Handbook for FY 1981 State/EPA agreements

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency February 1980

~EPAHANDBOOK FOR FY 1981

STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS

180~~~~~~~~~~~~~

H36~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_K
1980~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Handbook for FY 1981

State/EPA Agreements

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

1Property of csc L~bnaz7

Environmental Protection Agency

February 1980

~Table of Contents
* Introduction 1
* Background 3
* Administrator's Guidance for FY1981
State/EPA Agreements 7
* Public Involvement 19
* Information Exchange 23
* National Program Priorities for Negotiating
State/EPA Agreements 57
�A~ppendix 67

~~ Introduction

FY 81 marks the third year in the evolution of State/EPA Agreements
(SEAs). These Agreements are designed to be key management tools which
top managers in EPA and the States can use to focus attention on priority
activities and problems. The goal of the SEA process is to maximize the
use of available resources to solve priority environmental problems.

State/EPA Agreements were encouraged but not required for FY 1979.
Because FY 1979 was a proving ground for the new process, the SEAs gen-
erally covered Clean Water Act programs only and reflected the traditional
emphasis on individual programs and existing grant processes. However,
in a few cases environmental issues that cut across program categories
were identified. The 1979 experience was a good beginning. It started
the States and Regions on the road to eventual coordination and inte-
gration of programs.

FY 1980 Agreements covered a broader range of programs not only
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), but under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well.
Although not required in FY 80 Agreements, many States included issues
related to air quality in their priorities. The FY 1980 SEAs moved
closer to program integration, but the overall emphasis still remained
on programs rather than environmental problems. Generally, issues
identified and prioritized were within the boundaries of individual EPA
program categories; however, there is evidence of a growing number of
SEA initiatives that tackle problem-specific issues, such as integration
of activities relating to hazardous waste, ground water, and emergency
response problems.

In FY 1981, the States, and Regions will be considering all EPA
programs for inclusion in their State/EPA Agreements.

The SEA process has been dynamic, to say the least. It has created
new roles and dimensions for EPA/State relations as well as new rolesI
and organizational changes within EPA itself. It has brought top managers
together from different programs and different agenci'es, to di'scuss environ-
mental and managerial problems of mutual concern. More importantly, it
has prompted the prioritization of environmental problems and firm assign-
ment of the responsibilities necessary to tackle them.

The purpose of this Handbook is to bri'ng together the best of our
experiences, to share ideas, and to provide direction for the development
of Fiscal Year 1981 SEAs. With this in mind, the Handbook has been grouped
into five chapters: "Background," "Admini'strator's Guidance on FY 1981
State/EPA Agreements," "Public Involvement," "Information Exchange," and
"National Program Priorities for Negotiating SEAs."

The "Background" chapter provides a brief outline of SEA uses, achieve-
ments and needed improvements.

The "Administrator's Guidance on FY 1981 State/EPA Agreements" is
reprinted in this Handbook as it appears in the EPA Operating Year Guidance
for FY 1981. This chapter outlines activities, both required and suggested,
for successful SEA development, including SEA content, schedule of activi-
ties and tracking of commitments. It also includes a discussion of the
relationship of SEAs to other planning and management oriented activities.

The "Public Involvement" chapter presents a variety of techiques and
alternative approaches to generate meaningful public involvement in the
development and implementation of the SEA.

"Information Exchange" provides case studies of particularly resource-
ful SEA methods for reaching SEA objectives, including examples of program
integration, public participation, and coordinated problem solving. The
case studies are drawn from a nationwide assessment of the SEA process.

Finally, the chapter titled "National Program Priorities" lists the
priorities identified by EPA Assistant Administrators for inclusion in SEA
negotiations. Portions of this chapter have been excerpted from the EPA
Operating Year Guidance for FY 81.

Background

HOW SEAS ARE USED

While the processes for developing State/EPA Agreements vary from
Region to Region and the products differ in scope and format, all SEAS
share a common goal: a cleaner, more healthful environment. As a means
for accomplishing this goal, SEAs provide side benefits for environmental
managers, elected officials, and the public. Recently, when State and
EPA managers were asked about the advantages and uses of State/EPA Agree-
ments, answers included:

* "The SEAs are a management tool which focus top leadership and
grant monies at both EPA and the State on the most important
environmental, management, and problematic issues."

0 "SEAs are a communication tool to encourage the States and EPA
to 'level' with each other about issues."

* "SEAs are a working tool to set forth plans for solving the
important issues, to delineate who is responsible for what and
on what schedule."

a "The SEAs are a bilateral agreement--a mechanism for give and
take between EPA and the State--an opportunity for each to show
itself honestly to the other--and have the other party respond
to that need."

a "The SEA and accompanying work plans serve as an excellent tool
for directing several grant programs (e.g., CWA, RCRA and SDWA)
to address specific problems (e.g., ground water), and for com-
bining the actions of several agencies.''

0 "SEAs provide States the opportunity to get written commitments
from EPA to do things that in the past were difficult to obtain.
This is part of an active negotiation process."

4 "As a result of the SEA process, we are developing managers and
project officers with a multi-media perspective."

ACHIEVEMENTS

The SEA process is evolutionary. The scope of SEAs has expanded
considerably since they were first tried. Clearly, States and Regions
have accomplished things that were not originally envisioned and the
flexibility of the process encouraged the development of a number of
innovative and successful approaches. While the SEAs reflect national
priorities and commitments, the SEA process and, to the extent possible,
the Agreements themselves are tailored to the individual needs of the
Regions and States. Particular achievements of the FY 1980 SEA process
include the following:

* Cross-cutting problem oriented issues are being addressed.

-- In Region I, the combined funding resources for sections 201,
208 and 314 of the Clean Water Act are being brought to
bear on the high priority problem of cleaning up St. Alban's
Bay.

--Within Region IV, Florida will be focusing on four areas
concerning radiation: drinking water, ground water, phosphate
lands, and radioactive material emissions. Joint efforts of
the Florida Department of Environmental'Regulation, Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Polk
County Health Department and the Southwest Florida Water
Management District will be involved in addressing the
multi-faceted radiation problems.

--The Region VII Office and the State of Iowa are developing
a plan to address a specific toxics problem at Charles City
resulting from an industrial discharge to a municipal treat-
ment plant and leachate at a dump site. Responsibilities for
correcting pollution of river water and ground water through
interim pretreatment, eventual completion of an industrial
waste treatment facility, and upgrading or closing of the
dump site are being assigned to EPA and appropriate State
agencies through the SEA.

--In Region Ix, the FY 1980 SEA process has resulted in an
agreement between EPA and six California agencies concerned
with aspects of the toxics problem. The Agreement will
address coordination of land use planning and growth
management, residuals management, coordinated permitting,
air pollution mitigation, hazardous materials management,
and public participation.

--In Region X, EPA worked with the State of Idaho and local
governments to develop an integrated multi-media strategy
for urban areas in Idaho.

a The Agreements are being used as management tools.

--Many Regions plan on using their Agreements as an integral
part of their State/EPA mid-year evaluations and are develop-
ing tracking mechanisms to assure that SEA commitments are met.
Some Regions are tying SEA commitments to EPA employee
performance agreements. Likewise, some States are using
the SEA process as a tool to better manage their own programs--
even those that are not EPA funded.

0 The Agreements have improved coordination and communication within
the States.

--The FY 1979 New York SEA in Region II was principally re-
sponsible for reestablishing cooperation between the State
Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department
of Public Health regarding water quality and supply issues.

--In North Dakota the SEA process prompted the State Department
of Health and the State Department of Agriculture to jointly
commit themselves to resolve a pesticide container problem.

* Coordination and communication between the Regions and States
is improving.

--The Region III Administrator has used the Agreement as a
vehicle to brief State Legislators, laying groundwork for
legislative and budget sessions. within the States.

--Region X SEAs called for a Regional SEA workshop to bring
together top managers from all programs and all States to
discuss problems of mutual concern and to plan for the FY 81
SEA cycle.

Many of these and other innovative approaches will be outlined more
fully in the case studies in Chapter III.

NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS

Achievements such as those noted above were the result of an extensive
work effort by EPA and State managers committed to carving out an SEA
process best suited to their needs. Because of the time and paperwork
involved in developing anything new, particularly when it involves several
agencies and constituencies, the 1980 SEA process for most Regions and
States was a time-consuming task.

Most people involved in the FY 1980 State/EPA Agreements agreed that
a number of growing pains were experienced and that improvements are
needed. These include:
I More emphasis on environmental problem-solving activities both
within and across program lines.

6 Better analysis of environmental problems.

* Better integration of SEA development into EPA and State plan-
ning and budgeting processes.

* Improved tracking and evaluation procedures.

* Further EPA commitments in addition to providing grant awards.

* Better reflection of SEA priorities in the grant applications
and work plans.
6 Improved public involvement in SEA development.

This handbook and the Administrator's Guidance will attempt to
address these issues as well as others which have surfaced during the
first two-years of this process.

Administrator's Guidance for FY 1981
State/EPA Agreements

INTRODUCTION

State/EPA Agreements (SEAs) are intended to be key management tools
which top managers in both EPA and the States can use to focus attention
on priority activities and problems. Each Assistant Administrator has,
in the appropriate section of this Guidance package, identified both
program priorities and SEA priorities for Fiscal Year 1981. These SEA
priorities should be used to guide the negotiation of the FY 1981 SEAs
with a goal of maximizing the use of available resources to solve environ-
mental problems.

This section of the Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981 provides
direction for development of FY 1981 SEAs. It includes a concise state-
ment of the roles and responsibilities of Headquarters, the Regions and
the States in the SEA process. It defines the activities which occur in
the development of SEAs, sets forth a suggested schedule for SEA develop-
ment, and defines the essential elements of the SEA. The Guidance also
discusses the role of tracking and public involvement in the SEA process.
It covers both required and suggested activities for SEA development and
is based on the actual experience of States and Regions with FY 79 and
80 Agreements** and the recommendations of the Administrator's Committee
on State/EPA Agreements.***

More detailed information, including examples of innovative or
successful approaches to SEA development, will be included in the FY
1981 SEA Handbook which will be available by March 1980.

*Reprinted from EPA Operating Year Guidance for Fi'scal Year 1981.
**See October 1979 Annual Report: State/EPA Agreements.
***Convened by the Administrator in November 1979, to discuss SEA develop-
ment and recommend future direction.

SEA AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL

Based on past experience, the consensus is that SEAs should be
strengthened as a management tool by:

0 Including all EPA programs as candidates for coverage
in SEAs

I Focusing SEAs on priority issues, with particular emphasis
on addressing problems across program lines
0 Making the negotiation and implementation of SEAs a top
level, personal priority of Regional Administrators

0 Using SEA priorities to "drive" program grant activities

* Tracking specific State and EPA commitments.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

In delineating Federal and State roles in the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water
Act (CWA), Clean Air Act, and other environmental legislation, Congress
clearly expected a Federal/State partnership. The State/EPA Agreement
process should make that partnership real by encouraging States and
Regional Offices to negotiate their priorities in order to maximize the
use of available resources.

EPA Headquarters' role in SEA development includes the following:

0 Setting national priorities

9 Developing regulations and guidelines to implement environ-
mental legislation

* Providing grant funds

* Developing program guidance

0 Developing methods to consolidate and streamline overall
paperwork

0 Providing a forum for information exchange

0 Reviewing SEAs and assessing operation of SEA process.

EPA Regional Offices and the States are the most active participants
in the negotiation and implementation of State/ EPA Agreements. EPA
Regional Offices have responsibilities for the following:

I Identifying and assessing Regional environmental problems

* Identifying opportunities to integrate resources and
activities to solve environmental problems

* Providing States with program guidance consistent with the
Agency Operating Year Guidance

* Consulting with appropriate Assistant Administrators before
negotiating SEAs which conflict with major national program
priorities as stated in the Agency Operating Year Guidance

* Negotiating SEA priorities and work plans with States

I Streamlining the SEA process and consolidating paperwork
where possible

* Assisting States with public participation

* Identifying and implementing EPA commitments in SEAs

* Evaluating SEA progress and tracking commitments to assure
that they are met.

The State, as recipient of Federal grant funds, is responsible for
complying with applicable Federal laws and regulations. The SEA offers
States the opportunity to negotiate, with EPA, the priorities within
their annual grant work plans, as well as the cross-cutting issues that
call for the application of time and resources across program lines
(e.g., hazardous waste sites). State responsibilities include:

* Identifying and negotiating SEA priorities with the Regional
Office

* Identifying opportunities to integrate resources and activities
to solve environmental problems

* Developing grant work plans based on SEA negotiations and
integrating them where possible
* Conducting public involvement activities (notices, public
hearings, workshops)

* Implementing SEA commitments and grant work plans

* Evaluating SEA progress and tracking commitments to ensure
that they are met.

