Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

2007 Highlights Document (PDF) by c40e083630b38297

VIEWS: 35 PAGES: 36

									Regional Geographic
     Initiatives
     Enhancing Environmental
 Stewardship for Future Generations

             2007
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Regional Operations
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
(1301A)
Washington, DC 20460
Contents
Foreword  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1

Overview  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2

Introduction  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4

       Fostering Sustainable Communities and Empowered Citizens .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .6

               Building Healthy Urban Communities in Boston  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8
               Planning for Rapid Growth in Oregon .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
               Capturing Solar Energy in Minneapolis  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
               Empowering Neighborhood Action in Philadelphia  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14

       Innovation and Sound Science .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16

               Preventing Pollution in the New York/New Jersey Harbor .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18
               Saving “America’s Sea” Through Bacteria Tracking  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 20
               Reusing Materials Through By-Product Synergy  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22

       Reducing Risks .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .24

               Developing Dairy Manure Technology for the San Joaquin Valley .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
               Real-Time Investigation of Air Toxics in the Gulf Coast Region .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 28
               Restoring a Watershed in a Colorado Mining District  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30

Contacts  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . Back Cover




                                                                                                                                                                                     iii
Foreword
I
   am pleased to present      Enhancing Environmental Stewardship for
    Future Generations, a report that showcases projects funded by the
    U .S . Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Regional Geographic
Initiatives (RGI) . These projects demonstrate the enormous potential for
community, state, and federal partners to work together toward our com-
mon goals of clean air, pure water, and protected land .

EPA and its partners recognize that achieving a cleaner, healthier environ-
ment requires us to look at environmental problems in an integrated way .
Not only must we address threats to air, water, and the land holistically, but
we must also work with citizens and organizations at a local level to help
them protect the environment in which they live, work, and play . RGI is one
way that EPA is fostering this integrated approach .

Each year, RGI funds a myriad of environmental and public health projects
that support new collaborations and leverage local resources to achieve
environmental results . The projects captured in this publication are repre-
sentative snapshots of what RGI is all about . I invite you to explore these
projects to see how RGI is helping people all across America work together
to improve their environment .


Christopher P . Bliley, Associate Administrator
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Operations




                                                                                 1
    Overview
     E
         nhancing       EnvironmEntal StEwardShip for futurE
          gEnErationS highlights the different types of projects that are
          funded throughout the country using Regional Geographic Initia-
     tive (RGI) funds .

      Funding
       RGI is a funding source that supports Presidential, Administrator, and
       Regional priorities . RGI projects must meet national criteria . These proj-
        ects can:
        • Address places, sectors, or innovative projects.
         • Be based on a regional, state, tribal, or other strategic plan.
         • Address problems that are multi-media in nature.
         • Fill a critical gap in the protection of human health and the environment.
         • Demonstrate state, local, and/or other stakeholder participation.
         • Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
          Each Region administers RGI funds and has the discretion to set
         Regional-specific criteria (in addition to the national criteria), which
         relates to Regional, state, and/or local priorities or initiatives.




2
Target Audience                                          The following list provides a general description
                                                         of the types of entities that can and have received
This publication intends to inform the general
                                                         RGI funding:
public, government agencies, nonprofit organiza-
tions, institutions, and other interested parties        • States, territories, Indian tribes, and possessions
about funded RGI projects and the accomplish-              of the United States, including the District of
ments achieved through using innovative or                 Columbia .
multimedia approaches to solving local/regional          • Interstate, intrastate, and local government
environmental issues .                                     agencies, districts, and councils .
                                                         • K-12 schools and districts.
Availability of Funds                                    • Public and private universities and colleges.
Each Region determines annually the way they
                                                         • Hospitals.
will administer RGI resources based on Regional
priorities and needs . Eligibility, types of projects,   • Laboratories.
and availability of funds vary from year to year         • Research facilities.
and from Region to Region . In general, RGI proj-        • Public or private nongovernmental, nonprofit
ects support investigations, experiments, training,        institutions .
outreach, education, demonstrations, surveys,
studies, and special purpose assistance that ad-         • Individuals.
dress one or more environmental media (air, wa-          To be considered, an entity needs to submit an
ter, waste, pollution prevention, compliance) . To       application proposing a project with significant
get a better sense of the type of projects that can      technical merit and relevance to EPA’s mission .
be funded with RGI funds, contact the appropri-
ate Regional Office (see listing at the back of this
document) to find out what opportunities exist .




                                                                                                                 3
    Introduction
      R
          egional    geographic initiatives (rgi) is a funding source
           designed to address complex environmental challenges through
           integrated, multi-media approaches . EPA uses RGI to support in-
     novative, place-based projects that reduce risks to human health and
      ecosystems . RGI projects involve a wide range of stakeholders and
       leverage resources from federal, state, and private sectors to find
        cost-effective solutions to communities’ environmental problems .
        This introduction provides background information about RGI
        funding and addresses Agency and Regional goals . The remainder
         of this document highlights RGI projects that have been carried
         out across the country . The projects are organized around three
         RGI themes: fostering sustainable communities and empowered
          citizens, encouraging innovation and sound science, and reduc-
          ing risks . Contacts are provided for each RGI project .




4
Background                                             zations . RGI funds support collaboration with
                                                       communities and other partners to address local
In 1991, EPA Regional offices completed compar-
                                                       environmental issues through a grassroots ap-
ative risk assessments of environmental problems
                                                       proach, which fosters stakeholder involvement
to estimate relative risks posed to human health
                                                       and participation in project development and
and ecosystems . These assessments identified
                                                       implementation .
several place-based problems with characteristics
unique to the states in their Regions . Regional
offices then developed strategies to identify en-      Leveraging
vironmental risks that were not being addressed,       Regions use RGI to leverage other federal, public,
wholly or in part, by existing national environ-       and private resources to achieve the Agency’s
mental programs .                                      performance priorities . In addition, the results
The Regions proposed addressing these complex          from RGI projects can inform Regional priorities .
and cross-jurisdictional problems by using geo-        Regions use RGI to further Presidential, Admin-
graphic-based approaches . RGI funding was estab-      istrator, and Agency initiatives such as children’s
lished in 1994 to support these efforts and help       health, green buildings, clean energy, agriculture,
EPA Regional offices develop strategic approaches      and environmental stewardship . RGI projects
to local environmental risks while achieving           span the traditional environmental areas of air,
national goals . The RGI funding offers the Regions    water, and land, and provide Regions with flex-
flexibility to support projects that are bounded by    ibility to focus funding on projects that meet the
the region or place in which the problem exists,       greatest local environmental needs .
rather than projects that address a pollutant or
sector . In general, funding allows each Region to     Agency Goals
support eight to 10 projects annually .                RGI funds support Goal 4, Healthy Communities
                                                       and Ecosystems, of EPA’s Strategic Plan . This goal
Innovation and Partnership                             seeks to “Protect, sustain, or restore the health
RGI is one of EPA’s premiere innovation resources,     of people, communities, and ecosystems using
supporting local projects that have gone on to be-     integrated and comprehensive approaches and
come national models . Examples of such projects       partnerships .” In addition, Objective 4 .2 of the
include school bus diesel retrofits and agricultural   Goal is to “Sustain, clean up, and restore com-
pollution prevention performance standards for         munities and the ecological systems that sup-
pest management . The RGI approach has been            port them .” Goal 4 and its strategic objectives
very successful in using new and creative ap-          describe a collaborative approach to addressing
proaches to resolve complex environmental and          a wide range of environmental issues relating
health problems across programmatic areas .            to human and/or ecosystem health. RGI-funded
                                                       projects address many of the multi-media targets
RGI funds also encourage the creation of part-         in this goal, including urban, rural, industrial,
nerships to develop and carry out projects that        agricultural, mountain, and coastal environments .
address local environmental and health con-            RGI funds serve as a flexible vehicle for Regions
cerns . With RGI, EPA Regions are able to fund         to respond to strategic regional, state, and local
environmental stewardship initiatives proposed         priorities .
by communities and nongovernmental organi-


                                                                                                             5
    Fostering
     Sustainable
      Communities
       and Empowered
       Citizens




6
RGI
                funds support programs that   empower citizens to identify environmental
               problems in their communities and develop sustainable solutions . RGI helps
               citizens make connections between their neighborhoods, supporting ecosys-
tems, and surrounding communities . Residents work together to educate themselves about
how to make their communities more livable, healthy, and beautiful .
Each local community has different concerns—from promoting energy efficiency, to keep-
ing the air clean, to creating open space . RGI funds typically foster collaborations that bring
together people from many walks of life to address each local community’s concerns . RGI
funding has been particularly helpful in supporting sensitive populations, such as low-income
and minority communities that face multiple environmental threats . Examples of RGI-funded
projects that foster sustainable communities and empower citizens are identified below, and
described in further detail in this chapter .

• In Massachusetts, the Chelsea Green Space &         • In Minneapolis, RGI funding supported a city
  Recreation Committee received RGI funding             project to increase solar power as a way to
  to create a community visioning process for           diversify the city’s energy supply, reduce depen-
  the neighborhood’s last remaining salt marsh .        dence on imported fuels, improve air quality,
  Using RGI funds, residents learned the impor-         offset greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate
  tance of an estuary, became informed about            the economy . The city of Minneapolis is exam-
  the permitting process for redevelopment, and         ining several tools for encouraging solar power
  developed a sense of ownership for the estuary .      investment in new private developments . To
  Residents worked with other stakeholders to           demonstrate the effectiveness of solar power,
  create a community-based master plan, gener-          the city installed photovoltaic solar panels on
  ated dialogue with local industry, and identified     three highly visible city facilities .
  opportunities to create community access to
                                                      • In Philadelphia, the Livable Neighborhood
  Chelsea Creek .
                                                        Program used RGI funding to empower citizens
• In Oregon, the Lane County Board of Com-              to address environmental concerns on their
  missioners in the Willamette area, along with         blocks . Neighbors formed teams, chose topics
  the councils of many of the surrounding cities,       of concern, and worked together to address
  worked to develop plans to manage their com-          those concerns using the Livable Neighbor-
  munities’ growth in a sustainable manner . They       hood Program workbook . Focus areas included
  used RGI funding to measure and monitor the           health and safety, beautification and green-
  impacts of three alternative growth scenarios         ing, energy efficiency, resource sharing, and
  on air and water quality and rare habitat types .     neighborhood building . Training and certifica-
  The study used Geographic Information Sys-            tion were also offered for neighborhood block
  tem models and baseline data to identify ways         leaders to develop skills in leadership, empow-
  to direct growth into areas that would have           erment coaching, group facilitation, project
  the least impact on air and water quality and         management, and community organizing .
  important habitat areas .



