&EFA
United States Office of Policy, EPA-100-R-00-040
Environmental Protection Economics, and January 2001
Agency Innovation (1801) www.epa.gov/stakeholders
Stakeholder Involvement &
Public Participation
at the U.S. EPA
Lessons Learned, Barriers, &
Innovative Approaches
January 2001
-------
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hi
INTRODUCTION 1
LESSONS LEARNED IN
STAKEHOLDER INVOL VEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPA TION
Establishing Trust Is Integral 4
Credible Data and Technical Assistance Can Be Critical 5
Recognize the Links Between Environmental, Economic and Social Concerns 5
Successful Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation Activities
Require That Agency Staff Receive Training or Expert Assistance 6
Several Factors May Limit Participation 7
Lessons Learned in Multi-Stakeholder Negotiation 7
Lessons Learned in Partnerships 8
Lessons Learned in Community Outreach 9
Lessons Learned in Public Participation in Agency Decisions 10
Lessons Learned in Capacity Building 11
UNIQUE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE
STAKEHOLDER INVOL VEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPA TION
Numerous Stakeholders, Complex Issues 12
Defining EPA 's Role in Multi-Stakeholder Negotiation 13
Complexity in Place-Based Projects 14
INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO
STAKEHOLDER INVOL VEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPA TION
Ensuring Meaningful Public Input (1995) 16
Building Capacity (1996) 17
Building Capacity (1997) 18
Using Technology to Improve Stakeholder Involvement (1997) 19
Performing Outreach (1999) 21
CONCLUDING REMARKS 22
ENDNOTES 24
LIST OF EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS 28
Project Manager: Eric Marsh
Evaluation Support Division
Office of Environmental Policy Innovation
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Executive Summary
In the 1990s, EPA increased its efforts to involve the public by giving citizens, industry,
environmental groups, and academics a much greater opportunity to play key roles in
environmental decision-making. Today, EPA is continuing this tradition by initiating and
supporting a vast array of stakeholder involvement and public participation initiatives well-
beyond the scope of what was originally in place when the Agency opened for business in 1970.
Due to the diversity and extensive number of Agency initiatives involving the public, however,
much of the wisdom and experience gained by EPA staff implementing these efforts can be lost
from one activity to the next, making it difficult for the rest of the Agency to benefit. Staff
performing outreach and leading stakeholder involvement and public participation activities in
one office may have limited interaction with staff performing similar types of work in other
offices. In addition, Agency reviews of stakeholder involvement and public participation tend to
focus on single initiatives and preclude Agency staff from benefitting from a broader perspective
of EPA's public involvement activities.
With this report, the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation (OEPI) has taken a fresh
look at Agency efforts to involve the public by reviewing formal evaluations and informal
summaries from across the Agency that identify, describe, and/or evaluate Agency stakeholder
involvement and public participation activities. Based upon our review, we identify key cross-
cutting lessons learned, pinpoint unique barriers and ways to overcome them, and highlight
innovative approaches to stakeholder involvement and public participation. This report is
informed by Agency evaluations and reviews and is written for Agency staff and EPA 's co-
regulators. As such, it will be a valuable tool for staff who are (1) considering new initiatives;
(2) seeking to improve existing ones; or (3) in need of new perspectives on stakeholder
involvement and public participation at the Agency.
Our review suggests that EPA has made important progress in expanding its efforts to
work with the public and is continually trying to improve. However, EPA has limited ability to
measure improvements in how the Agency works with stakeholders and the public. Many of the
reports, summaries, and briefings reviewed for this report were sufficient to characterize the
effectiveness of a particular Agency stakeholder involvement or public participation activity.
However, several documents lacked an evaluative component, making it difficult to discern
different efforts' strengths and weaknesses. To improve Agency initiatives in the future, it would
be valuable to evaluate a greater number of EPA's initiatives to work with the public: for both
traditional and non-traditional approaches. It's clear that the Agency has worked hard to involve
the public. What isn't always as clear is how effective EPA's initiatives have been. A greater
focus on developing standard evaluation criteria and performance measures that evaluators can
draw upon should greatly assist this effort.
in
-------
This page intentionally left blank
IV
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Introduction
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s citizens have sought to become more active participants
in the environmental decision-making process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has responded by working hard to better ensure that citizens can have a substantive impact
on environmental decisions affecting them at the national, regional, and local levels. The public's
role in environmental decisions was generally limited during the 1970s to federal register public
comment periods on rules and permit decisions, review of environmental impact statements and
occasional input through a relatively small number of Federal Advisory Committees. However,
in the early 1980s through its regulatory negotiation efforts, EPA began moving beyond
traditional rulemaking to a collaborative process. Although these regulatory negotiation efforts
were few, the framework used in these multi-stakeholder, consensus-based processes helped lay
the groundwork for expanded public participation initiatives in the 1990s.1
Today EPA initiates and supports a vast array of stakeholder involvement and public
participation activities'1 well-beyond the scope of what was in place when the Agency opened for
business in 1970. Some of these activities and initiatives include: Superfund Technical Assistance
Grants, Superfund Job Training Initiative, Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action, Consumer
Labeling Initiative, Sector-based Environmental Protection, Regulatory Negotiation, Watershed
Partnerships, Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, Community-based Environmental
Protection, and National Community Involvement Conferences.
In the 1990s, EPA increased its efforts to involve the public by giving citizens, industry,
environmental groups, and academics a much greater opportunity to play key roles in
environmental decision-making. EPA engages the public and stakeholders by conducting
outreach, exchanging information, providing the public with opportunities to make formal EPA
aThis report makes reference to stakeholder involvement activities and public participation activities
throughout. Public participation activities represent the full spectrum of actions and processes that EPA uses to
involve the American public in the work of the Agency. Public participation activities and processes allow the public
to participate in Agency actions and hold the Agency accountable for its decisions. Some activities with significant
public participation components discussed in this report include public hearings for Superfund and permit-related
actions and public dialogues.
Stakeholder involvement activities imply activities where EPA engages a select set of individuals, groups or
representatives of those individuals and groups to work directly on specific issues. Stakeholders are individuals and
organizations or their representatives who work with EPA primarily because they have an interest in the Agency's
work and policies or seek to influence the Agency's future direction. Some activities and programs discussed in this
report that include a specific stakeholder involvement component include Project XL and regulatory negotiations.
For a more thorough discussion of EPA public participation terminology, see Engaging the American People: A
Review of EPA Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for Action.
1
-------
recommendations, and working with certain groups to develop consensus agreements.3
Roundtables, constituency meetings'3, charrettesc, information gathering sessions and websites are
just a few tools the Agency has come to rely upon over this past decade to ensure more effective
stakeholder involvement and public participation. As evidence mounts that some of the best
solutions to environmental problems can be achieved in tandem with the public, EPA will
continue to advocate for and support more effective ways to engage stakeholders and the public.
Recent EPA actions that reflect this include (1) finalization of a report to the
Administrator that lays out a framework for improving how EPA conducts its public participation
initiatives;d (2) on-going Agency effort to revise EPA's policy and regulations that guide public
participation efforts;6 (3) development of a comprehensive permitting reference guide that
provides the foundation for understanding federal permitting public participation requirements
and serves as a point of departure for getting more specific information on a given state's
requirements;5 (4) release of a guidance document that promotes effective federal government
consultation and collaboration with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes regarding federal
decisions that could affect tribal lands, resources, members and welfare;8 and (5) release of a
guidance document that encourages early communication and collaboration between facilities,
governments, and communities in order to overcome the gridlock and distrust that often
3 For a more detailed discussion on the range of EPA's public participation activities see Engaging the
American People: A Review of EPA Policy with Recommendations for Action. For more information contact Pat
Bonner (bonner.patricia@epa.gov).
b A constituency meeting brings together representatives from similar organizations such as environmental
groups in order to address certain issues.
