SEPA
July 2009
Evaluation of the
Regional
Geographic
Initiatives
Final Report
Promoting Environmental Results
t »
Through Evaluation
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ES-1
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Regional Geographic Initiatives 1
1.2 Intended Audiences 2
1.3 Sources of Data and Evaluation Methods 3
1.4 Report Organization 6
2. RGI Role, Accomplishments, and Connectivity to Agency Priorities 8
2.1 Summary Findings 8
2.2 The RGI Role 10
2.3 RGI Accomplishments 13
2.4 Alignment of RGI Projects with National and Regional Goals and Priorities 20
3. RGI Practices 23
3.1 Summary of Key Findings 23
3.2 Alignment of RGI Funding Decisions with National RGI Mission and Criteria 24
3.3 "Discretionary" Funding Issues 27
3.4 Regions' Project Selection Processes 33
3.5 Distribution of Funds by Funding Vehicle (and Competitive-vs-Non-Competitive Grants).... 39
3.6 Distribution of Funds by Amount Per Project 42
3.7 Distribution of RGI Projects by Topic 43
3.8 Distribution of RGI Projects by Geographic Area/Scale 45
3.9 Timing of Funds Obligation and Two-Year Flexibility 47
3.10 RGI Audiences and Communication 49
4. Options for the Future 55
4.1 A Future with No RGI or Equivalent Regional Flexible Funding 55
4.2 A Future with Some Kind of Regional Flexible Funding 56
4.3 Options for Consideration 58
4.4 Final Observations 63
Appendices (Attached Separately)
Appendix 1. Evaluation Methodology
Appendix 2. Evaluation Methodology Addendum
Appendix 3. Regional Project Selection Processes: Supporting Documents
Appendix 4. Complete List of RGI Projects
Appendix 5. Funding Vehicles
Appendix 6. Non-Competitive Grant Projects
Appendix 7. General Support Projects
-------
Figures
Figure ES-1. RGI National Mission Statement and Criteria
Figure ES-2. Overarching Evaluation Questions
Figure ES-3. Findings on the RGI Role
Figure ES-4. Summary of RGI Accomplishments (Anticipated and Completed)
Figure ES-5. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
Figure 1. Overarching Evaluation Questions
Figure 2. RGI National Mission Statement and Criteria
Figure 3. RGI Funding FY1994 - FY2009
Figure 4. Crosswalk of Evaluation Questions and Report Chapters
Figures. Findings on the RGI Role
Figure 6. Summary of RGI Accomplishments (Anticipated and Completed)
Figure 7. Examples of RGI-funded Work Replicated Regionally or Nationally
Figure 8. Types of RGI Accomplishments (Anticipated and Completed)
Figure 9. Project Alignment with EPA FY 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan (FY 2005-2007)
Figure 10. Number of Projects Connected to National RGI Criteria (FY 2005-2007)
Figure 11. Summary of Regional Project Selection Processes
Figure 12. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
Figure 13. Topic Areas Addressed by RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Figure 14. Geographic Distribution of RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Tables
Table ES-1. Summary of General Regional Support Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Table ES-2. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
Table ES-3. Ideas Shared by Regional Participants on Projects that could be Supported by (Hypothetical)
Future Regional Flexible Funding
Table 1. Percent of RGI Projects that Met One of More National RGI Criteria (FY 2005-2007)
Table 2. Summary of General Regional Support Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Table 3. Examples of Projects Categorized in the RGI Database as either RGI or EPP (FY 2005-2007)
Table 4. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
Table 5. List of General Topic Areas Across RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Table 6. List of General Project Activity / Approach Areas Across RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Table 7. RGI Audiences and their Informational Interests
Table 8. Ideas Shared by Regional Participants on Projects that could be Supported by (Hypothetical)
Future Regional Flexible Funding
-------
AA Assistant Administrator
ACS Annual Commitment System
ARA Assistant Regional Administrator
DRA Deputy Regional Administrator
EJ Environmental Justice
EPP Environmental Priority Projects
FTE Full-time Equivalents
IAC Innovation Action Council
IAG Inter-Agency Agreement
IGMS Integrated Grants Management System
NPM National Program Manager
MOD Memorandum of Understanding
OA Office of the Administrator
OCIR Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
ORO Office of Regional Operations
RA Regional Administrator
RFP Request for Proposal
RGI Regional Geographic Initiatives
RtC RGI Report to Congress
-------
Acknowledgements
The Evaluation of the Regional Geographic Initiatives: Final Report was developed for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation under Contract EP-W-04-
023 between EPA and Industrial Economics, Inc. (lEc) of Cambridge, MA. The evaluation team consisted
of Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting of Seattle, WA and lEc. Anna Williams, Andy Chinn, and
Tim Larson represented Ross & Associates, and Andy Schwarz represented I EC.
Judy Kertcher and Denise Dickenson of EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations,
Office of Regional Operations, provided critical assistance and background information on the Regional
Geographic Initiatives. John Heffelfinger of OPEI's Evaluation Support Division served as the technical
advisor for this evaluation. Special thanks go to EPA staff at Headquarters and the Regions who shared
their thoughtful reflections, recommendations, and critiques during interviews and surveys conducted
for this evaluation.
This report was developed under the Program Evaluation Competition, sponsored by EPA's Office of
Policy, Economics, and Innovation. To access copies of this or other EPA program evaluations, please go
to EPA's Evaluation Support Division's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/evaluate.
-------
Executive Summary
EPA established the Regional Geographic Initiatives (RGI) in 1994 to support EPA regional offices' place-
based approaches to environmental problems that were unique to the Regions and were not addressed
through existing national programs. RGI was designed to fund projects and programs that addressed
these complex environmental challenges through integrated, multi-media approaches. RGI-funded
projects have since involved a wide range of stakeholders from public and private sectors to address an
array of local, state, and regional environmental challenges. RGI was grounded in a national mission
statement and set of national criteria (Figure ES-1).
Figure ES-1. RGI National Mission Statement and Criteria
RGI Mission Statement
The Regional Geographic Initiatives (RGI) funds unique, geographically-based projects that fill critical gaps
in the Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment.
RGI Criteria
RGI projects:
• Address places, sectors or innovative projects; and /or
• Are based on a regional, state or tribal or other strategic plan; and/or
• Address problems that are multi-media in nature or fill a critical gap in the protection of human
health and the environment and/or
• Demonstrate state, local and/or other stakeholder participation; and/or
• Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding; and/or
• Establish or identify baseline data; and/or
• Measure environmental outcomes (actual or potential).
RGI received national funding ranging from 10.8 million dollars in FY 1994 to 8.4 million dollars in FY
2007. The largest annual funding amounts were 12.7 million dollars in 1995 and 12.4 million dollars in
1996. Many RGI projects were components of larger Agency programs. The Regions used RGI to
support Presidential, Administrator, and Agency initiatives such as children's health, watersheds, green
buildings, sustainability, pollution prevention, environmental justice, and environmental stewardship.
RGI was the only source of multi-media, flexible funding the Regions had to make real-time decisions
and apply resources to local needs or emerging issues. Congress eliminated RGI funding in FY 2008;
however, $1.0 million was reprogrammed to fund RGI full-time equivalents (FTE) in that year. The FY
2009 Omnibus language passed by Congress in March 2009 states that RGI was not funded in FY 2009
due to, "continued concerns about the scope and purpose of the program."1
The purpose of this evaluation was to identify RGI's role, practices, and accomplishments, and to use the
insights gained from the past to identify what improvements could strengthen any similar future
1 http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009 Con Statement DivE.pdf (page 38)
ES-i
-------
regional funding source. The evaluation was designed around six overarching evaluation questions
(Figure ES- 2) which focused on understanding past RGI practices and identifying suggestions for
improvements in future regional funding if such funding were to be reestablished. The results of this
evaluation are intended for several audiences, primarily EPA senior leadership, RGI staff and
management, OMB, and interested members of the U.S. Congress. Other audiences who may be
interested in the results of this evaluation are EPA Regional Division Directors, Branch Chiefs, and EPA
and non-EPA recipients of RGI funding.
A contractor team from Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd. and Industrial Economics, Inc.
conducted the evaluation with guidance from two evaluation leads; one from the EPA Office of Regional
Operations, which oversees RGI at EPA Headquarters, and one from the Evaluation Support Division of
EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, which sponsors and supports the Agency's program
evaluations. The evaluation focused on information collected from existing reports and resources,
interviews with key EPA regional and Headquarters staff, surveys completed by the regional RGI
Coordinators, and analysis of data contained in EPA's RGI database. The information used was both
quantitative, such as project facts and funding amounts, and qualitative, such as individuals' knowledge
and perspectives.
The evaluation's findings are presented in an
order intended to "tell the story" of RGI in the
context of this evaluation. The findings first
focus on RGI's role, accomplishments, and
alignment with Agency priorities as these topics
were of particular interest to evaluation
participants. RGI practices, which were the
subject of both confusion and scrutiny, are
explored next in order to understand how RGI
was implemented across the Regions. The
findings conclude with a discussion of
(hypothetical) options for future RGI-like
regional funding.
Findings Regarding RGI's Role,
Accomplishments, and
Connectivity to Agency Priorities
The RGI Role
Evaluation participants2 described how the
Regions sought RGI funding because, generally
speaking, they had no other viable funding
source to support unique regional priorities and
needs. Regional participants clearly stated that RGI played an important role in filling a gap in the
Agency's funding for geographically based needs, other regional environmental priorities (e.g., children's
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Figure ES-2. Overarching Evaluation
Questions
How do RGI projects align with the RGI
criteria and mission and reflect regional
and national goals and priorities?
What is the process for selecting and
funding RGI projects?
How are RGI outcomes and results
identified and measured?
How are RGI outcomes and results
communicated to different audiences and
how could communication be improved?
What changes might be appropriate for a
regional flexible funding source?
What alternative approaches should be
considered for addressing flexible regional
funding needs?
"Participants" refers to interviewees and survey respondents who provided feedback and ideas on particular
topics and questions.
ES-ii
-------
health), and in some cases, general regional support. Regional participants and some Headquarters
participants described a "constellation" of roles RGI played (see Figure ES-3). The "constellation" largely
mirrors the RGI national criteria, encompassing place-based needs, multi-media approaches,
stakeholder involvement, support for Agency strategic priorities, etc.
Some Headquarters participants were skeptical that RGI played an important role in the Agency's work.
Generally speaking, they thought that the work funded through RGI either was not sufficiently reflective
of the Agency's priorities, did not demonstrate identifiable results to support those priorities, and/or
that RGI-funded work could be funded through
national programs. This was the "minority"
perspective amongst those interviewed for the
evaluation.
Figure ES-3. Findings on the RGI Role
RGI:
RGI Accomplishments
Regional interviewees provided numerous
examples of RGI accomplishments. By
contrast, few Headquarters participants were
able to identify more than a few RGI
accomplishments and the accomplishments
that they were aware of were anecdotal rather
than based on reports or other "concrete"
sources of information. The evaluators
examined the copious information available on
RGI results through the interviews and RGI
database and were able to clearly identify
several kinds of RGI accomplishments (both
anticipated and completed) in addition to
specific accomplishments resulting from
individual RGI projects. Given the lack of
consistent performance reporting and
measurement in the RGI database, however, it
was not possible to accurately quantify RGI
accomplishments for all 453 projects analyzed for this evaluation.
The evaluation's findings indicate that RGI-funded projects contributed to each of the Agency's priority
goal areas. Accomplishments included, but were not limited to: Improved stakeholder and community
awareness of key environmental challenges and opportunities; improved regional ability to support
national and regional goals, priorities, and commitments; improved environmental outcomes such as air
and water quality; enhanced ability to test, implement, and educate about innovative technologies,
tools, and approaches; and successful reproduction of RGI-funded projects in other areas. A summary of
these and other types of RGI accomplishments are listed in Figure ES-4.
Connectivity to Agency Priorities
The evaluators found that, in general, RGI projects supported Agency priorities at both national and
regional levels, though this finding is qualified by a lack of detailed information on how precisely RGI
Addressed place-based needs;
Addressed multi-media challenges;
Supported national and regional priorities
and commitments for which there was
insufficient funding;
Addressed urgent and just-in-time needs;
Worked with targeted, underserved, and/or
particularly vulnerable populations;
Funded research and development of
innovative technologies and approaches;
Conducted regional outreach and education;
Fostered stakeholder collaboration and
relationship building
Supported non-regulatory and beyond
compliance programs; and
10. Leveraged other sources of funding.
ES-ii
-------
projects supported specific priorities other than those at the highest level of the Agency's Strategic Plan
(i.e., Goals 1-5).
Figure ES-4. Summary of RGI Accomplishments* (Anticipated and Completed**)
RGI:
1. Improved stakeholder and community awareness of key environmental challenges and
opportunities;
2. Improved EPA and partner / stakeholder capacity to make progress on regional environmental
priorities;
3. Improved regional ability to support national and regional goals, priorities, and commitments;
4. Improved regional information management and technological capacity;
5. Improved information and analysis on sensitive and emerging conditions / areas;
6. Improved air and water quality / reduced emissions, pollutant loading, land contamination,
etc.;
7. Conducted testing, implementation, and education of innovative technologies, tools, and
approaches;
8. Improved land management and watershed, habitat, and ecosystem health;
9. Improved public health and public awareness of environmental health risks;
10. Enabled model projects that were replicated elsewhere;
11. Improved general capacity at the regional level, including providing support for leadership
training, internship programs, and travel costs;
12. Leveraged additional funds and provided external funding continuity for projects implemented
with RGI "seed" money.
Notes:
* Accomplishments are ordered generally according to the frequency with which they were
represented by the RGI projects
** Based on interviews and analysis of anticipated and completed RGI project results in the RGI
database
Additional analysis of RGI's past accomplishments and linkage to the Agency's priorities are beyond the
scope of this evaluation. If an RGI-like funding source were to be reinstated in the future, there would
be opportunities to learn from advancements in the area of performance measurement and reporting,
to streamline the identification of the accomplishments, and to tie the funding and accomplishments to
Agency priorities. The inherent cross-program and multi-media nature of an RGI-like funding source
would, however, mean that implementation of these improvements would require a commitment of
resources and the Agency would likely want to consider the necessity, costs, and benefits of doing so.
RGI Practices
The findings on RGI's implementation may help to address questions about RGI's past. These findings
also provide insights into how a funding source like RGI could be improved in the future. Key findings on
RGI practice areas are as follows:
ES-iv
-------
Participants had divergent ideas about perceived or actual "discretionary" use of RGI funds. Many
participants indicated that misunderstandings about the discretionary use of RGI funds, coupled with
lack of knowledge and communication about RGI processes and results within the Agency, undermined
support for RGI. The role of the "Environmental Priority Projects/ EPP" portion of RGI3 - particularly
that this portion could be used by the Regions to fund "general regional support needs" - fueled
confusion and skepticism about RGI as a discretionary funding source. The discretion that could have
been exercised was not exercised by all Regions, however, at least not for the past several years when
most Regions minimized or eliminated the discretion they had in spending RGI funds.
Given the level of scrutiny RGI received with regard to spending on general regional support, evaluators
assessed the use of RGI funds by Regions to see if any additional clarity on this issue could be achieved.
Evaluators reviewed information on all 453 projects analyzed for this evaluation to estimate how many
projects could be reasonably considered to fall in a "general regional support" category. The resulting
list of "general support" projects is provided in Appendix 7 and is summarized in Table ES-1. Based on
this analysis, approximately 13 percent of the projects and $2.2 million (13.5 percent) of all RGI project
dollars between FY 2005 and FY 2007 fit in this category. These estimates may be high, however,
because at least a few of the projects included in this informal general regional support category could
arguably support national RGI mission and criteria instead. Examples of such projects are development
of a RCRA data management system and support for summer internship programs.
Evaluators used information in the RGI database to determine the distribution of RGI funding vehicles
used in the FY 2005-FY 2007 time frame. Of the five funding vehicles used to distribute RGI funds
(grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, inter-agency agreements (lAGs), and procurement
requests), grants and contracts were the most common (see Figure ES-5). About 20 percent of the grant
projects (or 9 percent of the total number of RGI projects) were funded with non-competitive grants.
Non-competitive grants comprised approximately 12 percent of the total amount of RGI funding from FY
2005-FY 2007. The non-competitive grants included Agency-approved waivers from competition for
projects to support the Great Cities Initiative in Region 5, support for the Senior Employee Employment
Program in Region 10, standing Agency-wide exemptions for Clean Water Act Section 104(g) grants and
other specific grant programs, and standing exemptions from competition for awards beneath the
$15,000 grant threshold. A full list of these projects is included in Appendix 6.
3 Each Region had the flexibility to use up to 35 percent of their RGI funds to support management priorities
outside of the scope of the national RGI criteria. This 35 percent was commonly referred to as Environmental
Priorities Projects or "EPP". Some Regions did not differentiate between RGI and EPP funds or related decisions;
other Regions had two separate processes for RGI and EPP funds. Further, the discretion that could have been
exercised in project selection and use of funds was not exercised by all Regions, at least not for the past several
years of RGI funding. According to the information collected for this evaluation, senior leaders in most Regions
minimized or, in a few cases, eliminated discretionary decision making over the last 3-5 years of RGI funding.
Section 3.3, "'Discretionary' Funding Issues", explores this topic in more detail.
ES-v
-------
Table ES-1. Summary of General Regional Support Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Type of Support
Communication and outreach (e.g., regional priority reports,
communicating priorities via the Web, public information access
improvements)
Records management
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance* (one Region)
Geographic Information Systems (technology, mapping, etc.)
Leadership training, strategic planning, and related leadership
capacity building
Intern programs
Technology upgrades (e.g., audiovisual equipment)
RGI Coordinator travel and other travel prep/assistance for
regional employees
Sustainable building master plan (one Region)
Use of helicopter for coastal monitoring program (one Region)
Improving information proficiency of regional employees
Human resource position classification
Statistical support to support science council
Recognition events (e.g., post natural disasters)
Other**
Total General Support Funding
Total Funding (RGI-Wide, FY 2005-2007)
Amount
Funded
$554,104
$301,382
$230,300
$224,372
$162,327
$161,702
$152,610
$88,368
$80,000
$50,000
$29,000
$23,595
$14,830
$7,731
$102,019
$2,182,340
$16,159,816
%of
General
Support
Funding
25%
14%
11%
10%
7%
7%
7%
4%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
5%
100%
13.5%
* The Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program provides an opportunity for retired
and unemployed older Americans to share their expertise with EPA. To implement this
program, EPA and other Federal and State environmental offices fund cooperative agreements
with national aging organizations. SEE workers are not federal employees, nor are they
employees of the grantee organization. They are SEE Program enrollees/participants. For more
information, see: http://www.epa.gov/ohr/see/brochure/index.htm
** Other projects were all $10,000 or less and are listed with the other projects in Appendix 7
ES-vi
-------
Figure ES-5. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
IAG
Cooperative
Agreement
10%
.Procurement
Request
Non-Competitive
Grant
9%
Table ES-2. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
Funding Mechanism
Competitive Grant
Contract
Non-Competitive Grant
Cooperative Agreement
Inter-Agency Agreement
Procurement Request
Total
# of Projects
155
164
46
51
17
53
486*
% of Projects
Funded
32%
34%
9%
10%
4%
11%
100%
Amount
Funded
$6,931,091
$4,473,531
$ 1,884,075
$ 1,461,174
$745,557
$ 664,388
$ 16,159,816
% of Total
Amount Funded
43%
28%
12%
9%
5%
4%
100%
* The total number of projects is slightly higher than reported elsewhere because within the RGI database a small number of
projects contained more than one entry in the "funding vehicle" data field (e.g., "Contract and Procurement Request).
Percentage figures were calculated by counting multiple funding mechanism entries individually and dividing the amount of
project funding evenly among the number of funding mechanisms listed.
RGI Audiences and Communication
RGI's audiences include EPA's senior leadership at Headquarters and the ten Regions, Congress, the
White House, funding recipients and partners, government public affairs personnel, NGOs, and
interested members of the public. Despite the use of multiple methods of communication about RGI
and RGI projects, communication with these audiences was insufficient to convey RGI's role or
accomplishments, or to address concerns about how RGI funds were spent. Awareness and
understanding of RGI was strongest within each Region about the RGI-funded projects in that Region
only. Senior managers in all Regions had first-hand knowledge of their Regions' RGI-funded work, and
many had clearly invested their time and energy into RGI-funded projects during their tenure. Managers
at Headquarters were much less familiar with the practices surrounding RGI or results of RGI-funded
projects. One comment made by an interviewee captures the overarching sentiment of many
evaluation participants regarding RGI communication: "Everyone is aware of RGI but not of its results."
ES-vii
-------
Other factors appear to have also confounded the understanding of and communication about RGI.
First, there was significant confusion about whether RGI was a "program" or a "funding source."
Although these terms are not formally defined in the Agency's lexicon, it was clear that most evaluation
participants viewed RGI as either a program or a funding source, and that this distinction (consciously or
not) led to expectations about RGI's objectives, implementation approaches, and communication needs.
Several interviewees discussed how confusion about RGI's identity in this regard was behind many of
RGI's troubles. For example, programs are often "branded" to promote name recognition and to give
credit for accomplishments, and they involve consistent reporting usually with a set of identified
performance metrics. RGI, however, was most often viewed as a funding source that did not entail the
same need for name recognition and did not have the same types of reporting requirements or
performance metrics. Further, approaching RGI as a funding source may have led to a greater variety of
fund uses and types of expenditures. The range of expenditures in turn contributed to the
communication gap about RGI and became an RGI vulnerability.
Second, in many cases, RGI resources "seeded" further funding, leveraged outside funding, or otherwise
funded only a part of larger projects, making it difficult to isolate and feature the RGI role, or to attribute
RGI expenditures to the achievement of specific outcomes or results.
Finally, regional decision making around the allocation of RGI funds, particularly for general regional
support expenses and the EPP sub portion of RGI, further exacerbated the confusion and consternation.
Other findings regarding RGI practices include the following:
• Each Region used its own process to select which projects to support with RGI funds, though
all Regions used RGI national mission and criteria and (formal or informal) regional priorities to
guide decision making around use of RGI funds. At least five of the Regions used an external
competition to solicit proposals for a significant portion of the RGI funding, and the remaining
had either formal or informal RFPs that were internal to their Regions. Some Regions employed
extensive project selection processes, such as scoring proposals based on a set of pre-identified
competitive ranking criteria. In some Regions, individual projects were also funded through an
external competition, and in many cases these projects also received funds from other Agency
sources.
• Analysis of the distribution of RGI funds by amount per project showed that the average
project budget was $34,400 and the median was $21,600. These amounts do not account for
other sources of funding for the same projects.
• The most common general project topic areas were water and air, followed by pollutants, toxics
and contaminants, public and children's health, waste and recycling, agriculture, and energy.
• In terms of geographic area and scale of RGI projects, the largest percentage (33 percent) was
focused at the city, town, or local municipality level. State-level and Region-wide projects were
also common (19 percent each), followed by projects that focused on particular watersheds (10
percent) and county-level projects (7 percent).
• Regions were allowed the flexibility to disburse RGI funds over a two-year period. Evaluation
participants had differing views about whether this flexibility had overall positive or negative
ES-viii
-------
effects. Most Regions were trying to speed up funding obligations so that they would not
extend into the second funding year.
• Despite concerns raised about past RGI spending, no clear examples of policy or rule violations
or other misuse of RGI funds were identified by participants or evaluators.
Several suggestions for implementation improvements in each of these areas were identified for future
consideration.
Regional evaluation participants were also asked what would happen if there were no RGI or other
equivalent regional flexible funding. They described how they would need to ask each NPM for
media/program-based funding for work previously supported through RGI, and that funding obtained
through this route would be piecemeal and resource-intensive to obtain, particularly for multi-media
needs. Most regional participants thought that the effort it would take to do so would generally not be
worth it, and as a result, regional priorities focused on agriculture, non-point source pollution, smart
growth and green building, innovative approaches and technologies, stakeholder collaboration, and
sustainability would not be effectively supported. A substantial majority of regional participants were
significantly concerned about a future with no flexible regional funding like RGI provided.
Headquarters participants had a range of perspectives on whether and how regional needs met by RGI
could be met in the future without regional flexible funding. Some thought that those needs could be
met through the national programs, whereas others cited an argument for separate regional funding for
RGI-like regional priorities. Several Headquarters participants focused more on ideas about how to try
to address regional needs through alternative funding approaches like those described below.
Regions were also asked to share their thoughts about a future with an RGI-type of funding source.
When asked what they would like to focus flexible regional funding on in the upcoming years, they cited
efforts like those listed in Table ES-3 that reflect some of the common themes of past RGI-funded work
as well as some new specific project ideas. In response to the questions, "To best meet regional needs,
what attributes should a new flexible regional funding source have?" the most commonly and ardently
cited "attribute" was regional flexibility in decision making, followed by ideas on how to promote a
consistent and transparent process that could be tied more clearly to Agency priorities at the national
and regional levels. Several participants also reiterated how they thought that improved
communication between the Regions and the national programs could improve collaboration on multi-
media challenges, innovative approaches, and other RGI-like priorities. Another theme that arose was
an interest in increased regional representation and leadership within the senior management at
Headquarters -that a regional "champion" is needed.
The final findings cover five hypothetical options for future regional funding support for the Agency's
consideration. Evaluation participants discussed these options in response to the evaluation questions,
ES-ix
-------
though notably they are simply ideas that would need substantial discussion, review and, likely revision,
before becoming truly viable options to even propose internally, let alone propose to appropriators or
implement. They are also some of the many options that would be available to the Agency.
Table ES-3. Ideas Shared by Regional Participants on Projects that could be Supported by
(Hypothetical) Future Regional Flexible Funding
Analyzing ecosystem services / natural capital
Climate change mitigation
"Green" energy production and development options
Strategies for reducing non-point source pollution
Developing capacity for communities and local governments to address climate change and population growth
Environmental justice work
Estuary programs
Fostering innovative approaches and technologies
GIS work/mapping
Human exposure monitoring
Monitoring water quality
Pilot project to share air quality best practice measures amongst petroleum producers
Ports initiatives
Technical assistance to local governments
US-Mexico border initiatives
Watershed restoration efforts
Option 1: A Reinstated RGI with no Major Changes
Most participants thought that the former RGI approach would be a non-starter because changes would
be needed to make a future funding source viable given past concerns and current realities. To begin
with, the category of "general regional support" funding would either need to be clearly separated from
environmental priority project work or be eliminated altogether. Beyond that, additional process
improvements would likely be needed, including clear connectivity to Agency national and regional
priorities and improved communication to key audiences to allay past concerns. These changes alone
make a strong case for the viability of other options.
Option 2: A Revamped Regional Flexible Funding Source
This option could involve:
• Eliminating the option of funding general regional support through this mechanism;
• Tuning but not dramatically changing the national criteria as per the recommendations in this
report;
• More transparency and accountability in decision making and related practices;
• Tying projects and their results to Agency priorities;
• Improving communication to key audiences; and
ES-x
-------
• Otherwise maintaining regional decision-making flexibility (e.g., on projects funded, funding
vehicles used, size of awards, etc.)
This option would entail making several process and reporting changes, but would keep the overall role
and function of RGI with the exception of eliminating the option for supporting general regional needs
that are outside of the national criteria. The focus would be more on the process for use of the funds
rather than on what (specific topics) the funds should be spent on. Other suggestions offered in this
report, such as working to speed up fund obligation in the first year, and balancing reporting
requirements with the scale and nature of the funding, would be feasible. Nearly all regional
interviewees and a majority of Headquarters interviewees supported some version of this general
option, with some variation on specifics.
Option 3: A National Funding Source for the Regions that is Co-led by Headquarters and the Regions,
and Implemented and Managed by the Regions
A third option would be to institute a regional flexible funding source that is co-directed by the Regions
and Headquarters, but implemented and managed by the Regions. Each year the regional leaders and a
group of Headquarters leaders (possibly including the NPMs) could propose a regional flexible funding
source that would address the types of place-based needs, multi-media challenges, and other RGI-like
regional priorities that are not typically funded through the national programs, but are of interest to the
Agency's larger mission and set of priorities. Parameters for use of the funds could be jointly
established and could include: (1) Establishing jointly agreed upon general guidelines on the types of
projects that would be funded, but without prescribing specific topics; (2) Establishing procedural
guidelines about funding vehicles, project selection, timing of funding obligation, reporting, etc.; and (3)
Establishing what accountability and internal Agency oversight would entail.
Participants who considered this option pointed out that there may be precedents within the Agency for
this kind of approach; however, the existing programs that resemble this general model may be focused
on particular grant programs (e.g., CARE), not on funding sources. It is also unclear whether this option
would address the major concerns raised about RGI in the past or if the Regions would be genuinely
interested in this option if the "burden" of pursuing it would not be worth the flexibility and other
benefits that they would receive in return.
Option 4: A National Program for Regional Projects that is Directed by Headquarters and Competed and
Implemented by the Regions
This option would create a program that would involve substantially more input, management, and
direction from EPA Headquarters, but would continue to be implemented by the Regions. This program
would not necessarily be a grant program per se, as funds could continue to be spent through other
vehicles, and the Regions could also use the funds to support internal Agency work on regional
priorities. Suggestions raised by participants related to this option included:
• Managing the program through a consolidated competition at the Headquarters level;
• Establishing categories of possible projects based on priorities identified by the Regions and
Headquarters (likely including the NPMs). These could include sustainability, innovation,
agriculture, etc.;
• Holding part of the funding for emergency regional needs that can be tapped on an "as needed"
basis or only during a second optional funding year;
ES-xi
-------
• Requiring that all projects be aligned with one or more of the national (NPM) measures in the
NPM guidances.
One variation on this option suggested by a participant was holding a fixed amount for each Region to
use in accordance with the guidelines, and competing the remaining funds amongst the Regions.
In general, it is unclear whether this option would actually meet the regional needs that regional
participants repeatedly stated were Region-specific and could not be dictated or pre-identified at the
national level. Further, this option may not be of real interest to the Regions if it entailed a
cumbersome process or was otherwise so regimented and restrictive that the effort would not be worth
the result. On the other hand, this option may be more likely to work within the accepted annual
budget planning process and would also be more likely to address past concerns than would other
options that might "look and feel" to RGI's critics more like the RGI of the past.
Option 5: All Funding through National Programs (i.e., the Current Status Quo)
This option is the same as the current status quo for FY 2009 and FY 2010; that is, there is no RGI, and
funding for regional environmental projects is accessed exclusively through the national programs. As
has been described throughout this report, those who participated in this evaluation from the Regions
thought that a variety of regional needs and priorities cannot be funded or advanced in this scenario.
This status quo option was favored by some of the interviewees at Headquarters who have had the
most direct contact with Congressional appropriators. The primary reasons for this option, they
explained, were first that appropriators were not going to fund anything that resembled the RGI of the
past, and second, that in this time of significant Agency budget cuts, there would no longer be any
discretionary funding allowed within the Agency. Instead of a "reinvented" RGI, they favored
administering all regional funding through national program channels and thought that the most
important regional needs could and should be funded this way.
The Agency staff who participated in this evaluation felt strongly (one way or another) about RGI. The
regional participants across the board passionately described a need for some kind of RGI-like funding to
do what they view as mission-critical environmental and public health protection work. RGI critics
clearly believed that too much discretion had been exercised with RGI funds and that the expenditures
did not clearly result in accomplishments that supported Agency priorities. Some key audiences have
not been well informed about how the Regions made decisions on spending RGI funds, what were
allowable expenditures, what the funds were actually spent on, or what was accomplished (or not) with
those funds in support of the Agency's priorities.
If the Agency decides to pursue regional funding of this nature in the future, the regional and national
program leadership would benefit from coming together to work through the challenges and tradeoffs
in a way that builds trust and identifies important needs that are not currently being met through other
means. It appears that the RGI of the past is gone - and a new funding source or program, complete
with a new name and identity, would need to be born. Most likely, a collaborative process of identifying
ways to meet both national and regional priority needs would facilitate creative dialogue about how to
solve some of the nation's most complicated multi-media problems, emerging issues, and under-funded
environmental needs in a "win-win" manner for the Agency on the whole and for the environment it is
working to protect and restore.
ES-xii
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
-------
1. Introduction
The purpose of this evaluation is to identify
Regional Geographic Initiatives' (RGI) role,
practices, and accomplishments, and to use the
insights gained from the past to identify what
improvements could strengthen any similar
future regional funding source. The evaluation
was designed around six overarching evaluation
questions (Figure 1 and Appendix 1).
1.1 Regional Geographic
Initiatives
EPA established RGI in 1994 to support EPA
regional offices' place-based approaches to
environmental risks. These risks, identified in a
1991 regional assessment, were unique to the
Regions and were not addressed through existing
national programs. RGI was designed to address
these complex environmental challenges through
integrated, multi-media approaches. RGI-funded
projects have since involved a wide range of
stakeholders from public and private sectors to
address an array of local, state, and regional
environmental challenges. RGI was grounded in a
criteria (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Overarching Evaluation Questions
1. How do RGI projects align with the RGI
criteria and mission and reflect regional
and national goals and priorities?
2. What is the process for selecting and
funding RGI projects?
3. How are RGI outcomes and results
identified and measured?
4. How are RGI outcomes and results
communicated to different audiences and
how could communication be improved?
5. What changes might be appropriate for a
regional flexible funding source?
6. What alternative approaches should be
considered for addressing flexible regional
funding needs?
national mission statement and set of national
RGI received national funding ranging from 10.8 million dollars in FY 1994 to 8.4 million dollars in FY
2007 (Figure 3). The largest annual funding amounts were 12.7 million dollars in 1995 and 12.4 million
dollars in 1996. RGI annual resources included expense money for both Headquarters and Regions for
travel, salaries and projects. Once salaries were covered for both Headquarters and Regions, the
remaining resources were divided equally among the Regions. Headquarters did not receive any
resources for projects. Each Region had the responsibility to administer (obligate) RGI funds within a
two-year period. RGI funds supported projects through the following funding vehicles: contracts, grants,
inter-agency agreements, and cooperative agreements.
Many RGI projects were components of larger Agency programs, and the Regions used RGI to further
Presidential, Administrator, and Agency initiatives such as children's health, watersheds, clean air,
pollution prevention, environmental justice, and environmental stewardship. (In the context of this
evaluation, RGI "projects" refers to all work that was funded through RGI, even though some of the
work - trainings, outreach, purchasing of new technology - was not "project" in nature.) RGI was the
only source of flexible funding the Regions had to make real-time decisions and apply resources to local
needs or emerging issues.
Pagel
-------
In 2007, in response to a request from the U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee4, EPA
developed a Report to Congress on Regional Geographic Initiatives for FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007
(Report to Congress). Submitted by EPA in March 2008, the 450-page Report to Congress listed each
RGI project with a summary of the amount funded, criteria used to select the project (from the national
RGI criteria - see below), and project accomplishments. Congress eliminated RGI funding in FY 2008;
however, $1.0 million was reprogrammed to fund RGI full-time equivalents (FTE) in that year. The FY
2009 Omnibus language passed by Congress in March 2009 states that RGI was not funded in FY 2009
due to, "continued concerns about the scope and purpose of the program."5
1.2 Intended Audiences
The results of this evaluation are intended for several audiences, primarily EPA senior leadership, RGI
staff and management, OMB, and interested members of the U.S. Congress. EPA senior leadership
includes the EPA Administrator and Deputy Administrator (DA), National Program Managers (NPMs) and
their Deputies, the EPA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and other senior staff within the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), Regional Administrators (RAs), and Deputy Regional Administrators (DRAs).
RGI staff includes the RGI Coordinators and Project Officers in each EPA Region, and the RGI national
managers in the Office of Regional Operations (ORO) located within the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR). The OMB audiences are those representatives who are responsible
for oversight of EPA's budget. Members of Congress include those who have inquired about RGI in the
past or who may become interested in RGI in the near future. Other secondary audiences who may be
interested in the results of this evaluation are EPA Regional Division Directors, Branch Chiefs, and EPA
and non-EPA recipients of RGI funding.
Figure 2. RGI National Mission Statement and Criteria
RGI Mission Statement
The Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) funds unique, geographically-based projects that fill critical gaps
in the Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment.
RGI Criteria
RGI projects:
• Address places, sectors or innovative projects; and /or
• Are based on a regional, state or tribal or other strategic plan; and/or
• Address problems that are multi-media in nature or fill a critical gap in the protection of human
health and the environment and/or
• Demonstrate state, local and/or other stakeholder participation; and/or
• Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding; and/or
• Establish or identify baseline data; and/or
• Measure environmental outcomes (actual or potential).
4 H.R. 20643, Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 and House Report 110-187 accompanying the FY 2008
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
5 http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009 Con Statement DivE.pdf (page 38)
Page 2
-------
Figure 3. RGI Funding FY 1994 - FY 2009
'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 09
Fiscal Year
Note: In FY 2008 RGI funding was eliminated; however Congress approved $1.0 million of
"reprogramming" funds to support FTE in that year.
1.3 Sources of Data and Evaluation Methods
This section provides a brief overview of methods used to conduct the evaluation and sources of data
used in this report. Appendices 1 and 2 provide more detailed information on these topics.
Information Collection
Employing a "mixed-methods" approach, the contractor team based the evaluation on information
collected from existing reports and resources, interviews with key EPA regional and Headquarters staff,
surveys completed by the regional RGI Coordinators, and analysis of data contained in the RGI database.
The information used was both quantitative, such as project facts and funding amounts, and qualitative,
such as individuals' knowledge and perspectives.
EPA provided several existing information sources:
• Data set exported from an EPA database with information on each RGI project funded for the
last several years (hereafter, the "RGI database"), converted to Microsoft Excel;
• 2007 Highlights Document: Regional Geographic Initiatives: Enhancing Environmental
Stewardship for Future Generations;
• 2008 RGI Report to Congress; and
• Miscellaneous RGI data and information supplied by ORO; e.g., organizational charts, RGI "State
of the Region" document, etc.
The contractor used the following data collection strategies during this evaluation:
• Interviewing 48 key EPA staff by telephone6;
3 Two EPA Region 10 staff were interviewed in person; the rest were interviewed by phone.
Page3
-------
• Surveying 12 RGI Coordinators and other key regional staff via a web-based tool; and
• Gathering additional information on such topics as regional project selection processes.
During the course of the interviews, interviewees suggested additional sources, such as project reports,
Web sites, and fact sheets, to provide greater detail on the RGI project selection process. All
information sources were considered when conducting the data analysis and developing the final
evaluation findings and recommendations. Supplemental sources are included in Appendix 3, Regional
Project Selection Processes: Supporting Documents.
Interviews with Key EPA Regional and Headquarters Staff
Following a set of general, agreed upon guidelines the RGI Coordinators and national managers provided
a list of recommended interviewees, which included national program managers, Regional
Administrators (RAs), Deputy Regional Administrators (DRAs), and other key leaders and program staff
from Headquarters and the Regions.7 The contractor team and EPA worked in concert to target
questions toward particular groups of interviewees based upon their relationship to the RGI program.
The final list of questions and their intended recipients is shown in the Evaluation Methodology
(included in Appendix 1). Based on the suggestions from the RGI Coordinators, interviewees in some
Regions had group interviews, though most had one-on-one interviews. A total of 48 individuals
participated in 40 telephone interviews.
Survey of RGI Coordinators and other Regional RGI Contacts
Tapping the deep knowledge held by the RGI Coordinators would have necessitated longer interviews
for this evaluation. Rather than hold two- to three-hour interviews, the RGI Coordinators requested to
answer questions through a written survey. The evaluation team developed the survey on-line using
Survey Monkey (http://www.survevmonkey.com/Default.aspx), an online application for creating and
administering surveys. Ross & Associates downloaded the survey results from Survey Monkey in mid-
January, 2009 into a sortable database. A total of 12 RGI Coordinators and other regional contacts
participated in the survey.
Analysis of the RGI Database and Other Sources of Information
Data analysis centered on an assessment of the information surrounding 453 RGI projects listed in the
RGI national database. Appendix 2, Methodology Addendum, explains how the evaluators identified
these projects based on scope of the Report to Congress and Appendix 4 provides a complete list of
these projects. This work and the additional assessment of supplemental project information needed
to fill gaps in the RGI database and regional process information that went beyond what was in the
database are described below. These data sources were considered in relation to the survey and
interview results.
The RGI database is used within EPA to track multiple elements of RGI projects, including the amount
funded, the funding vehicle, whether the project leveraged additional funding, and stakeholder
participation. The evaluation team selected several data fields within the database for analysis. The
7 In some cases, former DRAs and former RAs were interviewed. They are referred to as DRAs and RAs in this
report; former RGI Coordinators are referred to as RGI Coordinators; etc.
Page 4
-------
evaluation team analyzed a full data set from the RGI database, as provided by EPA. RGI database
queries are available for export to Lotus Notes; ORO supplied an exported data set in Microsoft Excel for
analysis. After receiving the exported data set, the evaluation team narrowed its analysis to RGI
projects in the FY 2005 - FY 2007 time frame in order to (1) examine the same project universe as the
RGI Report to Congress; (2) not rely on information in the database for earlier fiscal years as this
information was less thoroughly or consistently populated; and (3) avoid incorporating FY 2007
information that was entered in after the Report to Congress because there was incomplete data
population for this more recent time frame.
It is important to note several weaknesses inherent in the RGI database and the consequent caveats that
should be considered within the context of the database analysis. One of the most critical caveats to
consider relates to the analysis of outputs and outcomes. During the analysis of the RGI database the
evaluation team attempted, to the best of its ability, to quantify outputs and outcomes of RGI projects.
The evaluation team encountered significant difficulty in quantification, partially due to limited RGI
project scopes with respect to data collection, both baseline and post-project. In many instances RGI
project descriptions included expected environmental outputs or outcomes, but the data component to
quantify such results was not explicitly built into the project scope. For example, an outreach program
targeting migrant farm worker health was likely to result in a decrease in pesticide exposure and
improved public health, but pre-project baseline data and post-project data collection were not
components of the project. The results may have been captured through other EPA data collection, but
connectivity of this data to the RGI project was not established and/or was too difficult to isolate from
other factors. Furthermore, RGI projects by their nature cut across multiple environmental and public
health sectors and did not easily lend themselves to standard data collection practices.
The database analysis was also limited by variations in quality, consistency, and interpretation of various
fields. For several projects information in the database was simply incomplete and the evaluators were
unable to glean the missing information by analyzing other information present (e.g. project summary
field, accomplishments field, etc.). In addition, there appeared to be different interpretations of the
database field code definitions between individuals entering the data; for example, the field code for the
project's connection to EPA's Strategic Plan sub-objectives was populated with "AN" for several projects
rather than a description of specific sub-objective linkages.
The evaluation team approached the database analysis with several considerations in mind:
• The analyses were conducted to the extent information was available in the database. Some of
the data summaries and interpretations done for this evaluation were inferred or extrapolated
from fields in the database. Other items correlated directly with fields in the database but those
fields were not completely populated or consistently populated, making a complete analysis
impossible.
• Any assumptions or judgment calls made by the evaluators are noted and communicated in this
report where applicable to the extent that they affect conclusions or recommendations.
• The output of the analyses is primarily summaries (totals, percent, averages, etc.) by Region and
for the nation, for FY 2005 - 2007. Some additional text explanation or examples are also
included where needed.
• The evaluators used discretion when deciding whether to analyze supplementary information
such as reports or other documentation provided by interviewees as feasible and appropriate.
Evaluators documented all such supplemental inputs and described how they were used.
PageS
-------
Before analyzing the database, the evaluation team worked with ORO and the RGI Coordinators to fill in
as many data gaps as possible. This multi-step effort is described in greater detail in Appendix 2:
Evaluation Methodology Addendum.
Additional Research on Regional Project Selection Processes
The evaluation team learned through the interviewees and surveys that each Region followed its own
project selection process; however the specific process followed was not completely conveyed in the
interviews or RGI database. The evaluation team therefore requested (through ORO) process
descriptions and example documentation (e.g., RFPs) from each Region. The examples sent back from
each Region included RFPs, Web site references, internal guidance memos, etc.
Data Management and Synthesis
Ross & Associates entered the results of the interviews and surveys into a database for sorting, analysis,
and exporting/reporting. Results were sorted by EPA Region and stakeholder group, and some
responses were also sorted by additional detail (e.g., all "yes" responses to a particular question) to
further explore information patterns. Common themes and notable outliers were identified from the
interviews and surveys and analyzed to draw conclusions for the final report. To the extent possible,
information provided by stakeholders was corroborated by information in the RGI database and other
written materials, and instances where the existing information and interview results support or
contradict each other were noted. Incongruities or inconsistencies in stakeholder perspectives were
also noted, analyzed, and resolved where possible. lEc and Ross & Associates drew final conclusions
based on the entire set of inputs (existing information, interviews, and surveys), including an analysis
both within each overarching question area and across all overarching questions.
1.4 Report Organization
The organization of this report is intended to "tell the story" of RGI in the context of this evaluation.
Following the Introduction, which includes an overview of the evaluation approach, the findings begin in
Chapter 2, RGI Role, Accomplishments, and Alignment with Agency Priorities. Chapter 3, RGI Practices,
explores how the Regions implemented RGI, including project selection processes, funding vehicles
used, project topics, and information collection and communication. Chapter 4, Options for the Future,
concludes the report with a discussion of (hypothetical) options for RGI-like future regional funding.
The report follows a different order than the evaluation's overarching questions because it became clear
to the evaluators during the interviews that the order of the overarching questions was somewhat
repetitive and not intuitive, and also did not focus first on those "burning" questions that people
seemed most focused on. See Figure 4 for a crosswalk of the overarching questions and the location in
this report where those questions are covered.
Page6
-------
Fi
gure 4. Crosswalk of Evaluation Questions and Report Chapters
Overarching Topic
Question
MISSION, CRITERIA
and NEED
RGI
IMPLEMENTATION
RESULTS and
ACCOUNTABILITY
COMMUNICATION
IMPROVEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
NEW APPRO ACHES
Overarching Evaluation Question
How do RGI Projects Align with the RGI
Criteria and Mission and Reflect
Regional and National Goals and
Priorities?
What is the Process for Selecting and
Funding RGI Projects?
How are RGI Outcomes and Results
Identified and Measured?
How are RGI Outcomes and Results
Communicated to Different Audiences
and How Could Communication be
Improved?
What Changes Might be Appropriate for
a Regional Flexible Funding Source?
What Alternative Approaches Should be
Considered for Addressing Flexible
Regional Funding Needs?
Chapter(s) Where this
is Covered in the Final
Report
Chapters 1, Introduction,
and Chapter 3, RGI
Practices
Chapter 3, RGI Practices
Chapter 2, RGI Role,
Accomplishments, and
Alignment with Agency
Priorities
Chapter 3, RGI Practices
Chapters 2 and 3 (under
"suggestions for
improvement") and
Chapter 4, Options for the
Future
Chapter 4, Options for the
Future
Page?
-------
2. RGI Role, Accomplishments, and Connectivity to
Agency Priorities
2.1 Summary Findings
Figure 5. Findings on the RGI Role
RGI:
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The evaluation's overarching questions
(Figure 1), which formed the basis for this
evaluation, did not explicitly focus on RGI's
role or accomplishments. These topics were,
however, explored in the evaluation and, due
to their importance in the bigger "RGI
equation," they are the first focus of this
report.
Evaluation participants8 described how the
Regions sought RGI funding because,
generally speaking, they had no other viable
funding source to support unique regional
priorities and needs. Regional participants
clearly stated that RGI played an important
role in filling a gap in the Agency's funding for
geographically based needs, other regional
environmental needs, and in some cases,
general regional support. Regional
participants and some Headquarters
participants described a "constellation" of
roles RGI played (Figure 5 and section 2.2,
below). Notably, some Headquarters
participants were skeptical that RGI played this or any important role in the Agency's work. Generally
speaking, they thought that the work funded through RGI either was not sufficiently reflective of the
Agency's priorities, did not demonstrate identifiable results to support those priorities, and/or that RGI-
funded work could be funded through the national programs. This was the "minority" perspective
amongst those interviewed for the evaluation.
RGI results and accomplishments have been reported in EPA's RGI database since 2003 for nearly all RGI
projects, and interviewees also shared their thoughts on RGI's main accomplishments. Regional
interviewees provided numerous examples of accomplishments of which they were proud. By contrast,
few Headquarters participants were able to identify more than a few RGI accomplishments and those
accomplishments were based largely on anecdotes rather than reports or other "concrete" sources of
information. The evaluators examined the copious information available on RGI results through the
interviews and RGI database and were able to clearly identify several kinds of general RGI
accomplishments (both anticipated and completed) in addition to specific accomplishments resulting
from individual RGI projects.
Addressed place-based needs;
Addressed multi-media challenges;
Supported national and regional priorities
and commitments for which there was
insufficient funding;
Addressed urgent and just-in-time needs;
Worked with targeted, underserved, and/or
particularly vulnerable populations;
Funded research and development of
innovative technologies and approaches;
Conducted regional outreach and education;
Fostered stakeholder collaboration and
relationship building
Supported non-regulatory and beyond
compliance programs; and
10. Leveraged other sources of funding.
"Participants" refers to interviewees and survey respondents who provided feedback and ideas on particular
topics and questions.
PageS
-------
Given the lack of consistent performance J^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"For this [RGI] budget there's an extraordinary
amount of work done with the Regions and ORO
to document our results and outcomes to justify
these funds.... We open our books and we talk
about how we use every last dime.."
- Regional Administrator
reporting and measurement in the RGI
database, however, it was not possible to
accurately quantify RGI accomplishments for
all 453 projects analyzed. Similarly, grouping
these accomplishments into verifiable and
quantifiable environmental results was not
possible given the available information.
Nonetheless, findings indicate that RGI
funded work achieved accomplishments in
each of the Agency's priority goal areas. Accomplishments included, but were not limited to, improved
stakeholder and community awareness of key environmental challenges and opportunities; improved
regional ability to support national and regional goals, priorities, and commitments; improved
environmental outcomes such as air and water quality; enhanced ability to test, implement, and
educate about innovative technologies, tools, and approaches; and successful reproduction of RGI-
funded projects in other areas or nationally. These and other types of RGI accomplishments are listed in
Figure 6. Figure 8 provides a more detailed account of the type of RGI accomplishments as reported in
the RGI database (anticipated and completed as of the time that the database information was entered).
Figure 6. Summary of RGI Accomplishments* (Anticipated and Completed**)
RGI:
1. Improved stakeholder and community awareness of key environmental challenges and
opportunities;
2. Improved EPA and partner / stakeholder capacity to make progress on regional environmental
priorities;
3. Improved regional ability to support national and regional goals, priorities, and commitments;
4. Improved regional information management and technological capacity;
5. Improved information and analysis on sensitive and emerging conditions / areas;
6. Improved air and water quality / reduced emissions, pollutant loading, land contamination,
etc.;
7. Conducted testing, implementation, and education of innovative technologies, tools, and
approaches;
8. Improved land management and watershed, habitat, and ecosystem health;
9. Improved public health and public awareness of environmental health risks;
10. Enabled model projects that were replicated elsewhere;
11. Improved general capacity at the regional level, including providing support for leadership
training, internship programs, and travel costs;
12. Leveraged additional funds and provided external funding continuity for projects implemented
with RGI "seed" money.
Notes:
* Accomplishments are ordered according to the generally frequency with which they were
represented by the RGI projects
**Based on interviews and analysis of anticipated and completed RGI project results in the RGI
database
Page 9
-------
r
The evaluation also found that, in general, RGI projects
supported Agency priorities at both national and regional
levels, though this finding is qualified by a lack of detailed
information on how precisely RGI projects supported
specific priorities other than those at the highest level of
the Agency's Strategic Plan (i.e., Goals 1-5). If an
equivalent funding source were to be created in the
future, the linkage to the Agency's priorities could be
more clearly documented and communicated.
Additional analysis of RGI's past accomplishments and
linkage to the Agency's priorities are beyond the scope of
this evaluation; however it would be possible to conduct
further research and document these relationships
related to RGI's past projects. The larger context for measuring the results of any EPA-funded work
could also be considered. For years, the Agency has been working to efficiently and effectively articulate
its results and accomplishments using improved metrics and environmental performance measures.
