Metropolitan Ecosystem Action Strategy

Metropolitan Ecosystem
Action Strategy






Draft Findings and Recommendations
July 29, 1998
Prepared by J. Glenn Eugster
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems & Communities
Washington, D.C.























I. INTRODUCTION


In 1965 at a White House Conference on Natural Beauty Professor Ian McHarg, then Chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning said, “The paradox and tragedy of urbanization and growth is that, while based upon a profound and pervasive desire for more natural environments, it destroys its own objectives. The American dream recedes with each annular ring of suburbanization to a more distant area and a future generation. For this is the sad pattern by which those who escape to the country are encased with their delusions in the enveloping suburb.” Mr. McHarg, most renown for his book “Design With Nature” and his pioneering work in ecological planning, recognized in 1965 the same land use trends that we face in 1998---the relentless exodus of people from our cities and towns to live in the suburbs and countryside.

EPA, as part of its mission “to improve and preserve the quality of the environment”, has a ongoing interest in the environmental impacts of land use and growth. This report summarizes actions which the EPA Office of Sustainable Ecosystems (OSEC) is currently taking to address the environmental impacts of land use and growth-related development, their relationship to other EPA efforts and future activities which could be undertaken.

In November of 1997 the Director of OSEC, in response to land use trends and increasing public concern regarding the environmental impacts of land development patterns, decided to examine existing OSEC activities related to land use and development. With office-wide and some Regional Office input at an OSEC Strategic Planning Meeting, a decision was made to prepare an Action Strategy, with options for OSEC to consider, to assist communities identify and implement alternatives to inappropriate land development and management. Specifically OSEC management was interested in:

·making greater sense out of existing OSEC land use and growth-related work;
·identifying what, if any, role OSEC should have in helping to address land use, growth and environmental protection issues;
·identifying possible options for OSEC to consider in future budget and work plan decisions.

The initial geographic focus of the Action Strategy was determined to be within and adjacent to metropolitan statistical areas, as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. A Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) according to the Office of Management and Budget, is “a geographic area consisting of a large population nucleus together with adjacent communities which have a high degree of economic or social integration with that nucleus”. In short, a metro area is a city and its suburbs.

For reference, in 1990 there were: 1) 117 large metro areas, with 145 central cities over 100,000 in population, such as New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA. etc.; 2) 48 large metro areas, with 185 central cities under 100,000 in population, such as Trenton, N.J., Lancaster, PA., etc.; and 3) 122 small metro areas, with 144 central cities under 100,000 population, such as Charlottesville, VA., Fargo, N.D., and Santa Fe, N.M.(Source: Rusk, David, 1995 Cities Without Suburbs, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, D.C.).

The Metropolitan Ecosystem Action Strategy was prepared by the OSEC with the assistance of an informal Workgroup of Headquarters and Regional Office representatives (See Appendix A). The conclusions and recommendations are intended to primarily focus on activities and issues within that office. However, certain issues and alternatives were identified by Workgroup members, and others, that relate to the activities and responsibilities of other offices within the Agency. In that regard, the document may also be used to foster communication and coordination with other EPA offices involved in land use and growth activities. The complete list of issues and alternatives identified by the Workgroup are included in Appendix B.













II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal: To determine the appropriate role for EPA’s Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, in collaboration with Regional Office and Headquarters programs, to help communities respond to metropolitan land, growth and environmental protection issues and priorities.


Objectives:

1) Increase visibility of ongoing OSEC, OP, NPM and Regional Office environmental protection land use and growth-related work to demonstrate the value-added role of EPA in helping communities protect and restore their areas.

2) Clarify relationships between OSEC/ Regional Office CBEP activities and existing EPA and Administrative land use and growth-related efforts ( ie. OPD, UEDD, PCSD, Center for Sustainable Communities, SDCG’s, etc.).

3) Target OSEC and Regional Office priorities by graphically describing existing land use trends, using existing information, within and adjacent to areas of the U.S. identified by the U.S. Census Bureau as Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) to identify areas of greatest projected growth and development;

4) Illustrate the relationship between metropolitan, and micropolitan , land use change and important natural values and functions. ( Micropolitan areas are defined as small cities which are located beyond metropolitan areas and sprawl, and usually surrounded by countryside. They consist of at least one central city of 15,000 residents and one surrounding county of 40,000 residents. Currently 5% of the U.S. population lives in the 193 small cities which qualify as micropolitan.);

5) Identify, and where possible support, existing Regional Office and Headquarters community-based sprawl-related efforts and needs; and Regional and Headquarters services (ie. technical, information and financial).

6) Determine, through focused dialogue, the role of OSEC and EPA’s Regional Offices in assisting communities identify and implement alternatives to sprawl.

7) Help foster leadership at the national level to better position EPA to become part of the solution to sprawl-related development problems.



III. SUMMARY

Findings

1) Many, if not most, of the community-based land use and growth-related initiatives reviewed by this effort link, or are attempting to link, environmental protection priorities with land conservation priorities. Traditionally EPA’s emphasis has focused on “issuing permits, establishing pollutant limits, and setting national standards and the Agency rather than focusing on the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. As recently as 1994, during the development of “The Edgewater Consensus on an EPA
Strategy for Ecosystem Protection”, EPA leadership has realized that, even we had perfect compliance with all of our authorities, we could not assure the reversal of disturbing environmental trends.

Although EPA has increased collaboration with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private partners to reverse those trends, we have done so without an overall place-based strategy or priorities. In many cases our approaches to natural resource conservation, protection and restoration, within and outside of metropolitan areas, are program or sub-office specific, fragmented and often address site specific community-based environmental values rather than Agency goals and larger ecosystem values and functions.