0 A charrette is a workshop designed to involve the public in a planning or design process.
d Engaging the American People: A Review of EPA Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for
Action.
e Update on EPA's 1981 Policy on Public Participation. For more information contact Pat Bonner
(bonner.pat@epa.gov).
f Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/permits/publicguide.htm This
permit guide provides a baseline of information on public participation activities in the permitting process to all
stakeholders in an uneven playing field. Permits are largely delegated to the states, and most of the states have their
own process for engaging citizens in permit decisions-some of those are very comprehensive and others are less so.
8 Guide on Consultation and Collaboration with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public
Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal Members in Environmental Decision Making. Office of
Environmental Justice. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Prepared by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee -A Federal
Advisory Committee to the EPA. November 2000. For more information contact Danny Gogal
(gogal.danny@epa.gov).
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
accompany hazardous waste facility siting decisions.3
Due to the diversity and extensive number of Agency initiatives involving the public,
however, much of the wisdom and experience gained by EPA staff implementing these efforts
can get lost from one activity to the next, making it difficult for the rest of the Agency to benefit.
Staff performing outreach and leading stakeholder involvement activities in one office may have
limited interaction with staff performing similar types of work in other offices. In addition,
Agency reviews of stakeholder involvement and public participation tend to focus on single
initiatives and preclude Agency staff benefitting from a broader perspective of EPA's public
involvement activities. To date, no comprehensive effort has been made to collectively document
the many lessons EPA has learned in its efforts to more effectively involve the American public.
With this report, the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation (OEPI) has taken a fresh
look at EPA public involvement initiatives by reviewing formal evaluations and informal
summaries from across the Agency that identify, describe, and/or evaluate Agency stakeholder
involvement and public participation activities. In total we reviewed just over thirty evaluations
and reports. Based upon our review, we identify key cross-cutting lessons learned, pinpoint
unique barriers and ways to overcome them, and highlight innovative approaches to stakeholder
involvement and public participation. This report is informed by Agency evaluations and
reviews and is written for EPA staff and EPA 's co-regulators. As such, it will be a valuable tool
for staff who are (1) considering new initiatives; (2) seeking to improve existing ones; or (3) in
need of new perspectives on stakeholder involvement and public participation at the Agency.
3 Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2000. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/mbodys.htm
-------
Lessons Learned in Stakeholder Involvement
and Public Participation
In the following pages we discuss some of the major lessons learned by EPA staff from
various program offices and regions who have implemented stakeholder involvement or public
participation activities. The lessons describe common themes and recommendations found
throughout the evaluations, summaries and reports. These lessons are rooted in the experiences
of EPA staff, their co-regulators, industry, environmental groups, and local citizens. The first
section below describes five lessons learned that could apply to almost any public participation or
stakeholder involvement initiative. The second section describes five sets of lessons that are
specific to particular Agency activities such as stakeholder negotiation, community outreach, and
capacity building.
Establishing Trust Is Integral
Trust between EPA and the public is a crucial component of any stakeholder involvement
or public participation initiative in order to ensure an effective working relationship. However,
trust between the Agency and stakeholders can take time to develop. Historically, some
communities and organizations have had adverse relationships with government agencies that
carry into the present. In other instances, statutory or regulatory limitations may lead to a break
down of trust between communities and agencies.2 For example, in the 1980s at a Superfund site
in New Mexico, EPA at first had difficulty addressing the affected community's contaminated
drinking water supply because of a petroleum exclusion in the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).3 This initially damaged the affected
community's trust in, and respect for, the Agency.4
To overcome such barriers, making extra efforts to ensure trust can prove crucial. For
example, in a Superfund community in Los Angeles in the early 1990s, only by initiating a
comprehensive and concerted effort to engage the community about site problems and cleanup
solutions was EPA able to develop the trust it needed with the community to move forward on
cleanup.5 Much can be done to enhance trust including: 1) meeting with the community early,6 2)
responding to community concerns and clearly explaining what action will be taken to address
their concerns,7 3) maintaining a presence in the community, 4) working with the community on
equal footing,8 5) openly sharing information,9 6) involving stakeholders in decision making and
data gathering,10 7) linking up with trusted local officials," and 8) keeping communication
channels open.12
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Credible Data and Technical Assistance Can Be Critical
Credible sources of information can serve a very important role in solving conflicts with
stakeholders and the public. One evaluation completed in late 1998 looked at eight Agency
regulatory negotiations and found that eighty percent of the controversial issues "were either
successfully negotiated or resolved through the presentation of objective data and/or analysis."13
Often, data credibility depends upon whether the data can be produced or confirmed by an
outside source. Without outside expertise, groups with non-technical backgrounds can be
significantly disadvantaged in their ability to participate effectively in decision-making.14 In the
Carpet Policy Dialogue, a one-year multi-stakeholder policy discussion initiated in 1991 that
focused on encouraging the carpet industry to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, the industry was responsible for gathering the data needed for the policy discussions.
This led to controversy over the adequacy and reliability of the data and potentially limited
progress on certain policy issues because several stakeholders did not trust the industry's data
collection method.15 No outside verification of the data was conducted and participants'
concerns were not relieved. One participant remarked that "a lot of issues were swept under the
rug as a result of the dialogue needing to accept the data as it was presented."16
Without a concerted effort to ensure reliable, trustworthy data, the stakeholder process
may prove frustrating for all participants involved. EPA has made strides to improve in this area,
however, by enabling participants in multi-stakeholder processes easier access to technical
experts. For example, in 1988, the Superfund program started making Technical Assistance
Grants available to community groups which enabled them to hire technical experts to review
technical issues associated with contaminated sites. This effort has proven to be a considerable
success making it easier for community groups to interpret data and reports, understand technical
issues, improve dialogue with EPA, educate other nearby residents about the issues, and establish
the credibility of the group.17 More recently, in response to claims that Project XL did not enable
local residents to fully participate in individual XL project negotiations since they often lacked
technical expertise, the Project XL team developed a grant program similar to that of the
Superfund program whereby stakeholder groups can apply for task-specific technical assistance
to help them address XL issues either in project negotiation or implementation. In early 2000,
two stakeholder groups each accessed this grant to improve their ability to participate in project
negotiations for two XL projects involving a paper mill in Jay, Maine.
Recognize the Links between Environmental, Economic, and Social Concerns
Throughout the 1990s more communities began to recognize that in order to improve
their quality of life they must focus on solutions that link together their environmental, economic
and social concerns. As communities have adopted this approach, EPA has reached out to
communities to assist them in their holistic planning efforts by advocating and supporting the
Watershed Approach and Community-based Environmental Protection. However, being a
-------
regulatory agency, EPA can be slow to direct focus on communities' social and economic
priorities. In EPA's Brownfields Initiative launched in 1994, EPA was initially criticized for
spending most of its attention addressing concerns of developers and investors instead of those
expressed by potentially affected community members. For example, one observer suggested
that "EPA's Brownfields locomotive left the station without a major group of passengers."18 A
year later, however, EPA responded to this criticism by hosting a series of public dialogues
designed to solicit input from local residents most likely to be directly impacted by Brownfields
policy decisions.
EPA can work to integrate economic and social concerns into environmental decision-
making by forming partnerships with impacted communities and taking time to learn about
community quality of life and environmental justice concerns. EPA staff should be prepared to
answer questions about local economic impacts and health impacts of its environmental
decisions.19 For instance, will the permitting of a certain type of facility negatively affect a
community's ability to garden, fish, or hunt because of possible future contamination? EPA can
improve its understanding of impacts by gathering a wide-variety of information from local
residents including demographic information, oral history of community's health, and location of
important cultural, religious, and historical sites.20 By working harder to integrate social,
economic, and even cultural concerns of the community, EPA can enhance trust between
industry stakeholders and the community and ultimately strengthen environmental decision-
making both in its non-traditional activities, such as Project XL, and in its regulatory activities,
such as the permitting of hazardous waste facilities.
