6236
905B80100
GUIDEBOOK
REGIONAL PLANNING PROCESS
EPA Region V
-------
TAB SECTION
A Planning Process Memoranda from RA
B General Information and Guidebook Distribution
C Media Task Forces (MTF) and Strategy Development
D MTF Operations and Procedures
E State/EPA Agreements (SEAs)
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Me
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
w
XYZ
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE December 17, 1980
SUBJECT Regional Planning Process for Fiscal Year 1982
~ • ^ •«
, , .,
FROM: John McGuire „' ' ' - "~
Regional Administrator
Ta See attached list
EPA Region V is a large and exceptionally complex organization, performing
a variety of important and sensitive technical, legal, and scientific
missions which encompass all environmental media. Through these numerous
operations, hundreds of millions of dollars are dispensed each year in
support of state and local environmental protection programs as well as
in administration of the regional organization.
The challenge facing the Region V organization is multi-faceted:
- to identify pollution abatement and control priorities
with precision;
- to administer the variety of statutes and regulations within
the Agency's areas of authority;
- to assure that resource allocations within the regional
organization and to the states will support achievement
of strategic environmental objectives.
The Region's planning process is intended to be a policy-oriented planning
and and budgeting process, operated to meet important environmental,
organizational, and management needs. At issue are the ways in which
the regional planning process can be improved, both in terms of operational
efficiency and in terms of the quality of decisions emanating from it.
As most of you know, the Analytic Center and the Resources Management
Branch have recently completed an analysis of past and current planning
procedures in order to recommend improvements or refinements. I have
reviewed these reports in detail, and am distributing this document to
define procedures to be followed, beginning in December, under the regional
planning process for FY82. This document supersedes the draft distributed
for review and comment on November 25.
Some of the planning process modifications are intended to streamline
procedures, not only to reduce paperwork or the attendant waste of resources,
but also to enhance understanding of what is being produced and why.
Still other refinements will promote increased knowledge and appreciation
of the region's planning process at all staff levels. All refinements
for use during the FY82 process are intended to improve upon what is
already an effective system for advance planning and management decision
making.
F"A FORM 1320-6 IREV 3 76)
-------
Region V has made steady progress in improving its planning procedures
during the past few years. The advent of media task forces represented
a conscious effort to coordinate all EPA administered programs and opera-
tions affecting a medium, and a review of task force strategies produced
for FY81 demonstrates vividly that such coordination is both necessary
and beneficial. In a similar vein, dramatic improvements to the content
of State-EPA Agreements and to procedures followed to derive these
commitments were evidenced in the FY81 process. That momentum will be
continued in FY82.
These elements of success must be perpetuated and enhanced. Environmental
quality in all media continues to be threatened throughout all portions
of the region, and intensified attention toward such subjects as toxics
has extended both the depth and range of Agency programs. At the same
time, the Agency and Region V are entering a period of potentially
dwindling resources, intensified scrutiny, and increased accountability.
These various factors combine to make systematic organizational planning,
improved program coordination, expanded cooperation with the states, and
disciplined use of fiscal resources and personnel even more necessary now
than in the past. Efficient and effective operation of the region's
planning process will contribute to these organizational, management, and
environmental protection needs.
Attachment
-------
DISTRIBUTION
(Of the RA memorandum and all subsequent planning process documents
prepared by the ARA for Planning and Management)
Regional Administrator's Office
Val Adamkus
David Stringham
Nancy Philippi
Barbara Sidler
Madonna McGrath
Kent Fuller
Bob Boden
Vic Saulys
Jon Grand
Mary Canavan
Connie Hinkle
Charlie Smith
Jim Filippini
Tony Leffin
Water Division
Chuck Sutfin
Libby Hal perin
Gary Williams
Joe Harrison
Todd Cayer
John Kelley
Jim Hanlon
Gene Chaiken
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Dave Kee
Bill Constantelos
Steve Rothblatt
Karl Klepitsch
Karl Bremer
Joe Paisie
Mitch Wrich
Enforcement Division
Sandy Gardebring
Dale Bryson
Ken Fenner
Al Manzardo
Dave Ullrich
Glenn Pratt
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Bill Sanders
Tom Yeates
Curtis Ross
Dave Wagner
Jerry Regan
Rich Bartelt
Planning and Management Division
Lew Crampton
Bob Springer
Laird Starrick
-------
I. BACKGROUND
The mission of Region V is to administer the statutes, regulations,
and programs assigned to EPA to control pollution and improve the
quality of the ambient environment. Given the complexity these
operations and the diversity of environmental programs underway,
the region administers a variety of management systems to assure
planned program results as well as efficient and effective use of
resources. Some of the manaqement systems have been devised for
nationwide applicability and imposed by EPA Headquarters. Other
systems have been designed internally and are relatively unique to
the Region V organization.
The various systems employed in Region V have been organized into the
planning process depicted generally on the following page. Each of the
components produce detailed decisions regarding program operations
and resource allocations. The Region receives resources through the
Agency's budgetary process, and within budgetary limitations, has the
opportunity to plan for the most efficient use of those resources
in terms of operations and to plan for optimal effectiveness in
terms of environmental impact. The planning process is operated to
achieve the efficiency and effectiveness desired.
The Analytic Center and the Resources Management Branch have analyzed
the region's current planning practices and have defined options for
improvement. These reports and options have been reviewed by the
Regional Administrator, and the following document identifies guide-
lines and procedures to be followed in the planning process for FY82.
One section of this report describes the intended focus and content
of the planning process and some of its components. Adherence to these
guidelines will better assure that environmental priorities are
identified clearly and that ensuing regional and state program plans
will address these priorities in detail. The guidelines on focus
and content also provide expanded opportunities for state participation
in the process, particularly in terms of contributing to the development
of media strategies.
The concluding section of this report discusses a range of operational
and procedural matters in the planning process. This section is
intended to clarify and better define roles and responsibilities of
planning process participants and to instill a more structured and
disciplined approach to process deliberations and decision making.
Also included in this section is a general timetable for process
operations. This schedule will be clarified and defined in greater
detail by December 30, 1980.
