vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and
Waste Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
4409795042
October 1979
Annual Report
State-EPA Agreements
EP
79-504-
978-9
-------
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS SUMMARY
During late June and early July, 1979, teams from Headquarters visited
each Region to gather information for the first annual State/EPA Agreement
Report. The purpose of the report is to assess the current status of the
process, its strengths and weaknesses, and to determine what needs to be
done to make it a more useful instrument in the future.
The Annual Report synthesizes what was learned from the 10 Regional
Reports which are attached. These have been gathered together to serve
as a data source, an historical record, and to provide and exchange of ideas
and information to each of the Regions. The major findings emanating from
the reports are summarized in the paragraphs that follow. Some examples
of successes have been mentioned. Review of the various reports will un-
doubtedly reveal other ideas, approaches or solutions which might be appli-
cable in other regions. Direct communication between Regions is encouraged
in these cases. A list of the Regional SEA contacts with addresses and
telephone numbers is at the end of this summary.
In addition to the reports, a copy of the questionnaire developed to
gather information is appended; it may serve as a useful checklist in struc-
turing, reviewing or analyzing future Agreements.
Status of Agreements
In FY 1979, SEAs were not mandatory; however, seven Regions and 32 States
executed Agreements. These were almost totally associated with water programs
and were process or program-oriented.
The SEAs became mandatory for FY 1980, and the scope was expanded to in-
clude programs under the CWA, SDWA and RCRA. A significant number of Regions
and States are including Air, even though it is not mandatory. Negotiations
are in process now and it is expected that all Regions and States will execute
Agreements by October 1979. It is apparent that a shift has begun from process/
program-oriented issues to environmental/problem-oriented priorities.
Regional and State Organizational Approaches
The Regions approach the process differently. The organizational structures
can be grouped into three types.
o An SEA task force that includes staff from the covered programs.
o Lead taken by the RA with an office designated to handle the
process. There is generally little program staff involvement
in this arrangement.
o Use of existing organizations, usually with a Division desig-
nated to lead and with staff support from covered programs.
Regardless of what organization is used it is obvious that active continuous
program staff involvement enhances the quality and value of the Agreement.
-------
The States also differ in their procedure and organization. Two types
of organization emerge, however.
o A single environmental agency leads for the State and is
responsible for all covered program.
o Various State agencies conduct individual negotiations for
each program grant area. This is frequently accompanied by
an "umbrella" agreement with the Governor or Director of
the State agency involved.
Achievements
Cross-cutting problem oriented issues are being addressed. Examples:
St. Albans Bay in Vermont (Region I) and the Salsbury Chemical Plant in
Charles City, Iowa (Region VII).
The Agreements are being used as management tools. Example: Region X
is using the agreement for its mid-year evaluation and is developing five-year
strategies for all programs.
The Agreements have improved coordination and communications within the
States. Example: Region II, the FY 1979 Agreement reestablished cooperation
and coordination between the State Department of Public Health and the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation regarding water quality and supply issues.
Coordination and communication between the Region and the State is im-
proved. Example: Region III Administrator has used the Agreement as a ve-
hicle to brief State Legislators, laying groundwork for legislative and budget
actions within the States.
Improvements Needed
The EPA Agency Guidance should be released in a timely fashion to assist
the Regions and the states in negotiating the State/EPA Agreements.
Public participation should be improved. The Regions, generally, need
to take a stronger role and ensure that the public is involved early and sub-
stantially.
Full and comprehensive use of program staffs must be a hallmark of the
Regional SEA process. Their intimate knowledge of work programs, grant appli-
cation requirements, program requirements and tracking needs are essential to
the effective development and management of the Agreements.
Funding flexibility authority and procedures should be liberalized in
order to take advantage of the integrated approach to problem-solving. Cur-
ent practice limits the States' flexibility to deal with cross-cutting pri-
ority issues.
Future State/EPA Agreement Policy and Guidance must include all EPA
media programsthat is, the programs under the Offices of Enforcement, Air,
Noise and Radiation and Toxic Substances, as well as those programs under the
Office of Water and Waste Management. Equally important, the EPA commitment
to the State/EPA Agreement process must be maintained at the Administrator,
Assistant Administrator and Regional Administrator levels.
11
-------
Conclusions
Overall, the Regional assessment indicates that in the first year of
implementation, the State/EPA Agreement process has been largely process
and program-oriented, but shows definite promise of moving toward substan-
tive program integration. Generally, the Regions are enthusiastic and have
made good progress toward meeting the overall goals of the State/EPA
Agreement process.
o Organization: To date, there is a higher correlation of success in
those Regions where staff from the program offices are directly in-
volved in the State/EPA Agreement process, than in those Regions
where a non-program office has responsibility. This is due to the
program staff's knowledge of specific statutory and regulatory re-
quirements and their ability to track and evaluate progress.
o Coordination/Integration: A start has been made. Communications
among Regional Offices and the States have been improved. Overall,
however, the State/EPA Agreements are largely program or process-
oriented and must evolve in the direction of program integration if
the State/EPA Agreement process is to be a success.
o State/EPA Agreement as a Decision Document/Management Tool; The
State/EPA Agreement process has focused management attention on iden-
tifying priorities and has caused the Regional Offices and the States
to think in terms of cross-cutting (or integrating) environmental
issues as well as solutions. "Tracking" arrangements vary in quality.
o State/EPA Agreement as a Communication/Information Document:
According to most of the Regions, the process of State/EPA Agreement
development has benefitted communication with the States.
o Reduction of Procedural and Substantive Duplication: Experience to
date has not resulted in a reduction of paperwork or procedural re-
quirements primarily because there has not yet been integration of
State grant programs. The potential exists for procedural and sub-
stantive duplications to decrease as integration improves.
iii
-------
SEA CONTACTS
REGION I
George Mollineaux
EPA - Region I
Water Division
JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
8-223-5633
REGION II
Michael Bonchonsky
EPA - Region II
Water Division
26 Federal Plaza
Room 1009
New York, NY 10007
REGION III
Nick DeBenedictis
TPA - Region III
Curtis Bldg.
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
8-597-3654
REGION IV
Jim Silva
EPA - Region IV
Program Integration & Operations
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
8-257-2139
REGION V
Nancy Philippi
EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
8-353-2000
(5RA)
REGION VI
Ray Lozano
EPA - Region VI
RA's Office
First International Bldg.
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
8-729-2650
REGION VII
Don Christenson, Director
External Affairs
EPA - Region VII
324 East 11 Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
8-758-3143
REGION VIII
Terry Anderson
Air Division
EPA - Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80203
8-327-3926
REGION IX
Frank Covington, Director
Water Division
EPA - Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
8-556-0893
REGION X
Julie Erickson
Resource Management Branch
EPA - Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
8-399-1250
-------
REGION I SEA TRIP REPORT
Introduction
Background Information
The survey was conducted by Art Glazer (Office of Solid Waste) and
Tom Kelly (Office of Planning and Management) on June 26 and June 27, 1979
in the Regional Office. In addition, Tom Kelly discussed SEA's with the
State of Vermont during his visit there on June 28, 1979.
Persons Contacted: Mr. George Mollineaux, 106 Coordinator and SEA Contact
for Region I
Mr. Paul Bryan, 105 Coordinator for Region I
Mr. David Fierra, Assistant Commissioner, Massachusetts
Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering
Mr. Larry Sheehan, Section Chief, Construction Grants
Program - VT, NH, ME Section
Mr. Dennis Huebner, Chief, Solid Waste Program
Mr. Robert Thompson, Regional Counsel
Mr. Reginald LaRosa, Director, Environmental Engineering
Division, State of Vermont
Mr. William Brierly, Construction Grant Chief, State of
Vermont
Mr. Richard Czaplinski, 208 Program - Vermont
Ms. Marilyn Davis, Environmental Engineer - Vermont
Mr. Harold Garabedian, Air and Solid Waste Program -
Vermont
Regional Overview
In general the SEA experience has been fruitful. SEA's have clearly
expedited the resolution of several issues that have been difficult to
deal with in the past. More specifically, the SEA process has (1) opened
up avenues of discussion between different programs, (2) allowed the RA
and top State officials to focus on major issues and provide management
review and direction if needed and (3) provided an opportunity for EPA
and the States to jointly identify and agree on what the significant en-
vironmental issues in each State are. The only major problem from the
Regional Office's perspective appears to be tracking the large number of
issues (60-75) identified by the SEA process. The initial solution to
this problem is to conduct quarterly meetings for the project managers
to report to the RA and DRA the status of each issue.
SEA FY 1979
Status of Agreements
State Date Finalized
Maine 2/1/79
Massachusetts 4/25/79
New Hampshire 2/5/79
Rhode Island 3/28/79
-------
Status of Agreements (Continued)
State Date Finalized
Vermont 11/28/78
Connecticut No FY 79 SEA. Efforts
were directed toward
an SEA for FY 80
Regional In-house Process for Developing FY 79 SEA's
1. During July 1978 preliminary instructions were sent to each
State environmental agency outlining the SEA system.
2. During August 1978 preliminary lists of major management
and environmental issues were developed by Region I's Grants
Policy Committee (DRA, Division and Office Directors) for
each State.
3. These lists were discussed with each State agency and through
a negotiation process about 12 specific issues were agreed
upon for development. The DRA led the negotiating team.
4. EPA staff level personnel were assigned to develop work plans
in conjunction with specific individuals at each State agency.
5. All draft issues were reviewed for consistency, finalized and
combined into the individual SEA's. Each SEA was signed by
the Region I RA, the head of the State environmental agency
and, except for Massachuseets, the Governor.
The organization set up to complete this task included overall
direction from the Grants Policy Committee, staff coordination from the SEA
coordinator located in the Water Division, and the Project Managers from
the various divisions who were assigned to specific issues.
Signators
The following is a list of the individuals who signed the agreements
in each State:
Maine
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection
Governor
RA
Massachusetts
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
RA
-------
Signators (Continued)
New Hampshire
Executive Director, NH Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission
Governor
RA
Rhode Island
Director, Department of Environmental Management
Governor
RA
Vermont
Secretary, Agency of Environmental Conservation
Governor
RA
Public Participation
Public participation was spotty in the SEA process. The Region relied
on the public participation activities carried out under the individual
program grants.
Priority Areas
In the Regional Office, the priority areas were selected by the Grants
Policy Committee. Each committee member presented a list of major issues.
A ranking process was used to identify the top 12 to 15 issues in each
State. These issues were presented to each State at meetings held in their
offices; and, based on these meetings, the final lists of issues for the
SEA's were developed.
In general, the issues listed in the agreements agree with EPA
National Guidance. Region I States emphasize certain programs, such as
Clean Lakes, to a greater extent than the National average; and in a few
cases there are "hot" State specific issues that are not high National
priorities but are of major importance to the States involved. The priori-
ties included a mix of one-year and multi-year items and covered program
areas other than water.
The specific priority areas for each State are as follows:
Maine
Delegation of Construction Grant Program
Delegation of NPDES Permit Program
Response to environmental emergencies
Implementation of an enforcement policy for point and non-point
sources
Clean Lakes Program
Development of a solid waste management plan
-------
Establishment of a hazardous waste management program
Better coordination for all environmental programs
Revision of State implementation plan
Improved coordination with EPA for new source permit reviews
Massachusetts
Delegation of Construction Grant Program
Improvement of response to environmental emergencies
Assessment of need for advanced wastewater treatment in specific
locations
Improvement of coordination with EPA for new source permit reviews
Delegation of NPDES Permit Program
Establish a working group to consolidate activities concerning
Boston Harbor's environmental problems
Improvement of SEA process
Creation of a central office for public participation
Creation of a division responsible for solid and hazardous waste
disposal
New Hampshire
Monitoring program, Town of Wolfboro spray irrigation system
Integrated point and non-point source water quality management
planning
Development of FY 80 SEA
Delegation of Construction Grant Program
Response to environmental emergencies
Kezar Lake restoration study
Resolution of Construction Grant Issues
Begin implementation of drinking water regulations
Improved coordination with EPA for new source permit reviews
Clean Lakes program
Procurement of engineering services for Construction Grants Program
Rhode Island
Management of SEA effort
Implementation of Section 404 of Clean Water Act
Revision of State Implementation Plan
Water quality in Providence Metropolitan Area
Water quality management planning
Response to environmental emergencies
Improved coordination with EPA for new source permit reviews
Providence Metropolitan area wastewater treatment projects
Vermont
Delegation of Construction Grant Program
Dredge and fill permits, wetlands protection
Better coordination for all environmental programs
St. Alban's Bay restoration project
-------
Development of a noise program
Streamline present NPDES permit system
Revision of State Implementation Plan
Formulate a multi-media toxic substance control strategy
Respond to environmental emergencies
Determine role of the Waste Treatment Management Planning Board
relative to the total Water Quality Management Program
Develop a polciy on advanced waste treatment
Improved coordination with EPA for new source permit reviews
Specific Successes/Problems
There are numerous examples of areas where Region I SEA's have been
successful, including:
o In general, by using project managers, responsibilities were
assigned to staff people who have a major impact on the success
or failure of the issue.
o In New Hampshire, the bimonthly meetings on the Construction
Grant Program have been very helpful in resolving policy issues
and for discussing problems on specific projects.
o In Vermont, the SEA helped focus on the issue of whether or not
the Wetlands Permit Program could be delegated to the State. It
was finally decided that delegation was not feasible since many
of the wetland areas are national property under the jurisdiction
of the Corps of Engineers.
o In Vermont, the SEA has provided an excellent mechanism for EPA
and the State to manage the St. Alban's Bay Restoration Project.
o In Vermont, the State Director of Environmental Engineering found
the SEA helpful when dealing with the State Legislature. The SEA
clearly and simply highlights the major environmental issues in
the State and shows what specific commitments the State has made
to EPA for which additional resources and legislative support
might be needed.
o In general, SEA has expedited revisions to State Implementation
Plans.
o In New Hampshire, 208 funds are now being used for looking at
alternatives to treatment plants, i.e., septic tanks.
There have not been many problem areas. The more major ones are:
o It is difficult to get the public interested in SEA's. The public
seems to be more interested in specific projects rather than the
broader issues and problems that are addressed in the SEA's.
-------
o The ZBB process and SEA process are not phased properly. ZBB
and SEA's should be done at the same time. By the time SEA's
are negotiated the resources have already been assigned under ZBB.
SEA FY 1980
Regional Process
The process is similar to the process used in FY 79. There is more
emphasis on trying to coordinate ZBB, the SEA process and the State program
grants. The Grants Policy Committee will play a major role in formulating
the strategy for this coordination. The SEA Coordinator again will be the
Regional 106 Coordinator and is located in the Water Programs Division. The
Regional 105 Coordinator will provide substantial support in FY 80. In
addition to the air programs, the 105 Coordinator will be responsible for
overseeing all issues related to the Air and Hazardous Materials Division.
Where more than one State agency will be involved in developing and
implementing the agreements, EPA will urge coordination but not insist on
one agreement in the State. EPA will negotiate more than one agreement and
will seek the Governor's approval and an "umbrella" statement.
See Attachment A for a detailed discussion of the Region's FY 80
procedures.
Schedule
As of June 26, meetings to discuss 1980 SEA's have been conducted with
the major environmental agency in all States except Rhode Island and semi-
final lists of issues established. Draft agreements are expected by August 1,
except for maybe Rhode Island. Final agreements are expected on September 1.
All agreements should be signed by October 1.
Priorities
There have been some changes over the FY 79 priorities. The changes
are because some items were completed in FY 79, and new program areas have
been added in FY 80.
Public Involvement
Public participation is mostly being conducted at the State level. The
major technique being used is the "public meeting" with an open discussion of
issue selection. Public involvement has increased compared to FY 79; how-
ever, it is still very difficult to generate public interest in as broad a
topic as the SEA. For example, Vermont sent out 200 notices to potentially
interested persons; and only several showed up at the public meeting. In
addition, Connecticut spent approximately $10K to announce and hold a public
meeting. However, attendance was poor.
-------
Reporting/Tracking
Specific milestone accomplishments are expected from each State and
Region I on all Agreement issues. Commitment will be assured on EPA's
part by holding quarterly status meetings and developing recommendations
on either State or EPA deficiencies. It is unlikely that any major in-
creased or decreases in paper work will occur during FY 80. General Agency
reporting requirements will increase somewhat in order to track the "State
specific" items that are included in some SEA's. However, in general, the
staff thinks these items should be tracked in any event because of their
significance.
Regional Recommendation for SEA Process
o Keep the requirements flexible. SEA's must be tailored to each
Region's management style in order for the SEA process to be
effective.
o Continue to publicize success stories.
o Issue National Operating Guidance no later than January of each
year.
Survey Team Comments
The SEA process has been received well in Region I. This is illustrated
by the fact that five of six States signed agreements in FY 79, and all will
sign in FY 80. In addition, in FY 79, program areas were covered in agree-
ments that went beyond the requirements.
The problem areas that were identified in Region I are general problems
and not Region specific. In spite of these general problems, the number of
successes was great. The Regional office has initiated an internal manage-
ment system based on the SEA principle of joint problem identification and
joint commitment.
-------
Attachment A
(This memorandum has been retyped for clarity in printing,)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: April 2, 1979
SUBJECT: FY 80 State/EPA Agreements: Coordination with ZBB and Program
Grants
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanmer, Deputy Regional Administrator
TO: William R. Adams, Jr., Regional Administrator
The Grants Policy Committee* met on February 27 to consider means for
coordinating the Region's activities during this fiscal year in connection
with Zero Based Budgeting, State program grants and the State/EPA Agreement
("SEA") process. Out of that meeting have come a number of agreements and
recommendations which will strengthen the Region's abilities to manage
each of those processes in a manner which coordinates with the others.