Such fragmented environmental protection efforts are not unique to the EPA, or the United States for that matter. In the 1994 Green Plan for the Netherlands, recognized as one of the best environmental plans done by any nation, described the pitfalls of this issue by indicating that, "The difficulty with this fragmented approach is that it addresses a succession of new issues without necessarily resolving the previous one, thereby creating the impression that it no longer matters. Attention focuses on one subject, overshadowing others which are no less important. This approach also fails to treat the environment as a single system, which makes it virtually impossible to show people how their behavior effects the environment".

EPA, and community, support for the use of community-based sustainability and ecosystem approaches to environmental protection has never been stronger. The energy and strength of these government and private sector efforts has the potential to help meet National, State and local environmental goals. However, without agreed upon National or Regional strategies to provide an environmental place-based framework for individual projects, there may be no way to ensure that they are aimed at the protection and restoration of the most important human health and ecosystem values and issues.

2) Current and historical land use patterns, and their impact on natural resource values and functions, warrant the development of alternative approaches to environmental protection and restoration. Although much has been accomplished through existing environmental protection regulatory programs, and these efforts will continue to be important in the future, there appears to be a need for a new paradigm which seeks to simultaneously meet environmental, social and economic goals for various places within the U.S. Such a change may warrant a greater understanding of the ecology of sustainable places and the need to re-think the typical way that transportation and development infrastructure is planned to recognize, plan for and conserve, protect and restore environmental values and functions.

The ecology of sustainable places assumes, and requires, an understanding of various environmental values and functions, the services and benefits they provide to society and the opportunities and constraints which they inherently have for human use and development.

The new approach challenges the normal practice of meeting social and economic needs of development before protecting essential environmental values and functions. Within this new approach environmental values are recognized as publicly beneficial. Decisions are truly integrated and made in such a way as to minimize the adverse impacts of development and human activity on
natural resources.
Such an emphasis on environmental resources seeks to elevate the most important of these values and functions to recognize the beneficial public services they provide and to manage them in a way that reflects their importance to overall community quality of life and sustainability goals. This recognition of environmental values would seek to give these natural and living resources status as another form of public infrastructure---specifically green infrastructure.

Green infrastructure is defined as environmental, natural resource and ecological land and water areas, connected in some type of watershed or ecologically-defined unit within a broader fabric of land uses. These areas provide human and living resource values and functions necessary for a community/ region to meet quality of life/ sustainable development goals.

This type of systems approach to place-based natural/ environmental protection, restoration and management can:
·Insure the identification, protection and management of those natural resource values and functions which are essential to maintain/ achieve ecosystem health and urban, suburban and rural community sustainability;
·Help protect or restore a central spine and a reservoir of natural resources which would help to guide land management decisions;
·Provide a higher degree of certainty to the regulatory community for land use development decisions by identifying publicly important natural resource and environmental areas;
·Integrate environmental, social and economic activities/ projects within a context which recognizes human and ecosystem health as an equal public objective.
·Elevation of green infrastructure can establish clear public priorities and help to encourage public agencies and private organizations to put existing resources toward these areas.


3) EPA has a number of initiatives, most notably the innovative and successful Urban Economic Development Division’s Smart Growth effort, aimed at addressing the environmental problems related to land use, growth and development. Although these existing land use and growth initiatives appear to be effective in building outside support for EPA’s work, there is no coordinated effort within EPA, OP or OSEC to address the environmental impacts of land use change within, and related to metropolitan and rural communities. While independent and parallel action can be effective and efficient it often results in confusion within and outside the Agency, duplication of services and tasks, and a fragmented EPA agenda.

These separate initiatives, despite being “incubators for innovation”, create a response to land use, growth and development issues which is less than the sum of its parts. Poor coordination, a consistent lack of collaboration and a lack of an overall Agency agreement on goals and desired outcomes are some of the largest Agency, OP and OSEC obstacles to meeting Agency Strategic Plan goals and objectives.

There appears to be a need to form some type of flexible but coordinated effort which allows for regular communication, collaboration as appropriate, and establishing priorities. In addition, there may also be considerable value in extending this type of coordination to other EPA National Program Offices with sustainable ecosystem and community-based land use and growth-related work/ activities (i.e. Sustainable Development Challenge Grants, Sustainable Urban Environments, Small Watershed grants, National Estuary efforts, XL Communities, etc.).


4) The Metropolitan Ecosystem Action Strategy initially targeted metropolitan regions. Although these metro-areas are of major importance to EPA’s land use and growth efforts, there is also an important relationship between the urban environments and their surrounding countryside. The outward migration of populations from core/ central cities is not only expanding the outer limit of the metropolitan region, it is also extending to rural areas, small cities and towns which are well beyond metropolitan boundaries.

Improvements in highways, lower costs, advancements in telecommunications and a desire by some of the population to have a more rural quality of life, has contributed to a fast paced outward migration to small cities. In fact, the fastest-growing small cities are out pacing metropolitan hot spots such as Atlanta and Colorado Springs, and one out of every 20 persons living in the U.S. now lives in these micropolitan areas.

Development trends in many of these micropolitan areas, which are not a part of any metropolitan region, may have serious environmental, social and economic consequences (i.e. serious impacts to public service and green infrastructure, schools, police, etc.). As the country labors to bring people back to the cities and metropolitan regions it will also be important to recognize this “outward” development trend, its existing and potential impacts on the environment, and look at alternatives for addressing it.


5) EPA has made great strides in implementing the Edgewater Consensus using the Community-Based Environmental Protection approach, the Regional Geographic Initiative, National Estuary Programs, the Watershed Protection Approach, Brownfields, and other similar efforts over the last four years. Regional Office and National Program Manager-led efforts have helped to move the Agency toward place-based solutions to environmental problems. Despite the progress many urban land use and growth efforts do not treat metropolitan areas as ecosystems, undermining serious consideration of environmental values and functions.

The perception that “there isn’t any ecosystem in Baltimore” or any other major American city, can be attributed to the notion that all development compromises and degrades ecosystem values and the only real ecosystems are undeveloped. This view fails to recognize that certain development activities are compatible with ecosystem health and that usually within most major metro-areas are remnant ecosystems. It also reflects an opinion that successful urban revitalization lies within the development community and terms such as “ecosystem approach” or “riparian area restoration” can and will make developers less willing to support individual urban redevelopments.

