United States
            Environmental Protection
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
            Office of Ecosystems and Communities
                                                        March 1997
                     ommunity Based

                     Environmental Protection Strategy
                  Office of Ecosystems and Communities
                         Elbert Moore, Director

In 1995 and 1996, EPA Region 10 (serving Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and
Washington) undertook an extensive evaluation of how we can better
serve the public and the environment.  The evaluation prompted us to
make changes in the way we go about our business.

Our vision for this change is:
       	a future where government, industry, and the
      public work together as stewards to protect,
      preserve, and improve the environment and
       health for all species in the Pacific North west and

Our objectives are to:
       Protect diverse ecosystems and ensure healthy airsheds
      and watersheds;
      Prevent pollution through source reduction;
      Reduce the generation of land, air, and water
      Clean up contaminated sites.

To achieve our vision and objectives we are making significant changes in
the way we conduct business in the Region. Four new offices,
Ecosystems & Communities, Innovation, Enforcement & Compliance,
and Tribal Operations, were added to our base offices which include Air,
Chemical £ Waste Management, Superfund, Water and our State
Offices. These changes are aimed, in part, at creating closer
coordination between our offices and projjrams, better use of our
limited resources, and, above all, stronger partnerships for solving
environmental problems at the local level.

Among the many regional and national activities aimed at achieving these
objectives, three efforts are fundamental:

 1) Community Based Environmental Protection is helping EPA
 better understand the unique needs of individual communities and tap
 into the resources those communities offer so that we can collaboratively
 solve environmental problems.

 2) The Sector Approach is coordinating activities within the context
 of particular sectors such as small communities, mining and agriculture
 so that we can be consistent in our approaches and share innovative
 solutions to common problems.

 3) The Compliance and En forcement Strategy has the mission of
 encouraging compliance with environmental laws through regulatory
 flexibility and incentives, acknowledging and rewarding tangible
 environmental results through demonstrated performance, and
 maintaining a "bottom line" of environmental standards outlined in
 federal regulations.

 About this report
 This report informs you about our efforts to implement the Community
 Based Environmental Protection Strategy.

 The first draft of this strategy was developed by a diverse group of EPA
 staff.  We sent that draft to over 200 non-EPA people from all four states
 in Region 10 to elicit public input and feedback. In order to get face-to-
 face feedback on the draft strategy, we held seven "focus groups" in all
 four states with representation from tribes, states, communities, other
 federal agencies,  non-profits and the private sector.  We also received
internal feedback and comments from EPA staff. The Strategy has been
changed from earlier drafts to reflect many of the issues, comments and
concerns raised by our customers and EPA staff. It is a document that
will evolve as we gain experience and consider the continuing feedback
we receive from  the public.

               Community Based Environmental Protection

able  of Contents
What is Community Based Environmental Protection?	1

Why Community Based Environmental Protection?	3

Region 10's CBEP Effort	3

CBEP Themes In Region 10	4
      1) Sharing data, information, tools and resources with other
            agencies, the public and communities	4
      2) Place-Based Activities	5
      3) Reorienting Internal EPA Programs & Procedures	7

Fundamental Components of the Strategy  	8

Making CBEP Happen	13
Appendix A:  1997 CBEP Activities
Appendix B: The Geographic Characterisation Tool
Appendix C:  Summary of EPA Community Grant Programs
Appendix D:  EPA Region 10 Organization
Appendix E: EPA Region 10 State Teams

                                            Community Based Environmental Protection
hat is Community Based Environmental
          Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) relies on a
partnership between citizens and government to accomplish  protection of the
environment.  EPA's CBEP strategy will help communities achieve tangible and
sustainable environmental results through collaborative, innovative efforts.  At
EPA, this means:
       Integrating the delivery of our
       services and programs so that they
       are better coordinated;
       Creating the flexibility in our
       programs that allows us to respond
       to die needs of diverse ecosystems
       and human communities and help
       communities reach informed
       decisions that affect their
       environment and quality of life;

       Looking beyond our current
       statutory authorities and base
       programs to address the often
       difficult and intractable problems
       diat our traditional regulatory
       approach cannot, by itself, solve
       (e.g., nonpoint source pollution,
       ecological restoration, Brownfields,
       urban sprawl);

       Ensuring that our programs and
       activities promote sustainable
       communities, including human,
       economic, and ecological
       sustainability; and
                                    Key Terms

                                    In this strategy, "community" is used in the
                                    broadest sense of the word. In this
                                    document, community is generally defined as
                                    the people living in, adjacent to or affected
                                    by A situation or activities in a particular
                                    geographic area. It is important to keep in
                                    mind that communities are often
                                    characterized by a broad array of factions,
                                    many of whom may hold differing values or
                                    priorities: an environmental group, local
                                    businesses, a timber company, long time
                                    residents,  summer residents, a tribe and so
                                    on. In this strategy, as in common usage,
                                    "community''is a bit of a catch all phrase.
                                    Anyone working in an area or place needs to
                                    be very specific in defining and understanding
                                    what is meant by community in that
                                    situation.  A community is not a monolith.
                                    It is a complex set of inter-relationships, and
                                    we do a disservice to ourselves and others by

                                    EPA also has a responsibility to ecosystems
                                    and all their living organisms, not just
                                    humans.  For example, the salmon
                                    restoration effort focuses on communities of
                                    salmon and on the food chain that supports

 •      Increasing our efficiency and
       effectiveness by building partnerships
       and leveraging resources, and
       developing better ways of informing,
       assisting, and involving the public we

 The CBEP strategy assumes that the more
 we know about the issues of importance to
 the people and the environment in a
 community, the more likely EPA will be
 able to assist in solving environmental
 problems in a cooperative and efficient
 manner.  We will be working with others to
 support the fact that a healthy economy and
 a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.
 This strategy is a framework for how  the
 Region will operate into the year 2000 and
 beyond.  Our continuing commitment is to
 maintain environmental standards while
 promoting innovative and creative problem
 solving at the local level.

 EPA's Community Based Environmental
 Protection can apply to small communities,
 to large cities or to complex watersheds.
 EPA staff involvement may range from
 identifying opportunities for collaboration     »««**^^
 over the phone, to providing local grants for technical assistance or
environmental stewardship,  to conducting scientific field studies and
investigations, to relocating EPA staff into a community and playing an active
role at the local level. CBEP has to do with the wa/we relate to the
communities we work in, not just where or whether we become involved.
Key Terms (continued)

In this document a "partner"is defined right
out of the dictionary as "one that is united
or associated with another or others in
an activity or a sphere of common
interest." We have on-going relationships
with some of our partners. For example we
work closely with the lead state
environmental agencies (and other local state
and federal agencies as well). A
constructive, on-going relationship with
those agencies is essential to our mutual
success in protecting human health and the

On the other hand, EPA could have partners
with whom we share a specific common
interest, but do not share common long-
term goals. For example, we may find
ourselves to be partners with a company to
restore a wetland. While we may be
partners on the specific activity of restoring
the wetland, our goals are quite different.
EPA's goal is to protect human health and
the environment; the company's goal is to
make a profit for its stockholders. We
should avoid the trap of failing  to recognize a
potential partner because we do not share the
same world view or because our relationship
has areas of conflict.

                                   Community Based Environmental Protection

  hy Community Based Environmental Protection?
        Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) recognizes that
long-term sustainable solutions to many environmental problems require the
cooperation of many groups with a wide spectrum of interests.  No one group or
agency has sole responsibility for the future of our environment. Local land use
decisions, for example, often have profound effects on the environment, positive
or negative. Some significant environmental decisions, like land use and zoning,
are not within the scope of EPA's audiority, yet we have a role as scientists,
experts, regulators and coordinators to work with communities to provide
information, ensure compliance with environmental laws and help bring the
right people to the table.

As a federal agency covering four states, EPA Region 10 can not become a major
presence in more than a few locations across die region. But unless we increase
our meaningful involvement at the local level, we run the risk of becoming
disconnected from the very public we are intended to serve. By selecting areas
or communities for intensive EPA investment, we expect the agency to develop
increased sensitivity to our impact "on the ground" and to become more
effective in delivering our services across the entire region. Through the
implementation of CBEP, EPA Region 10 expects to more fully coordinate our
efforts within the agency, build stronger partnerships throughout the region and
position ourselves to effectively engage in solving local and area-wide
environmental problems in concert with others.
egion 10's CBEP Effort
      Region 10 employees have long been working with communities, non-
profit organizations, die private sector, tribes, states and odier federal agencies.
But we have not always taken die time to get to know and understand the unique
needs, perspectives and abilities of our partners. Fundamental to the success of
CBEP is the need for Region  10 employees to take a closer look at the
communities and the landscapes  in which diey are working.  By becoming better
connected to the communities and the land, we will be able to work more
cooperatively and effectively  to protect human health and the environment.

CBEP is an environmental protection approach that integrates different tools,
such as science, regulation, economic incentives, community plans, and public
education to reach environmental goals. The ultimate goal of Community Based
Environmental Protection is to develop lasting community support for
environmental planning and implementation. The Region 10 CBEP Strategy
outlines this management philosophy and identifies priority actions that support
the implementation of Community Based Environmental Protection.

There are three interdependent themes to the implementation of Region 10's
CBEP Strategy.
BEP Themes In Region 10
1) Sharing data, information, tools and resources with other
agencies, the public and communities
In this strategy, capacity building means providing assistance to communities and
organizations so that they may address environmental problems on their own.
Assistance can include training, scientific and technical support, mediation or
conflict resolution support, and the like. The goal is to work with others to help
to cure the problem, not just treat the symptom. This also means building EPA
capacity as we identify gaps in our own knowledge and programs. Because our
resources are limited, it is inevitable that EPA's support or presence will be
limited over time. Successful capacity building means that EPA should be able to
withdraw from a community without adversely effecting the work being done.

The success of our effort to build mutual capacity is rooted in the following key
regional commitments:

•     Continuing cooperative work with Tribes and States in Region 10,

•     Increasing awareness at EPA about local communities and their needs,

•     Making realistic commitments, following through on our commitments,
      and following up to ensure that our efforts are effective and results
      meaningful, and

                                         Community Based Environmental Protection

•     Continuing work to improve access to our resources by striving for
      excellence in our environmental information management, phone,
      computer and personal contacts.

2)  Place-Based Activities
In 1995 the Administrator of EPA, Carol Browner, made the strategic national
decision to target 20% of EPA's existing resources towards field or place based
activities. In Region 10, we were already investing in EPA State Offices,
Superfund was closely involved with dozens of communities, and shortly after
the policy was released, we had "on-location" staff in four areas (See Figure 1 on
next page). We have also targeted resources to over a dozen specific locations
including Alaska's Tongass National Forest,  Idaho's Coeur d'Alene Basin,
Oregon's Willamette Valley and Washington's Puget Sound.

Region 10 had technically met the 20% community investment goal as the
"Browner Policy" was being announced.  But was our relationship with the
communities, the tribes, the states any different? Were we coordinating well?
And how were decisions being made to determine EPA's priorities and the
appropriate level of effort for the agency? Were we duplicating the efforts of
others? The answers to these questions are less clear.

Environmental agencies and communities have long struggled to find a
systematic way of setting priorities for focusing resources and energy. A
"Geographic Characterization" procedure has been developed (see Appendix B)
to help EPA characterize and eventually set priorities for geographic areas. We
anticipate that this tool will change as we gain  experience in applying it, and as
others share their insights and experiences with us.  The process includes, but is
not limited to, such factors as human health risks (both current and projected),
environmental health risks (both current and projected), potential for ecological
recovery, socio/economic factors,  environmental justice issues, potential for a
sustainable economy, and pollution prevention opportunities.

                     EPA REGION 10 OFFICES
      ft Staff Off ice
       A State Office
       O Regionai Office
                     States are not to scale • - Alaska is much larger than shown

Being identified as a "geographic priority" means that EPA will try to find ways
to focus resources on the problems or issues in that geographic area.  In some
cases, EPA core programs of Air, Chemical and Waste Management, Superfund,
and Water will work together and with a community to address a number of
issues in a comprehensive, logical manner.  Other offices such as Innovation,
Ecosystems and Communities, External Affairs, and Environmental Assessment
can support these "cross media" efforts.  In other cases, Regional Geographic
Initiative (RGI) funds and other EPA "discretionary funds" may be directed
towards a specific area to provide focused, sustained support beyond the scope of
our more traditional core programs.

We will also use information from the Geographic Characterizations to help set
state-by-state priorities for Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs). PPAs
establish mutually agreed upon priorities and expectations for EPA and each

                                          Community Based Environmental Protection

state. Although currently focusing on the lead state environmental agencies,
PPAs can extend to other state agencies such as the departments of health,
natural resources or agriculture (the Tribal EPA Agreement (TEA) is the rough
equivalent of a PPA for tribes).  In all cases, we need to clearly understand our
role in relation to other agencies, the state, the tribes and the community. We
need to build on each other's strengths, not duplicate each other's efforts.

3)  Reorienting Internal EPA  Programs & Procedures
The success of CBEP is dependent on people working together collaboratively.
Inside EPA, this means coordinating and communicating across programs and
across media (e.g. Air, Water, Waste, Superfund) as the routine method of
doing business. All too often, we have failed to understand the cumulative
effects of multiple EPA programs on local communities or the regulated
community. We need to explore the interdependence of our programs and
seize opportunities to cooperate and gain a more balanced perspective on  our

Externally, this means seizing the opportunities to work cooperatively with
tribes,  states, local communities, other agencies, non-profits and industry.
Collaborative work is one of the highest Regional priorities and a corner stone of
our new organizational structure.