-------
II. PLANNING PROCESS FOCUS AND CONTENT
The regional planning process culminates in two sets of primary products:
the regional budget and work plans, and program grants to the states. All
other components of the process are prepared as contributions to these
regional and state operational commitments.
Both the twenty-four month duration of the planning cycle and the need to
prepare numerous products within it necessitate a focused and highly dis-
ciplined approach. Otherwise, lengthy and expensive attention can be
diverted to tangential issues which may have little bearing on the final
outcome.
The following principles and guidelines will be employed in the planning
process for FY82:
Zero-Base Budget (ZBB):
- The Agency's ZBB process culminates with the total budget request
for EPA for the coming fiscal year. Total resources for all Regions
are contained in decision units which indicate proposed HQ and regional
shares of the total resource "pie".
- Following OMB review and approval, this request is incorporated into
the President's budget message and bills to be debated by Congress.
Congressional action results in Agency appropriations.
The Agency's ZBB process for FY82 has been completed; additional input
from the Region is neither necessary nor possible.
Input for the FY83 process will be provided in the coming months,
primarily through RA participation in priority setting through the
Agency Ranking Committee. Contributions for FY83 will commence in
approximately May, 1980. On or before that time, senior level
managers will prepare staff papers outlining problem areas and
topics of priority interest for use by the Regional Administrator
during ARC deliberations.
Workload Analysis Models (WLA):
- WLA initiates the Region's budgetary process for the coming fiscal
year in specifics. National appropriations and allocations are
subdivided into decision units, and the resources are distributed,
by decision unit, amongst the Regions.
- Preliminary WLA computations for FY82 will be forwarded for review
and comment by Region V during the month of February, 1981. Regional
responses to these preliminary allocations will be coordinated
by the Deputy RA for transmittal to Headquarters. Final WLA
computations for FY82 will be published and made known to the
Region in approximately April, 1981.
-------
- Final WLA statistics define the base of resource allocations to the
region. More specific allocations between organizational units
within Region V are then prepared to reflect regional priorities.
Operating Year Guidance: Draft statements of the Headquarters generated
operating year guidance for FY82 are being compiled at this time. Distri-
bution of guidance drafts is anticipated in December, 1980. The
regional response to this initial documentation will be coordinated by the
Assistant Regional Administrator for Planning and Management. Final
operating year guidance is scheduled for publication and distribution
in early January, 1981. Guidance issued for FY81 will remain in effect
if this production schedule is not met.
Particular attention will be given to addressing generic, cross-cutting
issues as identified in the operating year guidance during the region's
planning process for FY82. Introductory statements by the EPA Administra-
tor and Deputy Administrator pinpoint several areas of Agencywide initiative
such as regulatory reform, integrated toxics strategy, and emergency
response which clearly warrant continuing attention in Region V. These
topics, plus any additional cross-cutting issues identified by Assistant
Administrators or the Regional Administrator should be discussed and
incorporated within media task force priorities, state specific highlighted
issues, and State-EPA Agreements. Similar attention should be paid to
Agencywide initiatives and cross-cutting issues defined in operating
year guidance for FY82 when the new guidance document is published.
Media Task Force Strategies:
- MTF Strategies contain concise assessments of overall environmental
quality within a medium (water, air, and hazardous wastes), and
as a result of this assessment, identify major environmental
problems or problem areas requiring priority attention.
- Strategies contain statements of overall media goals, outline
regional priorities necessary to move toward goals achievement,
and highlight a general, medium-wide, action agenda for Region V
and the States for the coming fiscal year.
- The MTF Strategies establish the benchmark from which additional and
more specific planning products are prepared. Media goals and
priorities provide the framework within which resources are allocated,
work plans are prepared, and SEA's are negotiated and finalized.
- Initial meetings of all media task forces will begin in December,
1980. Final media task force strategies for FY82 should be com-
pleted for review and approval by the Regional Administrator by
the beginning of February, 1981.
More specifically, statements of media strategy for FY82 should include
attention toward the following items:
1. Major elements of media priorities encompass issues or problems
requiring substantially more than one program year to address and
-------
resolve. From this perspective, media strategies should be viewed
as statements of policy or priorities that can transcend the
specific fiscal year under discussion. Long-term (at least greater
than one year) priorities should be identified and described, not
only in terms of activities to be undertaken or accomplishments to
be derived in FY82, but also in terms of how these planned activities
and accomplishments will be used or extended into FY83 and beyond. By
the same token, shorter-term (annual) priorities and objectives
should be identified as such. This differentiation between long-term
and short-term activities will clarify the region's intentions to
EPA staff and to the states alike. In addition, these activities
will enhance the process of media strategy development, and preparation
of other components such as decision unit strategies or SEA's should
be expedited.
2. The incorporation of state specificity within media strategies
should be expanded beyond what was included in FY81 documentation.
To do so will lend additional specificity to regional statements
of problems and priorities, and this additional specificity
will in turn lead to greater commitment to strategies ultimately
approved. Identification of state specific problems or target
areas will also contribute to the SEA process by providing
opportunities to discuss highlighted issues to be ultimately in-
corporated within the Agreements at an earlier stage.
In addition, the States within Region V should be afforded more
extensive opportunities than have been provided in the past to review
and comment upon statements of regional priorities and media
strategy. The opportunity for states to contribute is particularly
important if additional state specificity is to be derived and
made realistic. The region's State Coordinators are responsible
for orchestrating and coordinating state input to regional
strategy development.
3. Finally, adherance to media priorities and strategy is possible
only to the extent that resources are available in support of
related program operations at either the regional or state levels.
The Assistant Regional Administrator and RMB will assist media
task forces, as necessary, in assuring that achievement of MTF
priorities is economically feasible and realistic. General estimates
of resources requirements will be incorporated within media task
force strategies for FY82, both to substantiate that priorities
can be accomplished within the bounds of budgetary constraints,
and to suggest ways in which limited resources might be more
efficiently used.
Decision Unit Allocations and Plans: Preparation of decision unit
plans is the process used in Region V to allocate work years and personnel
resources to organizational units responsible for the implementation of
major program elements. Position totals per decision unit emanate
from the workload analysis (WLA) activities. These regional allocations
are then subdivided between individual divisions, branches, and program
staff whose participation is required.