                                                                                                            7
                          Building Healthy Urban Communities
Area                        in Boston
Description                                                                                         Region 1
                                                                                                                                ME
Chelsea and East Boston
                                           Environmental Challenges

                                                  I
are surrounded by Mill                              n urban areas throughout New England,
Creek and Chelsea Creek,                            residents are exposed to significant environ-                VT
Mystic River, Island End River, and                 mental and public health hazards every day,
Boston Harbor . However, there is
                                                  including lead poisoning, rat-infested vacant                       NH
almost no public access to these wa-
                                                   lots, contaminated rivers, asthma exacerbated                    MA
terfronts, and a number of businesses
                                                    by poor indoor and ambient air quality, and
still use the Chelsea Creek area as an
                                                     a lack of safe, useable open and green space.                               RI
illegal dumping ground . Chelsea Creek is
a working river, navigated by large ships,            These poor environmental conditions                                 CT
and is a designated port within Boston                 create cumulative, disproportionate, and
Harbor . This designation does not generally            inequitable health risks to urban residents, especially high-risk and sensitive
allow for public access or recreational use of           populations such as children and the elderly.
the waterfront, which limits redevelopment
                                                           The urban communities of Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts, experi-
opportunities .
                                                           ence environmental injustice as typified by the cumulative environmental and
Chelsea’s population is close to 37,000 . Its
                                                            public health problems described above. The two communities are geograph-
racial/ethnic composition is 50 percent Latino,
                                                            ically located in close proximity
40 percent White, and 10 percent Asian,
African-American, or other . Median household
                                                            to large highways (e.g., the Tobin
income is $25,000, and 24 percent of Chelsea                Bridge and Route 1A) that are
residents live below the poverty level . East               a significant source of vehicle
Boston is separated from Chelsea by Chelsea                 emissions. They are also host to
Creek and has a population of over 38,000 . Its             Boston’s Logan Airport and as-
racial/ethnic composition is 50 percent White,             sociated industries that generate
39 percent Latino, 4 percent Asian, 3 percent              a high volume of truck traffic and
African-American, and 3 percent mixed-race .              resulting diesel emissions. Chelsea
Median household income is $31,300, and                   and East Boston contain 398 state
20 percent of East Boston residents live                 designated hazardous waste sites;
below the poverty level . The percentage                five major oil storage facilities; the largest rock salt pile in the Northeast; a work-
of people living below poverty level in
                                                       ing tannery; and more than 90 freight forwarding companies. Together, these
both areas is two to three times the
                                                      sources result in significant levels of air, water, land, and noise pollution.
statewide average .
                                                  A June 2000 report titled Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: A Preliminary
Contact                                          Report on Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Daniel
Kristi Rea                                      R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg identifies Chelsea and East Boston as the third and fifth
EPA Project Officer                            “most environmentally overburdened cities/towns in Massachusetts.” To address these
Boston, MA                                   concerns, EPA New England has made Chelsea and East Boston a focus for community-
(617) 918-8372                              based environmental improvement.
rea .kristi@epa .gov




8
Partners                                                                     Partnership; Massachusetts Environmental Trust; Watershed Institute;
                                                                             Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs; Massachusetts
                                                                             Institute of Technology (MIT); Tufts University; Conservation Law Founda-
In addition to the efforts made by Neighborhood for Affordable Hous-         tion; Massachusetts Riverways Program; Campaign for the Water’s Edge;
ing and Chelsea Green Space & Recreation Committee, numerous other           City of Chelsea Planning and Development Department; Chelsea Summer
stakeholders were part of the efforts, including EPA’s Urban Environmental   Environmental Youth Crew; Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
Program; Chelsea Creek Action Group; Greater Boston Urban Resources          ment; and the Boys & Girls Club .




Major Milestones/Accomplishments


I
   n 2000, the Chelsea Green Space                Generally speaking, dedicated pro-               targeted to provide air quality ben-
   & Recreation Committee received                grammatic funding sources are not                efits, wildlife habitat restoration, and
   RGI funding to support its Mill                available to support this type of com-           water quality enhancement. A path
Creek Restoration Project. The proj-              munity planning and capacity-building            and boardwalk system was created for
ect worked to revitalize Chelsea’s last           effort. In this case, RGI funding en-            safe public access to the Chelsea Creek,
remaining salt marsh through a com-               abled the community to create a clear            which represents the first such access
munity visioning process. Through the             plan and cost estimate for the best use          of its kind to the Creek. The restored
project, residents became involved in             of the area. Fortunately, an opportunity         property now poses no environmental
the planning and visioning phase for              to put this plan into action arose when          or public health risk from contamina-
renovations to the waterfront land and            EPA New England was negotiating a                tion and provides much needed green
made a presentation to the city’s Plan-           supplemental environmental project               and open space.
ning and Development Department.                  in the area. The Urban Environmen-
Residents also learned the importance             tal Program worked with community
of an estuary, became informed about              partners to define a $900,000 project
the permitting process for redevel-               to remediate and construct the Con-
opment, and developed a sense of                  dor Street Urban Wild, a 4.5-acre site
ownership for the estuary. The project            of urban vacant land. The goal of the
created a model waterfront develop-               project was to transform this site from
ment to demonstrate the link between              a degraded, contaminated former
natural resources and sustainable                 industrial area into a safe, attractive,
                                                                                                   The site was officially opened to the
economic development.                             accessible natural area. As a result of
                                                                                                   public on Saturday, October 4, 2003,
                                                  the project, East Boston and Chelsea
In 2001, the Neighborhood of Afford-                                                               with a ceremony attended by EPA Act-
                                                  residents now have access to open/
able Housing received RGI funding to                                                               ing Administrator Marianne Lamont
                                                  green space and recreational and envi-
support its Chelsea Creek Master Plan-                                                             Horinko, EPA New England Regional
                                                  ronmental educational opportunities
ning/Visioning Project. This project                                                               Administrator Robert W. Varney, Bos-
                                                  in line with community priorities and
brought residents together with other                                                              ton Mayor Thomas M. Menino, and
                                                  their master vision for the
stakeholders to create a community-                                                                local artist B. Amore. Even the rain
                                                  Chelsea Creek.
based master plan to help improve                                                                  could not keep more than 100 people
dialogue with industry about improve-             Because of the strong partnership,               from touring the site and participat-
ments needed for Chelsea Creek.                   planning efforts, and community                  ing in the ceremony. Since the opening
The project leveraged resources from              infrastructure created and sustained             ceremony, the partners have created
polluting businesses and other entities           through RGI-funded projects, the                 local programming to continue to en-
to develop safe public access and open            public was able to participate in the            courage safe public use of the site, and
spaces. The project also prepared resi-           planning and design process for the              community residents have reported an
dents to participate in the municipal             site and the Chelsea Creek as a whole.           increase in wildlife in the area.
harbor planning process and impact                The final design reflects public priori-
zoning decisions.                                 ties and interests for the urban wild.
                                                  Additional trees and plants were

                                                                                                                                                     9
                           Planning for Rapid Growth in Oregon
Area
                                       Environmental Challenges                                        WA
                                                                                                                    Region 10
Description

                                               O
                                                       regon’s Southern Willamette Valley          OR

Lane County is located in                              region is growing rapidly, and with                   ID

the Southern Willamette Val-                           this growth have come development
ley of the Willamette Basin . The                pressure, unplanned development, and
                                                                                                                                AK
valley is a narrow, fertile trough                consequent impairment of the region’s
between the coast and Cascade                       water resources. By 2050, the region’s
mountain ranges in central-western                   population is projected to be 463,500
Oregon . The region is centered around                (a 55 percent increase), supported
Eugene/Springfield, the second largest                  by 215,000 jobs (85,000 more than
metropolitan area in Oregon, which is                    today). Residential development is booming in the small cities, while job opportuni-
surrounded by eight smaller incorporated                  ties remain concentrated around Eugene/Springfield.
cities and 15 rural unincorporated commu-
nities . Several rivers and streams drain from            This projected growth cannot be accommodated within the existing urban growth
both ranges into the Willamette River, which              boundaries (UGBs). Unplanned development threatens surface water, ground
divides the valley . The Willamette flows north            water, and air quality in the region. Localized high nitrate levels in ground water
from the Eugene/Springfield area and empties               are expected to become more widespread as higher density development contin-
into the Columbia River near Portland .                    ues to rely on septic systems. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Those who work and live in the basin depend                 (DEQ) has identified many of the waters within the region, including the Wil-
on the Willamette River and its tributaries for             lamette River, as impaired for temperature, mercury, and bacteria. DEQ recently
drinking water and water to supply industry                 adopted the Willamette Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters.
and agriculture . The river and its tributaries are         The Regional Growth Management Strategy 2050 is intended to help guide
also the corridors for several species of salmon            growth management in the region, specifically in Lane County, Oregon.
and steelhead trout, and home to a variety of
resident trout populations . The rich and fertile
lands within the Southern Willamette Valley
support agriculture and industrial forestry .              Major Milestones/Accomplishments
The valley lands include valuable remnant



                                                          T
habitats of wet prairies; bottomland gallery                 he Lane County Board of Commissioners and the councils of many of
forests of cottonwood, ash, and alder; and                   the surrounding cities passed formal resolutions endorsing the concept
oak-savannas in the surrounding foothills .                  of a Regional Growth Man-
                                                      agement Strategy. The Lane Council
Contact                                              of Governments (LCOG) was di-
Alan Henning                                        rected to seek funding and develop the
EPA Project Officer                               strategy. LCOG brought key technical
Seattle, WA                                      experts and community decision-mak-
(541) 687-7360                                  ers together to identify key issues and
henning .alan@epa .gov                         agree on a vision and actions to address
                                             growth issues such as housing, jobs, schools,
                                           transportation, water, and other public facili-
                                         ties, while protecting natural resources and the
                                       environment. From this effort, three alternative growth scenarios and seven land use maps
                                     were produced using historic and scientific data. The maps showed footprints of the 100-year
                                  floodplain, wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats. They also depicted ecosystem services
                                provided by these areas. Areas with native vegetation were identified as “possible native habitats”
                             to help identify habitats available for selective species. The maps showed some of the threats posed by