Increasing cross-media and cross-program cooperation in our Region will result
in more focused and productive use of our collective resources. This will
require some basic changes in our attitudes and behavior. The CBEP Strategy
furnishes tools and techniques to help EPA staff to work more effectively with
others and to identify the appropriate level of effort for individual tasks and
projects.  For EPA staff,  working collaboratively is a professional obligation.  All
EPA employees are expected to ask: "Who else needs to know?", "Who else can
help?" and, "How can we work together?"

undamental Components of the Strategy
    EPA Region 10 has formed State Teams. These teams consist of staff
representatives from each of EPA's programs coordinated by an EPA State Team
Leader. Among other things, the teams act as advocates in Seattle for state and
local perspectives.  We now have a State Team for each of the four states in
Region 10. Initially, the state teams have focused on coordinating with each
state's lead environmental agency. Over time, the State Teams will be
responsible for coordinating with a much broader range of parties within each
state, including departments of natural resources, agriculture,  fish and wildlife,
and the tribes. As the State Teams gain local knowledge and expertise, they will
be able to share their experience with other EPA staff.

Tribal perspectives are of specific interest and concern. The Tribes in Region 10
have expressed concern that EPA often seems to ignore tribal priorities. While
the State Teams can not guarantee that the tribes will be satisfied with the
outcomes, it is the responsibility of the State Teams to work with EPA's Office
of Tribal Programs to ensure that tribal issues are identified and addressed.

Region 10's newly formed State Teams are at the heart of Community Based
Environmental Protection. In  1997, each State Team will:

Coordinate. Establish fundamental, cross-program communication to ensure
active coordination of EPA programs within individual geographic areas.

Set Priorities. Characterize and identify "priority" areas for focusing additional
EPA resources (using input from our state, tribal and local partners).

Cultivate Performance Partnerships. Work with each state to develop
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) which reflect mutually agreed
upon priorities.

Conduct Geographic Characterizations.  Simply put, Geographic
Characterization is a methodology designed to ensure that EPA managers  and
staff have consistent essential knowledge about the communities or basins in
which they are working. With better knowledge of communities, we will not

                                         Community Based Environmental Protection

only be more effective in working at die local level, we will avoid being "blind
sided" by issues of which we are unaware. Too often we have found ourselves
working on projects or permits or enforcement actions  in areas we have never
seen. In an ideal world,  our travel budget should allow us to visit the areas
where we are working. We should do this whenever possible.  Phone calls and
correspondence can never replace face to face contact with our partners in their
own surroundings. Travel budget or not, the Characterization Tools will help us
to better understand the unique needs, perspectives and capabilities of
communities across the region. Intensive Characterizations will help us set
priorities for geographic areas for increased agency focus and resources.

Set Geographic Priorities. In 1997 the State Teams will make geographic
priority recommendations based on limited local input. Currently we do not
have the tools and contacts to make decisions in a truly community-based way.
The long term intent of this strategy is to build tools so  that the State Teams will
eventually be making decisions with a working knowledge of the full range of
environmental and social issues of each state.  The state teams will eventually be
in a position to help EPA decision makers focus our resources on critical areas in
concert with others.

Expand the Role of Communities and Our Many Partners. While
State Teams are at die heart of CBEP, they will not be going it alone. This is a
Regional  effort, and as such, it touches nearly every employee in the agency.
Implementing CBEP means looking for opportunities to build capacity at the
community level, striving to make decisions collaboratively, and involving
communities in developing solutions to environmental problems. Eventually,
we envision diat communities will help develop performance plans for grants
and programs, as well as helping in the monitoring and evaluation of
environmental progress.  This applies to all EPA activities, not just "priority"

There are numerous existing mechanisms diat will help  us implement CBEP at
the local level . . . Sustainable Development Challenge Grants,  Tribal EPA
Agreements, State Performance Partnership Agreements, Pollution Prevention
Grants, Project XL, and die Brownfields Redevelopment grants to mention a
few. These programs and others are discussed in Appendix A.

Utilize Place-Based and Field Staff. EPA State Offices and the EPA staff
who are placed in communities are key players in the implementation of CBEP.
The people who are in the communities are literally the eyes and ears of Region
10. The expertise of our field staff has often gone untapped. Seattle staff have a
responsibility to use the expertise and resources of the staff who are placed
outside Seattle. Conversely, staff not located in Seattle have a unique challenge
to bring local perspective to the decision-making process in Seattle. Managers
and staff at all levels should support and seek the input of those who are working
outside Seattle in order to obtain "real world" input. Managers need to take the
lead in this effort by insisting that place-based and State Office staff be involved
in discussing issues and making decisions that affect their communities.  Again,
EPA staff need to be asking "Who else needs to know?"

Exercise Regulatory Flexibility. In written comments and in focus groups,
we heard that regulatory inflexibility would be one of the biggest obstacles to
implementing CBEP.  Our partners were concerned about the Region's ability
to be flexible. EPA staff were concerned that EPA Headquarters would be an
obstacle to Regional flexibility.  Many others expressed the concern that we
would "go overboard" in providing flexibility and undermine the regulatory
authorities of the agency.

Traditional regulatory programs will continue to play a vital role in the
protection of human health and the environment. Regulations ensure an
appropriate level of environmental protection, but at the same time we can and
should explore workable alternatives for reaching those goals.  Our
Enforcement and Compliance Strategy will be addressing this issue.

We have been told that EPA is sending "mixed messages" - trying to form
partnerships with the regulated community and at the same time maintaining
authority as an enforcement and regulatory agency.  For EPA staff who find
themselves in the dual role of enforcer and enabler, this situation is especially
difficult. It is critical that we clearly explain our role in any given situation.
We need to be keenly aware of the dangers of setting false expectations, only to
disappoint ourselves and others. EPA's role is changing and it requires us to
strike a balance.

                                         Community Based Environmental Protection

Avoid Duplication of Effort. One of die most prevalent comments we
heard from both the focus groups and written comments is that EPA should use
information that has already been gathered by local groups. EPA and other
governmental organizations have a tendency to replicate the efforts of others.
One of the major goals of the CBEP strategy is to identify ways EPA staff can tap
into local groups and not only use the expertise of these groups, but dovetail
with and complement their projects. For example, EPA staff can learn from
local watershed councils, stewardship councils, community organizations,
chambers of commerce, tribal organizations, die states and governor-sponsored
programs (die Washington Rural Development Council, Oregon's Coastal
Salmon Initiative and Idaho's Basin and Watershed Implementation Planning).

Use the Decision Making Scale. The following Decision Making Scale can
be a helpful tool in describing die relationship between the community, our
partners, the agency and the decision. As you can see, EPA runs the entire range
of the scale. This is appropriate. The emergency removal of a chemical spill
may require a prompt, unilateral decision to ensure public safety, while the
development of a watershed management plan  with voluntary nonpoint source
pollution reduction activities may require extensive work widi the community
and EPA may not be the final decision maker.

We should not assume that any EPA program is "locked" into a particular
decision making mode.  Some illustrations from Superfund demonstrate die
range of decision making authority that a program can offer. Statutory
regulations require Superfund to be at "C" - Agency decides
with extensive community input through formal comment periods and public
meetings.  Yet in Commencement Bay, the level of community involvement is
at "D" - Agency meets with community regularly and makes decision based on
extensive community feedback and community recommendations.  And in
Southeast Idaho, where a community based task force is determining actual
cleanup levels and implementation strategies around the radioactive slag issue,
die decision making is at the "E" level - Agency participates in community based
decision making process and Community decides with extensive agency input.
Above all, we must be clear about our role in any ^ivcn situation.

                      The Decision Making Scale
Agency Decides
                                                  Community* Decides
Agency decides
with little or no

Little or no

An emergency
cleanup of a
toxic spill

Agency decides
with limited

Formal written

Little or no
direct contact
with the

Legal Notice for
RCRA permit

Agency decides
with extensive

public meetings,
formal comment
response to

£'. C,'.
relations plan

Agency decides
based on
EPA meets with
regularly and
bases agency
decision on

with Individual
with extensive
agency input

participates in
based decision
making process

Development of
protection plan

with limited
agency input

acts as resource
to community,
assistance as

Development of
Protection Plans

with no agency

Little or no

regulations may
or may not be
Local land use or
zoning decisions

 *     In the context of this chart, community could refer to a local community, a tribe, a state, an industry or
       regulated community, or all of the above. See definition of community on page 2.

While we can and should seek ways to find common ground so that we can work
cooperatively with others to achieve shared goals, this is not always possible.
Regardless of the program, we need to be clear about the community's role in
the decision making process and we need to clearly articulate that role to the
public frequently.

Employ Conflict Resolution and Neutral Facilitation. Another major
obstacle identified in die comments is the conflict that is inherent whenever
there are diverse stakeholders at the table with conflicting goals. Conflict is
inevitable when dealing with finite natural resources; however, one strength of
Region 10's CBEP approach is that it encourages voluntary partnerships between
government and the citizenry and relies on informed people and grass-roots
activities. EPA Region 10 is already using third-party, neutral facilitators and
mediators to support CBEP and to help bring all stakeholders to the table early

                                         Community Based Environmental Protection
in the process when addressing contentious issues.  Consensus may not always be
possible, but experience has shown that when all voices are heard, the resulting
decisions are not only better, but more likely to meet with success.
aking CBEP Happen
        The implementation of Community Based Environmental Protection
relies heavily on coordinating existing programs, tools and resources.  In many
ways this strategy "connects the dots" so that existing efforts can be clearly
linked to new or developing approaches to environmental protection.

In Appendix A we identify on-going, developing and proposed "deliverables" for
fiscal year 1997 (EPA's fiscal year 1997 runs from October 1, 1996 to
September 30, 1997). These deliverables are arranged in categories
corresponding to die introduction to this strategy: 1) Region-wide Resources for
Communities and Partners, 2) Place Based Resources - site or area sped fie and
3) Internal EPA Changes - often tJu's includes working wj't/i others.  A contact is
listed for each initiative or deliverable.  These contacts are directly
accountable for the implementation of the fiscal year 1997
deliverable or action associated with their name.

It is unreasonable to hold staff accountable for CBEP implementation
deliverables without substantial management support.  The CBEP deliverables
need to be a high priority for each responsible Office and Unit.  Sufficient
administrative  and staff support needs to be provided, and when tough
budgetary decisions are made, the CBEP initiatives must remain a high priority.
Managers at both the Executive team and Unit level need to clearly
communicate with each other to maintain critical links between programs. No
one working on CBEP should be doing  so in a vacuum.

Evaluation - Measuring Success
Just as we have engaged in external and internal dialogue in developing this
strategy, we will engage in a similar dialogue to assess our progress and adjust
our goals. The cross-program CBEP workgroup, convened to assist in
developing the strategy, will be reconvened in June and September of 1997 to
review and evaluate CBEP implementation progress. Recommendations on any
needed revisions will be made to EPA Region 10's Executive Team (ET) sponsor
for CBEP. Appropriate action items will be presented to the ET for decisions.

Details on evaluation procedures are in Appendix B.
Keeping CBEP Alive
One of the most consistent comments received on the draft was, "How can we
be sure that CBEP will survive?" "How can we be sure that this is not just a
passing fad?" There are factors in CBEP's favor.  Carol Browner, who initiated
CBEP at the national level, is continuing on as EPA's Administrator.  Regional
leadership is expected to remain constant.  But above all, the public is
demanding more involvement in die decision making process, and many
important environmental decisions rest  in local hands. CBEP is an
environmental protection approach that integrates different tools, such as
science, regulation, economic incentives, community plans, and public
education to reach environmental goals. It strives to develop lasting community
support for environmental planning and implementation. The CBEP effort is
already well under way. It has momentum, it has internal and external support,
it makes sense.  It is here to stay.