Successful Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation Activities Require
That Agency Staff Receive Training or Expert Assistance
Agency staff involved in stakeholder and public participation efforts, including
partnerships, need special training both in the value and use21 of these activities and how to
conduct them properly. If training is not available, staff should obtain expert assistance. A
variety of skills and techniques in addition to adequate background knowledge are a must if the
initiative is to be successful. For instance, at the start of the Carpet Policy Dialogue in 1990 (see
above), little effort was made to train EPA staff as to what their roles would be alongside the
facilitator. As a result, several EPA staff did not know what to expect and did not understand
how to best participate.22 In a 1999 evaluation that looked at public participation in contaminated
site cleanups, Community Advisory Board members involved in contamination remediation at
the Sandia National Laboratory Site near Albuquerque remarked that public participation
processes will not be perceived as credible unless agency staff are educated why such processes
are important and how they should be implemented.23 Other areas in which staff involved in
public participation and stakeholder involvement activities could benefit from training include:
listening and communication, partnering, process management, negotiation, consensus-building,
vision-building, cross-cutting analysis, and multi-media approaches to environmental
protection.24'25 In addition, for staff lacking experience but currently involved in public
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
participation initiatives at the community level, efforts should be made to coordinate work with
local residents experienced in community outreach.26
Several Factors May Limit Participation
Several factors may limit the willingness or ability of citizens to participate in either
stakeholder involvement or public participation
initiatives. Citizens may have difficulty participating
in technical discussions because they believe they
will be unable to significantly influence issues, or
because they lack time to participate substantively.
They may choose not to participate because of a
lack of controversy surrounding an issue or because
they are simply "turned off by conflict.27 In a 1998
EPA evaluation of public involvement in the Source
Water Assessment Program, a Congressionally-
mandated program requiring all state environmental
agencies to develop and implement plans for
ensuring safe drinking water, several citizens
described additional reasons why they were unable
to participate effectively as advisory committee
members for their respective state agencies. These
included inadequate explanations of background
and technical material, inadequate minutes from
meetings, and overwhelming amounts of reading.28
Furthermore, citizens may choose not to participate
for historical (e.g., this solution was attempted years
ago without success), social (e.g., outsiders have low expectations of what stakeholders can
actually contribute) or cultural (e.g., the problem was a result of god's will), reasons.29 Non-
participation may also be a cultural way of indicating opposition to a certain initiative.30 It is not
necessary to have high a degree of involvement for all public participation or stakeholder
involvement initiatives. However, lack of adequate participation or lack of effective means for
participation can result in agreements or policies that do not necessarily reflect the interests of
communities or constituencies that will be most impacted by them.
Recognizing Barriers to Participation
Inadequate explanations of background
and technical material
Difficulty participating in technical
discussions
Inadequate minutes from meetings
Overwhelming amounts of reading
Perceived inability to
influence issues
Lack of time to
participate
Lessons Learned in Multi-Stakeholder Negotiation
Many Agency initiatives involve some form of multi-stakeholder negotiation. Key
lessons learned can improve the quality of future negotiations for the Agency and participating
stakeholders. First, in the early stages of any stakeholder negotiation it is crucial to clarify the
-------
type of stakeholder process to be used, what the
goals will be, and what the negotiation process can
and cannot accomplish. Even if there is only a
low-level of trust among stakeholders, an effective
communication and decision-making process can
still allow for successful negotiation to take place.31
Second, it is important to educate stakeholders on
both the process and technical issues before the
negotiation. By spending extra time up-front to
better ensure a common understanding for all
stakeholders, the quality of the negotiation should
be greatly improved and the time required to carry
out the negotiation significantly reduced. Third,
it's important to use a trained facilitator
throughout the negotiation. Lack of quality
facilitation can impede a successful negotiation.
Moreover, employing a trained facilitator only
when it becomes apparent that a facilitator is
needed may not erase troubling developments that
have already emerged.32 Fourth, it is often
essential that EPA senior leadership play a very
active role in negotiations. If EPA does not show
high-level support for the process it's advocating, it's clear that other stakeholders may be less
than enthusiastic about developing an agreement or product. With high-level participation, EPA
can keep other stakeholders at the table and clarify possibilities for agreements.33
Finally, it's important to include a full diversity of stakeholders and perspectives. The
greater the diversity, the more likely the process itself and resulting products will be perceived as
credible. It can be easy to by-pass certain stakeholders and pull together a group where issues
can be resolved with relative ease. Only by drawing together all affected stakeholders, however,
can contentious issues truly be resolved and effective, long-lasting agreements be reached.34
Moreover, by ensuring diversity, there is a much greater likelihood that issues of environmental
justice may be resolved.35 Without a broad range of voices, the concerns of disenfranchised can
be more easily ignored.
Improving Stakeholder
Negotiations
Clarify the type of process to be used,
what the goals will be, and what the
process can and can't accomplish
Educate stakeholders on both the
process and technical issues
Use a trained facilitator throughout the
negotiation - don't wait until troubles
emerge
Plan EPA's involvement carefully -
high-level participation is critical
Include a full diversity of stakeholders
Lessons Learned in Partnerships
Many evaluations focused on partnerships involving EPA and other stakeholders. The
partnerships vary considerably in terms of stakeholders, the size of the area of concern (e.g,
single rural community to a region spanning several counties), and the types of environmental
problems addressed, yet the evaluations describe several valuable lessons learned that could be
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
applied to almost any partnership. One important
lesson is the need for participating stakeholders to
develop clear visions, goals, and action items for
the partnership.36 With goals and objectives broken
down into discreet tasks, it is easier for partnership
efforts to measure and celebrate results and build
trust. There will not always be complete agreement
on an overall vision, but a vision that everyone
accepts can be sufficient to get the partnership
started. This can, in turn, set the stage for the
development of more specific objectives and action
items.37 For partnerships where problems are
complex and somewhat ambiguous, it can be useful
to develop a shared context of meaning amongst
the different stakeholders. For example, use of
EPA's comparative risk process can center the
partnership decision-making process around a
common set of definitions38 and make it easier for
all to participate. Another essential lesson is that
local stakeholder involvement in partnerships can
be critical. Without local leadership and support, it may be difficult to advance the partnership.39
Finally, care should be taken with the press to make sure they understand partnership efforts and
can adequately explain them to the community.40
Building Better
Partnerships
Establish clear visions,
goals, and action items
Encourage a vision that everyone can
accept
Develop a shared context of meaning
for stakeholders in partnerships with
ambiguous goals
Closely involve local stakeholders
Ensure that partnership goals, activities,
and results will be effectively
Lessons Learned in Community Outreach
Community outreach can involve a variety of actions including posting information on an
agency web site to holding a public hearing.
Evaluations covering community outreach include
several important lessons. First, when preparing to
educate groups about a certain issue, it's important
to know your audience. This includes understanding
how the audience prefers to learn, making
information easy to understand, and providing
information in plain English or the predominant
languages of the community. Building on this, it is
also important to host meetings at times that are
convenient for most community members and to
announce meetings through media that are regularly
used by community members. Additionally, when
conducting outreach it is important to ensure that the
message is heard beyond those most willing to
Enhancing Community
Outreach
Know your audience
Hold meetings at times convenient for
community members
Work hard to engage those community
members not immediately receptive to
your message
Use websites to complement, rather
-------
listen.41 Certain groups are easier to communicate with than others. However, chances are that
some groups most likely to be impacted by a decision will be hardest to reach. Special efforts,
therefore, must be made to meet this challenge. Websites are useful for conducting outreach,
however they are by no means perfect. Besides the fact that not everyone has access to the
Internet42, websites do not always operate correctly, they do not allow for meaningful public
input, and it can be time-consuming to download material from them.43 Finally, it's important to
realize that no matter how information is provided, certain groups simply may not believe the
information44 or, they may only believe the information if it coincides with their position.45 This
can lead to considerable frustration on behalf of all parties involved. Although there are no easy
remedies for this, allowing groups adequate opportunity to respond and gain additional feedback
from the Agency may help to defuse certain controversies.