10
development and potential mitigating
approaches. The maps also identified
                                               increases and density within cities
                                               increases, recreational areas will           Partners
priority areas in which conservation           become over-populated and over-
and restoration would be desirable in          used. With increasing travel costs,          The following stakeholder groups contrib-
order to provide permanent protection          recreational opportunities should            uted to the success of this effort:
for Oregon’s unique plant and                  be close to cities and accessible by a       •	 LCDG
wildlife species.                              variety of travel modes.                     •	 The	10	planning	commissions	and	
                                                                                               elected bodies from Lane County and
LCOG used the three alternative              In July 2003, LCOG received RGI
                                                                                               the 10 cities in the region: Coburg,
growth scenarios to facilitate a com-        funding to measure and monitor                    Cottage Grove, Creswell, Eugene, Junc-
munity involvement process to discuss        impacts of the three alternative growth           tion City, Lowell, Oakridge, Springfield,
growth in each community and the             scenarios on air and water quality                Veneta, and Westfir
region: 1) the Compact Urban Growth          and rare habitat types. The study used         •	 Regional	Technical	Advisory	Committee
Scenario, which depicted growth in           Geographic Information System (GIS)
                                                                                            •	 Regional	Policy	Advisory	Board
the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan          models and baseline data to compile
area; 2) the Satellite Communities           information on air and water quality           •	 Lane	County	Homebuilders	Association
Scenario, which targeted growth in the       and rare habitats; improve the likeli-         •	 Lane	Economic	Committee	
surrounding small cities; and 3) the         hood that growth would be directed             •	 Lane	Transit	District	Board
Rural Growth Scenario, which showed          into areas least impacting air and wa-         •	 Emerald	People’s	Utility	District	Board
growth in rural residential lands in         ter quality and rare habitats; transfer
                                                                                            •	 Eugene	Water	and	Electric	Board	
rural communities.                           the lessons learned into the broader
                                             land use and planning process; and             •	 Eugene	Chamber	of	Commerce
Citizens, planners, and elected officials                                                   •	 McKenzie	Watershed	Council
                                             promote similar planning activities
discussed and evaluated the relative
                                             by sharing methods and results with            •	 Middle-fork	Willamette	Watershed	
merits of the three growth scenarios
                                             outside organizations and regional                Council
using seven quality of life categories:
                                             agencies.                                      •	 1,000	Friends	of	Oregon	
land use, housing, economy, natural
resources, community facilities and          Several key milestones were achieved:          •	 League	of	Women	Voters	of	Lane	
services, transportation, and educa-         developing the three alternative                  County
tion. Of these, land use and develop-        growth scenario maps; securing                 •	 Oregon	Planning	Institute	
ment, transportation, and environ-           needed additional baseline data;               •	 University	of	Oregon	
ment have the most profound effect on        establishing a greater understanding           •	 Oregon	Department	of	Land	Conserva-
the region’s open spaces and natural         of the scenarios and the impacts to the           tion and Development
resources. Several key environmental         environmental resources; adjusting
                                                                                            •	 Oregon	Department	of	Environmental	
concerns emerged, including:                 scenario maps to meet land use needs;             Quality
                                             and completing a quantitative and a
•	 Nitrates,	bacteria,	and	elevated	tem-                                                    •	 Oregon	Water	Resources	Department
                                             qualitative evaluation of the alterna-
   peratures in surface and ground water                                                    •	 Office	of	the	Governor	of	Oregon
                                             tives using GIS models. LCOG also
   threaten the quality of drinking water.
                                             scored each alternative growth scenar-         •	 U.S.	EPA
•	 Pollution	threatens	livelihoods	of	       io relative to key criteria using baseline     •	 U.S.	Bureau	of	Land	Management
   fishermen and others dependent on         data and community input.
   clean water.                                                                             •	 More	than	1,000	dedicated	citizens	
                                             The results of this study helped guide            from the Southern Willamette Valley
•	 Water	pollution	increases	costs	for	
   all users.                                the development of a final preferred
                                             growth scenario, which encompassed           in-kind staff and local support, and
•	 Conserving	and	restoring	certain	
                                             elements of all three scenarios. The         over $500,000 in direct revenues, have
   critical habitats can aid in improv-
                                             scenario became part of the Regional         also been committed to the effort from
   ing water quality.
                                             Growth Management Strategy 2050. In          six cities, several utilities, and other
•	 Urbanization	and	development	                                                          stakeholders.
                                             September 2005, EPA awarded LCOG
   almost inevitably lead to fragmenta-
                                             additional RGI funding to contrib-
   tion and degradation of habitat with
                                             ute to the ongoing development of
   resulting loss of biodiversity.
                                             the strategy. More than $200,000 of
•	 As	the	population	of	the	area	
                                                                                                                                           11
                        Capturing Solar Energy in Minneapolis
Area
Description
                                   Environmental Challenge                                        Region 5

                                        T
                                                he city of Minneapolis has set a goal to
The project is located in                       improve air quality by reducing emis-
the city of Minneapolis, Min-                   sions of criteria pollutants, air toxics,
                                                                                             MN
nesota . The state has more an-              and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
                                                                                                                MI
nual solar energy potential than              gases. Solar power is an important tool to               WI

Houston, Texas, and nearly as much             meet this goal. Solar energy can diver-
as Miami, Florida . The city itself is a        sify the energy supply, reduce depen-
progressive, environmentally friendly            dence on imported fuels, improve air                                 OH
                                                                                                         IL    IN
urban center . However, the city would            quality, offset greenhouse gas emis-
like to make even greater progress on              sions, and stimulate the economy
formidable environmental issues related             by creating jobs in the manufactur-
to air quality, water quality, and renewable
                                                     ing and installation of solar energy
energy use in the urban core and the sur-
                                                      systems.
rounding neighborhoods .
                                                   The city of Minneapolis believes that private investment in solar power is ac-
Contact                                            celerating in Minnesota, and the city is examining several tools for encouraging
George E . Stone                                   solar power investment in new private developments. Before asking for invest-
EPA RGI Coordinator and EPA Project Officer         ments from the private sector, however, the city decided to demonstrate that
Chicago, IL                                         solar power is feasible in Minneapolis and lead by example by installing solar
(312) 886-7517
stone .george@epa .gov
Syed Quadri
EPA Urban Initiative Coordinator
(Detroit & Minneapolis)
Chicago, IL
(312) 886-5736
quadri .syed@epa .gov




12
Partners                                                                            of the power systems . For this demonstration project, because of its comprehen-
                                                                                    sive nature, the city was able to obtain the maximum rebate of $23,000, which
                                                                                    exceeded all original projections . This rebate funding was used to increase the
The Minnesota solar project is part of Region 5’s Great Cities Program, cre-        capacity of the photovoltaic power system installed and to purchase software
ated in 2003 to serve as a vehicle to build partnerships with the six oldest,       for a real-time data system for the solar installation . In addition to the rebate
largest cities in the Region (http://www .epa .gov/Region5/greatcities/) . The      program, the project took advantage of the state sales tax exemption (5 percent)
program focuses on the city’s environmental and public health priorities, as        on solar panels and electric systems .
defined by each city’s mayor . Great Cities is designed to shift resources to       The city is also partnering with the U .S . Department of Energy (DOE) to
opportunities that exist for accelerating environmental progress and filling        assess barriers, incentives, education, and outreach regarding the feasibility
regulatory gaps through innovative ideas and collaborative partnerships .           and benefits of solar energy . Through its “Million Solar Roofs” partnership
With the assistance of RGI funds, the city of Minneapolis partnered with the        program, DOE will work with the city to explore regulatory barriers and
state to leverage existing rebate and tax programs to encourage solar power . The   market incentives to promote solar energy and energy efficiency applica-
Minnesota Energy Office within the Department of Commerce offers partnership        tions in buildings .
contributions	in	the	form	of	rebates	of	$2,000	to	$8,000,	depending	on	the	size	




Major Milestones/Accomplishments
panels on city facilities.                            power and fossil fuels.



T
      he city installed photovoltaic so-              This demonstration project served
      lar panels on three highly visible              to educate the public about renew-
      city facilities to demonstrate the              able energy and jumpstart the city’s
feasibility and benefits of solar energy              partnership with the Minnesota
in Minneapolis. Specific installations                Department of Commerce to encour-
included:                                             age private interests to install similar
                                                      equipment. The city will also encour-
•	 5.0	kilowatt	(KW)	solar	panels	on	
                                                      age other building owners to consider
   the roof of Fire Station #6.
                                                      using solar energy by involving them
•	 2.6	KW	solar	panels	in	the	yard	of	                in partnerships and through education
   the Royalston Maintenance Facility.                and outreach.
•	 4.0	KW	solar	panels	on	the	roof	of	
   the Currie Equipment Maintenance
   Facility.                                               Great Cities Project Goals

This project will displace the use of                      1) Achieve tangible environmental results for all projects in a timely manner, preferably
power generated through the burning                           within one to two years .
of fossil fuels and is expected to offset:                 2) Build collaborative partnerships and relationships among cities, states, and public and
                                                              private sectors to address public health and environmental issues .
•	 9,600	pounds	of	nitrogen	oxides	
                                                           3) Leverage resources that allow projects to be sustainable beyond the range of
   per year.
                                                              Agency funding .
•	 17,400	pounds	of	sulfur	dioxide	
                                                           4) Develop transferable work products, best practices, and lessons learned to promote
   per year.
                                                              innovative actions in other areas .
•	 2,500,000	pounds	of	carbon	dioxide	
                                                           5) Focus on each city’s environmental and public health priorities to fill critical gaps in
   per year.
                                                              EPA’s ability to protect human health and the environment at the local level .
The city has also installed a real-time
interactive data system on the city’s
Web site to showcase power savings
and potential cost savings to highlight
the difference between using solar

                                                                                                                                                                 13
                            Empowering Neighborhood Action
Area                          in Philadelphia
Description                                                                                         Region 3
The Livable Neighborhood
                                             Environmental Challenge