-------
In the past, detailed textual and statistical descriptions of D.U. plans
have been required for all decision units assigned to Region V. In the
FY82 process, these descriptions of activity and resource allocations
will be reduced by approximately one-half. Textual and statistical
descriptions will be required only for major decision units which are
not only large in terms of resources available but also requiring
the involvement of several branches or divisions to perform. The
specific listing of decision units needing detailed planning for
FY82 will be completed during regional review of workload analysis
(WLA) statistics.
Other and smaller decision units will not require the preparation of
detailed reports as in the past. These decision units will be handled
in an abbreviated and simplified form. RMB will be responsible for
obtaining the data required for these smaller decision units in
cooperation with all affected decision unit participants.
The ARA for Planning and Management will develop the format of
all required decision unit forms and textual reports to be used in
the FY82 process. This responsibility, along with definition of the
planning process timetable and other matters, is discussed further
in the following section of this report.
State-EPA Agreements (SEAs): SEAs are the major element of the planning
process in which bi-lateral planning and decision making between the
region and the states can occur. It is through this important process
that the implementation of national as well as state goals can be achieved.
Refinements to the SEA process are necessary to meet the following
goals:
- Completion of SEA negotiations prior to the issuance of state specific
guidance and prior to the initiation of program planning by the states.
- Simplification of the SEA documents themselves, moving toward less
technical detail in order to focus on major issues which require
high level attention.
- Development of SEAs which more fully recognize and account for unique
situations or circumstances (technical, legal, or otherwise) within
each of the states.
Expanded discussion of state specific problems or suggested target areas
within MTF strategy and enhanced opportunities for state participation
in strategy development are intended to contribute to these SEA process
goals.
The region's overall SEA process will be coordinated by the Assistant
to the Regional Administrator. Included within this responsibility are
definition of detailed SEA timetables, per state if necessary; definition
of SEA formats, and representing state coordinators as a member of each
media task force. Each State Coordinator is responsible for overseeing
the SEA process in his/her state. This responsibility includes securing
-------
state participation in MTF strategy development, preparing or coordinating
preparation of all SEA documentation, convening of all meetings required
for discussion or negotiation of SEA commitments, and mid-year as well
as end of year SEA evaluations.
In the Region V planning model, SEAs guide the state grants process
by identifying major priorities which will be incorporated within
state program work plans. Realistically, this will only occur if
the SEAs are negotiated and approved earlier in the planning process
than they have been in the past. Responsibility to expedite the
SEA process is shared among many individuals— State Coordinators,
MTF members, Division Directors and other.
The planning process timetable as discussed in the following section will
include all elements required for SEA completion as outlined above.
Timing may vary from state to state. This timetable will be completed for
review and approval by the Regional Administrator, by December 30, 1980.
-------
III. PLANNING PROCESS OPERATIONS
The assessment of past and current planning procedures indicated a
number of operational and process management deficiencies that will
be rectified during the upcoming planning cycle. Improvements
listed below identify management and administrative responsibilities,
and define relatively formal procedures to be followed.
Planning Process Management
A major finding of the planning process study concerned the inability of
staff to consistently identify the individual or unit responsible for
administering the process on a day-to-day basis. This responsibility
ultimately rests with the Regional Administrator, but it is impractical
and unnecessarry for that individual to oversee process operations
at such a fine level of detail. In the absence of detailed attention,
however, due dates will continue to be vague, potentially unrealistic,
or not enforced. Therefore, a planning process manager is necessary.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Planning and Management
(ARA) will function as the overall manager of the Region V Planning
Process. In this role, the ARA will be responsible for the Region's
overall planning, budgeting, work planning, and performance standards
cycle. This responsibility will be fulfilled in consultation and
cooperation with MTF chairmen and members, branch chiefs, program
managers and others as appropriate.
In the role of planning process manage^ the ARA will accomplish
the following:
1. Establish the planning process timetable. Some planning process
components (the preliminary regional budget, regional work plans
and state grant awards, for example) have inviolate due dates,
and require the completion of numerous other components in a
timely fashion as key contributions. If components are not produced
in manageable increments, work "piles up" near the end of the
process, thereby diverting personnel from program operations and
using resources inefficiently. These problems can be reconciled
through realistic scheduling. The ARA will define the planning
process timetable, and following approval by the RA, also be
responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement. Progress
reports will be prepared for periodic review by the Regional
Administrator.
2. Define Process Component Purposes and Applications.
Some components of the process have been employed consistently
over the years, and the purposes and uses of these products are
well known throughout the regional organization. Other components
are relatively new to the system. Still others have a complex
or unclear relation to the planning process as a whole. In
the latter cases, considerable confusion and misunderstanding
have been expressed about why planning components are prepared,
how products are to be formated, or how the products are to be
-------
used. This confusion is of major concern because staff at all
levels are asked to contribute to product preparation. In the
absence of uniform definitions and understanding, contributions
will be less useful than desired.
A general guidebook for all participants in the regional planning
process will be prepared to reconcile these problems. The guide,
to be prepared by the ARA, will define the purpose, general format,
and application of each planning component. Initial portions of
the guidebook will be completed by December 15 and include discussion
of MTF strategy documents and the SEA process for FY82. Descriptions
of other components will be prepared beginning in January 1981.
Where necessary, examples will be provided to assure consistency.
Copies of required forms will be developed and included in the
guidebook, as will other general instructions where appropriate.
RMB will provide staff support in this effort. In addition,
chairmen of media task forces, division managers, and the Assistant
to the Regional Administrator will be consulted.
3. Develop Process Monitoring and Reporting System.
A realistic timetable remains valuable through compliance with
crucial deadlines. The overall system must therefore be tracked
to assure that procedural problems are reconciled, products are
prepared and reviewed in a timely fashion and conflicting opinions
or proposals are successfully mediated and resolved. Toward this
end, the ARA will develop proposals for approval by the RA on ways
to monitor, report on, and evaluate the regional planninq process
during its operational phases. These proposals, in the form of
staff papers outlining options, will be prepared for RA review
by January 15, 1981.