Doing so requires a substantial amount of resources. RGI involved a substantial amount of project and
performance documentation, particularly in relation to the small size of the RGI budget compared to the
Regions' other expenditures. That said, the evaluation findings support the conclusion that
documentation and communication of RGI results and accomplishments were ineffective on the whole.
Key audiences for this information were not aware of RGI's accomplishments or other relevant
information about RGI. These issues are discussed below under "RGI Audiences and Communication."
"[RGI] is the only source of funding
at the Agency that is multi-media,
which ties better with how
communities view their
environment - holistically rather
than single-media even small
amounts of money can have far-
reaching impacts and can provide
seed funding to get efforts off the
ground..." - RGI Coordinator
J
If an RGI-like funding source were to be
reinstated in the future, there would be
opportunities to learn from
advancements in the area of performance
measurement and reporting, to
streamline the identification of the
accomplishments, and to tie the funding
and accomplishments to Agency
priorities. The inherent cross-program
and multi-media nature of an RGI-like
funding source would, however, mean
that implementation of these
improvements would be a resource-
intensive exercise, to say the least, and
the Agency would likely want to consider
the necessity, costs, and benefits of doing
so.
f
"The question should be, 'What is the return on
the investment?' RGI is not much money; it's a
small price for EPA to pay for progress. With no
RGI, there would be missed opportunities to
address specific community needs or to seed as
many important new initiatives that support the
national programs and EPA's Strategic Plan; RGI
funds have been able to buy significant goodwill
with forgotten areas, such as communities with
environmental justice concerns, and this capacity
would be significantly diminished."
- Deputy Regional Administrator
2.2 The RGI Role
Interviewees cited many reasons for why Regions and outside parties seek RGI funding. Most reasons
centered on how RGI was the only funding source available to address particular types of geographic or
other regionally-based needs. Other funding sources either were not available or were so difficult to
Page 10
-------
access that the "return on investment" was not worth it. The following multi-faceted RGI "role" can be
viewed as the "RGI constellation" of regional needs funded through RGI as identified by participants.
"One crying need that all the regions
have is the ability to conduct
environmental studies and use
contractors to do it. We have a lot of
tools at our disposal but we don't
have money to use them."
- Assistant Regional Administrator
Findings regarding the RGI role. RGI:
1. Addressed place-based needs that otherwise do
not received direct attention or sufficient support
(e.g., U.S.-Mexico border, water bodies such as
the Charles River, the Great Salt Lake, and urban
areas where there are unique cumulative public
health risks).
2. Addressed multi-media challenges in areas that
do not typically fit well within the Agency's
national media-based programs and that are
•^^^^^^_ ^^^^^^p
either inadequately funded or not funded at all
by these media-based programs. Examples
included agriculture (e.g., confined animal feeding operations, non-point source pollution),
energy supply and conservation, watershed and ecosystem health, and public and children's
health.
3. Supported national and regional priorities and commitments for which there was insufficient
funding, including those supporting priorities identified by the Regional Administrators, worked
to achieve annual commitments to the national programs (e.g., state implementation plans),
and filled shortfalls in funding for general regional support needs (e.g., computer technology,
leadership training).
4. Addressed urgent and just-in-time needs that are not anticipated 18 months in advance when
EPA plans each federal fiscal year's budget and corresponding commitments. Urgent needs
funded by RGI that were cited by participants include rapid response to court orders, disasters,
emerging issues, and fluctuating markets.
5. Worked with targeted, underserved, and/or particularly vulnerable populations (e.g., high-risk
communities, Pacific Islanders, Tribes, small communities without wastewater treatment
infrastructure).
Page 11
-------
Example Project: Environmental Education in Schoolyard Gardens
Region 1, FY 2006, $14,865
The Environmental Education in Schoolyard Gardens project provided residents in
Cambridge, Massachusetts with three-season access to all five of CitySprouts urban
schoolyard garden sites, as well as with education in the skills needed to grow
one's own food.
Project results included free public educational workshops and materials on topics
including growing and preparing vegetables and fruits, composting, recycling,
identifying soil toxins, and soil remediation; an open community garden provided
for 70 weeks over two years; families trained in comprehensive approaches to
healthy urban environments in homes and gardens; youth interns receiving
training and education about urban environmental concerns, gardening, and
community outreach; and educational activities on composting presented in school
cafeterias.
6. Funded research and development of innovative technologies and approaches (e.g., remote
sensing devices, risk assessment models, alternative asbestos methods) and other innovative
approaches (e.g., lean "Kaizen" events).
7. Conducted regional outreach and education activities (e.g., regional Web site improvements,
Earth Day events).
8. Fostered stakeholder collaboration and relationship building (e.g., West Coast Collaborative,
Blue Skyways).
9. Supported non-regulatory and beyond compliance programs (e.g., Environmental Management
Systems, voluntary partnerships, green building, climate change mitigation and adaptation,
pollution prevention, clean-up of abandoned mines, air toxics in school).
10. Leveraged other sources of funding or provided EPA matches to valuable projects or programs.
Several participants summarized their view of the RGI role by referring to the RGI mission statement:
"The Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) funds unique, geographically-based projects that fill critical
gaps in the Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment."
Not all participants were convinced that RGI played an important role for the Regions or the Agency,
however. Some participants from Headquarters described how they viewed RGI's role as the
discretionary funding for whatever priorities the Regional Administrators had at any given time. This
"vocal minority" of participants explained that they thought this role was not clearly supporting Agency
priorities and was on the whole not defensible or sustainable. Nonetheless, this view was not
universally held at Headquarters. Several of the senior Agency leaders, including national program
managers, senior program staff, and the Deputy Administrator, described how they saw RGI as playing a
valuable role in supporting regional needs that were not otherwise funded. The challenges with RGI,
Page 12
-------
these individuals explained, were less about role than they were about transparency, consistency, and
clear connectivity between RGI projects and Agency priorities.
2.3 RGI Accomplishments
Although this evaluation was not designed to
be a report on RGI accomplishments, one of
the questions posed to interviewees was,
"What are the main accomplishments of RGI-
funded work?" The evaluators quickly
realized during the interviews that much of
the focus on RGI accomplishments centered
around peoples' perspectives on whether or
not RGI achieved worthwhile results that were
important to the Agency. Another facet of the
RGI accomplishments "puzzle" was the extent
to which key RGI stakeholders were or were
not aware of what RGI funds were spent on
and accomplished. (See also RGI Audiences
and Communication in Chapter 3.)
"RGI, politics aside, is a tremendous program
for the Regions. I have personally seen the
results of what RGI is able to accomplish. The
[main] difference [is having] a little bit of
discretionary dollars to be able to react to
new harms in the environment without having
to go back to HQ 'hat in hand' for a few
dollars. We are able to create relationships
and make decisions and implement programs
very quickly. If anything, we have all but lost
that ability. It's a lot harder now. This has
long-term implications for the Region."
- Regional Administrator
The evaluation explored the accomplishments
of RGI-funded work in two ways: first, by reviewing information obtained through the interviews and
surveys, and second, by analyzing information in the RGI database, which includes descriptions of
anticipated and completed RGI accomplishments as of the time the information was entered into the
database. The interview results are covered first, below. Figure 8 provides a more detailed list of the
"types" of accomplishments identified from the database analysis. Also, throughout the remainder of
the report, 15 individual RGI projects and their accomplishments are briefly described in highlight boxes.
These projects include examples
cited by interviewees as
noteworthy and additional
examples selected by the
evaluators to demonstrate a
representative variety of RGI
projects (e.g., across media, scale,
and geographic regions).
Example Project: Collection of Unwanted Household
Electronics and Medicines
FY 2007, Region 5, $25,000
This Great Cities grant agreement between the City of
Chicago Department of the Environment and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes
National Program Office helped host a household
hazardous waste collection event on April 19, 2008.
Residents brought in 75,000 pounds of e-waste,
20,000 pills, and other unwanted household
hazardous wastes free of charge for proper
management and disposal. The project enabled
advertisement of the event in major Chicago
newspapers, and was the beginning of an ongoing
In general, nearly all regional
interviewees said that RGI was an
invaluable funding source that
filled a clear gap in the Agency's
funding. Several of the regional
interviewees, particularly the
senior regional leaders, described
how they viewed work they did (or
supported) using RGI funding to be
some of their most important
accomplishments during their time
Page 13
-------
with the Agency. They cited numerous examples of accomplishments like those shown in Figures 6 and
8 and the highlight boxes that briefly describe individual RGI projects.
One of the commonly cited accomplishments was the replicability and "trickle up" of RGI-funded work.
Interviewees cited examples of projects that have been reproduced in other Regions and/or have been
cited by the national programs as effective or model projects. Some interviewees provided examples of
RGI-funded technology, tools, approaches, and projects that had become fully adopted by a national
program for implementation or use nationwide (Figure 7). Even though reproducibility was not a formal
objective or criteria of RGI, many evaluation participants thought that this facet of RGI underscored
RGI's value, particularly as it related to fostering innovation and collaboration. On the other hand, one
national program manager discussed how RGI was never intended to initiate work that would lead to
new national programs and thought that this was not an appropriate role for RGI.
Figure 7. Examples of RGI-funded Work Replicated
Regionally or Nationally
Workforce recruitment and development for the
water and wastewater treatment sector (Region 1)
School toxic chemicals cleanup program that became
a national program (Region 4)
The "beyond translation" program designed to foster
collaboration with Spanish-speaking communities
(Region 6)
Biofuels studies related to FIFRA and agricultural
initiatives - prior to national focus on this topic
(Region 7)
Air toxics in schools (Region 9)
West Coast Collaborative - diesel emissions
reduction program, including school bus retrofits
(Regions 9 and 10; also undertaken by other
Regions)
Page 14
-------
Figure 8. Types of RGI Accomplishments (Anticipated and Completed*)
Alternative energy research
Best Management Practices
Identification and Promotion
(e.g., energy development,
agriculture, feedlots, low-
impact development,
stormwater management,
TMDLs, etc.)
Biodiesel research
Capital purchases (e.g. video
teleconferencing equipment)
Case study development (e.g.,
documentation of green
building project's successes
and challenges)
Certification programs (e.g.,
development of a customized
certification program for tree
fruit)
Community assistance (e.g.,
environmental finance center)
Compliance assistance
Compliance enforcement
Conference planning,
implementation, and/or
participation
Conservation easements
Data collection and analysis
(e.g., air emissions, water
quality)
Demonstration projects (e.g.,
alternative asbestos
abatement)
Development of
environmental indicators
Development of guidance
documents (e.g., healthy home
landscapes)
Development of business plans
(e.g., business plan for
wastewater treatment
regional management)
Development of eco-regional
maps
Development of policy
recommendations (e.g., for
future uses of contaminated
lands)
Diesel retrofit programs design
and implementation
Economic analyses
Ecosystem restoration
Education and outreach (e.g.,
educating farmers about
Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Programs)
Environmental Impact
Statements
Environmental Management
Systems (development,
review, planning)
Environmental "toolkits" (e.g.,
compliance assessment toolkit
for small and medium-sized
businesses)
Equipment installation, loan,
and purchasing programs
Establishment of stakeholder
groups (e.g., on public housing
resident health and
environmental quality)
Event sponsorship and/or
participation (e.g., Earth Day,
flower show)
Expert consultation (e.g.,
water treatment plant and
water supply evaluation)
Fact sheet development (e.g.,
watershed modeling fact shee
for county officials)
Feasibility studies (e.g., siting
renewable energy facilities on
former landfill)
Field surveys (e.g., Puget
Sound pre-spawn fish
mortality)
Funding for emissions
reduction technology research
development, testing, etc.
Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) (modeling,
technology, mapping, etc.)
Green building and LEED
certification
Groundwater monitoring
Growth management
strategies
Hazardous waste managemenl
Improved coastal habitat
Improved green space
Improved information access,
exchange, and management
(including information storage
records, and security)
Bold typeface indicates that at least ten projects fell into this category in the FY 2005-FY 2007 time frame
* Based on analysis of anticipated and completed RGI project results, as reported in the RGI database
Page 15
-------
Improved partnerships
Increased and improved
wastewater treatment
Laboratory certification
Leadership training
Management planning/ plans
(e.g., joint State-Tribal Lake
Management Plan for Lake
Coeur d'Alene)
Management system audits
(e.g., ISO 14001:2004 audit of
EPA Region 9's Environmental
Management System)
Field mapping/maps
Marketing studies (e.g., for
community education)
Mercury distribution analysis
Modeling (e.g., expand a
hydraulic model within the
New York City Drinking Water
Distribution System)
Monitoring (e.g., dissolved
oxygen)
Native species planting
No smoking campaign (public
health and indoor air)
Operations support (e.g.,
records management, library)
Outreach and education
Partnership building (e.g.,
composting food waste
through work with generators
(supermarkets, restaurants,
growers, etc), haulers and
processors (composters))
Figure 8, Continued*
Pilot projects (e.g., highly
photo-chemically reactive
VOCs, enforcement for high-
emitting vehicles)
Program development, design,
and evaluation
Promotion of energy efficiency
Rain barrel distribution
Recognition ceremonies
Recycling (e.g., of shredded
confidential documents)
Recruitment of community
contacts
Reduced agricultural runoff
Reduced air emissions /
decreased air pollution
Reduced energy consumption
Reduced greenhouse gas
emissions
Reduced nutrient loading
Reduced permit delays /
accelerated permitting
Reduced stormwater runoff
Reduced waste generation
Regional communications
Removal of invasive species
Report development
RFP assistance
River ecosystem survey
Site assessment
Smart growth strategies
Species reintroduction
Sponsorship of public
meetings
Staff hiring planning
Stakeholder participation
Statistical support
Stormwater monitoring and
mitigation
Strategic planning
Survey implementation
Technical assistance
Tool development (e.g.,
watershed monitoring and
response systems)
Trail design and mapping
Trainings
Vulnerability assessment
Water quality monitoring
Watershed planning,
assessment, and modeling
Web site development and
upgrades
Wetlands restoration
Workgroup support and
participation
Workshop planning,
sponsorship, implementation,
etc. (e.g., urban rivers
conferences)
Bold typeface indicates that at least ten projects fell into this category in the FY 2005 - FY 2007 time frame
* Based on analysis of anticipated and completed RGI project results, as reported in the RGI database
Page 16
-------
In general, participants from Headquarters had a different
set of perspectives on RGI accomplishments than the
regional participants. Some Headquarters interviewees
commented on how RGI was, in their view, the source of
some of the Agency's most innovative and fruitful "cutting
edge" ideas and initiatives. Excluding the RGI program staff,
other Headquarters interviewees said that they were not
aware of what RGI had accomplished other than what they
had heard occasionally mentioned at meetings (mostly at
EPA Innovation Action Council meetings). Most often they
were not aware of specific RGI accomplishments beyond a
few anecdotes about how RGI funds were or were not
spent. Relatively few of the Headquarters' interviewees
were aware that there was an RGI database, RGI Report to
Congress, and RGI Highlights Report. (These issues are
discussed further under "RGI Audiences and Communication"
"/ believe that a lot of the best
ideas come from States and
Regions and bubble up. You
hear over and over again that
this wouldn't have been possible
without [RGI] seed funding and
letting it grow. I see [RGI] as an
important capacity and feeder
source."
- Headquarters Participant
in Chapter 3.)
The results of the database analysis of RGI are reflected in Figure 6, Summary of RGI Accomplishments,
and Figure 8, Types of RGI Accomplishments. These results are as conclusive as the evaluators think
possible given the information available as well as the scope of this evaluation. Several challenges
surrounding identifying quantifiable accomplishments arose during the course of database analysis:
• The database analysis was based upon a downloaded set of data that provided a "snapshot in
time" of RGI-funded activities at the time the information was entered over the past few years.
For many projects, results were "anticipated" or not yet entered in the database. In those cases
the evaluators relied on an approximation of anticipated accomplishments provided in the
project description field of the database.
"It's important to have accountability for the
funds - for every grant, not just RGI. If we're
putting money into something we want to get
something back. I'm nervous about measures
because the projects are so diverse. Is it the
number of [people] who come to conferences,
or the number who read brochures? These are
different than air or water quality measures.
I'm in favor of tracking and accountability for
projects but not seeing the need for national
performance measures. We don't want to
lose flexibility.
- Deputy Regional Administrator
Accomplishments were reported in
the database in many different ways.
For example, the information and level
of detail varied substantially from
project to project. This could have
resulted from the lack of clear
guidance on what to report; however,
the evaluators understand that
developing a common set of verifiable
and consistent performance measures
would have required a major effort by
the RGI managers.
• Many RGI projects were multi-media
and/or activity ("output") in nature
and quantifiable results for these
types of projects are often more
difficult to identify. Many RGI projects
focused on outreach and education, capacity-building, building stakeholder agreement, training,
and other types of "outputs." Many projects were implemented in one day or were otherwise
Page 17
-------
small scale and it can be difficult or costly to measure outcomes beyond the fact that they
occurred without having pre-made tools to do so (e.g., day-of-event customer satisfaction
surveys).
r
Example Project: Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Initiative
FY 2007, Region 3, $100,000
• It was not possible to ascertain
with certainty (or at all in some
cases) the degree to which
additional funding sources
contributed to various projects and
their results. Since many RGI
projects were only partially funded
by RGI funds, and often the other
funding sources are from outside
parties, isolating RGI-funded
"results" can be complicated at
best. Double counting of results
when RGI funding is coupled with
other EPA funding was likely, and
several participants noted that the
results in these cases are often
associated with the other EPA
programs, perhaps because RGI is
less well known or understood or
because it was considered a
funding source rather than a program.
• Many RGI projects were by design short-term or "seed" projects; identifying results over time
based on baseline data was not possible or realistic.
• There did not appear to be quality control or verification of the results in the database, though
in some cases the descriptions of results for certain projects suggest that some of results
reported were systematically identified by the Coordinators or project officers who entered the
information.
This initiative supported projects for the City of
Philadelphia, the City of Pittsburgh, and the Port of
Maryland to demonstrate diesel emission
reduction technology in their urban fleets. A total
of four projects were designed to reduce diesel
emissions in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Two projects
reduced diesel emissions from urban fleets in
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh while the other two
projects reduced diesel emission by retrofitting
cranes at the Port of Maryland.
Despite these caveats, the evaluators think that the types of accomplishments identified in this report
are reasonable accounts of the results seen by RGI funded work, even though they cannot be concretely
quantified.
"We don't have good metrics for social
networking; e.g., talking to the recyclers
of America Influencing the dialogue
is important....We discount how much
time and money it takes to get people
together and just getting people to "get
it" and agree to something is huge - and
we don't have metrics for that How
do we measure changing people's
minds ?" - RGI Project Officer
Page 18
-------
Example Project: Remediation of Contaminants in K-12 Schools
FY 2005, Region 4, $50,000
This remediation project in Alabama removed 4,220 pounds of chemicals and 60
pounds of mercury from targeted schools. The grantee and EPA found black mold,
asbestos, and a 30-year-old chemical repository in a small, poor rural community.
Chemical removal was conducted for the County with existing grant funds and
volunteer work from partners. The grantee also completed preventive training on
chemical storage and disposition for public schools in Alabama and made that training
available online to private schools.
This project resulted in significant improvement in the environment in schools in the
state of Alabama by addressing chemicals in 110 schools. The project resulted in major
environmental improvement in both air and water quality for sensitive populations in
the State and improved on the Chemical Cleanout model already developed for the
Southeast by the State of Tennessee.
Suggestions for Improving the Identification of Results
Participants provided the following suggestions for improving identification and reporting of RGI
accomplishments. Some of these suggestions were already implemented in certain Regions or for some
projects:
—> Articulate as part of the project proposal what the desired (long-term) result or
accomplishment will be, even if it cannot be achieved or precisely measured with the current
funding (i.e., what is the long-term desired result and how does this project enable or
contribute to this result?).
—> Identify a reporting threshold for extensive reporting. Participants had a range of perspectives
on what the "tipping point" would be, with project dollar amounts ranging from $10,000 to
$75,000 being the criterion requiring substantive reporting beyond basic project accounting
and adherence with existing rules. Similarly, reporting and results measurement activities
should be commensurate with a funding source of this nature (in comparison with program
funding) and in an appropriate scale relative to the level of funding (i.e., not overly resource
intensive for small projects).
—> Include a criterion or requirement that all RGI-funded projects be able to identify at least one
result that is linked to regional or national priorities. This could be achieved through a logic
model submitted as part of a proposal or other tool that facilitates the identification of relevant
results measures.
—> Prioritize projects for funding that are larger scale and have longer time horizons so that
identifying results is more feasible.
—> Identify the kinds of "results" for activities such as workshops and trainings that would be
considered valuable as contributions to the Agency's mission. Guidance or templates for
measuring and reporting outputs and outcomes for these types of capacity-building and
Page 19
-------
collaboration activities could be developed.
(Note that the Headquarters' participant from
the Office of Grants and Debarment described
how the Agency is working with the Office of
Management and Budget to identify the kinds
of performance reporting that would serve
this purpose for these kinds of activities as
this is a broader challenge within not only EPA
but the federal government in general.) It
would be helpful to have easy-to-use tools on
hand such as "what did you learn" surveys
that can be gathered immediately after
outreach and education activities.
—> Explore other ideas through the Agency's
Grant Management Council or other
performance measure initiatives. As noted,
this measurement challenge is not unique to
RGI.
"/ don't think selection is the problem
and I don't think having strong
outcomes is the problem. I think we
need improvement in the area of
linking the project outcomes to agency
priorities. In most cases the projects
are very much in line with NPM stated
goals (strategic plan, NPM Guidance,
etc.) but we don't have a mechanism to
show the relationship Currently
there is no way to make the link
between the projects and outcomes on
a national level. If you fix this,
selection and management will take
care of themselves." - RGI Coordinator
Participants on the whole thought that improved identification (not necessarily more reporting) of RGI
accomplishments was necessary, and that communication of these results to the right audiences in a
timely manner was critical and lacking in the past. This last point is discussed later in this report.
2.4 Alignment of RGI Projects with National and Regional Goals and
Priorities
Through the interviews and RGI database analysis, the evaluation team examined the linkages between
RGI projects and EPA national and regional goals and priorities because a lack of clear connectivity was
cited numerous times as an RGI vulnerability. The focus of this examination was connectivity with the
EPA 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan which outlines the Agency's priorities five years in advance and is the
basis of annual planning and budgeting each year. Participants were also asked about how RGI projects
aligned with other, related Agency priorities such as those included in the annual National Program
Manager (NPM) guidances.
A majority of interviewees said that the Agency's national goals and priorities clearly influenced project
selection. They typically discussed how the Regions' (including the Regional Administrators') goals and
priorities are consistently if not inherently tied to the Agency's national goals and objectives. Regional
interviewees also underscored the relationship between RGI projects and up-and-coming Agency
priorities. They typically raised this topic indirectly, by noting that the Regions often focused their RGI
spending on innovative and "cutting edge" or "future thinking" topics that the Agency has subsequently
recognized as new Agency priorities. An example is Region 8's focus on agriculture (for several years in a
row).
Page 20
-------
Example Project: In Harm's Way-Toxic
Threats to Child Development
FY 2006, Region 10, $40,000
The goal of In Harm's Way was to protect and
improve the health of children, pregnant
women, and Latinos and reduce the effect of
toxic environmental exposures through three
primary methods. First, the project provided
outreach and education to health care
providers in Spanish-speaking, low-income,
Tribal, and minority populations. Second, the
project conducted presentations to care
providers for pregnant women, parents and
children. Finally, the project provided
educational materials to Latino outreach
workers, and trained health care providers to
reach low-income and minority populations.
The RGI database analysis involved further
exploration of the relationship between RGI
project and Agency priorities. There are a
number of caveats to consider when
analyzing the results on this topic, however.
The RGI database included a field to note
linkage(s) between the RGI project and the
EPA 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan. Information
had been entered into this field for roughly
80 percent of the projects analyzed, but
information completeness and level of detail
varied. For those projects without a linkage
in the RGI database, evaluators assigned a
linkage based on other information such as
project descriptions (e.g., watershed
restoration projects were assigned to Goal 2),
except in a few cases where it was not clear
which Goal would be most applicable (e.g.,
leadership training). Such projects as travel
support, equipment upgrades, and leadership
training were assigned to the "General
Enabling and Support" category. Also, it is
likely that Goal 4, Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems, was entered in many cases as the "default" because this is where RGI appeared in the
Agency's formal goal structure and annual budget. Further, as noted previously, most projects could fit
within multiple Plan goals - a point that several interviewees also raised during the interviews. In other
words, it is not difficult to find a "home" for most projects (RGI or otherwise) somewhere in the
Strategic Plan.
With these caveats in mind, evaluators found that, on the whole, RGI projects aligned with the
Agency's highest level priorities and most also aligned with more specific Agency priorities found in
Strategic Plan and National Program Manager (NPM) guidances. Analysis of results (Figure 9) show
that most projects supported Strategic Plan Goal 1 (Clean Air and Global Climate Change), Goal 2 (Clean
and Safe Water), and/or Goal 4 (Healthy Communities and Ecosystems). Goal 3 (Land Preservation and
Restoration) and Goal 5 (Compliance and Environmental Stewardship) were also represented, and a few
projects had the identifier "cross-cutting goals. Further, many RGI projects were "ahead of their time" -
supporting work in areas that have only recently become focused upon more broadly by the Agency at
the national level. Examples include projects that focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation,
watershed assessment and restoration, and lean and environment projects.
Participants from all Regions described how the RGI projects in their Regions clearly aligned with their
Regions' priorities. All regional interviewees indicated that RGI was one way, and in some cases the
primary way, that the Regions funded regional priorities, and all said that regional priorities influenced
project selection. Researching the specifics of each Region's priorities and how these cross referenced
with the 453 projects analyzed for this evaluation was outside of the scope of this evaluation. However,
Appendix 3 ( Regional Project Selection Processes: Supporting Documents) provides a substantial
amount of information about the relationship between regional priorities and RGI projects.
Page 21
-------
Most projects that clearly supported environmental protection also supported at least one Agency
priority expressed in the Strategic Plan or elsewhere. Several interviewees pointed out that it is not
hard to match projects with the Strategic Plan, particularly at the Goal level. At the same time, many
RGI projects did support specific priorities, and this linkage was sometimes noted in the RGI database.
Figure 9. Project Alignment with EPA FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan (FY 2005-2007)
250
200
150
100
Goal 1: Clean Goal 2: Clean Goal 3: Land Goal 4: Goal 5: Cross-cutting General
Air& Global &Safe Water Preservation Healthy Compliance& Goals Enablingand
Climate & Restoration Communities Environmental Support
Change & Ecosystems Stewardship
* Goal categories are not mutually exclusive since projects often related to multiple Goals.
Looking forward, if a regional funding source like RGI were to be established in the future, there are
options for more clearly demonstrating linkages to Agency priorities. One option could be identifying
the priorities that would be supported as part of the Agency's annual budgeting process, though this
could take away from the ability to address real-time needs. Another option would include a
commitment (with some checks and balances) to supporting particular Agency priorities with the funds,
coupled with a process to demonstrate that connectivity before and while those funds were being
spent. Reporting after funds have been spent on project accomplishments and how those
accomplishments support Agency priorities is likely to be a basic requirement for any future funding of
this nature, and this will help to demonstrate the value of this kind of funding source. There are ways to
create a project reporting system that will facilitate documentation of specific linkages to Agency
priorities in a way that is both precise and not cumbersome for the users.
Finally, during the evaluation it became clear that communication between the Regions, national
programs, and the Agency's senior leadership on how these funds have supported Agency's priorities
and specific national program goals was sparse as best. In the future, if a similar funding source were to
be created, the Agency would benefit from more and improved communication across the board so that
the connectivity between national and regional priorities would be clearer.
Page 22
-------
3. RGI Practices
3.1 Summary of Key Findings
9 .
Four of the six overarching evaluation questions focused on RGI's implementation practices. Interviews
included additional detailed questions about specific practices such as whether two-year funding
implementation was important and valuable. This chapter describes the findings in response to these
questions and includes suggestions for implementation of process improvements should a funding
source like RGI be reestablished.
Key findings on RGI practice areas are:
• All Regions used RGI national mission and criteria to guide decision making for RGI funds and
most projects met between one and four of the seven national criteria (Section 3.2).
• Participants had widely divergent ideas about perceived or actual "discretionary" use of RGI
funds (Section 3.3). Many participants indicated that misunderstandings about the
discretionary use of RGI funds, coupled with lack of knowledge and communication about RGI
processes and results within the Agency, undermined support for RGI. No clear examples of
policy or rule violations or other misuse of RGI funds were identified by participants or
evaluators.
• Each Region used its own process to select which projects to support with RGI funds (Section
3.4). At least five of the Regions used an external competition to solicit proposals for a
significant portion of the RGI funding, and the remaining had either formal or informal RFPs that
were internal to their Regions. Some Regions employed extensive project selection processes,
such as scoring proposals based on a set of pre-identified competitive ranking criteria. In some
Regions, individual projects were also funded through an external competition, and in many
cases these projects also received funds from other Agency sources. (See Appendix 3, Regional
Project Selection Processes: Supporting Documents).
• Five funding vehicles were used to support RGI projects: grants, contracts, cooperative
agreements, inter-agency agreements (lAGs), and procurement requests (Section 3.5). Grants
(80 percent of which were competitive) and contracts were the most common.
• Analysis of the distribution of RGI funds by amount per project showed that the average
project budget (at least from the RGI funds) was $34,400 and the median was $21,600 (Section
3.6). These amounts do not account for the contribution of other internal and external sources
of funding for the same projects.
• The most common general project topic areas were water and air, followed by pollutants, toxics
and contaminants, public and children's health, waste and recycling, agriculture, and energy.
(Section 3.7).
Overarching Questions 1-4: (1) How do RGI projects align with the RGI criteria and mission and reflect regional
and national goals and priorities? (2) What is the process for selecting and funding RGI projects? (3) How are RGI
outcomes and results identified and measured? (4) How are RGI outcomes and results communicated to different
audiences and how could communication be improved?
Page 23
-------
• In terms of geographic area and scale of RGI projects, the largest percentage (33 percent) was
focused at the city, town, or local municipality level (Section 3.8). State-level and Region-wide
projects were also common (19 percent each), followed by projects that focused on particular
watersheds (10 percent) and county-level projects (7 percent).
• Regarding the timing of RGI funding obligations, Regions were allowed the flexibility to disburse
RGI funds over a two-year period (Section 3.9). Evaluation participants had differing views
about whether this flexibility had overall positive or negative effects. Most Regions were trying
to speed up funding obligations so that they would not extend into the second funding year.
• RGI audiences include EPA's senior leadership at Headquarters and the ten Regions, RGI-
funding recipients and partners, government public affairs personnel, Congress, the White
House, NGOs and interested members of the public (Section 3.10). Despite the use of multiple
methods of communication about RGI and RGI projects, communication with these audiences
was insufficient to convey RGI's role or accomplishments, or to address concerns about how
RGI funds were spent. Several suggestions for improving communication are offered.
Interviews and other information sources used for this evaluation show that all Regions used the RGI
national mission and criteria (Figure 2) to guide decision making for RGI funds and that most projects
met at least three of the seven criteria (Figure 10 and Table 1). The most common criteria cited that
applied to RGI-funded projects were supporting place-based needs, supporting the Agency's Strategic
Plans and other strategic priorities, collaborating with other stakeholders, and addressing multi-media
challenges. The more complicated criteria on leveraging other funds and establishing baseline data and
measurable results were less frequently represented. Opportunities for achieving greater
representation across all criteria exist though some would require greater investments by the Agency
(e.g., development of a set of consistent performance measures and reporting guidelines that are in
balance with funding levels).
Twenty-nine of 453 projects analyzed did not have an identifiable connection to RGI criteria, and are
therefore identified by the category "General Enabling and Support." This does not mean that no
connection exists. There were two primary reasons that the evaluation team identified as causing a lack
of clarity in a project's connection to the RGI criteria. First, there was not enough information available
in the database to determine the connection. As the evaluation progressed the evaluation team
received updated lists of projects that were not entered into the database at the time the information
was downloaded for analysis. However, in several cases the team only received the project names,
funding years, and amount of project funding and therefore did not have the full set of information to
determine a link to the RGI criteria. Second, the database field intended to describe the connection to
RGI criteria was populated with vague descriptors, and other information about the project in the
database was not sufficient to clarify the project's link to RGI criteria.
Evaluators found that RGI Coordinators were the only group of interviewees who were consistently
familiar with the national RGI mission and criteria. Other interviewees on the whole had either a vague
familiarity or no awareness of them. It was unclear to many Headquarters participants and some
regional participants how Regions applied the criteria when selecting projects. The vast majority of
interviewees, including most of the RAs and DRAs, were not familiar with the specific RGI national
Page 24
-------
criteria at the time of the interview. Given that these same individuals were, in most Regions,
responsible for making final project selections, the question of whether and how the criteria were used
appears valid.
Figure 10. Number of Projects* Connected to National RGI Criteria (FY 2005-2007)
400
Criteria 1: Place- Criteria 2: Criteria 3: Multi- Criteria4:
based Strategic Plan Media Stakeholder
Participation
* Some projects were connected to multiple criteria
Criteria5: Criteria6: Criteria?: General Enabling
Leveraged Baseline Data Measurable and Support
Funding Environmental
Outcomes
Table 1. Percent of RGI Projects that Met One or More National RGI Criteria (FY 2005-2007)
% of projects that met all seven criteria
% of projects that met six criteria
% of projects that met five criteria
% of projects that met four criteria
% of projects that met three criteria
% of projects that met two criteria
% of projects that met one criteria
% of projects with no clear connection
0
1%
7%
24%
24%
16%
21%
8%
On the other hand, evaluators found that the processes used by most Regions at the staff level to
solicit, screen, and recommend projects to senior leadership (typically the RA or DRA) did explicitly
include the criteria. Given the screening that took place prior to senior leadership decision making and
the fact that the senior regional leaders understood how the funds were intended to be used in general,
it may or may not "matter" that the senior decision makers were not aware of how the criteria were
used for selecting projects.
Page 25
-------
Example Project: Passaic Watershed Outreach Cooperative Agreement
FY 2007, Region 2, $60,000
During the dredging and cleanup of the Passaic River in the City of Newark, Region 2
identified communications gaps for community health and environmental justice that
were not covered by cleanup funding. The project developed three brochures which were
then disseminated at public meetings and provided to local governments. The brochures
were also used to supplement outreach efforts by the States of New Jersey and New York
and stakeholder groups.
The project helped to address significant environmental justice issues in the communities
along the lower Passaic River, including a significant homeless population that relies on
fish for sustenance and numerous immigrant, low-income and minority communities that
fish and crab in the Passaic River and Newark Bay.
Participant Suggestions Regarding the RGI Mission and Criteria
Interviewees made the following comments and suggestions regarding the mission and criteria:
—> Leave the criteria as they are - they are fine as is.
—> The criteria are very broad. Some saw this
as an asset, allowing for a variety of
flexibility for justifiable applications;
whereas others saw this as allowing just
about any kind of project and therefore
providing too much flexibility at the cost of
identifying clear results that are tied to
specific Agency goals and priorities. To
address this, participants suggested
making the criteria more precise, but not
so narrow or prescriptive that they cannot
be tailored to each Region's needs.
—> Consolidate the criteria about results and
outcomes.
—> Eliminate redundancy between the mission
statement and the third criterion.
"The mission of filling these gaps which
we cannot otherwise fill is a good one;
that's typically what [RGI funds have]
been used for. Or it's often been the other
way around: when I've seen something
that's really neat, I've found out that the
funding came through RGI. I think most
Regions used these moneys in ways that
other money could not be used, and if you
start to use criteria [that are too strict]
you'll lose the flexibility that you want and
the results." - Deputy Administrator
J
—> Add more specificity on the criteria about supporting the Agency's Strategic Plan and
supporting identified regional priorities.
—> Add more specific criteria that address the following issues:
reproducibility in other areas;
emergency, just-in-time (e.g., response to tips), and emerging needs;
estimation of the feasibility of the project being funded within one year; and
prioritization of larger projects and/or multi-year projects (to support the realization of
identifiable results).
Page 26
-------
—> Clarify the difference between criteria and expectations or guidelines about project selection,
reporting, and results.
—> Several participants said that RGI's challenges were less about the RGI criteria and more about
how RGI funds were used, particularly how they were used to support the Agency's priorities
and what the results of those expenditures were relative to those priorities.
3.3 "Discretionary" Funding Issues
A major issue identified by evaluation participants was the
perceived or actual "discretionary" use of RGI funds. Some
participants emphasized that the degree of discretion and
flexibility that Regions had with regard to use of RGI funds was
both reasonable and vital to addressing specific geographic and
community-focused environmental and public health needs.
These participants emphasized that such specific needs often fell
in gaps in other conventional or more prescriptive funding
mechanisms. Other feedback was more critical in nature,
emphasizing that discretion in the use of funds created significant
vulnerabilities for RGI, leading to a perception that RGI .
expenditures lacked transparency and accountability and that
"Too much discretion was
exercised with this
program. The two-tiered
approach [EPP and RGI]
provided more flexibility
than Congress intends for
us now to provide."
- Headquarters Participant
they were not always used as intended by Congress. (Note: No
examples of policy or rule violations or other misuse of RGI funds were identified by participants or
evaluators.) This section explores several factors that have contributed to concerns about discretion
and the use of RGI funds and identifies considerations for addressing these factors in the design of any
future regional "flexible" funding source.
Confusion and concern about the degree of discretion in the use of RGI funds has been fueled in large
part by the flexibility of each Region to use up to 35 percent of its RGI funds to support management
priorities outside of the scope of the national RGI criteria. This portion of RGI funds was commonly
referred to as Environmental Priorities Projects or EPP. (EPP is discussed in more detail below.) To
resolve questions about RGI decision making, evaluators explored how Regions made RGI funding
decisions and whether these decisions were different for any discretionary or EPP portion of the RGI
funds. Results (described in detail throughout Chapter 3) show that seven of the ten Regions made no
distinction between RGI and EPP funds, and thus in these Regions, projects were selected from one pool
of "RGI" funds. At least five of the Regions used external RFPs to solicit proposals for funding, and the
remaining had either formal or informal RFPs that were internal to their Regions. Some Regions used a
fairly rigorous and objective project ranking system to select projects based on pre-identified regional
and national priorities, whereas others relied more on informal screening and senior management
decision making. There was no clear correlation between project selection processes and the resulting
project topic areas.
Many evaluation participants indicated that the perceived discretion associated with the use of RGI
funds, coupled with shortcomings related to the communication or at least understanding of RGI
processes and results, has severely undermined support for RGI. Many participants also noted,
however, that it is possible to design a regional funding source that has a reasonable degree of
discretion and flexibility and that also is transparent and accountable.
Page 27
-------
RGI and EPP: A Source of Confusion
Interviews revealed that confusion and concern about the degree of discretion in the use of RGI funds
has been fueled in large part by the how RGI funds were allocated in the Regions. First, once salaries
were covered for both Headquarters and Regions, RGI funds were distributed evenly to each of the ten
Regions. Each Region then had the flexibility to use up to 35 percent of their RGI funds to support
management priorities outside of the
scope of the national RGI criteria.
This 35 percent was commonly
referred to as Environmental
Priorities Projects or EPP. EPA
Regions had the flexibility to choose
whether to apply the national RGI
criteria to the EPP portion of the
funds. Some Regions did not
differentiate between RGI and EPP
funds or related decisions; other
Regions had two separate processes
for RGI and EPP funds, which were
sometimes entirely managed
through two separate offices and
processes. In addition, some Regions
changed their approach to
separating and using RGI and EPP
funds over time. In short, each
Region independently determined
whether and how to distinguish
between these funds as this was part
of the flexibility afforded by the RGI
funding source.
Example Project:
Geographic Information System Support
FY 2005 - 2007, Region 7, $72,000
GIS support plays a critical role in environmental
protection in Region 7. GIS tools present complex
data in a visual format which helps identify
environmental needs. The Region's GIS was used to
develop a number of applications at the direction of
the Strategic Priority Theme leaders. For example,
Critical Ecosystems support provided for a multi-year
effort that developed a GIS model identifying critical
ecosystems throughout the Region. For the Sensitive
Populations team, GIS resources were used to develop
a number of maps and applications including an
Environmental Justice mapping tool which provide
demographic and facility data together with other risk
indicators, allowing staff to help target areas with
sensitive populations.
It is important to note that the discretion that could have been exercised in project selection and use of
funds was not exercised by all Regions, at least not for the past 3-5 years of RGI funding. During this
time frame, senior leaders in most Regions minimized or, in a few cases, eliminated discretionary
decision-making that they could have exercised with RGI funds according to the interview results and
other information analyzed by the evaluators. Some Regions opted to apply the national RGI criteria to
all funds, including the 35 percent that could have been allocated to support other regional priorities
(including general regional support) under EPP. In addition, some Regions ensured that all or nearly all
projects funded with RGI resources were selected from an external competition and objective project
selection process. Given that several interviewees (particularly in Headquarters) described how they
thought the Regions were, in general, "doing whatever they want" with RGI funds, it appears as if there
was a low level of awareness of these relatively objective and transparent project selection practices in
those Regions where they were practiced.
Page 28
-------
r
"Sometimes [our Region] had to use the money
to do things like pay salaries. This came as a
higher priority approach than for grants for
extramural. There will be decisions made, for
example, whether we can fully fund the FTEs
allocated to the Regions because there's not
enough money to pay salaries, telephones,
offices, etc. That's the kind of choice that's
made." - Deputy Regional Administrator
J
Moreover, the evaluators found that many of the perceptions and misperceptions around RGI centered
on confusion or lack of awareness related to the EPP portion of the funds and what expenditures were
or were not "allowed" under the EPP portion of RGI. For instance, many participants were not aware
that the national criteria were not required to apply to the EPP portion of the funds. Those who were
aware of this knew, therefore, that it was
appropriate to spend part or all of the EPP
portion on regional needs that the regional
senior leadership (typically the RAor DRA)
deemed to be important. Legitimate uses for
the EPP portion included supporting priority
geographically based environmental needs,
and "general regional support," such as
purchasing equipment, sponsoring
recognition events, paying for staff training,
or investing in other priority areas that the
RA believed was important and was not
otherwise being funded. Only a few
interviewees (primarily from the Office of the
Administrator who were more familiar with
RGI), however, were aware of this distinction between EPP and other RGI funding and the additional
discretion given to Regions with regard to the use of EPP funds. In addition, several regional
interviewees described that the distinction between RGI and EPP projects had become blurred, and how
it was not clear to them whether the national RGI criteria applied to both sets of funds or not.
Despite the EPP provisions for discretionary use of funds for general regional support, a few participants
expressed a clear opinion that federal appropriators did not intend for the funds to be spent with as
much discretion as they were (or believed they were). These issues are explored more in the following
pages, though it is important to reiterate that no examples of policy violations, rule breaking, or other
misuse of funds were provided by participants or identified by the evaluators at any point during the
evaluation. Several participants did point out, however, that between the broad criteria and
discretionary allowance for funding decisions, it would be hard to fund projects that were not in some
way defensible.
Analysis of "EPP" expenditures based on Information in the RGI Database
The designation of "EPP" did not necessarily mean that projects clearly differed in substance, process, or
results than "RGI" projects, with the exception of expenditures that went clearly toward general support
purposes as discussed above. Table 2 illustrates that a label of "EPP" or "RGI" is not necessarily an
accurate indicator of whether or not a project responds to the national RGI criteria or is otherwise
substantively different than other "RGI" projects.
Page 29
-------
Table 2. Examples of Projects Categorized in the RGI Database as either RGI or EPP (FY 2005-2007)
[To illustrate that the EPP/RGI distinction did not necessarily make a substantive difference in the work done)
Type
Project Name
Description
Region
The following two projects are similar, even though one is categorized as RGI and one as EPP
RGI
R7
Yellow River
Watershed
Assess the mainstream and tributaries for active gullies and prioritize
for grade stabilization structures/sediment basins based on severity
and impact of fishery.
Sampling study to collect appropriate data to establish a basis for
refinement of existing aquatic life use categories and water quality
R6
EPP
Dissolved Oxygen
Monitoring
criteria.
The following two projects are similar, even though one is categorized as RGI and one as EPP
RIO
R2
RGI
EPP
Port of Seattle To reduce air pollution from Port of Seattle seaport operations
Diesel Emissions through the use of emission reduction controls and
Reduction education/outreach.
Sustainable Ports
and Carriers
Partnership
The Sustainable Ports and Carriers Partnership is designed to address
environmental issues associated with ports, ocean-going vessels, and
intermodal carriers.
The following two projects are similar, even though one is categorized as RGI and one as EPP
Rl
RGI
Youth in the
Environment
This project targets inner-city and rural youth, to encourage high
school student to consider careers in the environmental field. The
nation's water infrastructure profession is losing many capable and
well trained operators and personnel to retirement.
R2
EPP
Turn on Youth to
Careers in
Environmental
Protection
This project will provide 15 - 20 students with summer employment
at three sites (Wards Island and North River Wastewater treatment
plants and the NYC Bureau of Customer Services) within NYC
The following two projects are similar, even though one is categorized as RGI and one as EPP
R9
RGI
Environmental
Justice Workshops
Workshops to help communities fight pollution, access information
on environmental risks in the community, etc.
Rl
EPP
Environmental
Justice-
Awareness
Training
Environmental Justice awareness training to EPA staff on the legal
and policy framework of EJ and to provide them with Region-specific
case studies illustrating real world issues and accomplishment
Page 30
-------
The following list of example projects from Region 10 further underscores that assumptions about "RGI"
projects clearly supporting regional geographic and other environmental priorities and "EPP" supporting
only general support work are not necessarily accurate. In Region 10, decision making processes for
allocating RGI and EPP funds were entirely separate. "RGI" projects were competed externally and
decided upon by a committee that worked independently from the Regional Administrator's office. EPP
projects were selected by the Regional Administrator's office according to a needs assessment done
internally by regional senior leadership. The following EPP projects covered both regional support work
(e.g., feedback training and the Senior
Example Project: West Coast Collaborative
Multiple funding years and amounts
Regions 9 & 10
Regions 9 and 10 implemented several RGI
projects under the West Coast Collaborative
that resulted in diesel emissions reductions.
For example, in Alaska, a $65,000 project
designed, constructed, and demonstrated the
economic viability of a self-contained
"portable" fish waste processing facility to
extract fish oil suitable for use as boiler fuel,
supplementary engine fuel, and as feedstock
for the production of biodiesel.
Estimated project results included over 50
tons per year reduction of criteria pollutant
discharges and a net production of 84,000
gallons per year offish oil (equivalent to
76,000 gallons per year of petroleum diesel),
with additional benefits through the
displacement of fuel transport emissions,
reduced or mitigated fuel spill impacts, and
improved water quality.
Environmental Employee Assistance
program) and general support for high-
priority environmental projects that have
been considered to be successful and
replicable by other parts of the Agency.
Examples of EPP Projects in Region 10:
• Water infrastructure & climate
change
• Waste water management analysis
(Mason County)
• Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
environmental indicators report
• Lean Manufacturing Initiative
• Pollution trading screening analysis
• Issuance of Region 10 priorities
report
• 360 degree feedback for
supervisors
• Negotiation skills training
• Working capital fund regional
support
• Senior Environmental Employee
Assistance
• West Coast Collaborative (diesel
emissions reduction collaboration)
It is important to note that, for some
Regions (or some years in some Regions),
the evaluators have a low degree of confidence in the distinctions made between "RGI" and "EPP"
project labels in the database. It appears as if the designation did not occur consistently in some
instances. For example, in one Region, all projects were designated RGI in one year and EPP in the next
year, even though all projects in that Region went to the same (multi-year) program to fund
environmental projects in the Region's geographic priority areas. Apparent inconsistencies in the
database coding of projects as RGI or EPP seems to reinforce the evaluators finding that there has been
significant confusion around the EPP component of RGI funding. The apparent database inconsistencies
do not change, however, the overall findings around the lack of clear differentiation between "RGI" and
"EPP" project topics or that general regional support expenditures represented a small percentage of all
RGI expenditures.
Page 31
-------
Table 3. Summary of General Regional Support Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Type of Support Amount Funded
%of
General
Support
Funding
Communication and outreach [e.g., regional priority reports,
communicating priorities via the Web, public information access
improvements)
Records management
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance* (one Region)
Geographic Information Systems (technology, mapping, etc.)
Leadership training, strategic planning, and related leadership
capacity building
Intern programs
Technology upgrades (e.g., audiovisual equipment)
RGI Coordinator travel and other travel prep/assistance for
regional employees
Sustainable building master plan (in one Region only)
Use of helicopter for coastal monitoring program (in one Region
only)
Improving information proficiency of regional employees
Human resource position classification
Statistical support to support science council
Recognition events (e.g., post natural disasters)
Other**
Total General Support Funding
Total Funding (RGI-Wide, FY 2005-2007)
$554,104
$301,382
$230,300
$224,372
$162,327
$161,702
$152,610
$88,368
$80,000
$50,000
$29,000
$23,595
$14,830
$7,731
$102,019
$2,182,340
$16,159,816
25%
14%
11%
10%
7%
7%
7%
4%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
5%
100%
13.5%
* The Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program provides an opportunity for retired and
unemployed older Americans to share their expertise with EPA. To implement this program, EPA
and other Federal and State environmental offices fund cooperative agreements with national aging
organizations. SEE workers are not federal employees, nor are they employees of the grantee
organization. They are SEE Program enrollees/participants. For more information, see:
http://www.epa.gov/ohr/see/brochure/index.htm
** Other projects were all $10,000 or less and are listed with the other projects in Appendix 7
Given the level of scrutiny RGI received with regard to spending on general regional support, evaluators
assessed the use of RGI funds by Regions to see if any additional clarity on this issue could be achieved.
Evaluators reviewed information on all 453 projects analyzed for this evaluation to estimate how many
projects could be reasonably considered to fall in a "general regional support" category. The resulting
list of "general support" projects is provided in Appendix 7 and is summarized in Table 3, below. Based
on this analysis, approximately 13 percent of the projects (61 projects when multi-year projects are
counted only once) and $2.2 million (13.5 percent) of all RGI project dollars between FY 2005 and FY
2007 could fit in this category. Evaluators emphasize that these estimates may be high, because at least
a few of the projects included in this informal administrative/general regional support category could be
Page 32
-------
listed as supporting national RGI mission and criteria instead of "general regional support." Examples of
such projects are development of a RCRA data management system and summer internship programs.
Table 3 groups and summarizes the types of expenditures that fall in this informal "general support"
category. Regional communications, such as the development of regional priority communications and
increased public education and outreach efforts, were the most common use of these funds,
representing 25 percent of the total. Most Regions had some expenditures of this nature. The rest of
the expenditures were less common across the Regions, though records management, information
technology/GIS investments, leadership capacity building and strategic planning, and travel were
expenditures found in at least a few Regions. Instances where expenditures in one "category" occurred
only in one Region are noted in the table.
Participants Suggestions Regarding
Discretionary Funding Decisions and EPP
f
"/ think the days of having large
discretionary pots of money are long gone;
and are behind us. I don't think that we
are going to have any discretionary
money. When I hear people talking about
RGI, I hear about a specific environmental
problem that was common to some or all
Regions. There's always opportunity
through the planning or budget process
for those issues to be flagged. I see that
con tin uing." - Headquarters Participant,
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
J
—» Nearly all participants recommended
eliminating EPP altogether or at least
formally separating EPP and the rest of
RGI. The primary benefits (reasonable
flexibility, focus on place-based and
community work, etc.) could be realized
through the RGI portion of the funds.
—> Regions consistently emphasized that
flexibility in regional decision making
should be maintained. As some noted,
Regions can (and some did) have clear
project selection criteria, transparent
decision making, etc. and still maintain
a reasonable level of discretion at the
Regional Administrators level first by identifying regional priorities to base selection criteria on,
and second by helping to make final project selection after initial screening, scoring, etc.