As you know, Region I has decided to negotiate State/EPA Agreements for
FY 80 with each State agency receiving an EPA program grant** covering all
media. (In FY 79 we aimed for SEA's with all States. With some exceptions,
only in Vermont were all media covered.) Therefore it was appropriate
for the Grants Policy Committee to explore means to be as efficient as
possible in carrying out the workload associated with this broader goal.
The Grants Policy Committee has agreed upon the following matters:
1. Signatories. We will negotiate individual sections of the SEA with each
program grant recipient and tie sections together with a covering agreement
signed by the agency heads (as to their particular sections) and the
Governor.
2. Scheduling. All SEA's will be signed by October 1. All State program
grants will be fully negotiated by that date. (According to Tom Jorling's
February 27, 1979 SEA guidance, no program grants are to be made under
§§106 and 205(g) of the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and other programs until
an SEA has been completed.)
3. Coverage. We will aim for the top twelve issues in each State.
Given our experiences with the FY 79 SEA's which covered twelve issues,
we feel that it would be difficult for top management to track any more
than that in FY 80. Expanding the SEA to cover all media will mean that
we have to be confident that the Region's selection of priority issues is
correct.
*A list of Grants Policy Committee members appears at the end of this
memorandum.
**A list of State agencies which receive EPA program grants is attached as
Appendix A (withdrawn).
-------
4. The ZBB process as the Starting Point. We feel that the identification
of key SEA issues should take place at the time the Region and the States
are going through the multi-media reviews associated with the ZBB process.
Each of the members of the Grants Policy Committee has committed himself
to read all of the Headquarters guidance just prior to the April 16
meeting at which the Region's suggested list of key SEA issues will be
put together. The States will presumably have become familiar with
those portions of the guidance which bear on their own programs and will
have begun the process of quantifying planned program commitments at the
time the Region's list of key SEA issues is sent to them and they are
requested to identify their own lists of key SEA issues.
This sequence of events is shown on the schedule appearing below.
5. Concurrent Program Grant and SEA Negotiations. Due to the resource
relationships between SEA and program grants, we have decided that the
negotiation process for both documents should take place concurrently. Any
special priorities for resources which become apparent as a result of this
focus on key SEA issues should be reflected in the program grants.
6. Multi-year Strategy Development. In the SEA, each key issue will be
placed in context by a short description of the long-range program for
resolving the issue. This will place the current one-year program in
context. This will be a new feature of the FY 80 SEA's. With our emphasis
on brevity and relevance, I feel that preparation of these short statements
will be relatively painless and certainly worthwhile. We will also seek
short (not to exceed two pages) multi-year strategy statements for each of
the program grants.
7. The timetable of Events for FY 80. Here is a schedule of activities
for the remainder of this fiscal year which illustrates how the Region
will coordinate the three processes:
February/March 1. Receive draft guidance.
2. Receive final guidance.
3. Send draft/final guidance to States.
4. Consult with States on guidance.
5. Regional personnel begin to identify
candidate key SEA issues.
-------
March/April
Apr11/May
May/June
June/July
August
September
October
1. Senior managers review all guidance documents.
2. Grants Policy Committee meets to review
progress on ongoing FY 79 SEA's (scheduled
for April 9). This meeting could produce
agenda items for EPA's mid-year evaluation
of State programs.
3. Grants Policy Committee meets to review FY 80
guidance priorities and identify up to twelve
suggested key SEA issues per State (scheduled
for April 16 and 17).
4. Region sends States:
a. List of suggested key SEA issues
b. Application forms for program grants
States develop lists of key issues and send to
EPA (due by May 15).
DRA visits States to confer and agree on:
a. Mutual list of key SEA issues
b. Names of project managers
1. Project managers prepare draft work plans for
SEA issues (due by August 1).
2. Selected draft program grant applications begin
to arrive in Region.
3. Grants Policy Committee hold third-quarter
review of outstanding SEA's.
1. Project managers prepare final SEA work plans
(due September 1).
2. EPA program grant managers review and comment upon
draft program grant applications.
1. Region I and States finalize SEA's and prepare
for signing.
2. Region I and States agree on final terms of
program grants.
1. All SEA's are signed.
2. All terms of program grants are agreed upon.
10
-------
3. First set of §105 CAA grants is made.
4. Grants Policy Committee holds fourth-quarter
review of outstanding SEA's, prepares and sends
final report.
November/December 1. Region I receives advices of allowance for
FY 80 program grant funds.
2. Region I makes program grants for all media.
8. The New Grants Administration Group. I have asked all program grant
managers in Region I to form a group, to be called the Grants Administration
Group, under the chairmanship of the Management Division Director. The
purposes of the Group are:
1. To develop common procedures and timetables for carrying out program
grant functions and to exchange ideas on how to improve the process.
2. To identify the best means for carrying out public participation in
the SEA/program grant cycle.
3. To identify means for eliminating excess paperwork in the process,
including establishing page limits for program descriptions and other
grant documents.
4. To coordinate SEA work with program grant work carried on in and
among their respective programs.
5. To demonstrate whether or not such a Group is the best means of
achieving administrative coordination among separate programs (as
opposed to a more centralized organizational structure).
9. Oversight by the Grants Policy Committee. The Grants Policy Committee
has agreed to conduct regularly quarterly reviews of each SEA. The individual
project managers will be asked to furnish a very brief written account of
performance under each work plan in advance of each quarterly meeting. At the
meeting, each project manager will give a brief (five minutes or less) des-
cription of where his project stands, and time permitting, will answer ques-
tions from the Committee. The Committee has already had one such meeting
(February 21, on Vermont) which went well, although we did not ask for writ-
ten statements at this first meeting. I think that it is a good idea to limit
each meeting to two hours or so in order to avoid saturation, so it may be
necessary to space the quarterly meeting process over two or three days.
10. RA and DRA Follow-up After Quarterly SEA Reviews. Plans for follow-up
within the Region can be made at the regular meetings with individual senior
staff members following each quarterly review meeting.
In addition, we will follow up with each State agency. This could either
involve a telephone conversation, sending progress notes to a State, or a
visit. In either case, the RA and/or DRA will touch base with the State
agency head and agree on any mutual follow-up measures. After the February
11
-------
meeting, I sent Tex LaRosa our notes from the review and he replied in writing.
Although it is too early to tell whether or not this would work, I am also
giving thought to the possibility of having the State agency heads come to
the quarterly review meetings. I would appreciate your thoughts on this
as well.
11. Side Benefits of SEA's. The SEA process will have a number of interest-
ing side benefits.
a. Spillover of SEA Techniques to General Program Management. The
idea of identifying and agreeing upon priority issues, developing work
plans (with schedules) and assigning clear-cut responsibility for
implementing those work plans is not limited to the SEA context. It
is perfectly appropriate for program managers to use the same tech-
niques for resolving issues which have sub-SEA priority.
b. The SEA Process as an Integrating Process. In contrast with other
approaches to State/EPA Agreements which have been tried in EPA, the
Region I approach stresses the integrated and integrating nature of
the process whereby final agreements are reached, rather than attempt-
ing to prepare final documents which cover all programs and all media
in a comprehensive way. The Region I approach accomplishes the task
of integrating programs and media during the interactive process among
the senior managers of those programs both at the State and Regional
levels. The Region I approach imposes a discipline on the process by
focusing on priorities at all stages. Because the selection of priori-
ties is done by the collective work of the most senior and experienced
Regional managers, assisted by their staffs and in coordination with
the ZBB process, we can have a high degree of confidence that those
priorities are truly the issues we should focus on. By narrowing down
to 12 issues per state (72 in all, not accounting for overlap of issues
among States), we arrive at a manageable workload.
In sum, the Region I approach to SEA's provides comprehensive,
integrated coverage of all programs and media in a format which our
senior managers, including the RA and the DRA, can use as an effective
management tool.
c. Improved Regional Management. The SEA process acts as a continuous
screening device for bringing priority items to the attention of top
management. The Grants Policy Committee is a good forum for resolution
of policy issues, expecially on inter-divisional items affecting State
relations. It is also an excellent forum for information exchange on
all priority issues. Judging from the results of the February 21 meet-
ing, the quarterly SEA overview meetings will eliminate the need for
numerous side meetings which would otherwise occur.
d. Identification of High Potentials. The project managers designated
in SEA's will be very visible to top management in the Region. The
oral and written progress reports as part of the quarterly overview
process will enable us to assess their performance, both in terms of
results achieved as well as the thoughtfulness and style with which
they do their work.
12
-------
e. Information Spreading. It will be possible for Regional Personnel
who are not actually working in the various programs to obtain infor-
mation on all programs by reading the SEA's and the quarterly reports.
In addition, the project managers who attend quarterly overview meet-
ings will participate in the discussions of all key SEA issues. Final-
ly, the Grants Administration Group will be a vital forum for informa-
tion exchange across traditional program lines. All in all, improved
information flows should lead to enhanced multi-media problem-solving
capabilities.
12. SEA's and Program Accountability, Relationship to Performance Agreements.
The SEA's are excellent management tools for evaluating the performance of
Region I managers at all levels. During the quarterly reviews, the RA and
DRA will be able to judge for themselves whether or not the project managers
are performing satisfactorily on their individual projects. The performance
of supervisors at all levels can be judged on the basis of the overall per-
formance of their units in carrying out the high-priority SEA assignments.
This information can be used in evaluating senior management and other super-
visors for purposes of merit pay, etc.
13. Grants Policy Committee Membership. The current members of the Grants
Policy Committee are:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator
b. Regional Counsel
c. Water Programs Division Director
d. Enforcement Division Director
e. Air and Hazardous Materials Program Division Director
f. Surveillance and Analysis Division Director
g. Management Division Director
h. Director, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
In view of the management opportunities offered by the Grants Policy
Committee, you might want to consider chairing it yourself, with me as
vice-chairman or co-chairman.
13
-------
REGION II SEA TRIP REPORT
Introduction
Background Information
Dates of Survey: June 20, 21, 1979; conducted by Art Glazer (Office of Solid
Waste) and Tom Kelly (Office of Planning & Management)
Persons Contacted:
a. Policy - Mr. Dick Dewling, DRA
b. Process - Mr. Mike Bonchonsky, Toxics
Mr. Steve Luftig
Ms. JoAnn Brennan
c. Components - Mr. Mike Bonchonsky, New York; Toxics
Mr. Bill McCabe, Puerto Rico; 201
Mr. Jim Rooney, New Jersey; 208
Ms. Andrea Sklarew, Virgin Islands; Water Supply
Mr. Harry Smith, Water Supply
Mr. Mike DeBonis, Solid Waste
Mr. Bill Baker, Air
Mr. Alex Salpeter, Air
Mr. Jeff Zelikson, Water Division
Mr. Ray Pfortner, Public Participation
d. Administration/Finance:
Mr. Mike Bonchonsky
e. State Representative:
Mr. Al Bromberg, New York
Regional Overview
1. Characterization of Regional SEA Experience
Region II is a pioneer in the State/EPA Agreement process. The
Regional Administrator initiated the first SEA in the country with New
York State. By and large, Regional staff take substantial pride in their
initiative, and strongly endorse the special character of their approach:
to include all program resources in the SEA. Many staff count the cost of
energy and time consumed in the development of the first document, however,
and look forward to the preparation of simpler, more manageable documents
in 1980. As one staffer put it, "If the SEA isn't simple, it can't be
what it's intended to be: a management tool."
Although New York is the only State that completed an Agreement in FY
1979, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands will sign agreements
in FY 1980. In FY 1979 the New York Agreement covered Clean Water Act programs,
14
-------
as well as Water Supply, Solid Waste, and Toxics. The 1980 Agreements will
include these programs and add Air. According to Region II staff, the prin-
cipal function of the SEA is to improve day-to-day coordination and manage-
ment of environmental programs between States and the Regional Office. And
while the possibility of reallocation or pooling of grant funds authorized
by separate legislative paragraphs is enticing, it is the more ordinary
virtues of the SEA which attract the most support within the States and
Regional Office. The principal advantages cited by most respondents were:
improved mutual priority setting by State and RO; an appropriate focus on
environmental problems, rather than just on routine program administration;
and increased communication and cooperation between State and Regional
staff, and among the staffs of different programs at both levels.
2. Major Successes and Problem Areas
Successes:
o Comprehensiveness: The New York SEA for 1979 is notable for its
coverage of all program elements in the Clean Water Act, RCRA,
SDWA, and TSCA. Regional and State staff, with the aid of a con-
tractor, were able to agree on general principles and shared
understandings in these areas.
o Problem Orientation: The New York FY 79 SEA and documents in
preparation succeed in focusing attention on principal trouble
spots in States, as well as on routine program administration.
In this respect, the SEA has lent greater order and formality to
the State/Regional planning process, since Regional staff are now
involved in identifying State priorities to a greater extent than
before, when the principal negotiation tool was the grant
application.
o Building on Successful Planning Approaches: The principal priority-
setting technique for SEA's in Region II builds on a process already
in place. The Environmental Assessment Process allows Regional
staff to analyze water problems, basin by basin. This process was
used successfully as the principal means to identify problems to be
included in the SEA.
o Better Communication and Coordination: Regional staff reported that
the process of developing SEA's has brought personnel from separate
programs into more frequent and substantive contact with one another
than before. With this communication has come better understanding
of common problems and the contributions which people of different
experience and responsibilities can make to problem solving. The
same is true in New York State, where, according to several respond-
ents, the SEA process was principally responsible for the reestab-
lishment of effective cooperation between the Department of Public
Health regarding water purity and supply issues.
15
-------
o Paperwork Reduction: Although preparing the SEA itself caused a
substantial increase in paperwork in the first year, the work
required to apply for and award the 106 grant was substantially
reduced. In subsequent years, as SEA negotiation grows simpler,
a net reduction of paperwork seems likely.
o Public Participation: Despite problems of timing in some cases,
public participation in the review of the FY 1979 New York SEA and
the FY 1980 New Jersey SEA has been strong and effective. In the
case of New Jersey, organizations representing the public have
requested and obtained substantial revisions of style and content
in a December draft of the upcoming SEA.
Problem Areas
o Scope: Although the New York Agreement managed to cover all
components of its subject program at substantial length, many
staff members suggested that there was too much material involved
for day to day use. The document was so big it was intimidating.
Parenthetically, at least one Region used the New York experience
as a foil for its own efforts. Concerned by the scope of the New
York prototype, that Region spent extra effort to write brief,
manageable documents.
o Loss of Precision: Because the specific problem elements covered
in the NY 79 Agreement were embedded in long expositions of program
assumptions and philosophy, managers could not focus easily on
specific work steps for problem resolution. Action steps were pre-
sented ambiguously in many cases. The document was simply too
unwieldy for use as an everyday reference.
o Effort: Because of the emphasis on producing an unusually broad-
scope document in 1979, staff found themselves exerting long hours
of effort negotiating matters of little day to day applicability.
As one staffer put it, "We spent 50 pages of effort on 15 pages of
utility."
o Unique Governments: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands present
special problems because of their different cultural and organiza-
tional perspectives. Further, environmental problems in these
jurisdictions are severe, and Federal funds quite sparse in com-
parison with those available to larger jurisdictions. While SEA's
promise improvements in environmental programming in these areas,
there are severe organizational problems which limit any substan-
tial gains through this mechanism.
o EPA vs. State Commitment: More than one observer noted that the
direction in Region II favored State commitments to EPA rather than
the converse. It is not yet clear whether this observation will
characterize the 1980 SEA's, but several staffers suggested that
even-handed, mutual work plans are desirable.
16
-------
o Operating Plans/SEA Coordination: EPA's Annual Guidance has been
arriving in the Regions in April; Draft SEA's are due in June.
This leaves little time for adjustment of the SEA to the demands
of the Guidance. Further, the Agency's reporting system favors
ease of measurement over substance. Faced with a requirement to
issue "n" permits in a given year, the Region would be disinclined
to pour substantial time and energy into the careful negotiation
of a single key permit in a high priority problem area. PPATs
may undercut the Region's investment in SEA's in this way.
o Reliance on Contractor: Region II has used contract assistance
in the preparation of New York and New Jersey Agreements. While
such support is useful for certain tasks, it may be that the con-
tractor took too great a role initially, inflating the scope of
the first Agreement and discouraging optimal participation by the
staff which would be working with the completed document.
o Public Participation: The timing of public participation is a
problem. Because the draft SEA cannot be completed until June,
there is no opportunity for public review before summer. Since
public hearings are impractical during summer vacation periods,
they must be scheduled for Autumn, when there is little time for
the Regions to incorporate public recommendations into the SEA.
FY 1979 SEA's
New York was the only state to complete an SEA in FY 79. Staff
members at the RO analyzed water quality, water supply and solid waste
problems for each Basin, and compiled a list of priorities. The State and
RO staff negotiated an agreement on issues which seemed to be in need of
immediate action. The National Guidance was flexible enough to accommo-
date all the decisions which were made.
The work program was rather general; it is not clear how progress
evaluations could be made. Management of the SEA has been rather informal.
Program chiefs and their state counterparts are in contact weekly by tele-
phone, and a review meeting is planned for summer.
The RA has an Advisory Council which met three times during SEA
development. The Region published a 20 page brochure describing the SEA,
held limited external meetings and three general public hearings. The
publicity generated significant public interest in fact, the Region was
criticized for not providing more information.
FY 1980 SEA's
For 1980 negotiations there has been a focus on writing simpler SEA's
and increasing the emphasis on problem solving.
Regional and state staff are generally satisfied with the 1980
guidance. As one staffer stated, "Guidance is guidance, not policy."
17
-------
They feel that the guidance gives a general overview of Headquarters' goals
in implementing the SEA process, and still has sufficient flexibility for
Regions to adapt negotiations to state needs.