Lessons Learned in Public Participation
in Agency Decisions
In addition to providing information to
stakeholders and the public, the Agency works to
actively involve these same groups in Agency
decision-making on issues ranging from cleanup at
a contaminated site to permitting discharges at an
industrial facility. The evaluations reviewed
discuss a range of lessons learned that focus on
public participation in decision-making. First, it's
important to involve the public in Agency decision
making early. Stakeholders and the public have
perspectives and insight that can greatly improve
the quality of decision-making. For example, in
1997, a community's input regarding a proposed
remedy for a Superfund site located on the lower
east fork of Poplar Creek in Tennessee led to a
savings of $160 million in clean-up costs after
citizens argued that the level of risk reduction
called for in the proposed cleanup plan did not
justify the $168 million price tag, and opted for an
$8 million cleanup instead.46 Second, holding
public meetings and hearings that are structured to address public concerns is critical. Such
efforts send a signal to the community that the public's input truly is valued.47 Third, when EPA
asks for and receives citizen input, the Agency needs to be able to clearly explain how that advice
will be used. If the Agency makes a decision at odds with citizen input, the Agency should
clearly explain why and expect that citizens will strongly desire to re-state and argue their
position. The Agency must have a clear, flexible process that allows citizens to further debate the
Effectively Involving
the Public in Agency
Decisions
Get the public involved early
Ensure that public meetings and
hearings allow public's concerns to be
adequately addressed
Clearly explain how public input will be
used
Give public adequate explanations if
their input is rejected
Re-double efforts to involve the public
in Agency decision making if
10
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Agency's decision and be open to the possibility that the decision may require changes before
being considered final. Without such measures, the credibility of the public participation effort
may be lost.48
Finally, if public participation in Agency
decision making is low, it is important for the
Agency to identify why, test a variety of efforts to
encourage participation, or even re-think the entire
process. Without such efforts, the Agency may not
be able to discern whether a program or permit will
actually benefit the community.49
Why Build Capacity?
Enables communities
lacking organization and
leadership to turn concerns into action
Helps citizens better process
information and provide input into
Agency decisions
Empowers communities to leverage
additional resources
Allows communities to capitalize on
their existing civic assets
Lessons Learned in Capacity Building
Several evaluations touch on the capacity of
citizens to participate more effectively in
environmental decision-making. EPA has used a
series of tools including grants, direct technical
assistance, information postings on the Internet,
hardware, technical resources such as phone
conference and email support, and facilitation
services. The evaluations provide several lessons
about capacity building that are relevant. First, capacity building efforts can help communities
lacking organization and leadership turn concerns into action and enable citizens to better process
information and provide input into Agency decisions.50 Second, even relatively low levels of
funding for capacity building initiatives can have significant impacts. Flexibility in how the
funding is spent can encourage innovation, and initial grant monies can make it easier to leverage
other sources of funding.51 Finally, when engaging in a capacity building initiative it is important
to understand the civic infrastructure of the community targeted for assistance.52 Fully
understanding and capitalizing on the existing resources and institutions can make it easier to
undertake and enhance an initiative's effectiveness. For example, in a 1999 EPA New England
capacity building effort, EPA was able to greatly increase the participation for its urban sprawl
demonstration projects by networking with regional municipal associations.53
11
-------
Unique Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Involvement
and Public Participation
When implementing various stakeholder involvement and public participation initiatives,
obstacles and roadblocks often emerge which can curtail an initiative's potential effectiveness or
momentum. In this next section we describe some of these unique issues and discuss what
attempts were made to overcome them.
Numerous Stakeholders, Complex Issues
Achieving success in stakeholder negotiations involving large numbers of stakeholders
and/or complex technical issues can be difficult. In 1995, EPA faced both these challenges
directly when it established a Subcommittee under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to
provide advice and recommendations on new, integrated approaches for meeting the new and
revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter and ozone and
for reducing haze in national parks and wilderness areas. The Subcommittee consisted of 83
members, and was supported by four working groups and a coordination group which together
included roughly 140 more individuals. Participants represented diverse stakeholder interests
ranging from state, local, and tribal governments, public health and environmental groups, to
industry, academia and other federal agencies.
EPA asked the Subcommittee to address several different complex policy and technical
issues that could have long term ramifications for air quality management and to provide
innovative solutions which would satisfy the concerns of each participating stakeholder. Given
the diversity and number of stakeholders involved, and given the emphasis placed upon
addressing the concerns of each stakeholder, this effort could have easily been plagued by
disagreements between stakeholder groups, lack of coordination between the Subcommittee and
the working groups, or lack of clear direction and objectives.
The framework used for the negotiation enabled stakeholders to avoid this outcome for
number of reasons. First, after the work groups were formed, the Subcommittee assigned topics
to each work group according to their responsibilities initially outlined by the Subcommittee.
Each workgroup then highlighted key issues and chose lead authors to develop issue papers.
These actions appear to have ensured that the most important topics were adequately addressed.
Second, the coordination group provided instructive guidance for how issue papers should be
developed by producing a set of content- and process-related principles that served as
frameworks. The process-related principles consisted of six parts that described who would be
expected to give input, how decisions would be made, and how the issue papers should be
presented to the Subcommittee. The content-related principles consisted of nine parts that
described substance-related factors that must be considered when developing the issue papers.
For example, the fourth principle suggests that any working group recommendations requiring
12
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
amendments to the Clean Air Act be clearly identified and include an analysis of the advantages
and disadvantages of doing so. The coordination group also conducted preliminary reviews of
products before the work groups presented them to the Subcommittee.
Third, one of the working groups, the
Communication and Outreach working group,
labored to ensure adequate levels of communication
within the Subcommittee and other work groups by
creating an Internet site where information could be
posted and by producing "plain English" summaries
of issue papers. Finally, another working group, the
Science and Technical Support working group,
helped fill the technical gaps experienced by other
working groups developing issue papers by
addressing specific technical questions, participating
on joint issue paper teams, writing specific sections
for other work group papers, and providing formal
comments.54
Through the course of the negotiation effort,
the working groups presented approximately
twenty-five issue papers to the Subcommittee.
These issue papers then formed the foundation
which the Subcommittee used to decide which
recommendations would be made to EPA.