                                                T
Program operates within                              oo often, neighborhoods wait
low-income, “row home”                                                                                          PA
                                                     for the appropriate government
neighborhoods in Philadelphia,
                                                     agency to show up and fix their
Pennsylvania . Philadelphia is a city
of neighborhoods, and this program
                                                problems. Yet, government at every                                             DE
reaches the south, southwest, west               level is stressed to meet the public’s                                        MD
and north sections of the city . These are        demands. The Livable Neighborhood                  WV
neighborhoods most in need of address-             Program offers an alternative—a de-                         VA
ing environmental issues on their blocks .          tailed menu of actions that citizens
                                                     can take to address environmental
Contact                                               problems on their own, while
Barbara Latsios                                       interacting with local government as efficiently as possible.
EPA RGI Coordinator                                   The Livable Neighborhood Program is designed so that any level of activity
Philadelphia, PA
                                                      will produce benefits, and these successes can increase over time. It can be
(215) 814-5384
                                                      used in any neighborhood setting—urban, suburban, or rural. The ideal situ-
latsios .barbara@epa .gov
                                                       ation combines energetic grassroots initiative with strong partnerships with
                                                       government, community service organizations, and businesses.
                                                         The city of Philadelphia faces many environmental and health challenges due
                                                        to poor air quality (both outdoor
                                                        and indoor), polluted stormwa-
                                                        ter runoff, hazardous waste and
                                                        Brownfields sites, and solid waste
                                                       issues. These issues result in critical
                                                      human health concerns for some
                                                      middle- and low-income residents,
                                                     including lead poisoning in chil-
                                                    dren, radon exposure, and increased
                                                   asthma cases due to toxics found in
                                                  the home and garden. The time had
                                                 come for some kind of neighborhood program to provide residents with practical
                                                tools and easy-to-learn skills for making their communities healthier places to live.
                                               The Livable Neighborhood Program was born.
                                              The birth of this program gave EPA Region 3 the opportunity to provide RGI funding
                                            for the Livable Neighborhood Program and meet RGI goals, such as identifying multi-
                                          media problems in the protection of human health and the environment, partnering with
                                        various stakeholders, addressing a specific geographic area, and providing “start-up” fund-
                                      ing to complement other EPA national programs.




14
Major Milestones/Accomplishments                                                           Partners
P
       articipation in the Livable           coaching, group facilitation, project         The following stakeholder groups are
       Neighborhood Program began            management, and community orga-               contributing to the success of this effort:
       with neighbors knocking on            nizing. RGI funding contributed to            •	 City	of	Philadelphia
doors and inviting other neighbors to        tuition costs that supported more than
                                                                                              – Mayor’s Office
a block meeting. At the first meeting,       100 residents’ training in the Block
participants assessed their most criti-      Leadership Academy.                              – Managing Director’s Office
cal needs, selected actions to pursue,                                                        – Health Department
                                             The Livable Neighborhood Program
divided up responsibilities, and created                                                      – Streets Department
                                             boasts very impressive recruitment
a plan. The teams met seven times over                                                        – Municipal Energy Office
                                             statistics:	87	percent	of	all	households	
four months to carry out their plans.
                                             invited to participate in the program            – Transportation Office
The actions each team chose to pursue
                                             indicate an interest in attending a           •	 Commonwealth	of	Pennsylvania
came from the Philadelphia Livable
                                             meeting. Of those interested house-           •	 University	of	Pennsylvania
Neighborhood Program workbook,
                                             holds,	74	percent	commit	to	attending	
which covers five topics: health and                                                       •	 Pennsylvania	Department	of	Environ-
                                             a meeting, and 88 percent of those
safety, beautification and greening,                                                          mental Protection
                                             who commit to attending actually do
energy efficiency, resource sharing, and                                                   •	 U.S.	EPA
                                             so. In all, 60 percent of all households
neighborhood building. Also included                                                       •	 Hundreds	of	Philadelphia	residents	
                                             originally invited to attend a meet-
in the workbook are step-by-step                                                              who attend neighborhood training
                                             ing and join a team actually do so and
instructions for establishing a meeting                                                       sessions, recruit fellow neighbors, serve
                                             actively participate in the program.
format and an easy-to-use planning                                                            as block leaders, and conduct Livable
                                             The program’s original goal of creat-
guide for taking actions.                                                                     Neighborhood Program activities to
                                             ing 60 teams was far exceeded by the
                                                                                              improve the health and safety of family,
The Livable Neighborhood Program is          actual creation of over 90 teams. This           friends and neighbors .
designed to help people take personal        translates into hundreds of individ-
responsibility for the communities in        ual actions getting completed within        and conducting lead and radon safety
which they live. Neighbors, working          Philadelphia neighborhoods.                 workshops. The program also has im-
together, keep their environment clean                                                   proved the quality of life for residents
and safe. The hope is that this behav-                                                   in many ways. Blocks have been turned
ior change will become habitual with-                                                    into safe, supervised play areas during
in individual families and communi-                                                      the summer months; abandoned houses
ties, fostering a new way of living and                                                  have been sealed; and street signs, light-
being in a community. The Livable                                                        ing, and potholes have been fixed or im-
Neighborhood Program is based on a                                                       proved. The city has also conducted fire
state-of-the-art understanding of how                                                    and safety inspections, and residents
to change individual and group be-                                                       participate in Town Watch programs.
havior. The secret is clear incentives
                                                                                         RGI funds contributed to the success
and immediate rewards. Using the
                                                                                         of the Livable Neighborhoods Pro-
program’s proven methods, neighbors
                                             Many environmental issues are being         gram. This success is due to the com-
work together to make their blocks
                                             addressed through the program, includ-      mitment of truly dedicated neighbors
safer, cleaner, healthier, more beautiful,
                                             ing poor indoor and outdoor air quality,    who are empowered to take action,
friendlier, and a better place to raise
                                             polluted stormwater runoff, hazardous       assume responsibility for the environ-
their children.
                                             waste and Brownfields sites, solid waste,   mental challenges in their neighbor-
An outgrowth of the Livable Neighbor-        radon, lead poisoning in children, and      hood, and gain the knowledge neces-
hood Program is the development of           asthma. The environmental actions be-       sary to eventually create the kind of
the Block Leadership Academy, which          ing taken to address these issues include   neighborhood that is safe, clean, and a
offers training and certification for        calming traffic, curbing dogs, conserv-     joy in which to live.
neighborhood block leaders to develop        ing water and energy, cleaning storm
skills in leadership, empowerment            drains, planting neighborhood gardens,
                                                                                                                                          15
     Innovation and
       Sound Science




16
RGI
                projects bring community members         into the scientific process, both by giving
                 them the scientific tools to participate with researchers and by helping them
                 inform researchers about their environmental concerns . RGI also fosters sound
science by promoting collaborations across the scientific community . Finally, RGI fosters inno-
vation by funding emerging tools to help solve environmental problems . For example, indus-
trial ecology is a systems-based approach that analyzes the interrelationships between the
economy and the environment, focusing on the impact of human activity on the environment .
This approach can be effective in generating pollution prevention strategies and reducing the
use of raw materials . Examples of RGI-funded projects that promote innovation and sound
science are identified below and described in more detail in this chapter .

• In a project focusing on the New York/New             waters . RGI funding enabled the university
  Jersey Harbor, RGI funds have supported a             to convene a group of scientists who work
  multi-year project designed to identify pollution     in the bacterial source tracing field in the
  prevention strategies for five contaminants           coastal waters of the southern United States to
  of concern entering the harbor: mercury (and          discuss, develop, and test the most appropriate,
  methylmercury), cadmium, polychlorinated              effective methods for identifying bacterial
  biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and polyaromatic           sources in the Gulf of Mexico .
  hydrocarbons (PAHs). RGI funds enabled
                                                      • In Kansas City, a regional By-Product Synergy
  community members to participate in the
                                                        project has brought 12 companies together
  research process by helping scientists identify
                                                        to match unwanted by-products as resources
  areas to sample and potential exposure routes .
                                                        for new products and by-products . Individual
• At the University of Southern Mississippi,            companies have been transformed into a cross-
  state and local agencies are identifying which        industry team focused on turning every gram
  animals contribute to bacteria-containing             of material running through their plants into
  fecal material that is impairing Gulf of Mexico       usable products .




                                                                                                           17
                         Preventing Pollution in the
Area                       New York/New Jersey Harbor
Description
The New York/New Jersey
                                           Environmental Challenges                               Region 2

                                              T
Harbor’s airshed and water-                         his is a dynamic time for the
shed are vast, covering about
                                                    entire Hudson Valley watershed,
95,000 and 13,400 square miles,
                                                    and the New York/New Jersey
respectively . Overall, the environ-
                                               Harbor in particular. Currently, plan-
ment of the Harbor is affected by
a geographic area extending from                ners, regulators, and lawmakers are
at least North Carolina in the South             shaping the environmental future                    NY
to Indiana in the Midwest . Most of the           of the harbor through their deci-
work for this project was focused on the           sions on issues such as land-use
watershed, which includes the states of             practices, dredging to increase
New York and New Jersey .                            capacity of port facilities, and
                                                     cleanups of Superfund sites.
                                                                                            PR        VI             NJ
Contact                                               These decisions will profound-
Irene Purdy                                           ly affect pollution levels in
EPA Project Officer                                   the harbor—with far-reaching consequences for the economic future of the
New York, NY                                           region.
(212) 637- 3845
purdy .irene@epa .go                                   The harbor has been a key manufacturing and shipping center since the
                                                       early 19th century, and the harbor’s industrial pollution is one of the region’s
                                                       most pressing environmental problems. Despite the great strides that have
                                                      been made in reducing pollu-
                                                      tion in the harbor, continued
                                                      high levels of polychlorinated
                                                     biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, mer-
                                                     cury, and other toxicants in fish,
                                                    such as striped bass and bluefish,
                                                    have resulted in numerous fish
                                                   consumption advisories. Consum-
                                                  ing contaminated fish can result
                                                 in adverse health effects, including
                                                increased incidence of cancer as well
                                               as endocrine, immune, and nervous systems impairments. Children and developing
                                              fetuses are at the highest risk.
                                             In addition to human health threats, the harbor ecosystem’s health and productivity
                                           are threatened by toxicants, pathogens, and nutrient and organic enrichment, as well
                                         as by habitat loss and degradation. This environmental damage has led to declines in fish
                                        and shellfish populations and a reduction in diversity of the watershed’s wildlife, including
                                      birds.