The Region wants to keep reporting requirements simple, and accommodate
them within the PPA reporting system, perhaps adding a few outputs based on
specific SEA understandings. In the Water Supply program there will be
special emphasis on quantitative reporting in FY 80, but this may be inde-
pendent of understandings reached in SEA negotiations.
Region II "s "noble experiment" has had mixed results. Few Regional
staffers feel that current payoff from the SEA is in proportion to the effort
expended in FY 1979. This is not to say that there have not been substantial
benefits from the FY 1979 process, but the benefits seem to have come from the
process of thinking through and negotiating solutions to environmental prob-
lems, rather than from the utility of the resulting document. Unless the
FY 1980 documents emerge as simple, concrete, accountable tools by which to
manage mutual State/EPA problem solving, there is reason to believe that the
strong group commitment which led to the first complete SEA in the country
will gradually dissipate.
18
-------
REGION III SEA TRIP REPORT
Background
On June 28 and 29, 1979 two members of the OWHM staff, Tim Icke
(Office of Water Planning & Standards) and John Trax (Office of Drinking
Water) visited the Region to collect information on the SEA process.
Persons Contacted: Nicholas DeBenedictis, Director, Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Awareness (OIRPA)
George Bochanski, Acting Chief, Public Awareness Office
Mary Lewis, Public Participation Specialist
Dan Ryan, Maryland/Delaware Program Advisor
Paul Ambrose, Maryland/Delaware Program Office
Dick Pastor, Pennsylvania Program Officer
Greene Jones, Director, Water Programs Division
Robert Allen, Chief, Hazardous Materials Branch
Henry Brubaker, Program Advisor
Regional Overview
The Region appears to be making excellent progress in developing SEA's
with each State for FY 1980. The progress is evidenced by the current
status of the agreements and projection that all SEA's will be signed by
October 1, 1979.
Since the Region did not develop SEA's for FY 1979, they had to seek
guidance and information from other Regions and Headquarters to plan and
develop the Regional SEA process. Using this information, the Region de-
veloped on its own initiative an SEA process to fit the needs and require-
ments of the Regional Office and the States within the Region.
The process that has been developed places major responsibility for
completion of the SEA on the Office of Intergovernmental Relations and Public
Awareness (OIRPA). Using existing structure, a Program Officer becomes re-
sponsible for the development of the SEA for a state or states. The Program
Officers are key to the Region III SEA experience. Thus far, they have been
able to coordinate the internal working of the Regional program staff and at
the same time, provide direction and assistance to the various state persons
involved in the process.
However, if the Region III process is a success, it will be due
primarily to the emphasis the Regional Administrator has placed on the effort.
Without the support from top management, the Program Officers would have a
more difficult, if not impossible, challenge in achieving the coordination
of the programs that is required to develop the SEA's.
The Region III SEA experience has been positive as demonstrated by the
testimony given by all persons contacted. As stated by several persons,
the key benefit derived is the awareness of the issues/problems of other
programs within the Region.
19
-------
The Region has had several major successes. They are:
1. The decision to designate the Drinking Water Program in FY 81
in Pennsylvania as a high priority;
2. The briefing of State legislators on the SEA process and their
general acceptance of it; and
3. The coordination within the Region to develop the SEA's.
The Region is also aware of some problem areas as they progress toward
consummation of the FY 80 SEA's. They are:
1. The lack of public participation in some of the States in the
early stages of development of the SEA's, and
2. The lack of involvement of Regional areawide agencies in the SEA
process.
Since no FY 1979 SEA's were negotiated, there is no detailed discussion
on the FY 1979 process. It should be noted, however, that some of the
groundwork for the FY 80 process was laid during FY 1979. Initially the
responsibility for the SEA was given to the Water Division Director. Under
his leadership, progress was made in developing a more integrated/ coordina-
ted approach to Water Programs.
The responsibility shifted from the Water Programs Division in January
1979 to OIRPA, which was newly established by the RA. At the same time, a
Regional policy was established to include not only water-related issues,
but air and other environmental issues as well in the SEA. It was at this
point that the FY 1980 process actually got underway.
FY 80 SEA Process
The FY 80 process involved the following steps:
1. Briefing of Governors and key State program people on the SEA
process by OIRPA and the RA;
2. OIRPA Program Officers prepared draft Regional issues, after
receiving input from each Division Director, for their particular
State (Part I);
3. Draft issues reviewed and commented on by each Division's
designated SEA coordinator in the Regional Program Offices. Some
of the Offices shared the drafts with their counterparts in the
State program;
4. A second draft of the key issues was prepared and reviewed by the
Division Directors;
20
-------
5. A third draft was prepared for and reviewed by the DRA/RA;
6. A final draft was prepared and forwarded to the States for review
and comment. By this time the States were very much aware of the
key issues, so essentially there were no surprises when they re-
ceived the final draft from the Region;
7. After review and comment by the State a final document will be
prepared which will be part of the final SEA package to be signed;
8. Part II, which is the summary of program-by-program activities
required to resolve each of the key issues/problems identified in
Part I, will be completed by beginning at Step 3 and progressing
to Step 8;
9. Part III, which is the routine annual program grant application,
will be developed in the usual manner i.e., Regional program
people will negotiate directly with their counterparts in the
States to develop the annual work plans. The work plans will
follow priorities listed in the SEA and program guidance issued
by the Region to the State;
10. When all three parts are completed, they will be assembled/
packaged as the SEA. This package will be signed by both the RA
and the Governor to consummate the SEA.
State Processes
Not very much is known about the State processes to consummate the
SEA in Region III. However, the State program people are involved in de-
veloping all three parts of the SEA.
Schedule
The SEA schedule for Region III is:
Continuing to June 30 Negotiation with States on general parts of
SEA, including development procedures.
April 15 - May 15 Prepare and forward State-by-State guidance
package developed by tailoring HQ guidance to
the particular State's needs.
May 15 State/EPA issue fact sheet to announce public
public meetings or simply to request input into
the SEA development.
May 15 - July 1 Meet with States on guidance and develop work
plans for all involved programs (grants).
21
-------
July 1
July 1 - August 31
August 15
September 30
After October 1
Target date for draft of general portions of
SEA's. 105/106 work plans due. Public
Notice issued.
Public participation and negotiation on SEA.
Finalize details on individual grants.
Formal hearing on State/EPA Agreement; 105/106
and other grants.
SEA signed; grant amounts determined.
Grants awarded as funds become available.
At the time of our visit, the Region was approximately two weeks behind
schedule.
Status of SEA's
Agreement
State
1. Virginia
2. Pennsylvania
3. Maryland
4. W. Virginia
5. Delaware
6. D. C.
Draft Anticipated
In Preparation Draft Reviewed Execution Date
Part I
Complete
Part I
Complete
Part I
Complete
Part I
Complete
Part I
Complete
Part I
Complete
Part II
In Draft
Part II
In Draft
Part II
In Draft
Part II
In Draft
Part II
In Draft
Part II
In Draft
October
September
October
September
September
September
Negotiating Organizations
EPA
RA has been involved in the initial briefing of each Governor.
RA will fine tune the final agreement and negotiate/sign the
final agreement.
DRA has been involved in the fine tuning by providing comments
on documents developed by Program Officers and Categorical
Program Division Directors.
22
-------
OIRPA has quarterbacked the process. Prepared briefings to
the Governors and legislative committees in each State. The
staff has been involved with each State staff to develop pri-
orities and program strategies (Part II).
Division Directors have not been very involved. However, they
have delegated the major responsibility to their Branch Chiefs
while retaining overall responsibility.
State Governor approves and signs SEA.
Program Directors/State Secretaries negotiate details of SEA
with EPA (OIRPA and Branch Chiefs).
Public Involvement
The public involvement for the FY 80 SEA will vary from State
to State. The public will only be formally involved in the hearings to be
held in late August and early September. Some States, with assistance from
Region III, are mailing fact sheets to interested groups and citizens on the
SEA process. Also, the Region is assembling an information package on the
SEA to be available to the public.
The Fact Sheet and the information package will not contain the priority
issues; they will address the general SEA process. The public only has one
opportunity to read and comment on the FY 80 SEA. Since most of the hearings
are scheduled late in the process, there is some concern that any comments
made by the public will have only marginal, if any, impact on the FY 80 SEA.
However, the Region has developed a plan for a follow-up on the FY 80
SEA. This will include a questionnaire on the FY 80 process, a solicitation
of ideas for improving the process, and a request for support of the FY 81
SEA. Response to the questionnaire will automatically place the responder
on a Regional and a State mailing list.
The Region is exploring alternative means to raise the visibility of the
SEA's with both the public and the Congressional delegation.
Procedures
In Part I of the SEA a mix of environmental and programmatic issues will
be addressed in each State. The Region will deal with major programmatic
problems as priority issues for the SEA.
Where there is more than one agency involved within the State, all
agencies are involved in the negotiating process. Since the Governor and
the RA sign the agreement, the individual State agencies therefore are man-
dated to implement the agreement. There is some evidence that State agen-
cies within certain States (Maryland and Delaware) are now communicating with
each other on common environmental issues.
23
-------
No SEA in Region III has involved areawides or other non-State
agencies thus far. It is expected that the FY 81 SEA process will solicit
their participation.
Both the States and Region will track progress of the SEA. Not much is
known about the State procedure, but in the Region the Program Officers will
track progress. The categorical program people will track progress, primar-
ily, of the activities identified in Part III of the SEA.
If some of the milestones are not met, grant money could be held pending
resolution of problem(s). It should be noted the Region awards incremental
grants i.e., 50% initially, 25% mid-year, and 25% near end of year.
Major Achievements
Very few problems have been encountered thus far; however, only Part I
has been completed. Perhaps as negotiations get under way on Part II, which
is a more detailed portion of the agreement, more problems will be encountered
(W. Va. has completed a draft Part II, and it appears to have gone smoothly).
States were somewhat reluctant in the initial stages of the process
because:
They felt it was another short-lived federal requirement,
It was not a legal requirement,
EPA was forcing the State to reorganize to meet requirements of SEA.
The foot dragging was resolved by the RA personally exchanging informa-
tion, etc. with the Governors, State legislators and key officials.
In some States the legislators exercise their appropriation authority
to the extent of line items for the agencies budgets. Although the Governor
signs the agreement, the legislators must appropriate money for the activi-
ties. If there is no appropriation, there is no program. Consequently, the
legislators must be fully aware of what is happening with the SEA since non-
appropriation could defeat the SEA.
A major success in the Region that can be attributed to the SEA process
is the bilateral decision regarding acceptance by the State of Pennsylvania
of the RCRA Program, UIC Program and primacy for the Public Water System
Supervision Program. The State found it unacceptable to request new budget
appropriation for all three EPA programs during the FY 80 budget cycle.
Through the SEA negotiations and consideration of various alternatives, the
State and EPA agreed to postpone a new budget request and acceptance of the
primacy program and pursue new initiatives in the RCRA and UIC programs.
24
-------
Recommendations
Regional to HQ
Guidance must be timely to allow the Region to adequately review and
comment
Stability is essential to the SEA process. EPA must not change program
direction mid-stream. Since the States are slower to react to change,
ample lead time is required for any change to be effected. Additionally,
the RA's signature on the SEA says, "this is what we expect of each other
for the next year."
HQ must show a commitment to integration and coordination itself if the
Regions are expected to do the same.
A general HQ/Regional meeting this fall to discuss SEA's would be helpful.
Guidance should consider bringing the legislative arm of State government
into the SEA process.
Guidance is required on methods to incorporate other agencies (non-state)
in the process.
HQ to Region
Fully develop a complete description of the FY 1980 process. This can
be used in planning/implementing future SEA's.
Devise plan to effect more public participation in the SEA process.
25
-------
REGION IV SEA TRIP REPORT
This report was prepared by Carol Wegrzynowicz (Office of Water Program
Operations) and Steve Jackson (Office of Planning & Management) based upon
the regional assessment conducted on 9 July 1979 at the Regional Office.
Persons Contacted: Mr. John Little, DRA
Mr. Frank Silva, State Operations Branch
Mr. Paul Traina, Water Division
Mr. Tom Devine, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Mr. Sanford Harvey, Enforcement Division
Mr. John Marlar, Technical Support Branch
Mr. James Scarborough, Residual Waste Management
Mr. Gary Hutchinson, Water Supply Branch
Background Information
Region IV chose not to participate in the FY 79 State/EPA Agreement pro-
cess, making the current effort their first direct exposure to SEAs. Although
the Region is making good progress in completing their first year's Agreements,
they are considering, and may well make, many changes in the way they handle
next year's process. All States are involved in negotiating FY 80 Agreements
and the Agreements are expected to be signed by October 1980.
Organization SEA FY 80 Status
Region IV's SEA process is administered by its State Operations Branch
(SOB), located within the Administrator's Office of Program Integration and
Operations (OPIO). In addition to developing SEAs, this group's major acti-
vities are to administer the Region's grants (except Construction Grants) to
the individual States, interstate and local agencies, as well as serve as the
contact point and liaison between the Region and the States on more general
issues.
The State Operations Branch directed two of its staff to coordinate and
oversee development of the SEAs, each being responsible for four States, in
addition to consulting with an interstate agency, ORSANCO. Four other Branch
members, each of which is a specialist in a particular program area, support
the two State project officers and are involved in the development of all SEAs.
The Offices responsible for the covered programs are supporting the SEA process
by assigning specific staff to assist in the development of the Agreements.
Participation by program staffers, however, has been spotty. A problem men-
tioned by the SO Branch staff is that, given their responsibility for adminis-
tering all the Region's grants, as well as their recently added responsibility
for developing SEAs, they are significantly under-staffed and feel uncomfortable
about the little time they have to spend on individual projects and activities
going on within the States.
26
-------
Process Overview
Region IV began its FY 80 SEA process early in 1979 by alerting the States
to the process and forwarding copies of the draft Headquarters SEA Guidance.
The Regional Administrator visited the Governors of each of the States to ex-
plain the process and to solicit their support. The Region strongly feels
that high level State executive support is required if the SEA process is to
be successful. Their rationale is that such support is particularly vital in
those States where the environmental programs covered by the SEA are lo-
cated in more than one State agency. Should a Governor not elect to delegate
signature action on the Agreement to an agency head, the Governor would have
had a first hand opportunity through the RA's visit to better understand and
appreciate the SEA process.
Regional staff stated that they took their lead from the draft Guidance
in their early discussions with the States, but this had the unfortunate con-
sequence of overemphasizing the funding flexibility aspects of SEAs. Speci-
fically, because early drafts of the Guidance stated that up to seven percent
of program funds could be transferred from one program area to another, and
because the States believed they were allowed to establish their own priorities
for allocation of their EPA resources, the Region IV States developed some in-
dependent ideas about how to administer their environmental programs. In
several cases, these ideas conflicted sharply with national program require-
ments. When Headquarters indicated that funding flexibility was to
be de-emphasized and would be difficult to accomplish, the impetus for the
States' sudden independence was removed and the Region was faced with trying
to bring several States back into conformance with the SEA objectives and
goals.
Region IV's priority setting process began with SO Branch staff and pro-
gram office staff developing about 100 priorities that addressed all program
areas. The next step took place when the States received the priorities and
developed lists of their own. The two lists were then put together and re-
viewed by Regional program and management staff. A final list of ten to
twelve priorities for each State was then derived and approved by the Regional
Administrator as suitable for further negotiation. Regional SEA staff teams
then began visiting each of the States in a series of meetings. The meetings
were held to discuss SEA priority issues and development of work plans, and to
negotiate specific grant output commitments in Air, Water and Solid Wastes,
which would be included in the SEAs as appendices. The meetings helped all
staff members involved to understand the programs outside their own specialties.
The final list of priorities included issues from all program areas except
noise and radiation; however, one State is now negotiating the addition of
a radiation related item.
Since the State visits this Spring, Regional program staff and SO Branch
staff have been working with State staff on a smaller scale to refine and fi-
nalize the Agreements. The Region has experienced problems, however, with
several States that are attempting to assign priority status to issues of low
national importance. By doing this, these States are attempting to re-direct
27
-------
resources and attention away from nationally required activities, effectively
circumventing some program regulations they wish to avoid. Regional staff
members also maintain that this same group of States is also strongly in fa-
vor of the Integrated Environmental Assistance Program because it would allow
them the flexibility they are now trying to get from SEA's.
Integration and Coordination
Regional staff stated that it was the Region's intention to use the SEA
process as a means of addressing issues requiring program coordination. After
the priority issues were developed and agreed to, approximately half of the is-
sues were characterized as being programmatic and so fundamental to the pro-
grams that they would have been addressed in any event. The remaining half
are of a cross-cutting nature. The SEA process has high visibility at the
State and Regional level and the priorities identified have encouraged better
communication between program staffs.
More coordination of activities has begun in several areas, including
sludge and sludge disposal, hazardous wastes, permitting and drinking water.
Although these are all areas where coordination among media seems quite logi-
cal, Regional staff stated that coordination efforts were proceeding well only
in States that were generally receptive to the SEA idea. One Division Director
stated that in order for coordination and integration to take place, EPA had to
have both carrots and sticks to offer. Because the funding flexibility aspect
of the Agreements had more or less disappeared for the time being, he believes
that the Agency has few carrots to offer, but would exercise sanctions if needed.
Without sanctions, there is no reason for the States to cooperate with the SEA
process unless they want to.
Major Accomplishments
o A few States in Region IV were not anxious to become involved with the
SEA process, fearing EPA was trying to force them into re-organizing
their environmental programs. The Region has quieted most of these
fears and all the States are reported to be on schedule for signing
Agreements in September.
o The SEA development process has forced various program offices in the
Regional Office, as well as in State program offices, to talk to one
another. Knowledge and communication among the programs have thus
been improved.
o The Region's efforts and contributions to the SEA process have required
programs to include existing and continuing support of the SEA process
in their ZBB development.
