SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Noise
Analysis of EPA Techinical
Assistance to State and
Local Governments
Volume V: An Initial Assesment of
the ECHO Noise Technical Asssitance
Program
-------
81
Analysis of EPA Technical Assistance
to State and Local Governments^
Volume V: An Initial Assessment of the ECHO
Noise Technical Assistance Program
by
Imadiel Ariel and Robert F. McMahon
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc.
36 Boylston Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Contract #68-01-5034
Project Officers
Thomas Kelly and Steve Jackson
Program Evaluation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 1980
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report represents the combined effort of a number of people both at
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. and the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Any errors of omission or commission, however, remain the respon-
sibility of the authors.
Special thanks go to the Project Officers for the project, Tom Kelly and
Steve Jackson of the EPA Program Evaluation Division. Their guidance and
direction have been essential in ensuring that the research is useful to EPA.
Chet Shura and Casey Caccavari in EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control
have also provided valuable advice during the course of the project. The
research would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Community
Noise Advisors and recipient communities interviewed in this project.
Several members of USRSE's staff have had key roles in the project.
Michael Alford served as Principal Investigator for the overall EPA technical
assistance project. Chuck Stern conducted the recipient community survey and
did a major portion of the background research. Jim Hudson served as internal
reviewer in USR&E. Finally, the efforts of Tina Cutino on production have
been extraordinary.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Views of Technical Assistance in EPA 1
1.2 History of the Project 3
1.3 Scope of This Report 4
2 BACKGROUND 6
2.1 t$oise as a Problem ' 6
2.2 Noise Control Efforts 7
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ECHO PROGRAM 20
3.1 Background 20
3.2 Program Management and Operation 23
3. 3 Echo Technical Assistance 27
4 SURVEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS 29
4.1 Survey Approach 29
4.2 Survey Results 33
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40
5.1 General Noise Program Conclusions 40
5.2 ECHO Program Conclusions 42
5.3 ECHO Program Recommendations 43
APPENDIX A: ECHO Contract Form 46
APPENDIX B: USR&E ECHO Survey Instruments 53
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
This reports presents a description and initial assessment of the ECHO
(Each Community Helping Others) noise technical assistance program. The
ECHO program was initiated by EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control
(ONAC) in January, 1978. Technical assistance in the ECHO program is provided
through a group of Community Noise Advisors (CNAs) to communities in need of
noise-related technical assistance. As of September, 1979, according to ONAC,
55 communities had received, or were in the process of receiving, assistance
through the ECHO program.
The ECHO program is based on a relatively simple concept, namely the
use of peer match to solve a community's problems. When one community has a
specific noise problem, more often than not, that problem has been faced by
another community. What is required is a mechanism to match the technical
assistance needs of one community with the expertise of another community.
The ECHO program was developed by EPA to serve as a peer match and technical -
assistance delivery mechanism for the Noise Program.
While the ECHO concept is basically a more formalized approach to "good
neighbor" assistance, the program rests on several principles that represent
alterations to a simple good-neighbor assistance program:
A formal matching mechanism to ensure appropriate match
between needs and available expertise;
Active attempt to develop an expanding network of capable
providers;
Subsidy of travel and out-of-pocket costs incurred by
recipients and CNAs (volunteerism, however, is the
foundation of the ECHO program);
An informal guid pro quo commitment from recipient
communities concerning the implementation of a noise
program;
A moderate reporting program for providers.
ECHO is managed by EPA Regional Noise Officers (RNOs). The ECHO responsi-
bilities of the RNOs are the following:
-------
Publicize the ECHO program through EPA printed materials
and at regional noise workshops;
Recruit CNAs from communities in their region that can
provide noise expertise and that are willing to serve
as technical assistance providers;
Serve as the principal matching mechanism.
ONAC has also contracted out a portion of the ECHO administrative respon-
sibilities. Prior to December 1979, ONAC, contracted with two private firms
Gordian Associates of Washington, D.C. and Ecosymetrics of Bethesda, Maryland
-. to manage the paperwork associated with each of the peer matches and to dis-
burse funds to cover peer match expenses. EPA replaced these contractors in
December 1979 with the National League of Cities (NLC). The NLC brings practi-
cal experience to the ECHO program through its work in EPA's solid waste peer
match program.
EPA funded the ECHO program at a $120-140,000 level for FY 78 and FY 79.
This includes the contract with Gordian and Ecosymetrics to administer the
program; the costs associated with CNA expenses; and recipient community
expenses. Under the ECHO program guidelines, CNAs are limited to $3,000 in
costs per peer match; recipient communities are allowed up to $1,000 per peer
match. While CNAs sometimes are dealing with 2 or 3 recipient communities
at any one time, on a yearly basis they are generally only incurring $2-3,000
in ECHO costs.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
The ECHO model, based on a volunteer peer match concept is an
excellent form of noise technical assistance. The ECHO model
is particularly appropriate for the Noise Program because the
implementation of local noise programs is essentially a volun-
tary effort. Lacking Federal requirements for noise programs,
the volunteer aspect of the ECHO program is a suitable technique
for program implementation. It is providing low cost technical
assistance that is well received by recipients.
On the whole, satisfaction with the ECHO program has been high
for both Community Noise Advisors (CNAs) and recipient communities.
From the point of view of the recipient communities, the assistance
received has been appropriate, timely, and at the right level of
effort. Virtually all of the recipient communities in our survey
would like to participate again in ECHO. Sixty percent of the
recipients would be willing to participate in EHCO again as CNAs.
From the point of view of CNAs, there have been very few problems,
except in a couple of regions with coordination with the Regional
Noise Officers (RNOs). Administrative arrangements with the
former private contractors were generally excellent. The lack
of excessive red tape is a key point for CNA satisfaction with
the program management. Seventy percent of the CNAs in our
survey planned to remain in the program.
11
-------
CNA participation in ECHO, a key to the long term success of the
program, is based on two factors. In addition to the lack of '
administrative red tape, CNAs see ECHO as an opportunity to help
communities solve noise problems on a local-to-local basis. CNAs
believe that the receptivity of their peer communities is enhanced
by them being a local technical assistance provider. Secondly,
CNAs view ECHO as an opportunity to advance their own professiona.1
knowledge in the field.
The ECHO program could use better management. Very little is known
about the results of the assistance provided in ECHO. There is
conflicting information about which communities are ECHO recipients.
In addition to this tracking problem, there have been some problems
with inadequate support for CNAs, namely in the area of noise meei-
suring equipment, audiovisual supplies, and CNA recognition. ONAC
is attempting to get all of the RNOs to assume most of the ECHO
management responsibilities. This is occuring slowly in some of
the regions.
PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA should use the experience of the CNAs in developing State
ECHO programs. CNAs are the strength of the existing ECHO
program. They have a tremendous amount of practical experience
to offer EPA and the States in developing the State ECHO pro-
grams. ONAC should make a formal attempt to tap the CNA exper-
ience in this effort.
ONAC and the National League of Cities should provide more
publicity about the ECHO program. Additional publicity would
increase the demand for ECHO and would also provide recognition
to the existing CNAs. The change in ECHO contractors to the
National League of Cities (NLC) should help this aspect of the
program. The NLC should actively use its communication network
to publicize the program. Additional print media stories, such
as the recent story in Parade magazine highlighting ECHO assist-
ance in St. Paul, Minnesota, would be helpful to the program
and quite easy for EPA to develop.
ONAC should develop guidelines on CNA selection and recruitment.
EPA has been quite fortunate in its CNA selection. Our survey
indicates a highly motivated group and one that is well received
by recipients. In order to ensure future CNAs, consistent guide--
lines need to be developed for RNO use. In addition, EPA will
need to clarify the future role of the national ECHO program in
order to target its CNA selection. If, for example, the national
ECHO program is used to deal with very specific noise issues,
then this will have obvious implications for the selection of
future CNAs. If EPA is to expand the national ECHO program or
to replace CNAs who leave the program, the Agency will need a
pool of potential CNAs to draw upon.
111
-------
ONAC should develop guidelines in recipient community partici-
pation in ECHO. Thus far, there has not been a great demand
for ECHO. As EPA stimulates demand and awareness of the program,
some discrimination in recipient selection will be necessary and
desirable. Some of the existing recipients' needs for noise
technical assistance have been dubious. A critical issue to
face in this regard is whether to require any commitments on the
part of recipients. If formal commitments are not required of
recipients, ONAC and the NLC, in any case, need to develop a
standardized and easy to fill out form for recipients to use in
requesting participation in ECHO. This appears to be an essenticil
management tool that would aid in screening recipients, implement-
ing an appropriate match, and in evaluating the program.
ONAC should consider targeting a portion of ECHO to urban neigh-
borhood noise control needs. Prior to the recent Urban Noise
Initiatives, EPA did not target its technical assistance to
urban neighborhoods. Given the importance of noise in urban
neighborhoods and the number of people exposed to unacceptable
noise levels in urban neighborhoods, EPA should seriously con-
sider special targeting of peer match assistance to urban neigh-
borhoods. The results of EPA's Quiet Neighborhood Self-Help
project should be used to help develop an Urban ECHO Program.
Such a program should be quite compatible with existing neigh-
borhood planning groups. There is a tremendous network of
neighborhood self-help groups. EPA'should capitalize on these
groups in developing an Urban ECHO Program. The program should
be developed in conjunction with the National Association of
Neighborhoods, an umbrella group for neighborhood organizations,
and the HUD Office of Neighborhood Development.
ONAC should track the progress and results of ECHO better than
it presently does. EPA should institute a moderate substantive
reporting procedure for both recipients and CNAs. The problem
revolves around a potential burden that would be placed on a
program that essentially runs on the concept of volunteerism.
In light of the accountability versus volunteerism dilemma, EPA
should very carefully develop standard two-page reporting forms
that will at least enable the Agency to track the program and to
expand the peer match network. The travel reimbursement should
be used as leverage to ensure that reporting forms are completed.
ONAC should be responsive to the support needs of CNAs. The
ultimate viability of the peer match program depends on a con-
tinuing network of willing providers. EPA should recognize
the free service that providers are giving to recipients.
Regional awards and publicity should be developed to recognize
the valuable contributions of providers. In addition, EPA
should be responsive to the technical support needs of CNAs
in the delivery of technical assistance. Particular areas of
concern are the quality of noise measuring equipment and the
availability of audiovisual equipment.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 VIEWS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN EPA
This report is one of a series of companion studies examining technical
assistance efforts in five EPA program areas air, wastewater treatment,
drinking water, solid waste, and noise. The project was originally mandated
by the Office of Management and Budget, which requested a general examination
to improve the Agency's understanding of this important but amorphous sub-
ject. The study is under the direction of the Program Evaluation Division
of the Office of Planning and Management.
Throughout this study, the term "technical assistance" has been left
largely undefined. It was originally thought that a concrete definition
would (and should) evolve over the course of the project, but this has not
happened. Instead, the original operational definition has survived: for
our purposes, technical assistance is regarded as any support given to pro-
grams other than money or enforcement. In practice, this includes many things
informal responses to questions, printed program guidance, formal training
programs. The list is nearly endless, but we have come to believe that the
important thing,, at least for the present, is not to pidgeon-hole and evaluate
the elements of this wide range, but to begin to think systematically about
lessons that can be shared between programs.
Because EPA is first and foremost a regulatory agency, it has tended to
regard technical assistance as something of a stepchild. Over-simplified,
the orthodox view is that enforcement is the most appropriate incentive to
improved program performance to some, the only legitimate one. Whers it
exists, both inside and outside the Agency, this view is strongly held, and
not without good reason: the- ability to regulate environmental pollution
and enforce against offenders is the essential element of the modern environ-
mental movement, and EPA is its chief proponent. By comparison, "technical
assistance" is often associated with a casual approach and ineffectual programs
of the past: as a means of achieving program goals, it is suspected of being
outside EPA's proper mode of operation, or at least not as cost-effective as
enforcement. As a result, technical assistance efforts have often been sub-
merged within programs. Important exceptions exist, such as in the solid
waste and drinking water programs, but they are just that: exceptions.
-------
While the need for such things as training, technical guidance, and
administrative assistance is acknowledged even by those who take the hardest
line, it is assumed that grants and other financial assistance satisify the
Agency's responsibilities in this regard, and that compliance with program
requirements can thereafter be compelled through legal, administrative, or .
financial, sanctions. Rigorous policing of programs is assumed to lead to
new markets for technical assistance outside of EPA, either in the public,
semi-public, or private sectors. To an extent, this is true, and this study
has taken as its main theme the discovery of new mechanisms to leverage tech-
nical support for EPA programs from outside the Agency. But to the extent
that TA and enforcement are viewed as direct tradeoffs, programs suffer.
Technical assistance is an alternative to enforcement in some situations,
for the carrot is often more effective than the stick. For instance, to
improve performance of sewage treatment plants some States have hired "circuit
riders" to make routine visits to plants with operating problems. For plants
with only occasional operational problems, technical assistance is often a
more cost-effective method of achieving compliance than complicated enforce-
ment approaches. In short, there are many instances in which TA serves
multiple purposes, and has some irreducible functions for which enforcement
and money cannot substitute.