Most existing EPA, and President’s Council on Sustainable Development and Council on Environmental Quality, growth and sustainable communities efforts emphasize economic development/ restoration strategies which focus on site specific projects or general regional coordination and visioning without a holistic approach to natural resource values and functions or a larger ecosystem context (i.e. watersheds, living resource systems, etc.). Although such revitalization efforts may anchor larger place-based efforts they do not recognize or address the relationship of site-specific activities to the larger ecological systems. Such site-specific efforts, even if successful, may do little to protect important environmental values.

The outward migration from urban areas does present EPA and others the opportunity to help communities, States and the private sector reallocate land uses and restore important environmental values and functions within core cities and suburbs. These degraded ecosystem have the potential to be restored to conditions with high social, and some ecological and economic value. If EPA-OSEC’s work is to embrace the notion of sustainability, as described in its Mission Statement, Agency efforts will need to substantively recognize the importance of ecological values and functions and an ecosystem context for urban revitalization and sustainability projects.


Major Recommendations:

1. PREPARE A VISION FOR ECOSYSTEMS AND COMMUNITIES

Create a vision for sustainable ecosystems and communities.
EPA, with early and frequent input from EPA and non-EPA interests, needs to articulate a clear vision to describe what the Agency hopes to achieve with its land use growth, ecosystem management, and sustainability efforts. Specifically OSEC needs to work with NPMs and Regional Office leaders to develop and agree on a vision for sustainable ecosystems and communities. The vision process should be assigned to one or more of the offices actively involved in land use and growth issues (i.e. Smart Growth, CBEP, SUE, RGI, Brownfields, etc.) who are willing to play a consensus-based leadership role. The process could:
·Measure the progress of the EPA place-based and community-based efforts against the original goals and objectives of the 1994 “Edgewater Consensus”.
·Work with the Ecosystem Task Force to help describe the relationship between ecosystems and communities; how to identify the underlying ecosystem in an area; how to assess land use and growth impacts and trends; and how to re-orient EPA programs to simultaneously embrace ecosystem and community-based approaches.
·Convene an Forum, with representatives from within and outside of EPA, in Washington, D.C. to share information about existing program efforts and identify the common elements, goals and objectives, related to sustainable ecosystems and communities, of each.
·Prepare, in cooperation with communities and State governments, a Draft Action Plan for Sustainable Ecosystems & Communities. The Plan could: describe a definition of sustainable ecosystems and communities; identify existing and possible EPA roles and responsibilities; show the relationship of land use and growth-related work to the Agency Strategic Plan; set priority tasks and geographic areas; identify indicators to measure success and other appropriate tasks.
·Examine selected existing OP reinvention/ organizational-change efforts, such as XLC, Smart Growth, CBEP, Environmental Justice, the CBEP Fund, etc. to assess progress, describe EPA’s value-added contribution to sustainable ecosystems and communities, measure results and capture lessons learned.
·Discuss the results of the EPA vision process with major non-federal partners and get feedback.
·Publish a straight-forward brochure which briefly describes OP’s vision for sustainable communities and ecosystems, appropriate programs and services, and contacts for further information.


2. INFORMATION FOR DECISIONS

Assess land use, natural and living resource information to help make choices about where OSEC works in the future.
EPA should review current reports and surveys, such as the Small Communities Survey and various Comparative Risk Assessments, to better understand what are the most important community and State government information needs and use this information to help shape customer services.
·Collaborate with existing EPA community and state and local government efforts to identify needs (i.e. Local Government Advisory Group, Small Communities Task Force).
·Engage National state and local government organizations in the analysis (i.e. National Governors Association, Environmental Council of States, National Association of Counties, League of Cities, etc.).
·Convene small focus groups to provide insights and ideas.

EPA should describe, and demonstrate, the types of environmental information, analysis and services which are available to decision-makers at all levels of the government and in the private sector to simultaneously integrate environmental, social and economic goals and objectives within ecosystems and communities.
·Describe land use trends, based on local land use plans and U.S. Census Bureau data, within major metropolitan and micropolitan areas.
·Identify significant ecological values and functions within major metropolitan and micropolitan areas.


3.TARGET PRIORITIES

Target priority areas for sustainable ecosystem and community-based assistance.
OSEC should, in cooperation with Regional Offices, States and communities, use existing land use trend information and research on significant natural resource values and functions to identify potential areas for technical, informational and financial assistance. Assistance would be provided on a community-request-by-request basis within existing resource allocations. Specific targeting work could:
·Describe ecological values and functions which may be impacted by future local land use plan implementation.
·Identify urban metropolitan ecosystem areas which offer opportunities for significant environmental/ ecosystem restoration.
·Identify rural areas/ micropolitan areas, with significant ecological values, which are being impacted by urban migration patterns.


4. DEMONSTRATE USE OF GIS

Increase access to GIS information.
OSEC, in cooperation with the Center for Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS), U.S.Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State research, Education and Extension Service, the National Center for Resource Innovations, and the Interagency Geographic Data Task Force, should increase its efforts to make existing information on land use and development trends and natural resource values and functions available to public and private decision-makers.
·Prepare a summary of innovative local and regional initiatives which show how existing land use, growth and natural resource information is used to help decision-makers simultaneously achieve environmental, social and economic goals to help achieve sustainable ecosystems and communities.
·Collaborate with other selected government and NGO efforts, on specific projects, to share existing information and GIS expertise, aimed at important green infrastructure resources (i.e. American Farmland Trust-Farms at Risk; USDA, Forest Service--Priority State & Private Forestry Areas and Conservation Reserve Areas; Trust for Public Lands---Urban Open Space Areas; The Conservation Fund--Greenway Areas; National Fish & Wildlife Foundation--Migratory Bird Habitat, etc.)
·Partner with EPA media programs to provide assistance to help insure that green infrastructure information and ecosystem approaches are included in Agency projects and initiatives including Brownfields, Clean Air Communities, Smart Growth, Sustainable Urban Environments, Community-Based Environmental Protection Fund, etc.)


