EPA910-R-97-003
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
March 1997
ommunity Based
Environmental Protection Strategy
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
Elbert Moore, Director
-------
p
REFACE
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
Alaska.
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
pollutants;
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:
in
-------
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.
IV
-------
T
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
w
hat is Community Based Environmental
Protection?
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
"Community"
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
over-simplifying.
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
them.
Continued
-------
• Increasing our efficiency and
effectiveness by building partnerships
and leveraging resources, and
developing better ways of informing,
assisting, and involving the public we
serve.
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)
"Partners"
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
environment.
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.
-------
W
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.
R
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.
C
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
work.
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?"
-------
F
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"
areas.
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.
10
-------
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.
11
-------
The Decision Making Scale
Agency Decides
Community* Decides
A
Agency decides
with little or no
input
Little or no
community
input
E.G.
An emergency
cleanup of a
toxic spill
B
Agency decides
with limited
community
input
Formal written
comment
period.
Little or no
direct contact
with the
community
E.G.
Legal Notice for
RCRA permit
action
c
Agency decides
with extensive
community
input
Community
interviews,
public meetings,
formal comment
periods,
response to
comments
£'. C,'.
Superfund
community
relations plan
D
Agency decides
based on
community
recommend-
ations
EPA meets with
community
regularly and
bases agency
decision on
extensive
community
feedback
E.G.
Negotiating
Performance
Partnership
Agreements
with Individual
States
E
Community
decides
with extensive
agency input
Agency
participates in
community
based decision
making process
E.G.
Development of
wellhead
protection plan
F
Community
decides
with limited
agency input
Agency
acts as resource
to community,
providing
information,
technical
assistance as
requested
E.G.
Development of
Watershed
Protection Plans
G
Community
decides
with no agency
input
Little or no
agency
input
IE, EPA
positions,
regulations may
or may not be
considered
E.G.
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
12
-------
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.
M
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.
Implementation
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.
13
-------
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.
14
-------
A
1>pendix A:
1997 CBEP Activities
Community Based Environmental Protection
f
\.
UJ
Region 10, Seattle
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
-------
A
T
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
appropriate.
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
cohen.lori@epamail.epa.gov
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
A-2
-------
gonzales.robin@epamail.epa.gov
Information Services, Office of Management
Programs, Seattle
EPA Region 10 World Wide Web Home Page Address:
http://www.epa.gov/rlOeardi/rlO.html
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
A-3
-------
program priorities and resource allocations. Initial discussions have been
held to develop the scope and methodology for the Washington pilot
project.
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
public.
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
gonzalez.robin@epamail.epa.gov
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
phalen.dan@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
A-4
-------
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
handley.susan@epamail.epa.gov
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
matheny.dan@,epamail.epa.£ov
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
A-5
-------
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
kelly.joyce@epamail.epa.gov
Susan Morales (206) 553-8580
morales.susan@epamail.epa.gov
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
A-6
-------
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.
Contact:
Washington: Dennis Lazzar (360)753-9469
lazzar.dennis@epamail.epa.gov
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
alline.emile@epamail.epa.gov
Office for Innovation, Seattle
You can learn more about these programs at these World
Wide Web addresses:
http://www.epa.gov/gcdoar/greenlights.html
http://www.epa.gov/energystar.html
or by calling these toll-free numbers:
1-800-424-4EPA or 1-888-STAR YES
A-7
-------
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
madrone.brooks@epamail.epa.gov
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
matheny.don@epamail.epa.gov
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
A-8
-------
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
handley.susan@epamail.epa.gov
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
mckee.lynn@epamail.epa.gov
Idaho Office, Boise
Oregon Ken Brooks 503-362-3250
A-9
-------
brooks.ken@epamail.epa.gov
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
stakeholders.
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
gangmark.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov
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
-------
Contacts:
Industry (XL) John Palmer (206)553-6521
palmer.john@epamail.epa.gov
Communities (XLC) Bill Glasser (206) 553-7215
glassser.william@epamail.epa.gov
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
abel.george@epamail.epa.gov
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
FTE
A-11
-------
Contact: Elbert Moore (206) 553-4181
moore.elbert@epamail.epa.gov
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
Washington.