One of the most important reasons for technical assistance is that EPA
programs are new, and must to a certain extent be considered still experimental.
They often deal with completely new areas of regulation (e.g., hazardous
waste) or deal with complex, novel and cross-cutting issues (e.g., the air and
water programs). For the most part, it is virtually impossible for the private
market or other sectors of government to respond in a timely way to the tech-
nical support needs of State and local programs. Futhermore, the extent of
the market for this type of assistance is often small: whereas the engineering
support for POTWs can draw off the experience of the established engineering
profession, which has an extensive academic and professional infrastructure,
engineering support for PSD permitting in the air program cannot easily piggy-
back on existing professional expertise. Not only is the mix of skills
required new and evolving, but the total number of permittees is evidently not
high enough to support widespread professional development. In such areas
EPA is virtually the only reasonable source of technical support.
Another general area of concern regarding EPA's technical assistance
obligations concerns the working relationships it hopes to establish or main-
tain. Although the delegation of certain programs carries with it certain
obvious benefits for States, (federal money, local control), for the most
part these delegations are discretionary, and may revert back to EPA in the
event of substandard program performance. To an extent, then, State and
local governments are operating as adjunct staff to ' the federal government,
and the use of sanctions (financial, administrative, even legal) becomes
intrinsically undesirable.
While some theorizing along these lines about the nature of technical
assistance is. appropriate, and for budgetary purposes necessary, it will
hereafter be kept at a minimum in this volume. Needs for technical assist-
-------
ance spring mainly from the details of programs, and therefore should be.
studied in context rather than in abstract.
1.2 HISTORY OF THE PROJECT
The Program Evaluation Division (FED) originally set out five program
areas for examination. They were air, publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)
operations, drinking water, solid waste, and noise. PED originally developed
and experimented with, under separate contract, a large scale telephone
survey that would determine technical assistance needs across these five pro-
gram areas. The results of this survey were to be used by USR&E in State
and local field visits to explore needs in greater deptn.
It quickly became evident that the initial telephone survey project: was
too ambitious to be performed within the project schedule. It was decided
to reverse the order, substituting field visits for the telephone survey to
serve the general needs of an assessment function. The field visits were
also used to examine successful models of technical assistance outside of
EPA. While the results that could evolve from a limited number of cases
could not approach the statistical level of significance that a larger survey
could, other benefits existed: in particular, USR&E field staff could dig
deeper into the many potential needs of State and local programs, especially
after prior consultation with EPA's program offices to determine the most
likely issues of interest.
Following the initial round of field visits, which were performed in
the summer of 1979, detailed write-ups and summary memoranda were prepared.
These covered all the technical assistance topics that surfaced in the field
interviews, and were circulated both within PED and to the program offices.
USR&E and PED prepared recommendations for further analysis, and the program
offices were invited to choose among these to reflect their own priorities.
Once the program offices had indicated the direction in which they wanted
further research to go, USR&E undertook the following:
1) Developed survey instruments to test possible new TA initiatives.
Reflecting the program priorities of the EPA offices, USR&E
compared the results of the field work (showing State and local
TA needs and preferences) with major program objectives for the
next several years. Survey instruments and a sampling plan were
prepared for each of the five areas of concern, and interviews
were scheduled with appropriate parties to refine and analyze
possible improvements to EPA technical assistance efforts. Two
considerations guided the preparation of these survey instruments
(OMB#: 158-S-79009):
They emphasized TA delivery outside of EPA.
Given the likelihood of increasing budget constraints on
EPA's technical assistance resources, we wanted to maxi-
mize the participation of the private sector, other
forms of government, and semi-public institutions (non-
profit, professional associations, etc.).
-------
They maximized opportunities to make cross-program
evaluations.
Every effort was made to make use of the then-existing
understanding of the lessons each program could offer
to others, and to prepare the ground for more systematic
comparison of TA themes across programs after the inter-
views were complete.
2) Conducted in-depth interviews with appropriate parties.
For each of the five program areas, between 50 and 100
separate telephone interviews were conducted with
relevant TA recipients, providers, or outside observers.
These included EPA regional personnel, State and local
officials, consultants, non-profit groups, and others
as necessary. Results were tabulated and compared where
necessary, but some of the information solicited was
analyzed qualitatively only.
Volume VI; Summary of Results includes the conclusions and recommendations
of all five program analyses, along with general conclusions about EPA's
TA programs and the possibility of future cross-program evaluations.
Volumes I-V cover each of the programs separately.
1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
This report, Volume V, presents a. description and an initial assessment
of the ECHO (Each Community Helping Others) noise technical assistance program.
ECHO, begun in January, 1978, is based on a peer match concept. It is funded
by ONAC, managed by EPA Regional Noise Officers, and coordinated by a public
interest group, the National League of Cities. The League only began coordi-
nating the program in December, 1979. During the period of this study, June-
November, 1979, ECHO was administered by two private contractors, Gordian
Associates of Washington, D.C. and Ecosymetrics of Bethesda, Maryland.
The ECHO program was selected for study in the Hoise Program for a
number of reasons. First, of all it is one of the first formal technical
assistance activities directed at local communities by ONAC. The Quite
Communities Program (OCP), an intensive demonstration of noise assessment
and noise program implementation, was begun in 1977 but it is largely limited
to a few demonstration communities. Both ECHO and QCP represent formal
recognition on the part of EPA that noise abatement will primarily occur
because of local efforts not just Federal and State regulations. Prior to
ECHO and OCP, EPA's noise abatement approach was based on product regulation
activities authorized by the 1972 Noise Control Act (P.L. 92-574). Since
the passage of this Act, EPA has been in the process of setting noise emission
standards on a number of major new products, such as motorcycles, construction
equipment, and electrical equipment. EPA recognized, however, that Federal
standard-setting activity will not abate noise without supplementary State
and community noise control programs. ECHO is one of the EPA programs to
stimulate the development of local noise programs.
-------
EPA and the Congress recognized the importance of State and local noise
programs on a much broader scale with the passage of the Quiet Communities
Act of 1978. This Act authorizes EPA to establish a program of research,
demonstrations, grants, and technical assistance to aid States and communities
in developing noise abatement programs. Many of the technical assistance
programs authorized by this Act were not in place when this study began.
Many of the grants, however, allocated under the Quiet Communities Act have
been awarded to States to. develop ECHO-like programs at the State level.
Thus, a second reason for studying ECHO was to learn lessons from the pro-
gram before its concept was formally wholesaled to all of the States.
Finally, a central theme throughout our overall study of EPA's technical
assistance efforts has been an examination of programs that emphasize tech-
nical assistance delivery outside of EPA. ECHO, while managed by EPA,
depends on very little EPA funding support. One of the basic premises of the
ECHO peer match concept is the development of a network of local noise experts.
As communities receive noise assistance from another local noise expert, the
recipient community becomes a potential provider of technical assistance.
One of the goals of ECHO is to develop a continuously expanding network of
technical assistance providers. This concept is in the mainstream of EPA's
current thinking on alternative technical assistance providers.
-------
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
2.1 NOISE AS A PROBLEM
Noise is often defined as unwanted sound. Obviously, noise is a relative
problem for every individual and depends, to a great extent, on one's exposure
to sound and one's emotional state. Most people would not object to a dripping
faucet in the house while they were involved in other activities; but a dripping
faucet while one is trying to sleep is aptly considered to be a torture.
Noise is also considered a necessary by-product of an expanding society
"the price paid for living in a modern world." Indeed many urban dwellers become
totally acclimated to urban noise and consider certain noisy activities to be
signs of a vibrant city.
In the last decade, however, noise has become recognized as a legitimate
environmental problem. At a minimum, there is a growing recognition that noise
is an environmental factor affecting the quality of people's lives. Because noise
is highly correlated with population density, urban areas, in particular, have
recognized noise as a factor important in their neighborhoods. Somewhat sur-
prising to urban experts has been the notoriety given to noise by urban dwellers.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has conducted an annual housing
survey in selected central cities since 1973. HUD has found that noise is ranked
as the most frequently mentioned undesirable neighborhood condition each year.
Between 40-50% of respondents reporting neighborhood problems have cited noise.
Noise was also cited as one of the main reasons by people who wanted to leave
their neighborhoods. (Council on Environmental Quality). Noise consistently
ranked higher than the following other objectionable neighborhood conditions:
heavy traffic, crime, commercial and industrial development, litter, street
repair, street lighting, and odors, deteriorated housing, and abandoned buildings.
Concern for noise has also taken on a new dimension in recent years, namely
the health-related impacts of noise. Of particular concern is hearing loss due
to excessive exposure on the job. Workers in agriculture, mining, construction,
industry, and transportation are particularly vulnerable to hearing loss effects
of noise. Recent estimates claim that about 10% of the country's population is
exposed to noise of duration and intensity such that permanent hearing losses
would occur (Council on Environmental Quality). There is also growing evidence
suggesting a connection between cardiovascular problems and noise. Noise is
considered to be one of many causes of stress and thus the link to hypertension
and possible heart problems. Noise-related stress can also effect behavior
patterns, learning patterns, and daily activities. A number of studies have
-------
shown the effects of noise on school children. (Council on Environmental
Quality). The learning patterns of children can be permanently affected by a
noisy environment.
EPA has conducted a number of recent studies to document noise sources.
EPA assessed the status of State and local noise control efforts in 1971, 1974,
and 1978, Concurrently respondents in the most recent EPA survey were asked to
rate noise problems from 14 specific noise sources. As seen in Exhibit 2-1,
vehicular sources are prominent. While industrial sources tend to be more of
a problem in the larger urban areas, transportation-related problems (except
for aircraft) are common to all communities. As highway traffic volumes
increase, noise from mobile sources will increase. At the present time, about
13.5 million people in the U.S. are exposed to transportation or recreation
vehicular noise at a level that is dangerous to their hearing. Vehicle projec-
tions indicate that the number of cars will increase from 84 million in 1977 to
130 million by 1985; trucks are expected to increase to 28 million from 17
million (Jack Faucett Associates). Similarly, the number of people adversely
affected by aircraft is expected to double by the year 2000. Noise exposure
is also expected to increase in the construction areaa 50% increase is
expected to occur in the number of person-hours of exposure to construction
noise by the year 2000. ("Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control", EPA) .
While transportation-related sources clearly dominate as noise problems,
it is often the combination of many small sources that will affect an area's
overall noise levels. Thus, communities are often concerned with the control of
non-vehicular activities ranging from night clubs and other entertainment areas
to barking dogs and lawnmowers. . . .
2.2 NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS
2.2.1 Federal Government
Background
Noise control at the Federal level is spread across several agencies.
Workers on the job are protected from excessive noise by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA). Using EPA research, OSHA has been developing
noise exposure limits for industrial workers. The Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration (FAA) has prime responsibility for issuing noise limits for aircraft.
The Federal Railroad Administration of the Department of Transportation enforces
regulations developed by EPA for railroads involved in interstate commerce. In
addition to a number of agencies developing regulations and enforcing them,
there are a number of agencies peripherally involved in noise activities. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHA), for example provides financial assistance
-------
EXHIBIT 2-1
COMMUNITY RATING OF VARIOUS NOISE
SOURCES AS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM*
Rating
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
No. of
Noise Source Communities
Motorcycles
Trucks
Automobiles
Railroad Operations
Buses
Aircraft
Animals
Construction Equipment
Public & Private Entertainment
Industrial Activities
Garbage Compactors
Recreational Vehicles
Home Power Equipment
Public Service Vehicles
368
353
315
226
188
188
170
151
147
145
124
79
69
63
Percentage
of
Responding
Communities
68%
65
58
42
35
35
31
28
27
27
23
15
13
12
SOURCE: "State and Local Noise Control Activities",
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Environmental
Protection Agency, May, 1979, p. 2-12.
*Based on 524 responses.
-------
for the construction of noise barriers along Federal highways. The FAA earmarks
money each year to help airports develop and implement noise control strategies.
In all HUD funded residential construction, HUD requires noise planning measures,
Despite this Federal involvement, EPA has the principal charge to control
noise in the country. Two major pieces of legislation are administered by EPA:
the 1972 Noise Control Act (PL 92-574 as amended by PL 94-301) and the 1978
Quiet Communities Act (PL 95-609) .
The 1972 Noise Control Act directs EPA to identify noise sources which
affect public health and to establish regulations for products identified as
major sources. Under the Act, EPA is authorized to set noise emission standards
for new equipment in four categories:
construction equipment
transportation equipment
motors and engines
electrical or electronic equipment
Since 1972, EPA has identified the following products as "major sources":
medium and heavy trucks
motorcycles
buses
garbage trucks
wheel and crawler tractors
portable air compressors
jack hammers
rock drills
power lawnmowers
truck refrigeration units
-------
Noise emission standards for portable air compressors and for medium and
heavy trucks became effective in January, 1978. Standards for garbage trucks
have been adopted but will not become effective until October, 1980. EPA's
implementation period for developing and finalizing rules on the other sources
stretches out until the mid-19801s. The major theme of the 1972 Act has been to
control noise emissions from selected major product sources. This is a wise
strategy given the difficulty that 50 States and thousands of localities would
have trying to develop their own emission standards.
