A Report by the
for the Environmental
Protection Agency
rinciples for
Federal Managers
of Community-
Based Programs
National Academy of
Public Administration
-------
ABOUT THE ACADEMY
The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization that assists federal, state, and local governments in improving
their performance. In 1984, the Academy was granted a congressional charter. The
unique source of the Academy's expertise is its membership more than 480 current
and former Cabinet officers, members of Congress, governors, mayors, legislators,
diplomats, jurists, business executives, public managers, and scholars who have been
elected as Fellows.
Since its establishment in 1967, the Academy has assisted numerous federal agencies,
congressional committees, state and local governments, and institutions overseas through
problem solving, research and innovation, and implementing strategies for change. The
Academy is also supported by businesses, foundations, and nonprofit organizations.
The Academy also promotes discourse on emerging issues of governance. It focuses on
performance and management issues, both as overarching processes and as practical
considerations for agencies and programs engaged in the full range of domestic and
international concerns.
-------
A Report by the
for the Environmental
Protection Agency
AUGUST 1997
XTrmciples for
Federal Managers
of Community-
Based Programs
Advisory Panel Members
John Kirlin, Chair
Julie Belaga
Irene Brody
William. Drayton
Jonathan B. Howes
James Webb
-------
The views expressed in this document are those of the contributors alone.
They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution.
National Academy of Public Administration
1120 G. Street, N.W.
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
First published 1997
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Libraiy
Materials, ANSI Z39.48.1984.
ISBN 1-57744-051-X
Principles for Federal Managers of Community-Based Programs
-------
Officers of the Academy
Peter L. Szanton, Chair of the Board
C. William Fischer, Vice Chair
R. Scott Fosler, President
Feather O'Connor Houstoun, Secretary
Howard M. Messner, Treasurer
Project Staff
DeWitt John, Director
Center on the Economy and the Environment
Marian Mlay, Project Director
, Pat Durkin, Editor
Kathy A Chapman, Administrative Assistant
-------
-------
TABLE OF CON
FOREWORD vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction i 1
CHAPTER TWO
An Overview of Community-Based Management 9
CHAPTER THREE
New Management Challenges Posed by CBM i 23
CHAPTER FOUR
Meeting the New Challenges by Managing for Results 41
CHAPTER FIVE
Community-Based Management: Future Directions 51
ENDNOTES 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY 57
LIST OF ACRONYMS 63
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Selected Community-Based Federal Programs , 65
Appendix B: Forum Group Participants 83
Appendix C: Sponsors' Group of Federal Managers 91
Appendix D: Advisory Panel and Project Staff Biographies 95
TABLES
Table 2-1: Complementary Roles of Government and
Community-Based Forums 12
Table 4-1: Regulatory Flexibility In Practice: Examples 45
Table 4-2: Community-Based Management Check List 49
-------
-------
FORE
Like many other federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imple-
menting innovative processes for collaborative decisionmaking and problem solving.
The idea is simple: involving stakeholders, community groups, and other interested
parties is likely to result in more workable, durable outcomes.
In a speech before the Academy membership in November 1996, William Ruckelshaus,
first administrator of EPA, laid out several principles for collaborative decisionmaking
and said, "I am struck by the ability of local groups not only to drive to consensus on
complex issues, but to invent solutions that simply not have been thought of in the heat
of combat." To capitalize on sentiments such as this and its own successful experi-
ences, EPA asked the Academy to develop some guidelines for managing community-
based programs and provide a better sense of what facilitates and impedes such efforts.
For purposes of this report, community-based management (CBM) refers to a method for
resolving specific issues whereby an agency collaborates systematically with individuals
and groups that have an interest in the outcome. The outcome is usually an agreement
on goals and an implementation plan with formal and ad hoc arrangements. Although
largely focused on cases involving environmental issues, the contents of this report will
be useful to managers of community-based programs in other federal agencies.
CBM can provide a context to balance multiple interests and objectives, mobilize
diverse public and private resources in support of a national objective, and establish a
process of public accountability. It relies on the premise that engaging all interested
parties in search of the best response to a problem will likely result in a win-win out-
come, including greater public trust in the whole process.
To advise the project the Academy established an advisory panel whose experience,
expertise, and energy were invaluable. The project director also brought extensive
CBM experience as a senior federal executive. We also thank the group of federal exec-
utives who met with the project staff and panel to share their insights and comments
on draft reports, as well as the many state and local officials, and community and busi-
ness leaders who participated in focus groups.
vii
-------
Foreword
The Academy appreciates the opportunity to delve into the experience of the practition-
ers of CBM and help to build a needed body of knowledge on this important topic. We
hope that the new generation of managers will find the report practical and adaptable.
r -p* A,
R. Scott Fosler
President
viiifck
V
-------
EXECUTIVE SU
Most federal managers have operated throughout their careers on a "top-down" basis:
decisions are made at the top and flow down. But increasingly they are being asked to
incorporate "community-based management" (CBM) into their program operations.
For the purposes of this report, CBM refers to a method for resolving problems specific
to a particular site in which the federal government or a federal agency collaborates sys-
tematically with individuals and groups that have an interest in the outcome. The out-
come is usually an agreement on goals and an implementation approach that includes
formal or ad hoc arrangements for the contribution of resources.
Key drivers of CBM are the concern about the public's lack confidence in the federal
government to meet their needs, the over-complexity of traditionally applied federal
programs, and the uncompartmentalized nature of community-level problems.
This report is for federal managers who design, manage, and are held accountable for
major environmental, natural resource, and social service programs. It draws on the
experiences of senior federal managers and state and local leaders who have partici-
pated in federal CBM initiatives. The report's focus is CBM activities that are initiated
by the federal government or in which the federal government is decisively or substan-
tially involved, and in which the federal government has a decisive interest such as in a
regulatory or resource issue. It also is relevant to other purposes for which the federal
government uses CBM, such as creating a context or a plan for informed priority-
setting and decisionmaking by several agencies, for encouraging voluntary civic action,
or for developing innovative solutions to common problems.
COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT SERVES
MANY PURPOSES
CBM is not an end in itself, but an approach to making decisions within government
programs. CBM activities are always site-specific, engage people and groups with a
stake in the outcome, and involve the defining of mutual goals and a plan for imple-
menting a solution. The challenge is to combine the powers of all levels of government
CBM is not an end in
itself, but an
approach to making
decisions within
government
programs.
IIX
-------
Executive Summary
with the unique knowledge, energies, abilities, and commitment of the residents and
businesses of a community.
Through CBM, federal managers have an opportunity to better understand and
respond to local conditions. The CBM approach provides a context within which to
balance multiple interests and objectives, mobilize diverse public and private
resources, and establish a process for ensuring accountability. For federal managers,
CBM means accepting advice or decisions outside of their usual management hierar-
chy or from Congress. However, the CBM approach is no substitute for government. It
cannot raise taxes, make authoritative decisions, or compel action. Nor can it change
the authority under which governmental decisions are made.
Some people are confused about the effects of CBM. It is not a means for an abdication
or watering down of federal laws and national interests. Nor does it "empower" com-
munities to make decisions on behalf of the federal government. Nor is it a license for
federal officials to meddle in local politics. It is a way to apply federal laws and the
national interest where appropriate on the community level.
CBM cannot change the authority under which government decisions are made at
either the federal, state or local levels. Decisions at each government level must be con-
sistent with the law. Officials can search for flexible ways to meet the law but they can-
not change it. Yet their powers are quite different. Indeed one of the major issues in this
report is the interplay between CBM and the authorities of different levels of govern-
ment. Unless federal managers and their representatives appreciate these limits and
the unique roles and authority of state and local government, CBM will be a source of
confusion rather than a new tool to build greater public trust in government.
CBM uses many traditional management tools, such as grants and other funding vehi-
cles, collection and dissemination of data, training for local officials and participants,
and technical assistance. Federal agencies also may help build the capacity of state or
local governments to participate. One of the easiest and sometimes most effective tools
is praise and the publicizing of local efforts.
CBM offers a number of benefits to federal managers and participants:
greater likelihood of win-win outcomes
response to technical uncertainties that are inherent in most complex federal
government decisions, such as conditions requiring greater or lesser controls
balancing of multiple objectives, such as good transportation and a clean
environment
broader political support for a desired outcome
development of new ideas and innovative solutions
increased local capacity to solve problems
avoidance of unwanted litigation or "political" solutions
synergy
greater public trust in government
-------
But CBM has limitations which should be factored into a decision to use CBM. The time
and effort required may not be worth the benefit!, sd the likely outcome must be con-
sidered. The representatives of some interests may be too inflexible for collaboration.
Further, some issues may not be resolvable at the community level, but only at a state,
regional or national level such as issues which cross state borders. There also may be
other approaches which are more effective such as regulation, as in the case of removing
lead from gasoline; the use of market tools such as pollution trading; or other
. approaches. Further, statutory, political, circumstantial, or financial considerations may
limit or prevent federal involvement as in the case of ineffective local land use policies.
MANAGING COMMUNITY-BASED DECISION MAKING
Depending on one's point of view, a community can be a geographic place, political
unit, socioeconomic area, or a natural entity such as a watershed. A community also can
"be people or groups with common interests. Within the context of CBM, "community"
involves matching the effective geographic areas where the problem is located with the
people and institutions who would be affected by or have authority and interest to
implement solutions.
The question of who represents a community turns on who would be unfairly left out
of a collaboration. In CBM, it is essential that all points of view are represented by peo-
ple who have a real interest and who can credibly speak for their constituencies.
ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY
CBM is not for the faint-hearted. Tension is inherent in the process as passionate par-
ticipants resolve their differences and come to compromise. The federal government is
not a neutral party in a collaboration and should not imply that it is. A community's
agenda and interests may differ from the federal government's or local people may see
federal involvement as a threat to their community's political balance. Federal officials
may fear they are losing control of their programs or that they will not be able to func-
tion under new guidelines. During CBM, some federal officials have discovered an
emotional commitment to a program they did not realize they had and others may find
that they cannot tolerate operating under these circumstances.
When attempting to engage a community in a CBM forum, federal managers may find
it is preferable to ask a state or local government entity or a non-government organiza-
tion to serve as convener of a CBM forum, particularly if it is considered fair and impar-
tial by the community. It also helps to avoid restrictions under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) on the establishment of formal federal advisory committees
and lack of federal staff to manage the process and places the federal government in
more of a partnership rather than a controlling relationship with participants.
Participants in this study suggest that managers consider the following when deciding
whether to either establish or join a CBM forum:
tailoring the forum to meet the federal purpose, as well as to local custom and needs
assuring that all significant interests are represented
Executive Summary
"Community"
involves matching the
effective geographic
areas where the
problem is located
with the people and
institutions who
would be affected by
or have authority and
interest to implement
solutions.
-------
Executive Summary
The lack of a single
federal voice can
strain community
negotiations.
being forthcoming about the federal government's role, what it can and can't do
expediting the process by keeping it simple
understanding the very different roles of advocates and community groups
using professional facilitators
providing independent technical analyses that all can trust
limiting research and assessment only to questions that require further data
framing issues to obtain timely decisions
considering only options that are within reasonable fiscal and political bounds
building in short-run accomplishments to maintain a sense of progress and purpose
insisting that all participants are treated with respect
Managers may find that the first assistance community participants request is federal
funds. However, providing money may be one of the least effective ways of encourag-
ing cooperation. Participants may find themselves spending more time competing for
federal funds than solving their problem. Managers might consider the following:
committing dollars only to achieve specific program purposes
showing participants how to apply for other resources, public and private
holding all grantees accountable for funds
FACING CHALLENGES
During the course of a CBM activity, federal managers and their representatives my face
challenges from may sources. Some challenges may come from their own agency.
Federal managers can face significant challenges for resources and authority from
other programs or there may be a conflict between CBM's approach and the agency cul-
ture. Managers who risk involving outsiders in decisions sometimes find themselves
passed over for key agency positions or blamed if the CBM approach fails, even if the
fault lies elsewhere.
Roadblocks can come from other agencies, which may be unwilling to contribute time
and effort without being reimbursed. Or they may have their own community-based
efforts underway and regard another agency's CBM project as competitive or duplicative
as it may well be. Further complications arise when different federal regional or field
offices have been delegated uneven levels of authority. Some regional offices are given
broad discretion while others need to consult headquarters on every significant decision.
The lack of a single federal voice can strain community negotiations. Community lead-
ers rarely understand that two agencies' missions, territories, or regulations can conflict.
They have even less patience with regard to intra-agency tensions, conflicts, or rivalries.
Currently there is no formal mechanism to bring coherence to various federal regional
and field organizations. Some intra- and intergovernmental relationships work well,
but they are difficult and time-consuming to establish and take extraordinary commit-
ment to maintain.
-------
A thorough understanding of how the federal system works is essential to navigating a
CBM process. While most federal managers and their representatives have learned to
work effectively with state agencies in a delegation-of-authority context, in the CBM
process they will work with different entities, often in a non-regulatory context. An
understanding of state and local government is essential. While state agencies may in
some respects mirror the federal agencies, they are often quite different. Each has its
own legal structure and political traditions. Some state governors have more authority
under their state constitutions than the President has under the U.S. Constitution. But
in other states Florida, for example the governor is constitutionally weak.
Further complicating the federal-state relationship are the same conflicting policies
that complicate relationships between federal programs. States agencies can find them-
selves in the awkward position of challenging the requirements of one federal program
at the behest of another. Where enforcement actions are taking place, participants may
find themselves around a negotiating table attempting to develop shared goals with
those with whom they are locked in contentions legal disputes.
The federal manager must keep in mind that states are sovereign entities and can bring
their unique resources to the effort. In some issue areas, most of the work of the state is
to manage federally designed programs. But in many other areas, such as land use,
states have far greater legal authority and political influence than do federal agencies.
Indeed, one of the surest ways to anger state, tribal and local officials is to equate them
with interest groups.
Federal officials must keep in mind that local governments play a role that is much
more place-related than the roles of federal or state governments. In contrast to frag-
mented, program-specific federal and state governments, local governments tend to
define problems far more comprehensively because they address issues as they most
directly affect citizens' lives. Their primary role is to create balance among local com-
peting interests for the good of the whole, community. They use powerful governing
tools, such as police and public health authority, as well as near-exclusive authority to
determine how land may be used. While also are many independent, narrowly focused
local authorities, such as water conservation districts, their principal role is one of bal-
ancing competing interests.
Most local elected officials see themselves as the primary decision-makers for their
communities. They are the ones facing the competing issues of health care, crime, edu-
cation, economic development, and the environment, as well as a citizenry concerned
about taxes. Local governments are also in the awkward position of being considered
the most trusted level of government, yet they'often are criticized for not representing
community interests and having overly entrenched local powers.
However, with few exceptions local officials admit they do not understand the techni-
cal aspects of many issues. They generally lack staff to advise them or help them col-
laborate with state and federal authorities. Indeed, they may see federal and state
agencies as out to play "gotcha." Many remember earlier community action programs
in which the federal government mobilized the disenfranchised to challenge unre-
sponsive local governments.
Executive Summary
In contrast to
fragmented, program-
specific federal and
state governments,
local governments
tend to define
problems far more
comprehensively
because they address
issues as they most
directly affect
citizens' lives.
1X111
-------
Executive Summary
CBM turns the
decision process away
from advocacy and
conflict towards
cooperation and
compromise.
COMING TO A DECISION
Federal managers who use CBM find that it means participating in a very different deci-
sion process. If obtaining full community participation is difficult, reaching a unani-
mous agreement is virtually impossible. Federal managers should view CBM
realistically, especially where a highly visible federal decision is involved and in cases
where substantial opposition or legal action may follow. But even in a forum where a
consensus is not reached, a federal decision will be more defensible politically and
legally if all of the adversaries' views were fully heard and considered.
Managers and their representatives must understand what conditions help bring about
a consensus. Participants often will express concern over the existence of conflict in
community-based forums, yet it is the existence of a conflict that motivates people to
invest in the process. Other conditions for meaningful negotiation are forcing factors,
such as deadlines and mandates, which focus discussions and make options seem
more feasible. Ambition is another factor that attracts people to the CBM process and
causes them to invest time and energy. For some it is economic self-interest, for others
it is civic or political ambition. The adept use of conflict and personal ambition can
facilitate negotiations and conclusions. CBM turns the decision process away from
advocacy and conflict towards cooperation and compromise.
Clarifying a community's role in a decision is also important. Federal officials who use
catch-phrases like "bottom-up," civic action, "empowerment," and "flexibility" can
unwittingly over-promise community autonomy. Agency representatives who are not
clear about legal and other boundaries can compromise the forum and leave partici-
pants and citizens disappointed and less likely to engage, in the future.
To build trust, federal managers and their representatives also must be prepared to
articulate and defend national priorities and requirements. Participants are naturally
suspicious of representatives who arrive with a completely open agenda. CBM is about
interests, federal interests included. They must also sometimes say "no," which is diffi-
cult to do in person. Encouraging a belief that a federal agency can provide a financial
or other solution prevents the community from developing other solutions.
Some CBM advocates believe that once the community-based group has agreed upon an
approach that the work is over, but usually much remains to be done. Ultimately, agree-
ments must be implemented, operating decisions must be made, and budget requests
submitted on local, state, and federal levels. Federal officials must maintain contact with
all involved through the final agreement, especially those in political positions.
INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITY
Essential to die success of a community-based effort is the public's access providing to
and understanding of information about the issues and the role that the federal gov-
ernment plays. Managers can enhance public understanding by:
converting government documents to lay terms
-------
providing training for local technical staff and elected officials providing access
to experts, information, or other resources directly or through technical assis-
tance grants
arranging for independent facilitation of community participation
increasing accessibility of important information by putting it on the Internet or
at known places within the community
giving practitioners special opportunities to exchange ideas and enrich knowl-
edge in the field
helping communities learn and plan beyond the CBM process
MEETING CHALLENGES BY MANAGING FOR RESULTS
No matter how carefully managers apply CBM, the process will not work unless agency
leaders support it with tangible financial, legislative, and organizational resources and
with staff who are knowledgeable and supportive. Federal managers must first set the
stage by establishing clear and measurable program goals and strategies for their
agency including:
establishing a clear mission strategy with goals and measurable outcomes so that
federal participants can explain them to forum participants
setting clear priorities and program objectives upon which regional and lower
level managers can set their CBM objectives
establish criteria for when and how to use, CBM so that each time a location is
chosen there is a solid programmatic reason, that the circumstances can benefit
from CBM, and there is some likelihood of a viable forum and real closure
establishing CBM as one of an agency's top three priorities
HELPING THE WORKFORCE ADAPT
Managers must work to change the culture of the agency from the traditional "top-
down" approach to one which accepts and uses CBM as a normal part of its operations.
Practitioners recommended steps such as:
developing new job descriptions with CBM responsibility
assuring that CBM practitioners understand federalism and die relative roles of
federal, state, tribal, and local governments and the roles of die private sector
providing training and experience in working with diverse groups in CBM-type
settings
recruiting experienced practitioners
holding CBM practitioners accountable, while acknowledging the risk of failure
THE FUTURE OF CBM
Agencies must undergo fundamental institutional changes for CBM to become the
norm. Managers can't continue to rely on only a few creative and adaptable CBM advo-
cates to work widi communities. Others must be encouraged to participate and train-
Executive Summary
xv
-------
Executive Summary
Despite the difficulties
presented by CBM, it
does provide
managers with a
powerful approach to
problems that are
difficult to resolve in
other ways.
ing must be provided for them. Building a federal agency that involves the community
requires that the agency change its culture and systematically convert those who
oppose the collaborative approach.
Despite the difficulties presented by CBM, it does provide managers with a powerful
approach to problems that are difficult to resolve in other ways. It can be effective in
achieving a public and political consensus, depending on the willingness of the parties
to participate, openly state their interests, negotiate in good faith, and support the deci-
sion. Once CBM has been refined and problems such as resistance or over-endiusiasm
have been addressed, federal managers often find that CBM is a useful addition to the
array of management tools available for program implementation.
xvi i
-------
CHAPTER
Introduction
Most senior federal managers have learned throughout their careers to operate from
the top down. They work in a world in which Congress sets policy through legislation
and the executive branch interprets those laws through rules, regulation, and guid-
ance, and through the delegation of authority to state and local governments to enforce
requirements within minimum federal standards. Within that world, someone who
wants to affect federal decisions may do so by lobbying members of Congress or the
political leadership of agencies or by commenting on published proposals.
i
The top-down concept of government is rooted in a belief that was widespread in the
1960s and 1970s and still prevalent today in some quarters that only a federal presence
can solve particularly difficult social and environmental problems and only the federal
government has the financial resources to do so. Thus, the federal government took on
issues such as health, housing and social services, natural resource and environmental
protection, and transportation that once were the exclusive concern of state and local
governments. While the implementation of these programs often was delegated to
state and local agencies, the policies, standards, and oversight was established in fed-
eral law and administration.
Today, however, federal managers increasingly recognize that federal efforts alone or
even with the cooperation of delegated state and local agencies cannot solve many
problems. They have been experimenting with efforts to incorporate "bottom-up"
processes that involve the affected public in the federal decisions and working in part-
nership with state and federal governments. Federal managers now work in agencies
which are testing ways to better inform federal decisions that affect communities, develop
place-based plans for action, activate voluntary civic action, and develop innovative solu-
tions to public problems using community-based approaches. Managers are using those
new approaches in the belief that involved, informed citizens can help them arrive at deci-
sions which are both realistic and sensitive to community interests and, at the same time,
meet national goals or standards. There is much to be learned from these experiences.
Federal agencies and experts use a variety of terms to talk about bottom-up approaches
to decisionmaking: "place-based," "community-based," "neighborhood," or "ecosystem"
-------
Introduction
This report addresses
how the federal
government can use
bottom-up,
community-based
processes to fulfill
federal responsibilities
while accommodating
community interests
and gaining both the
understanding and
support of the public.
management. Discussions often blur the distinctions between federal efforts to engage
citizens and independent efforts that arise within communities. The two concepts are
related but are still quite different.
There is a large body of literature on how to mobilize a community-based effort from
the bottom up how it should be organized, led, and financed, and how to process can
move towards a successful conclusion. However, this report addresses a different topic:
how the federal government can use bottom-up, community-based processes to fulfill
federal responsibilities while accommodating community interests and gaining both
the understanding and support of the public.
There are few sources a federal manager can consult to clarify how he or she can
encourage and benefit from Community-based Management(CBM). That is particu-
larly true in areas involving federal regulations where there is a natural tension between
top-down and bottom up decisionmaking. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which has a strong tradition of top-down regulation but which is working hard
to master the collaborative approach of CBM, supported the writing of this report.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report draws on the experiences of senior federal managers and state and local
leaders who have been active participants in federal CBM initiatives. The project direc-
tor is an experienced federal official who has managed community-based programs to
protect ground water and estuaries and has also worked in public health. An advisory
panel of experts with hands-on CBM experience guided the project. In addition, the
Academy convened a sponsors group of more than 20 federal managers from six fed-
eral agencies. (Appendix C) That group met four times to comment on a draft issue
paper prepared by the Academy, help frame issues, and contribute perspectives. The
Academy also convened four one-day focus groups in different regions and project staff
reviewed voluminous materials which describe and analyze federal CBM efforts.
(Appendix B)
The results of those efforts is this compilation of issues, experiences, and advice for fed-
eral program managers. The paper addresses:
what CBM is and when it is useful (Chapter Two)
how to manage CBM activities (Chapter Three)
managing an agency or program for effective use of CBM (Chapter Four)
the future of CBM (Chapter Five)
Why CBM is now being seriously considered as a new major tool for administer-
ing federal programs? CBM is driven by the complex nature of the issues we face
today and the public's dissatisfaction with the traditional "top-down" approach. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to analyze in depth the issues of public confidence, gov-
ernment capabilities, and the federal role. But a manager who is thinking how he or she
can use community-based approaches must have that broad context of public discon-
tent in mind because it certainly will be a factor when a federal agency deals with citi-
zens and local leaders.
-------
SUCCESSES AND LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL
TOP-DOWN APPROACHES
Although federal managers have enjoyed much success with federally designed and led
programs, the limitations of diose approaches are becoming increasingly apparent.