Although consensus was not reached on an overall
package of recommendations, the Subcommittee
successfully provided EPA with numerous options
and recommendations regarding programs to meet the new and revised NAAQS and for
furthering progress in regional haze reduction.55
Ensuring Successful
Outcomes in Negotiations
with Numerous
Stakeholders and Complex
Issues
Provide direction and ensure that certain
topics will receive adequate attention
Consider developing a set of content-
related and process-related principles to
help guide how issues should be
addressed
Assure proper levels of communication
between subcommittees and work
groups
Provide on-going scientific and technical
support to work groups
Defining EPA's Role in Multi-Stakeholder Negotiation
In multi-stakeholder negotiations, it can be difficult for EPA to determine its appropriate
role. This can slow negotiation momentum and build frustration for other participating
stakeholders. Should the Agency play the role of observer, advisor, facilitator, and/or
stakeholder? Even when the Agency decides what its role should be, however, this does not
necessarily make it easy for EPA to participate. In the Carpet Policy Dialogue, a consensus-
based approach focused upon reducing exposure to volatile organic compounds released from
carpet products that took place over a year between 1990 and 1991, participating Agency staff
showed a lack of consensus about what role they were supposed to play even though the
13
-------
Ingredients for Working
Effectively as an
Agency Stakeholder
Provide a coherent EPA perspective
on issues by establishing coordinator
to ensure that critical issues raised by
dialogue are addressed by
appropriate EPA staff
Assemble an EPA stakeholder team
with sufficient technical expertise
Set meaningful deadlines
Establish clear goals
negotiation was facilitated by an outside party. Differing
perspectives resulted from two factors. First, certain EPA
participants were not comfortable that nontraditional
processes did not have a clear basis in law. Second, it was
very difficult to develop a consistent Agency response to
issues that arose in the dialogue because of the time and
effort needed to work with four different offices and staff
operating under different environmental statutes. As a
result, EPA made several remarks that were either
ambiguous or competing during the initial stages of the
dialogue.
After this troubling start, however, EPA eventually
began to provide a more coherent perspective on issues.
The Agency did this by establishing an ad hoc
coordinator who, with the support of EPA management,
helped to ensure that critical concerns and issues raised
during the dialogue were brought to the attention of, and
addressed by, appropriate EPA staff. In addition, EPA
was able to participate as an effective stakeholder because
of 1) the high degree of importance the Agency placed on
the dialogue, 2) the one year deadline that served as a
catalyst for resolution of issues, 3) the establishment of clear objectives, and 4) EPA's ability to
assemble an Agency stakeholder team with sufficient technical expertise.56
Complexity in Place-Based Projects
Significant challenges can also arise in ensuring effective stakeholder involvement in
place-based projects covering large geographic areas, involving numerous stakeholders and
varied and complex issues. EPA learned first-hand about these challenges when it got involved
in the Eastward Ho! Initiative, a robust regional project in South Florida on the Atlantic side
aimed at encouraging development in existing urban centers, limiting sprawl and promoting
sustainable development. EPA's effort centered mainly around forming a Brownfields
Partnership to ensure that Brownfields redevelopment would fit within Eastward Hoi's overall
vision. The Partnership includes over 65 counties and localities, business leaders and other
organizations.57 The Partnership region covers a 115-mile long corridor along the coastal ridge in
eastern Bade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, containing nearly five million people and
2,100 contaminated sites.58 EPA worked with partnership members to ensure that contaminated
sites were inventoried, permitting and regulatory issues associated with site redevelopment were
addressed, and all stakeholders participated in the Partnership, among other activities.59
With such an ambitious project involving so many stakeholders EPA could have easily
14
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
chosen to avoid getting involved, fearing an inability to contribute adequate resources, lack of a
defined role for the Agency, or lack of clear goals to
enable measurement of success. However, EPA
engaged in a number of different ways that had
positive effects on the Partnership effort. First, EPA
brought a "big picture" perspective to the project.
This encouraged local leaders to look past boundaries
and adopt a wider regional perspective. EPA's
national perspective also paved the way for the
involvement of a more diverse group of stakeholders
previously not considered.60 Second, EPA supported
the effort by providing key fiscal and education
resources. For instance, stakeholders benefitted
greatly from EPA's effort to educate Partnership
members about communities confronting similar
Brownfields issues from across the nation.61 EPA
also provided and supported a communication
network that enabled participants to consistently
discuss ideas and make decisions collaboratively.62
Keys to Being a
National Teammate in
Complex Local
Projects
Supply the "Big Picture" perspective
Provide key fiscal and educational
resources to expand options
Take a "try and see" approach to
project improvement -even
seemingly small contributions can
have significant, positive effects
Support a communication
infrastructure to facilitate dialogue
between stakeholders
Use guiding principles to make
decisions when potentially more than
one right answer exists
In addition to specific contributions, EPA also
used new strategies. First, EPA used a "try and see"63
approach when working to further the Brownfields
Partnership's progress. Because of the complexity
inherent in efforts such as the Eastward Ho!
Initiative, understanding causes and effect can be
difficult. In those situations, even small changes can have significant consequences. EPA
provided Partnership members with information about how to apply to be recognized as a
National Showcase Community. As a result, in 1998, the Eastward Ho! Brownfields Partnership
area was selected by Vice President Gore as a Showcase Community,64 potentially contributing to
a great number of positive political, social, and economic effects.65 Second, EPA used guiding
principles instead of a precise formula for addressing problems that potentially had more than
one right answer. Instead of deciding criteria for the right answer, EPA set principles to help local
leaders debate the relative merits of each solution in the context of determining what "answer"
would make the overall South Florida effort stronger.66
15
-------
Innovative Approaches to Stakeholder Involvement
and Public Participation
Traditional methods of involving the public and stakeholders have typically included
public notice and comment periods and occasional public hearings. Some see the Agency's
avenue for participation as adequate and realistic based upon the high number of rules and
permitting decisions the EPA is involved in each year. Others have criticized the Agency for
blocking effective public participation claiming that the Agency does not adequately notify the
public of proposed Agency actions or that resource or technical barriers are so high that the
public cannot effectively participate. However, innovations in stakeholder involvement and
public participation are helping to overcome these barriers and EPA, co-regulators, and the public
are all benefitting.
A handful of these innovations are discussed in more detail below. The innovations cover
the years 1995 through 1999. Some innovations focus on process. These include innovative
ways to build capacity, such as giving regional organizations authority to distribute federal grant
monies to small communities to make environmental improvements; innovative ways to ensure
meaningful public input, such as holding public hearings in a non-traditional manner; and
innovative ways to perform outreach, such as building support for Agency initiatives by working
first through local municipal associations. Other innovations focus on technology, such as a
computer program that assists stakeholders to work towards agreements. While the innovations
come in various forms, they all have the common goal of ensuring better and more meaningful
involvement of stakeholders and the public.
Ensuring Meaningful Public Input (1995)
EPA is testing unique approaches to ensure that the public can meaningfully impact EPA
programs and activities. During the initial stages of EPA's Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative, EPA was criticized by the
public for not soliciting input from those residents
that would potentially be most impacted by
Brownfields clean up and redevelopment but
instead for focusing mainly on concerns of
developers and investors. In response, EPA co- forum in flve cities across the United States to
sponsored a series of innovative public forums
Did you know...In June and July 1995 EPA and
the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council sponsored a community-driven public
give community groups a direct say in EPA's
referred to as the Public Dialogues to enable Brownfields Initiative?
environmental justice advocates and community-
based groups from across the country to voice their
concerns regarding this high-profile, national policy issue. EPA's partner in this effort, the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), closely involved communities in
"planning, preparation, structure, and execution"67 of the Dialogues and centered the Public
16
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Dialogues discussions on the issues of most concern to communities. Instead of a typical
question and answer format, each Public Dialogue had two distinct components. In the first part,
communities voiced their concerns regarding the Brownfields Initiative and their visions for
ensuring healthy and sustainable communities. In the second, government agency
representatives, social institutions, and business organizations were asked to describe what role
they could play to help these communities achieve their visions. In addition, to avoid having
concerns and recommendations reduced to sanitized phrases in the final Public Dialogues report,
organizers made every effort to accurately reflect the voices of community members. As such,
the supporting report contains extensive quotes from Dialogues participants throughout the text.
Together, these actions resulted in a robust set of recommendations and action items for
involving communities more directly in EPA's Brownfields efforts.68
Since the report was released in 1996, the concerns raised and recommendations made in
the report have resulted in numerous positive impacts. First, the Agency has developed and
prepared annual Brownfields conferences to engage and join numerous stakeholders to exchange
information and develop additional opportunities for communities to be directly included in
Brownfields redevelopment decisions. EPA has supported other dialogues as well through grants
and cooperative agreements to further encourage the sharing of Brownfields ideas and
environmental justice experiences of different stakeholders from government, business, and
communities. Federal agencies have also joined together to support the Brownfields National
Partnership in order to improve interagency collaboration on Brownfields redevelopment issues.