Despite these regulatory initiatives, EPA perceived the need for assistance
to States and communities in developing their own noise control programs. There
are two major issues controlling the need for local noise programs. First,
there are numerous nuisance noise activities at the local level that are not
covered by Federal regulatory programs. More importantly, local noise programs
are needed to complement the Federal regulatory activities. Federal regulations
will not achieve permanent noise reduction unless local programs are in place
to ensure that equipment is maintained. A classic example is the case where
consumers modify manufacturer-installed motorcycle noise controls. The Quiet
Communities Act (QCA) also enabled EPA to provide grants to States and local
governments for noise programs. This was not possible under the 1972 legislation.
The Quiet Communities Act
Prior to the 1978 Act, EPA supplemented its noise regulatory and research
activities with a number of technical assistance initiatives designed to
strengthen local noise programs. In conjunction with the Council of State
Governments, a model local and State noise ordinance was developed and has
been widely distributed. EPA has also developed noise training manuals for
beginning noise technicians and community decision-makers. For many years,
EPA has provided technical assistance directly to communities through its
regional offices. One of the major activities of the Regional Noise Officers
has been to provide advice to State and local governments on the use of noise
measurement instruments. The regional offices have also had a limited noise
equipment loan program and have evaluated the reliability of local noise
monitoring systems.
Throughout the 1970's EPA has sponsored workshops and seminars for local
and State personnel. Most of these workshops focused on public education and
measurement techniques. EPA initiated its first full-scale community noise
demonstration program in 1977 in Allentown, Pennsylvania. This program, called
the Quiet Communities Program (QCP), encompasses an intensive and comprehensive
noise control program for a community. Additional QCP's are presently under
way.
-------
The ECHO program, the principal focus of this report, was begun in early
1978. The basic concept of ECHO, as more fully described in Chapter 3, is to
use the volunteer services of a motivated group of noise experts to provide
assistance to other communities in need of technical assistance.
Despite the vast array of technical assistance delivery mechanisms
available prior to the 1978 Act, EPA has expanded its program efforts
significantly with the Quiet Communities Act. This expansion is based on the
conclusion that EPA itself would not be able to meet a goal of having 400
community and 40 State noise control programs in place by 1985. As of 1979
there were approximately 13 active State programs and 50 local programs.
Reliance on the ECHO program and on regional office-initiated assistance
did not appear to be sufficient to develop the number of new State and local
programs that EPA would like. Consequently, a major theme of the 1978 Act
was to involve other actors to expand and institutionalize the noise program.
In conjunction with the Regional Noise Offices, ONAC has developed a far-reaching
and extensive program under the QCA. The Act authorized EPA to fund and enter
into several types of cooperative agreements that are managed by the RNO's
(Environmental Protection Agency, August, 1979):
STATES:
EPAs cooperative agreements with States are basically of two kinds:
agreements in which EPA assists in the planning, start-up
and implementation phases of new noise control programs.
agreements in which EPA assists in facilitating the expansion
of existing programs currently being conducted. .
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
EPA is entering into cooperative agreements with selected local
governments for the purpose of establishing effective noise
control programs. Under these agreements, local governments
contribute a certain amount of financial and staff resources
to the effort. In most cases, cooperative agreements with
local governments constitute a start-up activity, after which
the programs are to be maintained by the local entities.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS:
EPA is entering into cooperative agreements with 10 universities
and private organizations to establish regional technical centers
11
-------
to assist State and local noise programs. The regional
centers will help in providing on-site technical assistance
to State and local programs, providing training to State and
local officials, and providing expertise to communities in
the process of initiating noise control programs. See
Exhibit 2-2 for a list of the Centers.
States and Regional Technical Assistance Centers are intended to become
the key technical assistance institutions under EPA's present noise strategy.
RNO's will continue to provide some direct assistance, but their time will
become increasingly involved with the management of the other new technical
assistance initiatives.
DEMONSTRATION GRANTS:
EPA has awarded grants (managed by ONAC) to States, local governments,
and public and private organizations in order to demonstrate the need for
noise control and to provide strategies for dealing with major noise sources.
The .demonstration grants include studies of air and surface transportation,
urban neighborhood self-help programs, and Buy Quiet products initiatives.
Of the 16 grants recently awarded to States, 8 are specifically intended
to develop and demonstrate statewide ECHO programs. This represents a major
shift in emphasis for ONAC and has major implications for the existing
national ECHO program. About 3300,000 has been awarded to these 8 states to
develop the State ECHO programs. This is more than was spent on the national
EHCO program in FY78 and FY79. The rationale for developing State ECHO programs
appears to be based on the following factors:
The existing national ECHO program reached only a purported
51 communities in 2 years and would not, by itself, meet
EPA's goal of 400 local noise programs by 1985?
ECHO programs at the State level are feasible because a
range of noise issues are typically found in any one State;
State ECHO programs will give States one-to-one experience
with local governments in their States as well as practical
noise administration experience.
The recent cooperative grants in the States are intended to demonstrate
the feasibility of a statewide ECHO program. Development of State ECHO programs
across the country will require assistance from the RNOs, the existing ECHO
participants, and the new Regional Technical Assistance Centers.
12
-------
EXHIBIT 2-2
EPA REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS
REGIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNIVERSITY
University of Hartford
Rutgers University
University of Maryland
North Carolina State University
Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute
University of Texas, Dallas
University of Iowa
University of Colorado
University of California
Berkeley
University of Washington
13
-------
2.2.2 Existing State Programs
EPA considers that only 13 States have adequate noise control programs,
i.e. adequate legislation and sufficient manpower. Manpower and funding have
long plagued State noise programs. EPA's 1978 survey revealed, for example,
that only 15 of 40 responding States and Territories reported personnel who
devoted at least 20 percent of their time to noise control activities. States
have also been in a quandrary as to their proper role what with the Federal-
local relationship being a complementary partnership for noise control. While
EPA has taken the lead in product regulation, States are in a position to regu-
late any products that EPA does not. The States also have been leaders in
developing noise controls for industrial land use activities. More importantly,
and this is recognized in the 1978 Quiet Communities Act, States have a poten-
tially key role in providing technical support to local noise programs.
In the 1978 EPA survey, States were asked to identify their most signifi-
cant problems in enforcing noise control programs. The four key problems
identified by the States in order of priority were:
Lack of manpower
Inadequate budget
Lack of political support
Lack of citizen support
Political support is an important factor for the States. As of 1977, the
total noise budget for all the State noise programs was $5.6 million. Over
half of this was attributable to California. EPA's 1978 survey indicated that
the average State noise budget was only $81,000. The lack of a political and
environmental constituency in large part explains this resource problem., Noise
control at the State level is a voluntary excercise. This is in sharp contrast
to other environmental programs that have emerged in the 1970's, such as drink-
ing water and solid waste, which have been characterized by State conformity
to Federal program guidelines. Given the competing resource demands from man-
datory environmental programs, States have elected to generally give noise
control only token support.
EPA's present strategy addresses this problem in a number of ways. First,
EPA has used the Quiet Communities Act to strengthen and develop a core number
of State programs to serve as a basis for developing other State programs.
Secondly, the institution of the Regional Technical Assistance Centers will
help to develop citizen and environmental constituencies in the States. This
bottom-up support will presumably help to bolster State noise initiative's.
Finally, in 1977 EPA initiated a State Noise Assignee Program. Its goal
is to assist States or localities to provide technical assistance and needed
manpower support for essential State projects. The State Assignee Program
allows the Federal government to hire a limited number of professionals and
technicians, and assign them, through the Regional Offices, to State and local
noise abatement agencies. The assigned period is of two years. A primary
14
-------
objective of the program is for a high percentage of assignees to continue
working for State and local noise agencies upon the completion of their terms
of appointments.
States assignees are considered Federal employees, and therefore need to
be appointed, following the same procedures used to hire all new Federal work-
ers. A prospective assignee would need to be on the appropriate register of
the Civil Service Commission's Regional Office with jurisdiction over the
area where the assignment will be made.
Full costs of the assignee's salary and fringe benefits are assumed by the
Federal Government, but the assignee works full time under direct State super-
vision. States pay travel expenses.
States that want to participate submit a standard work plan to the Regional
Noise Officer. The RNO will either approve or disapprove the request on the
basis of selection criteria developed by ONAC headquarters. States are chosen
to maximize achievement toward ONACs 1985 goal of effective noise programs in
40 States and 400 communities.
Eight Regions have assignees in one State each; only Regions II and ^have
no participating States. The number is low because EPA has only 10 slots
with assignee funds. The States are:
Region I Connecticut
Region II New York
Region III Maryland
Region IV Florida
Region V Michigan
Region VII Iowa
Region VTII North Dakota
Region IX California
Region X Washington
Regional noise officers provide on-going support to the State Assignee,
particularly during the start-up phase. To the extent possible this includes
necessary training and on-site technical assistance.
2.2.3 Local Noise Programs
As discussed above, local noise programs can potentially play a significant
role in noise abatement in several ways. They can enforce the continued compliance
of Federally mandated new product regulations; they can control land use-related
noise activities; and they can play a major role in enforcing "in-use" controls.
15
-------
In-use controls regulate products already in use, in contrast to controls on new
products. In addition to having specific noise emission controls (as opposed
to nuisance laws which require a qualitative assessment of wrongdoing),
successful local programs have instituted various other noise controls.
Denver, Colorado, for example uses "area and time restrictions" to route trucks
away from certain areas of the City during night and early morning hours, For
new development, careful land planning can be effective in segregating noisy
uses from areas susceptible to noise, such as schools, and nursing homes.
Site and landscape planning techniques can effectively muffle noise emissions
from certain activities.
According to EPA's 1978 survey for communities, the principal obstacles
faced in enforcing noise control programs are the following in order of rank:
Inadequate budget
Lack of manpower
Untrained personnel
Lack of effective legislation
Communities appear to differ from States in that they have a larger problem with
untrained personnel. To some extent, however, this is a function of inadequate
local funding.
The problem of inadequate budgets for local noise programs is dramatized by
the following data from the 1978 EPA survey:
Only 25 percent of the communities responding to the survey
had an official noise budget.
Only 37 communities of 562 responding to the survey reported
per capita budgets of $.15 or more; 12 of these were in
California.
200 communities responding to the survey that have existing
noise legislation do not have any noise equipment to assess
noise problems or enforce noise emission standards.
Typically, local noise personnel share responsibilities with other depart-
ments in municipal government. The local health department and police department
are the two most likely local departments to have personnel with some responsi-
bility for noise control. Approximately 80 percent of the personnel working in
noise activities at the local level are police who are involved in enforcing
motor vehicle noise violations and investigating other noise complaints. The
resource problem at the local level is illustrated by the following finding from
the 1978 EPA survey: out of 562 community responses, only 67 (about 12 percent
of the sample) had personnel who specifically devote 20 percent or more of their
time to noise control activities.
Because of the relatively modest commitment to noise at the local level,
technical assistance needs of local personnel are comprehensive. EPA's 1978
survey revealed the following:
16
-------
EXHIBIT 2-3
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES
"Which Of The Following Areas of E.P.A. Assistance
Would Be Of Significant Value To Your Noise Control
Effort In Meeting Legislative And Programmatic
Needs: Most Important".
JURISDICTION
Municipal
ASSISTANCE AREA
Personnel training/
Effective noise control
methods
Noise control program
guidelines
Noise measurement
instrumentation
Enforcement procedures
YES
178
172
158
155
149
PERCENT
54
52
48
47
45
Sample Size (330)
Source: E.P.A., Environmental Noise Control Program Survey, 1978
(Preliminary Data, March, 1978).
Two themes emerge from these results: (1) local noise technical assistance
needs are broad-based and comprehensive; (2) these needs are in large part
fundamental and basic types of needs rather than State-of-the art. As commu-
nities gain experience in noise control and their local program develops, their
technical assistance needs generally shift towards more specific and difficult
noise control issues. The large amount of basic needs that presently exist at
the local level reflects the rather limited state of development that most
local noise programs are in.
Finally, it is useful to reiterate a point made at the beginning of this
chapter. While noise is probably a problem in every community in the country,
more people are effected by noise problems in the larger cities. The HUD find-
ings on urban neighborhood noise reflect this. EPA's 1978 survey confirms this
noise is a growing concern in communities with an average population density
greater than 2,500 persons per square mile. EPA is gradually recognizing the
need to consider the special noise control needs of the urban neighborhood.
As part of his Urban Noise Initiatives policy announced in August, 1979,,
President Carter called for a Quiet Neighborhood Self Help Program. In its
17
-------
recent grant awards under the Quiet Communities Act, EPA awarded a demonstra-
tion grant to the National Association of Neighborhoods to undertake a Quiet
Neighborhood Self-Help project to organize a neighborhood noise communication
network and to develop the capacity of individual neighborhoods to address noise
issues. In addition, the City of Portland, Oregon's Bureau of Neighborhood
Environment was awarded a grant to demonstrate the effectiveness of using
neighborhoods as an appropriate geographical level to identify and control
noise problems. These represent encouraging EPA initiatives given the number
of people exposed to urban noise problems.
18
-------
REFERENCES: CHAPTER 2
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality; The Tenth
Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. Washington,
D.C. 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "State and Local Noise Control
Activities". Washington, D.C. May, 1979.