Planning Process Procedures
A common complaint about the existing planning process is that purposes
and applications of the process are not clearly understood, and that
"rules of the game" sometimes shift during the course of product
preparation, thereby causing extensive editing, additional paperwork, or
inefficient use of resources. Designation of a process manager with
responsibilities as outlined will reduce these uncertainties.
Perceived problems in the process are addressed in this section, and
center on the roles of participants and procedures to be followed
to better document commitments and decisions.
1. Media Task Forces (MTF): Successful deliberations and decision
making by the region's media task forces is of paramount import-
ance in the planning process. These groups represent the forum
within which necessary program coordination must occur to establish
regional priorities and accomplish objectives. Some confusion
exists, however, concerning task force membership, the roles
of other staff in task force deliberations, and procedures to
be followed to document MTF activity.
-------
MTF activities will be more formalized and structured during
the FY82 process in order to address these elements of confusion.
Formal Media Task Force membership is as follows:
Water Media
Air Media
Chuck Sutfin (Chairman)
Lew Crampton (Vice Chairman)
Sandra Gardebring
Bill Sanders
Madonna McGrath
Nancy Philippi
David Stringham
Dave Kee (Chairman)
Lew Crampton (Vice Chairman)
Sandra Gardebring
Bill Sanders
Nancy Philippi
David Stringham
Hazardous
Materials Media
Bill Constantelos (Chairman)
Lew Crampton (Vice Chairman)
Madonna McGrath
Libby Hal perin
Dale Bryson
Bill Sanders
Nancy Philippi
David Stringham
MTF Chairmen function as the overall media manager, responsible for
assuring that media strategies encompass all problems and priorities
requiring attention. In this role, it may be desirable for chairmen
to designate another individual to represent their individual division.
As Vice Chairman of each MTF, the ARA will exercise all roles associated
with the responsibility for overall process management, convene MTF
meetings in the absence of the Chairman, and assure the provision of
general secretariat and recordkeeping support to the MTF as required.
The Assistant to the Regional Administrator will function on the task
forces as the SEA Coordinator. All other members will function as
the primary representative for their respective organizational units.
Each member of each task force should name an alternate member or
representative. These representatives will be reviewed and approved
by the RA, and following RA approval, only MTF members or their
designees may participate fully in MTF meetings. Certain parliamentary
procedures will be followed in the meetings themselves:
- decisions or commitments cannot be made unless a quorum (simple
majority) of MTF members or their designess is present
- meeting schedules should be regularized, not held on a sporadic
or haphazard basis
- meeting agenda should be prepared and distributed before the meetings
-------
- meeting minutes should be recorded and distributed by RMB to document
topics discussed and decisions made.
Media task forces should develop and adopt additional procedures as
necessary (voting, conflict resolution, appeals, etc.) to assure
efficient and effective decision-making.
The participation of staff in MTF meetings has also been raised as an issue.
Staff reports and participation in MTF deliberations is both necessary and
encouraged. Without this input, MTF definition of priorities could be
hindered. From this perspective, therefore, MTF members should not
only permit but encourage the attendance of "key" staff at all meetings
in which topics within their respective areas of expertise or interest are
to be discussed. At the same time, it is the responsibility of media
task force chairmen to define and implement procedures which will assure
that staff attendance and participation is structured and germaine.
2. State-EPA Agreements (SEAs): If statements of MTF strategy guide
the total regional planning process, SEA's most certainly guide the
development of state work plans and the awarding of programmatic
grants to the states. The region's State Coordinators assume
principal responsiblity for administering the preparation of SEA's.
This responsibility has several dimensions. First, a more direct
and discernable link between MTF strategies and SEA's will be
achieved in the FY82 planning process. It is therefore incumbent
upon State Coordinators to assure that state related issues
incorporated within media strategy priorities are relevant and
that the states are afforded ample opportunities to comment upon
statements of regional policy and priorities under discussion.
Second, the Coordinators are responsible for arranging (and convening
if necessary) meetings between regional and state staffs whenever
conflicting opinions need to be negotiated and resolved. Third,
State Coordinators are responsible for documenting highlighted
issues and problem solving approaches for transmittal to states for
review and comment, and are also responsible for preparing all draft
and final SEA documents. Finally, and with heightened importance,
the region's State Coordinators are responsible for coordinating
all elements of the mid-year and end of-year reviews. The Assistant
to the Regional Administrator and the Analytic Center, in conjuction
with State Coordinators, will be responsible for refining and improving
the SEA evaluation procedures through a document prepared no later than
February, 1981. These procedures, following approval by the RA,
will be used to evaluate SEA's currently in effect. The mid-year
evaluation will be conducted, with State Coordinators in the
lead, during March, 1981; and end of year reviews during October.
It is theoretically possible to operate the regional planning process,
including the awarding of state program grants, without completion
of SEA's. When this occurs, however, the SEA's diminish in importance,
or become little more than academic exercises, or both. It is
therefore imperative that SEA's are finalized prior to the development
of state work plans or the awarding of grants. Some regions
have instituted a "no SEA, no grant" policy with surprisingly
little state resistance. Such policy has not been approved in
10
-------
Region V, and will not be. However, the SEA process will be the
focus of high priority production and management activity to
assure that it meets expectations.
3. Planning Commitment and Accountability: Decisions made in the
planning process are valid only if they are implemented. In
many respects, implementation is dependent upon the extent to which
individuals making the decisions are held accountable for achieve-
ment. The region's individual performance standards and performance
agreement process will be used in FY82 as this accountability
mechanism. For example, MTF members will incorporate the
achievement of MTF priorities into their personal performance
standards. The ARA will address planning process management
as a primary work element. State Coordinators will accept the
timing and completion of SEA's, in keeping with the planning
.process timetable, as a major element of their own performance
agreements. Other regional staff, as appropriate, will follow
similar guidelines.
In addition, more attention will be given to the timing, substance,
and results of the regional planning process at weekly senior
staff meetings chaired by the Regional Administrator.
11
-------
GENERAL PLANNING PROCESS TIMETABLE FOR FY82
The following timetable lists major outputs, per month, for the FY82
process. Additional detail and clarification will be provided in
the final timetable to be prepared by the ARA by December 30, 1980.
Major input to the detailed timetable will also be required from the
Assistant to the RA, particularly with regard to timing and specifics
of the SEA process.
