toward greater integration acrossenvironmental media and issue areas. In oneexample, the Charleston/North Charleston

project established a workgroup fromamong EPA programs operating inCharleston.As a result of this workgroup,EPA programs have a better understandingof the overall environmental quality of theCBEP area and the cross-media concernsfaced by residents.

▼ Groundwork for Collaborations:The mostimportant value-added aspect, as describedby participants in Charleston’s project, is theextent to which CBEP has worked to buildpartnerships (e.g., via CAG participationand resource sharing) among the leadershipof local groups and institutions and laid thegroundwork for further collaborations.TheCAG, for instance, has provided the firstopportunity for some stakeholders to hearfirst-hand the perspectives of other stake-holders. Participants noted that althoughmany conflicts about specific issues remain,several personal relationships (i.e., person toperson) now exist where there were nonebefore, and these participants feel that this isa critical development for the day-to-daywork needed to reach effective, consensus-based environmental protection.Thegroundwork laid by the CBEP process willserve the community most immediately inthe form of an environmental subcommitteeof the Greater Charleston EmpowermentCorporation, which is planned to assumethe CAG’s activities.


The Charleston/North Charleston projectoffers a rich CBEP case study, especially withregard to issues concerning the interactionamong EPA, other institutional partners, andthe community at large.The complexity of thearea’s environmental problems, the historicalinteraction between community residents andinstitutions, and several other factors all havepresented challenges to EPA and its partners indetermining appropriate and effective roleswithin the project. Important themes thatemerge from the Charleston experienceinclude the following:

▼ To the degree possible, CBEP projectsshould try to build upon ongoing commu-nity efforts and address priority issues thatstakeholders have already identified.Thistype of initial approach may help the proj-ect to quickly achieve some visible resultsand thus win community support. However,project managers must also plan carefully toresist implementing short-term localizedefforts inconsistent with relative health andecological risks in the CBEP area.

▼ Funding residents to perform communityeducation and fill other CBEP roles may beuseful in responding to trust and credibilityissues.Along these lines, EPA may want toconsider pilot testing the use of paid com-munity coordinators hired from amongCBEP project area residents.

▼ CBEP partners should strive for a balancebetween (1) ensuring that decisionmakingprocesses are as transparent as possible andpossess enough structure to encourage ade-quate representation, communication, andstrategic planning, and (2) avoiding deci-sionmaking processes that are overly bureau-cratic in operation from the perspective ofparticipants.

▼ Even if they encounter conflict or other dif-ficulties, community advisory groups andsimilar decisionmaking bodies provide ben-efits by allowing stakeholders to hear diverseperspectives and build better relationshipswith one another, a CBEP priority in andof itself.

Finally, given the collaborative, comprehen-sive nature of CBEP efforts and the complexi-ty of issues they are meant to address, EPA andits partners may need to employ a longertimeframe than normally used when evaluatingthe results of CBEP projects.The Charlestonproject highlights several inherent difficultiesassociated with developing a definitive evalua-tion of CBEP project performance. Becausethe project is in a relatively early stage andmany of the anticipated environmental andhuman health improvements have not yet beenrealized, this evaluation relies on participants’observations, which are subjective and there-fore can vary a great deal. For example,although some participants commend theaccomplishments of the CAG process, otherspoint to overly structured procedures and alack of overall community participation.Theinterviews conducted with program managers,CAG members, and other partners reveal dif-ferences of opinion on how the CBEP processshould be structured, what actions should takepriority, and whether the project has succeed-ed in meeting its initial goals.Although suchmixed findings are to be expected whendiverse interests collaborate on an innovative,far-reaching initiative, a complete evaluation ofthe project (i.e., the CBEP process and envi-ronmental accomplishments) will be more fea-sible once the initiative has matured and allproject elements (e.g., the lead poisoning pre-vention effort, the radon testing effort) havebeen fully established.



Background

The Florida Governor’s Commission for aSustainable South Florida released a reportin 1995 that provided recommendations

on restoring the Everglades ecosystem, includinghow to approach issues of water management,transportation, and urban sprawl.The reportemphasized that without curtailment of thewestward spread of urban sprawl into theEverglades, any efforts to restore and protect theSouth Florida ecosystem would have limitedeffect.The Eastward Ho! Initiative, the urbancounterpart of Everglades restoration, was under-taken in 1996 as a result of these recommen-dations. Initially administered by the FloridaDepartment of Community Affairs (DCA),Eastward Ho! is spearheaded by the SouthFlorida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC)and the Treasure Coast Regional PlanningCouncil (TCRPC), in partnership with local,state, and federal agencies as well as Florida cit-izens. Eastward Ho! focuses on the 150-mile

long corridor running from Fort Pierce in St.Lucie County to Florida City in Miami-DadeCounty, near the southern tip of Florida (seeFigure 4-1). Major cities in the corridor includeMiami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach.

Goals and ObjectivesThe overall goal of the Eastward Ho! project

has been to create sustainable communities inSoutheast Florida. One of the major tenets tomeeting this goal has been smart growth throughredevelopment.The goals of Eastward Ho! areto “revitalize and improve the quality of life inSoutheast Florida’s historic urban areas andattract a portion of future regional growth backtoward [the] communities to the east” throughinnovative redevelopment strategies.3 Infilldevelopment and redevelopment, both ofbrownfields and other areas, were identified asmajor components of minimizing sprawl andenhancing urban revitalization.

Eastward Ho! Chapter 4 4-1

EASTWARD HO! CHAPTER 4PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FIGURE 4-1EASTWARD HO! CORRIDOR AND SURROUNDING AREAS

Source: Eastward Ho!: RevitalizingSoutheast Florida’s Urban Core,July 1996.

3 Building on Success:A Report from Eastward Ho! South Florida Regional Planning Council and Treasure CoastRegional Planning Council, 1998, p. 10.

Consistent with this overall goal, EastwardHo! has identified several specific objectives:

▼ To support the creation of communities thatare environmentally, economically, andsocially healthy;

▼ To improve the regional quality of life for exist-ing and future residents, particularly the qualityof life in Southeast Florida’s historic urbanareas, and attract a greater portion of futureregional growth to the urban infill corridor;

▼ To lessen sprawl and development pressureon sensitive lands that are important to theEverglades ecosystem and regional ground-water supply through the revitalization ofSoutheast Florida’s historic urban communities.

Parallel to these local efforts, EPA has pursueda variety of activities under its South FloridaInitiative.The broad objective of the initiativeis to protect key ecosystems in Florida (e.g.,the Everglades) by addressing stressors such asagriculture and land development resultingfrom population growth in the region.The urbancomponent of the initiative focuses primarily oncontrol of suburban sprawl through promotion ofenvironmentally sound transportation and siteredevelopment policies. Hence, EPA Region 4Regional Administrator and Florida officialsagreed to have EPA participate in the EastwardHo! program, drawing on Region 4 resources aswell as resources available from EPA Headquarters.

PROJECT ACTIVITIESMany of the Eastward Ho! activities most

relevant to CBEP are focused on brownfieldassessment, remediation, and redevelopment.The Brownfields Partnership’s brownfield strategyis a component of the larger Eastward Ho!program. Under the Partnership, municipalgovernments, state and federal organizations,private interests, and other participants collab-orate on brownfield-related community revitalization efforts. In addition, a portion ofthe Eastward Ho! corridor was designated as aNational Brownfields Showcase Communityin 1998.Although a complete chronology ofall the initiatives under the BrownfieldsPartnership is beyond the scope of this evaluation,

examples of recent or ongoing brownfield-related activities include the following:

▼ Brownfields Assessment and CleanupProjects: The Brownfields Partnershipmanages and supports numerous site-specificprojects that demonstrate innovativeapproaches to assessing contamination,remediation, and redevelopment at under-utilized industrial and commercial properties.These efforts relate directly to the urban infilland sprawl prevention goals of the project.

▼ Inventory and Assessment of MiamiRiver:The Partnership completed an environ-mental inventory and assessment of the MiamiRiver to guide potential redevelopment alongthe river.This effort addresses the goal ofenvironmental health and ultimately influencesthe ability to attract infill development.

▼ Brownfields Toolbox and InformationGuide: The Partnership will release a guideto developing brownfields in SoutheastFlorida, providing both information on keycontacts as well as step-by-step informationon completing a redevelopment project.

▼ Job Training: Eastward Ho! was involved withtwo job training initiatives for residents ofbrownfield areas, one sponsored by EPA andone by the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences.This capacity-building project involves training enrolleesin skills such as site assessment and recon-struction techniques.A total of 88 studentshave been trained under the two programs.These efforts directly address the objectiveof economic health and ultimately affect thegoals of urban revitalization.

▼ Brownfields Partnership GIS: Currentlyunder development, Eastward Ho!’s plannedgeographic information system will includedata on waste sites and waste generatorscombined with aerial photographs andother GIS layers.Targeted users includedevelopers searching for land parcels mostconducive to certain types of redevelop-ment. SFRPC has established a Web site(www.sfrpc.com/brwnflds.htm) to accom-pany this effort. Information available as ofOctober 2002 includes maps of brownfieldsites throughout Miami-Dade County.


▼ Brownfields Conferences: Eastward Ho!sponsors a variety of conferences on brown-fields. For example, the Eastward Ho!Brownfields Partnership Summit was held inSeptember 1999 to address lessons learnedand problems encountered in brownfieldredevelopment, drawing on case studies ofactual projects in South Florida. In May 2000,symposia were held for the banking andbusiness sectors to assist them in understandingwhat constitutes a brownfield project and toexamine brownfield financing issues.

Eastward Ho! conducts a variety of otheractivities that extend beyond brownfield redevelopment into broader areas of smart growthand sustainable development. Examples includethe following:

▼ Technical Assistance: The SFRPC andTCRPC have designated full-time staff tospecifically support Eastward Ho! activities.The Regional Coordinator, BrownfieldCoordinator, and Project Facilitators preparenewsletters and technical reports and conductpublic outreach, project coordination, datacollection, and GIS analysis to help promoteand facilitate demonstration projects andother local smart growth activities.

▼ Community Investment Grants: TheSFRPC manages grant funds to assist localgovernments, nonprofits, and tribes in community revitalization projects. In 1999,about $175,000 in Community InvestmentGrants were awarded and more than $1 millionin local matching funds leveraged.

▼ Design Charrettes and Workshops:Eastward Ho! organizes design charrettes andother workshops for cities interested in givingresidents, businesses, and other stakeholdersa direct voice in the planning and design ofkey development projects.

Consistent with these diverse participantsand activities, Eastward Ho! is funded from anarray of sources. It is primarily implementedby local government and private sector activitiesand local investment in the region’s historiccommunities. Eastward Ho! activities are alsosupported by dues paid by member counties tothe regional planning councils. In years past, theState of Florida provided funding to support

Eastward Ho! activities and dedicated staff atthe regional planning councils.Additionalfunding has been received from several federalagencies including EPA (see below), privatefoundations, and developers.

EPA’S ROLEThe EPA’s efforts in the Eastward Ho! project

centered on forming and facilitating theBrownfields Partnership and on providing technicalsupport to specific Eastward Ho! redevelopmentefforts.These functions are consistent with theEastward Ho!’s overall goals of infill developmentand redevelopment.The EPA has providedtechnical support and funding to various aspectsof the Eastward Ho! project since 1996. Keyelements of this support include the following:

▼ In the 1996 through 1998 period, EPA’sOffice of Sustainable Ecosystems andCommunities (OSEC) provided funding,contractor support, and staff to Eastward Ho!Specifically, OSEC provided $900,000 infunding to the Growth Management Instituteand its subcontractors to facilitate meetingsand analyze transportation issues such asupgrading the existing rail system for use inmass transportation in the corridor. OSECalso deployed staff (one FTE) in SouthFlorida (primarily to support the BrownfieldsPartnership) and maintained an additional FTEat Headquarters for other program support.

▼ The Brownfields Partnership receivedresources from EPA through its designationas a Brownfields Showcase Community.Resources provided include $400,000 as wellas a federal employee assigned to the SFRPCoffice to provide technical support.

▼ The EPA also has provided numerous grantsfor brownfield assessment and redevelopment.For example, the cities of Miami, Opa-Locka,and Fort Lauderdale as well as Miami-DadeCounty have been the focus of approximately$1 million in EPA funding for assessmentsand demonstration pilots.

▼ The South Florida Regional Planning Counciland the Eastward Ho! Brownfields Partnershiphave received a $2 million grant from EPA


to capitalize a revolving loan fund that willbe used to assist in the cleanup and reuse ofbrownfield sites in Southeast Florida.

▼ The EPA provides $200,000 for a job trainingdemonstration program run through Miami-Dade Community College.The trainingfocuses on construction techniques applicableat brownfield sites.

▼ EPA Region 4 and its South Florida Officehave provided technical assistance on severalbrownfield issues, including implementationof an environmental assessment and landparcel inventory for a portion of the MiamiRiver and a similar parcel inventory for theModel City area.

Project managers contacted for this evaluationoffered several observations and suggestionsregarding EPA’s role in the Eastward Ho! project.On the positive side, SFRPC staff pointed outthat EPA involvement in the project has hadclear benefits beyond the fact that EPA is adirect source of funding for various activities.In particular, EPA has provided legitimacy andvisibility to Eastward Ho!, creating momentumfor the project and assisting in securing fundingfrom other organizations.

Other observations regarding EPA’s involve-ment have been more critical and reveal signif-icantly different perspectives on how the Agencycan best support CBEP projects. SFRPC staffmembers stress the importance of local leader-ship on a project such as Eastward Ho! Theirsuggestion is that EPA find a strong local partnerand provide funding not just for specializedactivities but for core functions of the localorganization (e.g., staff, outreach), allowing localproject staff to use its expertise to manage thefunding as it sees fit as long as the local partnerworks within the constraints established by EPA.Although community members do not expector suggest that EPA provide a blank check,fewer restrictions on EPA funds would providethe maximum flexibility to design programs thatleverage local funds and engage communities.Additionally, local partners emphasized theinsight, perspective, and resources that federalagencies can bring to a joint collaboration but

also expressed concerns that federal partnersand contractors at times presume that localpartners are unsophisticated.