Jack Faucett Associates. "Transportation Projections, 1985, 1995, 2000"
(Draft). Prepared for DOT. February, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Toward a National Strategy for
Noise Control". Washington, D.C. April, 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interoffice Memorandum: "Noise
Control Cooperative Agreements and Congressional Notification". Washington,
D.C. August, 1979
19
-------
CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE ECHO PROGRAM
3.1 BACKGROUND
The ECHO program was started by EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ONAC) in January, 1978. Assistance in the ECHO program is provided
through a group of Community Noise Advisers (CNAs) to communities in need of
noise-related technical assistance. According to EPA, 55 communities had
received assistance or were in the process of receiving assistance through
the ECHO program as of the Fall of 1979. These communities are listed in
Exhibit 3-1. As discussed later in Section 4.1, however, the actual number
of ECHO recipient communities is open to debate. As of the Fall, of 1979,
there were 26 CNAs. Their names and location are shown in Exhibit 3-2.
The ECHO program is based on a relatively simple concept, namely the
use of peer match to solve a community's problems. When one community has
a specific noise problem, more often than not, that problem has been faced
by another community. What is required is a mechanism to match the technical
assistance needs, of one community with the expertise of another community.
The ECHO program was developed by EPA to serve as a peer match and technical
assistance delivery mechanism for the Noise Program.
While the ECHO concept is basically a more formalized approach to "good
neighbor" assistance, the program rests on several principles that represent
alterations to a simple good-neighbor assistance program:
A formal matching mechanism to ensure appropriate match
between needs and available expertise;
Active attempt to develop an expanding network of capable
providers;
Subsidy of travel and out-of-pocket costs incurred by
recipients and CNAs (volunteerism, however, is the
foundation of the ECHO program);
An informal quid pro quo commitment from recipient
communities concerning the implementation of a noise
program;
A moderate reporting program for providers.
20
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
EPA LIST OF ECHO RECIPIENT COMMUNITIES*
REGION 1:
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Greenwich, Connecticut
Durham, Connecticut
Hartford, Connecticut
Shelton, Connecticut
Portland, Maine
Salem, Massachusetts
Springfield, Massachusetts
Fiskeville, Rhode Island
REGION 5:
St. Francis, Wisconsin
Germantown, Wisconsin
Cedarburg, Wisconsin
Plymouth, Wisconsin
Butler, Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Muskego, Wisconsin
Waukesha County, Wisconsin
Gary, Indiana
REGION 2:
Bergenfield, New Jersey
Morristown, New Jersey
Harding Township, New Jersey
Wharton, New Jersey
REGION 3:
Catasaqua, Pennsylvania
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
Ouakertown, Pennsylvania
Boyertown, Pennsylvania
Easton, Pennslyvania
Portsmouth, Virginia
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Norfolk, Virginia
REGION 4:
Kingsport, Tennessee
Johnson City, Tennessee
Selma, Alabama
Charleston, South Carolina
Florence, South Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Gary, North Carolina
Savannah, Georgia
Cumberland County, North Carolina
REGION 6:
Taos, New Mexico
REGION 7:
St. Louis County, Missouri
Kansas City, Kansas
Council Bluffs, Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa
REGION 8:
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Rapid City, South Dakota
Casper, Wyoming
REGION 9:
Tempe, Arizona
Scottsdale, Arizona
Coronado, California
Reno, Nevada
REGION 10:
Anchorage, Alaska
*As of September, 1979
21
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
ECHO COMMUNITY NOISE ADVISORS*
REGION 1:
REGION 5:
Geoffrey Boehm
Boston, Massachusetts
Melvin J. Schneidermeyer
State of Connecticut
Paul R. Willis
Brookline, Massachusetts
REGION 2:
Richard Christie
Rockaway, New Jersey
Carl Dornbush
Pomona, New York
REGION 3:
Dr. Donna Dickman
Metropolitan Council of Governments
Washington, DC
Jeff Everett, Cindy Clark
Allentown, Pennsylvania
Pete Nicholas
Norfolk, Virginia
REGION 4:
Frank Habelka
Daytona Beach, Florida
Robert Jones
Tampa, Florida
I. Newton Vaughn
Huntsville, Alabama
Jesse 0. Borthwick (former)
State of Florida
Four person team (rotating assignment)
Sarasota County, Florida
*As of September, 1979
Ronald Begue
West Allis, Wisconsin
Robert Dalquist
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Lon Loken
Bloomington, Minnesota
Sam Hearring (former)
Evansville, Indiana
Robert Pearce (former)
Saginaw, Michigan
REGION 6:
Patrick Fowler
Garland, Texas
REGION 7:
James Cornelia
Sioux City, Iowa
John Spell
Clayton, Missouri
Dick McElvain (former)
Lincoln, Nebraska
REGION 8:
James V. Adams
Boulder, Colorado
Richard Ranck
Salt Lake City, Utah
Joseph Zunich
Colorado Springs, Colorado
REGION 9:
James Dukes
San Diego, California
REGION 10:
Paul Herman
Portland, Oregon
22
-------
These principles are more fully discussed in the sections below.
3.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION
3.2.1 Management Responsibilities
The ECHO program in its present form has both centralized and decentral-
ized management components. Prior to December, 1979, ONAC contracted with
two private firms Gordian Associates of Washington, D.C. and Ecosymetrics
of Bethesda, Maryland -- to manage the administrative aspects of the program.
They split responsibility for managing specific CNAs. Their purpose was to
manage the paperwork associated with each of the peer matches and to disburse
funds to cover peer match expenses.
For each peer match, a standard contract is signed between the private
contractor and the CNA (and the recipient community if they are expected to
incur reimbursable expenses). A standard agreement is shown in Appendix A
As noted, the only requirement in these agreements is a reporting one.
Reimbursable costs .include: telephone calls, travel, and lodging and meals.
Our discussions with CNAs indicated that both Gordian and Ecosymetrics
also served a very supportive role for many CNAs. In cases where EPA
Regional Noise Officers (RNOs) were not very active in the ECHO program, the
private contractors provided a continuing interest in the CNA's activities.
EPA replaced the contractors in December, 1979 with the National Lecigue
of Cities( NLC). Because of its wide network of members, the NLC, according
to EPA, is in a better position to publicize the program. In addition, the
NLC is also one of the public interest groups involved in EPA's solid waste
peer match program. Thus, it brings practical experience to the ECHO program.
The other key actor in ECHO program management is the Regional Noise
Officer. The RNOs have several ECHO responsibilities:
Publicize the ECHO program through EPA printed materials
and at regional noise workshops;
Recruit CNAs from communities in their region that can
provide noise expertise and that are willing to serve
as technical assistance providers;
Serve as the principal matching mechanism.
As seen in Exhibit 3-2, there has been mixed success among regions in
recruiting CNAs. According to ONAC, the extent to which RNOs promote the
ECHO program varies considerably from region to region. While some RNOs
actively promote ECHO activities and conduct continuing efforts to get
community participation, others serve in a passive role, and act only upon
community requests. Our fieldwork to some of the EPA regions explained part
of the problem. There is literally only one noise person in some of the
regions and the RNO's other noise activities often preclude an active ECHO
role. These other activities include: providing technical assistance (both
on-site and by phone) directly to communities; holding regional noise work-
23
-------
shops; reviewing noise impacts in environmental impact statements; and, more
recently, assisting ONAC in developing State noise programs and the Regional
Noise Technical Assistance Centers.
3.2.2 Matching Process
The manner in which CNAs are matched with recipient communities can be
described as somewhat varied. This partly accounts for our difficulty in
determining the actual number of ECHO recipient communities. Our fieldwork
and phone survey suggested the following ways in which matching has actually
occurred:
Case 1; In this case, the Regional Noise Officer develops the
match between CNA and the recipient community. This occurs after
a community has specifically sought out EPA for ECHO assistance
or EPA has suggested the ECHO program to a potential recipient
community. In this case, whether the RNO actively or passively
connects with the potential recipient community, he is involved
in the matching process.
Case 2: In this situation, the potential recipient community
is already aware of the CNA and CNA's technical assistance
activities. There are several variations that seem to be
occurring if the recipient community directly contacts the
CNA:
A. The CNA may provide phone assistance or send materials.
B. CNA contacts RNO about situation or suggests to the
potential recipient community to contact the RNO.
C. CNA bypasses RNO and directly contacts the private
contractor to request a contract to serve the
community. In this case, the recipient community
is under no contract and receives no money; the CNA
is reimbursed for expenses.
In case 2-c, CNAs are exercising the peer match without the active
involvement of the RNO. This occasionally occurs in spite of the general
terms of the ECHO agreements between the CNA and the private contractor.
This occurs in some cases because of lack of interest on the part of some
RNOs or because RNOs have delegated the screening decision to the CNA.
3.2.3 Funding
EPA funded the ECHO program at a $120-140,000 level for FY 78 and FY 79.
This includes the contract with Gordian and Ecosymetrics to administer the
program; the costs associated with CNA expenses; and recipient community
expenses. Under the ECHO omen-am guidelines, CNAs are limited to $3,000 in
costs per peer match; recipient communities are allowed up to $1,000 per peer
match. While CNAs sometimes are dealing with 2 or 3 recipient communities
-------
at any one time, on a yearly basis they are generally only incurring $2-3,000
in ECHO costs. Under the National League of Cities administration of ECHO
an attempt is going to be made to allocate roughly $7,000/year to each EPA
region to cover CNA and recipient community costs. Money not spent in one
region by the last quarter of the year could get transferred to another.
About half of the money spent on ECHO in FY 78 and 79 was spent on adminis-
trative costs for the private contractors. It is quite apparent from this fact,
from the overall ECHO allocation, and from the individual ECHO grant amounts
that ONAC's goals for the program have been extremely modest.
3.2.4 Recipient Community Commitments
According, to ONAC, not all communities that have requested ECHO assistance
have received it. Earlier in the ECHO program, RNOs were encouraged to
attempt to get potential recipient communities to commit themselves to imple-
menting a noise program. In particular, EPA wanted communities to implement
a local noise ordinance that would enable the community to enforce national
motor vehicle noise emission standards.
While no formal commitments have been obtained from recipient communities,
and communities are no longer required to even informally commit themselves
to enact a noise ordinance, our fieldwork in one community, Charleston, South
Carolina, revealed strong pressure from EPA. Charleston became involved in
ECHO in 1978 after it requested information on noise problems from the EPA
regional office. The Regional Noise Officer from Region IV visited officials
in the Charleston Planning Department and explained the ECHO program.
Following this meeting, Charleston entered the ECHO program.
After Charleston entered the program, EPA Region IV loaned the city
sound measuring equipment and conducted 2 one-day seminars on noise problems
and abatement techniques. EPA also helped the planning department evaluate
highway noise problems in Charleston. Jesse Borthwick of Tampa, Florida was
designated as Charleston's ECHO Community Noise Advisor. Soon after he was
designated the CNA, Borthwick made a presentation to the city's planning
department on noise control's relation to land use planning. In addition
to this aid, EPA paid for a Charleston planner's trip to noise conferences
in Chicago and St. Petersburg, Florida.
Although there was never any serious intention on the city's part to
establish a comprehensive noise ordinance, planning department officials par-
ticipated in the ECHO Program to get help in conducting a city-wide noise
survey and a noise-oriented attitudinal survey of city residents. EPA and
ECHO representatives assisted the planning department in conducting these
surveys, which reconfirmed the department's contention that there were no
serious noise problems in Charleston which could be controlled by a comprehen-
sive noise code.
Despite these survey findings, EPA and ECHO representatives kept up
pressure on the city to enact a noise code. At this point, because the
25
-------
planning department and other city officials saw no need for a noise code,
the city of Charleston withdrew from the ECHO Program.
Instead of enacting a noise code, the planning department in its land
use plan for the city, suggested land use configurations which would hopefully
prevent serious noise problems from arising. For exanple, the current land
use plan and accompanying zoning regulations restrict industrial activities
from locating in or near residential areas. Only a few noise problems have
arisen to date, and they have been handled by public nuisance laws.
EPA's push for Charleston to adopt a noise control ordinance, according
to city officials in Charleston, most likely stems from the fact that outside
of Florida, there are very few cities or counties in EPA Region IV with such
controls.
The peer match concept is also based on the notion of an ever-expanding
network of providers. EPA, however, does not require any commitment from
recipient communities in terms of serving as a future provider. According to
ONAC, a few of the present stable of CNAs were former recipient communities.
In general, however, there has not been a concerted effort to have former
recipient communities become providers.
3.2.5 CNA Background
There is no one type of background that is consistent among Community
Noise Advisers. This is not surprising considering the various kinds of
noise problems that afflict communities. There appear to be four types of
community officials that are serving as CNAs health department officials,
general "environmental specialists," police officers, and building inspectors.