28
-------
o The Region intends to set up a quarterly reporting system wherein the
States will report their progress in implementing the Agreements.
This should serve as a good means for assessing State and Regional
performance.
o The SEA process raised priority issues and concerns to the attention
of the Regional Administrator.
Problem Areas
o Because of the initial emphasis the Region placed on funding flexibility,
and the subsequent reversal of that position by Headquarters, the States
maintain that the Region's credibility was lessened and put them at a
disadvantage in later negotiations.
o Several States are persisting in their efforts to have significant pro-
gram requirements left out of the Agreements and to avoid living up to
these national requirements.
o The SEA process has no incentives to promote its use especially where
issues requiring integration are concerned. The Region does not feel
at liberty to withhold program funds unless all the rest of the Regions
do the same when required, but the Region is, in fact, withholding some
Air grant funds from a Region IV State.
o Because Region IV required that SEAs be done in addition to normal grant
application and workplan development, the workload on State and Regional
staff was increased. Although not all staff found this burdensome, many
did. However, the newness of the process and the need for coordination
and integration to be established for the first time in this context,
would seem to require some additional work in the first year of SEA.
o The SEA Guidance from Headquarters lacked specific enough guidelines on
how to address issues requiring program integration and coordination.
o Public participation activities were minimal because of the time and ef-
fort required to get the process off the ground, but the States are hold-
ing public hearings on the SEA document and process. Public involvement
should improve next year.
Recommendations
o Goals and objectives of SEA need to be clarified.
o SEA should provide incentives to promote its acceptance by the States.
Reduced program reporting requirements that reflect compliance and
achievement with national obj ectives and do not change annually are
seen as an incentive.
o Region tried to tie in individual program guidance and program priorities
outlined in the guidance with SEA. This was difficult, if not impossible,
because guidance was not always available.
29
-------
o SEA Guidance, the Agency Operating Guidance, and reporting requirements
should be consistent and all should be issued simultaneously in the be-
ginning of the calendar year. Headquarters should not issue supple-
mental guidance later in the year.
o Workplans among programs should be synchronized.
o Scheduling among programs should be made compatible.
o Elevate the SEA Headquarter's management process to the Office of the
Administrator, or to the Assistant Administrator in order to provide
comprehensive oversight.
30
-------
REGION V SEA TRIP REPORT
Background
On June 28, 1979, Headquarters staff conducted a State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) Assessment in Region V. The participants in the assessment from
Headquarters were Peter Wise (Chief, Policy and Evaluation Branck, Water
Planning Division, OWPS) and Dave Ziegler (Water Planning Division, OWPS).
The purpose of the trip was to assess the efforts of the Region and
States in developing FY 79 Agreements and the progress they have made nego-
tiating agreements for FY 80. For this purpose, the Region arranged a
series of interviews with the State Coordinators who are responsible for
coordinating the FY 80 Agreements for the Region.
Persons Contacted: Ms. Nancy Philippi, Special Assistant, Office of the RA
Ms. Mary Canavan, Illinois
Mr. Dan Banaszek, Minnesota
Ms. Connie Hinkel, Ohio
Mr. Dave Stringham, Indiana
Mr. Joel Mintz, Michigan
Ms. Sara Segal, Wisconsin (absent on 6/28)
The six State Coordinators work in the Regional Administrator's office
in Region V. Nancy Philippi, also in the RA's office, is the SEA contact.
The Headquarters staff interviewed five of the six coordinators, had an intro-
ductory meeting with the five coordinators and Nancy Philippi, and had an
exit interview with Ms. Philippi.
The team did not meet with any State staff, nor with any program staff.
This approach was taken to minimize the impact of the assessment on Regional
and State staff. The assessment, subsequently, lasted only one day.
The State Coordinators, working in conjunction with the Regional
Administrator, the program staffs, and three media task forces (water, air/
noise, and hazardous) coordinate development of the State/EPA Agreements. The
task forces receive input from program staff on media priorities, review and
comment on draft state work plans and other documents, and attempt to achieve
consistency across media and within programs. The same media task forces
participate in the EPA Budget process. (See the attached organizational chart)
Introduction
For various reasons, Region V decided not to prepare FY 79 State/EPA
Agreements. The States of Illinois and Indiana did prepare five-year strate-
gies for the Water Division, but these were limited in scope to water quality
(Clean Water Act) programs.
For FY 80, the Region placed responsibility for coordinating the SEA's
with the State Coordinators in the RA's office and set up procedures for
developing the Agreements. The process has four phases: (1) problem assess-
ment, (2) problem solving approaches, (3) grants process, and (4) document
preparation. The FY 80 Agreements will cover not only CWA, SDWA, and RCRA
programs as guidance requires, but also Clean Air Act programs under section
105.
31
-------
to
to
to
UJ
O
o
e:
c.
C: O
UJ
O
5 °°
~~ >
o
H«
03
Q
o;
s: Q
r
i
L
UJ O
o >->
c: 10
O h-
0- =: >
21 LL) i<
UJ 2 Q
M O
O
t^
GO
oo
cs:
o
o
o
o
UJ
£
to Q
1 i J « »
1 t 1 II
1 J J 11
0
* 4
a: to
UJ i l
H- >
^ 1 1
3 Q
l 1 l - I -'
i
t
I
o oo Q; i
UJ < O «£
to
i «
I O
UJ "Z.
CO
32
-------
Although the Region has encountered many problems with the FY 80
Agreements, it has made substantial progress toward having signed Agreements
by October 1. Its major accomplishments to date are the identification of
State "highlights" and cross-cutting issues, development of problem-solving
approaches for these issue areas, and initiation of draft work plans.
During the opening meeting between the State Coordinators and the
Headquarters team, the Coordinators raised several issues of concern to the
Region on SEA's:
The Region started preparing the FY 80 Agreements late, and
this has caused problems coordinating SEATs and work plans, involving
the public and areawide agencies, and coordinating with State budget
cycles.
Some of the State environmental programs in the Region (e.g., Ohio) are
losing resources because of budget cuts by State legislatures.
The drop in 106 (CWA) funding levels from $52.4 million to $48.7 million
has further strained State budgets and hurt EPA's credibility.
The SEA process has added to paperwork. The Region and States see it
as an additional step in processing grants.
In addition to the problems the Regional staff mentioned, the Headquarters
team identified two other areas of concern, which they discussed with Nancy
Philippi during the exit interview:
There seemed to be a certain amount of frustration with the SEA process
among the State Coordinators. The Region's organization is new, staff
finds itself in new roles, there are many "headaches" in developing
the SEA's, and the payoffs are not apparent yet.
The position of the State Coordinators in the Region's organization
chart (i.e., in the RA's office) may make contact with the media task
forces and various program staffs difficult. (In the early stages of
SEA development, there seem to have been some coordination problems,
but the Region now feels they have been overcome.)
FY 80 State/EPA Agreements
The Negotiation Process
The development of the Region V SEA's consists of 18 major tasks, broken
down into four main phases. The tasks and the four phases are shown in
Table I. In summary, Region V and the States independently nominate issues
for highlighting and identify cross-cutting issues. Then after discussion
and concurrence on the issues, the States and the Region agree to mechanisms
for tracking the solution to cross-cutting issues and develop problem-solving
approaches for the highlighted issues. For the FY 81 SEA's, these agreed-
upon problem-solving approaches will be incorporated into State-specific
guidance for SEA's and work plans. Timing problems, however, made this im-
possible for the FY 80 Agreements.
33
-------
PHASE I: PROBLEM ASSESSMENT (March 15 - April 6, 1979)
State and USEPA
independently
prepare compre-
hensive problem
assessment
Mar. 15 - Mar. 27
State and USEPA
independently
nominate issues
for highlighting
and identify
cross-cutting
issues
March 27
Joint discussion
and agreement on
issues to be
highlighted and
cross-cutting
issues to be
monitored
Mar. 27 - Apr. 2
Concurrence by
agency heads, on
staff recommenda-
tions
April 6
PHASE II: PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES (April 6 - April 27, 1979)
State and USEPA
discuss and
agree on mechan-
isms for moni-
toring cross-
cutting issues
April 6-18
State and/or
JSEPA develops
problem-solving
approaches to
solving high-
lighted issues
April 6-18
Joint discussion
and agreement on
problem-solving
approaches to
solving high-
lighted issues
April 18 - 23
Concurrence by
agency heads, on
staff recommenda-
tions
April 27
PHASE III: GRANTS PROCESS (March 15 - October 1, 1979)
State speci-
fic guidance
is sent to
State
May 4
State sub-
mits work
plans to
USEPA and
public
July 2
USEPA sends
comments on
plans to State
August 1
State & USEPA
negotiate
any out-
standing
issues
Aug. 1 - 15
State sub-
mits re-
vised final
plans
September 7
USEPA
makes
grant
awards
to State
October 1
PHASE IV: DOCUMENT PREPARATION (March 15 - September 1, 1979)
State and USEPA
develop public
participation
mechanisms
Mar. 15 - Apr. 15
State and USEPA
staffs complete
draft agreement
August 1
State and USEPA
negotiate and
resolve out-
standing differ-
ences
August 15
Agency heads
sign final agree-
ment
September 1
34
-------
Although there are 28 areawide agencies (CWA section 208) in Region V,
the second-highest total in the nation as of the time of this assessment, no
State had actively involved the areawides in SEA development. However, the
Region reports (as of August 1) that the States and the Region have now
contacted the areawides, brought them up-to-date on the FY 80 SEA's, and dis-
cussed their roles in development of the FY 81 Agreements.
The following paragraphs are brief summaries of the negotiation process
in each State:
Minnesota. The Region is working with the Department of Health and
the Pollution Control Agency on the Agreements. Each Agency has
designated a contact person. The State will consolidate its solid
waste and water quality work plans in FY 80. The value of the SEA
is that it will set up specific accomplishments for the State to
produce first.
Illinois. The Director of the IEPA is the SEA Contact. The Region
is dealing only with IEPA on the Agreements, although the Department
of Health has part of the drinking water program. IEPA is responsi-
ble for obtaining primacy and is responsible for drinking water
quality. The State's attitude is constructive, but it tends to focus
on institutional/administrative problems rather than on geographic/en-
vironmental problems.
Ohio. The State discovered a great number of cross-cutting issues
when the State Division Directors met to look at priorities, problems,
and highlights. Region V sold the SEA concept to the State as a man-
agement tool with which they could obtain high-level agreement on what
can realistically be accomplished each year. The State legislature
has cut OEPA's budget by approximately $7 million. The Agreement
forces the State to chose between conflicting priorities.
Michigan. The State contact is in the Director's office, Department
of Natural Resources. The State organization for SEA development is
parallel to the Region's, with issue-specific teams. Michigan has
"wall-to-wall" coverage with areawide agencies (CWA section 208) but,
at the time of this assessment, they had not been actively involved
in the Michigan SEA. The Region and the State made the decision to
limit the scope of the SEA to the DNR, even though the Department of
Health handles most of the drinking water program.
Indiana. The State contact for SEA development is the Director of
the Bureau of Engineering of the Board of Health. The Region V
Indiana Coordinator is enthusiastic about the SEA process, because it
encourages "thinking before acting", and has been selling the SEA
quite actively. Development of the Indiana Agreement has not, how-
ever kept pace with the other Region V Agreements.
35
-------
Priority Selection
Early in its planning for the FY 80 SEA's, Region V perceived a problem
which has since occurred in most Regions: what happens to programs which are
not identified as priorities in the SEA? Are they automatically low priori-
ties? Will they lose resources? To get around this dilemma, the Region does
not identify priorities, per se, in the Agreement negotiations. Instead, the
Region and States agree on "highlights", which are significant issues that
have a reasonable chance for success in FY 80, have first call on resources,
and receive prime mention in the Region's guidance to the State.
The highlighted issues are not, however, priorities in the strict sense
of the word, since certain ongoing efforts (e.g., construction grants manage-
ment) may still absorb more resources.
The highlighted issues which EPA and the States have identified to date
are a mixture of administrative issues and environmental problems. It is
interesting to note that hazardous waste management is a highlight in every
State. The highlights are listed separately in Table II.
Tracking
The Region's policy on tracking the commitments from the SEA's is still
under development. The State Coordinators will probably have an oversight
role, with individual program staffs tracking milestones in individual State
work plans.
For the FY 81 Agreements, the Region plans to emphasize incorporating
past program evaluations into State program development. The Region will
stress the initial phases of SEA development more, with the intent of obtain-
ing broad feedback "up front".
One of the State Coordinators suggested a method for tying tracking of
outputs to the development of subsequent SEA's. The suggested procedure would
be as follows: (1) during the second quarter of the fiscal year, the State
and EPA identify highlights and settle on problem-solving approaches; (2) the
Region then conducts its mid-year evaluation of the current year's SEA and
work plans; (3) based on the first two steps, the Region issues State-specific
guidance to each State identifying items to be covered in the upcoming year's
SEA.
Work Programs and Non-Priority Item Coverage
Region V has given much thought to the connection between State/EPA
Agreements and State priorities. The Region's decision was not to link the
Agreements to priorities, but to "highlights", as discussed above. Thus,
both priority and non-priority program thrusts are covered in individual
program work plans (water quality, solid waste, drinking water) unless the
State has elected to consolidate the work plans. Issues which are "highlights"
benefit from the preparation of a problem-solving approach which is subse-
quently incorporated into the work plans.
For further discussion of this topic, see Priority Selection, above.
36
-------
TABLE II
HIGHLIGHTED ISSUES
REGION V STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS
Minnesota
residuals management
hazardous waste management
implement SIP
effluent limits for Metro (i.e., Twin Cities)
funding schedules and program grants
coordinate groundwater protection
Michigan
creation of State pretreatment program
State and EPA roles in implementing Great Lakes Agreement
development of hazardous waste management program
completion of waste load allocations
relationships between EPA, Michigan DNR, and local governments
implementation of SIP, including vehicle I/M
Illinois
develop effective hazardous waste management program
meet SIP commitments for vehicle I/M programs
implement pretreatment program and strategy
complete review of existing IEPA field organization and
enforcement; implement changes where necessary
improve lEPA's Emergency Response program
Indiana
implement SIP
develop effective hazardous waste management program
develop pretreatment program and strategy
develop process to consider multi-media impacts of pollution control
strategies and activities
integrated public participation program and strategy
clarify State and EPA roles and responsibilities relative to
delegation of authority to the State
37
-------
Coordination and Integration
Since the preparatory steps leading to the State/EPA Agreements in
Region V include identification of both "highlights" and cross-cutting issues,
the SEA's do accomplish significant integration and coordination of programs.
Examples of cross-cutting issues are: abandoned or unpermitted hazardous waste
disposal sites, hazardous chemical contamination of sources of drinking water,
and identification and monitoring of toxic substances in the environment.
Although integration among various EPA programs in the Regional Office is
evident in the Region V approach, coordination of the various State, areawide,
and local agencies is not. Although there are 32 areawide agencies (section
208, CWA) in Region V, as of June 28 no State had involved them directly in
the development of the Agreements. By August 1, all states in Region V
contacted their areawide agencies and had begun to involve them in the SEA
process both for FY 80 and, particularly, FY 81. In at least one State,
Michigan, an agency with a major involvement in the covered programs, the
Department of Health, is not involved in the negotiations. One of the State
coordinators said that the States do not want the responsibility of involving
the areawide agencies.
Another area in Region V where there may have been some coordination
problems is between program staffs and the State Coordinators. In the early
stages of SEA development, program staff was anxious about having adequate
input to the Agreements. Although the process is somewhat complex, it does
include program staffs. The Programs do the basic review of the State
problem-solving approaches and draft work plans. Then the media task forces
review the material for consistency and priorities. The State Coordinators
work with the program staff, the task forces, and the RA and DRA as they
coordinate the various inputs and serve as primary State contacts.
The Headquarters team discussed this aspect of coordination with the
Region, and mentioned other Regions which have different organizational
schemes for preparing Agreements, such as the popular State team concept.
The State Coordinators say, however, that although there have been problems
coordinating with program staff, these are simply the growing pains of a new
organization structure and should clear up by the time the Region starts the
FY 81 Agreements.
Public Participation
One of the most serious consequences of the Region V's late start on the
SEA's is that public participation requirements are difficult, if not impos-
sible, to meet. The tight schedule the Region has now may preclude any mean-
ingful public review and comment. In fact, the Region is hesitant to push
public involvement at this time because (1) the public will be upset that
they were not involved earlier and (2) public participation will slow down
the final Agreements.
One example of the Region's approach to public participation is that they
decided not to send out the "Partnership" pamphlet on State/EPA Agreements
38
-------
because the Region did not wish to put out "general" information, but only
precise, specific guidance.
In spite of these difficulties, at least two States, Illinois and Ohio,
have accomplished a significant improvement in public involvement by estab-
lishing consolidated policy advisory committees to advise the State during
SEA development. The Illinois PAC advises the State on all issues pertain-
ing to air, solid waste, and water.
Recommendations
Region V feels it is inappropriate to make recommendations for improving
the SEA process until the entire FY 80 cycle is complete. The Region would
like to experience the whole process, then develop a unified recommendation,
both for the process itself and the SEA guidance.
39
-------
REGION VI SEA TRIP REPORT
Background
On June 18-19, 1979, Headquarters staff conducted a State/EPA Agreement.
(SEA) Assessment in Region VI. The participants from Headquarters were:
Dave Ziegler, Water Planning Division, OWPS
Jim Jowett, Clean Lakes Program, Criteria and
Standards Division
The purpose of the trip was to assess the efforts of the Region and
States in deve-oping FY 1979 Agreements and the progress they have made
negotiating Agreements for FY 1980. For this purpose, the Region arranged
a series of meetings with staff directly involved in the SEA negotiation
process. At the suggestion of the Region VI SEA contact, the Headquarters
representatives met with the State teams working on the FY 1980 Agreements.