—> Several interviewees discussed how, if Regions critically need additional general support
funding (which several Regions said they do need), funds for this purpose should come from
another source that is solely dedicated to that purpose. A few participants suggested
reinstating the ZZZME8 (an EPA funding code for general support dollars) fund if EPP will not
continue.
—> Identify what cannot be done with the funds rather than direct what the funds should be spent
on.
3.4 Regions' Project Selection Processes
Evaluators asked selected participants (namely the RGI Coordinators and other who were most familiar
with each Region's decision process) which process they used to make RGI funding decisions and
whether these decisions were different for the EPP portion of RGI funds (results in Figure 11). The
information gathered in response to this question and as part of the evaluation's data gathering efforts
represents the first time when RGI decision making has been summarized concisely at the national level,
Page 33
-------
albeit broken down Region by Region as each Region had its own process. "Unveiling" the project
selection processes in this report may help to clarify questions about RGI, especially given that many
evaluation participants, particularly at Headquarters, were not aware of how projects were selected and
this lack of understanding alone may have exacerbated the perception that RGI funds were spent "willy
nilly."
A high-level summary of the processes used by each Region is provided below, and additional
information, including copies of many Regions' competitive grant RFPs, is included in Appendix 3. To
summarize the processes briefly, seven of the ten Regions made no distinction between RGI and EPP
funds, and thus in these Regions projects were selected from one pool of "RGI" funds. In other words,
there was no EPP distinction in the decision making process in these Regions. The other three Regions
had a different process for selecting "RGI" and "EPP" work.
At least five of the Regions used external RFPs to solicit an external competition for their RGI funds. In
some Regions these external competitions were used for all of the funds and in some Regions it was for
all but the EPP portion of the funds (see Region-by-Region specifics in Figure 11.) As detailed in
Appendix 3, some Regions employed extensive project selection processes that involved project
screening and ranking according to pre-defined criteria such as connectivity to the national RGI criteria
and regional priorities, linkages to the EPA Strategic Plan, anticipated results, likelihood of continuing
over time, etc.
In most Regions, the RA or a team of senior regional leaders made final project selection, but other
models for RGI project selection included project selection based only on the number points proposals
were assigned (Region 8 RGI projects) and a team of managers from an office that is totally separated
from the RA's office making the selections (Region 10).
Figure 11. Summary of Regional RGI and EPP Project Selection Processes
Process of RGI Project Selection Process for EPP Selection
(Note: If the two columns are combined, there was no separate pool of funds or project selection
distinction between RGI and EPP)
REGION 1
RGI and EPP: EPA - New England prioritizes competition for all RGI and EPP funds. An internal RFP is
issued open to all Rl programs. The RA's office makes final project selections based on the proposals
received and factors including linkage to Region 1 Strategic Plan and regional priorities. A significant
portion of Region 1's RGI funds is allocated to the Healthy Communities Program, which involves a
second competitive process open to external stakeholders. The second competition combines RGI
and EPP funds with other programmatic discretionary funding to competitively award projects that:
benefit communities at risk; assess, understand and reduce environmental health risks; increase
collaboration through community-based projects; build institutional and community capacity to
understand and solve environmental and human health problems; and achieve measurable
environmental and human health benefits. Program leads from all contributing programs make final
selections based on the evaluation criteria in the application guidance.
Page 34
-------
Figure 11, continued
REGION 2
RGI: Internal RFP. The RGI Coordinator
EPP: Internal RFP. Project proposals were
screened RGI proposals and made reviewed by the Division Directors and then the
recommendations to the RA and/or DRA who Division Directors and DRA met to review and make
made final decisions. National criteria and
regional priorities were basis for project
selection.
recommendations to the RA. RA made final
decision.
REGIONS
For both RGI and EPP: In past years used RFPs. More recently used the national criteria in light of
regional priorities and possible multi-media and geographic-based projects. The senior management
(RA, DRA, ARA, and DARA) made final selection decisions.
REGION 4
RGI and EPP: An RFP for nearly all projects. Projects were selected based on regional criteria which
incorporated the national criteria, such as equity (of funding) among the states, environmental
priorities, "rate of return" from the funds, "exportability" to other areas, ability to define outcomes,
etc. For each identified regional priority (e.g., sustainable agricultural; children's health protection;
reduced exposures to PM2.5 and air toxics), the proposed projects were reviewed and scored/ranked
by a screening panel consisting of the RGI Coordinator and program representatives who made
recommendations after reviewing and scoring/ranking the proposals to the Regional Administrator,
who made the final selection.
REGIONS
RGI and EPP: For four of the past five fiscal years, nearly all funding was allocated through an RFP
process for the Great Cities Initiative, which focused on environmental priority projects in a selected
group of cities (one in each Region 5 state) each year. (An exemption from the grants competition
requirement was granted for this program). In the last year of funding, funds went to other
environmental priorities, such as homeland security. The use of EPP funds as a separate entity only
occurred under the most dire of circumstances and only on a very few occasions: There was a very
clear understanding that RGI monies were to be used for the Great Cities program and other priority
environmental projects.
REGIONS
RGI and EPP: An RFP solicited proposals. The DRA would review proposals and make selections based
on the RGI criteria and consistency with the Region's Strategic Plan/300-day plan.
REGION?
RGI and EPP: In past years Region VII used an RFP. More recently the Region used regional priorities
and the national criteria to select projects. Each year the RA's office sets regional priorities. Based
upon these priorities, senior managers within the Region would submit RGI project proposals to the
RA and DRA. After projects were identified, the RGI Coordinator would gather project details and
provide summary information to the RA's office. The RA would make the final project selection based
on these considerations and the Agency's mission.
Page 35
-------
Figure 11, continued
REGIONS
RGI: A competitive RFP process was used.
Projects were ranked and the projects with the
most points were selected. National criteria
were considered and regional "strengthening
factors" were used to break ties between
applications with equivalent scores.
Strengthening factors included results within a
two-year time frame; demonstration that the
proposal is an unfunded part of a related,
ongoing project with documented performance
and progress; linkages to Strategic Plan Goal 4,
etc.
EPP: An internal competition was used focused on
Region 8 priorities (e.g., tribal programs,
agriculture); appropriate use of EPM funds (i.e., not
for travel or to augment other appropriations); "do-
ability"; identified spending vehicles accomplish
project funding and be obligated by year-end; new
regional initiatives that are unfunded or under-
funded, or emergency or unanticipated situations;
short term nature (cannot be used to continuously
fund on-going projects); alternative funding
availability; and, ability to leverage other funding
sources. Final decisions were made by the RA and
DRA.
REGION 9
RGI and EPP: Project selection was based on regional priorities identified by the RA and DRA based
on the Region 9 Strategic Plan, Division Operating Plans, and priorities identified through ongoing
collaboration and discussion with states. Based on the RA/DRA's guidance, regional divisions
identified possible projects as part of Division Operating Plans. The Region aligned RGI/EPP funding to
support a mix of these priorities for each fiscal year. The RA and DRA made the final decisions. Once
final decisions on priority areas for funding were identified by Region 9's RA and DRA, the appropriate
funding mechanism, including competitive RFPs for RGI priority areas, was used to award RGI funds.
REGION 10
RGI: A competitive RFP process was used. For
FY 2007, proposals were to focus on integrated,
collaborative, or community-based approaches
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or prevent
pollution by promoting the availability of
renewable energy; promoting the efficient use
of existing energy sources; or sequestering
carbon. Proposals were to demonstrate at least
one of the following approaches: developing
strategic partnerships; working collaboratively
and cooperatively with a range of stakeholders;
building local capacity to solve environmental
problems; promoting stewardship and
individual responsibility; adopting integrated,
comprehensive approaches to environmental
management; helping local agencies and
community groups to use data, information,
and tools in environmental assessment,
planning and problem solving; and/or
incorporating traditional ecological knowledge.
Final decisions made by a team within the
Office of Ecosystems, Tribal, and Public Affairs.
EPP: The RA and DRA made final selections based
on the Region's annual priorities and a needs
assessment developed for each fiscal year's
operating plan.
Page 36
-------
During the interviews, the regional senior leaders shared their perspectives about RGI project selection.
The evaluators observed that in all Regions, regardless of the process employed, the senior leaders
showed a strong sense of
ownership and responsibility
over the use of RGI funds
including how and which
projects were selected.
Regional participants did share
a spectrum of opinions about
what process for deciding how
to use RGI funds was the best,
however. The most common
topic that revealed a
divergence of opinions was
whether a competitive or non-
competitive process would be
best.
c
Example Project: Anacostia River Restoration
FY 2006-2007, Region 3, $200,000
Project funding was used to ensure cooperation and
coordination of stakeholders as well as to establish
priorities for restoration activities throughout the
Anacostia River watershed. Funding was initially
allocated to demonstrate the Region's commitment to
restoring the Anacostia River watershed by: 1)
developing a draft watershed plan using community-
based approaches aimed at preventing, reducing, or
eliminating water pollution for the Anacostia River
watershed; 2) creating a 'Building Blocks' document
designed to both educate the public and help accelerate
the restoration effort; and 3) hiring an Executive Director
to assist in shaping and focusing the restoration process.
Some regional leaders
discussed how they thought
that an externally competed
process was preferable
because it made the process
more transparent and less subject to scrutiny. Some thought that externally competed processes also
resulted in projects with clearer results that would be more clearly tied to Agency's priorities
(particularly when this objective was made explicit as a project funding criterion). Other regional
leaders thought that external competition was excessively burdensome, and that as long as the
competitive grants rules were being followed, other competitive requirements should not apply to RGI
funds as this was the only source of flexible regional funding. Further, some noted, many RGI projects
are small (often purposefully so) and competing the process would involve an inordinate amount of time
and energy. Headquarters interviewees largely favored a competitive process, but when asked about
whether that would suit small-scale projects (e.g., $5,000 or less) many said that competition would be
too cumbersome. No one suggested that the competitive grant policy should not be followed.
The funding mechanisms (grants, contract, etc.) used for RGI work between FY 2005 and FY 2007,
including the extent to which grants were competitive and not, are explored in the following section,
Distribution of Funds by Funding Vehicle.
Participants also discussed whether project selection should be based on pre-identified priorities or
topic areas, the extent to which the RAs and DRAs should have "leeway" in making final decisions, and
whether all Regions should follow the same general project selection process to enhance consistency
and transparency. Opinions on these topics ranged substantially, though on the whole regional
participants clearly prioritized maintaining flexibility in decision making, even if additional processes and
procedures needed to be followed by all Regions. Several interviewees from both the Regions and
Headquarters said that, regardless of what might be best for the Regions, even in light of the argument
that flexibility in decision making is direly needed, it is political reality that funding decisions tied to pre-
identified Agency priorities and externally competed engender more confidence around transparency
and accountability. For this reason, some explained, any regional funding of this nature should in the
Page 37
-------
future strive to, or may be required to, adhere to these and other more consistent, rigorous, and
transparent project selection approaches.
Example Project: Beyond Translation - Engaging Spanish-Speaking Communities
FY 2006, Region 6, $10,000
On October 17-18, 2006, EPA Region 6 hosted the "Beyond Translation Forum" in San
Antonio, Texas, where more than 100 Hispanic community leaders and representatives of
nonprofit, grass-roots and civic organizations, leaders in business and academia, the
media, and local, state and federal government officials came together to discuss
environmental challenges and opportunities, explore ideas for improving the Agency's
service to Hispanics, and to enhance partnerships and networks. The discussions focused
on the areas of community partnerships, public health and the environment, economic
opportunities at EPA, and the education pipeline for environmental careers. As a result of
the forum, EPA has partnered with community leaders and sister organizations to form
five workgroups to address the priorities that emerged from the discussions.
—> Provide guidance on project selection, and
differentiate project selection from the
national criteria. In so doing, make the
project selection process more consistent
across EPA Regions (while, as already
discussed, maintaining as much flexibility
as possible).
Improving RGI Project Selection
Participants provided several suggestions for improving RGI project selection and funding decisions.
Some of these suggestions are already being implemented by some Regions for certain or all projects.
Two factors are worth consideration when reflecting upon these suggestions. Before listing some of the
suggestions, however, it is worth noting that several
participants thought that the challenge was much
less with project selection itself than with
communicating more clearly (a) how projects are
selected, (b) what results are being achieved, and
(c) how the results contribute to regional and
national priorities. Second, many interviewees
expressed concern that more procedural and
reporting requirements would make pursuing this
kind of funding less desirable. They said that RGI
already required substantial reporting
requirements, particularly relative to the amount of
funding that the Regions received for RGI. With
those caveats in mind, suggestions for improving
project selection included the following:
"My own impression is that [RGI project
selection processes] have been highly
variable There are some Regions
where there seems to be a clearly
managed process for how the funds are
allotted and tracked, whereas there are
other regions where that seems to be
blank.... I'm very leery; however, to start
to nail down a process or draw a line
around this. Instead we should clarify
what we're going to hold you
accountable to. As long as you're on
schedule and deliver the outcomes, we
don't care. That seems to me that's what
needed. These need a clear outcome and
a date by which they will be achieved."
- Deputy Administrator
Page 38
-------
—> Encourage or require the development of logic models for projects funded with RGI resources
over a certain dollar threshold. (Note: Region 10 employed this practice for some years.)
—> Make Regional Administrators personally accountable for project selection and fulfilling related
annual commitments around selecting projects with the highest potential to achieve identified
results.
—> Follow the Region I10 example for grant funding by consolidating RGI and other multi-media
grant funding sources, such as pollution prevention and community air toxics grants, into a
larger, more strategic set of targeted funds to support regional priorities.
—> Improve the transparency of the selection process, perhaps by documenting the process in a
manner that enables regional personnel, EPA Headquarters, other regional Offices, and
potential RGI funding recipients to access and understand how the selection process works.
—> Identify a target or required portion of RGI funds that should be directed to identify, measure,
and report on results achieved by RGI-funded projects. (See also suggestions for identifying
and improving results.)
3.5 Distribution of Funds by Funding Vehicle (and Competitive-vs-Non-
Competitive Grants)
Evaluators used the RGI database to determine the distribution of RGI funding vehicles used in the FY
2005 - FY 2007 time frame. This assessment was important because many participants highlighted that
there were misconceptions of RGI being a grant program instead of a funding source that employed all
funding vehicles, including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, etc. Second, according to
interviewees, RGI had developed a reputation as a non-competitive grant program.
All of the vehicles used to distribute RGI funds were allowed and used. Of the five funding vehicles used
(grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, lAGs, and procurement requests), grants and contracts were
the most common (Figure 12). About 20 percent of the grant
projects (or 9 percent of the total number of RGI projects)
were funded with non-competitive grants. Non-competitive
grants comprised approximately 12 percent ($16.2 million) of
the total amount of RGI funding from FY 2005 - FY 2007. The
non-competitive grants included those grant categories for
which Agency-approved waivers from competition had been
issued, including projects to support the Great Cities Initiative
in Region 5, support for the Senior Employee Employment
Program, standing Agency-wide exemptions for Clean Water
Act Section 104(g) grants and other specific grant programs,
and standing exemptions from competition for awards
beneath the $15,000 grant threshold.
f
"You first have to
demonstrate results and
outcomes before you can
start from scratch to get
the confidence. When you
compete projects you
eliminate the perception
that it's just the RA's
favorites."
- Headquarters Participant
J
' See: http://www.epa.gov/region01/grants/healthycommunities.html
Page 39
-------
The results of the database analysis are described first to provide context for the subsequent discussion
of interview results.
Results of Database Analysis
According to the analysis of the RGI database, grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, inter-agency
agreements (lAGs), and procurement requests were all used to distribute RGI funds (Figure 12 and Table
4). Grants and contracts were the most common, accounting for 41 percent and 34 percent of the RGI
projects, respectively, followed by procurement requests (11 percent), cooperative agreements (10
percent), and lAGs (4 percent). A complete breakout of funding mechanisms by Region is provided in
Appendix 5.
Figure 12. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle (FY 2005-2007)
Cooperative
Agreement
Procurement
Request
11%
Non-
Competitive
Grant
9%
Table 4. Distribution of RGI Projects by Funding Vehicle
Funding Mechanism
Competitive Grant
Contract
Non-Competitive Grant
Cooperative Agreement
Inter-Agency Agreement
Procurement Request
Total
#of
Projects
155
164
46
51
17
53
486*
% of Projects
Funded
32%
34%
9%
10%
4%
11%
100%
Amount
Funded
$ 6,931,091
$4,473,531
$ 1,884,075
$ 1,461,174
$ 745,557
$ 664,388
$ 16,159,816
% of Total
Amount Funded
43%
28%
12%
9%
5%
4%
100%
* The total number of projects is slightly higher than reported elsewhere because within the RGI database a small number of
projects contained more than one entry in the "funding vehicle" data field (e.g., "Contract and Procurement Request).
Percentage figures were calculated by counting multiple funding mechanism entries individually and dividing the amount of
project funding evenly among the number of funding mechanisms listed.
Page 40
-------
A vast majority of grants were awarded competitively (smaller pie chart in Figure 12). Specifically, of the
41 percent of RGI projects funded by grants, almost 80 percent were funded by competitive grants.
About 20 percent of the grant projects (or 9 percent of the total number of RGI projects) were funded
with non-competitive grants. Non-competitive grants comprised approximately 12 percent ($16.2
million) of the total amount of RGI funding from FY 2005 - FY 2007.
Appendix 6 provides a full list of non-competed projects, with project year, amount funded, and reason
for non-competitive status. The reasons cited for non-competitive awards are summarized as follows:
• Standing exemption for Clean Water Act Section 104(g) grants
• Standing exemption for Assistance Awards to States/lnterstates/Local
Agencies/Tribes/lntertribal Consortia
• Standing exemption for original awards under $15,000
• Standing exemption for Public Interest grants
• Agency approved exemptions for the Region 5 Great Cities Program and the Senior Employee
Employment Program
• Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
• Add-on to existing award
All regional participants and most Headquarters participants considered it important to have a variety of
funding vehicle options in order to match the right vehicles with the right purposes. For example,
testing a new technology may have been best suited for a contract vehicle, whereas community
involvement may have been best suited to a grant vehicle. Additional factors, they said, included
technical and legal restrictions and "doability" (e.g., what funding mechanism will work to obligate funds
within the first year). Several participants explained that the funding mechanism can influence project
selection and timing, and vice versa. Many reiterated that RGI was a funding source, with all the
flexibility in using a variety of vehicles that funding sources have, versus a grant program which would
be by nature limited to grants.
A few interviewees from Headquarters suggested that any future regional funding of this nature be
limited to competitive grants. Regional interviewees, by contrast, were nearly all averse to this idea,
claiming that such a limitation would eliminate the flexibility that is the most valuable aspect of RGI.
Further, some regional participants explained, there are reasons in some cases why non-competitive
awards could achieve the objectives of RGI more effectively. A few Regions intentionally made small
awards (e.g., $20,000 or less) to provide support for more local needs and underserved communities
(the "1,000 flowers bloom" idea) and this was only made possible due to RGI. In other cases, leveraging
other funding sources from within or outside of EPA entailed making small grant awards (e.g., to provide
EPA's "share" for forming a new stakeholder consortium around a multi-jurisdictional challenge such as
children's asthma). Interviewees described how in these cases there was no intentional decision around
competing the grants or not, and grants were not always the vehicles used in any case. (The vehicles
matched their purpose and vice versa.)
Region 5's Great Cities Initiative, which was the primary source of Region 5 RGI spending from FY 2004
through FY 2006 represents one instance where a Region's RGI funds were supporting a handful of cities
in Great Lakes states through non-competitive grants. Region 5 obtained an exemption from the
Headquarters Office of Grants and Debarment to be able to direct RGI funds to one city in each of its
Page 41
-------
states for each round of funding. Proposals for projects within these cities were solicited, reviewed, and
selected in a manner that was equivalent to a competitive process, but technically these grants were not
competitive.
As previously mentioned, several regional interviewees also discussed how the competitive process
takes a lot significantly more time than the non-competitive process, and for grants that are very small,
they said that competing the awards can be resource and time intensive beyond the arguable benefits of
doing so. They explained that they understand the importance of adhering to the competition policy,
and have done so, but that it is more efficient and equally effective to not "jump through those hoops."
Other participants described how they thought the competition policy resulted in better project
selection and that more RGI projects should be externally competed. It is important to note again that
no instances of violations with the competitive grants policy were raised during the evaluation.
Suggestions Regarding Funding
Vehicles
The following suggestions focus on the use
of different funding vehicles:
—> Regional participants and some
Headquarters participants thought
that any viable funding vehicle
should be available for the Regions
to use as long as RGI would
continue to be a funding source
(versus a grant program);
—> If necessary, guidelines specific to
this funding source for use of each
type of funding vehicle could be
established. A set of guidelines for
"best practices" for competitive
grant awards, in particular, could
be useful.
3.6 Distribution of Funds by
Amount Per Project
Example Project:
Regional Utilities Systems (RUSS)
FY 2005, Region 7, $30,000
The Regional Utilities Systems project
targeted unsewered communities in Iowa
through the development of a replicable
business plan as a basis for a Regional
Management Entity (RME) for wastewater
treatment. Ten counties participated in the
project.
Results included an increase in the number of
unsewered communities utilizing RMEsfor
wastewater treatment, an increase in the
number of unsewered communities receiving
proper wastewater treatment, and an
increase in the number of unsewered
communities complying with state and federal
water quality regulations and standards.
The size of RGI project amounts was raised by a handful of participants as a point of contention.
Comments generally were that small projects (e.g., $25,000 or less, though peoples' perspective on
"small" varies) are less desirable than larger projects. First, Agency wide, smaller-dollar projects
(through any of the vehicles, grants, procurement requests, contracts, etc.) are typically not subject to
the same process requirements or scrutiny. Second, it is usually harder to identify the results of small-
scale projects, particularly because identifying and reporting performance measures and related
environmental metrics is a resource and time-intensive endeavor and not feasible for small projects.
Some participants also noted that the RGI project funding amount can be misleading because RGI was
often only one funding source for a project or effort that was funded additionally either by EPA or by
outside parties. Therefore, a project that would appear to cost only $500 according to the RGI
Page 42
-------
expenditure report or RGI database, but the same project's total funding levels could be $50,000 or
even $5,000,000.
The evaluators examined the funding amounts of the 453 RGI projects analyzed. According to the
information in the RGI database, the average project amount was just over $34,400 and the median was
just under $21,600. Approximately two thirds of all projects were funded between $10,000 and
$100,000. The largest amount funded was $325,000 for the Region 6 multi-year project Demonstration
of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method, and the smallest amount funded was $102 for Region 7
one-day educational workshop for high school students
called Conversation on Climate Change. This information
"Externally, we try to limit the is incomPlete; however, because it does not reflect other
burden of an applicant to try to sources of funding from EPA or elsewhere. In some cases,
J
understand different sources of the RGI fundinS was a sma" Portion of overa" fundinS and
funding. RGI is not an externally therefore the project's true cost would be much larger.
branded source of funding. We The extent to which this was the case is not known' At
take on the burden of least one Re8ion did' however, intentionally spread its RGI
combining/assigning resources. fundinS across manY sma" Pr°Jects because jt was
The applicant tells us what the interested in supporting many types of stakeholders, small
problem is, and we work to figure communities, etc.
out the funding."
- RGI Project Officer
In general the question of project funding levels could
warrant further exploration should an RGI-like funding
source be established in the future. Other suggestions
offered in this report, such as prioritizing funding for larger projects to enable identification of results,
could influence the average project amount. Further exploration of how to document "leveraged" funds
or other sources of funding for the same project would also be worthwhile. Doing so is likely going to be
complicated at best, but would be worth the effort if it helped to clarify RGI's unique role as a key
contributor and leveraging "seed money" type of positive driver for other funding.
3.7 Distribution of RGI Projects by Topic
To identify what RGI projects focused on, and in so doing attempt to "decode" at least indirectly how
RGI contributed to the Agency's programmatic work, the evaluators assigned project topics (water, land,
air, toxics, etc.) to each of the 453 RGI projects. Topics could also include the project products or
activities (e.g., monitoring, workshops, etc.) For example, a workshop on indoor air toxics would have
been categorized under the topics air, education, and public health. Therefore, the project topics are
not mutually exclusive.
Of the 453 projects analyzed, 43 did not have an obvious connection to the topics listed; most of these
43 projects were oriented toward administrative or support functions and are therefore captured in the
category, "General Enabling and Support." In some cases the information in the database was not
complete enough for the evaluation team to determine the topic area that the project was intended to
address.
The database analysis results (Figure 13) indicate that RGI projects focused on water and air were the
most common, followed by those that provided general and non-topic specific support (e.g., Geographic
Information Systems, regional communication and outreach, etc.), and environmental management
Page 43
-------
(e.g., Lean manufacturing, Environmental Management Systems, etc.). Projects focused on agriculture,
diesel emissions, toxics, sustainability, and energy were also well represented. In terms of the types of
project activities employed, communications and education and outreach projects (which may have
involved one or more media-based topics), were common. The full list of topic areas identified by the
evaluation team is shown in Table 5.
Figure 13. Topic Area Addressed by RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
n
-------
RGI projects employed and focused on a wide array of activities and approaches to meet project goals.
As Table 6 indicates, approximately half of the RGI projects analyzed employed some form of
workshops, conferences, outreach, education, or training, which was considered as the projects' results.
Table 6. List of General Project Activity / Approach Areas Across RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Collaboration
Education
Information
Monitoring
Partnership Building
Stormwater Monitoring
Communications
Environmental Planning
Leadership Development
Outreach
Records Management
Technical Assistance
These findings support the claim that RGI contributed to each major media area as well as cross-media
work and that a variety of approaches and mechanisms were employed in the process. Although these
findings are consistent with other findings, in the future additional documentation and tracking could
help to clarify the alignment of specific Agency priorities at the national program and regional levels
with specific projects funded through a future RGI-like funding source.
3.8 Distribution of RGI Projects by Geographic Area/Scale
The evaluators examined the geographic distribution and scale of RGI projects to understand the extent
to which RGI supported local versus larger-scale work. A preponderance of local or other small-scale
projects would support the notion that RGI was in fact place-based and addressing local, state, or other
geographically specific needs that might otherwise "slip through the cracks."
The geographic distribution of a project was defined as the area where a project was intended to have
the greatest effect, as opposed to where the project was implemented, although in most cases these
were the same with the exception of conferences, workshops, or meetings implemented at a single
location but focused on other, typically larger, areas. The evaluation team assigned each RGI project
with one geographic identifier using the "geographic region" database field.
Example Project: City Of Chicago - Byproduct Synergy
Product (Waste-to-Profit Project)
FY 2006, Region 5, $84,900
The Waste-to-Profit Project increased awareness of by-
product synergy benefits to over 80 companies in the
Chicago Metropolitan area, many through participation
in the by-product synergy waste-to-profit network. 25
companies reduced their waste by diverting materials
from landfills and 16 companies were able to use the
waste as feedstock. The project quantified 13,551 tons
of waste diverted from landfills, 42,591 tons of reduced
CO2 emissions, and a positive economic impact of
$250,000-$500,000.
Page 45
-------
Figure 14. Geographic Distribution of RGI Projects (FY 2005-2007)
Other*.
10%
County/
Countie
7%
Watershed
10%
EPA Region-
wide
19%
City /Town(s)
33%
State(s)*8
22%
* The "Other" category includes coastal areas, air quality districts, estuaries, highway corridors,
mountain areas, the Pacific Rim, saltwater bays, ports, water basins, rivers, tribal lands, and valleys.
** The "State(s)" category includes one or more - but not all - states within an EPA Region.
Figure 14 displays the findings on geographic
distribution of RGI projects. The largest
percentage of RGI projects (33 percent) was
focused at the city, town, or local municipality
level. This includes projects implemented in
cities of various sizes, projects focused on
multiple cities and projects focused on
specific city neighborhoods. State-level
projects were also common (19 percent).
These included multi-state projects but not all
of the states in the applicable EPA Region.
Projects that were Region-wide were also
well represented (19 percent), followed by
projects that focused on particular
watersheds (10 percent). County-level
projects comprised 7 percent. The remaining
projects (10 percent) focused on a variety of
geographic areas, including includes coastal
areas, air quality districts, estuaries, highway
corridors, mountain areas, the Pacific Rim, saltwater bays, ports, water basins, rivers, tribal lands, and
valleys.
These findings support the general claim that RGI supported small-scale geographically based work.
They do not conclusively indicate that this work could not have taken place without RGI funding, but
when coupled with the other findings described in this report, they do suggest that RGI helped to fill a
gap in support for local, state, and other regionally specific needs that were identified by the Regions.
Example Project: Watershed Sustainability
FY 2006, Region 8, $62,250
The Watershed Sustainability project brought
together numerous stakeholders to define
Sustainability in the context of the Clear
Creek Watershed. The stakeholders
evaluated ecological, economic, and social
values (triple bottom line) as a basis for
assessing watershed Sustainability and
identified tools to evaluate public and private
sector watershed investments. The project
organizers expected to export their results
and processes to other watersheds.
Page 46
-------
3.9 Timing of Funds Obligation and Two-Year Flexibility
Under RGI, EPA Regions were allowed the flexibility to disburse RGI
funds over a two-year period. Many interviewees discussed how
the allocation of funds typically occurred over both fiscal years.
The timing of RGI funding disbursement, particularly considering
that in several Regions funds were often dispersed in the second
fiscal year, was identified by many evaluation participants as an
RGI vulnerability and an area for improvement.
"Using the grant solicitation
process takes substantially
more time but improves
project selection and
ultimately achievement of
results." - RGI Coordinator
Some interviewees expressed concern that it takes too long to
obligate RGI funds, making it appear as if RGI funds were not really needed. A comment made by one
interviewee, "we need to 'Lean' obligation," was echoed in spirit by several other participants. At the
same time, nearly all participants stated a belief that the option of disbursing RGI funds over a two-year
period provided Regions with valuable flexibility. Several participants cited this two-year flexibility as an
important attribute of RGI that enabled Regions to be responsive to emerging issues and emergencies
and to accommodate more time-consuming disbursement mechanisms, such as a competitive grants
process. Many interviewees stated that the two-year funding flexibility was helpful to enable effective
outreach with partners and ensure the careful selection of projects that yield better environmental and
public health results.
Interviewees described several factors that can significantly affect the timing of RGI funds obligation.
"With the way project cycles work with
the Agency [two year flexibility] is
helpful for a number of reasons.
Especially at the beginning stages of a
project, it is often hard with a project
that requires certain sources of money
to adopt and learn and be flexible. You
otherwise may be forced to commit
funds prematurely. I agree that two
year flexibility is helpful for managing
resources."
- National Program Manager
• Delays in federal budgeting. Many
interviewees stated that delays in the
passage of EPA's annual budget often meant
that Regions would not know the amount of
RGI funds available until several months into
the fiscal year, reducing time available to
disburse funds in the first fiscal year.
• Coordination of joint funding from other
parties. Interviewees reported that RGI
funds are often used to leverage or
supplement funding from other parties.
They indicated that it can take significant
time to coordinate joint funding efforts,
particularly when partners' funding cycles
(e.g., state budget processes) are not aligned
with the timing of RGI funds.
• Alignment with regional priorities. Some interviewees explained that their Region held off on
disbursing RGI funds until regional priorities had been set, which often occurs in the first quarter
of each fiscal year. This was done to ensure that grant request for proposal (RFP) guidelines
and/or funding decisions were aligned with regional priorities, in addition to the national RGI
criteria.
• Implementation of a competitive grant process. Most interviewees discussed how competitive
grants processes take longer, in some cases substantially longer, than do other funding
mechanisms such as contracts that access existing contract vehicles, inter-agency agreements,
Page 47
-------
and procurement requests. Regions using a competitive grant process for RGI funds would
typically wait until budgets and regional priorities had been established before developing RFP
guidelines.
Emergency reserve funds. A few interviewees indicated that their Region sometimes
deliberately held a portion of RGI funds into the second fiscal year to enable the Region to be
responsive to emergency funding needs, such as potential emergent threats to public health.
For example, one Region indicated that RGI funds enabled the Region to rapidly respond to
indoor air quality concerns at schools in a low income neighborhood.
Several Regions said that they had been working to improve their
internal processes to speed up obligation so that most or all funds
could be allocated in the first fiscal year of funding. Representatives
from a few Regions described focused efforts to get their
competitive grant process RFPs out earlier in each fiscal year. For
example, EPA Region 8 prepared grant program RFPs in advance of
budget allocations being finalized and indicated in the RFPs that
project award decisions were subject to final appropriations.
Improving the Timing of Funding Obligation
"Sometimes the timing of
the regional decision
making [on RGI funds
allocation] suggests that
RGI is an afterthought or
an emergency reserve
fund." - RGI Coordinator
Participants provided several suggestions for improving the timing of RGI funds disbursement. These
included:
—> Retain the two-year flexibility for disbursement of RGI funds to equip Regions to respond to
emerging issues and emergency funding needs.
—> Designate a portion of the total funds that could be held by Regions for emergency or
"immediate need" purposes in the second funding year.
—> Prepare and issue competitive grant program RFPs before (or soon after) the beginning of the
first fiscal year, even if the final funding amount is not known. Final funding amounts (e.g.,
number of grants or grant amounts) could be adjusted to fit the final RGI budget allocations.
—> Develop an incentive for obligating funds in the first fiscal year, such as reducing subsequent
funding available in the second fiscal year or in future budget years.
—> Apply Lean or other process improvement techniques to clearly map and streamline RGI grant
and funds obligation processes.11
Based on the these findings, it is likely that funding
obligation could be sped up so that most or all of the
funds could be dispersed in the first fiscal year and
that, if needed, a portion of the funding could be
held as an emergency or just-in-time reserve fund
for the second year.
"Outreach with partners takes the
most time."
- Deputy Regional Administrator
See www.epa.gov/lean/admin.html.
Page 48
-------
3.10 RGI Audiences and Communication
"Project by project I'm
not aware of any other
program that gathers
information at this level
of detail."
- Regional Comptroller
Most interviewees indicated that shortcomings related to RGI
information and communications have fueled misperceptions
around RGI and severely limited understanding of RGI results.
This section explores these issues by identifying who RGI's
audiences are and their informational needs; how information on
RGI has been communicated to these audiences; and what kinds
of improvements to information collection, performance
reporting, and other communications needs would likely be
beneficial for any future regional funding source similar to RGI.
RGI Audiences
Assessment of the efficacy of RGI communications requires an understanding of the key audiences who
are likely to have an interest in RGI and its results. Table 7 summarizes the key audiences for RGI
information identified by interviewees, as well as these audiences' typical informational interests.
Table 7. RGI Audiences and their Informational
Audience Key Constituents
Category
I EPA Regional RAs, DRAs, and other
Managers senior regional managers
Interests
Informational Interests
How RGI funds support achievement of
regional and national priorities
How RGI funds address emergency issues
that have potential to significantly affect
public health and environment in the Region
Results/effectiveness of RGI-funded projects
EPA
Headquarters
Leadership
RGIFunds
Recipients and
Partners
EPA Administrator,
Deputy Administrator,
NPMs, and their senior
managers
States, counties, cities,
municipalities,
state and local elected
officials; NGOs; other
organizations in each EPA
Region
How RGI funds support achievement of EPA
Strategic Plan goals and objectives and NPM
priorities and commitments
How RGI funds address emergency issues
that have potential to significantly affect
public health and environment
Results/effectiveness of RGI-funded projects
How RGI funds support regional/state/local
environmental and public health priorities
and needs
Results/effectiveness of RGI-funded projects
Government EPA Press Office and Public
Public Affairs Affairs staff, state and local
public affairs personnel
How RGI funds support
federal/regional/state/local environmental
and public health priorities and needs
Results/effectiveness of RGI-funded projects
Page 49
-------
Table 7, Continued
Audience
Category
Congress and the
White House
Key Constituents
Informational Interests
Congress, Congressional Staff,
Congressional Budget Office,
Office of Management and
Budget,
Government Accountability
Office
How RGI funds support EPA's mandate and
commitments under the Strategic Plan
Whether and how RGI supports unique public
health, environmental, and economic needs
not addressed through other EPA
programs/funding
Results/effectiveness of RGI-funded projects
Interested Public
and NGOs
Interested public,
Government watchdog
groups
How RGI funds support EPA's mandate and
commitments under the Strategic Plan
Whether and how RGI supports unique public
health, environmental, and economic needs
not addressed through other EPA
programs/funding
Results/effectiveness of RGI-funded projects
The section below describes the range of communication activities that have sought to share
information on RGI and its accomplishments with various audiences.
"We didn't do a good job of
speaking the same language with
OMB and the appropriators and
this left impressions that weren't
so favorable."
- National Program Manager
RGI Information Collection and Communication
The primary way that information about RGI spending and
results was gathered was through the RGI database.
Information was entered retrospectively (after the end of
each fiscal year) into the RGI database by each Region's RGI
project officers and/or RGI Coordinator. There were also
separate reporting requirements for some expenditures
such as on grants through the Integrated Grants
Management System (IGMS) and at least a few Regions
have separate Access databases to track multiple funding sources including RGI. Some projects are also
selected for advanced monitoring which requires a detailed write up to be submitted to the grants office
and entered into a national database. Finally, ad hoc information collection was conducted for the
reporting purposes described below.
Interviewees described several ways that the information collected was used to communicate about
RGI-funded work, though not necessarily about RGI itself. Communication activities included:
Regional Executive Team Briefings. In most if not all
EPA Regions, the senior executive team received
periodic briefings on RGI-funded projects and their
results. In some Regions, interviewees reported that
RAs and/or DRAs regularly monitored RGI
implementation and/or progress of RGI funded
projects. Outside of the RGI Coordinators and a select
few other regional RGI contact, each Region's
"One of the challenges is that if
something's not reported it's like
it didn 't occur."
- Regional Program Manager
Page 50
-------
leadership was the most knowledgeable and informed about (its own - not others') regional RGI
activities and results.
EPA Web sites. RGI project summaries are posted on some Regions' Web sites (e.g., Regions 1,
4, and 8). In addition, the Office of Regional Operations maintains a web site with basic
information on RGI (see http://www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htm). Who visits or knows about
these Web sites is unclear.
RGI Highlights Documents. EPA prepared reports on RGI called RGI Highlights in 1998 and 2007.
The 2007 document showcases projects organized around three RGI themes: fostering
sustainable communities and empowered citizens, encouraging innovations and sound science,
and reducing risks. The 1998 RGI Highlights document showcased ten of the 107 projects
supported in 1998, one from each Region. Both Highlights documents are available for
download in PDF format on the EPA RGI web site. Based on the interview results, it is unclear
who received or read these reports. Outside of the RGI Coordinators and national RGI managers
who developed the reports, most stakeholders interviewed were not aware of them, even the
recently published edition, and except for a few of the regional leaders, few evaluation
participants knew about these reports.
RGI Report to Congress. EPA prepared a Report to Congress on RGI in 2008 in response to a
Congressional request.12 The 450-page Report to Congress summarizes information on all
projects funded between FY 2005 - FY 2007 through RGI. A fair number of participants were
aware of this report, but none indicated that they had read it. Several noted that they thought
this report did not effectively communicate RGI's role, practices, accomplishments, etc.
In addition to RGI communication activities and products
described above, participants described communication
activities related to specific projects and initiatives funded
by RGI. Press releases, presentations, and other
communication activities were used to support individual
efforts, although RGI was seldom recognized as a feature
of these communications. Several interviewees indicated
that, around the time that RGI funding was cut, regional
leaders and managers started to increase their efforts to
recognize the role that RGI funding played in projects and
initiatives, during internal Agency meetings.
Who Really Knows About RGI?
These findings show that awareness and understanding of
RGI was strongest within each Region about the RGI-
funded projects in that Region only. Regional leaders and
RGI Coordinators and, at the individual project level, RGI
project managers, were the most knowledgeable. As noted earlier in the report, the evaluators
f
"AAs should pull people from
across programs to talk about a
multi-media model that has
worked and that way you get a
whole lot more with less effort.
Structure it so it met ACS
commitments, and give the Region
enough money, consistently, to
actually fix something. Otherwise,
you don't have any assurance.
There are too many question
marks: Who is responsible? Is it
going to be funded year-to-year?"
- Regional Program Manager
J
The request appeared in H.R. 20643, Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 and House Report 110-187
accompanying the FY 2008 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. It
asked for, at a minimum: (1) the criteria used to allocate the funds to each regional office; (2) the criteria used to
select projects by each Region; (3) a list, by Region, of the projects and amounts funded; and (4) a summary of how
each project met the selection criteria and its accomplishments.
Page 51
-------
observed that the senior managers in all Regions had first-hand knowledge of their Regions' RGI-funded
work, and many had clearly invested their time and energy into RGI-funded projects during their tenure.
Managers at Headquarters reported much less familiarity with the results of RGI-funded projects and
initiatives. One comment made by an interviewee captures the overarching sentiment of many
evaluation participants (particularly EPA Headquarters participants) regarding RGI communication:
"Everyone is aware of RGI but not of its results." Most senior EPA managers (in the Regions and
Headquarters) reported familiarity with RGI and its recent scrutiny and funding cuts, but as discussed
only those in the Regions could identify how RGI funds had been spent and what accomplishments RGI
funds had enabled - and that
knowledge was primarily limited to
their own Regions. Some senior
managers interviewed at Headquarters
had, however, heard about RGI-funded
projects at national EPA meetings
Example Project: Discover a Watershed -The Red
River/Devils Lake Basin
FY 2002*, Region 8, $30,000
(primarily Innovation Action Council
meetings.)
Two other factors appear to have also
confounded RGI communication. First
was confusion about whether RGI was
a program or a funding source. When
RGI was viewed as a funding source, as
it was by most of the regional
participants, efforts to clearly link and
"brand" projects as being RGI were
minimal or an afterthought. Several
participants thought that, as a funding
source, RGI should not have to be
named or otherwise "given credit."
They explained that, if RGI were a
program more name recognition as
well as routine results reporting and
other program-like communication
would have been expected. Second, in
many cases, RGI resources funded only
part (and in some cases a small part) of
many projects. Even though RGI
resources may have played an important role in seeding projects or leveraging other funding sources,
this multiple funding source reality complicated the Regions' ability to "isolate" and feature the
important role that they believe RGI played.
Finally, while the scope of this evaluation did not explore awareness of RGI and the results of RGI-
funded projects among audiences outside of EPA, observations expressed by EPA interviewees suggests
that external awareness of RGI and its accomplishments has been quite low. In addition, interviewees
indicated that there had not been proactive, coordinated, and comprehensive efforts to communicate
about RGI and its results to external audiences. In those instances where external communications have
For the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition, EPA Region 8 worked with Montana
State University to research, develop, publish, and
distribute Discover a Watershed: The Red
River/Devils Lake Basin KIDs (Kids in Discovery
Series) activity booklet. The process of developing
the booklet involved stakeholders throughout the
basin, and the content directly focused on
environmental protection challenges and
opportunities from a basin-wide perspective. The
primary goal of the booklet was to support local,
state, national, and international agencies and
organizations in their respective efforts to inform,
educate, and involve citizens in basin management
programs.
* Most examples included in the report were from
projects conducted in FY 2005-FY2007. This project is
included because it was cited as a noteworthy project
during the interview with Region 8 senior leaders
Page 52
-------
occurred, they were largely in response to external requests for information, such as with the Report to
Congress.
Interviewees therefore indicated on
the whole that communication
activities were insufficient to convey
the role or accomplishments of RGI,
or to address concerns about how
RGI funds were spent. Instead, RGI
had developed a reputation amongst
some at Headquarters based not on
factual information, concrete
examples, or formal RGI
communications, but on what people
had heard second-hand about "slush
fund" decision making. (Note that
the evaluators did not try to inquire
about or define this term;
participants raised it on their own.)
RGI's negative reputation amongst
some at Headquarters was likely
fueled further by the not-well-
understood decision making around
RGI expenditures, by the obscure
EPP category of funds, and by the
use of funds to support general
regional support expenses. In the
end, most interviewees identified
the lack of effective communication
as one of RGI's biggest weaknesses,
and some attributed RGI's budget
cut primarily to the lack of adequate
communication. "Too little too late"
was cited by a few interviewees in
this context.
I Example Project: Lead Free Boston Gardens
FY 2005, Region 1, $25,000
From 2001-2007 the Urban Environmental Program
at EPA New England has competitively awarded RGI
funds to projects that achieve measurable
environmental results through the Healthy
Communities Grant Program. From 2003-2007 the
Healthy Communities Grant Program competitively
awarded 7 grants for innovative lead poisoning
prevention work in Boston. EPA New England
partnered with multiple stakeholders to reduce lead
poisoning, including the City of Boston, Lead Action
Collaborative, and the National Center for Healthy
Housing. One project funded was the Lead Free
Boston Gardens project, which was designed to
improve soil in urban neighborhoods. The project
involved revising GIS maps of over 125 gardens with
improved information, developing remediation
strategies on at least 20 new gardens, and retesting
on 25 previously tested gardens for changes in lead
levels through phytoremediation and composting.
Outreach to community gardeners regarding
pesticide reduction, integrated pest management,
and soil remediation was also conducted. Since
launching joint targeting efforts in 2001, elevated
blood lead levels in Boston children dropped from
1,123 cases in 2001 to 294 cases in 2008.
Improving Information Collection and Communication
The following suggestions were offered to improve RGI communication:
—> Develop a communication plan that starts with identifying the key audiences and their
informational needs.
—> Set clear up-front guidance and expectations on reporting for accountability needs. At the
same time, consider what accountability requirements are reasonable in relation to the scale of
the funding and in the context of a "funding source" instead of a "program." Similarly, balance
the level of effort involved in reporting (for the recipients of the funding as well as for Agency
Page 53
-------
r
"A Web site would be better
than a fact sheet. A place to
go to see where all the RGI
projects are, what is
expected to be achieved, by
when results are expected,
and whether they are on
schedule."
- Deputy Administrator
J
staff) with the benefits that would result. (The
following suggestions would also be considered in light
of these considerations.)
—> Talk about RGI in the terms of how it meets agency
goals and objectives, perhaps by reporting annually on
how the funding aligns with NPM and regional
priorities, and hold meetings between regional leaders
and the NPMs to discuss how RGI projects support the
national programs.
—> Provide guidance and example measures (or at least
categories of measures) as part of the RFPs, lAGs,
contract task orders, etc. to help with identification of
desirable performances measures prior to funding decisions or early on in the project work.
—> Provide more current information on the number and types of projects considered, the
rationale for choosing certain projects, actual projects selected, progress/status of projects
being implemented, and project interim and final results. Real-time communication and
transparency would bring more attention and rigor as well as assure appropriators and EPA
Headquarters budget officers that the funds were being used appropriately.
—> Conduct a yearly conference or workshop for recipients of RGI funds to share project
information, results, and challenges. Consider including a recognition/awards program to
acknowledge RGI accomplishments.
—> Create an RGI Web site that shows what projects are currently underway in each Region,
reports their status, and documents results. (Some noted that this would be more effective
than generating more written reports and materials, particularly if it is kept current.)
—> Develop concise factual information at the national level. This could include a one-page
overview for each Region's work that year and national summary fact sheets.
• Example Project: Blue Skyways Collaborative
FY 2006, Regions 6 & 7, $125,000
The goal of the Blue Skyways Collaborative, established with RGI funds from
Regions 6 and 7, is to improve the quality of life in the central United States by
reducing air pollution through innovations in fuel, equipment, and energy
technology; and through partnerships with stakeholders to identify areas in
which voluntary efforts may achieve greater emission reductions than would be
possible through individual state or local efforts.
As of August 2007, the Collaborative had enrolled 112 partners, each of whom
participated in at least one emission reduction project. Emissions reductions
resulting from this program had as of that time totaled more than 576,000 tons
per, and fuel savings had totaled almost 22 million gallons.
Page 54
-------
4. Options for the Future
The final two overarching evaluation questions were:
• What changes might be appropriate for a regional flexible funding source? and
• What alternative approaches should be considered for addressing flexible regional funding
needs?
Participants were also asked about what would happen if there were no RGI or other equivalent regional
flexible funding and about what they would use regional funding for if funds were in fact available. The
ideas discussed in response to these questions are summarized in this final chapter, which concludes
with a discussion of five general options for future regional funding.
4.1 A Future with No RGI or Equivalent Regional Flexible Funding
Regional participants described how, if no RGI or equivalent
flexible regional funding were available, they would need to ask
NPMs for media/program-based funding for the work previously
supported through RGI. Funding obtained through this route
would be piecemeal and resource-intensive to obtain,
particularly for multi-media needs. Most regional participants
thought that the effort it would take to do so would generally
not be worth it. (The terms "beg" and "unsuccessful" were used
by several regional interviewees in this context.)
"Right now I have no money
to start up a watershed group
in a place that badly needs it
and has community interest."
- Regional Division Director
With few exceptions, the regional participants thought that there would be no money to fund regional
priorities that are not tied to a specific national regulatory mandate. Examples of these types of
priorities included agriculture, non-point source pollution, smart growth and green building, innovative
approaches and technologies, and sustainability. Due to regional differences, some explained, these and
other regional priorities do not typically "compete" well at the national level. They further elaborated
by describing how they thought stakeholder collaboration would be less effective because they would
have fewer or no resources to bring stakeholders together, how non-profit environmental groups would
have reduced opportunities to fund on-the-ground environmental work, and how the Regions would
not be able to address emergencies and short-term needs.
"/ would have to beg, borrow,
and plead to the NPMs to get
funding for the programs that I
felt were most critical multi-
media projects..."
- Regional Division Director
~J
When asked further about what specific projects or types of
projects could not be supported through other funding
mechanisms, the interviewees reiterated the same themes,
citing multi-media projects that address geographic issues,
community-based work and support for sensitive and
underserved populations (non-English speaking communities,
farm workers, Tribes, Pacific Islanders, etc.), and small projects
that are important but are not directly tied to an NPM.
A substantial majority of regional participants were significantly concerned about a future with no
flexible regional funding like RGI provided. One thought that the Regions would be able to find other
sources of funding for the most significant needs, and similarly, another thought that the other available
Page 55
-------
multi-media funding mechanisms, such as those already used by Region 1 under the Health Community
Grant Program could help to fill the "void." Most regional participants, however, including those from
Region 1, did not express any degree of comfort with the other existing multi-media mechanisms,
largely because they do not afford the flexibility that RGI did.
Headquarters participants had a range of perspectives on whether and how regional needs met by RGI
could be met in the future. Participants from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer thought that
flexible ("discretionary") funding would not be an option for the Agency on the whole, and thus both the
Regions and the national programs would have to seek funding exclusively through the existing annual
budgeting process. Other perspectives from Headquarters participants included similar concerns as
those expressed by the Regions - that unique regional needs would not be able to be funded or
addressed - to focusing instead on ideas about how to try to address regional needs through alternative
funding approaches like those described below.
4.2 A Future with Some Kind of Regional Flexible Funding
Regions were also asked to share their thoughts about a future with a RGI-type of funding source.
When asked what they would like to focus RGI-like funding on in the upcoming years, they cited several
ideas, including those listed in Table 8 that reflect some of the common themes of past RGI-funded work
as well as some new specific project ideas. Some participants hesitated to cite specific ideas, however,
perhaps because they had not yet identified the regional priorities that they would want to support
under new Agency leadership or perhaps because they believed there would not be future funding and
thus had not entertained the idea on what they would spend the funding on.