18
Partners                                                               industry and small business associations; local, state and federal
                                                                       government (including the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey and
The New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) is an independent, nonprof-    EPA); academia; and labor from the entire harbor watershed .
it,	membership-based	organization	created	to	advance	the	understand-   Each of the partners provided technical expertise and, when feasible, fi-
ing of science, technology, and medicine . To address the problem of   nancial support . EPA Region 2 awarded NYAS several years of RGI funding
contaminant pollution in the New York/New Jersey Harbor, NYAS has      totaling over $200,000 for the harbor project . This funding helped to lever-
been convening a consortium of regional and national stakeholders,     age more than $1 .5 million from other partners and sources, including the
including local, community, and environmental conservation groups;     Port Authority of New York/ New Jersey and the Harbor Estuary Program .




Major Milestones/Accomplishments


U
        tilizing an industrial ecol-              mercury, cadmium, PCBs, and
        ogy approach, this multi-year             dioxins. Research findings on
        project aims to identify pollu-           sources of mercury in the region
tion prevention (P2) strategies for five          were unexpected, as national
contaminants of concern entering the              trends indicate that large quan-
harbor: mercury (and methylmer-                   tity generators are the primary
cury), cadmium, PCBs, dioxins, and                contributors of mercury to the
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).                 environment. However, the sub-
The project uses materials flow analy-            stance flow assessment used in this         mercury-containing dental amalgams.
sis coupled with mass balance and eco-            project showed that the cumula-             Outreach efforts to communities have
nomic analyses to identify economi-               tive contributions from small               helped raise public awareness about
cally feasible P2 strategies with the             generators in the New York/New              watersheds, aquatic systems, and water
greatest environmental impact. The                Jersey region are the most signifi-         quality issues. Other efforts have in-
three-pronged approach includes: 1)               cant contributors of mercury to             cluded conducting pubic meetings
thorough review of available scientific           the harbor. To reduce mercury               and workshops, developing a project-
research, 2) outreach to and com-                 contributions to the harbor, the            specific Web site, and publishing toxi-
munication with key stakeholders to               project developed P2 plans target-          cant reports and scientific background
facilitate public participation in devel-         ing these small quantity genera-            materials.
oping and implementing P2 measures,               tors, including 8,500 dentists using        Representatives of the New York Acad-
and 3) promotion of the stakeholders’             or removing mercury amalgams;               emy of Sciences (NYAS), which led
recommended strategies to achieve                 more than 143 regional hospitals;           the harbor project, have been asked to
implementation.                                   and	270	laboratories.                       speak about its successes both nation-
The project’s specific outputs include:       Through sound science and collabora-            ally and internationally. The National
                                              tive decision-making, the project has           Pollution Prevention Roundtable
1) Four contaminant reports have                                                              awarded the NYAS and the Harbor
                                              generated viable harbor-specific P2
   been published on mercury,                                                                 Consortium the Most Valuable Pol-
                                              recommendations that will help pro-
   cadmium, PCBs, and dioxins. (See                                                           lution Prevention Writing Award in
                                              mote a cleaner harbor and watershed
   www.nyas.org for full reports.)                                                            2004 for the Pollution Prevention and
                                              environment, reduce the exposure
2) The project has identified leverage        route and accumulations of various              Management Strategies for Mercury
   points for intervention, control           contaminants in the harbor, and im-             in the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
   technologies, and P2 alternatives          prove recreational fishing. The project         NYAS was also honored by “Trees for
   to reduce contaminant inputs to            has also shared the recommendations             the Future,” which planted a grove
   the harbor. The project has also           with local stakeholders who could               of 100 trees as a living tribute to the
   developed cost estimates for these         implement and/or benefit from them.             harbor project.
   alternatives and technologies.             For example, a workshop was held for
3) Harbor-specific P2 recommenda-             New York City area dentists to educate
   tions have been developed for              them about the proper handling of
                                                                                                                                               19
                      Saving “America’s Sea” Through
Area                    Bacteria Tracking
Description                                                                                           Region 4
The Gulf of Mexico is
                                     Environmental Challenge

                                           I
sometimes called “America’s                         n 2004, 85 percent of the nearly 20,000                       KY
Sea” because it is the source
                                                    beach closures in the United States were
of many of the United States’                                                                                     TN              NC
                                                    due to high bacterial levels. Over the
renewable and nonrenewable                                                                                                   SC
                                                  past 25 years, pollution source studies have
resources . Covering 3,400 miles of
shoreline, the 600,000-square-mile                 revealed that in spite of the enormous
                                                                                                       MS      AL        GA
Gulf is bordered by five states (Florida,           improvements in physical wastewater
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and                 treatment facilities, the rapid growth
Texas) and hundreds of communities . The              of residential, commercial, and indus-
Gulf’s bottom topography includes broad                trial developments still overwhelm the                                 FL
continental shelves, submarine canyons,                 treatment systems. Scientists assess
abyssal plains, and ancient reefs . The Gulf             microbiological impairment of water
is of tremendous economic, ecological, and               by monitoring concentrations of fe-
social value to the Southeast and the nation .           cal-indicator bacteria, such as fecal
The specific project area included three coastal          coliforms and enterococci. These microorganisms are associated with fecal
Mississippi counties: Hancock, Harrison, and
                                                          material from humans and other warm-blooded animals, and their presence
Jackson, and the metropolitan areas of Bay St .
                                                          in water is used to indicate potential presence of enteric pathogens that could
Louis, Waveland, Biloxi, Gulfport, Ocean Springs,
                                                          cause illness in exposed persons. Reliable and accurate tools to identify the
and Pascagoula . All of these communities were
severely impacted by Hurricane Katrina in                 sources of the bacteria are imperative for developing best management prac-
2005 and are experiencing increased industrial            tices to control fecal contamination, protect recreational water users from
development and population growth .                       waterborne pathogens, and preserve the integrity of drinking source water
                                                   supplies.
Contact                                            The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) Microbial Source Tracking
Melanie Magee                                     Initiative assists state and local agencies in identifying which animals contrib-
EPA Project Officer                               ute to fecal material containing E. coli and enterococci bacteria. The initiative
Atlanta, GA                                      builds infrastructure, develops and
(228) 688-1191
                                                validates methods, builds networks,
magee .melanie@epa .gov
                                               and educates the public. RGI funding
                                              enabled USM researchers to convene
                                             a group of scientists who work in the
                                            bacterial source tracing (BST) field in
                                           the coastal waters of the southern United
                                          States to discuss, develop, and test the most
                                        appropriate and effective methods. This
                                       gathering provided a better understanding of
                                     the geographical range of the bacterial sources
                                   in the Gulf of Mexico.




20
Partners
The Gulf of Mexico Program’s mission is “to facilitate collaborative actions
to protect, maintain, and restore the health and productivity of the Gulf of
Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the region .”
The partnership includes representation from state and local governments;
the	citizenry	in	each	of	the	five	Gulf	states;	business	and	industry;	federal	
agencies responsible for research, monitoring, environmental protection,
and natural resource management; and the academic community .
The Microbial Source Tracking Initiative is a collaborative initiative sup-
ported by the partners in the Gulf of Mexico Program . This and other
projects are used to achieve the goals of engaging many people across the
Gulf region and coordinating projects that move the Region in an environ-
mentally and economically sound direction .



Major Milestones/Accomplishments                                                                   Pratt Beach Isolate Identification




A
                                                                                                      using 2003 and 2004 data
       lthough BST has become a                      •	 Developed	the	capability	to	reliably	
       research focus for many investi-                 capture, document, and analyze                            Dog
                                                                                                                         Gull
       gators throughout the country,                   bacterial DNA fingerprints.                               8%
                                                                                                                         2%
there have been few initiatives with a               •	 Created	a	reference	library	of	over	
                                                                                                Unknown
regional focus, and no previous efforts                 9,000 bacterial DNA fingerprint           34%
                                                                                                                                   Sewer
specifically considered the problems                    profiles for determining the source                                         28%
encountered in the southeastern                         of bacteria found in the environ-
United States. BST has the potential to                 ment around the Gulf of Mexico.
focus federal, state, and local fund-                •	 Identified	sewage	and	storm	drains	
ing and conservation efforts where                      as important sources of bacteria for
they will be the most effective—on the                  the coastal area.                                               Culvert
actual sources of contamination. To                  •	 USM	received	additional	$600,000	                                28%
increase public awareness of the fecal                  to continue this important effort—a
pollution problem and provide techni-                   10-fold leveraging of funds.
cal knowledge to researchers, USM has
created a Web site, available at
www.usm.edu/bst.
Specific accomplishments resulting
from this project include the following:
•	 Improved	the	knowledge-base	for	
   developing and implementing Total
   Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for
   waters impaired by fecal pollution.