1>pendix A:
 1997 CBEP Activities
                                  Community Based Environmental Protection
                           Region 10, Seattle

                   Office of Ecosystems and Communities

      ppendix A: 1997 CBEP Activities
     Iheme 1:     Sharing data, information, tools and resources
                  with other agencies, the public and
                  communities (mutual capacity building)

Brownfields Action Agenda
      EPA's Brownfields program encourages economic redevelopment of
      abandoned property through funding site assessments, Brownfields pilots
      and clarifying liability issues. The Brownfields program promotes job
      training, community participation and cleanup in economically stressed
      areas so that environmental liabilities can be transformed into community
      assets.  Brownfields pilot projects are underway in seven Region 10
      communities to develop innovative approaches to Brownfields
      redevelopment.  The Region is also funding a pilot program in Oregon to
      conduct four Brownfields site assessments. In 1996, Region 10 entered
      into three agreements with prospective purchasers of contaminated
      property to clarify cleanup liabilities and bring nearly 50 acres of land into
      productive use.  The Region continues to pursue these settlements where
           FY '97: Manage and provide technical assistance to seven existing
           Brownfield pilot projects (Port of Bellingham, Puyallup Tribe, City
           of Tacoma, City of Portland, Duwamish Coalition, Panhandle
           Health District, Rural Development Initiative Oregon Mills
           Project).  Initiate between one and three new Regional
           Brownfields pilots this year. Complete the Brownfields site
           assessment pilot project with the Orejjon Department of
           Environmental Quality (four site assessments will be completed in
           this project). Provide states with cooperative agreements monies
           to develop or implement voluntary cleanup programs consistent
           with national guidelines. ~ 2.2 FTE1
           Contact:   Lori  Cohen            (206) 553-6523
                       Office of Environmental Cleanup, Seattle
      1      "FTE" stands for "Full Time Equivalent". One FTE is one full time
            person working for one year.
                                  A- 1

Collaborative Training with Our Partners
      This training will focus on sharing perspectives, ideas and information
      using a hypothetical watershed case study.  When possible, the training
      will be conducted outside of Seattle with people who are likely to have
      ongoing relationships through community workgroups, watershed
      councils or the like. The purpose of the training is to: 1) encourage
      candid interaction and dialog between EPA staff and the public, 2) allow
      individuals who are likely to have ongoing relationships an opportunity to
      get to know each other on neutral ground in an informative and
      constructive way, 3) demonstrate the benefits of collaboration in solving
      environmental problems, and 4) freely exchange information about the
      roles and responsibilities of EPA and our partners. The course may be
      designed to also provide a broad overview of different Regional
      programs, authorities, and new initiatives.
            FY *97: Working with a contractor and regional staff, an
            interactive, collaborative training program  will be designed and
            produced. It will be held in at least  two locations in FY '97,
            Olympia and Portland.  ~ 1 FTE
            Contact:   Dan Phalen            (206)553-6638
                        phalen. dan@epamail. epa. gov
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

Community Access via the Internet (Web Masters)
      The goal is to improve community access to EPA's LAN Information
      Page and the Internet Home Page so that our partners can more easily
      access data and EPA resources for community-based projects.  Both die
      LAN Information Page and the Internet Homepage are up and running.
      Staff, however, need training and incentives to add content to the pages.
            FY '97: The Outreach Forum (organized by the Office of External
            Affairs) will ensure that each key office designates some one as a
            "Web Master" responsible for designing an  office Front Page and
            ensuring that content of use to communities is added to the
            Internet and  maintained. The Information  Resources Unit will
            provide technical support for creation of the Front Pages,  including
            graphics assistance, determining the format of the Home Page, and
            providing technical assistance to Web Masters.   ~ 4- FTE
            Contacts:  Susan Handley   (206) 553-1287
                        handley. susan@epamail. epa. gov
                        Outreach Forum, Office of External Affairs, Seattle
                        Robin Gonzales  (206)553-2977


                        Information Services, Office of Management
                        Programs, Seattle
               EPA Region 10 World Wide Web Home Page Address:
Community Involvement Plans
      Whenever EPA has a high level of activity in a given community or when
      the level of interest or alarm is very high, it is advisable to have a Public
      Involvement Plan so that both EPA and the community are clear about
      mutual expectations for community input into the decision making
      process. These plans, modeled after Superfund Community Relations
      Plans, provide key information about the community and landscape,
      identify major health and ecological issues, identify key individuals and
      organizations in die community, and provide a framework for public
      participation.  The plans can be simple or complex, depending on the
      need. With die exception of Superfund, most programs tend to react to
      situations radier than plan ahead of time. The Outreach Section in ECO
      is prepared to assist EPA staff in developing proactive Community
      Involvement Plans diat are appropriate for a given situation.
            FY *97:  Produce Community  Involvement Plans for any new
            Regional Geographic Initiative areas that are selected this fiscal
            year.  ~ .3 FTE
            Contact:   Michelle Pirzadeh     (206)553-1272
                        pirzadeh. m ichelle@epam ail. epa. gov
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

Comparative Risk
      The comparative risk to society of various environmental problems is a
      factor diat should be considered in establishing geographic priorities and
      allocating environmental resources within the Region. However, die
      methodology for performing  comparative risk assessments is relatively
      new, and dieir utility in the decision making process is unproven.  The
      Region is initiating a pilot project to complete a comparative risk analysis
      for one State (Washington).  At the completion of the pilot, an evaluation
      will be made to evaluate the cost of the project,  the usefulness of the
      products, whether a similar assessment should be completed for the rest
      of die Region, and the extent to which the process should influence

      program priorities and resource allocations.  Initial discussions have been
      held to develop the scope and methodology for the Washington pilot
            FY '97: Complete the Washington pilot project.  ~ .5 FTE
            Contact:   George Abel           (206)553-1198
                        abel. george@epamail. epa. gov
                        Office of Environmental Assessment, Seattle

Computerized Staff Skills Identification
      This concept involves the design and implementation of a "key word" staff
      search database for the LAN Information Page. The  search program
      would help staff and others easily identify EPA employees with specific
      technical and scientific skills, programmatic knowledge, policy expertise,
      and knowledge of specific areas and communities. We will explore the
      possibility of public Internet access to the database so that the human
      resources of EPA will be more readily accessible to both EPA staff and the
            FY '97: The Region will initiate development of the database but
            does not expect to complete it this fiscal year.   ~ .75  FTE
            Contact:    Robin Gonzalez       (206) 553-2297
                        Office of Management Programs, Seattle

EPA Program Fact Sheets
      Develop brief fact sheets describing each EPA program using a common
      format so that basic information about programs and program contacts
      can be easily communicated to the public.  The fact sheets will focus on
      describing the relationship of each program to the public. Most Water
      Programs have informational fact sheets which were developed around
      the common theme of watershed protection.  With these fact sheets as a
      starting point, we will expand the concept to the rest of the Region.
            FY '97:  Produce three fact sheets for different programs using a
            consistent format which can be utilized by others in the region.
            We will edit and standardize up to six additional fact sheets
            initiated by other programs.  ~ .3 FTE
            Contacts:   Andrea Lindsay  (206)553-1896
                        lindsay. andrea@epamail. epa. gov
                        Dan Phalen      (206) 553-6638
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle


Environmental Education
      The goal of this program is to improve environmental education in
      elementary and secondary schools.  Through a combination of grants,
      technical assistance, publications, videos and school presentations, EPA
      has reached out to rural and urban communities. Environmental
      stewardship is a major focus of this well-established program, which
      currently provides grants of up to $25,000 at the regional level and up to
      $250,000 at the national level.
            FY *97:  Implement Environmental Education grants in all four
            states, support innovative education projects, and network with
            other agencies and institutions regarding environmental education.
            ~ 3.5 FTE
            Contact:    Susan Hand ley   (206)553-1287
                        Office of External Affairs, Seattle

Environmental Information Management System (EIMS)
      This project involves the creation of an in-house application that would
      store information about environmental data sets (EPA's and others) so
      that data needs can be met and data gaps can be recognized.  System
      capabilities would also allow external users to store information about
      their data sets in the EIMS. This function is available through the Internet
      (Region 10's Homepage, Data and Maps). Also,  Regional users can
      submit queries and retrieve information and data from the national data
      bases of regulated facilities through ENVIROFACTS by using the EIMS
      communication workstation and data browser (currently there are 10 to
      12 of these stations located within the Regional Office). The directory of
      data sources has been developed and is available on die Internet.
            FY *97:  Load Idaho water quality data products into a national
            database and allow access via the Internet. ~ 2 FTE
            Contact:    Don Matheny          (206)553-2599
                        Office of Environmental Assessment,  Seattle

Environmental Justice
      Community groups and numerous studies have shown a disproportionate
      exposure of low-income and communities of people of color to
      environmental pollutants.  The Environmental Justice (EJ) Program offers
      grants to grass-roots and community-based organizations addressing EJ
      issues so that both die community and the agency can be better informed


      and equipped to minimize any inequities that may exist.  Educational
      sessions on topics such as grant writing, tools for implementing EJ, and
      local EJ issues are offered throughout the year and are available for a wide
      range of audiences including federal, state, and local employees, and the
      public. The E] Program also focuses on analytical and research projects
      that will answer EJ questions within EPA or meet the needs of a
      community group focusing on environmental justice.
            FY'97:  Region 10 will provide environmental justice training to
            EPA and other federal employees on topics such as public
            participation and enforcement actions. In addition, the Region
            plans to hold a series of meetings with environmental justice
            community members to hear their concerns and explore what role
            EPA may have in working with them or others to address those
            concerns.   ~  1.3 FTE
            Contact:   Joyce Kelly            (206) 553-4029
                        Susan Morales          (206) 553-8580
                        Office for Innovation, Seattle

Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention
      Not to be confused with the Environmental Justice Grant Program, the
      Region has another grant program called Environmental Justice through
      Pollution Prevention. The purpose of this Program is to  support
      community organizations in their efforts to address environmental justice
      problems through the use of pollution prevention solutions.
            FY97: Approximately 6 new grants worth a total of $320,000
            will be awarded.   ~ .25 FTE
            Contact:   Carolyn Gangmark     (206)553-4072
                        gangmark.carol yn@epamail. epa.gov
                        Office for Innovation, Seattle

Fostering and Ensuring Inter-Agency  Coordination
      This project would expand EPA employees'  opportunities to work with
      other agencies by assembling a concise directory of agency functions and
      contacts. The long-term goal is to identify EPA staff with ongoing
      relationships with individual agencies who can act as a resource to other
      EPA staff in familiarizing themselves with other agencies.
            FY '97:  Select a person in each State office who will be
            responsible for developing a data base for their state and


            maintaining up-to-date information of the various agencies in the
            State. Because this activity is in a conceptual stage of
            development, an FTE estimate is not yet available.
            Washington:       Dennis Lazzar   (360)753-9469
                             Washington Office, Lacey
            Contacts for the other Region 10 states have not yet been selected.

Green Lights and Energy Star Programs
      These programs prevent pollution and save energy.  EPA is actively
      implementing them here in Region 10 and nationwide. The staff who
      manage these Programs develop personal contacts using a nationwide
      database, make presentations to industry groups, and participate in
      regional environmental fairs and workshops.  There are now more than
      75 Green Lights partners in the Region saving more than 2.3 million
      dollars in energy and preventing more than 7.6 million pounds of CO2
      pollution per year.  A program to help small businesses finance upgrades
      is now under way.
            FY '97:  Seattle is one of 28 cities targeted for a public service
            announcement program, and regional K-12 schools will be
            intensively marketed. ~ 2 FTE
            Contacts:   Dick Rautenberg      (206)553-2148
                        rautenburjj. dick@epam ail. epa.gov
                        Emile Altine           (206) 553-1196
                        Office for Innovation, Seattle
               You can learn more about these programs at these World
                              Wide Web addresses:


                        or by calling these toll-free numbers:
                      1-800-424-4EPA or 1-888-STAR YES

Indoor Air
      Numerous risk assessment studies from across the nation have ranked
      indoor air pollution among the top four environmental risks to public
      health. The Indoor Air Program offers professional training, public
      outreach, education, and grant assistance to provide information to those
      who work in the indoor air field, to health care providers, to the general
      public, and to community organizations that provide services to groups
      who are the most adversely impacted by indoor air pollution (children,
      people with low incomes, and people of color). In providing outreach
      and education, the  Indoor Air Program aims to prevent or decrease the
      adverse health effects associated with indoor air pollution exposures.  The
      Program provides outreach and education through 2-day professional
      training workshops and a specialized three-day workshop for Region 10
      Tribes. Additional regional outreach and education efforts, including 1 -
      day training seminars, focus on groups that are at highest risk for adverse
      health impacts.
            FY *97:  EPA will offer seventeen workshops: four in each of the
            four Region  10 states,  and one for Region  10 Tribes.  ~ 1 FTE
            Contact:   Brook Madrone        (206)553-2589
                        Office of Air Quality,  Seattle

One Stop Program
      This is a national program (Presidential initiative) designed to enhance
      various State data management initiatives in making State environmental
      data more easily accessible through the Internet.  Under this national
      program, the State  of Washington Department of Ecology has received a
      grant to help them  revamp their data bases and enhance their Internet
      information capabilities.
            FY '97:  Work will continue in the state of Washington, and ten
            additional states nationwide will be awarded grants.  ~ .2 FTE
            Contact:   Don Matheny   (206)553-2599
                        Office of Environmental Assessment, Seattle

Outreach Forum
      The  Outreach Forum is a focal point for establishing and implementing
      outreach policies and priorities in the Region, with the objective of
      improving staff abilities and knowledge of outreach skills.  It reviews new
      initiatives, publications, events, and projects to ensure consistency with


      Agency goals and priorities. The Forum helps the Region learn from past
      experiences, avoid duplication of effort, and coordinate related activities.
      Since the first meeting in February 1996, the Forum has enjoyed broad
      representation from Regional Staff.
            FY '97:  Sponsor a one-day "Outreach  Festival" for all EPA staff
            including training workshops, presentations, exhibits, a key note
            speaker, panel presentations, and time  for social interaction.
            Establish die Forum as the accepted "checkpoint" for all key
            outreach activities.  Provide discussion  and guidance  for
            approximately five new program initiatives referred to Forum by
            Regional management and staff. ~ 3 FTE
            Contact:   Susan Handley   (206)553-1287
                        Office of External Affairs, Seattle

Performance Partnership Agreements and Grants (PPAs  & PPGs)
      PPAs and PPGs are bilateral agreements between EPA and each state.
      They establish mutually agreed upon environmental goals, priorities,
      objectives and performance measures. They include a joint work plan for
      administering federal grant dollars for air quality, water quality and
      hazardous waste management. They provide  the states with more
      flexibility in how to spend EPA grant dollars,  and they ensure increased
      coordination between EPA and state programs.  These agreements were
      first used in 1996, and they varied in scope from state to state.
            FY '97:  Negotiate and complete this year's PPAs and PPGs with
            mutual State and EPA priorities and resource commitments. FTE
            estimates for PPA and PPG negotiations are captured in the FTE
            estimate provided for the overall work of the State Teams,
            approximately  11 FTE.  State teams are described in Appendix D.
            State Office Directors:

            Alaska       Rick Albright         907-271-5083
                        albr ight. r ick@ep am ai 1. epa. go v
                        Alaska Office, Anchorage

            Idaho       LynnMcKee          208-334-1166
                        Idaho Office, Boise