Health department officials appear to be the leading source of CNAs
based on our survey of CNAs. As discussed in Chapter 2, these types of
officials account for most of the moise officials who spend at least 20%
of their time in noise-related activities. Since almost 80% of local noise
officials are policemen, it is not surprising that some of the CNAs are
policemen. CNAs with a police background bring special expertise to ECHO
in motor vehicle noise enforcement. While motor vehicle noise is the most
widespread local noise problem, EPA is also concerned about getting commun-
ities to think about noise in a more comprehensive fashion. Health depart-,
ment specialists tend to have a broader exposure to noise issues and control -,
techniques than most police officers.- Thus, from EPA's point of view, a
CNA with a public health background is generally more suited to ECHO
recipient communities that involve comprehensive assessments and control
strategies.
In situations, however, where the recipient community's needs are fairly
narrow and well-defined,, it may be appropriate to use CNAs with narrow exper-
ience, say in motor vehicle noise enforcement or noise ordinance development.
As discussed in Chapter 2, local noise assessment and control, needs vary
greatly, and sometimes specialists are sufficient instead of CNA generalists.
26
-------
As a peer match provider network is developed, specialists will, presumably,
emerge. In the meantime, with the CNA network being so small, EPA's
strategy of using noise generalists as CNAs is a sound one.
3.3 ECHO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The CNAs provide technical assistance to recipient communities through
three techniques on-site visits, phone discussions, and printed materials.
Generally, each peer match involves all three techniques. On-site visits
often are two-way in nature. Generally, however, the CNA visits the
recipient community more often than the reverse. The amount of on-site
time spent with the recipient community averages about 4h days per peer
match. Printed materials include EPA materials that the recipient community
had not previously received as well as local ordinances and studies from
the CNA's community.
CNAs provide a variety of technical assistance as seen in Exhibit 3-3.
We asked the CNAs in our phone survey (discussed in Chapter 4) to indicate
the types of technical assistance that they typically provide in a peer
match. As Exhibit 3-3 illustrates, CNAs generally provide more than one
type of technical assistance in any given peer match. The list reflects the
broad skills that a CNA must have. In addition it reveals the diverse
types of technical assistance needs of the existing recipient communities.
These one-to-one peer match technical assistance efforts are periodically
supplemented by workshops and seminars. ECHO money has been sometimes used,
for example, to pay for the travel costs to send a recipient community to
an EPA workshop on a specific noise issue. In addition, CNAs and ONAC
staff periodically meet as a group to exchange experiences and discuss ECHO
management issues and concerns.
27
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
TYPES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TYPICALLY PROVIDED
BY CNAS IN ECHO PEER MATCHES*
Technical Assistance # of times mentioned
Training in use of noise measuring
equipment
Assistance in drafting noise control
legislation
Education of public officials 5
Assistance in designing and doing a
noise survey
Training in control techniques for _
specific noise problems
Design of a public education program 5
Guidance in developing an overall
noise program
Design of a noise attitudinal survey 3
Guidance in implementing noise programs 3
* Based on interviews with 10 CNAs.
28-
-------
CHAPTER 4
SURVEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS
4.1 SURVEY APPROACH
4.1.1 Sampling Considerations
In order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the ECHO process, we
decided to survey both providers, i.e., Community Noise Advisers (CNAs) and
recipient communities. A survey of both of the principal parties in the peer
match transaction would enable us to determine recipient's satisfaction with
the technical assistance provided, but would allow us to probe the difficulties
associated with providing volunteer technical assistance. We felt that the
volunteer nature of the ECHO program was one of the most important issues
to explore. On the one hand, ECHO'S volunteerism is a critical ingredient in
EPA's proposed noise technical assistance strategy the volunteer aspect
will potentially enable noise technical assistance to be delivered at low
cost. On the other hand, the volunteer nature of the ECHO program potentially
constrains the ability of a CNA to provide technical assistance because of
the demands of the CNAs own local noise program.
As discussed below, we decided to use a semi-structured survey rather
than a highly-structured questionnaire format. This would enable the respon-
dents to provide us with more detail about their ECHO experience. A phone
survey interview guide was developed that would require a 45-60 minute
interview. Given this approach and project budget constraints, our initial
desired number of survey respondents was thirty. In order to allocate this
number of surveys among CNAs and recipient communities, we obtained lists of
CNAs and recipient communities from ONAC. Those lists were shown in Exhibits
3-1 and 3-2 respectively. ONAC's lists, given to us in September, 1979,
indicated 26 CNAs and 55 "official ECHO program recipients."
Given the approximate 2:1 ratio of recipients to CNAs, we elected to
survey 20 recipients and 10 CNAs. In terms of the CNAs, we sought to basically
stratify our sample along EPA regions. Our discussions with ONAC indicated
that there was considerable variation among the regions in the administration
of the ECHO program. We also sought some CNAs who had been in the program
since its inception. We chose 10 providers at random from Regions II-IX
since we had already interviewed a CNA in Region I and Region X did not have a
CNA at the time of our survey. We chose 3 CNAs from Region III since our
earlier discussions with ONAC revealed a fairly active amount of ECHO interest
in the region.
29
-------
For the recipient communities, two factors were considered in stratifying
our sample: EPA regions, and size and type of community. Again, we wanted the
survey sample to capture any regional difference in the ECHO program. Our
review of technical assistance needs from our own fieldwork and from various
EPA and HUD surveys suggested a crude correlation between certain types of
noise issues and size and type of community. As discussed in Chapter 2, the
noise problems of urban neighborhoods differ from those of small towns and
from those of suburbanizing communities. We attempted to obtain a fairly
equal distribution of recipients with small town, suburbanizing community,
and older urban area being our three categories.
The selection of our desired sample was complicated by two problems.
First of all, the existing distribution of ECHO recipient communities is
virtually devoid of older urban areas despite the prominent noise problems
generally attributed to many urban neighborhoods. The predominant type of
ECHO recipient community is the small-to-medium size city communities
generally in the 25,000 to 200,000 population range. The second issue that
we faced in obtaining our survey sample concerned involvement in the ECHO
program. When we called potential survey communities, we discovered a
rather surprising number of communities which had never formally participated
in the ECHO program. When this pattern began to develop, we contacted ail
of the 55 communities on the ONAC list and discovered that only 38 claimed
to have received peer match assistance under the ECHO program. Of the 17
communities who hadn't officially participated in ECHO, three explanations
were provided: 1) 7 had actually received assistance from a CNA but had not
signed a contract with an ECHO contractor and had not incurred any ECHO--related
expenses; 5 had "entered" the ECHO program but had not yet begun the peer
match; and 5 had never heard of ECHO. It appears from our survey that a
portion of the ECHO recipient communities are: participating in the ECHO
program unaware that they are receiving ECHO assistance.
The number of actual ECHO recipient communities is probably far greater
than the list EPA provided us. As discussed in Chapter 3, the matching
mechanism is quite varied. Some CNAs are providing ECHO technical assistance
without the RNOs or ONAC being aware of the peer match.
4.1.2 Sample Distribution
The actual CNAs surveyed are shown in Exhibit 4-1. We feel this is a
very representative sample of the CNA universe in terms of their length of
participation in the ECHO program, their background, and the number of
communities that they assisted.
Exhibit 4-2 indicates the recipient communities surveyed by USRSE. We
were not able to achieve our goal of 20 survey respondents because of .
difficulties in finding communities who had participated in ECHO. Since
many of the respondents had not yet finished their ECHO involvement, we
also had difficulty in selecting communities with completed ECHO experiences.
Finally, some communities were simply not willing to be surveyed.
30
-------
EXHIBIT 4-1
COMMUNITY NOISE ADVISORS
SURVEYED BY USR&E
S of Communities
Jlegion CNA Assisted Through ECHO*
II Richard Christie
Health Department 2
Rockaway, NJ
III Donna Dickman
Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments 4
Washington, DC
Cindy Clark
Bi-City Board of Health 10
Allentown, PA
Peter Nicholas
Health Department 7
Norfolk, VA
IV Robert Jones
Hillsboro County Environmental
Protection Commission 1
Tampa, FL
V Ronald Bueque
Health Department 12
West Allis, WI
VI Patrick Fowler
Department of Environmental 1
Management
Garland, TX
VII James Cornelia
Police Department ' 3
Sioux City, IA
VIII James Adams
Environmental Protection Office 2
Boulder, CO
IX James Duke
Building Inspection Department 1
San Diego, CA
Officially Conducted ECHO Peer Matches as of
September, 1979
31
-------
EXHIBIT 4-2
ECHO RECIPIENT COMMUNITIES
. . SURVEYED BY USR&E
REGION ; ECHO RECIPIENT COMMUNITY
I Portland, ME
Stamford, CT
II Bergenfield, NJ
III South Whitehall Township, PA.
Easton, PA
Virginia Beach, VA
IV Charlotte, NC "
Cumberland County, NC
Kingsport, TN
Savannah, GA
V Madison, WI
VI Taos, NM
VII . ' Kansas City, KS
Des Moines, IA
VIII Rapid City SD
Sioux Falls, SD
IX Tempe, AZ
32
-------
4.1.3 Survey Instrument
Two separate survey instruments were developed. In general, the surveys
addressed the specific experiences of the providers and recipients of technical
assistance. The survey which addressed providers of technical assistance was
structured in such a way as to cover broad as well as specific ECHO issues,
and was, as a result, more extensive than the recipient survey which addressed
one particular ECHO experience.
Particular attention was paid to the cohesiveness of the two survey
instruments. To ensure integration, parts of each questionnaire were similar
to the other, and other parts were complementary. This enabled us to learn
about the same aspect of the program from two different perspectives. The
actual survey instruments are contained in Appendix B .
The CNA survey explains all aspects of the ECHO process the manner in
which the CNA got involved in ECHO; the interactions with the RNOs, recipient
communities, and other actors; and the CNA's own evaluation of the ECHO
program. Of particular concern to the study team was the matching mechanism
and the type of technical assistance that was provided.
The recipient survey focused on the ECHO process for the one peer match
that the recipient experienced. We were interested in how recipients found
out about ECHO; how and when assistance requests were delivered; and how
assistance needs were defined. The bulk of the survey was structured similarly
to the CNA survey. We asked about details of the matching process; the type
of assistance received; and satisfaction with the ECHO program.
Both surveys were basically semi-structured recipients and CNAs pro-
vided their own responses rather than reacting to an interviewer's pre-
defined response. In general, respondents were quite talkative and open
about the program.
4.2 SURVEY RESULTS
4.2.1 Community Noise Advisor Participation
Most of the CNAs heard about the ECHO program from their Regional Noise
Officers. This occurred in 7 of the 10 cases. RNOs sought these CNAs because
of their reputation and demonstrated expertise in local noise issues. Nine
of the ten CNAs have been responsible for implementing noise controls in their
community. The remaining one was in the process of doing so. Virtually all
(9 of 10) CNAs had worked with the RNOs in previous noise matters prior to
their joining the ECHO program. In a number of cases, the RNO was instrumental
in helping the CNA to implement a noise control program in the CNA's own
community.
One of the reasons for the selection of CNAs appears to be their previous
technical assistance experience. Nine of the ten CNAs had provided some type
of noise technical assistance to other communities prior to their ECHO involve-
ment. One CNA indicated, in fact, that the ECHO model was developed from his
own technical assistance activities in his State. The main reasons prompting
33
-------
CNAs to participate in ECHO are the following:
The belief that noise is a major pollutant and that there
is a real need for local noise controls;
The belief that they are in a much better position than
EPA- to help communities because their interests are
more compatible with the needs of local governments;
The fact that there are very few noise experts at the
local level;
The ability to increase their own knowledge of noise
control programs.
In summary, RNOs are playing a key role in the selection of CNAs; the
CNA selections appear to be based on a good understanding of the CNA's
capabilities; and the CNAs participation is well-motivated.
4.2.2 Recipient Community Participation
The Regional Noise Officer also appears to be playing a major role in
publicizing the ECHO program to those communities with noise technical assis-
tance needs. Almost 60% of the recipient community respondents (10 of the 17)
heard about ECHO from the RNO. The remainder of the recipient communities
heard about ECHO through a variety of means; EPA materials (2) ,- State (2) ;
EPA workshop (1); and private citizen (1).
We also asked recipients what specific problems precipitated their
interest in receiving technical assistance. Two issues noise ordinances
and vehicular noise emerged as seen below:
EXHIBIT 4-3
Reasons for Seeking ECHO Assistance
Noise Issue
# of Recipient Communities
Establish or strengthen noise
ordinance
Vehicular noise
Industrial noise
Discos
No specific noise problem
4
2
2
3
34
-------
Not too surprising was the response of the three communities who had no
specific noise problems. This finding confirmed one of our findings from the
fieldwork, namely that demand for ECHO assistance thus far varies from region
to region. Some RNOs are actively seeking to recruit ECHO participants. In
some cases, communities without self-perceived noise assistance needs are par-
ticipating in ECHO.
There does not appear to be any consistent criteria used by RNOs in
selecting recipient communities or urging these communities to participate in
ECHO. As mentioned in Chapter 3, at one time RNOs attempted to obtain some
type of commitment from recipient communities to implement noise controls.
Our survey results indicated that only 3 of the 17 recipient community respon-
dents had been urged by EPA to commit themselves prior to ECHO involvement to
implement specific noise controls. Two communities also indicated that EPA
had requested a good faith pledge from them to serve as a future CNA. In short,
there is inconsistent guidance being provided by some of the RNOs to potential
recipient communities.