~ 2 FTE
Contact: Jim Werntz (206) 553-2634
werntz.james@epamail.epa.gov
Office for Innovation, Seattle
A-12
-------
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
FTE
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
hill.kathlecn@epamail.epa.gov
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
-------
T
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
ground.
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
feigner.kenneth@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
Individual Forest Contacts:
Deschutes: Ralph Rogers (503) 326-2676
rogers.ralph@epamail.epa.gov
Oregon Office, Portland
Eastern WA Cascades & Yakima: Dan Robison (509) 575-584-5
robison.dan@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Yakima
Olympic Peninsula & SW WA: Ron Lee (206) 55 3-4013
lee.ronald@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
Oregon Coast: John Gabrielson (206)553-4183
gabrielson.john@epamail.epa.gov
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
rylko.michael@epamail.epa.gov
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
gackstatter.jack@epamail.epa.gov
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.
A-18
-------
Contact: John Armstrong (206)553-1368
armstrong.jolin@epamail.epa.gov
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
Columbia.
Contact: Dan Steinborn (206)553-2728
steinborn.daniel@epaniail.epa.gov
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
sedimentation.
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
gabrielson.john@epamail.epa.gov
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
mendelman.krista@epamail.epa.gov
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
feigner.kenneth@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
A-20
-------
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
liverman.earl@epamail.epa.gov
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,
A-21
-------
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
A-22
-------
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
kelly.cliristine@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, La Grande
Columbia Plateau Agricultural Initiative -- Spokane,
Washington
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
A-24
-------
Contact: Dan Robison (509) 575-5845
robison.dan@epamail.epa.gov
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
torok.steve@epamail.epa.gov
Alaska Office, Juneau
Idaho Don Martin (208) 334-9506
martin.don@epamail.epa.gov
Idaho Office, Boise
Oregon Christine Reichgott (206) 553-1601
reichgott.christine@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Seattle
Jack Gakstatter (503)326-2710
gackstatter.jack@epamail.epa.gov
A-25
-------
Oregon Office, Portland
Washington Pat Springer (206)553-2858
springer.pat@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Waste and Chemicals Management, Seattle
A-26
-------
T
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
Plans;
* 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
ward.micheline@epamail.epa.gov
Debbie Robinson (206) 553 4961
robinson.debrorah@epamail.epa.gov
A-27
-------
Julie Bowen (206)553-1016
bowen.julie@epamail.epa.gov
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
finalized):
* 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
kreizenbeck.ron@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Seattle
GEOSCOPE
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
A-28
-------
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
gonzales.robin@epamail.epa.gov
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
nearman.maryjane@cpamail.epa.gov
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).
A-29
-------
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
davison.tom@epamail.epa.gov
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.
A-30
-------
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
davidson.katliryn@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Management Programs, Seattle
A-31
-------
A'
Iipendix B:
The Geographic Characterization Tool
Community Based Environmental Protection
I
55
\
2E2
til
o
Region 10, Seattle
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
-------
A
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.
P
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.
B-1
-------
T
The Basic Scoping Form. This form should be a standard part of doing
business.
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
appropriate.
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.
B-2
-------
T
'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
serve.
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
ways:
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.)
B-3
-------
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.
B-4
-------
B
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
programs,
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
B-5
-------
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)?
B-6
-------
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
available)
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?
B-7
-------
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:
B-8
-------
I
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
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.
Because of the potential resource implications, the decision to proceed with an
Intensive Geographic Characterization should be made in consultation with a
supervisor.
Your Name:
Phone: Unit: Date:
B-9
-------
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
page-
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
photos.
Locations and populations of human settlements.
Areas of environmental concern. Indicate and briefly describe the areas at
risk.
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
explored.
Demographics
- What are the existing population densities of these communities?
- What are the current trends and future projections for population growth?
B-10
-------
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?
Economics
- What is each community's primary economic base?
- What is each community's relative dependence on that primary economic
base?
- 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
Identification
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
threats.
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 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
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.
Issue(s)
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
area.
B-16
-------
Intensive Characterization Form, Page 9
Please explain
Feasibility
• 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
Timing
• 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
success.
EPA's involvement is not critical at this time.
B-17
-------
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
involvement.
An agency or tribe supports EPA involvement.
A federal or state agency or a tribe has rudimentary interest in the
effort.
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
involvement.
B- 18
-------
Intensive Characterization Form, Page 11
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.