In contrast, EPA headquarters staff highlightedseveral factors affecting how the Agency interactswith local organizations:

▼ The Agency recognizes an obligation to bringnational expertise to bear on policy problems;hence, the decision to involve contractorsand Headquarters staff.The EPA points outthat many technical policy issues benefit frombroad expertise and that local entities cannotbe left to solve all problems for themselves.4

▼ The EPA needs to operate within the limitsof its statutory authority and support theobjectives outlined in the Agency’s strategicplan. Because of its focus, EPA cannot simplyprovide funding to local organizations with-out directing how the money is to be spent.

▼ Direct involvement of EPA Headquarters inprojects such as Eastward Ho! is suboptimal.Strong support from the EPA Region ispreferable to direct Headquarters participation,and those interviewed felt that the resourcesand commitment from the EPA Regionaloffice have been insufficient.


Several accomplishments demonstrate howEastward Ho! has helped improve the quality oflife in South Florida and protect the resourceson which the region depends. Most notable isthe success that the project is having inencouraging the fundamental land use anddemographic shifts that are at the core of theEverglades protection strategy (i.e., reclaimingand revitalizing the urban corridor of easternFlorida).The activities listed in the precedingsections demonstrate the myriad directions inwhich the project is progressing. Below, wediscuss additional redevelopment efforts underway, the influence these projects are having, andother measures of Eastward Ho!’s accomplishments.


4 It is noteworthy that, in some cases, local leadership and national expertise may not be mutually exclusive; for example, anational expert may be available at a local university to assist with a CBEP project.

Demonstration Projects Under WayAs noted, Eastward Ho! has provided assistance

to an array of community redevelopmentdemonstration projects that seek to improve theenvironmental quality and overall livability ofurban areas. Projects currently under way includerevitalization efforts in Stuart, Overtown, NorthMiami, North Miami Beach, Ojus, Homestead,Goulds, Little Haiti, El Portal, Miami Shores,Oakland Park, Boca Raton, San Castle, Kendall,Fort Pierce, Hollywood, and Pompano Beach.Although most of these projects are still inprocess, several have moved on to the advancedplanning stage, including the following:

▼ The city of Fort Pierce has identified adeveloper and approved the proposed designof the $18 million Marina Square Projecton the city’s waterfront.The waterfront hotelcomplex will include restaurants, meetingfacilities, and retail stores. Fort Pierce’s redeveloped downtown will include a newpublic library, mixed-income apartments,offices, and a waterfront park.

▼ In April 2002, the city of North Miami Beachcelebrated the opening of Hanford Boulevard,a key boulevard anchoring the city’s down-town business district revitalization. Planningfor this effort began in 1999 when the citywas awarded an Eastward Ho! design charrette(a collaborative process, often a series ofmeetings for empowering people who areimportant to a project to work together andsupport the goals and results) and engaged thepublic in planning.The city followed up thiscommunity planning effort by developing arevitalization strategy featuring revised landdevelopment regulations, updated zoning codesto allow mixed uses, business incentives, andgrants to help pay for improvements.

▼ Developers have planned a nine-story residential, retail, and office building on thesite of the old Boca Raton News buildingin downtown Boca Raton.This site is nearthe Royal Palm Plaza, a shopping centerthat is already being redeveloped as apartments,condominiums, and office space.

In promoting these projects, developers havebeen promoting many of the same advantagesof urban living that environmental proponents

highlight: shorter commuting distances, decreaseddependence on automobiles, and efficient useof underutilized urban land. Other advantagesof infill development include the aesthetic appealof older, more established neighborhoods aswell as socioeconomic considerations such asincreased racial and economic diversity.

Kendall Redevelopment ProjectThe redevelopment vision for the suburban

region of Kendall in south Miami-Dade Countyis perhaps one of the most dramatic examplesof the development strategies implemented underEastward Ho! What began as a local chamber ofcommerce discussion over where the community could hold a parade became a crusadeto develop a city center and a town identity.The area had been epitomized by the extremelysuccessful Dadeland Mall, a sprawling suburbancomplex that draws shoppers from the community, from Miami, and from all over theworld (more than half of the clientele areshoppers who have come to the communityspecifically to shop). ChamberSOUTH, whichcovers approximately half of Miami-DadeCounty, spearheaded a revamping of the zoningordinances with the support of the community,the Miami-Dade County Planning Office, andSFRPC.The Kendall project is different frommany redevelopment projects nationwide inthat it is proposed for an area that is currentlyundergoing a sustained economic boom, despitedownturns in the general economy. Ratherthan being a solution for urban blight and urbanflight, the Kendall vision is to recreate an economically successful area to include environ-mental and social concerns.

An initial weeklong charrette led to a visionfor the area that focused on developing apedestrian-friendly town center. Objectivesincluded redesigning streets to provide shade treesand pedestrian crossways, adding colonnades tobuildings to encourage outdoor transit, andreplacing current residential areas with denserstructures.The local land development rules wereamended to require new or replacement construction to meet an updated set of codesthat would require increased public openspace, increased pedestrian thruways, anddenser development.The Kendall area alreadyhad the benefit of being near two major transitstations, which provide greater flexibility in


planning to reduce the number of cars usedfor daily commuting.

With buy-in from the public, businesses, andlocal government, the Kendall area has developeda 30-year plan for redevelopment. Officials atthe Miami-Dade County Planning Officeemphasized the importance of having a localbusiness group (ChamberSOUTH) spearheadthis effort.This choice validated the project’simportance from a community perspective andcreated a unique public–private collaboration.Currently, redevelopment plans are under wayfor more than 200 acres of land, resulting in4,000 new residential units. Primarily, the plansinvolve removing low-rise (2- to 3-story)apartment buildings and replacing them with25- to 30-story buildings. More than 300,000square feet of commercial units are also currentlyproposed by developers.The continuing growthand expansion demands in the South Floridaarea are fueling this redevelopment surge.

Demographic and Land Use ImpactsA major goal of the Eastward Ho! effort is to

attract people and development back toSoutheastern Florida’s historic urban areas.Theinfluence that infill development is having isevidenced by trends in South Florida’s realestate market.Although systematic data for theEastward Ho! corridor are not readily available,a variety of articles in local newspapers andmagazines demonstrate that demographicchanges are under way:

▼ Observers point out that “a small but growingnumber of Floridians are heading back down-town, choosing new and renovated condo-miniums, apartments, and townhomes that areclose to jobs, shopping, and entertainment.” 5

▼ This influx of homebuyers is having a directimpact on real estate markets. One articlestates that “agents are scrambling for listingsand sellers getting full-price offers—orabove—within hours or days.” 6

▼ Many of these changes, including notableincreases in property values, are occurring inareas where Eastward Ho! has focused itsefforts—such as in Kendall. For example, onearticle notes that “a $250,000, four-bedroom,three-bath, 2,800-square-foot home with apool in the west would cost $400,000 inEast Kendall.” 7

The real estate boom in the Eastward Ho!corridor extends beyond just single-family residential housing. Multifamily residential, retail,and office space are in demand as well. Forexample, along Miami’s Brickell Avenue, nearthe Miami River, a variety of mixed-use andlarger condominium projects are under way.Similarly, downtown Boca Raton is attractingmixed-used development, including conversionof old office buildings into retail/residential/office complexes (see above).8 Consideredtogether, these changes offer indirect evidencethat development pressure may be decreasingin areas near the Everglades and groundwatersupplies, thereby fulfilling the primary environ-mental objectives of the Eastward Ho! initiative.

Although the move eastward has its detractors,who point to increased traffic congestion andother issues, support for redevelopment ofurban centers is widespread. Examples of thissupport include the following:

▼ Commissioners for Miami-Dade Countyvoted 10 to 0 to approve the zoning planfor downtown Kendall.9

▼ Local newspapers and other publications havepraised Eastward Ho! in editorials that recognize the need for redevelopment andthat call attention to how the program fitsinto the larger Everglades protection plan.10

The evidence remains anecdotal, and quanti-tative change is difficult to show because therewas no system of direct measures incorporatedinto the project.


5 “Heading Back Downtown,” Florida Trend Magazine,August 2000.6 “Real Estate on the Move,” Miami Herald,August 13, 2000.7 “Real Estate on the Move,” Miami Herald,August 13, 2000.8 “Nine-Story Residential, Retail Building Proposed in Downtown Boca,” Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel,August 11, 2000.9 “Zoning Approved to Change Look of Kendall Community,” Miami Herald, December 17, 1999.10 “Making Environmental Peace Saving Water, Managing Growth,” Miami Herald, January 5, 2000.

Other Measures of SuccessIn addition to the demographic and land

use changes noted above, the success ofEastward Ho! can be gauged in other ways:

▼ Eastward Ho! has produced several environ-mental and socioeconomic assessments ofthe corridor that have assisted in characterizingthe problems facing the region and guidedallocation of project resources. For example,as mentioned, the effort has produced a varietyof site inventories and assessments. Some ofthese assessments have been completed withdirect community involvement; the ModelCity site inventory will be completed withsupport from senior citizens trained by theMiami-Dade County Department ofEnvironmental Management. In addition,under DCA and EPA funding, Eastward Ho!contracted with the Center for Urban PolicyResearch at Rutgers University to analyzealternative development scenarios in andaround the Eastward Ho! corridor.

▼ Participation in the brownfield training programs also provides measures of success.The training program funded by EPA recentlygraduated seven students and began the secondclass in January 2000.Another programfunded by the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences graduated19 students last year and also began its secondsession in January 2000.A total of 88 studentshave been trained under the two programs.Approximately 75 percent of the studentswere initially employed in environmentalcleanup-related jobs.

▼ Local governments in the Eastward Ho!Brownfields Partnership area have designated21 sites and areas, totaling 47,578 acres, underthe Florida Brownfields Program.This accountsfor 70 percent of the acreage identified inFlorida as brownfields. Furthermore, theFlorida Department of EnvironmentalProtection and EPA have signed a SuperfundMemorandum of Agreement under whichEPA will forego enforcement at brownfieldsites.This provides greater certainty to develop-ers undertaking brownfield rehabilitation.

▼ Brownfields assessments and remediationhave had positive environmental and

economic effects on the area.Approximately400 sites have received some level of contamination assessment.Approximately 78 sites need no further assessment and willnot require remediation. Five sites have under-gone remediation and are either undergoingredevelopment or will shortly undergoredevelopment.The redevelopment activitieswill create 375 to 500 new permanent jobs.

Finally, both Eastward Ho! and the BrownfieldsPartnership have established measures of successthat they plan to track to gauge future progress.Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 summarize these measures.Project managers have not yet compiled formalfindings using these measures, but the discussionabove suggests that many of the goals are beingmet. For example, the demographic informationreviewed above indicates that the goals toincrease the percentage of the region’s population


EXHIBIT 4-1MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR EASTWARD HO!

Adequate, and eventually improved, level of service for public facilities in the corridor, such as transit, parks, water, and sewer.

An increasing share of the region’s public and private investment in the corridor.

An increasing share of trips using transportation alternatives, such aspublic transit, biking, and walking, instead of single-occupant vehicles.

An increasing number of residential and commercial projects featuringpedestrian-friendly, energy-efficient, and transit-oriented design.

An increasing percentage of home ownership in the corridor.

A decreasing rate of per-capita consumption of resources such as water and electricity.

An increasing number of local residents participating in Eastward Ho!activities.

Adoption of state/federal/local legislation and regulations to provideincentives and resources to improve the corridor.

An increasing percentage of the region’s employment growth in areaswithin the corridor.

An increasing personal income in every socioeconomic group.

Source: Building on Success:A Report from Eastward Ho!,December 1998.

and employment in the corridor are being met.Likewise, the various redevelopment demonstra-tion projects are evidence of progress towardBrownfields Partnership goals of increasedbrownfield identification, assessment, cleanup,and redevelopment.


Eastward Ho! exhibits many attributes associatedwith community-based environmental protection.Several of these attributes can be measured andhelp to demonstrate the success of the CBEPprocess. Examples include the following:

▼ The Brownfields Partnership has successfullyintegrated the efforts of numerous organiza-tions.The signatories to the BrownfieldsPartnership Agreement (see Exhibit 4-3)illustrate the number and diversity of participants involved with this aspect ofEastward Ho! This collaboration has grownover time, as evidenced by the total number ofpartnerships that the Brownfields Partnershiphas instituted with federal, state, regional, local,and private organizations (see Exhibit 4-4)following Brownfields Showcase designation.

▼ The response to SFRPC’s CommunityInvestment Grant Fund is also an indicator ofthe community-based nature of Eastward Ho!and the level of community involvement. In1999, more than 49 grant proposals werereceived from local governments, nonprofitorganizations, Native American Tribes, andother groups.The grant proposals totaled$1.2 million, a significant figure when contrasted with the $175,000 in funding thatwas available.

▼ As noted, Eastward Ho! partners have conductedseveral workshops and design charrettes toinvolve citizens directly in the selection anddesign of redevelopment sites.Althoughcomplete data are not available, SFRPC staffindicate that turnout at these sessions is good,with some sessions attracting more than onehundred people.

CBEP VALUE ADDEDThe value added offered by the Eastward Ho!

CBEP approach is best understood in the contextof conventional land use planning.Throughoutthe United States, sprawling development isprevalent because it is perceived to be costeffective relative to redevelopment in urban areas.