November
Distribute memorandum from RA outlining the process for FY82
Initiate, with publication of Environment Midwest, the public
participation element for SEAs
December
Finalize RA memorandum incorporating review comments
Initiate preparation of draft MTF strategies including environmental
assessments, analysis of progress made under FY81 strategies, problem
identification (both regional and state specific) and preliminary
priority setting
Receipt and review of draft Operating Year Guidance. Transmittal
of regional input to HQ
"First cut" highlighted issues from the states. Input to MTF strategies
State Coordinator orchestration of state input to MTFs
ARA completion of detailed timetable
ARA completion of guidebook delineating MTF and SEA product forms
and format, examples as necessary, etc.
January
ARA completion of additional guidebooks
Final MTF strategies, following the format established in the
guidebook, incorporating Operating Year Guidance, and incorporating
state input
ARA completion of issue and options papers for process monitoring
and evaluation system
Final highlighted issues agreed upon by Region and the states
February
RA approval of MTF strategies
12
-------
Receipt of preliminary WLA allocations for FY82. DRA and RMB coor-
dination of negotiations and response
Draft PSAs, based on agreed upon highlighted issues and MTF strategy
March
Mid-year evaluation of FY81 SEAs
(possibly combine the two)
Mid-year program evaluations
Final PSAs, based upon negotiation of drafts with the states and
findings from the mid-year evaluations
April
Receipt of final WLA allocations from HQ
State Coordinators preparation of draft SEAs. Transmittal
throughout Region V organization and to each of the states for
review and comment
May
Preparation of decision unit plans, textual and statistical,
for DUs requiring detailed planning
RMB coordination and collection of abbreviated data required from
the other DUs
Preliminary budget completion and transmittal to HQ by RMB, based
upon decision unit input
Completion of SEA negotiations and State Coordinator preparation
of final SEAs for signature.
Preparation and issuance of state specific guidance, following
completion of SEAs
Preparation of regional issue papers for input to the RA in
his participation on the ARC (applicable to the FY83 process)
June
Agency Ranking Committee with RA participation (FY83 process)
July
Preliminary regional work plans for FY82
Travel requests for FY82
13
-------
Contract requests for FY82
Completion of draft work plans by each of the states for FY82
August
Final regional work plans for FY82
Final travel allocations for FY82
Final contract allocations for FY82
Draft SES performance agreements for FY82, based upon MTF decisions,
SEA commitments, and finalized FY82 work plans. Discussion/negotiation
with RA; RA approval and signature
Regional review and comment to states on their draft work plans
for FY82
September
Final regional budget for FY82 based upon final work plans approved
in August
Final state work plans and grant applications incorporating regional
comments received in August
Regional approval of state work plans and preparation of grant
awards
Subordinate staff preparation of FY82 performance agreements, incorporating
reference to and support of approved SES agreements. Discussion/
negotiation with supervisors.
October
End of year evaluation of FY81 SEAs
(possibly combine the two)
End of year program evaluations
SEA approval of subordinate staff performance agreements
Commence FY82 operations.
14
-------
December, 1980
GENERAL INFORMATION
The enclosed material represents the initial installments of
the Region's planning process guidebook. Additional descriptions
of process components, desired formats, participation procedures,
and related information will be distributed in coming months. As
you are already aware from receipt of the Regional Administrator's
memo dated December 17, 1980, the guidebook is being prepared by the
Assistant Regional Administrator for Planning and Management (ARA)
to assure increased efficiency and effectiveness in the overall
planning and budgetary cycle.
Guidebook materials are being distributed in a three ring binder to
permit maintenance of up-to-date editions. Future installments, both
for newly discussed components and for any modified versions of
material distributed previously, should be incorporated in the binder
as the guidebook evolves.
All guidebook materials will be dated in the upper righthand corner
of each page. Modified versions of materials distributed previously
will be dated and labeled "Change 1", "Change 2", etc.
The ARA will assume responsibility for guidebook distribution to
all recipients listed on the following page. If additional copies of
the enclosed or future installments are needed, organizational units
should xerox or otherwise reproduce their own.
The guidebook is intended to be a dynamic rather than a static
publication, and suggestions for improvement are both desired and
encouraged. All recommendations should be forwarded to the ARA.
B-l
-------
December, 1980
REGIONAL PLANNING PROCESS GUIDEBOOK DISTRIBUTION
Regional Administrator's Office
John McGuire
Val Adamkus
David Stringham
Nancy Philippi
Barbara Sidler
Madonna McGrath
Kent Fuller
Bob Bowden
Vic Saulys
Jon Grand
Mary Canavan
Connie Hinkle
Charlie Smith
Jim Filippini
Tony Leffin
Hater Division
Chuck Sutfin
Libby Hal perin
Gary Williams
Joe Harrison
Todd Cayer
John Kelley
Jim Hanlon
Gene Chaiken
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Dave Kee
Bill Constantelos
Karl Klepitsch
Karl Bremer
Joe Paisie
Mitch Wrich
Enforcement Division
Sandy Gardebring
Dale Bryson
Ken Fenner
Al Manzardo
Dave Ullrich
Glenn Pratt
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Bill Sanders
Tom Yeates
Curtis Ross
Dave Wagner
Jerry Regan
Rich Bartelt
Planning and Management Division
Lev; Crampton
Bob Springer
Laird Starrick
B-2
-------
December, 1980
MEDIA TASK FORCES AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
PURPOSE
Within the guidelines set forth in this memorandum, our goal is to evolve
general procedures for the conduct of media task force meetings, but not
to dictate product content. At the same time, we have a legitimate concern
that the analytic agenda employed during task force deliberations is
responsive to all relevant policy guidance and issues that are believed
to be important in an appropriate order to priority. Accordingly, the
emphasis in task force meetings will be on doing good analysis upon which
to base subsequent resource allocation decisions. This means that we will
be seeking quality and useful products in our task force planning and not
the development of useless or redundant information for its own sake.
