100R99Q12 COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CBEP): CHARACTERIZATION OF EPA REGIONAL CBEP ACTIVITIES Prepared for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 January 1999 Prepared by ICF Incorporated Fairfax, VA 22031 This report was prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0029 by ICF Incorporated for Laura Gabanskj of the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. ACRONYMS CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION. 1 1.1 CBEP ATTRIBUTES AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF CBEP IMPLEMENTATION . 2 1.1.1 General Characteristics of Regional CBEP Implementation .... 2 -- Project Origin. 3 -- Cross-Program Participation . 3 -- EPA Roles. 3 -- Project Duration. 3 - EPA Funding Sources. 4 1.1.2 CBEP Attributes. 4 - Place-Based Orientation . 4 — Multimedia Approach. ... . 4 -- Inclusion of Stakeholders and Community Participation . 5 -- Environmental Goals. 5 -- Economic and Social Well-Being Goals. 5 - Assessments. 5 ~ Adaptive Management. 5 -- Measures of Success. 6 1.2 METHODOLOGY . 6 1.2.1 Selection of Projects for Review. 6 1.2.2 Project Profiles. 6 1.2.3 Interviews. 7 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT . 8 2. REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATIONS. 9 2.1 REGION 1. 9 2.2 REGION 2. 9 2.3 REGION 3. 10 2.4 REGION 4. 11 2.5 REGION 5. 14 2.6 REGION 6. 16 2.7 REGION 7. 17 2.8 REGION 8. 19 2.9 REGION 9. 22 2.10 REGION 10 23 3. NATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF CBEP ACTIVITIES. 25 3.1 APPROACHES FOR PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS. 25 3.1.1 Project Origins . 26 3.1.2 Cross-Program Participation . 27 3.1.3 EPA Roles . 28 3.1.4 Project Durations . 28 3.1.5 EPA Funding Sources . 30 3.1.6 Use of CBEP Attributes . 33 . -- Place-Based Orientation . 33 — Multimedia Approach. 33 -- Inclusion of Stakeholders and Community Participation .... 34 -- Environmental Goals. 37 -- Economic and Social Well-Being Goals. 38 -- Assessments. 38 -- Adaptive Management. 39 — Measures of Success. 40 3.2 APPROACHES FOR EXTERNAL CAPACITY BUILDING . 41 4. CONCLUSIONS. 43 5. REFERENCES.47 Appendix A. Place-Based CBEP Projects in EPA Regions Appendix B. CBEP Project Profile Template Appendix C. CBEP Interview Guides. ACRONYMS AOC CAA CAG CBEP CEM CIC CRM CWA EMPACT FTE GLNPO GLWQA GPRA LaMP NEP NEPA OAR OPPTS ORD OSEC OW OWOW RAP RARE RCRA RGI SEAT TRI WPTD Area of Concern Clean Air Act Community Advisory Group (Region 4) Community-Based Environmental Protection Coastal Environmental Management CBEP Integrating Committee (Region 6) Coordinated Resource Management Clean Water Act Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking Full Time Equivalent (staff) Great Lakes National Program Office Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Government Performance and Results Act Lakewide Management Plan National Estuary Program National Environmental Policy Act Office of Air and Radiation Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Office of Research and Development Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities Office of Water Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Remedial Action Plan Resource Assistance for Rural Environments Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Regional Geographic Initiative Strategic Environmental Assessment Team (Region 7) Toxic Release Inventory Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics Division i . ' 1. INTRODUCTION Many of today’s causes of environmental pollution and environmental degradation (e.g., nonpoint source pollution, regional air pollution, brownfields, loss of biodiversity) are difficult to solve through traditional, compartmentalized, command and control approaches. To solve such problems, participation of local stakeholders at a community or regional level and a holistic approach that addresses human social and economic needs as they relate to environmental quality may be needed. In 1995, EPA began promoting the Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) approach to help solve these difficult issues in priority places. EPA’s Strategic Plan (U.S. EPA, 1997a) recognized CBEP as the Agency’s main tenet for “reinventing” its approach to environmental protection by considering environmental problems across organizations and political boundaries and in a multimedia fashion. CBEP strives to enable community-led projects that will achieve long-term ecological, social, and economic well¬ being. The CBEP approach is instituted through three principal strategies: • Reorienting and building the capacity for CBEP approaches in EPA’s base programs; * • Working directly with local stakeholders and citizens in priority places; and • Building capacity external to EPA through technical assistance, training, and grants. The Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC) is responsible for coordinating the development and promotion of CBEP policies within the Agency. In April 1997, OSEC produced a Draft CBEP Framework (U.S. EPA, 1998b), which defined key principals of the CBEP approach and recommended attributes of CBEP projects. The purpose of this report is to characterize current CBEP projects in EPA’s regions and to compare current CBEP implementation to the principles identified in the Draft CBEP Framework. In addition, this report examines how CBEP attributes are defined in practice by the regions and identifies which attributes the regions have found to be most essential for successful community-based projects. Xomrminity-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) Is EPA’s term for a holistic and collaborative approach to environmental - protection that brings together public and private stakeholders within a place or community to identify environmental concerns, set priorities, and forge comprehensive solutions. Through CBEP...stakeholders consider environmental protection along with human social needs, work toward achieving long-term ecosystem health, and foster linkages between economic prosperity and environmental well being.” EPA 7 s CBEP Framework Document (U.S. EPA, 1998b) 1 Data gathered for this report have been used to prepare a separate report on the accomplishments and value-added of EPA CBEP projects. Community-Based Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Value-Added of EPA CBEP Projects (EPA, 1999) describes specific project successes identified by Regional Project Leaders and discusses the value-added of the CBEP approach based on their experiences. All of projects discussed in this report involve partnerships with stakeholders such as local, state, tribal, and federal governmental agencies; neighborhood and community organizations; environmental and other public interest groups; educational institutions; the private sector; and interested citizens. This report is primarily concerned with EPA’s role in CBEP projects and the value-added of EPA’s participation. This report does not evaluate the vast contributions of EPA’s partners in these projects. 1.1 CBEP ATTRIBUTES AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF CBEP IMPLEMENTATION This report analyzes progress by the EPA in regions implementing CBEP as it is conceptualized in the Draft CBEP Framework (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Although the CBEP Framework is still in development and has been available to the regions in draft form for less than a year, it expands upon principles (e.g., place-based, multimedia) that have ^ guided CBEP since its inception. Also, since 1997, the regions have had a CBEP resource book for communities which expands upon the CBEP approach and principles (U.S. EPA, 1997b). This report refers to the key principles of CBEP as CBEP attributes. This section summarizes the key CBEP attributes as they are defined in the Draft CBEP Framework. Also, this section introduces general characteristics of regional CBEP implementation (e.g., funding sources) that are analyzed in this report. 1.1.1 General Characteristics of Regional CBEP Implementation To fully describe CBEP activities by the EPA regions, information was gathered on five general characteristics of CBEP implementation: • Project origins; • Cross-program participation; • EPA roles; • Project duration; and • EPA funding sources. These general characteristics are explained below. 2 Project Origin Because EPA has limited resources for CBEP, various approaches are used to identify and select projects for EPA support (U.S. EPA, 1998a). Potential projects may be identified from several sources inside and outside EPA (e.g., requests for assistance from local communities, expertise of staff familiar with local issues). In some cases, CBEP may be applied to ongoing projects initiated by EPA’s base programs (e.g, air, Superfund) or others outside the Agency. For this report, EPA regions were asked to identify whether their CBEP projects originated under CBEP, other EPA programs, or non-EPA programs. Cross-Program Participation The Draft CBEP Framework describes CBEP as a new way of doing EPA’s business, not a new EPA program. It is an approach that requires the support of all the Agency’s existing base programs (i.e., media-specific and statutory programs). Individual CBEP projects may involve staff from relevant programs, as appropriate. EPA regions were asked to identify EPA programs involved in their projects. This information was used to evaluate the breadth of EPA program involvement and the extent to which the CBEP approach is being integrated into EPA’s base programs. EPA Roles EPA may play one or more of several roles in CBEP projects. In some cases, EPA will lead the project or share leadership equally with other partners. In other cases, EPA will have minimal involvement other than building the capacity of others to carry out the project (e.g., by facilitating or providing technical assistance). EPA may play different roles at different phases of a project or in different sub-projects. For this report, CBEP Project Leaders were asked to identify the role or roles fulfilled by EPA in place-based projects. Project Duration CBEP can address challenging environmental issues that may often take years to resolve. EPA’s role in some projects is essentially indefinite because of statutory commitments (e.g., Great Lakes National Program) or because long-term EPA support will be necessary to achieve results. In other cases, EPA’s participation can be limited to a shorter period. For example, EPA’s direct involvement in a project may be limited to a few years until others are able to sustain the project on their own. This report summarizes the expected durations, if known, of EPA’s involvement in CBEP projects. 3 EPA Funding Sources CBEP projects are supported by many different EPA funding sources (e g., Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI), the Fiscal Year 1998 CBEP(National Program Manager/Regional Geographic Initiative) Fund (FY98 CBEP(NPM/RGI) Fund), Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319). Funding sources supporting CBEP projects have been identified to evaluate which sources are used most commonly and which are preferred by Regional CBEP staff. 1.1.2 Use of CBEP Attributes in CBEP Activities Exhibit 1 identifies the CBEP attributes analyzed in this report. CBEP attributes are defining principles of the CBEP approach. This section provides brief descriptions of the CBEP attributes, based on the Draft CBEP Framework. Exhibit 1 CBEP Attributes • Place-Based Orientation • Multimedia Approach • Inclusion of Stakeholders and Community Participation • Environmental Goals • Economic and Social Well-Being Goals • Assessments • Adaptive Management • Measures of Success Place-Based Orientation CBEP projects are intended to focus on definable geographic areas based on natural landscapes (e g., watersheds, ecosystems), social communities (e.g., neighborhoods), or political subdivisions (e.g., counties). Project areas include the area of concern (i.e., impact) for the environmental issue(s) addressed and, when possible, the source(s) of the problem(s). Project data gathered for this report identify whether projects occur in defined geographic places and whether the places are based on general or specific natural or political boundaries. Multimedia Approach The CBEP approach recognizes that many environmental problems involve more than one environmental medium (e.g., air, water) and cut across EPA’s traditional 4 media-based programs. These problems may be best addressed with an integrated, multimedia approach and an ecosystem-level perspective. This report assesses how many and which media (i.e., air, water, or land) are addressed by CBEP projects. Inclusion of Stakeholders and Community Participation The CBEP approach is intended to provide an open, inclusive decisionmaking process that allows for meaningful participation by resource managers and those potentially affected by resource management decisions. This report identifies general stakeholder groups (i.e., governmental agencies, local community organizations, non¬ governmental organizations, private sector entities, and the public) involved in CBEP projects. Also, the report assesses the degree of community participation (e.g., communication and education, decision making, project execution) to indicate how meaningful opportunities for participation are to interested citizens. Environmental Goals CBEP projects address a wide range of environmental challenges. This report assesses the number and percentage of projects with ecological, human health, and quality of life goals. Economic and Social Well-being Goals CBEP is intended to address environmental problems in a manner that sustains a healthy economy and promotes an equitable distribution of environmental burdens among different economic and social groups. Information was gathered on whether CBEP projects have economic and social well-being goals and, if so, whether they are integrated with environmental goals. Assessments Assessments provide scientifically reliable information on existing problems or threats that can be used to define project goals and approaches and to monitor progress toward achieving goals. To evaluate the use of assessments, information was compiled on the number of CBEP projects that include ecological, economic, socio¬ cultural, or human health assessments. Adaptive Management The CBEP approach promotes efficient and successful projects by emphasizing adaptive management. Adaptive management involves a regular review and evaluation of results in order to continuously revise and refine approaches by integrating the 5 benefits of experience, new data, or new technologies. We identified whether adaptive management is-a component of the CBEP projects reviewed. Measures of Success The Draft CBEP Framework promotes the use of clearly-defined goals and indicators (i.e., measures) for evaluating progress toward and attainment of the goals. For example, measures of success could be qualitative milestones to mark procedural progress (e.g., forming partnerships, conducting training workshops) or quantitative or qualitative measures of environmental results (e.g., reopening closed shellfish beds, number of sites decontaminated, water contaminant concentrations). This report evaluates the extent to which measures of success have been developed for CBEP projects and the types of measures used. 1.2 METHODOLOGY EPA regions currently are engaged in approximately 300 place-based CBEP projects. To characterize these projects, we gathered descriptive project data for 87 projects in six EPA regions. In addition, detailed interviews were conducted for a sample of 38 projects in five regions. Appendix A provides a list of CBEP projects in all ten regions and identifies which projects were selected for data collection and Project Leader interviews. 