EXHIBIT 4-2MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP

Number of Brownfield Properties Identified:Number of properties estimated in brownfield pilot jurisdictionNumber of properties reported to be contained in pilot

inventories (if applicable)Number of properties reported to be targeted by pilot

Number of Brownfield Property Assessments:Property assessments started with pilot fundingProperty assessments completed with pilot fundingProperty assessments completed with other funding

Number of Brownfield Property Cleanups:Number of properties with brownfields assessment that do not

require cleanupNumber of properties with brownfields cleanup activities startedNumber of properties with brownfields cleanup activities completed

Number of Properties with Redevelopment Activities Under Way

Number of Cleanup/Construction Jobs Leveraged

Number of Cleanup Dollars Leveraged

Number of Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged

Number of Redevelopment/Construction Dollars Leveraged

Number of Brownfield-Related Partnerships with Other Organizations:

Number of partnerships with other federal agenciesNumber of partnerships with state and tribal agenciesNumber of partnerships with local government agenciesNumber of partnerships with private entities and nongovernmental

organizations

Brownfield-Related Funding Received from Other Sources:Funding received from other federal agenciesFunding received from state and tribal agenciesFunding received from local government agenciesFunding received from private entities and nongovernmental

organizations

The collective result of individual decisions bymunicipalities and developers is loss of ruralopen space and continued neglect of defunctindustrial, commercial, and inner-city residentialareas. In South Florida, this sprawl pattern isespecially detrimental because of the threat itposes to the sensitive Everglades ecosystem.Asdiscussed below, however, Eastward Ho! offers adistinct alternative by supporting cooperativedecisionmaking across municipalities and educatingplanners on the advantages of brownfield redevelopment and regional land use planning.

One positive outcome of the CBEP processas it was applied in Eastward Ho! pertains to thecollaboration between neighboring municipalitiesand counties. SFRPC staff noted that munici-palities typically compete to attract developmentand other forms of business activity. Eastward Ho!represents a more collaborative model of regionalplanning whereby city and county governmentsrecognize shared environmental and socialconcerns and develop regional solutions. SFRPCstaff note how the regional cooperation inspiredby Eastward Ho! has been transferred over toother programs and policy areas. For example,staff point out that the Empowerment Zonedesignation recently awarded to Miami-DadeCounty resulted from a joint application effortby the county and five municipalities.Theapplication explicitly cited the Eastward Ho!principles and the success realized by the cooper-ative efforts implemented under Eastward Ho!

Eastward Ho! offers other value-added benefitsin that it enhances the long-term capacity ofthe corridor to manage its own environmentalproblems. For example, the BrownfieldsPartnership’s Toolbox/Information Guide isdirectly targeted to giving region-specific guidanceto South Florida municipalities consideringbrownfield redevelopment.The brownfieldsconferences sponsored by Eastward Ho! havesimilar objectives.This transfer of practical andtechnical knowledge provides momentum forbrownfield redevelopment and helps developself-sustaining institutions in corridor cities.

Eastward Ho! has produced further value bypromoting the smart growth concepts that EPAand other federal agencies espouse.The basicthemes of Eastward Ho!—urban revitalizationand sprawl reduction—are central tenets of smartgrowth as well.Through successful demonstra-tion projects and other activities, the Eastward


EXHIBIT 4-3BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT SIGNATORIES

Miami-Dade County*Broward CountyLegal Environmental Assistance FoundationLocal Initiatives Support Corporation

(Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties)Palm Beach CountyFlorida Department of Community AffairsSouth Florida Housing and Community Development CoalitionFlorida Department of Environmental ProtectionLiberia Economic and Social DevelopmentTreasure Coast Regional Planning CouncilSouth Florida Regional Planning Council*Greater Miami Neighborhoods, Inc.John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationBroward Soil and Water Conservation DistrictNational Audubon Society Everglades Ecosystem Restoration CampaignCities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Hialeah, North Miami Beach,

and Pompano BeachFlorida International University, Hemispheric Center for

Environmental TechnologyMiami/Miami-Dade County Weed & SeedThe Conservation FundThe Trust for Public Land

*Interviewed for this assessment.Source: Evaluation of EPA's Community Based Efforts in South Florida,ICF Consulting Group, January 1999.

EXHIBIT 4-4NUMBER OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

UNDER THE BROWNFIELDS SHOWCASE PILOT(THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1999)

Number of Partnerships with other Federal Agencies 15

Number of Partnerships with State Government Agencies 4

Number of Partnerships with Regional Government Agencies 2

Number of Partnerships with Local Government Agencies 12

Number of Partnerships with Private Sources and Nongovernmental Organizations 31

Ho! project provides a working example ofsmart growth concepts in action, illustratingthe links between land use planning, brownfieldredevelopment, sustainable economic growth,and ecosystem protection.Without communityinput and acceptance, the changes to land useand development patterns in South Floridamay never have been undertaken.

Another value-added aspect of supportingspecific CBEP efforts is the potential for influ-encing broader local and state policy. In 1997,the Florida Legislature passed brownfield redevelopment legislation that incorporates manyof the recommendations generated by theEastward Ho! legislative task force teams.Thelegislation provides financial incentives tomunicipalities and businesses to redevelop infillsites and introduces a process for communityparticipation. In addition, in 1999, the FloridaLegislature passed the Urban Infill and

Redevelopment Grant Assistance Program thatprovides funding, in part, to BrownfieldsShowcase Communities.

Finally, performing the Eastward Ho! projectas a community-based, collaborative effort wasinstrumental in revealing and addressing keyimpediments to the region’s redevelopment goals.For example, initial brownfields developmentefforts in South Florida were not successfulbecause of the outdated water infrastructure inthe region (e.g., many properties still use septicsystems and private groundwater supplies), andthis discouraged potential reinvestment. Directcollaboration with developers and local officialsdiagnosed this problem.Through on-the-groundplace-based efforts such as Eastward Ho!, EPAcan better understand these types of cross-mediaobstacles and apply this knowledge in broaderregional and national policymaking.


The experience of Eastward Ho! highlightsseveral themes instructive to the Agency’sfuture CBEP efforts:

▼ On CBEP projects, there is a delicate balanceto be struck between allowing local leadershipversus incorporating national expertise onan issue, especially when EPA Headquartersis participating directly.

▼ CBEP projects can foster collaboration (ratherthan competition) between neighboringmunicipalities that produces more efficientregional solutions to problems.These

alliances can be useful in addressing otherregional problems beyond the environmentalpolicy arena and can generate momentumfor legislation at the state level.

▼ Eastward Ho! demonstrates how CBEP effortsrely heavily on outreach and developmentof partnerships between existing stakeholdersin a given area.These partnerships ensurebroad participation in program activities(e.g., conferences), provide a pool of funding,and produce continued results after theAgency’s involvement is complete.


York,Pennsylvania,Community-Based Strategic Planning and Green Development Chapter 5 5-1

Background

In 1995,York, Pennsylvania, began the processof updating the strategic comprehensive planthat would lead it into the 21st century.

Before undertaking the process, city officialshad recognized that the standard planning process,focused solely on land use zoning and relatedmatters, would not suffice for York, a city thatalready had three centuries of developmenthistory (Figure 5-1).An established center ofmanufacturing by the late 19th century,York,like many other U.S. cities, underwent a dramatic

industrial decline in the 1980s characterized byfacility consolidations and closings.When thetime arrived to update York’s strategic plan inthe 1990s, city leaders faced a wide host of challenges, including many abandoned or under-utilized former industrial properties and the needto bring in new economic development toreplace lost manufacturing jobs.Although stilla community with a rich architectural and historical legacy and active civic involvement,York had an unemployment rate of more than7 percent and was approaching a poverty rate

YORK,PENNSYLVANIA,COMMUNITY-BASED STRATEGIC PLANNING AND GREEN DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 5PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FIGURE 5-1CITY OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA

of 20 percent by the late 1990s.The populationhad dropped by a third in 50 years, from nearly60,000 in 1950 to just over 40,000 in the 1990s.

To address York’s challenges and opportunities,city officials embarked on designing a trulycomprehensive, or holistic, planning processcharacterized by extensive community involve-ment.Although the process is similar to standardparticipatory town planning,York is a relativelylarge city to undertake participatory planningon such a large scale.The resulting strategicplanning effort, spearheaded by the York CityPlanning Bureau and other city staff, consistedof two different focal points:

▼ Community-Wide Visioning Process:Through several different opportunities forpublic involvement, such as communitymeetings and participation on a communitypartnership advisory board and other committees,York residents produced an overallcommunity vision statement as well as policyand action plans.These plans addressed arange of social, economic, and quality-of-lifepriorities, including expansion of employmentopportunities, inner-neighborhood revital-ization, and establishment of greenway linkages.

▼ Redevelopment Efforts for Brownfieldsand Other Sites: With multistakeholderparticipation through planning workshops andother opportunities,York crafted redevelop-ment strategies for city sections of specialconcern, including its downtown area andRail Corridor district. For its underutilizedindustrial Rail Corridor district, for example,York developed a strategy to recruit newenvironmentally friendly businesses and toaddress environmental concerns about abandoned properties through brownfieldtechnical assistance.

The 4-year planning process culminated inproduction of a strategic comprehensive plandocument, which was officially adopted by York’sCity Council in August 1999.

In 1997, EPA Region 3 recognized York’scommunity-based, holistic planning process andbrownfield redevelopment work by naming the

city the first Green Community under its GreenCommunities CBEP Program.As part of theGreen Community designation, EPA Region 3partnered with York to further the city’s efforts ingreen development and brownfield reuse. In thisevaluation, we discuss activities that EPA and Yorkhave completed together as part of the GreenCommunities Program as well as CBEP-relatedinitiatives that York began on its own as part ofthe strategic comprehensive planning process.

Goals and ObjectivesThe overall vision developed by the city of

York included a 20-year plan to restore York to“a vibrant urbanized community in which peoplelive, work, play and visit.”11 This covers housingopportunities, safe and efficient transportation,attractive neighborhoods, improved publicservices, and a healthy local and regional economy.The vision specified various economic andneighborhood goals:

▼ Creation of investment opportunities in thedowntown area for entertainment, shopping,business services, tourism, and housing;

▼ Enhancement of the infrastructure in theRail Corridor for manufacturing facilitiesand business expansions;

▼ Facilitation of redevelopment of specialplanning districts within the city throughimproved public services, facilities, andinfrastructure;

▼ Strengthening and connection of residentialneighborhoods through “cleaner, greener, andsafer streets, pathways, greenways, and parks”;

▼ Promotion of historic preservation effortsand quality architectural design;

▼ Provision of employment and public andprivate services within the city;

▼ Upgrade and maintenance of public spacesand recreation and park facilities.12

In the development of specific projects to meetthe overall goals and objectives,York officialsestablished various subobjectives related toenvironmental quality.These include targets for


11, 12 The City of York Strategic Comprehensive Plan,Vision Summary (1999), p.8.

creation of greenways and open space, goals relatedto cleaner transportation modes, and environ-mental goals focusing on the Rail Corridor.

The EPA’s goal as a partner with the city ofYork was similar to the general overall goal ofthe EPA Green Communities Program: tomake the necessary tools for sustainable planningand development accessible to communities aswell as to integrate environmental goals intothe economic planning process.

PROJECT ACTIVITIESIn designing the city’s strategic comprehensive

planning process,York officials drew on existingpublic and private partnerships and other com-munity strengths to put public opinion at theforefront.The planning approach helped the cityreach the goal of community involvement througha variety of activities, as demonstrated below:

▼ Publicizing the status and results of theplanning process through a supplement tothe local newspaper and through distributionof information handouts at locationsthroughout York;

▼ Assembling a community partnership advisoryboard, planning area committees, neighbor-hood committees, and technical advisorycommittees to represent specific communityareas and to advise York city staff on particularareas of concern for the planning process,such as land use/historical preservation,housing, and community services;

▼ Holding town meetings and “visioning sessions” to gather input about York’s assets andchallenges and to map out what communitymembers want the city to be like in theyear 2015;

▼ Mailing a survey to all households in Yorkto give all residents a chance to agree ordisagree with the opinions expressed at thepublic meetings;

▼ Convening review sessions for the public tocomment on the policy plans, action plans, andthe complete strategic comprehensive plan.

The priorities identified through communityoutreach were used to shape redevelopmentgoals. Several efforts have already started in Yorkto respond to the priorities expressed by thecommunity during the planning process:

▼ Rail Corridor Revitalization Initiative:York’s Office of Economic Developmentand other local agencies are partnering withbusinesses and others to restore brownfieldsites along the 400-acre Rail Corridor thatruns through the city. York is leveragingassistance from Pennsylvania’s Land RecyclingProgram and Enterprise Zone and FederalTrade Zone designations to encourage businesses to locate within the corridor.

▼ Rail Trail and Greenways Expansion:York’s local agencies are working to developinterconnected networks of trails to providecitywide opportunities for recreation andalternative commuting (e.g., walking, biking).This initiative involves expanding the existingrail trails and greenways and making safetyand other kinds of improvements.The 20-mileHeritage Rail Trail County Park was dedicatedin 1999 with the completion of the CodorusCreek extension.

▼ Downtown Action Plan Implementation:Private and public partners are focusing onimplementing strategies from the compre-hensive planning process to preserve andenhance the neighborhoods, public spaces,and cultural and economic opportunitieswithin downtown York.

▼ Codorus Creek Enhancement: The cityis partnering with local and regional groupsto develop strategies for improving the waterquality, odor, and appearance of the CodorusCreek and its banks to expand recreation andother opportunities along the urban waterway.A $2 million endowment from the GlatfelterPaper Company, situated on the banks of thecreek, has been leveraged into multimillion-dollar support from the Army Corps ofEngineers for environmental improvementsalong the creek.

Interestingly, in neither the comprehensiveplanning process nor the earlier urban redevelop-ment efforts did York officials see themselves asundertaking a CBEP-related project. Rather,


the city viewed itself as responding to citizens’concerns about economic opportunity andquality-of-life issues, some of which “by accident”turned out to be environmental in nature.When EPA Region 3 heard about these efforts,it recognized York as a CBEP leader and, aspreviously mentioned, designated the city as itsfirst Green Community.

The EPA’s direct involvement in York has beenprimarily through the Green Communitiesprogram.As part of its CBEP Program, Region 3has given York technical assistance, including anopportunity to pilot test the Green CommunitiesAssistance Kit, as well as other resources to helpthe city with its green development and brown-field redevelopment projects.The ongoingpartnership is now mainly characterized byinformation exchange, as Region 3 provides Yorkwith networking opportunities by inviting cityofficials to talk at CBEP conferences and otherevents. Other specific examples of EPAinvolvement with York include the following:

▼ Green Development Workshop: In thefall of 1997, EPA sponsored a workshop thatbrought national experts to York to speak onenvironmentally sound construction practices,energy-efficient design, and other greendevelopment topics.The event also featureda 2-day charrette devoted to redevelopmentoptions for the Rail Corridor.