Although the States and EPA have primary responsibility for negotiat-
ing the Agreements, participation of the public and other governmental
agencies is important to the negotiation and execution of the Agreements.
EPA and the States should, therefore, work closely with the public and
with appropriate interstate agencies and regional and local agencies in
developing the Agreements.

SEA REGIONAL AND STATE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS

Because FY 1980 SEAs included three or more environmental programs,
many Regions and States found it advantageous to assign SEA coordinating
responsibility to specific organizational units.* Regardless of the
organizational model used by the Region it is clear that support of the
Regional Administrator and other top managers, along with active, con-
tinuous involvement by the program offices enhance the quality and
utility of the Agreement. Program offices should be involved in negotiat-
ing the Agreements to ensure that the SEA priorities are effectively
implemented through the grant work plans.

State arrangements for SEA development vary, but in general they
can be grouped into two types. In one, negotiations are conducted by a
single environmental agency that has responsibility for all of the
programs included in the SEA. In the other, two or more State agencies
individually conduct negotiations for the program grant area(s) for
which they are responsible and become co-signers of the SEA. This is
frequently accompanied by an "umbrella" Agreement with the Governor.

Methods of organizing and negotiating Agreements are less important
than the character of the negotiations themselves. The State/EPA Agreement
must be a truly bilateral agreement. Both EPA and the States must be
willing to commit themselves to specific activities (in addition to the
award of grant funds).

SEA DEVELOPMENT

Process

The State and EPA should begin development of the Agreement as
early as possible each year (see Schedule, next page). Generally, the
SEA process should include the following broadly defined activities:

* Assessment of environmental problems and existing strategies

* Identification of priority problems

* Identification of available resources

a Negotiation of SEA priorities

*EDITORIS NOTE: For more information about SEA regional and State organi-
zational models, see Annual Report, October 1979.

a Assessment and selection of alternative problem-solving
approaches

* Assignment of tasks, schedules, funding and responsible
parties

a Implementation of signed Agreement, including the award
of grants

* Periodic evaluations of SEA outputs and annual revision.

In planning for the FY 81 SEAs, both Headquarters and the Regions
should make a concerted effort to streamline the SEA process by consolidating
planning activities and related paperwork where possible.

FY 81 SEA Schedule

The following is a suggested schedule for FY 1981 SEA development.
It is similar to several Regional schedules and provides a general
calendar for SEA activities.*

MONTH ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PARTY*

1979

October Award FY 80 grants Regions
Assess FY 80 SEA process and HQ/Regions
identify needed improvements
National HQ/Regional/SEA HQs
Coordinators Meeting

November Initiate review of FY 80 SEAs to HQs/Regions/States
determine strengths and weak-
nesses

December Prepare FY 81 SEA schedules and Regions/States
"scope of work"
Review environmental problem Regions/States
assessments

*It is recognized that this schedule will vary slightly from Region-to-
Region.
**HQ - EPA Headquarters
Region - EPA Regional Offices
States - Appropriate State Offices

MONTH ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PARTY**

1980

January Begin FY 81 SEA priorities plan- Regions/States
ning
Review draft National SEA Guidance Regions/States/locals

February Issue final Agency Operating Gui- HQs
dance which includes guidance
for SEA development
Prioritize problems based on prob- Regions/States
lem assessments and available
multi-year strategies

March Prepare program priorities for Regions
SEA negotiation based on Agency
Operating Guidance
Begin SEA priority negotiations Regions/States
Issue public notice re: SEA Regions and/or States
development

April Public meetings/workshops/ques- States/Regions/locals
tionnaires for SEA priorities
Mid-year review of FY 80 SEA Regions/States

May Complete SEA negotiations for Regions/States
draft FY 81 SEA

June Distribute FY 81 SEA draft for Regions/States
review
Prepare summaries for public Regions or States
Solicit public comments on SEA Regions and/or States
draft

July Final SEA negotiations Regions/States

August Complete FY 81 SEA, reflecting Regions/States
public comments
Prepare public responsiveness Regions/States
summaries and distribute as
appropriate

September Sign FY 81 SEAs Regions/States

The SEA negotiators should coordinate their schedules with those of
existing EPA program grants. State planning and budget cycles should be
considered to the extent possible. Generally, this means that the draft
SEA should be completed by June 1 of each year. Following final negotiations,
review, and public input, the final agreement should be submitted to the
Regional Administrator and State signator(s) in September of each year.

Format and Content of the State/EPA Agreement

The key to SEA success is flexibility and accommodation of individual
State environmental problems and resource capabilities. Keeping this in
mind, the Regions and the States have flexibility regarding SEA formats.
The term "format" refers to how an SEA is packaged; that is, how priorities,
work plans, grants, summaries, signature pages, and the like are included
or appended. Regardless of what format is used, the Agreement should
deal with a manageable number of priorities and should be streamlined so
that it is useful to top EPA and State managers.

The Agreements should, however, have some uniformity of content to
enhance their use as management tools. With this in mind, FY 81 Agreements
should include the following:

0 An executive summary (if the SEA is longer than 25 pages)

* A clear identification of priority problems based on
problem assessments and multi-year strategies, where
feasible (an example of a multi-year strategy format
is shown in Figure 1)

9 Annual grant work plans, which may be appended

* A documentation of tasks and resources needed to meet
SEA priority commitments (an example of a format for
documentation of resources is shown in Figure 2)

* A description of public involvement

I A procedure for management tracking.

SEA Tracking

A general criticism of the FY 80 SEAs by both States and EPA is
that many commitments in the Agreement are so loosely worded that tracking
progress (verification of specific, measured steps toward the stated
objectives) is difficult. To help improve SEA tracking, several Regions
have suggested the following ideas: (1) tying major SEA commitments to
managers' performance agreements;(2) giving each program office a check
list of SEA tasks and output dates for which it is responsible (this
should assist in tracking commitments at all management levels); (3)
using the SEAs as the basis for State/EPA mid-year reviews where commit-
ments by EPA and the State are evaluated; and (4) assigning State and
Regional project officers to each priority.

Clearly, as in all aspects of the SEA process, top management must
support SEA implementation and evaluation. Where commitments are not
met, the Regions and States must take needed corrective actions.

FIGURE 1 -- SAMPLE MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY FORMAT
MULTI-YEAR AIR QUALITY STRATEGY
(Stationary Source Control)*

SCHEDULE
RESPONSIBLE
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TASKS AGENCY RESOURCES 1 90' I '8I1a I 182 I 8 9
19^0~~~~~~~ 1'1981 6211~ 94' I 19i
*Reduce pollution levels caused by Task No. 1 State Y I
stationary sources. 3/80 3/81
Task No. 2 EPA X
6/80 9/82
*Prevent violations of air quality Task No. 3 State T I I
standards 9/80 2/82
Task No. 4 EPA U ,
4/80 3/84
Task No. 5 State V
9/80 6/85

*Actual air strategy format used by State of Alaska for FY 80 SEA.

FIGURE 2 -- DOCUMENTATION OF RESOURCES USED TO MEET SEA PRIORITY COMMITMENTS

PRIORITY ISSUE: Develop Emergency Response Program*
REGION XII
STATE: Xanadu
FY 80 RESOURCES
WORK YEARS $ x 1000
ACTIVITY MILESTONES STATE FEDERAL PROGRAM/AMT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY(s)

'Prepare predictive analysis study 10/80-2/81 1 1 CWA-106/30 State: Dept of Environmental
to forecast spills in the follow- Quality
ing areas: oil, hazardous wastes EPA: Surveillance and Analysis
and toxics substances. Division

'Develop emergency response plan. 10/80-5/81 1 -- CWA-106/30 State: Dept of Environmental Quality

'Respond to spills in accordance on-going 3 2 CWA-106/70 State: Dept of Environmental Quality
with plan (estimate 10 major spills RCRA-3011/40 Dept of Health
in FY 1981). SDWA-1443a/40

'Provide information and technical 10/80-9/81 -- 2 -- EPA: Surveillance and Analysis Div-
assistance to States on spill ision
protection program. Enforcement Division
TOTALS 5 5 210

*Example adapted from approach used in Region VIII FY 1980 SEAs.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE STATE/EPA AGREEMENT PROCESS

The States and EPA have principal responsibility for negotiating
the Agreements; however, the involvement of the public and other interested
parties is important to the development and implementation of the SEA.
Federal regulations require EPA and the States to C1) notify the public
about the goals and scope of the Agreement; (2) provide information to
help people participate in the Agreement process; and (13) schedule ample
opportunities for participation. Specific procedural requirements for
public involvement, including those for public meetings or hearings, are
contained in the public participation regulations (40 CFR 25). In
addition to the general public, EPA and the States should work closely
with regional planning and implementing agencies, as well as interstate
agencies and local governments to agree on cooperative strategies,
priorities, and responsibilities.

The FY 1981 SEA Handbook* will contain detailed suggestions on how
to improve public involvement, including the use of target groups,
regional and interstate agencies, and consolidation of public participation
activities.

RELATIONSHIP OF SEAS TO OTHER PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES*

The following information briefly outlines how the State/EPA Agree-
ment process can complement other planning and management activities. It
has been added to the preceding Administrator's Guidance in response to
comments received from States and Regions asking how SEAs fit into the
planning process.

Regional, State and EPA Headquarters' managers are learning that the
SEA process can neither be viewed as separate from nor exclusive of other
management oriented activities, including: environmental assessments,
program strategies, program evaluations, employee performance agreements,
accountability reports and the budget. The SEA is inextricably tied to
all these activities.

The SEA is a product of a process which requires the assessment and
identification of priority problems, identification of available resources,
negotiation of priorities and assignment of tasks and responsibilities.

*See pages 18-20.
**EDITORIS NOTE: This section is an addendum to the official SEA Guidance.

* Problem Assessment and Multi-Year Strategies

Currently, several problem assessment activities are being
undertaken by the Regions and States. These include open dump
inventories, surface impoundment assessments, 305(b) water quality
reports, water quality management needs assessments, and environ-
mental quality profiles. Some Regions are attempting to consolidate
existing problem assessment and reporting requirements. For example,
Region X is currently developing a plan, with assistance from the
States, to consolidate the assessment requirements of the 305(b)
report and the Region's own State-by-State environmental assessments
known as Environmental Profiles. This information will be used as
the basis for establishing priorities in the Agreements.

Several programs require or encourage development of multi-year
strategies which indicate policy direction over a 3- to 5-year period.
Such strategies can provide needed funding information and thus
eliminate activities like the water quality management needs assessment.
Some Regions have required multi-year strategies for all their
programs.

The SEA negotiated priorities should be based on problem assess-
ments, such as those mentioned above, and on evaluation of the previous
year's SEA outputs. Where there are existing strategies which
articulate specific goals and objectives, they should also be used
to provide input to the SEA negotiation process. If there are no
strategies, the SEA should drive their development.

* Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB)

Through the ZBB process, national priorities and resources have
already been assigned for FY 1981. We recognize that this does place
bounds on the negotiation of current priorities. Over time, however,
the SEA will provide the opportunity to have a meaningful impact
on the ZBB process. Through the use of environmental assessments
and multi-year strategies in the SEA process, the Regions and
States can assist in pinpointing priority environmental problems
and identifying future resource needs.

Public Involvement

During October-and November 1979, Headquarters conducted a survey
of the strengths and weaknesses of public involvement in the development
of the FY 1980 Agreements. As a result of the survey, the following
techniques are suggested. They are applicable to all stages of the SEA
process, including pre-negotiation activities, development of the SEAs
and work plans, evaluation and annual SEA revision. The suggested
approaches must be adapted to fit local conditions.

OBTAIN EARLY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

To maximize public participation and generate meaningful input, the
public should be involved early and continuously in SEA development.
* In Maine, the State held a workshop early in the SEA process
which had 100 attendees representing a variety of interests.
The discussions were broken into three groups: air, land and
water. Results of the discussions were factored into the SFA.*

* In Region III, the RA and regional staff met with the Governors
and key legislators early in the States' legislative process to
obtain their concurrence and support of the SEA concept.*

The schedule on pages 11 and 12 offers suggestions on when to involve
the public in the SEA process.