5. ACCESS PROGRAM INFORMATION

Increase access to program information.
Use existing EPA networks such as the UEDD’s Smart Growth Network, Wetlands Hotline, Comparative Risk Centers, CEIS, and others to publish and make available to public decision-makers information describing existing land use, growth, and sustainability projects.
·Publish summaries of selected regional and local sprawl, growth management, countryside stewardship and urban revitalization/ restoration projects which demonstrate how communities are using EPA programs to integrate environmental, social and economic decisions within an ecosystem framework.


6. INTEGRATE PROGRAM EFFORTS

Foster program integration to protect and restore the environment.
EPA should consider a more coordinated/ integrated approach to helping communities help themselves address the environmental impacts of sprawl related development.
·Target existing land use, growth management and sustainable community and ecosystem grants and technical assistance programs, and new initiatives, to support priorities places.
·Develop a data-base of information on existing EPA efforts.
·Continue to support the Community-Based Environmental Protection Fund as a primary source of multi-media program funds for Regionally identified sustainable ecosystem and community projects.
·Demonstrate State and federal program integration approaches on 3-5 metropolitan regions.


7. ADVOCATE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS

Design and implement a “2020 Green Infrastructure Initiative”.
EPA, in cooperation with States, local governments and community groups, should develop a strategy for a 2020 Green Infrastructure Initiative to encourage that all EPA place-based development and revitalization efforts will include environmental and ecosystem-based goals and objectives.
·Seek EPA, and outside, collaborators to further develop and support the 2020 Green Infrastructure Initiative (i.e. EPA Sustainable Urban Environments, Office of Water, The Conservation Fund, National Association of County’s, Environmental Council of States, etc.)
·Compile a summary of the most successful plans and procedures for identifying, establishing and implementing a green infrastructure plans.
·Identify tools, techniques and training currently available to communities to help them develop and implement green infrastructure plans.
·Demonstrate green infrastructure plans and strategies at a variety of scales including, but not limited to within a: State; Metropolitan Area; fast growing rural (i.e. Micropolitan) area; federal land holding; Tribal land; local government area; private development; and corporate and other types of private property.
·Work with the Office of International Activities to gain information and experience about green infrastructure efforts in other countries (i.e. Toronto, Canada).






8. SET THEMATIC PRIORITIES FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS

Use existing programs to target priorities.
Existing EPA discretionary programs should be encouraged to give greater priority to supporting sustainable ecosystem and community-based efforts to identify and implement alternatives to land use and growth issues and sprawl development.
·Refine the criteria of existing community-based discretionary funding programs, such as Sustainable Development Challenge Grants, Community-Based Environmental Protection Fund, Regional Geographic Initiative, Sustainable Urban Environments, etc., to give greater priority to community-based efforts which address the land use and growth issues or implement alternatives to sprawl development patterns.

Collaborate with other federal programs.
Collaborate with Federal agencies to leverage other discretionary programs to increase support for green infrastructure plans and community-based land, growth and sustainability efforts.
·Partner with USDA Forest Service Urban Resource Partnership Program to help communities in urban areas restore ecosystems/ green infrastructure.
·Explore cooperation with USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Conservation Reserve Program to conserve and protect suburban and rural riparian corridors and other green infrastructure areas (i.e. timber resources, etc.)
·Continue to partner with the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the NCRI to make use of existing land use trend information.
·Explore ways to support NOAA Coastal Zone Management Program projects which assist local governments to prepare sustainability plans.
·Partner with USDOI National Park Service projects which assist local goveernments to carry out heritage conservation projects.


9. CONTINUE TO WORK IN PLACES

Continue to support existing EPA sustainable ecosystem and community pilot projects.
OSEC is actively involved in a series of existing sustainable ecosystem and community-based projects which are addressing land use and growth issues within metropolitan regions. These partnership projects, which are in various stages of completion, are aimed at protection/ restoring Nationally important environmental values, testing new approaches to protection and restoration, and “reinventing” the way EPA HQ and Regional Office staff carry out our goals. The following Sustainable Ecosystem and Community “Metropolitan Pilot Areas” should receive continued technical, financial and information support:
·Eastward Ho! South Florida
·Metropolitan Area “Countryside Stewardship Projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed”( Kent Narrows, Maryland; Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; etc.), Delaware River Watershed ( Bucks County, Pennsylvania; Catskill Mountains, New York; etc.), and New England (Blackstone Valley, Massachusetts;etc.).
·Northeast Ohio/ Cleveland Metropolitan Region
·Maine’s Fastest Growing Towns
·Lower Columbia Estuary, Washington/ Oregon
·Houston Metropolitan Region Comparative Risk Project, Texas
·Santa Ana Watershed, California
·Arizona Region 2025 Vision
·Growing Healthy in the Valley, California
·Growth Management in Umatilla County, Oregon
·FY 1997-98 Sustainable Urban Environment Projects
·Selected demonstration projects, to be determined by EPA Regional Offices and communities, to refine the Green Infrastructure approach.

Transfer the lessons learned from pilot projects.
The results and lessons learned from the Sustainable Ecosystem and Community Pilot Projects should be shared among EPA and the various community leaders in order to broaden knowledge and experience in addressing sprawl and natural resource issues and solutions. EPA-OSEC should:
·Report on the results of these pilots and how they contribute to EPA’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives.
·Convene a workshop to allow the project leaders to present, and discuss, their work with EPA staff.
·Prepare a brief bi-annual report on the results of the pilot projects and distribute it to EPA and other organizations/ interests.