▼ Green Development Strategy: The EPAfunded consultants to assist York in developinga green economic development strategy.Although still ongoing, this project thus farhas identified green industry targets withfavorable growth potential in the York areaand suggested strategies that the city can adoptto increase its share of sustainable develop-ment opportunities.

In addition to EPA funding for the GreenDevelopment Workshop and Strategy work,York has leveraged resources from several otherpublic and private partners to fund its redevelop-ment work.The Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection’s Site Reuse Program,for example, provided two grants totaling$165,000 for site assessment and cleanup plandevelopment activities along the Rail Corridor.Other sources of funding for Rail Corridorbrownfield redevelopment include the

Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority,the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce,the Pennsylvania Department of Communityand Economic Development, and the U.S.Department of Commerce EconomicDevelopment Administration. CommunityDevelopment Block Grants through the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Developmentalso have been used to restore particular neighborhoods within York. For the strategiccomprehensive planning process itself,York used$250,000 of its Community Development BlockGrant funds, and the city supplied approximately$200,000 from its own general fund. Perhapsmost important, hundreds of York businesses,nonprofit organizations, and private citizensdonated their time and services throughout themultiyear comprehensive planning process.

EPA’S ROLEIn its involvement with York, Region 3 has

illustrated how to mold EPA assistance to suitthe individual shape and developmental stageof a particular CBEP project.The activities listedabove demonstrate EPA’s role in addressingenvironmental objectives in York.Although theYork story may be unique in terms of the city’s“accidental” progress as a CBEP pioneer, itshows that EPA can assume a useful role in aCBEP project even if only on a limited orintermittent basis. Moreover,York demonstratesthat the most desirable approach in some casesmay be to introduce the CBEP concept and thenuse the ideas behind it to build upon relevantwork already taking place in a community. Inthis way, both EPA and the CBEP communitycan leverage their resources effectively and worktogether to determine the most valuable nichefor the Agency’s expertise and other assets.

Both EPA and York expressed great satisfactionwith the niche role played by Region 3’s GreenCommunities Program.As important as thefunding provided were the new ideas andinformation that the Green CommunitiesProgram brought to York’s brownfields and greendevelopment work. City of York staff membersreported that without EPA, they would neverhave been able to draw on the national expertisethat was made available to them through theGreen Development Workshop and that the


technical assistance provided directly influencedthe way they think about redevelopment issues.Finally, EPA’s recognition alone of the city’sCBEP-relevant work has helped York staffleverage the comprehensive planning and redevelopment initiatives into CBEP speakingengagements and networking opportunities,something that is beneficial to both York andthe Green Communities Program.

York is now continuing the redevelopmentprocess on its own, meeting EPA’s goal of givingcommunities the tools for sustainable develop-ment.The public portion of York’s redevelop-ment money now comes primarily from theState of Pennsylvania.


Because the planning process finished in thesummer of 1999, it will likely be several yearsbefore York can document achievement of manyof the longer-term goals outlined in the strategiccomprehensive plan.That said, several of the effortsundertaken since York started its comprehensiveplanning process have begun to show signs ofprogress in reaching the city’s revitalizationobjectives and in laying the groundwork forfuture successes.The activities listed above andthe projects described below demonstrateYork’s progress:

▼ The 2-day brownfields charrette sponsoredby EPA involved the Rocky MountainInstitute, the University of MarylandEnvironmental Finance Center, and othernational experts and was attended by morethan thirty representatives from York cityagencies and the business and real estatecommunities.The charrette succeeded ingenerating a redevelopment design for aRail Corridor property: the former ColumbiaGas/Smokestack site.The York CityRedevelopment Authority obtained $650,000from the State of Pennsylvania to acquirethe site, and environmental assessment andremediation of portions of the property is nowcomplete.The original $12 million multitenantoffice development project envisioned forthe site at the charrette was expanded to a$23 million adaptive reuse/new construction

project, with the support of State Brownfieldslegislation and private investors.The adaptivereuse portion was completed and occupied inAugust 2001, and the remaining new construc-tion was set for occupation in October 2002.

▼ Redevelopment is now complete at two otherRail Corridor properties: the IndustrialPlaza and the former Thonet FurnitureManufacturing facility.These redevelopmentprojects resulted in restoration of 7 acres ofbrownfield land; construction of 2 modernmanufacturing facilities and commercial officespace, including facilities offering services forminority entrepreneurs; creation of morethan 250 jobs; and an increase of more than$2 million in the tax assessment value of theproperties. Perhaps the most telling indicatorof all is a statement from one of the site’sdevelopers, who noted that without the effortsof Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling Programand the other partnerships involved in theRail Corridor revitalization work,“we wouldhave built on 5 acres of land at some green-fields site outside of the city.We would haveploughed under five acres of agriculturalland.” Additional milestones established forthe Rail Corridor efforts include completionof a marketing plan for the area (set for 2003)and acquisition and resale by the city of allkey abandoned properties targeted for redevelopment (set for 2001).

▼ York and its partners have begun to implementseveral of the initiatives called for in the down-town action plan developed by the city’s residents. In one example, the city of York hasjoined together with the State of Pennsylvania’sCommunities of Opportunity program anda corporate partner, Danskin, Inc., to beginredevelopment of a blighted downtown millsite and renovation of surrounding sidewalksand residential properties.The city has alsocompleted connection of the Codorus CreekBikeway with the Heritage Rail Trail andmade other enhancements to this recreationaland open space resource, including addingbike storage and wayfinding amenities as wellas improved lighting and landscaping.Additional work planned for the futureincludes completion of a downtown marketassessment and initiation of a public spacessponsorship program.



York’s community-based planning processand urban redevelopment initiatives demonstrateseveral measurable CBEP attributes of the kindthat earned the city its Green Communitydesignation and its other successes thus far:

▼ Throughout its more than 4 years of activity,the strategic, comprehensive planning processproduced several socioeconomic and quality-of-life assessments of York, all of whichincluded some degree of direct communityinvolvement. In just one example, the city ofYork worked with outside consultants todevelop a baseline site assessment and designprospectus for 14 priority sites, includingseveral brownfield properties in need ofredevelopment and greenway sites in need ofenhancement.The priority sites and their pro-posed revitalization options were identified inpart through input received from York citizensduring the comprehensive planning process.

▼ Multistakeholder partnerships drove theplanning process. Early on, the city of Yorkplanning team articulated the principle that“planning [is best] undertaken with a diversegroup of individuals, residents, businesses, andprivate, public and nonprofit sector partnersrepresenting the entire knowledge base ofthe city.”13 York later attributed much of thesuccess of its planning to the active privateand public partnerships that were a corner-stone of all aspects of the process, from thefacilitation of town meetings to the technicalanalyses developed around the issues and assetsidentified as significant for the city’s future.For example, the 70-member communitypartnership advisory board and other planningcommittees drew their membership andother support from a wide array of nonprofitassociations, businesses, municipal organiza-tions, and other groups, some of which arelisted in Exhibit 5-1.

▼ Active community participation was key toinforming the process. In the first round oftown meetings alone, more than 380 citizens

expressed at least 2,000 opinions about Yorkassets and issues, all of which were incorpo-rated into the planning committees’ analyses.Later, the followup survey that the planningteam mailed to every household in Yorkexhibited a response rate of more than 30 percent.

▼ The comprehensive planning process andfollow-on activities it helped generate areillustrations of an adaptive, holistic approachfor management of issues related to a com-munity’s sustainable development.York’sstrategic planning process successfully integratedsocial, economic, and environmental objectivesby performing holistic assessments of thecity that helped to produce policy strategieson a range of issues, from brownfield devel-opment in the Rail Corridor to neighborhood


13 City of York, Pennsylvania, The City of York Strategic Comprehensive Plan, July 1999.

EXHIBIT 5-1PARTIAL LIST OF GROUPS INVOLVED OR

REPRESENTED IN YORK'S PLANNING PROCESS AND FOLLOW-ON ACTIVITIES

South George Street PartnershipCrispus Attucks Community Development CorporationYork Office of Econ. Development*York County Industrial Dev. Corp.University of Maryland Environmental Finance CenterRocky Mountain InstituteYork Christ Hope ChurchYork Grace Lutheran ChurchEnterprise Community Task ForceGoodridge Business Resource CenterYork City School DistrictHistoric YorkMain Street YorkYork FoundationYork YMCAMartin LibraryYork County Chamber of CommerceUnitarian Society of YorkU.S. EPA Region 3*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania


enhancement to cultural and recreationopportunities. Perhaps most importantly, the104 strategies on more than 40 policy topicsadopted in the strategic comprehensive planwere shaped directly by a combination ofcitizen input and the holistic assessmentsperformed by York.

▼ The ongoing CBEP process in the communityfacilitated York’s selection as a KeystoneOpportunity Zone (KOZ), which opened upadditional business and investment incentives.The program was introduced in Pennsylvaniain 1999 and reduces state taxes and providesother incentives for business relocation toselected areas. Requirements to be consideredas a KOZ include having a developmentvision and strategy and having both publicand private resource commitment.Thecommunity support and direction garneredthrough its planning process enabled York tobe a key contender for a KOZ designation.

CBEP VALUE ADDEDIn many ways, the vision and strategic plan

development in York epitomized the standardparticipatory planning process. However, thecommunity-based strategic planning process andurban revitalization initiatives that originally grewout of necessity have gone on to provide thecity and its residents additional and sometimesunexpected benefits. Chief among these gains isprogress associated with the private and publiccollaborations that took root during the com-prehensive planning process and related efforts.Although multistakeholder partnerships are ahallmark of CBEP activity itself, the nature ofcollaboration is such that partnerships lay thegroundwork for more partnerships. In this way,York’s strengthened emphasis on partnershipshas brought value-added benefits both withinand outside of the city’s boundaries:

▼ Partnerships Within York: The seriousattention devoted within the planning processto the building and utilization of collaborationsamong a diversity of municipal, nonprofit,and business groups set the stage for expanded

partnering afterward. City officials point tothese new and strengthened civic partnershipsas a key factor behind the last few years ofsuccess in implementing the downtown actionplan and other redevelopment strategies andin accomplishing other collaborative efforts,such as earning a spot as a finalist in theNational Civic League’s 2000 All-AmericanCity Award competition.

▼ Partnerships Beyond York: Both Yorkand EPA Region 3 representatives rate thepartnership that has grown up over the yearsbetween the city and the Agency as highlyvaluable.When first approached by EPA aboutthe Green Communities Program,York officials already knew from the strategiccomprehensive planning process that the timecommitments and other resources required forsuch collaborations are well rewarded by thenew ideas and tools that can result. In fact,when interviewed by the local newspaperabout the city’s Green Community designation,York officials, including the mayor, pointed toopportunities to build these kinds of partner-ships as the greatest benefit of CBEP activities.The director of York’s Office of EconomicDevelopment characterized participation inthe Green Communities CBEP Program as“a way to build relationships. . . . Successhappens when you build relationships.”14

Although it is perhaps still too soon to tell,York is hoping that future benefits of itsCBEP-related activities will include newpartnership opportunities similar to those ithas experienced with EPA Region 3 andthe Green Communities Program thus far.

Another value-added aspect of CBEP-relatedactivities that York has experienced is the potentialfor greater degrees of policy buy-in resultingfrom active community involvement in the policyformation process. Demonstrating consensus wasthe swift city council approval of the strategiccomprehensive plan and its detailed policy initiatives and strategies for taking York to theyear 2015.Additional proof cited by York is thefact that just over 6 months after the officialadoption of the plan, the majority of its actionitems are already undergoing implementation.


14 Menzer, Mike,“EPA Has City Officials Seeing Green,” York Daily Record, October 1997.

Active citizen buy-in also has significant impli-cations for day-to-day, less formal policyimplementation matters. In one example,Yorkofficials believe that the designation of improvingthe condition of a local waterway as a city priority within the strategic comprehensiveplan—and its ensuing endorsement by the citygovernment and the citizens—has brought intofocus water quality concerns associated with alocal industrial facility and affected that facility’sattitude toward the issue.

Related to this aspect of buy-in is the value-added significance of holistic, integrated policy-making in helping to achieve sustainabilityimprovements.As previously discussed,York’sdevelopment history and interconnected social,economic, and quality-of-life challenges hadnaturally pushed the city in the direction ofintegrated planning and policy formation.Yorkunderstood, for instance, that key to solving itseconomic problems was addressing its abandoned,

contaminated brownfield sites.York has sincelearned that this integrated type of approach hasadditional benefits through collaborations andresource sharing in solving overlapping problems(e.g., environmental and economic developmentgroups working together to address both setsof interests through achieving a cleaner, greenerrevitalized downtown).Through mechanisms suchas requiring all local Keystone OpportunityZone (i.e., state-sponsored tax-free developmentprojects) applications to follow the developmentguidelines contained within the strategic comprehensive plan,York’s integrated planningapproach can prevent future environmental andother quality-of-life problems that might arisefrom ad hoc or poorly planned development.By codifying its social, economic, environmental,and other quality-of-life priorities and strategieswithin one plan,York has taken a major steptoward addressing current challenges and ensuringa long-term outlook toward overall sustainability.


The York CBEP project may be unique inits relatively organic development, but the city’sexperience illustrates some useful themes forCBEP efforts in general, especially regardingsuccessful involvement of EPA and communitypartners.The following are a few of the mostimportant themes:

▼ Projects will succeed more readily if localofficials and community leaders possess thevision and willingness to try out the new ideasand approaches central to CBEP efforts.

▼ EPA involvement in CBEP projects can bemost valuable when it builds upon ongoingefforts in the community and fills a nicherole (e.g., providing specialized informationor analysis).

▼ Active multistakeholder involvement throughCBEP efforts can enhance community buy-inof relevant public policy and create enduringpartnerships that extend beyond CBEP projectsto provide benefits in other policy areas.