                                                                                                                                           21
                        Reusing Materials Through
Area                      By-Product Synergy
Description
                                   Environmental Challenge                                      Region 7
The Kansas City metropoli-



                                        A
tan area includes locations                        s in other metropolitan areas in the
in both Missouri and Kansas,
                                                   nation, companies in the Kansas                  NE                IA
covering an area of 7,976 square
                                                   City metropolitan area accumulate
miles . Anchored by Kansas City,
                                              waste. However, in the Kansas City area,
Missouri, this metropolitan area is
the 27th largest in the United States          Bridging the Gap (BTG), a nonprofit
and contains 15 counties . In 2005, this        organization, is helping reduce waste                    KS              MO
area had a population of 1,947,694               through the Kansas City Regional By-
residents . Major private employers in the        Product Synergy (BPS) Initiative. BPS
area include Hallmark Cards, Harley-Da-           applies the principles of industrial
vidson Motor Company, Honeywell Federal            ecology in which companies work together to match unwanted by-products
Manufacturing & Technologies, Ford Motor           and underutilized raw materials as resources for new products and processes.
Company, General Motors, and Sprint/Nextel .        Each project involves recruiting between 10 and 20 diverse companies as
Companies with headquarters in the area in-         fee-paying participants and engaging local, state, and federal government
clude Embark Corporation, Hallmark Cards, and        agencies as supporters. Through the BPS process, individual companies are
the Kansas City Power & Light Company .
                                                transformed into a cross-industry team focused on turning every gram of
                                                material running through their plants into product. This collaborative, busi-
Contact                                         ness-driven approach also enlists industry in addressing waste and pollution
Wendy Lubbe                                     issues. EPA and state regulators are working with the participants to ensure
EPA RGI Coordinator                             that reuse options requiring environmental permits result in higher environ-
Kansas City, KS                                 mental protection.
(913) 551-7551
lubbe .wendy@epa .gov                           The Kansas City Regional BPS Initiative is a direct result of an event spon-
David Flora                                     sored by the Environmental Excellence Business Network, a BTG program
EPA Project Officer                            that encourages environmental awareness through community education and
Kansas City, KS                                action. The project’s goal is to bring neighboring industrial facilities and orga-
(913) 551-7523                                nizations together to discover
flora .david@epa .gov                        innovative ways to integrate their
Otavio Silva                                operations, cut pollution, reduce
KC Regional BPS                             material costs, and improve inter-
Initiative Project Manager                 nal processes.
Kansas City, MO
(816) 561-1087, ext . 111
otavio@bridgingthegap .org




22
Major Milestones/Accomplishments                                                         Partners
B
        TG used RGI funds to recruit       Currently BTG and the BPS team are            The BPS Initiative received approximately
        12 local companies to partici-     actively pursuing 29 synergies. All 29        $90,000 in RGI funding from EPA Region
        pate in creating a BPS network.    synergies have passed through the idea        7 . Leveraged resources include $100,000
BTG and the BPS team developed             and discussion stages, while five are         in additional funds from the Missouri
three different working groups in          in the negotiation stage, and one has         Environmental Improvement and Energy
which companies could participate:         been implemented and completed.               Resources Authority (EIERA), and $65,000
products/processes, innovation, and                                                      from the Mid-America Regional Council
                                           A sustainability metric was also de-          (MARC) Solid Waste District . The private
sustainable infrastructure. Reflect-
                                           veloped to assist the project team and        sector has contributed equivalent funding
ing participants’ desire to go beyond
                                           participants in narrowing down the            for each phase of the initiative .
by-product synergies and expand the
                                           synergies’ possibilities and ranking
initiative to search sustainability, the                                                 Public Partners
                                           them. It evaluates three main aspects:
project team and working groups are                                                      •	 EPA	Region	7
evaluating the 50 potential synergies      •	 Economic
                                                                                         •	 Missouri	EIERA	Market	Development	
identified during the data collection      •	 Social/community                              Program
and analysis process, as well as other     •	 Environmental	impacts                      •	 MARC	Solid	Waste	Management	
sustainable practices within participat-
                                                                                            District
ing organizations. BTG was also able
to use the RGI funds to leverage other                                                   Business Charter Members
local funds and in-kind contributions                                                    •	 City	of	Kansas	City,	Missouri
to sustain and expand the project.                                                       •	 Cook	Composites	and	Polymers	(CCP)
BTG and the BPS team developed a                                                         •	 Gerdau	Ameristeel
process to measure where companies                                                       •	 Hallmark	Cards,	Inc.
were in the synergy process and to
                                                                                         •	 Harley-Davidson	Motor	Company
measure their progress. A simplified
                                                                                         •	 Jackson	County,	Missouri
explanation of the process comprises
five stages in developing BPS:                                                           •	 Johnson	County,	Kansas
                                           Participants prepared individual sus-
                                           tainability metrics for each of the iden-     •	 Kansas	City	Power	&	Light	Company
1. Synergy idea: The parties involved
                                           tified synergies. The project team then       •	 Lafarge	Corporation	Cement	Group
   identify the potential for BPS.
2. Discussion: The parties discuss the     compiled the data into a sustainability       •	 Little	Blue	Valley	Sewage	District
   BPS opportunity in more detail          performance matrix for 29 synergies.          •	 Missouri	Organic	Recycling
   (e.g., costs and quantities of mate-    The first implemented synergy project         •	 Systech	Corporation
   rials to be exchanged), including       is a partnership between Hallmark
                                                                                         BPS Project Team
   sustainability metrics evaluation.      Cards, a greeting card manufacturer,
                                                                                         •	 Bridging	The	Gap
3. Negotiation: The parties work           and Missouri Organic Recycling, a
   towards a formal BPS agreement          food waste composter. The Hallmark            •	 Franklin	Associates	–	a	division	of	
   and develop a business plan that        Cards cafeteria serves approximately             Eastern Research Group
   includes a sustainability perfor-       3,000 meals a day, and Missouri             and 80 tons from the Department of
   mance matrix.                           Organic Recycling collects the food         Corrections’ jail. The BPS project team
4. Implementation: Once a formal           waste. Missouri Organic Recycling is        is negotiating with other potential
   agreement is reached, the parties       also composting food waste from the         participants to expand the food waste
   are ready to implement the BPS          Jackson County, Missouri, Depart-           composting synergy.
   business plan.                          ment of Corrections and from Whole
5. Completion: The synergy is              Foods supermarkets. In 2006, Missouri
   complete, and the feedstock needs       Organic Recycling collected and com-
   of one partner are matched to           posted 346 tons of food waste from
   unwanted by-products of another         these sources: 46 tons from Hallmark
   partner.                                Cards, 220 tons from Whole Foods,
                                                                                                                                     23
     Reducing
      Risks




24
RGI
                works to reduce risks      to human health and the environment by funding
                  projects that identify and address pollution sources . Some RGI projects focus
                  on reducing risks by promoting good stewardship practices that protect natu-
ral resources and keep them from becoming polluted . Other RGI projects use scientific meth-
ods to identify and assess a diverse range of risks to local communities, including point and
nonpoint sources of air, water, and land pollution . Finally, some RGI projects focus on revital-
izing lands that have been polluted in the past . Examples of RGI-funded projects that reduce
risks to human health and the environment are identified below and described in more detail
in this chapter .

• In California, RGI funding has supported a            determine the concentration, distribution, and
  number of sustainable agriculture projects            sources of hazardous air pollutants . This survey
  involving local farmers and citizens as well          supported the efforts of EPA and the Louisiana
  as state and local government officials . RGI         Department of Environmental Quality to reduce
  projects have included demonstrating bio-             air pollution and protect local populations that
  logically integrated agriculture methods that         live in this heavily industrialized corridor .
  reduce pesticide use, providing public access to
                                                      • In Colorado, RGI funds helped the residents of
  information on pesticide use and toxicity, and
                                                        the city of Creede and the surrounding portion
  promoting environmental performance certifi-
                                                        of Mineral County develop a community-based
  cation programs that offer market-based incen-
                                                        effort to identify and address pollution from
  tives for pollution prevention . A focus has been
                                                        historic silver mines in the Willow Creek water-
  on preventing air and water pollution through
                                                        shed . The Willow Creek Reclamation Commit-
  improved management and treatment of dairy
                                                        tee is directing a stakeholder effort designed
  manure .
                                                        to improve surface and ground water quality,
• In the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, area, RGI funds        restore physical habitat in the Willow Creek
  are supporting a project to survey ambient            watershed, revitalize mine-scarred lands, and
  air quality . The survey used EPA’s Trace Atmo-       protect the Rio Grande from future fish kills .
  spheric Gas Analyzer mobile laboratory unit to




                                                                                                            25
                           Developing Dairy Manure Technology
Area                         for the San Joaquin Valley
Description
The Pacific Southwest
                                             Environmental Challenge                                          Region 9

                                                       T
supports the most produc-                                   he geographic and economic
tive agricultural economy in the
                                                            characteristics of the San Joaquin
United States . California alone is
                                                            Valley combine to create serious
home to a $30 billion agricultural                                                                                          NV
                                                       environmental problems. The Valley
industry employing 27 percent of the
nation’s farm workers and producing                     exhibits some of the nation’s worst air
                                                                                                                     CA
64 percent of the nation’s vegetables                    quality, with high levels of ozone and
and melons . California’s San Joaquin                     particulate matter that contribute
Valley, with its Mediterranean climate and                 to high rates of respiratory illness.                                  AZ

many rivers born in the surrounding moun-                   In many areas, ground water and
tains, is the single richest agricultural region             surface water are contaminated
in the world . Its alluvial soil produces nearly              with pesticides, fertilizers, animal       GU
300 crops worth $20 billion per year . Despite                manure, and salts, threatening                         HI
its productivity, the San Joaquin Valley has high             drinking water sources.                          AS
poverty rates and its geography also contributes
to some of the worst air quality conditions in                 Dairies contribute to the San
the country .                                                  Joaquin Valley’s environmental problems. The 1.3 million dairy cows in the
California is also the nation’s leading dairy state,           San Joaquin Valley produce an average of 120 pounds of manure per cow per
and dairy products are California’s most valuable              day, a total of 60 billion pounds per year. Air emissions from feed, cows, and
agricultural product, worth nearly $5 billion per              decomposing manure include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), precur-
year . Over the last 30 years, the number of milk              sors to the formation of both fine particulate pollution and ozone; ammonia,
cows in California has more than doubled (to                  a precursor to formation of fine particulates; methane and nitrous oxide,
over 1 .7 million) while the number of dairies                which are global warming gases; and odors. Nutrients, salts, bacteria, and
has dropped by half (to approximately 2,000) .                organic matter in manure can pollute surface water and ground water. The nu-
This concentration of the dairy industry has                 trient and carbon content of dairy manure, however, make it a useful feedstock
caused a dramatic increase in the average                   for the production of agricultural inputs and energy. More efficient manage-
number of animals at new dairies, and a
                                                           ment and treatment of dairy manure could improve the quality of soil, air, and
corresponding increase in the amount and
                                                           water; create jobs and stabilize rural economies; provide a source of renewable
concentration of animal waste . Three-
quarters of the state’s dairy cows are in
                                                          energy; and reduce regulatory pressures on dairies.
the San Joaquin Valley .
                                                                          Cows Make More Than Meat and Milk
Contact
James Liebman
EPA Project Officer
San Francisco, CA
(415) 947-4241
liebman .james@epa .gov