            Oregon      Ken Brooks           503-362-3250


                        Oregon Office, Portland

            Washington Julie Hagensen        360-753-9083
                        hagensen. julie@epamail. epa.gov
                        Washington Office, Lacey

Pollution Prevention Program
      Through Region 10's Pollution Prevention Program, States and Tribes
      receive funding and other resources to maximize pollution prevention
      (P2) in their jurisdictions. These resources support individual state P2
      programs which include dozens of innovative technical assistance and
      integrative efforts, as well as region-wide efforts.  Regionally, EPA
      resources supported the development of the Northwest Pollution
      Prevention Resource Center (PPRC), the Region 10 state and federal P2
      strategy, and an "Evergreen Award" program that recognizes companies
      that are models for pollution prevention.  The Region provides ongoing
      support to the PPRC to produce a quarterly P2 newsletter called
      Pollution Prevention Northwest, and to hold quarterly pollution
      prevention forums, called Regional  Roundtables, for state and regional
            FY 97: Six new PPIS grants will be awarded to states and tribes
            worth a total of $480,000. Integration of P2 into permits will be
            expanded from Title V operating permits to the water permitting
            program.  Four to six new Evergreen Awards will be presented.
            Several initiatives supportive  of the Region's P2 Strategy will be
            funded and initiated.  ~  .4 FTE
            Contact:   Carolyn Gangmark    (206)553-4072
                        Office for Innovation, Seattle

Project XL (Environmental excellence and Leadership)
      This EPA pilot program gives regulated entities (both businesses and
      communities) regulatory flexibility in exchange for greater environmental
      benefits. Although no XL projects are currently underway in Region 10,
      several businesses and municipalities are currently putting together
      proposals for consideration.
            FY '97: Expand outreach activities. Region  10 anticipates that 3-4
            projects will be developed this year.  ~ 1.25 FTE
                                  A- 10

            Industry (XL)           John Palmer     (206)553-6521
            Communities (XLC)     Bill Glasser      (206) 553-7215
                                   Office for Innovation, Seattle

Priority Basin Performance Plans
      For each of the Region 10 priority areas that were selected in prior years
      (the Mid-Snake, Umatilla, Yakima, Puget Sound, and Coeur d'Alene
      Basins), an FY '97 Performance Plan has been completed.  Each
      Performance Plan describes:
      *     the geographic area;
      *•     human health and environmental issues;
      *     long term environmental goals and measures;
      *     FY '97 performance goals and measures;
      +     resources devoted to the area;
      *     data sources; and
      *•     specific regional geographic projects that are targeted to the area.
            FY '97:  Update the plans as appropriate and create a "template"
            for future use. (FTE estimates for this activity are captured in the
            FTE estimates for the Place-Based Projects described in Theme 2
            of this Appendix).
            Contact:   George Abel           (206) 553-1198
                        Office of Environmental Assessment, Seattle

Regional Discretionary Funds
      Most of the Regional programs and offices have some discretionary funds,
      some of which have been targeted toward geographic areas  and
      communities. The CBEP strategic goal is to improve coordination and
      collaboration across EPA programs, to better support the three themes of
      the CBEP strategy.  A pilot approach of combining some of the
      discretionary funds into a CBEP category to support community initiated
      projects will be developed and implemented.  Potential grants to support
      CBEP work are summarized in Appendix C.
            FY *97:  Develop and implement pilot project to better coordinate
            and focus Regional discretionary funds to support CBEP.  ~- .5

            Contact:   Elbert Moore          (206) 553-4181
                       Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

SITEINFO ("Site Information")
      SITEINFO is an in-house application available through the Internet
      (Region 10's Homepage, Data and Maps) that allows users to make maps
      (with a 2, 5, or 10-mile radius, or a United States Geographic Survey
      [USGS] quadrangle) of areas anywhere within the Region. The map
      shows the locations of regulated facilities (RCRA, CERCLIS, TRI,
      NPDES, Air), provides a list of the facility names and identification
      numbers,  and shows streams, population demographics, and roads.
      Region 10 (Seattle) users can have these maps printed out by the Office of
      Environmental Assessment.  SITEINFO is up and running in the region
      and is enjoying wide usa^e inside and outside EPA.
            FY '97: SITEINFO will be maintained and enhanced.  ~ .8 FTE
            Contact:   Ray Peterson    (206) 553-1682
                       peterson. ray@epamail. epa.gov
                       Office of Environmental Assessment, Seattle

Small Communities Program: Compliance Flexibility that Works
      Small towns in Region 10 often struggle to manage the many
      environmental requirements they are faced with implementing. The
      Small Communities Program has been actively working with die states of
      Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington to develop greater capacity for
      assisting small and remotely-located communities with compliance
      problems.  The aim is to help small communities address their most
      pressing environmental problems while considering the limits of the
      community's financial resources. This collaboration has lead to a number
      of significant advancements toward addressing small community
      problems, including the initiation of pilot projects, technical assistance,
      community leadership workshops, and increased investment by state
      programs.  The work is ongoing.
            FY '97: Hold twelve workshops that will train approximately 300
            small community officials in rural locations in Oregon and
            ~ 2 FTE
            Contact:   Jim Werntz            (206) 553-2634
                       Office for Innovation,  Seattle


Technical Assistance Grants
      Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) have long been available to
      communities near Superfund Sites.  The grants (of $50,000 for three
      years) are designed to support local communities in hiring technical
      advisors to analyze complex technical data for communities,
      disseminating information to the community, and involving the
      community in understanding and commenting on die Superfund process.
      On a number of occasions, the TAGs have spawned broad interest in local
      environmental issues.
            FY '97:  EPA will continue to award TAGs as appropriate.  ~ 1
            Contact:    Michelle Pirzadeh     (206) 553-6638
                        pirzadeh.michelle@epamail .epa.gov
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

Tribal EPA Agreements (TEAs)
      A TEA is an agreement between a Tribe (or a group of Tribes) and EPA.
      A TEA describes the past and current condition of the Tribe's
      environment, their long-range environmental goals and priorities, and
      their near-term priorities for EPA assistance.  EPA works with Tribes as
      sovereign nations on a government-to-government basis. To date, five
      TEAs have been completed.
            FY '97:  Approximately fifteen additional TEAs are currently in
            the works. ~ 5 FTE
            Contact:    Kathleen Hill          (206) 553-6220
                        Office of Tribal Operations,  Seattle

Wellhead Protection
      Contaminated groundwater is a very real concern for many communities.
      EPA's Wellhead Protection Program is a community-based effort
      designed to  prevent groundwater contamination before it occurs.
      Potential contaminant sources may include leaking septic systems,
      pesticides, fertilizers, or industrial chemicals. Communities play a key
      role in planning and implementing their own wellhead protection plans.
      Through die Program, state wellhead protection programs have been
      established in Idaho, Oregon and  Washington.
            FY '97:  The Region will help Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
            implement their EPA-approved programs.  For die first time, the
            new State Revolving Fund  for Drinking Water Protection will be

                                 A- 13

available for source water and wellhead protection efforts. For
Alaska, the goal is to help the state develop a wellhead protection
program.  Workshops on new source water protection resources
will be developed and offered in all four states.  ~ 1 FTE
Contact:   Dru Keenan           (206)553-1219
            keenan. dru@epamail. epa.gov
            Office of Water, Seattle

heme 2:     Place-Based activities
     This section lists a number of ways the Region is applying a range of tools
and programs including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, Superfund, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) to accomplish Community Based Environmental Protection on the

Alaskan Model for Community Based Environmental Protection
      The Louden Village Council, like many Alaskan Tribal communities, is
      confronted with multiple chemical and waste management problems.
      Past military practices have left much of die surrounding area with
      contaminated soils and ground water. These problems cannot be solved
      by tribes alone; they need considerable cooperation from other agencies,
      technical and financial resources and up-to-date information about
      environmental and human health effects from contamination of
      subsistence foods. Region  10 has developed a community-based pilot
      project designed to assist the Louden Village Council and other tribes
      faced with similar problems.  EPA has provided $ 110,000 in grant money
      to assist the Louden Village Council to develop a community-based
      environmental strategy.  EPA has also provided technical assistance in
      evaluating contaminants of concern.
             FY '97: A cross-cultural facilitator will be hired to assist Louden
             Village Council and other tribes along the Yukon to evaluate
             strategies for achieving integrated waste management on the
             Yukon River.  A documentary video of the project will be
             produced by a video team specializing in indigenous cultures.   ~
             1.1 FTE
             Contact:   Fran Stefan            (206)553-6639
                        Stefan. fran@epamail .epa.gov
                        Office of Waste and Chemicals Management, Seattle

Alaskan Native Food Resources Data Management Project
      Many rural Alaskan communities depend on subsistence food sources for a
      major portion of their diet. Currently, information on contamination of
      subsistence food sources is scattered, incomplete, and difficult to access.
      It's important to make such information  available and accessible so that
      better risk management decisions can be made.  This data management
      project will:
                                  A- IS

      1)    describe the relative contribution of different local food resources
            to the diets of Alaska Natives;
      2)    report measured levels of contaminants in local food resources and
            what is known and unknown about the health effects of ingesting
            these foods;
      3)    summarize the cultural importance of local food resources that are
            most likely to contain contaminants at levels posing a threat to
            human health;
      4)    convey Alaska Native concerns about contaminants and ideas on
            how these concerns could be most effectively handled in a risk
            assessment format; and
      5)    identify research needed to better understand contamination to
            Alaska Native subsistence harvests.  The Office of Waste and
            Chemicals Management  (OWCM) has awarded a grant to the
            University of Alaska at Anchorage (UAA) to develop an easily
            accessible database concerning die contamination of subsistence
            resources in Alaska.  Information for the database will be collected
            from a wide variety of national and international scientific sources,
            including first-hand information from Alaskan Tribes.
            FY *97: The database will be made available to 226 Alaska Tribes
            and other interested parties on an Internet WEB site.   ~ .05 FTE
            Contact:    Fran Stefan       (206)553-6639
                         Stefan. fran@epamail .epa.gov
                         Office of Waste and Chemicals Management,  Seattle

Forest Team
      The President's Forest Plan  focuses on managing our National Forests to
      support sustainable timber harvests, the preservation of old growth
      habitat for endangered species,  and development and implementation of
      plans to enhance water quality and salmon spawning habitat.  Since 1994,
      EPA's Forest Team and Salmon Team have supported this effort by
      focusing on salmon restoration efforts across the Region.  The Forest and
      Salmon Teams have a combined work force of 14 people who work
      closely with other federal agencies
      (e.g., Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Marine
      Fisheries Service, and Fish and Wildlife), states, Tribes, and others.
            FY '97: Facilitate USFS and BLM implementation of evolving
            Regional policies and protocols regarding multiple parameters,
            watershed scale, mixed-land-ownership, and Total Maximum
            Daily Loads (TMDLs) in  watersheds with CWA 303(d) listed

                                 A- 16

            waters (waters that do not meet applicable water quality
            standards). ~ 11 FTE
            General Contact:      Ken Feigner       (206)553-4092
                                    Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
            Individual Forest Contacts:
      Deschutes:                     Ralph Rogers     (503) 326-2676
                                    Oregon Office, Portland
      Eastern WA Cascades & Yakima:    Dan Robison      (509) 575-584-5
                                    Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Yakima
      Olympic Peninsula & SW WA:      Ron Lee           (206) 55 3-4013
                                    Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
      Oregon Coast:                  John Gabrielson   (206)553-4183
                                    Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
      Western WA Cascades:           Steve Bubnick     (206) 553-5171
                                    bubnick. steven@epamail. epa.gov
                                    Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
      Willamette & Southwest OR:       Michael Rylko    (206) 553-4014
                                    Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

National Estuary Program Funds (NEP)
      The National Estuary Program provides resources to communities so that
      they can develop their own plans for managing resources and tackling key
      environmental problems. Funding can be used to characterize priority
      problems, investigate potential solutions, and ultimately develop and
      carry out a management plan for the area.  There are currently three
      "estuaries of national significance" in Region 10. Established in the mid-
      1980's, die NEP supports environmental protection in Regional estuaries
      with about a million dollars each year.  Currently, the Puget Sound and
      Georgia Basin, the Tillamook Bay Basin, and the Lower Columbia River
      Basin receive NEP funding.  ~ 3.5 FTE
            General NEP Contact:
                        John Armstrong (206) 553-1368
                        armstong.john@epamail .epa.gov
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
                                  A- 17

Lower Columbia River Basin
The Lower Columbia River Estuary Program (LCREP) has identified
seven priority issues that will be addressed in a Basin management plan.
The priority issues are (1) habitat loss and modification, (2) toxic
contaminants, (3) conventional pollutants, (4) biological integrity, (5)
public awareness and stewardship, (6) impacts of future population
growth, and (7) institutional constraints.
      FY 97: A Public Outreach and Involvement Strategy has been
      developed for the program and will be phased in as appropriate in
      FY 97. Draft issue papers have been developed for each of the
      priority issues and these will be presented at public forums in
      spring of 1997 to solicit review and comment prior to being
      finalized.  After the final issue papers have been prepared,  work
      will begin on the management plan.
      Contact:   Jack Gakstatter        (503) 326-2710
                  Oregon Office, Portland

Puget Sound and Georgia Basin
The major environmental threats to the Puget Sound - Strait of Georgia
Basin result from rapid urban growth.  Problems include reduced
biological resources, habitat destruction,  shellfish bed closures, air
quality problems, ground water contamination, water quality
degradation, and chemical contamination of fish and shellfish.
Environmental management of the Basin requires international
coordination because part of it lies in Canada (Strait of Georgia) and part
in the United States (Puget Sound).