Background

Aging infrastructure, urban flight, and a collapsed industrial base have led toextensive environmental and health

problems in the St. Louis, Missouri, metropolitanarea. High childhood asthma rates, high leadpoisoning rates, and low life expectancy all servedas indicators of the problems.To help addressthese issues, EPA Regions 5 and 7 manage severalcommunity-based environmental protectionprojects under the umbrella effort of the St. LouisGateway Initiative.This initiative joins the citiesof St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois,to identify environmental concerns, set priorities,and develop comprehensive solutions.

With funding from the EPA’s RegionalGeographic Initiative, Region 7 conducted aListening Tour in 1997, which gathered publicperspectives on the most pressing environmentalconcerns around St. Louis.The Listening Tourcomprised 12 public meetings held in neighbor-hoods around St. Louis, allowing residents toidentify and discuss those environmental problemsthey saw as most pressing. Key areas identifiedincluded air pollution, vacant and abandonedproperties, brownfield redevelopment, leadpoisoning, and illegal dumping.The EPA thenbegan working with neighborhoods to implementprojects to address these concerns.The GatewayInitiative has grown to include projects coveringdiverse issues such as childhood lead poisoning,air quality, household hazardous waste manage-ment, brownfields, urban ecosystem restoration,and the development of environmentally friendlybuilding codes.

This evaluation focuses on the first projectof the overall initiative, the Abandoned BuildingsDemolition Project, which was a partnershipto address the problem of abandoned structuresin the urban core of St. Louis. Like many mid-western cities, the city of St. Louis had

experienced an exodus of economic activityand residents over the course of recent decades,leaving many buildings (especially multifamilyresidential structures) to decay. By Missouri law,all properties that are in arrears in taxes for morethan three years convert to municipal ownership,resulting in a huge inventory of city-ownedbuildings. Many of the abandoned buildingscontain asbestos insulation, lead-based paint, andother hazardous materials. Because asbestosremoval is regulated under the National EmissionsStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAPS), city officials perceived significantcost and enforcement risk associated withdemolishing the buildings.They demolished onlya few buildings each year, and as a result, theproblem of abandoned buildings grew, bringingwith it an array of related health, safety, crime,social, and aesthetic issues.

Goals and ObjectivesIn evaluating how best to approach the

multimedia problems of the city of St. Louis,EPA decided on a community-based approach.The Agency established the following generalgoals for the Gateway Initiative:

▼ Identify environmental concerns at theneighborhood level;

▼ Establish priorities among participants andgovernment agencies;

▼ Assist residents and other partners in resolving environmental issues that willimprove the quality of life in the St. Louismetropolitan area.

The initial Listening Tour gave EPA a guide-book to follow to address the first two goals.Thethird goal is being met by the series of projectswithin the Initiative, each of which has its own

St.Louis Gateway Initiative: Abandoned Buildings Project Chapter 6 6-1

ST.LOUIS GATEWAY INITIATIVE: ABANDONED BUILDINGS PROJECT CHAPTER 6PROJECT DESCRIPTION

objectives.The objective of the AbandonedBuildings Project is to assist municipal officialsand other involved parties in developing a program for safely and cost-effectively demolishingabandoned buildings.The project accomplishesthis objective through a cooperative effortinvolving EPA, the St. Louis mayor’s office,municipal agencies, local politicians, and federalagencies with relevant expertise (e.g., Housingand Urban Development [HUD], the ArmyCorps of Engineers [the Corps], and theOccupational Safety and Health Administration[OSHA]). Demolishing the abandoned structuresnot only will address health and safety concernsbut also will facilitate new development andoverall economic investment in the urban coreof St. Louis.

PROJECT ACTIVITIESThe EPA and the city of St. Louis have

engaged in a series of activities to test and codifymethods of effectively demolishing abandonedbuildings.These activities reflect the overallgoals of the Gateway Initiative, from identifyingconcerns and priorities among all stakeholders tocompleting projects that improve the environ-ment and residents’ quality of life. During thecourse of the Abandoned Buildings Project,project activities have proceeded in several keystages in the following order:

▼ EPA project managers met with city officials,community leaders, and EPA program man-agers (such as experts in EPA’s Air, RCRA,and Toxics Divisions) to better understandthe root causes and scope of the abandonedbuildings problem in St. Louis.

▼ The EPA established the partnership of keystakeholders to implement the AbandonedBuildings Project.This partnership includedEPA, the St. Louis mayor’s office, several citydepartments, the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MoDNR), the chamberof commerce, a regional planning organization,a neighborhood organization, and partnersat other federal agencies.

▼ The EPA and its partners implemented aprocess for selecting the buildings to bedemolished in the pilot project.This process

began with an inventory of abandonedbuildings around St. Louis that would helpwith the determination of high-priority areasfor additional projects beyond the pilot. Basedon the inventory, the partnership selected aneighborhood (or ward) to serve as the focusof the Abandoned Buildings Pilot Project.

▼ The partnership worked with elected neighborhood officials (including an alderman)to select specific buildings to be demolished.The alderman served as a link to the neighbor-hood association, ensuring that residents’knowledge and preferences were reflected inthe buildings selected. Figure 6-1 shows thegeneral location of the selected buildings.

▼ The EPA worked with the Army Corps ofEngineers through an interagency agreementto perform structural inspections of the build-ings and determine the amount and locationof asbestos or other hazardous materials.TheCorps then developed cost estimates for thedeconstruction and demolition of the proper-ties and provided these to the city.

▼ Based on the inspections and input from theneighborhood, the project partners selecteda final set of 18 buildings for demolition.City officials contracted with private firmsto demolish the buildings.The St. LouisCommunity Development Corporation isnow assembling the properties as part of asustainable neighborhood plan.As of April2002, no new construction had begun.

EPA’S ROLEFirst, staff from EPA Region 7 initiated and

managed the Abandoned Buildings effort, takinga lead role in most stages of the process describedabove.The EPA’s team included staff fromRegion 7’s Superfund Division and the Region’sAir, RCRA, and Toxics Division. People contactedfor this evaluation, including those inside andoutside EPA, discussed how EPA’s primarycontribution was its leadership in organizingthe program and building coalitions to addressa large problem.The EPA was involved in thedevelopment of the stakeholder partnershipand in working with local leadership.


Second, EPA, the Corps, and OSHA providedtechnical assistance through the identification ofcost-effective methods of complying withNESHAPS and OSHA regulations.

Last, EPA staff brought an outside perspectiveon the problem of abandoned buildings. Citydepartments in charge of building inspection,permitting, and demolition lacked the resourcesto conduct day-to-day operations and simultane-ously evaluate internal procedures.

EPA funding for the Abandoned BuildingsProject came both through the RGI and theOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response(OSWER).The money funded various studies,including inspections, improvements of specifica-tions, and improvements to the contractingprocess.The EPA contributed $170,000 throughthe RGI to fund the interagency agreement withthe Corps to inspect the buildings and developdemolition cost estimates. Over the 3 years theproject operated, EPA also devoted roughlyone-quarter of a full-time equivalent staff personto managing the effort.As a complement to

EPA’s investments, the city of St. Louis fundedthe contracts for the actual demolition work(approximately $120,000), and other organizationssuch as Missouri DNR, HUD, OSHA, and thecity contributed in-kind funding through theirwork on the project.

Representatives of the St. Louis mayor’s officeand Missouri DNR offered praise for EPAproject managers and the Abandoned BuildingsProject overall.They noted that the “federalpresence” EPA brought to the project wasinstrumental in elevating the profile of theabandoned buildings problem and in lendinglegitimacy and authority to efforts aimed atrefining the assessment and demolition process.When asked if there were any downsides toEPA’s involvement, however, one city officialnoted that federal involvement in a local issuewas at times awkward. His preference wouldbe for EPA to restrict its role to traditionalfunding and enforcement activities rather thaninvolve itself directly in municipal affairs.


FIGURE 6-1LOCATION OF ST. LOUIS ABANDONED BUILDING PILOT DEMOLITIONS


The primary accomplishment of theAbandoned Buildings pilot is the demolitionof 18 buildings and the refinement of a processfor similar assessment and demolition in thefuture.The success of this initiative is bestappreciated in the context of historical effortsto remove abandoned buildings in St. Louis.The city had acquired responsibility for manyabandoned buildings as a result of foreclosureson tax-delinquent properties and condemnationof structurally unsound buildings. For manyyears, city officials chose not to demolish thesebuildings for fear of the expense and enforcementrisk associated with the demolition. Instead,the city took advantage of an exemption in theNESHAPS regulations that allows the demolitionof one building per block per year withoutasbestos inspection, testing, and removal.Thenumber of abandoned buildings far outstrippedthe pace of these demolitions, causing theproblem to grow.

The Abandoned Buildings pilot helped thecity remediate and demolish a larger group ofbuildings in one neighborhood and plan forsimilar larger-scale demolition projects. In particular, EPA and the Corps of Engineers havedemonstrated how more surgical removal ofasbestos prior to demolition can reduce the costof building demolition. If asbestos is removedcarefully and shipped to the appropriate hazardouswaste management facility, demolition contractorscan dispose of high-volume demolition wasteat less costly, nonhazardous landfills.

The parties interviewed for this assessmentfeel that the environmental and public healthaccomplishments of the Abandoned Buildingspilot are significant. Using approved methodsto remove asbestos before demolition reducesexposures to both workers and the generalpublic, thereby ensuring compliance with EPA’sasbestos NESHAPS requirements. In additionto satisfying EPA’s programmatic goals, the publicsafety, aesthetic, and economic benefits of theproject are also significant.Although no formalbenefits assessment has been completed, probablebenefits include:

▼ The reduction of drug use and other criminalactivity associated with abandoned buildings;

▼ Aesthetic improvement from removal of neigh-borhood eyesores and creation of open space;

▼ Increased supply of salable land for newpublic and private development; and

▼ Removal of derelict properties from citymanagement and potential increases in taxrevenue associated with private sale anddevelopment of the improved properties.

Although sufficient resources for them do notcurrently exist, project managers noted that theAbandoned Buildings Project would benefitfrom more systematic assessments of the health,safety, and economic impacts of the program.

One shortfall in the project has been follow-through on the redevelopment process.Thealderman initially supporting the project locallyis no longer in office and was not as successfulin attracting buyers and developers as he and EPAhad hoped.Additionally, EPA involvement inthe pilot has ended.The Agency is focusing itslimited resources on the other projects in theGateway Initiative.

An initial objective was the creation of aguidebook for asbestos management and buildingdemolition. During the project, EPA discoveredthat the city already had a guidebook and gaveits information on asbestos management to anArmy Corps of Engineers employee who wasintending to redesign the existing guidebookmaterials to make them more appropriate forlayperson’s use.Although the Corps employeesubsequently left the project, the city intendsto finish the guidebook.


The effectiveness of the CBEP process on theAbandoned Buildings Project is best understoodby first considering how the asbestos problemwas addressed under conventional procedures.As noted, the city pursued few building demo-litions because of fears about violating asbestos-removal rules, in turn leaving contaminatedbuildings in place and increasing health risks.Thisstatus quo condition was largely the result ofthe institutional divisions and misunderstandingsthat existed between EPA, state regulators, and


city officials. Solving the problem required a moreintegrated, multidisciplinary vision to recognizethe linkages among public works functions(such as building demolitions), environmentalpolicies and enforcement, and public healthoutcomes.The effectiveness of the CBEPprocess should be considered in this context.

One of the core CBEP principles calls for aproject to forge effective partnerships across arange of stakeholders.The Abandoned BuildingsProject satisfies this criterion in three ways,described below.

First, the success of the CBEP process canbe assessed based on the number of partnerscooperating on the effort. Exhibit 6-1 summarizesthe diverse set of organizations participating inthe project.

Second, the success is further demonstratedby the ability of the project managers to useexisting institutions to involve key parties in theeffort.To this end, the staff interviewed for thisassessment highlighted the importance of work-ing through the St. Louis mayor’s office to engagethe support of the many municipal departmentsresponsible for various aspects of the abandonedbuildings problem.The EPA recognized thatthe individual departments may be resistant toprocedural changes or skeptical of EPA’s role

had Region 7 attempted to work directly withthem. Instead, the mayor’s office helped providethe authority and on-the-ground managementneeded to implement the pilot project.

Third, EPA elicited the input of residents inthe affected neighborhoods.Again, rather thanperform direct outreach, EPA worked closelywith the alderman for the chosen neighborhoodas well as the St. Louis Association of CommunityOrganizations to get residents’ perspectives onthe abandoned buildings problem and whichproperties should be targeted for demolition.The primary lesson learned was that, while directoutreach may sometimes be appropriate, it maybe most effective to utilize established institutionsthat are trusted within the community and thatgarner community cooperation.

Project managers stressed the care that mustbe exercised when working with local peopleand groups, including elected officials such asthe city aldermen.Two key factors contributedto the success of the CBEP process in this area.First, project managers noted that part of workingat the local level involves knowing when to moveon when receiving insufficient local support.Initially, the partnership identifed a pilot wardbut the alderman was not fully convinced ofthe value of the Abandoned Buildings effortand EPA’s involvement.The partnership quicklyidentified another ward and alderman ratherthan trying to push the project on uninterestedparties, which helped to get the project off theground. By identifying and working with sup-portive partners, the partnership developed auseful model for other jurisdictions in the city toconsider. Second, project managers emphasizedthe importance of timing when engaging thesupport of local participants. CBEP managersshould be sure to refine project plans and presentlocal stakeholders with a concrete proposal.At thesame time, however, early involvement of localstakeholders will help garner trust and support.For example, presenting the overall AbandonedBuildings Plan to several aldermen earlier inthe process may have helped avoid the false startexperienced with the initial ward selected.