With respect to the various qualitative aspects of media task force
planning, our goals are to:
0 establish consistency of format and sequence of pre-
paration;
0 encourage cooperation on a mutually accepted set of
overall objectives and priorities rather than destruct-
tive competition for resources and awards;
0 seek consensus but allow dissenting opinions to be
expressed with the results;
° identify common/generic issues or considerations
(managerial and operational as well as programmatic)
to incorporate within planning process products,
irrespective of media;
0 focus on multiyear issues in addition to FY82 con-
cerns;
C-l
-------
December, 1980
PURPOSE (Continued)
0 promote or assure consistency of focus (to insure,
for example, that statements of "strategy" are in
fact strategic in dimension, importance and impact);
0 define strategic environmental objectives and
priorities that are accomplishable, quantifiable,
and results oriented;
0 deal with state-specific and multistate issues in
a meaningful way;
0 achieve clear, we!1-documented decisions that are
promptly communicated to Region V staff; and
0 derive decisions in such a way that managers respon-
sible for filling the commitments can be held
accountable for performance.
Finally, with respect to media task force procedures, our intent is to evolve
a process that is:
0 flexible enough to allow for special conditions;
0 adaptive to the most efficient procedures for doing
collaborative work;
0 predictable in terms of enforced due dates and the
demands that are likely to be made on participants'
time and resources;
0 sensitive to the need to provide sufficient turn-
around time prior to decision-making; and
0 supported by a superior staff effort.
C-2
-------
December, 1980
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Media Task Force planning begins with the assumption that the Region is
currently operating on the basis of good plans — and that these plans
can benefit significantly from the task force process. Hence, in terms
of the development of task force strategies, what is anticipated is not
ground-zero creation of new documents for FY82, but updating and refinement
of the ones that currently exist. The strategies we evolve will focus on
developing problem-solving priorities and, conversely, identifying program
areas to be deemphasized. They will be multiyear in scope and address
significant program and resource integration issues as they arise.
To the extent possible, task force members will need to reach some agree-
ment on common planning assumptions with respect to program or media
status at the beginning of the process, and to changes and developments
(environmental, programmatic, etc.) expected during the course of the
coming program year and beyond. Thus, a major element of MTF strategy-
making for FY82 will include an assessment of progress made in achiev-
ing FY81 commitments and priorities. Such an assessment should include:
0 a brief description of FY81 priorities;
0 the extent to which these priorities have been (or
will be) achieved;
0 environmental clean up achieved, program development
milestones accomplished, and other benefits derived
from strategy implementation;
0 unforeseen (or adverse) results brought about by
FY81 strategies; and
0 unfulfilled commitments from FY81 that should be
carried over to FY82.
C-3
-------
December, 1980
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT (Continued)
Strategies should also include a brief baseline description of environmental
quality within the medium based on available ambient data or other factors.
These assessments should describe: (a) overall regional conditions, (b)
media-based pollution "hot spots", and (c) environmental quality trends
both regionwide and within each of the six states. The descriptors selected
ought to substantially reflect real region/state goals and program accomplish-
ments. Suggested examples for the development of general indicators might
include compiling information on the following:
0 land and water use patterns
0 demographic trends
0 key industrial concentrations/distributions
0 health/morbidity statistics
0 economic conditions and trends
0 river miles meeting or not meeting Region V (or
national) goals
0 trends in the percentage of river miles meeting
goals
0 population served by drinking water meeting all
standards
0 reduction of stationary source emissions attribut-
able to air quality goals
0 number of days exceeding air standard violations
0 pesticide usage, by area, per year
0 trends in the successful completion of program
milestones (for startups)
0 etc.
Much of this data is currently available in published form, or can be pro-
cured through the Region's Surveillance and Analysis Division and the Office
C-4
-------
December, 1980
STATEGY DEVELOPMENT (Continued)
of Intergovernmental and External Programs (OIEP). Some of it is not published
but is being used on an informal basis by program staff. A particularly
useful (and real) additional set of indicators might be obtained by extra-
polating managers' program performance objectives from their MBO agreements
where appropriate.
Strategy intoductory sections should also include an identification of federal,
state and local capabilities available to target on media based issues. For
example, what statutory authority exists; what programs are already in place;
which entities have planning, management and implementation capabilities;
which states are capable of accepting program delegation according to what
timetable, and so forth. This general (and brief) section on capabilities
should also identify new programs or initiatives now available which were not
present for use during FY81 (Superfund, of course, is one example).
Examples of other considerations that might be used to provide additional
refinement and validity to strategy assessments include the following:
0 the number of and difficulties associated with
states facing resource cutbacks.
0 special burdens placed on programs by the geo-
graphic concentration (or dispersal) of environ-
mental problems.
0 hidden workload resulting from start-up or program
innovations.
0 critical mass factors needed to develop new or
modified programs.
0 readily available shifts in resources that can be
made at program margins.
0 opportunities to benefit from improved program and
resource integration within the region.
C-5
-------
December, 1980
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT (Continued)
In short, introductory sections of MTF strategies should include sufficient
information on previous commitments and accomplishments, environmental in-
dicators, and problem-soving capabilities to summarize the state of the art.
This baseline information can then be used in definition of priorities for
the coming fiscal year.
PRIORITY-SETTING
Based on the foregoing, the task force will begin to identify priorities for
FY82 in several categories:
0 regional priorities -- major priorities of region-
wide applicability.
0 priorities of multistate significance -- e.g., less
than 6-state, perhaps, but greater in scope or im-
portance than a single state.
0 state-specific priorities — at least on a prelimin-
ary basis (from Region V's point of view) until the
states have had an opportunity to respond.
Priority statements can incorporate a number of considerations, any com-
bination of which could fall within the general categories identified above,
Elements of priority consideration could include, for example:
0 environmental improvement.
0 operational capacity -- that is, improvements to pro-
gram operations that will enhance managers' capacity
to achieve program goals (e.g., an improved MIS).
0 managerial changes — e.g., priorities relative to
delegation of program planning and implementation
responsibilities to the states.
0 technical support -- priorities relative to enhancing
the Region's monitoring, survey and analysis, legal
and communications capabilities that directly serve
program needs.
C-6
-------
December, 1980
PRIORITY-SETTING (Continued)
Priority statements also need to be qualified with some indication of the
relative importance of the identified program (or program support) activity.