Consider the EPA, a $7-billion-a -year enterprise employing 17,000 people, which was
formed over 25 years ago from parts of the departments of Health, Education and
Welfare; Agriculture; and Interior. At that time, federal environmental laws were limited
and leadership lay with states and local governments. They were largely ineffectual
because of the lack of scientific and technical information, adequate resources, enforce-
ment powers, and public understanding. Individual states were unable to cope with
cross-boundary issues such as polluting industry upwind of a city in another state or
the absence of a level regulatory playing field among competing industries.
After Earth Day 1970, however, Congress created the EPA and the new agency imple-
mented a rapid succession of programs that gained the immediate and full attention of
major polluting industries. Highly publicized enforcement decisions had the desired
effect. Despite grumbling, most large industries soon learned it was bad business to
pollute and began to invest substantially in environmental protection. The federal gov-
ernment also made major investments in the establishment and administration of stan-
dards and regulations, building sewage treatment plants, and most significandy, by
helping state, tribal, and to a limited extent local governments build capacities to
administer die new federal environmental statutes.
The strategy of strong federal leadership was very successful. Today the vast majority
of large industries operate within die law. The cadre of EPA lawyers, engineers, and sci-
entists has become expert at writing, enforcing, and defending federal standards and
regulations. The states, private industry, trade associations, and environmental groups
also have built professional capacities to manage strong environmental programs.
The EPA's successes have been paralleled in other fields. For example, at one time the
federal government played a minimal role in health care and social insurance. Now,
thanks in large measure to federal initiatives, 85 percent of Americans are covered by
private or public healdi insurance, and thanks: to Social Security and Medicaid cover-
age, fewer elderly live in poverty.
Despite these government led successes, social scientists and the media frequently
report about the public's lack of confidence in die federal government's ability to solve
problems and improve peoples lives.1 Yet, according to a 1966 poll, they also believe
that the federal government has succeeded in many areas - space exploration, national
defense, maintaining peace, managing the economy, and protecting the environment.
The poll sponsor, the Council for Excellence in Government, concluded that despite
these numbers, there is some improvement in public trust and diat the public's real
concerns are focused more on "politics as a hindrance" to serving die public well. They
want good government not no government. Yet they are often unwilling to accept the
cost or inconvenience of activities which address social issues. In other words people
want a clean environment but don't put die incinerator in dieir back yards (NIMBY).
They look for solutions to problems, but often lack the knowledge about die nature of
Introduction
-------
Introduction
the problem or what it takes to solve it. Social scientists refer to this as a decline in the
social capital needed to address and solve many issues.
One reason for public concern with the federal government is that federal policy has
perhaps over-reached. In the environmental area, for example, policymakers often
depicted the social choices in apocalyptic terms. For example, environmental laws and
programs are often inaccurately sold as having a zero risk. Sometimes the outcome
turns out to be costlier than expected or technologically impossible, as well.2
Policymakers also trusted that science could adequately define risks and create tech-
nologies to eliminate those risks. But we have learned that risk relates to a specific part
of the population (e.g., young, elderly, healthy) and how conservative to be in estab-
lishing a standard in the face of scientific uncertainty. Those are matters of value that
are open for debate. The futile hope that science will provide definitive answers has led
to repeated challenges of the scientific base for specific decisions. The inability or
unwillingness of policymakers to define "success" in clear, realistic terms conveyed to
the public has led to a general sense of failure by agencies and the public alike.
It is also becoming apparent that many of the challenges facing the public sector lie out-
side the scope of federal authority. For example, in the environmental field a command-
and-control approach is not likely to be effective in frontier issues preventing
pollution, managing pollution from dispersed "nonpoint" sources like auto emissions
and runoff from farms and construction sites, and controlling the environmental con-
sequences of unconstrained suburban development. Pollution prevention requires
detailed knowledge of manufacturing and other business practices. Nonpoint sources
and suburban development are primarily land-use issues and issues that relate to the
behavior of individuals such as controlling auto missions. State and local governments
may have leverage over land use, while federal agencies lack legal and practical author-
ity to address such issues through traditional regulation. To change land-use practices
or methods of using common materials such as fertilizers, federal agencies must some-
how enlist the active and independent energies of states, local governments, commu-
nities, the private sector, and citizens, many of whom are profoundly skeptical about
federal initiatives.
Our ability to invest national resources in social problems also has declined. Deficit
reduction and downsizing have decreased the capacity of federal programs to carry out
even their legislated mandates. For example, some experts believe the EPA doesn't have
the resources to carry out even 10 percent of the work mandated by legislative and
court decisions. Similarly, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
no longer has resources to add new participants to its housing voucher programs.
Other agencies face similar constraints.
The issues facing public managers also have become more complex and difficult to
address. The expansion of federal programs has resulted in a highly fragmented gov-
ernment. Each agency has its own set of statutory mandates, many responsible for mul-
tiple statutes. EPA alone operates under six major statutes and numerous others, many
with hundreds of pages of provisions. Each agency has many different offices develop-
ing regulations and enforcing them against violators. States and communities must
work with federal agencies with many different missions, priorities, and constituencies.
-------
v-f e.t-,.^ . "slw-,-. . ^,\.
Fragmented and stovepiped3 administratively isolated organisations and overlap-
ping or conflicting statutes make it difficult to mobilize agencies and resources in sup-
port of a coherent objective. Yet public managers now recognize that environmental,
housing, transportation, economic development, and other programs no longer can be
managed in isolation of one another.
Finally, federal expansion seems to have resulted in greater conflict rather than cohe-
sion. Many interests are competing for the same federal, state and local dollars.
Interest-based groups remain strong, and often communities get caught in the crossfire
between them.4 Efforts to balance the extremes!with broader community views are dif-
ficult and cosdy. Even where a decision is reached, it can be derailed by civil suits, polit-
ical intervention, and congressional micromanaging. It is easy for almost any party to
throw up bureaucratic or legal roadblocks or to evoke political influence.
STRATEGIES FOR REFORM
CBM is one strategy for addressing diose complex and controversial problems. It is
wordi considering other strategies and how they compare with CBM.
One response to public concern about federal; programs is to reduce the role of gov-
ernment in general. If federally led efforts are falling short, perhaps the best course is to
rely more heavily on the private market, on individuals and families, or on nongovern-
mental civic institutions such as churches and charities.
A decision to rely on die private sector or civic institutions does not have to be an either-
or proposition. Federal agencies may turn an issue over to die market or to civic insti-
tutions entirely or they may turn over some; functions but not odiers. States and
localities, however, are generally unwilling to assume responsibility for these federal
programs without federal funding. Federal law now prevents many agencies from
transferring "unfunded mandates" to state or local government. Neverdieless, diere is
a rich variety of mechanisms for altering relationships among governments and private
or nonprofit organizations. In a rough order from very limited to full transfer of respon-
sibilities, die possibilities include:5
contracting with private providers for services once provided by government
agencies
grants or vouchers in lieu of direct provision of services
use of tax incentives or fees in lieu of regulation
deregulation widiout substituting incentives such as pollution trading
conversion of government departments into semi-independent corporations or
private firms
reduction of governmental involvement and the turnover of responsibilities to
private or nonprofit organizations
Another response is devolution - the transfer of authority, sometimes for whole pro-
grams and policy areas to state or local governments. Here again, there are many vari-
ations on the theme, including:
Introduction
-------
Introduction
6k
work sharing among federal, state, and local agencies
simplification of federal rules about how a state or local agency achieves goals
that are established by federal authority
joint setting of goals ;
withdrawal of federal responsibility
Yet another approach is to focus a federal effort where it can be most effective and
where citizens most want it to succeed and then structure government efforts as
efficiently as possible the motivation behind the movement towards "performance-
based management." The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the
Clinton administration's government "reinvention" initiative are examples of that
approach. They both focus primarily on internal government processes. GPRA requires
agencies to set goals, prepare strategic plans, and develop indicators to measure
performance so the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congress, and the
public can understand how public funds are being spent and what they accomplish.
Reinvention aims to reduce middle management and give greater discretion to
front-line workers to respond to practical opportunities for improved service delivery
and management.
CBM has elements of each of those efforts and rests on the assumption that die federal
government can play a useful role in addressing public concerns. But widiin that
important boundary, CBM seeks to engage citizens and local leaders in rethinking
goals and means, mobilize a diverse array of energies and resources, recognize the spe-
cial powers of state and local governments, and to focus on results.
In addition, CBM has two distinctive elements. One is efforts to find unique solutions
for particular locations. The second is the attempt to establish or restore links between
agencies and citizens by directly engaging state and local governments, community
leaders, businesses, and citizens in making decisions for the communities where
they live and work. CBM builds on the fact that even in these times, when social scien-
tists bemoan the decline of civic spirit and "social capital," there are many examples
of civic engagement demonstrating that citizens and government managers can agree
on goals, work together to make decisions, and take effective action in new and collab-
orative ways.
"Community-based," "place-based," or "ecosystem" approaches are new terms for most
federal managers, but CBM is not new. Many federal agencies have been able to effec-
tively participate in "bottom-up," place-by-place decisionmaking. Over the past 20
years there has been a growing number and variety of federally initiated efforts to draw
togedier government and die private sector to address complex social issues.
In the past few years, however, there has been a general intensification of federal efforts
to use community-based approaches. Some of those efforts have been high profile and
contentious, such as the Northwest Forest Summit and South Florida Initiative. To cite
another, example the Department of Energy (DOE), has established citizen advisory
committees to help address the daunting task of cleaning up die nation's nuclear waste
sites. Once organized and informed about costs and technical issues, the committees
began to make recommendations about cleanup strategies and reuse of the sites. The
-------
effect has enabled the agency to make decisions which might have been impossible
without community advice and support.6
Federal agencies have participated in hundreds;of other collaborate efforts that are less
well publicized yet are remarkable efforts. Some communities have organized collabo-
rative decisionmaking processes independently, with minimal federal support. The
President's Council on Sustainable Development catalogued more than 300 examples
of community-based initiatives in its final report, Sustainable Communities. In addition,
the council has developed a thoughtful agenda for federal and state government and
the private sector that calls for support of community-based public dialogue, planning,
priority-setting, and implementation to allow those affected by the decisions to have a
voice in the outcome.7
Many of those initiatives and programs have not been evaluated systematically.
However, we do know that Congress, the administration, and the public are calling for
government to carry out its business differently as well as more effectively. While there
are significant differences in degree, there is general agreement that government
should be smaller, less costly, less intrusive, more flexible, and more in touch with the
people it serves. The pressures on federal managers to respond and still carry out their
statutory missions are great. CBM offers an opportunity to respond to those pressures.
This report is directed to all federal managers who are responsible for administering
environmental, natural resource, and social programs which might benefit from the
use of CBM. These are senior managers, generally at the national level, who are respon-
sible for designing the programs, defending the budgets, and being held directly
accountable for the results. This report is also aimed at community managers who
implement federal programs. These managers can adapt the lessons learned at EPA and
other agencies for their own particular challenges. Other practitioners of CBM should
find this report of interest in its coverage of the broad range of issues that a manager
should consider in the design and management of such a program.
But all readers should keep in mind that this report only discusses CBM as practiced by
the federal government. It is not meant to imply that there is the only way to carry out
CBM. Its purpose is to help federal managers think through the issues they face when
using CBM and take advantage of the experience of others who have worked in this field.
Introduction
This report only
discusses CBM as
practiced by the
federal government.
Its purpose is to help
federal managers
think through the
issues they face when
using CBM and take
advantage of the
experience of others
who have worked in
this field.
A
-------
-------
CHAPTER
An Overview of
Community-Based Management
WHAT IS COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT?
In practice, CBM activities may appear to be different but they will always include a num-
ber of common elements. First, they are always site-specific. CBM focuses on a problem
in a specific "community" a geographic place arid, as such, its activities usually have land
use or socio-economic implications. Second, CBM involves an imperative to act- often a
regulatory requirement that, if carried out conventionally, will create controversy. Third it
involves multi-agency and multijurisdictional interests and interest groups which may or
many not understand the issues involved, and it'is engaged those with interests public
and private within that community in a process through which mutual goals are estab-
lished to serve as the basis for action. Some of the! interested parties will be responsible for
taking action once agreements and decisions have been made. Fourth, CBM may (and
preferably will) include formal or ad hoc arrangements for contributing resources ser-
vices or money for implementation. Fourth, CBM will be either initiated by the federal
government or the federal government will enter an existing community process for the
purpose of arriving at a related federal decision or lending technical support.
Community-Based ManagementA Working Definition
Site specific efforts -which are either initiated by the federal government
or involve the federal government in a decisive and substantive role and
set mutual goals through the systematic collaboration of those who have
a substantive interest in the outcome, and who agree on implementing
actions, including formal or ad hoc arrangements for contributing
resources for implementation.
While the federal government has used community-based approaches for a number of
purposes, this paper focuses primarily on those CBM arrangements in which the federal
government has a substantial interest, such as a regulatory or major resource decision.
"Informing a federal decision" was selected as the primary topic of this report because,
for obvious reasons, it generally involves the use of all of the management tools and
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
CBM's purpose is
to provide a broader,
sensitive context
for a federal
decision or to
activate civic
responsibility
in support of
national as well as
community goals.
represents the most difficult process to manage. The discussion is also relevant to the
use of CBM for area-wide planning purposes, to support volunteer efforts that achieve a
federal mission or to develop innovative approaches to a problem. The decision process
and level of federal participation in these other instances will be different, but many of
the same issues and concerns are present in these equally worthy efforts.
The discussions among the focus and federal managers groups, as well as a review of
the literature, show that there is a great deal of confusion about the meaning of CBM.
CBM is not an end in it itself. A common misconception about CBM is that it is another
"government program." CBM is not a program but a way of making decisions within or
among government programs. When treated as an end rather than as a means, a CBM
effort could become a fishing expedition for federal officials to meddle in local politics.
Another misconception is that CBM is the same as more familiar ways of working with
local governments or with citizens. But CBM is not the same as intergovernmental
agreements, capacity-building, or devolution. Those approaches may involve new rela-
tionships between levels of government but not necessarily involve roles for citizens
and community leaders.
CBM is also different from elections, traditional advisory bodies, and lobbying in that
it is a far more extensive and interactive process than called for by the Administrative
Procedures Act.8 The more traditional forms of consulting with the public are ways for
individuals or communities to participate but not to arrive at collective decisions.
CBM explicitly is a method for setting goals and agreeing on actions outside of the nor-
mal channels of public processes, including legislative or administrative action. Its pur-
pose is to provide a broader, sensitive context for a federal decision or to activate civic
responsibility in support of national as well as community goals.
From a federal manager's perspective, CBM involves accepting some measure of direc-
tion either in the form of advice or decisions from others in addition to the usual
management hierarchy and Congress. To some degree in CBM, a federal agency relin-
quishes some power by opening itself to public involvement, committing to negotiat-
ing mutual goals, and by acting on those goals within resource and policy constraints
to the extent feasible under law. A CBM decision might modify a federal decision to
avoid a negative local consequence such as moving a highway to skirt a cemetery, man-
aging a federal housing program within the context of broad community goals, or
accepting the recommendations of a community on the use of public lands being
turned over to private use.
MAKING A FEDERAL DECISION AND ACCEPTING A
COMMUNITY-BASED RECOMMENDATION NOT AN
EITHER/OR PROPOSITION
Focus group participants found the CBM experience very rewarding for diem and dieir
communities. They said they benefited from die experience and residents were gener-
ally positive about having the attention of the federal government focused on their
community and their views.
V
-------
From a federal manager's perspective, CBM offejrs an opportunity to understand a local
setting and to respond more realistically to tecrtriicli uncertainties By, for example,
! advising on the potential future use of land that is currently seriously contaminated
and on the optional methods that are available for cleanup and the costs of each option.
It provides a context within which to balance rjiultiple interests and objectives and to
1 mobilize diverse public and private resources in support of an agreed-upon goal and to
establish a process for ensuring accountability. Participating in CBM is an opportunity
to rethink the practices, norms, and established ways of conducting business within a
governmental agency. ;
CBM also is a way for an agency to engender; political support for implementation,
lessen legal and political challenges, and put itself in a better position to sustain a deci-
sion when challenged. CBM processes create settings where agencies, general purpose
local governments, businesses, agricultural and environmental groups, and residents
can understand a problem and the perspectives of others. A solution that results from
CBM may not be perfect from the federal perspective, but it should be acceptable, real-
istic, and capable of being accomplished. !
Yet behind those positive aspects of community-based processes there are some hard
realities. CBM is a way of exploring issues, framing alternatives, and developing spe-
cific action plans. But it cannot in itself tax, enforce laws, or use other powers govern-
ments have. Since a CBM process involves many nongovernmental parties as well as
parties representing other levels of government, it cannot make the same kind of deci-
sions as individual governments can make. Only governments can make authoritative
choices in the form of laws and regulations. Only governments can tax, allocate public
resources, and compel action in support of the;decision.
Furthermore, a CBM process cannot change the authority under which governmental
decisions are made. Federal managers can make decisions only within certain pro-
scribed limits. Indeed, the powers of federal agencies are limited to those authorized in
statute and under the U.S. constitution. State and local officials who participate in com-
munity-based processes face limitations which are broadly similar. They may rethink
their agency's mission, search for flexible ways to meet statutory requirements, and
promise to seek regulatory and statutory change, but they are still bound by law.
One major issue in this report, then, is the interplay among the authorities of different
governments during a CBM process. Unless federal managers understand that issue and
appreciate the authorities and unique roles of state and local governments, CBM will be a
source of confusion rather than a new tool that builds greater public trust in government
The challenge of CBM is to combine the powers of all levels of government with the
knowledge, energies, and commitment of community residents and with the ability of
business to invest to do things differently for the betterment of that place. CBM does
not override federal laws. It is a means to arrive at an end that is acceptable to govern-
ment federal, state and local and the governed.
. If a CBM process is extremely successful, it can develop many of the elements that even-
tually will lead to a government decision. As a practical matter, a federal official may
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
A solution that results
from CBM may not be
perfect from the
federal perspective,
but it should be
acceptable, realistic,
and capable of being
accomplished.
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
A federal official who
is sponsoring or
supporting a CBM
process has an
obligation to represent
national interests and
to ensure that
interested parties are
not excluded from a
decisionmaking
process.
TABLE 2-1: COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF GOVERNMENT
AND COMMUNITY-BASED FORUMS
Community-Based
Forums and
Government Can ...
educate the public and
government officials
provide technical assistance
share information
monitor progress
Community-Based
Forums Can . . .
respond to technical
uncertainties
balance multiple objectives
mobilize diverse (public
and private) resources
engender political support
for implementation
Only Government
Can . . .
make authoritative choices
(pass laws)
tax
» allocate public resources
compel action
(enforcement)
find it impolitic to reject the recommendations that come from a CBM process, but in
the final analysis it is still his or her choice to accept, reject, or modify.
The possibilityindeed the likelihood that CBM will lead to different decisions than
otherwise would be made suggests the most subtle and most difficult misconception
about CBM. Some critics say CBM can amount to an abdication of federal responsibili-
ties. In an open letter to members, Sierra Club President Michael McClosky expressed
his concern that local environmentalists will be unable to negotiate competitively with
industry representatives and that the community-based collaborative decisionmaking
processes could make conflict a less legitimate way of dealing with issues and mobiliz-
ing support. Instead of hammering out national rules to reflect majority rule in the
nation, he argued, community-based decisionmaking transfers power to a local venue,
to a very different majority in a much smaller population. He sees the process as clis-
empowering both national and local majorities.9
Those are issues of real concern, but they can be managed. Indeed, a federal official who is
sponsoring or supporting a CBM process has an obligation to represent national interests
and to ensure that interested parties are not excluded from a decisionmaking process.
Like any other decisionmaking process, CBM can be abused. Since it does open the
door to local community leaders to share in the identification of problems, the defining
of goals, and discovery of solutions, a decisionmaker could use it as an excuse for duck-
ing responsibility. But CBM need not, and should not, go so far.
As properly practiced, CBM is neither a true bottom-up approach nor an abrogation of
federal authority. It does not "empower" local interests to make decisions on behalf of
the federal government. Because CBM is a process initiated by the federal government
as a way to carry out a legal mandate, the federal manager retains the ability and the
responsibility to articulate the national interest and to participate in shaping decisions.
CBM is a process of merging interests, not sublimating federal goals; it seeks to arrive
at an end that is acceptable to both the government and the governed.
12k
-------
Another misconception about CBM is that it is yet another way to force local govern-
ments to address issues that the federal government is unable or unwilling to resolve.
The participants in the focus groups organized by theAcademy staff as part of this pro-
ject agreed that successful CBM efforts cannot simply push problems from the federal
to state or local levels. On the contrary, enforcement of federal regulations is an essen-
: tial aspect of what most communities are seeking. Participants may find that it is diffi-
cult or impossible to comply with some statutory requirements and they often find that
our system allows virtually anyone to stop the process of decisionmaking. CBM is a
decisionmaking process that seeks to find ways around those problems, but it does not
imply that laws can be ignored. Changing the law is up to others; applying it as sensi-
bly as allowed under current statutes is up to federal managers.
As Donald Snow points out, CBM is a new governance approach which speaks to the
needs expressed by the human community, not those of one special interest. It de-
emphasizes single-interest politics even when the single interest is as broad and impor-
tant as the environment or agriculture., painstaking process. CBM is not means to
lower national standards but to apply them, where appropriate, in a way that is more
localized. CBM is based on the strong conviction that this country can maintain nation-
ally established standards and accommodate the important other concerns of those
who reside in a particular place.10 CBM is an approach to applying national standards
in away sensitive to local conditions. It is not should not be a means to lower national
or abrogate federal responsibility. ;
CBM SERVES MULTIPLE PURPOSED
i
, Federal managers can use CBM for multiple ends: to make better federal decisions,
plan for coordinated action among public and iprivate entities, activate civic responsi-
bility in support of a national goal, or encourage innovative solutions. Each of these
broad purposes carries its own challenges and [can result in impressive achievements.
; The first of these purposes, informing a federal!decision, is the focus of this paper as it
involves the use of related management toolsj and raises most of the more difficult
issues for federal managers. These are die major purposes for which federal managers
! can effectively use CBM. i
, Informing a Federal Decision
CBM is often applied when the federal government has a decision which is or is likely
to become controversial within a community. ,CBM is a way to anticipate problems,
accommodate community concerns, and find an outcome that can be accepted by an
agency and a community. It can convey information and options so that a community
' can take a reasonable position. It can provide an agency with far more information than
could be gathered through other means. It can give a community an opportunity to
negotiate the best deal possible within an agency's authority.
"Informing a decision" is typified by DOE's program to clean up pollution at nuclear
; weapons production sites and EPA's Superfund restoration program for hazardous
1 waste sites. Both programs make federal decisions on the potential future uses of sites
and the level of environmental clean-up needed to achieve those uses. In such deci-
sions, a number of issues are at play because the cost and outcome of hazardous and
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
CBM is not means to
lower national
standards but to apply
them, where
appropriate, in a way
that is more localized.
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
nuclear waste clean-up can vary widely depending on the potential use of the land in
the future. The role of a community in such decisions is to advise the federal agencies
on the potential use of the land. For example, a site may be used for residential, indus-
trial, or agricultural use. It can become a park or forest or be retained by the federal gov-
ernment to store nuclear waste materials. The best use will depend on the extent of
contamination, potential value of the land for given purposes, the community's vision
for its future, and the costs. Communities typically hope to obtain the highest, most
valuable use of the property in order to enhance the local economy, assure environ-
mental and public health safety, and improve the quality of life. Some communities
have also expressed concerns over the excessive cost to the federal government of
some clean-up options and have chosen to recommend more cost-effective plans.
Developing a Plan
A second purpose for using the CBM approach is to create a context for informed pri-
ority-setting and decisionmaking by several agencies at different levels of government.
Where an agency is faced with a complex set of interrelated problems for which several
agencies and private parties have some degree of responsibility, it can be difficult to
determine priorities and appropriate actions. Duplication and gaps occur, and
resources are inevitably wasted. A CBM planning process can provide an opportunity
to work with all levels of government, the affected community, and the private sector to
assess a problem, establish shared goals and priorities, set a course of integrated action,
and commit to implementation.