Discussions with one city department—theDivision of Air Pollution Control (DAPC)—highlight the difficulty of communication andcoordination on CBEP projects, especially thoseinvolving municipal offices. City departmentsusually work under a set of operating procedures


EXHIBIT 6-1PARTICIPANTS IN ST. LOUIS ABANDONED

BUILDINGS PROJECT

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationEPA Region 7*St. Louis Mayor’s Office*U.S.Army Corps of EngineersMissouri Department of Natural Resources*St. Louis Municipal Departments:

- St. Louis Building Division- St. Louis Development Corporation- St. Louis Community Development Agency- St. Louis Air Pollution Control Department*- St. Louis Health Department

St. Louis Association of Community OrganizationsEast-West Gateway Coordinating CouncilRegional Chamber and Growth AssociationU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development


that have developed over the history of theorganization.These procedures usually focus ona particular mission or delivery of a particularcity service.The introduction of initiativessuch as the Abandoned Buildings Project can,in contrast, require greater interaction andcoordination among departments.Although thepartnership involved the Air Commissionerduring the planning stages of the AbandonedBuildings Project, the Commissioner felt thatthis communication was not maintainedthroughout the effort. Specifically, he felt thatthe mayor’s office should have kept the DAPCinformed of how the project was progressing.15

As a result, the DAPC was unable to review theinspection reports for the selected buildings,leading to subsequent concerns over the accuracyof the reports and the safety of the demolitions.This experience demonstrates how CBEP effortsmust be sensitive to the culture and operatingprocedures of local organizations such as citydepartments. Once an organization is invited tobe part of the project team, clear and consistentcommunication is essential to maintain supportfor the effort and to avoid creating the impressionthat EPA and other partners are interfering withlocal affairs.

The interaction and relationship developedthrough the CBEP process have led EPA andthe city of St. Louis to work more on changingasbestos regulatory compliance.This had longbeen an enforcement struggle, and it was high-lighted during the demolition process on thepilot project, with conflicts between EPA andthe city, and within the city, as highlighted bythe DAPC problems above.The lack of record-keeping by the city-hired contractors led touncertainties in potential risk. Now the city andEPA are sharing information, and they havecreated a joint enforcement effort to encourageincreased compliance, including close involvementwith the DAPC.

Apart from all these aspects of stakeholderoutreach and coordination, the AbandonedBuildings Project satisfies other core CBEPprinciples. Most notably, it presents an excellentexample of how CBEP initiatives can simultane-ously integrate environmental, economic, and

social objectives in a way that more traditionalpolicy approaches cannot.As noted, beyond theasbestos management benefits, the project alsoprovides social benefits (e.g., crime reduction) andclears the way for community revitalizationand economic development in a depressed St.Louis neighborhood. In addition, the projectadheres to the basic CBEP principle of focusingon a well-defined geographic area (the pilotphase of the effort targeted a single city ward).The Abandoned Buildings effort by itself is lessrelevant to the remaining CBEP principles suchas holistic ecosystem management and adaptiveprogram management, although the GatewayInitiative as a whole embraces those principles.

CBEP VALUE ADDEDThe Abandoned Buildings Project has yielded

several benefits that typify the value added thatCBEP efforts can produce:

▼ Internal Capacity Building:The abandonedbuildings issue cuts across the jurisdiction ofnumerous municipal departments as well asstate and federal regulatory agencies.Animportant product of the Abandoned BuildingsProject has been to assemble these groupsand focus them on a targeted problem andgeographic area. For instance, until theAbandoned Buildings Project was in place,coordination and communication betweenthe city Building Department (responsiblefor permitting demolitions) and DAPC(responsible for air quality management) hadbeen limited; the Abandoned Buildings Projecthelped reveal their common jurisdiction onasbestos exposure and create procedures forcollaborating on demolitions that involveasbestos. By establishing these procedures,the pilot project helps build capacity at thecity level and create a sustainable system foraddressing multidisciplinary problems suchas asbestos removal.

▼ Refinement of City Functions:Interviewees also suggested that the effort mayhelp reveal and correct flaws in city operations


15 This may be largely attributable to staff turnover in the mayor’s office during the latter stages of the AbandonedBuildings Project.


The Abandoned Buildings Project demonstratesseveral broad themes that may be instructive tofuture CBEP initiatives:

▼ The EPA often is uniquely equipped toorganize potential partners around multidis-ciplinary environmental problems to helpbuild coalitions and enlist the help ofdiverse federal, state, and local interests.

▼ When collaborating with municipal officialsand the general public, it is often best to relyon existing institutions to channel communica-tion. For instance, the Abandoned Buildingsmanagers were able to work with the mayor’soffice in coordinating among several citydepartments and with aldermen and theAssociation of Community Organizationswhen performing public outreach.

▼ Municipal departments typically adhere to aset of accepted procedures that are establishedover years of experience, making the depart-ments skeptical of involvement by other levelsof government. Frequently they are reluctantto change procedures without a provenrationale. CBEP projects should be carefullystructured to respect these procedural andcultural norms, and to understand why thecurrent procedures are in place even as theyseek to refine certain practices.

▼ Pilot-level municipal initiatives can have theadded benefit of helping city governmentsbuild capacity to comply with federal regula-tions and maximize the protection of publichealth. For example, the AbandonedBuildings Project highlighted the need forcoordination between city departments handling aspects of the abandoned buildingsproblem. Likewise, the project revealed inefficiencies in the process that the cityuses to contract with demolition firms andthe need to perform greater oversight ofdemolition contractors.

▼ The failure to attract redevelopment to theareas where demolitions have been completedhighlights possible improvements in the CBEPprocess. Projects may face some uncertaintiesin their political support when elected officeschange hands. Furthermore, sustained EPAinvolvement in a project may be critical toensure that the ultimate objectives of theproject are pursued. EPA brownfields expertisemight be helpful in attracting developmentto the cleared areas, but limited resourceshave forced the Agency to turn its attentionto other aspects of the Gateway Initiative.

indirectly related to the Abandoned BuildingsProject. Most notably, the city’s process forcontracting with demolition firms may bereconsidered based on the pilot projectexperience, since in the final stage of the pilot,many of the buildings were demolishedwithout thorough asbestos removal actions.

▼ EPA Legitimacy:The success of a municipal-level project such as Abandoned Buildingsimproves EPA’s image with key constituencies.Rather than seeing the Agency purely as aregulatory enforcement organization, cityofficials and the public come to see EPA asa creative problemsolver and partner.


In this final section, we take a broader perspective on the five CBEP projects in anattempt to distill key themes. Consistent with

the structure of the overall evaluation, we focuson three questions:

▼ How does CBEP help or hinder achievement

of basic project goals?

▼ What added benefits do CBEP approaches

provide that would not be realized under tradi-tional environmental management programs?

▼ How can EPA tailor its role to best support

CBEP efforts?

Exhibit 7-1 lists significant themes associatedwith these questions that have emerged in ourevaluation. In the sections that follow, we elaborateupon these themes and provide examples fromthe five CBEP projects.

How Does the CBEP Process AffectAchievement of Project Goals?

The individual project evaluations consideredthe success of the CBEP process and how thisprocess helps or hinders the environmental andsocial objectives of the project. Exhibit 7-2summarizes some of the key findings. Lookingacross projects, several themes emerge.

Cross-Project Evaluation Chapter 7 7-1

CROSS-PROJECT EVALUATION CHAPTER 7

EXHIBIT 7-1CROSS-PROJECT EVALUATION THEMES

How Does the CBEP Process Affect Achievement of Project Goals?

A meaningful geographic boundary can enhance project success.

CBEP projects require carefully designed decisionmaking processes.

Clear roles and leadership responsibilities are essential.

CBEP projects may require special time, resource, and leadership commitments.

Clear performance indicators are essential to project management.

What Value-Added Benefits Does CBEP Create?

CBEP can yield new forms of integration and coordination.

CBEP provides partnership benefits that extend beyond the project.

CBEP promotes capacity building and sustainability.

CBEP efforts create legitimacy and signal community support.

CBEP can influence broader public policy in areas such as community planning, public health, and community spending decisions and priorities by informing public opinion and stimulating public dialogue.

Community-based approaches can help leverage resources and expand community commitment.

How Can EPA Best Support CBEP?

EPA funding, and how it is provided, is of crucial importance.

In its CBEP involvement, EPA should play a niche role (e.g., provide data, technical assistance, or analytic support).

The EPA may be well equipped and positioned to organize diverse interests around multidisciplinary issues.

EVALU

AT

ION

OF C

OM

MU

NIT

Y-BA

SED EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL P

RO

TEC

TIO

N P

RO

JECT

S7-2

Value Added of CBEP Approach

- Integration of studies and local expertise under one umbrella- Integration of information and pluralistic planning assist in acquiring

grant funding- Public education and enhanced appreciation of EPA mission- Community capacity building ensures long-term sustainability of

results (e.g., source water assessment tools)- Technical assessments form foundation for newly adopted rules

on development in the watershed- Watershed coalition group continues on to independently implement

elements of the Watershed Plan

- Brings into focus differing viewpoints toward environmental problems and other important issues that tend to be ignored by more conventional policy approaches

- Placing residents in project roles can help overcome trust and credibility issues faced by traditional environmental and health risk reduction efforts

- Behavior of regulated facilities positively affected by organized,knowledgeable community,creating better dialogue during permittingprocesses, etc.

- EPA program offices oriented toward more integrated understanding of cross-media concerns facing communities

- Collaborative process lays groundwork for further partnering and allows stakeholders to develop better relationships with one another and learn about different perspectives

- Fostering collaborative efforts between neighboring cities- Impact on local and regional land use planning policies- Deeper understanding of impediments to brownfield development

may aid regional and national policymaking- Community capacity building ensures long-term sustainability of

results (e.g.,Toolbox/Information Guide)- Demonstrates smart growth by integrating land use planning

with environmental and socioeconomic decisionmaking

Effects and Overall Success of the CBEP Process

- Meaningful boundary (watershed) helps in defining stakeholders and encouraging involvement

- Participation of diverse organizations critical to development of Watershed Plan

- Direct citizen involvement in Watershed Plan development and source water assessments

- Community advisory group includes representation from a variety of community organizations; state, federal, and local agencies;and other groups

- Leveraging of resources from different agenciesand other groups helped complete the baseline data compilation and other project efforts

- Numerous partnerships with city, state, and federal organizations

- Direct citizen involvement in site inventories and design charrettes

Project Accomplishments

- Water quality assessments- Survey and mapping of alpine

landscapes- Source water assessments

for seven communities- Completed Watershed Plan

- Completion of a baseline environmental quality data compilation effort

- Training of residents to serve as lead poisoning prevention community educators

- Lead poisoning outreach conducted with more than nine hundred community members

- Testing of homes for elevated indoor radon levels

- Preliminary environmental assessments complete at former fertilizer/phosphate facilities

- Numerous brownfield site inventories and assessments

- Several major site redevelop-ments

- Two brownfield training programs under way;88 students graduated

Project

San Miguel WatershedInitiative

North Charleston/Charleston CBEP

Eastward Ho!

EXHIBIT 7-2SUCCESS AND VALUE ADDED OF CBEP PROCESS: OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL CBEP PROJECTS

Cross-Project Evaluation Chapter 77-3

Value Added of CBEP Approach

- Initial York stakeholder partnerships reach beyond the CBEP project to provide benefits in other policy areas

- Community involvement in planning creates legitimacy for policies generated; community buy-in influences behavior of local industrial facilities

- Improved capacity of city to address multidisciplinary problems;improved capacity of local developers and other community members to carry out green development aims

- Integration of economic, social, environmental, and other quality-of-life priorities within strategic plan adopted by the city council

- Improved capacity of city departments to manage asbestos in abandoned buildings; established linkages between departments with shared responsibilities

- Assisted city in refining internal functions indirectly related to asbestos management (e.g., demolition contracting practices)

- Municipal participants developed more positive image of EPA as a program partner and creative force

Effects and Overall Success of the CBEP Process

- Comprehensive, multidisciplinary planning process has produced assessments that guide project implementation

- Planning process driven by diverse stakeholderinvolvement, including that of residents,businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies

- Coordination of diverse stakeholders,including several city departments

- Effective reliance on established institutions such as mayor’s office and ward representatives

- Simultaneously addresses environmental,social, and economic concerns

Project Accomplishments

- Redevelopment of two Rail Corridor properties (and creation of 250 jobs and a $2 million increase in the tax assessment value of the sites)

- Environmental assessment andremediation begun at ColumbiaGas site; redevelopment set tobegin in the summer of 2000

- Enhancements to recreationalbikeways and greenways

- Established redevelopment,other milestones within the approved strategic plan (e.g.,a Rail Corridor marketing planto be developed in 2003)

- Earned EPA Green Community designation

- Demolition of 18 buildings- Reduction in probability of

asbestos exposure- Reduction of crime and

aesthetic impacts associated with abandoned buildings

- Creation of salable land for new development

- Reduction of property management burden on city and potential for increased tax revenue

Project

York, Pennsylvania,Community-BasedStrategic Planning andGreen Development

St. Louis AbandonedBuildings DemolitionProject

EXHIBIT 7-2 (CONTINUED)SUCCESS AND VALUE ADDED OF CBEP PROCESS: OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL CBEP PROJECTS

A Meaningful Geographic Boundary CanEnhance Project Success

The geographic area chosen for the projecthas subtle but important implications for projectsuccess. First, the geographic area defined for aCBEP project is instrumental for identifyingstakeholders that should be included in the efforts.The diverse partnerships formed in CBEPprojects are a direct product of clearly defininga meaningful geographic area and securingrepresentation from a variety of interests withinthat area.As seen by the diversity of projectsassessed, communities may not always choosewatershed or other environmental boundaries toprovide definition for community-based projectsbut may turn to political, neighborhood, or othertypes of physical or cultural definitions as thebasis of coalescing partnerships. Regardless, activestakeholder participation and commitment is afunction of a sense of shared mission or fate.Stakeholders must feel that their quality of lifewill be directly influenced by a project’s outcome.

The sense of place and mission is clear, forexample, in the case of the San Miguel watershed,a well-defined geographic area with highly visibleissues (e.g., source water protection for towns’water supplies). In contrast, confusion existedamong some Charleston CBEP participants whenthe project’s boundaries were set beyond thefive or six neighborhoods originally involvedin the effort. Some residents of these core neigh-borhoods stopped participating because they feltthe project had been diluted once its boundariesencompassed the entire neck area of theCharleston peninsula.The potential lesson is notthat smaller project areas lead to better results butthat managers must be careful to set boundariesso that they are both meaningful to participantsand well-suited to the project’s overall goals.