4.2.3 Matching Process
Method
Since RNOs initially informed 10 of the 17 recipient communities in our
sample about ECHO, not surprisingly, RNOs also played a key role in suggesting
the appropriate CNA for the ECHO peer match. Of the 17 recipients, RNOs
suggested the appropriate CNA in 15 cases. In cases where a recipient seeks
out the RNO or the RNO suggests the ECHO concept to a community, the potential
recipient appears to have very little say in the selection of a peer.
There is no specific procedure for potential recipients to articulate
their requests for ECHO assistance. This was apparent from our survey. When
asked how they requested ECHO participation, responses were as follows; phone
requests (10), oral presentation (9), and written requests (2). Although 10
of the 17 recipients claimed to have given a detailed description of their
noise needs, only one was requested to provide specific types of information
to the RNO. In addition, only 3 of the recipients were requested to provide
specific information to the CNA.
Our interviews with the CNAs, who reviewed their matching experiences from
a much larger sample of recipients, revealed a more diverse matching process.
As indicated in Chapter 3, many recipient communities seek out specific CNAs;
in turn, CNAs often suggest ECHO to potential recipients. Some of these CNA-
recipient community matches totally bypass the RNO who may or may not be
informed of the match by the CNA. These instances appear to be directly
related to the RNO involvement in ECHO. Two of the ten CNAs perceived their
RNOs very unfavorably because of the lack of the RNO commitment to ECHO.
When approached by a potential recipient community for assistance, CNAs
exercise considerable judgement as to how to proceed. In addition to deciding
whether to inform the RNO of the potential match, CNAs first decide whether to
supply assistance at all. Next they decide whether to supply assistance
formally through ECHO. Our CNA respondents indicated that they had collectively
35
-------
supplied ECHO-lJJc'e assistance outside of the ECHO program in 13 cases. The
CNA's decision to provide this "outside" assistance is based on the following
factors: the community's location; the extent of assistance requested; the
potential CNA costs involved in providing the assistance; and the ability of
the CNA to fit the timing of the assistance within the CNA's schedule.
Matching Flexibility
CNAs generally indicated that when RNOs approached them to provide a peer
match that the primary considerations were geographical match and the avail-
ability of the CNA. Because of the relatively few CNAs available and because
of the modest demand for the ECHO program in some regions (according to ONAC),
it has not been necessary to use a highly structured matching process.
As long as CNAs are primarily generalists with capabilites in a number of
areas, "appropriate matches" will not be a significant issue. Our survey would
seem to confirm this hypothesis: only 2 of the 17 recipient communities (12%)
felt that they had been matched with the wrong provider. Similarly, only one
CNA was dissatisfied with the choice 'of a recipient community with which he
had been matched. Another factor that appears to have influenced these
successful matches is the type of technical assistance being sought (see
Chapter 3). The technical assistance needs of our recipient sample are broad
enough that needs can be fulfilled relatively easily.
While the compatibility of needs and expertise has not yet become a problem
in ECHO matches, it would seem reasonable to presume that recipient community
needs will become more specific and special over time as local noise programs
move beyond the program development stage. Ideally, the number of CNAs with
special expertise will grow concomitantly. It would also seem inevitable that
some of the existing CNAs will want to advance their interests and activities
into special areas, such as noise assessment, control strategies, or enforce-
ment.
Timeliness
In general, timeliness was excellent. When potential recipient communities
sought out EPA, the RNO response varied between one week and a month. From "the
time of requests to actual matches with CNAs, the average elapsed time was
about a month. Finally, once a match was made, the CNA typically was in con-
tact with the recipient community within two weeks. In the few cases, where
delays were perceived, there was no discernible pattern. RNOs, CNAs, and the
recipient communities themselves were all cited by the recipient communities as
the problem.
4.2.4 Technical Assistance Process
Prior to the first meeting between the CNA and the recipient community,
there is generally one or two informal phone conversations. Because there is
generally little in the way of a written statement of technical assistance
need from the recipient community, not surprisingly, there is very little
assistance provided until the first visit between the peers. In fact, the
first visit is primarily a reconnaissance effort to assess and define needs
and to develop an assistance plan.
36
-------
Most of the technical assistance effort takes place in the recipient
community. Typically, on-site time averages about four-and-one-half days.
Phone discussions are also an important part of the technical assistance effort
as well as the exchange of written materials.
A rather surprising finding was the total time period for the technical
assistance. Seven of the ten CNAs felt that the ECHO process for a community
attempting to implement a comprehensive noise program should take about 6-12
months. The opinion was that ECHO shouldn't accompany the recipient community
throughout the implementation process, but should initially "get a community
off the ground." Periodic follow-up sould then be provided. Contrary to this
opinion and to the one-year time limits written into ECHO contracts, the
actual peer matches appear to sometimes drag on for up to a year and a half to
two years. There were a variety of reasons for this length of time: changes
in scope of assistance; problems with EPA measurement equipment: CNA problems
in getting time away from own community responsibilities; staff turnover in
the recipient community; and difficulty in communities deciding when CNA
responsibilities ended. This extension of time with a community has meant
that CNAs are generally juggling two or more ECHO efforts at any one time.
As discussed in Chapter 3, CNAs provide several types of technical assis-
tance in any given peer match. In virtually all cases, thus far in the ECHO
program, a noise measurement survey is involved. Generally, this involves
training the recipient community in the use and calibration of the equipment?
the design of a survey strategy; and the evaluation and interpretation of
results. Beyond this assessment stage, the peer communities will decide how
to control noise sources. For the CNA this presentation and analysis"of
results may require public meetings with community officials and residents in
the recipient community.
The development of a noise control strategy and noise ordinances in ECHO
is guided by several considerations: public awareness of noise issues; enforce-
ment capability of the community; and willingness of the community to spend
community resources to deal with noise problems. The CNA at this point
may assist the community with one or more of these issues. For example, a
public education program may be designed; noise control ordinance written; or
enforcement strategy designed. The CNA's role at this point is also dependent
on how much time has already been spent on the community and the goals of the
peer recipient .official.
A surprising number of CNAs and recipient communities were open to the
idea of having more than one CNA per technical assistance effort. Eight out
of ten CNAs questionned thought it was a good idea, and six recipient communi-
ties out of seventeen would have liked to have more than one CNA participate
in their technical assistance effort. The CNAs felt that team situations
should be possible when necessary in order to allow for the sharing and comple-
menting of expertise that they might lack.
The recipient communities felt that such a team system would diversify
the types of technical assistance supplied and would add more flexibility to
the program. Considering the differing degrees of expertise amongst the CNAs,
it would seem that such a system would benefit both CNAs and recipient communi-
37
-------
ties. It would lighten the workload for some CNAs who are general experts and
would broaden the perspectives of CNAs who have more specialized expertise.
Recipient communities would gain exposure to a number of approaches to problem
solving.
Funds to cover ECHO peer match costs seem to be adequate. In a few cases,
CNAs and recipient communities incurred costs, by negligence, that were not
reimbursable under ECHO. Three of the CNAs indicated that they have occasion-
ally encountered opposition from their community with regard to the time spent
away from their community. More importantly, 6 of the 10 CNAs felt the devo-
tion of their time might become a significant issue in the future. In addition,
virtually all of the CNAs mentioned that their ECHO activities would not be
possible if they did not work on their own time, vacation time, or weekends.
Time away from their community is also aggravated by ECHO-related activities,
such as conferences, workshops, and CNA regional meetings. In short, there is
a constant tension in ECHO between providing quality technical assistance and
the volunteer aspect of the program.
Recipient communities and CNAs both felt that a number of aids from EPA
would enhance the ECHO process. The following items were mentioned by CNAs:
Better noise measuring instruments; some of the present EPA
equipment is cheap and too crude for certain situations ;
Audiovisual equipment for public education activities;
A procedural handbook for CNAs and recipient communities.
Recipient communities wanted exposure to different noise meters and a
handbook on how to conduct a technical noise survey.
4.2.5 ECHO Evaluation
On the whole, satisfaction with the ECHO program is high for both CNAs
and recipient communities. As already mentioned, most all (15 of 17)
recipient communities felt their CNA was an appropriate match; 16 of the 17
recipient communities found the CNA's level of effort also appropriate for
their need; 15 of the 17 .recipients expressed a desire to use ECHO again if
necessary. Timeliness also appears to be adequate for the needs of the
recipient communities.
We asked both recipients and CNAs what they thought the most attractive
aspects of the program were. Recipients cited several points, but the three
most prominent were the following:
ECHO fulfilled a specific noise assistance need;
ECHO is an effective way to deal with local noise problems;
The program involves locals helping locals, instead of the
Federal government having a major role.
33
-------
CNAs, on the other hand, also felt that ECHO offered personal gains. In addi-
tion to verifying the recipients feelings that ECHO was an effective way to
deal with local noise issues, they believe ECHO enables them to improve their
own expertise in the field. In addition, the CNAs were almost unanimous in
stating that ECHO should stay on a volunteer basis with a minimal amount of
red tape. Seven of the ten CNAs indicated that they had no plans to leave
ECHO they would like to participate indefinitely. Only one was considering
dropping out of the program because of dissatisfaction with EPA (because of
a lack of BNO support).
While CNAs generally gave ECHO high marks, they pointed to a number of
shortcomings in the program:
Clear and specific guidelines are needed for basic ECHO
procedures and goals, namely:
- identifying and selecting appropriate recipient
communities,.
- matching recipients with CNAs,
- identifying responsibilities of recipients;
Stronger support from EPA Headquarters is needed in terms
of equipment and publicity about the program;
CNAs do not feel Headquarters is aware of how much they are
doing; feel that Federal recognition of ECHO has been minimal;
More consistent communication is needed between CNAs, RNOs,
ONAC, and ECHO contractor; regional and national CNA meetings
were considered good but an on-going communications mechanism
is needed among CNAs and between CNAs and EPA.
Whereas the shortcomings identified by CNAs were virtually consensus items,
no clear pattern emerged from recipient responses on ECHO'S shortcomings. Issues
cited by a few recipients included insufficient funding, problems with under-
standing contractual arrangements, and the lack of EPA goals for the peer matches.
One good indication of recipient's satisfaction with ECHO is their willingness to
participate as a CNA in the future. Twelve of the seventeen (70%) indicated
that they would consider being future CNAs.
39
-------
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL NOISE PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS
EPA's present attempt under the Quiet Communities Act to shift
technical assistance responsibility to States and to Regional
Noise Technical Assistance Centers (RNTACs) represents a good
strategy. Given the continued demand on ONAC and Regional Noise
Officers, EPA cannot be expected to provide technical assistance
directly to communities. The development of the RNTACs as noise*
extension centers, in particular, is^i creative strategy,in EPA
'technical assistance. Our fieldwork to several of these RNTACs
before their official designation as RNTACs indicated a high de-
gree of motivation and commitment for providing noise technical
assistance and a favorable response from community recipients.
This strategy will capitalize on the long-standing service func-
tion of university extensions in this country. In developing
this strategy, EPA should seek to have each RNTAC develop a
special area of noise expertise (e.g. Health effects research
and police training in noise enforcement) in addition to their
general responsibilities.
The development of both State noise programs and local noise
programs will continue to be plagued by the low priority noise
problems receive relative to other environmental issues. In
addition to its direct program development efforts in State
programs, EPA will have to devote more resources on creating
a noise constituency. The RNTACs should help in this regard.
In general, however, more public education by EPA is needed to
create a demand for and support for noise programs. In parti-
cular, publication of hard medical data is needed to be used
as political leverage. Community and State decision-makers are
hard to convince about the importance of noise control because of
competing environmental demands and because development is
often equated with progress. EPA should also continue to encour-
age States and localities to make creative use of volunteer and
shared labor as well as intergovernmental personnel loans.
ONAC presently has the most diverse and most comprehensive
technical assistance program in EPA. This presents both pro-
blems and opportunities. ONAC's stable of technical assistance
providers is diverse RNOs, State programs, RNTACs, and CNAs
under the ECHO program. In addition, the types of delivery
40
-------
mechanisms are varied manuals and other materials, equipment
loan, workshops, phone discussions, on-site visits, formal classes,
and demonstration programs. While these represent an impressive
technical assistance capability, there is a high potential that
ONAC's technical assistance efforts will be plagued by major coor-
dination problems.
Our discussions with both ONAC, the RNOs, CNAs in the ECHO program,
and other local communities indicated an existing and small amount
of coordination problems among the programs. Coordination problems
have manifested themselves in several ways: C.NA questions about
how the National ECHO program will interface with State ECHO pro-
grams.; the lack of coordination between the Quiet Neighborhood
Self Help project and the existing ECHO program; the lack of
clearcut policy guidance from ONAC on which mechanisms and provi-
ders are most suited to different types of State and local noise
technical assistance issues.