Multiagency planning processes are usually formal and time-limited. They are often
supported by planning grants and sometimes established by law. Some of those
processes, such as some of the National Estuary Program projects, the planning asso-
ciated with federal housing grants and the work of conservation districts are managed
locally. Some are federally led, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes programs,
which are managed by EPA but include state governors and other federal administra-
tors on their governing boards. Some are formal, interstate entities with substantial
independent powers, such as the Delaware River Basin Commission. Others, like the
Nature Conservancy's preserves, exist without federal financial support but provide a
useful context for related federal action.
The objectives of planning processes are usually defined quite broadly by their spon-
soring agencies, for example, restoring a polluted estuary or a river system's watershed
or developing a new urban transportation system. That flexibility allows participants to
consider issues beyond traditional federal categories and to custom-design local goals
and actions. Sometimes federal officials participate directly in local planning processes,
depending on the extent of federal interest in matters such as the potential for imple-
menting costly federal actions.
EPA uses several different approaches to plan development. The National Estuary
Program, a grant program, supports a three-to-flve-year community-based process to
design a comprehensive plan for the restoration and protection of a threatened estuary.
EPA also uses smaller, administratively-defined efforts like the Watershed Protection
Approach, which helps states and communities develop agreed-upon plans for meet-
ing federal water quality standards in the nation's watersheds. Earlier programs, such
1
-------
I as for the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, took a slightly different CBM approach.
They established federally managed programs; with comparable goal! and with state
I and local participation. The purpose of each of those efforts was to agreed upon goals
and actions which all of the government and;private-sector participants could opti-
mally use their resources. i
I
The Brownfields Program places primary emphasis on implementation rather than on
structured planning. It focuses on minimally contaminated sites that are not slated for
federal clean-up and can be can be cleaned up relatively quickly and for productive use.
However, EPA can by law support only site-assessment and some technical assistance
for such sites. States must clean up the sites. In many cases, HUD is interested in rede-
, veloping neighborhoods where brownfields are located and Department of Labor and
the Economic Development Administration (EDA) are concerned about job and busi-
ness opportunities in those areas. The Brownfields Pro gram has sought to mobilize the
combined resources of several federal agencies to coordinate and sequence activities
with state and local governments, the private sector, and the community. The purpose
| has been to select, assess, establish a viable use for, clean up, and redevelop abandoned
: industrial property while improving the lives of residents.
r
i Of course, not all intergovernmental planning processes are really "community-based."
j Some multiagency planning processes are dominated by agency personnel and con-
i ducted in offices and meeting rooms where only agency personnel are present. At other
| times, processes diat are supposed to be community-based may be turned over to con-
j sultants, universities, or other experts. Those approaches provide litde opportunity for
> citizens, user groups, or local officials to participate in identifying issues and shaping
; debate. In such cases, citizen participation usually is obtained by the traditional public
I comment processes.
\ Planning without engaging citizens can have benefits. It can improve the technical base
| for decisionmaking and work out interagency problems without interference from
' other groups. It is often politically less risky than involving community leaders, but it
| usually cannot pay off with die same degree of public understanding and support. Its
. use is limited in today's reality. The most successful CBM practitioners work hard to
' engage citizens and community leaders directly, through publicity, public education,
open meetings, and the essential step of allowing citizens to sit at die table and help
shape decisions.
Encouraging Voluntary Civic Action
* >
Federal agencies have long supported the efforts of citizens to accomplish or supple-
ment aspects of their mission. The USDA's Research, Conservation and Development
Program, for example, supports coordinators in rural communities to act as a resource
for residents who are developing local programs to improve farm operations or protect
; natural resources. EPA's Wellhead Protection Program supports several nongovern-
mental organizations that provide technical assistance to communities interested in
developing environmental protection for die areas overlaying their aquifers.
I
Federal agencies also support groups interested in advocating voluntary civic action.
For example, the Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement coordinates the joint
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
efforts of many major environmental and senior citizen organizations to market
skilled, experienced, senior volunteers to local, state, and national organizations who
assist communities in undertaking community-based initiatives.11 Other groups, such
as the League of Women Voters, have undertaken efforts in conjunction with federal
agencies to promote civic action in support of specific programs, e.g., developing local
wellhead protection programs.
Many agencies make locally specific information available to the public at libraries,
through the Internet, or through publications such as maps and geological information
and the Toxics Release Inventory which reports industry pollutant discharges to the
public. While information distribution is useful, it alone does not constitute CBM.
Developing Innovative Solutions
Community-based processes often have been successful as laboratories for govern-
mental innovation. Recently EPA supported projects in Idaho and Oregon to find ways
to help small, impoverished communities comply with environmental statutes. While
each state took a different approach, the outcome was an EPA policy that allows small
communities to defer action on some regulatory requirements if they compare risks
and commit to act on them in priority order. Other innovations such as the Watershed
Protection Approach were refined through small grants to communities
USING AGENCY TOOLS TO SUPPORT CBM
Public agencies have many tools which can be used to support a community-based
decisionmaking process. CBM does not take place in a vacuum; it requires the use of
management tools and technical assistance.
Grants and Other Funding Vehicles
Providing money has been a favorite and frequently used tool to achieve a federal pur-
pose. A number of different granting mechanisms have been used: formula (state-dele-
gated) grants, special project and demonstration grants, and contracts. They either
support the entity representing a community or groups that provide research, techni-
cal, or administrative assistance to that entity.
Research, Information, and Data Collection
Agencies typically establish databases, measurement and assessment tools, pollutant
management practices such as those for pesticide use, information about ecological
and health risks and other topics accessible to communities. When EPA's Toxics
Release Inventory, a database of toxic chemical releases, became accessible to the pub-
lic, industries were pressured to improve their discharge practices. Further, the
Internet and other new means of communications are increasing the abilities of com-
munities to become informed about and involved in issues that affect them.
Education and Training
Workshops, conferences, newsletters, case studies, and other like activities are typi-
cally used to communicate the concepts and approaches used in CBM. Some focus on
"train-the-trainer" efforts of nongovernmental groups to involve community members.
-------
Technical Assistance \
i ' / - ^. ' v
i
Agencies also have assigned staff to work with CBM projects. In some of the larger fed-
1 erally managed programs, such as for the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, staff are
permanently assigned to a project. Most communities are interested in having some-
; one who can direct them to available information and resources. A knowledgeable per-
son on a telephone can be very effective.
Contractor and University Support
i
Some agencies fund nongovernmental organizations in the provision of technical sup-
port to a specific community or to a type of community. For example, DOE gives con-
tractors often the same ones that operate a facility the funds to provide travel
expenses and technical assistance to the department's citizen advisory boards. EPA
established two university-based centers to assist with risk assessment projects. The
Superfund program supports organizations that provide independent technical advice
to community groups on site clean-up. !
Direct Facilitation and Participation
Federal agencies can support a community collaboration by convening or facilitating a
| meeting or, at times, simply by being present. In a few situations, federal officials have
served as a conduit for local and state parties to' discuss a controversial issue. President
Clinton's attendance at the Northwest Forest Summit exemplifies this tactic. One official
1 told the Academy panel that all it took to get a [collaborative community-based process
going in one community was to rent a room and provide coffee and doughnuts. That
I evening, members of the community organized:to work on a Superfund site as well on
! other two troublesome local issues: rats and abandoned housing. Later the official found a
local business willing to donate $20,000 to get rid of the rats and demolish the buildings.
i Building State and Local Capacity ;
i The majority of EPA operating programs are delegated to state agencies which, for the
j most part, are regulatorily sophisticated. But EPA can make those agencies even more
j effective by supplying them with results from research the agency has funded or con-
ducted, or with information on innovative programs in other locales. Over approxi-
mately eight years, the Wellhead Protection Program sponsored more than 70 training
workshops for local officials on how to use federal, state, and local authorities to pro-
I tect their public wellfields. !
Enlisting Other Federal Agencies ,
' , |
i It makes sense to bring the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) into a community to discuss
ground water issues, the USDAin to discuss agricultural runoff, or the Coast Guard to
provide information about pollution from ships. Those agencies not only have exper-
, tise, but they also often can engage interest groups which may be difficult for one
i agency to attract. Furthermore, agencies represent their own important programmatic
, interests which may often need to be addressed.
i '
! Adapting Regulatory Programs
', Recently, EPA has focused CBM demonstration projects on regulatory programs, test-
ing ways to provide flexibility in applying regulations so a community can more easily
An Overview of
Community-Eased
Management
n
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
18
participate in decisionmaking. The federal water-quality permitting program, for exam-
ple, now waives permit-renewal deadlines where states are reviewing permits on a
watershed basis and coordinating widi local watershed planning agencies.
Another approach is deferring to state standards where certain baseline requirements
are met. For example, as a quid pro quo for state adoption of a ground water protection
program which is officially recognized by EPA as sufficient, EPA uses a state's ground
water classifications when making hazardous waste disposal and Superfund decisions.
That not only gives states determining clean-up levels greater flexibility in defining value
and potential water uses, but avoids the case of two different clean-up standards fed-
eral and state applied to the same ground water. In addition, where municipalities
have acceptable wellhead protection programs, they may apply for waivers from some
federal drinking water testing requirements.
Agencies also are simplifying regulations and increasing interprogram cooperation to
assist program managers in the involvement of communities in decision processes, as
well as to achieve other benefits. Some of die conflicts among programs are difficult for
community representatives to understand or appreciate. For example, EPA is currently
eliminating one particularly contentious set of procedural and testing overlaps
between die Superfund and hazardous waste programs.
Publicizing and Praising
Finally, agencies can use publicity to reward exemplary behavior and achievement.
Few organizations do not respond favorably to government praise. Praise from private
sector efforts also helps stimulate community action. The National Geographic
Society's Watershed Awards program and an NGO-sponsored "Know Your Watershed"
program have helped raise public awareness of local problems and protection efforts
as well as give encouragement to community leaders and volunteers.
COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT OFFERS LARGE
BENEFITS
Direct Benefits to CBM Participants
Community Participants
In successful community-based management, all the participants win. CBM offers citi-
zens a greater sense of understanding and control. Helping a community come to grips
with an issue, realistic options to deal with that issue, and the effect of making or not
making a decision gives citizens a realistic understanding of problems, and increases
its stake in a successful solution. More importantly, CBM offers citizens an opportunity
to have their ideas heard and acted upon, or at least given an explanation as to why
their ideas aren't included in a decision. CBM is a new and satisfactory way for citizens
to engage constructively in improving their communities and to take responsibility for
resolving problems.
Local, State and Federal Leaders
Community leaders can focus greater attention on a problem by taking part in a CBM
effort and have a louder voice with local officials as it offers a visible platform for
voicing their interests and concerns. Local officials can attain increased flexibility or
-------
I
support from federal agencies by participating !in CBM efforts as fedejral officials gain
from them a better understanding of particular local problems or concerns. National
policymakers, Congress, and senior agency administrators can build broader support
for government programs and increase state, local, and private investment through
community buy-in and offers of matching funding.
Federal Managers j
' i
Most importantly for federal managers, CBM is a creative way for agency program man-
agers to get dieir jobs done to achieve demonstrable results in a actual place. It is the
next extension of environmental management,' addressing problems that are not just
| caused by non-compliance with federal and stajie statutes, but the problems caused by
all sectors living and carrying out business in a place. It can help overcome some of the
harmful effects of program "stove-piping." It is .also an opportunity to openly address
NIMBY attitudes and their effects on disadvanjtaged communities. A successful CBM
} effort offers federal managers a good decision: that will stick because participants in
such successful CBM efforts are less likely to seek political solutions. Courts are more
\ likely to support agency decisions which have involved extensive public consultation
| with a plaintiff or comparable interest group. CBM can localize solutions within the
| boundaries of federal program requirements. Ideally, federal agencies should be able to
I address a general set of problems with a general set of solutions which can then be
: crafted into a specific solution for a particular place.
I
Response to the Technical Uncertainties Inherent In Most Complex Federal
; Government Decisions12 '
. i
There is a growing recognition that neither science nor national policymakers can
i answer all of the complex questions that occuri in the regulatory process: Site-specific
j questions may have to be addressed at the edge of scientific knowledge such as the
i issue of whether to leave a pollutant like PCBs in place or to move it to another location.
; For example, while considerable research has been conducted on risks to human
; health from many chemicals such as common nitrates, there is relatively little definitive
\ research on risks to the ecology. Given those constraints, CBM can offer the best solu-
I tion as in addition to professional judgment being applied to a solution the perspec-
i lives of the community as to the potential effects can add to the determinations of risk.
A Tool for Balancing Multiple Objectives ahd Avoiding Negative Side Effects
CBM provides a forum where interests can be aired and where federal, state, and local
decision-makers can come in contact with the rich knowledge residents and business
owners have about their communities. By bringing citizens to the table and hearing
their concerns, federal decision-makers can identify problems and competing interests.
For example, a Cuban community opposed locating a new metro line through it's base-
ball field. Cuban-American stars had played there as youngsters and had returned to
teach the game to others. Upon learning the field's cultural importance, the agency
! diverted the line. When the interests of all affected parties are in the open, they can be
' assessed and weighed and accepted or knowledgeably rejected.
IA Means to Mobilize Diverse Resources j
i
CBM provides an opportunity for a federal agency to encourage state and local authori-
ties to take steps that solve problems in areas' where the agency lacks authority. For
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
example, when EPA supported a community-based brownfields project in Chicago, the
city began to remove legal barriers to site development by clearing land records on aban-
doned properties. That action assured that EPA's brownfields assessments would notbe
wasted and that potential investors could more quickly to receive clear title to the land.
An Aid to Implementation
Community-based activities can help generate political support for a decision. If a pub-
lic concerns are identified and addressed, die public is more likely to support or at
least not oppose a final decision. Thus, CBM is a way to obtain political support for
national objectives.
Benefits of Successful CBM
development of greater citizen understanding and control
community leadership to solve problems
* federal managers can get the job done and overcome barriers of
'stove-piped" agencies and NIMBY attitudes
resolution of technical uncertainties inherent in complex decisions
balance multiple objectives
mobilize diverse resources
aid implementation
avoid litigation or undesirable political solution
generate new ideas
increase likelihood of synergistic benefits
A Practical Way to Avoid Prolonged Litigation or an Unwanted Political
Solution
Federal managers must live with die reality that any decision provides multiple oppor-
tunities for a veto. An action must have strong support or it could face defeat. Thus, the
willingness and ability of community leaders to buy in is crucial. Some DOE managers
have noted that dieir community advisory committees have enabled die department to
make better, faster, and cheaper clean-up decisions. The committees, in effect,
empower DOE to take decisive action.
New Ideas
Innovative local solutions may be replicable elsewhere.'Who could have ever antici-
pated a brownfields being turned into a hydroponic farm? Yet one community did
exacdy that when Clean Air Act requirements precluded using die site for heavy indus-
try. Other communities seeking uses for brownfields might imitate diat solution.
Likelihood of Synergistic Benefits
By drawing issues togedier and fashioning broad agreements and alliances, the partici-
pants can move aside previously immutable bureaucratic and technical barriers. Those
who spoke to the Academy panel expressed great satisfaction in the outcome of most
community-based dialogues in which diey participated. They indicated that when it
worked, CBM provided not only a better decision, but left the community with a stronger
20
-------
I leadership and increased ability to solve problems, as well as leaving behind a public that
has greater trust in government. The results of a1 CfiM outcome maybe greater than the
, sum of its parts. But most importantly, their group was a means of achieving a better envi-
ronmental result in addressing problems that are not amenable to regulatory solutions
! alone, such as controlling nonpoint source pollution and air deposition.
LIMITATIONS OF COMMUNITY-Bj\SED MANAGEMENT
Managers may well consider the limitation of CBM. Despite its advantages, there are sit-
uations in which CBM does not work.
i
I Small Scale Issues for Which CBM is Inappropriate
I There is certainly no point in trying to use CBM where the issues are relatively minor or
I the decision is fairly cut and dried. For example, the routine renewal of a sewage plant
: permit may not require a formal CBM process) Indeed, overusing CBM will burn out
community and government leaders and make it more difficult to gain their involve-
ment in appropriate future situations. CBM is usually costly and time-consuming and
requires well-trained federal representatives to'manage the process or represent their
agencies sit at the table.
Extremely Contentious Issues
Occasionally, some groups will not come to the table or, if they do, will not negotiate.
Long-standing or passionately held beliefs and opinions can stand in the way of agree-
ment. Some groups have the clout to bring about the political decisions they want, so will
not negotiate. Examples are farm or industry groups in some communities or states. "The
issue is usually easy, but the history is difficult. If the politics are controlling, CBM won't
work", said a state official interviewed for this report. Advocates for unpopular policies
sometimes drop out and use the media or the courts to paralyze the process. In those
cases, political channels or litigation may be the Dnly hope for resolution.
Extraterritorial Issues
The more local the problem, the better CBM works. An example of a problem that is not
resolvable on the community level is water pollution affecting a community that is
downstream of its source. Air pollution is usually at least regional in nature. Migratory
bird issues are national and even international.1
'del
More Appropriate Problem Solving Approaches
It was much easier and more effective, for example, to ban lead from gasoline nation-
wide than it would have been to use CBM to reduce lead emissions from vehicles city
by city. Market approaches also may achieve Ibetter results far more quickly than a
series of CBM efforts. For example, the International City Management Association is
advocating a tie between a city's bond or insurance rating and the community's envi-
ronmental performance.
Statutory, Political, Circumstantial, and Financial Constraints
Sometimes a governor's office is not in tune with CBM approaches or there may be
national issues that have created a hostile atmosphere for compromise. EPA's auto
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
The results of a CBM
outcome may be
greater than the sum
of its parts.
-------
An Overview of
Community-Based
Management
emission inspection program, for example, became widely unpopular when people
began to view it as being forced on them by "politics." They saw it as overly disruptive
and expensive and refused to comply. Some issues, such as siting a nuclear waste
repository, are inappropriate for CBM because there is little incentive for most of the
affected locally to negotiate. And in other cases, federal empowerment is limited by a
lack of authority to solve the problems at hand, e.g. land-use policies that create envi-
ronmental problems.
When CBM Is Not Useful
for simple, uncontested issues
/or overly contentious issues
"for issues that affect large or multiple geographical areas, e.g., bird
flyways
where other government approaches are better or simpler
where the federal government has no authority
where social norms limit what can be done
Limitations of Societal Norms
In France it is common for a community willing to accept a potentially hazardous facil-
ity such as a nuclear power plant to be compensated by the national government. In this
country, however, efforts to site such facilities are often perceived as environmental
injustice or as inappropriate in their neighborhoods because of real or perceived risks.
Likewise, with few exceptions our legal system has favored providing individuals who
believe they have been harmed with the opportunity to sue for compensation, rather
than indemnification. Changing the minds of citizens on certain issues is very difficult.
Attempts in the past to use community-based approaches have not always met with
resounding success. The model cities program, which promised considerable funding
to a few demonstration cities willing to undertake major rebuilding, quickly dissolved
as the number of cities involved increased as their political representatives legislatively
added them to the program through earmarked funds. Community health planning
councils were established in the 1960s to limit the growth of expensive new medical
equipment and unneeded hospital beds, but the medical community killed the pro-
gram by determining the councils, even to the point of appointing their spouses to the
mandatory citizen seats. The community action program failed when community com-
mittees were provided large amounts of flexible federal funding without the participa-
tion of local government. Local leaders urged Congress to mandate that they have the
majority of votes on community groups and the hope of cooperative efforts quickly
faded. It is important that we learn from the past for CBM to avoid a similar fate.
22k
-------
CHAPTER
i
I
New Management Challenges
Posed by CBM
Making CBM an integral part of a federal program will require many changes in how
', the program operates. This chapter describes
the distinctive issues that the federal
i manager must consider to make a CBM project! work. Catalyzing, sponsoring, collabo-
rating, and participating in community-based decisionmaking is a different orientation
; than making grants, writing regulations, or enforcing regulations.
A manager must not only make decisions related to national issues, but give direction
j to his or her representatives about how to work with other participants in a CBM
1 process and how to define the community and engage it effectively. Federal managers
; must prepare staff to work collaboratively with other parts of their own agency, as well
i as with other federal agencies, states, and local governments. Federal managers will
have to help their representatives learn how to participate in a decisionmaking process
that may well be quite unlike anything they hSave ever faced. This chapter discusses
issues related to headquarters and regional management and the performance of fed-
eral officials in CBM forums.
DEFINING THE COMMUNITY
Communities can be defined in four ways: politically (Omaha; Dade County; Rhode
Island; the United States); ecologically (Monogahela River watershed; Puget Sound; the
i Everglades); programmatically (the area around Exit 4 on Interstate 95; the public
water suppliers drawing drinking water from the Ogallala Aquifer; a Superfund site in
Chicago); or socioeconomically (the Woodla^ra or Anacostia neighborhoods); or a
combination of the above. For the purposes of CBM and this report, a combination of
place-based definitions will be used. This definition will not include "communities of
interest," another common use of the term community.
The definition of the community can affect the c utconie of a CBM process so it is impor-
tant to take care in drawing boundaries. Amajor consideration is who will be left out. One
National Estuary Program applicant, for example, defined the area affecting the estuary in
such a way that a major pollution source on its northern border was left outside of the
boundary and thus out of the dialogue and solutions to the bay's ecological problems. Yet
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
Defining a community
involves matching the
effective areas of a
problem and its
potential solutions
with those people and
institutions which are
affected by the
problem and have the
authority and interest
to implement the
recommended
solutions.
the reaches of some ecological systems may extend far beyond any reasonable concept of
community. The Mississippi River Watershed, for example, extends through about two-
thirds of the United States. And while using political boundaries to define a problem may
help to engage the governmental participants, such a definition may not work well when
the problems, affected ecosystems, or populations cut across political boundaries.
The narrower the scale of a problem, the easier the resolution is but the greater die like-
lihood of overlooking related interests and issues. A community of place in the context
of global warming means the entire world; in the context of urban decay, it may mean
a few square city blocks or miles. A major consideration in determining scale is whether
those who are not represented have a substantive "interest" in the problem and would
be affected by the results, e.g., have to pay the bill, suffer a degraded environment, or
live with a highway interchange diverted through their neighborhood. For example,
residents in Florida's coastal communities have a major stake in the outcome of nego-
tiations over water use in inland counties many miles away. As water use increases and
water is drawn out of potable aquifers, coastal water tables drop and saline ocean water
moves into those aquifers, ruining existing wellfields. Coastal cities must then find
inland sources of drinking water or drill much deeper wellfields, raising the cost of sup-
plying water. Conversely, barriers to industrial uses of brownfields in inner cities
increases development pressures on open land in rural areas.
Scale is less relevant to "communities of interest," individuals and groups with a long-
term interest in advancing a particular position. For example, the Sierra Club is a com-
munity of interest, as is the American Mining Congress. The representatives of a
community of interest may not be a part of a particular geographic community yet they
may support like-minded community residents in an attempt to create a national prece-
dent. While it would be impossible and inappropriate to exclude such organizations,
their active participation can dramatically affect a community discussion, as well as the
likelihood of a local resolution. National interest groups may reflect the interests of a
larger community, but they can also press singular interests to the disadvantage of com-
munity interests.
In short, defining a community involves matching the effective areas of a problem and
its potential solutions with those people and institutions which are affected by the prob-
lem and have the autiiority and interest to implement the recommended solutions.
While addressing a comprehensive scope of management issues is fundamental, for
example for an ecosystem, the logistics of fostering cohesive public involvement to
achieve a sense of community are also important. There are clearly trade-offs between
programmatic and political realities that should be carefully thought through for each
community setting.
ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY
Innovative federal managers and their front-line representatives understand why in
CBM it is important to assure that all points of view have been engaged, and they devise
ways to do so. In doing so, they confront a series of difficult questions.
24k
-------
Who Represents the Community?
If a community has a history of broad-based civic involvement, or if a program has a
statutory definition of who should represent a community, identifying the categories of
CBM participants is relatively easy. In most cases, however, it will be difficult to deter-
mine who to include. Local elected officials, planning commissioners, and community
leaders or groups may all consider themselves the only representatives of a community,
but sometimes those who assert leadership or claim constituencies have neither.