Eastward Ho! is an example of effective part-nering across multiple municipalities for thepurpose of regional economic planning. In thatcase, the partnerships between municipalitieshelped define the Eastward Ho! study area.Thisapproach allows different regions within the studyto approach the sustainability and redevelopmentgoals in different ways, choosing projects andmethods that are consistent with the constituents’needs and desires.At the same time, data, expertise,and funding can be shared across the memberregions through groups such as SFRPC.

CBEP Projects Require CarefullyDesigned Decisionmaking Processes

All CBEP projects can benefit from balanceddecisionmaking and operational processesdesigned to fit the collaborative nature of CBEPefforts. CBEP projects should strive for a balanceddecisionmaking approach that is simple yet offersenough structure to provide adequate communi-cation and representation. For example, althoughsome Charleston CBEP participants felt thattheir priority concerns were being lost withinan overly structured, bureaucratic process, otherscredited the CAG structure with enabling dialogue to occur among such a diverse set ofstakeholders. In the case of York, the CBEPproject also undertook a fairly structured, system-atic process. However,York project leaders havestressed establishment of and accountability toa timetable of milestones to assure participantsthat concerns have not fallen off the agenda.The St. Louis Abandoned Buildings Project alsowas structured to ensure the satisfaction of keyconstituencies. Because EPA worked directly withan alderman for the target neighborhood, residentscould influence what buildings would be demol-ished and how the land would be redeveloped.

Clear Roles and LeadershipResponsibilities Are Essential

Closely related to the characteristics of aneffective CBEP decisionmaking process is theneed to determine clear roles and leadershipresponsibilities for project partners.Three mainlessons were learned. First, both the Charlestonand Eastward Ho! experiences illustrate the impor-tance of trying to clarify differing expectationsabout project leadership and control amonginstitutional partners before involving the rest ofthe stakeholders. On these projects, valuableenergy appears to have been devoted to over-coming misunderstandings about how differentagencies should contribute to the efforts.

Second, it is important to determine howmuch control is assumed by institutional partnersand how much by the community.This is aninevitable issue for CBEP projects because theefforts have a community focus but can bedominated by EPA and other institutionalpartners because of the specialized informationand technical knowledge often required and bythe specifics of their regulatory missions and


goals. Furthermore, even after operational issuesabout community versus institutional leadershipare resolved, consensus may not always existamong stakeholders about which local voicesactually speak for the community.

Third, technical assessments, data collectionand dissemination, and similar work may be bestleft to professional partner agencies (e.g., SCDHEC assembling the data for the Charlestonbaseline environmental conditions report), whileproject facilitation often may be best handledby local groups and residents to the extentpossible.At the same time, the diversity existingamong the small sample size of five projects alsosuggests a caveat—EPA’s appropriate leadershiprole on a CBEP project can vary a great dealdepending on specific circumstances (e.g., theneed for direct versus indirect EPA participation,whether the issues addressed by a project fitwithin EPA’s mandate, etc.). Regardless of thesituation, projects should make an attempt toutilize as open and transparent a leadershipselection process as possible to work towardacceptance of CBEP leadership within thecommunity at large (also see EPA role sectionbelow for discussion of related lessons).

CBEP Projects May Require Special Time,Resource, and Leadership Commitments

To be successful, CBEP projects requiretime, resource, and leadership commitmentsbeyond those needed for more conventionalenvironmental policy and protection programs.For instance, partners in the York, San Miguel,and Charleston projects all noted the significantamount of time taken for stakeholder meetingsand the frustration and resource drain that canresult.At the same time, these participantsacknowledged that the willingness to meet and discuss issues was a chief determinant ofproject success.

In some cases, CBEP projects rely heavilyon special leadership commitments from cityleaders and other local officials who are oftenaccustomed to more streamlined roles or per-haps no involvement at all under traditionalenvironmental policy programs. Observerspoint to local officials’ vision and willingnessto test new ideas and CBEP approaches as keyto the successes of the San Miguel,York, andSt. Louis projects. For instance, EPA relied onthe St. Louis mayor’s office for communicating

with the numerous city departments havingjurisdiction over building demolition andasbestos management.

Clear Performance Indicators AreEssential to Project Management

Clear performance measures allow projectmanagers to systematically evaluate the progressbeing made toward identified objectives andgoals. Once indicators are identified, the projectprogress should be assessed on a regular basis.Particularly in CBEP projects, where the localstakeholders play such an integral role in theproject, managers should be sure to select clear,relevant indicators and report results plainly toall interested parties.

This evaluation was made more complex bythe absence of clear performance measures onmany of the projects.Although some projects(e.g. Eastward Ho!) identified simple, quantitativeperformance measures for tracking futureprogress, others did not.The lack of discrete,mutually accepted metrics requires that evalua-tions such as this one rely on more qualitativedescriptions and subjective judgment regardingwhether the project has achieved its goals.Managers of CBEP projects should seek groupconsensus on clear performance measures andmake tracking these measures an explicit component of the project activities.

What Value-Added Benefits Does CBEPCreate?

Beyond facilitating the achievement of basicenvironmental policy and protection goals, theCBEP process may yield other benefits thatwould not be realized under traditional regulatory strategies. Below, we discuss keythemes that emerge across all five projects.

CBEP Can Yield New Forms ofIntegration and Coordination

CBEP is uniquely suited to multidisciplinaryand multimedia problems. Related to thischaracteristic, interviewees noted how a CBEPproject is often an “umbrella” that merges avariety of disparate environmental, social, andeconomic policy efforts. Most of the case studyprojects involved integrated assessments of theCBEP area that informed future environmentalmanagement actions. For example, in the case of


Eastward Ho!, the study of alternative developmentscenarios influenced brownfields cleanup andredevelopment efforts. For York, a planningprocess characterized by multistakeholdercoordination resulted in a strategic comprehensiveplan that integrates economic, social, environ-mental, and other quality-of-life priorities thatwill take the city into the year 2015. Similarly,addressing the abandoned buildings problem inSt. Louis simultaneously yielded environmentalbenefits, social benefits (e.g., crime reduction),and economic benefits (e.g., redevelopmentopportunities). Narrowing the scope of a projectto a particular geographic area allows this kindof holistic management and policymaking.Aplace-based strategy makes it feasible to considerenvironmental, social, and economic factors ina single project.

CBEP Provides Partnership Benefits ThatExtend Beyond the Project

Directly related to the theme of enhancedpolicy integration and coordination is CBEP’skey value-added aspect of long-term partnershipbuilding. Case study participants reported thatCBEP can create enduring partnerships thatbranch into and provide benefits in other policyareas. In the case of Eastward Ho!, the newfoundregional collaboration nurtured by the CBEPproject inspired five municipalities to join togetherwith Dade County in applying for (and winning)an Empowerment Zone designation.

CBEP Promotes Capacity Building and Sustainability

Perhaps the most noteworthy value-addedaspect of CBEP projects pertains to capacitybuilding. By directly involving local entities,such as county planners, developers, public healthofficials, and average citizens, the projects createa knowledge base and technique toolbox usefulafter EPA’s involvement is complete. Undermore traditional approaches, many of theseparticipants would have been on the sidelinesor would have made only narrow, specializedcontributions. Under CBEP, capacity buildingencompasses both training local participantsand giving them tools to allow better andmore independent local decisionmaking.Thecapacity-building and long-term sustainabilitybenefits of CBEP can be measured in a varietyof ways:

▼ The case study projects have generated toolsthat can help local participants help themselves.For example, the Brownfields Partnership’sToolbox/Information Guide associated withEastward Ho! offers region-specific guidanceto South Florida municipalities aboutbrownfield redevelopment as well as GISmaps showing regional brownfield sites.TheSan Miguel project has generated a set ofwidely accepted and publicized sourcewaterassessment maps that will help guide the area’swatershed management efforts well into thefuture. Likewise, the Abandoned Buildingseffort produced city asbestos managementguidelines and a forthcoming instructionalvideo on asbestos removal.

▼ The case study projects also feature trainingsessions and other events that provide uniqueeducational opportunities to local participants.For instance, in the case of York, the EPA-sponsored green development workshopand charrette brought in national experts towork with local developers and other community members on redevelopmentideas for brownfield sites.The work startedon the Rail Corridor and other propertiesincorporates concepts from this workshop.

▼ Capacity building and sustainability are bestdemonstrated through institutions that liveon beyond initial CBEP efforts. For exam-ple, the San Miguel Coalition’s coordinatingcouncil has continued on after the WatershedPlan development activities, independentlyimplementing elements of the Plan.

CBEP Efforts Create Legitimacy andSignal Community Support

In large part the result of the capacity-buildingand partnership efforts described above, theCBEP approach can be highly effective at creating community buy-in regarding environ-mental and other policy decisions.The casestudy projects demonstrate how this buy-in canbe helpful to environmental protection objectives:

▼ Because the approach springs from thecommunity’s direct involvement and proceedswith community approval, CBEP enhancesthe legitimacy of policy decisions.As aresult of the legitimacy produced around


their efforts, San Miguel leaders report successin attracting additional grant funding, andYork officials point to quick approval andimplementation of components from thecity’s strategic comprehensive plan.

▼ CBEP can also influence the behavior ofthe regulated community. In Charleston,EPA representatives report that during thepermitting process, facilities are more likelyto participate in up-front dialogue with surrounding neighborhoods when the community is involved in CBEP efforts oris otherwise knowledgeable and organized.York and San Miguel participants also offerexamples in which local businesses becamemore attentive to environmental issues andactually altered an initial land use decisionin recognition of environmental prioritiesexpressed in the local CBEP projects.

CBEP Can Influence Broader Public Policyin Areas Such as Community Planning,Public Health, and Community SpendingDecisions and Priorities by InformingPublic Opinion and Stimulating PublicDialogue

Another key value-added aspect of CBEPexists in the extent to which efforts can influencebroader public policy decisions. For example,the State of Florida passed brownfield redevelop-ment regulations that incorporate many recommendations generated by Eastward Ho!participants. Protective local land use ordinancesand a city strategic plan integrating sustainabilityprinciples were approved because of the SanMiguel and York CBEP-related efforts, respectively.

Community-Based Approaches Can Help Leverage Resources and ExpandCommunity Commitment

Use of the community-based approach helpsleverage resources and expand communitycommitment through coordination of activitiesand resource use by community stakeholdersand the federal government. For example, inthe San Miguel Watershed Initiative, EPA’s initialRGI funding was key to the development of aformal Watershed Plan. Development of theplan and subsequent activities were undertakenby the Coalition composed of citizens, municipal

and county officials, and other communitystakeholders. Initial activities led to grant fundingfor continued work–grant funding that mightnot have been awarded had it not been for EPA’soriginal efforts. In Charleston/North Charleston,EPA provided initial funding for and supportedthe formation of the CAG. In addition to theinitial funding, EPA provided specialized informa-tion and facilitation support to help communitystakeholders carry out the activities of the CAG.Similarly, in the Eastward Ho! initiative inSouth Florida, the participation of communitymembers, businesses, and local governmentswas key to bringing in greater federal supportand participation.

How Can EPA Best Support CBEP?The CBEP case study projects also offer lessons

regarding how EPA can best support community-based efforts that, by definition, address localproblems such as land use. Exhibit 7-3 summarizes the role that EPA has played on eachof the five projects and briefly reviews obser-vations that interviewees had on the Agency’sinvolvement.

Nearly all local interviewees spoke positivelyof EPA’s involvement (i.e., few had an overallnegative view of EPA involvement in community-based environmental protection). Case studyparticipants did, however, have several suggestionsfor how EPA should structure its support.Thefollowing are the key themes that emergedabout EPA’s role in supporting CBEP projects.

EPA Funding, and How It Is Provided,Is of Crucial Importance

Funding, including EPA funding, is criticalto CBEP efforts. Representatives from all fivecase studies indicated that EPA’s role as a fundingsource was critical to the formation and sustenance of the projects.At the same time, theinterviewees noted that it matters how and towhom EPA funding is awarded.Although recognizing the limitations imposed sometimesby statutory mandates, project-specific constraints,and other circumstances, suggestions made aboutEPA CBEP funding include the following:

▼ As mentioned, to the extent possible, EPAshould consider funding local communitygroups and representatives to act as organiz-ers and fulfill other roles for CBEP projects.


Participants in the Charleston/NorthCharleston CBEP project emphasized thatfunding is equated with trust to many com-munity-based organizations. In the opinionof some, providing resources more directly toCBEP area residents, and creating community

organizer and other jobs in the process, is aneffective approach for building credibilityaround a project and encouraging activeparticipation from the community at large.For example, Charleston participants reportthat the hiring of lead poisoning advisors, or


Project EPA’s Role Perspectives on EPA’s Role in CBEP Projects

San MiguelWatershedInitiative

EPA Region 8 primarily provides sup-port through technical assessmentsof alpine ecosystems and sourcewaters; also participates as an equalpartner within the WatershedCoalition efforts

- EPA’s best niche is often providing assistance with technical analyses that support the activities of a larger CBEP effort

- EPA can and should be part of the CBEP effort by sending representatives to community meetings;on-the-ground visibility is important to acceptance

- The importance of EPA funding in forming the Watershed Coalition should also not be ignored

North Charleston/Charleston CBEP

EPA Region 4 served as a foundingpartner and has since acted as aguiding force through providing fund-ing, facilitation support, and specialized information

- EPA should take into account community perspectivesand differences between stakeholder perspectives when determining its role within a CBEP project

- EPA funding is critical to CBEP efforts - To the extent possible (e.g., as allowed by statutory

mandates, the need for specialized facilitation, and other circumstances), EPA should consider funding local groups or community members to serve as project organizers

- EPA should try to fulfill a niche role, such as providing technical assistance or helping with performance tracking and evaluation

Eastward Ho! EPA Headquarters initially wasinvolved by providing technical support and funding for brownfields;HQ and Region 4 continue to support specific initiatives (e.g., train-ing programs)

- EPA involvement can provide legitimacy and momentum to a project

- Disagreement over best model for EPA HQ involvement: (1) provide funding and allow full local control or (2) directly involve contractors andHQ staff to bring national expertise to bear.Highlights desirability of EPA regional involvement

York, Pennsylvania,Community-BasedStrategic Planningand GreenDevelopment

EPA Region 3 offered technical support and funding for green development through GreenCommunities program and otheractivities

- EPA involvement demonstrates how the Agency can tailor its involvement in an ongoing project,providing intermittent assistance as a niche player and building upon efforts already taking place within a community to maximize efficiency

- National expertise delivered by EPA and contractorswas useful to city officials, local developers, and others interested in brownfield redevelopment

St. LouisAbandonedBuildingsDemolition Project

EPA Region 7 has lead role in organizing and managing the partnership

- The EPA is often uniquely equipped to organize partners around a multidisciplinary issue

- “Federal presence” can elevate the profile of the project

- The EPA should be sensitive to procedural and cultural norms of municipal departments when organizing city-level initiatives

EXHIBIT 7-3EPA’S ROLE ON CBEP PROJECTS

educators, from among residents enabled theeffort to overcome trust issues and reach alarger number of families than might havebeen possible had the project used medicalstudents or others from outside the community.