Strict, hierarchical ranking of activities at the outset of task force
deliberations is, of course, counterproductive. What is intended here is
the commencement of a task force deliberative process that starts with
general priority levels and moves toward a higher degree of precision over
time. At the beginning of this process, we will be working with Level 1 and
Level 2 priorities, with Level 1 defined as program activities that we
must do, and Level 2 as those activities that are important but that
Region V and State staff can undertake only on a limited basis. Toward the
end of task force deliberations, we will be involved in ranking priorities
(or combinations of them) in order of importance. However, this ranking
exercise should be allowed to proceed with a great deal more flexibility
than has been the case with the Agency's ZBB process, for example.
At the very end of task force deliberations, we will be dealing with
issues involving complex tradeoffs and important cross-cutting concerns,
but these decisions, if the process has been successful, will have been
made on the basis of better judgment and good staff work.
Finally, priority statements must be evaluated in light of our ability to
implement them (or help some other entity implement them). Accordingly,
priority statements will also contain general descriptions of:
0 who will do what
0 what mode the Region intends to follow with respect to
its involvement in an issue (e.g., proactive, active,
supportive, passive)
0 anticipated outcomes or results
C-7
-------
December, 1980
PRIORITY-SETTING (Continued)
Of course, the major capability factor to be considered here is the
matter of resource availability (but not resource allocation, which comes
later on in Region V's planning and budgetary process). Since shifts in
program resources are likely to be available only at the margins,
resource availability ought to be stated with some degree of precision so that
we can identify resource increments that can be flexibly applied. With a good
idea of what is needed and available in terms of the program resources we
have, we can then evaluate competing demands. This will occur at a point
further along in the Region's overall planning and budgeting process and
will take place with reference to criteria such as the following:
0 the relative order of program priorities that has
been evolved during the course of task force
deliberations.
0 our best estimates of resource availability and
flexibility.
0 the level of effort or degree of intensity with
which Region V managers intend to pursue a parti-
cular activity (low, moderate or high).
0 the overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed
effort.
0 policy guidance set forth by the Regional Admin-
istrator and other authorities.
EVALUATION
The task force procedures set forth in preceding sections of this Guide-
line are directed at providing Region V management with qualitatively
better plans. However, in order to assure ourselves that better plans
are resulting in better programs, it will be necessary to address the
issue of program evaluation during MTF deliberations. The object is to
begin the development of a user-based program tracking, monitoring and
C-8
-------
December, 1980
EVALUATION (Continued)
evaluation system that is subject to Regionwide management review. The
building blocks of such an undertaking include the following:
0 selection of measures of program accomplishments --
those indicators of media program activity, milestones,
output and accomplishment in terms of which we expect
to define program performance. Such measures will be
based on the baseline indicators we selected at an
earlier point in the task force process;
0 projection of program accomplishments -- the levels of
program activity, output, and accomplishment which we expect to
result from our program and resource management decisions;
0 an accountability reporting system — a quality-controlled
means for reviewing actual performance against planned
program accomplishments and taking appropriate action
based upon the results;
° assignment of approrpiate rules and responsibilities --
a means of insuring that these evaluations will be used by
Regionwide management to make corrections and improve
program performance.
C-9
-------
December, 1980
MTF OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES
The ARA for Planning and Management has been directed by the Regional
Administrator to serve as manager of the Region's planning and budgetary
process. This designation has taken place because, in the past, the
process has lacked needed direction and focus. As a result:
0 deadlines were not perceived as important, nor was
there a real sense as to which planning process pro-
ducts were more important than others;
0 some planning products were not clearly defined,
rules and guidelines concerning changes were not
known, and products were inconsistently evaluated;
0 meetings were held irregularly, little pressure
was exerted to insure adherance to a regularized
process, and participants became dissatisfied.
0 task forces operated without benefit of schedules
and without the ability to relate to each other
(in a planning sense) in a meaningful way.
The Region's MTF planning process influences the expenditure of far too
much money and involves too many people to be allowed simply to run itself
without direction. Therefore, the principal responsibility of the planning
process manager will be to orchestrate and manage process operations (but
not to dictate program content or the outcome of task force deliberations).
Accordingly, the ARA for Planning and Management will estabish an MTF planning
schedule, insure that work assignments are completed as set forth by the
task force chair, clarify the purpose of different components of the
planning process and their relationships with one another, resolve
disputes about roles and responsibilities of participants, and generally
make the process operate on time and efficiently. In addition, the ARA
will play a role in helping to define the substance of the planning process
by ensuring that the analytic agenda employed during task force delibe-
rations is responsive to all relevant policy guidance and issues that are
believed to be important in an appropriate order of priority.
D-l
-------
December, 1980
MTF OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
Task force meetings will be held once each week at a regular time and
place during the January through June period when the planning process
is most active. Each member, or his/her designated alternate, is
expected to attend all meetings. A written agenda will be prepared
and circulated in advance of each meeting by the planning process
manager after consultation with each of the MTF chairs who will, of
course, have overall responsibility for establishing the task force
agenda and for conducting the meetings. In addition to publishing
agendas in advance, the ARA will provide other necessary secretariat
and housekeeping services in accordance with the RA's memorandum of
December 17, 1980. These services will include the following:
0 insuring that product due dates are maintained in
effect throughout the duration of the process;
0 helping to establish appropriate response intervals
with respect to required reviews, replies and de-
cisions undertaken as part of the deliberative pro-
cess;
0 maintaining and publishing a record of actions taken
during task force meetings and distributing these
results to appropriate staff;
0 devising a structured and documented appeals process
for consideration of the RA and task force management.
The RA and the planning process manager will hold senior managers and
others accountable for their participation in the planning process.
This will be done formally through work plans and performance standards,
as well as through day-to-day contacts and discussions of progress.
Specific discussions in this regard are likely to become a part of the
agenda covered in the RA's regular meetings with Division Managers.
D-2
-------
December, 1980
MTF OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
Finally, it is proposed that the Region's media task force strategies be
compiled and defined with greater speed and precision than was accomplished
last year. A clear focus on strategy updating and refinement (rather
than working from a zero base) should facilitate this proposal. A four-staged
process such as depicted below is suggested as a means to characterize the
sequence of MTF deliberations. Task force chairs can take appropriate steps
to adapt this suggested sequence to their own situations.