Table 8. Ideas Shared by Regional Participants on Projects that could be Supported by (Hypothetical)
Future Regional Flexible Funding
Analyzing ecosystem services / natural capital
Climate change mitigation
"Green" energy production and development options
Strategies for reducing non-point source pollution
Developing capacity for communities and local governments to address climate change and population growth
Environmental justice work
Estuary programs
Fostering innovative approaches and technologies
GIS work/mapping
Human exposure monitoring
Monitoring water quality
Pilot project to share air quality best practice measures amongst petroleum producers
Ports initiatives
Technical assistance to local governments
US-Mexico border initiatives
Watershed restoration efforts
Page 56
-------
In response to the questions, "To best meet
regional needs, what attributes should a
new flexible regional funding source have?"
and, "What other options or changes for
flexible funding of regional needs do you
recommend?" The common responses
echoed themes and suggestions that have
already been covered in this report. The
most commonly and ardently cited
"attribute" was regional flexibility in
decision making, followed by ideas on how
to promote a consistent and transparent
process that could be tied more clearly to
Agency priorities at the national and
regional levels. Several participants also
reiterated how they thought that improved
communication between the Regions and the
media challenges, innovative approaches, and
r
[Without RGI] "We would not be able (in some
cases) to meet some of our ACS commitments,
especially around asthma, pesticides, lead
poisoning, toxics, chemical risk reduction, and
even some of our tribal assistance and pollution
prevention work. Place-based environmental
protection, like in urban, rural, suburban areas
that have cumulative risks, would suffer. Another
need that is very under-funded is environmental
justice. This is very underfunded, and needs far
o utweigh reso urces. " - RGI Program Officer
J
national programs could improve collaboration on multi-
other RGI-like priorities.
One new theme that arose was the need for regional leadership and representation at Headquarters.
Several interviewees described that a desirable attribute of any potential future regional funding source
is senior leadership and advocacy at EPA Headquarters. They said that a "champion" is needed. This
point was raised most often by regional interviewees, but also by Headquarters interviewees, including
a few NPMs.
With due respect for the current managers at EPA Headquarters who have worked very hard on behalf
of RGI, interviewees discussed how it would help to have more senior-level advocates who fully
understand the important work done by the Regions through RGI and the ongoing need for flexible
regional funding. Most likely this champion would continue to be within the Office of the Administrator,
they said. A few participants noted that several key positions within the Office of the Administrator
which could be logical champions for an RGI-type funding source, such as in OCIR and ORO, have been
vacant for several years. One participant put it this way: "Finally, we must get the Administrator to
understand how important this funding is." Similarly, some interviewees discussed the need for the RAs
and DRAs to strongly argue for continued regional flexible funding.
One interviewee offered the idea of rotating leadership at EPA
Headquarters among the national programs to encourage
"championing" at that level. Another suggested that members of
Congress from the Regions could be advocates.
"Some of it is a trust
issue. Maybe sometime
someone didn 't do
something - and people
have long memories."
- Regional Comptroller
Finally, participants were asked, "If RGI is discontinued, what are
some potential mechanisms and sources for regional funding?
Should the funds be, for example: (a) a specific line item
appropriation? (b) a general tap against Agency EPM? (c) negotiated
contributions from NPMs? or (d) specific taps from the major
NPMs?" Although there was some variation in specific responses,
participants on the whole said that these options would be neither be feasible nor desirable. A line item
appropriation is not feasible, they explained, and the other options all have significant downsides.
Tapping the NPMs would at a minimum set up a negative dynamic between the Regions and
Page 57
-------
Headquarters and most likely be more problematic than if the Regions simply received all their funding
directly from the NPMs in the first place. This option (tapping NPM funding) would also not provide any
continuity from one year to the next and would require disparate reporting to multiple parties for
projects that combined funding sources for multi-media projects. The complexity and "return on
investment" would not be worth it, most respondents thought. A tap on the general Agency EPM might
be the most preferred option, but that, too, would create a negative perception at Headquarters about
the Regions "taking" funds away from Headquarters for their own purposes.
In short, for a regional flexible funding source to be successful in the future, something different than
these options would have to be developed with sufficient buy-in from the Regions, Headquarters
(including the national programs), and appropriators.
4.3 Options for Consideration
"From our point of view,
there is no RGI. We would
not focus on trying to
improve it."
- Headquarters
Participant, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
A summary of hypothetical options given the current Agency
budget realities and the entire set of evaluation findings, are
provided below as a conclusion to this report. First, however, it
should be noted that the evaluation originally was envisioned to
include a set of "recommendations" for future regional funding. In
early 2009, the evaluation team including the EPA evaluation leads
decided that in light of RGI's funding cut, the broader Agency's
budget climate, changes in Agency's senior leadership, etc., it
would be more appropriate to provide a set of general "options"
for future regional funding of this nature instead of explicit
recommendations. Recommendations at this juncture could be
viewed as "putting the cart before the horse" and, instead, general options for the Agency's internal
consideration would be more useful.
Context Underlying the "Options"
Given that RGI funding continued to be zeroed out in the FY 2009 federal Omnibus budget due to
continued concerns from Congress about RGI's scope and purpose, the first "option" for pursuing future
regional funding that resembles the RGI of the past is to decide whether Agency leaders believe that
there is both an argument for and support from within the Agency for pursuing any separate regional
funding for environmental projects that would not come directly through the national programs. The
key questions that need to be answered to decide whether decision makers in the Agency want to
pursue this, and whether a pursuit of this nature would be viable, may be:
1. What precisely are the issues that resulted in RGI's budget being cut? This evaluation was not
designed to answer this question, although the Omnibus language about "continued concerns
about the scope and purpose of the program" in light of insights shared by the participants that
are relayed in this report may have revealed most or all of the underlying issues. These
underlying issues have not, however, been brought forward in a clear manner to all key Agency
stakeholders - and this evaluation report does not attempt to communicate these issues for this
purpose. If the issues are clearly identified and raised with the right stakeholders, starting with
the Congressional appropriators and their staff, the options for resolving them may become
more apparent.
Page 58
-------
2.
Even if the concerns surrounding the RGI are clearly identified and addressed, is there a
justifiable need for flexible regional funding that cannot be met through any other funding
approach? Again, this evaluation was not designed to answer this question directly.
Nonetheless, it was clear that most of the regional participants thought that flexible regional
funding was essential to address the gaps and needs that were served through RGI. This
question may also warrant additional consideration by the key stakeholders.
3.
Could meaningful results from a (hypothetical) future
regional funding source be achieved and demonstrated, and
could such a funding source clearly support the Agency's
national priorities and performance goals? The results of
this evaluation suggest that, yes, these results could be
achieved and demonstrated, though an investment would be
needed to identify viable performance metrics, tie projects
to Agency priorities, report on results in a timely manner,
etc.
"If you require the
Regions to report on
results relative to
agency priorities the rest
will figure itself out."
- RGI Coordinator
4.
Could sufficient transparency and accountability in allocation
and spending be built into a future regional funding source, and could the funding source be
sufficiently large to justify the necessary administrative and accountability overhead? Where is
that tipping point? The results of this evaluation do suggest that sufficient transparency and
accountability could be built in to a future flexible funding source, but that doing so would
require more consistency in regional process and reporting. Also the Agency would want to
consider the "tipping point" question to balance expectations on process, reporting, etc. with
the level of funding per Region, per project, etc.
5. If the above questions and concerns can be clearly answered with a strong "yes," is there
sufficient political will at the Agency to develop a proposal for Congressional appropriators for a
new regional funding source? And if there is, what approach might be most successful for
securing Congressional support and approval (as one interviewee put it, "by an act of God")?
This question is for consideration by the
Agency's leadership.
These questions are intended as "think pieces" to
reflect upon when considering whether and how to
pursue any post-RGI regional funding options in the
future. The evaluators also want to note that they are
not experts on the rules or procedures for establishing
any new Agency programs, funds, etc. The following
options should thus be read as ideas that would need
substantial review, and likely revision, before becoming
truly viable options. Similarly, these options are by no
means the only options for future regional funding of
this nature.
Option 1. A Reinstated RGI with no Major Changes
f
"The Regions have a legitimate need
for flexibility and moving resources
to address the most important
problems that may well differ from
national perspectives. For planning
and strategic planning work for
problems that people in those
Regions see is important. And
there's no way to do this unless
there's a pot of money to do this
with flexibility."
- National Program Manager
The option reflects support for RGI just as it was. Some participants thought that RGI was effective as it
was and that there is not a strong argument for any major structural or procedural change. Most
Page 59
-------
participants, however, thought that the former RGI approach would be a non-starter because, for the
reasons outlined in this report, some changes would be needed to make a future funding source viable
given past concerns and current realities. To begin with, funding for "general regional support needs"
would either need to be clearly separated from environmental priority project work or be eliminated
altogether. Beyond that, additional process improvements would likely be needed, including clear
connectivity to Agency national and regional priorities and improved communication to key audiences to
allay past concerns. These changes alone make a strong case for the viability of other options.
Option 2. A Revamped Regional Flexible Funding Source
f
"We should be more transparent
around what we expect and whether
we are on target with our
expectations ...... Rather than lasso it
in by defining what we can do [with
the funds], define what we can't
do ...... The great thing about this
money is that it really is specific to
the Regions. If you try to carve it up
into how much should go into water
and air and waste it would cut into
its purpose. "
- Deputy Administrator
J
This option could involve:
• eliminating the option of funding general
regional support through this mechanism;
• tuning but not dramatically changing the
national criteria as per the recommendations in
this report
• making decision making and related practices
more transparent and accountable;
• tying projects and their results to Agency
priorities;
• improving communication to key audiences;
and
• otherwise maintaining regional decision-making
flexibility (e.g., on projects funded, funding
vehicles used, size of awards, etc.)
This option would entail making several process and
reporting changes, but would keep the overall role and
function of RGI with the exception of eliminating the option for supporting general regional needs that
are outside of the national criteria. The focus would be more on the process for use of the funds rather
than on what (specific topics) the funds should be spent on. (One way to achieve this, as suggested by
the Deputy Administrator, was to clarify what the funds could not be spent on rather than direct what
they could be spent on.) Other suggestions offered in this report, such as working to speed up fund
obligation in the first year and balancing reporting requirements with the scale and nature of the
funding, would be feasible. Nearly all regional interviewees and a majority of Headquarters
interviewees supported some version of this general option, with some variation on specifics.
Option 3. A National Funding Source for the Regions that is Co-led by Headquarters and the
Regions, and Implemented and Managed by the Regions
A third option could be to institute a regional flexible funding source that is co-directed by the Regions
and Headquarters, but implemented and managed by the Regions. Each year the regional leaders and a
group of Headquarters leaders (possibly including the NPMs) could propose a regional flexible funding
source that would address the kinds of place-based needs, multi-media challenges, and other RGI-like
regional priorities that are not typically funded through the national programs, but that are of interest
to the Agency's larger mission and set of priorities. Parameters for use of the funds could be jointly
established and could include:
Page 60
-------
Establishing jointly agreed upon general
guidelines on the types of projects that
would be funded, but without prescribing
specific topics. One possible approach to
achieve this could be to agree to a process
that links funding decisions to at least one
identified Objective or Sub-objective in the
Agency's strategic plan plus one identified
regional priority.
Establishing procedural guidelines about
funding vehicles, project selection, timing
of funding obligation, reporting, etc.
Establishing what accountability and
internal Agency oversight would entail;
f
"Consistency is the opposite of flexibility
in my view. It would limit our ability to
tailor our projects to the needs of our
Region. [Our Region] has nothing in
common with the [other Regions in other
parts of the country] for example. Some
consistency on some levels for
accountability and tracking purposes
would be okay but not in the topic areas
and more and more criteria."
- Deputy Regional Administrator
J
• Once the above have been agreed upon,
continuing to divide the funds equally among the Regions and leaving implementation,
management, and reporting to the Regions
Those participants who considered this option pointed out that there may be precedents within the
Agency for this kind of approach. However, the existing programs that resemble this general model may
be focused on particular grant programs (e.g., CARE), not on funding sources. It is also unclear whether
this option would address the major concerns raised about RGI in the past or whether the Regions
would be genuinely interested in this option if the "burden" of pursuing it would not be worth the
flexibility and other benefits that they would receive in return.
Option 4. A National Program for Regional
Projects that is Directed by Headquarters and
Competed and Implemented by the Regions
This option would create a program that would
involve substantially more input, management, and
direction from EPA Headquarters. This would not
necessarily be a grant program for either the
Regions or for external entities as funding could
continue to be through other mechanisms,
including support to the Regions themselves for
internal work on regional priorities, as well as for
external parties through multiple funding vehicles
including contracts, grants, etc. Suggestions raised
by participants related to this option included:
r
"At some level if the Agency can 't
persuade the key players at OMB and
politically that this is a valuable source
that should be added back in, I don 't
know that tapping is going to help under
any circumstances. It will probably
decrease the broad support across the
Agency. The best you could probably do
is negotiate with each NPM by showing
how it will be a benefit for their
program. But some projects are across
programs, so then what do you do? It's
a bad solution, but it may be the only
one."
- Deputy Regional Administrator
J
Page 61
-------
Managing the program through a consolidated competition managed at Headquarters.
• Establishing categories of possible projects based on priorities identified by the Regions and
Headquarters (likely including the NPMs). These could include sustainability, innovation,
agriculture, etc.
• Holding part of the funding for emergency regional needs that can be tapped on an "as needed"
basis or only during a second optional funding year.
• Requiring that all projects be aligned with one or more of the national (NPM) measures in the
NPM guidances.
One variation on this option suggested by a participant was holding a fixed amount for each Region to
use in accordance with the guidelines, and competing the remaining funds amongst the Regions. In
general, it is unclear whether this option would actually meet the regional needs that regional
participants repeatedly stated were Region-specific and could not be dictated or pre-identified at the
national level. Further, this option may not be of real interest to the Regions if it entailed a
cumbersome process or was otherwise so regimented and restrictive that the effort would not be worth
the resulting funding (e.g., relatively small-scale funding such as RGI received). On the other hand, this
option may be more likely to work within the accepted annual budget planning process and would also
be more likely to address past concerns than would other options that might "look and feel" to RGI's
critics more like the RGI of the past.
Option 5. All Funding Through the National Programs (i.e., the Current Status Quo)
This option is the same as the current status quo for FY 2009 and FY 2010; that is, there is no RGI and
funding for regional environmental projects is accessed exclusively through the national programs. As
has been described throughout this report, those who participated in this evaluation from the Regions
thought that a variety of regional needs and priorities cannot be funded or advanced under this
scenario. These concerns are summarized at the beginning of this chapter and thus are not repeated
here again.
The current status quo option was favored by
some of the interviewees at Headquarters who
have had the most direct contact with
Congressional appropriators. The primary reasons
for this option, they explained, were first that
appropriators were not going to fund anything that
resembled the RGI of the past (given their views on
RGI to date), and second, that in this time of
significant Agency budget cuts, there would no
longer be any discretionary funding allowed within
the Agency. Instead of a "reinvented" RGI, they
favored administering all regional funding through
national program channels and thought that the
most important regional needs could and should
be funded this way.
"Once the money gets down into the
Regions it's more about how the Regions
can implement the funding based on
Congressional intent for it. There is an
issue of transparency on that. The
congressional staffers are looking for
simple things. If I give you $7 million what
are you going to spend it on ? We don 't
have to say it 18 months in advance but
we have to show a tie between the past
and the future or articulate trends
between past and future."
- Headquarters Participant
Page 62
-------
4.4 Final Observations
The Agency staff who participated in this evaluation felt strongly (one way or another) about RGI. The
regional participants across the board passionately described a need for some kind of RGI-like funding to
do what they view as mission-critical environmental and public health protection work. RGI critics
clearly believed that too much discretion had been exercised with RGI funds and that the expenditures
did not clearly result in accomplishments that supported Agency priorities. Some key audiences have
not been well informed about how the Regions made decisions on spending RGI funds, what were
allowable expenditures, what the funds were actually spent on, or what was accomplished (or not) with
those funds in support of the Agency's priorities.
If the Agency decides to pursue regional funding
of this nature in the future, the regional and
national program leadership would benefit from
coming together to work through the challenges
and tradeoffs in a way that builds trust and
identifies important needs that are not currently
being met through other means. It appears that
the RGI of the past is gone - and a new funding
source or program, complete with a new name
and identity, would need to be born. Most likely,
a collaborative process of identifying ways to meet both national and regional priority needs would
facilitate creative dialogue about how to solve some of the nation's most complicated multi-media
problems, emerging issues, and under-funded environmental needs in a "win-win" manner for the
Agency on the whole and for the environment it is working to protect and restore.
"It's hard to strike the balance between
maintaining flexibility and maximizing other
requirements, but maintaining Regions'
flexibility and identifying funding
opportunities [in advance as part of the next
year's budget proposal] are both musts."
- Headquarters Participant
J
Page 63
-------
c/EFft
July 2009
Evaluation of the
Regional
Geographic
Initiatives
Final Report
Appendices 1-2
Contents
Appendix 1. Evaluation Methodology.
Appendix 2. Methodology Addendum.
.1-1
.2-1
-------
1; Ji
Evaluation of EPA's Regional Geographic Initiatives:
Evaluation Methodology
prepared for:
U.S. EPA OPEI Evaluation Support Division
- and -
U.S. EPA Office of Regional Operations
prepared by:
Industrial Economics, Incorporated
• and -
Ross 6 Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd.
1-1
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 nt rod net ion Pn rposc 1
Evaluation Questions 2
Proposed Steps in Conducting the Evaluation 3
Identify In lorrna lion 1 Jeeds and Prepare lor ! )ala Col lee) ion 3
Colled and Analv/c Data Irom l;'>;islinsi Files. Databases, and I.iferafure 3
Collect ami Anal\/c I)ala Iroin In ten ie\\s and Sur\e\s 3
I dent i i v Interview ees 4
Schedule Inten'iew s 4
Conduct Inter\ leu s 4
1 )ata Manaiiement and Analvsis 5
R(,l Logic Model 5
Prepare 1'inal H\a 1 nation Report 7
Evaluation Limitations 1
Proposed t"valuation Schedule 8
APPENDIX A: INITIAL CONTACT E-MAIL SENT TO INTERVIEWEES 11
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS STAKEHOLDER MATRIX 13
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE INTERVIEW GUIDE 18
1-2
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Regional Geographic Initiatives (RGI) has been a funding source designed to address complex
environmental challenges through integrated, multimedia approaches. EPA has used RGI to support
innovative, place-based projects that reduce risks to human health and ecosystems. RGI projects have
involved a wide range of stakeholders and leveraged resources from federal, state, and private sectors to
find cost-effective solutions to communities' environmental problems. RGI projects have:
• Addressed places, sectors, or innovative projects.
• Been based on a regional, state, tribal, or other strategic plan.
• Addressed problems that are multi-media in nature.
• Filled a critical gap in the protection of human health and the environment.
• Demonstrated state, local, and/or other stakeholder participation.
• Identified opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
Many RGI projects are components of larger Agency programs, and the Regions use RGI to further
Presidential, Administrator, and Agency initiatives such as children's health, watersheds, clean air,
pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship. RGI is unique in that it is the only discretionary
source of funding for the Regions. RGI funding is flexible enough to permit real-time funding decisions,
thereby enabling Regions to apply resources to emerging issues. RGI supporters believe that RGI
substantially enhances the Agency's ability to work collaboratively, test innovative approaches, and
develop tools to solve environmental and public health problems.
Recently RGI has been the subject of inquiries from the White House's Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and Congress regarding the Agency's fund utilization and what results it is
obtaining from funded projects. This program evaluation will help identify existing linkages
between RGI projects and Agency priorities. It will examine the outcomes of RGI-funded work and
whether, how, and to whom these linkages are communicated. Although the evaluation will be
retrospective to some extent, it will largely focus on a prospective assessment of how RGI funds can
be used in the future to achieve the RGI mission and contribute clearly to the Agency's mission-
critical work.
The core evaluation team consists of the contractor, lEc, and subcontractor, Ross & Associates; two
national RGI managers within the EPA Office of Regional Operations (ORO); designated Regional
representatives; and the evaluation lead from the EPA National Center for Environmental Innovation,
Evaluation Support Division. The core team collaborated on the development of this evaluation
methodology. The RGI (Regional) Coordinators also contributed to the evaluation questions and
provided helpful feedback on the evaluation approach.
The results of this evaluation are intended for several audiences, primarily EPA senior leaders, RGI staff
and management, OMB, and interested members of the U.S. Congress. The EPA senior leaders include
the EPA Administrator and Deputy Administrator (DA), National Program Managers (NPMs) and their
Deputies, the EPA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and other senior staff within the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), Regional Administrators (RAs), and Deputy Regional Administrators (DRAs).
RGI staff include the RGI Coordinators and Project Officers in each EPA Region, and the RGI national
managers within ORO. The OMB audiences are those representatives who are responsible for oversight
of EPA's budget. Members of Congress include those who have inquired about RGI in the past or who
may become interested in RGI in the near future.
1-3
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Other secondary audiences who may be interested in the results of this evaluation are EPA Regional
Division Directors, Branch Chiefs, and EPA and non-EPA recipients of RGI funding.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
With input from the RGI Coordinators, the evaluation team developed six overarching evaluation
questions (Exhibit 1) and dozens of sub questions. The overarching questions cover six topic areas: (1)
RGI mission, criteria, and need; (2) RGI implementation; (3) RGI results and accountability; (4) RGI
communication; (5) RGI improvement opportunities; and (6) RGI new approaches. The questions
explore current and past RGI projects and their alignment with RGI criteria and Agency priorities;
however, many of the questions are prospective and focused on developing the RGI of the future. The
questions explore how future RGI-funded projects could achieve identifiable results that are clearly tied to
both RGI criteria and national priorities and how these results can be effectively communicated to the
appropriate audiences.
EXHIBIT 1: OVERARCHING EVALUATION TOPICS AND QUESTIONS
Topic Question:
I. MISSION, CRITERIA and NEED How do RGI Projects Align with the RGI Criteria and Mission and
Reflect Regional and National Goals and Priorities?
II. IMPLEMENTATION What is the Process for Selecting and Funding RGI Projects?
III. RESULTS and ACCOUNTABILITY How are RGI Outcomes and Results Identified and Measured?
IV. COMMUNICATION How are RGI Outcomes and Results Communicated to Different
Audiences and How Could Communication be Improved?
V. IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES What Changes Might be Appropriate for a Regional Flexible
Funding Source?
VI. NEW APPROACHES What Alternative Approaches should be Considered for
Addressing Flexible Regional Funding Needs?
Each overarching question has several more specific, detailed questions. Different groupings of these
specific questions will be directed toward particular stakeholder groups according to the stakeholders'
relative familiarity with RGI, relationship to RGI, position, etc. Some stakeholder groups will be asked
more or different questions than others. The question-stakeholder matrix in Appendix C shows which
stakeholder groups will be asked each of the specific questions.
PROPOSED STEPS IN CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION
The three broad steps anticipated for this evaluation are: Collecting and analyzing data from existing files,
databases, and literature; collecting and analyzing data from telephone interviews and on-line surveys;
and reporting results and conclusions. The discussion below describes the approach to these steps in
detail.
Identify Information Needs and Prepare for Data Collection
1-4
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Information needed for the evaluation will be both objective, such as project facts and funding amounts,
and subjective, such as individuals' knowledge and perspectives. The information needed is available
through existing sources, described below, and by interviewing key stakeholders. Some information, for
example project and financial information from the RGI database, will allow for modest quantitative
analysis; however, most of the information will be qualitative in nature, based on individuals'
experiences, perspectives, and opinions.
Collect and Analyze Data from Existing Files, Databases, and Literature
Existing information sources will be provided by EPA. These include:
• The RGI database;
• 2007 Highlights Document: Regional Geographic
Initiatives: Enhancing Environmental
Stewardship for Future Generations;
• 2008 RGI Report to Congress; and
• Miscellaneous RGI data and information supplied
by ORO; e.g., organizational charts, RGI "State
of the Region" document, etc.
Additional sources, such as project reports or fact sheets,
may be supplied by interviewees at their own suggestion
during the interviews. All information sources will be
considered when conducting the data analysis and
developing the final evaluation findings and
recommendations.
Collect and Analyze Data From Interviews and
Surveys
The evaluation results will be largely based on answers to
the evaluation questions gathered during a series of
interviews with EPA current and, in a few cases, retired
staff. Interviews will be conducted by phone with the
exception of those in Seattle that can be conducted in person where the evaluation team contractors are
located and no travel expenses will be incurred. Most interviews will be one hour long, with exceptions
for some senior managers at EPA Headquarters; in those cases, the interviews will be 30 minutes.
Tapping the deep knowledge held by the RGI Coordinators would necessitate longer interviews for this
evaluation. Rather than hold two- to three-hour interviews, the Coordinators requested to answer their
questions through a written survey. Ross & Associates will develop this survey on line using Survey
Monkey and will send a link to the survey via e-mail to the Coordinators, allowing at least one week for
survey completion. Ross & Associates or lEc will follow up with the Coordinators by phone as needed
(for instance, to clarify a response).
Identify Interviewees
EXHIBIT 2. STAKEHOLDER
INTERVIEWEE GROUPS
EPA REGIONS:
- Regional Administrators
- Deputy Regional Administrators
- Assistant Regional Administrators
- Deputy Assistant Regional
Administrators
- RGI Coordinators
- Division Directors
- Branch Chiefs
- RGI Project Officers
- Regional RGI Project Managers
EPA HEADQUARTERS:
- Office of the Administrator (including
ORO and the Office of Grants and
Debarment)
- Office of the Chief Financial Officer
- National Programs (OW, OAR, OPPTS)
- Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation
1-5
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Interviewees were identified from several EPA stakeholder groups, listed in Exhibit 2. The specific
individuals who will be invited to participate are listed in Appendix A. The interviewee list is based on
recommendations made by RGI Regional Coordinators and national managers. The Coordinators
recommended interviewees following a set of general, agreed upon guidelines and their unique
knowledge of the RGI organizational structure and key staff members in each Region. Based on the
suggestions from the Coordinators, interviewees in some Regions will have group interviews, though
most will have one-on-one interviews.
Schedule Interviews
Ross & Associates will schedule the interviews using contact information supplied by EPA. OCIR and/or
the RGI Regional Coordinators will provide a notice to interviewees, including a description of the
evaluation, prior to Ross & Associates initiating interview scheduling (See Appendix B: Initial Contact E-
Mail Sent to Interviewees). Once the interviews are scheduled, Ross & Associates will send confirmation
messages, logistics, and applicable interview guides to each interviewee. Ross & Associates will also
send a weekly update on interview scheduling status to lEc and the EPA evaluation team.
Conduct Interviews
At the beginning of each telephone interview, Ross & Associates will briefly describe the purpose of the
evaluation and interview format. Ross & Associates will also outline the following assumptions and
expectations:
• Interview notes will be taken during the interviews, but not included in the final evaluation
report or provided to interviewees for their review. Any specific quotes that will be used as
examples in the final report will, however, be sent for review to the relevant interviewees to
ensure accurate communication of ideas. (Written submissions from the Coordinators will not
be sent back to the source for review.)
• Interview notes may be provided to the EPA members of the evaluation team upon request, but
not circulated beyond that group.
• Interview notes will not be anonymous, though individual names will not be used in the final
evaluation report. EPA Regions and Offices and stakeholder groups (e.g., RGI Coordinators)
will be named in the final report.
Ross & Associates will conduct the telephone interviews based on the interview guides for each
stakeholder group (see Appendix C: Interview Guides). Ross & Associates will be the only party on the
phone other than the interviewees, though lEc may join certain calls for first-hand knowledge of the
interview process and stakeholder feedback. Interviews will directly follow the questions in the interview
guides; however, interviewees who skip ahead to other topics/questions will be allowed to continue as
long as all questions are answered during the course of the interview. Ross & Associates will facilitate
the interviews to ensure they remain focused and do not exceed the allocated interview time.
If needed, interview guides will be adjusted to meet the needs of any group interviews that include more
than one category of interviewee (e.g., RAs and DRAs together). In these cases, Ross & Associates will
clearly document interviewee participation to ensure clarity of information sources during the data
analysis phase.
Data Management and Analysis
1-6
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Ross & Associates will take notes during the interviews, and the Coordinator surveys will be submitted
and exported using Survey Monkey. Ross & Associates will enter the results of the interviews and
EXHIBIT 3. LOGIC MODEL KEY COMPONENTS
Resources: the basic inputs of funds, staffing, and knowledge dedicated to the program.
Partners: other Agencies and organizations that contribute toward shared program goals.
Activities: the specific procedures or processes used to achieve program goals.
Outputs: the immediate products that result from activities and are often used to measure short-term progress.
Customers: groups and individuals targeted by RGI funding and associated activities and outputs.
Short-Term Outcomes: changes in awareness, attitudes, understanding, knowledge, and skills resulting from
outputs linked to RGI.
Intermediate Outcomes: changes in behavior that are broader in scope than short-term outcomes. Intermediate
outcomes often build upon the progress achieved in the short-term.
Long-Term Outcomes: the overarching goals of the program.
surveys into a database for sorting, analysis, and exporting/reporting. Results will be sorted by EPA
Region and stakeholder group, at a minimum, and some responses will also be sorted by additional detail
(e.g., all "yes" responses to a particular question) to further explore information patterns. Common
themes and notable outliers will be identified from the interviews and surveys and analyzed to draw
conclusions for the final report. Additional information from the existing written sources will also be
considered and included as appropriate in the database and as material for the final report. To the extent
possible, information provided by stakeholders will be corroborated by information in the RGI database
and other written materials, and instances where the existing information and interview results support or
contradict each other will be noted. Incongruities or inconsistencies in stakeholder perspectives will also
be noted, analyzed, and resolved where possible. lEc and Ross & Associates will draw final conclusions
based on the entire set of inputs (existing information, interviews, and surveys), including an analysis
both within each overarching question area and across all overarching questions.
RGI Logic Model
Logic models illustrate a program's design, including inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Logic models are
often developed at the beginning of program evaluations to inform evaluation questions. Although the
same topics covered in logic models are also covered in this evaluation's overarching questions and sub
questions, the evaluation team decided to develop a formative, prospective logic model after data
collection and analysis are completed. A future-looking logic model will be more useful than a
retrospective model because RGI is currently undergoing change and the evaluation results, including a
logic model, could help to inform this change. The prospective logic model will look ahead at how RGI's
inputs, outputs, and outcomes can be clearly articulated in the future. As described in Exhibit 3, the key
components of the model include resources, partners, activities, outputs, customers, and outcomes (short,
medium, and long-term).
Exhibit 4, below, shows the basic visual structure of the logical model framework. During the report
development stage of the evaluation, each box will be filled in to create the prospective RGI logic model.
1-7
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Exhibit 4: Logic Model - Visual Framework
Outcomes
• uunumeb
Resources
Activities
Outputs
Customers
Short-Term
Intermediate ;
;
Long-Term
1-8
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Prepare Final Evaluation Report
The final stage of the evaluation will
focus on developing the final evaluation
report based on the identified
conclusions. The final report, outlined in
Exhibit 5, will be framed around the
overarching evaluation questions.
Following an executive summary,
introduction, and overview of the
methodology, the report will cover the
results for each of the overarching
evaluation questions. Notable patterns
identified in the results - for instance,
different perspectives expressed by
Regions or stakeholder groups - will be
identified in the discussion of results in
the report.
EXHIBIT 5. PRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF THE FINAL
REPORT
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
2.1. Background on RGI
2.2. Purpose/Objectives of the Evaluation
2.2.1. Evaluation questions (interview questions
appended)
2.3. Structure of the Report
3. Methods
3.1. Rationale for Interview-Based Method
3.2. Selection of Interviewees
3.3. Interview Approach
3.4. Data Management and Analysis
3.5. Strengths and Weaknesses of Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Summary of Interview Findings by Overarching
Question
4.1.1. Major themes by stakeholder group
4.1.2. Major themes by Region/HQ office
4.1.3. Other identified themes
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1. Summary of Conclusions
5.2. Recommendations
Options for Near-term Actions
6.1. List of Options for Near-term Actions
5.
6.
To the extent doing so will support the
evaluation results and conclusions, a
discussion of stakeholder feedback for
individual sub questions will be included
in the final report. An exhaustive
explanation of the results for each sub
question will not be developed as that
level of detail is not needed to "capture"
the thematic and notable responses to
the questions or support the final conclusions and recommendations. In addition, a detailed, question
by-question (and sub question by sub question) response tally for each stakeholder group, Region, etc.
would be very long and cumbersome to read, adding at least an additional 50 pages to the report, and
possible as much as an additional 100 pages. The contractors will be prepared, however, to answer
questions about the stakeholder feedback and corresponding conclusions drawn from any of the sub
questions.
Following the discussion of results, the report will provide recommendations, a proposed RGI logic
model, and options for near-term actions following the conclusion of the evaluation.
1-9
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS
There are a few potential limitations to the evaluation. One limitation is that the conclusions will largely
be drawn by individuals' perspectives and opinions. In some cases, the subjective information will be
based in fact but in other instances perceptions may not be consistent with or supported by objective,
factual information. Another possible limitation is confusion by interviewees about the difference
between RGI and EPP funded projects and resulting difficulty in drawing accurate conclusions based on
erroneous understandings of these categories. One other limitation is the challenge of assessing diverse
regional projects and needs in a single uniform framework and logic model.
PROPOSED EVALUATION SCHEDULE
The proposed evaluation schedule begins in early December, 2008 and ends in April, 2009. Much of the
groundwork for the evaluation, including development of the evaluation questions and substantial
discussions about the evaluation methodology, took place during October and November, 2008,
allowing for a quick launch of the interviews in early December. The proposed schedule includes some
level of detail during the December-January time frame. Additional schedule details for the spring
report writing period will be provided closer to that time.
TABLE 2. PROPOSED EVALUATION SCHEDULE
December 1
December 2
December 2
December 3
December 4
December 4
December 5
December 5
December 8
December 8
December 9
Evaluation team call. OCIR/OPEI give verbal and/or written feedback
on draft evaluation methodology to lEc/Ross
Ross begins scheduling interviews
EPA sends final question-stakeholder matrix to lEc/Ross
lEc/Ross sends updated draft evaluation methodology to EPA
EPA sends comments on updated draft methodology to lEc/Ross
Ross makes changes and sends pre-final methodology to EPA
Ross sends interview guides to interviewees
Ross sends draft Survey Monkey instrument (Coordinator survey)
evaluation team leads for review
to EPA
EPA sends final comments on methodology and Ross finalizes
methodology
Ross available to begin interviews
EPA evaluation team leads provide any needed feedback on the
Monkey instrument
Survey
1-10
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
December 10
December 19
December 1 5
December 1 8
January 5
Mid January
January
January 12
January (mid)
January (mid?)
January (after DRA call)
February
February (end of)
March (early)
March (mid /end of)
March /April
Ross finalized the Survey Monkey instrument and sends to the
Coordinators
Coordinator deadline for completing the survey on line
Evaluation team call
RGI national conference call
Evaluation team call
Ross completes interviews
Data analysis
Evaluation team call
RGI national conference call to discuss early analysis findings
Call with DRAs to discuss early analysis findings
Evaluation team call
Draft program evaluation report to OCIR/OPEI/RGI Coordinators
Feedback on draft report compiled by OCIR/OPEI and sent to lEc/Ross
I Ec/Ross send revised draft/pre-final report to EPA
Comments on revised draft/pre-final report compiled by OCIR/OPEI
and sent to lEc/Ross
Final program evaluation report
1-11
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
APPENDIX A: INITIAL CONTACT E-MAILS SENT TO INTERVIEWEES
Message to Regional Interviewees
From: Judy Kertcher
Sent: 11/26/2008
Subject: Fw: Regional Interviewee email
As you know, Office of Regional Operations (ORO) is evaluating the Regional Geographic Initiatives
(RGI). The primary purpose of this evaluation is to look at the contributions made from RGI funds to the
Agency's mission-critical work and to belter prioritize spending to achieve important outcomes. The
scope of the evaluation will include a retrospective analysis of what was done in the past as well as a
prospective look at future policy direction for such a fund.
Through funding provided by the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Industrial Economics,
Incorporated (lEc), a private consulting firm, is working with ORO to implement the evaluation. lEc and
its subcontractor, Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting (Ross & Associates), will base evaluation
findings on information gathered through interviews with EPA Regional managers and staff involved in
the administration of RGI funds. The lEc-Ross & Associates team also will interview Headquarters
individuals who have some knowledge or experience with RGI.
You have been identified as a candidate for an interview because ORO and your Regional Coordinators
believe that your perspective on RGI funding would be very important to this evaluation. We are hoping
you are willing to participate in this research. We anticipate that interviews will take approximately one
hour of your time. The interviews will provide an opportunity for you to offer your perspective and help
shape the future of RGI.
An lEc-Ross and Associates team representative will contact you within two weeks to schedule a
mutually convenient time for an interview. In preparation for your interview, lEc will send you the
interview questions in advance. Interviews will likely be conducted from early December through mid
January, and a draft report is expected early next spring.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Denise Dickenson at 202-564-2784.
Message to Headquarters Interviewees
From: Kertcher.Judy@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kertcher.Judy@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008
To: [Headquarters Interviewees]
Cc: Anna Williams; Dickenson.Denise@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: Request for Interview as part of RGI Program Evaluation
1-12
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
The Office of Regional Operations (ORO) is working with OPEI to conduct a Program Evaluation of the
Regional Geographic Initiatives (RGI). The primary purpose of this evaluation is to look at the
contributions made from RGI funds to the Agency's mission-critical work and to belter prioritize
spending to achieve important outcomes. The scope of the evaluation will include a retrospective analysis
of what was done in the past as well as a prospective look at future policy direction for such a fund.
Through funding provided by the OPEI, Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), a private consulting
firm, is working with ORO to implement the evaluation. IEc and its subcontractor, Ross & Associates
Environmental Consulting (Ross & Associates), will base evaluation findings on information gathered
through interviews with EPA Regional managers and staff involved in the administration of RGI funds.
The IEc-Ross & Associates team also will interview Headquarters individuals who have some knowledge
or experience with RGI.
You have been identified as candidate for an interview because we believe that your perspective on RGI
funding would be very important to this evaluation. We are hoping you are willing to participate in this
research. We anticipate that interviews will take approximately one hour of your time. The interviews
will provide an opportunity for you to offer your perspective and help shape the future of RGI.
An IEc-Ross and Associates team representative will contact you within two weeks to schedule a
mutually convenient time for an interview. In preparation for your interview, IEc will send you the
interview questions in advance. Interviews will likely be conducted from early December through mid
January, and a draft report is expected early next spring.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 202-564-3103 or Denise Dickenson at 202-564-2784.
Attachment:
(See attached file: RGI Evaluation Interviewees_Nov24.doc)
Judy Kertcher
Acting Director
Office of Regional Operations
phone: (202)564-3103
fax: (202) 501-0062
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTION-STAKEHOLDER MATRIX
The question-stakeholder matrix below includes all of the evaluation overarching questions, specific
questions, and, in some instances, sub questions, With input from the RGI Coordinators, the evaluation
team developed this matrix to match questions with appropriate stakeholder groups, and ensure that a
reasonable set and number of questions would be asked of each group. The team used their best
professional judgment to refine the matrix over several iterations. Based on this final matrix, a set of
interview guides were developed for each group. Each guide consists of the questions being asked of
each group in one sequential list. An example interview guide is provided below following the question-
stakeholder matrix.
1-13
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
QUESTION-STAKEHOLDER MATRIX
QUESTIONS
RGI COORD
2
2
0
2
<
o
^
2
<
2
X
cT
0
2
o
o
2
o
3
<
o
NPM/DAA
1. MISSION, CRITERIA and NEED: How do RGI Projects Align with the RGI Criteria and Mission and
Reflect Regional and National Goals and Priorities?
1 . Are you familiar with the RGI national
mission and criteria? (If not, the
interviewers will describe them.)
2. Are the national RGI mission and
criteria on target? If not, how would you
suggest they change?
3. What regional needs/wants are being
met by RGI that are not already
captured in the RGI national criteria
(even though they may be wants or
needs that should or could have been
funded elsewhere)? (Examples could be
multimedia work, conferences, etc.)
4. Does your Region have separate
(regional) RGI criteria? If so, what are
they?
5. To what extent are RGI projects aligned
with (national and regional) RGI
criteria?
6. Did EPP in the Region ever have its own
selection criteria? (Yes/No) If so, what
were they?
7. Do RGI (and EPP) projects align with the
Agency's national Strategic Plan goals
and objectives? (Specifically, Strategic
Plan Goal 4, Sub-objective 2? Or
another specific place within the
Strategic Plan?)
8. Do RGI projects align with the proposed
four 2009-2014 Strategic Plan Update
priority areas (or would they, if funding
is secured)?
9. How could regional projects be better
aligned with and support RGI criteria
and regional and national goals and
priorities?
Subtotal Number of Questions
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
V
s\
x
9
X
X
x
3
X
X
X
x
4
X
X
X
x
4
X
X
x
x
4
X
X
x
3
x
X
X
X
x
x
s\
x
7
X
X
2
X
Y
A
x
3
II. IMPLEMENTATION: What is the Process for Selecting and Funding RGI Projects?
1 . What is your Region's process for
selecting RGI and EPP-funded projects?
x
s\
x
s\
x
s\
x
s\
I
COORD = RGI Coordinator, RA = Regional Adnnn^ator, DRA = ^^ Regional Administrator, ARA = Assistant Regional
Administrator, DARA = Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator, DD = Division Director, BC = Branch Chief, PO
= Project Officer, OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer, OA = Office of Air, ORO = Office of Regional
Operations, DA = Deputy Administrator, NPM = National Program Manager, DAA = Deputy Assistant
Administrator
1-14
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
QUESTIONS
2. How have the national RGI criteria (and
regional, if applicable, criteria or
priorities) influenced project selection?
3. When the Region used the RGI criteria
how did the project selection change
(versus not using the criteria)?
4. How have the Agency's national goals
and objectives / priorities affected
project selection?
5. Does the Region have an established
process for setting regional priorities
(not specific to RGI)? If so, how does
this process affect project selection,
timing, etc.? Is RGI one of the ways
that the Region funds regional
priorities?
6. How are funding decisions for selected
RGI projects made (i.e., amounts of
funds for each project)?
7. Where does RGI and EPP coordination
live within the regional offices? How
does this organization affect project
selection, implementation, reporting,
etc.?
8. What funding mechanisms are used for
distributing RGI funds by the Region
(e.g., grants, contracts, lAGs,
cooperative agreements, procurement
requests)?
8a. How does the Region determine which
funding mechanism to use?
8b. How does the funding mechanism
influence project selection, timing, etc?
9. What is the timing of the RGI project
selection and funding process?
9a. How does this timeline align across
Regions and with other EPA budget and
planning processes?
10. Is the two-year flexibility important to
the Region? Why /why not?
10a. Are there any challenges with the two-
year flexibility in terms of identifying
funding needs, timing of funding
decisions or allocation, etc.?
11. Is improvement needed in the selection
and management of specific projects to
better achieve outcomes? If so, how
could these be improved?
RGI COORD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
s\
X
V
/\
(x)
X
2
X
£
0
X
X
V
/\
X
£
2
**>
2
<
X
X
2
£
cT
o
X
2
8
X
§
o
3
X
X
<
o
X
2
O
•*>
|
V
/\
X
1-15
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
QUESTIONS
Subtotal Number of Questions
III. RESULTS and ACCOUNTABILITY: How are
1 . What is the driving force that leads
regional staff and, where applicable,
external parties to ask for RGI funding?
2. What are the main accomplishments of
RGI -funded work?
2a. What are the outcomes (results)?
2b. What are the outputs
(activities /actions )?
3. How does the RGI database gather
information on RGI -funded projects? Is
this approach effective and efficient?
Are additional changes needed to the
database to maximize program
evaluation, efficiency for reporting
progress, and documenting results?
4. Are the outcomes and outputs of RGI
projects identified and measured other
than in the RGI database? If so, how?
5. What are the regional and national
performance measurement needs at the
project, (regional) initiative, and RGI
levels?
6. Are baseline data needed and available
to demonstrate results or trends over
time?
7. For those projects that don't require it,
are desired /anticipated outputs and
outcomes identified as part of the
project application and/or selection
process? If not, would this be desirable?
8. What is the right timeline for measuring
RGI results? Does this depend on the
type of work (e.g., pilots, grants,
workshops, etc.)?
9. What (other) RGI design improvements
could help to better identify and
account for RGI outcomes and other RGI
achievements?
Subtotal Number of Questions
RGI COORD
11
2
2
£
0
5
RGI Outcomes and
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
V
S\
X
X
x
X
9
X
1
X
V
S\
X
3
£
2
**>
2
<
4
2
X
cT
o
1
2
8
1
Results Identified
X
V
S\
X
3
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
V
S\
X
X
x
X
9
IV. cOAAAAUNICAflON: How are RGI Outcomes and Results Communicated to
X
X
(x)
(x)
x
s\
x
X
5
§
o
3
3
<
o
1
2
O
•*>
|
2
and Measured?
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
x
s\
X
x
X
8
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
3
Different Audiences
X
X
X
3
and
How Could Communication be Improved?
1 . Who are the "audiences" for RGI
results?
2. How have RGI outcomes and results
been communicated to different
audiences?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1-16
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
QUESTIONS
3. How should EPA get the word out among
key audiences about the value of RGI
funding; that RGI is funding important
projects?
4. Who else, if anyone, needs to know
about this program to advocate for it
effectively?
5. How specifically have you used the RGI
database to communicate results?
5a. Do you have specific suggestions for
improvement of the RGI database to
communicate RGI results?
6. What other improvements to
communication for RGI -type projects
could be made?
Subtotal Number of Questions
RGI COORD
x
s\
X
x
s\
X
5
•
0
0
X
3
**>
0
2
cT
o
X
s\
X
s\
X
5
2
8
x
s\
X
X
5
2
o
3
x
s\
X
x
s\
X
5
o
x
s\
X
4
o
X
s\
X
X
4
____^^
Funding Source?
1 . What changes are needed to make a
flexible regional funding mechanism
more effective and efficient in
supporting regional needs?
2. How does RGI gain credibility when it is
not linked to a national program?
3. What would help make RGI work
effectively and efficiently at the
national scale?
3a. What type and degree of consistency is
appropriate across regions for RGI?
Should consistent criteria for project
selection, project timing, funding,
reporting, and communication be
applied among all Regions?
4. How would consistent criteria for
project selection, funding, reporting,
and communication work in the Region?
4a. What should those criteria be?
4b. How could we apply these criteria and
still allow for the greatest flexibility?
5. What would happen if there were no
RGI or other equivalent regional flexible
funding? What types of projects and
initiatives could not easily be addressed
through other mechanisms?
6. What are some critical regional needs
that could in the future benefit from
regional funding?
X
x
s\
X
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
s\
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
s\
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
X
x
s\
X
X
X
x
s\
X
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
X
x
X
1-17
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
QUESTIONS
6a. What results would you anticipate
obtaining from funding this work?
7. What RGI best practices (not already
covered) could be shared among and
implemented by the Regions?
Subtotal Number of Questions
RGI COORD
(x)
X
8
2
(x)
3
£
0
(x)
X
6
£
2
**>
2
<
3
2
£
cT
o
(x)
X
7
2
8
4
§
O
3
(x)
X
8
<
o
(x)
X
3
2
O
•*>
|
x
3
VI. NEW APPROACHES: What Alternative Approaches should be Considered for Addressing Flexible
Regional Funding Needs?
1 . To best meet regional needs, what
attributes should a new flexible regional
funding source have?
a. Should it be a funding source or a
grant-type program? What types of
criteria and accountability are most
appropriate?
2. What, if any, different fund allocation
strategies should be considered (e.g.,
focus on specific regions or initiatives)?
3. What are the relative priorities and
needs between funding for general
regional support and RGI-type project
resources?
4. Is it possible you might choose not to
pursue RGI-type funding if there were
too many "strings" or criteria attached?
Can you provide us with examples of
the type of criteria that might lead you
to this conclusion?
5. If RGI is discontinued, what are some
potential mechanisms and sources for
regional funding? Should the funds be,
for example:
a. a specific line item appropriation?
b. a general tap against Agency EPM?
c. negotiated contributions from NPMs?
d. specific taps from the major NPMs?
6. What other options or changes for
flexible funding of regional needs do
you recommend?
Subtotal Number of Questions
TOTAL NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
X
X
V
S\
X
s\
X
X
6
48
X
Y
s\
X
X
4
13
X
X
x
/\
x
s\
X
X
6
27
X
X
x
/\
x
s\
X
X
6
20
X
X
2
28
X
X
X
X
4
22
X
X
X
X
4
35
x
X
2
15
X
X
X
3
18
1-18
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE INTERVIEW GUIDE
Regional Geographic Initiatives (RGI) Program Evaluation
Interview Guide for the Deputy Administrator
A Note to Interviewees:
A member of the evaluation contractor team from Ross & Associates will ask the
questions below during your telephone interview. The interview is not intended to be
a test of your knowledge of RGI. Rather, the evaluation is designed to collect data
based on your knowledge of and experience and familiarity with the RGI program. As
such, we respectfully request that you let the interviewers know if you are not familiar
with the subject of particular questions, and we will skip the question. Similarly, it is
not necessary for you to do any preparatory research on RGI prior to the interview.
Interviewee names will not be used in the final report. Patterns in the responses (e.g.,
"most interviewees described X,Y,Z...") will be identified, and where applicable and
appropriate, relevant EPA offices, stakeholder groups (e.g., "RGI Coordinators
observed that..."), and Regions will be identified by name.
If you have any questions, please contact Anna Williams or Andy Chinn, Ross &
Associates (206-447-1805) or Denise Dickenson, Office of Regional Operations (202-
564-2784).
TOPIC AREA I: MISSION, CRITERIA, AND NEED
Overarching Question: How do RGI Projects Align with the RGI Criteria and Mission
and Reflect Regional and National Goals and Priorities?
1. Are you familiar with the RGI national mission and criteria? (If not, the interviewer will
describe them.)
2. Are the national RGI mission and criteria on target? If not, how would you suggest they
change?
TOPIC AREA II: IMPLEMENTATION
Overarching Question: What is the Process for Selecting and Funding RGI Projects?
1. Is improvement needed in the selection and management of specific projects to better
achieve outcomes? If so, how could these be improved?
TOPIC AREA III: RESULTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
1-19
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
Overarching Question: How are RGI Outcomes and Results Identified and
Measured?
1. What is the driving force that leads regional staff and, where applicable, external parties
to ask for RGI funding?
2. What are the main accomplishments of RGI-funded work?
a. What are the outcomes (results)?
b. What are the outputs (activities/actions)?
3. What RGI design improvements could help to better identify and account for RGI
outcomes and other RGI achievements?
TOPIC AREA IV: COMMUNICATION
Overarching Question: How are RGI Outcomes and Results Communicated to
Different Audiences and How Could Communication be Improved?
1. Who are the "audiences" for RGI results?
2. How have RGI outcomes and results been communicated to different audiences?
3. How should we get the word out among key audiences about the value of RGI funding;
that RGI is funding important projects?
4. Who else, if anyone, needs to know about this program to advocate for it effectively?
TOPIC AREA V: IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Overarching Question: What Changes Might be Appropriate for a Regional Flexible
Funding Source?
1. What changes are needed to make a flexible regional funding mechanism more effective
and efficient in supporting regional needs?
2. What are some critical regional needs that could in the future benefit from regional
funding?
a. What results would you anticipate obtaining from funding this work?
3. What RGI best practices (not already covered) could be shared among and implemented
by the Regions?
TOPIC AREA 6: NEW APPROACHES
Overarching Question: What Alternative Approaches should be Considered for
Addressing Flexible Regional Funding Needs?
1. To best meet regional needs, what attributes should a new flexible regional funding
source have?
a. Should it be a funding source or a grant-type program? What types of criteria and
accountability are most appropriate?
1-20
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 1
2. What other options or changes for flexible funding of regional needs do you recommend?
FINAL QUESTION:
1. Do you have any final "closing thoughts" or recommendations regarding the overarching
questions, sub questions, or RGI in general?
Thank you for participating!
1-21
-------
Logic Model
The evaluation methodology describes plans to develop a prospective logic model for a future regional
funding source to include in the evaluation's final report. Over the course of the evaluation, it became
clear that there was no near-term funding of this nature available, and also that people within the
Agency had a variety of perspectives on how future funding of this nature would and would not work. As
such, the evaluation team decided that it would be premature to develop even a prospective logic
model, and instead opted to include the options for the future that are included in the final section of
the report.
RGI Data Set
This section describes the procedures used by the evaluation team to reconcile information gaps in the
RGI data set as provided by EPA.