10. SUPPORT INNOVATIVE URBAN ECOSYSTEM EFFORTS

Improve EPA-OSEC’s ability to deliver tools to support urban ecosystem management.
To improve OSEC’s ability to support innovative urban ecosystem efforts, and to modify the Agency understanding of their values and functions, EPA-OSEC could:
·Provide Regional Office staff and Headquarters funding to assist National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) “Urban Ecosystem” projects in Baltimore, Maryland and Phoenix, Arizona.
·Meet with staff from UEDD to discuss how “Industrial Ecology” can be used to compliment CBEP and pilot projects.
·Continue to target OSEC “Community Dynamics” assistance to metropolitan ecosystem areas to look at the relationship between urban populations and ecological values and functions.
·Research, and transfer to EPA staff, the lessons learned from existing innovative urban ecosystem management efforts (i.e. Baltimore Urban League’s Partnership with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; various sustainable technology ecological industries; the New England Urban Environmental Initiative, etc.).
·Collaborate with staff from the Sustainable Urban Environments effort to foster mutually supportible activities (i.e. inventory and needs assessments; tool development; on-the-ground projects; forums and stakeholder meetings, place-specific demonstrations; etc.)
·Work with the U.S. Census Bureau to develop a more holistic, sustainable, ecosystem-based definition for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (i.e. add an environmental perspective to the existing U.S. Census Bureau definition).


11. OSEC OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUCCESS

Target certain activities to compliment and support other efforts and increase OSEC effectiveness.
Although all of OSEC’s current land use and growth activities are important, OSEC’s role in land use and growth issues could best be defined by focusing on priority unment needs and giving greater priority to the skills and resources of staff and managers. The follwoing specific focus, with increased staff and funding, will enable OSEC to fill an appropriate niche, better service customers and compliment existing OP and Program Office efforts.
·Provide enabling leadership to the NPMs and Regional Offices for implementation of the vision described in the 1994 report, “Toward a Place-driven Approach: The Edgewater Consensus”.
·Collaborate with the Ecological Society of America and National State and local government organizations (i.e. U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, etc.) to determine how ecology and ecological science can contribute to community-based planning and decision-making.
·Further develop EPA’s approach to ecosystem protection using place-based and community-based initiatives and partners and by updating the Edgewater Consensus.
·Continue to develop specific place-specific and policy expertise, at the highest standard possible within funding and staffing levels, in the area of applied ecosystem management, sustainable development and human ecology (i.e. community dynamics).


For Additional Information

For additional information, or to submit comments, on the Metropolitan Ecosystem Action Strategy contact:

J. Glenn Eugster or John Wilson
USEPA, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems & Communities
Geographic Innovations Staff
401 M Street, SW (Mail Code 2183)
Washington, D.C. 20460

(202)260-2772













Appendix A: Partners/ Collaborating Regions & Headquarter Offices

EPA Workgroup Members

Rosemary Monahan, Region I
Sumner Crosby, Menchu Martinez, Region III
Marilou Martin, John Haughland, Alfons Winklhofer, Joel Morbito, Richard Mariner, Region V
Bobby Hernandez, Region VI
Sara Russell, Region IX
Rick Parkin, Region X
Paul Rasmussen, OAR
Pam Hurt. OAR-SDCG
Ralph Wright, OPPTS
Glenn Eugster, John Wilson, Jamal Kadri, OP-OSEC

Participants/ Participating Organizations to Date
Regional CBEP Coordinators
Regional RGI Coordinators
National Program CBEP Coordinators
Regional SDCG Coordinators
OP-OPD
OP-UEDD
OAR-SDCG
OAR-Sustainable Urban Environments
CEIS
National Center for Resource Innovations (NCRI)
Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
Staff from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Staff from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)
The Growth Management Institute











Appendix B: Issues, Questions & Matters of Concern:

The following issues were identified, as important to the Action Strategy, by Headquarters, OSEC and Regional Office staff :