Statutory Definition: An Example
each state and foreign nation located in the estuarine zone
international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities having
jurisdiction
each interested federal agency
local governments having jurisdiction
affected industries, public and private educational institutions, and
the general public
Source: National Estuary Program, the Clean Water Act
A community group representative in New England recounted to a project focus group
a cautionary tale of her experiences. She wrote a development plan with a group of
"leaders" that included the heads of several well-known local organizations. When the
plan was released, it was roundly criticized within the community by residents who
claimed that no neighborhood representatives had participated in the process. She
then had to identify valid local spokespersons and start over. The next plan was strik-
ingly similar to the first, but because the process had involved the leaders of the com-
munity it was widely accepted.
How Do Federal Managers Deal With "the Community" Face-to-Face?
Direct interaction with citizens is new to many federal managers and front-line staff.
CBM is different from the usual show-and-tell public presentations. It is also different
from interacting with state and local representatives, other professional communities,
or even advocacy groups. In all those cases, everyone shares a language and a set of
understandings, and/or knows the "rules of engagement." In a CBM process the range
of participants may be much broader, including many who will challenge the basic
assumptions that federal officials may make.
How Do Managers Assure That Community Resident Participants Will Be
Listened to and Respected?
While many community representatives are quite sophisticated, others are unschooled
in issues, potential solutions, and negotiating skills. Federal participants may believe
that the opinions of such citizens are ill-informed or parochial, especially where tech-
nical issues are involved. But residents who lack technical knowledge may be experts
on their community, on the concerns of its residents, and about what may or may not
be best for the community. Several federal employees recounted what happened when
they suggested that a brownfield in a blighted urban area might be turned into a park.
The residents' response was, "Are you crazy?" Staff thought, "Are you crazy?," until
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
Al.5
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
residents explained that parks in their community attracted drug dealers, and that
community needed jobs, not another drug haven.
How Do You Get Extragovemmental Representatives to the Table?
Many participants in community-based management groups work for government
agencies or other affected groups and thus go to meetings as part of their jobs. Other
participants, however, are volunteers whose own work makes them unavailable for
daytime meetings. Some designated participants see no reason for their involvement
and don't come, either because they are burned out from other "stakeholder involve-
ment" projects or because they don't have the time. Busy small business owners, for
example, often do not show up at meetings. Some groups historically may have been
disenfranchised from such civic processes and are hesitant or cynical or have no one
willing to take on the burden of negotiation for fear of being regarded as a trouble-
maker. The corporate headquarters of a local business or financial institution may be in
another state and the local manager may be unable to provide representation, no mat-
ter how critical the institution's involvement in the process.
How Do You Get All the Relevant Government and Private-Sector Officials to
Participate?
Some officials see CBM as a way to force them to support a position with which diey do
not agree or which may cost them money. They prefer to use political or legal mea-
sures to achieve dieir goals and they may have the power to do so. Silence does not nec-
essarily mean agreement.
Thus, CBM is not for the faint-hearted. Federal participants cannot insist on a clearly
defined process and schedule. As one practitioner observed, "When you decide to
dance with the bear, you must be prepared to dance as long as the bear wants to dance."
It can be time-consuming and exhausting. This same official recounted to the New
England focus group on CBM his experience in facing a community that was enraged
over a plan to upgrade an off-ramp for an interstate highway. The press called the
agency's proposed action "The Bridge That Ate New Haven." The practitioner "danced
with his bear" until everyone understood the problems with the current structure, the
nature of the new design, the options, and the costs. Finally everyone agreed on a plan
that replaced the bridge and substantially improved the quality of the nearby commu-
nity. While it was difficult because residents were initially hostile and took over a year
longer than he could have predicted, he emphasized that the outcome was satisfying to
him personally. Next time, however, he said that he will approach a community before
a proposal is made, not after.
OTHER ISSUES FOR A FEDERAL MANAGER TO CONSIDER
A Community's Agenda May Differ from the Federal Government's
A federal manager may view CBM as a means to engage a community in government
decisionmaking on a limited issue. On the other hand, as the mayor of a small city com-
mented to the San Francisco CBM focus group, local government officials often see
community-based efforts as an opportunity to improve their cities. The mayor, for
example, defines her city's environmental problems more broadly than simply clean-
26k.
-------
ing up toxic waste, and thus seeks to leverage clean-up projects for achieving other
improvements. For example, she was able to negotiate road improvements from one
agency and environmental clean-up from another; Her entrepreneurship resulted in an
impressive main street restoration which brought an unexpected increase in local
pride in the city as a whole.13
Some Local Interests May Be Suspicious of Federal Intrusion
They may see the physical presence of a federal official as a significant change in an
existing political dynamic. Participants in the Academy study, for example, commented
at the naivete of federal officials who regarded themselves as disinterested parties. They
pointed out that federal agency representatives see issues through institutional prisms,
not as a neutral party. One practitioner, in highlighting the lack of EPA "neutrality,"
asked why EPA didn't fund agriculture-worker advocates who sought to loosen agri-
cultural water-use controls in order to provide more job opportunities. His point was
that federal agency representatives should be honest with themselves and others
regarding their agenda and be sensitive to local values and concerns.
Reactions to CBM Vary from Situation to Situation andfrom^Participant to
Participant
Some federal officials may feel they are losing control of their programs or that they are
unable to function under new guidelines; some may discover they have a new found
emotional commitment to a program. State and local participants may gain a sense of
empowerment or a sense of frustration with the myriad interests and regulations that
must be considered. Citizens can either find an opportunity for substantial contribu-
tion or feel overwhelmed by a puzzling process and foreign vocabulary. The resolution
can make participants feel empowered or disappointed that their will did not prevail.
Elected officials can use CBM as a way to achieve major improvements in their com-
munities or see it as a threat to what is perhaps an already precarious local budget.
SELECTING THE SPONSOR OF A COMMUNITY-BASED
MANAGEMENT EFFORT
Even when a federal agency plays a catalytic role in getting a community-based process
started, it does not have to manage the process. Indeed, it is often best to hand the roles
of sponsor and manager of a CBM process over to another entity. A state or local
agency, a local civic organization, or a professional facilitator may have the ability to
organize and guide collaborative efforts and it may be to the federal agency's advantage
to have them do so. Some communities have long-standing entities, such as conserva-
tion districts or regional planning agencies, which can serve as a CBM "leader." Which
entity might be designated by a federal agency to actually run a CBM effort depends on
several factors:
the degree to which a federal agency is willing to let go of its own interests or
decisionmaking authority, e.g., where the agency is encouraging civic action it
may have no decisionmaking authority
the parties with whom federal officials readily collaborate: state and local govern-
ment, nongovernmental or community organizations
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
All
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
28k
the way in which collaboration takes place: formal or informal; short- or long-
term; statutorily-established or ad hoc
which incentives federal officials offer for collaborative activities: money, staff,
technical assistance, information, regulatory flexibility
Who takes leadership may also depend on additional factors. For example, the limita-
tions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) on formal advisory committees
require an extensive, time-consuming process of public notice, followed by Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval of the committee and its mem-
bership.14 All of that effort might be worthwhile where the likelihood of a legal chal-
lenge is high or viable alternatives do not exist, but while a FACA process moves along,
the issue as well as the advisory committee may become more politicized. Where pos-
sible, agencies usually look for another entity, such as a state agency, to sponsor the
process or'add the task to the responsibilities of an established advisory committee.
For example, local NEP committees, which are authorized by the Clean Water Act, have
served as useful conveners of community interests in several controversial processes to
establish harbor-dredging permits.
Regardless of who convenes a CBM, it is fundamental that the members are truly rep-
resentative of community interests and can speak for them: citizenry; businesses;
NGO's; and governments. Whether it is called an advisory committee or a task force,
the group is a single entity dedicated to solving a specific local problem or problems.
INFORMAL COLLABORATION AS A BASIS FOR A LATER CBM
EFFORT
What is described above is a formal, CBM, instituted by the federal government. But a
form of CBM can also evolve from those shadow processes which often develop when
like-minded persons in federal agencies, community groups, and state and local gov-
ernments work together informally to seek out an approach to a problem that everyone
can officially support.
CBM also can result when a community group draws public and government attention
to an issue. Federal managers may then formalize that effort by establishing a govern-
ment-sponsored task force. Many federally initiated CBM committees actually have
been organized at the insistence of the community to resolve issues arising from large
public works projects, such as the dredging of the harbor in Oakland, California.
CREATE A VIABLE FORUM FOR CBM
If a problem lends itself to the use of CBM, managers still have much work to do. The
Academy panel offers the following ideas for managers considering establishing or
joining an existing forum to address, among other issues, a federal one:
Set Up and Manage the Forum
Whether a CBM process uses a formal advisory committee to make a specific federal
decision or supports a planning task force in the exploration of a broader range of
issues, there are some basic principles which are important to success. Unless a forum
-------
is well organized from, the start, the dialogue can be handicapped. For example, one
NEP required that the recommendations of the citizen subcommittee:be cleared by a
technical subcommittee of experts before going to a management committee. The citi-
zens on the first committee felt themselves considered second-class, even .though all
but one of their recommendations "was followed.15
It is generally more effective to use an existing local entity to facilitate a CBM forum.
Communities already have their ways of making decisions, and managers must engage
those political processes. If a local government, an elected officiars office, or a local plan-
ning agency is trusted by the community and other institutions, federal managers should
consider using that entity to facilitate the CBM forum, even if it requires additional exper-
tise or technical assistance. Where there is no existing appropriate forum or official will-
ing to take on the facilitation role, federal managers can ask the mayor or local alderman
to issue the initial invitation and host the first meeting. If no government entity or official
is able or willing to host the process, a trusted nongovernmental organization may be
available. In some communities, there are many groups that have the experience and the
local trust to serve as conveners. (It is not a good idea to ask an advocacy group to con-
vene a CBM process; it is unlikely to be able to separate its usual role from a facilitative one
and its presence in that role may keep others from the substantive deliberations.)
Those who participated in the Academy study cautioned federal managers to explore
all the options carefully and not to set up their own groups until they have exhausted
all local possibilities.
Tailor the Forum to Meet the Federal Purpose, As Well As to Fit Local Custom
and Needs
If a local entity is asked to manage a CBM forum, additional community, federal, or
state interests may have to be added to balance the mix. The expectations of the forum
must be clear so that representatives of these interests are willing to come to the table.
A disinterested facilitator may have to be added to allow the local entity to fully repre-
sent its own interests. If a local host has not addressed specific issues in the past, such
as hazardous waste disposal options, the participating federal agency may have to pro-
vide resources for obtaining of technical staff or consultants. It is important that the
local forum is equipped and organized to manage the process effectively.
.Assure That All Significant Interests Are at the Table and Have Able
Representation
All local interests must be there, especially from government and the private sectors.
Often government and business leaders are the ones who can implement a forum's deci-
sions. If those players are not directly engaged, there can be no effective agreement. It is
essential to engage the supposed "bad guys" too. CBM.would be easier if they weren't
involved, but the CBM consensus is worthless when major interests have been ignored.
Understand the Different Roles of Advocacy and Community Groups
Both groups play a role in representing important interests: those of particular policy
positions and those of a place. But CBM managers should not confuse their roles.
Practitioners who attended project focus groups noted that advocacy groups can
drive wedges between citizens and governments. One NEP, for example, selected as
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
A 29
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
"citizen" representatives only individuals who were active in environmental organiza-
tions, thus skewing the outcome and opening themselves to criticism by citizens who
were not environmentalists.16
Consider the Use of Professional Facilitation
In complex CBM forums, there can be an advantage to hiring a skilled neutral party to
help frame the agenda and manage the relationships. A professional facilitator also
removes from the sponsoring agency or host organization the burden of facilitating
meetings while expressing its specific interest.
Provide Independent Technical Analyses If Necessary
Some problems are so technical that a community needs outside expertise to intelli-
gently define the problem and weigh options. If so, the federal sponsor must help the
participants to determine what expertise is needed and obtain it. For example, the
Superfund and DOE site clean-up programs provide technical-assistance grants to
forum participants.
Don't Get Hung Up on Research and Assessments
It is important to target technical support and to only research issues that require further
information before a decision can be made, as opposed to issues that might benefit from
more information, that are related but would not directly contribute to making a forum
decision, or are merely interesting to the research community. A researcher can refine a
model endlessly but, the purpose of CBM is to make a decision, not support research.
Frame the Issues to Obtain Timely Decisions
A federal manager may be able to use national policies to frame value laded situations, par-
ticularly where a federal decision is at issue. In such cases, if there are a limited number of
options on the table, the players are more likely to settle on those that have a potential for
being adopted those with a realistic price tag, for example. Further, the group should
consider only those solutions that are costed-out and are within responsible fiscal bounds.
Final recommendations should be accompanied by commitments to implement.
Build In Short-Run Accomplishments
While CBM aims to create broad visions, the process can lose momentum quickly if
there is not tangible and timely progress. Planning forums should focus concurrently
on broad goals and on targeted initial actions. Accomplishing something quickly can
help a group maintain a sense of progress and help a community understand that the
CBM project is a serious one.
Establish "Rules of Engagement"
Since community-based dialogues are quite different from the meetings that federal
employees have widi other agency or advocacy group representatives, it is important to
be sensitive to the need for a collaborative meeting protocol. For example:
Treat all participants with the respect that their positions demand. Be aware
of any cultural or social differences that may inhibit the process. The governor of
an Indian nation, for example, was insulted that the federal representative who
was sent to meet with him was in his twenties and did not have a high rank within
30
-------
the organization. To him, this meant the federal government was not serious about
the subject under discussion. Titles and formal hdnorifics sh6~uld:be used initially
for everyone. Wait for group members to make the first move on the use of infor-
mal names.
i Establish an "openness" policy. Federal managers must state exactly why the fed-
eral government is there, as well as explain what the federal government can and
can't do to help. The other members of the group should state their interests and
agendas clearly as well. Every participant should know the exact nature of the com-
munity's involvement, especially his or her own role in the decision process.
An Example of Clarification ofEPA's Role in the Decision
Process of a CBM Forum
"(Federal) governmental authority may be exercised only by officers of
the United States... EPA intends "to make those decisions based on
the final agreements of the council to the maximum extent consistent
with EPA's legal obligations."
Source: Pine Street Council organizational protocols draft.
Keep the process as simple as possible. Establish an agenda and folio wit. While
it is important to "dance with the bear," it is equally important to move the process
along. No one wants to spend any more time than necessary at meetings. Five-to-
ten-year planning processes and endless meetings often result in key participants
dropping out and special interest advocates taking control.
USING FUNDS TO ENHANCE THE PROCESS
When federal agencies initiate community-based activities, it is likely that a number of
participants will first request federal funds. But throwing money at a community may be
one of the least effective ways of obtaining participation and cooperation. The Academy
panel offers the following ideas to maximize the return on federal investment:
Commit Dollars Only to Achieve Specific Program Purposes
If a manager must use funds to get all of the players to the table, he or she should make
sure to use the smallest amount possible. Large infusions of federal funds can affect the
dynamic of the process and lead to the feeling that the federal government will control
the outcome and provide the solution. Then, too, if there is money at stake, community
groups may spend more time competing for it than in solving their problem.
Researchers and contractors also are drawn to federal funds. While their work may be
useful at some point in a CBM process, up-front efforts on their parts may introduce
issues that may delay closure or derail a successful outcome.
Thus, federal managers should keep in mind that CBM is not a grant program; it is col-
laborative governance that may be aided by federal funds. One technique used fre-
quently to entice state and local government into participating in CBM is to offer of
federal funds which require matching contributions by state or local government. For
example, states now invest far more of their own resources than are required by many
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
A
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
Real buy-in comes
when public and
private sector
representatives decide
that participating in
the process is in their
best interest.
32k.
delegated federal regulatory programs because the programs have become a high state
priorities. Participants in this study, however, cautioned that using federal funds to
leverage state and local funds is no guarantee of commitment to a process or of a result
that implements recommendations. Real buy-in comes when public and private sector
representatives decide that participating in the process is in their best interest. It has
been their experience that state and local governments are willing to match funds for
activities that fit into their priorities, but are sometimes not willing to accept or imple-
ment the results of those programs. For example, once "NEP management plans" are
completed and approved, the communities or state agencies which had received siz-
able planning grants often refuse to provide financial support for the support staff to
manage die post-planning processes. They have pressured Congress to earmark fed-
eral funds for overseeing and implementing the projects well beyond the existing statu-
tory commitment.
Teach and Encourage a Community to Compete for Other Resources
The guarantee of a stream of resources often discourages community participants from
seeking other resources. Brownfields administrators have found that their strict com-
mitment to two-year site-assessment grants motivated communities to contact finan-
cial institutions and developers and to seek the commitments of state and local
agencies to participate.
With respect to other federal agencies, practitioners noted that one agency's "leverag-
ing" is another agency's "rip off." Once contributions from the initiator have ended,
there is no guarantee that the participating agency will continue its support unless the
participating agency decides that it is in its own best interest to do so.
When Grants Are Made, Hold the Grantees Accountable for Funds
If a federal manager determines diat small grants are necessary to bring disenfran-
chised groups into a negotiation, he or she should assure that those groups are able to
account for how those funds are spent. It may be time-consuming and tedious to follow
up on those requirements, but such accounting maintains the integrity of the CBM
process and provides useful data about the needs and accomplishments of community
groups. It is also self-defeating to signal to community groups that federal funds are a
free ride as community participants are also more likely to loose interest in the forum
once federal funds end or the auditors begin to ask questions about how the money
was used if accountability was not clearly understood from the beginning.
DEALING WITH INTERNAL CHALLENGES
In addition to the challenges from a community, a federal manager can face significant
challenges from other programs within his or her own agency. Sometimes, the biggest
hurdle to CBM is from the federal office next door, down the hall, or across the street.
It may require as much or more salesmanship to induce a colleague to join and support
CBM efforts as for any other participant, and it is just as important.
Long-time agency managers have experienced the dichotomy between the flexible
dynamic of CBM and the established cultures of their agencies. Agency employees who
take the risk of opening a decision process to outsiders sometimes lose their status as
-------
candidates for promotion. Those whose risk-taking failed may be considered failures
themselves or blamed for undermining an agency's competitive position in the strug-
gle for scarce dollars and skilled staff. Also, "flexibility" is often relatively undefined,
making it sometimes difficult for federal CBM participants to avoid creating trouble-
some precedents or resource requirements.
Even where management supports CBM and defines flexibility favorably, some parts of
a federal agency may maintain narrow interpretations of statutes and regulations or
continue approaches which have the same effect. A recent news article noted that year-
old changes in Superfund guidances affecting nuclear site clean-up and management
were not being followed by either EPA or DOE field staff.17 An intensive communica-
tions effort had to be initiated to get the message through to both agencies' field offices
even though they had all received timely notification of the changes.
Often programs within the same organization can present the most tenacious opposi-
tion. Programs using community-based approaches are often considered soft com-
pared to programs facing court-ordered deadlines or those creating environmental
standards. As competition for resources increases, the motivation to avoid cooperation
and create barriers and hazards for experimental efforts and their managers became
substantial and can be detrimental to an agency's work. For example, a state official
noted that an estuary plan which had been developed through the NEP program and
approved by the EPA administrator as well as his governor is routinely ignored by
many federal and delegated-state permit-writers. That individual concluded that CBM
may be useful for unregulated sources of water contamination and situations in which
public responses are voluntary, but not for sources which are controlled by permits
and managed by agencies not supportive of CBM activities.
Dealing With Challenges From Other Federal Agencies
Most issues addressed in CBM inevitably involve more than one federal agency.
Indeed, the more comprehensively a sponsoring agency addresses an issue, the more
likely other federal interests will be affected. Sometimes those interests are not direcdy
related to the sponsoring agency's purpose, but because of their importance to the
community they must be addressed if CBM is to succeed.
Dealing widi odier federal agencies can be a contentious task. Other agencies may be
unwilling to contribute time and effort to issues for which they have not explicitly bud-
geted resources. Some will expect to be reimbursed for their effort as they may have
been in the past Some may have their own community-based efforts underway and
regard another agency's CBM project as competitive or duplicative as it well may be.
The lack of one federal voice can strain and frustrate community negotiations.
Undoubtedly the most frustrating issue is the difficulty agencies often have in present-
ing a consistent federal position on issues. Communities simply do not understand
that interagency conflicts are based on differing missions or on conflicting or techni-
cally infeasible statutes, as well as on different work and professional cultures. Well
known are the differing views of agricultural and natural resource agencies and envi-
ronmental protection agencies about the value of regulations and enforcement.
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
Undoubtedly the most
frustrating issue is the
difficulty agencies
often have in
presenting a
consistent federal
position on issues.
^33
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
34^
The public has even less understanding of intragency conflicts. For example, it is diffi-
cult to explain why the Clean Air Act's nonattainment requirements might prevent the
Superfund program from encouraging a new industry to move onto a brownfields site
because it would further increase local air pollution.18 Such a stance may handicap the
Brownfields Program's ability to attract businesses and industry to old, abandoned
industrial communities which hope to attract jobs. It is often easier and less costly for
an industry to move to undeveloped "green fields," compounding the negative effects.
That situation is typical of the conflicting purposes and requirements which face fed-
eral managers. At times, a way around such barriers can be found, but not always.
Other federal officials have mistakenly tried to avoid disrupting regulatory issues by
purposely excluding them from the community-based dialogue. The effect is to discuss
and come to agreements only on certain aspects of a problem, a practice which can seri-
ously compromise the value of the effort.
Further complications arise when different federal regional and field offices have been
delegated uneven levels of authority. Some hold extensive delegations while others
must obtain headquarters approval before making commitments. For example, EPA is
highly decentralized with all but the most politically visible, new or unique efforts
decided by regional officials. In contrast, the Department of Health and Human
Service's (HHS's) decisionmaking authority is almost exclusively based at its head-
quarters. However, senior EPA representatives may be unable to stand behind negoti-
ated positions or make on-the-spot commitments when a very "political" decision or
experimental effort is involved. Some programs delegate extraordinary responsibility
to technical staff and have little national oversight. The Endangered Species Program,
for example, has given broad discretion to technical field staff which they have used to
challenge the results of CBM forums. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has no regional offices; headquarters staff perform those func-
tions. The Department of Urban Development's (HUD) housing program has in large
measure been devolved to municipal government, with HUD officials maintaining
broad policy-setting and oversight responsibilities. The Department of the Interior and
the Department of Agriculture have extensive field networks that are closely tied to
communities, while EPA has virtually no field staff. There is currently no mechanism to
bring coherence to regional and field organizations. Past efforts to do so, such as the
Federal Regional Councils of the 1970s, quickly fell into disuse. Informal relationships
appear to be the most productive way for federal representatives to resolve their issues.
A few communities have been overwhelmed with conflicting and overlapping commu-
nity-based federal initiatives. Some communities have reported that so many commu-
nity-based initiatives have been established between federal agencies and different
parts of the community that people cannot participate in all of them. There is no mech-
anism in Washington or within federal regions which help agencies combine CBM
efforts or otherwise help agencies, states, and communities focus their efforts on the
most critical or appropriate issues, although the introduction of federal/state perfor-
mance partnership program in the management of delegated programs holds some
potential for serving that function.19
Certainly some inter- and intragovernmental relationships work well, but they are diffi-
cult and time-consuming to establish and can be maintained only through extraordi-
-------
nary commitment on the parts of all agency participants. They work best at the two
extremes: where there is a major crisis, often involving the highest levels of government
the Forest Summit, for example, in 1995 when the president had to spend a day at the
table with the major players or in settings that do not involve substantial federal deci-
sionmaking such as supporting voluntary civic efforts. In the latter case, the federal gov-
ernment generally plays a supportive roleproviding technical information and how-to
documents for local groups interested, for example, in developing community-led well-
head protection programs in conjunction with state and local environmental agencies.
DEALING WITH CHALLENGES FROM STATES
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that powers not specifically dele-
gated to the federal government are the province of the states. States define the powers
of local government through their own constitutions.
A thorough understanding of how our federal system actually works can be a great help
in navigating a CBM process. Most federal managers have worked with the state or local
agencies that parallel their federal agency. For example, most EPA managers have learned
how to work effectively with state environmental agencies and with local entities which
manage air, wastewater, or drinking water programs. But in a CBM process, the federal
manager works with a much broader array of state and local governmental entities.