The team leaders are:
Jim Collins, Enforcement Division, Texas
Ray Lozano, Special Assistant, Office of the RA, New Mexico
Al Davis, Air/Hazardous Division Director, Arkansas
Oscar Ramirez, S&A Division Acting Director, Oklahoma
Myron Knudson, Water Division Director, Louisiana
The Region employs a State team concept to expedite the SEA negotiations.
Each team has approximately six members from the water quality, water supply,
solid waste, surveillance and analysis, municipal facilities, and enforcement
offices. The Headquarters team also had an exit interview with Ray Lozano
and the Regional Administrator, Adlene Harrison.
The HQ team did not meet with any State staff, based on a prior
arrangement with SEA contact. However, a subsequent visit with a State was
not ruled out. The rationale for not meeting with a State on this visit was
that it was too early in the process, and the States might be able to provide
more meaningful comments later.
Introduction
Region VI completed FY 1979 SEA's for each of its States early in
FY 1979, except for Louisiana, which was signed in July. The heads of the
State agencies and the Regional Administrator signed the Agreement. The
Water Quality Planning Branch, Water Division, negotiated the FY 1979
Agreements, which covered only the water quality programs.
For FY 1980, Region VI moved responsibility for the SEA's to the
Regional Administrator's office, because of the wider (CWA, RCRA, SDWA)
coverage of the FY 1980 Agreements. They started working with the States
early in FY 1979 to identify priorities and develop necessary Agreements
for FY 1980.
40
-------
In general, the Region is handling the Agreements well. They are as-
signing significant resources and priority to the Agreements and the RA has
informed the team leaders of her personal interest in the success of the
Agreements. The FY 1979 SEAs, although they were not comprehensive in coverage,
did serve as a proving ground for ideas the Region is using to negotiate the
FY 1980 Agreements.
The Region's major accomplishments to date are in the areas of internal
organization, commitment and public participation. Also, the RA has made
the Agreements very visible within the Region. Region VI staff acknowledges
some problems in obtaining the desired specificity in the Agreements, and is
making a major effort to reconcile this situation in the FY 1980 SEAs.
The RA emphasized that although she is placing a very high priority
on the SEAs, the quality of each individual Agreement depends almost entirely
on State capability and cooperation. She expects a great range in the
quality of the Region VI Agreements considering the lack of incentive for the
States to cooperate and their general resistance to Federal intervention.
Based on their assessment of the progress Region VI has made negotiating
the FY 1980 Agreements, the Headquarters team identified several issues of
potential concern in their exit interview. Although the points are discussed
in detail in the body of this report, they are as follows:
(1) The State response to the challenge of preparing SEAs seems
a little confused. There tends to be a lack of a strong
lead agency, a strong State coordinator, or a single State
contact point.
(2) The Regional staff is not sure what is required of the
States in the area of audit procedures, funding flexibility,
and financial management. Lack of Headquarters guidance is
undermining EPA credibility.
(3) A stronger role for a State five-year strategy, which would
come out early each fiscal year (approximately February)
would settle some questions on priorities out front, and
expedite the preparation of both Agreements and work plans.
(4) In those areas in Region VI where there are areawide agencies,
the State and EPA have not always developed methods for in-
corporating areawide agency input into the Agreements.
From the observations of the HQ team, the negotiations for the FY 1980 Agree-
ments are on the whole progressing smoothly. The Region's schedule (see
Attachment A) calls for draft Agreements in mid-July and final Agreements in
mid-September. The States appear to be on schedule generally; and one State,
Texas, had a draft Agreement at the time of the Assessment visit.
41
-------
One observation the Regional staff made consistently was that neither
the FY 1979 or 1980 Agreements reduced paperwork for the State or EPA, and
if anything, increased it. The Region and the States see the Agreement as
an additional layer in the program planning process. However, once everyone
gets used to the SEA process, things should improve. EPA has attempted to
streamline the process.
Summary of the FY 1979 Process
The Region and all the States completed Agreements for FY 1979,
generally during the first quarter of FY 1979. The Regional Administrator
and the heads of the State water pollution control agencies signed all of
the Agreements. Although HQ waited until late in FY 1979 to issue its
policy requiring FY 1979 Agreements, Region VI had been working on them
long before the HQ decision. There was some delay after the HQ policy came
out as the Region and the States worked to accommodate HO recommendations
on format and content.
The Water Quality Planning Branch, Water Division, negotiated the
FY 1979 Agreements. The main contact for each State was a section chief
within the Planning Branch. For the most part, the Region handled the
FY 1979 Agreements the way they had handled 106 State Program submissions
in the past, since the FY 1979 Agreements included only the water programs.
The FY 1979 SEA's were not a vehicle for a great amount of program coordina-
tion and integration, since they were limited to water quality programs.
One weakness of the FY 1979 Agreements was that they did not specifically
address priorities for the covered programs. During April and May, 1979,
Headquarters staff reviewed the New Mexico, Texas, and Arkansas Agreements.
Their conclusions were set forth in a memo from the Director, Water Planning
Division (HO) to the Region (May 14, 1979):
Given the short time-frame in which to prepare these
Agreements, we believe that several areas were handled
especially well. These include the problem identifica-
tion in the New Mexico Agreement, and the financial in-
formation and. future State/EPA Agreement public partici-
pation program in Texas. Some components were not ad-
dressed within the short time-frame. These include
identification of how priority problems were selected,
delineation of EPA's responsibilities, identification
of tracking and evaluation methods and identification
of timing, agencies and costs of implementation. While
it appears that some public participation in the develop-
ment of the State/EPA Agreements took place, we were not
provided sufficient information to assess its adequacy.
The Agreements were rather lengthy and the format was such
that the problem identification/priority relationship of-
ten was unclear. A summary of the SEA contents would have
been helpful.
42
-------
FY 1980 State/EPA Agreements
Negotiation Process
Region VI is using inter-disciplinary teams to negotiate the FY 1980
Agreements. Each team as mentioned above is headed by a Division Di-
rector. The teams seem to have a good sense of mission, with good coopera-
tion and enthusiasm. The RA, through this organizational set-up and through
her instructions to the teams, has made the FY 1980 Agreement very visible
within the Region.
The process for developing the FY 1980 Agreements has 11 steps, starting
with negotiation of priorities and ending with the signing of the Agreements.
(See attached schedule.)
The State response to the challenge of preparing FY 1980 Agreements
varies among the States. Several of the States suffer from lack of a
designated contact point, even though their cooperation has been excellent.
Also, the States are to greater or lesser degree involved in turf fights,
financial constraints, reorganizations, and other problems. The Region hopes
that the SEA process will provide the incentive for the States to better co-
ordinate and integrate their closely-related programs. The State responses
to the SEA challenge follow:
Oklahoma; A representative from the Governor's office has been actively
involved in the negotiations. There are two major State agencies involved
reportedly of about equal power: the Oklahoma Department of Health and the
Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control. Through these two agencies, six
other State agencies have had input into the Agreement: The Oklahoma Con-
servation Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Water Resources
Board, the Department of Wildlife Conservation, the Industrial Development De-
partment, and the State Board of Agriculture. The areawide agencies in the
State have also contributed to the Agreements, as have the members of the Re-
gion VI SEA Advisory Committee. The State held a public meeting during the
drafting of the State's priorities for FY 1980.
Arkansas: A representative from the Governor's Office is involved in the
negotiations. There are three State agencies involved: the Department of Pollu-
tion Control and Ecology, the Oil and Gas Commission (underground injection),
and the Department of Health. The members of the Region VI SEA Advisory Com-
mittee have contributed to the Agreements, and the State held a public meeting
during the drafting of the State's priorities for FY 1980.
Louisiana: The situation in Louisiana is rather disorganized. The State
has a "lame duck" Governor. Therefore, negotiations have been going slowly.
There are four State agencies involved: the Department of Health, Department
of Natural Resources, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Office
of Science, Technology and Environmental Policy. The State also obtained input
from the Region VI SEA Advisory Committee and from local interests groups.
43
-------
The DNR is the designated lead agency for the negotiations, but this is
a strange situation since DNR is not a major grantee from EPA's point of view,
dealing mostly with oil and gas matters. The SEA Coordinator from the DNR
travels often so coordination has been difficult.
Quite likely, when the legislature approves the State reorganization, all
the environmental programs will be merged into a single agency which is said
to be development (energy) oriented.
New Mexico: New Mexico has named a strong contact person for the Agree-
ment negotiations, and coordination is going smoothly. There are two State
agencies involved: The Environmental Improvement Division of the Department
of Health and Environment and the Oil and Gas Commission.
Texas: Although there has not been a formal designation of a lead agency,
the Texas Department of Water Resources has essentially taken the lead in co-
cordinating negotiations, and coordination has not been a problem. There are
three State agencies involved: TDWR, the Department of Public Health (muni-
cipal sludge), and the Texas Railroad Commission (oil/mining).
Priority Selection
The process for setting or selecting priorities for the SEAs in Region
VI is a simple one. The State teams, acting as panels of EPA experts, meet
and develop a mutually acceptable list of State priorities, based on their
own expert knowledge of the State's situation. Simultaneously, the States
develop analogous lists. When both lists are ready, the States and EPA meet,
compare lists, and negotiate changes. In developing its lists, the Region
considers 305(b) reports, national priorities, WQM plans, and public input.
There is some indication that the States are starting to encourage and make
use of public input in setting their priorities as well. (See Public Parti-
cipation, below.)
One problem with the development of priorities is that in Region VI,
the States are developing State strategies, SEAs, and State work plans all at
the same time. This arrangement may be making the selection of priorities
more difficult than need be. If the States were to prepare annual updates of
five-year strategies early in the fiscal year and to use the strategies to
address long-range priorities, the task of identifying short-term priorities
would be greatly simplified.
Tracking
The Region's basic policy for tracking the commitments from the SEAs is
to include selected milestones in the Agreements, require quarterly reports on
their status, and conduct semi-annual visits to the States to discuss progress.
The Region will conduct integrated program assessments at its semi-annual visits
to the extent feasible.
The Texas SEA team reported that they would emphasize the use of existing
tracking mechanisms, and would not require quarterly tracking reports.
44
-------
Work Programs and Non-Priority Item Coverage
The relationship between the Agreements and work plans, and the method for
handling non-priority items in the SEA process was a source of some confusion
for Region VI, as it has been for other Regions. Basically, the Region will
be using three separate approaches: (1) SEA focusing on traditional high-
priority operating programs, (2) SEA focusing on the State's highest priorities,
and (3) SEA focusing on the States highest priorities involving integration.
The State of Oklahoma represents the first case placing the emphasis
on traditional State programs such as permits and construction grants. These
so-called "operating programs" will take up a large part of the Agreement, be-
cause the State does not wish to give the impression that they are low priorities.
The Region expects to work with the State during negotiations on the draft
Agreement to ensure that the priorities are correct, and that some of the
priority problems are cross-cutting problems that affect several covered pro-
grams. The Region tried to focus on cross-cutting issues, but the State in-
sisted on having some single-program thrusts. The result was a mix.
Louisiana is representative of the second approach to covering non-
priority items in the SEA. The Louisiana SEA will address the highest prior-
ities in the State, regardless of whether they are integrated problem areas or
not. They intend to use the SEA process to identify where resources can be
shifted to cover higher priority items.
The trend for the other States appears to be of the third type where
the SEA focuses on the highest State priorities that involve integration of
various programs. In this arrangement, so-called "operating programs" and
lower-priority program thrusts will receive little or no coverage in the SEAs.
and instead will be covered in detail in the various parts of the State's
work plans.
Coordination and Integration
With most of the States' priority determinations still pending, it is
difficult to know what Region VI and the States will accomplish in the area
of integration and coordination. However, the State team concept the Region
is using is important in identifying areas where integration would be useful.
Arkansas is the only State in the Region which will include air programs in
the FY 1980 SEA. For the other States, the Region feels it will be hard
enough to integrate the covered SDWA, RCRA, and SDWA programs.
Several possible integration actions were mentioned by the Regional staff
during the assessment meetings. One is using a joint field staff for both air
and water programs. Inspectors in the field could be trained to observe both
air and water conditions. Another is the idea of a joint training program
for sewage treatment plant and water supply plant operators, on the theory
that much of the technology involved is similar.
45
-------
Public Participation
The Region has hired a public participation consultant who helps design
and manage the SEA public involvement effort. The Region provides assistance
to States in designing their public involvement programs, and monitors States
and Regional public participation efforts.
The Region has established an SEA Advisory Committee consisting of 61
persons with previous participatory/advisory experience in the Region. The
role of the Advisory Committee is to provide EPA with an independent assessment
of Region-wide priorities which the various State/EPA Agreements should address.
The members of this ad hoc committee participate by mail in the identification
and prioritization of Regional issues, and comment on strategies and commitments
EPA makes.
Each State is responsible for its own public participation on the SEAs,
with assistance from the Region where available. As an example of a State
initiative, Arkansas sent out a questionnaire to its mailing list asking them
to identify environmental problems that need priority attention, and got over
200 responses in just a short period.
Recommendations to Improve the SEA Process
Region VI staff had many suggestions for improving the SEA process by
improving the guidance Headquarters issued. The major issues bothering the
Region were financial management and funding flexibility. The EPA State/EPA
Agreement Guidance (February 1979) says that funding shifts among the covered
programs are possible, and that HQ has the authority to shift approximately
10 percent of its funds among any agency programs. The Region feels this
statement is misleading and that there will be no shifting of funds among
categorical program areas this year. Regional staff is concerned, however,
by the fact that the States have read the guidance and now desire more fund-
ing flexibility than the Region is able to provide.
Another matter bothering the Region VI staff was the issue of financial
management procedures for work tasks which are getting funding from more than
one EPA grant program. At the time the EPA guidance was being developed, some
HQ staff said that audits should be aimed only at outputs and that complex
accounting procedures such as time cards would be unnecessary. This
position, however, does not appear to coincide with the requirements of the
EPA auditors. The RA asked for more precise guidance on financial manage-
ment procedures.
Other comments the Region made on the guidance were as follows:
o The SEA guidance should be less WQM-oriented.
o Examples of good SEAs and interesting formats should be circulated
to the Regions, but perhaps not to the States until the Region has
reviewed them.
o More guidance on Indian/EPA Agreements would be useful. There is
a great need for this in the Western Regions.
46
-------
FY80 SEA SCHEDULE
REGION 6
ARK
LA
NM
OK
TX
Meeting with State to
Negotiate Priorities
State Public Participation
Notice Out
EPA Public Participation
Notice Out
State Review of Public
Comments
EPA Review of Public
Comments
State-EPA Meeting to
Discuss Strategy
Commitments
Notice of Public Meeting
Draft SEA Available
Public Meeting
Finalize Draft SEA
Signing of SEA/Grants
Awards
May 9
May 30
May 30
Jun 15
Jun 15
Jun 29
Jul 8
Jul 21
Aug 21
Sep 15
Sep 28
May 3
May 21
Jun 1
Jun 15
Jun 20
Jun 28
Jun 10
Jul 15
Aug 15
Sep 16
Oct 1
May 24
Jun 1
Jun 1
Jun 20
Jun 20
Jun 22
Jul 1
Jul 15
Aug 15
Sep 15
Oct 1
May 15
May 26
Jun 1
Jun 15
Jun 15
Jun 6
Jul 9
Jul 23
Aug 23
Sep 15
Oct 1
May 10
May 18
May 18
Jun 22
Jun 22
Jun 15
Jun 29
Jul 15
Aug 15
Sep 30
Oct 1
47
ATTACHMENT A
-------
REGION VII SEA TRIP REPORT
Background
On June 21-22, 1979, Headquarter's staff conducted a State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) assessment in Region VII. Participating from Headquarters were Tim Icke
(Office of Water Planning and Standards) and John Trax (Office of Drinking
Water).
These trips were intended to assess the efforts the Region and States
have made in developing the FY 1979 Agreements and in the progress made toward
negotiating Agreements for FY 1980. In order to do so, we requested that the
Region, through the Office of External Affairs, arrange a series of interviews
with staff directly involved in the negotiation process, including representa-
tives from each of the covered programs. These arrangements were graciously
made and included interviews with a wide variety of program and top level man-
agement personnel.
Persons Contacted: Dr. Kathleen Camin, Regional Administrator
Mr. Don Christenson, Direct, Office of External Affairs
Mr. Allan Abramson, Director, Water Division
Mr. Bill Rice, Director, Survey and Analysis Division
Mr. Dave Wagoner, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division
Ms. Joann Bassi, Branch Chief, Water Supply
Mr. Dan Vallero, Clean Lakes
Ms. Rowena Michaels and Ms. Betty Harris, Public
Participation
Mr. Vic Ziegler, Water Quality Management
Mr. Gene Ramsey, Office of External Affairs
Introduction
Region VII signed FY 1979 Agreements with all its States in October,
1979. The Office of External Affairs was assigned the responsibility for
developing the Regional process- for negotiating and developing these
Agreements. Although the Agreements were somewhat limited in scope and
detail, they did represent a strong commitment on the part of the Region
and States to begin working toward a more comprehensive approach to coordinate
and integrate programs covered under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and in many
cases under solid waste, drinking water and air programs as well. Although
the Region viewed the FY 1979 experience as mostly a trial run effort, it
provided staff at the Region and States with valuable insights into the pro-
cedural requirements associated with the State/EPA Agreement concept. The
process for FY 1979 was successful in getting high-level management to identify
priority environmental issues and negotiate broad strategies by which to ad-
dress them.
48
-------
In issuing guidance to the States for FY 1980, the Region was able to make
necessary modifications and fine tune the process. Areas of increased emphasis
include: providing a role for the public (which was not the case last year
because of time constraints); providing significantly more detail on specific
commitments, both on the part of the States as well as the Region; and placing
increased emphasis on tracking commitments and progress made toward achieving
overall goals and objectives.