In addition, EPA has helped create a job training program which prepares trainees for
environmental careers while achieving Brownfields clean ups.69
Building Capacity (1996)
EPA is playing a hands-on role to
help communities solve local environmental
problems. In Southern Baltimore, EPA
worked side-by-side with community
members, business leaders, and local, state,
and federal government officials to assess air
pollution threats from 125 industrial,
commercial, and waste facilities concentrated
in an area containing roughly 30,000 people.
In 1996, members of the partnership effort
set goals to (1) determine if existing toxics
from these sources may affect community
health, and (2) recommend actions for air quality improvement. After setting goals, partnership
members conducted an odor survey, reviewed a TRI report on local releases, and met with a
Did you know... Starting in 1996, EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics' Community
Assistance Technical Team began playing an
instrumental role as a member of the
Community Environmental Partnership in the
development of a community-driven, risk-
based screening approach to assess numerous
air pollution threats in Southern Baltimore?
17
-------
dioxin expert. Following this preparatory work, partnership members agreed on a risk-based air
pollutant screening approach to help identify which chemicals being emitted pose the greatest
risks. For the first screening, partnership members used accessible information and performed
"simple and protective risk calculations"70 to review the 175 chemicals being emitted. Two
subsequent screenings were then performed, enabling partnership members to perform a more
extensive analysis on a smaller set chemicals. After the final analysis, partnership members
developed recommendations based on the screening effort and a report describing the results and
recommendations for the community. The results of this effort have helped the community set
priorities and determine possible remedies for air quality improvement. The report has also
provided the community with a baseline from which to measure air quality improvements in the
future. In addition, the screening methodology will soon be made available in a "how-to" manual
to enable other communities to directly assess and improve local air quality.71
Building Capacity (1997)
EPA is using grants in new ways to assist local community environmental efforts (e.g.,
EJ, CBEP). In 1997 the Office of Research and Development's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) used special CBEP funds to assist nine rural communities in
Region III to address a variety of local _
watershed issues and other environmental
problems through a unique approach which Dldy°u know"ln 1997 ORD'S Natlonal
involved regional resource providers and the Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
National Association of Counties (NACo).
used special CBEP funds to assist nine rural
Implementation of this effort was a communities in Region III to address a variety of
partnership between NRMRL, the Office of local watershed issues and other environmental
Research and Development's Office of Problems throu§h a uniclue aPProach which
Science Policy, and Region III. The purpose involved local resource Providers and the
was to facilitate implementation of local National Association of Counties (NAC°)
problem solving by 1) providing training for
local teams to become aware of assistance
tools from EPA, 2) supporting regional resource providers to assist the local teams in their efforts,
and 3) providing a nominal amount ($10 to 15,000) of money to be used as the local teams and
their resource providers saw fit. Funding was provided to NACo who subsequently entered into
agreements with the resource providers (The Alliance for Chesapeake Bay, Canaan Valley
Institute, and the Virginia Eastern Shore Resource Conservation and Development Council), who
in turn provided the finances for the local projects.
The first major activity was a training session at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife facility in
Shepherdstown, West Virginia where the presenters included all the federal partners, EPA's
Offices of Water and (what is now) the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, and NACo.
The presenters attempted to familiarize the local groups with an array of EPA and other
potentially valuable tools available on the Internet and in hardcopy. Each of the local teams from
18
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia was asked to develop a one-
year implementation plan which included at least one tool from this workshop. Tools included
Region Ill's Internet-based Green Communities Toolkit, EPA's draft Community Cultural
Profiling Guide, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). By the end of the project great
strides had been made by all of the local projects, and a debriefing for all participants was held in
Deep Creek Lake, Maryland, which clearly showed that the EPA support, though modest, was
the key to successfully advancing the project and in many cases provided support to obtain
numerous other grants which totaled many times the funding offered through the project. It even
more convincingly showed that the local or regional resource providers were the absolute
essential ingredient to success by working with the local groups and helping them move forward
with a whole array of needs and tools, and that direct EPA involvement is often intimidating and
stifling owing to its regulatory nature.72
Using Technology to Improve Stakeholder Involvement (1997)
EPA is using and supporting technology to improve stakeholder involvement. The best
example of this involves the Spring Creek (PA) Watershed Association, an EPA grant recipient
that applied a large share of its funding to rent
a state of the art computerized facility at
r,., , c. .. . 1fVV7 ,u c • Pennsylvania State University to facilitate
Did you know... Starting in 1997, the Spring . . . ... ,. ,
„ , ,,T . , , . . .. r j 1 their community visionmg process which
Creek Watershed Association applied a large . . . An , , ,, ^ ,.,„..
u rv T-T.A f j- 4. I 4. >. r-4.u involved 40 stakeholders from across their 175
share of its EPA funding to rent a state of the ., , , _, „ ,
. . ~ .,.. . , . ~ .,... square mile watershed. Before each session a
art computer facility in order to facilitate a „ ... .. . , . , _ „ . .
. . . . , . facilitator collaborated with a Team Decision
community visionmg process involving a group _ . „ -_ „ ,, ,
r/m 4. i u u r nc Center information officer to carefully plan
of 40 stakeholders from across a 175 square . . , , , , •
the meeting agenda and develop questions to
^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_ ensure that the responses would provide the
information needed to enable participants to
move one step closer towards achieving their original goals. Once meetings began, participants
sat at computer terminals where they could each type in responses to questions and instantly see
all responses on a larger screen. When participants voted on key issues, statistical analyses were
immediately performed and displayed allowing participants to easily observe results. Ample time
for discussion was also provided, during which participants could also send in anonymous
responses via their computers to be posted on the large screen. Five, three-hour meetings,
involving approximately 40 stakeholders, were held over the course of eight months. Each
meeting was very successful, resulting in consensus, decisions, and work products. It was
approximated that, without benefit of the advanced technology, each of the five sessions would
have required full two-day retreats to yield the same positive results. Moreover, it was
determined that because of the streamlined technology and focused sessions, a much higher
number of key stakeholders participated.73
19
-------
20
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Did you know...ln 1999 EPA New England and
state co-sponsors in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire took a strategic, pro-active approach
to building momentum for a series of
workshops designed to encourage towns to
integrate environmental and smart growth
considerations into local decision making in
Performing Outreach (1999)
EPA is continually working to improve how it can reach out to stakeholders and keep
them involved in Agency activities. In 1999, EPA New England and state co-sponsors undertook
an exciting, low-cost initiative in three watershed
areas in Massachusetts and New Hampshire to
ensure high levels of support and participation for
seven hands-on workshops for local government
officials. The goal of these workshops was to
improve local officials' abilities to integrate
environmental management practices into
traditional regulatory and planning activities by
providing tools and techniques on pollution
prevention, environmental management systems,
GIS, and smart growth planning in storm water
management. EPA, along with state co-sponsors, took a number of steps to ensure high levels of
support and participation including: 1) establishing a working group of local officials from more
than one town department and from several towns in each watershed to select and develop
capacity-building workshop topics; and 2) networking with municipal associations that could
help raise awareness about the workshops. Such efforts resulted in several important outcomes
including 1) time savings; 2) significant increases in participation of local officials; 3) certain
officials being more likely
to adopt new practices
after learning what
proactive officials in other
towns were doing; and 4)
a greater understanding
that local problems have
regional implications.74
Other Ways EPA & Co-Regulators are Getting Innovative...