1.2.1 Selection of Projects for Review All ten EPA regions provided information for this report, and CBEP activities in all regions are discussed. However, the report does not cover all regions equally. Because of time and resource limitations, five regions were selected for detailed data gathering and analysis: Regions 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10. In addition, Region 3 provided information on some of its projects that was used for portions of the analysis. Those regions represent a range of CBEP implementation strategies, geographic locations, and ecosystem types. The emphasis on these five regions in this report does not indicate less progress has been made implementing CBEP in the other five regions. The 87 projects reviewed in detail represent 28 percent of the 309 projects listed in Appendix A. 1.2.2 Project Profiles Detailed project data were gathered using two-page project profiles. A sample project profile is presented in Appendix B. The profiles contain brief project descriptions and information about CBEP attributes and general characteristics of CBEP implementation. Draft profiles were prepared using information (e.g., CBEP progress reports, project descriptions posted on the World Wide Web) supplied by the regions. To confirm the accuracy of the data, the draft profiles were distributed to Project Leaders for verification. Only verified profiles were used in the analysis. Verified profiles were obtained for 79 of the 108 projects in Regions 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10. In addition, verified profiles were obtained for 8 Region 3 projects. Thus, 87 verified profiles representing 71 percent of the projects in six regions were used for this report. 1.2.3 Interviews Thirty-eight interviews were conducted with Regional CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders to gather detailed information not provided by the project profiles. In particular, five Regional CBEP Coordinators were asked questions about the general nature of CBEP implementation in their regions, and 28 Project Leaders were asked to elaborate on their projects. In some cases, Project Leaders described two or more closely related projects in an interview. In addition to further details about topics covered by the profiles (e.g., multimedia approaches), Project Leaders were asked to discuss the environmental and social contexts of their projects, project goals and objectives, EPA’s value-added, key accomplishments, and other project attributes. The CBEP Coordinator and Project Leader interview guides (i.e., questionnaires) are provided in Appendix C. Up to eight Project Leaders were interviewed per region. Projects and Project Leaders were selected for interviews based on four criteria: (1) Projects likely to represent a large number of similar projects (e.g., projects initiated under the same EPA program, ecosystem projects, human health projects); (2) Unique/important projects; (3) Projects with leaders who manage multiple projects and therefore might have a broader perspective than contacts who manage a single CBEP project; and (4) Some projects starting as CBEP projects; others starting for other reasons. 7 It was not necessary to apply these criteria for interviews in Regions 7 and 10, which have fewer than 8 CBEP projects each. 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT Section 2 of this report summaries CBEP implementation in each of the ten EPA regions. The summaries for the five regions selected for detailed data gathering are more detailed than the summaries for the other five regions. Section 3 characterizes and analyzes CBEP implementation across all the regions. Although section 3 is presented as a national-level characterization and analysis, the results concentrate on regions with detailed project data gathered for this report. Conclusions are presented in section 4, and section 5 identifies references cited in the report. < 8 2. REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATIONS The regional characterizations in this section are based on verified CBEP project profiles, interviews with Regional CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders, and other information provided by the regions. As described in section 1.2.1, this report focuses on project data gathered from a sample of regions (i.e., Regions 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10). Brief characterizations are presented for Regions 1,2, 6, and 9, for which little information was gathered. 2.1 REGION 1 Appendix A identifies 19 place-based CBEP projects in Region 1. Limited information about the Region 1 CBEP projects is presented in this report, because verified project profiles were not obtained and project interviews were not conducted. Region 1 views CBEP as a way of doing business, not a program perse. Thus, the 19 place-based projects identified in Appendix A are not considered to be CBEP projects. Region 1 CBEP Coordinators assist in projects identified by a wide range of base programs (e.g., nonpoint source) and other place-based initiatives (e g., urban initiatives). Region 1 began experimenting with CBEP-like approaches before CBEP was established in 1995. Region 1 works closely with state governments in all CBEP activities. Activities and roles are shaped, in part, by annual performance partnership negotiations. 2.2 REGION 2 Appendix A identifies 50 place-based CBEP projects in Region 2. Almost all of the Region 2 CBEP projects originated under other (i.e., not CBEP) EPA programs or initiatives, such as Superfund, Brownfields, or the NEP. Projects are selected for CBEP in a two-stage review process. Initial screening of potential CBEP projects is performed by a Multimedia Workgroup. The Region’s CBEP Steering Committee, which is composed of Division Directors, reviews projects recommended by the Multimedia Workgroup and selects projects for involvement. Some Region 2 projects appear to include significant direct involvement while others are primarily capacity-building projects. Not enough information was obtained to estimate the proportion of direct involvement and capacity-building projects. 2.3 REGION 3 Region 3 has at least 14 place-based CBEP projects. Verified project profiles were obtained for eight projects. However, no interviews were conducted. Region 3 identifies potential CBEP projects from several sources, including base program activities (e g., NEPs), requests for assistance from local communities, and special projects developed to address regional strategic goals (e.g., reducing acid mine drainage, watershed protection). Five of the eight projects with verified profiles were initiated and designed as CBEP projects. The other three projects were initiated under existing EPA programs. The eight place-based CBEP projects with verified project profiles in Region 3 include five direct involvement projects and three capacity-building projects with little direct involvement by EPA. EPA leads, or initially led, approximately half of the projects and has served as an active partner in planning and executing three quarters of the projects. In some projects, EPA has served as a leader and a partner at different stages. Capacity-building activities in place-based projects include providing funding, training, technical assistance, or other resources (e.g., the Green Communities Assistance Kit). The eight projects with verified profiles were supported by at least ten EPA funding sources. Four of the projects received RGI funds and two received Regional Administrator discretionary funds. Eight other funding sources supported one project each: CWA section 320 (i.e., National Estuary Program), CWA section 311 (i.e., oil and hazardous substance liability) CWA section 117 (i.e., Chesapeake Bay Program), RCRA, Superfund, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of Water (OW), and the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). • Based on the eight available verified project profiles, Region 3 CBEP projects always involve governmental agencies and the public. Local community organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector The Green Communities Program The Green Communities Program was created by Region 3 to help communities evaluate and address their own environmental needs using CBEP principles as well as data and information on community organizing, assessment, and local tools. As part of this Program, Region 3 developed a Green Communities Assistance Kit and a Green Communities Internet site, where information can be obtained by any community. The City of York, Pennsylvania, is the first community designated as a participant in the Green Communities program. The purpose of the City of York project is to revitalize local economic and environmental heath by restoring and redeveloping inner-city brownfield sites. One way in which EPA supported this effort was by sponsoring a Green Development Workshop. At the workshop, national experts presented innovative design tools and provided technical assistance on energy conservation, stormwater management, and other topics. 10 stakeholders are involved in more than 80 percent of the projects. Community stakeholders participate in executing a quarter of the projects and contribute to planning and decision making in about half of the projects. Communities have opportunities for communication or education in almost all projects. Exhibit 2 presents the Exhibit 2 percentage of Region 3 projects Environmental and Economic with environmental and economic Goa | s of Region 3 CBEP Projects goals. Region 3 appears to place a - 1 greater emphasis on quality-of-life TYpe . 9 LG.oal Percentaqe _ of Pro i ects h and economic goals than the other Quality . oHfe goals 75% regions with verified profiles Human health goals 63% j available for comparison. All Ecosystem goals 38% ; ] projects have specific economic goals or economic goals that are integrated with environmental goals. For example, the goals of the City of York project include adding $33 million in new assessed property value in the inner-city by restoring and redeveloping 100 acres of brownfields. Quality-of-life goals are more common than human health or ecosystem goals in Region 3 projects. At least four of the projects (e.g., the Baltimore Urban Environmental Initiative, South/Southwest Philadelphia Environment and Health Characterization Study) address environmental issues in communities with disproportionate minority or low-income populations. Environmental, economic, or socio-cultural assessments were used in seven of the eight Region 3 projects with verified profiles. Human health assessments were included in 63 percent of the projects and are the most prevalent kind of assessment. For example, in South and Southwest Philadelphia, EPA is working with public health researchers on a wide-ranging, multimedia environmental health risk characterization. In the Baltimore Urban Initiative, a socio-cultural assessment is being performed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs that distribute lead dust cleaning kits in environmental justice communities. Measures of success have been defined for three quarters of the Region 3 projects. At present, there is little use of adaptive management in Region 3. Only one verified profile identified adaptive management as a project attribute. However, because the Region 3 Project Leaders were not interviewed, it is difficult to ascertain whether adaptive management was not an attribute or the projects had progressed to a stage where it would be relevant include as an attribute. 2.4 REGION 4 Region 4 has 45 place-based CBEP projects. The Region provided verified project profiles for 31 projects. Eight Project Leaders participated in interviews covering Exhibit 2 Environmental and Economic Goals of Region 3 CBEP Projects Type of Goal Percentage of Proiects Economic/social well being goals 100% Quality-of-life goals 75% Human health goals 63% Ecosystem goals 38% 11 12 projects. Appendix A identifies the 45 projects, including those that were the subject of interviews. - The Region 4 CBEP program includes a variety of project types and approaches to CBEP implementation. For example, some projects (e.g., the Tifton, Georgia Project) are narrowly focused on a small geographic area or a single issue or activity, while others (e g., the Southern Appalachian Mountain Assessment) cover large geographic areas and include numerous “nested” projects. Region 4 CBEP projects include examples of bottom-up and top-down projects. Bottom-up projects are driven by community stakeholders with minimal control by EPA. EPA’s contributions to bottom-up projects may include facilitation, technical assistance, or capacity-building. The LouisvilleA/Vest Louisville and Charleston/North Charleston projects are examples of “bottom-up” projects. In these projects, community (i.e., grass roots) stakeholders are identifying and addressing their own environmental priorities with EPA’s support. Top-down projects are driven by EPA or EPA and other governmental partners and have minimal community participation in planning, decision making, or project execution. Top-down projects may involve technical issues or assessments that require a level of expertise for meaningful participation. The Pesticides, Asbestos, and Lead (PAL) project and the Southern Appalachian Assessment are examples of “top-down” projects. Region 4 emphasizes direct EPA involvement CBEP projects and often is the driving force or lead decision-maker. However, essentially all projects include a mix of direct involvement and capacity-building. Capacity-building projects include certain wellhead protection and nonpoint source projects. Most (i.e., 74 percent) of the 31 Region 4 projects with verified project profiles were initiated under other EPA programs. For example, six of the projects began under the National Estuary Program (NEP), five began under the Wetland Advance Identification Program, and four began under the Clean Lakes Program. Four of the projects were initiated as CBEP projects, and four were initiated by programs or entities entirely outside EPA. The diverse program origins of Region 4 CBEP projects are partially explained by the diversity of EPA funding sources applied to the projects. At least 18 EPA funding sources have been used. The sources used most frequently are RGI, CWA section 320 (i.e., NEP), CWA section 104(b)(3), and CWA section 314 (i.e., Clean Lakes). Examples of other sources that have been used include CAA section 105, CWA section 319 (i.e., nonpoint source management), Superfund, Regional Administrator Discretionary funds, and a Sustainable Development Challenge Grant. 12 Seventy-seven percent of the 31 Region 4 projects with verified profiles have specific geographic boundaries. Fifty-five percent of the projects with verified profiles have specific boundaries based on natural, geographic features (e g., watersheds). Seven projects are located in general geographic areas defined by natural and political boundaries. Multimedia approaches are used in less than half of the projects. Specifically, just more than half of the 31 projects with verified project profiles address a single medium. However, almost one third of the projects address all three media (i.e., air, water, and land). Most projects (i.e., 94 percent) address at least one water quality or quantity issue. Land and air issues are addressed by 48 and 35 percent of the projects, respectively. Ecosystem goals are the most common type of environmental goal for Region 4 CBEP projects. In particular, 87 percent of the 31 projects with verified profiles have ecosystem goals. Human health and quality-of-life goals are included in 58 and 48 percent of the projects, respectively. About 40 percent of the projects with verified profiles have just one type of environmental goal, and 35 percent have all three types of environmental goals. For example, the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program includes ecosystem goals (e.g., halting habitat loss), human health goals (e.g., improved water quality), and quality of life goals (e.g., enhanced recreational opportunities). Fifty-three percent of the projects with verified profiles have economic or social-well-being goals, which are usually integrated with environmental goals. The Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Project is intended to address environmental concerns (e.g., lead paint, truck pollution, chemical accidents) of economically disadvantaged urban communities. Among the 31 Region 4 projects with verified profiles, governmental agencies are stakeholders in all projects. Ninety-seven percent of the projects with verified profiles include local community organization and private sector stakeholders. Seventy- one percent of the projects with verified profiles involve all major stakeholder categories. Non-governmental organizations are included in 77 percent of the projects with verified profiles, and the public is involved in 90 percent of the projects. CBEP projects usually provide public/community opportunities for education and outreach (97 percent of projects), and less frequently with roles in decision making (52 percent of projects) or project execution (45 percent of projects). Ninety percent of the 31 projects with verified profiles included at least one type of assessment. Ecological assessments are much more common than other types of assessments. About 80 percent of the projects with verified profiles include ecological assessments. Human health, economic, and socio-cultural assessments are included in 35, 19, and 13 percent of the projects, respectively. The scope of the Southern Appalachian Assessment includes four individual assessments covering the 13 atmospheric, social/cultural/economic, terrestrial, and aquatic components of the Appalachian ecosystem from Virginia to Alabama. The four assessments are intended to support resource management decisionmaking by showing how the lands, resources, people, and management practices interrelate within the larger context of the ecosystem. About 55 percent of the projects with verified project profiles include adaptive management, and 45 percent have defined measures of success. Measures of success include environmental measures of success (e.g., rates of phosphorus loading to West Point Lake) and process measures of success (e.g., adoption of wetland identification tools in local planning processes). 