In addition, this year the Region has attempted to build in more involve-
ment on the part of Regional and State program staff in the priority setting
and negotiation process. Last year much of the process was handled directly
by the Office of External Affairs. This year more input has been sought from
each of the Regional program Division Directors, as well as by other program
level staff from within the Region and States. One final area of increased
emphasis will be the attempt to more directly tie the SEA process in with the
on-going consolidated grants process and annual ZBB effort.
Based on our assessment of the progress made in negotiating the FY 1980
Agreements, several issues were identified and raised as potential problem
areas. Each of these concerns is discussed later in this report.
Our findings were discussed openly with the Office of External Affairs
and in most cases they were fully aware of which items could be corrected
during the remaining weeks of negotiation and which will require continued
attention next year. The Region was very open to our observations and they
fully realize that continued fine tuning of the process is necessary both
within the Region and at the National level. From our viewpoint, the process
for negotiating the FY 1980 Agreements, on the whole, is progressing quite
smoothly. The schedule of draft Agreements in late July, and final Agreements
to be signed in early September appears to be on target. Very few difficulties
have surfaced between the Region and States thus far and few obstacles are
foreseen in the remaining weeks of negotiation.
Summary of the FY 1979 Process
The Office of External Affairs (OEA) had the lead responsibility within
the Region for negotiating the Agreements with each State. Given the short
time in which to work (roughly two months), the OEA staff and the RA were
faced, first, with the task of convincing the States of the merits of the process,
and second, with beginning the process for developing the actual Agreements. Many
of the States were reluctant at first to commit substantial resources toward what
was viewed as, "another one of EPA's paper exercises." However, because of the
RA's high visibility during this period and strong support for the process, much
of this early scepticism was dispelled.
Equally difficult was the effort to get program people at the State and
Regional level to focus on specific environmental problems, rather than on
programmatic problems as priority issues. As a result, many of the priority
issues identified under each of the Agreements dealt largely with programmatic
concerns e.g., 205(g), NPDES permits, pretreatment, etc. (Attachment I
49
-------
lists the priority issues identified by State and briefly describes the pro-
cess for negotiating the FY 1979 Agreements.) The selection of priority is-
sues was also hampered by a lack of hard data on which to base decisions.
This tended to make the selection process less objective and more vulnerable
to personal and program bias. Aside from these initial difficulties, the
negotiation process proceeded quite well. The differences that did arise
were resolved between OEA and State staff. The RA and State Agency Directors
were available to respond to any matters requiring higher level attention.
As stated previously, the FY 1979 Agreements were rather narrow in scope
and were not intended to address all of the components spelled out for the
full scale SEA process. The Agreements contained ten to fifteen priority is-
sues, each of which included a statement of the problem, a brief background
discussion, and broad approaches and commitments to address each problem.
The Agreements did not provide details on funding or resource levels.
Although the Region tended to track progress during the implementation
phase of the Agreement. little formal tracking of commitments was done. The
Region, however, has had general discussions with the States on progress made
toward meeting objectives outlined in the Agreements. No attempt was made to
directly tie the work plans or consolidated grants process with the priority
issues identified for FY 1979. All of the non-priority activities associated
with each of the covered programs for FY 1979 were addressed separately under
the consolidated grant process.
Significant headway toward achieving greater coordination and/or integra-
tion of programs during FY 1979 did not occur. The Region felt that the ma-
jor accomplishment in this area was the noticeable increase in communication
between programs. The various programs were forced, for the first time in
many cases, to share their problems and concerns. This was viewed by OEA as
a very important step in moving toward the ultimate goal of greater program
integration and coordination.
FY 1980 State/EPA Agreements
Negotiation Process
The Region issued guidance for developing the FY 1980 Agreements in
February. The process was developed in three phases: Phase 1 Problem
Assessment, Phase II Strategy Development, and Phase III Agreement
Finalization. The negotiation process began in the Region with media task
forces (consisting of program staff) listing each State's priorities for FY
1980 as they saw them (both on a one-year and multi-year basis). State com-
mittees were assembled consisting of Regional staff from the media task forces
to further discuss the suggested priorities and prepare their recommendations
for the Policy Review Committee. This Committee is comprised of Division Di-
rectors from Water, Air and Hazardous Materials, S&A, and Enforcement. Their
role is to meet with each of the States in order to discuss priorities and to
begin developing strategies and commitments. Both the States and the Region
prepared separate lists of priorities which were then negotiated during these
meetings.
50
-------
One apparent problem in the negotiation process within the Region sur-
rounds the lack of adequate feedback to the program staff once their initial
input was sought under the media task force and State committee structure.
Several staff members interviewed indicated that once their recommendations
went forward to the Policy Review Committee, little or no communication was
directed back to them regarding the status of the negotiations. Most felt
that in order for the process to be fully effective, they should be kept
fully involved during the continuing negotiations with the States. By doing
so, they would be better able to provide more useful input into the details
of the strategies and in the identification of commitments made on the part
of EPA and the States.
Only one of the four States in Region VII, Nebraska, has more than one
agency responsible for negotiating the Agreements. These agencies include:
the Department of Health (drinking water programs), the Department of Environ-
mental Control (solid waste, air quality and water pollution control), and
Nebraska Resources Commission (208/106 program). This multi-agency structure
posed some difficulty in negotiating the FY 1979 Agreement with Nebraska, and
the situation worsened during the early stages of the FY 1980 process. Sensi-
tivity over turf resulted in little communication or progress during this
period. Since then, however, hostility has abated somewhat, possibly with
the decision to negotiate separate Agreements between each of the three
agencies and EPA. The remaining States have only one agency in charge of
negotiating the Agreements and, thus, few problems have arisen.
Priority Selection
The RA has made it clear that she would like the States and the Region to
place more emphasis on selecting priority activities which are problem specific,
as opposed to program oriented. A vast majority of priority problems identified
for FY 1979 were of the program nature. The RA feels strongly that the
Agreements should focus on major environmental problems first, and then con-
centrate on how the various pr6grams can best address them. However, based on
discussions with Regional staff, it appears that this year, as last, there will
be a predominance of program-related priorities. It is speculated that this
pattern continues for two reasons: first, because it is very difficult to force
those involved with the Agreement process to begin thinking in terms of specific
environmental problems, and second, because there may very simply be too few
major environmental problem issues, like the Salsbury Laboratory toxics problem,
on which to base the Agreements. This case involves an integrated effort to
eliminate pollution of Cedar Valley water resources by waste products of the
Salsbury Laboratories. Wastes were either discharged through the City's
waste treatment facility or deposited in the local dump site. The strategy
involved is to provide interim pretreatment of liquid waste prior to dis-
charge to the City system, construction of an industrial waste treatment
plant by the Laboratories to permit direct discharge to the Cedar River, and
finally, to close the dump site and continue maintenance to minimize leachate
into groundwaters. In addition, the Agreement clearly fixes State and EPA
responsibilities and timing and establishes standards by which to measure
progress.
51
-------
Each of the programs within the Region felt responsible to push their
respective national priority program areas during the negotiation process. If,
however, the assessment process indicated that certain priorities did not apply
within a given State, they were dropped from consideration.
Tracking
The Region plans to develop and implement this year a more vigorous track-
ing process for monitoring the progress toward achieving the goals and objectives
outlined within the Agreements. At the time of our visit these details had not
been worked out. The OEA does envision that commitments will be tracked either
on a quarterly or four-month basis. The tracking effort will be conducted
either through face-to-face meetings with appropriate staff and management, or
through reports filed by the project officers assigned to each priority problem
area.
For non-priority program areas included in the Agreements, standard track-
ing procedures, a part of each States' consolidated grants package, will provide
this monitoring capability.
Work Programs and Non-Priority Program Coverage
This year the Region is planning to interface the consolidated grants pro-
cedures into the Agreement format by including an addendum with each Agreement.
By doing so, the Agreements would cover, at least in summary form, all on-
going non-priority activities associated with each of the covered programs.
According to the Office of External Affairs, this portion of the Agreement
would be developed once work is completed on the larger priority issue sections.
In discussing this concept with the various program managers, it was clear
that there is some confusion as to how this addendum section will be handled.
In one case, a program manager was not familiar with the addendum format at all.
On the whole, most felt that the Agreements should be limited to those activities
(commitments, resources, funding, etc.) associated with each of the major priority
issues, possibly with brief summaries of other major activities associated with
each of the covered programs. To go beyond that, it was felt, the Agreement
concept would lose much of its impact if the "business as usual" details were
dwelled on too extensively.
Several expressed concern over a lack of adequate program involvement in
the grants process itself. This is due largely to the fact that the process is
operated from a separate office within the Region. One person suggested that
in the future each program should have direct responsibility over preparation
of the substantive material contained in each grant agreement, while the over-
all administrative procedures could remain within the existing central-office
structure.
Coordination/Integration
It is generally felt that the FY 1980 effort would result in some addi-
tional progress toward achieving greater coordination and integration of pro-
grams covered under the Agreements. As in last years' process, most feel that
the greatest accomplishment is increased program and staff communication. The
52
-------
Charles City, Iowa, toxic dumpting issue did, however, prove to be one area
where there is considerable program coordination. The very nature of this
problem has prompted several program areas to be involved, including water
quality management, permits, solid/hazardous wastes and drinking water. It
is anticipated that at a minimum, data sharing between programs will take
place, possibly, along with the joint planning and implementation of
corrective measures.
Beyond this level of integration/coordination, major accomplishments seem
to be much further down the road. Most felt that before greater integration
and coordination can be achieved, EPA will have to take the lead in eliminat-
ing many of the duplicative or overlapping program requirements specified under
the various legislative mandates.
Public Participation
Efforts to involve the public in FY 1980 have been quite limited. The
Office of External Affairs believes that lack of adequate time has prevented
the implementation of public participation activities. Originally, the Re-
gion had planned to initiate public involvement during priority issue develop-
ment, but this did not occur. The Region does fully intend to conduct public
hearings prior to completion of the final Agreements.
It was very apparent that the Region is concerned about the inability to
conduct adequate public participation efforts this year. The Region's Office
of Public Awareness appears quite capable of conducting this type of involve-
ment, but has thus far been underutilized in implementing activities of this
nature. Prior to next year's effort, the Region hopes to conduct further work
on developing the best approach possible for meeting the public involvement
and information needs associated with the SEA process.
Recommendations on Improving SEA Process
Most interviewed staff members felt strongly that the SEA process is a
useful one, and that it has significant potential to become the mechanism to
coordinate, integrate and manage all programs within EPA. But before this can
happen, the process will have to be universally accepted within the Agency.
Because some programs have resisted, and may continue to resist, the SEA con-
cept, there is uncertainty over the longevity and effectiveness of the process.
Most felt strongly that'issuing regulations would not really help institutionalize
the process. State/EPA Agreement regulations would only result in less flexi-
bility and tend to detract from the Agreement's concept as a means to promote
State and Federal partnership. Instead, most recommended that there be con-
tinued high-level promotion of the concept, both at the State and Federal level.
Most felt that the FY 1980 guidance served as a useful tool in explaining
the overall process. Beyond that, however, it did not assist the Region
greatly in developing its own process, or in struggling with many of the diffi-
cult procedural details associated with the concept.
53
-------
Almost everyone supported a continuing effort to exchange useful and in-
novative information on the SEA process. The Region felt that many of the
materials circulated during the past months proved helpful in offering specific
ideas, as well as providing a broad perspective on how the process is proceeding
nationally.
More specific guidance requests included: the need for further procedural
suggestions on how non-priority program activities should be included in the
SEAs i.e., level of detail and relationship with work programs; and the
need for further work centered on the funding flexibility issue. Many said
that funding flexibility is potentially one of the most important features
that the Agreement concept can offer, and that decisions on this issue need
to be made quickly in order to avoid further confusion and false hope.
Many expressed the importance of synchronizing the development of Agree-
ments with the Agency operating guidance and ZBB effort. The ZBB process is
especially important because it should be coordinated closely with the pro-
gram and resource commitments negotiated within the Agreements. Finally, ef-
forts must be made to keep the process as uncomplicated as possible. It was
the unamimous opinion that additional paperwork and increased administrative
details have resulted in heavy resource demands both at the State and Re-
gional level. While most were of the belief that this additional workload
was due, in part, to the initial gear-up requirements, many feared that as
the process develops so might the need for more and more procedural detail.
54
-------
ATTACHMENT I
FY 1979 Priorities by State
Process description - Each of the States prepared lists of priority
problems they viewed as requiring attention in FY 1979. Within the
Regional office, State task groups were formed to identify what they
viewed each State's priorities to be. A policy committee consisting of
Division Directors, together with staff from the Office of External
Affairs, met with each of the States to develop the final list of priority
issues and to prepare strategies for addressing them. Resolution of any
differences was reached through direct negotiation between each of the
State Directors and the Regional Administrator.
Priorities
The priority activities cited under each Agreements cover a wide range
of program areas. In addition to Clean Water Act programs, RCRA, SDHA
end Air programs are reflected in many of the Agreements. Priorities
by State are as follows:
Iowa
Industrial Solid Waste Disposal
Salsbury Laboratory (Charles City)
PCS Contaminated Oil Disposal
State Environmental Legislative Revisions
Emergency Response
Air - SIP's
Air Emissions - CRA - Iron Foundry
Air Emissions - Ames Municipal Electric Utilities
Air - Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Des Moines Metro 203 Plan
Water Quality Standards
Bryant Confinement - Permit Revision
Water Supply Program
UPDES Permits
205(g) Delegation
Data Management
Grants Management
Improve Coordination - KDHE/EPA
Kansas
Air - SIP's
Legislative Revisions
Emergency Response
Hazardous Waste Management
205(g) Delegation
Water Supply Program
NPDES Permits
Toxics & Hazardous Wastes Strategy
Radiation Control Programs
Water Quality Standards
Improve Coordination - DNR/EPA
55
-------
-2-
Missouri
Dioxin & PCB Storage - Verona, MO
Air - sIP's
Standards for Sewage Lagoons
Hazardous Waste Management
Emergency Response
NPDES Permits
Water Supply Primacy
Air Program - Local Agencies
Water Quality Standards
205(g) Delegation
Completion of 208 Planning
Pretreatment
Monitoring
Grants Management
Improve Coordination - DNR/EPA
Nebraska
Air - SIP's
Legislative Revisions ..
Emergency Response
205(g) Delegation
Solid l.aste Program
Groundwater Control
Operation and Maintenance
Hazardous Waste Management
IvPDES Permits
Laboratory Improvements (DEC)
Pretreatment
Improve Communications - ivDBC/EPA
56
-------
REGION VIII SEA TRIP REPORT
This report was prepared by Carol Wegrzynowicz (Office of Water Program
Operations) Facility Planning and Stephen Jackson (Office of Planning and
Management) based upon the regional assessment conducted on June 27-28, 1979.
Introduction
Regional Overview
Region VIII has a very positive attitude toward State/EPA Agreements
because the Regional Administrator and Deputy Regional Administrator fully
support the effort. As evidence of this, each program division director has
been assigned responsibility for completing one State's SEA, and satisfac-
tory completion of his respective SEA has been made a part of the director's
performance agreement with the Regional Administrator. The RA and the DRA
have also insisted that all major Regional activities be included in the
1980 Agreements, including Air, Pesticides, Enforcement and Monitoring.
Most of the staff directly involved with development of the SEA's were favor-
able toward the effort, many of them citing how much they had learned about
programs outside their own areas and the potential for career advancement
which they felt SEA involvement carried. This was especially true for the
SEA coordinating team, a group of staff-level representatives from different
program areas, responsible for shepherding the SEA's to completion.
With the exception of Colorado, the States were not especially
enthusiastic about SEA's, although all were cooperating with Regional staff's
efforts, and by and large, everything is on schedule.
Major Successes
Because the RA and DRA mandated that all SEA's are to address all
program areas, Regional staff has learned a great deal about the programs
outside their immediate areas of responsibility. Regional staff maintains
that this is also generally true for State staffs, especially those most
directly involved in SEA development.
Region VIIIrs policy is that, with the exception of construction grant
applications, a completed SEA constitutes all of a State's grant applica-
tions to EPA for a given year. Within this framework, detailed work plans
were required for approximately ten priority issues identified in each State's
SEA. The remaining issues contained in the SEA require only summary state-
ments of what the State will accomplish in those areas. Requiring detailed
work plans for only the priority issues has reportedly greatly reduced the
States' administrative burden in applying for grants. The streamlined grant
application process, which the States are pleased about, has reportedly gone
a long way toward convincing the States to accept this new EPA requirement.
57
-------
One State, Colorado, is attempting to use its SEA as a management tool
which allows the State to keep track of programs and to coordinate and
integrate elements wherever appropriate.
Region VIII appears to have a good grasp of its goals for this year's
SEAs, and is confident that what is not accomplished this year will be done
in future years. They view the process as evolutionary in nature and have
tried to minimize staff frustration by keeping their sights on the "do-able."
Problems
o Members of the SEA coordinating team, each with responsibility for
one State's SEA and reporting to the Division Director responsible for
that Agreement, relied on staff-level assistance from the program
areas in working out details of the Agreements. Different coordinators
used different staff members, however, and often these people failed to
coordinate with their Branch Chiefs on various policy and program is-
sues. As a result, program inconsistencies from State to State arose,
requiring resolution by the coordinators. For next year, the coordinat-
ors expect to work directly with the Branch Chiefs who, in turn, will
manage staff efforts.
o Public participation in Agreement development will be minimal this year.