Conducting a needs assessment by placing survey cards in newsletters
asking residents to list three most important issues (Rocky Flats, CO,
Superfund site, circa 1990)75
Hosting small meetings in residents' homes instead of holding traditional
large meetings in public halls (Tacoma, WA, Superfund site, circa 1990)76
Asking activist groups to recruit participants to broaden interest in
agency activities (State Source Water Assessment Program, circa 1996)77
Letting citizens choose the structure and decision-making process of an
agency-sponsored citizen advisory committee (State Source Water
Assessment Program, circa 1996)78
Hosting workshops via satellite, letting attendees either call or fax in their
questions (Emission Measurement Center/Air Pollution Training
Institute 1998)79
21
-------
Concluding Remarks
EPA has greatly expanded the opportunity for the public to participate in Agency
decisions, especially during the past ten years. Yet EPA has been criticized on a number of fronts
regarding its stakeholder involvement and public participation efforts: not performing effective or
sufficient outreach; not providing the public with adequate and timely information; not making it
easier for persons with non-technical backgrounds to participate in technical decisions; not taking
the advice it specifically asked stakeholders to provide; and only allowing communities to make
their input known once industry and the Agency have already spent considerable time debating
the most important decisions. In light of these criticisms, the Agency is making strides to
continually improve.
Through this review, however, we have found that EPA has a limited ability to measure
improvements in how it involves and works with the stakeholders and the public. Many of the
summaries, briefings and reports reviewed for this report were sufficient to characterize the
effectiveness of a particular Agency stakeholder involvement or public participation activity.
Unfortunately, several documents lacked an evaluative component, making it difficult to discern
different efforts' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, except for the Superfund program, most
in-depth evaluations centered on non-traditional agency activities such as Community-based
Environmental Protection, Project XL, and Regulatory Negotiations. To improve Agency
initiatives in the future, it would be valuable to evaluate a greater number of EPA's initiatives to
work with the public: for both traditional and non-traditional approaches. It's clear that the
Agency has worked hard to involve the public. What isn't always as clear is how effective EPA's
initiatives have been. Greater focus on developing standard evaluation criteriaa and performance
measures'3 that evaluators can draw from should greatly assist this effort.
3 For example, it would be helpful if more evaluations answered the following questions:
What were stakeholder/public perceptions regarding their ability to participate in the process? To what degree were
those expectations met? What was the level of effort required by stakeholders/the public to participate? Were the
goals and steps of the process clearly explained? To what extent did the effort meet those goals? Was the process fair?
Was the process competent? (e.g., was the process well-structured? was there proper leadership in place to guide the
process?)
What major factors contributed to the success or shortcomings of the stakeholder involvement/public participation
effort? How could the stakeholder involvement/public participation effort have been designed differently to work
more effectively?
What resources (staff, time, extramural $) did EPA spend to engage in a stakeholder involvement or public
participation effort? What were the FTE (full-time employee) or dollar amounts required to perform the public
participation or stakeholder involvement effort? To what extent can the level of resources be associated with positive
results of the stakeholder involvement/public participation effort?
b For example, possible performance measures could include the following: How many stakeholders/citizens
participated in the effort? Were all significant stakeholder groups represented? Did the effort result in a product or
agreement that furthered progress towards achieving positive environmental outcomes?
22
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Before launching a new focus on evaluation, the Agency will need to address several
issues: who should conduct the evaluations, what resources should be allocated to conduct them,
which activities should be evaluated, and how should the results be shared. Although these
questions will be difficult to answer, the Agency is poised to begin addressing them. The
Agency's recent report to the Administrator on public participation and on-going effort to revise
the 1981 Public Participation Policy point to an increased emphasis on involving stakeholders and
the public. EPA today is in a better position than ever to improve how it works with stakeholders
and the public to strengthen environmental decision-making.
23
-------
Endnotes
1. J. Charles Fox. "A Real Public Role," 15 The Environmental Forum No. 6. November/December 1998, p. 24.
2. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, Nicholas A. Ashford and Kathleen M. Rest. Center for
Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. March 1999, p. IV-23.
3. Ibid., p. IV-20.
4. Ibid., p. IV-23.
5. Lessons Learned About Community Involvement: EPA Superfund Response Staff Tell How Public Involvement
Has Helped Public Clean Up Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. May 1999, see Del
Amo/Montrose case study.
6. Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. April 2000, p. 11.
7. Ibid., p. 11.
8. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-23.
9. Ibid., p. IV-21.
10. Lessons Learned About Community Involvement, see Palmerton case study.
11. Ibid., see Michigan City case study.
12. Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities, p. 11.
13. An Evaluation of Negotiated Rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency Phase 1. Dr. Cornelius
Kerwin and Professor Laura Langbein, Conference Consultants. Administrative Conference of the United States.
September 1995, p. 16.
14. Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers,
Communities, and Regulators. Prepared for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by CRD Associates. June 1999, pp. 83-84.
15. Carpet Policy Dialogue Assessment. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Prepared by Michael Elliott, Southeast Negotiation Network. December 1993, p. 31.
16. Ibid., p. 31.
17. Technical Assistance Grant Program Customer Satisfaction Survey. Community Involvement and Outreach
Center. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
January 1997, p. 21.
18. EnvironmentalJustice, Urban Revitalization, andBrownfields: The Search for Authentic Signs of Hope -A
Report on the "Public Dialogues on Urban Revitalization and Brownfields: Envisioning Healthy and Sustainable
Communities. " National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee. A
Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1996, p. 6.
24
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
19. Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities, p. 3.
20. Ibid., p. 13.
21. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-30.
22. Carpet Policy Dialogue Assessment, p. 44.
23. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-30.
24. Community Environmental Partnership, Baltimore, Maryland: Accomplishments and Lessons Learned -
Presentation. Hank Topper. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. April 2000, p. 16.
25. Evaluation of EPA 's Community Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida - Draft. Prepared
for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C. Prepared by ICF Consulting Group. January 1999, pp. 47-48.
26. Ibid., p. 64.
27. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-41.
28. Assessment of Public Involvement in State SWAP Citizen Advisory Committees and/or Citizen/Technical
Advisory Committees. Assessing Advisory Committee Involvement in State Source Water Assessment Programs.
Final Summary of Three Telephone Conference Calls. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
September 1998, pp. 19-20.
29. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-23.
30. Andrea Lindsay, Community Involvement Coordinator. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region X.
Personal communication. 11 November 2000.
31. Constructive Engagement Resource Guide, p. 82.
32. Analysis and Evaluation of The EPA Common Sense Initiative. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Kerr, Greiner, Andersen, and April, Inc. July 1999, p. 42.
33. Ibid., pp. 45-46.
34. Constructive Engagement Resource Guide, pp. 82-83.
35. Evaluation of EPA 's Community Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida, p. 43.
36. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds. Office of Water. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. August 1997. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/lessons
(15 May 2000), Watershed Lesson 1.
37. Evaluation of EPA 's Community Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida - Draft, pp. 42-43.
38. Ibid., p. 43.
25
-------
39. Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP): Characterization of EPA Regional CBEP Activities.
Prepared for Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. Prepared by ICF Incorporated. January 1999, p. 20.
40. Baltimore Community Environmental Partnership Air Committee Technical Report, p. 69.
41. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-15.
42. Building the Environmental Capacity of Rural and Small Communities: Lessons Learned from the Technical
Assistance for Community-Based Environmental Protection Project - Draft. Prepared for the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Prepared by the National Association of Counties. February 2000, p. 29.
43 Assessment of Public Involvement in State SWAP Citizen Advisory Committees and/or Citizen/Technical
Advisory Committee, pp. 25, 23.
44.Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-3.