States are generally structured similarly to the federal government, but the details of
their organization can be quite different. In other words, states are not simply smaller
versions of the federal government. For example, some state environmental agencies
also manage natural resources. Each state also has its own legal structure and political
traditions. Some state governors have even more authority under the state constitution
than the president does under the U.S. Constitution. For example, many governors can
veto portions of legislative bills. In other states, the governor is constitutionally weak.
In Florida, for example, many routine contracts and major policy decisions require
approval by a seven-member cabinet of elected officials. The governor chairs the cabi-
net but has only one vote.
All states define the powers of local governments under the state constitution and state
statutes. But the political reality in some states is that county commissioners have a
great deal of autonomy, while in other states, there is a tradition of strong state influ-
ence over land use and many other matters.
States and tribes are sovereign entities, not interest groups. Indeed, one of the surest
ways that a federal official can anger state, tribal and local officials is to equate them
with interest groups. In some issue areas, most of the work of states is to manage fed-
erally designed programs. But in many other areas, such as land use, states have far
greater legal authority and political influence than federal agencies. Thus, states often
can bring a unique set of resources into a community-based effort.
CBM changes federal relationships with state agencies. Over the past 30 years, EPA and
the states have developed relationships based on EPA's delegation to states the author-
ity with financial support for implementing federal programs, including enforcing
national environmental standards. Those relationships, for the most part, have worked
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
States and tribes are
sovereign entities, not
interest groups.
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
The primary role of
general purpose local
government is to
balance among
competing interests
on behalf of a
community as a
whole.
well and achieved much, but they are changing. For a long period most states were, and
still are, driven by those delegations of authority and many still think and operate
around federal laws. In doing so they have developed more sophisticated governmen-
tal structures and capacities. Some states are beginning to reorganize to address the
broader concepts of sustainable development.
States ordinarily feel capable of implementing national priorities within their borders.
Where federal priorities conflict with their own, they are seeking greater control over
priority-setting. Many states are creating discrete community-based projects or devel-
oping performance partnerships which include that approach. Some like the tradi-
tional regulatory relationships; others feel CBM may hold promise but wish to wait
until the approach has been more clearly defined.
Further complicating the relationships between federal and state governments are the
same conflicting policies and guidelines that complicate relationships between federal pro-
grams. Since state government organizations generally mirror their federal counterparts,
every program has developed guidance and priorities, as well as a culture to accomplish its
particular mission. Where the CBM approach is not clearly integrated into federal/state
delegation agreements and grant requirements, state agencies can be in the awkward posi-
tion of challenging the requirements of one federal program at the behest of another.
At the workshops held for this project, some regulatory and enforcement managers
said that they feel caught in a "catch-22" situation. While pressures continue to drive
vigorous enforcement, the approaches used to encourage or force state action are being
questioned. State representatives who participated in four Academy focus groups pre-
fer the position taken by the past chairperson of the Environmental Commissioner's
Organization of States (ECOS) that the "federal government help the states do what's
right rather than catch states at doing what's wrong."20 Where enforcement actions are
taking place, participants may find themselves at a conference table trying to develop
shared goals with those with whom they are locked in contentious legal disputes.
DEALING WITH CHALLENGES FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Local governments play a role quite distinct from that played by federal and state govern-
ment, one relating specifically to place. In contrast to the heavily "stove-piped" federal and
state levels of government, general purpose local governments such as counties and
municipalities tend to define problems far more broadly. Those local governments have
powerful tools such as police and public health powers and exclusive authority to deter-
mine how land may be used. They address issues which most directly touch peoples lives,
from educating children, to providing health and social services for the poor and disabled,
to picking up the garbage and filling pot holes, to enhancing the economic and aesthetic
viability of the community. The primary role of general purpose local government is to bal-
ance among competing interests on behalf of a community as a whole.
On the other hand, there also are many independent, narrowly focused local authori-
ties, such as water districts and school systems. Some of those entities are minor.
Mosquito-control districts, for example, are rarely important players in local affairs.
Many water and wastewater districts have regional scope and are remarkably well insu-
lated from pressure from elected officials or even the citizenry.
-------
Yet Americans are conflicted about the role of local government. According to some
polls, most people believe that local government is more trustworthy and effective than
any other kind. Academy focus group participants said that local elected officials often
present themselves as representatives of a community but that the public also regards
them as too entrenched or that they make local decisions without regard to other inter-
ests in or outside die community.
Of course, most local elected officials believe that they are the legislated decision-makers
for their communities. They are the ones facing die competing issues of healdi care, crime,
education, economic development, and die environment, as well as a citizenry that wants
answers to all diose problems without new taxes. However, many elected officials admit-
tedly do not understand technical aspects of many of the issues facing them. Except in
large cities, they may lack the staff to advise diem, let alone to collaborate widi federal, state
authorities, or community representatives. Indeed, they may even have a paranoid view of
federal and state agencies. Then, too, many local officials remember that early "community
action programs," such as diose of the Great Society, were used to by die federal govern-
ment to mobilize die disenfranchised to challenge unresponsive local governments.
Given diose beliefs and situations, it is hardly surprising tiiat some local officials are con-
cerned about CBM, especially if it is initiated by an agency like EPA diat has worked pri-
marily with and through states. HUD and USDA aside, a regulatory agency is likely to
met stiff opposition in attempting to get local officials on die CBM bandwagon. Federal
managers must be sensitive to diose feelings and promote partnerships, not polarity.
Those who participated in diis study emphasize diat, despite die seeming difficulty of
some of the issues discussed above, federal managers must involve all levels of govern-
ment in CBM, must prepare die context for real deliberation, and let die chips fall
where tiiey may.
CONSENSUS VS. FORMAL AUTHORITY
CBM dirusts federal managers and tiieir representatives into a very new dynamic, yet a
federal manager's ability to operate witiiin it is at die core of making die CBM approach
to decision- making work.
The process of making a decision witiiin a collaborative community process is quite dif-
ferent tiian die process of making decisions inside an agency. In an agency setting,
managers have at least a formal authority to make decisions, as well as a clear respon-
sibility to provide leadership. Behind die scenes, there may be many kinds of informal
consultation and complex patterns of influence. In addition, an agency manager must
deal witii complex outside influences from interest groups, congressional staff, media,
political appointees, inspectors general, odier agencies, and many otiiers. However, die
formal audiority that is inherent in statutes, regulation, and agency structure does pro-
vide a fixed point around which tiiose many influences and powers circulate.
In a community-based process, die same informal complexities and influences are
present, but die fixed point of formal audiority is missing. Instead, die fundamental
rule of decisionmaking is to approximate consensus, which changes die ground
rules substantially.
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
The fundamental rule
of decisionmaking is
to approximate
consensus, which
changes the ground
rules substantially.
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed lay
CBM
Even when unanimity
is not reached,
participants may still
be satisfied if they
had a substantive
opportunity to
express their
viewpoints and were
provided valid
reasons why theirs
was not accepted.
Obtaining full community participation is difficult; reaching a unanimous consensus is
nearly impossible. Where there are complex issues there will be differing views. Federal
managers should view CBM realistically, especially where a highly visible federal decision
is involved. Even when unanimity is not reached, participants may still be satisfied if they
had a substantive opportunity to express their viewpoints and were provided valid rea-
sons why theirs was not accepted. Studies have concluded that those who expressed dis-
appointment with a community-based forum were more likely to be unhappy if their
views were not taken seriously than with an outcome with which they disagreed.21 Even
where substantial differences remain, a federal decision will be more defendable in the
political arena or in court if the plaintiffs views were fully heard and considered.
It is important for federal participants to understand the conditions under which oth-
ers have a incentive to participate. Often participants will express concern over die
existence of conflict in community-based forums, yet it is the existence of conflict that
motivates people to invest in the process and is an effective forcing factor. An additional
condition for a robust, meaningful negotiation may be such other forcing factors such
as deadlines and mandates. When a permit must be renewed for important work such
as harbor dredging or a statutory or court-ordered deadline to issue a permit is immi-
nent, minds tend to focus and options appear more feasible.
Self-interest and ambition also are factors that attract people to issues and cause diem
to invest dieir time and energy. For some it is economic, the possibility of gaining a
competitive advantage or getting a better job. Some are driven by civic ambitiongain-
ing local stature by promoting wordiwhile causes. For others, it may be political ambi-
tion which may be realized by promoting a political agenda. The adept use of conflict,
deadlines, and mandates, as well as a keen understanding of what motivates people,
can help in facilitating negotiations and arriving at a mutual, timely conclusion.
Clarifying a community's role in a decision is sometimes difficult. Local elected officials
rightfully regard themselves as decision-makers, not interest groups. Community
leaders who are cynical about federal efforts or want to expand their own power base
or visibility may advocate that only communities make the decisions that affect diem.
Study participants expressed their concern about federal representatives who over-
promised community autonomy, in part by loosely using catch phrases as "bottom-up"
civic action, "empowerment," or "flexibility." They noted that in cases where agencies
are not absolutely clear about the legal and other boundaries within which a decision
would be made and the extent to which an agency would be able to incorporate com-
munity views, citizens have tended to become disappointed, negative, and less likely to
engage in the future. Similarly, like-minded government and citizen advocates have
negotiated agreements widiout the full support of the agency which must implement
die action or pay the bill. It is imperative that participants in community-based activi-
ties be helped to understand that they are not die decision-makers but are engaged in
a dialogue with decision-makers state or federal legislatures (where new legislation
or large new sources of funds are involved), mayors and governors (if a city or state
must take on a new, cosdy project) corporate or lending institution officials (if indus-
trial development is contemplated). Community representatives are likely to under-
stand a role that is carefully explained ratiier than if diey are patronized widi
overblown claims of inclusion.
38
-------
Federal managers and their representatives must articulate and defend national priori-
ties and requirements. Most community participants suspect the motives of agency rep-
resentatives who arrive in their community claiming a completely open agenda. They
know that everyone must have a bias. CBM is about "interests," federal interests
included. Admitting that the federal government does not have all the answers can be
uncomfortable for those federal representatives who, some practitioners suggested,
have an exaggerated sense of their control and power. Everything is not within the scope
of the federal government to fix. For example, the single major contributing factor to
environmental degradation decisions about the use of land lies almost exclusively
with local government. Federal participants should also help other participants clarify
and state their interests and authorities.
There are a few downsides to community consensus. For example, when the federal
government participates in a successful community-based dialogue, local and state
programs no longer can obtain resources from their governing boards and legislatures
based on being forced by a powerful agency such as EPA. Rather they must rely on the
merits of the action to which they have agreed. Further, there are times when a federal
agency must make a decision which clearly conflicts with a community's preferences,
e.g., when the community is willing to accept drinking water which does not meet fed-
eral requirements rather than invest in a system to treat the water.
Federal representatives must say "no" at times and explain why a difficult decision was
made within a CBM process. It is easier to turn someone down on paper than face-to-
face. The participants in the workshops for this project discussed that issue at some
length. Many said that federal officials who participate in community-based decision-
making processes tend to become somewhat paternalistic and have great difficulty say-
ing "no." However, especially in collaborative processes, participants want honest,
realistic answers. In the long run, encouraging a belief that a federal agency can provide
a financial or other solution only keeps a community from developing other solutions.
Accessing the political process is important to the process of negotiating decisions at
the community level. Ultimately, agreements must be implemented. Thus federal offi-
cials must maintain contact with all of those who must approve a final agreement. One
practitioner claimed that success in one particularly contentious issue came from his
willingness to periodically update the mayor on the progress of the issues under dis-
cussion. Once it was time for her to make a decision on behalf of the local government,
she felt fully informed to make it.
Some CBM advocates believe that once the community-based group has agreed upon
an approach, the work is over. That is hardly the case. Implementation decisions must
be made: operating decisions, requests for new budget or legislative authority from the
leadership of multiple levels of governmentlocal, state, field, region, or headquarters.
Only then is there assurance that the agreement can and will be implemented.
Increasing Public Awareness and Civic Responsibility
The public is often unaware of its own effect on the environmentnonpoint source pol-
lution from cars and lawn mowers for example. As a result, it votes down many good
local and state measures to protect the environment. Many citizens view themselves as
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
In the long run,
encouraging a belief
that a federal agency
can provide a
financial or other
solution only keeps a
community from
developing other
solutions.
-------
New Management
Challenges Posed by
CBM
If people appear not
to be enlightened
enough to exercise
control of their
government, the
solution is not to take
away the control but
to inform their
discretion.
totally independent of the community and have lost the ability to empathize, help each
other, or to work together to improve the community.
Thomas Jefferson pointed out that if people appear not to be enlightened enough to
exercise control of their government, the solution is not to take away the control but to
inform their discretion.22 In many ways citizens of the past had more knowledge about
their communities than today's citizens do. People relocate so often that they may have
little time to learn about their community. Communities in metropolitan areas are so
large and sprawling that it can take a long time to understand how they work. But an
educated public is critical to the success of CBM. When the public understands issues,
it will make or support informed decisions.
The payoffs of an effective public education effort are a more substantive public
response, a greater likelihood of public support or acceptance of a federal decision, and
a heightened capacity within the community to tackle local issues. Thus CBM man-
agers have a responsibility to enhance the understanding of citizens about their own
roles and responsibilities in democratic government.
The public is often unaware of the infrastructure that supports it. People are critical of
government service yet it is responsible for such critical services as waste disposal,
drinking water, and for minimizing the environmental and health risks posed by each
of these potential sources of exposure. Many local spokespersons lack the skills
needed to raise issues effectively or bring about a constructive resolution. Federal man-
agers then should assure that the public is informed on the nature of the problem,
knows the range of choices available for its solution, and understands how making or
not making a decision will affect the community.
Where a community lacks information, advocacy groups or the press can distort pub-
lic perceptions. Practitioners were concerned that unless agencies educate community
residents, some advocacy organizations will distort the issues. For example, advocacy
groups were able to convince Denver area citizens to reject a referendum making
Rocky Flats a permanent storage area for nuclear wastes. Thus wastes are currently
stored in many temporary sites at far greater risk to nearby populations. Having little
information and faced with one option, citizens made the only sensible choice but
one that could have repercussions. It is up to federal managers to make sure that igno-
rance does not result in harm.
Rebuilding America's capacity for creative civic action will not happen overnight. It has
taken 30 years for states to develop the technical and legal capacity to manage envi-
ronmental protection. Local governments have had far less experience. Indeed,
Donald Snow23 notes that federal land management and subsidization of many activi-
ties has incapacitated the ability of many western areas to govern themselves. For
example, the majority of the land mass of Utah and a few other western states is are
under federal control as are major aspects of western water management As devolu-
tion and decentralization of government functions occurs, local government and non-
governmental groups will have to shoulder a greater responsibility for community
protection and development. CBM is one vehicle for citizens and local officials to
enhance their capacities to take on those challenges.
40
-------
CHAPTER
Meeting the New Challenges By
Managing for Results
A federal manager may well ask about the relationship between CBM and the way that
he or she manages the internal operations of a program. When establishing CBM as
part of a unit's activities, a manager must lay a solid basis. The agency must clarify its
mission and accountability systems so that it can deal with die challenges to its rules
and procedures that inevitably will arise when outsiders participate in decisionmaking.
The agency must set clear criteria for when to use CBM and must identify the authori-
ties and tools which it can use in CBM processes. In addition, a manager may find diat
the agency staff has neither the skills nor die interest in working in new ways. To pre-
pare for effective use of CBM, die manager must learn from the experiences of others
bodi within and outside his agency.
MISSION STRATEGY, GOALS, AND AN ACCOUNTABILITY
SYSTEM
A clear mission strategy, one widi meaningful goals and measurable outcomes, is
important to die success and longevity of CBM. There's nodiing new about the need for
a clearly understood mission. Unfortunately, some workers consider "mission strate-
gies" peripheral to their work and some managers do not use diem in making policy,
budget, and personnel decisions. Everyone has had to attend too many meetings
devoted to determining mission statements and strategic plans that later drift into
oblivion. However, given conflicting congressional directions, court decisions, and cit-
izen calls for accountability, federal managers must learn to make real choices among
competing actions, work widiin diose choices as best diey can, measure and report
progress, and justify future budget requests based on diose choices.
Setting priorities doesn't always mean endless meetings. Sometimes new priorities
result when federal managers open diemselves up to new possibilities. In die late
1970s, for example, die administrator of EPA requested a "ground-water protection
strategy" in response to carcinogens found in die ground water used to supply drink-
ing water. There was no legislative road map for such a strategy, only broad audiorities
to plan for and protect sources of drinking water.24 The agency concluded diat the tra-
ditional regulatory approach would not work given die lack of information about the
Federal managers
must learn to make
real choices among
competing actions,
work within those
choices as best they
can, measure and
report progress, and
justify future budget
requests based on
those choices.
141
-------
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing/or Results
A federal agency that
knows what it is
doing and can express
it clearly to Congress
and citizens alike is
much more likely to
effect community
collaboration than
one that is groping
for focus.
42k.
nature and extent of the problem, the many and diffuse sources of contamination
which were causing the problem (leaking underground tanks, agricultural chemicals),
and die likely opposition of diose who opposed federal intrusion into the powers of
state and local land-use and water-quantity authorities. Getting Congress to authorize
a large new grant was equally unlikely, in part because of strong opposition from the
"surface water lobby" which saw the introduction of ground-water protection in terms
of competition for funds.
The agency opted instead for a strategy that focused on achieving continuity in federal
ground-water policy and in building state capacity to respond. It urged states to volun-
tarily bring togedier their environmental, natural resource, and geologic survey
bureaucracies into collaboration with industrial, environmental, and municipal repre-
sentatives to determine the extent of the problem in their states and what they could do
together to address it. EPA's role was to provide technical assistance and limited finan-
cial resources to coordinate the efforts. The wellhead protection program, a CBM effort,
followed several years later.
Setting priorities is a complex process. Arriving at a strategy for one program is difficult,
but even more difficult is putting that program and others into the context of a coher-
ent agency and federal strategy. Given today's conflicts between regional and head-
quarters offices, between programs, and between the political leadership and an
agency's culture, as well as conflicting statutes and congressional mandates, coordina-
tion is extremely difficult. While public and federal managers alike know that it is far
more important today to restore a watershed or rehabilitate a deteriorated urban area
than to issue a diousand permits, we have few definitions or methods of accountability
that help a manager measure die progress being made dirough either traditional or
community-based agency activities.25
Even the time-honored "bean counting," such as reporting numbers of permits granted
and enforcement actions taken, no longer is sufficient justification for the use of federal
resources. While broad measures of environmental, social, or economic productivity can
be used, those that can link the work of given programs to results are not yet well-defined.
Justifying a five-year process of community planning by pointing to likely environmental
results, such as increased sea grass production 20 years hence, does not provide adequate
justification for OMB or appropriations committees that are straining to reduce die public
debt There has been some work in developing a continuum of accountability measures
that indicate the gradual progress of a CBM activity, from organizing a forum, setting clear
goals, and initiating operational goals (establishing a rule, starting a public information
campaign) to more substantive measures determining numbers of new housing units or
acres of brownfields turned to productive use, or acres of new sea grasses.26
Regardless of diat seemingly insurmountable hurdle, dear agency mission goals and per-
formance standards are crucial to engaging others in CBM. Agencies must put their own
houses in order if they are to be truly effective in ordering those of others. As the partici-
pants in this study agreed, a federal agency diat knows what it is doing and can express it
dearly to Congress and citizens alike is much more likely to effect community collabora-
tion than one diat is groping for focus. There must be solid programmatic reason for an
agency to engage in CBM. The Academy study participants did not believe that geo-
graphic convenience, addressing issues outside an agency's mission, testing an approach,
-------
or reacting to a request are appropriate reasons in and of themselves for initiating CBM,
yet they had all heard those reasons from federal agencies. If an agency does not have a
dear rationale for CBM, how could it expect a community to effectively participate?
Indeed, clear goals and performance standards will engender community trust and
avoid misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Neither will limit an agency in nego-
tiations or prevent it from assisting communities to seek help elsewhere to address
issues that are outside of its mission.
Meaningful strategies are the most effective basis for. holding people accountable.
Federal CBM managers can be effective only when they have clear and workable
accountability systems. They must retain the authorities crucial to a program and dele-
gate all the others. Indeed, one of the reasons CBM is such a tenuous concept in many
agencies is that there are no performance standards or meaningful accountability sys-
tems. Agencies almost never conduct independent evaluations to assess the progress
and value of projects. When they do, the evaluation is usually regarded by managers
and staff alike as a programmatic death knell and strenuously resisted.
But such evaluations can be credible, positive, and not necessarily overly expensive. Some
information can be gathered by volunteers or mailouts to citizens to determine if their
actions have changed as a result of CBM recommendations. A good example of an evalua-
tive survey is one that asks if the citizens are more likely to take public rather than private
transportation to work, whether they recycle their trash, or pump out their septic tanks at
least yearly. Evaluation of the progress of the overall plan can be carried out within a com-
munity by bringing in peer reviewers from other jurisdictions as well as the press, universi-
ties, and other local leaders in a several-day meeting to review the forum's work to date and
offer advice. Most peer reviewers are so taken aback by the willingness of a group to have
their work reviewed that they tend to be constructive rather than negative in their reviews.27
CRITERIA FOR WHEN AND HOW TO USE CBM
Some CBM advocates eschew criteria. They want total flexibility, no rules, no guidance.
But that is anarchy, not CBM. Unfortunately, the body of knowledge about CBM is still
relatively small. Many agencies that have practiced it for years are still groping with its
definitions and parameters. But there are lessons for those who want to use CBM and
advice from its successful leaders. The Academy panel presents the following guide-
lines for federal managers and encourages them to extrapolate for each situation:
Establish Criteria
Both program and situational criteria are needed to determine the most productive
locations to apply CBM.
Program criteria help determine those situations with reasonable potential for CBM
approaches to address an agency's highest priorities, including these situations:
represents a high mission-related priority for the agency and the program which
would undertake the work, e.g., for EPA the situation would relate to existing threats
to human health and/or the environment, or environmental threats that are likely to
result from other federal actions in the absence of direct agency involvement.
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing/or Results
^43
-------
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing/or Results
44
» die program has audiority and resources to take action but cannot achieve die
needed results alone, e.g., local land-use decisions maybe required to achieve
restoration or protection, businesses may have to make operational changes to
achieve die desired result.
die program is assured diat other relevant agency programs will participate in good
faitii and incorporate die results in dieir own decisionmaking. (CBM plans diat are
ignored by an agency's own permit writers are a waste of time and money.)
Situational criteria are tiiose diat include the characteristics of communities diat die
agency regards as a high priorities for investments such as when:
addressing die community's principal issues would further a program's goals
and highest priorities
a community is at high risk or lies widiin a predetermined high-priority location.
For EPA, that might be within a valuable ecosystem or an urban area witii a high
degree of noncompliance with federal standards. For HUD, it might be an eco-
nomically depressed community diat has no infrastructure for self-development
a community lacks the resources to assess the problem or meet environmental
standards
collaboration witii another federal agency or agencies would meet more dian
one goal, such as facilitate highway upgrading while reducing wedand destruction
relevant public and private interests demonstrate a commitment to addressing
die issues dirough CBM
Determining That the Situation Is Amenable to CBM and Is a High Agency
Priority
After establishing die criteria and before deciding to use CBM, a federal manager
should assure diat die specific situation under consideration is analyzed by those del-
egated responsibility for making those decisions. The manager should:
define all die issues to determine whedier there is a problem diat lies widiin die
agency/program audiority to act. Is it a federal issue or one diat must be
addressed locally, such as high-density residential zoning in a coastal area?
identify all of die parties of interest, including tiiose outside the likely boundaries
of die community. Is there an adjacent community which would be affected by
the incinerator on its border?
know die conflicts and problems among die parties and consider die likelihood of
participation by die parties of interest Is die issue as contentious as die "spotted
owl" issue? Is tiiere a possibility of resolution widiout die President's participation?
determine if die problem is high-priority for the agency and diat tiiere are ways
the agency could solve die problem. Is the issue wortii die time and money? Are
tiiere better ways for die federal agency to address the problems, e.g., creation of
market mechanisms.
determine if the community itself is high-priority for the agency. Is it a wealthy
community diat could afford to find its own solution?
do die problem and its potential solutions match the people and institutions that
are affected by it? Do die participants have the audiority and interest to act upon
it? Who is left out?