2.5 REGION 5 CBEP projects in Region 5 fall under nine place-based initiatives (see Appendix A). Region 5 provided verified project profiles for all nine place-based initiatives, and seven Project Leader interviews were conducted. Interviews were not conducted for the Lake Erie or Lake Superior initiatives. Place-based activities in Region 5 are Exhibit 3 carried out by nine teams composed of experts Region 5 Place-Based Teams from the Region’s media program offices. The nine teams are listed in Exhibit 3. All major EPA * J- a * e M ch j9 an Team base programs are involved in place-based . Lake Superior Team teams. . Upper Mississippi River Team ij • Northwest Indiana Team Each of the nine place-based initiatives • Greater Chicago Team ; encompasses multiple individual sub-projects. * Southeast Michigan Team For example, the Northeast Ohio Initiative . Northeast 0h i 0 Team \ includes work with partners to develop Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for a Great Lakes Area of = — Concern (AOC), work with state and local governments to identify and restore toxic waste sites, work with local police to prevent illegal solid waste dumping, technical assistance for several community-led projects, and many other projects. These activities are independent but coordinated. The teams meet frequently to discuss progress, plan activities, and exchange information. — • Lake Michigan Team • Lake Erie Team • Lake Superior Team • Upper Mississippi River Team • Northwest Indiana Team • Greater Chicago Team • Southeast Michigan Team • Gateway (i.e., East St. Louis) Team • Northeast Ohio Team The nine priority areas were selected in 1995 by the Region's Senior Management Team. Among the factors for selecting priority places, the Senior Management Team evaluated: 1 14 • opportunities to take a holistic approach; • human health, ecological, and social issues; and • opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders, states, tribes, and the grass roots. Place-based initiatives are reviewed annually to determine whether they should continue. The reviews are based on specific criteria such as whether the environmental issues of concern no longer exist or federal presence is no longer needed. New projects will not be added until the Region completes an ongoing effort to develop science-based indicators that will be used to target priority places. Like the other EPA regions, Region 5 draws on several funding sources to support CBEP activities. An important funding source in Region 5 is Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Coastal Environmental Management (CEM) funds authorized under CWA section 118. GLNPO/CEM funds support at least seven of the nine initiatives in Region 5. RGI funds support four projects, and two projects received FY98 CBEP(NPM/RGI) funds. Other EPA funding sources that contribute to Region 5 CBEP projects include Regional Administrator discretionary funding; Superfund; RCRA; Air Division; Resource Management Division; Waste Pesticides and Toxics Division; and Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. At least one project has received an EPA sustainable development challenge grant. Three of the place-based teams (i.e., Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie) are responsible for the Region’s role in developing Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Team Leaders identified GLWQA and CWA as the primary origin of these three projects. The leaders of the other six teams identified RGI or CBEP as the project origin. The nine priority places are defined by natural and political boundaries and range in size from urban metropolitan areas (e.g., Gateway Initiative, Greater Chicago Initiative) to very large natural geographic areas (e.g., Lake Superior, the Upper Mississippi River Basin). Because all of the initiatives involve many sub-projects, they demonstrate many CBEP attributes. All team leaders characterized their initiatives as addressing air, water, and land issues, and as having human health, ecosystem, quality-of-life, and economic/social well-being goals. For example, five of the initiatives (i.e., Northwest Indiana, Greater Chicago, Southwest Michigan, Gateway, Northeast Ohio) address several inter-related environmental, social, and economic problems all related to out migration from the urban core in large urban areas. In addition, all of the Region 5 15 initiatives include all major stakeholder groups and all categories of community/public participation. All major stakeholder groups, representing places and institutions all around the shores of Lake Michigan, participate in decision making for the Lake Michigan Initiative as members of the Lake Michigan Forum or the Lake Michigan Initiative Technical Committee. Eight of the nine Region 5 initiatives have included at least one type of assessment, as shown in Exhibit 4, including eight with ecological assessments, six with human health assessments, five with economic assessments, and four with socio¬ cultural assessments. Two initiatives utilize adaptive management. Seven of the teams are working with partners to develop measures of success, generally as environmental indicators. In addition to working with the place-based teams, the Region 5 CBEP Coordinator works to integrate the CBEP approach into the Region’s base program activities. For example, CBEP principles have been applied to public meetings and participation at Superfund sites, watershed management projects, asthma outreach, brownfields projects, educational outreach, and pollution prevention projects. 2.6 REGION 6 Region 6 has at least 13 place-based CBEP projects, which are identified in Appendix A; Verified project profiles were not obtained from Region 6 for this study and project interviews were not conducted. All potential CBEP projects in Region 6 are proposed to EPA by communities or states. EPA does not initiate a CBEP project without an invitation from the host state and the support of the host community. Projects are selected using a three-level screening process based on professional judgement and a set of broad criteria: • Definable geographic area; • Multi-program approach; • Economic sustainability; • State requests for support; • Community support; • Ability of EPA to add value; and Exhibit 4 Use of Assessments in Region 5 CBEP Initiatives Tvpe of Assessment Percentaae (Number) of Projects Ecological Assessments 89% (8) Human Health Assessments 67% (6) Socio-Cultural Assessments 56% (5) Economic Assessments 44% (4) No Assessments 11% (D 'j • Ability to make measurable environmental improvements as defined by customers. The first level of screening is conducted by the state governments which nominate potential projects to the Region. Preliminary EPA screening is conducted by EPA’s CBEP Integration Committee (CIC), which includes representatives of each program office. Because the Region 6 CBEP program is located in the Water Division, the Water Quality Division Director is responsible for final review of all project nominations. Perhaps because the Region 6 CBEP program is within the Water Division, most place-based CBEP projects address water resource issues as their primary focus. There are exceptions, however, like the Pleasant Hill, Arkansas Project, which is primarily an air quality project. Multi-divisional teams have been established to facilitate a multimedia approach for some projects. 2.7 REGION 7 Region 7 has seven place- Exhibit 5 based CBEP initiatives, which are Place-Based CBEP Projects in Region 7 identified in Exhibit 5 and Appendix A. All of the initiatives were chosen as ) CBEP projects by senior regional staff. Future CBEP projects or priority places will be identified using methods currently under development by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Team (SEAT). These methods will be used to develop regional strategic priorities and will be applied more broadly than CBEP. Four of the seven initiatives were begun as CBEP projects and designed with CBEP attributes. The other three initiatives were begun under other EPA programs before they were designated as CBEP projects. Specifically, the Hillsdale Lake Watershed Initiative originated under CWA section 319 (i.e., nonpoint source) program, the Middle Platte River Sub-basin Initiative began as an ecological risk assessment demonstration project, and the Great Plains Program is an independent EPA program. Region 7 draws on several funding sources to support CBEP activities. All initiatives have been supported in part by RGI funds. Program sources of funding include Superfund, OPPTS, ORD, OSEC, and the Office of Water (OW). Grant programs supporting Region 7 CBEP initiatives include environmental justice, — • Hillsdale Lake Watershed Initiative • Kansas River Watershed Enhancement Initiative • Middle Platte River Sub-basin Initiative • Mni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition • Omaha, Nebraska Initiative • St. Louis Community Gateway Initiative • Great Plains Program » 17 environmental education, lead, pollution prevention, and a sustainable development challenge grant: Four of the seven project areas have specific geographic boundaries. Two project areas are bounded by natural geographic features, and two areas are defined by political boundaries. Three projects are located in general geographic areas defined by natural and political boundaries. All seven initiatives address water quality or quantity issues, and six initiatives address land-based issues as well. For example, the Hillsdale Lake Watershed Initiative supports urban and rural stakeholders in efforts to alleviate the impact of watershed activities on water quality in the Hillsdale Lake. Two Region 7 initiatives address air, water, and land issues. All Project Leaders report ecosystem and economic goals for their projects. Six projects (e.g., Omaha, Nebraska, Initiative; St. Louis Community Gateway Initiative) include human health and quality-of-life goals (e.g., lead contamination, illegal dumping, and lack of green space in urban areas). Because each initiative involves several sub-projects, there is wide stakeholder representation. In all of the initiatives, EPA works with other governmental agencies, local community organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the public on at least one sub-project. Five of the seven initiatives include private sector partners. All but one initiative include all categories of public/community involvement. The Great Plains Program so far has involved public/communities by education and outreach only. As shown in Exhibit 6, all of the initiatives have included at least one type of assessment, and all have included ecological assessments. Five initiatives have included socio-cultural assessments. For example, a rural sociologist is using focus groups and phone surveys to support the problem formulation phase of the Middle-Platte River Sub-Basin Initiative. Four initiatives have included economic assessments (e.g., a contingent valuation study of migrating birds benefits), and three initiatives have included human health assessments. Two initiatives (i.e., Mni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights Initiative, Middle Platte River Sub-basin Initiative) utilize adaptive management, and all have developed measures of success in some form. Capacity-building activities are incorporated into each of the initiatives. None of the projects are strictly capacity-building. Exhibit 6 Assessments in Region 7 CBEP Initiatives Type of Assessment Ecological Assessments Socio-cultural Assessments Economic Assessments Human Health Assessments Percentage (Number) of Projects 100% (7) 71% (5) 57% (4) 43% (3) 18 2.8 REGION 8 Region 8 has 43 place-based CBEP projects, including 35 projects considered to be high priority by the Region. Verified project profiles were obtained for 29 projects and project interviews were conducted for nine projects. Appendix A identifies which of the 43 projects are the subjects of verified profiles and interviews. CBEP activities in Region 8 are led by a team of five CBEP Coordinators in the Ecosystem Protection Program. Unlike other regions, the CBEP Coordinators are Project Managers for at least one project. Other Project Managers are staff from various base programs. The CBEP Coordinators select CBEP projects based on informal criteria, such as: ’ • Applying CBEP to other existing EPA programs; • Timing, whether the issue is “ripe” for EPA involvement 1 ; • Community interest; and • Presence of threatened resources. Region 8 currently is developing a framework to prioritize the activities of the Ecosystem Protection Program, including CBEP. When complete, this framework may affect the selection and prioritization of CBEP projects. More than 80 percent of the Region 8 projects with verified project profiles were initiated under CBEP or other EPA programs or initiatives, as shown in Exhibit 7. Other EPA programs with CBEP projects include the nonpoint source program (i.e., CWA section 319), RGI, Superfund, wetlands enforcement, watershed program, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) program, CWA section 104(b)(3), Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) planning, and the headwaters mining waste program. At least eight projects originated under the nonpoint source program Region 8 CBEP projects are supported by several funding sources, but RGI and CWA section 319 funds are the most frequently used. RGI supports at least 14 projects Exhibit 7 Origin of Region 8 CBEP Projects Project Oriain Percentaae (Number) of Projects Initiated under CBEP 28% (8) Other EPA programs or initiatives 55% (16) Initiatives outside EPA 17% (5) 1 “Ripe for involvement" means that conditions such as community interest, political support, and availability of funding are favorable for a project success. and CWA section 319 funds support at least 13 projects. Region 8's strategy for use of RGI funds is to provide small amounts of funding to several projects, rather than large amounts to a small number of projects as is the strategy in some regions (e.g., Region 5). Other funding sources used in Region 8 each support fewer than five projects. Examples of these sources include Regional Administrator discretionary funds, the FY98 CBEP(NPM/RGI) Fund, Superfund Program funds, Wetlands Program Development Funds, environmental education grants, environmental justice grants, sustainable development challenge grants, and funds authorized by several CWA sections (e g., 104(b)(3), 106, 311(c), 314, 604(b)). Region 8 tends to have a substantial direct involvement in most CBEP projects, in part because CBEP Coordinators act as Project Managers. However, approximately 16 projects are primarily capacity-building projects with little direct involvement by EPA. Most of the capacity-building projects were initiated by the nonpoint source program. For example, EPA provides CWA section 319 funds to support local conservation projects under the Otter Creek and Bowman-Haley Reservoir projects. Exhibit 8 summarizes Region 8's roles in CBEP projects. Although the Region is directly involved in projects, it assumes the leadership role less frequently than most other regions. Because of local attitudes about EPA, the Region usually acts as a supporter of or partner to local Project Leaders. As was made clear in Project Manager interviews, local communities in Region 8, as in most of the Western U.S., are often skeptical of EPA and hesitant to become involved in EPA projects. As described later in this report, CBEP is improving local attitudes toward EPA in many communities. Exhibit 8 EPA Region 8 Roles in CBEP Projects EPA Role Percentage (Number) of Projects Leader 28% (8) Partner 62% (18) Facilitator 34% (10) Substantial Technical Assistance 59% (17) General Assistance 76% (22) Other 21% (6) Many environmental issues in the Western U S. involve water resources. In Region 8, water issues are addressed by 97 percent of the CBEP projects. In most cases, the water issues are related to land-based activities that affect water quality or quantity. Thus, land issues are addressed by 93 percent of the projects. Air issues are addressed by 34 percent of the projects. All but one of the projects that address air are multimedia projects that also address land and water issues. Cross-program teams have been established for some projects (e.g., Animas River Stakeholder Group) to enhance multimedia and interdisciplinary approaches and perspectives. 