45. Ibid., p. IV-51.
46. Lessons Learned About Community Involvement, see East Fork Poplar Creek case study.
47. Social Aspects ofSitingRCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities, p. 11.
48. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. V-15
49. Constructive Engagement Resource Guide, p. 83.
50. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-18.
51. Building the Environmental Capacity of Rural and Small Communities, p. 3.
52. Baltimore Community Environmental Partnership Air Committee Technical Report, p. 64.
53. Local Capacity Building Demo Write Up for OES Sprawl Strategy. Office of Environmental Stewardship. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region 1. Boston, Massachusetts. March 1999.
54. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee for Ozone, P'articulate Matter and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs. Final Report on Subcommittee Discussions Through December 1997. Prepared for Air
Quality Strategies and Standards Division. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation and EC\R, Inc. May
1998, pp. ES-1 -ES-5, 1-1 - 1-7.
55. Ibid.,p. ES-14.
56. Carpet Policy Dialogue Assessment, pp. 45-46.
57. Evaluation of EPA 's Community Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida - Draft, p. 9.
58. Ibid., p. 18.
59. Ibid., p. 17.
26
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
60. Ibid., p. 34.
61. Ibid., p. 34.
62. Ibid., p. 34.
63. Ibid., p. 3.
64. Ibid., p. 15.
65. Ibid., p. 35.
66. Ibid., pp. 35-36.
67. EnvironmentalJustice, Urban Revitalization, and Brownfields, p. 2.
68. EnvironmentalJustice, Urban Revitalization, and Brownfields.
69. NEJAC - Public Dialogues Report Follow-up. Fact Sheet. Outreach and Special Projects Staff. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared for the meeting
of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, December 11-14,
2000, Arlington, Virginia.
70. Baltimore Community Environmental Partnership Air Committee Technical Report, p. 8.
71. Baltimore Community Environmental Partner ship Air Committee Technical Report.
72. Building the Environmental Capacity of Rural and Small Communities.
73. Ibid.
74. Local Capacity Building Demo Write Up for OES Sprawl Strategy.
75. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, pp. IV-41, 42.
76. Lessons Learned About Community Involvement, see case study entitled "EPA Dunking Helps Wash Out
Community Resistance."
77.Assessment of Public Involvement in State SWAP Citizen Advisory Committees and/or Citizen/Technical
Advisory Committees, pp. 23-24.
78. Ibid., p. 12.
79. Outreach and Education Activities of the Emission Measurement Center. Emission Measurement Center.
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards. Office of Air and Radiation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. March 28, 2000.
27
-------
List of Evaluations and Reports
Analysis and Evaluation of The EPA Common Sense Initiative. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Kerr, Greiner, Andersen, and
April, Inc. July 1999. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/csi.htm
An Assessment of EPA 's Negotiated Rulemaking Activities. Program Evaluation Division. Office
of Management Systems and Evaluation. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. December 1987.
An Evaluation of Negotiated Rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency Phase I. Dr.
Cornelius Kerwin and Professor Laura Langbein, Conference Consultants. Administrative
Conference of the United States. September 1995.
A Review of Community Advisory Groups in Region 5: Lessons Learned. Superfund Division.
Region 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chicago, Illinois. October 1998.
Assessment of Public Involvement in State SWAP Citizen Advisory Committees and/or
Citizen/Technical Advisory Committees. Assessing Advisory Committee Involvement in State
Source Water Assessment Programs. Final Summary of Three Telephone Conference Calls. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. September 1998.
Baltimore Community Environmental Partnership Air Committee Technical Report.
Community Risk-Based Air Screening: A Case Study in Baltimore, MD. Office Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Versar, Inc. March 2000.
Contact: OPPT Community Assistance Technical Assistance Team. Hank Topper.
Topper.Henry@epa.gov. 202-260-6750.
Building the Environmental Capacity of Rural and Small Communities: Lessons Learned from
the Technical Assistance for Community-Based Environmental Protection Project - Draft.
Prepared for the National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Office of Research and
Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by the National Association of
Counties. February 2000.
Carpet Policy Dialogue Assessment. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. Prepared by Michael Elliott, Southeast Negotiation Network. December 1993.
Community Advisory Groups: Partners in Decisions at Hazardous Waste Sites -Case Studies.
Community Involvement and Outreach Center. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Winter 1996.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/cag/resource/casestdy.htm
28
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP): Accomplishments and Value-Added of
EPA CBEP Projects. Prepared for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by ICF Incorporated. January
1999.
Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP): Characterization of EPA Regional
CBEP Activities. Prepared for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Prepared by ICF Incorporated. January
1999.
Community Environmental Partnership, Baltimore, Maryland: Accomplishments and Lessons
Learned-Presentation. Hank Topper. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. April 2000.
Compliance Assistance Centers: FY1999 On-line Survey Data & Web Trends - Presentation.
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. January 2000.
Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities,
Workers, Communities, and Regulators. Prepared for the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by CRD Associates. June 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/ooaujeag/sectors/stake.htm
EnvironmentalJustice, Urban Revitalization, andBrownfields: The Search for Authentic Signs
of Hope -A Report on the "Public Dialogues on Urban Revitalization andBrownfields:
Envisioning Healthy and Sustainable Communities. " National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council. Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee. A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. December 1996.
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/ejndx.htm#nejac
EnvironmentalJustice 1996 Annual Report (Working Towards Solutions). Office of
Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 1997.
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/ej96annrep.html
Evaluation of EPA 's Community Based Environmental Protection Efforts in South Florida -
Draft. Prepared for the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities -Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by ICF Consulting Group.
January 1999.
Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes: Final Report. Prepared for the Office of the
Administrator. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Prepared by
RESOLVE, Inc. September 1998. http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/guidexl.htmM
29
-------
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee for Ozone, P articulate Matter and
Regional Haze Implementation Programs. Final Report on Subcommittee Discussions Through
December 1997. Prepared for the Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation and EC\R, Inc. May 1998.
Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee:
Consensus Principles and Recommendations for Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup. Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1996.
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/comminvolve/fferdc.htm (click on "Final FFERDC Report")
Iron and Steel CSI - Self Evaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
November 1996.
Lessons Learned About Community Involvement: EPA Superfund Response Staff Tell How
Public Involvement Has Helped Public Clean Up Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. May 1999.
Local Capacity Building Demo Write Up for OES Sprawl Strategy. Office of Environmental
Stewardship. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 1. Boston, Massachusetts. March
1999.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Past and
Future: A Decade of Stakeholder Advice. Office of the Administrator. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. July 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/fullrpt.pdf
NEJAC - Public Dialogues Report Follow-up. Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Outreach and Special Projects Staff.
Prepared for the meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee, December 11-14, 2000, Arlington, Virginia.
Outreach and Education Activities of the Emission Measurement Center. Emission
Measurement Center. Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards. Office of Air and Radiation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. March 28, 2000.
Project XL Stakeholder Involvement Evaluation -Final Report. Prepared for the Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by Michael Elliott
of the Southeast Negotiation Network under subcontract to RESOLVE and Marasco Newton
Group. October 2000. http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/fmalreport.pdf
Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Nicholas A. Ashford and Kathleen M.
Rest. Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development. Massachusetts Institute of
30
-------
Stakeholder Involvement
& Public Participation at EPA
Technology. March 1999.
Regulatory Negotiation Versus Conventional Rulemaking: Claims, Counter-Claims, and
Empirical Evidence. Laura I. Langbein & Cornelius M. Kerwin. American University. 20
November 1997.
Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/mbodys.htm
Summary of Public Participation in FOSTTA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 23 March 2000.
Technical Assistance Grant Program Customer Satisfaction Survey. Community Involvement
and Outreach Center. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. January 1997.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/tool s/tag/resource. htm
Top Ten Water shed Lessons Learned. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds. Office of
Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. August 1997.
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/lessons
31
------- |