Due to the significance of the RtC with respect to the RGI Program, the evaluation team concluded that
the information downloaded from the RGI database should correspond as closely as possible to the
information in the RtC. The first step in this process was to exclude all projects outside of the years
reported in the RtC (2006-2008). The next step was to fill in data gaps and address discrepancies
between the two data sources.
The final analysis of the RGI database covered 453 discreet projects that were funded between FY 2005
and FY 2007 (Table 1). These projects match those in the Report to Congress except that some
additional information has become available since the Report to Congress and some other project
adjustments were needed to do the analysis as is explained below:
1. Providing more information about "Planned Activities"
Additional detail became available for four "Planned Activities" line items2 in the Report to Congress
for planned expenditures in FY 2007. These line items were placeholders for projects that Regions
anticipated would be undertaken and were pending final funding decisions. Since that time,
specific information on these projects has become available, and the four line items have been
replaced by information on 58 implementation projects. After adding the 58 projects to the analysis
list, the total number of projects rose to 462.
2. Accounting for multi-year projects
One feature of RGI projects is the option to span multiple years, and owing to the format of the RGI
database download these multi-year projects were listed for each year of their operation.
Therefore, a simple total of the number of line items in the database was misleading because
several projects were counted multiple times. ORO supplied the evaluation team with a complete
list of multi-year projects in the FY 2005-FY 2007 time frame, and the evaluation team identified
these projects in the database to ensure that they were counted only once. The evaluation team
also noted a few instances where projects listed in the Report to Congress did not match any project
2 Region 3: $625,485; Region 4: $600,000; Region 5: $500,000; and Region 6: $130,000.
2-1
-------
RG1 Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 2
listed in the RGI database. In those cases, the team consulted with ORO for clarification and found
that these projects had either changed titles, been incorporated into other projects, or had been
cancelled and therefore did not require further research.
Table 1. Evolution of Number of Projects Analyzed in the RGI Database
1 Number of Line Items in Report to Congress (RtC) 404
2 Number of "Planned Activities" in RGI Database +58
3 Subtotal (sum of lines 1& 2) =462
4 Number of "Planned Activities" line items in RtC -5
5 Miscellaneous RtC Projects not listed in RGI DB -4
6 Total Number of Projects Analyzed (line 3 minus lines 4 & 5) =453
In some cases, the information in the RGI database was incomplete regarding whether a project was
classified as RGI or EPP, the type of funding vehicle used for the project (e.g. grant, contract, interagency
agreement, etc.), and whether or not project grants were competitive. In most instances ORO was able
to provide the information to the evaluation team. The team submitted an e-mail to the Regional
Coordinators to fill in the remaining data gaps.
Another discrepancy between the RtC and the database was in multi-year projects. The RtC did not
clearly state which projects spanned multiple years, and ORO provided the evaluation team with a list of
multi-year projects for the time span included in the RtC.
After modifying the RGI database information to match the information in the RtC, the evaluation team
selected several categories within the database for analysis. Some of the data categories contained
quantitative information that the team was able to analyze directly. Other information required
extrapolation into additional data columns: For example, if a project's geographic coverage was entered
into the database as "Akron, Ohio", the evaluation team coded this entry under a newly created data
column titled "Geo 1" as "City".
The team sorted the information using Excel pivot tables, and created sub-totals and totals for
quantitative data, such as funding amounts, and sub-total and total results for qualitative data, such as
geographic reach or connectivity to EPA Strategic Plan. The team converted the tables into charts and
graphs to accompany descriptive analysis in the final report.
2-2
-------
r/Bft
July 2009
Evaluation of the
Regional
Geographic
Initiatives
Final Report
Appendix 3
Contents
These documents describe Region-by-Region project selection processes. A
summary of regional selection processes is provided in section 3.4 of the body of
the RGI evaluation final report
Region 1 Project Selection Processes 1
Region 2 Project Selection Processes 34
Region 3 Project Selection Processes 36
Region 4 Project Selection Processes 43
Region 5 Project Selection Processes 53
Region 6 Project Selection Processes 54
Region 7 Project Selection Processes 58
Region 8 Project Selection Processes 63
Region 9 Project Selection Processes 66
Region 10 Project Selection Processes 67
-------
Regional Geographic Initiative:
Proposal for FY=07 Funding
1. Project Name: (If a project has been funded previously, the proposal name should be consistent with prior
year submissions):
2. EPA Region(s):
3. Area Description: Identify countries, state(s) and appropriate ecosystem or local government location in
which the initiative will occur):
4. Describe Problems/Issues to be Addressed: (Describe the human health, environmental and other
problems/issues addressed by this project.)
5. Describe the project(s) and how it will impact the problems/issues:
6. Describe the expected outcomes (a) for the project and (b) for this Fiscal Year:
7. Stakeholder Participation -Internal and External: (List the principal federal, state, local and tribal
governments, industry and community groups, and key individuals involved
8. Amount of RGI Funding Requested:
9. Proposed Funding Instrument: (All projects funded with RGI funds are subject to the prevailing
administrative rules for the funding instrument (contract, grant, cooperative and interagency agreements,
other) used to provide support. Grant and cooperative agreement projects supported with RGI are subject to
the EPA Grant Competition Policy and may need to be competed. Please consult with the Regional grants
management office to make this determination if your proposal includes funding for grants or cooperative
agreements.)
10. Other Resources leveraged -Internal and External stakeholders, including other regional/EPA offices: (List
what other financial and in-kind resources will be leveraged): Regional Priority(s) Link: (briefly describe how
this effort will support regional priorities or goals in the regional strategic plan) National Strategic Plan Link:
(Goal(s)/Objective(s)/Sub-Objective that this project supports)
Measurement: (describe the environmental measures upon which this proposal should be evaluated) EPA
Regional Project Coordinator/Officer: (Name, phone number and e-mail address)
3-1
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Regional Geographic Initiative:
Proposal for FY 2007 Funding
1. Project Name: Healthy Communities Grant Program
2. EPA Region(s): Region 1
3. Area Description:
This project will direct resources to fully or partially fund approximately 10-15 community projects across New
England that will build healthy communities by improving the quality of the environment, public health, and
reversing environmental injustices in urban, suburban, and rural communities across the Region. These
grants to nonprofit, community, local and state government, and other eligible stakeholders will create and
expand external partnerships that further EPA's New England multi-media, cross-office work to build healthy
communities and address the needs of sensitive populations (e.g., children, elderly, others at increased risk,
etc). The projects will be competitively-identified through the 2007 Healthy Communities Grant Program.
Some of the resources and activities will be targeted at places that we have already identified as having
urgent needs (e.g., urban areas across Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island). Other resources
and activities will be targeted at projects that are in target geographic areas across New England that meet
some of EPA New England's key regional priorities (Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Places
with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or Urban Areas) and make measurable
improvements in the quality of the environment and/or public health in one more of the following target
program areas: Asthma, Capacity-Building on Environment and Public Health Issues, Healthy Indoor/Outdoor
Environments, Healthy Schools, Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Smart Growth, Urban Natural Resources
and Open/Green Space, and/or Water Quality Monitoring or Analyses. Without funding for this RGI proposal,
we will not have any resources to fund dedicated Urban Environmental Program projects, Smart Growth
projects, and will critically reduce the number of competitive grant projects to be awarded in New England
through the Healthy Communities Grant Program.
4. Describe Problems/Issues to be Addressed:
This project will address the cumulative, multi-media environmental and public health conditions residents
face in our cities and neighborhoods from the injustices of environmental degradation caused by years
sprawling patterns of development, and extensive contamination in air, soil, and water. EPA New England
recognizes that not all communities share the same environmental and public health conditions. For example,
urban areas and environmental justice communities are disproportionately burdened with high lead poisoning
and asthma rates, contaminated rivers (not swimmable orfishable), poor air quality, lack of open and green
space, vacant lots and abandoned properties, and few if any incentives for smart growth. Air and water
quality are constantly threatened by contaminated stormwater runoff and emissions from cars and trucks
clogging our roads and highways. Suburban flight further erodes the tax base that helps urban communities
address their public health and environmental problems, and ends in sprawl that consumes land at an ever-
increasing rate. Sensitive populations including children, the elderly, others with increased sensitivity to poor
environmental conditions are especially at risk across New England.
Most EPA programs and projects address environmental media separately although residents (including
sensitive populations) face multi-media problems every day. The Urban Environmental Program (UEP) and
the Smart Growth Program are the only two Regional programs that have been working for years directly with
communities to solve multi-media environment and public health problems in New England, and both
programs do not have any annual dedicated funding resources from a headquarters program to support
community projects that achieve measurable environmental and public health results. The Smart Growth
Program has worked to reduce the environmental impacts of development and has a great opportunity to
3-2
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
showcase how smart growth principles can strengthen existing communities and stem sprawl in urban,
suburban, and rural communities.
Programmatic discretionary funding has been reduced so drastically, that it is now rarely possible to fully fund
a single project under the majority of our Target Program Areas. In addition, there is no dedicated
programmatic discretionary funding to support the Water Quality Monitoring or Analysis Target Program Area
projects in the Healthy Communities Grant Program. Without RGI funding, there will be a significant decrease
in the amount of community-based projects that will achieve measurable environmental and public health
results in New England.
5. Describe the project(s) and how it will impact the problems/issues:
This project proposes to fund a minimum of four community-based projects, with a total of approximately 10-
15 partially or fully-funded projects addressing Priority Urban Projects, Priority Smart Growth Projects, and
competitively identified projects through the Healthy Communities Grant Program including Water Quality
Monitoring or Analysis projects.
Priority UEP Urban Projects: As funding grows increasingly scarce on the federal and state level, critical public
health and environmental programs are being forced to scale down or end their activities. Sensitive
populations - especially children - are particularly at risk for reduced services at the local level. Childhood
lead poisoning prevention efforts have been a target for budget cuts over the past several years. In fact, last
year our resources were reduced to such an extent that it was impossible to fully fund a single project with
discretionary lead toxics money and RGI funding was the only way that lead-related projects could be funded
in New England. In order to maintain progress in reducing elevated blood lead levels in the areas that have
the highest rates, urban areas, the UEP team proposes to fund three community-based projects in
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut to ensure that the most innovative and effective lead
education, outreach, and mitigation efforts can continue. In Massachusetts, there has been progress in
reducing elevated blood lead levels in children - but some urban neighborhoods in Boston have not shared in
that level of success, and need special attention as we strive to further reduce elevated blood lead levels from
460 cases per year. This project will ensure that continued education, outreach, research and training
reaches families in need in neighborhoods that still have the most children suffering from lead poisoning. In
Connecticut, the Lead Safe House in Bridgeport is only operating on an emergency basis - an unacceptable
solution in a city that has some of the highest and most severe cases of lead poisoning in the state. In Rhode
Island, the Lead Hazard Mitigation Act of 2002 has set the stage for making continued progress in reducing
blood lead levels but, funding cuts have limited implementation of the law. As a result, families and urban
areas that still have the highest and most severe lead poisoned children do not receive the assistance needed
to make a difference. A project in Rhode Island will continue our statewide efforts to focus on prevention
efforts on children of families living in urban communities hardest hit by lead poisoning in Rhode Island (i.e.
Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, Woonsocket and Newport). Funding these three lead-related
community projects will lead to a reduction in elevated blood lead levels in target urban areas in
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
Priority Smart Growth Project: EPA New England first launched its Smart Growth Program in 1999 at our
Smart Growth Strategies for New England Conference. The conference's success demonstrated widespread
interest in the twin problems of sprawl and urban decay. Smart Growth is an alternative to sprawl and urban
decay, and is an innovative approach to addressing EPA's Environmental mandates. Our Smart Growth
Action Plan involves working with diverse partners in New England to shape land use and growth so that it
has a minimum impact on environment, economic and community health. Our Smart Growth Action Plan has
the following four key elements: (a) strengthening local capacity for making environmentally-sound land use
decisions, (b) reshaping EPA programs and policies to support smart growth, (c) building effective
partnerships; and (d) elevating public awareness. There is no dedicated resources for smart growth projects
in New England, and RGI resources will allow for at least 1 competitively-identified project to be funded to
benefit New England communities.
3-3
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Healthy Communities Grant Program: A central feature of this RGI proposal is securing additional funding to
support the innovative Healthy Communities Grant Program in which we seek to fund community-based
projects that will achieve measurable environmental and public health results. Under this grant program all
proposals must be directly in and benefit one or more Target Investment Areas (Environmental Justice Areas
of Potential Concern, Places with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or Urban
Areas). In addition to being within these target areas, all projects must address one or more of the following
topics: Asthma, Capacity-Building on Environment and Public Health Issues, Healthy Indoor/Outdoor
Environments, Healthy Schools, Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Smart Growth, Urban Natural Resources
and Open/Green Space, and Water Quality Monitoring or Analyses. With RGI funding, we can ensure that a
minimum of one project will be fully funded under each Target Program Area and RGI resources will serve as
the only available funding source for Water Quality Monitoring or Analysis projects.
6. Describe the expected outcomes (a) for the project and (b) for this Fiscal Year:
Measurable results from the priority urban and smart growth projects will: (a) Reduction in the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning benefiting sensitive populations and improving children's health in urban areas
across Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island; (b) Project to achieve smart growth in New England;
and (c) Achieve measurable environmental and public health benefits in the Target Program Areas of Asthma,
Capacity-Building on Environment and Public Health Issues, Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments, Healthy
Schools, Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Smart Growth, Urban Natural Resources and Open/Green
Space, and/or Water Quality Monitoring or Analyses.
Priority UEP Urban Projects: Funding three, competitively-identified community projects will lead to a
reduction in elevated blood lead levels and improved public health in target urban areas in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The grants will be awarded by the end of this fiscal year, and the measurable
results will be achieved within 1-2 years of the project kickoff in Fall 2007. There will also continue to be
targeted OES lead enforcement and outreach in jointly identified priority urban areas in Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and Connecticut as and expansion into New Hampshire to further leverage RGI investment and
results.
Priority Smart Growth Project: The project will be determined by competition, and will achieve measurable
progress related to bringing smart growth to New England.
Healthy Communities Projects: Expected outcomes will be detailed in the projects we select for funding in
our highly-competitive Healthy Communities Grant Program, in which we stress measurable environmental
results. The outcome this fiscal year will be to select and award funding to priority projects that emerged in
the top tier priority through competitive evaluation, including a minimum of one project in each Target Program
Area. The work we fund will take place during 2007-2008, and a list of detailed measurable results for each
RGI-funded project will be submitting to identify expected outcomes during the 1-2 year projects.
7. Stakeholder Participation - Internal and External: (List the principal federal, state, local and tribal
governments, industry and community groups, and key individuals involved.)
UEP and Smart Growth projects involve internal staff from EJ Program, Brownfields, OEP State Units, EPA
Laboratory, Air Permits Unit, Pesticides, Toxics and Urban Programs Unit, Pollution Prevention Team,
Schools Team, and the Transportation Group. Both programs also work with many external stakeholders
from industry, local & state government, municipalities, academia, nonprofits, environmental groups, and
public health officials. These strategic partners number over 150 in urban areas in MA, CT and Rl alone and
extend to over 200 when extended to include NH, VT, and ME. These partners will play a key role in
implementing community projects that build off past success and achieve measurable environmental results.
UEP stakeholders share and collect data on urban environment and public health problems, partner to resolve
existing problems, and share accountability for results and measuring success. In the South Weymouth
project, our key partners include the three host communities for the base, the redevelopment authority, master
developer, MA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, MA Department of Housing and Community
Development, two regional planning agencies, MBTA (regional transit authority), North and South Rivers
Watershed Association, and others.
3-4
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
In addition to these partnership efforts, UEP and Smart Growth have joined forces with seven other EPA New
England programs (Assistance & Pollution Prevention; Asthma, Children's Environmental Health, Community
Air Toxics, Pesticides, Tools for Schools, Toxics) to design, implement and manage community-based
projects identified through the Healthy Communities Grant Program. The partnership will extend beyond
combining resources and jointly identifying and awarding grant projects - whenever possible the program staff
across units will work collaboratively to implement and support the projects that are awarded. Many of the
ninety-one proposals that have been received link more than one issue together, and now is an excellent
opportunity to build off past internal collaborations to target resources and technical expertise to benefit
external partners.
Internal partnerships are also not limited to those programs directly contributing to the Healthy Communities
Grant Program. The targeted UEP Urban Projects will further internal collaboration with OES to prioritize lead
poisoning prevention through education, inspection, and enforcement efforts. OES is working closely with the
UEP team to identify target areas for inspection efforts that best use our scarce resources and direct them into
areas that will achieve the greatest results. Using RGI resources to further these existing collaborations is
critical to ensure that our agency investments are further leveraged by our external partners.
8. Amount of RGI Funding Requested:
This resource request was created by UEP, Smart Growth, and other contributing program staff, based on
combined workplan goals and objectives to improve the quality of the environment and public health in target
areas. Unlike other programs, the multi-media UEP and Smart Growth Programs do not have any dedicated,
annual funding stream to do community-based environmental protection projects to benefit the citizens of New
England. RGI resources are the primary opportunity to secure limited resources for projects, and in fact -
100% of RGI resources go directly to qualified NGOs, nonprofits, coalitions, local government and other
stakeholders which work in partnership with EPA to further agency objectives. The resource request of
$250,000 is detailed below:
PROGRAM EMPHASIS
AREA
Priority UEP Urban
Projects
(MA, CT, Rl)
Priority Smart Growth
Project
Competitive Healthy
Communities Grant
Program
Total RGI Request
AMOUNT
REQUESTED
$105,000
$35,000
$110,000
$250,000
PURPOSE
Fund three critical, competitively identified community-based
projects to achieve environmental justice in target
neighborhoods with an emphasis on measurably improving
public health (focus on lead poisoning & asthma).
Fund one critical community-based smart growth and/or
Urban Natural Resources and Open/Greenspace project in
New England.
Resources directed to competitively identified projects
across New England that address the Target Investment
Areas
(Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Places
With High Risk from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive
Populations, and/or Urban Areas) and produce measurable
environmental and public health results in Target Program
Areas (Asthma, Capacity-Building on Environment and
Public Health Issues, Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments,
Healthy Schools, Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Smart
Growth, Urban Natural Resources and Open/Green Space,
and Water Quality Monitoring or Analyses). Water Quality
Monitoring or Analyses will be an emphasis area for this
funding.
10-15 fully or partially funded community projects
3-5
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
9. Proposed Funding Instrument:
The proposed funding instrument for the requested RGI resources is the regionally-designed competitive grant
program titled the "Healthy Communities Grant Program" which involves nine contributing programs
(Assistance & Pollution Prevention; Asthma, Children's Health/Sensitive Populations, Community Air Toxics,
Pesticides, Smart Growth, Tools for Schools, Toxics, and the UEP) which work in partnership to design,
implement and manage community-based projects competitively identified through the grant program. The
2007 application guidance was released on February 2, 2007 and the program received 91 One-page Project
Summary submissions which are currently being evaluated. The selected finalists will be notified on April 9,
2007 if they are invited to submit a full proposal for consideration. Information sessions will be held with
applicants to discuss program expectations and answer questions before the full proposals are due on May
11, 2007. All of the RGI resources requested can be obligated by the end of this fiscal year and the Healthy
Communities Grant Program meets or exceeds all Agency and Inspector General competition requirements.
This is a critical factor to consider as RGI resources are subject to the competition policy and must be
obligated before the end of the fiscal year. Attached to this proposal is a copy of the 2007 Application
Guidance for more details about the Healthy Communities Grant Program.
10. Other Resources leveraged - Internal and External stakeholders, including other regional/EPA
offices: (List what other financial and in-kind resources will be leveraged):
The RGI resources will be significantly leveraged with internal and external resources through this project.
The partnership fostered by UEP and Smart Growth with the seven other programs has created a solid base
of resources which would greatly benefit from RGI resources. Since 2003, RGI resources have served as a
foundation for the grant program and that investment has been leveraged with an additional $1,530,920 in
programmatic discretionary resources across the nine contributing programs including resources from ORIA,
Office of Children's Health, Pesticides, Toxics, and Pollution Prevention. Although we expect a decrease in
overall discretionary resources across contributing programs compared to last year, RGI resources will
continue to be significantly leveraged at a level similar to that achieved in past years, which is over 150%. In
addition to the discretionary program resources, applicants are encouraged, but not required, to identify a 5%
match for all projects. There is an exception for Pollution Prevention and Recycling projects which do require
applicants to provide a 5% match for their project. This will provide additional non-federal funding to further
leverage the critical RGI investment in the Healthy Communities Grant Program.
I. Regional Prioritv(s) Link: (briefly describe how this effort will support regional priorities or goals in
the regional strategic plan)
The work proposed under this project also fits directly into many of our Regional Regional Administrator's
priorities including urban communities, environmental justice, children's health, sensitive populations and
community-based programs including efforts such as Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE).
Annual deliverables across programs are aligned with the regional strategic plan, and many are included in
the Environmental Justice Action Plan. This proposal is intended to use RGI resources as the funding
mechanism to meet Goal 4 objectives until a long-term funding source can be identified.
Each of the 10-15 community-based projects funded through this project will directly support the regional
priorities of Environmental Justice, Urban, Protecting Children's Health, Sensitive Populations, Building
Healthy & Livable Communities, creating Healthy Communities, and will continue expanding EPA New
England's Urban Environmental Program investments in urban areas across Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut. The Priority UEP Urban Projects will help support EPA's commitment to service the needs
of sensitive populations, create healthy communities, and help EPA New England achieve its objectives of
reducing elevated blood lead levels in children.
11. National Strategic Plan Link: (Goal(s)/Objective(s)/Sub-Objective that this project supports)
3-6
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
The work proposed under this project fits best with the multi-media Goal 4 of the Government Results
Performance Act. In particular, the Objectives and Subobjectives outlined below will be addressed using the
RGI resources requested.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective 4.1 - Chemical, Organism and Pesticide Risks
Subobjective 4.1.1 - Reduce Exposure to Toxic Pesticides
Subobjective 4.1.3 - Reduce Chemical and Biological Risks
Objective 4.2 - Communities
Subobjective 4.2.1 - Sustain Community Health
Subobjective 4.2.2 - Restore Community Health
Objective 4.3 - Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.3.1 - Protect and Restore Ecosystems
Although activities and actions may differ depending on the project, proposed projects may also support
additional areas of the EPA Strategic Plan including, but not limited to:
Goal I: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective 1.1 - Healthier Outdoor Air
Subobjective 1.1.2 - Reduced Risk from Toxic Air Pollutants
Objective 1.2 - Healthier Indoor Air
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Objective 2.1 - Protect Human Health
Subobjective 2.1.1 - Water Safe to Drink
Subobjective 2.1.2 - Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Subobjective 2.1.3 - Water Safe for Swimming
Objective 2.2 - Protect Water Quality
Subobjective 2.2.1 - Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective 3.1 - Preserve Land
Subobjective 3.1.1 - Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
Goal 5: Improve Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective 5.1 - Improve Compliance
Objective 5.2 - Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Subobjective 5.2.2 - Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship by Business
III. Measurement: (describe the environmental measures upon which this proposal should be evaluated)
Priority UEP Urban Projects: These projects will fund competitively-identified community-based projects that
will reduce elevated blood lead rates in sensitive populations (children) in urban areas in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Measures for these dedicated projects will include tracking elevated blood
lead levels in Boston, targeted urban neighborhoods in Connecticut (e.g. Hartford, Bridgeport), and Urban
Areas Across Rhode Island (e.g. Providence, Newport, Woonsocket, Pawtucket and state-wide).
Priority Smart Growth Project: The project will be determined by competition, and will achieve measurable
progress related to bringing smart growth to New England.
Healthy Communities Projects: Expected outcomes will be detailed in the projects we select for funding in
our highly-competitive Healthy Communities Grant Program, in which we stress measurable environmental
results. The primary outcome this fiscal year will be to select and award funding to priority projects that
3-7
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
emerged in the top tier priority through competitive evaluation. The work we fund will take place during 2007-
2008, and a list of detailed measurable results for each RGI-funded project will be submitted to identify
expected outcomes during the 1-2 year projects. Every full grant proposal requires quarterly reporting,
tracking of measurable results, and a full project evaluation. This information will be made available to
document progress and measurable results on every funded project under the Healthy Communities Grant
Program.
IV. EPA Regional Project Coordinator/Officer: (Name, phone number and e-mail address)
Kristi N. Rea Rosemary Monahan
Team Leader, Urban Environmental Program Coordinator, Smart Growth & Livable Communities
(617) 918-1585 rea.kristi@epa.qov (617) 918-1087 monahan.rosemarv@epa.gov
3-8
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1, NEW ENGLAND
2007 HEALTHY COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM
Announcwront Type: RequesJ for mw PropMa|s
Fundinfl Opportunity Nymberr EPA-R1-HC-2007
Cataiof of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 66.110( Healthy Communities Grant
A r n Program
Action Dates; One-Page Project Summaries doe
on March 1 6, 2007
Executive Summ. Fu" Pr°P°SalS due on Ma* 1 1 • 2007
The Healthy Communities Grant Program is EPA New England's main competitive grant
program to work directly with communities to reduce environmental risks, protect and improve
human health and improve the quality of life. The Healthy Communities Grant Program will
achieve this through identifying and funding projects that
• Target resources to benefit communities at risk [environmental justice areas of potential
concern, places with high risk from toxic air pollution, urban areas and sensitive
populations (e.g. children, elderly, others at increased risk)!.
• Assess, understand, and reduce environmental and human health risks,
* Increase collaboration through community-based projects.
« Build institutional and community capacity to understand and solve environmental and
human health problems.
* Achieve measurable environmental and human health benefits,
In order to qualify as eligible projects under the Healthy Communities Grant Program, proposed
projects must meet several criteria including; (1) Be located in andfor directly benefit one or
more of the four Target Investment Areas; and (2) Identify how the proposed project will achieve
measurable environmental and/or public health results in one or more of the eight Target
Program Areas. Please see Section 111 for further information on eligibility requirements,
Target Investment Areas: Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Places with
High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or
Urban Areas
Target Program Areas: Asthma, Capacity-Building on Environmental and Public Health
Issues, Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments, Healthy Schools,
Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Smart Growth /Urban Natural
Resources and Open/Green Space, and/or Water Quality
Monitoring or Analyses
The Heaihy Communities Grant Program anticipates awarding approximately 20-25
cooperative agreements in 2007, Grants may be requested from $5,000 - $35,000 for one or
two year periods, beginning October 1, 2007,
This application guidance includes the following information:
Section I Funding Opportunity Description
Section ||. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI, Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contact
Section VI 1 1 . Other I nf ormation
3-9
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
SECTION J. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Program Description
The Healthy Communities Grant Program was launched in 2003 integrating nine EPA New
England programs Including Assistance & Pollution Prevention, Asthma Children's
Environmental Health, Community Air Toxics, Pesticides, Smart Growth, Tools for Schools
Toxics, and the Urban Environmental Program. The goa! of the program Is to combine available
resource* and best identify competitive projects that will achieve measurable environmental and
public health results in communities across New England, In order to streamline and simplify
the application and competitive process, eligible applicants are invited to submit a One-Page
Project Summary to EPA New England for funding consideration under this competitive grant
program. Based on the quality of the eligible One-page submissions as measured against the
applicable criterion in Section V, finalists will be invited to submit full project proposals for further
evaluation. The Healthy Communities Grant Program anticipates awarding approximately 20-25
cooperative agreements from these full project proposals in 2007.
The Heaihy Communities Grant Program is EPA New England's main grant program to work
directly with communities to reduce environmental risks to protect and improve human health
and the quality of life. The Healthy Communities Grant Program wiii achieve this throuah
identifying and funding projects that:.
Target resources to benefit communities at risk [environmental Justice areas of potential
concern, places with high risk from toxic air pollution, urban areas and sensitive
populations (e.g. children, elderly, others at increased risk)).
Assess, understand, and reduce environmental and human health risks.
* Increase collaboration through community-based projects.
Build institutional and community capacity to understand and solve environmental and
human health problems.
Achieve measurable environmental and human health benefits.
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to
safeguard the natural environment (air, water, and land) upon which life depends EPA's
purpose is to ensure that:
- All Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment
where they live, learn and work.
• National efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific
information.
* Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and
effectively.
* Environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural
resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture industry
and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing
environmental policy.
• All parts of society (communities, individuals, business, state and local governments,
tribal governments) have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively
participate in managing human health and environmental risks.
• Environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems
diverse, sustainable and economically productive.
* The United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the
global environment.
EPA New England takes these broad goals and applies them directly to service the needs of
New England residents in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island
and Vermont, Within the broad landscape of these states, EPA New England recognizes that'
3-10
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
,rhnlfeS Share ^ same envl«»™ntal and public health conditions. For example
in urban and environmental justice communities throughout New England, residents are '
«£°nSn u*° a r?u,mt"de ^environmental and public health hazards, ranging from toad paint to
SLZ n^l *10 -!f *hr Wavated b* P°or air <^IKy- Cumulatively the effects of these
hazards on uitan residents and sensitive populations such as children and the elderly are
compounded by issues including environmental injustice, limited economic development
?r™° J1 f S',and sodani!f- Some suburban and rural communities also face significant risks
TTJTstnal;comj"ercia|. agricultural or transportation activities in or near their communities
These types of conditions result in disproportionate health risks to residents and stress on the
quality of the air, water, and land.
In order to maxlmke effectiveness and resources, nine EPA New England programs are
working >n partnership to improve environmental conditions for residents across New England
EPA New England s Assistance & Pollution Prevention. Asthma, Children's Environmental
Health, Community Air Toxics, Pesticides, Smart Growth, Tools for Schools, Toxics, and the
urban Environmental Program are combining resources and working together to competitively
identofy projects that will achieve measurable environmental and public health results in Taraet
Investment Areas and Target Program Areas (see Section III, C, Other Eligibility Criteria for
more details) across New England. These participating programs share a focus on reducina
environmental and human health risks. Staff and leadership from each of these nine programs
will jointly review and select projects for funding. Please read the descriptions below to learn
more about each participating program. More information on each participating program's
activities, projects, and accomplishments is available on-line atwww.epa.gov/region01.
Assistance & Pollution Prevention: In support of EPA's national Resource
Conservation Challenge program (www.epa.gov/rcc), the Office of Assistance and
Pollution Prevention encourages businesses, organizations and communities to reduce
health risks and conserve natural resources by implementing pollution prevention solid
waste reduction and recycling. Pollution prevention projects prevent pollution at the
source of production through toxic use reduction and the more efficient use of materials
energy, water, and natural resources. Solid waste reduction reduces environmental
impacts by promoting recycling, composting, waste minimization, beneficial reuse
market development, and sustainable purchasing practices. Visit www.epa.gov/p2 for
more information on pollution prevention information and www.epa.gov/msw for more
information on solid waste management.
Asthma: The Asthma Program is dedicated to enhancing asthma education for people
with asthma and/or their primary care-givers about indoor asthma triggers in the home
and actions that should be taken to reduce these triggers.
Children's Environmental Health: The Children's Environmental Health Program was
launched at EPA New England in response to children's special vulnerability to
environmental problems, and coordinates a campaign called "Children First" aimed at
creating healthier environments In the places where children live, learn and play - at
home, in schools, and outdoors.
.k * u .-* "r Alr Toxics: Tne Community Air Toxics program supports effective projects
that identify and reduce community exposure to air toxics in both the indoor and outdoor
air,
Pestle ides: The Pesticides Program supports work to protect agricultural workers
prevent pollution of ground water resources, protect endangered species promote'
integrated pest management (IPM), and reduce risks from the use of pesticides by
providing information to public interest groups, academia, agriculture sector the
regulated community, and the general public.
3-11
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
n^ ®rowth: Tje Smart Growth program works with state agencies, communities
nonprofit orgamzat.ons. and the development sector to help shape land use and g owth
so that it serves the economy, the community, and the environment Using a
combination of grants environmental review, and technical assistance, the program
N6W En9'and'S C0mmunities whil
working
e
80 H°°'*: The TC,°JS f°r Sch00lS program concentrates on implementing a
t°°'k! ^atlonwfde to hefP ^hool officials assess, resolve, and
to asthma trf99ere in
Toxics Program regulates and provides oversight over a variety of different
Control Act03'8 (e'9 L6ad' Mercury' PCBs' etc> r*3urated under the Toxics Substances
Pl?aram: Tne Urban Environmental Program has worked since
partnership development with communities, go^mment and other
stakeholders to address environmental and public health problems includinq lead
poisoning, asthma and indoor air quality, ambient air quality, open space and green
space, vacant lots, environmental justice, and urban rivers and wetlands in targeted New
tngiand urban areas across Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode island.
The Healthy Communities Grant Program consists of activities authorized under one or more of
m£ °rT9 ^/VT authorities Jfsted ™«*r Clean Air Act, Section 103(b)(3) and SeSon
!2SK%£S ^T, Att' Section 1 M(b)(3); Safe Drinkin9 Water Act of 1 974 Section
1442(a){b>; Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rode nticide Act. Section 20; National
Environmental Education Act, Section 6; Pollution Prevention Act, Section 6505; Solid Waste
D.sposal Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended Toxic
Substances Control Act, Section 10, as amended. Most of the statutes authorize grants for
research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and studies "
Demonstrations generally must involve new or experimental technologies, methods or
EfEISS W '?- r^UlS °f the pro]ect wi" be d*s«"inated so that others can benefit from
the knowledge gained in the demonstration project.
B. EPA Strategic Plan Linkage and Anticipated Outcomes/Outputs
Lm nT t0 ^PA S*rate«ic Pfan: Unc£er the Healthy Communities Grant Program, applicants
will propose innovative approaches and other actions that may differ depending on the
proposed projects. Overall projects must address one or more of the Target Investment Areas
(EnvironmentalJustJce Areas of Potential Concern. Places with High RisKm ToTic Air
Pollution, Sensitive Population* and/or Urban Areas) and one or more of the Target Program
^?aS/^rTia'Pf?aCity'Buitdin9 On Environmental and Public Health Issues, Heaithy
oSSSSKSXS?***' Hea"hy Scho°IS' P°"utbn Pwenbon and Recycling, Smart
S3Ji,V P.. ^ources and OperWGrw Space and^or Water Quality Monitoring or
Analyses). Please see Section III for further information
Awards under the Healthy Communities Grant Program directly support progress towards EPA
Strategic Plan Goal 4, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, ObjSeJ °f ChlS
,
cStassa^s^^ *^ i1 -1 (Reduce Exposure (° ^^^i^
Chemical and Biological Risks), Objective 4.2 (Communities), Sub-objectives 4 2 1 (Sustain
Commumty Health) and 4.2.2 (Restore Community Health); and Objective ^4 3 (EcosysS
Sub-objectwe 4.3.1 (Protect and Restore Ecosstems >systems),
3-12
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
™,T SJ*'6? and action® may dWer deP©nding on the project, proposed projects may also
support addrtionaf areas of the EPA Strategic Plan including but not limited to:
£i"7 ° 5 oal £»»-» Changa, Objective 1 .1 (Healthier Outdoor Air), Sub-
1 12 (Reduced R(sk from Toxfc Air Pollutants), and Objective 1 2 (Healthier Indoor
: ° 2te and Safe Water 2'1 Prot -
,
n Safe Water' 2'1 (Protect Human Health), sa- 1 War
Safe to Dm*), Sub-objective 2.1,2 (Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat). SuSoSeSive 2 1 3 {Water
Safe For Swimming). Objective 2.2 (Protect Water Quality}, Subjective 2 ; ! 1 flmprwSwater
a^
^Sub-objective 3.1.1 (Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling)- and
°^P'ianCe and Envi^™ental Stewardship. Objective 5.1 (Improw
ObjSf T ?• 2 (improve Environmental Performance Through Portion
^-objective 5.2.2 (Prevent Portion and Promlte Environmental
? 0if*Puts: Outcomes refer to the result, effect, or consequence that will occur
lSi rf,±f ^ °f ou|Pul».of the ProJect Outcomes may be environmental,
J ^ * Programmatic, should be quantitative, and may not necessarily to
i 3 ? PrT? *"**• Short-te™ outcomes include, but are not limited to
™ leT™"9' k.n^edge. skills, attitudes, and motivation and must occur during the
tPh«Pr^ TK f6^' A" °f the awards under tflis -nnounoenwn are expect^ to relult In
the general short term outcomes identified below. In addition, the projects may «*X in
JSE; WJ" n.*""*8 on the Tar9et ^^^•%2SJ3 by ««
expected short-term outcomes identified below and any other expected
ff^- '"J^S ? °f the FU" Pr°pOSal Narra!ive Format ("» AttaSfmem
.h!lProfct Schedule Format (see Attachment C). AH short-term expected
naSe q d " the One-Pa9e Pr°Ject Summary and in the
The anticipated short-term outcomes ifsted below are expected to result in reducing
t0 PL°teCt and improve human health and the W*my ^ life « order to create
™
SKZSS andAec°^Ss felated to Q«- 4, Healthy Communities and Ecosys
EPA s Strategic PJan. Anticipated short-term outcomes include, but are not limited to:
Providing resources to benefit communities at risk (environmental justice areas of
potential concern, places with high risk from toxic air pollution, urban areas) and
sensitive populations (e.g. children, elderly, others at Increased risk).
Assess, understand, and reduce environmental and human health risks
Increase collaboration through community-based projects.
humtn Sthna!>btels0mmUnity rapacity to understand and *°'ve environmental and
Achieve measurable environmental and human health benefits.
mea*urable qualitative or qualitative activities, efforts, deliverables. or work
«ndertake durinfl the project p"*0* The «**««
Program cooperative agreements will vary from
but wiH be identified as "Project Deliverables" in Attachment C of the full
proposal, All applicants will be expected to dearly identify their outputs depending on the
' ArSa( 88d by th6
pe pseproe
trS«?T rec|P»rts will be required to submit quarterly status reports about thS- progreii
towards achieving oytputs once the project is implemented progress
The anticipated outputs for Healthy Communities projects will vary depending on the sc
the proiect and its linkage to one or more Target Program Area
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
potential projects are organized by Target Program Area below and include, but are not limited
to:
Asthma;
Application of evidence-bawd methods to reduce asthma triggers including, but not
limited o: Integrated pest management, reducing presence of environmental tobacco
smoke in indoor environment, and/or reducing presence of chemicals and other indoor
contaminants.
• Integration of environmental trigger reduction with clinical healthcare that include cost-
relmbureement from managed care organizations for environmental interventions
- Number of families, individuals or stakeholders reached through education outreach
demonstrations, training, surveys and/or studies related to indoor air toxins projects.'
Capacity-building on Environment and Public Health Issues:
• Number of families, individuals or stakeholders reached through education outreach
demonstrations, training, surveys and/or studies related to the causes, effects extent
reduction, prevention or elimination of pollution in soil, water and/or air
• Creation and implementation of effective education, outreach, demonstration and/or
training tools to reach target population,
• Improved environment and/or public health conditions as a result of education outreach
demonstrations, training, surveys, and/or studies.
Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments:
• Number of families, individuals, stakeholders or geographic area serviced to reduce
indoor or ambient toxics.
• Identification of methods or techniques to potentially reduce indoor or ambient toxins
«iciudrr»g, but not limited to, lead, pesticides, PCBs, dioxin, and/or mercury
• Improved environment and/or public health conditions as a result of education outreach
demonstrations, training, surveys, and/or studies.
Healthy Schools:
• Number of school teams or other stakeholder groups to be trained and/or provided
technical assistance to implement EPA's Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Program
EPA s Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (Healthy SEAT) or other
systemic approaches to managing the environmental responsibilities in a school
• Creation of effective education, outreach, demonstration, and/or training tools to reach
target population.
Pollution Prevention and Recycling:
• Number of individuals or stakeholders reached through education, outreach
demonstrations, trainings, surveys, and/or studies related to the reduction of pollution or
improvement rrt solid waste management.
« Creation of effective education, outreach, demonstrations, and/or train ing tools to reach
target populations.
Number of site visits or technical assistance efforts provided.
Pounds of pollution and/or hazardous waste reduced.
Pounds of non-hazardous waste reused or recycled,
BTUs of energy conserved,
Kilowatt hours of energy conserved.
Gallons of water reduced.
Dollars saved through pollution prevention efforts.
3-14
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Smart Growth:
1- i(?divlduals or stakeholders reached through education, outreach
** T9' mTVS and/orst"dies «l*d to smart growth l
San arlal •«»•*•»•. transit-oriented, pedestrian-fr
' °UtreaCh' a*"""**^ «** training toots to reach
Urban Natural Resource* and Open/Green Space-
* lUmotr!It^!rilifS'1in °Utreaeh' demOnstration, and/or training tools to reach
C. Target Investment Areas & Target Program Area*
m P,r°jeCtS underthe Healthy Communities Grart Program, proposed
T !f a erite"a indudin9; W Be "ocated in and/or directly benefit one «
3S ? 5, ^!f rset rnvestm*nt Afeas described below; and <2> Identify how (neproMsed
preset will acteve measyrabte environmental and/or publfc hea th resu ts i " one or more oft
SlT'T P^ram ^rea5 descrfbed below' To fearn mor^ about the ou puts ^o^mm
^m '• B' EPA **«ta *» Liflk^ «* ^-P^
rP^wxr:^
Target Investment Areas; Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern Places
with Hfflh Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive
Populations, and/or Urban Areas
^ Potential Concern; For the purposes of this grant
B ArMS °f Potential Concem" ^ to communiSes
repreS6nt the '^^-f^ome, most diverse population; in
mfntal and/or publlc health burdens in a «Wfned
En9|and is w^rnitted to promoting and supporting
re n !S the ?ir trfatment and meani"9fa' fwolvement of al!
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
3-15
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Sf PT^* ? !rtaton' md enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. Fair reatment means that no group of people, including any racial ethnic or
socioeconoinic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative
environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial
operations or We execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies
Meaningful Involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community residents have
an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will
affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the
regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of ait participants involved will be
considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and
facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. In order to qualify under this
Target Investment Area, applicants must demonstrate that their project will meaningfully
involve and benefit communities, neighborhoods, or tribes that represent the lowest-
sneome most diverse populations in EPA Region i states that face environmental and/or
public health burdens in a defined geographic area.
b. Places with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution: For the purposes of this grant
program, "Places with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution" refers to projects that are
?BA?*?,"!.* c**"?!TI!inIty' <%• or area located in a county that has been identified by; (a)
EPA s National Air Toxics Assessment as having health risks for one or more air toxics
mat are above EPA's health benchmark (view http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/ for maps
of risk from atr toxics); or (b) identified by the community through other air toxics
monitoring, modeling, or analysis efforts. In order to qualify under this Target Investment
Area, applicants must demonstrate that the project will directly involve and/or benefit
places in EPA Region I states with high risks from toxic air pollution,
c. Sensitive Populations: For the purposes of this grant program, "Sensitive Populations-
refers to populations including children, elderly, and others at increased risk that may be
more susceptible to the effects of pollution, EPA's mission is to ensure that all
Americans have a safe and healthy environment where we live, work and play
However, health-based environmental standards are generaify based on risks to healthy
adult males, not sensitive populations. Children are more susceptible to the effects of
pollution because pound-for-pound, they eat, drink and breathe more than adults and
because their immune systems are not fully developed. Older Americans and those with
chronic illness also face higher health risks due to their immune system vulnerability
Other socioeconomic and cultural factors can also impact the environment and health of
certain populations. In order to qualify under this Target Investment Area applicants
must demonstrate that their project will directly involve and/or benefit the health of
sensitive populations (e.g. children, elderly, others at increased risk) in EPA Reojon I
states,
d. Urban Areas: For the purposes of this grant program, "Urban Areas" refers to a citv or
community in New England which has a population of at least 35,000 people according
to 2000 Census data. Projects that benefit many urban areas across the EPA Region I
states or in several different cities or states within EPA Region I are also eligible for
consideration under this Target Investment Area. In order to qualify under this Target
Investment Area, applicants must demonstrate that the project will be located in and
benefit one or more of the following "Urban Areas":
Connecticut: Bridgeport, Bristol, Danbury, East Hartford, Enfield, Fairfieid,
Greenwich, Groton, Hamden, Hartford, Manchester, Meriden,
Middletown, Miiford, New Britain, New Haven, Norwalk, Norwich
Shelton, Southfngton, Stamford, Stratford, Torrington, Waflingford
Waterbury, West Hartford, and West Haven
3-16
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Maine: Lewiston and Portland
Massachusetts: Arlington, Attleboro, Barnstable, Beverly, Billeriep, Boston,
Brockton, Brookline, Cambridge, Chefsea, Chicopee Everett Fall
River, Fitchburg, Framingham, Haverhlll, Holyoke, Lawrence
Leominster, Lowell, Lynn, Maiden, Marfborough, Medford
Methuen, New Bedford, Newton, Peabody, Pittsfield, Plymouth
Quincy, Revere, Salem, Somerville, Springfield, Taunton
Waltham, Westfield, Weymouth, Wobum, and Worcester"
New Hampshire: Concord, Manchester, and Nashua
Rhode Island: Cranston, East Providence, Pawtucket, Providence, Warwick and
Woonsocket
Vermont: Burlington
Target Program Areas: Asthma, Capacity-Building on Environmental and Public
Health Issues, Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments, Healthy
Schools, Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Smart Growth,
Urban Natural Resources and Open/Green Space, and Water
Quality Monitoring or Analyses
m. Asthma; Projects should use previously demonstrated methods that successfully
educate people and reduce exposure to environmental triggers. Projects can target
geographic areas (e.g. communities, schools, homes/housing, etc.) and one or more of
he following issues; integrated pest management, asthma education, and/or indoor air
toxins {e.g. partteulate matter, just, mold, environmental tobacco smoke and/or
chemicals and other indoor contaminants), Education projects can include home visits
creating and maintaining asthma management plans, and/or other demonstrated
methods that can identify and reduce indoor environmental triggers and decrease
asthma prevalence, Sych projects should leverage resources with existing residential
education programs where they exist Indoor Air projects can address one or more of
the folowjng elements: partictitate matter (a large group of materials of different sizes
and chemical characteristics that are found in the air as solid particles or droplets)
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (encourage and motivate residents who smoke to'make
home* and cars smoke-free to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke); Mold- and/or
Chemicals & Indoor Contaminants (e.g. pesticides, volatile organic compounds, cleaning
supplies, and products of combustion like smoke, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide)
b. Capacity Building on Environmental and Public Health Issues: Projects that
increase regional, state, tribal, community, and neighborhood access to information
dialogue, collection and use of data (e.g, GIS mapping, risk evaluation, risk mitigation
collecting emissions data, etc.), and/or improve methods of risk characterization
prganrie and sponsor community training events, or other forums that increase citizen
involvement in understanding or addressing environmental and public health issues
(topics may Include environmental justice, indoor/ambient air quality, lead asthma
pesticides, transportation, urban rivers/wetlands, water quality, smart growth
open/green space, and/or vacant lots); build new or strengthen existing coalitions to
address Schools, States, or regional programs and one or more other environmental and
public health issue{s) are encouraged,
Healthy Indoor/OuMoor Environments: Projects that focus on reducing and/or
preventing childhood lead poisoning, promoting integrated pest management; reducing
c.
3-17
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
childhood exposure to one or more toxins (RGBs, dfoxin. mercury, lead, pesticides etc )
and promoting healthy homes and other Indoor environments are encouraged Protects
create ln?i^m^T?ent ^ tOXiCS in,B City' cornmur^ ™ <»""*. including those to
create and implement risk management plans, conduct risk screening, build technical
Eraming capacity to help reduce community exposure to indoor and or outdoor air toxics
are also eligible under this category.
*" SM!5?yTSc!1*?>1^ ?TC!S that tfain K'1 2 schod tearm to Implement EPA's Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools program {http://www.epa, gov/iaq/sehools/tooklit html) through
state-wide, regional, or local workshops; develop or support a systems approach to
improving environmental conditions in schools including customization and
TOplementation of EPA's Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (Healthy
btAT); train K-12 school teams to address asthma triggers, deploy integrated pest
management techniques particularly In urban areas (www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/asthma)-
or efforts which combine several project areas described in this grant solicitation aw
encouraged Additional opportunities for schools projects can be found in the Pollution
Prevention & Recycling Target Program Area. For more information on creating healthy
school environments, please visit www.epa.gov/schoois,
•», Pollution Prevention and Recycling: Projects that prevent pollution at the source of
production through toxic use reduction and the more efficient use of materials energy
water, and natural resources; and projects that reduce environmental impacts' by
promoting recycling, composting, waste minimization, beneficial reuse market
development, and sustainable purchasing practices. Priority sectors for pollution
prevention and recycling include K-12 schools, hospitals and healthcare facilities
marinas, and colleges and universities, K-12 schools projects should focus on more
efficient use of energy, water, reduction of waste generation and/or natural resources
including recycling, composting, and/or chemical management (www.epa gov/sc3)
Proposed projects under this Target Program Area require a 5% match. Please see
Section HI, B, Matching for additional information.
f. Smart Growth: Projects that encourage compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented
pedfestnan-friendly development in urban areas. Smart growth can improve air quality
by replacing some motor vehicle trips with walking, biking, and other clean forms of
transportation, reducing exposure to airborne pollutants and risk of respiratory illnesses
Smart growth also can improve water quality by reducing impervious surfaces and
preserving green spaces both of which can reduce exposure to waterborne pollutants
hxamples of smart growth projects include community involvement in development and
redevelopment projects; environmentally-sound reuse of vacant lots; improved
transportation choices, including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities; and projects
that Improve public health through improvements to the built environment.
g. Urban Natural Resources and Open/Green Space: Projects that train and educate
the general public on ways to identify, prevent and/or reduce or eliminate toxic
substances and contamination on vacant lots and open/green space; train and educate
the general public or other community stakeholders on ways to increase community
access to urban rivers and other urban natural resources related to the causes effects
extent, reduction, prevention and/or elimination of pollution; train and educate groups of
urban community stakeholders on methods to identify, reduce, prevent or eliminate
e*XfL°lUrf.S t0 f30"111'0" in soi1' air or water; train groups, community/neighborhood
stakeholders, and/or residents in holistic and comprehensive approaches for promoting
pollution prevention efforts in a sustainable manner that improves, protects and/or
enhances the ecological health of urban natural resources.
3-18
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
h. Water Quality Monitoring or Analyses: Projects that focus on determining the quality
of a particular water body or watershed, identifying water quality probtem(s) and/or
determining the cause of pollution through water quality monitoring and/or analyses of
water bodies. Projects should involve community groups, educational institutions
watershed groups and/or other organizations. Projects can provide and/or support
educational opportunities for students, interns or citizens to learn more about science
biology and water quality monitoring. Projects focusing on urban and/or environmental
justtce areas are encouraged.
SECTION H. AWARD INFORMATION
Proposals may be submitted for amounts ranging from $5.000 - $35 000 for one to two year
project periods starting October 1, 2007, Although the project period can last up to two years
tne total amount requested for federal resources cannot exceed $35.000. Proposals requesting
KH -
to Poiit budget as part of their proposal, but it is not required. The only exception
t , . ecepon
m? . i^!onfud Rec^clin9 Pr°Jects which ar® required to provide a 5% match. Any
voluntary match will not be considered as part of the evaluation and selection process used to
make award decisions, Please see Section III, B, Matching for additional information,
This grant program is intended to provide seed funding to inspire and leverage broader
investment tocreat© healthy communities in Target Investment Areas in Connecticut. Maine
Massachysetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The Healthy Communities Grant
Program anticipates awarding approximately 20-25 cooperative agreements in 2007.
The funding for selected projects will be in the form of a grant or cooperative agreement A
cooperative agreement is an assistance agreement that is used when there is substantial
federal involvement with the recipient during the performance of an activity or project EPA will
award cooperative agreements for those projects in which it expects to have substantial
technical interaction with the recipient throughout the performance of the project. For such
projects EPA may review and approve project phases, review and approve proposed subgrants
and contracts collaborate with the recipient on the scope of work and mode of operation of the
project closely monitor the recipient's performance, approve any proposed changes to work
plan and/or budget, approve qualifications of key personnel, and review and comment on
reports prepared under the assistance agreement.