4 20 Because Region 8 focuses on water issues and ecosystem projects, many project areas are defined by watersheds. Seventy-two percent of the projects occur in specific geographic areas defined natural boundaries. Twenty-eight percent of the projects occur in general geographic areas defined by natural or political boundaries. According to CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders, the most important CBEP attribute in Region 8 is meaningful community participation in project planning and decisionmaking. Substantial local input or leadership is often essential to community acceptance of EPA projects in the Region. Government agencies (i.e., local, state, tribal, and other federal agencies) are involved in all projects, and the public is involved in 93 percent of the projects. Local community organizations participate in 86 percent of the projects. Non-governmental organizations and the private sector are involved in 72 percent and 69 percent of the projects, respectively. Community stakeholders participate in decisionmaking and execution of 69 percent of the projects. Opportunities to participate in planning and education/communication are available to community stakeholders in 83 and 90 percent of the projects, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 9, CBEP projects in Region 8 are substantially _ . . 1 , _ more likely to have ecosystem goals than nvironmental and Economic quality-of-life or human-health goals. Goals of Reg.on 8 CBEP Projects Environmental goals are often integrated Type of Goal Percentage (Number) with economic goals, which have been of Pro j ects defined for 83 percent of the projects. For Ecosystem goals 93% (27) example, economic and environmental 69% [ 20 ) goals are integrated in the Casper, Human health goals 48% (14) i Wyoming, Community Facilitation Initiative in which EPA is helping an oil company and community stakeholders reach consensus on the remediation and future use of a former refinery site. Because ecosystem goals are more prevalent than human-health or quality-of- life goals in Region 8, ecological assessments are performed much more frequently than other types of assessments. Ecosystem assessments are involved in 96 percent of the projects, but human health and socio-cultural assessments each are included in only 28 percent of the projects. Economic assessments also are relatively infrequent, being included in 28 percent of the projects Adaptive management and measures of success are less prevalent CBEP attributes in Region 8. Adaptive management was identified as an attribute of 21 percent of the projects with verified profiles. Partners in the Little Bear River Project, for example, monitor water quality and sedimentation and use the results to guide implementation of a Coordinated Resource Management Plan. Measures of success Exhibit 9 Environmental and Economic Goals of Region 8 CBEP Projects TvDe of Goal Percentage (Number! of Projects Ecosystem goals 93% (27) Economic goals 83% (24) Quality-of-life goals 69% (20) Human health goals 48% (14) are emphasized more frequently than adaptive management. Fifty-five percent of the projects have defined measures of success. The San Miguel Basin Initiative is an example of a Region 8 project with both environmental measures of success (e.g., number of acres of purple loostrife removed, number of acres of wetlands and miles of stream restored) and process measures of success (e.g., completing draft watershed plan, completing landscape assessments). 2.9 REGION 9 This report presents limited information on Region 9 CBEP activities because verified project profiles were not obtained and interviews were not conducted. In Region 9, there are many activities that are place-based and community- based. These efforts have evolved in response to different needs and requests within the Region and from external stakeholders. Appendix A includes a list of 105 CBEP projects identified by Region 9. Integration of CBEP into a variety of base programs is demonstrated by Exhibit 10, which shows that the projects are lead by eight regional divisions and program offices. Although it appears that few of the projects were initiated and designed as CBEP projects, brief project descriptions provided by the Region suggest that most of the projects have CBEP attributes. Moreover, the projects appear to be a mix of substantial direct involvement projects and capacity-building projects with minimal direct EPA involvement. ® Within the last two years, Region 9, at the direction of the Regional Administrator, began to take a broader look at opportunities to use a place-based, CBEP approach. A series of “Geographic Strategy Discussions” was held with program and field staff to explore CBEP opportunities and barriers in 13 geographic areas of the Region. Based on the results of the discussion, the Senior Management team selected a number of activities and projects for funding or enhanced support. Exhibit 10 Number of CBEP Projects Led by EPA Region 9 Divisions and Offices Division or Office Number of CBEP Projects Led* Water Division 60 Cross-Media Division 17 Superfund Division 13 Air Division 8 Waste Management Division 1 Office of Strategic Planning and Emerging Issues 4 Office of Regional Council 1 Pacific Insular Areas Program 1 8 Some projects are conducted jointly by more than one program or initiative Projects are identified under one program only to avoid double counting. 22 2.10 REGION 10 > Region 10's four place-based CBEP projects are identified in Exhibit 11 and Appendix A. Each of the projects includes numerous sub-projects. In addition to these four projects, RGI and other regional funds have been pooled to create a CBEP grant fund that supports about 10 community-led projects per year (see Section 3.2). Region 10 has a system to select geographic priority places for CBEP activities (U.S. EPA, 1998a). Potential priority places are nominated by EPA State Teams, field staff, or base program staff. Nominations are made to the State Teams, which use the Region 10 CBEP Strategy to assign qualitative scores (i.e., high, medium, low) in three areas of evaluation. Final selections are made by the EPA Executive Team. The number of priority places may vary from year to year, because available funding and staff resources support at most about five places at a time. The Region’s time commitment for direct involvement is generally about three years. Two of ) the projects (i.e., the Coeur d’Alene and Umatilla Basin CBEP projects) are led by EPA field staff stationed in the project areas. Project Leaders provided verified profiles for three of the Region 10 projects. Two of these projects (i.e., the Umatilla Basin CBEP Project and the Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative) were initiated as RGI projects. The Puget Sound Basin CBEP Project is a NEP effort initiated in the mid-1980s. All four of the place-based projects occur in areas with specific geographic boundaries. Region 10 provides significant direct involvement in its four place-based projects and is the driving force of at least two of the projects. However, because EPA’s commitment for significant direct involvement is intended to be temporary (i.e., three years), capacity-building is a component of all projects. In the Puget Sound Basin Project, EPA continues to provide significant support, but the State of Washington has replaced EPA as the primary source of funding. The Region 10 place-based projects address multiple environmental media from a holistic, ecosystem perspective. For example, among the issues addressed by the Umatilla Basin CBEP Project are the impacts of agricultural practices in the Basin on ground-water, surface-water, and air quality, as well as the relationship between the quality of environmental media and the health of the Basin’s salmon fisheries. Three of Exhibit 11 Region 10 Place-Based Projects • Coeur d’Alene Basin CBEP Project • Puget Sound Basin CBEP Project • Umatilla Basin CBEP Project • Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative 23 the projects address the relationship between land-based activities and water resources. Two of the projects also address related air quality issues. At least three Region 10 projects have ecosystem, human-health, and economic goals, and at least one project has a quality-of-life goal. Progress toward these goals is measured by assessments or environmental indicators. Long-term performance goals and measures of success are very well developed and clearly defined (e.g., in annual CBEP Progress Reports) in Region 10. The Puget Sound CBEP Project, for example, includes nine long-term goals (e.g., reopen all closed shellfish beds, eliminate liver disease in Puget Sound flatfish) and eight measures of success (e.g., trends in chemical contaminant levels in indicator species). Environmental assessments are included in at least three projects, and economic and human health assessments are included in at least two projects. In the Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative, the environmental and economic performance of alternative environmental management practices are being assessed over a five-year period. One project includes a socio¬ cultural assessment. Measures of success are defined for three of the projects. The Umatilla Basin CBEP Project is a GPRA pilot project and has particularly well developed goals, objectives, and indicators of progress. Based on the three Region 10 projects with verified profiles available, communities participate in all aspects (i.e., communication and education, planning, decision making, execution) of the Region 10 projects. Government agencies (e.g., local governments, tribal agencies, Canadian agencies), non-governmental organizations (e.g., salmon protection groups), and the public are involved in all projects. For example, EPA works with the Puget Sound Council and Puget Sound Action Team, which include representatives of all major stakeholder categories. Local community organizations and the private sector are involved in at least two of the projects. 3. NATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF CBEP ACTIVITIES ► This section presents a national characterization of CBEP activities by EPA regions based interviews with Regional CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders, and written profiles for a sample of projects. Specifically, profiles were prepared for 30 percent of the known projects (see Appendix A), and Project Leader interviews were conducted for 13 percent the projects. In addition, Regional CBEP Coordinator interviews were held for half of the regions. These data sources have been used to support the analysis presented in this section. As described in section 1.2, information was collected from six regions (i.e., Regions 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10) representing a range of CBEP approaches, geographic areas, and ecosystem types. Thus, the national-level CBEP characterization is biased toward these regions. Another limitation of the characterization presented in this section is that some data are affected by differences in the ways projects are identified in the regions. For Regions 5, 7, and 10, the projects used as units for analysis in this report each include numerous related sub-projects within a geographic area. Regions 3, 4, and 8 have more projects than Regions 5, 7, and 10, in more locations and usually with fewer sub- projects. Caution should be used in comparing statistics across regions or comparing regional characterizations to the national characterization, because projects with nested sub-projects may, for example, include more stakeholders or assessments than more narrowly-defined projects. Section 3.1 is a characterization of place-based CBEP projects, which are the primary concern of this report. Section 3.2 provides a characterization of capacity¬ building activities, but in less depth than the former analysis. In addition to the CBEP project characteristics presented in this section, CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders were asked to describe accomplishments of CBEP projects to date and the value-added of the CBEP approach. These results are presented in a separate report titled, “Community-Based Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Value-Added of EPA CBEP Projects” (U.S. EPA, 1999). 3.1 APPROACHES FOR PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.5 present and discuss general characteristics of regional CBEP implementation, which were defined in section 1.1.1. The use of specific CBEP attributes, which were defined in section 1.1.2, is characterized in section 3.1.6 i 25 3.1.1 Project Origin CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders identify potential CBEP projects from several sources, such as requests for assistance from local communities or stakeholders, referrals or requests for CBEP assistance from EPA base program staff, or from CBEP prioritization analyses (e.g., comparative risk studies). Exhibit 12 summarizes the origins of CBEP projects with verified profiles (i.e., Regions 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10). Nearly two thirds of the projects originated under EPA base programs (i.e., “another EPA program”). Less than one-third of the projects were initiated solely as CBEP projects. Ten percent of the projects were initiated outside of EPA. Exhibit 12 Origin of CBEP Projects 1 The most common sources of CBEP projects are from EPA programs that have CBEP attributes. For example, RGI is a place-based program that preceded and continues to be closely related to CBEP. Additional examples include the National Estuary Program and the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Clean Lakes Programs. Projects initiated in these programs often have been labeled as CBEP projects because they exhibit CBEP attributes. In some cases, projects initiated under these programs have benefited from the integration of additional CBEP attributes. For example, CBEP substantially elevated stakeholder involvement in planning and executing activities associated with the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP): However, there are examples where CBEP designation has not resulted in any changes in project implementation. The large percentage of CBEP projects initiated by EPA base programs or initiatives may indicate successful integration of the CBEP approach into existing Agency programs. However, it also is likely that it reflects the availability of funds in other programs to conduct projects to which CBEP can be applied. If there were line- item funding for CBEP, a higher percentage of the CBEP projects probably would be initiated under a CBEP program. 