-------
APPLY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO ENHANCE
PARTICIPATION AND DECISIONMAKING
Collaborative efforts such as CBM are more effective if regulatory requirements are "on
the table and enforced." Practitioners in the Academy study emphasized that there are
good reasons for regulation, including equity and predictability. Additionally, regula-
tion gets people's attention. They pointed out instances where federal managers put
regulatory issues out of bounds to avoid conflicts, a tactic they concluded undermines
CBM. They noted also that federal participants who show the ability and willingness to
enforce regulations often help motivate the closure during a CBM process and con-
vince industry to maintain its participation.
Managers are urged to provide more guidance to CBM participants on the range of flex-
ibility that might be applied to specific regulations. Most laws contain more flexibility
than is obvious. In fact, even though major regulatory change will take years, EPA and
other agencies are now taking steps to reduce complexity. One example is the options
available to states in drinking water and sewage treatment regulations for the use of
less costly efficient alternative technologies than those explicitly described in the regu-
lations or which have been established as industry convention.
TABLE 4-1: REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IN PRACTICE:
EXAMPLES
New York State
EPA Small Communities
Compliance Policy
EPA Superfund Policy, Pine
Street Barge Canal Coordinating
Council of Burlington, VT
EPA Drinking Water Program
CBM negotiations with industry to settle a compliance
issue in lieu of enforcement.
Permission to small impoverished communities which
are unable to comply with all laws at once, to phase in
compliance based on risk priorities.
Promulgation of federal decisions which are
compatible with community recommendations to the
extent allowable by law.
Waiver of some federal testing rules in communities
with protected wellhead areas.
Participants in this study urged agencies to explore opportunities for flexibility
through limited experimental projects such as the case studies conducted by the EPA
in Idaho and Oregon of the compliance problems of small communities, then convert
the findings into regulatory revisions and policy guidance for use in community-based
settings. The Academy panel recommends that managers make a major effort to clarify
specific relations.
define opportunities and boundaries for applying flexibility that could help CBM
participants identify options for their communities.
accelerate the reform of existing policies and regulations to eliminate or reduce
conflicting and duplicative regulations.
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing/or Results
CBM is more effective
if regulatory
requirements are
"on the table and
enforced."
-------
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing/or Results
identify and remove internal agency barriers such as grant and state-delegation
agreements that do not support community-based approaches.
incorporate the use of community-based approaches into state/federal perfor-
mance partnerships.
As the parameters of flexibility are defined and barriers are reduced or eliminated, fed-
eral managers should lose their fears that flexibility will lead to regulatory anarchy.
HELPING THE COMMUNITY CONSTRUCTIVELY PLAY ITS ROLE
As a federal manager becomes involved with a CBM program he or she may have to
change other aspects of agency operation. Agencies are used to communicating with
other agencies of government, regulated industries, and advocacy groups but less so
with the public, particularly at the community level. It is very important to the success
of a community-based effort that the public and community leadership can access and
understand information about the issues and the role that the federal government is
playing. Indirectly, CBM also plays an important role in developing social capital.
Participants in this project were particularly pleased with the legacy of heightened pub-
lic knowledge and of local public and private sector leadership. While this is not the
main function of federal activities, it is an important aspect of the process of managers
should be aware of and promote to the extent possible.
Convert Government Documents to Lay Terms
Federal government documents developed for public review are almost always long,
technical, and difficult to understand. A federal manager should make sure that any
necessary documents are clearly understood by all participants. He or she should write
versions of the primary documents that can be understood or provide supplemental
material, such as easily understood fact sheets.
Provide Help to Local Technical Staff and Elected Officials
Many large municipalities have sophisticated staff, but smaller communities often don't.
Local officials and staff alike may need training in meeting facilitation or negotiation
skills. They also may need to gain a better understanding of the problems in their com-
munities and how they can cooperate with others to solve them. Some community-
based programs offer such training courses through professional and other associations
or call for federal regional or field staff to provide training directly. In cases where small
governments do not have the funds to acquire expertise during the dialogue, some CBM
programs will fund an independent advisor from a university, consulting group, or
other source to provide independent technical support to during the negotiation.
Superfund's technical assistance grants (TAG) are a good example (see Appendix A).
Facilitate Community Participation
CBM participants should understand the workings of government. Uncomplicated
assistance such as providing definitions of acronyms or making available short, clear
descriptions of relevant government programs will go a long way toward fostering col-
laboration. Get the word out through hotlines, workshops, and publications. Use a local
community organization or nonprofit if need be. One community placed all of the rele-
46
-------
vant information at its health center because people knew it could be trusted to give
straight answers. The Chicago Brownfields Plan includes an action item to develop the
capacity of nonprofits to serve as one-stop service centers to provide small manufactur-
ers, developers, and community organizations with technical and financial assistance.
Possible Roles for Community Organizations: Examples
provide a one-stop service center for technical assistance to small
manufacturers, developers, and community organizations
serve as "redevelopment ombudsmen" by assisting developers and
communities.
establish cooperative links among schools, job training providers,
and industry
Source: Brownfield's Forum: Recycling Land for Chicago's Future Final Report
and Action Plan.
Teach "the System"
As one study participant noted, the issue is less about reinventing government and more
about making government's knowledge available. Federal CBM managers should help a
community learn how and where to look for resources. By developing educational mate-
rials and providing sufficient "tools" (see Chapter Two) in CBM programs, participants
learn how to achieve their goals through the use of government institutions.
Increase Accessibility to Important Information
Besides increased access to government leaders, communities need more information
about how government affects them. For example, sometimes small business owners do
not know they are breaking rules until they are inspected and fined. Web sites devoted
to federal, state, and local regulations for particular businesses would be of great benefit
to them. Communities also need other important data geographic information sys-
tems (GIS), for example. When a financial institution cooperated with the federal gov-
ernment to array data on restaurant place mats that showed that half of the land in
Wilappa County, Washington, was owned by one company, citizens suddenly had a bet-
ter understanding of how they could approach their environmental problems.
Involve the "Community of Practice"
Experienced practitioners of CBM at all levels and in all sectors can be particularly cre-
ative and should be involved in CBM whenever possible. Federal managers should pro-
vide them widi special opportunities to exchange information, obtain or provide
training for others, or participate in other appropriate ways. Those experiences will be
valuable, not only to a community, but to the CBM movement at large. It is through the
leadership of experienced CBM practitioners that the culture of CBM will develop into
a body of knowledge.
Plan for the Future
Federal managers should not be hand-holders or make themselves indispensable.
They should bring knowledge and information and, to the extent a federal decision is
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing for Results
The issue is less
about reinventing
government and
more about making
government's
knowledge available.
-------
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing for Results
Retooling a federal
agency to change as
dramatically as the
public expects
requires a major
investment in
workforce training,
development, and
recruiting.
not involved, let go and trust the people at the local level to make their own decisions
and implement their own programs.
HELPING THE WORKFORCE ADAPT TO CBM
No matter how carefully managers seek to apply CBM, it will not work unless agency
leaders support it with tangible financial, legislative, and organizational resources. The
participants in the Academy study felt that public and internal agency statements about
CBM must be clear, persuasive, and frequent. They also believed that organizational rela-
tionships, policy changes, management expectations, and employee reward systems
must reflect a commitment from the top. They felt that federal agencies have good inten-
tions with regard to CBM but that they were impatient with the pace of progress. They rec-
ommended that all domestic agencies with direct community activities establish CBM as
one of the top three or four agency priorities. Managers must also recognize and acknowl-
edge the challenges and difficulties staff face when working in CBM situations and under-
stand that even the best intentions cannot make up for a lack of skills and knowledge.
Those whom the Academy panel consulted did not believe that such changes would be
easy. Many federal agencies have a "bunker mentality." Their employees have seen man-
agement fads, public goals, and political leadership come and go. Indeed, sometimes that
bunker orientation is the only reason an agency survived. Now however, agencies must
realize that their continued survival depends on changing the way they do business.
Changing an agency's culture to encourage the openness inherent in CBM requires a
change from top to bottom in the approach of its employees and their responsibilities.
There should be new j ob descriptions for all those who have any responsibility for CBM.
Federal agencies might take a lesson from companies like McDonald's, which carefully
designs jobs, assesses the skills needed to undertake each job, then provides the train-
ing needed to maintain a consistent quality of service. McDonald's relies on carefully
defining quality and providing staff with an impressive level of training. While processes
of implementing government programs and selling hamburgers are significantly differ-
ent, providing consistent quality no matter where the service is delivered is a common
and important goal. Retooling a federal agency to change as dramatically as the public
expects requires a major investment in workforce training, development, and recruiting.
At a minimum, all federal employees participating in CBM should have a basic under-
standing of federalism and the relative roles of federal, state, tribal, and local govern-
ments. They also need to understand and respect the roles of civic activists,
nongovernmental organizations, and advocacy groups. They also must understand the
limits of their powers and roles as representatives of the federal government, i.e., the
fine but crucial distinctions between educating the public and mobilizing specific
groups (as was done in die 1970s in the community action program) and between pro-
viding information to elected officials and lobbying to have funds earmarked for a par-
ticular projects. Beyond that however, they also need training and experience in shared
decisionmaking. It should go without saying that all CBM managers must know the
law: what they can and cannot, should and should not abrogate. Anyone who does not
have those understandings and skills should not represent the federal government in
a CBM process or be responsible for CBM in any way.
48
-------
While some people are natural listeners who engender trust and respect, and are adept
at working with diverse groups and interests, most require at least some help. Many
would probably perform admirably if they received title right training .and experience.
Now, however, most CBM participants find themselves in CBM situations without the
needed skills or definitions of authority. Some indeed fail without knowing why.
While downsizing and limited staff increases will make it difficult to provide new skills
to existing staff and recruit new staff amenable to meeting those criteria outlined above,
agencies with an interest in CBM must make a commitment to ensure that their staff
can carry out new responsibilities.
In return for developing new skills, those who participate in CBM should be able to
take informed risks and make mistakes without fear of punishment. Participants in the
Academy study observed that federal employees often have a great fear of being wrong,
of being considered traitors to their agency if they stretch a few rules to get a more sen-
sible result. Even those managers who are willing to take a chance or two have no idea
how far they might be able to go. The Academy panel urges managers to clearly
describe "acceptable" risks those that will achieve higher standards and "unaccept-
able" ones those that give up a standard for an inadequate result. Then managers
should let their representatives carry out those expectations. The panel particularly
encourages regional and headquarters managers to eliminate the barriers that exist
between them, to agree on realistic program goals, to establish the criteria for achieving
them, and to hold themselves accountable widiin the agency, to the public, and to
Congress/Further, they should discuss options among themselves to create a body of
CBM knowledge that will enrich the government as a whole.
TABLE 4-2: COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT CHECK LIST
Phase I
determine the critical issues
conduct a feasibility assessment;
determine if the issue and setting is
amenable to CBM
inform elected officials about the
federal interest
review available forums and select an
organization to manage the forum or
join an existing one
determine decisions/opinion leaders
determine appropriate tools such as
technical assistance
explain the forum's purpose, federal
interest, state/local/public roles
Phase II
define shared goals
and objectives
explore current
positions, define
agree on a possible
strategy (actions,
funding opportunities,
responsibilities)
implement strategy
(persuade those with
the power to decide in
public and private
sectors)
Phase III
implement program
monitor and evaluate
progress
provide feedback to
the public and
participants
adjust approach
accordingly
Meeting the New
Challenges By
Managing/or Results
-------
-------
CHAPTER
Community-Based Management:
Future Directions
The participants in this project's workshops believe that agencies must undergo fun-
damental institutional changes for CBM to become the norm. Managers can't continue
to rely on a few CBM advocates to work with communities to be creative and adaptable.
While individuals in an organization are important, they also are insignificant. It is
what die institution as a whole does diat counts in die long run. Individuals within an
agency generally hear with an "agency ear" and respond widi an "agency voice."
Building federal agencies that involve communities requires changing die agency cul-
ture the way the workforce hears, understands, and carries out its mission.
Most of today's federal workers and managers began in a federal environment that was
very different from the one citizens and political leaders now contemplate. That culture
resulted from an agency's mission and the means to achieve it. But those missions and
means have changed substantially since their inception. Yet dieir cultures are unlikely to
change widiout considerable help. EPA's culture is still largely scientific and regulatory.
The agency's orientation is on setting scientifically based rules for large industries and
enforcing diem. That highly successful strategy will continue as the baseline of national
environmental protection and those who have been a part of diat work should be proud.
But for some, pride has become defensiveness diat can inhibit future progress.
As die nature of die problems and die public's perception of government role changes,
so must agency missions and means. During the transition, some federal, state, and
local staff have found it difficult to accept or perform tiiose new responsibilities.
The "kiss of yes" may be die most difficult barrier.28 Dissenters rarely announce diat
they will resist change. They generally will agree to a new direction then ignore die
direction. Old-line regulators and odiers who have learned to exert federal audiority
widiout taking community perspectives into account pay lip service to CBM but widi-
out changing dieir approaches.
Many practitioners noted die sharp contrast in many programs between policy pro-
nouncements and the practice in many programs. As one practitioner observed, 10
percent of staff were doing CBM before it became popular, 20 percent never will adapt
While individuals in
an organization are
important, they also
are insignificant. It is
what the institution as
a whole does that
counts in the long
run.
A
-------
Community-Based
Management: Future
Directions
to this approach, the rest although confused would probably be willing to go along if
they knew what was expected.
Several officials who participated in focus groups or other project activities noted that
in federal or state government, promotions are still more likely to go to those who have
stayed in traditional positions. That is due in part to the orientation of those doing the
promoting who are likely to have traditional views of what constitutes worthy service.
However, it also reflects the difference in civil service rules regarding required job
skills. Even in the senior executive service, which has broad managerial and intergov-
ernmental qualifications rather than technical or legal job-skill requirements, the latter
are given great weight. Further, managers whose actions frustrate collaboration are
rarely called to task, making CBM activities an unattractive career path for those with
senior management ambitions.
Workshop participants speculated on other reasons for lack of support for CBM. Some
federal managers are unable to focus on the importance of considerations outside of
their own agency's mission and laws. They view flexibility and compromise as break-
ing the law or giving up long-held agency beliefs. It is particularly difficult for an agency
like EPA, which was founded on a quasi- religious social movement and that often por-
trays problems in stark win-or-lose terms, to adapt to CBM. Viewing negotiation as risk-
ing irreparable environmental harm to gain jobs, for example, inhibits serious
participation in CBM activities.
Others simply do not value or sympathize with those of different skills or holding dif-
ferent positions. Federal officials who set and apply numerical standards may not
appreciate that community residents can add something unique and important to deci-
sionmaking. Some federal staff lack respect for state and local government or for the
political process. Some EPA officials may see industry and agricultural interests as lack-
ing any redeeming qualities. They manifest a "good guy-bad guy" personality which
may have served them well in an advocacy or enforcement role, but now limits their
ability to attribute legitimate interests to all participants, including taxpayers who feel
squeezed, elected officials who must balance competing interests, and advocates for
other uses of local resources. Those individuals sometimes resort to troublesome
behavior that ranges from subtle resistance to outright sabotage. Most troublesome is
their deprecation or ignorance of community views in favor of their own.
The approach of some supporters of CBM also maybe self-defeating. Community prac-
titioners and regional managers alike pointed out in project focus groups that naive or
overly enthusiastic federal participants also can create problems. Through simple inep-
titude, a patronizing approach, or inappropriate behavior with public officials, a CBM
process can be inhibited. Often these enthusiasts may be genuinely unaware that their
behaviors and approaches are unacceptable.
Some just haven't understood or made the needed transition from a regulatory focus.
Long-standing dedication and advocacy makes them believe that their own interests
supersede any others or that corporations cannot have a legitimate community inter-
est. That may affect their ability to hear what other people say. At worst, unrecon-
structed advocates may mobilize representatives of their own interests to defeat
collaborative processes.
-------
To a few, community-based dialogues mean ultimate flexibility and freedom of action
by federal staff participants. They advocate that no priorities, rules, or guidelines be
imposed on the process that their role is to firid ou't what a community wants and
help achieve it. While that is one approach to achieving innovative solutions to prob-
lems, it does not take advantage of what has been learned over the years about the
process or necessarily fulfill agency missions or priorities.
COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT DEPENDS ON THE
SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS
Despite the difficulties which CBM presents, it does provide managers with a powerful
approach to problems that are difficult, if not impossible, to solve in other ways. As
many of the examples in this report attest, CBM is working in a number of different
contexts. New and better solutions are being hammered out, agency staff are working
together to implement them frequently through the cooperation of several agencies
and private sector entities, and the public is beginning to see the results and join in.
Administrative and political leadership at all levels is aware of CBM and committed to
it or interested in its potential.
CBM can be effective, one of the most effective ways to achieve public and political con-
sensus in contentious federal regulatory decisions, depending on the willingness of
participants to come to the table, openly state their interests, and honestly negotiate
and support the best possible balance of interests within legal and resource con-
straints. It is not a simple process, but neither were other management approaches ini-
tially. Standards, regulations, and market mechanisms, for example, took much time,
work, experience, and refinement for their use and limitations to be well-understood.
Once CBM has been refined and the problems associated with resistance and over-
enthusiasm have been recognized and addressed, federal managers will find the
approach is a very useful addition to the portfolio of management tools available for
program implementation.
Community-Based
Management: Future
Directions
Despite the difficulties
which CBM presents,
it does provide
managers with a
powerful approach to
problems that are
difficult, if not
impossible, to solve in
other ways.
-------
-------
1 Stephen Barr, "Americans Gain a Small Measure of Confidence in Government," The
Washington Post, Washington, DC, March 24,1997; p. A17.
2 William D. Ruckelshaus, Trust in Government: A Prescription for Restoration, Webb
Lecture, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC; November 15,
1996; p. 3.
3 The term "stove-piped" is used to refer to the tendency of government programs to be
managed in isolation from related government programs.
4 Danial C. Markham, "Sustainability and Indicators: Looking for New Letters in the
Solution Alphabet," speech; Willapa Indicators Leadership Summit: Willapa, OR,
March 23,1996; p. 3.
5 See Savas for an early but useful definition of the alternative ways of shifting the rela-
tionship between government and private or nonprofit organizations without elimi-
nating a government role.
6 Remarks of Cindy Kelly, Director, Office of Public Accountability, Office of
Environmental Management, DOE, Washington DC, March, 1997.
7 Sustainable America: A New Consensus, President's Council on Sustainable
Development, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) #PB95-265609,
Springfield, VA, February, 1996.
8 The Administrative Procedures Act provides requirements for public notification and
comment by agencies proposing new or revised federal rules, regulations, and other
significant policy and regulatory statements.
'Michael McCloskey, letter to Sierra Club Board of Directors, Washington, DC,
November 1995.
10 Donald Snow, "Community Building and New Governance in Western Natural
Resources: This Is No Time for Despair," presented at University of Wyoming Senior
Seminar, School of Environment and Natural Resources, March 14,1996; p. 81.
-------
Endnotes
11 The Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASE) is a not-for-profit chari-
table organization which is a coalition of national volunteer organizations such as the
American Association of Retired Persons, The Nature Conservancy, Izaak Walton
League of America, and the Senior Environment Corps, as well as EPA and the USDA.
12 Discussion with Arnold Howitt, Executive Director, Taubman Center for State and
Local Government, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
September 10, 1996.
13 Discussion with Andrew Lapitski, resident of Richmond, CA,July 20,1996.
14 The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires Office of Management and
Budget approval to establish new federal advisory bodies and appoint members.
15 Katrina Smith Korfmacher, "Evaluating the National Estuary Program: A Case Study
of die Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study," unpublished dissertation, Nicholas
School of the Environment, Duke University, 1996, p. 17.
16 Ibid., p. 6.
17 "EPA Prepares New Guidance to Speed Energy Department Cleanups," Inside EPA;
Inside EPA Publishers, Washington, DC, November 8,1996.
18 The Clean Air Act limits die introduction of new potentially polluting industries into
areas which already exceed air quality standards.
19 Performance Partnerships are arrangements between levels of government, such as a
federal and state agencies to adopt common goals and objectives, establish bench-
marks, monitor progress, and to be accountable within government and to the public.
20 Remarks heard at most Academy focus groups organized for die research for diis
report.
21 Korfmacher, p. 12.
22 Ruckelshaus, p. 17.
23 Snow, p. 25.
24 Under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water acts.
25 Environmental Protection Agency, Measuring Progress of Estuary Programs: A Manual,
842-B-94-008, Prepared by the Urban Institute for EPA, Washington, DC, November,
1994; p. 6.
26 Ruckelshaus, p. 8.
27 Measuring Progress of Estuary Programs: A Manual.
28 Robert Kreigel and David Brandt, Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers Paradom-Busting
Strategies for Developing Change-Ready People and Organizations, New York Warner
Books, p. 12.
56
-------
BIBLIOG
BOOKS, ARTICLES, RESEARCH, AND PRESENTATIONS
Robert Adler, "Addressing Barriers to Watershed Protection," Environmental Law 25
(4): pp. 973-1106.
Stephen Barr, "Americans Gain a Small Measure of Confidence in Government," The
Washington Post, March 24,1997; p. A17.
Toward Results-Oriented Intergovernmental Systems: An Historical Look at the Development
of the Oregon Option Benchmarks, The Alliance for Redesigning Government, National
Academy of Public Administration, July 1996.
Enid Beaumont, The Status of the 'Devolution Revolution': A Report From the Nation's
Capital, National Academy of Public Administration; April 1996.
Frank Benest, "Serving Customers or Engaging Citizens: The Future of Local
Government," The Future of Local Government, International City/County Management
Association, undated.
Jonathan Z. Cannon, Information - The Key to Ecosystem Management, presented to the
Environmental Information and Computing Technologies Conference; June 9,1994.
Denise K. Chamberlain, Financing the Redevelopment of Industrial Sites: A Lender's
Perspective, presented at Brownfields '96: A New Environmental Frontier, Pittsburgh,
PA, September 20,1996.
David Clark, "States, U.S. EPA Increasingly Looking to Build Local Capacity," State
Environmental Monitor, October 4,1996; p. 1.
Thomas B. Edsall," Mistrust of Government Found Festering in White Middle Class,"
The Washington Post, October 20,1996; p. A-13.
-------
Bibliography
Cornelia Butler Flora, "Vital Communities: Combining Environmental and Social
Capital," Report to the Forest Service, USDA; North Central Regional Center for Rural
Development, Iowa State University, July 15,1994.
Dolores Foley, "The Role of NGOs in Strengthening Civil Society," presented at 57th
National Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, June 29 -July
3,1996.
Michelle Frisby, "What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate," The Future of Local
Government, International City/County Management Association, undated.
Margot W. Garcia, "A Watershed Basis for Clean Water," paper prepared for the
American Planning Association, undated.
Malcolm Gladwell, "Potholes on the Road to a New Federalism," The Washington Post,
October 15,1995; p. A-l.
Timothy M. Hennessey, "Governance and Adaptive Management for Estuarine
Ecosystems: The Case of Chesapeake Bay," Coastal Management 22 (1994): pp. 119-
145., Inside EPA.
"EPA Prepares New Guidance to Speed Energy Department Cleanups; Inside EPA
Publishers, Washington, DC, November 8,1996.
"EPA Drafts Report on Improving Water Pretreatment,"Inside EPA; Inside EPA
Publishers, Washington, DC, November 8,1996.
"Sustainable Environment, Sustainable Community: Performance-Based Indicators for
Environmental Protection," project outline, undated International City/County
Management Association.
Ken Jones, Ed Delhagen, and Christopher Paterson, "Local Risk-Based Planning: A
Review of the Seattle Environmental Priorities Project," The Northeast Center for
Comparative Risk, Issue Paper No. 13, October 1994.
DeWitt John, Civic Environmentalism, Congressional Quarterly Press, 1994.
DeWitt John, Sailing Into the Port Complex of Los Angeles and Long Beach: Marine
Governance from a Captain's Perspective, National Academy of Public Administration;
October, 1996.
DeWitt John, Protecting a Profitable Paradise: The National Ocean Service Learns Multi-
Agency Planning in the Florida Keys, National Academy of Public Administration,
October 1996.
Victor Kimm, Community-Based Environmental Protection, memorandum to Marian
Mlay, March 19,1996.
58k.