Funding for these projects is not guaranteed and all awards are subject to the availability of '
funds and the evaluation of proposals based on the criteria in this announcement EPA New
England reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards under this announcement
or to partially fund proposals by funding discrete activities, portions, or phases of proposed
P™leCtB ,based on availabte fuR*. In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to
partially fund proposals by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects If EPA
decides to partially fund a proposal, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any
applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal or portion thereof, was evaluated and
selected »r award, and therefore maintains the integrity to the competition and selection
process. EPA also reserves the right to make additional awards under this announcement
consistent with Agency policy and without further competition, if additional funding becomes
Bailable after the original award selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will
be made no later than six months after the original selection decisions.
SECTION III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. Eligible Applicants
!nduZr|j,TiWilh,CoD,5 66'110' eli9ibte •***"*• f^ "wr* under this announcement
include State, Local, Public nonprofit institutions/organizations, Private nonprofit
3-19
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
institutions/organizations, Quasi-public nonprofit institutions/organizations, Federally
Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, K-12 schools or school districts; and non-profit
organizations (e.g. grassroots and/or community-based organizations}. Funding will be
considered for a college or university to support a project with substantial community
»nvolvement. Private businesses, federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to be grant
recipients. However, they are encouraged to work in partnership with eligible applicants on
projects. Applicants need not be physically located within the boundaries of the EPA regional
office to be eligible to apply for funding, but all proposed projects must affect the States Tribes
and/or Territories within the Region.
Non-Prolit States; Applicants are not required to have a formal Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
non-profit designation, such as 501{c)(3) or 501(c)(4); however they must present their letter of
incorporation or other documentation demonstrating their non-profit or not-for-profit status at the
time of the lull proposal submission. This requirement does not apply to public agendas or
federally-recognized Indian tribes. Failure to enclose the letter of incorporation or other
documentation demonstrating non-profit or not-for-profit status will render full proposal
submission* incomplete and they will not be reviewed. Applicants who do have art IRS
S01(c)(4) designation are not digital© for grants if they engage in lobbying, no matter what the
source of funding for the lobbying activities, No recipient may use grant funds for lobbying, For-
profit enterprises are not eligible to receive sub-grants from eligible recipients, although they
may receive contracts, subject to EPA's regulations on procurement under assistance
agreements, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 30.40 (for non-governmental recipients)
and 40 CFR 31.36 (for governments),
B. Matching
The grant program allows a match of up to 5% of the total budget as part of their proposal, but it
is not required. The only exception is Pollution Prevention and Recycling projects which are
required to provide a 5% match. Any voluntary match will not be considered as part of the
evaluation and selection process used to make award decisions.
In-Kind Contributions: In-kind match is a non-cash contribution to a project such as
volunteered services and donated supplies (e.g. use of equipment, office/meeting space,
printing), These In-kind contributions" can be counted toward the demonstration of strong
partnerships by providing resource support. Volunteered services may include a bookkeeper's
maintenance of a group's financial records and preparation of required financial reports or an
auditor's review of a group's financial records. Applicants must place a reasonable monetary
value on In-kind contributions and include them in the budget. Applicants must be prepared to
document in-kind contributions should the organization be awarded a grant. Rates for volunteer
services must be consistent with the local community for similar services. EPA can provide
funds only for project costs that are allowable under EPA statutory authority. Similarly, the
funds that serve as a match toward the project can be counted as such only If they are for costs
that EPA can fund. If a project is funded, applicants and all identified match funding is subject
to audit to ensure that all costs are appropriate. If costs are ineligible or the grantee cannot
properly document match dollars, the grantee will be liable for the disallowed costs.
C. Other Eligibility Criteria
In order to qualify as eligible projects under the Healthy Communities Grant Program proposed
projects must meet several criteria including: (1) Be located in and/or directly benefit one or
more of the four Target investment Areas; and (2) Identify how the proposed project will achieve
measurable environmental and/or public health results in one or more of the eight Target
Program Areas. Please see Section I, C, Target Investment-Areas & Target Program Areas for
additional information.
EPA New England will implement this program consistent with the principles of Executive Order
12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
3-20
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Income Populations" (February 1 1 , 1994). Projects funded myst ensure that no one is
I«iS2r!i ? UnJ °r dlsPr°P°rtionate environmental impacts, and that existing problems are
not shifted from one area to another,
- Pr°P°sal and fulj Proposal submissions must substantial
the submission Instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this
announcement or they will be rejected. Where a page limit is expressed In Section IV for initial
th^ n±TCa!S OT*°rfrs of the initial and fu» W»l submissions, pales™ exST
the page limitation will not be reviewed. Proposals requesting more than $35 OQG in total
n° j^aluated lnitial ProP«a'« and full proposals received after the applicable
e*Pressed in Sectl°n "V will be returned to the sender without further
H flf «" awarded Pr°Jecte should suPPOrt research, investigations, experiments, trainings
demonstrations, surveys and/or studies related to restoring or revitalizing the environment
Kwp*^ £' outr®a£h' lrai™?9: or organize/conduct community planning activities in the
0?ZL ZT ^T d!ffn0d '" SeCti°n '' B' EPA Strate9ic P!an LiF*a9e and Anticipated
Outcomes/Outputs. Funds may be used to complement construction or medical treatment
programs. For example, educational outreach to parents of children at risk for lead poisoning
that encourages lead screening can be funded, but blood lead screening itself cannot be
tunaed. in addition, funds are available for community planning, workshop design and
organizing activites that achieve some element of restoration or revitallzation of an
environmental asset, such as contaminated land, wetlands or wilds, or a riparian area Federal
assistance funds may not be used for (1) lobbying or influencing legislation before Congress or
state legislatures, (2) partisan or political advocacy purposes; (3) an activity whose objective
could affect or influence the outcome of an EPA regulatory proceeding; or (4) solicitation of
private funds. Please see Section IV, E , Application and Submission Information, Funding
Restrictions for further information,
D. Partnerships
The Healthy Communities Grant Program strongly encourages, but does not require
partnerships. Full proposals will be evaluated on the extent and quality to which the applicant
will be partnenng with other stakeholders including local government, the private sector
academia. medical establishments or any other partners as appropriate. Commitment letters
from all project partners will be reviewed as part of the evaluation process. Proposal packages
tor projects that have listed partners but do not include commitment letters from every listed
partner will face a reduction In score during the full proposal evaluation process. If there are no
project partners, the applicant must clearly describe why the organization can fulfil! the project
requirements on its own. Please see Section V. Application Review Information, Evaluation
Criteria Criterion Three; Community Involvement & Effective Partnerships for additional
tmorniatjon,
EPA awards funds to one eligible applicant as the "recipient" even if other eligible applicants are
karS« BS* Pf*ie£f/coraPPficants11 or members of a "coaiWon" or "consortium-. The recipient
is accountable to EPA for the proper expenditure of funds,
Funding may be used to acquire services or fund partnerships, provided. the recipient follows
procurement and subaward or subgrant procedures contained In 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31 as
applicable. For profit organizations are not eligible forsubawards or subgrants under this
announcement but may enter into procurement contracts with recipients,
Successful applicants must compete the contracts for services and products and conduct cost
and price analyses to the extent required by these regulations. The regulations also contain
limitat tons on consultant compensation. Applicants are not required to identify contractors or
consultants in their proposal Moreover, the fact that a successful applicant has named a
3-21
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
specific contractor or consultant in the proposal EPA approves does not relieve it of its
obligations to comply with competitive procurement requirements.
Subgrants or subawards may be used to fund partnerships with non profit organizations and
governmental entities. Successful applicants cannot use subgrants or subawards to avoid
toqamuT« 7™l!Tt fant r^ulations for competitive procurement by using these instruments
5 fhTtmLS TS2' S@rVlfS or P^ucts to ^ °ut its cooperative agreement. The nature
of the transaction between the recipient and the subgrantee must be consistent with the
2!ES?S *r or -subgranf at 40 CFR 31,3, as applicable. EPA will not be a party to these
Msi n s oOii o n s >
SECTION IV, APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
The Healthy Communities Grant Program has a two step process for evaluating proposals The
ESKU*??^ h* s1ubTiMion of an initial On*-pase Project Summary as a first step; then
applicants with the htghest quality proposals wfll be invited to submit full proposals for
consideration. Further instructions are below.
A. Address to Request Application Package
To request a copy of the Healthy Communities drant Program Application Guidance, ptease
contact Sandra Browne!!, Healthy Communities Grant Program, US EPA New Erraland One
Congress Street, Suite 11DQ(CPT), Boston, MA 02114-2023, by e-mail at '
Brownell.Sandra@epa.gov or by phone at 617-918-1797.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission
I. One-Page Project Summary
The One-Page Project Summary must describe your project, how it will address one or more of
the Target Investment Area{s) and how it will address one or more of the Target Program
Area(s). Please see Section i, C, Target Investment Areas & Target Program Areas for a
descnption of the Target Investment Areas and Target Program Areas. In your submission
please identify your project goals and how you will meet them. Also, ptease identify the *
expected measurable environmental and/or public health results or improvements from your
proposed project including, but not limited to, the expected outcomes and outputs {see Section
m Strategic Plan Linkage and Anticipated Outcomes/Outputs for additional Information)
please make sure to address the initial proposal evaluation factors set forth in Section V
Applicants must include all the information In the One-Page Project Summary Format in '
Attachment A, The One-Page Project Summary submitted must not exceed one page in lenqth
and use no less than .75 inch margins and no smaller than 10 point font. Ptease see Section
IV, c, Submission Methods, Dates and Times for additional requirements,
2. Full Proposal Package
If your One-Page Project Summary is selected for further consideration, you will be invited to
submit a full proposal package. EPA Hew England plans to notify applicants that are invited to
submit a full proposal package on or around April 9, 2007. Below please find the instructions for
submitting a full proposal package En the event you ar© invited to submit a full proposal
The full proposal package must include the following elements:
(1) Completed Application Forms (will be supplied to finalists.)
(2) One-Page Project Summary with revisions, if any (see Attachment A)
!?! u,1?06 P^P083' Narrative (described below and also see Attachment B)
2 ^e^lthv Communities Grant Program Project Schedule (see Attachment C)
(5} Budget Detail Sheet with match information, if any (see Attachment D)
3-22
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
(6) Documentation demonstrating non-profit or not-for-profit status, if applicable
(7) Resumes of up to three key project staff
(8) Letters of Commitment from ail project partners (if the project involves partners)
(9) Environmental Results, Past Performance & Programmatic Capability Information
(see description below to determine if this is applicable)
EPA New England does not allow covers, binders, or folders to be used for full proposal
packages. Please submit the full proposal package on 8 !4 by 11 Inch recycled paper ideally
double-sided. Please use no smaller than 10 point font type, set page margins to no smaller
fhan .75 inches all around and please do not staple pages within the proposal together Send
^ ??9'"al and <4) four ^P'68 of the completed full proposal package to: Sandra Brawnell
Healthy Communities Grants Program, U.S. EPA New England, One Congress Street Suite
1100 (CPT), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
The Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424) is one of several official forms
required for full grant application submissions. Please complete Part 10 of the form, "Catalogue
of Federal Domestic Assistance Number" with the following information: 66.110 Healthy
Communities Grant Program. Applicants are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B)
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when submitting a full grant application for
consideration. Organizations can obtain a DUNS number at (866)705-5711 or
http://www.dnb.com.
Proposal Narrative: Please see the Full Proposal Narrative outline in Attachment B for the
required format. The narrative for the fulf proposal is limited to five pages- these five pages may
be on either single-sided or double-sided sheets of paper. The narrative section of the full
proposal package must follow the format outlined in Attachment B, answer the questions listed
and address all of the full proposal evaluation factors Identified in Section V. A copy of your
One-Page Project Summary (with revisions, if applicable), detailed schedule, detailed budget
(see Attachments A, C, and D) and information describing Environmental Results Past
Performance & Programmatic Capability Information (if applicable) must also be submitted for
each proposal; these are not considered part of the five page limitation for the proposal
narrative.
Proof of Non-Profit Status; All non-profit applicants, except public agencies, municipalities
and Federally-recognized Tribes, must attach documentation demonstrating non-profit status or
articles of incorporation. Full proposal package submissions without this documentation will not
be considered, for more information please read Section III, A, Eligibility Information Eligible
Applicants. ' a
Commitment Letters: Letters of commitment from all partners collaborating on the project
and/or contribuf r*g any matching funds (cash or in-kind) to the project must be submitted with
your full proposal package, not sent separately. Letters must be submitted on letterhead (if
applicable), signed by the project partner, and Include the partner's telephone number and
address. The commitment letters should be addressed to the applicant and be submitted as
part of the full proposal package. Commitment letters sent directly to EPA New England will not
be accepted. Commitment letters must specify the nature of the match, if any. (cash or in-kind
services) and must describe the rote of the project partner in the project. If the partner is
providing matching funds, the organization providing the match must be able to certify that the
funds will be available during the project period. Proposals for projects that have listed partners
but do not include commitment letters from every listed project partner will face a reduction In
score during the evaluation process. Please do not send letters of general support from others
not directly involved in the project; they will not be considered during the evaluation and review
process.
3-23
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
£i?2K *B8«'*' ***** Performance & Programmatic Capability Information: These
issues; wi 11 be evaluated under Criteria 1 and 2 of Section V. All applicants should clearly
desor.be their programmatic and fiscal capacity to manage the proposed project,
For Environmental Results Past Performance, please submit a iist of all EPA and other federal
agency assistance agreements that your organization performed within the last two years and
iSSS, -^ documented »"*«• »POrt»d on whether made progress toward achieving the
exacted environmental results under those agreements. If you wWnot making progress
please indicate whether you adequately documented why not. If you do not have such
nformation or have not received EPA or other federal agency assistance agreements within the
last two years, please specify this in the proposal narrative.
Programmatfc Capability refers to the applicants' ability to successfully perform the proposed
project. For this, please submit a list of all federally-funded projects similar in size scope and
relevance to the proposed project that your organization performed within the last two years
For each such project, pleas© briefly describe: (1) whether you successfully performed the '
project and; (2) your history of meeting the reporting requirements under these agreements and
submitting acceptable final technical reports. If you do not have such information or have not
received EPA or other federal agency assistance agreements within the last two years that are
similar in size, scope and relevance to the proposed project, please specify this in the proposal
n cx r r3 i I v €£,.
In evaluating applicants for Environmental Results, Past Performance and Programmatic
Capability, EPA will consider information supplied by the appficant {in the proposal narrative and
any attachments, if applicable) and may consider relevant Information from other sources
including prior/current grantors and agency files. If there were any problems or deficiencies m
meeting program reporting requirements or projected outputs and/or outcomes for projects
similar m size and scope in the last two years, applicants need to explain why the objectives
were not met and how the issues were resolved. In addition, applicants with no relevant or
available past performance and/or past reporting information will receive a neutral score for
those elements.
C. Submission Methods, Dates and Times
L Initial One-page Project Summary: There are three ways an applicant may submit their
one-page Project Summary fwww.Qrantg.gov. facsimile, or mall). Only one form of submission
is required, but the deadlines identified below must be met. One-Page Project Summaries that
are electronically submitted through www.grants.gov must be received no later than midnight
c ™ arch 16' 2007 and must include the Application for Federal Assistance (Standard"
°!TL J as part of the submi«>on. Standard Form 424 requires applicants to provide a Dun
nh?aPra nf^eo(D&? °ala Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. Organizations can
obtain a DUNS number at (866)705-5711 or http://www.dnb,com. Please complete Part 10 of
Standard Form 424, "Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number" with the following
information: 66.110 Healthy Communities Grant Program.
Detailed instructions for applying electronically under this announcement through the use of
www.grante.gov are available in Attachment E of this announcement and further instructions are
available for download on www.grants.gov. If you experience any challenges using the
www.qrante.gov system, please call (800)518-4726 for additional assistance.
One-Page Project Summaries that are sent via facsimile [(617) 918-0797] must be received
h±L W^8:!' °n. MfCh 16' 20°7- One-pa9e PNect Summaries that are maiM must
be postmarked by midnight, E.S.T., on March 16, 2007. Please see Section ViJ, Agency
contact, for mailing address and complete contact information.
3-24
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
2. Full Proposal Submission: if your One-Page Project Summary is selected for further
consideration the full proposal package must be postmarked by no later than midnight E S T
on May 1 1 2007, Electronic submissions will nsj be accepted for full proposals. Please send
and (4) foyf °oP'®s of the completed full proposal package to: Sandra Browned
's' EPA Ne" Enaland' One Con9re5S stre"' Sui'e
O. Intergovernmental Review
intergovernmental Review does not apply to the One-Page Project Summary, but does apply to
full proposal packages. Pfease check with your state's Single Point of Contact
(http://vww.whitehouse,gov/omb/grants/spoc.html) to determine which requirements if any
apply to your full proposal package. Applicants from Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire
are encouraged to apply to their State Clearinghouse for a 30 day Intergovernmental
Clearinghouse review process on or near the date of the full proposal submission EPA will not
make an award without the Intergovernmental Clearinghouse approval.
E. Funding Restrictions
Federal assistance funds may not be used for (1) lobbying or influencing legislation before
Congress or state legislatures; (2) partisan or political advocacy purposes; (3) an activity whose
objective could affect or influence the outcome of an EPA regulatory proceeding or (4)
soltertation of private funds. Even though a proposal may involve an eligible applicant eligible
activity, and eligible purpose, grant funds cannot necessarily pay for all of the costs which the
recipient might incur in the course of carrying out the project. For example, allowable costs are
determined by reference to the EPA regulations cited in the table below and to OMB Circulars
, « I- » Principles for Non-profit Organizations," and A-21 "Cost Principles for Education
mstitutions, and A-87 "Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments •
Generally, costs that are allowable include salaries, equipment, supplies, travel to meetings
training, and rental of office space, as fong as these are "necessary and reasonable."
Entertainment and providing food are examples of generally unallowable costs.
F. Confidential Business Information
Applicants should be aware that proposals/appircailon* submitted under this announcement are
subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In accordance with 40 CFR 2 203 applicants
may claim all or a portion of the proposal/application as confidential business information EPA
will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. Applicants must clearly
mark applications/proposals or portions of applications/proposals they claim as confidential If
no claim of confidentiality is made, EPA is not required to make the inquiry to the applicant
otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure.
G, Other Submission Requirements
In order to answer applicant questions, the Healthy Communities Grant Program will sponsor six
telephone conference calls to address questions before the One-Page Project Summary is due
The informational sessions are optional, but RSVPs are required. After submitting your RSVP
you will receive instructions on how to participate In the conference calls. The informational
sessions for the One-Page Summary Outlines are scheduled for February 14, February 22 and
February 27, 2007 with two sessions per day (9:00 am - 1 1:00 am and 1:00 pm - 3 00 pm)'
Please see Attachment F of this grant guidance for more details and registration information for
the conference calls.
After finalists are selected, the Healthy Communities Grant Program will host three additional
informational sessions for finalists on April 24, April 26 and May 2, 2007. Final question and
answer calls will also be hosted during the days leading up to th« submission deadline
Additional details on these training sessions for finalists will be provided in letter form after April
3-25
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
ini accordance with EPA's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA Order 5700 5A1)
EPA staff will not meet with individual applicants to discuss draft proposals, provide informal'
comments on draft proposals, or provide advice to applicants on how to respond to ranking
crrtena. Applicants are responsible for the contents of their applications/proposals. However
EPA will respond to questions In writing from individual applicants regarding threshold eligibility
crrtena, administrative issues related to the submission of the proposal and requests for
clarification about the announcement.
SECTION V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
A. Evaluation Criteria
Initial One-Page Project Summaries and fufl proposal packages will be evaluated based on the
criteria described below,
1. CRITERIA FOR ONE-PAGE PROPOSALS: One-Page Project Summaries will be evaluated
based on two criteria;
a) The extent and quality to which the applicant describes the problem to be addressed the
project overview (which includes the tasks and deliverable® needed to meet project goals) and
the organization's qualifications to complete the project; and
b) The extent and quality to which the project identifies measurable environmental and/or public
health results expected to be achieved from the proposed project related to one or more of the
Target Program Area(s).
These criteria will be weighted equally in the evaluation of the One-page Project Summaries,
2. CRITERIA FOR FULL PROPOSALS: Based on the evaluation of the initial project
summaries, applicants with the highest quality proposals will be invited to submit full proposal
packages for consideration. Full proposal packages will be evaluated against the selection
criteria outlined below.
CRITERION ONE: Heatthy Communities (30 points)
Under this criterion, full proposal packages will be evaluated based on the extent and quality to
which the proposal addresses one or more of the Target Program Areas; will directly benefit one
or more of the Target Investment Areas; and that the applicant demonstrates capability to
manage the proposed project. All project proposals must address and will be evaluated on the
following three questions:
• How will this project address one or more Target Program Area(s) and one or more
Target Investment Area(s)? {10 points)
• What will the proposed project do to address the problem(s) identified? (10 points)
* Does the applicant demonstrate programmatic capability to successfully perform and
manage the proposed Healthy Communities Project? (10 points)
la evaluating applicants under the third question listed above, EPA will review the extent and
quality to which the applicant demonstrates programmatic capability to successfully perform and
manage the proposed project taking into account information including: (a) past performance in
successfully completing federally funded projects similar in size, scope and relevance to the
proposed project, and history of meeting reporting requirements and submitting acceptable final
technical reports under these agreements; (b) organizational experience and ability to ensure
3-26
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
rti™ ,U^e*?U achievement of proposed project objectives; and (c) staff
expertisa/quaWications staff knowledge/skills, and resources or the abfltty to obtain them to
Vfi T6" *val"a«ng applicants on past performance .EPA will coSte?
5P "ed by !he aPP|lcant both in *• Proposal narrative and any attachments (If
nd ma "Sfdf reteVanl informa«on 'ro™ ««har sources including priofeunitt
'' C'
lnvestment Areas &
Areas for detailed
CRITERION TWO: Measurable Results <30 points)
li fU" pr°POSal Packa9es wi« be evaluated based on the extent and quafity to
measures both quantitative and qualitative results including, but noi limited
°"tcomes identifed in s^i°" I. B, EPA Strategic PlJn Linkage and
pUtf ' and how we" the aPP|icant Ascribes its ability to report on
results under any pnor federally-funded agreements funded in the last two years simiiar in see
Sf^f^r^f to thtpr°P°sed Project. All project proposals must address and will be '
evaluated on the following four questions:
« What are the measurable and achievable short-term results (including, but not limited to
tte outputs arri outcomes referenced in Section 1) that will be achieved? (10 points)
* h,rt « fry°» K" X measure y°UT P^es* 'n achieving the expected results (including,
but not limited to, the outputs and outcomes referenced in Section 1) and how will your
approach use resources effectively and efficiently? (5 points)
* How well did you document and/or report on any progress towards achieving expected
results under prior federal agreements received wrthin the last two years; whether or not
you syfficlentiy reported on performance for those federally-funded agreements- and if
you were not making progress, did you document why progress was not made?
(5 pornte) For additional information, please see Section IV, B, Environmental Results
Past Performance & Programmatic Capability.
• How will you ensure that data and information is usable, accessible to the public or is
shared wrth appropriate stakeholders (e.g. local government, residents, etc.}? (10 points)
,K iu"derthe third questfon «sted above, EPA will consider information
suppiied by the appjjcant both in the proposal narrative and any attachments (if applicable) and
may consider relevant information from other sources including prior/current grantors and
agency files. In addition, applicants with no relevant or past performance information will
receive a neutral score for this question.
Please review Section I, B, EPA Strategic Plan Linkage and Anticipated Outcomes/Outputs
carefully in order to ensure that your proposal adequately addresses each Target Program
Area(s) outcomes ana outputs.
^ CRITERION THREE; Community Involvement & Effective Partnership. (20 points)
'
' fU'l P[°2°sal Packa9es wj»be evaluated based on the extent and quality to
i,!Sddeit;onstra*6d f^unity involvement in the proposed project and that the
!^T P W haS ln P'aCe an effective Partnership with other local stakeholders to
HriuHfcSlatTlnd Pf0ject Success lf thereare no Pr°JecS P^ners, the applicant must
clearly describe why the organization can fulfill the project requirements on its own
3-27
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
All project proposals must address and will be evaluated on the following four questions:
• How do you and your partners represent those in the community who have an Interest in
or will be affected by the project? (5 points)
» What methods will be used for community involvement to assure that all affected by the
project are provided the opportunity to participate? (5 points)
* How will you ensure that no one is subjected to unjust or disproportionate environmental
burdens as a result of the project? (5 points)
* What will your partners be responsible for as part of your proposal and what
commitments have they made to ensure the project's success (e.g. staff time in-kind
resources, tetters of commitment, or any matching funding)? (5 points)
Jn evaluating applicants under the first, second and third questions in this criterion EPA will
review the quality and extent to which the identified Target Investment Area(s) communities
(9.g Environmental Justice Area of Potential Concern, Places with High Risks from Toxic Air
Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or Urban Areas) will be principally involved in the
development and management of the project and that the applicant clearly demonstrates that
the project includes specific ways to involve and empower the community to be active in
addressing the project goals. Jn evaluating applicants under the fourth question in this criterion
tPA will review how the applicant is partnering with other local stakeholders including local
government, the private sector, medical establishments, or any others. Commitment letters
from all project partners will be reviewed as part of the evaluation process. Proposal packages
for projects that have listed partners but do not include commitment letters from every fisted
partner will face a reduction In score during the evaluation process. If there are no project
partners, the applicant must clearly describe why the organization can fulfil the project
requirements on its own. Please do not send letters of general support from any organization or
individual not directly involved in the project; they will not be considered during the evaluation
and review process.
Please review Section I, C, Target Investment Areas & Target Program Areas and Section IV
B, 2, Commitment Letters for additional information.
CRITERION FOUR: Critical Need & attainability (10 points)
Under this criterion, fell proposal packages will be evaluated baaed on the extent and quality to
which funding is a critical resource to start or maintain a program or project that the organization
will sustain or continue work beyond the EPA grant period, AH project proposals must address
and will be evaluated on the following five questions:
» What is the long-term commitment to the project, and can it serve as a model for others?
(2 Points)
• How critical is this funding to the success of the project proposal? (2 Points)
* Have you explored other funding resources to support this project? ff so, what?
. (2 Points)
« After funds from EPA are exhausted, will any part of the work continue? (2 Points)
« Does the proposal represent new steps or build upon other projects addressing the
same issue(s)? (2 Points) w
3-28
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
CRITERION FIVE: Evaluation (10 points)
Under this criterion, full proposals will be evaluated based on the extent and quality to which the
proposed project includes an evaluation component that demonstrates the effectiveness of the
proposed project goals and results. All project proposals must address the following two
questions: a
• How will needed changes to the project be identified and incorporated in an onaoinq
basis? (5 Points) a a
» After the project is completed, how will these results be evaluated to demonstrate how
your goafs were met and lessons learned? (5 Points)
B. Review and Selection Process
EPA New England employees across contributing programs will review and evaluate both One-
Page Project Summaries and full proposal packages. One-Page Project Summaries that pass
the threshold eligibility review (see Section HI) will then be evaluated and scored based on the
extent and quality to which they address the applicable evaluation criteria listed above in
Section V. A, 1, Criteria for One-page Proposals. The full body of reviewers will meet and
applicants with the highest quality proposals will be invited to submit full proposal packages for
consideration. *
Full proposal packages are scored based on the extent and quality to which they address the
applicable evaluation criteria listed above in Section V, A. 2, Criteria for Full Proposals. After
the reviewers submit their scores, an average score, range of scores, and normalized score will
be produced for each proposal and then it will be ranked. The full body of reviewers then meets
to discuss the data and address scoring disparities. The lowest ranked proposals are then
eliminated from further consideration. Among the remaining proposals. Program leads from
each of the EPA contributing programs review a combination of ranking scores and other factors
including funding availability, geographic balance, and range of project types to create a final
package of proposals recommended for funding. The final recommendations are made to the
Selection Official who makes the final funding decisions and approves all awarded projects.
Ptease not© that this is a very competitive grant program, and limited funding is available for
qualified projects, EPA New England expects to receive many grant proposals, and it will not be
possible to fund all proposals received. EPA New England reserves the right to reject ail
proposals and make no grant awards under this announcement
C. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
February 2, 2007 Healthy Communities Application Guidance is
released.
February 3, 2007 - March 16, 2007 Eligible grant recipients develop and complete their
One-Page Project Summaries
February 14, 22. 27, 2007 Healthy Communities Grant Program hosts
Information Sessions via conference call. Toe
conference call is open to any interested applicants
to discuss the grant program. See Attachment F to
RSVP for conference calls.
March 16, 2007 One-Page Project Summary submissions must be
postmarked by midnight. E.S.T. on this date and
mailed to Sandra Browned, Healthy Communities
Grant Program, EPA New England, 1 Congress
3-29
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
March 19, 2007 - April 2, 2007
April 9. 2007
April 10, 2007 - May 11, 2007
April 24, 26 and May 2, 2007
May 11, 2007
May 14, 2007 - June 14, 2007
June 15, 2007
July 1, 2007
October, 2007
Street, Suite 1100 (CRT), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
submitted on www.grante.gqy. or received via
facsimile at 617-918-0797. Only ojig form of
submission is required to maet the deadline.
One-Page Summary submissions are evaluated,
Selected finalists will be notified via telephone and
Invited to submit a full proposal. Formal letters will
be sent to all applicants to notify them of the status
of their One-Page Project Summary submissions.
Finalists develop and complete their full proposals.
Information sessions will be hosted for finalists.
The locations of the sessions will be determined
after finalists are notified; and more details will be
provided to finalists in their notification letter.
Full proposal packages must be postmarked by
midnight, E.S.T, this on this date. Electronic
submissions will not be accepted.
Full proposal packages are reviewed and
evaluated.
Applicants wiil be contacted via telephone if their
proposal is being considered for funding. Some
applicants may be asked to make minor revisions
to their proposed project work plans. Formal letters
wifl be sent to all applicants to notify them of the
status of their submissions.
Finalists must submit all required materials for
proposed project.
EPA New England expects to formally announce
2007 Healthy Communities Grant Program
Recipients.
SECTION VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A, Award Notifies
Once applications have been recommended for funding, EPA New England staff will notify
fjna rate and request any additional information necessary to complete the award process The
finalists will be required to complete a set of government application forms before receiving a
grant The federal government requires ail grantees to certify and assure that they will comply
with ail applicable federal laws, regulations, and requirements.
B, Reporting
All recipients must attend a training session for new grantees; submit quarterly reports and a
final report for EPA Project Officer approval. Should a grant project involve the collection of
environmental data, a Quality Assurance Project Plan {QAPP) will be required to be written
reviewed, and approved by EPA before the data collection can begin. If you have questions
regarding QAPP requirements, please contact Nora Conion of EPA New England at
con on.nora®epa.gov Specific report requirements (e.g. Final Technical Report and Financial
Status Report) will be descnbed in the award agreement. EPA will collect, evaluate and
disseminate grantee's final reports to serve as model programs. For further information about
3-30
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
the contributing programs for the Healthy Communities Grant Program, please visit EPA New
England's website at www.epa.gov/regiQnQ1,
C. Disputes
Assistance agreement competition-related disputes will be resolved in accordance with the
dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR (Federal Register) 3629, 3630 (January 26,
2005) which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/resolution.htm. Copies of
these procedures may also be requested by contacting the agency contact found in Section VII,
Agency Contact,
D. Non-profit Administrative Capability
Non-profit applicants that are recommended for funding under this announcement are subject to
pre-award administrative capability reviews consistent with Section 8b, 8c and 9d of EPA Order
5700.8 - Policy on Assessing Capabilities of N on-Profit Applicants for Managing Assistance
Awards (http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700J:}.pdf).
SECTION VII. AGENCY CONTACT
For all questions and inquiries regarding the Healthy Communities Grant Program, please
contact:
Sandra Browned
EPA New England
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (OPT)
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Phone: 617-918-1797
Fax: 617-918-0797
E-mail: Brownell.Sandra@epa.gov
SECTION VIII. OTHER INFORMATION
The following are examples of the types of projects EPA may consider for funding under the
Healthy Communities Grant Program. These examples are organized by Target Program Area,
illustrative only, and are not intended to limit proposal ideas, nor establish a preference for
certain types of projects.
Asthma and/or Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments Target Program Area
• Implement a program to reduce chiidren's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
« Implement a multi-lingual educational and outreach program that addresses
environmental asthma triggers and identifies possible mitigation measures for children.
• Implement an asthma education program for high risk populations in collaboration with a
state environmental department and department of public health.
• Build state and local capacity to decrease asthma incidence in urban and high risk
areas.
« Facilitate productive dialogue among the New England states and across disciplines
regarding asthma tracking and surveillance and the development of healthier schools
and homes.
Capacity Building on Environment and Public Health Issues
* Conduct outreach and education activities that result in better outcomes, improved
health, or lead to a reduction in the use of toxic chemicals in areas where children spend
their time (home and/or school) and reduce childhood exposure to harmful chemicals
(e.g. pesticides, toxics cleaning agents, hazardous chemicals used to teach art, science
or vocational classroom).
» Develop and implement a holistic approach in presenting, understanding, and
communicating risk to local urban residents and target populations on multiple exposure
3-31
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
pathways for environmental and public health hazards (e.g. activity-based, media-based,
or place-based),
• Conduct an education and outreach campaign in low-income, diverse urban
neighborhoods on vehicle idling, ambient air quality, and comprehensive asthma trigger
reduction.
» Create a technical resource and training center for community air risk screening as well
as a resource for pollution prevention strategies for the prioritized air risks.
• Educate key groups, such as nurses, outreach workers, and community leaders on
environmental exposures and reduction actions and incorporate the learning into their
work with clients,
Healthy Schools and/or Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments
» Provide training to school or school district teams to implement EPA's Indoor Air Quality
Tools for Schools Program.
• Form partnerships within your state to customize EPA's Healthy School Environments
Assessment Tool software, and then train school districts on use of this software,
tracking the environmental improvements made by participating schools,
• Develop, improve upon existing, and/or promote site specific environmental assessment
checklists, which include both regulations and best management practices, which could
be used by schools to determine their environmental baselines, identify issues of
concern, and help schools prioritize which environmental problems to address,
» Provide schools technical assistance on Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
implementation, pollution prevention, chemical management, diesel exhaust, integrated
pest management, energy efficiency and ventilation cost savings, lead in drinking water,
or other related environmental concerns to schools.
Healthy Indoor/Outdoor Environments
» Identify air emission reduction strategies for the community such as identifying diesel
truck or bus fleets and conducting anti-idling training and awareness campaigns for both
the fleets and the community.
• Identify neighborhood environmental concerns and develop strategies to restore the
local environment.
• Target reduction of combustion by-products, such as environmental tobacco smoke,
wood smoke, and smoke from burning of trash and brush through education and
awareness campaigns.
« Develop an integrated pest management program which focuses on reducing pesticide
exposures for elderly populations (e.g. nursing homes, community centers, etc.).
« Educate the public to increase access and use of public transit systems, reducing
dependency/use of motorized vehicles, and increasing use of efficient technologies to
reduce vehicular and bus emissions in urban areas,
Pollution Prevention and Recycling
• Assist schools to reduce their use and generation of toxic or otherwise hazardous
chemicals through improved chemical management, microscale chemistry, green
cleaning and other efficiency efforts.
» Assist schools to conserve energy and water, and reduce the generation and/or increase
recycling of solid waste.
» Promote recycling infrastructure development for organics, paper, plastics, etc, in
institutions including, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, hotels and conference
centers,
• Implement pollution prevention strategies and/or technologies that reduce the generation
of pollution by institutions, organizations, or businesses.
• Establish energy and water conservation programs that result in cost savings for
institutions, organizations, or businesses,
3-32
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Smart Growth and/or Urban Natural Resources and Open/Green Space
» Develop a template or model for innovative land use techniques such as trading of
development rights, designed to make it easier for communities to site development in
suitable areas and protect important natural resources.
• Create a coalition of civic, business, community, and environmental groups to develop
and implement an economic development plan that supports environmental and public
health protection efforts.
• Create a community vision and plan for increasing open and green space in an urban
neighborhood.
Water Quality Monitoring or Analysis
» Develop and implement a volunteer monitoring program to measure and track water
quality of a water body or watershed in a community.
• Develop and implement a program to support and expand existing volunteer water
quality monitoring efforts (e.g. training for volunteers, purchasing equipment, materials,
lab analysis and report generation).
3-33
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
01/19/2007
From: Janice Davison
To: Donna Vizian, Barbara Finazzo, Walter Mugdan, Carl Soderberg, George Pavlou, Bonnie Bellow, Eric
Schaaf, Dore LaPosta
Cc: Alan Steinberg, Kathy Callahan, Barbara Pastalove, Rabi Kieber, Dennis Santella
Subject: Request for RGI and EPP Proposals
This email is to solicit new proposals for use of our FY'07 Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) and
Environmental Priorities Program (EPP) funds. The FY'07 planning target for RGI is $370,000 and $200,000
for EPP. The attached format should be used to submit your proposals. In general, proposals for both the
RGI and EPP programs should address one of the following funding priorities that were established by Region
2's Senior Management Team:
Science
• Promote the collection and analysis of data to communicate risks relating to children's health. The
purpose of the analysis is two-fold: (1) communicate risk to the general public and (2) provide measures
to EPA programs for strategic targeting, tracking and evaluating results.
• Support the development of "watershed/site-specific numeric endpoints" (e.g., for nutrients, toxics, or
DO) which will serve as the basis to meet applicable load reductions and water quality goals for that
water body.
Communication
• Improve risk communication regarding fish consumption and mercury and promote mercury source
reduction efforts.
• Promote education/outreach to the public on how to be better environmental stewards. Especially,
foster sustainability on a community level.
Outreach
• Promote the application and dissemination of sustainable tools and programs: Industrial Ecology, green
roofs, EMS, green buildings, etc.
• Promote the dissemination and application of waste minimization tools (e.g., Green Suppliers Network,
EMS, compost technology) to consumers, manufacturers and institutions. Focus on the following issues:
(1) beneficial reuse of food and C&D (construction and debris) waste; "recycling on the go" for consumer
packaging and beverage containers; and (3) PR solid waste.
• Provide outreach to PR community boards on the results of the RARE study for rural community water
supplies. Promote especially the need for filtering and O&M (operations and maintenance) of the
systems.
For RGI proposals, projects must also address the following criteria:
• Address places, sectors or innovative projects.
• Demonstrate state, local and/or other stakeholder participation.
3-34
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
• Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
All proposals must show the project's synergy with past, current or proposed efforts in the priority areas so
that we may consider the potential cumulative implications of the proposal. We are looking for projects that
contribute to achieving long-term solutions to critical environmental and health problems in Region 2.
Projects selected for funding that will be awarded as grant or cooperative agreement will need to comply
with EPA's Grants Competition Policy.
Please submit your proposals via email, ranked in priority order, for EPP funds to Jacqueline Leavy and for
RGI funds to Rabi Kieber by February 16, 2007.
Following receipt of the proposals, we will provide the divisional nominations to Alan and Kathy for decision.
If you have any questions, please contact Rabi at ext. 4448 or Jackie at ext. 3587.
(See attached file: FY 2007 Project Proposal Format.doc)
RGI/EPP
FY 2007 Project Proposal Format
Project Name:
Amount Funds Requested (Please indicate if you are applying for RGI or EPP):
Regional/RGI Priority(ies) addressed, if applicable:
Project location (identify counties, state(s) and local government location, or ecosystem location, in which
the project will occur):
Project Description and, where applicable, how it addresses regional priorities and/or RGI priorities:
Project Objectives:
National Strategic Plan Link (Goals/Objectives that this project supports) or National Agency Priority or
Strategy Addressed:
Expected Environmental Results (describe outputs and/or outcomes):
Stakeholder participation - Internal and External (list the principal federal, state, local and tribal
governments, industry and community groups, and key individuals involved):
Identify other funding allocated by the Region for this Project (to show leveraging of RGI funds):
Proposed Funding Instrument (all projects funded with RGI/EPP funds are subject to the prevailing
administrative rules for the funding instrument - contract, grant, cooperative agreement and interagency
agreement; grants and cooperative agreements are subject to the EPA Grant Competition Policy and may
need to be competed):
Proposed Funding recipient (if known):
Other resources leveraged - External stakeholders (identify what other financial and in-kind resources will be
leveraged):
Regional Contact Information:
Division:
3-35
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report; Appendix 3
REQUEST FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS:
REGION III REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVE PROJECTS
EPA.R3 OPM-04-01
OVERVIEW INFORMATION
Federal Agency Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Funding Opportunity Title - Region III Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) projects.
Announcement Type - Initial request for applications
Funding Opportunity Number- EPA.R3OPM-04-01
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number- 66.610: Surveys, Studies, Investigations and
Special Purpose Grants within the Office of the Administrator
Dates - Applications must be postmarked to the Regional Office by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time,
th
Friday, July 16 , 2004. Applications should also be submitted for intergovernmental review at this time in
accordance with Executive Order 12372.
FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT
I. Funding Opportunity Description
EPA Region III is soliciting assistance applications for grants or cooperative agreements which address the
National RGI Criteria and regional strategic priorities. RGI grants fund unique, geographically-based projects
that support the Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment.
RGI projects are used as "seed" or "start-up" funds that further regional strategic initiatives. Region III is
specifically looking for projects that are multi media in nature, showcase innovation, promote collaboration,
and identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding. Emphasis will be placed on projects that
would result in environmental or human health outcomes within a specific time frame.
It is our intention to approve RGI assistance agreements under the following statutes:
1. Clean Water Act, Section 104
2. Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442
3. Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001
4. Clean Air Act, Section 103
5. Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 10
6. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Action, Section 20
7. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Sections 104 and 311
8. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Action Section 203
9. Pollution Prevention Act, Section 6605
10. National Environmental Education Act, Section 6
A. National RGI Criteria
The projects must address one or more of the following:
• Places, sectors or innovative projects. Places can be urban or rural, watersheds or airsheds,
coasts or highlands, river corridors or transportation corridors. Scale can be local (from
3-36
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
neighborhoods to watersheds), and cover an ecosystem. They must, however, be less than national
in scope. Places should be tied together socially, environmentally or politically.
• Be based on a regional, state or other strategic plan. Problems addressed can be health or
ecosystem, preferably both as in the long term they are inseparable, and should reflect the local
condition (e.g. economic and social sustainability).
• Address problems that are multi-media in nature or fill a critical gap in the protection of human
health and the environment. Multi-media is defined as a combination of media coordinated under
one project or set of projects. Air, water or waste problems of significance may anchor the effort,
however.
• Demonstrate state, local and/or other stakeholder participation. Participation is preferable at all
stages of project development and implementation. Discuss the likelihood that this project will be
adopted/continued after initiative funds are no longer available.
• Identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
B. Regional Strategic Priorities
The projects also must produce measurable results in one of the following regional strategic priorities:
• Watershed Restoration - Source Water protection, Acidification, Water Supply, Wet Weather,
TMDL's.
• Reducing Environmental Exposure to Sensitive Populations - reduce lead exposure in children
(via outreach to landlords on regulatory requirements); reduce asthma in children and elderly, reduce
exposures to pesticides, asbestos, radon and harmful food exposures.
• Enhancing Environmentally Responsible Development -Low impact development projects,
Greenways, Transportation, Economic Development, Energy star/green energy; minimize
environmental impacts; green architecture (minimize storm water).
II. Award Information
A. Funding:
EPA Region III plans to award funding of approximately one million dollars with individual grants ranging from
$25,000 to $150,000.
The number of awards will depend on individual project costs.
Awards will be made for projects starting October 1, 2004 or later with performance periods not to exceed two
years.
Should additional funding become available for award the Agency may award additional grants based
on this solicitation and in accordance with the final selection process, without further notice or
competition.
B. Type of Awards:
Grants or Cooperative Agreements. A Cooperative Agreement will be used if there is substantial involvement,
participation or collaboration between the EPA and the recipient during the performance of the workplan. If
applicable, EPA involvement should be formally documented in the workplan or a condition may be added in
the award agreement.
III. Eligibility Information
3-37
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
A. Eligible Applicants - Assistance under this program is available to state, city, and township governments,
special district governments, independent school districts, state controlled institutions of higher education,
nonprofits other than institutions of higher education [includes community action agencies and other
organizations having a 501(c)(3) status], private institutions of higher education and Indian Tribes.
B. Cost Sharing or Matching - There are no cost share or matching requirements for these projects.
C. Other Eligibility Requirements
Preliminary Eligibility Screening Requirements - To be considered for funding, eligible applicants must
meet all of the following criteria. Failure to meet the following criteria will result in the automatic disqualification
of the application for funding consideration:
1. Work must benefit the Region III geographic area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, and/or the District of Columbia;
2. The project must address one or more of the National RGI Criteria (Section I.A. of this announcement);
3. The project must address one or more of the regional strategic priorities (Section I.E. of this
announcement);
4. The project must meet all format and content requirements contained in this announcement; and
5. The project must comply with the directions for submittal contained in this announcement.
Incomplete proposals or proposals that do not meet the eligibility requirements will be returned to the
applicant without being reviewed.
IV. Application and Submission Information
A. Address to Request Application Package - Standard Form 424 and other application forms may be
obtained from the following website: http://www.epa.qov/reqion3/qrants/appforms.htm or by contacting
Barbara L. Latsios at the phone number/address listed in Section IV.F. of this announcement.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission - The following format must be used for all applications
submitted:
1) Completed Page 1 of Standard Form SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
2) Completed Pages 1 and 2 of Standard Form SF-424A, Budget Information- (See Allowable Costs
Section E. below).
3) Completed Assurances Form SF-424B.
4) Completed Certification Regarding Lobbying.
5) Completed SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, if applicable.
6) Completed EPA Form 4700-4, Preaward Compliance Review Report.
7) Statement regarding whether this application is a continuation of a previously funded project. If so,
please provide the assistance number and status of the current grant/cooperative agreement.
3-38
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
8) Cover Page including: Project Title; Name of Applicant; Project Contact; Regional Strategic Priority(ies)
Addressed; Geographic Location affected by the project; and Community/Target Audience.
9) A narrative addressing each evaluation criteria separately and in the order shown in Section V.
Application Review Information of this announcement.
10) Project narrative containing:
a) Project Goals (describe in measurable terms the environmental or human health issue to be
addressed and how it will address one or more of the National and Regional criteria)
b) Project Tasks (outline the steps you will take to meet the project goals)
c) Schedule (list when you expect to complete significant steps and milestones).
d) Project Results/Evaluation (describe how you will measure and evaluate the results of your project).
e) Detailed itemization of the amounts budgeted by individual Object Class Categories (see Allowable
Costs Section IV.E., of this announcement).
f) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, as applicable.
g) Brief description of staffing and funding resources available to implement the proposed project
including the number of workers and staff qualifications (no resumes are required).
h) Brief description of the applicant organization, experience related to the regional strategic priorities
(watershed restoration, reducing environmental exposure to sensitive populations, and enhancing
environmentally responsible development), and the organization's infrastructure as it relates to its
ability to implement the proposed project.
C. Submission Dates and Times - EPA will consider all applications which are postmarked by the U.S.
Postal Service or date stamped by courier service, on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time, Friday,
July 16, 2004. Applicants must submit two hard copies of their proposal along with a diskette or CD
containing all forms in PDF format and narrative statements in either Corel WordPerfect or Microsoft
Word formats. Applications received after the due date and time will not be considered. Email and fax
submissions will not be accepted.
D. Intergovernmental Review - Applications submitted under this announcement are subject to
intergovernmental review under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
Applications must be submitted to the state Single Point of Contact (SPOC), if one exists in your state, at the
same time it is submitted to EPA. For information on the State process and the name and address of the
SPOC, refer to the Office of Management and Budget's webpage at:
http://www.whitehouse.qov/omb/qrants/spoc.html
E. Funding Restrictions
Allowable Costs - EPA grant funds may only be used for the purposes set forth in the assistance agreement,
and must be consistent with the statutory authority for the award. Grant funds may not be used for matching
funds for other Federal grants, lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In
addition, Federal funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other government entity. All
costs identified in the budget must conform to applicable Federal Cost Principles contained in OMB Circular A-
87; A-122; and A-21, as appropriate. Ineligible costs will be reduced from final grant award.
3-39
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
F. Other Submission Requirements
If you have a project that meets the criteria, you must submit an application to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1111650 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103-2029ATTN:
Barbara L. Latsios, 3PM60Telephone Number: 215-814-5384
G. Pre-Application Assistance - None planned.
V. Application Review Information
A. Evaluation Criteria
Applications that meet the eligibility requirements will be evaluated and ranked based on the application
evaluation criteria listed below.
Application Evaluation Criteria: Please address each evaluation criteria separately and in the order which it is
shown. Refer to Section IV. Application and Submission Information; B. Content and Form of
Application Submission.
The maximum score of 100 points can be reached as follows:
1. Strategic Priority and Innovation: The proposal has clearly described how it will support one of the
National RGI Criteria (Section I .A. of this announcement); will support one of the Regional Strategic Priorities
(Section I.E. of this announcement); and showcases innovation. (30 points)
2. Project Goals and Objectives: The proposal has clearly stated measurable goals and objectives. It
describes how the project will meet the goals and objectives, and will address the environmental or human
health issue(s) and achieve environmental results in a specific geographic area within a two-year time frame.
(20 points)
3. Partnerships: The proposal demonstrates a financial commitment from organizations or individuals and the
importance of the environmental or human health issue(s) to be addressed to the community(ies) or target
audiences(s). It describes how the partnership functions and how it will carry out the work of the proposed
project. (20 points)
4. Budget: The budget emphasizes that government funds will be used to effectively execute the goals and
objectives of the proposed project. The detailed explanation should be specific and conform to the line items
shown below (20 points):
Line Item
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Equipment
Supplies/Materials
Information that the applicant must provide
List individual positions and the percentage of each
individual's annual salary to be covered.
Provide the fringe benefit rate as a percentage of
salaries.
Travel must be project related - give a brief
explanation and provide an itemization, i.e., number
of trips, miles, mileage rate, per diem, etc.
Describe each item. (Tangible non-expendable
personal property with a useful life of more than one
year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per
unit.)
Provide an itemization of the types of
3-40
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Contractual Services
Other (please describe)
Indirect Costs
supplies/materials for which funding is requested.
Supplies should include expendable items only.
Provide a description of each service being
contracted with a justification for the requested level
of funding.
List other direct project expenses (e.g., postage, long
distance phone charges, etc.).
Provide a copy of the indirect cost negotiation
agreement with your cognizant federal agency, if
applicable.
5. Evaluating Success: The proposal demonstrates how information about the project, including performance
data, will enable EPA and the public to evaluate the success of the project (benefits the public or advances
scientific knowledge based on the seriousness, extent, and urgency of the environmental problem toward
which the project is directed). The proposal clearly states the time frame within which results will be
achievable. (10 points)
B. Review and Selection Process
Awards will not be made exclusively based on the evaluation. Awards will be divided among the states in
order to serve and reflect the geographic diversity of the Region and among each of the three regional
strategic priorities.
Review Team - Applications will be evaluated by an EPA Region III review team which will consist of staff
from a cross-section of EPA programs.
Selection Official - Final selection of applications will be made by the Region III Regional Administrator.
Dispute Resolution Process - Procedures at 40 CFR 30.63 and 40 CFR 31.70 apply.
VI. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notification
After the applications have been reviewed, evaluated, and ranked, successful applicants will be notified within
thirty (30) days regarding the outcome of the competition. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified within thirty
(30) days after awards are made.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Applicable Regulations - These projects are subject to EPA's General Grant Regulations: 40 CFR Part 30
"Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations"
and 40 CFR Part 31 "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State
and Local Governments", as applicable. Applicants will also be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 32
regarding debarment, suspension and a drug-free workplace.
Successful applicants may be requested to provide written accounting and procurement procedures in
accordance with the general regulations prior to award. For workplans that involve the use of environmental
data, successful applicants will need to comply with quality assurance requirements found in 40 CFR 30.54
and 40 CFR 31.45.