nStaff resources: Will an increased focus on community-based approaches to sprawl development require additional staff or simply redirect existing resources?
nTraining: What type of trainning is appropriate for HQ and RO staff?
nRecent accomplishments. There is a need to describe existing EPA accomplishments.
nRoles: What is OSEC role/ niche in this work area? What role should Regional CBEP efforts play? How does OSEC’s work related to UEDD’s Smart Growth effort?
nStates: How will EPA work with States, and State organizations such as the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) on this effort?
nRegional perspectives: How do we benefit organizationally from Regional Office experiences.
nRegional Impacts: There is concern about the burdens that this work will place on ROs to compile data and respond to requests.
nPlace-specific assistance: Will OSEC put FTE’s into a place (i.e. South Florida--Eastward Ho!) ? If so, what places?
nProjects & Services: What kinds of projects should CBEP/ OSEC focus on ? How do we decide where we work? What products and services should/ could we provide?
nConstituency: Who are the organizations, sectors and agencies we expect to collaborate with?
nInternal Bias: The effort could provide a means for OSEC to become more responsive and integrated in how we interact with communities and other outside interests. The goals of this effort should go further to reflect a willingness to consult with communities and States on what their priorities are, rather than determining them and hoping to achieve buy-in.
nInformation: Confusion over the amount of information that would be generated
and how it would be applied at the users end.
nLocal Application: Concern about getting into a large data gathering exercise if we have no way of applying the findings. What purpose will the information serve at the
local level?
nLocal Appropriateness: How will local governments perceive our role?
nRegional Communication: Does HQ and RO CBEP Coordinators need to increase communication and information sharing on alternatives to sprawl ?
nProfessional Help: There is a need to collaborate with national professional organizations such as the American Planning Association and let them know that we are looking for applicable action strategies at the local level.
nObstacles: What are the obstacles and impediments to accomplishing this strategy?
nGreen Infrastructure: We like the concept of green infrastructure. The regional planners among us have been thinking in those terms for some time. However, is it possible that people could misinterpret what this is, given that there are such terms as green industry and green buildings. Green infrastructure is composed of natural resource systems which are a included in a regional open space or greenway system. It is not, as defined, “hard” infrastructure like highways that have been designed in an environmentally sensitive manner. We just need to make sure this isn’t misinterpreted.
nSometimes there is great value in creating a new idea, such as green infrastructure, which can capture imaginations and stimulate cooperative activity. But it may be unfair to ask all those regions which have been developing and adopting regional greenway plans to change their nomenclature to coincide with a program of EPA. It would be useful for EPA to have a green infrastructure program but metro areas should be allowed to bring in their open space planning, greenway planning, etc., under this rubric.
nThere is major metropolitan area (and state) interest in accelerated open space/green infrastructure preservation and development. Therefore an EPA initiative would be extremely timely and supportive. However, EPA doesn’t necessarily have to start a complex new process, but rather help bring resources to bear on getting the planned acquisition/preservation accomplished.
nIn short, a green infrastructure program needs to be able to help those metro areas that need to start planning for green infrastructure as well as those metro areas that have done the planning and need help with implementation. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has a greenway program which provides seed money for greenway planning to Illinois metropolitan areas. This could be a model that EPA could examine and encourage.
nLand Conservation Link: It is pointed out that an attempt is being made to link environmental protection and land conservation priorities. It is good to make this clear and to explain why it is important. Many people outside of EPA equate environmental protection with land conservation and they don’t understand that this is something new for what has been a largely regulatory agency.
nOutward Migration: It is noted that outward migration is occurring beyond metropolitan areas. This is a phenomenon that may not be adequately addressed by metropolitan agencies working with longstanding definitions of metropolitan areas. There is interest in the Chicago area in expanding the jurisdiction of the regional planning agency to include the next outlying ring of counties. In fact, there is a scattering of new development all across northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. It is appropriate for federal regions, such as Region 5, to monitor and address this larger issue. This raises some fundamental questions about priorities for encouraging development in town-like settings, regardless of scale, in order to preserve farmland, country landscapes, and make it possible to provide cost-effective services.
nCreating a Vision: Creating a vision would be a valuable exercise. There are many EPA initiatives that touch upon the subject of sustainable communities and green infrastructure. It would be a good idea to articulate clear roles and relationships in order to create a complementary package and avoid confusion and duplication of effort.
nNational Land Use Trends: It would be very beneficial for EPA to describe national trends related to land use and environmental quality. Information and data will vary in availability and quality from state to state and from metro area to metro area. EPA needs to assist each metro area analyze its situation as best it can and, in addition, provide the national overview. Metropolitan planning agencies are logical partners for this work. In the Chicago area the “Chicago Wilderness” organization, a coalition of more than 60 agencies and organizations, is leading this work. The project would be an excellent model for other metro areas to know about.
nEcosystem Conditions: Few metro areas probably have a good handle on ecosystem conditions, identification of threatened natural communities, etc. They may need help in organizing to do this. EPA could provide leadership and possibly support basic analysis that would lead to identification of priorities.
nGIS: Most natural resource agencies are developing or have already developed GIS for mapping and analysis purposes. In some cases detailed info for metro areas is not available. In other situations, different agencies have different data and never the twain shall meet. EPA can play a role in supporting the development of coherent metro area GIS capabilities. EPA may be able to help by making its own data available (more accurate? more up to date?) but shouldn’t, on the other hand, create redundant data. Each metro area will be different and require a different kind of assistance.
nSuccess Stories: Provision of state of the art information is extremely valuable, especially where it is possible to provide concrete data on benefits, costs, etc. There are a lot of NGO and governmental organizations out there providing information on sustainable development projects across the country. A possible role for EPA is not to duplicate this work but to provide “meta” information on these existing services and possibly highlighting the best of the best examples.
nSustainable Development: For your information, we in OSEA are helping the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments organize a sustainable development conference as part of a larger strategy for addressing land use, sprawl, and water management issues in the HEADWATERS area of three large watersheds that flow into the Great Lakes. This Headwaters Initiative looks like a very good prototype for similar watersheds in metro areas that are experiencing rapid growth. Also, Chicago Wilderness was mentioned previously as a good model for metropolitan ecosystem management. EPA Region 5 has been very active in supporting Chicago Wilderness.
nRegion 5 staff (also Bill Painter) recently attended a workshop sponsored by The Natural Step organization. We were all impressed by the framework and methodology developed by TNS through which industries can alter their processes to promote ecological and economic sustainability. We will be talking more about this within OSEA to see if we can make good use of this valuable approach.











































Appendix C: Selected Initatives Reviewed

National Initiatives:

·Ecosystem Management: “The Edgewater Consensus”
·Sustainable Development: Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program
·President’s Council on Sustainable Development: “Building Communities for the 21st Century”
·CEQ Metropolitan & Rural Task Force
·Smart Growth
·UEDD Assistance
·Clean Water Initiative
·Clean Air Communities
·Sustainable Urban Environments
·Regional Geographic Initiatives

OSEC Initiatives:

·CBEP Regional and NPM Project Characterizations
·Community-Based Environmental Protection Fund
·Regional and State Planning Division
·ECOS Cooperative Agreement
·Growth Management Institute
·Implementing Local Agenda 21: ICLEI

Pilot Projects

·South Florida Urban Initiative
·Sustainable Communities & Countryside Stewardship
·Claremont County, Ohio
·Houston Metro Region Comparative Risk, Texas
·Northeast Ohio/ Cleveland Metro Region
·Maine’s New Suburbs
·Lower Columbia Estuary
·Cahaba River Watershed
·Community-Based Environmental Protection Fund Projects: EPA’s Offices of Air & Radiation, Water, Solid Waste & Emergency Response, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and Regional Operations , with OSEC’s assistance, is providing funding support to Region IX and X for community-based sprawl and growth management efforts. These projects, which include: “Region 2025 Vision” in AZ; “Growing Healthy in the Valley” in CA; and “Growth management in Umatilla County” in OR. In addition, the CBEP Fund is providing support to Urban Environmental Initiatives in Providence, RI; South Boston, MA; Hartford, CT; the South Bronx, NY; Charleston, SC; Houston, TX; St. Louis, MO; and North Denver, CO.