USE TARGET GROUPS

Based on the results of the survey, the use of target groups appears
to be one of the most effective means to generate public participation.
(We recognize that there are some problems with the use of target groups

*For more detail refer to the Chapter on Information Exchange.

such as over-familiarity with issues, conflict of i~nterest and the "good
old boy" syndrome.) Target groups have an established membership which
can be used to funnel information and feedback to and from State and EPA
officials. For example:

0 New Jersey contracted with a statewide public interest group to
inform targeted organizations about the intent of the SEA and
solicit feedback which was relayed to the State and EPA.*
* Arkansas sent out questionnaires to all- individuals on its
environmental mailing list and requested that they identify
environmental problems that need priority attention. The State
received over 200 responses which were summarized and factored
into the Arkansas SEA.*

USE REGIONAL AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES

Regional planning and implementating agencies, as well as inter-
state agencies, can be used to serve as prime contact points with local
interest groups. These agencies carry out activities which encourage
public participartion, such as establishing advisory groups and con-
ducting meetings, hearings and workshops in conjunction with the State
and EPA.

CONSOLIDATE/COORDINATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

Wherever possible, the States and Regions, should combine the public
participation requirements of the programs (such as water quality manage-
ment and solid waste management) covered by the Agreement. Possible
areas for consolidation and coordination include advisory committees,
public information programs, and public hearings or meetings.

* In Illinois the 208 Water Quality Management Advisory Group
was reorganized into a new Statewide Policy Advisory Committee.
The new Committee's responsibilities include the review and
discussion of issues that pertain to all State environmental
programs, including 208. The membership of the Committee
represents air, hazardous waste, drinking water, and solid
waste interests.

0 Montana consolidated its public meetings for those programs
covered under its FY 1980 State/EPA Agreement. Instead of
holding individual meetings for the grant programs included
in the Agreement (water quality management, water supply, solid
waste, pesticides and air), the State held two multi-media
meetings. Over 100 persons attended. These public meetings
fulfilled the public participation requirements for the above
programs and resulted in considerable savings of time and
effort for the State.

*For more detail refer to the Chapter on Information Exchange.

Public comments from the meetings, hearings, or other sources
should be considered and integrated into the final Agreement. A summary
of public comments and the States and/or Regions' responses to those
comments should be prepared.

Also, EPA and the State should prepare a summary of the final
Agreement and make it available to interested Federal, State and local
agencies, elected officials and citizens. The Executive Summary, if
written in laypersons' language, could be used for this purpose.

Information Exchange

CASE STUDY INDEX

INTEGRATION
o Webster Lake, New Hampshire (Region I).
o Boston Harbour (Region I).
o Integrated approach to acid mine drainage (Region III).
o Arkansas - use of joint field staff (Region VI).
o Joint training of water and wastewater treatment plant operators
(Region VI).
o Charles City, Iowa - [toxics] (Region VII).
Integrated pesticide container strategy - North Dakota (Region VIII).
Program management integration - Montana (Region VIII).
California toxics agreement (Region IX).
o Regional urban initiative - Boise, Idaho (Region X)
o Idaho multi-media strategy (Region X).

FORMAT

� Texas format (Region VI).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
o Maine public participation (Region I).
o New Jersey public participation (Region II).
o Regional initiative in contacting key State legislators (Region III).
� Public participation - West Virginia (Region III).
� Arkansas public participation (Region VI).
� Creation of an advisory committee to input early in SEA development
[Colorado] (Region VIII).

Case StudY Webster Lake, New Hampshire

REGION: I
STATE: New Hampshire
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration

FACTS

Webster Lake in Franklin, New Hampshire is a lake of approximately
650 acres. It is surrounded by first and second tier development dating
largely to pre-1967. The homes, both year-round and seasonal, are
served by sub-surface disposal systems which, due to their era, were not
built according to presently accepted criteria. There is great pressure
to convert seasonal dwellings to year-round use. Development is also
rapidly occurring on vacant lands surrounding the lake-and along tributaries
to the lake.
Webster Lake has been the source of much concern for the residents
of Franklin. Blooms of filamentous algae have required numerous applications
of copper sulfate over the last several years. Reports by consultantsI
have indicated a trend toward reduced transparency, as well as periods
of low dissolved oxygen. The public concern stems from a fear of loss
of this valuable recreational resource.

The Lakes Region Planning Commission's 208 Water Quality Management
Plan has identified a need to protect the lake from degradation by
nonpoint source pollution.

Requests have been made by residents, the selectmen, and other
public officials representing the area that the Commission investigate
the problems at Webster Lake.

The program proposed in the SEA will integrate comprehensive land
management, other nonpoint pollution source controls, traditional point
source controls and in-lake water management approaches of the 208, 201,
and 314 programs. The investigation and planning will be conducted
under the auspices of the Water Quality Management Planning Program
funded under Section 208.

CONCLUSION

Webster Lake pollution problems result from several sources. One
planning program (208) will be utilized to design an overall management
plan for the Lake. Implementation funding will come from those programs
best suited to address the problems and the management plan will provide
a framework to'ensure that an integrated approach is taken and that
there is no duplication of effort.

Case Study Boston Harbor

REGION: I
STATE: Massachusetts
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration.

FACTS

A Boston Harbor Interagency Coordinating Committee was established
under the 1979 SEA to ensure coordination, to expedite the meeting of
planned objectives, and to foster development and implementation of
sound water quality management plans in the future. Specifically, the
Committee provides a forum for sharing information, discussing proposed
actions, and expediting progress of projects where possible. The 1980
SEA continues the Committee and changes its membership to include:

Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)
Commissioner of the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
Department of Environmental Management
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Office of Environmental Impact Review
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Environmental Protection Agency
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
Boston Harbor Citizens' Advisory Committee
Committee meetings will be held at least once every two months and
member agencies will meet separately from time to time to discuss specific
issues related to their responsibilities.

Immediate objectives of the Committee will be:

1. To expedite action on the programs and projects pertinent to
water quality management of Boston Harbor particularly in regard to
agency reviews and approvals and to the timing of interrelated programs.
The following programs are of immediate concern:

a. MDC primary sludge management including the existing Nut Island
sludge outfall.
b. Facilities planning for upgrading of the Deer and Nut Island treat-
ment facilities.
c. Waiver application and review.
d. Facilities planning for the elimination of combined sewer overflows
in the metropolitan area.
e. Facilities planning for interceptor relief for the Millbrook Valley
Sewer, the Framingham Extension Sewer, and others, as necessary.
f. The development of a toxic substance control program.

2. To develop a priority list and schedule of further water quality
management planning activities that should be conducted, particularly
with regard to:

a. Sludge management.
b. Reduction of infiltration/inflow in both MDC and community systems.
c. Water conservation.
d. Relationship between water supply management and waste water manage-
ment.
e. Nonpoint sources of pollution, including stormwater runoff.

CONCLUSION

The Boston Harbor Committee, formalized through the SEA process,
provides an institutional mechanism for addressing complex multi-media
problems in a specific geographical area. Although the Committee only
has an advisory function, the broad representation on the Committee
ensures that all interested parties will have an opportunity to express
their interests in Boston Harbor, understand others' interests, and
develop a program for coordinating the various positions.

Case Study Integrated Approach to Acid Mi~ne Drainage

REGION: III
STATE: West Virginia
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration of Planning and Implementation Acti-
vities Dealing with Acid Mine Drainage

FACTS

West Virginia's FY 80 SEA identifies acid mine drainage as one of
the State's major sources of water quality degradation. The State plans
to develop a multi-year strategy to address this problem. More specifically,
the State has made a commitment in the SEA to integrate the Water Quality
Management Planning Program with the large scale implementation opportunities
afforded by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) programs in FY 81 to
attack this problem. The Division of Reclamation, Department of Natural
Reore (DNR) is expected to be awarded a $15 million OSM grant to
provide solutions to acid mine drainage problems. The funding is contingent
upon the State's completion of an acceptable plan. Unfortunately, there
has been conflict within DNR as to which division is responsible for
preparing the water quality aspects of the Reclamation plan.

In the past, DNR's unwritten policy designated the Division of
Water Resources as the party responsible for developing a 208 water
quality plan which would include procedures to control acid mine drainage.
The Division of Reclamation has been responsible for implementation and
enforcement of appropriate portions of the WQM plan. However, the
Division of Reclamation felt that it should develop a separate plan that
also deals with water quality degradation caused by acid mine drainage.
The SEA process prompted the Secretary of the Department of Natural
Resources, the EPA Program Officer, the RA, and a representative from
the Federal Office of Surface Mining to meet to resolve the conflict
over division planning and implementation responsibilities.
The outgrowth of the meeting was (1) the assignment of a person
from the Office of Surface Mining (DOI), pursuant to the Interagency
Personnel Act, to the Department of Natural Resources to oversee the
Division of Water Resources and Reclamation's program responsibilities
and coordinate Federal, State, and local activities in this area and (2)
the Department of Natural Resources issued a policy directive clearly
stating that the Division of Water Resources will continue to be responsible
for development of a WQM plan and aspects of the Reclamation plan that
relate to water quality and the Division of Reclamation for implementation
of relevant portions of those plans.

RESULT OR CONCLUSIONS

West Virginia has taken an important step toward integrating the
Water Quality Management Program and the Surface Mining Program by
establishing a structure that can work toward resolving acid mine
drainage problems. The SEA process served as a vehicle to resolve
divisional conflicts that have in the past prevented coordination of
planning and implementation activities. This integrated approach will
avoid duplication of effort and ensure completion of required planning
activities.

28
"'' Sn'D. ' . ' i,~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Case Study Use of Joint Field Staff

REGION: VI
STATE: Arkansas
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration

FACTS

The different media programs (air, solid waste, water) within the
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology have their own separate
investigative field staff. Each media's field staff has conducted its
own field investigation of sites in a manner completely separate from
those conducted under other environmental programs.

In the FY 1980 SEA, the Department is proposing to crosstrain these
separate field staffs in environmental areas normally outside of their
present expertise. The solid waste staff will be given basic training
in field investigations of air and water media problems. This cross-
training is intended to result in multimedia environmental field personnel
who will be able to identify environmental problems in the field that
are presently outside of their media specialty. If environmental problems
in other media are witnessed on a field visit, the investigator will
bring back this knowledge to his immediate supervisor. The supervisor
would in turn coordinate with the supervisor in the media area of concern.
This approach is seen to extend the outreach functions of all field
staffs and, in turn, reduce the need for duplicative field visits.

In addition to training, the Department is planning other actions
to better coordinate the different media field staffs. For example, a
formal mechanism will be developed to quickly pass-on complaints on an
environmental problem received by one media program to the media's
program staff who are responsible. Media programs will also better
coordinate routine field visits before they occur to enable visits to
r ~~neighboring sites outside the normal itinerary of a media program concern.

CONCLUSION
Through the SEA process, Arkansas will improve coordination among
media field staffs and improve inspection effectiveness by creating
field staff knowledgeable in several media.

Case Study ~Joint Training of Water and Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operators

REGION: VI
STATE: Arkansas
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration

FACTS

The State of Arkansas presently has over 250 treatment plants along
with 600 wastewater and 1200 water treatment plant operators. Early in
the 1970s the State recognized an acute need to establish a wastewater
treatment operator training facility. With numerous one-man operations
(and a high rate of turnover in employment) the State decided it was
impractical to establish an operator training facility in only one
location. A single facility would have required each operator's attendance
away from the job for over a month's time at each training session. In
1971, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (DPC&E)
received a $50,000 EPA grant to establish and run a mobile training unit
for wastewater treatment plant operators.

With the addition of Federal funds the mobile unit continues its
successful operation, visiting each of the nine districts in the State
at least once a year. Since 1973, the operation has been run by the S.W.
Technical Institute as a part of its campus environmental technology
program. The unit holds 22 students and includes laboratory facilities
and a reference library with various manuals and presentations on file.
A full-time instructor teaches classes from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. for four
weeks, with an additional full week of lab work. Last year the unit
served 800 people. The program is flexible in that the curriculum can
be changed to address the specific needs of each district, such as the
management of sludge disposal. The program is popular with the operators
themselves, the mayors, and the State legislature. As a spin-off to the
program the State is planning next year to build a $250,000 classroom
and full laboratory on the S.W. Technological Institute campus in East
Camden, Arkansas. The State hopes that this more intensive training
facility will also be used by neighboring rural States.

In Arkansas the DPC&E is responsible for wastewater programs and
the Department of Health is responsible for water supply treatment
programs. The FY 1980 SEA gave priority to investigating using the
mobile unit during the other half of each day to train water supply
treatment plant operators. Negotiations are currently underway between
the two responsible State agencies to jointly train the water and wastewater
plant operators in the single mobile unit. The new classroom facility
will serve both programs.

CONCLUSION

In Arkansas, the SEA is being used as a vehicle to bring together
two State agencies to best utilize State resources to train operators.