26 Methods used by EPA regions to identify and select CBEP projects were analyzed in a previous report (U.S. EPA, 1998a). As described in that report, a number of regions (e.g., Regions 3, 4, 10) have conducted or are now conducting region-wide or state-wide analyses to identify geographic areas with disproportionate risks or resources of special concern. Almost all regions have developed or are developing a specific method or criteria for selecting or prioritizing CBEP projects. For example, Region 4 is developing science-based methods for targeting priority ecosystems and urban areas. 3.1.2 Cross-Program Participation Cross-program participation is an indicator of the application of more holistic, multimedia perspectives in CBEP projects and reorientation of EPA programs for CBEP approaches. Evidence of cross-program participation includes leadership of CBEP projects by base program staff, use of cross-program or multimedia project teams, or participation of base program experts in specific CBEP activities. Although the level of cross-program participation in CBEP activities varies from region to region, all regions selected for detailed data gathering (i.e., Regions 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10) demonstrated broad cross-program participation. The other regions, especially Region 9, appear to have fairly broad program participation based on the limited information available. Regions 5, 7, and 10 have cross-program teams for each project. Regions 4 and 8 use cross-program teams for some projects. These teams may include representatives all major media and statutory programs or just the programs most closely related to the issues and goals of the projects. Cross-program participation in Region 8’s Southwestern Utah Environmental Partnership, for example, has shifted as the project has progressed and expertise needs have evolved. At various times, the project has included staff from more than eight EPA programs and initiatives (e.g, pollution prevention, underground storage tanks, drinking water protection, state assistance). Most cross-program participation involves technical and field staff (e.g, who participate in cross-program project teams). However, management support of participation can be an important factor in the success of CBEP. For example, a Region 5 Project Leader credited management support of CBEP approaches with maintaining project momentum, team involvement, and cross-program communication amid many competing projects and responsibilities. Some CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders described reluctance by base program staff or managers to contribute resources (e.g., FTEs) to CBEP activities. Especially when CBEP was a new initiative, some managers viewed CBEP as a 27 competing program tapping into their resources. However, as described by a Region 5 Project Leader, this perception has been overcome to some extent in that region as work by the CBEP Teams has advanced base-program goals and added value to existing base-program activities. 3.1.3 EPA Role EPA fills more than one role in most CBEP projects. As shown in Exhibit 13, EPA is the leader of 51 percent of the projects and is a partner in 79 percent of the projects. EPA is a facilitator in 54 percent of the projects and provides substantial technical assistance in 56 percent of the projects. EPA’s role may vary in different sub-projects or over time as the project progresses. For example, EPA often provides leadership or substantial technical assistance at the start of a project in order to build the capacity of other partners to assume leadership later in the project. The Region 5 Greater Chicago Team facilitated a Southeast Chicago Wetlands Stakeholder Group interested in preserving the area’s natural resources. Gradually, the group was expanded and transferred to state leadership under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Ecosystem Partnership. EPA successfully moved from a leadership role to a support role for state leadership. Exhibit 13 EPA Roles in CBEP Projects EPA Role Percentaae (Number) of Projects 1 Leader 51% (44) Partner 79% (69) Facilitator 54% (47) s Substantial Technical Assistance 56% (49) General Assistance 78% (68) 1 Other 13% (11) ! In some regions, EPA usually provides direct involvement and capacity-building at the same time. For example, Region 7 provides substantial direct involvement assistance in each of its initiatives. At the same time, the Region provides capacity¬ building assistance (e g., grants) to local stakeholders for locally-led sub-projects or to enhance participation in EPA-led sub-projects. 3.1.4 Project Duration CBEP projects typically last at least three years, and most are expected to last much longer. Few projects have a set duration, and many are indefinite. Several factors determine how long EPA remains involved in a project: • statutory obligations and other commitments; • progress toward project goals; 28 • capacity-building; • availability of funding; • regional policies; and • leadership. Permanent or indefinite activities required by laws or treaties sometimes are implemented as CBEP projects. For example, EPA is committed to developing LaMPs by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the CWA. Similarly, EPA participates in some projects as a signatory to interagency agreements and intergovernmental agreements. Although these obligations and agreements affect the duration of CBEP projects, EPA is not required to apply the CBEP approach to any of the projects. The duration of a project may depend on how long it will take to meet project goals. In many cases, it might take years or decades to meet project goals, because CBEP projects address environmental challenges that are difficult to resolve using EPA’s traditional approaches. For example, it may take decades to meet the goals (e.g., eliminate areas of contaminated sediments) of the Puget Sound CBEP Project (Region 10). Restoration of the Sound and attainment of goals will require a coordinated effort by many interests over a long period, because the pollution sources are many, diffuse, and subject to minimal regulatory control. Even when project goals will take years to achieve, EPA does not necessarily have to make an indefinite commitment to the project. EPA’s strategy in many projects is to provide leadership and significant direct involvement in the early stages of such projects while building the capacity of partners to assume the lead as the project progresses. The goal of the Middle Platte River Sub-basin Project (Region 7), for example, is to encourage agencies, organization, and the public to engage in comprehensive long-term watershed planning to ensure that valued features are retained. Although EPA is the driving force in convening the project, the stakeholders understand that EPA will not lead the planning effort and will phase out its involvement as others take the lead. The availability of funding affects the duration of EPA’s participation and EPA’s role in CBEP projects. Project durations are difficult for Project Leaders to predict, because most funding sources used for CBEP projects are allocated annually. Several Project Leaders anticipate continued, but reduced, EPA involvement (e g., technical support) after funding or direct involvement ends. Regional policies may affect the duration of CBEP projects. Region 5 has a policy of reviewing place-based activities annually. Specific criteria are used to evaluate whether the place-based team should continue. A team may be discontinued if the issues it was formed to address no longer exist or if EPA involvement in the project is no longer needed. None of the Region 5 teams have been discontinued. Region 10 also-has a periodic project review. EPA is not always able to control the pace or duration of projects, because it is not always the project’s driving force. Usually it is impossible to predict the duration of bottom-up projects (e g., the Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Project in Region 4), in which the priority issues, goals, and activities are decided primarily by community stakeholders. Thus, the duration of EPA’s participation in bottom-up projects may not be defined, but intended to last only until community partners attain the capacity to carry out the project on their own. 3.1.5 EPA Funding Sources All regional CBEP programs use multiple funding sources for CBEP projects. Most of the funding sources identified in project profiles and interviews are presented in Exhibit 14. Some funding sources may not be shown, because interviews and profiles were not available for all projects, and Project Leaders did not necessarily identify all sources. Moreover, funding sources for Regions 1, 2, 6, and 9 are not identified because these regions were not included in detailed data collection for this study. The Most Valuable Sources of Funding for CBEP Projects RGI is the most common funding source for CBEP projects. Many Project Leaders and CBEP Coordinators described RGI and the FY98 CBEP(NPM/RGI) Fund as particularly valuable funding sources for CBEP. Few of the available funding sources offer as much flexibility as RGI r the FY98 CBEP(NPMZRGI) Fund, and Regional Administrator discretionary funds to support the types of activities (e.g., environmental monitoring, economic assessments) and to address the range of issues (e.g., multimedia, quality-of- life) involved in CBEP. According to a Region 10 Project Leader, most of the other potential funding sources have neither the flexibility nor capacity to support the environmental monitoring efforts needed for measuring progress and documenting accomplishments. If not for these RGI, the FY98 CBEP(NPMZRGI) Fund, and other flexible funds, many of the existing CBEP projects could not have been undertaken. EPA regions use two general strategies for allocating RGI funds. Regions 5, 7, and 10 make larger allocations to fewer projects than other regions (e.g., Regions 4 and 8), which support more projects with smaller dollar allocations per project. Exhibit 14 Funding Sources Used for Regional CBEP Projects 36 Funding Source Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 7 Region 8 Region 10 Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ FY98 CBEP(NPIWRGI) Fund ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Administrator Discretionary Fund ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CWA Section 104(b)(3) (Pollution Prevention) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ d CWA Section 106 (Grants for Pollution Control Programs) ✓ ✓ CWA Section 117 (Chesapeake Bay Program) ✓ N/A c N/A N/A N/A n/a CWA Section 118 (Great Lakes Program) N/A N/A ✓ N/A N/A N/A CWA Section 311 (c) (Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability) ✓ ✓ CWA Section 314 (Clean Lakes) ✓ ✓ CWA Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Program) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CWA Section 320 (National Estuary Program) ✓ ✓ N/A N/A N/A ✓ CWA Section 604b (Planning) ✓ CAA Section 103 (State Assistance Grants) ✓ CAA Section 105 (Air Pollution Planning and Control Grants) ✓ CAA Section 112(m) (Great Waters Program) ✓ OAR . ✓ ✓ ORD ✓ OW/OWOW ✓ ✓ ✓ OPPTS ✓ ✓ RCRA ✓ ✓ ✓ Superfund ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sustainable Development Challenge Grants ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmental Justice ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmental Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ;! Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE) ✓ Environmental Monitoring for Access and Communitv Trackina fEMPACT) ✓ * Table does not include regions that were not selected for detailed information collection for this report 6 Because of data limitations, the table does not necessanly identify all funding sources used by each region. c Not applicable. 31 m The regions have supported CBEP projects with funds authorized by at least nine sections of the Clean Water Act and three sections of the Clean Air Act. Five of the CWA funds each contribute to numerous projects: • Nonpoint Source Program (CWA section 319); • National Estuary Program (CWA section 320); • Pollution Prevention (CWA section 104(b)(3)); • Great Lakes Program (CWA section 118); and • Clean Lakes Program (CWA section 314). Funding from the National Estuary Program and the Great Lakes Program are not available to all regions, but are very important sources of funding in the regions where they may be applied. The CAA funds and the other four CWA funds listed in Exhibit 14 have supported very few projects. National program funds (e g., ORD, OAR) provided directly or through allocations to regional media-based programs (e.g., Region 4 Wetlands Section) are important to specific issues or activities in CBEP projects. For example, Superfund and RCRA each has been a source of funds for several projects involving contaminated sites (e.g., brownfields). Because some Project Leaders did not identify the statutory authority for funds supporting their projects, some of the National Program funds identified in Exhibit 14 may be from CWA or CAA sections included in the Exhibit. For example, OAR funding for projects in Region 3 and 5 may have been authorized by CAA sections 103 or 105. Grants to community stakeholders are an important element of many CBEP projects. Grant programs build external capacity for CBEP and sometimes support work on environmental concerns that, in the words of one Project Leader, “fall through the cracks between EPA’s traditional stovepipe programs.” For example, Sustainable Development Challenge Grants are used for multimedia projects and projects that cut across environmental, economic, and socio-cultural issues. Environmental Education and'Environmental Justice Grants also are fairly common in CBEP projects. Because CBEP involves holistic, multimedia perspectives, it can provide a forum or framework for coordinating programmatic and grant activities and spending in an area. In the West Louisville CBEP Project (Region 4), one of EPA’s goals is to coordinate several simultaneous and independently-funded projects. Before CBEP, grant makers from EPA and other federal agencies were supporting projects in the area with no contact or coordination. The Project Leader is working to increase communication between grant makers to identify and close the gaps in funding. i 32 3.1.6 Use of CBEP Attributes The Draft CBEP Framework identifies several principles of the CBEP approach, which are referred to as CBEP attributes in this report. The CBEP attributes were defined in section 1.1.1. The use of these attributes by the EPA regions is described below. Place-Based Orientation All EPA regions are involved in several place-based CBEP projects. Seventy- nine percent of the projects address issues in areas with specific boundaries, including 57 percent with specific natural boundaries (e.g., watersheds) and 22 percent with specific political boundaries. Five percent of the projects have a combination of specific political and natural boundaries. Twenty-six percent of the projects (e.g., the Southwest Utah Environmental Partnership in Region 8) take place in general geographic areas without specific political or natural boundaries. Most projects with specific natural boundaries are based on watersheds. Other natural boundaries include estuaries, lakes, rare or unique ecosystems, or general physiographic regions (e.g., the Colorado Plateau, Southern Appalachians). Political boundaries range from specific properties (e.g., brownfield sites) to counties or planning districts. Other political boundaries include neighborhoods, municipalities, reservations, or other lands managed by governmental agencies. CBEP project areas cover a large range of sizes. The smallest project areas are contaminated sites or brownfields. The largest project areas address ecosystem-wide issues or problems. For example, the Southern Appalachian Assessment (Region 4) covers 58,437 square miles stretching from Virginia and West Virginia to Alabama. The Upper Mississippi River Initiative (Region 5) covers 198,000 square miles. Multimedia Approach Project Leaders were asked to identify whether their projects address air, water, or land issues. A