Puget Sound:
The overall goals for the Puget Sound basin are  to protect and restore the
quality of the estuary and its watershed and address human health
concerns. Through participation in a multi-organizational effort called
the Puget Sound Action Team,  EPA is working closely with other
organizations to implement an existing comprehensive water quality
management plan that was developed by the Team.
      FY '97: Recommend actions that should be taken by state or
      provincial agencies to help reduced populations of native species
      improve their numbers.  Identify ways to keep non-native species
      out of the Basin.

            Contact:    John Armstrong       (206)553-1368
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

      Puget Sound-Georgia Basin International Task Force
      The Puget Sound-Georgia Basin International Task Force expanded the
      focus of the Puget Sound National Estuary Program to include the shared
      inland marine environment of Washington and British Columbia.  Its top
      priorities are to (1)  minimize habitat loss, (2) establish marine protected
      areas, (3)  protect marine plants  and animals, and (4) minimize
      introductions of non-native species.
            FY '97: We  expect the various working groups to: (1) complete
            an evaluation of non-native species introductions and offer
            recommendations on steps that could be taken to reduce them; (2)
            offer recommendations to  improve the protection given to marine
            plants and animals on both sides of the border; and (3) complete
            die process of designating several marine protected areas in British
            Contact:    Dan Steinborn   (206)553-2728
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

+•     Tillamook River  Basin
      For the Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project (TBNEP), three main
      priority problems have been identified: (1) water quality, particularly
      pathogen contamination affecting shellfish and water contact uses; (2)
      sedimentation, affecting freshwater and saltwater flows and habitat for
      bay shellfish and fish; and (3) critical habitat degradation affecting salmon
      spawning, increasing stream temperatures, and contributing to bay
            FY '97: In addition to numerous ongoing studies,  the TBNEP will
            complete a characterization report for the Basin and revise the
            preliminary management plan based on public input that was
            received through significant outreach activities during FY '97.
            Contact:    John Gabrielson       (206)553-4183
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) Funding
      The RGI, currently  in its fourth year, is the primary EPA discretionary

                                 A- 19

      funding source for major community-based initiatives in the Region.
      Through the RGI, the Region has been able to provide approximately one
      million dollars each year to support community-based work.  Of this, the
      Region focuses about 80% of these funds on large geographic areas such as
      the Coeur d'Alene Basin in Idaho and the Willamette Basin in Oregon.
      The remaining 20% supports smaller scale efforts.
            FY *97: Each of the four State Teams nominated one area for
            Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) funds.  A multi-office group
            evaluated and recommended two of these areas for RGI funding
            (about $200,000 each).  The Regional Executive Team made the
            final funding decision. Three areas were selected; the Umatilla
            Basin in Oregon, the Columbia Plateau in Washington and the
            Lower Portneuf Valley in Idaho.  The FTE estimate for RGI is
            captured in the FTE estimates for the work of the State Teams [~
            11 FTE], in addition to approximately .3 FTE from the Office of
            Ecosystems and Communities (ECO) and the Office of
            Environmental Assessment (OEA).
            Contact:   Krista Mendelman     (206)553-1571
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

Salmon Team
      The Salmon Team is committed to support and facilitate  the protection of
      remaining anadrominous salmonid stocks and to restoration and recovery
      of depleted stocks. Working with the National Marine Fisheries Service
      and with state, local, and Tribal organizations we will identify
      opportunities for EPA involvement.  We will provide technical and
      financial support toward this end by promoting, supporting, and
      facilitating protection, restoration, and recovery strategies and projects.
      The Salmon Team has developed a strategic work plan that identifies
      specific projects, studies, and assistance commitments. This strategy will
      be updated annually, or as needed.
            FY *97: Produce a framework document that presents rationale
           . and structure for physical habitat criteria that can be  used to
            establish water quality standards which would support all life stages
            of salmonid populations.  ~ 3 FTE
            Contact:    Ken Feigner     (206)553-4092
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle

Place-Based Staff Projects
      EPA intends to increase the number of EPA employees in die field who
      can provide direct technical assistance to field areas. In collaboration with
      our partners we will identify geographic areas that would benefit from a
      strong EPA presence. We currently have twelve on-location staff people:
      one each in La Grande, Oregon; Spokane, Washington; Yakima,
      Washington; and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; and eight in Hanford,
      Washington. Over time, we expect that the characterization process will
      help us identify additional sites for on-location staff. Future staff
      assignments need to be better coordinated with our partners in the states.
      Place-based projects include:

*     Coeur d'Alene Basin, Idaho
      Historic mining, timber harvesting,  agricultural activities, and more
      recent residential and commercial development have led to significant
      environmental and human health problems in the Coeur d'Alene Basin.
      Problems include elevated blood lead levels in children, impaired water
      bodies, aquatic and riparian habitat loss, and millions of tons of
      contaminated mine tailings piles. EPA's long term goals for the Basin
      include reducing and maintaining children's blood lead concentrations at
      safe levels, improving water quality, and finding safer sites to store mine
      tailings. EPA is leading a massive Superfund cleanup of the former
      Bunker Hill smelter site. A Memorandum of Agreement has been signed
      by die Coeur d'Alene Tribe, die Idaho Department of Environmental
      Quality, and EPA to examine other  problems within die Basin.
            FY '97:  EPA will convene a series of stakeholder meetings to
            work toward developing a comprehensive Ecosystem Management
            Plan for the entire Basin. ~  5 FTE
            Contacts:  Earl Liverman   (208)664-484-5
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Coeur d'Alene
                        Mike Silverman  (208)  378-5754
                        sil verm an. m ike@epam ai 1. epa. 50 v
                        Idaho Office, Boise

*•     Hanford, Washington
      Problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation include contaminated
      groundwater and soils due to former nuclear weapons production. The
      site is divided into four National Priorities List (NPL) cleanup sites and
      covers over 560 square miles.  The primary contaminants are plutonium,


uranium, and mixed fission products as well as metal and organic
contamination.  Other environmental problems in the area include
paniculate air pollution, and problems associated with agriculture
farming practices such as wind erosion and pesticide problems. EPA's
long term goal for the area focuses on restoring the Hanford Site and
protecting the Columbia River environment. Cleanup of the Hanford
Site is well under way, and one of the four cleanup sites has been deleted
from the NPL.  EPA works in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Energy and the Washinjjton State Department of Ecology.  These
relationships and work schedules are described in the Hanford Federal
Facility Agreement and Consent Order.
      FY '97:  EPA's goal this year is to ensure continued progress in the
      restoration of the 100 Area and 300 Area soil sites, and continue
      mass reduction and plume control for groundwater contamination.
      EPA also continues to strive to provide meaningful dialogue with
      interested citizens and our Site Specific Advisory Board on Hanford
      Cleanup issues.  ~* 7 FTE
      Contact:   Doug Sherwood       (509) 376-9529
                  sher wood. doug@epamail. epa.gov
                  Hanford Office

Mid-Snake River Basin
Human activities, especially agriculture, have significantly stressed the
Mid-Snake River Basin ecosystem.  Exposure to pesticides is a potential
health concern for people  living in the area.  EPA's long-term goals for
the Snake  River area are to preserve and improve the flow of the River,
improve habitat, and protect the aquifer from contamination.
Representatives from industry, hydropower, nonpoint sources
(agriculture and irrigation companies), environmental groups, local
government, and EPA are working to address these problems through
participation in a Watershed Advisory Group.
      FY '97: An ecological risk assessment and a nutrient management
      plan are underway.  — 2.5 FTE
      Contacts:   John Yearsley         (206)553-1532
                  yearsley john@epamail.epa.gov
                  Office of Environmental Assessment, Seattle
                  Carla Fromm           (208) 378-5755

                  fromm ,carla@epamail .epa.gov
                  Idaho Office, Boise

Umatilla River Basin ~ La Grande, Oregon
Most of the Umatilla Basin has been severely degraded with respect to
water quality, fish and wildlife populations and habitat, and vegetative
diversity.  Ground water is highly contaminated with nitrates. EPA's long
term goal for the basin is to continue to work with and build the capacity
of local people to improve environmental quality, reduce threats to
human health, increase native fish and wildlife resources, and protect
important vegetation communities. EPA is working with citizens,
agencies, and other groups to develop assessments, plans, and
demonstration projects within the basin to address the environmental and
health concerns.
      FY '97:  Conduct a demonstration project that limits livestock
      access to streams, make recommendations for protecting and
      restoring shrub-steppe resources, and coordinate and facilitate a
      Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) project with local agencies
      and landowners.  ~ .3 FTE
      Contact:   Christine Kelly         (541) 962 -7218
                  Office of Ecosystems and Communities, La Grande

Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative -- Spokane,
The plateau is intensively managed for one primary use, agriculture,
which creates several stressors. It provides an opportunity for cross-
media cooperation between many resource agencies and other
organizations. The area  supports unique but seriously threatened
ecological resources and habitat that need protection, such as native plant
and animal species. Serious human health effects have been observed and
predicted. There are many active local, state, and federal partners
focusing on these issues,  many of whom are already working with us.
Tribal organizations also have considerable interest in this area due to
cultural and traditional features. Efforts to evaluate and protect ground
water and surface water  resources in the Basin are underway.  Salmon
habitat in the Hanford reach of the mainstem Columbia is the subject of

                            A - 23

intensive study. Agricultural practices are receiving major attention to
help protect habitat and control air and water pollution.  An interagency
wetland habitat acquisition project is also underway.
      FY '97:  Coordinate the actions of numerous organizations to
      protect and rehabilitate habitat, protect and restore water quality,
      and implement mitigative measures.' Initiate a demonstration
      project for best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts
      of agriculture on erosion, surface or ground water contamination,
      and wind blown dust.  Provide additional support through funding
      initiative(s) for ground water, surface water, and air quality
      protection.  ~3 FTE
      Contacts:  George Lauderdale   (206)553-6511
                  lauderdale.george@,epam ail. epa.gov
                  Office of Air Quality, Seattle
                  Chuck Rice           (509) 353-4-666
                  rice. char les@epamail. epa .go v
                  Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Spokane

Yakima River Basin -- Yakima, Washington
Water quality and quantity are of critical importance in this heavily
agricultural area.  Problems in the Basin include surface water quality
problems, loss of habitat, dropping water tables, air pollution (PM-10) in
the city of Yakima, and potential contamination of drinking water aquifers
by pesticides and leaking underground storage tanks. Concentrations of
DDT in the Yakima River are among the highest in the nation. Long
term goals for the Basin include improving water and air quality,
increasing the flow of die River, and raising the public's awareness of
environmental and health issues.  A detailed Water Quality Plan, which
outlines actions  that should be taken to improve water quality in the
Basin, has been developed by the Yakima Conference of Governments.
      FY *97: Yakima Indian Nation develops an Agricultural Water
      Control Strategy, and a Nonpoint Source Assessment.  Complete
      one dairy farm plan for waste control. Design and construct
      "living classrooms" at Wide Hollow Creek and Sportsman State
      Park. ~  3 FTE

            Contact:    Dan Robison          (509) 575-5845
                        Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Yakima

EPA State Teams
      State Teams are the focal point for coordinating EPA activities within a
      given state. Each state has a lead coordinator who assembles a small
      working group of key representatives of the major EPA office.  The main
      tasks are to:
      •     Coordinate across programs and with others outside the agency
      •     Develop Geographic Priorities
      •     Assist in preparing Performance Partnership Agreements
      The Teams can draw in others as necessary to coordinate cross-program
      activities on a community or geographic level.  The teams need not be
      large, nor need they meet frequently. In time, it is expected that the
      State Teams will become well connected with die key players in any
      given state, including various state and federal agencies,  community
      groups and industry. The State Teams are now in their second year.
      They were instrumental in the development of the first round of PPAs
      with each of the States and have set up the framework for internal
      collaboration and Regional prioritization. The first PPAs primarily
      emphasized water issues.
            FY '97: The Teams will focus on improving collaboration and
            coordination among EPA programs and in developing the
            Performance Partnership Agreements. ~ 11 FTE
            State Team Contacts:
            Alaska             Steve Torok            (907)586-7658
                              Alaska Office, Juneau
            Idaho             Don Martin            (208) 334-9506
                              Idaho Office, Boise
            Oregon            Christine Reichgott   (206) 553-1601
                              Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
                             Jack Gakstatter        (503)326-2710


                  Oregon Office, Portland
Washington       Pat Springer           (206)553-2858
                  Office of Waste and Chemicals Management, Seattle

Iheme 3:  Reorienting Internal EPA Programs and
Procedures (this often involves working with others)
Effective Collaborative Processes
      The Organizational Effectiveness Team in the Office for Innovation
      provides support to die Region by promoting and enhancing collaborative
      work.  Many Regional staff have already been trained in these processes
      and are using them in their work. Others have expressed interest in
      learning about them. Specific improvement efforts include:
      *•     Building collaboration skills through training, e.g., Search
            Conference, Designing and Facilitating Collaborative Processes,
            Facilitation Skills Building, Technology of Participation,
            Washington State University Cooperative Extension Workshop
            Series on Resolving Multi-Party Conflict;
      *     Facilitating collaborative processes, e.g...  Search Conference
            Managers, Region 10 Facilitator Service, Watershed Management
      *     Providing team building expertise and support, e.g., Teaming
            Cadre, team formation, team development;
      *•     Researching state-of-the-art collaborative processes and sharing
            information, e.g., Search Conference, real-time strategic change;
      *     Consulting on effective collaborative processes, e.g., process to
            Select Regional Geographic Initiatives, Strategic Planning, process
            for Performance Partnership Agreements; and
      *•     Providing multi-party conflict resolution services, e.g.,  Region 10
            discretionary  funds for mediation and facilitation, Federal
            Executive Board Mediator Consortium.
            FY '97: The  Organizational  Effectiveness Team  will offer
            opportunities for the Region  in all of the above categories.
            Implementation of specific components will depend on demand
            within the Region.  ~ 6 FTE
            Contacts:   Micheline Ward        (206)  553-0309
                         Debbie Robinson      (206)  553 4961