Research

·Built Environment & Sustainable Communities Report: (Info requested from OSEC staff)
·Model Development Principles to Protect Streams, Lakes and Wetlands: The Center for Watershed Protection
·Green Infrastructure Case Studies
·1996 SDCG Evaluations

Land Use Trend Information

·National Center for Resource Innovations,with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service.
·Economic Valuation: OSEC Guidance Document
·Targeting Priorities for Ecosystem Protection
·GIS Tools: “Ecological Sensitivity Targeting & Assessment Tool”
·Compatible Economic Development: The Nature Conservancy
·Growth Management Institute

Related Initiatives Assisted by OSEC

·Smart Growth
·Regional Geographic Initiative Projects (i.e. the Green Communities Tool Kit; the NE Ohio Initiative; the New England Urban Environmental Initiatives, and the Williamette Valley Initiative in OR).
·Center for Environmental Information and Statistics: Workshop on Land Use Information, Analysis and Applications” including presentations on “Changing Places”, the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), Ecological Sensitivity Targeting and Assessment Tools (ESTAT), Open Space Loss and Future Land Use Build Out in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Region, and Maine’s Comparative Risk Project.
·Sustainable Urban Environments
·Sustainable Development Challenge Grants

Appendix D: Selected Regional Land Use and Growth Initiatives

Region I
·Sprawl Work Group
·New England Urban Ecosystem Initiative
·Grow Smart Rhode Island:

Region II
·NY City Water Supply Protection/ Catskill Mountains

Region III
·Sprawl/ Land Use Workgroup
·Land, Growth & Stewardship Directive 1996 the Chesapeake Executive Council, of the Chesapeake Bay Program
·Build Out Analysis: CBP’s Land, Growth & Stewardship Committee,
·Sustainable Development in the Rappahannock Watershed, VA:
·Green Communities Assistance

Region IV
·Jacksonville, Florida Land Use/ Vegetation Analysis
·Impacts of Sprawl Workshop
·Blueprint to Protect Coastal Water Quality: A Guide to Successful Growth Management in the Coastal Region of NC.
·Eastward Ho! South Florida:
·Edisto Basin Sustainable Development, SC:

Region V
·Committee for Sustainable Urban Development
·Federal Antidotes to Sprawl
·EPA & Sprawl Fact Sheet
·Workshops: Growth Management Institute
·Northeast East Ohio Regional Land Use
·Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio Land Use Analysis

Region VI
·Houston, Texas

Region VII
·Metropolitan Kansas City Area Sustainable Land Use Initiative:



Region VIII
·North Denver Zip Code

Region IX
·Southwest Sustainable Neighborhood, AZ:
·Region 2025 Vision, AZ
·Urban Meetings and Forum
·Phoenix, AZ Long-Term Ecological Research Grant (NSF)
·Growing Healthy in the Valley, CA
·League of Urban Gardeners:
·Repairing Older Suburbs in LA Metropolitan Area:

Region X
·Williamette Valley Geographic Initiative, Oregon
·Growth Management in Umatilla Co. , Idaho
·Couer d’ Alene, Oregon




























Appendix: D Community-Based Alternatives to Sprawl: Oprtions

The Action Strategy

The process which was used to develop the Action Strategy included: 1) discussions with OSEC managers and project staff and other EPA program leaders working on related activities; 2) communications with Regional Office managers and project leaders; 3) a review of existing information; 4) input from two work sessions at the OSEC Strategic Planning Meeting; and 5) a review of various sections of the draft report by a informal Workgroup of EPA Headquarters and regional Office leaders.

Alternatives

The following list of short and long-term alternatives were identified by NPM/ Headquarters, Regional Office and OSEC managers and staff through OSEC’s Strategic Plan process, review of the Draft Metropolitan Ecosystem Action Strategy Work plan and other discussions. These and other ideas will be further developed/ revised and evaluated as part of this effort.

nShort‑term FY 1998 Assistance

1) Showcase both successful and unsuccessful sprawl/sustainability projects.

2) Sponsor forums in the communities to stimulate discussion, network, and exchange information.

3) Sponsor an array of demonstration projects to find new or innovative approaches.

4) Sponsor training/workshops to build local capacity to use the new/innovative approaches.

5) Support the development and dissemination of tools.

6) Out place OSEC personnel to the Regions and communities to work on projects and gain real world perspective on needs.

7) Package assistance and information would be extremely helpful, especially short fact sheets for distribution which could lay out development alternatives (e.g, TNDs, TODs, conservation communities, etc.) And we would love to be able to share model ordinances for mixed use, pedestrian/bicycle‑ friendly communities, habitat preservation, native landscaping, on‑site natural storm water management, etc.

8) Broaden/ sponsor dialogue within EPA to increase understanding of environmental impacts of sprawl

9) Bring in experts to educate EPA

10) Facilitate bringing in others; e.g. Bankers, other agencies

11) Look at funding sources for working on sprawl

12) Tap universities for expertise and research

13) Capture information from past OSEC work (e.g.. With GMI; Cleveland work with GMI follow up to Comparative Risk; Region V coordination results; JT Center?)

14) Priorities: Need characterization information of sprawl-related projects

15) Need material to respond to requests

16) Help ROs target CBEP projects to sprawl areas

17) Describe success stories; before and after pictures

18) Investigate work in Ann Arbor, MI regarding transportation

19) Technical SWAT Team (ie. Cleveland Example, Countryside Stewardship Exchanges, etc.)