26
Major Milestones/Accomplishments                                                       Partners
To address the environmental effects       ference has since provided a $496,000
                                                                                       State and federal agencies, the University
of dairies in the San Joaquin Valley,      grant for a dairy manure gasification
                                                                                       of California and other state universities,
the Region 9 Agriculture Program and       pilot project in the state.                 environmental and community groups,
the California Air Resources Board                                                     dairy	industry	organizations,	utilities,	and	
                                           Dairies are a source of the VOCs that
formed the Dairy Manure Collabora-                                                     elected officials from the San Joaquin Val-
                                           are precursors to formation of ozone,
tive in 2004. Participants include more                                                ley have met to plan projects that improve
                                           but the precise source of VOCs in
than 200 representatives of federal,                                                   manure treatment . The California dairy in-
                                           dairy operations has been unclear. To
state, and local government agencies;                                                  dustry and regulatory agencies (California
                                           address this data gap, RGI funding
academia; the dairy industry; environ-                                                 Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley
                                           supported a study to quantify VOC           Air Pollution Control District, EPA Region
mental and community groups; utili-
                                           emissions from cows. Results, released      9) keenly follow research conducted by
ties; and technology vendors. The col-
                                           in 2005, showed that cows emit only         the University of California Cooperative
laborative’s approach is nonregulatory
                                           one-eighth as much VOCs as origi-           Extension . The technology assessment
and practical. Its activities, described
                                           nally estimated and that fresh feed         panel included representatives from fed-
below, support the goal of demonstrat-
                                           contributes more VOCs than manure           eral and state agencies, the University of
ing and implementing technologies for
                                           lagoons. This information was an            California, community and environmental
managing manure as a resource, im-                                                     organizations,	and	the	California	
                                           important factor in the San Joaquin
proving soil quality, supplying nutri-                                                 dairy industry .
                                           Valley Air Pollution Control District’s
ents, and generating renewable energy
                                           determination of Best Available Con-
while reducing emissions of pollutants                                               newable energy from dairy manure. At
                                           trol Technologies for dairies. In addi-
to air and water.                                                                    least 18 anaerobic digesters are now in
                                           tion	to	EPA’s	$75,000	in	RGI	funding,	
                                                                                     operation at dairies, and the captured
EPA Region 9’s Agriculture Program         the Milk Advisory Board contributed
                                                                                     bio-gas reduces greenhouse gas emis-
serves as an information clearing-         $65,000 and Merced County provided
                                                                                     sions and fuels electricity generators
house for the collaborative, providing     $600,000.
                                                                                     and alternative-fuel vehicles. Another
frequent e-mail updates on available
                                           The Dairy Manure Collaborative            project involves gasification of manure
funding for dairy manure manage-
                                           formed the Dairy Manure Technology        to produce marketable energy. Other
ment projects and other topics. An
                                           Feasibility Assessment Panel, co-         projects address nutrient management,
early collaborative product, updated,
                                           chaired by Region 9 and the California    another primary concern of the collab-
expanded,	and	reissued	in	2007,	was	a	
                                           Air Resources Board, to assess the        orative. Two of these projects are test-
set of Geographic Information System
                                           environmental and economic per-           ing denitrification technologies using
(GIS) maps showing the locations and
                                           formance of the many technologies         reciprocating ponds and algae tanks,
herd sizes of San Joaquin Valley dair-
                                           proposed to treat dairy manure. RGI       while others are demonstrating tools
ies. These widely requested maps in-
                                           funds supported data collection and       to measure nitrogen content of lagoon
dicate areas with the greatest potential
                                           preparation of the panel’s report, An     water and to meter its application to
for environmental problems as well
                                           Assessment of Technologies for Manage-    fields to match crop needs. Ten dairies
as for economies of scale in manure
                                           ment and Treatment of Dairy Manure        are participating in a demonstration of
treatment. Building on the dairy GIS
                                           in California’s San Joaquin Valley        lagoon mixing and purple-sulfur
project, the collaborative sponsored a
                                           (www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/          bacteria to reduce VOCs and odors.
2006 forum, supported by a $10,000
                                           dairypanel.htm). The 2005 report          The knowledge gained from these
RGI grant to the Local Government
                                           provides a useful survey of currently     projects in the next few years will
Commission, on “Developing Proj-
                                           available technologies, and concludes     move the collaborative toward its
ects and Partners to Comprehensively
                                           that much information on off-the-shelf    goal of demonstrating comprehen-
Treat Dairy Manure in the San Joaquin
                                           products is still needed.                 sive systems for managing all manure
Valley,” at which participants identi-
                                                                                     constituents to control environmental
fied technologies, locations, funding,     Dairy Manure Collaborative par-
                                                                                     contamination while maintaining
and infrastructure needed for manure       ticipants have established a number
                                                                                     economic feasibility in the California
treatment pilot projects. A major          of pilot projects to test a variety of
                                                                                     dairy industry.
funding source introduced to the           treatment technologies. Many of these
California dairy industry at this con-     projects address the generation of re-
                                                                                                                                       27
                          Real-Time Investigation of Air Toxics
Area                        in the Gulf Coast Region
Description
Ambient air monitoring was
                                      Environmental Challenge                                           Region 6

                                            F
conducted at various locations                             or more than 10 years, the Louisi-                              OK
near Baton Rouge, Louisiana .
                                                           ana Department of Environmen-                  NM                          AR
Southern Louisiana is a heavily
                                                           tal Quality (LDEQ) has focused
industrialized	corridor	with	known	
                                                      significant regulatory efforts on reduc-
ambient air quality problems . The                                                                                     TX
region also has many neighborhoods                     ing public exposure to various toxic                                            LA


that are adjacent to huge petrochemical                 and carcinogenic air contaminants
complexes, and are therefore cause for                   in the Louisiana Gulf Coast region.
environmental justice concerns . Although
                                                          While existing air quality samples
Louisiana is in attainment for all federal Na-
                                                           showed elevated levels of air
tional Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
                                                            toxics, more information was needed to identify disproportionately impacted
pollutants,	with	the	exception	of	ozone	in	the	
city of Baton Rouge, air sampling in several                 urban areas and to quantify risks based on cumulative concentrations of air
areas has shown significantly elevated levels of             toxics. Identifying sources of contamination that contribute to cumulative air
hazardous	air	pollutants	(HAPs),	including	ben-               pollution would also support efforts for more effective and targeted enforce-
zene,	toluene,	ethylene	dichloride,	1,3-butadiene,	           ment activities. There was also a need to establish baseline air contaminant
styrene, methyl-tert-butyl ether, and total levels of         concentrations to support the work of the Department of Homeland Security.
volatile organic chemicals . In October 2004, the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
                                                              Beginning in 2004, LDEQ developed a strategy to supplement its ambi-
(LDEQ) released a statement that the Baton                    ent monitoring network with additional highly reactive volatile organic
Rouge area exceeded the annual standard for                   compound (HRVOC) monitors in the Baton Rouge area. The goal of this
1,3-butadiene .                                               monitoring is to achieve real-time data availability, similar to that achieved
                                                      with EPA’s Trace Atmospheric Gas
Contact                                              Analyzer (TAGA). TAGA is a spe-
Kyndall Barry                                        cialized air monitoring vehicle used
EPA Project Officer                                 primarily for real-time detection of
Dallas, TX                                          pollutants, identification of pollution
(214) 665-8567                                     sources, and when necessary, assis-
barry .kyndall@epa .gov                           tance with emergency response activi-
                                                 ties, such as responding to chemical
                                                spills and fires. Region 6 supported
                                              LDEQ’s efforts by allocating RGI funds
                                             to make EPA’s TAGA equipment available
                                            for use in southern Louisiana.




28
Major Milestones/Accomplishments                                                        Partners
I
   n January 2005, EPA Region 6             detected at concentrations ranging
                                                                                        The following stakeholder groups contrib-
   partnered with LDEQ, through the         from detectable levels up to approxi-
                                                                                        uted to the success of this effort:
   use of RGI resources, to conduct         mately 30 parts per billion by volume
                                                                                        •	 Louisiana	Department	of	Environmen-
a survey of ambient air quality in the      (ppbv). Mercury was detected at con-
                                                                                           tal Quality
Baton Rouge area. The purpose of the        centrations up to approximately 4,000
survey was to augment the ever-             nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3),          •	 Louisiana	Environmental	Action	Net-
growing number of stationary ambi-          and benzene was briefly detected in            work
ent air monitors in the area, determine     several survey runs.                        Various members of the petrochemical
other potential sources of air pollution,                                               industry participated through administra-
                                            EPA Region 6 and LDEQ have distrib-         tive order agreements with LDEQ .
and help focus future actions to reduce
                                            uted the survey report and its find-
these pollutants.
                                            ings to local leaders and community
                                                                                      air emissions reported in the state of
The survey used EPA’s TAGA mo-              groups. The survey data also have
                                                                                      Louisiana	in	2005.	In	2007,	the	com-
bile laboratory unit to determine the       proven useful in enforcement cases
                                                                                      pany announced that it was eliminat-
concentration and distribution of           being handled by both agencies, which
                                                                                      ing the use of mercury at its St. Gabriel
the air pollutants and identify poten-      are considering many compliance
                                                                                      chlorine plant by the end of 2008. By
tial sources. Specifically, the survey      assistance and enforcement tools to
                                                                                      converting from mercury cell technol-
focused on eight hazardous air pollut-      address concerns that remain after the
                                                                                      ogy to a new membrane cell technol-
ants (HAPs): benzene; toluene; vinyl        completion of the project. A complete
                                                                                      ogy, mercury emissions are expected
chloride; xylenes; 1,2-dichloroethane;      summary of the survey report and
                                                                                      to be significantly reduced.
trichloroethane; tetrachloroethane          its results can be accessed at the EPA
(PCE); and 1,3-butadiene. The survey        Region 6 enforcement Web page at:         The southern Louisiana TAGA project
also measured airborne concentrations       www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/a/               could not have taken place without the
of hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide,        taga-unit-results.htm.                    funding provided by RGI. With the
and mercury.                                                                          RGI funding, EPA Region 6 was able
                                            EPA Region 6 and LDEQ also are
                                                                                      to respond to the requests of the state
During the project, three air pollut-       closely coordinating with the com-
                                                                                      and community groups like the Louisi-
ants, 1,3-butadiene, vinyl chloride,        panies emitting these pollutants to
                                                                                      ana Environmental Action Network
and mercury, were found to be pres-         identify next steps to address elevated
                                                                                      to bring the TAGA and its innovative
ent at concentrations that warranted        levels of pollution. For example, Pio-
                                                                                      technology to the region.
further investigation. The presence of      neer Companies, Inc. accounted for
1,3-butadiene and vinyl chloride were       an estimated 18 percent of mercury