The community is generally hostile to EPA's presence.
Please explain and identify entities
Leverage
Other entities contribute resources to reflect their shared concern and to
develop capacity.
All interested, affected, and responsible entities are willing to
contribute.
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.
B-19
-------
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
Leadership
• 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
success.
Another entity(ies) is/are addressing the problem(s) with success;
however, EPA's presence would be helpful.
B-20
-------
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
value.
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:
B-21
-------
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 ,.
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:
Explain:
B-22
-------
Community Based Environmental Protection
ppendix C:
Summary of Community Grant Programs
Region 10, Seattle
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
-------
A
ppendix C: Summary of Community Grant Programs
from USEPA Region 10, February 1997
Purpose
Eligible
Applicants
Award
Amount
Total, FY96
in Region 10
Matching
Share
Application
Due fappmxj
Grant
Anounced
Priorities
(Summary)
Contact
Telephone
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.
$299,027
No matching share is required.
March
Summer
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
(206)553-8580
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
501(c)(3)
Up to $ 1 00,000 for a local project.
Up to $250,000 for a multi-state or
regional project.
$207,000
For non-governmental applicants: grants
under $50,000, no match is required;
over $50,000, 5% match is required.
April
Summer
• Projects by community- based
organizations & local governments that
improve the environmental quality of
affected communities using pollution
prevention.
• 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
communities;
• Cooperative efforts with business or
industry to address pollution prevention
goals.
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
$700,000
No matching share is required.
January
Spring
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
grants.
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
Purpose
Eligible
Applicants
Award
Amount
Total, FY96
in Region 10
Matching
Share
Application
Due (appro*)
Grant
Announced
Priorities
(Summary)
Contact
Telephone
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
$205,000
5% non-federal share of costs is required.
In-kind contributions may be used to
meet this match. Matches greater than
5% are encouraged.
March
Summer
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.
$100.000
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
environment.
• Build local & regional capacity for
conducting & implementing sustainable
planning.
• 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.
$150,000
25% non-federal government matching
share is required.
February
Summer
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
year.
Sally Hanft
(206) SS3-I207
This information is NOT a substitute for each program's federal register or solicitation notice and Regional guidance
C-2
-------
Summary of Community Grant Programs
USEPA Region 10, February 1997
Purpose
Eligible
Applicants
Award
Amount
Total, FY96
in Region 10
Matching
Share
Application
Due (appmx)
Grant
Announced
Priorities
(Summary)
Contact
Telephone
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
non-profits.
Limited funds available; typical award
less than $50,000.
$419,300
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
levels.
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).
$452.500
50% matching share is required.
March
Summer
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
organizations.
Up to $50,000 initially for three
years. For complex sites, additional
funds may be available.
$0
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
NPL.
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
C-3
-------
A
I. Community Based Environmental Protection
ipendix D:
EPA Region 10 Organization
Region 10, Seattle
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
-------
dEPA
Region 10 Organizational Structure
March, 1997
Alaska Office
Ride Albright
Idaho Office
LynnMcKee
Oregon Office
Ken Brooks
Office of the Executive
Regional Admfnfefrator
Deputy Regional Administrator
Chuck Clarke, RA Chuck Findley, DBA
Office of
Regional Counsel
JocfcsonFtot
Multi-media Unit 1
Multi-media Unit 2
Office of
Enforcement &
Compliance
RonKreizenbeck
Office of
External Affairs