31
.I:�~

Case Study Integrated Approach to Toxics Dumping

REGION: VII
STATE: Iowa
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration

FACTS

First addressed in the FY 1979 Iowa SEA, the Charles City/Salsbury
Laboratory toxics disposal issue represents a complex environmental
problem. The waste products from this plant are posing a serious threat
to both surface and ground water supplies. The Laboratory, located in
Charles City, Iowa, produces organic chemicals, animal health products,
and vaccines. The first evidence of toxics-related water quality problems
was observed through routine monitoring conducted in 1974. Specific
chemical contaminants within the laboratory's waste stream include;
arsenic, phenol, orthonitroanaline, and nitrophenol.

The Salsbury situation, which is once again highlighted in the FY
80 Iowa Agreement, exemplifies the complex nature of a toxic disposal
problem. Solutions to this difficult water quality problem, involving
surface (effluent and urban runoff) as well as leachate contamination,
will require careful consideration of numerous technical, economic,
legal, and political solutions.

Thus far, the focus of attention has been on the two most critical
aspects of the problem -- disposal of contaminated effluent in the
City's treatment plant and the more insidious problem associated with
the disposal of toxic wastes in the privately-owned LaBounty landfill.
Progress is being made regarding disposal of liquid waste at the municipal
treatment plant. In February 1979, EPA notified the City that actions
would be taken if Salsbury Laboratory were not required to install
pretreatment equipment. The Company is currently completing the installation
of an interim treatment process which should allow the plant to meet
existing permit limitations for arsenic and substantially reduce other
priority pollutants from entering the City's treatment plant. Eventually
the Lab will build a separate treatment facility and no-longer use the
municipal treatment plant. Suspected contamination associated with
urban runoff from the plant area itself is presently being studied. The
Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is working on a new
NPDES permit for this discharge source.

Pollution from leachate in the LaBounty landfill is a far more
complex problem, however. The landfill, which has been in use since
1935, is used primarily by the Laboratory for deposition of numerous
waste organic compounds. Field investigations at the site indicate that
substantial arsenic loading (approximately 150 lbs/day) is occurring in

the Cedar River adjacent to the landfill. In addition, it is suspected
that the presence of trace amounts of orthonitroanaline in drinking
water supplies in the Waterloo, Iowa area may be linked to the Salsbury
problem as well. Evidence of this nature underscores the potential for
large scale contamination of ground water supplies downstream from
Charles City.

Based on this preliminary evidence, the IDEQ issued orders in
December 1977, to stop further use of the site and begin action to
remove the contaminated material. This executive order, however, was
contested in the courts where an administrative hearing is still pending.
During the interim, extensive sampling, monitoring and survey analysis
have been conducted by EPA, IDEQ, Salsbury Laboratory, and Iowa University's
Hygienic Laboratory.

Based on this continuing data collection effort, EPA experts have
concluded that, thus far, no apparent risk to public health and welfare
has occurred. The issue of how best to correct and prevent any further
discharge of leachate from the LaBounty site remains unresolved. Estimates
for removal of the contaminated material alone exceed 30 million dollars.

Numerous meetings have occurred since February 1979', between EPA,
the State of Iowa, Salsbury Laboratory and Iowa Geological Service to
discuss what type of interim steps should be taken to control this
pollution in the near term. To assist in this effort, EPA has contracted
with a nationally recognized ground water consulting firm to work with
Sal sbury on a feasibility study for possible in-place, remedies in order
to minimize discharges from the site. Under this approach a phased
control effort is anticipated. The initial phase, which is currently
being implemented, includes an extensive ground and surface water monitoring
program and the regrading of the site to prevent further runoff. A
second phase will begin next spring with the capping of the chemical
fill material in order to contain any further runoff or percolation. If
these efforts do not prove satisfactory, further control actions may
have to be taken.

Regional Office oversight of the Salsbury issue has been handled
through a task force consisting of program representatives from Water
Supply, Permits, Enforcement, Hazardous Wastes, Surveillance and Aalysis,
the Cincinnati Lab, and the National Enforcement Investigation Center in
Denver. This task force has continued to provide technical analysis as
well as to serve as chief negotiators with the State and Salsbury Laboratory.

RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS

The Salsbury Laboratory toxics disposal issue represents a complex
environmental, technical, economic, and political problem. By including
this issue in the Iowa FY 79 and 80 State/EPA Agreement, significant
attention and progress have been made toward correcting past disposal
problems. Numerous pi~ograms at the State and Regional Office level have
worked over the past year to develop interim control measures that will
hopefully go a long way toward rectifying this problem.

Case Study Integrated Approach to the Disposal of Pesticide Containers

REGION: VIII
STATE: North Dakota
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration

FACTS

The SEA process prompted the State Department of Health and the
State Department of Agriculture to make a joint commitment to resolve
the problem of disposing of pesticide containers. In the past, the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health have discussed
alternative approaches for the disposal of pesticide containers, but
nothing concrete resulted from these sessions. During the process of
developing the SEA the two agencies' dialogue changed from a discussion
of problems to commitment of actual resources to address the problem.
As a first step to develop an integrated program, the Department of
Agriculture agreed to conduct a training class for applicators as to
proper use and di-sposal of pesticide containers. The Department of
Health, Division of Solid Waste Management (as listed in the SEA) committed
resources to identify landfill sites in the State that could accept
limited quantities of hazardous waste and certify those sites deemed
acceptable.

In the meantime, a State technical advisory committee comprised of
professors from the North Dakota University Cooperative Extension Service
and representatives from the North Dakota State Department of Agriculture
was formed in ~june 1979. This committee is trying to develop a long-term
policy to address the pesticide container problem in the State. This
system or policy would allow for the proper disposal of empty containers
and/or encourage recycling and reuse of the containers.

RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS

The SEA process prompted the State Department of Agriculture and
the State Department of Health to take steps to address the pesticide
container disposal problem. The State of North Dakota hopes development
of an integrated strategy (through joint cooperation of both State
agencies and the newly established committee) will resolve the disposal
problem.

Case Study Program Management Integration

REGION: VIII
STATE: Montana
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Program Management Integration.

FACTS
A special task force was organized jointly by the Environmental
Services Division, State Department of Health and Environmental Services
(OHES), Environmental Management Division, State Department of Agriculture
(DOA); and Montana EPA Region VIII Field Office to develop the State/EPA
Agreement. Before the task force was organized these parties met only
as necessary to resolve mutual problems. The group consisted of the
following high-and middle level management personnel: the EPA SEA Regional
Coordinator; the State SEA Coordinator; Division Chiefs and Program
Director from each bureau of the Environmental Services Division (DHES);
the Environmental Management Division (DOA); and a representative from
the Executive Branch, Lt. Governor's Office. A representative from the
Environmental Services Division (DHES) and the Montana EPA Field Office
served as staff to the task force. The task force also served as a
forum for States to discuss issues and problems. The State hopes this
group will continue to act as a creative sounding board for the State

The task force's principal responsibility was to determine the
content and format of the Agreement. To accomplish this goal the group
scheduled meetings twice a month for a five month period (March-July).
The specific policy issues and work items to be addressed at each session
were set at the first meeting. The following is a list of issues and
I ~ ~~work items discussed at these meetings:
1. EPA Headquarters Guidance
2. State Priorities
3. Negotiations of State and EPA Priorities
4. Work Plans
5. Integrated Work Plans and Draft Agreements
6. Printing and Distribution of Draft Agreements
7. Public Meetings
8. Conclusions and Agreements
9. Conclusions and Comments on Agreements and Process
10. Signed Agreements

The regularity of the meetings facilitated interdepartmental coordination
and also provided a forum for the participants to address problems and
issues across program areas. For example, during one meeting several
divisions within the Department of Health raised concerns over the
manner in which the Division of Legal Services within the Department of
Health expended funds. Previously each division contributed a percentage
of its grant funds to the legal services budget. These divisions felt
that there was little if any evidence that their contribution was being
used to investigate and prosecute cases. As a result of these meetings
the procedure for appropriating funds for the legal services division
was changed. Under the new system, the legal services budget would no
longer be keyed to grant funds. Instead each program would identify
funds that should be allocated for specific work activities for the
legal services division.

RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS

Organization of the task force resulted in (1) improved interdepart-
mental coordination and (2) a forum for the State to discuss integrated
program strategy to address mutual problems.

Case Study California Toxics Agreement
REGION: IX
STATE: California
REASONS FOR INCLUSION: Integration, multi-agency State, EPA commitments.

FACTS

Five agencies have major environmental responsibilities in California.
These are: Air Resources Board (ARB), State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB); Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB); Department of Health
Services (DOHS) (drinking water, hazardous waste); and Department of
Food and Agriculture (pesticides). In the process of negotiating FY 1980
SEA priorities it became apparent that each of the involved agencies was
concerned with toxics and, thus, it was agreed to develop an agreement
covering toxics to which each of the involved agencies would be signatory.
EPA took lead responsibility in developing the toxics agreement. The
agreement identifies responsibilities but not resources.
Six sub-issues relating to toxics are addressed: planning coordination/
growth, residuals management, coordinated permitting, air mitigation,
hazardous materials, and public participation. For each of these cross-
cutting issues the toxics agreement briefly defines the problem. For
example, the section on coordinated permitting identifies the fact that
many State and Federal agencies have mandatory permitting procedures for
new facilities or significant expansion of existing facilities which
provide for the treatment and disposal of toxic wastes. Of concern is
the possible duplication and overlap of permitting processes.
After identifying the crosscutting issues the agreement provides
intermedia toxics management examples. These demonstrate the linkages
and relationships among the media programs of air, water and solid
I ~ ~waste. Specific examples in the agreement are sludge management and
groundwater. Sludge management involves the relationship between
pollution control requirements and population growth. In California
groundwater management involves several agencies with monitoring responsibilities
which are identified in the Toxics SEA.

The Toxics SEA identifies the State agencies and EPA programs
involved with toxics management and then identifies 23 actions which
will be taken. Examples of such actions include:

0 SWRCB will reconsider acceptance of Underground Injection
Control program study and evaluation.

* SWRCB, Department of Health Services (DOHS) and SWMB will
complete their Memorandum of Understanding which establishes
a cooperative inter-agency solid and hazardous waste control
program. ARB will review the MOU and consider entering into
the Agreement.

I EPA will finalize procedures for its consolidated permitting
regulations and work with State agencies to assure EPA involve-
ment with State in early stages of permit application review.

e SWBM/DOHS/SWRCB/ARB/EPA will evaluate recommendations of existing
sludge management studies in terms of exploring new alternatives
for solids management and disposal.

0 SWRCB/DOHS/SWWB/Regional Water Quality Control Boards, (RWQCB)
in conjunction with Regional Planning Agencies, will work together
for future site development.

e SWRCB/RWQCBs will work with DOHS in abandoned site identification
by making necessary records, documents and files available.

e The California Department of Food and Agriculture/SWRCB/DOHS
will jointly initiate work on developing a ground water monitoring
and enforcement strategy.

e EPA will finalize and publish its air carcinogens policy. ARB
will review such policy, which will be reflected in the SEA.

a ARB/SWWB/DOSH/SWRCB/Air Pollution Control Districts will
continue to work to develop a policy that will encourage the
implementation of waste-to-energy facilities while addressing
the air quality concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

In its Toxics SEA California has taken an important first step toward
addressing environmental programs in a multi-agency setting in an integrated
manner. While political realities prevented addressing resource needs in
this agreement, the SEA still serves an important function by identifying
how the authorities of each agency will be utilized to solve a cross-
cutting problem.

Case Study Regional Urban Initiatives, Boise, Idaho

REGION: X
STATE: Idaho
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Regional urban initiative; role of areawides; inte-
grated environmental assessment

FACTS

Region X has a Regional Urban Initiative Program under which EPA
and the major urban areas within the Region si'gn "RA/Mayor" agreements.
These agreements place responsibility on the local government to address
environmental problems in an integrated manner. The City and EPA select
a person from EPA's staff, pursuant to the Interagency Personnel Act, to
serve as environmental coordinator. The purpose of the agreements is
to:

* Improve EPA/municipal understanding

0 Build a new partnership among various levels of government,
the private sector and neighborhood and volunteer groups in
seeking solution to specific urban environmental problems.
I Create more liveable, healthful and economically viable
urban environments.

* Tackle city-specific environmental problems.

* Coordi-nate EPA funded programs to avoid inter-program conflicts
within EPA and other Federal agencies.
One of the cities with an ongoing urban initiative is Boise, Idaho.
While the announcement of the Boise project predated the SEA, it is now
an integral part of the SEA. (Refer to the Idaho integrated multimedia
strategy case study). Boise is part of a two county designated 208
planning area. To determine the extent and nature of environmental
problems in the Boise/Ada County area an integrated environmental assessment
was performed, with EPA's assistance. Data was gathered regarding all
environmental problems and was evaluated in order to establish priorities.
These priorities are reflected in the multi-media strategy in the FY 80
Idaho SEA, where Boise is identified as a top priority area.