Because the Region did not issue guidance on public participation, and
left it up to the States, the public input will not be included in this
year's Agreements except for comments made on draft final agreements
late this summer. (Colorado is the only exception; its various State
Commissions have reviewed the Agreement.)
o None of Region VIII's 1980 Agreements will address, to any significant
degree, cross-cutting issues that require program integration and coor-
dination. Because the States and the Region did not identify cross-cut-
ting issues as priorities, the Region chose to focus its 1980 efforts on
standardizing the forms and scheduling of the Agreements.
o Regional staff relied on State environmental program offices to coordinate
and ensure the participation of State Departments of Agriculture where nec-
essary. State staff did not do this, and Agriculture staffs are being
brought in late, adding to the hostile feelings these two groups of State
staff already have for each other.
o Some time delays will occur in the intermediate steps of the FY 1980 SEA
schedules because of reorganizations within State agencies. These delays,
however, will not affect the submission of the final SEA's by October, 1979.
Because of Region VIII's practice of requiring detailed State work pro-
grams only for the priority issues in each SEA, some program areas will not evi-
dence the detailed information required by regulation. While the Region saw
reduction of reporting requirements as a positive incentive to gain States'
58
-------
cooperation in the Agreements, the States (as reported by Colorado) are aware
of the program requirements and are skeptical that they may later have to go
back and develop detailed work programs for non-priority SEA issues, eliminat-
ing any benefit from using the SEA approach. Moreover, it remains to be seen
if EPA Headquarters offices will be satisfied with the information contained
in these SEA's in lieu of the customary individual grant applications.
SEA FY 1979
Region VIII's FY 1979 SEA process bears little resemblance to its 1980
process. In 1979, the process was managed by Regional water quality manage-
ment staff, and other programs did not choose to participate because it was
not required. The States initially viewed the 1979 process as an extension
of their 106 Agreements. As a result, early drafts did not meet the Region's
objectives and the States were given a six-month extension to get them in.
At the end of the extension period, the Agreements were somewhat improved, but
according to Regional staff, still resembled 106 Agreements.
When we talked with Colorado about their 1979 Agreement, we were told
that they had no staff members with broad enough program perspectives to do
the work. They maintained that the only reason they were able to finish their
1979 Agreement was because the Regional Office loaned them two staff members.
Although Colorado is correcting this problem by adding staff with new skills
in a newly formed Planning and Financial Management Division, the problem of
finding staff members with sufficiently broad perspectives may be difficult
for many States that are completing their first SEA's this year.
SEA FY 1980
Regional Process
Region VIII's process began with the full support of the RA and the DRA,
who insisted that all EPA programs be included in the 1980 Agreements, regard-
less of Headquarter's lesser requirements. Primary responsibility was given
to the Division Directors, who each has lead responsibility for one State,
as well as general responsibility for his functional area for all States.
Assignments of Division Directors were chosen to ensure cooperation among the
Divisions. In addition, the performance agreements between the Division Di-
rectors and the RA included satisfactory completion of the SEAs, adding further
impetus to the process and to cooperation among the Divisions.
A coordination team of one coordinator for each State handles the day-to-
day processing of each Agreement, coordinates the work of all program office
staff working on a particular SEA, and actually negotiates the Agreements with
the States. Coordination team staff have been drawn from different program
areas and are detailed out of their "home" program areas into another program
area, reporting to the division director of the new area. For example, a
Water Division staff member became a coordination team member responsible for
the Colorado SEA; as a result, he is now detailed to the Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, whose director has overall responsibility for the Colorado
Agreement.
59
-------
Staff from each of the different program areas support each coordinator
through work that applies to their respective program areas. The team leaders
saw a loophole here in that program area staff are expected to keep their re-
spective branch chiefs informed of the program and policy information they are
disseminating, but in many cases this has not occurred.
Region VIII's SEA priority setting process began with the Regional pro-
gram offices. Each program area drew up a list of what they thought the most
important issues were for each State. These lists were then given to the
States which responded with priority lists of their own. The coordination team
stated that by and large, the States' lists corresponded closely with the lists
the Region developed and that there were no significant problems. Only one
program area, air, reported using the Headquarters Program Guidance as a model,
however, and in that case it was the Guidance to the States that proved most
useful. It should also be kept in mind that issues requiring program coordina-
tion were consciously avoided.
The actual Agreement making process is being carried out by members of
the coordination team and staff-level State personnel. The Region stated that
working with staff-level personnel has facilitated getting the work done, but
the staff's inability to address policy related questions makes coordination
across program lines difficult.
Regional staff also stated there were other difficulties with working at
the staff level resulting from the organizational placement of State environ-
mental programs. Specifically, most of the States have their environmental
programs split between their Departments of Public Health (or in some cases,
environmental quality) and Agriculture (the pesticides programs). These two
organizations are frequently skeptical of one another, and communication be-
tween the two is usually poor. Because Regional staff has focused its effort
on working with the staff of the environmental quality sections, and because
staff communication between the two State offices is minimal, Regional staff
has found it difficult to get the remaining State programs involved in the SEA
process. More generally, the coordinating team stated that they did not begin
their discussions high enough in the organizational ladder of the State environ-
mental quality offices to facilitate coordination across program areas, and
furthermore, they entrusted State staff to make the appropriate contacts within
the Department of Agriculture, which was not done. Because of this reluctance
of the State Departments to communicate and deal with one another, the coor-
dinating team believes that the Regional Administrator should open next year's
sessions by talking with the Governors and extracting their commitments for
complete staff cooperation and coordination in addressing issues and develop-
ing the Agreements. This is the only way, the Region states, that cross-
program issues will be addressed and that all the State's agencies will be
involved at the time they should be.
State Process
Because of time and scheduling constraints, the only State program office
we were able to visit was Colorado's. Colorado, however, was very enthusiastic
about the SEA process, and has participated in both the FY 1979 and 1980
processes.
60
-------
Colorado summarized their 1979 SEA as shoddy, stating that they began work
on the Agreement late, they had no staff qualified to do the work, and much
of their program staff was unwilling to consider the process seriously.
Colorado was given a six-month extension on their 1979 Agreement, during
which they did a complete re-work, but ultimately they were unable to use
all the ideas Regional staff had given them.
Following their 1979 experience, Colorado has added two new staff members
to work on SEAs. Moreover, the 1979 experience appears to have highlighted
their overall need for increased management capacity, because a whole new
unit is being established to address policy and financial planning, including
State/EPA Agreements.
Management was optimistic about using their SEA as a management tool for
organizing and keeping track of their program activities. Much of the program
staff remains skeptical of EPA's commitment to SEAs, however, and predict it
is "just another initiative Headquarters has come up with" that will probably
not survive and the States will be back to their former grant application pro-
cess before long. A major related issue is whether EPA program offices will be
satisfied with the less detailed information contained in the SEA, and let it
stand as the States' entire grant application. The reporting requirements re-
quired subsequent to grant awards are also affected. The priority issues carry
more detailed reporting requirements, matching their detailed work programs,
while the non-priority issues entail minimal reporting requirements which are
reflected in their summary work programs. Experienced State staff maintains
that EPA program staff will insist on the detailed grant applications and re-
porting requirements they have always received (and which are required by
regulations). They will then be required to produce detailed work programs
for non-priority issues as well as for priority issues, thus losing the "re-
duced paperwork" incentive for doing SEAs. (Coordination team members con-
sider this incentive to be a major factor in Region VIII States' acceptance
of the SEA process.) State staff, as well as Regional staff, also maintain
that until EPA Headquarters commits itself to SEAs, both in the way it deals
with issues and in its program organization, a certain amount of skepticism
will remain. Colorado's representative also stated that EPA's apparent lack
of commitment to SEAs will reduce the State's willingness to address major
issues requiring program coordination, because the individual programs will
not be willing to give up their own priorities to address cross-cutting issues
without a strong EPA (both Region and Headquarters) lead.
The State representative felt that coordination could be achieved without
the Governor's involvement and getting the Governor's offices involved would
delay the process. Specifically we were told that involvement by the Governor's
Office would increase the political nature of the Agreement making process. In
addition, since the SEAs would likely be a low priority for the Governors, they
would get lost among the many things that office does and be unnecessarily
delayed.
61
-------
Other States
In most, if not all, of the remaining States in Region VIII, the Depart-
ments of Public Health are in charge of developing SEAs. Aside from Colorado,
most of the States were not anxious to become involved in developing the
Agreements, viewing it as a contractual obligation to EPA for which they
would be held accountable.
Public Involvement
The Regional Office left public participation in the hands of the States.
Because of time constraints, as well as their unfamiliarity with the new pro-
cess, the States are involving the public only after drafts of the Agreements
are completed. Colorado has requested the various State commissions to review
portions of their 1980 document, and has set up an advisory committee speci-
fically to review their SEA process.
Procedures
Priorities
As mentioned in the Regional process discussion, priority setting began
with each program area generating its own list of priorities for each State.
States then reviewed the lists and modified them to reflect their own concerns.
Coordination and Integration
Little effort was directed to addressing cross-program integration, al-
though there may be a few multi-program issues scattered through the Agreements.
The Region's opinion is that these kinds of issues will be addressed in subse-
quent SEAs. Toxics, wetlands and hazardous wastes are major issues where co-
ordination should be attempted.
Administrative Load Reduction
Regional program staff did not seem particularly concerned about SEAs in
terms of their own administrative burden, although they believed the burden
to the States was being considerably lightened. Air and Solid Waste both
thought their workload had increased as a result of SEAs; however, this is
their first year of involvement in the process. Other program areas such
as water supply and WQM, which participated last year, did not view the SEA
as an additional burden.
Recommendations for Improving the SEA Process
o The SEA Guidance issued by Headquarters was not very helpful, especially
for cross-program issues. More specific and detailed examples illustrat-
ing how program integration and coordination should be accomplished
would be useful.
62
-------
SEAs should focus on accomplishing a few major achievements each year.
Each year's SEAs should highlight the previous year's accomplishments.
SEA Guidance was late and caused some difficulties in the future it
should arrive before negotiations are underway.
The SEA Guidance should treat the SEA as a management tool and should
differentiate between the RA management level and the program manage-
ment level.
The SEA Guidance and all related materials should be issued by the Ad-
ministrator's Office. This will help force program coordination and
integration on issues, as well as demonstrate agency commitment to the
process.
The division of responsibility between Headquarters and the Regional
Offices should be made clearer.
Questions of funding flexibility need to be resolved and the red tape
involved will have to be cut to a minimum if it is ever to be useable.
State and Regional program staffs are reluctant to change their think-
ing to accommodate the SEA approach to management. Some Headquarters
lead-taking and example-setting would go a long way toward changing the
way they organize their problem-solving processes.
63
-------
REGION IX SEA TRIP REPORT
Introduction
Background Information
Judy Wheeler and Loretta Marzetti of the Office of Water Planning and
Standards visited Region IX on July 12 and 13, 1979. The primary contacts
were Frank Covington, Director, Water Division and Beverly Reed, the WQM
Coordinator. They also met with representatives of the State branches with-
in the Water Division which have lead responsibility for negotiating SEAs.
Regional Overview
The Region supports the SEA process. It is anticipated that most of
the Agreements will be signed by the Governors. Although the Region recog-
nizes that an agreement signed by the Governor is unlikely to be as detailed
as one signed by a department head, they believe the advantages in terms of
the State budgetary process and potential program coordination outweigh other
considerations.
The Water Division has responsibility for SEA coordination. Although
the Air and Solid Waste programs are in another Division, a mechanism has
been provided for their effective input (this will be discussed later).
The FY 1980 SEAs will consist of a brief summary with multi-year strategy
and program plans attached (or referenced). At our suggestion, the Region has
agreed to provide Headquarters with summaries of the program plans along with
the SEA.
The Regional Office supports the concept that EPA should make commitments
in the SEA, but believes the timing of our budget cycle makes it difficult to
commit resources. There was substantial concern expressed about the relation-
ship between the SEA and ZBB processes.
The SEA process has helped the Regions and States to focus more clearly
on priorities and has introduced the concept of long-range planning in some
States. It has served as a vehicle to involve top management and, in some
cases, the Governor in environmental problem-solving. Staff believes the
process fosters greater environmental sensitivity.
64
-------
The major problem experienced by Region IX has been in getting the
Governors to sign the agreements. The FY 1980 SEAs for California will not
be signed by the Governor. The two completed FY 1980 agreements for the Pacific
Islands were signed by the Governors. It is anticipated that the Governor of
Arizona will sign and still unclear whether the Governors of Hawaii and
Nevada will sign.
SEA FY 1979
Status of Agreements
Agreements were signed in all of the Region IX States for FY 1979. Al-
though only water programs were covered, the groundwork was laid for expand-
ing the Agreements to other media for FY 1980.
Date Signed
01/05/79
09/26/78
12/08/78
04/11/79
02/06/79
12/78
Samoa 01/04/79
Guam 1/79
Public Participation
State
Arizona
California
Nevada
Hawaii
Northern
Marianas
Trust
Territories
Parties
RA, Region IX - Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Health Services
RA, Region IX - Chairman, State Water
Resources Control Board
Letter from Governor to RA defining issues
RA, Region IX - Governor
RA, Region IX - Governor
RA, Region IX - High Commissioner - Chairman
Environmental Protection Board
RA, Region IX - Governor
RA, Region IX - Acting Governor - Chairman,
Guam EPA Board
Public meetings were held for the FY 1979 SEAs. In the Pacific Islands,
the public participation activities for the covered programs were coordinated.
Priority Areas
Guam: Safe drinking water primacy; WQM plan adoption; construction of
sewerage facilities; solid and hazardous waste management programs; O&M of sewage
and drinking water facilities; adoption of SIP; regulatory programs and delega-
tions; public participation.
Northern Marianas: Institutional, legal and regulatory authorities; con-
struction grants; safe drinking water; solid' waste management program; person-
nel development; public involvement.
65
-------
Samoa: Legal and regulatory authorities; construction grants; drinking
water; WQM plan development; solid and hazardous waste management programs;
pesticides control program; training; public involvement.
Trust Territories: Implementation of environmental protection programs;
improved program operation capabilities; management of sewage facilities; SDWA
primacy; O&M of sewage and drinking water facilities; regulatory programs;
public involvements; protection of public health.
Hawaii: Implementation of WQM plan; reduction of wastewater flows and re-
cycling; control of hazardous wastes (integrated); State management of con-
struction grants; integrated environmental legislation; enforcement of existing
regulations; public involvement.
California: WQM plans which integrate water use, water supply and waste
disposal; POTWs at secondary treatment level by 1983; interagency toxics pro-
gram; O&M of POTWs; better management of SWRCB.
Attempts were made to bring agencies other than the water agency (SWRCB)
into the FY 1979 SEA. These efforts were not successful. First and second
drafts of the SEA contained a lot of discussion regarding coordination; the
final draft did not, but did commit to bringing in other agencies in the
FY 1980 SEAs.
Nevada: Priority I: Carson River, Reno-Sparks JWPCP discharges to
Truckee River; point source discharges to Las Vegas Wash and Colorado River;
NPS pollution of Lake Tahoe. Priority II: Urban runoff to Truckee; septic
tank failures; NPS runoff to Humboldt River; TDS and nutrients from NPS to
Walker River and Walker Lake.
Arizona: Colorado River salinity; point and NPS impairment of water
quality; some public drinking water supplies; leachate from solid waste dis-
posal sites; groundwater depletion.
Major Strengths and Weaknesses
Generally, FY 1979 Agreements represented a learning process and provided
a basis for the FY 1980 negotiations. Priority areas were identified and com-
mitments were made for future integration and coordination. In California,
many of the dates for outputs were not met because the schedule was too
optimistic.
SEA FY 1980
Regional In-House Process for Developing FY 1980 Agreements
Priorities were developed by the Regional Office for all media (integrated)
based on the State profiles. The profiles were developed from 208 plans, moni-
toring data, 305(b) reports, air quality management plans, SIP's, solid waste
management plans and other pertinent data. The profiles and extracts of major
66
-------
issues were sent to the State. State branch chiefs work with the States to
refine the priority lists. Unresolved issues are referred to the RA. Prior-
ities reflect a mix of substantive and procedural issues. A multi-divisional
team, composed of Division Directors as well as staffers, is involved in de-
velopment and review of the SEAs. The team meets at a set time weekly to dis-
cuss progress and issues.
State Processes
Both State department heads and the Governor's offices are involved in the
SEA process.
Negotiating Organizations
California: The Resources Agency (Air Resources Board, State Water Re-
sources Control Board (SWRCB) and Solid Waste Management Board) (the Resources
Agency has close ties to the Governor's Office); Health and Welfare Depart-
ment (drinking water, hazardous waste); Agricultural Services Department
(pesticides); and the Governor's Office.
Arizona: Arizona Department of Health Services; Office of Economic Plan-
ning and Development; and the Governor's Office. The Water Commission, Land
Department and other pertinent agencies are involved through the Department
of Health Services.
Nevada: State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Depart-
ment of Human Resources (drinking water).
Hawaii: Department of Health
Pacific Islands: State environmental agencies
Schedule
In March 1979, the Regional Administrator established an overall schedule
for the development of draft and final Agreements, including provision for
public participation. Draft Agreements were due by the end of June and final
Agreements are to be signed by September 30, 1979. To date, this schedule is
being met. In fact, two Agreements have already been signed ahead of schedule
the Northern Marianas (May 25, 1979) and Guam (June 14, 1979).
Public Involvement Techniques
Region IX is giving public participation grants to Arizona and Nevada for
development of public participation strategies for the FY 1981 Agreements. The
Region also intends to award a grant to Califonria for the same purpose. Arizona
has a public participation task force consisting of COGs, State agencies, public
interest groups, and a citizen who commented on the FY 1979 SEA. In the Outer
Islands, because of the consolidated grant program and single layer government,
coordination and integration of public participation is common practice. The
Region has encouraged use of existing public participation advisory groups to
the maximum extent possible or expansion of them if needed to cover SEA activities.