                        Julie Bowen           (206)553-1016
                        Office for Innovation, Seattle

Enforcement and Compliance Strategy:
Incorporating the CBEP Approach into Enforcement Activities
      Over the past year Region 10 has been working to develop an
      "Enforcement and Compliance Strategy." The purpose of this effort is to
      articulate a cohesive strategy that will guide our compliance programs
      over the next several years. With regard to CBEP, the Enforcement
      Strategy recommends that:
      +     programs devote approximately 25% of their resources to
            "innovative" activities such as CBEP;
      *     programs develop  "program-specific" strategies which describe, in
            part, how the program plans to implement relevant aspects of the
            Regional CBEP strategic plan (once the CBEP strategic plan is
      *     programs designate an individual within their group to serve as a
            CBEP contact.
            FY '97: Finalize the Enforcement and Compliance Strategy.  Each
            of the major Regional media programs (Air, Water, RCRA,
            Superfund) will describe in writing how they intend to implement
            relevant aspects of the Regional CBEP strategic plan (once  the
            CBEP strategic plan is finalized).   ~ .3 FTE
            Contacts:   Ron  Kreizenbeck      (206) 553-1265
                        Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Seattle

      If the geographic characterizations presented in Appendix B are to be
      useful, we need to have an efficient and easy way of archiving the
      information and making it available electronically within the Region. A
      "GEOSCOPE" Local Area Network (LAN) group will be established, and
      electronic versions of all geographic scoping data will be sent to the entire
      group. A designated staff person will also enter the information onto the
      EPA Information page.  Employees will then have access to information
      collected by other programs about areas of interest. Community


      involvement plans could also be disseminated through the GEOSCOPE
      LAN group.
            FY '97: Create electronic forms for geographic characterizations.
            Create a GEOSCOPE LAN group, and begin to enter information
            on the information page. (Because this activity is in a conceptual
            stage of development; an FTE estimate is not yet available).
            Contact:   Robin Gonzales        (206)553-2977
                        Office of Management Programs, Seattle

Keeping in Touch across Programs
      Develop a "Touch Points" reference matrix of program links and
      opportunities for collaboration. Conceptually,  every program would
      have a one-page matrix that highlights the links  between that individual
      program and other offices in die Region.  For example, if an individual
      program requires the issuance of a press release and the signature of the
      Regional  Administrator on a letter, these two activities would be noted in
      the intersections of the program and the Office  of External Affairs and the
      Office of the Executive. A pilot matrix has been completed, but not
      disseminated, for the Superfund Program.
            FY '97: In addition to completing and distributing die Superfund
            touch point matrix, matrices for at least two additional programs
            will be developed. ~ .5 FTE
            Contact:   Mary Jane Nearman   (206)553-6642
                        Office of Environmental Cleanup, Seattle

Outreach Certification
      The Outreach Certificate Course is a year-long  training series designed to
      provide staff with the skills and experience to effectively conduct
      outreach and public involvement activities. Monthly training sessions will
      include working with communities, conducting successful public
      meetings, building external networks, and many other topics. Those who
      attend seven sessions and conduct  two outreach-related activities will be
      awarded certification.  Nearly 100 individuals have enrolled in the course.
            FY '97: The  training series began in January 1997, and sessions
            will take place monthly through November (no August offering).


            Graduation and evaluation arc scheduled for December 1997.
             ~1 FTE
            Contact:   Susan Hutcherson     (206) 553-2852
                        butcher son. su san@epam ail. epa. go v
                        Office of Waste & Chemical Management, Seattle

Performance Agreements for EPA Employees
      The Region plans to create a Critical Job Element (C]E) for EPA staff
      Performance Agreements emphasizing the importance of collaborative
      work. The purpose of the new job clement is to:
      1)  Establish the expectation that employees should work collaboratively
      at an appropriate level for their positions and responsibilities;
      2)  Provide formal opportunities for managers and staff to discuss the
      actual implementation of collaboration in day-to-day work;
      3)  Encourage managers to coach employees and help them find
      collaborative opportunities; and
      4)  Broaden employees' vision of their individual jobs beyond  "working
      for a program" toward "working for EPA as a whole agency."
      This concept has been discussed at various times by Regional
      management. In die future it's likely that this concept will be  broadened
      into a general code of conduct for EPA employees.
            FY '97: A new critical job element reflecting the importance of
            collaboration skills  will be ready for the FY '98 performance
            agreements.  ~ .1  FTE
            Contact:   Tom  Davison         (206) 553-2957
                        Office of Management Programs, Seattle

Resource Focusing
      Resource Focusing is a tool for helping make investment and
      disinvestment decisions consistent with regional priorities. This new
      approach will focus on integrating financial, programmatic, and scientific
      information needed to establish priorities and make program investment
      decisions.  It also includes accountability elements such as describing
      desired long-term environmental outcomes, as well as shorter-term
      performance goals and performance measures. Budgeting will be tied to
      the goals and measures of success and managers will be held  accountable.


FY '97: The Region will work with EPA Headquarters over the
next few years to implement this process. (An FTE estimate is not
available for this activity).
Contact:    Kathy Davidson       (206)553-1088
            Office of Management Programs, Seattle

Iipendix B:

 The Geographic Characterization Tool
                             Community Based Environmental Protection

                        Region 10, Seattle

                Office of Ecosystems and Communities

  ppendix B:  The Geographic Characterization Tool
      Geographic Characterization began as a prioritization tool for helping to
select areas for agency focus and investment. Though it still serves this purpose,
it is now designed to benefit the whole region in a much broader range of
circumstances. It establishes a minimum level of local knowledge expected of
EPA staff about any area where Region 10 is involved.

The Office for Environmental Assessment and the Outreach Unit of the Office
of Ecosystems and Communities are available to assist staff in completing these
characterizations and, if appropriate, in developing a Community Involvement
Plan for an area or community.
urpose of the Characterization
     Simply put, the Geographic Characterization Tool is designed to ensure
that EPA managers and staff have consistent essential knowledge about the
communities or basins in which they are working. With better knowledge of
communities, we will not only be more effective in working at the local level,
we will avoid being "blind sided" by issues of which we are unaware. Too often
we have found ourselves working on projects or permits or enforcement actions
in areas we have never seen. In an ideal world, our travel budget should allow
us to visit the areas where we are working. We should do this whenever
possible.  Phone calls and correspondence can never replace face-to-face contact
with our partners in their own surroundings.  Travel budget or not, the
Characterization Tools will help us to better understand die unique needs,
perspectives and capabilities of communities across the region.

If we are serious about developing community based solutions to environmental
problems, we must have an overall understanding of individual communities
from a socio-economic, landscape, ecological, human health and risk
perspective. We should also know who else within EPA has been working in the
community so that our efforts can be coordinated through the State Teams and
other informal mechanisms.

We have developed two forms to help characterize an area or community.

      The Basic Scoping Form.  This form  should be a standard part of doing

      The Intensive Geographic Characterization Form.  This form should be
      applied when more detailed information is required or when a major
      Regional investment is being contemplated such as funding through the
      Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI).
he Basic Scoping Form
     This form should be used whenever EPA is involved in an area. This
fundamental information should be gathered as early in the process as possible.
Staff have found it to takes from one to two hours to collect the information for
the basic scoping document.  The "Basic Scoping Form" is designed to:

1.    ensure that EPA staff and managers have a systematic understanding of the
      issues and concerns facing individual communities/areas;
2.    help flag ecological or  human health concerns for other programs;
3.    flag potentially sensitive political, economic or social issues that managers
      may need to elevate;
4.    improve cross-media cooperation; and
5.    help determine when an "Intensive Geographic Characterization" is

The Basic Scoping Form asks  questions which are likely to arise in briefings with
management. It helps identify other programs working in the area. It
contributes to a data base of area-specific knowledge so that others can benefit
from diverse perspectives and sources of information.  Managers should expect
staff to fill out the basic scoping form as a matter of course.

'he Intensive Geographic Characterization Form
     An Intensive Geographic Characterization may require assistance from the
Office of Environmental Assessment, the Outreach Unit and others.  Because of
the potential resource commitment, the decision to proceed with an Intensive
Geographic Characterization should be made in consultation with a supervisor.
If appropriate, an in-depth risk assessment or a Community Involvement Plan
may be in order. We expect that managers will use these forms both to educate
themselves and to ensure that staff have adequate understanding of the areas we

This Intensive Geographic Characterization should be completed
for a community or geographic area if:
1.    Substantial EPA resources are being considered for investment; or
2.    EPA is currently heavily invested and will remain so for at least two
      years; or
3     Issues, problems or concerns are extremely volatile or have the potential
      to create significant precedents for the Agency.

This Characterization  is designed to:
1.    provide consistent information so that decision makers can more
      objectively compare funding proposals;
2.    provide well-rounded community and area profiles so that EPA managers
      and staff can better respond to unique needs and situations;
3.    alert other programs to critical issues and needs; and
4.    maximize cross-program and cross-agency cooperation.

The Intensive Geographic Characterization can be utilized in several
1.    State Teams will be using the characterizations to help prioritize areas for
      receiving Regional  Geographic Initiative (RGI) funds.
2.    State Teams will use information from the characterizations to help set
      priorities for die Performance Partnership Agreements with the states.
3.    The Executive Team will use die characterizations as a rough template for
      briefings on specific areas and to help determine regional priorities and
      candidates for increased regional resources (as distinct from RGI funds.)

4.    Individual programs and offices will use the characterizations to help focus
      specific programmatic efforts.
5.    The characterizations will act as the foundation for community
      involvement plans and/or additional data collection and ecological or
      human health risk assessments.
6.    The information collected by both the basic scoping form and the
      intensive characterization will be archived electronically by sending the
      forms to GEOSCOPE on the LAN. By sending the information to
      GEOSCOPE, staff will ensure that the information will be accessible on
      the LAN and that die  core members of each state team and management
      leads for the geographic initiative automatically receive the information.

It is the responsibility of the Unit Chiefs and Office Directors to see
that each Intensive Geographic Characterization be routed to the
appropriate individuals so  that the information can be utilized and
acted upon. Office Directors are responsible for informing staff of
any decisions prompted by the characterization and what, if any,
follow up is required.

asic Scoping Form
When to use the "Basic Scoping Form" form:
      - To be used wherever EPA is currently or imminently directly involved in an area.  (E.G. an NPDES
       Permit, a RCRA site, a watershed, an air non-compliance area, etc.)

This is form is designed to:
       1} ensure that EPA staff and managers have a broad understanding of individual communities/areas,
       2) improve cross-media cooperation and help flag ecological or human health concerns Tor other
       3) flag potentially significant issues that may need to be elevated, and
       4) help determine when an "Intensive Geographic Characterization" is appropriate.
Rate each category as High, Medium, or Low or as indicated. Please be brief
on written sections.

Your Name:	
Phone:	   Unit:	      Date:.

The Community/Geographic Area:

The Key Environmental and Human Health Issues:
Ecological and/or Human Health Issues
How serious is the existing/potential ecological impact?                 H M L

How serious is the existing/potential human health impact?              H M L

                            Basic Scoping Form, Page 2

How time critical is this issue/risk?                                   HML

Who did you consult? What data did you have in arriving at the above best
professional judgements?
Public Impact
Is this a volatile issue?                                               H M L

Has there been any press coverage of this issue?                        H M L

Do you anticipate public outrage if we do/do not engage in this issue?    H M L

Is there potential for involving proactive programs such as
pollution prevention, sustainability, small communities,
Project XL, etc.?                                                   HML

Is economic displacement or environmental justice an issue?            HML

Policy/Technical/Legal Impact
Is a technical, policy or legal precedent involved?                Yes/No

Will the RA or Headquarters need to be involved?               Yes/No

What level of resources will be required?                             HML

What is EPA currently doing to address this/these issue(s)?

                         Basic Scoping Form, Page 3
Who are your key contacts within the community, State, Tribes,
Federal Agencies, non-profits, industry, etc. (Provide phone numbers if
Who from EPA or other agencies has worked in the area within the
past few years and can act as a resource for you?
Who else from EPA is currently working in this area? On what?
Who from EPA could or should be working in this area? On what?
Who else needs to kept informed about this area?
What immediate actions, if any, do you recommend?

                          Basic Scoping Form, Page 4
Who will have the final responsibility to sign off on this matter?
Note:  Please type and submit an electronic copy to GEOSCOPE on the
LAN. Submit the document "left justified" without tabs, centers, or other
formatting. The Basic Scoping Forms and Intensive Geographic
Characterizations will be archived electronically and made available to all staff
for future reference.

All information on this form is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act.
Additional Comments:

ntensive Geographic Characterization Form
Intensive Geographic Characterizations may require assistance from the Office
for Environmental Assessment, the Outreach Unit and others. This form is
intended to provide a framework for describing a geographic area.
Please feel free to add explanations, even modifications. No single
form can fit all situations.
This Intensive Geographic Characterization should be completed for a community or
geographic area if:

1) Substantial EPA resources are being cp.nside.ced for investment, or
2) EPA is currently heavily invested and will remain so for at least two years, or
3) Issues, problems or concerns are extremely volatile or have the potential to create significant,
precedents for the Agency.
This Characterization is designed to:
1) provide consistent information so that decision makers can more objectively compare funding
2) provide well-rounded community and area profiles so that EPA managers and staff can better
respond to unique needs and situations,
3) alert other programs to critical issues and needs, and
4) maximize cross-program and cross-agency cooperation.