majority of the projects (i.e., 76 percent) address more than one environmental medium, and 40 percent of the projects address all three media. About one-quarter of the projects address just one medium. Water issues are addressed by almost all (i.e., 94 percent) projects. Land issues are addressed by 77 percent of the projects, and air issues are addressed by 45 percent of the projects. Based on the information provided by the project profiles, it appears that a majority of the projects use multimedia perspectives and approaches. However, Project Leader interviews indicated that many projects that address more than one medium are 33 predominantly concerned with a single medium (usually water). Projects that address more than one environmental medium are not necessarily multimedia projects as conceptualized in the Draft CBEP Framework. For example, in some projects (e.g., the Great Plains Program in Region 7) air and water quality issues are addressed independently in separate sub-projects. The Draft CBEP Framework, on the other hand, emphasizes that CBEP projects should address ecosystem-level issues that cut across EPA’s traditional media-based programs and cannot be addressed by any single program working alone. Nonetheless, CBEP is one of the few platforms within EPA for conducting multimedia projects, and several good examples of such projects were evident in the Project Leader interviews. For example, among the issues addressed by the Umatilla Basin CBEP project (Region 10) are the impacts of agricultural practices (e.g., tillage, nutrient application) on ground-water and surface-water quality, air quality (i.e., dust from cultivation practices), and fisheries habitats (e.g., siltation, water quality). At the same time, the project evaluates the impact of adopting alternative agricultural practices on the sustainability of agricultural community. Agricultural impacts also are addressed in a holistic fashion by the Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative (Region 10), which includes a five-year study of the environmental and economic performance of alternative agricultural practices. Most multimedia CBEP projects address the relationships between surface water quality or quantity and land-based activities. For example, the Kansas River Watershed Project (Region 7) and the Big Dry Creek Partnership (Region 8) both address surface water impacts related to non-point sources in watersheds. Problems at the interface of air and other media (e.g., deposition of air pollutants) are addressed in some CBEP projects. Further communication from EPA Headquarters about the meaning of multimedia projects would be helpful. In interviews, a number of Project Leaders understood multimedia to mean multi-program (e.g., they identified media involved as Air program, Superfund, RCRA, etc.). Inclusion of Stakeholder and Community Participation The term stakeholder, as used in this report, means interested organizations (e.g., governments, businesses, environmental and community groups) and their representatives. Interested citizens not affiliated with an organized stakeholder group are referred to as public/communities. The CBEP approach emphasizes participation by organized stakeholders and the broader public. In this report, public/communities are considered a distinct stakeholder group. More than any other attribute, stakeholder/community participation was identified by CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders as the most important attribute of CBEP projects. In particular, CBEP helps EPA to address issues that are priorities to the local community and gives local stakeholders meaningful input into project planning and decision making. In-depth participation leads to better awareness about local resources and environmental problems, encourages a sense of project “ownership” by the community, and contributes to successful implementation. EPA generally works on CBEP projects with several stakeholders. A new committee or workgroup (e.g., the Charleston/North Charleston Community Advisory Group (CAG) in Region 4) may be organized to bring CBEP stakeholders together regularly. In some cases, stakeholders come together in a preexisting organization. For example, stakeholder cooperation for the Upper Mississippi River Initiative (Region 5) is conducted through the Mississippi River Basin Association, a preestablished group supported by state governments. Whether newly-created or not, stakeholder workgroups are the primary forums for exchange and coordination among stakeholders. Exhibit 15 summarizes stakeholder participation in the 87 CBEP projects with verified profiles. Caution should be used in comparing these results to the results in the regional summaries in section 2, because regions that have few projects with multiple sub-projects show higher numbers of stakeholders per project than regions with many, narrowly-focussed projects. All major stakeholder groups Exhibit 15 commonly participate in CBEP Percentage of CBEP Projects with projects. Governmental agencies Participation by Major Stakeholder Groups other than EPA are the most ----- l common stakeholders; they are stakeholder Group Percentage of Pro j ects involved in essentially all CBEP LocalCommUnity Organizations 92%° projects. State and local Non-governmental Organizations 82% governments are involved usually, Private Sector 84% other federal agencies are involved Public/Communities 94% frequently, tribes and Canadian governmental agencies are involved occasionally. For example, Region 7 is working with 26 Native American tribes in the Mni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights Initiative. Local community organizations, such as neighborhood groups or civic associations, are involved in more than 90 percent of the projects. Non-governmental organizations (e.g., nonprofit environmental groups) are usually involved (i.e., in 82 percent of the projects). Private sector stakeholders (e.g., responsible parties, potentially affected businesses) also participate in more than 84 percent of the projects. Exhibit 15 Percentage of CBEP Projects with Participation by Major Stakeholder Groups Stakeholder Grouo Percentaae of Projects Government 100% Local Community Organizations 92% Non-governmental Organizations 82% Private Sector 84% Public/Communities 94% 35 d The public/communities participate in almost all projects. However, with many important exceptions, the general public tends to be less involved than other stakeholder groups. For example, organized stakeholder groups participate in planning and executing projects more frequently than public/communities. Some Project Leaders said that the public under-utilizes opportunities for participation unless there already is a high level of concern or controversy about an issue (e.g., related to facility siting). When opportunities to participate are available, the public may be less inclined than professional representatives of stakeholder groups to participate because they are unaware of the opportunities, are unable to attend meetings (especially daytime meetings), or have less interest in or familiarity with the issues (particularly technical issues). However, the public/communities are very involved in or even the driving force behind many CBEP projects. In the Greater Chicago Initiative, for example, individuals and small (e.g., less than 7 people) neighborhood groups are sometimes the most active and enthusiastic partners. Landowners also are critical participants in several projects. For example, farmers are experimenting with management practices to conserve soil or reduced nutrient runoff. In general, the level of community/public participation decreases as the degree of involvement required for that participation increases. Exhibit 16 shows the percentage of projects with community participation in increasing degrees of involvement. Participation in communication and education usually requires less involvement (e.g., less time spent, less personal commitment to outcomes) than participation in decision making and project execution. Communities participate in communication and education (e.g., attending public meetings or outreach events) in more than 90 percent of the projects. Exhibit 16 Forms of Community Participation in CBEP Projects Stakeholder Role Percentaae of Projects Communication and Education 94% Involvement in Planning 84% Involvement in Decision Making 67% 1 Involvement in Execution 62% ! A goal of the CBEP approach is to provide communities with more meaningful involvement in solving environmental problems than is provided by traditional means of public participation (e.g., submitting comments, speaking at hearings). Project profiles indicated that CBEP projects include communities in planning, decisionmaking, and project execution. According to the project profiles, which were verified by Project Leaders, communities helped to plan 84 percent of the projects. More than 60 percent of the projects included communities in decisionmaking and project execution. Because some Project Leaders might not have distinguished between public/communities and other stakeholder groups, some project profiles probably 36 referred to participation by all stakeholder groups (e g., local government officials). Thus, our project survey may have overestimated the general public’s participation in CBEP projects. Environmental Goals All CBEP projects have at least one environmental goal, and most have several environmental goals. The goals usually are defined early in the project. Almost all goals are qualitative; quantitative goals are uncommon. Exhibit 17 summarizes the frequency of environmental goals in CBEP projects. The most frequent type of environmental goals is ecosystem goals, followed by quality-of-life and human-health goals. Examples of environmental goals are presented in Exhibit 18. Some goals fit more than one category (e.g., human health and quality-of-life). Exhibit 17 Environmental Goals of CBEP Projects Environmental Goal Percent of Projects Ecosystem goals 87% Quality-of-life goals 66% Human health goals 63% Exhibit 18 Examples of Environmental Goals in CBEP Projects Ecosystem Goals • Reopen closed shellfish beds • Protect or restore threatened or damaged ecosystems (e.g., high alpine wetlands, Indiana Dunes) • Control soil erosion • Reduce eutrophication as indicated by chlorophyl concentrations Human-Health Goals • Reduce blood lead levels • Improve air quality • Develop effective educational materials on lead or asbestos • Develop a model ordinance to help communities protect drinking water supplies from septic systems Quality-of-Life Goals • Restore abandoned buildings and brownfields • Control illegal solid waste dumping • Provide open space As described below under Adaptive Management and Measures of Success, development of clearly stated and quantitative goals may be increasing at EPA. Influences such as the Draft CBEP Framework, CBEP measures pilot projects in Regions 4 and 5, and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) are 37 encouraging Project Leaders to develop goal statements and measures of success with their partners. Environmental indicators are under development for several projects, and some projects (e.g., the Umatilla Basin CBEP Project in Region 10) have been selected as GPRA pilots. In the CBEP measures pilot projects in Regions 4 and 5, EPA is developing and evaluating measures of success for three categories of CBEP performance: activities implementing CBEP, external capacity-building, and outcomes (including environmental, economic, and socio-cultural results). Results of the pilots will help to establish a core set of activities measures and example capacity-building and outcome measuresfor use in other CBEP projects. Economic and Social Well-Being Goals Because environmental management decisions usually have economic and social consequences, a goal of CBEP is to solve environmental problems in ways that also contribute to a healthy economy and social well-being. Seventy-seven percent of the CBEP projects with verified profiles have economic and/or social well-being goals, most of which are integrated with environmental goals. For example, pollution in Puget Sound has caused shellfish beds to be closed, which in turn resulted in significant economic impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. The Puget Sound Basin CBEP Project (Region 10) is working to control sources of pollution, with the reopening closed shellfish beds as a goal. Recovery of the shellfish beds will simultaneously benefit the health of the Puget Sound ecosystem, reduce human health risks from eating shellfish, and revive an important segment of the regional economy. Several beds were reopened in 1998. Assessments The Draft CBEP Framework promotes science-based decisionmaking in CBEP projects. In particular, environmental, human health, or socio-cultural assessment are encouraged for use in prioritizing areas or problems, setting goals, evaluating potential solutions, and measuring results. At least one of these types of assessments is included in 90 percent of the CBEP projects. As shown in Exhibit 19, ecological assessments are more common than the other types of assessment. Human health assessments are included in less than half of the projects. Economic and socio-cultural assessments are included in less than one third of the projects. Eight percent of the projects surveyed do not indue' assessments. Exhibit 19 Assessments in CBEP Projects TvDe of Assessment Percentaae of Projects Ecological Assessment 82% Human Health Assessment 40% Economic Assessment 30% Socio-Cuttural Assessment 28% No Assessments 8% $ Many different kinds of assessments have been performed for CBEP projects. Ecological assessments may consist of ecological risk assessments, air or water quality monitoring programs (e g., air pollutant monitoring for the Tri-State Initiative in Region 4), wildlife surveys, or comparative studies of impacts from agricultural management practices (e.g., for the Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative in Region 10). Examples of human health assessments include risk assessments, blood lead testing, experiments involving asthma patients (e.g., the Philadelphia Asthma Promoters Project in Region 3), and informal health surveys. Economic assessments are generally integrated with other types of assessments. For example, the Upper Mississippi Initiative (Region 5) includes a natural resource assessment that estimated economic resource values. In many cases, economic assessment appears to be loosely defined. A socio-cultural assessment is being conducted as part of the Northwest Indiana Initiative (Region 5). In particular, the Quality-of-life Council is conducting a statistical survey to identify baseline attitudes about the quality-of-life in the area. Results of the survey will be used with quality-of-life indicators to measure progress and to direct future policy decisions (i.e., adaptive management). Environmental and economic assessments are sometimes integrated. For example, the Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative (Region 10) includes a five-year study of the environmental and economic performance of alternative agricultural practices. The purpose of the assessment is to identify and demonstrate to area growers alternative practices that are both environmentally and economically sustainable. Few projects were selected as CBEP projects based on such assessments. Usually, assessments are funded as part of the project to determine the scope of problems, evaluate solutions, or measure results. In some cases, the primary goal of the project is to conduct an assessment. For example, the Southern Appalachian Assessment (Region 4) was a cooperative effort by numerous participants to evaluate the health of the region’s ecosystems and the quality of its air, water, and land resources. In addition to identifying potentially serious current problems and trends, the assessment provides a wealth of quality environmental data to assist resource managers throughout the region. Like many other assessments, the Southern Appalachian Assessment used a geographic information system (GIS) for data analysis and communication of results. Adaptive Management Adaptive management is not yet widely used in CBEP projects. According to Project Leaders, one-third of the projects involve some form of adaptive management. 