C. Reporting - Successful applicants will be required to submit to EPA quarterly performance reports to
illustrate their progress and document any issues or challenges, and a final report.
VII. Agency Contacts
Barbara L. Latsios, RGI Coordinator at latsios.barbara@epa.qov or 215-814-5384.
3-41
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
VIM. Other Information
Confidential Business Information - Applicants should clearly mark information contained in their
application which they consider confidential business information. EPA reserves the right to make final
confidentiality decisions in accordance with Agency regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. If no such claim
accompanies the application when it is received by the EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA
without further notice to the applicant.
EPA reserves the right to negotiate and/or adjust the final grant amount and work plan content prior to award.
EPA reserves the right to reject all applications and make no awards.
3-42
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report; Appendix 3
Rationale and Basis for Selection: EPA conducted an open regional competition for FY 2007/2008 Regional
Environmental Priority Projects. Funding sources included Regional Geographic Initiative, Source Reduction,
Resource Conservation Challenge totaling about $600,000. The solicitation invited proposals for projects
supporting at least one of the six top regional priorities (agriculture, children's health, water quality in priority
targeted watersheds, air toxics and particulate matter, environmental excellence, and Resource Conservation
Challenge ) and at least two RGI approaches (place- or sector-based, innovative, collaborative, stewardship,
and multimedia). The announcement was posted on the EPA Region 4 website and at www.grant.gov on July
23, 2007 and closed on September 10, 2007. The announcement can be viewed at
. The solicitation was open to states, local
governments, special government units, community-based organizations, education institutions, and nonprofit
organizations.
The solicitation coordinator reviewed the 63 proposals submitted to ensure that the applicants, projects, and
proposals were eligible for consideration. The coordinator consulted with Regional Counsel as appropriate on
eligibility issues. Fifty nine of the 66 proposals received were deemed to be eligible. Notice of ineligibility
was sent to the submitters of the four ineligible proposals on October 1, 2007. The coordinator subsequently
discussed the reasons for the ineligible determination with all four submitters in detail. The other 59 proposals
were evaluated as explained below.
Five teams of EPA Region 4 staff with appropriate expertise in a specific priority area representing a cross-
section of Agency programs reviewed and evaluated all 59 eligible proposals. All reviewers signed Conflict of
Interest Forms (see form in Section M) indicating that no reviewers had any such conflicts. Those forms are
available in the files of the solicitation coordinator in Region 4. Each proposal received a minimum of two
reviews, with most receiving three and the more complex multimedia proposals receiving four reviews to
ensure that all media and aspects of each proposal were thoroughly reviewed. Each review team evaluated
proposals in one priority area. Only the air and water teams did not have experts from multiple programs. The
eligible proposals were reviewed by each team to determine how effectively each applicant addressed the
criteria stated in Section V of the solicitation. After individual members of each team evaluated and scored
each assigned proposal, the teams met to discuss the proposals and do a consensus team ranking (when
needed) based on the scoring and a discussion of how well the proposals met the evaluation criteria. Teams
evaluated each proposal on how well the proposals described the need for the project and the regional
priority(ies) the project would address, project goals and objectives, how transferable the project was, how
well the project would address source reduction, and how well defined the strategies for meeting the goals
were and how well defined the activities, outputs, and results were identified, the programmatic capability of
the proposed applicant, the capability to achieve stated environmental results, the completeness of the
schedule, outputs, and outcomes, the completeness of the projected budget, and the proposed leveraging of
additional funds to support the project or continue it after federal funds were expended. Both the Eligibility
Review Form and the Evaluation Review form are attached below in Section M.
Then priority team leaders and other interested reviewers met to discuss the top 20 proposals, which included
the top four for each regional priority. The solicitation coordinator prepared the final ranking in priority and
scoring order and provided comments on the objective of each project, the value of each project,
environmental priorities addressed, and results identifying each of the Region 4 States, and linking to past
funding. Because additional funding was available for 2007/2008, the Region selected 10 projects from this
solicitation totaling approximately $540,232. When the Regional Administrator selected the final projects for
funding, he balanced the projects by environmental priority, by state, past funding, and by source reduction
and innovation. Competition: The competition file for this solicitation has been documented for Conflict of
Interest for each reviewer in compliance with the Agency Competition Order 5700.5A1 Section 19a. No
reviewers needed to recuse themselves from evaluating any proposals due to prior knowledge or involvement
with applicants. The RA Certification for the solicitation is attached below in Section M also.
3-43
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
The highest averaged score was average 92.67 and the lowest was 45.33. Consensus scoring supported the
individual ranking averages except for one priority area. Review teams scores for projects in the top 20 ranged
from 93 to 70. From these, the Regional Administrator selected 20 projects for funding. All selected applicants
ranked in the top twenty and all but one of the 20 projects receiving an average score above 79. The lowest
project received a 70 but was selected because of its importance as a regional priority and its applicability to
the entire region, the capability of the proposed recipient, and because this applicant had never received
funding in the past. The proposal clearly defined the decision maker's ability to balance selected projects
among across priorities, states, and needs and the Administrator's Discretionary Review requirements
discourage funding the same organizations over and over again. In addition, the solicitation indicated that
additional projects could be funded if funding became available within six months of initial project selection,
which occurred on March 1, 2008.
All projects were selected based on an assessment of the applicant's proposal against the evaluation and
selection factors in the announcement as stated above. Each proposal in the top 20 scored clearly explained
how they met the evaluation criteria and did so more effectively than lower ranking projects. EPA is making
ten awards under this announcement, and each applicant in the top twenty was among the highest ranking
applicants based on an evaluation of all proposals against each of the five stated ranking criteria in the
announcement. In addition, each of the selected proposals best met the specified regional environmental
priority, were the most innovative, and best met the strategic approaches, transferability and/or were in states
not previously receiving funding under this solicitation, and/or would produce the most significant
environmental results, and/or would achieve the most significant source reduction.
Awards selected include the highest ranking award (Upstate Forever at 93) which was selected because it
best addressed the watershed priority and was in a state that had seldom received funding in the past several
years and was the most innovative and transferable project in the watershed priority. In addition, the proposal
included an excellent evaluation plan for tracking project progress, strong local government support, excellent
past experience, and a well-defined strategy. The second ranking water priority was Western Kentucky (86)
was the most transferable and in a state that had never received funding under this solicitation in the past and
had well defined measures of success and strong partners and leveraging. The highest air priority (Jones
Ecological at 83) was the most innovative and transferable and best addressed ways to impact the reduction
of air toxics and particulate matter. The two highest ranking children's health projects (83 and 80) were the
most innovative and transferable with The Partnership for Community Programs developing a program for
gifted students as mentors to children suffering from asthma, good leveraging and collaboration documented,
excellent return on investment presented, was in a state that had not received funding before, and proposed
excellent evaluation tools to ensure the success of the project. The other project (Agricultural Resources
Center at 80) proposed a bilingual pesticide reduction pilot for day care which is highly transferable and
leveraged significant funding for a small federal investment and meets an important agency priority and need
for the Region. The highest ranking strategic agriculture priorities were UGA NESPAL at 87 and
Environmental Defense at 85. The UGA NESPAL demonstration project has both major children's health and
watershed management and will leverage significant funds for the next phase of the project, will share
information with local governments (also a top Region 4 priority), will have significant transferable results, and
is innovative and works in an area that has not been well explored in the past, and has well defined qualitative
and quantitative results. The Environmental Defense was both timely and addressed this regional priority very
effectively, was highly transferable with a training component, and includes major source reduction element.
The environmental excellence project scored an average of 81 (Land of Sky) was the highest ranked in this
priority area and was the most innovative project with great transferability, great use of limited federal
resources, great proven capability, and potential for significant environmental results. The consensus ranking
did not track with the highest ranking average scores for the Resources Conservation Challenge (RCC)
priority because the projects ranking the highest were not as innovative and were closer to routine
implementation. This solicitation focused heavily on demonstrations, pilots, and studies rather than routine
implementation. The consensus ranking resulted in the Univ. of FL being the highest and the Southeastern
Recycling Dev. being the fourth which raised these rankings to 89 and 79. The Univ. of FL project advanced
the strategic agriculture, water quality, and environmental excellence projects as well as RCC and was in a
State where projects have not been funded and offered excellent transference and innovation, along with
significant environmental results. The Recycling Development Council proposal provided an excellence plan
3-44
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
for transferring project results and is especially important to the SE where recycling industries exceed the
number waste management industries. The applicant also completed a similar study for one state that had
significant results so capability was excellent. Two additional projects were selected for source reduction
funding because they presented the highest environmental benefit for source reduction. The first was
submitted as an environmental excellence project which addressed source reduction and ranked second
among the environmental priority with an average score of 77. The second source reduction project selected
ranked fifth with an average score of 72 and was actually the third environmental excellence project
addressing source reduction. The second project in the environmental excellence priority with a preference
for source reduction in this category had an average score of 74 but required $75,000 which far exceeded
available remaining funds and had a less significant source reduction element to the proposed project than the
lower scoring project. The selected project (Univ. of Louisville Performance Metrics) requested only $40,000
and was selected because of that and because it more closely aligned with Region 4 source reduction needs
at this time.
Each award amount is consistent with all terms of the announcement which stated that the total awards would
be approximately $500,000 (total is $540,232), that 7 to 10 awards would be made (currently 10 awards), the
average award would be between $15,000 and $75,000 (awards range from $26,175 to $70,000). Two
source reduction grants are being awarded for $54,937 and $40,000 bringing total awards to $635,169.
Region IV REQUEST FOR GRANT PROPOSALS:
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY PROJECTS (REPP)
EPA-R4-OPM-07-01
Note: The RFP has excerpted for this Appendix to reduce length from over 30 to 10,
OVERVIEW
[Removed to reduce length]
Section I - Funding Opportunity Description.
[Removed to reduce length.]
Section III - Eligibility Information.
A. Eligible Applicants.*
Entities eligible to receive EPA funding under this announcement vary according to the requirements of each
grant program and CFDA number. *The chart on pages 28-29 specifies eligible applicants for each
CFDA number included in this solicitation.
Non-profit organizations that have a 501 (c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code or meet the definition
in OMB Circular A-122 are eligible under this funding opportunity. That Circular defines a non-profit as "any
corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization which:
(1) is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or
similar purposes in the public interest;
(2) is not organized primarily for profit; and
(3) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations.
Non-profit organizations having status under 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and/or that engage in
lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible to apply for
this funding opportunity.
3-45
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Other federal agencies, private individuals, and for-profit organizations are not eligible to apply for federal
assistance under this announcement.
B. Projects and Activities Eligible for Funding.
Proposed projects submitted for consideration under this announcement must address at least one
environmental priority discussed under Section III.D below. Proposed projects that do not address at least
one 2007 Region 4 environmental priority and at least two strategic approaches listed in Section III.D will not
be considered for funding under this announcement. The proposal narrative must explain how the proposal
meets these criteria for the proposal to be eligible for consideration. EPA will notify submitters within 15 days
of a determination of ineligibility.
Routine implementation projects that lack innovative or demonstration elements will not be funded
under this announcement.* A demonstration must involve new or experimental technologies, methods, or
approaches and include transferability and dissemination of the results of the project so others can benefit
from the knowledge gained in the demonstration project. A project that is accomplished through the
performance of routine, traditional, or established practices or is simply intended to carry out a task rather than
transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however worthwhile the project might be, will not be
funded under this solicitation.
Projects must also meet relevant statutory authority or authorities. Proposed projects that cannot be funded
under at least one relevant statutory authority will not be considered for award under this announcement.
*The general types of projects eligible for funding are shown below and a complete list of eligible
activities can be found on the chart on pages 28-29.
1. Surveys, studies, investigations, demonstrations, and special purpose activities under Section 103,
Clean Air Act; Sections 1442 or 1443, Safe Drinking Water Act; Section 104(b)(3), Clean Water Act; Section
8001, Solid Waste Disposal Act; Section 10, Toxics Substances Control Act; Section 20, Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and Sections 104(k)(6) and 311, Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
2. Water quality management and/or source water protection planning
3. Training or technical assistance on innovative techniques, tools, approaches, or models
4. Analyses, studies, evaluations, and conferences leading to reduced pollutants generated and
conservation of natural resources
5. Economic information and analytic methods to support studies, surveys, analyses, evaluations,
conferences, or demonstration projects on the benefits, costs, and impacts of environmental programs
6. Innovative activities which assist in reducing hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
entering waste streams or otherwise released into the environment
In general, EPA funds may be used to pay for personnel, fringe benefits, travel expenses, outreach materials,
supplies, and equipment (under $5,000 within applicable limitations). Awardees cannot use federal funds to
purchase land, vehicles or other capital equipment and cannot use federal funds to lobby or to complete work
which was to have been done under a prior assistance agreement. Funding may be used to contract for
services provided the recipient follows procurement and sub-award or sub-grant procedures contained in 40
CFR Parts 30 or 31, as applicable. Other federal assistance agreement funding cannot be used to provide
required matching funds for this project nor can funding under this project be used for match for any other
federal assistance.
Note: Routine project implementation (routine restoration or mitigation measures, regulatory
compliance, land acquisition, recreational features, or completion of work begun or designed under a
prior assistance agreement) cannot be funded under this funding opportunity. Projects with a source
reduction focus will be given preference over abatement and control. Demonstration projects which
also achieve geographic implementation goals are not prohibited, and are in fact, encouraged.
C. Matching fund Requirements.
Applicants must provide matching funds of 5 percent of the total project costs for projects funded under CFDA
66.717, Source Reduction. However, voluntary match and leveraging of funds and in-kind services is
3-46
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
encouraged. Leveraging is one of the proposal evaluation ranking criteria listed in Section V of this solicitation.
Please note that applicants are not required to match leveraged funds and resources and are not required to
be included in total project costs on application budget forms.
D. Eligibility Requirements.
Threshold Eligibility Criteria: To be eligible for funding consideration under this announcement, applicant
proposals must meet all of the following threshold criteria by the time of proposal submission. Failure to meet
such criteria will result in the disqualification of the proposal for funding consideration. Applicants deemed
ineligible for funding consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified within 15
calendar days of the ineligibility determination. The Threshold Eligibility Criteria for this solicitation are:
1. Proposals must substantially comply with the submission instructions and requirements set forth in
Section IV of this announcement. Proposals seeking funding for routine implementation will not be funded
under this opportunity.
2. Proposed projects must provide measurable results in protecting human health or the environment in
at least one of states in the Region 4 geographic area which includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee or on Tribal lands in Region 4.
3. Proposed projects must include measurable results in protecting human health or the environment in
at least one of the following 2007-2008 regional environmental priority areas. Preference shall be given to
approaches that prevent or reduce pollution, whenever feasible. Projects in the priority areas based on
source reduction will receive priority over those based on abatement or control.
• Pilot, demonstrate, and/or study Sustainable Agriculture Practices - Sustainable agriculture projects
should focus on: 1) Using animal waste or by-products to produce energy for use locally, 2) demonstrating
economically feasible technology to reduce the nitrogen or phosphorus content of the animal waste stream, 3)
demonstrating technology that provides a closed-loop system and reduces dependence on liquid waste
structures and/or spray fields, 4) demonstrating technologies that reduce odors or particulates from livestock
operations, 5) developing an environmental management system for an agricultural operation; or 6)
demonstrating how greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural operations can be reduced.
• Protect Children's Health - projects that build state, tribal, and local capacity to address children's
environmental health concerns and demonstrate, pilot and/or study methods and approaches to prevent and
reduce environmental health and safety threats faced by children. This includes demonstrating ways to
implement the Healthy School Environmental Assessment Tool (SEAT), developing, piloting and/or making
available a free software tool developed by EPA to help school districts voluntarily evaluate and manage their
school facilities to address environmental, health and safety issues. For more information and to download
Healthy SEAT, visit http:www.epa.gov/schools. Children's environmental health hazards may include: 1) air
pollutants, both indoor and ambient; 2) toxic chemicals, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, organochlorines such
as polychlorinated biphenyls, and dioxins; 3) endocrine disrupters; 4) environmental tobacco smoke; 5)
ultraviolet radiation; 6) water pollution; 7) brominated flame retardants; 8) radon; 9) carbon monoxide; 10)
asbestos; and 11) improperly managed school laboratory chemicals. Proposals must include at least one
education, outreach and specific intervention activity that achieves measurable environmental and public
health results. Funding is not available for waste management costs or routine implementation.
• Promote Environmental Excellence in Private and Public Sectors - projects that focus on 1)
identification and development of beyond-compliance strategies or approaches, including, but not limited to,
construction and demolition debris reuse area, green building and sustainable building practices, and organic
material reduction or reuse; 2) transfer of beyond-compliance strategies or approaches to facilities within the
same or similar sectors; 3) creation of templates or start-up kits for sector-based environmental management
systems; or 4) improving environmental management processes used by state or local environmental
regulatory agencies.
3-47
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
• Reducing Exposure to PM2.5 and Air Toxics - projects that contribute to reducing exposures to PM2.5
and air toxics should focus on: 1) developing and testing communication and outreach strategies on health
issues resulting from, and risk avoidance of, PM2.5 and air toxics exposures (e.g., creation and testing of
education kits for schools, health care providers, and local governments, or developing for broadcast public
service announcements); 2 developing and testing area-source sector-based education packages that
demonstrate to business owners the economic, environmental, and worker health benefits of PM2.5 and air
toxics pollution prevention activities; 3) demonstration of innovative activities to promote reducing exposures
to indoor air toxics in public or commercial buildings or private residences; 4) evaluating activities to reduce
PM2.5 emissions from area sources; and 5) demonstration of methods to promote activities to reduce diesel
emissions from existing engines and equipment from the both on-road and off-road sources in the agriculture,
construction, freight, ports, airports, and school bus sectors (activities eligible for funding under EPA's clean
diesel program or related programs are not eligible for funding under this solicitation).
• Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis - projects that demonstrate, pilot, or investigate methods
and approaches for improving water quality should focus on one or more of the following activities in Region 4
"Priority Watersheds:" 1) piloting, demonstrating, or investigating innovative land use techniques, green
development, and/or water quality trading; or 2) demonstrating or piloting established, inclusively-derived,
scientifically credible restoration plans to complement on-going regional and state efforts.
• Focus on the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) - projects that demonstrate ways to implement
the following RCC pillars: municipal solid waste recycling, industrial materials recycling, and priority and toxic
chemical reduction through pilots, demonstrations, or investigations. As of May 23, 2007, over 500 mayors
representing over 65 million Americans accepted the challenge U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection
agreement and commitments. Waste management has a significant role in addition to energy and
transportation in meeting this challenge and commitment. Priority for RCC projects will be given to proposals
that fit into one or more of the below targeted categories:
1) Schools: outreach, training and technical assistance to elementary/secondary systems and/or
college/university systems to establish new or expand existing recycling and/or school chemical management
programs;
2) Municipal officials: toolkit and outreach, workshops, training and/or technical assistance for municipal
officials in establishing new or expanding existing recycling programs focused on increasing collections and
participation that promote the key messages of recycling: recycling strengthens the environment through
resource conservation, energy savings and greenhouse gas reduction and strengthens the economy by
creating jobs, using vendors and manufacturing products, and strengthens communities quality of life.
Identifies solutions to contractual and institutional barriers to recycling (agreement duration, local contract
procedures, legal language or relationship, etc.) and how to craft win-win solutions for all parties
(haulers/municipal recycling facilities/operators, etc.).
3) Various Venues: sustainable food waste collection or diversion pilot or demonstration projects [Possible
venues might be schools, restaurants, hospitals, or entertainment events];
4) Small-to-Medium Businesses: demonstration of effective and integrated sustainable environmental
management approach that provides for the identification and development of sustainable practices and
measurements that will result in increased recycling participation and collection;
5) Municipalities: develop a tool or calculator to evaluate various scenarios baselined on current households
served, participation rates, materials collected, program costs (and revenues), garbage tipping fee, and cost
per ton and provides for modeled analysis of changes such as participation rates or materials and collection
practices. Tool will require common factors, such as how much more tonnage (or Ibs per household) can a
community expect if they add mixed paper, commingled versus separation program collections, cart programs
versus bins, weekly versus bi-weekly, and etc. The outputs should include the change in cost (revenue) per
ton, Ibs per household, greenhouse gas reductions and energy saved. One outcome of this tool would be to
start standardizing the methodologies the broader recycling community is using;
3-48
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
6) Yard Waste: pilot a sustainable yard waste recycling or composting program
7) Green Building Initiatives: reliable education program(s), outreach initiatives and workshops that promote
material conservation and support encouraging Green Building initiatives, use and encourage recycling of
construction and demolition material and reuse of industrial materials;
8) Economic or Regulatory Barriers: evaluate or demonstrate utilization of coal combustion products and/or
foundry sand, in lieu of virgin materials, in construction, transportation or other beneficial reuse applications
based on solving economic and/or regulatory barrier(s);
9) Secondary Material Handling: examine and/or evaluate current secondary material handling practices and
recommend best management practices (BMPs) in the fields of automobile disassembly, scrap metal
handling, with an emphasis on cleaning the scrap metal supply to the iron & steel sector.
10) CFL: pilot a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) collection program in a retail environment or in a municipal
collection program for the recycling of mercury and metals from CFLs for the consumer marketplace
11) Biosolids and Organic Materials: pilot or demonstrate the sustainable use of biosolids and organic
(compost) material for beneficial use in highway and transportation projects consistent with the proposed
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG).
4. Proposed projects must use two or more of the following approaches, and the proposal must clearly
explain how the approach is relevant to or integrated into the project.
• Place- or sector-based Approach: Projects may use a place- or a sector-based approach to
address a regional environmental priority. The place can be urban or rural, a watershed or airshed, coasts or
highlands, river corridors or transportation corridors, or any other geographic unit/area. The issue and
approach can be local (neighborhoods to watersheds) or state-wide, interstate, ecosystem-wide, or on a
regional scale. The proposal should clearly define the place or sector to be addressed by the project and how
this focus will promote environmental improvement. Please note: For place-based projects, proposals
must include a map of the project area.
• Multi-media Approach: Projects may address contamination or pollution by using a joint approach
to several environmental media (e.g., air, water, and land.
• Collaborative Problem Solving and/or Leveraging Approach: Participation of stakeholders and
partners is encouraged at all stages of project development and implementation. Proposal should discuss the
likelihood of the proposed project being adopted or continued after EPA funds are no longer available.
Leveraging of additional resources (non-federal funding or in-kind services) is strongly encouraged.
Applicants may use their own funds or in-kind resources for match, if the standards of 40 CFR 30.23or 40
CFR 31.24, as applicable, are met. Only eligible and allowable costs may be used for match. Other Federal
grants may not be used as match or cost share without specific statutory authority (e.g. HDD's Community
Development Block Grants may be used for match.)
• Stewardship Approach: Project emphasis may encourage and develop partnerships, market
incentives, recognition and leadership awards, pollution prevention, environmental education, technical
assistance, information, and collaborative problem solving resulting in environmental stewardship - where
multiple sectors and groups in a community actively take responsibility to improve environmental quality and
achieve sustainable results. EPA's definition of stewardship is: "Environmental stewardship is the
responsibility for environ- mental quality shared by all those whose actions affect the environment."
Section IV - Proposal Submission and Application Information.
[Removed to reduce length.]
Section V - Proposal Review Information.
3-49
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
A. Evaluation Criteria.
EPA Region 4 staff will evaluate each eligible proposal (determined by the threshold eligibility review
described in Section III D) according to the criteria set forth below. Submitters should directly and
explicitly address these criteria as part of the proposal submittal. Each proposal will be rated under a
points system, with a total of 100 points possible.
Note: EPA Region 4 will give preference to approaches that prevent or reduce pollution, rather than
abatement and control, and projects that are transferable, whenever feasible.
Note: In evaluating applicants under Evaluation Criteria 2 below, reviewers may consider the
information provided by the applicant and also relevant information from other sources including
agency files and from prior/current grantors (e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information
supplied by the applicant). Applicants with no relevant or available past performance reporting
history or programmatic capability history will receive a neutral score for this factor.
Proposal Criteria Weight
1. Project Description 25 points
The extent and quality to which the proposal clearly demonstrates the need for the project, addressing at least
one environmental or health issue(s); how the project will address at least one Region 4 priority; which
strategic approaches will be used to meet project goals (and map of the project area for place-based projects);
the transferability of project or approach to other similar situations or other areas; explanation of how project
promotes source reduction, if applicable; project goals and the strategies to meet the goals and specific
activities to be conducted; and the outputs and environmental results to be achieved by the project
2. Capability 20 points
Environmental Results Past Performance: Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on the
extent and quality to which they adequately documented and/or reported on progress towards achieving the
expected results (e.g., outcomes and outputs) under Federal agency assistance agreements performed within
the last three years, and if such progress was not being made whether the applicant adequately documented
and/or reported why not. (See note above)
Programmatic Capability: Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on their ability to
successfully complete and manage the proposed project taking into account the following factors: (i) its past
performance in successfully completing and managing federally funded assistance agreements similar in size,
scope, and relevance to the proposed project performed within the last 3 years, (ii) its history of meeting
reporting requirements under federally funded assistance agreements similar in size,
scope, and relevance to the proposed project performed within the last 3 years and submitting acceptable final
technical reports under those agreements, (iii) organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully
achieving the objectives of the proposed project, and (iv) its staff expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and
resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the proposed project. (See note
above)
3. Performance Evaluation 20 points
The extent and quality to which the proposal describes a clear method and plan for measuring progress
toward achieving expected project outputs and environmental or health results. The plan will be evaluated on
the effectiveness for tracking and measuring progress toward achieving expected outputs and results.
Performance measures should be qualitative as well as quantitative to the extent possible.
4. Leveraging 10 points
The extent and quality to which the proposal explains (i) how the applicant will coordinate the use of EPA
funding with other Federal and/or non-Federal funding sources to leverage additional funding and/or
resources (in-kind) to sustain and/or complete the project or to sustain or complete the overall geographic
environmental objectives, and/or (ii) that EPA funding will compliment activities relevant to the proposed
project(s) carried out by the applicant with other sources of funds or resources (in-kind) (iii) where appropriate,
3-50
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
EPA will also consider the likelihood of the project being implemented or continuing after EPA funds are no
longer available. Note: Leveraging of additional funds is strongly encourage, but not required.
Applicants may use their own funds or resources (in-kind) or those from non-federal organizations
for matching funds if the standards of 40 CFR 30.23or 40 CFR 31.24, as applicable are met. Only
eligible and allowable costs may be used for required matches. Other Federal grants may not be
used as match or cost share without specific statutory authority (e.g. HUD's Community Development
Block Grants.)
5. Schedule, Outputs, and Outcomes 10 points
The extent and quality to which the proposal defines milestones and schedule for achieving measurable
outputs and outcomes for project tasks specified in the project description
6. Budget 15 points
The extent and quality to which the proposal explains how federal funds will be used effectively to achieve
project goal or goals and environmental outcomes and the reasonableness and cost effectiveness of
estimated expenditures. Appropriateness of expenses to accomplishing project goal(s) and eligibility of
expenses with sufficient detail to determine if EPA Region 4 will receive good return on the funding it is to
provide to the project. Detail on how match and/or leveraged funds or resources (in-kind) will contribute to the
project must be included and how well schedule indicates a well-thought-out plan for achieving project goals.
The total costs should include the federal and matching (non-federal) shares. Leveraged funds do not require
match and are not required to be
included in total project costs.
Total Evaluation Points 100 points
B. Review and Selection Process.
All proposals will first be reviewed for eligibility based on the threshold criteria listed in Section III of this
announcement. The REPP Coordinator will make the threshold eligibility determination based on the Section
III threshold factors.
Eligible proposals will then be evaluated by an EPA Region 4 review team consisting of managers and/or staff
from a cross section of EPA programs (e.g., air, water, waste, compliance, Tribal/State partnerships, voluntary
programs, children's health, pollution prevention, etc.). Proposals will be evaluated on each applicant's ability
to meet the stated evaluation criteria in Section V.A of this announcement. Based on the results of the
evaluation process, the review team will make funding recommendations to the Approving Official on the
proposed projects, and the Approving Official will make the final selection decisions on award amounts and
the number of awards. The Approval Official will make final selection decisions based on the scores and
rankings each applicant received under the criteria in Section V.A, the review panel recommendations, and
may also consider other factors such as geographical distribution, project diversity, programmatic diversity,
and past funding decisions in final project selection. The selection process is expected to be competitive, so
all quality proposals may not be funded.
Reviewers are required to sign a disclosure of conflict of interest form, and those with any un-resolved
conflicts will not be permitted to serve as reviewers.
The Region 4 REPP Coordinator with input from the review team will make the final determination regarding
statutory authority and the appropriate CFDA listed in this solicitation under which funding will be awarded to
the selected projects.
Section VI -Award Administration Information.
[Removed to reduce length]
Section VII - Agency Contact
3-51
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
[Removed to reduce length]
Section VIM - Other Information.
[Removed to reduce length]
3-52
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
'1
5, .1;
Region 5 staff provided a link to the Region's RGI website, which provides eligibility criteria, award amounts,
total funds awarded, and contact information:
Sample screenshot:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Purpose:
A urtiuu* fundm-a source us«d for geoflraphitally-based projects that fill critical flaps in the Agency's ability
to protect human health and the environment.
Slate agencies, federally recognized Tribes,, local governments, colleges, universities, and non-profrt
organizations
Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)
Eligible Applicants:
Matching Snare;
None
a result of the R'04 Gr«t cit«« Regional initiative, all RSI fund* will be awarded to Bh€ 6 Great Citi«s
within Region S: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee.
Awards may vary depending on project need and availability of furtdiruo. In FY04, ReOion 5 has made
available $204,000 to each of the Great Cities
Total Awarded in Fiscal Year:
In FV 2003, Re-gion S awarded 590,018,
Key Dates:
Applications due; Call contact below
Selectiun: Call contact below
3-53
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Program
66.116 Regional Geographic Initiative/environmental Priority Projects
Federal Agency
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Authorization
Clean Water Act, Section 104; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20, Clean Air Act,
Section 103; Solid Waste Disposal Ace, Section 8001; Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442; Toxic Substances
Control Act, Section 10.
Program Number
66.116
Last Known Status
Active
Objectives
To support investigations, surveys, studies, and special purpose assistance to protect public health and prevent,
reduce, and eliminate pollution within the Region VI area of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas. Funding Priority - Fiscal Year 2007 includes supporting surveys, studies and investigations associated with
air quality, acid deposition, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides: (1) to
identify, develop and demonstrate necessary pollution control techniques; (2) to prevent, reduce and eliminate
pollution; (3) to support environmental education; and (4) to promote collaboration with states to reduce
environmental hazards that may affect health and the environment. Funding Priority - Fiscal Year 2008 includes
supporting surveys, studies and investigations associated with air quality, acid deposition, drinking water, water
quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides: (2) to identify, develop and demonstrate necessary
pollution control techniques; (2) to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution; (3) to support environmental education;
and (4) to promote collaboration with states to reduce environmental hazards that may affect health and the
environment.
Types of Assistance
Project Grants (Cooperative Agreements).
Uses and Use Restrictions
Assistance awards in the form of grants and cooperative agreements are available to support recipients' allowable
direct costs incident to approved surveys, studies, investigations, training, demonstrations and special purpose
assistance, plus allowable indirect costs, in accordance with established EPA policies and regulations. Funding
awarded for research does not include research within the purview of EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Assistance agreement awards under this program may involve or relate to geospatial information. Further
information regarding geospatial information may be obtained by viewing the following website:
http://geodata.epa.gov. "Geospatial Information" includes: Information that identifies the geographic location and
characteristics of natural or constructed features or boundaries on the Earth, or applications, tools, and hardware
associated with the generation, maintenance, or distribution of such information. This information may be derived
from, among other things, GPS, remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data.
Eligibility Requirements
Applicant Eligibility
Assistance under this program is generally available to States, territories, Indian Tribes, and possessions of the
United States. Assistance is also available to public and private universities and colleges, hospitals, laboratories,
and other public or private nonprofit institutions. For certain competitive funding opportunities under this CFDA
description, the Agency may limit eligibility to compete to a number or subset of eligible applicants consistent with
the Agency's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy. Nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 are not eligible to apply. For profit organizations are not eligible for funding.
Beneficiary Eligibility
3-54
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
State and local governments, U.S. territories and possessions, Indian Tribes, universities and colleges, hospitals,
laboratories, other public and private nonprofit institutions, and individuals.
Credentials/Documentation
Documentation of nonprofit status may be required. Applicants may be requested to demonstrate they have
appropriate background, academic training, experience in the field and necessary equipment to carry out projects.
Applicants may be requested to provide curriculum vitae and relevant publications.
Application and Award Process
Preapplication Coordination
EPA Region VI awards grants and cooperative agreements to support surveys, studies, investigations, training,
demonstrations and special purpose projects under this program description. Regarding pre-application/pre-
proposal assistance with respect to competitive funding opportunities under this program description, EPA will
generally specify the nature of the pre-application/pre-proposal assistance, if any, that will be available to applicants
in the competitive announcement. For additional information, contact the individual(s) listed as "Information
Contacts" or see Appendix IV of the Catalog. This program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372,
"Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as
the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed
in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.
Application Procedure
Applicants may be able to use http://www.grants.gov to electronically apply for certain grant opportunities under this
CFDA. For competitive awards, the competitive announcement will specify application procedures.
Award Procedure
For competitive awards, EPA will review and evaluate applications, proposals, and/or submissions in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and criteria stated in the competitive announcement. Competitions will be conducted in
accordance with EPA policies/regulations for competing assistance agreements.
Deadlines
For competitive awards, deadlines will be specified in the competitive announcement.
Range of Approval/Disapproval Time
Appeals
Assistance agreement competition-related disputes will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution
procedures published in 70 FR (Federal Register) 3629, 3630 (January 26, 2005). Copies of these procedures may
also be requested by contacting the individual(s) listed as "Information Contacts." Disputes relating to matters other
than the competitive selection of recipients will be resolved under 40 CFR 30.63 or 40 CFR 31.70, as applicable.
Renewals
None. A standard grant application should be prepared and submitted as a new grant, which will be reviewed in the
same manner as the original application and will compete for available funds. EPA can incrementally fund grants
and cooperative agreements for surveys, studies, investigations, training, demonstrations and special purpose
assistance. The approval of subsequent funding increments is dependent on satisfactory project progress,
continued relevance of the project to Region VI priorities, and the availability of funds.
Assistance Considerations
Formula and Matching Requirements
None.
Length and Time Phasing of Assistance
Grants and cooperative agreements are normally funded on a 12-month basis. The total approved project period
may not exceed two years for competitive awards. Grants and cooperative agreements will be paid electronically
utilizing automated funds transfer.
Post Assistance Requirements
Reports
EPA includes reporting requirements for grants and cooperative agreements in the terms and conditions of the
agreements. Agreements may require quarterly, interim, and final progress reports, and financial and equipment
reports. Reporting requirements are also identified in EPA's grant regulations 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31.
Audits
Grants and cooperative agreements are subject to inspections and audits by the Comptroller General of the United
States, the EPA Office of Inspector General, other EPA staff, or any authorized representative of the Federal
government. Reviews by the EPA Project Officer and the Grants Specialist may occur each year. In accordance
with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments,
3-55
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
and Non-Profit Organizations," non-federal entities that expend $500,000 or more in a year in Federal awards shall
have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Non-federal entities that expend less than
$500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in
OMB Circular No. A-133.
Records
The record retention requirements of 40 CFR Part 30 (non-profits and institutions of higher education) or 40 CFR
Part 31 (governmental units) are applicable depending upon the identity of the recipient. Recipients must keep
financial records, including all documents supporting entries on accounting records which support substantial
changes to the grant, available to personnel authorized to examine EPA recipients' grants and cooperative
agreement records. Recipient must maintain all records for a period of three (3) years from the date of submission
of final expenditures reports. If questions, such as those raised as a result of audits or litigation remain following the
3-year period, recipients must retain records until the matter is fully resolved.
Program Accomplishments
Region VI funded grants to eligible recipients for unique, geographically-based projects that support the Agency's
ability to protect human health and the environment and further regional strategic initiatives. FY 2006 projects
(totaling $579,500) included: Blue Skyways Collaboration, Alternative Asbestos Control Methods, Video Conference
Equipment for New Mexico and Louisiana, Beyond Translation, Nutrient Loading, Effective public Communications
(Waters to the Sea), Phosphorus Monitoring/HAWK Camera Monitoring, Coliphage Detection in Drinking Water,
Waste to Energy Anaerobic Digestion, West-End Redevelopment Initiative in New Orleans, Urban Heat
Island/Stormwater Dallas Sustainable Skyways, and Methane Power at the Dallas Zoo. FY 2007 ($557,000)
projects included: Development of On-line Toll for Redevelopers, Pesticide Risks E-filing, Joint Compliance
Assistance Storm Water Training; Roads as Pollution Controls, Blue Skyways Collaborative, Alternative method for
Asbestos Demolition, Beyond Translation, Environmental Health Education Outreach, and Dallas Urban Heat
Island/Stormwater Mitigation.
Financial Information
Account Identification
68-0108-0-1-304.
Obligations
Estimated funds available will vary based on regional allocation. FY 06 $579,500; FY 07 $557,000; and FY 08
$300,000.
Range and Average of Financial Assistance
Range of assistance: $10,000 to $75,000; average $50,000.
Regulations, Guidelines and Literature
Grants and cooperative agreements are subject to EPA general grant regulations (40 CFR Part 30, "Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations" and 40 CFR Part
31, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments"). Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular A-87 for State and local governments
and Indian Tribes; OMB Circular No. A-21 for educational institutions; and OMB Circular No. A-122 for nonprofit
institutions.
Related Programs
None.
Information Contacts
Regional or Local Office
EPA encourages potential applicants to communicate with EPA, Region VI located at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Margie Floyd, Telephone: (214) 665-8461, Fax: (214) 665-7284, and E-mail:
floyd.margie@epa.gov.
Headquarters Office
None.
Web Site Address
http://www.epa.gov/docs/earth1r6/gandf/
Examples of Funded Projects
Development of On-line Toll for Redevelopers, Pesticide Risks E-filing,Joint Compliance Assistance Storm Water
Training; Roads as Pollution Controls, Blue Skyways Collaborative, Alternative method for Asbestos Demolition,
3-56
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
Beyond Translation, Environmental Health Education Outreach, and Dallas Urban Heat Island/Stormwater
Mitigation.
Criteria for Selecting Proposals
The evaluation and selection criteria for competitive awards under this CFDA description will be described in the
competitive announcement.
3-57
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report; Appendix 3
REQUEST FOR GRANT PROPOSALS:
REGION 7 REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVE PROJECTS
EPA-R7RGAD-04-006
OVERVIEW INFORMATION
A. Federal Agency Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Funding Opportunity Title - Region 7 Regional Geographic Initiative projects.
Announcement Type - This is a request for initial proposals.
Funding Opportunity Number - EPA-R7RGAD-04-006
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number - 66.610: Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special
Purpose Grants within the Office of the Administrator, authorized under Delegation of Authority I-47.
Dates - Applications must be submitted to the Regional Office by May 25, 2004. Applicants selected through initial
proposal phase will be notified to submit a full fundable application by July 15, 2004, for award.
B. Executive Summary - EPA Region 7 is soliciting initial proposals to implement the Region's strategic priorities:
critical ecosystems, sensitive populations, and agriculture. The critical ecosystem priority focuses on facilitating the
protection and/or restoration of ecosystems in Region 7, which are critical to biodiversity, human quality of life,
and/or landscape functions. The sensitive populations priority focuses on reducing environmental and health risks to
children, older adults, and people with chronic illness. The agriculture priority focuses on developing partnerships
and projects in the agriculture community emphasizing cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land.
FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT
1. Funding Opportunity Description
EPA Region 7 is soliciting initial proposals which address the regional strategic priorities utilizing the Regional
Geographic Initiative program. Regional Geographic Initiative grants fund unique, geographically-based projects
that support the Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment. These projects may address places,
sectors or innovative projects, and focus on the regional strategic priorities of critical ecosystems, sensitive
populations, and agriculture. These projects may also address problems that: are multi-media in nature;
demonstrate state, local, and/or other stakeholder participation; identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of
funding; or support smart growth planning in communities. Smart growth projects are those focused on improving
the quality of life in communities by integrating the tenets of ecology, equity and management by citizens.
Agriculture - Proposed projects should involve surveys, studies, investigations, special purpose projects, related to
agricultural/environmental issues.
Sensitive Populations - Proposed projects should involve surveys,
studies, investigations, and special purpose projects related to sensitive populations. Sensitive populations include
children (prenatal through age 21), older adults (65 plus years of age with 85 plus years of age designated as
particularly fragile), and chronically ill (such as respiratory ailments and compromised immune systems).
Critical Ecosystems - Proposed projects should involve surveys, investigations, special purpose projects, applied
studies and/or application development related to the identification and/or assessment of regional ecosystems.
Successful applicants should focus proposals on one or more of the following project ideas:
• Environmental planning or environmental projects that support community revitalization. Highest priority is
communities with ongoing or completed remediation of sites with environmental contamination.
• Community education and outreach activities to address all cultural communities within an identified
geographic area with lead contamination.
• Education and outreach activities include lead poisoning health information and prevention measures.
• Projects initiated by community-based organizations engaged in constructive and collaborative problem-
solving to find solutions to their community's environmental and/or public health concerns
• Source water protection/pollution prevention pilot projects focused on keeping contaminants out of sources
of drinking water.
• Educate and inform migrant and seasonal workers, not covered under FIFRA work protection standards, on
safe handling of chemicals.
• Determine human health impacts through assessment of homes in older residential neighborhoods, which
previously had natural gas meters with mercury regulators removed from inside the home.
• Examine impacts of pesticides used on traditional row crops on new and emerging crops.
3-58
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
• Evaluate effectiveness of best management practices for pesticides and herbicide use. Evaluate
effectiveness of best management practices for reducing nutrient loading to receiving waterbodies. Projects
focused on biomass technologies such as production of biomass feedstocks and waste stream utilization
practices.
• Reconnection of communities to the Missouri River through hands-on restoration activities, education, and
improved public access.
• Focusing on ecological resource analyses, irreplaceability/recoverability analyses, and risk assessments,
identify critical ecosystem in terrestrial environments for Region 7 ecoregions. Utilizing aquatic gap
methodology and an aquatic ecological classification framework, identify riverine critical ecosystems for
Region 7 ecoregions.
• Using geospatial analysis methods, including the use of satellite digital data, study and assess long-term
ecosystem changes caused by complex physical, biological, and human interactions in a dynamic
metropolitan environment.
• Education and assistance for communities to identify and/or gain reductions on air toxics in geographic
areas that are not in compliance with national ambient air quality standards
2. Award Information
EPA Region 7 plans to award a varied number of grants or cooperative agreements. Funding available to the
Region is expected to be between $250,000 and $1,000,000 with individual grants ranging from $10,000 to
$100,000.
The number of awards will depend on individual proposal cost; the final aggregate amount of federal funding for all
Initial Proposals; and the total amount of federal funding available.
Should additional funding become available for award the Agency may award additional grants based on
this solicitation and in accordance with the final selection process, without further notice or competition.
3. Eligibility Information
A. Eligible Applicants - Assistance under this program is available to States, territories, Indian Tribes, and
possessions of the U.S., including the District of Columbia, public and private universities and colleges, hospitals,
laboratories, other public or private non-profit institutions, individuals. Nonprofit organizations described in Section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible to apply. For profit organizations are not eligible for funding. Some of EPA's
statutes may limit assistance to specific types of interested applicants.
B. Cost Sharing or Matching - There are no cost share requirements for these projects.
C. Other Eligibility Requirements
Preliminary Eligibility Screening Requirements - To be eligible for consideration, applicants must meet all of the
following criteria. Failure to meet the following criteria will result in the automatic disqualification of the proposal for
funding consideration:
1. Be an applicant who is eligible to receive funding under this announcement.
2. The proposal must address one or more of the Regional Strategic Priorities: agriculture, sensitive populations
and/or critical ecosystems.
3. The proposal must meet all format and content requirements contained in this notice.
4. The proposal must comply with the directions for submittal contained in this notice.
4. Proposal and Submission Information
A. Address to Request Application Package - Standard Form 424 may be obtained from the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/region07/economics/appforms.htm or by contacting Toni Gargas at the number/address listed in
this announcement.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission - Initial proposals should be limited to five pages (not including
Standard Form SF-424, and SF-424A and Cover Page). Page size should be 8 14 x 11 inches with font size of 12
points or larger. Full application packages should not be submitted at this time. The following format should be used
for all initial proposals submitted:
• Completed Page 1 of Standard Form SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
• Completed Page 2 of Standard Form SF-424A, Budget Information-Section B (See Allowable Cost section
below).
• Statement regarding whether this proposal is a continuation of a previously funded project, if so, please
provide the assistance number and status of the current grant/cooperative agreement.
• Cover Page including: Project Title; Name of Applicant; Project Contact; Regional Priority(ies) Addressed;
Geographic Location; and Community/Target Audience.
• Project narrative containing: Project Goals (describe in measurable terms the environmental or human
health issue to be addressed and how it will address the purpose(s) of the category chosen); Project Tasks
(outline the steps you will take to meet the project goals); Schedule (when you expect to complete
3-59
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
significant steps and milestones). Describe how the project will address: places, sectors or innovative
projects; be based on one or more of the regional strategic priorities of critical ecosystems, sensitive
populations, and agriculture; address problems that are multi-media in nature; demonstrate state, local,
and/or other partner participation; and/or identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
• Project Results/Evaluation (describe how you will measure and evaluate the results of your project, and
how the proposed project meets the Evaluation Criteria specified in this announcement).
• Detailed itemization of the amounts budgeted by individual Object Class Categories (see Allowable Cost
section below).
• Brief description of staffing and funding resources available to implement the proposed project including the
number of workers and staff qualifications (no resumes are required).
• Brief description of the applicant organization, experience related to the area of interest (critical
ecosystems, sensitive populations, and/or agriculture), and the organization's infrastructure as it relates to
its ability to implement the proposed project.
C. Submission Dates and Times - EPA will consider all initial proposals which are post-marked by the U.S. Postal
Service, hand-delivered, or electronically delivered to the Agency, or include official delivery service documentation
indicating EPA acceptance from a delivery service, on or before 5 p.m. Central Time, May 25, 2004. Electronic
submittals are preferred. Initial proposals received after the due date will not be considered for funding. All initial
proposals should be e-mailed, mailed, or delivered to: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Attention: Toni Gargas
PLMG/POIS
901 N. 5th St.
Kansas City, KS66101
email: gargas.toni@epa.gov
D. Intergovernmental Review - Applicants should be aware that formal requests for assistance may be subject to
intergovernmental review under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Both
proposals and formal requests for funding are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); this means that
anyone can request, and receive copies of them.
E. Funding Restrictions
Allowable Costs - EPA grant funds may only be used for the purposes set forth in the grant agreement, and must
be consistent with the statutory authority for the award. Grant funds may not be used for matching funds for other
Federal grants, lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, Federal
funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other government entity. All costs identified in the
budget must conform to applicable Federal Cost Principles contained in OMB Circular A-87; A-122; and A-21, as
appropriate. Ineligible costs will be reduced from final grant award.
F. Other Submission Requirements
Confidential Business Information - Applicants should clearly mark information contained in their proposal which
they consider confidential business information. EPA reserves the right to make final confidentiality decisions in
accordance with Agency regulations at 40 CFR, Subpart B. If no such claim accompanies the proposal when it is
received by the EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant.
Pre-Application Assistance - None planned.
5. Proposal Review Information
A. Criteria
All responsive proposals, those that meet all eligibility criteria listed in the Preliminary Eligibility Screening
Requirements section, will be reviewed, evaluated and ranked by a selected panel of EPA reviewers based on the
following evaluation criteria.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria:
1. The proposal has clearly stated measurable goals and objectives. Description of how meeting the goals and
objectives will address the environmental or human health issue(s) and achieve environmental results. (20 pts)
2. Multi-media approach (air, land, water, pollution prevention, etc) and replicable or transferable to other
communities, locations, sectors. (20 pts)
3. Importance of the environmental or human health issue(s) to be addressed to the community(ies) or target
audience(s). How applicant and partners are currently involved with the community(ies) or audience(s) that will be
impacted or engaged. Partnerships in place to accomplish the project. Examples of commitment and experience of
applicant and/or partnership that support the ability to conduct the proposed project. (15 pts)
4. Proposal relevance to one or more of the project ideas listed and clear linkage to one or more of the Regional
Priorities (ie. Agriculture, Sensitive Populations, and Critical Ecosystems). (15 pts)
5. Description of the financial needs of the proposed project, identify funds/resources that have been committed or
will be committed, and describe how this grant will stimulate the availability of other funding sources. (15 pts)
3-60
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
6. Ability to manage this grant or describe the system in place to hire the requisite experience. Applicant's history of
managing federal funds. If applicant is, or has been, a recipient of an EPA grant/cooperative agreement, provide
information regarding compliance with quarterly progress reports, reporting measures, and annual financial status
reporting. (15 pts).
Proposals are evaluated by the quality of the submission related to the above
criteria. The last criterion does not add value in the rating process for prior grant
recipients to give an automatic advantage over new applicants. The last criterion,
does, in cases of inadequate and inappropriate prior grant performance, lower an
applicant's ranking; it allows consideration of poor past performance in the
evaluation of current grant proposals.
B. Selection Process - The funding decision will be made from the group of top rated initial proposals based on the
following additional factors:
1. Geographical distribution of funds; and
2. Distribution across Region 7; Regional Strategic Priorities; and EPA strategic goals and objectives.
An applicant whose proposal is selected for federal funding must complete additional forms prior to award (see 40
CFR 30.12 and 31.10). EPA reserves the right to negotiate and/or adjust the final grant amount and work
plan content prior to award. In addition, successful applicants will be required to certify that they have not been
Debarred or Suspended from participation in federal assistance awards in accordance with 40 CFR Part 32.
Selection Official - Final selection of initial proposals will be made by the Region 7 Regional Administrator. EPA
reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards.
6. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notification - The Region 7 EPA office will mail acknowledgments to applicants upon receipt of the
proposal. Once initial proposals have been reviewed, evaluated, and ranked, applicants will be notified regarding
the outcome of the competition. A listing of successful proposals will be posted on the Region 7 EPA website
address: http://www.epa.gov/region07/economics/r7_grant_opportunities.htm at the conclusion of the competition.
This website may also contain information about this announcement including information concerning deadline
extensions or other modifications.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Statutory Authority and Applicable Regulations - These projects are subject to EPA's General Grant
Regulations: 40 CFR Part 30 "Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other
Nonprofit Organizations"; 40 CFR Part 31 "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments"; and 40 CFR Part 35 "State and Local Assistance", as applicable.
Dispute Resolution Process - Procedures at 40 CFR 30.63 and 40 CFR 31.70 apply.
C. Reporting - The successful applicant(s) will be required to submit to EPA quarterly performance reports, to
illustrate their progress and document any issues or challenges, and a final report. An EPA Project Officer will work
with the applicant to achieve the project goals and to provide necessary technical assistance.
7. Agency Contacts
Toni Gargas at gargas.toni@epa.gov telephone (913) 551-7193, Fax
(913)551-9193
Karen Flournoy at flournoy.karen@epa.gov telephone (913) 551-7782,
Fax (913) 551-7976
Kathy Finazzo, Region 7 Competition Advocate, at
finazzo.kathy@epa.gov telephone (913) 551-7833, Fax (913) 551-9833
Januarys, 2007
Regional Geographic Initiative and Environmental Priority Project Funding
Background - The Office of Regional Operations (ORO), under the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) administers a discretionary fund to each of the ten Regions. This fund is
known as the Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)/ Environmental Priority Project (EPP) fund. Each Region is
allocated funding equally. The fund is then traditionally split 65/35 with the majority of funding going toward
RGI.