Because of the potential resource implications, the decision to proceed with an
Intensive Geographic Characterization should be made in consultation with a
Your Name:	

Phone:	    Unit:	    Date:

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 2

The Community/Geographic Area:
Part A: The Landscape
Use readily available maps accompanied by a brief narrative of no more than one

Maps, Photos. Locate the area/community on a small (8 1A X 11) map of the
region. Provide appropriate maps and photographs of the area. If available and
helpful, include aerial photos and satellite imagery as well as ground-based

Locations and populations of human settlements.

Areas of environmental concern.  Indicate and briefly describe the areas at

Physiographic characteristics.  Briefly describe the physical geography of
the area.
Part B: Community Make-up
Provide a brief narrative (no more than two pages) describing key demographic,
cultural and economic issues. Include information about land use, land use
trends (if available) and Tribal boundaries.  The categories below are designed to
trigger the need to explore certain topics in greater detail.  We do not assume
that each and every topic be  explicitly addressed, rather that they all be

- What are the existing population densities of these communities?
- What are the current trends and future projections for population growth?


                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 3

- What is the ethnic make-up of the community(ies), e.g., percent Caucasian,
Latino, African-American, Asian, Native American, etc?

Cultural Issues
- Are there any Tribes within the area?
- What does the community value from a cultural standpoint? Is there a link
between the economic base and the community's culture?
- What, if any, are the identifiable environmental justice issues?

- What is each community's primary economic base?
- What is each community's relative dependence on that primary economic
- What is each community's financial health? For example:
      o What is the mean household income compared to the state mean?
      o What is the unemployment rate compared to the state rate?
      o What percentage of households are below the poverty level compared
      to the state percentage?
      o What are the economic trends in the area, e.£., increase or decrease in
      certain industries? For example, an increase in real estate development
      and a decrease in farming; an increase in mining activity; a decrease in
      manufacturing; an increase in tourism, etc.
- Are there past, current, and/or short and lonjj term  future economic effects of
taking or not taking action?
- Has there been any work to assess the value of environmental resources in
question?  If so and if available, share this information.

Land Use
- Indicate the dominant land uses; if possible, illustrate with a map or estimate
aerial extent of die dominant land uses.
- Identify trends in land use, e.g., conversion of natural areas to farmland;
conversion of forest land to residential, etc.
                                   B- 11

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 4

Part C:     Ecological/Human Health Risk Assessment and Issue

Summary of Results
Attach documents, data, methodology supporting the conclusions below.

Ecological Risk
There is existing environmental/ecosystem degradation. Existing
degradation includes impaired beneficial uses of water, violations of air or water
standards, habitat degradation, or other environmental indicators.

There is. the threat or risk of environmental /ecosystem degradation.
The risk of degradation involves a project, development, or the cumulative
effects of human activities that are projected to pose unacceptable risk to unique,
highly sensitive and/or culturally or ecologically valuable pristine areas; or a risk
to beneficial uses of water; or will potentially cause violations of air or water
standards; and/or will lead to habitat degradation or other threats to
environmental quality and sustainability.

Ecological Risk

Existing 	     Certainty  	

Future 	     Certainty  	

Who assisted in this assessment?
Explanation (e.g., sources, strcssors, effects, scale, reversibility, ecological
values at risk):
                                  B- 12

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 5

Public Health Risk
There are existing public health issues. These issues include such things
as drinking water contamination (e.g., from agricultural chemicals, chemical
wastes,  sanitary wastes), fish consumption advisories, other contaminated food
supplies, contaminated soil, violations of air standards, or other public health

There is potential risk to public health. This risk could include such
things as potential drinking water contamination (e.g., from agricultural
chemicals, chemical wastes, sanitary wastes), fish consumption advisories,  other
contaminated food supplies, contaminated soil, violations of air standards,  or
other potential public health threats.

Public Health Risk

Existing 	..    Certainty 	

Future   	    Certainty 	

Who assisted in this assessment?

Explanation (e.g., sources, stressors, effects, population at risk):
Issue Identification
Based on the above risk analysis and on information gained from die community,
the state, tribes and other sources, what are the issue of environmental concern
in this geographic area? For each issue, is EPA currently involved and what ideas
for potential projects or needed work have been identified, discussed or
proposed?  These issues should be described in broad terms.

                                   B- 13

                       Intensive Characterization Form, Page 6

Issue       Current EPA involvement or potential projects/work

1	   .	






Part D:     Management Criteria
Identify the issue or issues to which the management criteria are being applied.
If an important issue is not in your program, a staff member from that program
(E.G. Air, Chemicals and Waste Management, Superfund or Water) should
complete the management criteria for that issue.

Potential Projects or Needed Work
                                 B- 14

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 7

EPA Region IP's Vision, Mission, anjj Environmental Objectives
Please note which aspects of the Region's vision, mission, and environmental
objectives are being emphasized:

	        practice ecosystem protection, management, and/or restoration at
             the landscape scale (emphasize ecological integrity, maintenance of
             biodiversity, and harmonious human activity)
	        prevent pollution or minimize waste
	        clean up existing pollution
	        advance community/geographic area-wide sustainability
	        rectify or prevent environmental injustice
	        educate and interact with the public
	        build capacity of our state, local, and tribal partners to address
             environmental issues
Please explain
                                   B- 15

                            Intensive Characterization Form, Page 8
Example  :
Check the description that most accurately represents each of the following elements, and
supplement each response with an explanation. For any given range of issues, the response
could be different. For example:

Local support
Local support exists for the effort. Local support consists of communities and/or non-profit/non-
governmental organizations and/or industry from within the area.

        Salmon        Local entities have been actively seeking EPA assistance for some time;
                      groundwork is laid to begin work.
         Ajr           Local entities show interest in the effort and are seeking EPA involvement.
        	       EPA would need to actively seek and build local support for the effort.
        	       The community seems to be divided in its support for EPA involvement.
        Wetlands       The community is generally hostile to EPA's presence.

Please explain
The three major issues in this basin have distinctly different levels of support. The Salmon Habitat Restoration
efforts have been supported by local environmental groups, die schools and the town council. The community
is concerned about air quality issues and the town manager has inquired about EPA assistance. The majority of
citizens are extremely upset that Wetlands Protection is preventing the construction of a new mall on the
outskirts of town. There has been at least one" Congressional" on this issue.
Scale/Area Definition
•      Extent of the problem(s) is/are reasonably correlated with the proposed
       geographic boundaries.
•      Defined area is meaningful and manageable from a biological/ecological
       and socio-economic perspective.

	        A natural hydrological, ecological, or socio-economic unit, such as
               a watershed or urban area, correlates with the extent of the
               problem (s).
	        The proposed geographic unit contains areas that complicate
               management of the issue(s) and are not significantly related to the
               problem (s).
	        EPA has only a vague idea of how to define the geographic problem

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 9

Please explain
•     Addressing the problem(s) is technically and financially feasible.

•     Specified measures of success are achievable in a specified time frame.

	  Both feasibility elements are assured.
	  Prospects are good but not certain.
	  Prospects are low; some likelihood.
	  Feasibility is highly uncertain or unknown.
Please explain
•     By acting now, EPA can take advantage of an important opportunity.

•     Acting now prevents permanent or increased environmental degradation,
      costs and/or efforts to rectify the situation later.

	      EPA's involvement is needed now; any delays threaten success.
	      EPA's involvement would be helpful; delays could threaten
	      EPA's involvement is not critical at this time.

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 10

 Please explain
Agency/Tribal support
There is support for EPA involvement in die area from a state agency(ies), a
federal agency (ies), and/or an affected tribe(s), whether or not they are
providing resources.

	       A state and a federal agency(ies) and a tribe(s) support EPA
	       An agency or tribe supports EPA involvement.
	       A federal or state agency or a tribe has rudimentary interest in the

Please  explain
Local Support
Local support exists for die effort. Local support consists of communities
and/or non-profit/non-governmental organizations and/or industry from within
the area.

	      Local entities have been actively seeking EPA assistance for some
            time; groundwork is laid to begin work.
	      Local entities show interest in die effort and are seeking EPA
                                  B- 18

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 11

             EPA would need to actively seek and build local support for the
             The community seems to be divided in its support for EPA
             The community is generally hostile to EPA's presence.
Please explain and identify entities
Other entities contribute resources to reflect their shared concern and to
develop capacity.

	       All interested, affected, and responsible entities are willing to
	       A few stakeholders are willing to contribute.
	       There is minimal support from other partners.
	       EPA is the sole provider.
Please explain
Project Effectiveness
Please note that we are not referring to this as "cost benefit analysis." Done
properly, this is a complex analysis that would require the assistance of our
Regional economist or other experts in the field.

                        Intensive Characterization Form, Page 12

      Return per unit effort of time, staff, and dollars.
      Effort is transferable to other locations.
      Where there is existing involvement, results can be greatly augmented by
      additional support.
      Significant measurable  improvements are possible with modest
      investment; environment is not irretrievably degraded.

             A modest investment is likely to yield substantial improvements in
             environmental quality.
             A large investment is likely to yield substantial improvements.
             A modest investment is likely to yield modest improvements.
             A large investment is likely to yield modest improvements.
             A large investment is likely to yield little or no improvement.
Please explain
•     Emerging, unaddressed, and/or pervasive environmental problem(s)
      requires a champion.

•     Nature of the problem(s) requires proactive steps and possible risk taking.

	       No entity has stepped forward to address issue; problem is being
             ignored; issue may be controversial and require risk taking.
	       Entity(ies) trying to address the problem(s) is largely ineffective.
	       Entity(ies) addressing die problem(s) is meeting with limited
             Another entity(ies) is/are addressing the problem(s) with success;
             however, EPA's presence would be helpful.

                       Intensive Characterization Form, Page 13
            Issue is virtually risk free; other entities are addressing the
            problem(s) with good results; EPA's presence adds little or no
Please explain
Note:  Please type and submit an electronic copy to GEOSCOPE on the
LAN. Submit the document "left justified" without tabs, centers, or other
formatting. The Basic Scoping Forms and Intensive Geographic
Characterizations will be archived electronically and made available to all staff
for future reference.

All information on this form is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act.
Additional Comments:

                            Intensive Characterization Form, Page 14
             Supplement to the Intensive Characterization Form
   (Thif "Pass/Fail" form mill only be used \\hcn the allocation of significant Regional resources Is being considered.)

Essential Elements for Allocating Significant Regional Resources
These are screening criteria that are ranked as either "pass" or "fail."  If a "fail" score is applied to a
geographic area, the ranking process for that area should proceed no further. State teams should
rank areas for additional regional funding only for those that pass bot/i essential elements.

Progress is significantly enhanced by EPA involvement?                PASS/FAIL
       Indicate "pass" if EPA could contribute significantly to the effort in at least one of the
       following ways:
       a. technical assistance	• • • • •	••••••••		
       b. funding	. . .		
       c. statutory authority/responsibility/tribal trust responsibility		
       d. catalyst, facilitator, organizer, communicator, or mediator		
       e. fulfill role not fulfilled by others	 .	
       f. other; please explain	,.
Area distinguishes itself as needing or  requiring  regional-level attention/resource
focusing?                                                                PASS/FAIL
       Indicate "pass" if the candidate geographic area is in need of Regional level attention for at
       least one of the following reasons:
       a. The area requires extraordinary effort for one or a few media
       programs such that routine programmatic functions cannot meet the need.  .	
       b. The area is relatively pristine and  of high ecological, cultural,
       and/or economic value such that extraordinary efforts are needed
       to protect it from degradation		
       c. The area requires a concerted multi-media, multi-programmatic effort. .  .	
       d. The area involves more than one state	
       e. Other; please explain:	

                               Community Based Environmental Protection
ppendix C:
 Summary of Community Grant Programs
                    Region 10, Seattle

            Office of Ecosystems and Communities

ppendix C: Summary of Community Grant Programs
                     from USEPA Region 10, February 1997

Total, FY96
in Region 10
Due fappmxj
Environmental Justice (EJ)
To support low-income communities
and/or communities of color to become
aware of and participate in the decision-
making processes that impact their
environmental quality.
Affected community-based and
grassroots organizations, tribes, or other
incorporated nonprofits.
Up to $20,000.
No matching share is required.
Projects that improve the environmental
quality of the community by:
• having wide application or addressing a
high priority area;
• enhancing skills in addressing EJ issues
& problems;
• establishing or expanding information
systems for communities;
• facilitating communication, information
exchange, & community partnerships;
• motivating the public to be more
conscious of EJ issues, leading to action
to address those issues.
Susan Morales
Environmental Justice Through
Pollution Prevention (EJ/P2)
To help community-based and grassroots
groups, and Tribal organizations
implement projects that use pollution
prevention to address environmental
justice concerns.
State, city, county or local governments,
federally recognized Indian tribal
governments, or nonprofit organizations
incorporated under IRS tax code
Up to $ 1 00,000 for a local project.
Up to $250,000 for a multi-state or
regional project.
For non-governmental applicants: grants
under $50,000, no match is required;
over $50,000, 5% match is required.
• Projects by community- based
organizations & local governments that
improve the environmental quality of
affected communities using pollution
• Proposals that encourage
institutionalization & innovative use of
pollution prevention as the preferred
approach for addressing environmental
justice issues, & whose activities and
products can be supplied to other
• Cooperative efforts with business or
industry to address pollution prevention
Carolyn Gangmark
(206) 553-4072
Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilots
To empower states, communities, &
other stakeholders to work together
in a timely manner to prevent
access, safely dean up, & sustainably
reuse Brownfields.
States, cities, towns, counties, U.S.
Territories, & Indian tribes.
Up to $200,000
No matching share is required.
Projects that:
• Encourage community groups,
investors, lenders, developers, &
other affected parties to join forces
& develop creative solutions to
assess & clean up contaminated sites
and return them to productive use;
• Create Brownfields inventories at a
local level;
• Provide models of administrative,
managerial, and technical processes
from which other states and
localities can learn as they set up
processes to assess, cleanup, and
redevelop sites of their own.
Note: This program utilizes
Cooperative Agreements, not
Lori Cohen
(206) 553-6523
     This information is NOT a substitute for each program's federal register or solicitation notice and Regional guidance
                                        C- 1