20) Rapid assessment method for local project assistance

21) Region V is pursing a public‑outreach approach to sprawl, they are putting together a Regional information packet, considering assembling a poster presentation for conferences as well as the possibility of a ready‑to‑use slide presentation. OSEC assistance could be provided,
especially in the provision of information for those types of activities.


nLong-Term Assistance:

1) OSEC could also contribute some valuable work to other EPA
efforts at the Washington level to address the disconnections between federal
policies relating to development and its environmental consequences.

2) Through our initial planning, we have discovered a market for several more conferences and similar activities to help struggling and/ or smart growth efforts throughout the Region gain the needed momentum. We are also very interested in inaugurating a wider variety of specific demonstration projects in the future.

3) Supporting demonstration projects is a good idea, not necessarily as part
of developing the OSEC strategy, but rather as a means of supporting real
projects that seek to deal with the problem. Could/should EPA be doing something to encourage such planning at the local level?


4) Since ecosystems and local economies/laws vary so much across the country, it would be interesting to see whether there are common threads and the degree to which regional offices should be given latitude and assistance in responding to regional conditions.

5) The strategy could focus on high level work with
public and private groups at a national policy level and the preparation
of information materials that showcase progressive initiatives nationwide or
internationally and put problems in a national or global perspective.

6) OSEC could lead an agency-wide effort to review agency/program policies and their effect on sprawl or sustainable development. It is important for us as an agency to determine if our policies are part of the problem or solution. If some of our policies are part of the problem, what are we going to do about it.
7) OSEC could lead an agency-wide education effort to raise the attention level within the agency to sprawl/sustainable development. I think this is important for more informed decision making, as well as to achieve a better understanding of the Federal role regarding this issue. Our decision making needs to assure that our policies are part of the solution.

8) OSEC could lead an interagency effort to convene a Federal agency summit at the national level to draw attention to the issues associated with sprawl/sustainable development, and identify actions each Federal agency can take to become part of the solution to the problem. The recommendations of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development could provide the backdrop for the summit.

9) Need to look at market forces

10) Identify EPA incentives for sprawl

11) Identify programmatic and political barriers and develop strategy to overcome

12) Look at EPA Programs for incentives/ disincentives to address sprawl

13) Influence/ inform Congressional staff about CBEP/ sprawl work

14) Identify lessons learned from other federal agencies

15) Emerging Issues/ Geographic Initiatives Division staff should handle policy issues

16) Unless the federal government, in general, coordinates its
financing policies not to fund programs and services in areas of "urban sprawl"
(which it would really have first to define), agencies will end up in a
cross‑fire. In order for EPA to address "sprawl" it would have to take on a
growth policy similar to Maryland Gov. Glendenning's Growth Act of 1992, by
identifying "smart growth areas" and deciding not to fund projects that encourage,
contribute, or lend support to urban or rural sprawl....now, the problem
is to get buy‑in from all other federal agencies.

17) Focus on work to do the process of community engagement (e.g. visioning) and how to do indicators.

18) Work with UEDD to identify places that have a need for OSEC community engagement and indicators work.

19) Refer communities to UEDD to deliver technologies.

20) Use UEDD’s “Sustainable Community Network” and let the Network know of OSEC work in community dynamics and indicators.

21) Promote economic tools that respond to state and local issues (ie. Sprawl-related externalities, true costs of driving, etc.)

22) Host regional conferences on the economics of land use decisions.

23) Take the model for ozone/ PM standards and adapt it for communities to show them what clean air buys them.

24) Build a Guidebook to show really good examples of what could be done with a more holistic economics, showing full costs and benefits of alternative actions.

25) Identify the ten most important decisions at the state and local government level that have environmental/ sprawl-related consequences.

26) Provide seed money for actual projects on the ground.

27) Map important ecological areas and show the relationship of these places to future development, DOD sites and to areas for enforcement targeting.

28) Provide leadership on integrating the urban initiative, sustainable development, and sprawl work and relate them to CBEP



Approaches:

Headquarters and Regional Office managers and staff suggested the following approaches to be taken to prepare this report:

nRegional Office capacity building--help communities help themselves identify and implement alternatives to sprawl development
nEncourage greater use of existing EPA programs and services
nHelp to create a high level forum within EPA to discuss an agency-wide strategy to respond to sprawl development and it's adverse environmental impacts
nWork with other federal agencies and State environmental departments to move in tandem
nDemonstrate alternatives to sprawl through regional, state and local demonstration projects.
nProvide government agencies and private groups with land use and natural resource/ ecosystem information to foster appropriate environmental, economic and community decisions.
nCollaborate with other EPA offices involved with sprawl/ smart growth (i.e., CESS, UEDD, Transportation Partners, OAR-SDCG's, OA-ROS-RGI's, etc.)


Scope:

EPA-NPM, OSEC and Regional Office staff and managers direction to this effort includes:

nMake a small investment to proactively address environmental problems
nUse proposed information and assistance to help target EPA Regional efforts and agree on a strategic approach
nDeliver useful information in needed time frame
nMake connections to other issues
nDescribe the relationship between sprawl issues and the CBEP approach
nUse Regional Office experiences and advise to determine future activities and investments
nInclude rural areas impacted by sprawl..........not only large urban areas.
nHighlight quality of life issues along with human health and ecosystems.
nAddress the landscape scale aspects of impacts of sprawl (ie, terrestrial).
nDon’t develop competing tools with transportation partners or UEDD-OPPE.




Partners & Collaboration:

Regional Office, Headquarters and OSEC staff direction to the effort includes:

nIdentify partners that are key to controlling sprawl
nThink about engaging NPMs
nInvite local groups working on sprawl to make recommendations regarding EPA role
nExplore partnerships with other federal agencies/ states/ locals/ NGOs doing sprawl related work
nInform and stimulate grass roots support
nConnect with local expertise (ie. How to translate into real action? Build support and deflect criticism?)
nDetermine how to involve the metropolitan area stakeholders in the development of the action strategy.
nFind a way that OSEC and UEDD can work together (ie. turn to each other’s office for help and give each other credit for accomplishments and expertise).