3-61
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
RGI Description: RGI, typically, funds unique, geographically-based projects that fill critical gaps in the
Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment.
RGI projects1:
- address places, sectors, or innovative projects; and/or
- are based on a regional, state, tribal or other strategic plan; and/or
- address problems that are multi-media in nature or fill a critical gap in the protection of human health and
the environment; and/or
- demonstrate state, local and/or other stakeholder participation; and/or
- identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding.
EPP Description: EPP is considered the Regional Administrator's discretionary funding. This portion of the
fund is typically used for narrowly focused, regional projects, non-solicited projects, non-competed projects,
and other special instances or initiatives that support the mission of the Agency.
RGI - EPP Region 7 Process
Priority Setting: In the fourth quarter of the outgoing fiscal year or the first quarter of the new fiscal year,
priorities are set by the Regional Administrator's office for the use of discretionary funding. The Regional
Administrator and Deputy Regional Administrator identify priorities for the year as well as canvass the
Regional Senior Management for input into the priorities.
Fund Expenditure Process: After the Regional priorities have been identified, input is sought from the
Region's Senior Management on projects or initiatives that would best address the priorities. After projects
and initiatives are identified, they are turned over to the POIS Branch Chief and RGI coordinator to gather
details about each project. A summary of each of the proposed projects is written up and the briefing paper
is submitted to the Regional Administrator's office for approval, all, some or none of the projects.
Once projects are approved, the list is returned to the RGI coordinator. The RGI coordinator is to follow-up
with each of the division directors to move the process along for funding. The RGI coordinator may help
write solicitations and provide guidance as necessary during the funding process; however it is up each
division to move the identified projects forward for funding.
The RGI coordinator will provide a funding memo to the Regional Administrator and/or Deputy Regional
Administrator for final funding approval. This memo will be given to the budget officer before funding is
assigned to any project. Upon receipt of the funding memo, the budget officer will then complete the
funding of each project. The RGI coordinator and the budget officer will work closely to monitor the
expenditure of these funds throughout the fiscal year. The RGI coordinator will compose a quarterly report
for the Regional Administrator's office.
1 Taken from the ORO webpage on ROI
3-62
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report; Appendix 3
Region 8 RGI and EPP Project Selection Processes
RGI EPA Region 8 Project Proposal Guidance
The Regional Geographic Initiative funds unique, geographically based projects that fill critical gaps in the
Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment. In Region 8, RGI funding supports projects in
geographic areas in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming that have been
identified as a high priority by the Region, States, Tribes, localities, or citizen groups due to high or
potentially high human health or ecosystem risk, or due to significant potential for risk reduction or
avoidance. RGI funding encourages coordination and cooperation between media programs and partners.
Problems addressed by RGI often showcase innovative solutions. Although RGI funded projects frequently
contribute to the goals of overarching, long term initiatives or plans, individual RGI projects are generally one
or two years in duration, with four years generally being the maximum.
Range of assistance: $1,000 - $30,000 (Proposals submitted under the Monitoring and Assessment Priority
are eligible to request up to $50,000, all other proposals are eligible to request up to$30,000 per proposal).
RGI proposals will be evaluated on how well they:
• Address problems that are multi-media [e.g., Water, Air, Hazardous Waste, etc.] in nature;
• Fill a critical program gap in the protection of human health and the environment ;
• Will address places, sectors;
• Will demonstrate innovation;
• Demonstrate that they are based on a regional, state, tribal or other strategic plan; and
• Demonstrate state, local and/or other stakeholder participation
Strengthening factors are used in RGI to break ties between applications with equivalent scores after
evaluation against all other factors. We highly recommend reviewing the strengthening factors applicable to
the different areas as well as these general strengthening factors:
• Letter(s) of support & commitment
• Demonstration that proposal is innovative
• Indication that you are willing to take less funding than requested
• Results within a 2-year time frame
• Demonstration that the proposal is an unfunded part of a related, ongoing project with documented
performance and progress, and leveraging of resources from other partners
• Methods/tools/approaches are transferable to other projects or locations and actively disseminate
results
• Proposals demonstrate links to goaJjfojHiofjthe_a^enc^jtrajggic_pian
3-63
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
• Cost sharing or match is not a review criterion. A match is, however, an eligibility factor.
The Ecosystem Protection Program Priority Focus Areas reflected in the Consolidated Funding Process RFP
will receive additional weight under RGI review and evaluation. Proposals addressing this area will rank
higher.
Awards will not be made exclusively based on the evaluation. In order to serve and reflect the geographic
diversity of the Region, RGI will be funding high quality projects in various localities in the Region to insure
adequate project distribution throughout Region 8.
Proposals will form the basis for detailed work plans to be negotiated between the sponsors of selected
projects and designated EPA Project Officers; this negotiation may include modifications to the proposed
scope of projects as well as funding levels available for specific projects.
Project outputs will be provided to EPA Region 8 on a quarterly basis or as negotiated with the Project
Officer. Outputs will be in a form that can be used for public information and education, such as fact sheets
or brochures. The final output of a project must include a product that is readily usable for information
transfer purposes. There will be additional programmatic conditions to adhere to depending upon which
funding area a proposal is selected under. These special conditions include but are not limited to following
EPA guidance on work plan development, collection of data, annual reporting, final report formatting,
training requirements, etc. These conditions will be included in the award agreement and will be available
upon request before the award.
Proposals are required to follow the standardized format in the Consolidated Funding Process.
EPP Selection Process
EPP Message Sent to solicit internal proposals each year
The Region has a total of about $250,000 in Environmental Priorities Program funds (formerly RA
Discretionary funds). This memo is a call for requests for use of these funds. Past experience has proven
that requests for these funds far exceed the amount available. Therefore, please limit your office's request
to your TOP FIVE PRIORITY NEEDS. The Regional Administrator will make decisions in a timely manner.
As in past years, there are certain criteria that requests must meet in order to be considered for funding.
The criteria are as follows:
- focused on Region 8 priorities (e.g., tribal programs, agriculture);
- appropriate use of EPM funds (i.e., these funds cannot be used to pay for any travel or to augment other
appropriations, including state grants);
- "do-ability"; a spending vehicle has been identified (e.g., mission contract, interagency agreement, training
grant) to accomplish project funding and be obligated by year-end;
- new regional initiatives that are unfunded or under-funded, or emergency or unanticipated situations;
3-64
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
- short term in nature, cannot be used to continuously fund on-going projects;
- alternative funding availability; and,
- ability to leverage other funding sources.
Each request should include: [1] a brief justification, including how the request meets the criteria, what
spending vehicle will be used; [2] a funding range, if possible, to document the possibility of incremental
funding; and [3] known or potential other funding sources to augment regional funds (e.g., another agency, a
state, or Headquarters program office).
3-65
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
9
9, 1: RG!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
OFFICiOFIHI
MAlOKU MMINUmUTO*
I i • '"} '•
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region 9 Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) Database Update
FROM: Laura Yshii
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 9
TO: Judy Kcrtchcr
Acting Director, Office of Regional Operations
Region 9 has updated the Regional Geographic Initiative (RCil) National Database for all
Region 9 RGI/KPP projects. At your suggestion, we also asked Region 9 Congressional
liaison staff In review excerpts of each project Congressional liaison review is complete.
and we have incorporated their input into (he database.
in Region 9, we base RGI/EPP project selection on regional priorities identified in the
Region 9 Strategic Plan, Division Operating Plans, and priorities identified through on-
going collaboration and discussions with Stales. We align our RGI/EPP funding to
support a mix at" these priorities each Fiscal Year.
Region 9 also strives to use our RGI/EPP funds to sypporl projects ihal foster
collaboration, leverage funding from other stakeholders, and that arc innovative and
forward-thinking. RGI/EPP funds have provided valuable seed money to get projects off
»be ground and to model new approaches. Particular funding priorities for FYs 2005
through FY20Q7 are identified below:
• In I-*Y 2005. Region 9's strategic priorities for RGI funding were Diesel,
Agriculture, and U.S. Mexico Border.
* In FY 2006, Region 9"s strategic priorities for RGI funding were Diesel.
Agriculture, and Pacific Islands Infrastructure,
• In FY 2007, Region 9's strategic priorities tor RGI funding were Diesel,
Agriculture and Pacific Islands Infrastructure.
Please let me know if you have any questions about Region 9*s RGI/EPP projects or
project selection criteria, or contact Region 9's RGI Coordinator, Tiffanie Pang at (41 5)
972-3697.
Pttntfti im fernrtal faptt
3-66
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report; Appendix 3
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Regional Geographic Initiative
Request for Initial Proposals FY 2007
Addressing Global Climate Change through
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
AGENCY NAME: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10; Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and
Public Affairs.
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY NAME: Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)
ANNOUNCMENT NUMBER: EPA-R10-RGI-2007
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 66.115 Surveys,
studies, investigations, training, demonstrations, and special purpose grants for EPA Region 10 Regional
Geographic Initiative.
Overview
This notice is a Request for Initial Proposals for Projects that will be funded under EPA Region 10's
Regional Geographic Initiative.
Proposals can be submitted by either: 1) mail to Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Regional
th
Geographic Initiative (ETPA-086), 1200 6 Avenue, Seattle Washington, 98101; 2) hand delivery to
th th
EPA's service center on the 12 floor of the Park Place Building at 1200 6 Ave, Seattle, Washington,
98101or 3) electronically through grants.gov (see instructions below). Regardless of the method of
delivery, all proposals must be received by 4 pm, pacific standard time, on March 9, 2007
Number of Awards: approximately four assistant agreements of up to $100,000 each.
Funding amount: approximately $400,000
Contents
I. Funding Opportunity Description
II. Award Information
III. Eligibility Information
IV. Application and Submission Information
V. Application Review Information
VI. Award Administration Information
VII. Agency Contact
Section 1: Funding Opportunity Description
A. Purpose
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 seeks proposals for projects that use integrated,
collaborative, or community-based approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or prevent pollution
by:
1) promoting the availability of renewable energy; 2) promoting the efficient use of existing energy
sources; or 3) sequestering carbon. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that incorporate
smaller grants to community-based groups.
1) RGI proposals must utilize at least one of the following approaches:
• Developing strategic partnerships;
3-67
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 3
• working collaboratively and cooperatively with a range of stakeholders;
• building local capacity to solve environmental problems;
• promoting stewardship and individual responsibility;
• adopting integrated, comprehensive approaches to environmental management;
• helping local agencies and community groups to use data, information, and tools in
environmental assessment, planning and problem solving;
• incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into planning, outreach, and education programs
related to climate change, especially for areas for which the effects of climate change are
expected to be more pronounced in the short term (e.g., Alaska).
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
"Traditional Ecological Knowledge" encapsulates the knowledge, practices, and belief systems of an
indigenous people who have lived in a place for multiple generations. It includes long-term,
multigenerational observations and experiences of a people through their direct interaction with a
particular environment.
3-68
-------
July 2009
Evaluation of the
Regional
Geographic
Initiatives
Final Report
Appendices 4-7
Contents
Appendix 4. Complete List of RGI Projects Analyzed 4-1
Appendix 5. Funding Vehicles 5-1
Appendix 6. Non-Competitive Grant Projects 6-1
Appendix 7. General Support Projects 7-1
-------
4; Cc;'
;tof
c
o
'M
01
oe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Funding
Year
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Project Name
Smart Growth Redevelopment of South Weymouth Naval Air Station and Brunswick
Naval Air Station
Urban Rivers Workshop
Reducing Pesticides in New England Public Housing
Lead Free Boston Gardens
Water Testing and Source Identification in the Urban Neponset River
Earthworks Youth Environmental Action
Asthma and Lead: Targeting High Risk Housing
Facility Manager Professional Development on Environmental Health & Safety
The East End Soil Abatement Project
Native American Youth Environmental Education
Lake Host Program
City-wide Door to Door Lead Education & Testing
Environmental Education Program
Vacant Lot Restoration & Demonstration Project
Providing Equipment to Support Volunteer Monitoring in New England
Massachusetts Military Reservation -Site investigation/cleanup
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay - Discharge Monitoring Program
Clean Charles - Monitoring
Northeast Diesel Collaborative
Regional Science Council, On Call -Statistical Support
RCRA Data Management System (ROMs)
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) certified USB flash drive for Continuity
of Operations (COOP) Support
Environmental Justice - Awareness Training
Healthy Landscapes for Affordable Housing
Women's Fish Consumption and Mercury Awareness Outreach
Ending Lead Poisoning in Mattapan: Involving Youth in the Fight Against Lead
Campaign for a Greener Tomorrow
Monoosnoc Brook Restoration
Newport Healthy Residents, Healthy Homes
The Providence Environmental Justice Forum
Hartford Park Asthma Education Project
Building Community Collaboration, Sustainability, and Walkability in Portland's
Schoolground Parks
Residents Working for Safe and Healthy Mobile Home Parks
Improving Wastewater Treatment Options for Vermont's Un-sewered Villages
Environmental Education in Schoolyard Gardens
Youth in the Environment (Year 1)
Redevelopment of Brunswick Naval Air Station
Boston Convention Center Composting and Recycling
Urban Rivers Monitoring - Clean Charles, Mystic and Neponset - Yr 2
Amount
Funded
$10,000
$10,000
$22,050
$25,388
$26,100
$30,000
$32,118
$183
$30,000
$30,000
$20,000
$240
$29,980
$30,000
$17,293
$25,000
$15,000
$15,020
$30,000
$10,000
$28,200
$15,000
$560
$17,401
$14,423
$5,160
$18,047
$24,700
$3,783
$30,000
$13,660
$30,000
$27,961
$30,000
$14,865
$20,000
$20,000
$5,000
$40,000
4-1
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
Funding
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005-2007
2005-2007
2005-2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
Project Name
Vermont Beaches Workshop
Volunteer Monitoring Equipment - New England (Year 2)
Indicators for the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem
Northeast Diesel Collaborative Emissions Reduction - Mass DEP.
New England Sustainability Energy Association - Energy Efficiency
Electricity Restructuring Roundtable
Regional Science Council - Statistical Support
GSA Motorpool Support
Regional Conference and Outreach Equipment
Improving Asthma Environmental Management through Health Care Policy Change
Electronic Recycling Challenge
Healthy Indoors/AIRS, Bridgeport
Park River Assessment Program
Maine Cool Communities
Concord River Greenway, Phase II
Air Pollution Hot Spot Network
Asthma Prevention through Healthy Schools
Improving Environmental Safety & Recycling in Boston Area Hotels
Implementing the Campaign for a Fishable, Swimmable Blackstone River
Healthy Residents, Healthy Homes
"Putting on Airs" Implementing Proven Best Asthma Practices
New England Community Energy Challenge
Penobscot Indian Nation - Assessing Toxic Risks - Study
Eco-regions mapping in New England
Northeast Sustainable Energy Association-Conference Support
Urban Rivers Monitoring- Charles, Mystic and Neponset Rivers
Providing Equipment to Support Volunteer Monitoring in New England (Year 3)
Marlborough Water Conservation Plan
Hurricane Debris State Coordination- Northeast Waste Management Officials'
Association
Facilitating Renewable Energy Projects on Closed Landfills
Multilingual Asthma Education and Outreach Program
Redeveloping Contaminated Sites as Renewable Energy Facilities: Demonstrating the
Potential at Brunswick Naval Air Station
Youth and the Environment Program (Year 2)
New England Community Energy Challenge - Vermont
Information Access - Library Support
Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management - Partnership Development
Geographic Information System Support
Record Center - Support
RGI Coordinate and Site Travel
Dental Amalgam Mercury Best Management Practices Poster
Earth Day New York: 06
Environmental Career Organization: FY'05 Coastal Monitoring
Environmental Careers Organization: Diesel Emissions
Amount
Funded
$5,000
$40,000
$10,000
$40,000
$10,000
$5,000
$4,830
$1,000
$3,972
$35,000
$1,980
$35,000
$32,300
$10,789
$13,200
$35,000
$30,000
$2,838
$35,000
$8,580
$35,000
$8,000
$14,000
$20,000
$6,000
$40,000
$10,000
$25,000
$10,000
$29,000
$5,193
$10,000
$15,000
$8,000
$10,000
$29,820
$145,829
$96,804
$6,533
$15,000
$5,000
$10,262
$70,000
4-2
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Funding
Year
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005-2006
2006-2007
Project Name
Harlem Healthshed Project
National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellowship - FY'06
Communications and Outreach
New York City (NYC) Drinking Water Distribution System Water Security Modeling Effort
Territorial Bond Bank
South Branch Raritan River Macroinvertebrate Study
Inventory & Mapping of New Jersey's Ecological Communities in the Delaware Estuary
Region
Phosphorus and Sediment Impact on Cayuga Lake
Privately Owned Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Transformer Inventory Update
University of Puerto Rico: Sustainability Project
Assessment of groundwater quality used for drinking water in the North-Central Region
of Puerto Rico
Region 2 Coastal Monitoring Program: Helicopter
Tribal Technical Assistance in Region: 2006
Earth Day New York: 07
Industrial Ecology, Pollution Prevention and the NY/NJ Harbor Project: Synthesis Report
New Approach to Promote Recycling, Including Used Motor Oil in Marinas in the New
York/New Jersey Harbor Region
Improving Information Proficiency of Regional Employees
Records Management
National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellowship - FY'07
Communication and Outreach
Go Green Expo
Sustainable Ports and Carriers Partnership Project
Tribal Technical Assistance in Region: 2007
Turn on Youth to Careers in Environmental Protection-NYC-Youth-in-the-Environment
Initiative
National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellowship - FY'08
MARKAL (MARKet ALIocation) Energy & Environment Model for Long Island
Oak Orchard Creek Watershed Pollutant Reduction Strategy
Risk Communication for Shellfish
Source Water Protection in Jefferson & Oswego Counties
Coral Bay Watershed Community Stewardship Program
Restoring Surface-water flows to Onondaga Creek while Reducing Mudboil Sediment
Discharges
Sustainability Grants Program
Targeting Region 2 Priority Geographic Areas
Onondaga County On-Farm Mortality Composting Demonstration Project
Onondaga County Tire Collection and Recycling Project
Passaic Watershed Outreach Cooperative Agreement
Solid Waste Management Project in Puerto Rico
Environmental Management System (EMS) Training Materials for the Healthcare Sector
Migrant Farm Mid-Season Drinking Water Sampling '06
National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellowship - FY'07
Promoting Sustainability Practices Through Education
Amount
Funded
$50,000
$11,736
$39,847
$20,000
$9,930
$61,106
$61,000
$60,000
$20,000
$29,749
$50,000
$20,000
$5,000
$15,000
$11,100
$29,000
$56,685
$9,885
$2,995
$25,000
$25,000
$30,000
$60,000
$60,000
$97,000
$50,000
$50,000
$60,000
$100,000
$75,000
$56,640
$45,000
$25,000
$60,000
$100,000
$37,044
$40,000
$16,120
4-3
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Funding
Year
2006-2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
Project Name
New York/New Jersey Harbor and Coastal Water Quality Sampling Support
National Association for the Hispanic Elderly Senior Environmental Employment (SEE)
Program
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) - Diesel Vehicle Project
Emergency Response Center Capabilities Enhancement Project
Green Highways Forum
2006 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society Flower Show Outreach
2005 Student Environmental Development Program- North Light
West Virginia University (Upper Freeport Coal Mine Flooding Inventory)
Mi Casa Es Su Casa: Healthy Homes for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
Academy of Natural Sciences (Improved Tool to Maximize Environmental Benefits of
Stream Restoration and Protection Activities in the Schuylkill River Watershed)
Collaboration with State Environmental Secretaries
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) - Diesel Collaboration
Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (COG) - Anacostia River
Linking Environmental Academic Programs (LEAP) - University of Maryland Eastern
Shore
2007 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society Flower Show Outreach
United States Geological Survey - Shenandoah/Potomac Fish Kills Project
National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellowship
Program
2007 Student Environmental Development Program - North Light
2007 Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
Region 3 Managers' Strategic Planning Program
Region 3 Managers' Training Meeting
Enforcement Records Management
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society Flower Show Outreach - 2008
2008 Student Environmental Development Program
Virginia Ports Initiative
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Project (Phase 2)
Compliance Monitoring of Nitrates and Coliform in PA
Ports Strategy - EMS Training
Linking Environmental Academic Programs (LEAP)
Southeast Diesel Collaborative Kickoff
ECO-lnterns for the Southeast Region
Southeast Listening Forum for Leaders in Agriculture, Industry, and Government on
Water Quality and Supply Issues
Start-Up Kit for Environmental Management System (EMS) for County Governments
Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey
Environmental Trends in the Southeast
Evaluation of Potential Alternative Approaches to Stream Buffers for Water Quality
Protection
Enhancement of Improving Air Quality Public Awareness Campaign
Energy and Bio-Oil Production from Poultry Litter Using Fractionation and Pyrolysis
Creating a Regional Smart Growth Training Network
Reducing Risks to Tribal Children and Elderly from Indoor Air, Flooding Contamination,
Amount
Funded
$35,300
$100,000
$10,000
$29,273
$40,001
$13,993
$36,523
$148,868
$38,820
$124,859
$2,573
$51,400
$100,000
$50,000
$15,116
$135,000
$20,965
$34,000
$12,500
$80,653
$2,050
$31,393
$4,760
$71,355
$100,000
$100,000
$10,000
$37,268
$132,797
$7,388
$97,202
$14,500
$10,000
$14,940
$14,750
$70,000
$67,500
$58,000
$60,000
$50,000
4-4
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
Funding
Year
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
Project Name
and Poor Water Quality
Remediation of Contaminants in K-12 School Environments
Building Innovative Industry-Producer Partnerships to Reduce Hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico
NEPAssist Geospatial System
NEPAssist Geospatial System
Advancing Environmental Performance through Integrating Stewardship between Local
Officials and the Development Community
Region 4 BRIDGE Intern Program
Demonstration of Innovative Technologies to Enhance Water Quality and Farm Profits
through Site-Specific Nematicide Placement
Enhancement of Watershed Protection Measures in the Karst Region of Pleasant Grove
Creek, Kentucky
Compliance Assessment and Management Systems Assistance
Advancing Environmental Stewardship on Swine Farms in Region 4 States
Break the Cycle of Environmental Health Disparities in Vulnerable Children
Healthy Energy Efficient Homes
Green Vacation Green Home Model Demonstration Project
NEPAssist Geospatial System
Southeast Collegiate Environmental Science & Health Symposium
A Study of the Recycling Economy and its Impact in the Southeast
Conference Support: Spelman College Sustainability Greening Conference in Atlanta,
GA
Climate Change Awareness Day and Stewardship/Innovation Award Ceremony for Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
Air Pollution and Asthma: Children as Environmental Mentors Demonstration Project
GIS-Based Identification of and Development of Protection Strategies for Critical
Watershed Areas in the Mountains of South Carolina
Climate Change Adaptation Project
Climate Change Awareness Day and Stewardship/Innovation Award Ceremony for Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
Underground Storage Tank (LIST) DVD for Local Governments
Jones Ecological Research Center Environmental Flows Conference at UGA, Athens, GA
Bilingual Pesticide Reduction Pilot for North Carolina Child Care Centers
Excellence in Environmental Design
GA-Spelman College - Emergency Planning and Preparedness Study
Kentucky Institute for Watershed Management Support: Community Wastewater
Infrastructure Rehabilitation Demonstration
GIS-Based Identification of and Development of Protection Strategies for Critical
Watershed Areas in the Mountains of South Carolina
Watershed Scale Fate and Transport of Hormones from Land Applications of Poultry
Waste
Management of Tomato Culls and Wastewater in Tomato Packing Houses
Investigation and Establishment of a Carbon Offset Aggregating Entity for the North
Carolina Agricultural Livestock Sector
Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources - Technical Assistance and Capacity
Building Program
Amount
Funded
$50,000
$30,000
$27,421
$2,324
$80,000
$64,500
$69,639
$75,000
$58,300
$60,000
$37,170
$55,019
$30,000
$5,081
$6,000
$53,500
$4,919
$5,212
$35,723
$14,437
$30,000
$3,000
$26,115
$4,919
$26,175
$43,500
$10,000
$33,800
$70,000
$67,616
$69,918
$70,000
$34,300
4-5
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Funding
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Project Name
City Of Cleveland - Lead Poisoning Prevention In Children
City Of Chicago - Stormwater Management
City Of Chicago - Byproduct Synergy Product (Waste To Profit Project)
City Of Minneapolis - Rain Barrel Project
City Of Chicago - "Green School Challenge - Chicago Conservation Clubs"
Great Lakes Collection of Household Unwanted Electronics and Used Medications
Milwaukee Safe Electronics Collection
Household Unwanted Electronics and Medications Collections
Collection of Unwanted Household Electronics and Medicines
Tri-County Regional Unwanted and Expired Medicines Collection
Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE)
Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE)
Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE)
Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE)
Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE)
Macomb County Mi's Computer and Pharmaceutical Collection
Antrim County Medical and Electronics Smart Waste
City Science TV series regarding environmental issues.
Detroit Continuing Education Project; Lead Poisoning Play
Dallas Emissions Enforcement Pilot
Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring
Air Toxics Monitoring - Dallas
Utilization of Poultry Litter Arkansas
Highly Photochemically Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOC) Pilot Project
Environmental Monitoring and Response System (EMRS) Toolbox for North Bosque
Watershed
Groundwater Monitoring Refugio
San Angelo Friends of the Environment (S.A.F.E.) Shredded Paper Recycling
Investigating Real-Time Air Toxics in the Gulf Coast Region
Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) Tribal Video
Beyond Translation: Engaging Spanish-Speaking Communities
Nutrient Loading - Mississippi River Basin with SPAtially-Referenced Regressions On
Watershed attributes (SPARROW) Model
Effective Public Communications
Urban Misting Information Campaign
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Waste-to-Energy Anaerobic Digestion
Urban Heat Island - Dallas Sustainable Skyways
Methane Capture and Reuse at the Dallas Zoo
West End Redevelopment Initiative
HAWK Infrared Gas-Imaging Camera
Phosphorus Monitoring Unit
Demonstration of the Alternative Asbestos Control Method
Small Scale Fuel Cell Application
Blue Skyways Collaborative
Coliphage Detection in Drinking Water
Amount
Funded
$125,000
$124,775
$84,900
$100,000
$100,000
$20,000
$20,000
$25,000
$25,000
$14,461
$244,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$10,526
$13,013
$20,000
$20,000
$14,705
$65,390
$100,000
$49,998
$30,000
$75,000
$74,986
$14,912
$60,000
$49,435
$10,000
$50,000
$10,000
$36,744
$10,000
$65,464
$10,000
$10,000
$27,500
$27,500
$325,000
$29,758
$125,000
$49,999
4-6
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Funding
Year
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
Project Name
Redevelopers On-Line Tool
Pesticide Risk E-Filing
Roads as Pollution Control
Beyond Translation Phase 2
Environmental Health Education and Outreach
E-Filing Form for Voluntary Audit Disclosures
Joint Compliance Assistance Storm Water Training
Blue Skyways Collaborative Outreach
Alternate Asbestos Control Method Demolition
Passive Air Toxics Monitoring Beaumont/Port Author Area
Water Conservation/Efficiency Workshops
Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) Tribal Video
Emission Reductions (Tug/Tow, Blue Skyways)
Sample Toxic Metals in Water Quality Criteria Levels
Dallas Sustainable Skyways
Blue Skyways Collaborative
Pesticide risk Communication Theater Production
Water Conservation/Efficiency Workshops
Alternate Asbestos Control Method, QA Support
Alternate Asbestos Control Method
Water Conservation/Efficiency Workshops Items
Water Conservation/Efficiency Workshops
Contract for Barry Feldman
International Exercises
Video Conference Equipment Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
Regional Utilities Systems (RUSS)
Appanoose, Davis, Lucas and Monroe Counties Public Health Agency
Working Toward Recovery: Building Consensus on the Missouri River Ecosystem
Stormwater Runoff in Sand Pitts
Soil and Water Conservation Society
National Association of Farm Broadcasters
Groundwater Foundation National Conference
University of Missouri Environmental Assistance Center (EAC)
Building Innovative Industry-Producer Partnerships to Reduce Hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico (note: joint project with R4)
Education Assistance for Watershed Management
Urban Watershed Best Management Practices
Tools for Schools Project
Mail Room Support
Sound System Upgrade
Audiovisual Enhancements
Production Equipment
Kansas Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Project
RCRA Compliance Assistance visits at High Schools in Missouri
Amount
Funded
$15,000
$30,000
$35,000
$20,000
$12,000
$30,000
$50,000
$50,000
$100,000
$19,748
$10,850
$2,890
$15,000
$25,000
$90,000
$40,000
$15,000
$15,991
$16,640
$18,360
$3,130
$6,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,741
$30,000
$30,000
$15,000
$11,000
$1,000
$200
$5,000
$73,432
$30,000
$99,841
$36,312
$29,968
$8,890
$42,621
$45,343
$9,205
$90,000
$14,664
4-7
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Funding
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005-2006
2005-2006
2005-2006
2005-2007
2005-2007
2006-2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
Project Name
Mercury Thermometer Exchange
Blood Pressure Monitors, Outreach Materials
Training Sessions for MS4 Phase 1 and II Permit Holders
Sustainability Workshop (Integral Institute)
Taylor Wetland Restoration
Blue Skyways Outreach and Energy Activities (note: joint project with R6)
Total Maximum Daily Load Bacteria Education Plan
Removal of Atrazine from Agriculture Runoff
Long Term Control Plans Contractor Review
Outreach/Prevention related to combined and separate sewer overflows in the St Louis,
Missouri Area
Flint Hills Burning Satellite Image Analysis
Travel Preparation Assistance
Bacon's Electronic News Media Directory
Agriculture Outreach
Support for the Federal Executive Board (FEB) 2007 Executive Forum
Agriculture Leadership Program Registration
Pollution Prevention Information Exchange Network
Conversation on Climate Change
Satellite Environmental Finance Center
Regional Earth Day Events 2007
Future Midwestern Landscapes Study
Environmental Justice Grant— East Central District Health Department
Tools to Define Critical Areas and Target BMPs (Watersheds)
Strategic Management Planning
Sustainable Building Master Plan
Support for Kaizen water quality standards event
GSA Motorpool Support
Outreach Materials
Yellow River Watershed
Des Moines Community Based Environmental Protection Project
Geographic Information System Support
Sustainability Conferences at Shadowcliff
"Out in the Field" Bus Tours
A Critical Low Flow QUAL2E Model for the Red River of North
Wildfire Effects on Stream Water Quality in Colorado
Willow Creek Watershed Management
Enhancement of Source Water Assessments in Karstic Aquifers
Uniting Urban and Rural Riparian Education
Riparian and Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey along the Missouri River
Enhanced Public Information Access
Region 8 New Building Communication Tools
Meeting Legal Requirements for Effective & Efficient Records Management
Saving Places 2007: Planning Growth & Preservation
Amount
Funded
$4,100
$1,641
$9,648
$1,517
$15,000
$100,000
$80,000
$95,023
$13,349
$12,349
$15,000
$15,048
$900
$815
$5,000
$4,000
$1,750
$102
$100,000
$12,139
$2,950
$14,900
$20,712
$28,470
$80,000
$750
$2,600
$10,472
$98,000
$30,000
$73,462
$18,742
$3,856
$21,577
$50,000
$29,243
$40,000
$30,000
$27,100
$69,780
$1,049
$100,000
$2,500
4-8
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Funding
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005-2006
2005-2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Project Name
Energy Development: Three Affiliated Tribes Refinery Environmental Impact Statement
Sustainability: Green Roof Research & Demonstration Project
Summit County
Colorado Watershed Assembly
Get Into the Zone, Clean Air Zone Montana
Big Hole Watershed Feedlot Restoration
Improving Capacity for Montana Watershed Efforts
Campaign to Reduce Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Don't Smoke with
Kids in the Car
Air Quality in the San Juan Mountains High Country: Assessment of Mercury Risks and
Development of an Outreach Program
Groundwater Tracing Methods for Assessment of Source Water
The Watershed Sustainability
Homeland Security: R8 recognition
A Stronger EPA: Leadership Development
Sustainability: LEED Services to Support Region 8 Green Building Program
Energy Development: Support for Increased Early Engagement in Issues and Expedited
Processes
Sun River Watershed Water Quality Restoration Plan Implementation
Lake Helena Watershed Riparian Agricultural Project
Managing Air Quality in Garfield County, Colorado's Most Active Energy Development
Region
Determination of Source Areas and Source Types of Nitrogen Deposition in Colorado,
Montana, Utah and Wyoming using Nitrogen Isotopes
Assessment of Mercury in the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem
Enhanced Communication with EPA, Other Federal Agencies and Partners
Energy Development: Oil Shale Symposium
Collaborative Summit of Federal and State Land Managers
Air Permitting/State Implementation Plan Backlog
Diesel: Interstate 5 Heavy Duty Idling Trucks
Diesel: South Coast Liquefied Natural Gas Freight Transportation System
Diesel: San Francisco Bay CLEARING Program
Diesel: Long Beach Liquefied Natural Gas Engines
Workshop to Develop Local and Regional Collaboration for Treating Dairy Manure in the
San Joaquin Valley (Local Government Commission)
GIS Mapping to Support Agriculture Program Work on Dairies
Diesel: Collaborative Reduction Project
Communicating Environmental Priorities via the Web
RGI Coordinator Travel
Environmental Management System Contract to Support 3rd Party Certification
World Ocean 2006 Conference
Diesel: Pacific Rim Ports Air Quality Initiative
Pacific Islands Infrastructure Bond Bank
Diesel: Los Angeles County Public Works (LA DPW)
Diesel: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Reducing Air Toxics in Contra Costa County
Amount
Funded
$1,974
$55,755
$32,082
$10,000
$25,000
$85,000
$21,484
$25,000
$77,027
$32,897
$68,250
$3,540
$29,000
$35,000
$162,500
$68,674
$48,583
$107,000
$68,695
$87,083
$297,137
$5,000
$17,700
$70,000
$100,000
$12,443
$65,000
$9,355
$10,000
$25,000
$35,944
$148,471
$1,584
$4,686
$5,000
$75,000
$14,875
$160,000
$58,356
$15,000
4-9
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Funding
Year
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
2005-2006
2006-2007
2006-2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
Project Name
Smart Growth Conference
Review of Technologies to Treat Dairy Manure
Communicating Environmental Priorities via the Web
Air Permitting/State Implementation Plan Backlog
California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) Conference
SoCA Clean Vehicles Conference
Diesel: Ports of Los Angeles, Shanghai and Hong Kong
Conference on Agriculture at the Metropolitan Edge
Agriculture: Water Quality Protection & Food Safety
Mercury Deposition in Nevada
Agriculture: GIS Map Expenses
Organic Residuals Conference
Wastewater Treatment Systems at Dairies and Catalog of Existing Pilot Projects to treat
Dairy Manure in the San Joaquin Valley
Diesel: West Coast Collaborative
Report on Feasibility of Wastewater Treatment Technology Applied to Dairy Manure in
California
Develop Database and Compile Information on Manure Treatment Projects
West Coast Collaborative Innovations in Clean Diesel - San Joaquin Valley
Faster Freight Clean Air Conference
Environmental Justice Workshops
Oregon Department of Energy - On-Board Shore Power Idle Reduction Rebate Program
South Coast Conference on Ultra Fine Particles
Diesel/Agriculture: Manure to Fuel Project Western United Resource Development
(WURD)
Pacific Islands Environment Conference
Lean Manufacturing Initiative
Alaska Environmental Forum
Pacific Northwest Environmental Director's Facilitation
Pollution Trading Screening Analysis
Annual Wildlife Habitat Conference
Lake Coeur d'Alene Environmental Assessment
Bacterial Source Identification in the Teton Watershed
Creating a Rural Green Building Capital in Whatcom County
Coho Prespawning Mortality Assessment in Washington and Oregon
Dungeness River Knotweed and Buddleia Control
Promoting Low-Impact Development in Clallam County
Collaborative Growth Planning in the Southern Willamette Valley
Port of Seattle Diesel Emissions Reduction Project
Center for Noxious and Invasive Plant Management Establishment
Blueprint for Good Growth in Ada County Idaho
Mid-Columbia Hood Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Project
Reducing Diesel Emissions from Construction Equipment
PNW Regional Modeling and Analysis of Atmospheric Deposition
Landscape Composition and Configuration in the Puget Sound Basin
Amount
Funded
$5,000
$14,981
$79,806
$50,101
$5,000
$3,000
$25,000
$1,500
$9,971
$8,084
$2,648
$2,000
$93,900
$295,000
$19,936
$38,800
$289,102
$25,000
$16,063
$25,000
$10,000
$99,950
$20,000
$20,000
$10,000
$20,000
$22,566
$3,006
$10,000
$10,000
$16,000
$40,000
$40,000
$27,452
$22,500
$35,000
$40,000
$22,500
$37,950
$26,000
$50,000
$41,000
4-10
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Funding
Year
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
Project Name
Human Resource Position Classification
Regional Laboratory Certification
Federal Executive Board Seattle Book Forum
Working Capital Fund Regional Support
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance
FY 05 RGI Site Travel
Earth Day Celebration
Alaska Environmental Forum
Annual Wildlife Habitat Conference
Pacific Northwest Environmental Director's Facilitation
Wild Pacific Salmon Conference
Lake Roosevelt Forum
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) Colloquium
Agriculture 101 Symposium
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Indicators Report
West Coast Collaborative
Water Infrastructure & Climate Change Project
Waste Water Management Analysis (Mason County)
Smart Growth in a High Growth, Small Community
In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development
Early Detection of Invasive Plant Species in Oregon
Salmon Falls Creek Mercury Deposition Study - Phase 2
Environmental and Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Irrigation Upgrade
Native Oyster Restoration in Liberty Bay
Community Stewardship Program for the Pierce County Biodiversity Network
Informed Decision Making for Groundwater Protection
35th Anniversary Celebration
Issuance of Region 10 Priorities Report
Awards Ceremony for Hurricane Katrina
Implementation of Successful Leaders Program
Seattle Federal Executive Board Book Forum
Seattle Federal Executive Board Support
Electronic Content Management System
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance
FY 06 RGI Coordinator and Site Travel
Pacific Northwest Director's Environmental Facilitation
West Coast Collaborative
Alaska Environmental Forum
Columbia River - State of the River Report
Pacific Northwest Carbon Neutral Building Initiative (PNW CNBI)
Reducing Alaska's Carbon Footprint through Utility-Scale Wind Energy Development,
Business Energy Efficiency and Public Engagement
Maximizing the Environmental and Energy Benefits from Washington State's Renewable
Energy Tax Credit
Northwest Cities for Climate Protection Initiative
Amount
Funded
$23,595
$2,564
$3,000
$10,164
$102,900
$35,085
$11,519
$10,000
$3,500
$20,000
$800
$2,031
$5,000
$2,300
$4,000
$65,000
$1,000
$5,000
$20,800
$40,000
$30,000
$49,741
$49,550
$49,005
$35,000
$30,000
$3,669
$3,338
$522
$18,318
$3,000
$5,000
$6,500
$73,900
$18,868
$22,000
$57,000
$7,000
$50,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$50,000
4-11
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 4
c
_o
'M
01
ce.
10
10
10
10
10
10
Funding
Year
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005-2006
Project Name
Negotiation Skills Training
Seattle Federal Executive Board Book Forum
360 Degree Feedback for Supervisors
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance
FY07 RGI Coordinator Travel
Dissemination of Toxics Water Quality Data to Stakeholders
Total Funding
Amount
Funded
$20,000
$3,000
$12,306
$53,500
$7,650
$30,000
$16,604,707
4-12
-------
Refer to Appendix 6 for Line Item Breakout of Non-Competitive Grants
E
_O
'cub
0)
ce.
1
1
1
1
1
Funding Vehicle
Competitive Grant
Contract
Cooperative Agreement
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
2
2
2
2
2
2
Competitive Grant
Contract
Cooperative Agreement
IAG
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
3
3
3
3
3
Competitive Grant
Contract
IAG
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
4
4
4
4
4
Competitive Grant
Contract
Cooperative Agreement
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
5
5
5
Competitive Grant
Contract
Non-Competitive Grant*
Sub-total
6
6
6
6
6
Competitive Grant
Contract
Cooperative Agreement
IAG
Non-Competitive Grant*
Sub-total
7
7
Competitive Grant
Contract
#of
Projects
4
28
39
4
11
86
24
9
3
5
4
2
47
6
8
3
7
5
29
27
5
2
4
6
44
7
5
6
18
11
32
1
3
3
50
17
23
% Contribution
to Total
Projects
5%
33%
45%
5%
13%
51%
19%
6%
11%
9%
4%
21%
28%
10%
24%
17%
61%
11%
5%
67%
14%
39%
28%
33%
22%
64%
2%
6%
6%
29%
39%
Amount Funded
$75,000
$600,503
$822,959
$56,000
$96,338
$1,650,800
$862,743
$267,506
$136,000
$175,049
$166,106
$102,995
$1,710,399
$421,435
$303,717
$157,500
$592,797
$58,719
$1,534,167
$1,392,168
$63,400
$90,000
$49,440
$88,560
$1,683,568
$123,000
$324,000
$568,975
$1,015,975
$504,359
$1,313,897
$30,000
$101,744
$32,741
$1,982,741
$852,624
$292,273
% Contribution
to Total
Funding
5%
36%
50%
3%
6%
50%
16%
8%
10%
10%
6%
27%
20%
10%
39%
4%
83%
4%
5%
3%
5%
12%
32%
56%
25%
66%
2%
5%
2%
59%
20%
5-1
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report; Appendix 5
E
_O
'cub
0)
ce.
1
1
1
1
Funding Vehicle
Cooperative Agreement
IAG
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
8
8
8
8
8
8
Competitive Grant
Contract
Cooperative Agreement
IAG
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
9
9
9
9
9
Competitive Grant
Contract
Cooperative Agreement
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
10
10
10
10
Competitive Grant
Contract
Non-Competitive Grant*
Procurement Request
Sub-total
#of
Projects
2
2
4
11
59
18
5
3
4
3
8
41
13
17
1
8
3
42
28
32
3
7
70
% Contribution
to Total
Projects
3%
3%
7%
19%
44%
12%
7%
10%
7%
20%
31%
40%
2%
19%
7%
40%
46%
4%
10%
Amount Funded
$101,750
$9,000
$49,900
$128,224
$1,433,771
$642,312
$337,735
$271,110
$302,264
$74,780
$107,430
$1,735,630
$944,952
$537,091
$9,355
$63,036
$7,232
$1,561,666
$1,112,498
$433,410
$230,300
$74,892
$1,851,099
% Contribution
to Total
Funding
7%
1%
3%
9%
37%
19%
16%
17%
4%
6%
61%
34%
1%
4%
0%
60%
23%
12%
4%
Summary Data
Funding Mechanism
Competitive Grant
Contract
Non-Competitive Grant*
Cooperative Agreement
IAG
Procurement Request
Total
#of
Projects
155
164
46
51
17
53
486**
Amount Funded
$ 6,931,091
$ 4,473,531
$ 1,884,075
$ 1,461,174
$ 745,557
$ 664,388
$ 16,159,816
* Refer to Appendix 6 for Line Item Breakout of Non-Competitive Grants
** Total exceeds number of projects analyzed due to multi-year projects
% of Total
32%
34%
9%
10%
4%
11%
100%
5-2
-------
E
_O
'cub
0)
DC
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Project Name
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay -
Discharge Monitoring Program
Youth in the Environment (Year
1)
Northeast Sustainable Energy
Association-Conference Support
Youth and the Environment
Program (Year 2)
Inventory & Mapping of New
Jersey's Ecological Communities
in the Delaware Estuary Region
Turn on Youth to Careers in
Environmental Protection-NYC-
Youth-in-the-Environment
Initiative
Risk Communication for
Shellfish
Onondaga County Tire
Collection and Recycling Project
National Association for the
Hispanic Elderly Senior
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Government (COG) -
Anacostia River
Linking Environmental
Academic Programs (LEAP) -
University of Maryland Eastern
Shore
Virginia Ports Initiative
Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Project (Phase 2)
Linking Environmental
Academic Programs (LEAP)
Southeast Listening Forum for
Leaders in Agriculture, Industry,
and Government on Water
Year
2005
2006
2007
2007
2005
2007
2007
2007
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2005
Amount
Funded
$15,000
$20,000
$6,000
$15,000
$61,106
$30,000
$50,000
$25,000
$100,000
$10,000
$100,000
$50,000
$100,000
$100,000
$132,797
$14,500
Reason for Non-Competitiveness
Under $15k threshold
CWA Section 104(g) Exempt
Under $15k threshold
CWA Section 104(g) Exempt
Assistance Award to
States/lnterstates/Local
Agencies/Tribes/lntertribal Consortia
Original award under $15k threshold;
amendment made to above ground
Public Interest Exemption
Under $15k threshold
Agency approved exemption for Senior
Employee Employment Program
Under $15k threshold
Public interest exemption
Funds MOUs with Universities
Add-on to existing award
Add-on to existing award
Several grants funding MOUs
Under $15k threshold
6-1
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 6
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
Start-Up Kit for Environmental
Management System (EMS) for
County Governments
Southeast Stormwater Utility
Survey
GA-Spelman College -
Emergency Planning and
Preparedness Study
Wisconsin Department Of
Natural Resources -Technical
Assistance and Capacity
Building Program
City Of Cleveland - Lead
Poisoning Prevention In
Children
City Of Chicago - Stormwater
Management
City Of Chicago - Byproduct
Synergy Product (Waste To
Profit Project)
City Of Minneapolis - Rain
Barrel Project
City Of Chicago - "Green School
Challenge - Chicago
Video Conference Equipment
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
and New Mexico Environment
Department (NMED)
Video Conference Equipment
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
Environmental Health
Education and Outreach
Groundwater Foundation
National Conference
Taylor Wetland Restoration
Flint Hills Burning Satellite
Image Analysis
Environmental Justice Grant-
East Central District Health
Enhanced Public Information
Access
2005
2005
2007
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2005
2005,
2006
2007
2005
2006
2006
2007
2005
$10,000
$14,940
$10,000
$34,300
$125,000
$124,775
$84,900
$100,000
$100,000
$10,344
$10,397
$12,000
$5,000
$15,000
$15,000
$14,900
$69,780
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Great Cities program Exemption from
Agency Competition Advocate
Great Cities program Exemption from
Agency Competition Advocate
Great Cities program Exemption from
Agency Competition Advocate
Great Cities program Exemption from
Agency Competition Advocate
Great Cities program Exemption from
Agency Competition Advocate
Great Cities program Exemption from
Agency Competition Advocate
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Agency approved exemption for Senior
Employee Employment Program
6-2
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 6
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
Energy Development: Oil Shale
Symposium
Energy Development: Oil Shale
Symposium
Workshop to Develop Local and
Regional Collaboration for
South Coast Conference on
Ultra Fine Particles
Smart Growth Conference
Review of Technologies to Treat
Dairy Manure
South Coast Conference on
Ultra Fine Particles
California Air Pollution Control
Officer's Association (CAPCOA)
Conference
Agriculture: Water Quality
Protection & Food Safety
Mercury Deposition in Nevada
Senior Environmental Employee
Assistance
Senior Environmental Employee
Assistance
Senior Environmental Employee
Assistance
2005
2006
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2005
2006
2007
$3,500
$1,500
$10,000
$200
$5,000
$14,981
$9,800
$5,000
$9,971
$8,084
$102,900
$73,900
$53,500
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Under $15k threshold
Agency approved exemption for Senior
Employee Employment Program
Agency approved exemption for Senior
Employee Employment Program
Agency approved exemption for Senior
Employee Employment Program
6-3
-------
E
_O
'cub
01
DC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
7
7
Funding Year
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
7
7
5
5
Project Name
Geographic Information System Support (year 1)
RCRA Data Management System (ROMs)
Record Center - Support (year 1)
Regional Science Council, On Call -Statistical Support
RGI Coordinate and Site Travel
Geographic Information System Support (year 2)
GSA Motorpool Support
Record Center - Support (year 2)
Regional Conference and Outreach Equipment
Regional Science Council - Statistical Support
RGI Coordinate and Site Travel
Geographic Information System Support (year 3)
Information Access - Library Support
Record Center - Support (year 3)
RGI Coordinate and Site Travel
Region 2 Coastal Monitoring Program: Helicopter
Improving Information Proficiency of Regional Employees
National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS)
Fellowship - FY'07 Communication and Outreach
Records Management
Enforcement Records Management
Region 3 Managers' Strategic Planning Program
Region 3 Managers' Training Meeting
NEPAssist Geospatial System (year 1)
ECO-lnterns for the Southeast Region
NEPAssist Geospatial System (year 2)
Region 4 BRIDGE Intern Program
Video Conference Equipment Louisiana DEQand New Mexico
Environment Department (year 1)
Video Conference Equipment Louisiana DEQand New Mexico
Environment Department (year 2)
Contract for [individual - name excluded]
International Exercises
Audio Visual Enhancements
Geographic Information System Support (year 1)
Amount
Funded
$7,400
$28,200
$13,728
$10,000
$1,261
$38,429
$1,000
$73,779
$3,972
$4,830
$2,169
$100,000
$10,000
$9,297
$3,103
$50,000
$29,000
$9,885
$56,685
$31,393
$80,653
$2,050
$29,745
$97,202
$5,081
$64,500
$10,344
$10,397
$10,000
$10,000
$45,343
$33,128
Proj
Type
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
7-1
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 7
E
O
'5b
01
QC
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
^
ta
01
00
^
E
3
LL.
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
Project Name
GSA Motorpool Support (year 1)
Mail Room Support
Outreach Materials (year 1)
Production Equipment
Sound System Upgrade
Geographic Information System Support (year 2)
GSA Motorpool Support (year 2)
Outreach Materials (year 2)
Travel Preparation Assistance
Geographic Information System Support (year 3)
Strategic Management Planning
Sustainable Building Master Plan
Enhanced Communication with EPA, Other Federal Agencies and
Partners (year 1)
Enhanced Public Information Access
Meeting Legal Requirements for Effective & Efficient Records
Management
Region 8 New Building Communication Tools
A Stronger EPA: Leadership Development
Enhanced Communication with EPA, Other Federal Agencies and
Partners (year 2)
Homeland Security: R8 recognition
Communicating Environmental Priorities via the Web
Environmental Management System Contract to Support 3rd Party
Certification
RGI Coordinator Travel
Federal Executive Board Seattle Book Forum
FY05 RGI Site Travel
Human Resource Position Classification
Regional Laboratory Certification
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance (year 1)
Working Capital Fund Regional Support
35th Anniversary Celebration
Awards Ceremony for Hurricane Katrina
Electronic Content Management System
FY 06 RGI Coordinator and Site Travel
Implementation of Successful Leaders Program
Amount
Funded
$600
$8,890
$5,000
$9,205
$42,621
$28,655
$2,000
$5,472
$15,048
$11,679
$28,470
$80,000
$190,137
$69,780
$100,000
$1,049
$29,000
$107,000
$3,540
$148,471
$4,686
$1,584
$3,000
$35,085
$23,595
$2,564
$102,900
$10,164
$3,669
$522
$6,500
$18,868
$18,318
Proj
Type
EPP
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
EPP
7-2
-------
RGI Evaluation Final Report: Appendix 7
E
O
'5b
01
QC
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
^
CD
01
00
^
E
3
LL.
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
Project Name
Issuance of Region 10 Priorities Report
Seattle Federal Executive Board Book Forum
Seattle Federal Executive Board Support
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance (year 2)
360 Degree Feedback for Supervisors
FY 07 RGI Coordinator Travel
Negotiation Skills Training
Seattle Federal Executive Board Book Forum
Senior Environmental Employee Assistance
Total
Total RGI funding (2005-2007)
% general support project funding out of total funding (2005-2007)
% general support projects out of total number of projects (2005-2007)
Amount
Funded
$3,338
$3,000
$5,000
$73,900
$12,306
$7,650
$20,000
$3,000
$53,500
Proj
Type
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
EPP
RGI
EPP
EPP
EPP
$2,182,340
$ 16,559,716.61
13.18%
13.47%
7-3
------- |