             Summary of Community Grant Programs
                    USEPA Region 10, February 1997

Total, FY96
in Region 10
Due (appro*)
En vironmental Justice
Community/ University
Partnership (CUP)
To help community groups efficiently
address local environmental justice issues
through active partnerships with
institutions of higher education.
Institutions of higher education which
have formal partnerships with one or
more community group(s).
Up to $250,000
5% non-federal share of costs is required.
In-kind contributions may be used to
meet this match. Matches greater than
5% are encouraged.
EPA will emphasize meaningful, fully
interactive two-way cooperation
between communities and institutions of
higher education to:
• address environmental justice issues;
• identify pollution sources;
• train residents on their rights and
responsibilities; and
• help resolve environmental problems.
Through these partnerships, communities
are encouraged to become involved in
accessing information from
environmental databases, cleaning up &
restoring areas that have environmental
problems, & surveying & monitoring
environmental quality.
[oyce Kelly
(206) SS3-4029
Sustainable Development
Challenge Grants (SDCC)
To support communities in establishing
partnersliips to encourage
environmentally & economically
sustainable practices.
Local governments, tribes, educational
institutions, & incorporated nonprofits.
New Program. Not available.
Majority of funding is expected to be
targeted to urban areas.
20% non-federal government matching
share is required.
New Program.
Not available.
New Program.
Not available.
• Promote cooperation and collaboration
among citizens, businesses, nonprofit
organizations, educational institutions,
government & others to develop locally
Appropriate tools & processes for sustainable
environmental practices.
• Encourage community investment in, 8t
commitment to, environmental protection &
increasing understanding of the dependence of
long term economic health on the
• Build local & regional capacity for
conducting & implementing sustainable
• Identify & design effective models & tools
for supporting these purposes that can be
widely shared by communities nationwide.
• Use federal funds to foster long-term
investments in innovative sustainability efforts
at the community level.
Jim Wcrntz
(206) 553-2634
Environmental Education (EE)
To provide financial support for projects
which design, demonstrate or
disseminate environmental education
practices, methods or techniques.
State, Tribal, or local education agencies,
colleges & universities, nonprofits, state
environmental agencies, & non-commercial
educational broadcasting agencies.
Up to $25,000 granted regionally;
$25,001 -$250,000 nationally.
25% non-federal government matching
share is required.
Project must develop an environmental
education practice, method, or technique
which meets all of the following criteria:
• is new or significantly improved;
• has the potential for wide application;
• addresses a high priority environmental
issue; and
• reaches key audiences and advances the
environmental education field.
These priorities may change from year to
Sally Hanft
(206) SS3-I207
This information is NOT a substitute for each program's federal register or solicitation notice and Regional guidance

              Summary of Community Grant Programs
                    USEPA Region 10, February 1997

Total, FY96
in Region 10
Due (appmx)
Solid Waste Management
Assistance (SWMA)
To provide money for demonstration
projects that promote effective solid
waste management through source
reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Government agencies, Indian tribes, and
Limited funds available; typical award
less than $50,000.
5% non-federal government matching
share is required.
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
• Innovative recycling programs
• Outreach & training in source reduction
& recycling
• Pollution prevention or environmental
justice projects
• Projects that use integrated solid waste
management systems to solve municipal
solid waste generation & management
problems at local , regional , or national
Fran Stefan
(206) 553-6639
Pollution Prevention Incentives for
States (PPIS)
To promote die establishment and
expansion of regional, state, Tribal, or
locally-based multi-media pollution
prevention programs.
State environmental agencies and
federally recognized Tribes.
$100,000 for each state.
$25,000 for Tribes (competitive,
$75,000 total).
50% matching share is required.
Statutory objective is promoting source
reduction by businesses. PFIS resources
support state and Tribal programs that:
• operate within both governmental and non-
governmental institutions of the state
• facilitate cross-state initiatives and Region-
based projects.
• leverage |x>llution prevention (P2)
opportunities and activities From other
organi/ations within the state.
• target areas which advance the concept of
P2 it) new issues or priorities and facilitate
new approaches to P2 which may vary from
those outlined in existing programs.
Carolyn Gangmark
(206) 553-1072
Superfund Technical Assistance
Grants (TAG)
To help communities affected by a
site on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) to obtain
technical assistance to understand
and comment on site-related
information, and thus participate in
cleanup decisions.
Communities affected by an NPL
site. All citizen groups must be
incorporated as nonprofit
Up to $50,000 initially for three
years. For complex sites, additional
funds may be available.
20% non-federal government
matching share is required; in- kind
contributions may be used to meet
this match.
Match can be waived.
Applications may be submitted after
a site is proposed for listing on the
After community notification period
(30 to 60 days), application review
& processing time, & approval.
• Enable or enhance community
involvement in decisions related to
Superfund sites.
• Because only one grant is available for
each NPL site, EPA encourages groups
to consolidate in order to provide
technical assistance to the most widely
representative group of people possible.
• To this end, EPA notifies the
community via a public notice in the
local newspaper when a letter of intent
is received from an eligible group.
Michelle Pirzadeh
(206) 553-1272
This information is NOT a substitute for each program's federal register or solicitation notice and Regional guidance

      I.                          Community Based Environmental Protection
ipendix D:

 EPA Region 10 Organization
                           Region 10, Seattle

                  Office of Ecosystems and Communities

                               Region 10 Organizational Structure
                                                                                  March, 1997
                                  Alaska Office
                                  Ride Albright
                                  Idaho Office
                                  Oregon Office
                                    Ken Brooks
                                         Office of the Executive

                                             Regional Admfnfefrator
                                          Deputy Regional Administrator

                                     Chuck Clarke, RA Chuck Findley, DBA
                    Office of
               Regional Counsel


                 Multi-media Unit 1
                 Multi-media Unit 2
         Office of
      Enforcement &

                  Office of
               External Affairs

                                 Office of
     Randy Smith

'rogram Management Unit

  Emergency Response
  & Site Cleanup Unit 1

   Site Assessment &
    Cleanup Unit 2

  Site Cleanup Unit 3

  Site Cleanup Unit 4
  Hanford Project Office
                                                                                                              Tribal Operations
                                                                                                                 Kathleen JFfiH
                                                                                  Washington Office
                                                                                     Julie Hagensen
                  Office of
               Ecosystems &
                                        EXbert Moore

                                     Community Relations
                                       & Outreach Unit
                                        Pesticides Unit
                                     Aquatic Resources Unit
                                      Implementation Unit
      Office of
 Waste & Chemicals

   Compliance Unit

Solid Waste &TSCA Unit
 Resource Management
 & State Programs Unit
                 Office for

             Barbara McAllister
     Office of

Alaska/Washington Air
 Idaho/Oregon Air Unit
       Office of
Management Programs

      Jane Moore

Information Resources Unit
  Business Services Unit
      Finance Unit
Grants Administration Unit

  Human Resources Unit
   Acquisitions Team
                                                                              Office of
                                                                                                    NPDES Permits Unit

                                                                                                   NPDES Compliance Unit

                                                                                                     Drinking Water Unit

                                                                                                       Ground Water

                                                                                                     Water Quality Unit
                  Office of

                Jonis Hastings

              Risk Evaluation Unit
              & Engineering Unit

               Quality Assurance
                 &Data Unit


                                                               Organizational Phone List
                                                                    EPA Region 1O
                                                         Main Number in Seattle (206) 553-1200
                                                               TbllFree 1-8OO424-4EPA
dude Clarke, RegJonalAdminlstrator
(206) 553-1234
Chuck Flndky. Deputy Regional Adnilnistrator

RtckAlbright, Director

lyiinMcKee, Director

Ken Brooks, Director

Kathleen S. Hffl, Director

Julie Hagensen, Director

MelanteLuh. Director

Anita Frankd, Director
•Alaska-Washington Air Unit
* Idaho-Oregon Air Unit

ESbeci Moore, Director
•Aquatic Resources Unit
•Geographic Implementation Unit
•Pesticides Unit
Marie Jennings

Ron Kreizenbeck. Director

Janls Hastings, Director
* ImrMiHgartnnit A- Rnglnefrtng Unit
PhllWong   •
•Qnalltjr Assurance & Data Unit
Barry Towns
* Risk Evataatian Unit
Patrlda drone

Randy Smith, Director
• Banford Project Office
* Piogtam Management Unit
* Emergency Response and Site Cleanup
* Site Assessment and Oeannp Unit #2
•Site Cleanup Unit #3
Catherine Krueger
Ann Williamson

Barbara McAllister, Director

Jane Moore, Director
•Acquisition Team
learn Contact.
* Business Services Unit
* Flounce XAoit
(206) 553-2961
• Grants Administration Untt
Debbie Flood
* Human Resources Unit

Robin Gonzalez
                                                                                                   March, 1997
Jackson Fox. Regional Counsel
* MnUl-niediaUnit 1
Meg Silver

Mike BusseU, Director
               r*i TTnft
Kevin Schanflec
Team Contact
* Resource Management and State
Programs Unit
Mike Slater
* Solid Waste and TSCAUnit

BiflMfllam, Director
• Drinking Water Unit
• Ground Water Protection Unit
Sylvia Kawabata
* NPDES Permits Unit
• Water Quality Unit
SaDy Marquis

1>pendix E:
EPA Region 10 State Teams
                            Community Based Environmental Protection
                       Region 10, Seattle

                Office of Ecosystems and Communities

ppendix E:
 EPA State Teams
This attachment elaborates on the EPA State Networks, State Teams and PPA
Task Forces which were described in the body of the strategy.

These three inter-related groups are key to coordinating between programs and
agencies, avoiding duplication of effort, focusing resources where they will make
the most difference, and leveraging each other's skills and knowledge.

*•     EPA State Networks - the base level at which work is accomplished.

*     EPA State Teams - the primary mechanisms for supporting and
      fostering communication, coordination and prioritization within EPA and
      with our partners outside of the agency.

+     EPA Performance Partnership Task Forces - the primary vehicles
      for negotiating the PPA/PPG agreements with die states, and serve to
      align EPA and state priorities to maximize the use of our limited

The roles and responsibilities of die State Networks,  State Teams and PPA/PPG
Task Forces follow:

                   EPA State Networks (ongoing)

Lead: State Office Directors

Make-up: EPA staff and managers who are consistently working on issues in
any given state.

The networks are loosely structured and individuals are accountable to a wide
range of managers. The major deliverable is to communicate and coordinate
within the agency and to ensure coordination between programs.

                             State Networks

State Networks consist of EPA staff who are consistently working on issues in any
given state. These are the people who are "doing the work on the ground," from
permitting to cleaning up Superfund sites to overseeing state programs to providing
technical assistance to communities. In many cases an EPA staff will be on. more than
one state network.
A State Network can be thought of as a series of issue/area driven subsets. For
example, EPA staff working on Alaskan issues can be divided by program or office, by
geographic area of focus (e.g. Southeast Alaska, the North Slope, or Cook Inlet), by
sector (e.g. mining, seafood processing, rural sanitation), by specific sites or clusters
(e.g. Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Fairbanks) or by major policy issues
(e.g. Performance Partnership Agreements, Water Quality Standards, etc.) Each of
these subsets is likely to be small and manageable, and the members need to be in
frequent contact with each other. Only occasionally will messages be sent out to the
entire Alaska State Network.

                        State Teams (ongoing)

Lead: To be appointed by the State Office Directors with Executive Team
concurrence (some directors may decide to have co-leads, one from the State
Office and one from Seattle.)

Membership: State Team Leader(s), State Office Director, one representative
from each major media office and others as appropriate.  This group should be
kept small (8-10 people) and should collectively represent the major issues and
activities in any given state. (To be effective,  team members should be
relatively outgoing, be good verbal and written communicators and be generally
knowledgeable of the activities of their office.)

1. Annual scoping of environmental issues within die state, and identification of
gaps and potential matches and linkages.  (With State Network participation)

2. Development of a "work plan" for the team which reflects key environmental
issues and areas of emphasis.

3. Identification of two to three priority areas which will benefit from focused
cross program coordination.

                               State Teams

Initially, the State Teams will focus on coordinating internally and with each state's
lead environmental agency. Over time, however, they will be coordinating with a
much broader range of parties within each state,  which could include the state,
federal or local departments of natural resources, agriculture, fish and wildlife, and
the general public.  State Teams will be working with EPA's Office of Tribal
Programs to ensure that tribal issues are identified and addressed. As the teams gain
knowledge and expertise, they will be able to share their experience with other EPA

            Performance Partnership Task Forces
                         (product oriented)

Lead: State Office Directors

Membership: The State Office Director, the State Team lead(s), at least two
State Team members, one representatives from each major media program
appointed by Office Directors specifically to work on the PPA and others as
appropriate.  (Additional support from media offices may be necessary to
develop specific technical aspects of the PPAs.)

1. Negotiate, develop and finalize PPA/PPGs with each state.

2. Ensure that agreements reflect mutually agreed upon priorities.

3. Monitor the implementation of the agreements.