One of the most critical needs of ONAC is to relate the findings
of its 1978 State and local noise survey on technical assistance
needs with its present and near future technical assistance capa-
bilities. This step will enable ONAC to begin to sort out tech-
nical assistance responsbilities and develop a coordination
strategy. The findings of the survey suggest local needs, in
particular, are fundamental, broad-based, and common across
communities. Ordinance development, noise measurement and police
enforcement of motor vehicle emissions, for example, appear to be
basic needs common to all local noise programs. Where possible,
these issues should be addressed in large gatherings instead of
on a one-to-one basis. The. RNTACS a EPA regional and State work-
shops are more appropriate mechanisms for providing basic technical
assistance on these issues than the ECHO program in its present
format
ONAC should^reconsiderjthe emphasis on the overall goal of
developing 40~State and 400 local noise programs by 1985. In
addition, policy initiatives and technical assistance should
focus more directly on urban neighborhood noise problems.
Because it is generally impractical to measure the performance
of the EPA Noise Program in terms of ambient conditions, .CWAC^
^has chosen to articulate a performance goal that stresses the -=
quantity of State and local noise programs.: First of all this
"goal, while seemingly specific, is ambiguous. What constitutes
~a" "noise program?" What type of noise, ordinance, what noise
"issues regulated by local government, what level of manpower,,
"what per capita spending level, what enforcement mechanisms
constitute, a noise program? These are' difficult issues for EPA
to pass judgement on for a particular community. Thus it will
be difficult for EPA to define when they have reached their
program development goal.
-------
More importantly, the number of local programs is not necessarily
a good indication of EPA program performance. It certainly shouldn't
be EPA's sole indicator for community noise control accomplishments.
A supplementary performance_issue^J._s_,the. number of^people exposed
cto==harmfuir=levels of noise. In~tnTs regard, EPA should focus a
great more attention on urban neighborhood noise problems.
5.2 MAJOR ECHO PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS
The ECHO model, based on a volunteer peer match concept, is an
excellent form of noise technical assistance. The ECHO model is
particularly appropriate for the Noise Program because the imple-
mentation of local noise programs is essentially a voluntary effort.
Lacking Federal requirements for noise programs, the volunteer
aspect of the ECHO program is a suitable technique for program
implementation. It is providing low cost technical assistance that
is well regarded by recipients.
On the whole, satisfaction with the ECHO program has been high
for both Community Noise Advisors (CNAs) and recipient communities.
From the point of view of the recipient communities, the assistance
received has been appropriate, timely, and at the right level of
effort. Virtually all of the recipient communities in our survey
would like to participate again in ECHO. Sixty percent of the
recipients would be willing to participate in ECHO again as CNAs.
From the point of view of CNAs, there has been very few problems,
except in a couple of regions with coordination with the Regional
Noise Officers (RNOs). Administrative arrangements with the
former private contractors were generally excellent. The lack of .
excessive re$ tape is a key point for CNA satisfaction with the
program management. Seventy percent of the CNAs in our survey
planned to remain in the program.
CNA participation in ECHO, a key to the long term success of the
program, is based on two factors. In addition to the lack of ad-
ministrative red tape, CNAs see ECHO as an opportunity to help
communities solve noise problems on a local-to-local basis. CNAs
believe that the receptivity of their peer communities is enhanced
by them being a local technical assistance provider. Secondly,
CNAs view ECHO as an opportunity to advance their own professional
knowledge in the field.
In terms of number of communities reached, ECHO has had a moderate
amount of success. The number of ECHO recipient communities, 50-75,
depending on how official ECHO participation is defined, represents
a modest number of recipients. ECHO, because of its one-on-one
nature is not conducive to rapid and wide-scale provision of techni-
cal assistance at its present level of funding. As a larger network
of CNAs is developed, either through State-level ECHO programs or
through an expanded national ECHO program, the ECHO approach would
be able to reach a greater number of recipient communities in a
shorter period of time. This is based on the assumption that exist-
ing CNA retention levels are maintained.
42
-------
There has not been an imbalance in supply-demand relationships
so far in ECHO. There presently exists adequate numbers of CNAs
to serve the number of communities seeking ECHO assistance,
according to ONAC. While this has had a favorable impact on not
overburdening CNAs, the small amount of demand for ECHO indicates
that ECHO publicity has not been very effective. Another impact
of the small demand for ECHO has been the relative ease in match-
ing recipient communities with CNAs.
The ECHO program could use better management. Very little is
known about the results of the assistance provided in ECHO. There
is conflicting information about which communities are EHCO reci-
pients. In addition to this tracking problem, there have been
problems with inadequate support for CNAs, namely in the area of
noise measuring equipment, audiovisual supplies, and CNA recogni-
tion. ONAC is attempting to get all of the RNOs to assume most
of the ECHO management responsibilities. This is occurring slowly
in some of the regions.
5.3 ECHO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
SPA 'should clarify how the national ECHO program.will be coordi-
nated with the proposed State ECHO programs. There is a small
amount of concern from the CNAs about their role in ECHO as EPA
develops the State programs. This concern is based on the belieif
that the major emphasis in noise peer matches in the future will
be in the State ECHO programs. Given the present feeling among
many CNAs that ONAC does not provide them with sufficient support,
publicity, and recognition, EPA should clarify the future role of
the existing CNAs.
In addition to satisfying CNA's concerns in this matter, EPA needs
to develop a policy on State/national ECHO coordination in order-
to maximize the effectiveness of the two efforts. Geographic and
type-of-assistance considerations are possible ways to stratify
the workload between States and the national program.
EPA should use the experience of the CNAs in developing State ECHO
programs. CNAs are the strength of the existing ECHO program.
They have a tremendous amount of practical experience to offer
EPA and the States in developing the State ECHO programs. ONAC
should make a formal attempt to tap the CNA experience in this
effort.
ONAC and the National League of Cities should provide more publicity
about the ECHO program. Additional publicity would increase the;
demand for ECHO and would also provide recognition to the existing
CNAs. The. change in ECHO contractors to the National League of
Cities (NLC) should help this aspect of the program. The NLC should
actively use its communication network to publicize the program.
Additional print media stories, such as the recent story in Parade
magazine highlighting ECHO assistance in St. Paul, Minnesota, would
be helpful to the program and quite easy for EPA to develop.
43
-------
ONAC should develop guidelines on CNA selection and recruitment.
EPA has been quite fortunate in its CNA selection. Our survey
indicates a highly motivated group and one that is well received
by recipients. In order to ensure future CNAs, consistent guide-
lines need to be developed for RNO use. In addition, EPA will
need to clarify the future role of the national ECHO program
in order to target its CNA selection. If, for example, the
national ECHO program is used to deal with very specific noise
issues, then this will have obvious implications for the selec-
tion of future CNAs. If EPA is to expand the national ECHO
program or to replace CNAs who leave the program, the Agency
will need a pool of potential CNAs to draw upon.
ONAC should develop guidelines in recipient community partici-
pation in ECHO. Thus far, there has not been a great demand
for ECHO. As EPA stimulates demand and awareness of the program,
some discrimination in recipient selection will be necessary and
desirable. Some of the existing recipients' needs for noise
technical assistance have been dubious. A critical issue to
face in this regard is whether to require any commitments on the
part of recipients. If formal commitments are not required of
recipients, ONAC and the NLC, in any case, need to develop a
standardized and easy to fill out form for recipients to use in
requesting participation in ECHO. This appears to be an essential
management tool that would aid in screening recipients, implement-
ing an appropriate match, and in evaluating the program.
ONAC should consider targeting a portion of ECHO to urban neighbor-
hood noise control needs. Prior to the recent Urban Noise Initia-
tives, EPA did not target its technical assistance to urban neigh-
borhoods. Given the importance of noise in urban nighborhoods
and the number of people exposed to unacceptable noise levels in
urban neighborhoods, EPA should seriously consider special tar-
geting of peer match assistance to urban neighborhoods. The
results of EPA's Quiet Neighborhood Self-Help project should be
used to help develop an Urban ECHO Program. Such a program should
be quite compatible with existing neighborhood planning groups.
There is a tremendous network of neighborhood self-help groups.
EPA should capitilize on these groups in developing an
Urban ECHO Program. The program should be developed in conjunc-
tion with the National Association of Neighborhoods, an umbrella
group for neighborhood organizations, and the HUD Office of
Neighborhood Development.
ONAC should continue to hold CNA conferences to improve the
technical assistance delivery process. EPA's meetings for ONAC
have been well-received because of the sharing of experiences that
it allows. More regional meetings should be held (to avoid ex-
penses and time associated with more national meetings). These
meetings should be more highly structured that past meetings.
The meetings should be used to train CNAs in technical assistance
delivery and in new developments in the noise control field. The
specific experiences of CNAs should be formally incorporated into
the conference agenda.
44
-------
ONAC should consider flexible technical assistance arrangements
in ECHO where appropriate. In order to make the most out of CNA
peer match efforts, EPA should consider developing areawide (multi-
community) recipients for some peer matches. This would make ECHO
more cost-effective and would be quite appropriate for basic and
broad technical assistance issues, such as noise surveys, instru-
ment use, and the like.
Conversely, EPA should consider using teams of CNAs for some com-
plicated peer matches. This would be particularly attractive when
travel costs were minimal. A panel of experts would be quite effec-
tive in certain situations and was received in concept by the CNAs
in our survey.
ONAC should track the progress and results of ECHO better than
it presently d6es. EPA should institute a moderate substantive
reporting procedure for both recipients and CNAs. The problem
revolves around a potential burden that would be placed on a pro-
gram that essentially runs on the concept of volunteerism. In
light of the accountability versus volunteerism dilemma, EPA
should very carefully develop standard two-page reporting forms
that will at least enable the Agency to track the program and to
expand the peer match network. The travel reimbursement should
be used as leverage to ensure that reporting forms are completed.
ONAC should be responsive to the support needs of CNAs. The ulti-
mate viability of the peer match program depends on a continuing
network of willing providers. EPA should recognize the free
service that providers are giving to recipients. Regional awards
and publicity should be developed to recognize the valuable con-
tributions of providers. In addition, EPA should be responsive
to the technical support needs of CNAs in the delivery of technical
assistance. Particular areas of concern are the quality of noise
measuring equipment and the availability of audiovisual equipment.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
ECHO CONTRACT FORM
46
-------
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
GORDIAN ASSOCIATES INC.
AND
FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED
IN THE "EACH COMMUNITY HELPS OTHERS" (ECHO) PROGRAM
I. General Terms;
The Environmental Protection Agency has selected
of the to be a community noise advisor in the
"Each Community Helps Others" (ECHO) program. The purpose of this
program is to help state and local governments to implement effec-
tive noise abatement and control programs. To accomplish this,
EPA is enlisting the services of persons who are experts in the
implementation of community noise control programs, called commun-
ity noise advisors. Through the ECHO program, they will be avail-
able to advise cities and states, called recipient communities,
that are in the process of instituting or upgrading noise abate-
ment and control programs.
The Environmental Protection Agency has executed a contract
(no. 68-01-4888) with Gordian Associates Inc. which provides that
Gordian execute and manage subcontractual agreements with the com-
munity noise advisors. The agreement between Gordian and the
community noise advisor is for the reimbursement of expenses which
are incurred by the community noise advisor in the course of the
ECHO program. The costs of travel, subsistence, and telephone
calls are reimbursable expenses.
Soon after the agreement between the community noise advisor
and Gordian is signed, the community noise advisor, representatives
of the recipient community, and a representative of the EPA Regional
Office will meet to develop an implementation plan for the recipient
community. This plan will include an estimation of the number of
trips which the community noise advisor will make during the course
of the project and the total number of days which she/he will be
traveling. When the project has begun, the community noise advisor
will submit brief progress reports by telephone after each trip.
When the community noise advisor has begun work on a project,
within the limits of the implementation plan the community noise
advisor will function independently and without restraint by Gor-
dian, except with respect to the reimbursement of his/her expenses
as provided for in this agreement. It is the intent of the agree-
ment that the community noise advisor have the status of an inde-
pendent contractor and not that of an employee of Gordian or the
Federal Government.
47
-------
II. Reimbursable Costs
The community noise advisor will be reimbursed only for the
cost of travel and subsistence which the community noise advisor
incurs directly in the performance of the ECHO program. Reimburs-
able costs are limited to those costs which are listed on the
attached information sheet (Form A). The total reimbursable costs
during the performance period of the agreement will not exceed
$3,000.
III. Method of Reimbursement
With the implementation plan which has been developed by the
community noise advisor, the recipient community and the EPA re-
gional representative, the community noise advisor will submit to
Gordian an estimation of the number of days which the community
noise advisor will be traveling. Based on this information, Gordism
will estimate the total reimbursable costs of the project, which
will be held by Gordian as a travel advance, and the estimated cost:
of each trip will be sent to the community noise advisor prior to
the trip. If the initial travel estimation is not sufficient to
bring the project to completion, the community noise advisor, in
conjunction with the EPA regional representative, will revise the
initial estimation and submit a revised estimation to Gordian.
Based on this information, Gordian will revise the estimated reim-
bursable costs for the project; and the revised amount will be held
by Gordian as a travel advance for disbursement to the community
noise advisor prior to each trip. Within one month after each
trip, the community noise advisor will remit to Gordian the unspent:
balance of the travel advance for that trip. Gordian will remit to
the community noise advisor all additional reimbursable costs for
each trip within one month of receipt by Gordian of a properly com-
pleted Form B for that trip. (Form B is attached to this agreement:.)