Once the integrated assessment was completed, it was determined
that solutions must be developed in an integrated manner so that the
solution to one problem would not exacerbate another problem. For
example, a decision is needed regarding the replacement of septic systems,
which are polluting groundwater, with a centralized sewer system. Such
a centralized system would affect growth patterns, leading to increased
automobile traffic in an area with existing severe automobile related
air quality problems.

The Idaho integrated multi-media strategy i~n the FY .80 SEA identified
the following major problems in the Boise area, based on the integrated
assessment.

1. Carbon monoxide standard violations.

2. Effluent from septic tanks degrading ground water southwest of
Boise and inadequate treatment of domestic waste discharged to the Boise
River.

3. Solid waste disposal site filling within next 2-3 years.

4. Stormwater runoff creating water quality problems, flooding and
serious erosion in foothills and in new developments.
The strategy will address programs to achieve the following goals:

1. Reduce carbon monoxide concentrations to 9 mg/I.

2. Implement Sewage Management Program for Ada County, including
upgrading three sewage treatment plants.

3. Implement stormwater runoff and erosion control program.

4. Develop alternate sanitary landfill.

5. Develop integrated Continuing Planning Process.

CONCLUSIONS

1. EPA is developing an integrated Environmental Impact Statement
under agreement among the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, EPA,
and the Ada Planning Association.

2. The SEA has identified the solution of environmental problems in
the Boise area as a top priority, thus assuring that the areawide planning
effort is integrated with State priorities and is eligible for adequate
funding under relevant EPA grant programs.

Case Study Idaho Multi-Medi~a $trategy

REGION: X
STATE: Idaho
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Integration

FACTS

Idaho recognized, as the SEA process unfolded, that there were
certain environmental problems which could not be addressed in a vacuum,
and that often the solution to one problem may aggravate another problem.
To ensure that selected abatement programs for different problems were
compatible, it was necessary to approach problems in an integrated
manner. The vehicle for this was the integrated multi-media strategy.

Criteria were established to determine which were the high priority
multi-media problems to be addressed in the SEA. The criteria are:

* Presence of toxic wastes.

a Air Quality Standards violations.

6 Surface Water Quality Standards violations.

* Drinking Water Quality Standards violations.

a Degradation of important aquifers.

* Interrelated environmental problems.

* High density urban population.

0 High population growth rate.

Selection of specific areas or interrelated problems depended on how
many of these situations were involved.

The integrated strategy is divided into two sections - one addresses
specific urban areas including their environmental problems and goals.
The other section identifies major intermedia problems on a statewide
basis.

Specific priorities identified in the multi-media strategy include:

A. Urban Areas

Ada County - Priority I

See case study on Regional Urban Initiatives - Boise, Idaho for a
discussion of interrelated urban problems, including waste treatment
needs, groundwater degradation, solid waste disposal needs and air
quality problems.

Kootenai County - Priority 2

Kootenai County is a rapidly growing area on the Rathdrum Prairie
in northern Idaho. It is located on the Rathdrum Aquifer, a designated
sole source aquifer (1978) which provides drinking water for Spokane,
Washington. Environmental problems result from rapid unorganized growth
due to lack of proper land use controls. On-site disposal systems are
polluting the aquifer and several communities lack collection and treatment
systems. Air pollution resulting from rapid growth and inadequate mass
transit systems is also a problem. The Coeur d' Alene sewage treatment
plant needs upgrading because of increased growth. Also, more sites are
needed for solid waste disposal and improved drinking water systems are
needed. The integrated strategy identifies the major environmental
problems in the area and establishes a series of goals. Specific outputs
are identified in the media work plans. Major problems include:

1. Septic tank effluent polluting the Rathdrum Aquifer.

2. Inadequate septic sludge disposal polluting surface water and
Rathdrum Aquifer.
3. Carbon Monoxide emissions from automobiles contributing to
Spokane, Washington CO violations.

4. Inadequate toxic waste disposal program over Rathdrum Aquifer.

5. Toxic chemicals stored over aquifer potentially polluting Rathdrum
Aquifer.

6. Inadequate waste treatment in several places.

7. Lack of coordination of ground water monitoring.

8. Control of urban runoff.

Goals of the integrated strategy for Kootenai County are:

1. Adequate treatment of domestic wastes for residents over aquifer.

2. Develop an aquifer wide sludge disposal program.

3. Reduce CO emissions.

4. Develop toxic waste disposal and storage regulations.

5. Adequate urban runoff controls.

6. Continue ground water monitoring program.

B. Statewide

a Sludge Management - Priority I

Goal: Sludge disposal in a manner that does not pose a problem
to ground or surface water quality or the public health.
0 Surface and Ground Water Pollution from Pits, Ponds and Lagoons-
Priority I

Goal: To eliminate seepage from pits, ponds and lagoons.

a Toxic Wastes

Goal: Statewide Toxics Management Program addressing disposal,
storage, and use of toxic containers.

a Population Projections

Goal: Develop 20-year population projections.

a Monitoring

Goal: Integrate all monitoring activities.

Concl usions

The Idaho integrated multi-media strategy provided a forum for
identifying priority problems affecting more than one medium.

Case Study Texas Format

REGION: VI
STATE: Texas
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Format

FACTS

The FY 1980 Texas State/EPA Agreement is divided into three parts:
I. Purpose and Scope; II. Problems and Goals; and If1. Summary of Agency
Responsibilities and Activities by Federal Acts Under Which They Are
Required. The detailed work programs are appendices. Part II, Problems
and Goals is presented in a matrix format which shows what the problem
and goal is and which EPA funded programs (Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
conduct activities relevant to the problem. The matrix also shows,
through color coding, which State agency is responsible for the identified
activity.

For example, one identified problem is the potential threat to
health and environment posed by hazardous waste. The goal for FY 80 is
to strengthen the operation of the State Hazardous Waste Management
Program and conform it to the requirements of the Federal Act. Under
the Clean Water Act the matrix, in blue denoting the Texas Department of
Water Resources (TDWR), identifies a section 208 activity as conducting
a coordinated program to verify suspected problems due to agricultural/
silvicultural problems and assessing an agricultural/silvicultural
control strategy. Under the RCRA heading, also blue denoting TDWR,
section 3011 activity is to implement the hazardous waste management
program. Under the SDWA, the matrix codes section 1443(a) in yellow
(Texas Department of Health) and describes an activity involving coordina-
tion with lead agency regarding transportation routes, storage locations,
and disposal procedures to devise means which will minimize effects on
public water systems. For section 1443(b) of SDWA, the activity is the
development of a program to control Class I wells and a phase out of
Class IV wells. Responsibility for this activity is designated in blue
as the TDWR.
CONCLUSION
The Texas format provides a clear, concise means of displaying the
activities which will occur during FY 1980 to solve the priority problems
identified in the SEA. At one glance, it is possible to tell what will
be done, the program source of EPA funds, and which State agency will
perform the activity.

See pages 14 and 15 of this Handbook for sample formats. One is a
format for multi-year strategies and the other is for Documentation of
Activities and Resources to Meet SEA Objectives.

Case Study Maine Publict Partictpation

REGION: I
STATE: Maine
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Public Participation

FACTS
The Maine public participation program for its FY 1980 State/EPA
Agreement was particularly successful. A workshop was held in August,
1979 which had 100 attendees representing industry, public interest
groups, news media (.print and electronic), government agencies, the
Office of the Governor and the legislature. About 30 percent of the
attendees were not affiliated with a specific formal organization. The
discussions were broken into three groups: air, land, and water. Prior
to the meeting there was substantial publicity and the news media followed
up the workshop with excellent coverage.
The FY 1980 SEA identifies public participation as a priority
issue. The workplan sets forth a consolidated, coordinated public
participation mechanism covering all programs and activities of the
Department of Environmental Protection. Specifically, beginning in
October 1979, DEP will sponsor "Environmental Fairs" through local
organizations in various locations. The format will consist of 2-4 hour
sessions with informal "topic tables" staffed with resource persons from
DEP and EPA. Participants will be encouraged to "table hop" and express
their views on environmental problems. Their comments will be recorded
for agency response and for development of FY 80 SEA issues.

By February 1980, Region I and DEP will agree on the scope of the
FY 81 SEA for the purpose of focusing public participation. Subsequent
Environmental Fairs will include an SEA table. By April 1, 1980, DEP
will establish a mid-June date for an all day SEA workshop to focus on
the scope of the FY 81 SEA and public comments from Environmental Fairs
held to date. in mid-June the workshop will be held. The draft SEA is
scheduled for July 15, 1980, and a public hearing will be held in mid-
August 1980.
DEP will submit funding requests for public participation under the
grant programs in the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Funding under the Safe Drinking Water
Act will be explored with the Department of Human Services which has
SDWA responsibility in Maine. The requested funding level will support
six work years of DEP staff, three of which will be new. An additional
five work years is designated for program guidance and support. The
State will provide a project manager and two staff support people.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the success of the public participation effort for the FY
1980 SEA, Maine has developed a plan to take the process further for the
FY 81 SEA by introducing public participation early in the problem
identification/priority setting process. The substantial commitment of
the Maine DEP has obviously contributed to the success of the public
involvement effort.

Case Study New Jersey Publ ic Parti~cipation

REGION: 1I
STATE: New Jersey
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Public Participation

FACTS

A unique and important component of the successful public participation
program during the development of the FY 80 New Jersey State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) involved the concept of "networking" through existing organizations
and their constituencies. A $7000 EPA water planning division grant to
the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commi'ssions (ANJEC), which
was originally intended to foster discussion of the draft statewide 208
plan, was redirected. ANJEC subcontracted with six other non-profit
groups to work directly with their own special constituencies. The
subcontractors (and their respective constituencies) included the League
for Conservation Legislation (state legislators), N.J. Conservation
Foundation (NJCF) labor and industry), Mid-Atlantic Council of Watershed
Associations (208 advisory committees), N.J. Public Interest Research
Group (realtors and builders), the Soil Conservation Society (agriculture)
and the Youth Environmental Society (YES) (academic community). ANJEC
itself worked with local officials, elected and appointed. Planning was
completed in the Fall, and activities continued from December through May.
Workshops and meetings were scheduled in preparation for statewide meetings
on the State/EPA Agreement which were custom-tailored to the special
requirements of each constituency. Often sessions were aimed at the
leadership of the constituency in question to take advantage of the multi-
ple effect. NJCF sponsored a breafast meeting for business leaders in
Newark. YES co-sponsored a series of on-campus workshops with universities
around the State. Materials and briefings focused on concerns unique to
the academic community: SEA as a one-of-a-kind curriculum resource and
critical determinant of future employment for students now in the univer-
sities. The activities usually involved EPA and State SEA staff as
resourde people.

This networking complimented and enhanced an overall public partici-
pation program which also involved special meetings with all the designated
208 agencies and an initial statewide concepts meeting with the general
public in the Fall. The statewide N.J. EPA Advisory Group consisting of
the leadership of the State's key environmental groups devoted several
sessions to the SEA. Following their recommendation, the Coastal Zone
Management Program was made a part of the SEA. A Spring public meeting
on the draft SEA was very successful due largely to its informal , small
discussion group format and to the focus given by the funded network groups
and their constituencies. Keeping the draft SEA, which was sent directly
to a mailing list of over 200 individuals, from being too polished, greatly
encouraged public comment both during the meeting and during the following
two week period for which the ''record'' was left open.

CONCLUSION

It often seems impossible to interest the public in the SEA process.
Yet in New Jersey, a small investment provided a targetted public parti-
cipation program actively engaging all the key interests. As a result,
participation and input were increased and sharpened appreciably for
all activities conducted as part of the general public participation
program.

- ,4
-�g ,\n '^i ,�; X, -! _,,. ,wsz! ;it~
S jrq:, �:. .S
t rS, t f q r > . I uj{ ff se W l 0 ; E1E j ;lt nj aSX s.
�:i -Xaj0 " 1Ti:tb;5 n
\' '- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4

Case Study Regional Ini~tiative in Contacting Key State Legislators

REGION: II.I
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Publi~c involvement.
FACTS

A major step in the SEA process in Region III was for the Regional
Administrator to meet with the Governor and key legislators of each
State early in the legislative process to get their concurrence with the
SEA concept. The purpose of each State's session was to introduce
legislators to the SEA process and to solicit their support to ensure
implementation of their Agreement. Another intention of the meeting was
to identify any problems between EPA and the State.