-------
JohnJ. Kirlin, "What Government Must Do Well: Creating Value for Society," Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 6, No. 1; January, 1996.
John J. Kirlin, "Protecting Species and Ecosystems Within Planning Processes,"
Environmental Planning Quarterly, Fall 1995.
Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Evaluating the National Estuary Program: A Case Study of the
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, unpublished dissertation, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, 1996.
Robert Kreigel and David Brandt, Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers Paradom-Busting
Strategies for Developing Change-Ready People and Organizations, New York Warner
Books, p. 12.
Danial C. Markham, "Sustainability and Indicators: Looking for New Letters in the
Solution Alphabet," speech; Willapa Indicators Leadership Summit; March 23,1996.
Janet Maughan, "Taming Troubled Waters: How Mediation Triumphed Over
Confrontation in Shaping the Future of Montana's Storied Clark Fork River," Ford
Foundation, 1994.
Michael McCloskey, letter to Sierra Club Board of Directors, November 1995.
Ruth McWilliams, Forest and Woodland Resources for Sustainable Community
Development, keynote address at Four-State Heartland Community Development
Conference, U. S. Forest Service, October 31, 1996.
Richard A. Minard, Jr., Managing Offshore Oil and the Coastal Environment: Governance
in Santa Barbara County, National Academy of Public Administration, October 1996.
Richard A Minard, Jr., Can States Make A Market for Environmental Coals?, National
Academy of Public Administration, undated.
"Building the American Community: What Works, What Doesn't," National Academy of
Public Administration, February 1995.
A Path to Smarter Economic Development: Reassessing the Federal Role, draft report,
Center for the Economy and die Environment, National Academy of Public
Administration, October 1996.
Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for the U.S. EPA, National Academy of
Public Administration, April 1995.
A New Era of Sustainability; Report of the Long's Peak Working Group on National Water
Policy, Natural Resources Law Center, December 1992.
Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner, "Public Participation and Reuse of Federal Facilities:
Some Lessons Learned by DOE Communities," Energy Communities Alliance;
September 21,1996.
Bibliography
-------
Bibliography
Organizational Protocols, draft, Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council,
Environmental Protection Agency, March 8,1994.
Michael J. Pompili, Adventures in (Under) Funding: Survival Tips for Local Governments,
draft report, Small Towns Task Force; June 2,1994.
A Rose, "The Willapa Alliance: An Assessment," U. S. Environmental Pro tection Agency,
March 24,1995.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Trust in Government: A Prescription for Restoration, Webb
Lecture, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC; November 15,
1996.
William D. Ruckelshaus, "Stopping the Pendulum," remarks at Environmental Law
Institute, Washington, DC: October 18,1995.
E. S. Savas, Privatization: The Key to Better Government, Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
Chatham New Jersey; 1987.
Final Report of Key Findings and Recommendations Presented to the Environmental
Protection Agency Under The Authority Contained in Public Law 102-386, Small Town
Task Force, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 23,1996.
Donald Snow, "Community Building and New Governance in Western Natural Resources:
This Is No Time for Despair," presented at University of Wyoming Senior Seminar,
School of Environment and Natural Resources, March 14,1996.
Dean S. Sommer, "Cooperative Approaches: Public Pollution/Public Resolution,"
National Environmental Enforcement Journal, August 1995.
"State Council Identified Key Barriers to Ecosystem Management," State Environmental
Monitor, Vol.1, No. 5; July L 1996; p. 19.
Robert H. Wayland III, Urbanization and the Riverine Environment: A Balance of Values,
speech to the Harris County Flood Control Task Force, Houston, TX; March 5,1992.
Julia Wondolleck and Steven L. Yaffee, Building Bridges Across Agency Boundaries: In
Search of Excellence in the United States Forest Service, School of Natural Resources and
the Environment, University of Michigan; July 15,1994.
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Resource Conservation and Development Program fact sheet, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC, March 1996.
Recycling Land for Chicago's Future: Final Report and Action Plan, Brownfields Forum,
City of Chicago, November 1995.
60
-------
John P. DeVillars, FY1996 Plan for Community-Based Environmental Protection, memo-
randum to the deputy administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston
MA, December 6,1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "A Commitment to Watershed Protection: A
Review of the Clean Lakes Program," Washington, DC; February 1993; EPA 841-R93-
001.
, EPA's Commitments to Support Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs, 00-95-002, Washington, DC, June 1995.
, Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance, EPA
100-R-93-001, Washington, DC, December 1992.
, Office of the Administrator, "Protecting The Nation's Groundwater: EPA's
Strategy for the 1990s," 21Z-1020, Washington, DC, July 1991.
, The New Hampshire Resource Protection Project, New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission, Boston, MA, August 1995.
, Community Environmental Compliance Flexibility: Case Study Assessments
in Idaho and Oregon, 230-R-95-001, Washington, DC, January 1995.
, Ecosystem Protection Work Group, "Toward a Place-Driven Approach:
The Edgewater Consensus on an EPA Strategy for Ecosystem Protection," March 15,
1994 and follow-up memoranda, EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office, "Community Development: Comprehensive
Approaches Address Multiple Needs But Are Challenging to Implement,"
RCED/HEHS-95-69, Washington, DC, February 8,1995.
, "Restoring the Everglades: Public Participation in Federal Efforts," RCED-
96-5, Washington, DC, October 1995.
, EPA's Community Relations Efforts Could Be More Effective, letter report,
Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-94-156.
"Urban Environmental Initiative," EPA Region I, New England, draft performance plan,
Boston, MA, 1996.
Lynn R. Goldman, MD, OPPTS Strategy to Support Community-Based Environmental
Protection, memorandum to deputy administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, May 12,1995.
Fred Hansen, "Integrating Existing EPA Initiatives into Community-Based
Environmental Protection," memorandum to senior U.S. EPA administrators;
Washington, DC, May 19,1996.
Bibliography
ei
-------
Bibliography
62k.
Steven A. Herman, "Policy on Flexible State Enforcement Responses to Small
Community Violations," memorandum to program and regional administrators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, November 22,1995.
Robert Perciasepe, The Watershed Approach: Our Framework for Ecosystem Management
Protection, Memorandum to Senior Managers, U.S. EPA Office of Water, October 7,
1994.
Sustainable America: A New Consensus, President's Council on Sustainable
Development, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) #PB95-265609,
Springfield, VA, February, 1996.
"Reinventing Environmental Regulations at EPA", U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, March 16,1995.
Harry Seraydarian, Harry, "Ecosystems Approach: Mechanisms to Integrate our
Separate Media Approach and Focus on Highest Ecological and Public Health Risks,"
staff paper, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, June 4,1996.
-------
LIST OF ACR
APA Administrative Procedures Act
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CBEP community-based environmental protection
CBM community-based management
CWA Clean Water Act
DOE Department of Energy
DoD Department of Defense
DOI Department of Interior
DoL Department of Labor
EDA Economic Development Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EZ/EC empowerment zone/enterprise community
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
GRPA Government Performance and Results Act
NACD National Association of Conservation Districts
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGO nongovernmental organization
NIMBY not-in-my-back-yard attitude
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCSD President's Council on Sustainable Development
PPGs Program Partnership Grants
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WEF Water Environment Federation
A
-------
-------
APPENDIX
Selected Community-Based
Federal Programs
EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES (EZ/EC)
Summary
The departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture (USDA)
support approximately 105 urban and rural areas in crafting and implementing cre-
ative strategies for social, environmental, and economic revitalization through the use
of technical and financial assistance and the formulation of partnerships among public
and private stakeholders. The federal interest is in creating socially and economically
viable communities.
Management Tools
Grants
Federal financial support for a variety of revitalization activities is provided by Human
Services Social Services block grants and Department of Health and Human Services
(HSS) Tide XX grants. Other agencies provide financial support: HUD's Economic
Development Initiative (EDI); USDA supports programs for housing, community facil-
ities, business development, and water and waste systems; Small Business
Administration (SBA) provides capital to small businesses; Treasury Department pro-
vides incentives to selected Empowerment Zone/Economic Community (EZs/ECs)
projects, employer wage credits, tax-exempt facility bonds, section 179 tax deductions,
and a new category of tax-exempt financing.
Research, Information, and Data Collection
HUD and USDA review the required progress reports based on the benchmarks out-
lined in locally developed strategic plans. Local agencies use these strategic plans and
subsequent reports as a baseline for third-party program evaluation for the purpose of
identifying strengths and weaknesses and recommending improvements.
Information Dissemination
Publications, including guidebooks on strategic planning and federal resources and
programs and a newsletter on current efforts and community initiatives are provided
by HUD and USDA A
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Technical Assistance
On-site assistance is provided by these agencies to help identify community needs and
help them obtain public/private resources. This assistance is directed toward develop-
ing benchmarks; implementing strategic plans; financing; community policing; schools;
and infrastructure linkages; and working with business, labor, and other private institu-
tions to obtain human and capital resources not provided by the public sector.
Building State Capacity
States are EZ and EC applicants and provide resources as well. All HUD resources flow
through states agencies through partnership arrangements with HUD, USDA and HHS
to support activities in the designated EZs/ECs and to address specific problems as
they arise.
Regulatory Flexibility
Communities participating in EZ/EC are eligible for waivers, set-asides, and opportu-
nities for special consideration through which they may adapt federal programs to
meet provisions in their strategic plans. Recent amendments have provided EZs/ECs
more latitude in deciding how to use funds, provided that a community's strategic plan
details a rationale for the nontraditional use of them, e.g., creating revolving loan funds
which contribute to economic self-sufficiency for EZ/EC residents.
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
The EZ team shares information with EZ/EC sites and others who are interested in
their activities. The President's community empowerment board and all member agen-
cies identify and publicize examples of interagency coordination.
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
Project nominations are solicited from state and local governments of communities
meeting poverty/distress criteria. Applicants submit a strategic plan detailing plan to
achieve their revitalization goals. Selection criteria include: economic opportunity; sus-
tainable community planning; community-based partnerships; and strategic vision for
change. Relevant questions include: Will the program create new business? or new
links with old employers? Does the plan address safety, amenities or environmental
impacts? Who will be involved in the decisionmaking? What are the evaluation mech-
anisms? Was the community satisfied with the outcome(s)?
Financial Support
Allocations vary based on a community's needs and proposed use of the funds, as
detailed in its strategic plan.
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
A community's strategic plan must show ways to save time and money or achieve an
objective not otherwise possible. Agencies assist communities implement their objec-
tives, sometimes suggesting alternate solutions for statutorily prohibited ideas.
Limitations on Recipients of Federal Funds
In addition to normal program requirements, funds must support the strategic plan
and benefit the residents of the EZ/EC.
-------
Expectations of Fund Recipients
HUD expects that recipients will leverage the services or activities funded. EZ/EC solu-
tions should recognize the related nature of human, physical, and ecdiiomic develop-
ment problems.
Community Accountability
Strategic plans must include a system for measuring performance, e.g., a timetable and
specific tasks; how the strategic plan will be revised to include new information; and
baselines, benchmarks, and goals. EZs/ECs must submit periodic progress reports to
HUDandUSDA.
State Role
States are the primary grantees and distribute grant funds according to funding needs
outlined in their strategic plans. Additional state participation depends on each EZ/EC
plan for forming partnerships.
THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM (WHP)
Summary
The Wellhead Protection Program (WHP) is a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). It supports federal technical and other assistance to communities to create
community-based programs to prevent contamination of ground water used for drink-
ing water supply. Typically, a committee composed of state and local environmental
and water supply agencies, water suppliers, and other community interests initiate and
oversee the effort. The federal interest is to help communities meet national drinking
water standards at lower cost by preventing pollution of public water wells.
Management Took
Grants
Formula grants under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and SDWA discre-
tionary funding through contracts and grants support states' activities and local
demonstrations of CBM and environmental protection techniques, such as wellhead
protection area delineation, contamination source identification, and regulatory and
nonregulatory controls, as well as technical assistance to communities.
Research, Information, and Data Collection
Research focuses on wellhead delineation techniques and related topics, e.g., contami-
nant source inventorying, contamination source control, and case studies on CBM
approaches. State biennial reports to EPA log the number and status of local wellhead
programs to assess state and local progress.
Information Dissemination
EPA unilaterally and in partnership with other organizations, such as the National
Association of Counties and the National Association of Towns and Townships, pre-
sents workshops at association meetings and distributes information on wellhead pro-
tection through the National Ground Water Foundation and National Governors
Association through their publications and on the Internet.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Technical Assistance
Extensive training is provided for community managers, officials and technical staff,
including distribution of resource materials and training kits, training of trainers, pre-
sentation of seminars at annual conferences, and field training. Much of the training
and related activities is provided through such organizations as the Ground Water
Protection Council, the Small-Hows Clearinghouse, the Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program (deploys senior volunteers), the National Rural Water Association (technical
assistance to rural communities), and the League of Women Voters (for decision-mak-
ers and community leaders).
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
While EPA provides technical assistance, the agency does not convene or have a seat on
specific community-based committees. These activities are voluntary and community-
sponsored.
Building State Capacity
EPA provides limited financial and technical assistance such as creating regional assis-
tance teams and making training programs available as important issues arise and
through active participation in national meetings of state managers.
Regulatory Flexibility
WHP is not a regulatory program. However, communities with recognized WHP pro-
grams may be eligible for waivers from some federal Safe Drinking Act monitoring
requirements resulting in significant cost savings for those communities.
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
Federal managers use publicity to raise awareness and publicize WPA EPA staff appear
at state and local program kick-off ceremonies. Headquarters and regional staff speak
at national forums, state and legislative hearings, and at international conferences. EPA
supports the National Ground Water Foundation's Ground Water Guardian recogni-
tion of communities taking active steps to protect their ground water. Foundations pro-
vides non-monetary support and training to communities participating in the
program. EPA provides funds the American Water Works Association to reward local
water suppliers who assist their communities with the implementation of exemplary
wellhead protection programs. In conjunction with the New England Water Works
Association, EPA sponsors an awards program for New England businesses for educa-
tion about source-water protection.
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
Wellhead protection programs are community sponsored, with limited federal funds
flowing to state and community groups for technical support.
Financial Support
Funding or technical assistance priority is given to communities which have already
formed wellhead protection teams and are formulating the local program. Funds are
used as incentive to develop plans and to begin the a program while seeking additional
public or private sector funding.
68
-------
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
N/A
Limitations on Fund Recipients
States and communities are accountable for spending funds as described in their
approved plans and biennial state reports. NGO recipients provide 5 percent of project
funding in-kind or in cash.
Expectations of Funds Recipients
States and communities must implement the program elements in approved Wellhead
Protection Programs; states track community progress in implementation. NGO recip-
ients must spend funds as agreed in their plans. However there are no federal penalties
for lack of performance or poor performance.
Accountability
EPA defines seven elements to be addressed for an effective program: establish pro-
gram team, delineate wellhead protection area, identify contamination sources, imple-
ment management measures, develop contingency plans for emergency public water
well replacement, and plan for future wells. States develop benchmarks for local imple-
mentation in approved programs and perform spot-checks on community progress.
These are used to determine "effective" programs when SDWA monitoring waivers are
requested by the community's water supplier.
State Role
States and tribes provide varying degrees of program and technical assistance to com-
munities, e.g., source identification, implementing management measures.
SUPERFUND
Summary
Superfund is a program established by statute to identify and clean up hazardous waste
sites and creation and use an industry funded trust fund to pay for clean-up of sites
polluted by unidentified or financially limited parties. The federal interest is to address
environmental issues at hazardous waste sites; assure that parties responsible for
contamination eidier clean up or reimburse the fund for EPA clean-up; and assure that
die future use of die site is in keeping widi die levels of clean-up and die interests of
die community.
Management Tools
Grants
EPA provides grant support to states, tribes and communities. States receive funds for
program infrastructure development and support, site assessment, investigation and
remedy selection, and for site clean-up and supervision of responsible parties. Some
tribal nations have received core and site assessment funds. Technical assistance grants
(TAG) are provide to tiiose communities which have sites on die National Priorities List
to learn of die program and evaluate EPA, state, and responsible party actions and to par-
ticipate knowledgeably in decision related to clean-up and future use of die property.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Research, Information, and Data Collection
SITE (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation) provides funding to develop and
publicize hazardous waste-related clean-up technologies. This information is made
available to community participants as well as affected federal agencies such as DoD,
DOE and DOT as well as responsible parties in the development and use of viable alter-
native technologies for site cleanup.
Information Dissemination
EPA uses a variety of vehicles to disseminate information to communities and others
about the programs including published reports, responses to Freedom of Information
Act requests, EPA home pages, Inside EPA, clearinghouses, hotlines, public information
centers, electronic bulletin boards, and databases including LANDVIEW, a geo-
graphic information system of detailed maps of the United States and access to
linked databases of EPA-regulated facilities and demographic and geographic data.
Technical Assistance
EPA technical assistance includes public guidance models, program descriptions and
fact sheets as well as direct technical assistance at sites by EPA staff for developing
emergency response actions, long-term strategies, and holding public meetings.
Further, technical review committees and restoration advisory boards help NPL sites
solicit public input.
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
Superfund, Army Corps of Engineers, DOE, DoD, and the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ASTDR) will, upon request, chair or make diemselves available
at public meetings and site-availability sessions. Where needed, EPA will conduct door-
to-door interviews to obtain community input to the decision process.
Building State Capacity
EPA provides grants support to state superfund programs. ATSDR issues guidances to
state health departments on the toxicology of chemicals and other relevant health
information. DOI and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
help states with natural resource issues.
Regulatory Flexibility
EPAis piloting a community-based remedy selection initiative to develop guidelines for
CBM processes and designating regional ombudsman to be available to address stake-
holder concerns. EPA has also developed approaches to help smaller polluters resolve
and conclude participation in clean-up. They have revised policies which reduce liabil-
ity for purchasers of contained sites. EPA has also removed about 28,000 sites from its
site inventory, thus eliminating the stigma often associated wiui such sites (see
Brownfields program below).
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
EPA has publicized exemplary programs by frequent administrator and staff visits to
elected officials, regional awards ceremonies for the public, press, and elected officials.
70^
-------
Strategies for Federal Management
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
EPA uses a risk-evaluation protocol at each site which uses risk-management tech-
niques in decision processes. It addresses each site within legislative and regulatory
bounds as specified in the National Contingency Plan but also works to strike a balance
between cost and enforcement requirements.
Limitations on Fund Recipients
All recipients are expected to spend funds according to the overall goals of the program,
its regulatory requirements, and the specific work plan developed for the funding.
Expectations of Fund Recipients
States must match remedial action grants for private facilities and 50 percent for state-
operated facilities or political subdivisions. Recipients file financial status and progress
reports with for program oversight purposes.
Community Accountability
EPA oversees recipients through various "audit" mechanisms, such as quarterly reports
and financial status reports. Frequent meetings of EPA and states are held to ensure
activities are consistent with the overall program goals, as well as the grant/CA respec-
tive workplan, including semiannual and yearly review meetings at the senior manage-
ment level. Close-out audits are held for all grants.
State Role in Federal Sponsorship
States have the management lead at many sites and provide technical and administra-
tive support to EPA in carrying out EPA responsibilities. States typically have consider-
able latitude and flexibility in the design and implementation of state programs.
THE BROWNFIELDS ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE
Summary
The EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative works with state and local
governments and community interests to prevent, clean up, and reuse "brownfields"
sites abandoned due to perceived or real contamination, but that have potential for
redevelopment. The federal interest is to encourage and reduce barriers in the pur-
chase, clean-up, and redevelopment of sites that might otherwise be avoided due to an
exaggerated sense of the risk of incurring federal liability.
Management Tools
Grants
EPA awards cooperative agreements of up to $200,000 over two years to pilot programs
that coordinate the interests of affected groups, expand local educational and public
outreach and determine renewal strategies. Grant money may not be used for actual
clean-up. EPA has awarded about 50 pilot projects that are managed by regional offices.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
An
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Research, Information, and Data Collection
EPA and HUD are cooperating to better understand the effects of the environmental reg-
ulatory process on urban redevelopment but do not support research activities per se.
Information Dissemination
EPA issues guidances, policies, and fact sheets to clarify liability and inform businesses,
developers, and communities of local urban redevelopment opportunities. These
guidance documents are distributed through the Brownfields Internet homepage. In
addition, LANDVIEW diskettes of geographic and demographic data are available on
EPA databases.
Technical Assistance
The EPA supported Hazardous Materials Training and Research Institute provides
training in Brownfields pilot areas in order to give employment opportunities to local
disadvantaged and minority groups at clean-up sites.
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
EPA staff help develop brownfields CBM projects. EPA hosts workshops for pilot pro-
grams to discuss issues and ideas concerning effective implementation of the brown-
fields program. The agency cooperates with other federal agencies to coordinate
various brownfields opportunities.
Building State Capacity
EPA works with the states and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials to provide assistance to state brownfields projects.
Regulatory Flexibility
TheBrownfield's Initiative encourages redevelopment by relaxing or altering pre-existing
regulations associated with contaminated properties and has developed new policy guid-
ance to determine under what circumstances EPA will agree not to file a lawsuit against a
prospective purchaser of a contaminated property for contamination that existed prior to
the purchase. This has represented a major barrier to redevelopment in the past.
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
. EPA supports innovations such as the revolving loan fund set up by the Brownfields
pilot in Rochester, NY. This project developed a model for addressing financial burdens
that impede site assessments at brownfields sites.
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
EPA provides support to states, cities, counties, towns, and tribes whose applications
detail a commitment to achieving redevelopment of affected sites and which meet the
program's criteria which gives special consideration to municipalities with a popula-
tion under 100,000 and to those communities in EZ/ECs.
Financial Support
$200,000 is awarded to each project applicant which meets these program criteria and
have been selected by an independent panel. Grantees must provide a statement of
72k
-------
how they plan to use the money to advance their urban renewal goals. Final agree-
ments are negotiated by regional brownfields coordinators.
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
N/A
Limitations on Fund Recipients
EPA funds may not be used for the clean-up of brownfield sites.
Expectations of Fund Recipients
Pilot projects are to result in a cleaner environment, new jobs, the removal of health
risks, the expansion of the tax base, and the removal of urban decay. Specific expecta-
tions are: community commitment and increased capacity; national replicability; an
environmental justice plan; proposed clean-up funding mechanism; appropriate
audiority and government support, an environmental site assessment plan, measures
for tracking progress, and a quarterly report outlining activities and progress.
Community Accountability
(See above.)
State Role in Federal Sponsorship
EPA's Brownfields Initiative works with states on guidance that clarifies and acknowl-
edges the adequacy of voluntary state clean-up programs and seeks to clarify the fed-
eral role at brownfields sites cleaned up under state programs. States, not the federal
government, have primary responsibility for the clean-up of sites which are not listed
on the national (Superfund) priority list.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (NEP)
Summary
The Clean Water Act, section 320, establishes a federal grant program designed to
assist coastal communities define and develop comprehensive plans to address envi-
ronmental and other problems direatening die viability of estuarine waters. The federal
interest is in alleviating environmental threats to these national resources through
coordinated and cost-effective efforts by federal, state, tribal, and local governments
and the private sector.
Management Tools
Grants
EPA provides one-year grants to states, NGOs, or other groups selected to develop pro-
tective plans for a "national" estuary. This includes a "conference agreement" to define
membership, set up committees, and establish an approach and for a three-to-five year,
$3-7 million plan-development project. National Estuary Program (NEP) designations
are competitive, but sites are often cpngressionally earmarked. Project decisions are
made by the management conference.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Research, Information and Data Collection
NEP grants may be used for research and data collection directly related to plan devel-
opment. Existing data is initially compiled and used to define problems and solutions
and to support conference decisions and determine the need for further research.
Information Dissemination
EPA primarily relies on the NDP projects to disseminate information about the value
and threats to estuaries and needed solutions and engender support for action.
Although not all data is accessible outside an NEP community, NEPs are encouraged to
share information and techniques both nationally and locally.
Technical Assistance
EPA distributes guidance manuals on topics such as monitoring, estuary assessment,
and public involvement. Newsletters, national meetings, workshops and training, e.g.,
watershed training, are provided for local officials and technical staff.