39 Project Leaders were less familiar with adaptive management than other CBEP attributes. Adaptive management has been used for years in the National Estuary Program, which overlaps CBEP in places such as Puget Sound (Region 10) and Mobile Bay (Region 4). In particular, continuous research and monitoring of conditions at NEP sites provides information for biennial reporting to Congress and periodic revisions to Estuary Management Plans. For example, the Puget Sound Management Plan has been updated in two year intervals since it was first prepared in the late 1980s. Revisions to the management plan incorporate new data about the problems in the Sound and progress toward existing goals. Measures of Success Approximately 60 percent of the CBEP projects with verified profiles have defined measures of success. Increasingly, indicators are being developed to evaluate the success of CBEP activities (e.g., Region 4 and 5 CBEP measures pilots). Process indicators (e.g., identify environmental concerns in the community) are slightly more common than indicators of environmental results (e.g., rates of phosphorus loading to West Point Lake in Region 4). As an example, the Northeast Ohio Initiative (Region 5) currently is developing indicators for project goals as part of a CBEP measures pilot project. The indicators will follow the guidance of the Draft CBEP Framework (U.S. EPA, 1998b) by including three categories of indicators: CBEP activities, environmental results, and sustainability. Some Project Leaders explained that indicators or measures of success have not been developed or implemented because of resource limitations (e.g., resources to fund monitoring programs). For example, environmental indicators have been defined for the Greater Chicago Initiative (Region 5), but have not been used because resources are not available for reporting. In some cases, existing data may be useful for measuring success. For the Lake Michigan Initiative (Region 5), for example, EPA is supporting a project by the Great Lakes Commission to identify existing monitoring efforts that could be used for the proposed indicators. The first step inmost projects is to bring stakeholders together to discuss shared priorities, gdals, and objectives. Because this process usually takes some time, specific environmental measures of success may not be defined until the project is fairly well established. Without specified goals and measures of success (process and environmental results) it can be difficult for EPA or any stakeholder to sustain a long¬ term commitment to the project. 3.2 APPROACHES FOR EXTERNAL CAPACITY-BUILDING The purpose of external capacity-building is to enable communities to solve environmental problems and pursue sustainability with little or no direct EPA involvement. EPA’s primary means of external capacity-building are to supply data and information, training and technical assistance, or grants. However, as described in the Draft CBEP Framework, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish capacity-building activities from direct involvement. For example, EPA can provide training to local Project Leaders on facilitation and stakeholder participation techniques while still serving as an active stakeholder in the project. According to Region 5’s CBEP Coordinator, capacity-building can be identified “based on the degree of involvement, the types of relationships that have been established, and the kind of [organizational] structures.” External capacity-building is a component of CBEP activities in all regions, but approaches differ among the regions. In particular, capacity-building may be used: • As a component of EPA direct involvement in place-based projects; • As a second type of place-based project in which there is very little or no direct involvement by EPA; • As a non-place-based activity; or • As a combination of any of the above. All of the regions use capacity-building as a component of EPA involvement in placa-based projects. The purpose of capacity-building in these projects is to enhance the capabilities and roles of participating stakeholders. If the project is expected to continue after EPA’s direct involvement ends, capacity-building is a way to ensure that the stakeholders will be able to sustain the project without relying on EPA. Place-based projects that are entirely or primarily capacity-building with little . direct EPA staff involvement occur in Regions 4, 8, and 10, but not in Regions 5 or 7. The Little Bear River project in Region 8 is an example of a place-based project that is strictly capacity-building. EPA supports the project with nonpoint source program funds (i.e., CWA section 319) provided to the State of Utah. Although EPA is not directly involved in executing the project, many CBEP attributes are used (e.g., meaningful stakeholder involvement, ecosystem and multimedia perspectives, monitoring of results). Place-based capacity-building projects in Regions 4 and 8 are included in the projects listed in Appendix A. Region 10 provides capacity-building grants for about 10 41 projects each year, which are not identified in Appendix A. The Region uses a portion ^ of its RGI, pollution prevention, wetlands, nonpoint source, and other funds to create a CBEP grant fund. Small grants are made to communities for CBEP activities (e g., forming organizations, performing assessments). The Region is not directly involved in these activities. Not all capacity-building activities are targeted to a specific place. For example, EPA may provide information, tools, or assistance that can be used by any community that works to solve problems on its own. For example, Region 3 prepared the Green Communities Assistance Kit , which provides instructions on how to identify and resolve local environmental problems using CBEP attributes. Region 8 developed an Internet web page that describes grant programs available for community-based projects. Although the regions use capacity-building in different ways, its meaning, purpose, and value are well known to CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders. However, most regions appear to plan direct involvement activities more deliberately and strategically than capacity-building activities at the regional and project levels. i 4. CONCLUSIONS This report evaluates CBEP implementation by the EPA regions based on project data and Project Leader interviews for a sample of projects. Data gathering and interviews were concentrated on five Regions (i.e., Regions 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10). In addition, project data, but no interviews, were available for Region 3. Limited information was gathered for Regions 1, 2, 6, and 9. Thus, the conclusions presented below may reflect CBEP activities in some regions more than others. The CBEP approach is being recognized and implemented as a new way of solving environmental problems — EPA’s ten regions have used CBEP approaches in more than 300 place-based projects. Hundreds of communities and thousands of stakeholders participate in CBEP projects. For many participants, CBEP has introduced new ways of relating to the environment (e.g., ecosystem perspectives), relating to and working with other stakeholders, and solving environmental problems. In addition, many stakeholders are learning environmental management concepts such as adaptive management and the use of environmental indicators. These ideas are being put into practice in new organizations and institutions (e.g., stakeholder roundtables). The CBEP approach is being adopted throughout EPA, but further work is needed to reorient base programs for CBEP — All of EPA’s major offices and programs participate directly in CBEP projects, and nearly two thirds of the current CBEP projects were initiated under other EPA programs or initiatives. In some regions, cross-program CBEP teams facilitate coordination of EPA activities in priority places and enable EPA to better address the concerns of local stakeholders. Although progress has been made integrating CBEP into EPA’s base programs, further work is needed to overcome perceptions of CBEP as a competing program or as merely a method of outreach and communication. CBEP implementation is still evolving — The Draft CBEP Framework, GPRA, and other factors are increasing attention on goal setting, measures of success, and science-based decisionmaking in CBEP projects. In addition, some regions are developing methods to prioritize and select among possible CBEP projects. These developments are likely to be more evident in regional CBEP activities in the future. CBEP projects build external capacity for environmental problem solving, but additional planning of capacity-building may be needed in some regions — All regions include external capacity-building (e.g., by providing information, training, or grants) in CBEP activities. However, approaches differ among the regions and some regions are more deliberate than others in planning capacity-building activities. For example, some regions have developed resources (e.g., Internet resources, guidebooks, grant programs) to build capacity in places where EPA cannot be directly involved. 43 Few regions have policies regarding the duration of EPA’s commitment to CBEP projects — As discussed in section 3.1.4 several factors influence the duration of CBEP projects, and it is difficult for most EPA Project Leaders to estimate how long EPA will remain involved in projects. CBEP projects often address difficult environmental problems that may take years to solve. Moreover, goals and approaches for solving the problems usually are developed as part of the project and cannot be prescribed by EPA at the start of a project. However, criteria, policies, or review procedures are used in some regions to encourage external capacity-building and promote efficient allocation of the limited resources available for CBEP projects. Certain funding sources are particularly valuable for CBEP activities — CBEP projects are supported by more than two dozen sources of EPA funding. However, some important elements of CBEP (e.g., multimedia approaches, environmental monitoring, ecological and socio-cultural assessments) are eligible for few of the available funding sources. RGI, FY98 CBEP(NPM/RGI) Fund, Regional Administrator discretionary funds, and Sustainable Development Challenge Grants, are the most versatile of the available funding sources. Many Regional CBEP Coordinators and Project Leaders emphasized the importance of these funding sources to their work. CBEP implementation is influenced by and responsible to regionally- important environmental problems, significant resources, and cultural factors — Regional characteristics affect the kinds of issues, approaches, and resources involved in CBEP projects. For example, air quality and urban issues are involved in more CBEP projects in the eastern regions than in the western regions. Issues involving agriculture, particularly its impacts on water resources, are particularly common in the Great Plains and western states. Ecosystem issues are more prevalent than human health issues in the west. Regionally-important resources (e.g., the Great Lakes in Region 5, the Chesapeake Bay in Region 3, the Kansas and Platte Rivers in Region 7) usually are the subject of CBEP projects. Thus, CBEP is playing a role in the management of many nationally-significant natural resources. In some cases, EPA funding sources (e.g., National Estuary Program, Great Lakes Program) associated with nationally- significant resources are important to regional CBEP programs. Many Project Leaders in the western regions described a pervasive distrust of EPA by community stakeholders and a hesitance to become involved in EPA projects. Because of this cultural issue, the western regions (especially Regions 6 and 8) emphasize local or state leadership of CBEP rather than EPA leadership. CBEP has been highly effective in changing local attitudes about EPA in many western communities. Examples of this benefit of CBEP are presented in Community-Based Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Value-Added of EPA CBEP Projects (U S. EPA, 1999). 44 Community/stakeholder participation is considered to be the most important CBEP attribute — Overwhelmingly, Project Leaders and Regional CBEP Coordinators identified community and stakeholder participation as the most important reason CBEP projects differ from EPA’s traditional activities. Each of the major stakeholder group categories evaluated in this report participates in at least 80 percent of the 87 CBEP projects studied in detail. Moreover, the CBEP approach provides the stakeholders with opportunities for meaningful participation in project planning, decisionmaking, and execution. However, interested citizens have fewer opportunities for meaningful participation than representatives of organized stakeholder groups. Most CBEP projects incorporate many CBEP attributes, but certain attributes are less evident than others — Large percentages of CBEP projects include the following CBEP attributes: • Place-based orientation; • Stakeholder involvement; • Environmental, economic, and socio-cultural goals; and • Assessments. The widespread use of these attributes indicates that CBEP is being implemented in a manner consistent with the Draft CBEP Framework. However, adaptive management and measures of success are not included as frequently as other CBEP attributes. This may be due to the fact that most projects are in the early stages of implementation. Also, many Project Leaders were unfamiliar with adaptive management. Although a high percentage of the projects address multiple environmental media, some of the projects use media-specific sub-projects instead of holistic multimedia approaches. The use of adaptive management, multimedia approaches, and measures of success in CBEP could be enhanced by further guidance to Project Leaders and partners. CBEP attributes are not always added to projects that were started under other EPA programs — A large percentage of the projects identified as CBEP projects by the regions were initiated under other EPA programs and initiatives, especially under programs or initiatives that already have CBEP attributes. In some cases, little has been done to add CBEP attributes to those projects. One of the most important conclusions of our survey of regional CBEP projects is that CBEP produces environmental results and adds value to EPA’s base program activities — EPA Project Leaders were asked to describe the accomplishments and value-added of their projects. A few examples of the accomplishments and value-added of CBEP are described in this report. However, these subjects are discussed in greater detail in a separate report, Community-Based 45 Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Value-Added of EPA CBEP Projects (U.S. EPA, 1999). 46 I 5. REFERENCES U S. EPA, 1999. Community-Based Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Value-Added of EPA CBEP Projects. Prepared for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Prepared by ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA. January 1999. U S. EPA, 1998a. Targeting Regional Priority Places: Community-based Environmental Protection (CBEP) - Identifying and Selecting Priority Places and Projects. Prepared for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Prepared by ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA. December 1998. U.S. EPA, 1998b. EPA’s Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection. Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April 1998 Draft. U.S. EPA, 1997a. EPA Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC. September 1997. EPA/190/R-97/002 U.S. EPA, 1997b. Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and Communities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/320/B-96/003 47 . . I; ■ APPENDIX A PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS IN EPA REGIONS APPENDIX A PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS IN EPA REGIONS Project Leader Interview Verified Profile a> E (TJ O at 'o' k. Q. Buzzards Bay Boston (urban initiative) Charles River Rumney March Long Island Sound Norwalk River Watershed Salmon Falls Casco Bay: Royal River Watershed Casco Bay: Capisic Brook Watershed Quinnipiac River Watershed Hartford (urban initiative) Great Bay and the Seacoast Pawcatuck River Watershed Providence (urban initiative) Lake Champlain Upper Connecticut River TJ 0) ■C in »— JU ra £ o m o o X Shawsheen Watershed Upper Naragansett Bay San Juan Estuary CD > CO 'c < CO < cr CL c o z Bareloneta/Manati MMAPP Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) Brownfields I Long Island Sound CL CL < >> c 3 O O c a> ■o E CO O u. a) > ra i_ CO CD ro Z Lake Ontario : Lake Champlain f Lake Onondaga NYC Watershed/Filtration Determination j Asthma Intervention Initiative in the South Bronx ! CD O CL i_ 0) > £K c o to TJ 3 I Rochester Brownfields 1 Buffalo Brownfields NYC Brownfields Project Number - CN CO T to CO r- CO CD o T“ CN CO T~ to CO i'- 00 CD - CN CO O' CO CO r-~ 00 CD o T— t— CN CO ^— to CD T— Region T— - - T— ^— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CM CN CM CM CM CM CM CN CN CM CM CN CM CN CM CM Page 1 of 9 1/28/99 APPENDIX A PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS IN EPA REGIONS Project Leader Interview - Verified Profile or E a : 2 . ■: O m T CL Rome Brownfields Niagara Falls Brownfields Elmira Brownfields Glen Cove Brownfields Westchester County Nitrogen Reduction Jamaica Bay Finger Lakes Initiative Hudson River Estuary South Shore Estuary GM-Massena, Alcoa, and Reynolds Superfund Site Buffalo River Remedial Action Plan Eighteen Mile Creek Remedial Action Plan Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan St Lawrence River at Massena Remedial Action Plan Oswego River Remedial Action Plan Niagara River Remedial Action Plan Delaware Estuary Bamegat Estuary Perconic Bay Estuary Hackensack Meadowlands Special Area Management Plan Ironbound, Newark Trenton Brownfields Jersey City Brownfields Newark Brownfields Elizabeth Brownfields Camden Brownfields Perth Amboy Lipari Landfill Superfund Site Liberty Industrial Finishing Superfund Site, Farmingdale Radium Sites, Essex County Ciba-Geigy, Toms River Whippany River Passaic River New York/New Jersey Harbor Anacostia Ecosystem Initiative Project Number CO CT> 20 CM 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CO 32 33 34 35 CD CO 37 GO CO o> CO 40 ■ a ax ? CL Baltimore Uiban Environmental Initiative South/Southwest Philadelphia Environmental & Health Characterization Study Chesapeake Bay Program Maryland Coastal Bays National Estuary Program Delaware Estuary Program Delaware Inland Bays Program Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed Project Barton, Maryland, Community Improvement Project City of York, PA Northeastern Pennsylvania soil Remediation/AMD Project Philadelphia Asthma Marjol Battery (Lead Education and Outreach in Throop, PA) RCRA Public Participation ACT/ACF Comprehensive Study Chattahoochee River Modeling Project Flint River Advanced Identification Project Lake Allatoona Clean Lakes Project Lake Lanier Clean Lakes Project Lake Weiss Clean Lakes Project Lake West Point Clean Lakes Project Atlanta Urban Initiative Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Project Belhaven Minority Community Wellhead Protection Study Carteret County Wetlands Planning | Brunswick/Glynn County Waste Project 1 Brunswick/Glynn County Air Initiative iCahaba River Basin Watershed Project | Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Project Icharlotte Harbor National Estuary Project Chattanooga Air Toxics Project Flint Creek Watershed Project | Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Project Louisville/West Louisville Project | Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem Restoration Initiative Pesticides, Asbestos, and Lead (PAL) Project Project Number CN CD D- CD CO r- CO CT> o - cr TJ d) cr |San Miguel Basin Initiative Project Number T to CO r- QO o o T— - CM CO T— CM CO O' to co r- - CM CO ■o to CO i-- oo CD o - CM CO ■'T un CD D~- 00 Region CO co co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO r~- r» t"- r>» t'- d- CO oo 00 OO 00 QO 00 oo 00 CO 00 00 oo 00 co CO OO OO Page 5 of 9 1/28/99 APPENDIX A PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS IN EPA REGIONS Project Leader Interview Verified Profile & E 2 u d> 'o' k. CL Southwestern Utah Environmental Partnership- Wash County & Cedar Valley GW Quality Studies Animas River Stakeholders Group Upper Arkansas River Watershed Council Upper Missouri River Basin Bad River, SD Denver, S Platte Initiative Casper Community Initiative Murray Smelter Uintah Basin Partnership Grand Staircase Escalante Economic Partnership Headwaters Cooperative Recycling Project, MT Marty Indian School East Laramie County Big Thompson Watershed Forum Big Dry Creek Partnership Southeast Weld Soil Conservation PollyAcrylamide Demo project San Luis Valley - TNC CED Project West Jordan Brownfield Initiative Kootanai River Network Fruit Growers Reservoir project Clark Fork River Network North Metro Industrial Council James Creek Initiative 2002 Winter Olympics Pegasus/Zortman Mining Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ICLEI - Cities for Climate Protection Los Angeles Air Quality Minerec Mining Chemicals Pollution Prevention Through Transportation and Resource Efficiency San Joaquin Valley Regional PM 10 Air Quality Study Solutions for the Environment & Economic Development (SEED Project) Ward Valley Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting Americorps Neighborhood Improvement Project Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) Project Number CD T— 02 CM 22 cn CM 24 25 26 27 28 CD CM 30 CO 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ■'T 42 43 - CM CO T CO CO I s - 00 CD o T— Region oo oo OO CO oo oo QO oo oo 00 00 00 oo oo 00 OO 00 00 00 OO OO oo OO oo oo CD CT> CD (D CD CD CD CD CD CD APPENDIX A PLACE-BASED CBEP PROJECTS IN EPA REGIONS > Project Leader Interview - Verified Profile 0> £ 2 +* u V o' L. Q. California Indian Basketweavers/Pesticides Exposure Direct Marketing Opportunities to Encourage P2 in Agriculture and Community Integrated Pest Management and Border Schools Lompoc Pesticide Drift Lompoc Reduced Risk: Pesticide Management Demonstration Project Pesticide Reduction in Schools Risk Reduction and Innovation in Pest Management Sustainable Neighborhood Design US/Mexico Border Lead Education Project Watsonville Environmental Justice Pilot Project Watsonville Pesticide Drift West Oakland Environmental Justice Pilot Project SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/BIFS-Biologically Integrated Farming Systems SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/BIOS-Biologically Integrated Orchard System SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/Grasslands & Lower San Joaquin Watershed Green Business Program Green Business: Bay Area Program XLC - Anaheim, CA Brownfields: East Palo Alto Cooperative Agreement Brownfields: Emeryville, CA Brownfields: Los Angeles, CA Brownfields: Navajo Nation Brownfields: Oakland, CA Brownfields: Richmond, CA Brownfields: Sacramento, CA Brownfields: San Francisco, CA Brownfields: Stockton, CA j j McFarland, CA | Puna Geothermal Workgroup ! Verdese Carter Park & Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program ! Coyote Creek Watershed Project Hualapai Tribe Jobs Through Recycling Grant Los Angeles Urban Resources Partnership Kettleman City, CA Los Angeles Shares/Long Beach Naval Shipyard Project Number - 0\l T— in CD r-'- CO T— CD ^— 20 CM CM CM 23 T CM 25 CD CM 27 CO CM 29 30 CO 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 45 £ o By E w 2 ■ 4 -* a a> o' CL Quechan Paper Recycling Santa Clara Voluntary Industrial Pollution Prevention Project South Phoenix P2 Project for Metal Finishers South West Phoenix EJ Project Forest Ecosystem Initiative Forest Ecosystem Initiative Subproject: Eel River Animal Waste Pollution Forest Ecosystem Initiative Subproject: Northwest Forest Plan Improvement Forest Ecosystem Initiative: Coastal Salmon Natural Communities He eia Coastal Restoration Project Honolua Bay-Mokuleia Bay Special Project Monterey Bay Sanctuary: Water Quality Project Mexicali Wastewater Treatment Tijuana-South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant Morro Bay National Estuary Program Ala Wai Canal Watershed Improvement Project Ballona Creek Watershed Benson Non Point Source Management Zone Carson River: Lower Carson River CRMP Carson River: Middle Carson River CRMP Carson River: Upper Carson River Watershed Plan Clear Lake Watershed Management Project Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Gila River (Gila Monster) Watershed Mgmt Zone Holbrook NPS Management Zone Kanaha Pond Project Los Angeles River Watershed Manawainui Watershed Implementation Project Lower Malibu Creed and Lagoon Monterey Bay: Pajaro River Watershed Water Resources Management Plan Monterey Bay: Salinas River Watershed Project Nogales/Mexican Border Saint George NPS Management Zone San Diego Bay Interagency Water Quality Panel San Luis Obispo Creek Project Number 46 47 00 ■'T 49 60 CO CM in 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 09 5 CM CD 63 - CD CD CD 05 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 05 CD CD 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 CD CT> CD m Page 8 o < Q 2 UJ Q. Q. < (/) h O UJ ”5 o £ Q. Q. UJ CQ O Q LU (/) < CD I UJ O Project Leader Interview j - 38 Verified Profile 87 * Project Name San Luis Rey River Watershed Santa Clara River Watershed Santa Margarita River Watershed Project Upper Pit River Watershed Enhancement and Protection Project Verde River Non Point Source Watershed Management Zone Walker River Watershed Technical Network West Maui Watershed Management Project Trukee River Watershed: Economic Incentives Program to Manage Water Quality SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/American Farmland Trust SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/CALFED SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/Cosumnes River SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/Linking Vineyards with Vernal Pool SF Bay Delta/Delta & Central Valley/ Sacramento Wetlands Planning SF Bay Delta/Mt. Diablo Ecosystem Initiative/Almeda Creek Watershed SF Bay Delta/Mt. Diablo Ecosystem Initiative/Panoche Silver Creek SF Bay Delta/North Bay Forum SF Bay Delta/ North Bay Forum/San Pablo Baylands Partnership SF Bay Delta/North Bay Forum/SF Bay Habitat Joint Venture SF Bay Delta/North Bay Forum/"Arundo Del Norte": Control of Non-indigenous Plants Third Creek Watershed Restoration Truckee River Watershed Lower River Restoration & Stewardship Truckee River Watershed Steamboat Creek Restoration Plan & Projects Wildcat Creek Environmental Restoration HassoGuam Coeur d'Alene Basin Puget Sound Umatilla Basin Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative Project Number CO 82 CD 00 84 • 85 CD CO 87 88 89 06 05 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 66 100 ^— O 102 103 104 105 T— CM CD d- 309 Region cn a> cd cn cn cn cn cn cn O) cn cn cn cn 05 CD CD cn cn CD cn CD cn cn cn O O o o Total Page 9 of 9 1/28/99 APPENDIX B CBEP PROJECT PROFILE TEMPLATE j 3! ■ ’ ' '• “• * Project Name Project Description: EPA Contact: Name Program/Division Phone: Other EPA Programs involved: Project Duration: Sources of EPA Funding: EPA Role: (circle all the categories that apply) 1. Lead 2. Partner 3. Facilitator (ongoing) 4. Substantial Technical Assistance (e.g., conducting analyses) 5. General Assistance (e.g., funding for a technical study, educational materials, training for a community and to support a watershed coordinator; and providing data and information to a planning council) 6. Other (please explain): Project can be characterized as: (circle the appropriate category) a. Started as a CBEP project (designed with CBEP attributes) b. Project initiated under_EPA program or initiative (please name) . c. Project initiated under the_EPA program or initiative (please name), but has many CBEP attributes d. Project initiated under the_EPA program or initiative (please name) and CBEP attributes were added e. Project initiated by __EPA program or entity outside EPA (please name) Please circle all the elements of the following CBEP attributes that apply to the project: CBEP Attributes 1. Place-based orientation 2. Multimedia approach 3. Stakeholders 4. Community participation 5. Environmental goals 6. Economic and social well-being goals 7. Assessments 8. Adaptive management 9 Measures of success Elements 1. Not stated 2. General geographic area identified based on political and natural boundaries 3. Specific geographic area identified based on political boundaries 4. Specific geographic area identified based on natural boundaries 1. Air 2. Water 3. Land 1. Government agencies (federal, state, local & tribal) 2. Local community organizations 3. Non-governmental organizations 4. Private sector (businesses, industries, etc.) 5. Public (individuals, landowners, etc) 1. None 2. Communication & education 3. Involvement in planning 4. Involvement in decision making 5. Involvement in execution 1. None 2. Ecosystem goals 3. Human-health goals 4. Quality-of-life goals 1. None 2. Yes 3. Yes, integrated with environmental goals 1. Not stated 2. Ecological 3. Economic 4. Socio-cultural 5. Human health 1. Not stated 2. Defined 3. Defined and metrics/indicators identified 1. Not stated 2. Defined 3. Defined and metrics/indicators identified a. Environmental results b. Process APPENDIX C CBEP INTERVIEW GUIDES . CBEP Project Characterization — CBEP Coordinator Region Interview Summary CBEP Coordinator: Interview Date: Questions: 1. What do you consider to be the most important or defining attributes of a project for it to be considered a CBEP project? 2. Generally, what is EPA’s role in CBEP projects? 3. What types of funding resources are typically used for CBEP projects? 4. a. Which program(s) carry out CBEP projects in the region? 4. b. How do various offices/programs work together on CBEP projects? 5. How do you factor in strategic, regional human health risk and ecosystem protection priorities in CBEP? 6. How do you differentiate direct involvement and capacity-building activities? ^ I ' CBEP Project Characterization — Direct Involvement Projects Interview Summary Project Leader: Project Title: Interview Date: General Questions: 1. Please provide a brief description of the project, including its goals, objectives and geographic/social/environmental context. Why is EPA in this place? 2. Who are the stakeholders and how is ‘stakeholder" defined? Which stakeholder(s) (e.g., associations, environmental groups, individuals, etc.) is the driving force? (Or is EPA the driving force?) What is the degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project? 3. How was this project initiated? Was this project conceived independently of an EPA program or as part of an EPA program (e.g., NEP)? Which one(s)? 4. What is the expected project duration? 5. What is EPA’s role in this project? What is the value-added by EPA’s participation? 6. What other EPA programs (e.g., air, waste, National Estuary Program) are . involved in this project? 7. What EPA resources are being applied to this project, both direct and indirect, i.e. funding (source) and time (FTE)? CBEP Attribute Questions: 1. If this project is initiated under another EPA program, does that program itself have CBEP attributes or were CBEP attributes added to the project after it started? 2. What are the CBEP attributes of this project, and which do you consider most important in making it a CBEP project? 3. Is this a multimedia project? Which media are addressed and how are they addressed? CBEP Project Characterization — Direct Involvement Projects Interview Summary 4. Was a risk or a risk-based assessment, either human health or ecological, taken into account when this project was selected as a CBEP project? 5. What are the endpoints of concern for this project; in other words, what is the project designed to protect (e.g., ecosystems, human health, human welfare)? How are the environmental results measured? 6. Does this project invglve economic, social, or quality-of-life issues? Are there economic or socio-cultural goals? Are these issues the subject of assessments or measures of success? 7. To what degree and how are the public/communities involved? 8. What are the key accomplishments of this project? For example, are there measurable environmental results?