Region III's Office of Intergovernmental Relations and Public
Awareness (OIRPA) had major responsibility for completing the SEA process.
A program officer was assigned responsibility for development of the SEA
for a State or States.

The process to involve the Governor and key legislators early in
the SEA process included the following steps:

(1) The OIRPA Program Officer mailed a letter to the Governor and
key legislators of each State introducing the SEA concept and offering
to meet with interested parties to explain the SEA process. The initial
contact with the appropriate parties occurred approximately one month
before the legislatures convened. No response was received from the
mailing.

(2) OIPRA Program Officers recontacted key legislators' staff by
phone to set up the meeting(s).

(3) The RA and QIPRA Program Officer conducted one day briefings in
each State on SEA process and overall environmental programs with the
Governor, key legislators and State Agency Directors.

(4) in some cases a follow-up visit to the Regional Office was made
by the legislators and their staff.

(5) The Regional Administrator and the responsible Program Officer,
in coordination with State Agency Directors, testified at key legislative
hearings.

Some State Agencies were reluctant to allow the EPA Regional Office
to be involved in their legislative affairs. They were concerned about
what would be said and how Regional involvement would affect legislators'
attitudes towards their policy. The Region, bei~ng aware of the State
concerns, took great pains to be sensitive to local poli'tics and work
closely with the State Agencies.

RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS

Early initiatives by Region III to involve key State legislators
(1) resulted in better understanding of environmental programs by legislators;
(2) averted severe budget cuts for environmental programs, (3) encouraged
State agencies to make commitments to EPA given the knowledge their
legislators were aware and supported their activities, and (4) established
a network of key legislators and regional contacts.

Case Study Public Participati on

REGION: III
STATE: West Virginia
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Public Participation

FACTS

West Virginia's public input was sought in the beginning of the
development of the West Virginia/EPA Agreement. It was recognized by
both State and Federal agencies that in order to formulate a meaningful
Agreement, the public's opinions on major environmental problems were
needed.

Water quality questionnaires, developed by the Water Resources
Division's public information office, were distributed at two public
meetings held in April to gather input for the development of the Agreement.
The meetings were held April 2 and 3 in Morgantown and Charleston. The
completed forms were compiled and the responses pointed out what those
members of the public considered major water quality issues.

Notices of the meetings were published as legal advertisements in
12 State newspapers (two in Charleston and the others in each of the 10
Planning and Development Council regions). News releases were mailed to
more than 100 State newspapers and broadcast media. In addition, an
article and calendar note were published in Mainstream, the Division of
Water Resources' newsletter. Fact sheets and notices of the meetings
were mailed to those on the newsletter mailing list identified as key
contacts for environmental notices.

Once the Draft Agreement was completed, a public hearing was scheduled
for presentation of the Agreement and receipt of formal comments.
Notices of the hearing were published as legal advertisements in the
same newspapers identified above.

Copies of the Draft Agreement were sent by EPA to each of the Water
Resources Division's district offices and any person(s) requesting a
copy for review. A news release publicizing the public hearing was
mailed to all the State's daily newspapers.

Thirty-one people attended the hearing in Charleston. A recording
ofthe hearing is available for public review at the Division of Water
Resources public information office, 1201 Greenbrier Street, Charleston.
No written comments were received during the 10-day comment period
following the September 10, 1979, public hearing.

RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS

In developing West Virginia's SEA, public input was sought at the
beginning of the process during two public meetings held in April. The
water quality questionnaire which was distributed at these two public
meetings was used to identify water-related issues and incorporate those
concerns into the SEA during it's early development.

Efforts to involve the public in the initial stages of the SEAs
development through the use of questionnaire and meetings allowed for
more effective citizen participation.

Case Study Arkansas Publi~c Participation

REGION: VI
STATE: Arkansas
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Public participation.

FACTS

Arkansas

The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology mailed out
a Statewide environmental needs/issues survey on May 31-~June 1, 1979.
The public questionnaire was sent to over 7,000 persons and organizations
representing a wide range of interests. The survey package included:
1) a description of the SEA process, 2) a request for public comment on
environmental concerns and issues, 3) a sample of the types of issues to
be considered, and 4) an addressed envelope and return sheet to fill out
and send back. Over 500 responses were received and a letter containing
the results of the survey was sent to all respondents. A newspaper and
television station with statewide coverage ran information gathered
through the public survey.

During this period, the Department also solicited public comments
in regularly scheduled meetings of several public advi'sory committees.
These meetings were well attended and proved to be helpful in identifying
several issues of concern to the public. A public meeting on the final
draft SEA was poorly attended. This is in contrast to public meetings
on draft program work plans in the State which are usually well attended.
It was felt by those who set up the public meeting that the public had
already given its input and was not adequately informed as to the difference
between the SEA and annual program workplans.

Arkansas/EPA Agreement

EPA staff met with the State to agree upon regional and State issues
addressed in the SEA. The very framework of the SEA is based upon the
public's many comments and suggestions. The SEA is predicated upon adres-
sing the 10 primary issues identified by the public along with the existing
program commitments and requirements.

During March/April 1980, the public will be contacted concerning the
progress of implementation of the SEA. A checklist format will be used
which will ask the public to check-on good-poor basis the progress in
implementing various elements in the SEA.

CONCLUSION

Arkansas and Region VI actively sought public involvement during the
priority selection process. Because of this early involvement the SEA
was responsive to the issues about which the publi:c was most concerned.

Case Study Creation of an Advisory Committee to Input
Early in the Development of the SEA

REGION: VIII
STATE: Colorado
REASON FOR INCLUSION: Public participation.

FACTS

A special advisory committee was established to input into the develop-
ment of the FY 80 SEA. The committee was drawn la'rgely from membership of
the 208 Policy Advisory Group with additional representation from the
Air Pollution Control Commission and the solid and hazardous waste advisory
committee. The State/EPA Agreement Advisory Committee provided an initial
opportunity for limited public review of environmental problems in a more
integrated manner than previously existed.

During FY 80 the advisory committee intends to advise the Office of
Health Protection on how the roles of local and regional entities in
environmental management can best be incorporated into the Agreement. This
means the SEA would be expanded to include discussion of on-going environ-
mental programs, regardless of the funding sources. The schedule for
developing the FY 81 Agreement will, at an earlier date, more actively
involve the Air and Water Commissions and advisory groups in the priority
setting process.

C0N CLUS ION

The establishment of the State/EPA Agreement Advisory Committee was
an initial effort by Colorado to incorporate meaningful public participation
in the definition of program priorities in the FY 80 Agreement.

National Program Priorities for Negotiation
State/EPA.Agreements

EPA's Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981 includes national priorities
for State/EPA Agreement negotiations as well as State grant priorities.
This addition recognizes (1) the emerging importance of the State/EPA
Agreements as a top level management too] and (2) the strong relationship
between SEA priorities and State program grants. In their list of goals
and priorities for FY 1981, EPA's Administrator and Deputy Administrator
request that high priority be given to developing realistic, priority-
oriented Agreements.*

The following sections have been excerpted from EPA's Operating
Year Guidance for FY 1981 and include the EPA Assistant Administrators'
priorities for State/EPA Agreements and for State program grants. These
priorities should be used by the Regions to help guide the negotiation
of the FY 1981 SEAs. It is recognized that most of the Agreements may
focus on a limited number of priorities and that many of the following
SEA program priorities will be accommodated in the more detailed grant
work plans. As discussed earlier, the grant applications and work plans
should support the priorities indicated in the State/EPA Agreement.

For further information on EPA program direction, please refer to
EPA's Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981.

*See Appendix II.

OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION

David G. Hawkins, Assi~stant Administrator for the Office of Air,
Noise and Radiation, views the SEA as an appropriate vehicle for
strengthening EPA's working partnership with State and local governments
to achieve national environmental goals. In his overview'statement in
the EPA Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981, he states that "The agreements
provide an opportunity to jointly plan programs to address environmental
problems and for EPA to be responsive to State concerns and priorities
just as we expect them to be responsive to ours."

THE AIR PROGRAM

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

a State assumption and implementation of new source review
programs, including PSD through an approved SIP or acceptance
of delegations.

* State implementation of I/M programs. Agreements should
define areas when major EPA assistance and/or technical
support for the development of the regulatory program will
be necessary.

* Submittal of fully approvable SIPs.

* Commitments to provide quality data bases for making key
decisions for the 1982 ozone SIP. Population projections
should coincide with those developed in accordance with the
construction grants program cost effecti'veness guidelines.

* Development and implementation of a fully effective NAMS
network meeting all EPA regulatory requirements on instru-
mentation, monitor siting and quality assurance.

a Overview and coordination, including MPO liaison, of the
development of necessary transportation control measures
within the urban nonattainment areas for inclusion in the
attainment SIPs.

State Grant Priorities

Regional Offices must assure that the decisions resulting from State/
EPA Agreements are adequately provided for in grant appl ications and
awards. Additional priorities which should be covered in the grants are:

* Meeting schedules and commitments contained in the 1979 attain-
ment SIPS including: development and implementation of I/Il;
enactment of VOC regulations; completion of assessment studies
for specific TSP nonattainment areas; development of nontradi-
tional controls; and completion of attainment demonstration
analyses.

* Implementing the requirements of the air monitoring regulations
includes establishment, operation and quality assurance of
SLAMS network; annual review of the SLAMS network; validation
and timely reporting of SLAMS and NEDs data; review of source
operated ambient network; daily reporting of air quality in
urban areas; development of plans for the ambient lead net-
work; and responding to ai'r emergencies.

THE NOISE PROGRAM

State/EPA Agreement Pri'ori'ties

* Encourage the assumption by States of the responsibility
for providing technical assistance to local programs,
especially where EPA has provided financial assistance.

State Grant Priorities

0 In making noise cooperative agreement awards, priority should
be given to State programs over local programs where the
State is willing to assume technical assistance responsibility.
Cooperative agreements must include specific outputs.

THE RADIATION PROGRAM

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

* The Radiation Program's primary objective for interaction with
the States must be the review and testing of emergency response
plans. While review of emergency response plans is important,
regular testing is essential to their effectiveness in times
of emergency. The State/EPA Agreement should address this
need and detail the EPA role.

OFFICE OF WATER AND WASTE M~ANAGEMENT

The Office of Water and Waste Management views the State/EPA Agree-
ment process as an important too] for program integration and management.
Assistant Administrator, Eckardt C. Beck, states that for FY 1981, a
first order priority must be improved program management, both within
the Agency and at the State level. At the Headquarters level, we must
focus on the integration of water quality, dri'nking water, and solid
waste programs. Headquarters and Regions must focus on improved manage-
ment of program delegations and grant awards. The State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) obviously provides the framework through which such improved
management should be accomplished. Further, he stresses the need to
develop and implement management information and evaluation systems in
all Regions to track State and EPA performance and to determine the
effectiveness of the SEA as a management tool.

THE WATER QUALITY PROGRAM

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

a 205(g) Delegation: Where States have already signed delegation
agreements, the SEA should reference timetables established
in the Agreement, Regional Office oversight functions, and
State/EPA management and monitoring procedures for delegated
responsibilities. For States expected to sign delegation
agreements during FY 1981, the SEA should contain information
on the scope of the agreements as well as a schedule of
negotiation and assumption. For States not expected to sign
delegation agreements, the SEA should reference individual
work programs which identify responsible Agencies, to avoid
the duplication of reviews between EPA and the States.

a Emergency Response: State should develop contingency plan
to deal with oil and chemical spills, as well as multi-media,
multi-pollutant emergencies, and the development of a spill
prevention program.

* Pretreatment: Identify municipalities requiring pretreatment
programs and identify steps to ensure that pretreatment programs
are developed in accordance with established timetables.
Coordinate pretreatment program with industrial sludge disposal
program.

a Monitoring and Data Management: Work toward full basic water
monitoring program with special emphasis on toxics. Coordinate
various assessment reports - SIA, open dump, etc. Perform water
quality analyses as needed to develop geographic controls for
toxic hot spots.

� Water Quality Standards: States should review and revise
water quality standards as appropriate, with increased
consideration of toxics criteria.

� Wasteload Allocation (WLAs): If 201 or 205(g) funds are to
be used for WLAs, the SEA should include a priority list of
needed wasteload allocation studies with highest priority
assigned to projects that require further water quality
analysis as a result of AWT reviews.

a Nonpoint Sources: States should identify priority nonpoint
source problems and approaches for solution. National priorities
are urban runoff, agriculture, and ground water. Nonpoint
source planning should be coordinated with point source,
clean lakes, ground water projects and RCRA programs wherever
possible.