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
Senior EPA regional managers chair NEP management conferences which oversee the
projects. EPA and other federal staff participate in citizen, technical, and local govern-
ment subcommittees. The agency leadership plays a strong role in negotiating contro-
versial elements of plans, such as applying Clean Water Act and other controls on river
(freshwater) flows to San Francisco Bay.
Building State Capacity
NEP has no formal state capacity-building program, however, many states are becom-
ing more involved in community-based efforts as a result of the capacity and interest
they developed while participating in an NEP program. Many statewide watershed
programs have grown out of state experiences with NEP.
Regulatory Flexibility
The NEP program is not a regulatory program, but some project conferences have
helped to identify nonregulatory solutions or negotiate difficult regulatory issues.
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
EPA uses positive publicity to raise public awareness. EPA administrators often appear
at plan approval ceremonies giving state, local, and congressional supporters kudos
and raising awareness of estuary problems. Project staff and volunteers speak at
national forums and international conferences.
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
The statute defines "community" in terms of an estuary and its associated aquatic
ecosystems, but the concept was so unwieldy that smaller boundaries were drawn.
Participants are defined by statute and include states, foreign nations within an estuary,
and international, interstate, or regional agencies with jurisdiction, as well as affected
industries, educational institutions, and the general public. Project managing agencies
have included local water districts, state water authorities, nongovernmental organiza-
tions (NGOs) and EPA regional offices.
74k
-------
Financial Support
The NEP program provides financial support to the organization selected to develop a
comprehensive plan for a nationally designated estuary. Ther§ affe statutory and
administrative criteria for the selection of NEPs and for the use and management of
grant funds which are included in EPA guidance and regulations.
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
N/A
Limitations to Fund Recipients
The use of NEP grant funds is limited to plan development and may not, by statute, be
used for plan implementation. Plans can be implemented through existing EPA pro-
grams, such as nonpoint source and sewage treatment plant construction grants.
Grantees must match federal funds with 25 percent from state or local funds. Funded
research may only be used to develop information needed for decisionmaking.
Expectations of Funds Recipients
A true and realistic community plan and consensus which will be implemented
through the coordinated action of public and private parties.
Community Accountability
Plans must recommend corrective actions and contain implementation strategies to
monitor their effectiveness and insure that federal actions are consistent. Quarterly and
final program and financial reports are required. EPA submits biennial progress report
to Congress. Some plans have established benchmarks, but there is, as yet, no formal
evaluation process.
State Role
Governors nominate new NEPs and jointly approve resulting plans with the EPA
administrator; participate in the "management conference," and support implementa-
tion. Some states play fairly major roles in the NEP programs including support of
implementation, but others have not participated or have voiced concern about the
plans developed by management conferences.
COMPARATIVE RISK FOR LOCAL PROJECTS
Summary
The Comparative Risk for Local Projects Initiative is a cross-media problem assessment
and planning effort that brings stakeholders together to reach consensus on which
environmental problems post the most risk to human life, ecosystem health, and qual-
ity of life, as well as to develop plans to reduce those risks. The federal interest repre-
sented by this project is in testing and demonstrating how comparative risk
assessments and related approaches can assist communities make choices among envi-
ronmental problems for community investment.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Management Tools
Grants
EPA provides noncompetitive demonstration grants of $50,000 over two years which
support all phases of a comparative risk project. Most project sponsors augment grants
with local government or foundation support.
Research, Information, and Data Collection
The focus of this project is on finding what's known about environmental risks and sit-
uations. There is little primary-data collection. In-kind contributions of staff time and
volunteers facilitate sharing information and data among participants one of the
most important program benefits. Cross-agency cooperation is another benefit which
often occurs for the first time during these projects. Some "state-of-the-environment"
reports have resulted from the program.
Information Dissemination
Public education is major goal and outcome of this project. It is provided for through
newsletters, home pages, environmental summits, state-of-the-environment reports,
public hearings, neighborhood meetings, and speakers bureaus. EPA currently is
putting project reports, technical reports, and guidances, as well as performance indi-
cators on the Internet to expand dissemination opportunities.
Technical Assistance
A small headquarters staff provides technical assistance on the state, local, tribal, and
watershed level. Project directors participate in monthly conference calls. Newsletters,
yearly national meetings, specific workshops and training, and a technical guidance
manual are provided through the headquarters staff, and staff of the Western Center
for Comparative Risk and the Green Mountain Institute. The agency is currently devel-
oping strategies to meet individual project needs.
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
EPA holds annual national meeting for comparative risk project directors and others
interested in learning more about the process and technical issues. EPA does not, con-
vene, chair or participate on local project boards.
Building State Capacity
For more than eight years EPA has directed this project toward states. At this writing at
least 28 states have either completed a comparative risk project, have one underway, or
are considering one.
Regulatory Flexibility
This is not a regulatory program, but the risk-management phase of projects seeks
develop nonregulatory strategies for addressing environmental priorities.
to
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
N/A
-------
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
EPA provides financial and technical assistance to states, tribes;7 local, or watershed
organizations or agencies that voluntarily agree to meet program, criteria as part of an
overall environmental priority-setting process.
Financial Support
To be eligible for funding, projects sponsors must have extensive participation of key
stakeholders including the public; analyze human health, ecosystem health, and qual-
ity of life risks; rank environment risks; and develop risk-management strategies.
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
N/A
Limitations on Fund Recipients
Grantees have considerable discretion on the use of funds as each project is enjoined
to "own the process."
Expectations of Funds Recipient
Successful projects strive to reach consensus on an environmental agenda, develop cri-
teria for ranking environmental risks, agree on strategies to address environmental pri-
orities, and coordinate across agencies that affect environmental policy.
Community Accountability
EPA conducts individual and group evaluations of projects.
State Role
N/A
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Summary
The Watershed Management Approach is an attempt to integrate natural resource pro-
tection efforts within the watersheds of rivers and help state and local governments
understand the overall conditions and stressors within a watershed. It supports a
broad-based public/private collaborative effort that entails goal-setting, identification
of priority problems, implementation of solutions, and the use of environmental indi-
cators to judge success and adapt management strategies within a specific geographic
area. The federal interest is to help diat 40 percent of the nation's water resources
which do not comply with federal quality standards to do so dirough integrated plans
for control of point (end-of-pipe) and nonpoint (diffuse) sources of contamination
which target priority problems, and leverage public and private sector dollars.
Management Tools
Grants
EPA funds are available through performance partnership grants (PPGs) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). PPGs allow states and
tribes to address multimedia problems and target the highest state priorities. Grants
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
also are provided through the state revolving loan fund of the CWA which primarily
finance sewage treatment plants but are now being used for other water quality pro-
jects, e.g., nonpoint sources, estuary, habitat restoration, and stormwater projects.
Research, Information, and Data Collection
States submit reports on the status of water quality in watershed areas.
Information Dissemination
The EPA sponsored "Surf Your Watershed" Internet resource provides watershed infor-
mation such as monitoring data and lists of citizen and volunteer monitoring groups.
The site is being expanded to include mapping and other geographic information sys-
tem (GIS) requests.
Technical Assistance
EPA sponsors a watershed academy, which offers a set of core courses and reference
materials about watershed management principles and techniques. Its curriculum is
targeted to water resource managers and technicians in all sectors. The agency pub-
lished the Watershed Tools Directory, which describes several hundred methods, mod-
els, data sources, and other approaches to managing watersheds; and a CD-ROM
Basins to help managers develop total maximum daily loads and waste-load alloca-
tions. The agency is or will be adapting the watershed approach to Urban Wet Weather
Policy, Effluent Trading Framework, and Source Water Protection and other guidances.
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
EPA occasionally acts as a leader or participates in watershed committees to provide a
level playing field for participation or to mediate between jurisdictions such as inter-
state efforts, where environmental justice or significant national resources are of con-
cern, or where mandated by Congress or the President (Chesapeake Bay, National
Estuaries, or the Pacific Northwest).
Building State Capacity
EPA provides briefings for states and tribes that are reorienting their water manage-
ment programs into a watershed basis. Staff will work on site to help water program
managers and decision-makers develop a transition plan, schedule, and framework.
Regulatory Flexibility
EPA is attempting to provide greater regulatory flexibility in several programs. For
example, states are provided grace periods for water permit terms while they are being
reoriented on a watershed basis.
Publicize, Praise, Involve
A series of large national conferences, "Watershed 96", with WEF and 14 federal agen-
cies attracts over a thousand participants from all sectors. A satellite broadcast of the
conference expands the audience to 150 downlink sites around the countries. Further,
the "Know Your Watershed Campaign" was launched in 1993 by NACD to encourage
rural and agricultural communities to play an active role in managing their watersheds.
Innovative and praiseworthy projects are highlighted in each of these activities.
-------
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
N/A ! '' *: "*
Financial Support
Criteria for selection for financial support includes the readiness of the candidate orga-
nization to proceed and use the money, anticipated environmental results, the need for
federal intervention, other sources of money, the existence of multiple jurisdictions
(e.g., interstate), and the risk of particularly valuable resources.
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
EPA enforcement continues to be essential to safeguard environmental gains. Although
the watershed approach promotes voluntary, consensus-based solutions, agency and
state enforcement is still needed.
Limits on Federal Funds
EPA expects that all federally assisted watershed projects will fully embody the principles
of watershed management outlined above. All funds are subject to federal grant rules.
Expectations of Fund Recipients
EPA is placing greater emphasis on achieving environmental results rather than pro-
grammatic requirements. Measuring environmental results is technically challenging
and can only be made over long periods of a decade or more.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SITE-SPECIFIC
ADVISORY BOARDS (EM SSAB), DOE
Summary
DOE is strengthening opportunities for community involvement in the restoration of
former nuclear production sites through the operation of local advisory boards. At this
writing 12 boards provide input and recommendations regarding future use, risk man-
agement, economic development, and budget priority setting to aid DOE decision-
making. The federal interest is to restore former nuclear production sites for use as
residential, recreational, agricultural industrial or other purposes and protect the pub-
lic health and the environment.
Management Tools
Grants
DOE's Environmental Management program (EM) funds individual boards through
an existing onsite DOE contractor, or a nonprofit or other organization which will typ-
ically provide a neutral facilitator, meeting space, duplicating, mailings, as well as inde-
pendent technical reviews of key issues. Boards also may hire technical experts to assist
in technical decisions or train board members in technical or regulatory areas.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
479
-------
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
Research, Information, and Data Collection and Dissemination
Site data and information is made available to site boards and to involved communities.
Technical Assistance
The DOE site operations office works with EPA, relevant states, and other groups to
educate board members and help the boards function successfully. The office provides
orientation sessions, fact sheets, workshops, briefings, training sessions, and site tours.
Technical support staff from federal, state, tribal, and local governments often attend
meetings and provide information in dieir areas of expertise.
Convener, Facilitator, Participant
DOE does not serve in a convener or facilitator role with respect to the boards. DOE
site managers do participate as ad hoc board members along with EPA, and regional,
state and, in some cases, tribal governments.
Building State Capacity
N/A
Regulatory Flexibility
N/A
Publicize, Praise, and Involve
Board activities and accomplishments are publicized through local and national news-
papers, DOE public information offices, congressional offices, and public participation
initiatives. EM shares evaluation findings widi interested groups and individuals to
encourage future program improvements.
Strategies for Federal Management
Sponsorship
Boards are sponsored, administered, and funded by DOE and are chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Participants include members of state and
local government, Native American tribes, unions, universities, environmental groups,
and community organizations and others. They must be balanced with respect to race,
gender, education, and occupation and their members must disclose any conflicts of
interest. DOE may establish more dian the existing 12 boards where there is a sufficient
interest and a board would not duplicate existing public participation efforts.
Financial Support
Boards are funded annually by DOE.
Balancing National Standards and Regulatory Flexibility
DOE receives formal recommendations on site-specific decisions, which can influence
regulation and/or compliance issues. Regardless of whedier advice is accepted, DOE
officials and site managers always respond to a board, explaining how and why input
was or was not used.
Limitations on Fund Recipients
Boards are expected to provide advice on key policy issues to EM managers and are
expected to develop their meeting agendas jointly with board members and DOE
80 .
V
-------
senior managers. Boards provide advice and recommendations on issues of environ-
mental restoration, waste management, and technology development. Specific focus
areas include future land use, risk management, economic development, and budget
prioritization of activities at each site. DOE maintains ultimate decisionmaking author-
ity. Board members are not compensated unless the balance of the integrity of the
board is threatened because a sectors of the community cannot be represented unless
their representative is reimbursed. Funding is limited to administrative expenses, tech-
nical assistance, travel and per-diem expenses, and salaries for full-time staff, trainers
and facilitators.
Expectations of Fund Recipients
DOE expects the boards to present informed advice that reflects community consen-
sus. The boards are to represent and communicate the broader community's feelings
and concerns to DOE and to review, evaluate, and comment on numerous documents
and other materials related to facility environmental management.
Community Accountability
DOE evaluates boards annually. Every two years boards are evaluated by both DOE
staff and community members. Meetings are open to the public, which is encouraged
to participate.
State Role
States appoint one representative to serve as an ex-officio member of site boards to
assist with identifying and interpreting state environmental standards and regulation,
among other issues. States serve as resource banks for relevant communities. Tribal
and local governments also may appoint ex-officio members to the boards.
Selected Community-
Based Federal Programs
-------
-------
APPENDIX
Forum Group Participants
SAN FRANCISCO FOCUS GROUP
The Faculty Club of the University of California at Berkeley
July 22, 1996:
Loretta Barsamian
Executive Officer
San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Oakland, CA
Chuck Bell
State Resource Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Sacramento, CA
Erica Ely
Project Manager
Bay Area Defense Action Team
Bay Area Economic Forum
San Francisco, CA
Marsha Brockbank
Program Manager
San Francisco Estuary Program
Oakland, CA
Jerry Bock
Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, CA
-------
Forum Group
Participants
Rosemary Corbin
Mayor
Richmond, CA
Ignacio Dayrit
Brownfields Project Coordinator
City of Emeryville Redevelopment Office
Emeryville, CA
Alan Edson
African American Development Agency
Oakland, CA
Louis Garcia
Director
Environmental Services Department
City of San Jose, CA
Terry Gorton
Assistant Secretary
California State Natural Resources Agency
Sacramento, CA
Grandand Johnson
Regional Director
Department of Health and Human Services
San Francisco, CA.
Rick Farren
Director
Port of Oakland
Oakland, CA
John Kirlin
Academy Panel Chair
Professor, School of Public Administration
University of Southern California
Sacramento, CA
Sharon Nance
Rural Sociologist
Natural Resource Conservation Service
USDA
Sacramento, CA
Barry Nelson
Executive Director
Save San Francisco Bay Association
Oakland, CA
84
-------
Jason Peltier
Manager
Central Valley Project Water Association
Sacramento, CA
Steve Richie
Manager
Bureau of Systems Planning and Regulatory Compliance
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco, CA
Robert Tufts
Chair
Bay Conservation & Development Commission
San Francisco, CA
Patrick Wright
Director
Bay Delta Program, EPA
San Francisco, CA
Karita Zimmerman
Environmental Compliance Division
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Oakland, CA
SOUTH FLORIDA FOCUS GROUP
Florida International University Conference Center
July 30,1996:
Lewis Ajamil
Bermello Ajamil Partners
Miami, FL
Robert Bendick
The. Nature Conservancy
South Florida Chapter
Altamonte Springs, FL
Anthony Clemente
Director
Miami/Dade Water and Sewer Authority
Miami, FL
Dennis Connelly
ICF-Kaiser
Miami, FL
Forum Group
Participants
-------
Forum Group
Participants
Frank Duke
Planning Department
South Florida Water Management District
West Palm Beach, FL
Maureen Brody Harwitz
Executive Director
MunisportDump Coalition
North Miami, FL
Isabel B. Gonzalez-Jettinghoff
Principal
Planning and Economics Group, Inc.,
Miami, FL
Bonnie Kranzer
Executive Director
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable Florida
Coral Gables, FL
Patti McKay
1000 Friends of Florida
Tallahassee, FL
Julian Perez
Planning and Economics Group, Inc.
Miami, FL
Nancy Roen
Law Department
Florida Light & Power
North Miami, FL
Lester Simon
CMA Consulting
Miami, FL
Julia A. Trevarthen
Assistant Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
Hollywood, FL
Douglas Yoder
Assistant Director
Dade County Environmental and
Resource Management Department
Miami, FL
86
-------
BOSTON/NEW ENGLAND FOCUS GROUP
Charles Hotel on Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA
September 6, 1996:
Julie Belaga
Academy Panel Member
Director
Export Import Bank of the United States
Washington, DC
Armando Carbonell
Director
Cape Cod Commission
Barnstable, MA
Larry Charles
Executive Director
One/Chain
Hartford, CT
Marcia P. Crowley
Board of Selectmen
Chair of Maine Municipal Association
Wayland, MA
Diane Gould
Director
Massachusetts Bay Program
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Boston, MA
Dan Greenbaum
President
Health Effects Institute
Cambridge, MA
Ann Hadley
Executive Director
Middlesex County Soil and Water Conservation District
Haddam, CT
Scott Horsley
Vice President
Horsley &> Whiten Inc.
Barnstable, MA
Arnold Howitt
Executive Director
Taubman Center for State and Local Government
JFK School of Government
Cambridge, MA
Forum Group
Participants
Aw
-------
Forum Group
Participants
Mark Landy
Professor of Political Science
Boston College and Senior Fellow
Gordon Public Policy Center
Brandeis University
Weston, MA
Peter Marlde
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Cambridge, MA
Patricia L. Meaney
Assistant Regional Administrator
Boston Region I
Environmental Protection Agency
Boston, MA
Valerie Nelson
Director
Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment
Gloucester, MA
Robert L. Paquin
Acting Director
Community Planning &> Development
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Boston, MA
Michael Saunders
Northeast Corridor Program Office
Federal Highway Administration
Glastonburg, CT -,
Irish Settles
Environmental Organizer
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
Roxbury, MA
H. Curtis Spalding
Executive Director
Save the Bay, Inc.
Providence, RI
Philip Tabas
Director
Conservation Program for the Eastern Region
The Nature Conservancy
Boston, MA
88
-------
CHICAGO/GREAT LAKES AREA FOCUS GROUP
Hyatt on Printers Rove, Chicago IL
October 10,1996
William Abolt
Deputy Commissioner
Chicago Department of the Environment
Chicago, IL
David Bennett
Executive Director
West Central Municipal Conference
Westchester, IL
Rudolph Bouie
Director
Plant Facilities and Services
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, IL
Irene Brodie
Academy Panel Member
Mayor, Village ofRobbins IL
Dean, Moraine Valley Community College
Robbins, IL
Tim Brown
Director
Midwest Office of Clean Sites
Chicago, IL
Ron Burke
Director of Environmental Health
American Lung Association
Chicago, IL
William Hallenbeck
University of Illinois
School of Public Health
Chicago, IL
Joanna Hoelscher
Citizens for a Better Environment
Chicago, IL
Kay Nelson
Director
Northwest Indiana Office
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Gary, IN
Forum Group
Participants
-------
Forum Group
Participants
John Novinson
Village Manager
Norihbrook, IL
Phillip D. Peters
Executive Director
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago, IL
Roger Post
Director
International Consulting,
Shorebarik Corp.
Chicago, IL
Eleanor Roemer
Lake Michigan Federation
Chicago, IL
Mark Reshkin
Professor
Indiana University
Gary, IN
Mercedes Sahagun
Assistant to the Commissioner
Chicago Department of the Environment
Chicago, IL
Robert Skurla
Executive Director
Chicago Southland Development, Inc.
Chicago Heights, IL
Howard Stewart
Vice President
115th Street Corporation
Chicago, IL
Dave Ullrich
Deputy Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, IL
Steve Whitesell
Bethel New Life
Chicago, IL
90
-------
APPENDIX
Sponsors' Group of
Federal Managers
Jeff Benoit
Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal Management
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Silver Spring, MD
Jon Cannon
General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Gene Cleckley
Director
Environmental Operations Division
Program Development Office
Department of Transportation
Washington, DC
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett,
Director
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
Director
CBEP Coordination Team
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Rick Colbert
Director
Agricultural Ecosystems Division
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
A
-------
Sponsors Group of
Federal Managers
John Crennon
Mining Engineer
Office of Surface Mining
Department of the Interior
Washington, DC
David Davis
Deputy Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Barbara Elkus
Acting Deputy Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Gloria Fauss
Senior Advisor for Government Relations
The Nature Conservancy
Arlington, VA
Linda Garczynski
Director
Outreach and Special Projects
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Brownfields Program)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Cindy Kelley
Director
Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability
Office of Environmental Management
Department of Energy
Washington, DC
Victor Kimm
Distinguished Practitioner in Residence
Washington Public Affairs Center
University of Southern California
Washington, DC
Warren M. Lee
Director
Watershed and Wetlands Division
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC
92k.
-------
Debra Claire Martin
Chief
Regional State Planning
Office of Program Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
William Matuszeski
Director
Chesapeake Bay Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis, MD
Ruth McWilliams
Assistant Director
Cooperative Forestry
U.S. Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC
William Muszynski
Deputy Regional Director
New York Region II
Environmental Protection Agency
New York, NY
David Ulrich
Deputy Regional Administrator
Chicago Region V
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, IL
Susan Wayland
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Margaret Washnitzer
Director
State Assistance Division
Office of Community Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, DC
Louise Wise
Director
Policy and Communications Staff
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Sponsors Group of
Federal Managers
A
=rui-inci vjciici-ai tatmiibei ai-ittj^egitiiifcu.j^irecioii-ue=w-uueme;5S
Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior; City Attorney, City of Tucson, Arizona.
(Now deceased)
* Academy Fellow
A
-------
Advisory Panel and
Project Staff Biographies
PROJECT STAFF
Marian Mlay
Senior Research Associate, National Academy of Public Administration. Former
Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Director, Office of Ground-Water
Protection, and Deputy Director, Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Former Acting Director, Office of Program Planning and Policy
Development, Public Health Service, and Acting Regional Director, Chicago, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
-------
Debra Claire Martin
Chief
Regional State Planning
Office of Program Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
William Matuszeski
Director
Chesapeake Bay Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis, MD
Ruth McWilliams
Assistant Director
Cooperative Forestry
U.S. Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC
William Muszynski
Deputy Regional Director
New York Region II
Environmental Protection Agency
New York, NY
David Ulrich
Deputy Regional Administrator
Chicago Region V
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, IL
Susan Wayland
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Margaret Washnitzer
Director
State Assistance Division
Office of Community Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, DC
Louise Wise
Director
Policy and Communications Staff
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Sponsors Group of
Federal Managers
A
-------
-------
APPENDIX
Advisory Panel and
Project Staff Biographies
ADVISORY PANEL
JohnJ. Kirlin,* Chair
Emery E. Olson Chair in Public-Private Entrepreneur ship, School of Public
Administration, University of Southern California. Former Interim Dean and Associate
Dean, School of Public Administration, and Co-director, Sacramento Public Affairs
Center, University of Southern California.
Julie Belaga
Director, Export-Import Bank of the United States. Former Senior Vice President,
Makovsky and Company; Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Member, Board of Directors of the Connecticut Development Authority.
Irene Brodie
Mayor, Village of Robbins, Illinois. Dean of Instruction, Former Professor of Communi-
cations, and Director of the Academic Skills Center, Moraine Valley Community College.
William Drayton, Jr.*
Chairman, Ashoka Society. Former Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Member, White House Domestic Policy Staff; Faculty, JFK School of
Government, Harvard University and Stanford Law School.
Jonathan B. Howes*
Director of University Outreach, Chancellor's Office, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Former Secretary, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, State of North Carolina; Research Professor and Director, Center for Urban
and Regional Studies, University of Nordi Carolina.
James D. Webb
Former General Counsel and Regional Director, The Wilderness Society; Deputy
Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior; City Attorney, City of Tucson, Arizona.
(Now deceased)
* Academy Fellow
A
-------
PROJECT STAFF
Marian Mlay
Senior Research Associate, National Academy of Public Administration. Former
Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Director, Office of Ground-Water
Protection, and Deputy Director, Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Former Acting Director, Office of Program Planning and Policy
Development, Public Health Service, and Acting Regional Director, Chicago, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
96k,
-------
-------
1120 G Street, NW
Sui^e 850
Washington, DC 20005 ' ,j
Tel:! (202) 347-319Q
Faxf (202) 393-0993!
Web: http://relrn.lml.org/napa.
------- |