IV. Term of Agreement
This agreement will be effective for a period of (1) year from
the date of execution, or until EPA Contract Number 68-01-4888 be-
tween Gordian and EPA expires, whichever date is sooner. This
agreement may be extended by mutual agreement for an additional
period not to exceed one (1) year. Either party may terminate this
agreement or any renewal thereof by giving the other party written
notice of his/her intention to do so.
_ Printed Name and Title GORDIAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
(signature and date)
COMMUNITY NOISE ADVISOR
(signature and date)
48
-------
FORM A
REIMBURSABLE COSTS FOR THE EACH COMMUNITY HELPS OTHERS (ECHO) PROGRAM
I. General
The CNA and the project staff of the RC are entitled to reim-
bursement for certain costs resulting from their travel. These costs
include the costs of transportation, lodging, meals, fees, tips, com-
munications, local transportation, and others. Reimbursement of all
costs will be on the basis of actual subsistence under a fixed ceil-
ing; in other words, the traveler will be asked to account for the
costs which (he/she) incurs. In addition to the cost of travel, the
CNA and the RC project staff will be reimbursed for the costs of all
project-related telephone calls.
II. Eligible Costs
A. Telephone Calls
The cost of project-related telephone calls will be assumed
by the ECHO program. Specifically, the cost of phone calls to the
RC, the CNA, EPA, Gordian Associates, and the CNA's or RC's own
Office will be covered. For this purpose, CNAs and RCs will be is-
sued credit cards by Gordian Associates, who will be billed directly
for their usage. The CNAs and RCs are asked to keep a record of
project-related phone calls, for submission to Gordian on a monthly
basis.
B. Travel
1. Commercial carriers
For the purpose of the ECHO program, the term "commer-
cial carrier" applies to airport limousines, buses, trains, and air-
planes. On commercial carriers, travelers must use the most direct
less-than-first-class accomodations, which will also satisfy reason-
able requirements for timeliness and comfort.
2. Privately owned vehicles
a. For the convenience of the CNA or RC
Privately owned vehicles may be used instead of
commercial carriers if the destination of the traveler can be reach-
ed within approximately the same tine by privately owned vehicle as
by commercial carrier. When a privately owned vehicle is used, the
costs of mileage, parking, and tolls are reimbursable. The cost of
traveling by privately owned vehicle must not exceed the cost of
travel by common carrier, including transportation to and from
terminals.
49
-------
b. Transportation between residence and terminal and
related expenses:
Travelers may be reimbursed for the use of pri-
vately owned vehicles and related tolls in getting to and from ter-
minals. The cost of all day parking at the airport is also allow-
able during the time the traveler is away.
c. Allowable rate:
The allowable rate for privately owned vehicles
is 17C per mile.
3. Taxicabs
Taxicabs may be used by the traveler while (he/she)
is traveling for the ECHO program. Use of taxicabs includes travel
to and from terminals and travel in and around the recipient commu-
nity. A receipt is required when a fare of $5.00 or more, exclusive
of tip, has been paid.
C. Lodging and Meals
The maximum allowance for lodging and meals within the con-
tinental United States may not exceed $35.00 per day. Of this
amount, a maximum of $19.00 is allowed for lodging and a maximum of
$16.00 is allowed for meals. Since subsistence is reimbursed on
costs actually incurred, the traveler must keep a record of all his
costs for food and lodging; recepits will be required for the pur-
pose of reimbursement.
D. Other Allowances
There are other related costs which are reimbursable. These
are divided into two categories: those not requiring approval by
ONAC or the EPA Regional Office and those requiring approval. In
every instance, expenses of $5.00 or more must be supported by a re-
ceipt. *
1. Costs not requiring approval
a. Communications: the cost of telephone calls and
telegrams for official purposes is reimbursable. If a credit card
is not used, the claim for reimbursement must show:
(i) Local calls: the cost of each call
(ii) Long distance calls: the points between
which the service was rendered and the cost
(iii)Telegrams: the points between which the
service was rendered and the cost.
50
-------
b. Tolls: the cost of tolls are reimbursed when the
CNA is driving (his/her) own vehicle.
c. Transportation to and from common carrier termin-
al: This is a reimbursable cost in accordance with Section B.
2. Costs requiring approval
The following costs may be approved under certain con-
ditions. For the cost to be reimbursable, approval must be received
from EPA before the cost is incurred. Each instance will be consid-
ered on an individual basis.
a. Hire of meeting rooms for official use
b. Renting of an automobile
c. Registration fee for a conference or meeting.
III. Itemized Expenses
Since travel and subsistence will be reimbursed on costs act-
ually incurred, the traveler must keep a record of all his/her travel
costs. Receipts will be required for all lodging and meals and all
other single items which cost over $5.00.
51
-------
Form B
TRIP EXPENSE REPORT - ECHO PROGRAM
(TO BE SUBMITTED AFTER EACH TRIP)
EPA t 68-01-4888
CNA:
RC:
Address:
Destination:
Period of Travel:
Purpose of Trip:
TRIP EXPENSES
o Privately owned auto: miles @ 17c/mile =
tolls:
local parking:
o Common carrier expense plus transportation to and from
terminal:
Airfare:
Train:
Ground transportation: buses, airport limosines, taxes:
Terminal Parking
o Lodging:
o Meals:
o Phone charges:
o Local transportation:
o Conference fees:
TOTAL COST OF TRIP:
Prepaid Tickets:
Travel Advance:
Balance:
Balance due Participant:
Balance due Gordian:
(Signature) (Date)
Payee other than signer:
Please Submit ALL Recepits over $5.00 from your trip with this expense
to: Gordian Associates Incorporated, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20006. Attn: Ms. Fran Sinkovic - ECHO Program.
52
-------
APPENDIX B
USR&E ECHO SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
53
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE COVER SHEET FOR TECH NEEDS PHONE SURVEY
PROGRAM AREA: ECHO
INTERVIEW TYPE: Provider Phone Survey
.1.
2.
3.
4.
NAME OF COMMUNITY/STATS
INTERVIEWEE:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
EJTERVTEWSR:
INTRODUCTORY LETTER DATE:
FIRST CALL FOR INTERVIEW OATE:
CALLBACK DATE:
INTERVIEW COMPLETE DATE:
INTRODUCTION
o Introduce yourself and USRSE
o Confirm receipt of letter
o Purpose of SPA project
o Purpose of this interview
54
-------
I. BACKGROUND
1. Which City Department is involved in noise control?
2. What noise controls did your city have prior to your involve-
ment in ECHO:
nuisance noise
other (specify standards when possible):
construction
vehicular: motorcycles buses
trucks
recreation vehicles
railroad
aircraft
3. Were new noise controls considered or adopted since your
involvement in the ECHO program?
Yes No In Progress
4. How much money is currently being spent on noise control?
What activity most is money spent on?
5. Expected budget next year:
6. Number of Staff:
Full-time:
Part-time:
55
-------
7. Is there a particular issue which prompted you to become
involved in noise control in your community?
Yes No
If Yes, What was the issue?
If No, is your background such that you are particularly
aware of noise as a problem, or did you become involved while
on the job?
II. ECHO EXPERIENCE THE PROCESS
Involvement
8. When and how did you first hear about the ECHO program?
9. When did you begin your first activities as a CNA?
10. Please describe the main reasons which prompted to become a
CNA in the ECHO program.
56
-------
lla. Did EPA initiate the request for your participation or did
you? EPA I (We)
How was this request for participation made, by:
Phone Writing Meeting
Please elaborate:
b. To your knowledge, did EPA evaluate your capability to pro-
vide noise control assistance?
How?
c. As a CNA, what commitments are required of you by EPA head-
quarters? By the region? (E.g., reporting requirements,
testing techniques of TA, other.)
d. To become a CNA, did you sign a contract with EPA?
Yes No
If Yes, what did it contain?
12. Did you have any experience in providing technical assistance
before you became a CNA?
57
-------
The Matching Mechanism
13. How many communities have you worked with so far through the
ECHO program?
I would now like to ask you a number of questions about the process
by which you were matched with communities in need of technical
assistance.
14. How many requests were:
EPA originated Community originated via EPA
Community originated w/o EPA
15. If EPA originated;
a. Who got in touch with you and how:
Letter
Phone Call
Visit
Other
b. How was a. choice made about which community would receive
technical assistance from you? For example:
1. Was the choice solely yours, or did EPA get
involved at any stage of the process?
2. How were communities presented to you;
One at a time, as the need occurred
Or, a number at a time
Please elaborate:
58
-------
c. Had communities identified their assistance needs prior
to contact with you?
How many times did you have to get in touch with a com-
munity in order to define their needs to know if you
were a suitable match?
d. Were communities you assisted offered a choice of com-
munity noise advisors?
If Yes, what was the community's role in deciding if this
was the right match?
16. What do you do when a community requests your assistance
without EPA orientation?
17. In your opinion, what is necessary to insure a good match
between the CNA and the recipient community? For example:
a. Is it important to have recipient community's needs
well-defined at the initial stage?
Yes No
If Yes, please explain why:
b. Is it important that the provider contact the recipient
community before commitment to TA is made?
Yes No
If Yes, which were the factors which helped you deter-
mine it was a good match?
-------
c. Is EPA playing a major role in the actual matching of
the recipient community with a provider once it is
known who the recipients and providers are?
Yes No
If Yes, please elaborate:
If not, should EPA be playing a major role in the matching
of recipient community with CJ7A?
Interaction with Recipient
18. Please name the communities you have provided ECHO assistance
to:
Please choose the most typical case history of your assistance
through the ECHO program and answer Questions #s 18-22. (If
there was not a typical case history, ask for both a most typical
and a least typical one.)
19. Describe the form of your first contact with the recipients.
Was it by:
Letter Phone Interview
What exactly was the information exchanged?
20. HOW much time elapsed from the time these communities' needs
for TA were communicated to you till you were peer matched?
And, how much time elapsed from the time you were matched
till TA activities actually started:
60
-------
21. If_ there were delays, what were the reasons for them?
I am going to list various forms of noise control technical
assistance and I would like you to tell me if you have pro-
vided this type of assistance to the recipient community.
Also, I would like you to specify what it required of you.
For example, were a number of phone calls required, or was
travel to the recipient community required?
a. Specific reference sources such as EPA materials:
Phone
Letter
C1IA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
b. Training in using measuring instruments:
How many people were trained?
Workshop
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
c. Loan of measuring instruments:
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
61
-------
d. Community Noise Survey:
Was it: Rough Detailed
What was your role?
What was the product of the survey?
e. Attitudinal survey:
Letter
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
f. Workshops or classes for local officials:
How many?
Where did it take place?
g. Assistance in drafting noise legislation and/or defining
noise control priorities:
Phone
Letter
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
62
-------
h. Guidelines for developing a noise control program:
Phone
Letter
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
i. Public education program:
Phone
Letter
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
Training in dealing with specific noise problems not
necessarily via legislation, but using the help of other
town departments in refining land use controls, etc.:
Phone
Letter
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CHA
Other
k. Solving implementation problems related to program appro-
val and implementation, and defining strategies for
dealing with such problems:
Phone
Letter
CNA Visit to Community
Community Visit to CNA
Other
63
-------
10.
23. I would like you to assess on the average, how many on-site
meetings did you have with the recipient community?
How long did each last?
How extensive were your telephone communications?
24. Did you have any costs as a CNA which have not been reim-
bursed by ECHO?
Yes No
If Yes, please explain:
How much money?
Additional Staff:
Out-of-Pocket Expenses:
Additional Travel:
Materials: Other:
25. What is the average length of time you work with a community
from the time the technical assistance process starts until
the community feels it can stand on its own?
26. what incentives does EPA offer which insure your continuity
of involvement?
if none are offered, what are your incentives for providing
ECHO assistance?
64
-------
11.
What is the total period of time you would like to
spend as a provider of TA?
III. PROVIDER ECHO EVALUATION
28. Were there problems you repeatedly had in providing timely
assistance to communities?
Yes No
If Yes, please elaborate:
If there were problems of timeliness, were they due to the
fact that technical assistance is very time consuming, and
that within the ECHO program your time is limited?
Yes No
28a. Do you think that matching a community with more than one
provider of TA would be a good idea?
Yes No
Can you please specify:
b. Do you have any suggestions that could improve the matching
of recipient communities with CNAs?
29. Is there any new procedure or technical aid you could have
used yourself which would have made your TA effort a more
complete and successful one?
Yes No
If Yes, please elaborate:
65
-------
12.
30. Did you meet any local obstacles in donating your time to
ECHO?
Yes No
If Yes, what were they?
31. Do you feel that donating your time is a problem or that
it could become one in the long run?
Yes No
If Yes, what compensations or institutional arrangements
would you like to be provided with?
32a. Do you keep EPA updated on recipient communities' progress
towards adopting noise controls?
b. What does EPA require you to report?
33. Have you provided technical assistance outside of the ECHO
program in other words, assistance for which you did not
get reimbursed?
Yes No
Please elaborate:
66
-------
13.
34. What, in your opinion, are the major shortcomings of the
ECHO program?
What are its most attractive aspects?
What are your suggestions for improvement?
35. Additional comments:
67
------- |