Grant Priorities

Regional Offices should assure that the decisions resulting from
State/EPA Agreements are supported in grant applications and awards.
Additionally grant funds should be used as follows:

* 208 Funds: Direct monies toward implementable nonpoint source
problems as identified in the WQM plan. Paragraph 35.1533-3(b)
of WQM regulations which denies 208 grant awards unless signi-
ficant plan implementation is underway must be implemented.
Projects should include fiscal management analyses so that
technical solutions can be financed and implemented.

* 106 Funds: Improve grant management in terms of integration,
accountability and attention to priorities. Identify funds
released by 205(g) delegation.

THE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

* Public Water System Program.

-- Provide for implementation of requirements of regulations
on trihalomethanes, uranium and radionuclides, and amend-
ments to NIPDWR.

-- Include compliance activities in primacy States, particularly
monitoring, reporting, public notification, and follow-up of
non-compliance.

--Provide for implementation of small systems strategy.

--As~sure that State emergency response plan covers drinking
water.

--Develop program to assist communities in locating potential
Federal and State funding sources for public water systems.

* Ground Water Protection

--Implement a coordinated ground water strategy which fosters
delegation of the UIC and hazardous waste (RCRA) programs
and consolidation of UIC, NPDES and hazardous wastes
permitting systems.

--Develop specific plans for assumption of primacy for the
underground injection control program.

--Implement a management information system which includes
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the UIC program.

Grant Priorities

Regional Offices should assure that the decisions resulting from
State/EPA Agreements are supported in grant applications and awards.
Additionally, grant funds should be used as follows:

a PWS: Encourage expansion of non-compliance follow-up activities
and automation of compliance data (or other quality control
mechanisms for data management).

a GWP: Assure that grant funds support only those activities
directly related to assumption of primacy of UIC program.
Also assure that activities are coordinated with ground water
related programs such as RCRA and section 208 programs.

THE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

* Begin implementation of EPA interim authorized hazardous
waste programs. Give emphasis to establishing and operating
a manifest system and to establishing permit priorities.

* States without interim authorization should support the Federal
program and begin development of their own by refining statutory
authority, providing increased resources, expanding surveillance
and enforcement activities, and providing appropriate permit
mechanisms.

* For their Subtitle P programs, States should evaluate disposal
facilities for purposes of open dump inventory and submit names
of dumps to EPA.

* States should implement Subtitle D Approved State Plans with
emphasis on enforcement against open dumps, implementation of
co-disposal or resource recovery strategies, and planning for
solid and hazardous wastes treatment, storage and disposal
facilties. A search for alternative funding sources, including
a user fee system, should begin since Federal funding for
these State programs will be phased out in FY 1984.

Grant Priorities

Regional Offices should assure that the decisions resulting from
State/EPA Agreements are supported in grant applications. Additionally,
grant funds should be used as follows:

6 Hazardous Waste Grants

--For States that do not receive interim authorization in
FY 1981, assure that the State works toward having adequate
legislative authority; adequate regulations in effect;
control over a substantial majority of hazardous wastes;
the capacity to monitor and inspect; enforcement capabi-
lities; adequate resources; and the ability to permit
facilities.

--For States with interim authorization, assure that they
operate interim authorized programs, and work toward full
authorization. This will include having a program that is
equivalent to the Federal program, consistent with the
Federal program, and that has adequate enforcement for
compliance with the Subtitle C requirements.

* Solid Waste Grants

--Assure that States continue to evaluate land disposal sites,
and submit names to EPA for the open dump inventory. They
should also begin to implement their State solid waste plans
in FY 1981.

OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCE

The Pesticides and Toxic Substances programs under Assistant Admini-
strator Steven D. Jellinek are basically centered in Headquarters with
very little grant money for the States. Consequently, the Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substance (OPTS) did not provide a list of SEA
negotiating priorities. The OPTS guidance does state, however, that
the State/EPA Agreements should be reviewed to "ensure that toxic
substances issues--particularly those requiring multi-media or inter-
program coordination--are adequately addressed."

OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT

The overview statement of the Office of Enforcement (CE) in the EPA
Operating Year Guidance for FY 1981 states that Enforcement joust become
much more intimately involved in the State/EPA Agreement process in FY
1981."1 DE views it as essential that enforcement priorities be addressed
in negotiating SEAs.

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

* As stated earlier, as a matter of policy, EPA regional
personnel are encouraged to include enforcement priority
objectives in their State/EPA Agreement process and discus-
sions. An understanding of the respective roles in the areas
of permitting and enforcement is often critical to maintaining
effective working relationships with the States. This is
particularly true in FY 1981 for such important activities
as hazardous waste permitting and enforcement efforts, the
Major Source Enforcement Program, section 120 non-compliance
penalties under the Clean Air Act, pretreatment and energy
permits.

Grant Priorities

* EPA Regional personnel should attempt to negotiate reasonable
levels for level 1* priority enforcement objectives as part
of the State grant process.

* Mobile Source Enforcement: In FY 1981, $2,000,000 in section
105 grant funds has been earmarked for State/local anti-
tampering and anti-fuel switching enforcement programs. Regions
should address mobile source enforcement concerns specifically
related to tampering and fuel switching in the State/EPA
Agreement and during the grant negotiations to require
reasonable levels of enforcement activity by States.

*For details on Enforcement level I priorities, see EPA Operating Year
Guidance for FY 81.

OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

William Drayton, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Planning
and Managment, stresses the need for stronger $tate/EPA collaboration
through the State/EPA Agreement process. H1 states that the Agreements
"should induce joint planning and they should press decision making on
major problems or opportunities up to the senior policy officials. This
should make it easier to refocus programs as our needs change and to
innovate and integrate."

State/EPA Agreement Priorities

a A firm, joint commitment to implement controlled trading
defining a series of specific objectives for each State
and providing in a number of cases for pilot experiments
with banking and other new ideas in each Region.

e Streamlining and tracking permits for critical energy
facilities.

* Agreeing to new program evaluation and accountability approaches.

W Appendix

I. State/EPA Agreements - Policy for FY '81, signed
by Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, EPA,
February 28, 1980

II. Administrator and Deputy Administrator's Goals and
Priorities for FY 1981

III. Report of the Committee on State/EPA Agreements
(January 8, 1980)

IV. List of SEA Committee Members

V. EPA State/EPA Agreement Contacts List

VI. Map of Regional Offices

APPENDIX I

\~UNTE STESNVRONETA RTETO AEC
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

FEB 28isso

THE ADMINISTRATOR

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: State/EPA Agreements -- Policy for FY '81

TO: Assistant Administrators
The General Counsel
Regional Administrators

This will be the third year of the "new partnership"
which has grown as a result of State/EPA Agreements. In
the past two years, we have seen the Agreements grow from an
idea into an ongoing process of consultation, negotiation,
and cooperation between EPA and our State colleagues.

As with all partnerships, however, some things have
worked better than others. Recognizing this, I set up a
committee, with representatives from throughout the Agency,
to make recommendations to me on the future scope, nature,
and content of the Agreements.

I have now received the report of this committee.
They have recommended, and I am approving, a number of
changes which should make State/EPA Agreements more use-
ful by focusing them on priority issues for top managers,
encouraging their-expansion to cover all our programs, and
relating them more consistently to grant work plans.

FOCUS ON TOP MANAGEMENT

State/EPA Agreements have been especially useful because
they give our managers an opportunity to direct and focus
their efforts an solving priority environmental problems.
We must make sure that this opportunity remains strong.

-2-

I expect our Regional Administrators to continue to make
State/EPA Agreements a high personal priority. They should
stay personally involved in negotiating the Agreements --
and make sure that States receive any help we can give to
complete them. I further expect that State/EPA Agreements
will focus on those issues which need top-level policy atten-
tion. This means that SEA's should be in a format which will
be useful to top managers. The Agency Operating Year Guidance
will contain a more detailed set of procedures for developing
1981 State/EPA Agreements.

INCLUSION OF ALL EPA PROGRAMS

For FY 81 and beyond it is EPA policy that all EPAJ
programs be considered for negotiation in SEA's. State/EPA
Agreements must again cover our grant programs under the
Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
and the Safe Drinking Water Act. in addition, I want to
strongly encourage States to include Air and other EPA pro-
grams in their State/EPA Agreements. It is more meaningful
to talk about "priorities' for joint EPA and State action if
we address our total environmental effort. Where possible,
States-and EPA should "integrate" activities which can help
solve pressing environmental problems--problems which do
not respect the boundary lines of our legislation or programs.

STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS AND PROGRAM GRANTS

Once we select our priority problems, we need to make
sure that the steps we've planned together actually occur.
We can do this by using the State/EPA Agreement priorities
and policy level commitments to "drive" our grant negotiations,
and by tracking how well w're doing together in meeting the
commitments which we make to each other in the Agreements.

We are asking that this year's Agreements include a
section showing how specific grant activities contribute to
achieving State/EPA priorities. This will help us meet both
our management and coordination goals by making sure that
grant awards and cooperative agreements provide the resources
needed to meet State/EPA Agreement commitments. Since State/
EPA Agreements should focus only on certain key problems,
grant work plans will of necessity cover a wider range of
State/EPA program activities. The SEA commitments, however,
must retain a high visibility for top managers.

-3-

STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS AND NATIONAL PRIORITIES
No subject is more sensitive with States than whether
State/EPA Agreements are just another "vehicle' for imposing
EPA's requirements on the States. This is not my view of the
Agreements. To me, they should be the result of a true
negotiation between the States and our Regional offices.
Commitments which come out of these negotiations should not
be commitments for the States only. EPA must be willing to
state, in specific terms, what we will do to help achieve
an Agreement's objectives.

The Agency Guidance contains the priorities which we,
at the national level, believe are appropriate for State/EPA
Agreements. We expect that States will bring their own set
of priorities to State/EPA Agreement negotiations. These
negotiations should produce a mutually satisfactory under-
standing of what each State's Agreement will contain. We
recognize that State and Regional differences will cause
Agreements to differ in certain respects from Region to
Region and State to State. In a decentralized Agency,
this is as it should be. I know from my experience as a
State administrator that we cannot operate as if Regions
and States were alike in every way. However, I would
expect that the Agreements will, to the maximum extent
possible, address problems which we have identified as
national priorities.

We hope that Regions and States will make every effort
to streamline the development of this year's State/EPA
Agreements wherever possible -- reducing paperwork, cutting
out unnecessary steps, and supporting the difficult tasks
which top managers must perform in assessing and making
choices. The mutual commitments which result from State/
EPA negotiations will substantially affect how we deal with
environmental problems in theA oI g s 1 ar. All of us
should follow these commit tw tgh grt sonal interest.

I D gas M. Costle

APPENDIX II

Administrator and Deputy Administrator's
Goals and Priorities for FY 1981

This Operating Year Guidance is intended to give EPA
Headquarters and Regional Office managers a sense 'of the
major Agency-wide and program-specific priorities that we
and the Assistant Administrators have agreed to focus on
during the remainder of FY 1980 and in FY 1981.

This Guidance is the first step of an integrated and
improved management system. Headquarters and Regional
managers should use it as a framework for developing FY 1981
operating plans and performance standards and for revising
FY 1980 plans and performance standards. We then will evalu-
ate individual and'program performance based on these plans
and standards. The Guidance should also be the basis for
negotiating State/EPA Agreements.

Our statement highlights the priorities that cut across
the Agency, requiring several programs to coordinate and
integrate their efforts. The Assistant Administrators'
statements identify specific program activities they want
Headquarters and Regional offices to focus on. Although
these activities are identified as Assistant Administrators'
priorities, they reflect our priorities as well. We have
reviewed each Assistant Administrator's statement carefully
and discussed each item before including it in this document.

Each Assistant Administrator has designated two types
df priority activities. Level 1 priorities are those which
Headquarters or Regional offices must do and for which we
will make resources available. Level 2 priorities are
activities that are important, but which Headquarters and
Regional staff may only be able to undertake on a limited
basis because of limited resources.

AGENCY GOALS

In FY 1981, the broad goals of the Agency continue to
be protecting public health and preserving sensitive ecosystems.
These goals should be the focus of both the cross-cutting ini-
tiatives we highlight and of the priority activities in each
of the Assistant Administrators' overviews.

- 2 -

The activities we want to emphasize follow. Although
we focus on new priorities, we also want to emphasize the
need to continue our efforts to foster public participation
in our regulations development process, to integrate research
activities with the rest of the Agency, and to support the
Administration's urban initiative.

Energy

The Administration this year is stressing expanded
energy production. In carrying out our responsibility to
ensure that energy projects are environmentally sound, we
must make certain that these projects come on line as soon
as possible. Accordingly, we must quickly develop regulations
governing new energy technologies and expedite permits for
new energy facilities. A Management Task Force is working
now to develop a strategy to expedite permitting.