67
-------
Procedures
California provides a most interesting example of procedures involved in
negotiating an SEA in a multi-agency State. As mentioned previously, three
departments, covering five major agencies, are involved. These are: the Re-
sources Agency (Air Resources Board (ARE), State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), and Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB)); Health and Welfare Depart-
ment (drinking water, hazardous waste) and Agriculture Services (pesticides).
The Agreement will be divided into six separate categories: (1) a major cross-
cutting issue (toxics); and (2) five media related categories that will be
negotiated with each appropriate agency. The signatory parties will be the
Directors of the five major agencies and EPA, Region IX.
In California, the water quality/quantity agency is the SWRCB, with which
the FY 1979 SEA was negotiated. The process used to negotiate with SWRCB is
as follows. In January and February the State identified 40 issues. In March
a steering committee (EPA, COGs, SWRCB Regional Boards, SWRCB staff) met to
prioritize issues. Sub-committees were formed to resolve issues. Those that
were resolved (basically trivial procedural issues) were dropped from the list.
The SEA was the driving force for this issue resolution process. If the sub-
committee could not resolve an issue it was raised to the Executive Director
of the SWRCB, and the Director of the Water Division, EPA, and a representative
of the EPA Enforcement Office. This group, known as the Policy Body, either
resolved the issue or identified it as a problem to be solved in the SEA. Pro-
gram coordination in areas other than toxics is expected to occur through
memoranda of understanding.
The Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB) in California has agreed to shift
$200,000 from subtitle D to subtitle C to meet hazardous waste priorities
agreed on by EPA and the State at the mid-year evaluations. This proposal is
pending HQ approvals.
Major Achievements of SEA Process
Summary of Achievements
o Integrated toxics agreement in California,
o Involvement of the Governor's office,
o Prioritization of problems,
o Awareness of long-range planning needs,
o EPA will make commitments,
o Better communication between State agencies,
o Better resource allocation at Regional Office.
68
-------
Comparisons FY 1979 vs. FY 1980
The FY 1980 Agreements will be much more comprehensive than the FY 1979
Agreements and are expected to provide for more coordination.
Recommended Revisions to Improve SEA Process
Regional/State Recommendations and Comments
o Need internal linkage between ZBB and SEA process. EPA budget
cycles make it hard to commit EPA resources.
o Need flexibility to adjust to State's fiscal year cycle. Con-
sideration should be given to developing a two-year Agreement
on an annual basis.
o Recognize that State and national priorities may differ.
o EPA inability to transfer funds from one program to another
limits States' flexibility to do the same.
o National guidance (both EPA Agency Guidance and SEA
Guidance) would be more effective if available earlier
in the process.
o FY 1981 SEA Guidance should:
1. Be flexible,
2. Include simple examples of SEA content and procedures,
format and permit coordination.
Survey Team Comments
It was unclear whether Region IX changed its way of doing business as a
result of the SEA process. The SEA has served to get people together and to
focus State attention on problem identification, prioritization, and problem
solution. The Region is willing to back the SEA commitments by withholding
grant funds and EPA will also make commitments in the SEAs.
69
-------
REGION X SEA TRIP REPORT
Introduction
Background Information
Peter Wise, Judith Wheeler, and Bob Linett of the Office of Water Plan-
ning and Standards visited Region X on July 9-10.
Persons Contacted: Ms. Julie Erickson, Region X SEA Coordinator
Mr. Ed Coate, Deputy Regional Administrator
Mr. Dick Bauer, Chief, Resources Management Branch
Mr. Lyman Nielson, Washington Operations Office
Mr. Lynn McKee, Idaho Operations Office
Mr. John Vlastelicia, Oregon Operations Office
Mr. Dick Thiel, Alaska Operations Office
Representatives of Regional Office program offices
for solid waste, water supply, and water quality
management
Representative of the State of Oregon
Regional Overview
The Deputy Regional Administrator indicated his and the Regional Admin-
istrator's strong support for the SEA process. He also supported the assess-
ment visit and believes there should be more visits of this type from HQ to
the Regions. Regional support for the SEA process is based on the RA and DRA's
belief that it can serve to pull the covered programs together, avoid duplica-
tion of effort, and introduce a problem solving approach. Organizationally,
SEA negotiation responsibility is placed in the Operations (OPS) Offices which
are located in the four States. The water quality, solid waste, water supply
and air staffs at the Regional Office provide program support. This division
of labor was designed to lead to greater program integration.
The FY 1980 SEAs for each Region X State will consist of an executive sum-
mary and an agreement of roughly 150 pages which will provide the basis for
making grants (i.e., it will include the 5-year strategy and the work plans).
All of the covered programs plus air will be covered in the 1980 SEAs. All
four States will include 105 program grants in the SEA. Alaska and Oregon
will include a multi-year air strategy in their Agreements. Region X strongly
supports EPA making commitments, in addition to distribution of grant funds,
in the SEAs. The Region is using the 1979 SEAs as a management tool and has
found them useful in performing mid-year evaluations. They intend to use
future SEAs in the same way. At the time of the Regional visit none of the
1980 SEAs were available for HQ review.
The major success of the SEA process in Region X to date appears to be
assisting the Region in getting the States to concentrate on longer range
planning (5-year), better problem identification, and assignment of priorities
70
-------
to environmental problems. Further, it has served as a management tool to
evaluate progress. Top management has been involved in the process. Be-
cause the Region agrees with the concept of the SEA and because it is consist-
ent with the management philosophy of Region X, there has been strong support
for the process at the highest levels of the Regional Office, leading to in-
clusion of air in the SEAs to the extent feasible and emphasis on development
of 5-year strategies for programs where it is not mandated.
The major potential problem involves organization of the Regional Office.
For the 1979 SEAs lead responsibility was in the Water Division. For 1980 it
is in the OPS offices. While generally the OPS offices believe they have a good
working relationship with the program offices at the Regional Office, the pro-
gram people have expressed concern that they are not being sufficiently in-
volved and that the 1980 SEAs may not provide sufficient detail on which to
base a grant award. The DRA is aware of these concerns and believes they can
be dealt with.
SEA FY 1979
Status of Agreements and Negotiating Parties
SEAs were negotiated for all four Region X States, although some Agree-
ments were more detailed than others.
State Date Signed Parties
Alaska 12/07/78 State Director and RA
Idaho 02/20/79 State Director and RA
Oregon 12/13/78 State Director and RA
Washington 02/23/79 State Director and RA
Public Participation
The Regional Office relied on the States' processes for public participa-
tion in the SEA process. It varied by State in terms of advance notice, work-
shops, etc. All States had the Policy Advisory Committees review the SEAs and
comment. Washington took theirs to workshops including the areawide 208 agencies,
Oregon held a meeting with local 208 agencies and also announced and distributed
the draft widely for public review. Oregon was the only one that provided a
good Summary of Public Participation. Judgement varies by State but for a
first time effort their efforts were pretty good. Regional Office guidance
was to build the public participation process into their normal 106 process.
Priority Areas
Major priority problems by State were:
Alaska: Village Sanitation, Placer Mining, SE Alaska logging, construction
urban runoff, waste oil disposal, gas pipeline (ALPETCO project), continental
shelf oil and gas lease sale.
71
-------
Idaho; Agricultural runoff, Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer protection, Boise
area urban initiative (growth management, groundwater, air quality, etc.),
sediment standard, injection wells, lakes development, Ft. Hall Indian
reservation, South Fork of Coeur d'Alene River (mine tailings), toxics con-
tainer storage and disposal.
Oregon: Groundwater quality, toxics, CSO, animal waste-feedlot runoff,
agricultural runoff, ammonia discharge in the Willamette, vessel discharge,
urban runoff, area-specific problems such as irrigated agriculture in the
Malheur, septic tanks and animal waste in the Tillamook Bay area, etc.
Washington; Toxic substances, animal waste management, ground disposal
(Spokane Co. aquifer, Cowlitz County septic tanks, large septic systems) irri-
gated agriculture, urban waters (runoff), forest practices, dryland agriculture.
The methodology for determining priority areas varied by State. In
general, EPA held several water team meetings with major input from S&A to
identify geographic areas where the Region felt there were major water quality
problems from a geographic standpoint (based on 305(b)s, profiles, etc.).
Then each program director identified major program areas for inclusion in
SEAs, such as 205(g) delegation, etc.
Alaska: Used the judgement of staff in identifying major priority
areas.
Idaho: Relied heavily on their 305(b) report and problem identification.
Oregon: Used staff judgement as well as the priorities identified in
their NFS assessment done under the 208 program.
Washington: Went through an extensive stream segment analysis (WQL, EL
NFS-limited) to identify priority problem elements and then made their 305(b)
consistent with that. Problem identification was based on WQ data analysis
and staff judgement.
SEA Features and Processes
Regional procedures for negotiating SEAs consisted of several phases.
1. Initial FY 1979 guidance provided an example of an SEA/Five Year Strategy
and required a commitment to prepare agreement by March 1979. Em-
phasis was on Five Year Strategy rather than SEA at that time.
2. Lead was taken by the WQM Branch Chief to meet with the head of
each State's water program in one-on-one full day meetings to
lay out the format and substance of the water SEA. In some
instances, Operations Offices' staff participated in these
meetings.
72
-------
3. As material was completed from each meeting, it was circulated
to each member of the Water Team (Construction Grants, Permits,
Planning and Monitoring Branch Chiefs and Operations Office
Directors).
4. Review comments were consolidated by WQM and transmitted to
the States. In the middle of the process, the Region changed
its opinion of what a State EPA Agreement consisted of and
directed its attentions to obtaining both a Five Year Strategy
and a "summary" SEA.
5. The Regional Office held briefings with the Water Team, RA and
DRA and Operations Office Directors on the agreements to work
out final negotiation process and substance of the agreements.
At that time the Operations Office Directors were given the
responsibility of obtaining the final signatures on the Agreements.
6. The process lasted through November 1978 to get the FY 1979 strate-
gies and summary agreements. Generally Oregon and Alaska's strate-
gies and agreements were adequate and Washington and Idaho's were
less than adequate, in terms of meeting Regional guidance and needs.
Major Problems in Negotiating FY 1979 SEAs
Because EPA program offices were not willing to give up anything, the
States were required to commit to everything. Subsequently, the States could
not accomplish everything they committed to. This was overcome partially by
giving the responsibility of negotiating the agreements for FY 1980 to the
Operations Offices.
Too much time was sepnt completing the strategy and not enough time was
left for the SEA itself. All of EPA, from HQ on down, had different ideas of
what an SEA should be (from a PR document to substantive commitments). Guid-
ance to the States was somewhat confused because of this.
Because of problems of timing related to EPA budget cycles, it was diffi-
cult to make strong EPA commitments. It was difficult to get senior State
officials to think in terms of 5-year strategies. Lack of mandatory 5-year
strategy for some programs made it difficult to prioritize. Public interest
in SEA process was limited.
Major Accomplishments and Strengths
1. Used as a management tool for mid-year evaluations.
2. Pushed States to think in terms of 5-year strategies.
3. Helped focus on priorities.
4. SEA process helped in involving air program.
5. First step toward program integration.
73
-------
6. Possible future reduction of paperwork and oversight.
7. Better coordination and some integration.
8. First step in right direction a learning experience.
9. Helps States see how EPA programs interrelate.
10. Grants were not awarded to Oregon and Alaska (106) until SEAs
were completed (December). In Idaho and Washington, grants
were conditioned and funds were withheld pending completion
of an acceptable SEA.
SEA FY 1980
Regional In-House Processes for Developing FY 1980 SEAs
The Resources Management Branch, Planning Section, has had the primary
responsibility for:
1. Issuing "process" guidance and outlining roles and responsibilities.
2. Coordinating program guidance between Regional and Operations Office
personnel.
3. Coordinating the SEA review process (of draft SEAs).
4. Tracking the status of SEA development in all States and providing
status reports to the RA and DRA.
5. Coordinating the mid-year review process (during which time the
previous year's SEAs are scrutinized).
6. Providing administrative support assistance to the Operations
Office Directors and States.
7. Flagging major issues for discussion/evaluation and, if necessary,
issuing appropriate guidance.
The Operations (OPS) Office Directors are the point of contact for the
States and have lead responsibility for negotiating the SEA, serve as State
program grant officers, and manage the oversight program, including mid-year
reviews. The program offices (media teams) provide support to the OPS offices.
The SEA is a single bilateral document consisting of a signed summary,
a one-year operating plan and multi-year strategy for each of the covered
programs, an integration strategy, and in some cases, delegation compliance
agreements. The summary, approximately 20 pages, is written in layman's
language and will be used for public information purposes.
74
-------
Other EPA roles and responsibilities in regard to the SEA include:
RA/DRA provide front-end policy constraints, resolve issues between OPS
offices and divisions, approve and execute SEAs. Director, Office of External
Affairs develops Regional policy for public participation in SEA process.
State Processes
The following Agencies will have ultimate implementation responsibilities:
State
Alaska
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Schedule
March 1979
April 1979
May 1979
July 1979
September 1979
Set Responsibility
Director, Deputy of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
Director, EPA Alaska Operations Office
Director, Department of Environmental Quality
Director, EPA Oregon OPS Office
Director, Department of Ecology
Director, Health Services Division
Department of Social & Health Services (Drinking
Water Program)
Director, EPA Washington Operations Office
Administrator, Division of Environment
Department of Health and Welfare
Director, EPA Idaho OPS Office
SEA National Guidance received.
Kickoff letter by RA to State Directors
Region 1 SEA guidance sent to States by OPS
Mid-year program mini-reivews.
RA/State Director mini-reviews.
Draft SEA received by EPA
EPA reviews sent to States
Joint State/EPA public hearings.
Final SEA received
SEA signed.
Public Involvement Techniques
The Region supports the concept that public involvement is a joint State/
EPA responsibility. The public participation effort will focus on direct mail-
ings to interest groups and public meetings. However, in FY 1979 attendance at
public meetings was very limited (3 to 5 people -at most meetings). Generally,
public participation is going according to plan. Involvement occurs after a
draft is developed.
75
-------
Procedures
Each program office within the Regional Office develops a priority list
for each State. Priorities are both substantive and procedural. These lists,
and any specific guidance developed by the program offices, are sent to the
OPS Office Directors who transmit the priorities lists to the States. They
have the option of sending the guidance to the States. The State agencies
then develop the draft SEA in close cooperation with the OPS offices. The
Regional program offices provide support for the OPS offices in the negotia-
tion process. After a draft is developed by the State, the OPS and program
offices review and comment on the draft. Once the draft is revised, public
meetings (often joint EPA/State meetings) are held and the final SEA is pre-
pared and signed. The Resource Management Branch is responsible for coordination.
Major Achievements and Impacts of SEA Process
Summary of Achievements
Because of the timing of our visit it is not possible to ascertain what
the FY 1980 SEAs will achieve because they are only now being drafted. The
achievements listed below are those that came about from the FY 1979 SEAs and
those that are hoped for by the FY 1980 SEAs.
o Reorganization of Regional Office placing more responsibility
in the OPS offices strong focal point for decision-making.
o Stronger emphasis on problem assessment through 5-year strategy
and prioritization.
o Stronger emphasis on problem-solving.
o Provides mechanism for States to see how EPA programs interrelate.
o Involvement of top management.
o New emphasis on longer range planning.
o Inclusion of all annual grant program plans for the covered
programs (e.g., 105, 106, 208, water supply and solid waste).
o Getting State people to talk to each other.
o New emphasis on program integration.
o More meaningful paperwork.,
o Involvement of air program in FY 1980 (Regional initiative).
o Development of 5-year strategies for programs where it is not
required (Regional initiative).
76
-------
o Integration/coordination
Idaho is working on an integrated 5-year
strategy (air, RCRA, CWA, SDWA).
Regional Urban Initiative Program
(a) integrated EIS for Boise, Idaho
(b) integrated groundwater program in Spokane.
Comparisons -- FY 1979 vs. FY 1980
The FY 1979 SEAs covered only water programs and were coordinated by the
Water Division. For FY 1980, all of the covered programs plus air will be
included and major coordination is being handled by the Resources Management
Branch. The FY 1979 SEAs were a learning experience and knowledge gained in
FY 1979 is being used to negotiate more comprehensive agreements in FY 1980.
More coordination and integration is expected in the FY 1980 SEAs.
Recommended Revisions to Improve SEA Process
Regional/State Recommendations and Comments
The Region is supportive of the SEA process and believes that it will
assist in focusing on problem identification, prioritization and problem-
solving in a coordinated manner. They liked the FY 1980 SEA guidance and
want the FY 1981 guidance to remain flexible. Their suggestions for the
FY 1981 guidance include:
o Examples of format.
o Guidance regarding reduction of paperwork (e.g., can the CPP be
integrated into the SEA?).
o Use real world examples.
o HQ inclusion of the air program.
o Emphasis on flexibility in using priorities in national program
guidance when State problems are different from national priorities.
o Emphasis on SEA as a bilateral agreement.
o Clarification of funding flexibility.
We spoke with a representative of the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality who stated that the timing of the SEA does not match up well with the
bi-annual State budget process. We pointed out that this problem can be
addressed through longer range planning. He also expressed his belief that
in order to get the States to do long range planning, EPA must make a solid
commitment to the process so the rules will not change from year-to-year.
77
-------
Survey Team Comments
Because the SEA concept is consistent with the Region X management philos-
ophy, Region X has made significant progress in implementing the process. While
direct water quality benefits may not be apparent for several years, the SEA
is expected to direct EPA and State resources where they are most needed and
ultimately to attack the worst problems first in an integrated manner. We were
very encouraged by the progress made in Region X and our only major concern re-
gards the relationship between the OPS and program offices. We did suggest to
Regional staff they they consider integrating the program office developed
priority lists before sending them to the OPS offices and the States for future
SEAs.
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979631-409
78
------- |