▼ Along these lines, EPA should consider provid-ing funding to build upon a community’songoing efforts (to the extent that theseactivities are well suited to the larger goals ofa CBEP project). Not only does this sort offunding activity generate good will and trustbetween the community and its governmentpartners but also it is an efficient way oflaunching CBEP efforts.York provides a goodexample of how EPA was able to assist thecommunity in building upon its CBEP-relevant brownfield redevelopment effortsthrough funding a targeted green develop-ment workshop.

▼ To ensure accountability to communitymembers and other partners, EPA shouldconsider providing additional funding forsystematically tracking outcomes and program-matic outputs of CBEP efforts.This sort ofperformance-tracking activity is missing tovarying degrees within all the case study projectsand is critical to ensuring adaptive manage-ment and demonstrating project success.

In Its CBEP Involvement, EPA ShouldPlay a Niche Role

Perhaps the most resounding theme expressedthroughout the case studies is the extent to whichEPA involvement, beyond funding, is mosthelpful when it is designed to fill a special need,or project-specific niche.This specialized rolemay range from providing information to facil-itating multistakeholder meetings; combinationsof these as well as other functions are possible.Additional suggestions include the following:

▼ Providing specialized information and tech-nical and professional expertise on topicsranging from environmental risk assessmentto facilitation of the CBEP process itself.Thekey is to determine where this sort of expertiseis lacking.York and San Miguel, which bothrepresent small to medium-sized communities,provide examples of projects in which EPA’sinformation resources and professional expertise

were critical to meeting the communities’CBEP-related goals. Eastward Ho! offers anillustration of how EPA Regional andHeadquarters staff could work with asophisticated local partner to ensure thatnational expertise is provided in a way thatcomplements preexisting local expertise.

▼ Providing measurement of project accomplish-ments. CBEP projects involve gradual environ-mental and social changes that are difficultto track. Performance assessment data weremissing to varying degrees for all of the casestudy projects. Beyond the need for fundingof performance evaluations mentioned above,it would be helpful for EPA to provideadditional guidance on outcome measures,how to design CBEP activities to accommodatethese measures, and how to ensure trackingof these measures.The information providedin EPA’s Framework for CBEP provides avaluable starting point on these issues, butmost CBEP projects could benefit from moreground-level, customized assistance in this area.

The EPA May Be Uniquely Equipped toOrganize Diverse Interests AroundMultidisciplinary Issues

Somewhat in contrast to the niche role recommendation above, EPA is sometimes wellpositioned to plan and lead a multidisciplinaryCBEP project. For instance, Region 7 staffrecognized how EPA’s asbestos managementregulations were at the root of the abandonedbuildings problem in St. Louis.The staff wasable to bring not only the technical expertiseneeded to guide compliance but also thestrategic vision to organize the suite of federalagencies and municipal departments that sharejurisdiction over asbestos management andbuilding demolition.A key feature of this lead-ership role is that it should be temporary.Consistent with the core CBEP objective ofcapacity building, EPA should lead projects intheir pilot stage, handing over control andresponsibility to local stakeholders as proce-dures and roles are established.


REFERENCESGeneral

Leach, Bill; Neil Pelkey; and Paul Sabatier,“Surveying Diverse Stakeholder Groups:Methodological Considerations,” paper presented at NSF/EPA Workshop on Community-Based Environmental Decisionmaking, May 9, 2000.

Muraskin, Lana,“Understanding Evaluation:The Way to Better Prevention Programs,”Westat, Inc.evaluation handbook produced with U.S. Department of Education funds, 1993.

U.S. EPA, EPA’s Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection, February 1999.U.S. EPA, Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP):Accomplishments and Value Added of

CBEP Projects, January 1999.U.S. EPA, Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP): Characterization of EPA Regional

CBEP Activities, January 1999.W.K. Kellogg Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook, January 1998.

San Miguel Watershed InitiativeInyan, B.J., and M.W.Williams,“Protection of Headwater Catchments from Future Degradation:

San Miguel River Basin, Colorado,” Preliminary Report for the Institute of Arctic andAlpine Research, 1999.

Luther, Linda, San Miguel Watershed Coordination (RGI Performance Report), January 27, 1999.Miullo, Nat, Region 8 San Miguel Watershed Initiative (RGI Report), 1998.River Voices,“San Miguel Watershed Coalition: Getting Citizens Involved in the Process,”

Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 16–17,Winter 1997.San Miguel Community Rallies to Save Alpine Ecosystems, obtained online,

http://www.epa.gov/regional/highlightsfin.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)San Miguel Watershed Coalition, The San Miguel Watershed Plan:A Collaborative Management

Framework for the San Miguel Basin, 1998.

Charleston/North Charleston CBEPCharleston/North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Project, obtained online,

http://www.epa.gov/region04/programs/cbep/charleston.html. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)Charleston/North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Program, Summary of the

Environmental Information Collected for the Charleston/North Charleston Community-BasedEnvironmental Protection Program - Draft, September 1999.

Improving the Quality of Life for the Charleston/North Charleston Community, obtained online,http://www.epa.gov/regional/highlightsfin.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)

U.S. EPA Region 4, Fiscal Year 1998 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, 1998.

Eastward Ho!Florida Trend Magazine,“Heading Back Downtown,”August 2000.Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel,“Nine-Story Residential, Retail Building Proposed in Downtown

Boca,”August 11, 2000.Miami Herald,“Real Estate on the Move,”August 13, 2000.Miami Herald,“Zoning Approved to Change Look of Kendall Community,” December 17, 1999.Miami Herald,“Making Environmental Peace Saving Water, Managing Growth,” January 5, 2000.South Florida Regional Planning Council, The Eastward Ho! Newsletter, September 1999.

References Ref-1

South Florida Regional Planning Council, Building on Success:A Report from Eastward Ho!,December 1998.

South Florida Regional Planning Council, Brownfields Showcase Communities Pilots KeyMeasures (table),August 1999.

South Florida Regional Planning Council, Eastward Ho! Brownfields Showcase CommunityFederal Agency Assistance Matrix (table), no date.

Southeastern Florida Urban Initiative CBEP Quarterly Report, December 15, 1999, obtained onlineat http://www.epa.gov/region04/sfla/reports.htm.

U.S. EPA, Evaluation of EPA’s Community-Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida(draft), January 1999.

York, Pennsylvania, Community-Based Strategic Planning and GreenDevelopment

City of York Downtown Action Plan, obtained online, http://www.yorkcity.org/com/downtown.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)

City of York, Pennsylvania, The City of York Strategic Comprehensive Plan, July 1999.City of York, Pennsylvania,York—Building On Our Assets:A Sense of Place, January 1999.City of York, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Planning/Engineering,“A Brighter Tomorrow:The City

of York’s Strategic Comprehensive Plan Newsletter,” Volume 1, Number 2, June 1996.City of York, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Planning/Engineering,“A Brighter Tomorrow:The City

of York’s Strategic Comprehensive Plan Newsletter,” Volume 1, Number 1, February 1996.City of York, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Planning/Engineering,“The Work Program” and “The

Scope of Services for the City of York’s Strategic Comprehensive Plan:The Blueprint forthe Plan,” July 1995.

City of York, Pennsylvania, Office of Economic Development, Press Release:“York,Pennsylvania Charrette,” October 1997.

Donald T. Iannone & Associates and Janssen & Associates, A Green Economic Development Strategyfor the City of York Pennsylvania: Phase 2 Report,August 9, 1999.

Mender, Mike,“EPA Has City Officials Seeing Green,” York Daily Record, October 1997.Polk-Lepson Research Group, City of York Planning Study, November 1997.Rebuilding on Pennsylvania’s Industrial Heritage, obtained online, http://www.state.pa.us/

PA_Exec/Governor/Speeches/960401.html. (Last accessed winter of 2002.)Ridge Administration Funding Assists Danskin,York City, obtained online, http://www.state.pa.us/

PA_Exec/Governor/Press_Releases/971120b.html. (Last accessed summer of 2001.)The Rail Corridor Revitalization Program, obtained online, http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/

success/rail_corridor.htm. (Last accessed winter of 2002.)U.S. EPA Region 3, Frequently Asked Questions About Our Green Communities Program, March 1999.U.S. EPA Region 3, Press Release:“Mayor Turns York into a ‘Green’ Community,” October 1997.York, Pennsylvania—A Participating Green Community, obtained online, http://www.epa.gov/

/greenkit/index.html. (Last accessed winter of 2003.)

St. Louis Gateway Initiative, Abandoned Buildings ProjectGateway Introduction and Gateway Goals, obtained online, http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/.

(Last accessed winter of 2002.)Listening Tour, Phase One: Final Report, St. Louis Community College and EPA Region 7, prepared

by Godwin Communications Corporation,April 30, 1998.St. Louis Community Gateway Initiative, Presentation for Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

prepared by EPA Region 7, September 7, 2000.

EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTSRef-2

CBEP PROGRAMEVALUATION APPENDIX AGENERAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CBEP) PROGRAM EVALUATION: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

A. Project Objectives and Background1.When did the project begin?

2.Who initiated the project?

3.Why was the project started (e.g., precipitated by a specific event, etc.)?

4.What are the project’s overall goals, and how have these goals evolved?

5.What is the geographic scope of the project (i.e., what area is covered? how are the boundaries defined?)?

6.Who is involved (i.e., how many/what kinds of organizations, individuals, etc.)? How do the geographic boundaries or other project characteristics relate to or influence which individualsor groups participate?

7.What is the larger context of the project within the community (e.g., one of a number of programs/groups addressing similar issues, the only multistakeholder community-based partnership, etc.)? To what extent were the community’s concerns being addressed before the project began?

B. EPA’s Role1.What is EPA’s role on the project? (Select all of the following that apply, and elaborate.)

❏ Project leader?

❏ Project participant or stakeholder?

❏ Information provider?

❏ Provider of technical assistance (e.g., meeting facilitation, data analysis)?

❏ Provider of grants or other funding?

2. Overall, is EPA’s role on the project best described as “direct” or “indirect”?

3. Has EPA’s role on the project evolved over time? If so, what factors contributed to the evolution (e.g., increased capacity of local groups to run the project, increased need for a central organizer, etc.)?

4. How has EPA’s involvement helped the project achieve its goals (i.e., providing unique services or information that could not have come from other sources)?

5. Has EPA received any feedback on its involvement from project participants (e.g., user feedback on Agency tools)? If so, describe. How do you think EPA’s involvement has been received thus far?

CBEP Program Evaluation:General Interview Questions Appendix A A-1

C. Other Areas of Project Implementation1. How is the project structured? What organizations or groups of participants are responsible

for which major aspects of the project?

2.What are the major sources of funding? (If possible, characterize by approximate dollar figure and source.) What in-kind contributions or other resources are provided to the project (e.g., personnel, equipment, etc.)?

3. Has the project conducted or planned any assessments of the CBEP geographic area?

- If so, what areas did the assessment(s) cover?

❏ Air, water, land quality?

❏ Other ecological conditions?

❏ Economic, social conditions?

❏ Other quality of life conditions?

4. How have results of any of these assessments been used to redirect program implementation?

5.What do you feel to be important factors behind the project’s achievements so far? Obstacles?

D. Environmental and Sustainability Results of the Project1.Are there specific environmental goals and mechanisms for tracking performance against these

goals (e.g., number of waste site cleanups completed or soil erosion per acre of cropland)?

2.Are there specific goals and mechanisms for tracking performance for other kinds of objectives (e.g., economic, social: vacancy rate of buildings or employment in local outdoor recreation businesses)?

[More detailed questions to be asked about each specific CBEP project.]

E. Benefits of the CBEP Approach1.What characteristics of this project define it as a CBEP project?

❏ Focus on a geographic area?

❏ Collaboration with stakeholders?

❏ Integrated consideration of environmental quality across media?

❏ Integrated consideration of environmental, economic, and social objectives?

❏ Use of diverse tools and approaches?

❏ Inclusion of long-term strategies for community sustainability?

❏ Other?

2. Overall, what aspects of the CBEP approach made this project more effective in achieving its goals?

3. How has the project affected EPA? Has it helped integrate CBEP into existing EPA programs? How?

- Has the project’s CBEP approach integrated the efforts of offices that don’t normally work together?

- Has the project’s CBEP approach allowed EPA to address environmental problems that cut across media or statutory lines or other problems that traditional regulatory approaches don’t address well?

EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECTSA-2

4. Has the project helped increase the community’s capacity to study and address their own issues? How?

- Has it helped the community develop organizationally?

- Has it increased the level of environmental awareness in the community?

- Has it facilitated participation by residents normally not active in environmental management/civic affairs?

- Has it increased access to and the use of CBEP tools (e.g., environmental data)?

F. Miscellaneous1. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to add?

2.Are there other sources of information not mentioned yet that we should review?

CBEP Program Evaluation:General Interview Questions Appendix A A-3

environmental protection projects: accomplishments · array of community-based environmental...

Documents