We should also continue to support and promote clean
and inexpensive energy alternatives, such as conservation
and unconventional gas.

Integrated Toxics Strategy

Led by OPTS, the Agency will develop an integrated
strategy to control toxics substances effectively. Our aim
is to coordinate the toxics-related planning, research, infor-
mation collection, regulatory, and enforcement efforts of all
of EPA's program and staff offices to ensure that our resources
are used most effectively.

Emergency Response

We must improve our ability to respond to emergencies
caused by dangerous pollutants that threaten public health
and the environment. In particular, we must improve coordi-
nation between EPA, other federal agencies, and the States;
broaden the range of emergencies to which we can respond;
and ensure the safety of our emergency personnel.

Data Collection and Information Mahagement

The Agency must ensure that the data we collect are
available, accessible, accurate and useful for making decisions
and evaluating programs.

- 3 -

We have asked a cormittee of Deputy Assistant Adminis-
trators to provide Agency-wide direction for collecting data
an- deveiopin- information systems. Further, beginning now,
every office nust develop programs to ensure the quality of
its data and must make sure that its data provide information
that is necessary and useful. Each laboratory also must
evaluate its performance.

WTe would also like the Regional Administrators to ensure
that the measurements of toxic chemicals in the environment
collected by their offices are placed in the Agency's data
storage systems.

Acid Rain

ie are very concerned about our lack of understanding of
acid rain and the problems it causes. We have asked ORD and
CAfR to explore the relationship between fine particulates,
sulfates, nitrates, -atmospheric loading, and acid rain, and
to recommend a stratecy for solving the problem. lWe may need
to develop legislative initiatives to enable us to better
grapple with the problem over the long term. However, on a
short-term basis, we will need to evaluate strengthening our
efforts under current legislation.

Regulatory Ref brr

We strongly support the Administration's commitment to
regulatory reform, and will continue to explore innovative
approaches to enforcing our rules. Getting our environmental
job done more surely at lower cost and with less "hassle",
while encouracing innovation, is important.

In FY 1980 and ?Y 1981, we must fully implement reforms
we have already adopted, particularly the bubble concept and
trading, banking and brokerage of offsets. We must also give
high priority to simplifying, consolidating, and streamlining
permit processes; to implementing our noncompliance penalty
authority; and to developing and applying benefit measures
and other analytic tools to further strengthen our regulatory
decision-making.

Lecislative Initiatives

We will continue to work for passage of Superfund and
the Integrated Environmental Assistance Act this year. The
proposed Superfund would provide the resources we need to

- 4 -

clean up hazardous waste sites and spills that are a threat
to public health. The Integrated Environmental Assistance
Act would allow State and local environmental agencies
greater flexibility in using their grant funds to meet their
environmental problems.

In addition, given the need to extend the Clean Air
Act authorizations in 1981, we need to consider improvements
which may be needed in the Act.

Building a Strong, Diverse Staff

In recruiting and developing staff we must continue our
serious commitment to affirmative action. We have made sig-
nificant strides in bringing minorities and women into top
level management positions in the Agency. We must continue
to press here in FY 1980 and FY 1981, but we must emphasize
bringing minorities and women into middle level jobs as well.

Management Reform

Recent Civil Service reforms give government managers
practical tools for defining clearly each employee's objec-
tives, evaluating performrance and rewarding superior work.
We must finish implementing these reforms. Every Agency
manager must take seriously the very substantial responsi-
bility to implement this program.

This year we expect the Assistant Administrators to
help strengthen our regulation development processes and
products by directing their representatives on regulation
work groups to explore alternatives, communicate important
choices to senior managers, and build consensus. They
should ensure that their Steering Committee member fully
represents their views and contributes to the final regu-
latory decisions in every program area. We also expect the
Regions to become more active participants in developing
regulations, especially in considering the operational im-
pacts on their resources of alternative regulatory approaches.

The need for close coordination among programs with
overlapping interests is obvious, but we want to empha-
size that we expect the AA's to set the tone for ensuring
that their programs are, in fact, coordinating with others.

Program Evaluation

It is important that in setting priorities we later measure
our effectiveness in implementing them. We have asked OPM to
develop increased capability to conduct evaluations on specific
issues or program areas. The current work on EPA delegations to

the States and the Pesticides program are examples of the
approach we want OPM. to take. We need to be the principal
evaluators of our own programs. Therefore, we expect that
the programs and OP' will tackle these evaluations aggressively
anc jointly--both in designing evaluations and in implementing
recommendations.

ImpnDrove Relationships with
State and Local Governments

In improving State and local relationships we will focus
on bringing environmental programs closer together to ensure
efficient management of scarce resources. Therefore we want
the Regions to encourage all States, especially States with
separate programs, to give high priority to consolidation of
those programs through the State/EPA agreements.

Headquarters and Regional managers should give high
priority to encouraging and developing realistic State/EPA
Agreements (SEA's) in which both EPA and the States commit
to specific activities.

This joint planning process will improve State-EPA
relations and help bothk arties do a better job. Each of
the Assistant Administrators' overviews contains SEA
priorities. In addition, a separate section conveying my
guidance on SEA's is included at the end of this document.

The Agency also needs to encourage delegation of programs.
We need to lay out more clearly EPA and State roles in dele-
gated programs. Doing so will improve both accountability
and performance.
* * * * *

We want to emphasize that we personally have spent a lot
of time developing and reviewing this year's guidance. We
urge you to carefully consider the priorities it sets forth
and incorporate them into your State/EPA Agreements and grants
with the States, your operating plans, and your performance
standards. These are the priorities against which we will
measure both individual and program preformance.

i S '1980
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator

FEB 9(P

/AX
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator

APPENDIX III

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF~
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Report of the Committee on
State/EPA Agreements

FROM :Saul Rosof f Z2- 9,
Associate Assistant Administrator
for Management Reform

THROUGH: C. William Carte "
Acting Assistant Administrator for
Planning and Management

TO :THE ADMINISTRATOR

The Committee on State/EPA Agreements, which you esta-
blished in your memorandum of November 9, has met to consider
and make recommendations on "the scope, nature, and content
of the Agreements" as you requested. Our meetings have been
fruitful, with good cooperation and helpful suggestions from
all participants.

We would like for you to review the recommendations
in this memorandum and let us know if they meet with
your approval or give us an indication of changes which
you might desire. Similarly, we need your approval or
suggestions for changes in the draft policy statement.
(Attachment A).

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

*State/EPA Agreements are key management tools
which top managers in both EPA and the States can
use to focus attention on priority activities and
problems. They are a mechanism for maximizing the
use of available resources. EPA Headquarters and
Regional managers both have important roles in the
SEA process.

*Because the concerns of top managers cross program
boundaries, it is EPA policy for FY 81 and beyond
that issues and problems both within and across all
EPA programs should be candidates for coverage in

-2-

State/EPA Agreements. State and Regional
differences will cause Agreements to differ in
certain respects from Region to Region and State to
State, taking into account existing requirements and
grant regulations.

*The negotiation of State/EPA Agreements should con-
tinue to be a top-level, personal priority of EPA's
Regional Administrators.

* You and the Assistant Administrators should use the
Agency Guidance and personal contacts to inform the
Regional Administrators of your national priorities
f or the Agreements.

* Regional Administrators should retain flexibility in
negotiating State/EPA Agreements, but should consult
with the appropriate Assistant Administrators before
departing from major national program policy as set
forth in the Agency Guidance.

* State/EPA Agreements should have some uniformity of
content to enhance their use as management tools,
such as an Executive Summary, a list of priority
issues, and a documentation of resources which will
be used to meet SEA priority commitments.

* The priorities on which States and EPA agree should
"drive " negotiations for individual program grants.
State/EPA Agreements should then document how activi-
ties in grant work plans contribute to achieving SEA
goals.

*The threat of grant sanctions should not be raised
more explicitly than is now the case. Specifically,
the SEA Guidance should not discuss this issue.

*As SEA's mature and we move to make them more
effective it is essential that we track negotiated
commitments. This will give us a better idea of
how well we and the States are doing together.

*The State/EPA Agreement must be a bilateral agree-
ment which contains realistic commitments required
of EPA as well as the States.

-3-

As a result of implementing these recommendations, this
year's State/EPA Agreement process will differ in several
important respects from previous years.

*Your personal involvement will have raised State/EPA
Agreements to a central concern of the Agency.

*All programs in EPA will be considered for inclusion
in State/EPA Agreements.

*There is a new and clear link between the national
priorities of the Assistant Administrators and the
negotiations which will occur between Regional
Administrators and the States on State/EPA Agreements.

*The national priorities for State/EPA Agreements will
be expressed in the Agency Guidance, thus better
integrating the Agreements into the Agency's
total management structure.

*State/EPA Agreements will become more meaningful
since they will be more closely and explicitly tied
to grant work plans. They will stress that Agree-
ment priorities should "drive" grant negotiations
and that grants should in turn contribute to
achieving SEA priorities.

*T'he Agreements will contain clear performance
commitments for EPA and the States, and will
provide for means to track progress towards
meeting those commitments.

We have coordinated our efforts with those of Roy Gamse' s
Guidance Evaluation Advisory Committee. As a result, the forth-
coming draft of the Agency Operating Year Guidance will contain
1) sections in which the EPA Headquarters program offices list
national program priorities which should be stressed in SEA's,
and 2) guidance for developing State/EPA Agreements.

It has been a pleasure to serve as chairman of this
Committee. In addition to the members you appointed, I
asked three persons to serve as staff to the Committee --
Stan Meiburg from OPM, and Peter Wise and Loretta Marzetti
from OWWM. Merna Hurd, Director of the Water Planning
Division, provided major assistance in moving from the OWWM
experience with State/EPA Agreements to an Agency-wide SEA.
Julie Erickson from Region X brought a valuable Regional
perspective to the staff's work. The Committee and I feel
that these individuals did an outstanding job and that their
efforts contributed significantly to the Committee's success.

APPENDIX IV

ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMITTEE ON
STATE/ EPA AGREEMENTS*

CHAIR:

Saul Rosoff, Associate Assistant Administrator
for Management Reform
Office of Planning and Management

MEMBERS:

Gerald A. Bryan, Director
Program and Management Operations
Office of Enforcement

Toby Clark, Acting Associate Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides and Toxics Substances

L. Edwin Coate, Deputy Regional Administrator
Region X

Roy Gamse, Deputy Assistant. Administrato~r
for Planning and Evaluation
Office of Planning and Management

Mary Doyle, Associate General Counsel
for Grants and Contracts
General Administration Division

Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Regional Administrator
Region I

Merna Hurd, Di rector
Water Planning Division
Office of Water and Waste Management

Fran Phillips, Assistant Regional Administrator
Region VI

James N. Smith, Associate Assistant Administrator
for Water and Waste Management

Edward F. Tuerk, Director
Program Management Operations
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation

*Convened in November 1979, this committee made recommendations to the Administrator
regarding SEA development which are reflected in this Guidance.

APPENDIX V

SEA CONTACTS

REGION I REGION VI

George Mollineaux Ray Lozano
EPA - Region I EPA - Region VI
Water Division RA's Office
JFK Federal Bldg First International Bldg
Boston, MA 02203 1201 Elm Street
8-223-5633 Dallas, TX 75270
8-729-2650
REGION II
REGION VII
Michael Bonchonsky
EPA - Region II Don Christenson, Director
Water Division External Affairs
26 Federal Plaza EPA - Region VII
Room 1009 324 East 11 Street
New York, NY 10007 Kansas City, MO 64106
8-264-4296 8-758-3143
(Alt. Gene Ramsey, 8-758-3143)
REGION III
REGION VIII
George Pence
EPA - Region III Joan Barnes, Chief
Curtis Bldg Resources Management Branch
6th & Walnut Streets EPA - Region VIII
Philadelphia, PA 19106 1860 Lincoln Street
8-597-3654 Denver, CO 80203
8-327-3853
REGION IV
REGION IX
Henry Hudson
EPA - Region IV Frank Covington, Director
Program Integration & Operations Water Division
345 Courtland Street, NE EPA - Region IX
Atlanta, GA 30308 215 Fremont Street
8-257-2136 San Francisco, CA 94105
8-556-0893
REGION V (Alt. John Hamill, Water Division
8-556-7554)
Dave Stringham
EPA - Region V REGION X
230 South Dearborn Street (5RA)
Chicago, IL 60604 Nora McGee
8-353-2000 Resource Management Branch
EPA - Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
8-399-1250

UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MC 4' ASSHoso

x I

DAHO VV YO S. DAK M tA .B PUERTOo-
ALI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
IOV ~ N e w YRoCO