REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVE MEETING

REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVE MEETING
Dallas, Texas November 6 & 7, 1996
Notes: J. Glenn Eugster

Overall Impressions

1. An Innovative and Effective Regional Program: The Regional Geographic Initiative Program is an effective way for Regional Offices to address high priority multi-media environmental problems, which do not fit into existing media specific environmental programs. The program is a way for Regions to meet unanticipated needs and unforeseen opportunities. It is a unique source of money in that Headquarters doesn’t earmark it for something specific and it doesn’t require a match. The dollars have been used innovatively to foster public-private partnerships; advance community place-based environmental protection and ecosystem management (when these efforts weren’t a priority/ program); and in combination with other EPA state and local programs (ie. Watershed protection, risk and toxics reduction, estuary restoration).

The Regional Coordinators view RGI as a Regional Program that is designed to be flexible and provide for regional discretion. Although some representatives see the program as only money to the regions, most of the Coordinators feel that the dollars, and their expertise, helps the Region meet priorities identified in Regional “Action Plans”. Rather than a “pot of discretionary money” the Regional Coordinators view the dollars as a way to advance strategic plans and empower the region to solve important problems.

Some of the follow projects, which were highlighted at the Dallas meeting illustrate the Coordinator’s perspective and the “cutting-edge” nature of their work:

· Great Plains Ecosystem Protection (Region 7)
· U.S.--Mexico Border (Region 6)
· San Francisco Bay Delta--Agriculture, Non-Point Source and Wetlands Issues (Region 9)
· Long Island Sound Nitrogen Reduction (Region 2)
· Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining Wastes (Region 8)
· Southwest Michigan Community Place-Based Strategy (Region 5)
· South Florida Everglades--Mercury and Sugar Cane Issues (Region 4)
· Chesapeake Bay Habitat Restoration (Region 3)

2. Skill and Expertise to Tackle Problems: The RGI Coordinators reflect a diversity of backgrounds and experience within, and outside of EPA. The Regions have retained a number of Coordinators who have been involved in RGI since it began and these individuals have a great deal of knowledge and experience in regional geographic efforts and EPA. All of the group have hands-on experience in specific cooperative, multi-media projects and are able to share valuable lessons about EPA’s role in this type of work. Collectively the group is inter-disciplinary and has a wealth of experience in working on the next generation of EPA initiatives (ie. ecosystem, watershed, community place-based, toxic, and other geographic issues and opportunities). Although the group meets periodically, and the Headquarters office plans an effectively coordination role, the transferability of the knowledge of the Coordinators is not fully realized. The group does not appear to see itself as a resource for tackling projects within an individual region.

3. Regional Diversity: Each of the Regions has a different style and approach to implementing RGI. The styles seem to reflect their own personalities as well as their Regional Administrators. From the brief narrative report, the styles of administering the Program seem to vary according to:
· Number and size of projects---few versus many; small versus large.
· Project selection process---RFPs versus upper management.
· Community place-based versus holistic/ ecosystem approaches
· Traditional EPA partners versus new alliances
· Project tracking---sophisticated versus general; direct versus indirect project management
· Risk based focus versus other priorities

4. Headquarters--Regional Office Issues:

The following issues were identified during the meeting which reflect the relationship/ partnership between the Regions and Headquarters.
· Perception of RGI---Labeled as a “slush-fund”.
· Regional concern about increasing Headquarters interest, oversight or interference in RGI. “It’s a Regional Office Program not a headquarters Program”.
· Need to market the Program to Senior Managers to get heir buy-in
· Overall concern about the priority of RGI with Senior Managers. Others are “eye-balling” these funds. “Our Senior Managers are more of a threat than Congress”.
· Terminology---The name is confusing.
· Location of the account--consider separating this from the Regional discretionary funds.
· Relationship to community place-based effort--differences and similarities not clear to all.
· Need for more predictability with administrative/ reporting requirements.
· Need to document what RGI is and the highlights of Regional Office outputs.

Suggestions for Further Discussion and Action

The following ideas were identified by the group as a way to make RGI more effective.

· Prepare a “Success Report” with “shinning examples”, outputs and program history (Region 2).
· Develop a fact sheet---2 minute elevator ride (Headquarters).
· Prepare project specific fact sheets (Region 1).
· Identify a List of RGI Champions--Regional Administrators and Project Cooperators (Region 3).
· Prepare a “side-by-side” analysis of RGI with CPBEP, and possibly SDCG to clarify differences and similarities (Region 3).
· Document and circulate “once a month success stories” using E-Mail or other means.
· Prepare an inventory/ catalog, including a map, of projects funded under RGI (Headquarters).
· Identify potential internal and external audiences for RGI information.
· Add RGI to the EPA Web-Page.
· Conduct Quarterly Teleconference calls, scheduled in advance, between Regional Coordinators and Headquarters. Hold other calls when their is a “hot” issue.
· Meet again in April, possibly in Seattle, WA.