                                                                                                                                    29
                           Restoring a Watershed in a Colorado
Area                         Mining District
Description                                                                                             Region 8
Willow Creek, formed by the
                                             Environmental Challenge

                                                    M
confluence of East and West                                  etals mining and processing                   MT            ND
Willow Creeks, is a tributary of
                                                             has been a major influence
the Rio Grande River near its head-
                                                             on the economic and cultural
waters in the San Juan Mountains in                                                                                      SD
                                                    development of the western United
Mineral County, Colorado . The Creede                                                                       WY
mining district, one of the largest silver           States, especially in many of the
mining districts in Colorado, occurs within           major mountain ranges in Colorado,
the Willow Creek watershed and includes                California, Montana, Nevada, New                UT

numerous underground mines . A key mining               Mexico and Arizona. Extensive
                                                                                                                CO
facility within the Creede mining district is the       mining began in the 1880s and
Nelson Tunnel, which was constructed to dewa-            1890s and continued, mostly un-
ter the underground mines along the Amethyst              interrupted, until World War II.
vein and to provide a haulage route for ore .              In some areas, primarily Nevada and Arizona, precious metal mining contin-
Historically, the Creede mining district included          ues to be a major part of the state’s economy.
underground silver, gold, and base metal mines
that significantly impaired water quality in the
                                                           Historically, when mines were no longer profitable, individual mines and
35-square-mile Willow Creek watershed . Con-               whole mining districts were abandoned, with little thought about future
centrations	of	zinc,	cadmium,	and	lead	exceed	             environmental impacts. More than 100,000 known abandoned mine sites
the water quality standards put in place by the            currently exist in the country. Many of these abandoned mines are significant
state of Colorado . The state of Colorado, which           sources of heavy metals and acidity to nearby streams, associated riparian/
has placed the segment of the Rio Grande River             aquatic communities, and ground
below the confluence with Willow Creek on the              water. Since mining has such a large
Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) . This is a formal            waste to product ratio, and histori-
designation of impairment and requires the                cally very large volumes of waste rock
state to take concrete actions to restore the             and tailings were disposed of without
water quality to meet applicable standards .             adequate environmental controls,
The Willow Creek watershed is also within
                                                         abandoned mines are very hard to
the EPA Region 8 San Juan Mountains
                                                        clean up. Moreover, characterizing and
focus area . Watersheds within this area
receive focused attention from EPA
                                                       remediating contaminated drainage
Region 8 programs .                                   from underground mines is difficult and
                                                     expensive.
Contact
Mike Wireman
EPA Project Officer
Denver, CO
(303) 312-6719
wireman .mike@epa .gov




30
Major Milestones/Accomplishments                                                       Partners
F
      rom 1999 through 2003, the Wil-      and mine waters discharging from the
                                                                                       The residents of the city of Creede and the
      low Creek Reclamation Commit-        Nelson Tunnel portal. The findings          surrounding portion of Mineral County
      tee (WCRC) completed a rigor-        from this characterization will be used     have developed a community-based effort
ous environmental characterization         to evaluate potential remedies to con-      to identify and address the most press-
of heavy metals contamination within       trol the Nelson Tunnel discharge. A         ing environmental concerns in the Willow
the watershed. This characterization       portion of the RGI funds has also been      Creek watershed . The WCRC, convened
identified discharge from the Nelson       used to conduct a remedial feasibility      in 1999, is directing a stakeholder effort
Tunnel as the largest source of metal      study to assess the treatment require-      designed to improve surface and ground
loading into Willow Creek. Approxi-        ments for the water that flows into the     water quality, restore physical habitat in
mately	70	to	80	percent	of	the	zinc	       Nelson tunnel. A pilot treatment test       the	Willow	Creek	watershed,	revitalize	
load delivered to the Rio Grande via       was designed and implemented, utiliz-       mine-scarred lands, and protect the Rio
                                                                                       Grande from future fish kills . The WCRC
Willow Creek comes from the Nelson         ing a blocked off portion of a mine
                                                                                       has partnered with numerous state and
Tunnel	discharge	(200	to	275	gallons	      drift to temporarily store mine water
                                                                                       federal agencies, including EPA, the U .S .
per minute). Based on this analysis,       for treatment. The pilot was success-
                                                                                       Forest Service, the Colorado Division
the project identified remediation         fully completed, and data are currently     of Minerals and Geology, the Colo-
of contaminated discharge from the         being evaluated and analyzed.               rado Department of Public Health and
Nelson Tunnel as one of two key ele-                                                   Environment, and the Natural Resources
                                           Sampling was conducted for chemical
ments necessary to successfully restore                                                Conservation Service .
                                           analysis and to obtain water level el-
Willow Creek’s aquatic and ripar-
                                           evation and flow rate data at a number
ian habitat. The other key element is
                                           of locations within the Nelson Tun-
restoring the flood plain riparian zone
                                           nel. These data helped to improve the     with the Nelson Tunnel. The Colorado
on lower Willow Creek.
                                           conceptual understanding of the hy-       Division of Minerals and Geology
At many precious metal and heavy           drology of the Nelson Tunnel enough       produced interim and final reports
metal mines, underground source            to allow for some limited feasibility     summarizing the work completed and
control techniques can be effectively      studies related to in-situ treatment of   the data collected and interpreted for
applied as an element of a mine clo-       mine waters prior to discharge from       2003 and 2004.
sure plan or a remedial action where       the Nelson Tunnel portal.
acid mine drainage is an environmen-
                                           The work funded by the RGI grant
tal concern. Source control techniques
                                           has been instrumental in developing
include the use of plugging and/or
                                           a sound conceptual understanding of
backfilling tunnels and shafts, grouting
                                           the hydrologic conditions that control
ground water inflow zones to tunnels
                                           inflow to and outflow from the un-
and shafts, and segregating “clean”
                                           derground mine workings associated
inflows from “contaminated” inflows.
These techniques can be used to isolate
contaminated mine pools, divert clean
inflows around mine workings, reduce
or control the volume of discharge
from tunnel portals, and reduce the
risk of tunnel blowout. The WCRC is
evaluating the use of source control
techniques for remediating the Nelson
Tunnel.
Utilizing RGI grant funds, the WCRC
investigated sources and pathways of
ground water entering the mine work-
ings associated with the Nelson Tunnel
                                                                                                                                     31
                                                                                      WA




                                                                                 10                             8                                                                 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ME
                                                                                                           MT             ND




                                                                                                                                                                                 2
                                                                                OR                                                                                                              VT
                                                                                                                                         MN                                                          NH
                                                                                            ID                            SD                        WI      MI                                   MA
                                                                                                                                                                                           NY




                                                                                9                                                                          5
                                                                                                           WY                                                                                                  RI




                                                                                                                               7
                                                                                                                                                                                                      CT




                                                                                                                                                                                3
                                                                                                                                                                                       PA

    United States                                                                      NV
                                                                                                 UT
                                                                                                                          NE              IA

                                                                                                                                                      IL
                                                                                                                                                                      OH                         DE
                                                                                                                                                                                                     NJ



    Environmental Protection Agency                                              CA                              CO       KS                   MO
                                                                                                                                                           IN
                                                                                                                                                                 KY
                                                                                                                                                                            WV        VA
                                                                                                                                                                                                 MD



    Regional Geographic Initiatives
                                                                                                                                                                4
                                                                                                                                                                 TN                        NC




                                                                                                                      6
                                                                                            AZ                                 OK

    Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations                                                 NM                                 AR                                SC



    Office of Regional Operations                                                9
                                                                                                                                                      MS   AL              GA

                                                                      GU                                                  TX                   LA

    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW                                           AS
                                                                                 HI
                                                                                                                                                                                 FL

    (1301A)
    Washington, DC 20460                                                                              AK
                                                                                                                 10                 PR               VI
                                                                                                                                                           2
    Document number
    October 2007
    www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htm



    Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)                                 Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
    1 Congress St . Suite 1100                                        Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200
    Boston, MA 02114-2023                                             1445 Ross Avenue
    http://www.epa.gov/region01/                                      Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    Phone: (617) 918-1111                                             http://www.epa.gov/region06/
    Fax: (617) 918-1809                                               Phone: (214) 665-2200
                                                                      Fax: (214) 665-7113
    Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI)
    290 Broadway                                                      Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE)
    New York, NY 10007-1866                                           901 North 5th Street
    http://www.epa.gov/region02/                                      Kansas City, KS 66101
    Phone: (212) 637-3000                                             http://www.epa.gov/region07/
    Fax: (212) 637-3526                                               Phone: (913) 551-7003

    Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)                                 Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
    1650 Arch Street                                                  1595 Wynkoop St .
    Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029                                       Denver, CO 80202-1129
    http://www.epa.gov/region03/                                      http://www.epa.gov/region08/
    Phone: (215) 814-5000                                             Phone: (303) 312-6312
    Fax: (215) 814-5103                                               Fax: (303) 312-6339

    Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)                         Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV)
    Atlanta Federal Center                                            75 Hawthorne Street
    61 Forsyth Street, SW                                             San Francisco, CA 94105
    Atlanta, GA 30303-3104                                            http://www.epa.gov/region09/
    http://www.epa.gov/region04/                                      Phone: (415) 947-8000
    Phone: (404) 562-9900                                             (866) EPA-WEST (toll free in Region 9)
    Fax: (404) 562-8174                                               Fax: (415) 947-3553

    Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)                                 Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA)
    77 West Jackson Boulevard                                         1200 Sixth Avenue
    Chicago, IL 60604-3507                                            Seattle, WA 98101
    http://www.epa.gov/region5/                                       http://www.epa.gov/region10/
    Phone: (312) 353-2000                                             Phone: (206) 553-1200
    Fax: (312) 353-4135                                               Fax: (206) 553-2955




Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper

								
To top