Stage Qne_
- Review of FY81 strategy, inculding:
.. discussion of progress made and accomplishments
.. identification of carryover issues
.. assessment of adequacy of goals/priorities statements
- Identification of "new" issues requiring MTF commitments
and action in FY82 or beyond
- Discussion and agreement on staff assignments
Stage Two
Presentation and discussion of staff papers on:
.. condition of the ambient environment in the medium
.. identification of pollution problem areas and "hot spots"
.. existing and anticipated programmatic, managerial,
operational, or other capabilities.
(NOTE: suggestion that staff papers be completed and
distributed for review by MTF members prior to the meeting)
Initial discussion of regional, multistate, and state specific
MTF priorities for FY82
Discussion and agreement on staff assignments to prepare strategy
draft incorporating the findings of meetings one and two.
Stage Three
Presentation and discussion of draft MTF strategy
Initial clustering of recommended and agreed upon priorities
(top, mid-level, low...), etc.
Discussion and agreement on staff assignments for stage four
including for example:
.. Coordinators to solicit State comments on draft.
.. Chairman (and others) to secure RA's comments on draft.
.. RMB to provide financial/resource assessment on
achievability of priorities as listed.
.. Specialized units (Enforcement, S&A, OIEP, GLNPO, etc.)
to prepare or expand upon strategy statements within
their respective areas of expertise.
.. Etc.
D-3
-------
December, 1980
Stage Four
- Presentation and discussion of material resulting from staff
assignments.
- Presentation and discussion of proposed final priorities for
FY82 strategy
- Identification of unresolved issues requiring preparation of
minority reports and RA decisions.
- Staff assignments for preparation of final report(s) to the RA.
Following Stage Four
- Final report preparation and forwarding to RA for approval
- Follow-up meetings between the RA, MTF Chairman, and others
as required.
D-4
-------
December, 1980
STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS
As has been the case with respect to the various components of MTF
strategy-making, no major new departures are expected in the area of
SEA agreement formulation for this coming year. Our goal for the
development of SEAs remains the same: these documents remain important
tools for top management to identify general program directions and
specific environmental or programmatic priorities to be addressed in
each of the states over the coming year (and beyond). The priorities,
in turn, contribute directly to and guide preparation of program work
plans and grant applications by each of the states.
The one major refinement in the SEA process involves the participation
of the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator will be pre-
pared to meet with each of his state agency counterparts prior to the
senior management negotiating sessions. During these meetings, the RA
will be reviewing and closing out FY80 SEAs and discussing important
developments that have occured relative to the current SEAs for FY81.
The State Coordinators will prepare and brief the RA on progress and
accompany him on these visits.
In our deliberations concerning SEA format, we need not rigidly adhere
to the formal guidance that have been set forth in the attached time
table. It is recognized that each state constitutes a different set of
circumstances and that uniformity in these kinds of negotiations cannot
be rigidly enforced. What will be important in all of these delibera-
tions is that EPA and the individual states come to substantial agreement
on general directions to be followed early on in the process. This
includes the early identification of priority focus areas (assisted and
E-l
-------
December, 1980
A STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS (Continued)
guideded by associated statements within MTF strategies), their relative
degree of importance, and the level of effort that will be required to
address these problems.
The process for FY82 has already begun with the publication of the
November/December issue of Environment Midwest. Contained in this special
issue are the Region's SEA goals and expectations for the current work
year, as well as some of the specific improvements we expect to negotiate
for FY82. It is our intent to move the process along more quickly than
has been the case in the past in that intend to conclude SEA negotiations
and final arrangements by no later than the end of June, 1981 for each
of the six states. This timing will better insure that the SEAs, in
fact, "drive" state program planning and internal Regional planning and
performance standards write-ups to the maximum feasible extent.
In order to achieve this goals, SEA agreement-making will require more
top-level staff attention at the very beginning of the process. This
means we will be focusing earlier on important issues while avoiding
the pitfalls of getting bogged down in too many details. Most program-
specific details and "problem-solving approaches" can be worked out during
the course of the State-EPA work plan development process which will
occur throughout the summer. Assignment of the Assistant to the Regional
Administrator as principal coordinator of the SEA process will help
provide the attention and consistency desired.
Finally, in order for SEAs to be useful, there needs to be a better
level of understanding on the part of top management as to where we are
E-2
-------
December, 1980
STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS (Continued)
with respect to developments taking place during the current work year
under existing SEAs. Accordingly, it will be necessary for us to develop
and put in place a system that tracks and monitors accomplishments and
program outputs.
E-3
-------
December, 1980
FY1982 STATE/EPA AGREEMENT TIMETABLE
TASKS
1. State Coordinators and States develop
public participation mechanisms for
the Agreements with the States
2. FY82 HQ guidance received by Region
3. States and EPA prepare media strategies
4. RA and State Coordinators visit State
Directors, review FY80 SEA Agreements
5. States and EPA negotiate "Highlighted
Issues"
6. EPA and States evaluate progress on the
FY81 Agreement and conduct FY80 Mid-Year
Evaluations
7. General "Problem Solving Approaches" to
highlight issues discussed as prelude
to State guidance
8. State Coordinators and States complete
first draft of the Agreements
9. States and EPA negotiate remaining dif-
ferences on general program directions,
strategy, and highlights
10. State Coordinators and States prepare
final drafts of the Agreements; dis-
tribution for public comment
11. State Specific Guidances delivered to
the States; meetings between State and
EPA follow to discuss and interpret
guidance relative to draft SEA's
12. Agreements signed
13. Submission of State Work Plans
14. EPA sends formal program plan comments
to States
15. Program plan PSA's incorporated into
SEA and States hold public hearing on grants
DEADLINES
December 15, 1980
January 1, 1981
January 30, 1981
January 15/
February 2, 1981
February
April 1
April 10
April 17
April 17 - May 1
May 8
May 11
June 19
July 1
August 3
August 3
E-4
-------
December, 1980
FY1982 STATE/EPA AGREEMENT TIMETABLE (Continued)
16. States Submit Grant Applications and
Final Work Programs September 1
17. Grant awards October 1
E-5
------- |