MelanieLuh
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
Geographic
Implementation Unit
Office of
Waste & Chemicals
Management
MtkeBusseU
Compliance Unit
Solid Waste &TSCA Unit
Resource Management
& State Programs Unit
Office for
Innovation
Barbara McAllister
Office of
Air
ArtitaFnankel
Alaska/Washington Air
Unit
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
Water
NPDES Permits Unit
NPDES Compliance Unit
Drinking Water Unit
Ground Water
UIC/UST/Untt
Water Quality Unit
Office of
Environmental
Assessment
Jonis Hastings
Risk Evaluation Unit
Investigation
& Engineering Unit
Quality Assurance
&Data Unit
Laboratory
-------
Organizational Phone List
EPA Region 1O
Main Number in Seattle (206) 553-1200
TbllFree 1-8OO424-4EPA
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
dude Clarke, RegJonalAdminlstrator
(206) 553-1234
Chuck Flndky. Deputy Regional Adnilnistrator
206)553-1793
ALASKA OFFICE
RtckAlbright, Director
(907)271-5083
IDAHO OFFICE
lyiinMcKee, Director
(208)334-1166
OREGON OFFICE
Ken Brooks, Director
(503)326-3250
TRIBAL OFFICE
Kathleen S. Hffl, Director
(206)553-6220
WASHINGTON OFFICE
Julie Hagensen, Director
(360)753-9083
OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
MelanteLuh. Director
(206)553-1107
OFFICE OF AIR
Anita Frankd, Director
(206)553-2963
•Alaska-Washington Air Unit
BonrteThie
(206)553-1189
* Idaho-Oregon Air Unit
GilHaselberger
(206)553-1094
OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS AND
COMMUNITIES
ESbeci Moore, Director
(206)553-4181
•Aquatic Resources Unit
GaryVoaman
(206)553-8513
MlcheHePlrzadeh
(206)553-1272
•Geographic Implementation Unit
RlckParkln
(206)553-8574
•Pesticides Unit
Marie Jennings
(206)553-1173
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE
Ron Kreizenbeck. Director
(206)553-1265
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Janls Hastings, Director
(206)553-1582
* ImrMiHgartnnit A- Rnglnefrtng Unit
PhllWong •
(206)553-5294
'Laboratory
IVDkeJohnston
(360)871-8701
(206)553-2601
•Qnalltjr Assurance & Data Unit
Barry Towns
(206)553-1675
* Risk Evataatian Unit
Patrlda drone
(206)553-1597
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEANUP
Randy Smith, Director
(206)553-1261
• Banford Project Office
DougSherwood
(509)376-9529
* Piogtam Management Unit
Vacant
(206)553-2104
* Emergency Response and Site Cleanup
Unitfl
BubLoisdle
(206)553^6901
* Site Assessment and Oeannp Unit #2
AmberWong
(206)553-4061
•Site Cleanup Unit #3
Catherine Krueger
(206)553^694
•81teClieannpUntt#4
Ann Williamson
(206)553-2739
OFFICE FOR INNOVATION
Barbara McAllister, Director
(206)553-6707
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
Jane Moore, Director
(206)553-4858
•Acquisition Team
learn Contact.
(206)553-4044
* Business Services Unit
JoneHAHamano
(206)553-2954
* Flounce XAoit
KathyKelty
(206) 553-2961
• Grants Administration Untt
Debbie Flood
(206)553-2722
* Human Resources Unit
TomDavlscn
206)553-2957
Robin Gonzalez
(206)553-2977
March, 1997
OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
Jackson Fox. Regional Counsel
(206)553-1073
* MnUl-niediaUnit 1
Meg Silver
(206)553-1476
*Motti-mediaUnit2
EdKowalski
(206)553-6695
OFFICE OF WASTE AND CHEMI-
CALS MANAGEMENT
Mike BusseU, Director
(206)553-4198
r*i TTnft
Kevin Schanflec
(206)553-1061
•RCRA/TSCAPermitsTeam
Team Contact
(206)553-1253
* Resource Management and State
Programs Unit
Mike Slater
(206)553-0455
* Solid Waste and TSCAUnit
DaveCroxton
(206)553-1716
OFFICE OF WATER
BiflMfllam, Director
(206)553-0422
• Drinking Water Unit
LarryWorley
(206)553-1893
• Ground Water Protection Unit
LaurlsDavles
(206)553-2857
Sylvia Kawabata
(206)553-1644
* NPDES Permits Unit
BobRobichaud
(206)553-1448
• Water Quality Unit
SaDy Marquis
(206)553-2116
-------
A
1>pendix E:
EPA Region 10 State Teams
Community Based Environmental Protection
£
w.
UJ
O
Region 10, Seattle
Office of Ecosystems and Communities
-------
A
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
resources.
The roles and responsibilities of die State Networks, State Teams and PPA/PPG
Task Forces follow:
E-1
-------
EPA State Networks (ongoing)
Lead: State Office Directors
Make-up: EPA staff and managers who are consistently working on issues in
any given state.
Deliverables:
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.
E-2
-------
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.)
Deliverables:
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
staff.
E-3
-------
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.)
Deliverables:
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.
E-4
------- |