U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION
COMPARATIVE RISK FACT SHEETS
This packet includes 20 Fact Sheets on a range of topics in Comparative Risk. The
Fact Sheets were developed by the Regional and State Planning Division in EPA's Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation to provide information to states, tribes, and localities,
and to inform other interested parties and potential stakeholders about the Comparative Risk
process. The Regional and State Planning Division in EPA currently provides partial
funding for 31 state, local, and tribal Comparative Risk projects across the country.
The Fact Sheets describe the core aspects of Comparative Risk, other strategic
environmental planning approaches that are linked to the Comparative Risk process, and
various aspects of Comparative Risk project management.
o Group 1: The Basic Elements of Comparative Risk
1 . What Is Comparative Risk?
2. Regional and State Planning Division
3. Risk Communication and Public Participation
4. Public Involvement
5. Comparative Risk on the Internet
6. The Centers
7. Environmental Justice
8. Phase II: Assessment to Action
o Group 2: Related Environmental Approaches and Tools
1 . EPA's National Environmental Goals Project
2. Indicators and Measures
3. Futures Research
4. Planning for Susiainability
5. Integrated Environmental Planning
o Group 3: Project Management Fact Sheets
1. Project Director Checklist
2. Eight Questions States/Local Environmental Directors Should Ask and Answer
3. Fundraising Tips
4. Volunteers in Comparative Risk Projects
5. National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) and
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs)
6. Phase I Principles
7. Training Tips
-------
Review of several completed Comparative Risk projects suggests that
successful projects are characterized by a number of essential features, including the
following:
Significant public involvement. To ensure that the public's
environmental values are considered by the project team and that there will
be long-term buy-in to changes resulting from a comparative risk project,
projects need to actively involve the public from project planning through
the final stages of project activity.
Diverse stakeholder participation. This is key to the success of a
Comparative Risk project because it ensures that major stakeholders,
(public sector decisionmakers, community organizations, industry, environ-
mental groups, representatives of minority interests) working together
over the life of a project will come to better understand a range of
perspectives on setting environmental priorities, and that final project
recommendations will reflect stakeholders' consensus about those priorities.
- Strong support from upper-level decisionmakers. In order for a
Comparative Risk project to succeed, a senior-level decisionmaker must be
willing to support project goals and allocate sufficient resources to the
project throughout the project period. Once proposals for changes in
environmental management are developed in the risk management phase, the
decisionmaker must be willing to support and work for change, which
could include: setting new environmental priorities and planning strategies,
re-allocating budgets, re-directing workloads.
- Use of tecnnical information and doing a relative risk ranking.
The opportunity for stakeholders to: (1) compile and analyze existing
technical and scientific data on a range of environmental problem areas,
(2) collect and analyze information about the public's environmental values,
(3) conduct a relative risk ranking of environmental problem areas based on
their best professional judgment about the technical and public values data is
key to the success and integrity of a Comparative Risk project.
Focus on risk management. In the past, some projects expended con-
siderable resources on Phase I activities (environmental problem area
identification, gathering and analyzing public values and scientific data,
ranking the environmental problem areas). We now actively encourage
projects to plan for and implement a full-scale risk management effort;
this means that the relative risk ranking carried out in Phase I is used to
help guide Phase II (risk management) strategies.
Inclusion of environmental goals and indicators. Developing
environmental goals and environmental indicators during the risk
management phase will enable you to track how successful you are in
implementing the results of your comparative risk process.
-------
JEPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Bridging Science and Public Values
Technical Assistance Available
The Agency has provided technical assis-
tance to over 45 state, local, tribal and water-
shed projects. Training on Comparative Risk
analysis and techniques is tailored to meet the
client's needs. The Regional and State Plan-
ning Division provides financial and technical
assistance for projects meeting certain criteria.
Technical assistance is also provided through
two centers (Green Mountain Institute for
Environmental Democracy; Western Center
for Environmental Decisionmaking). To-
gether, EPA and the Centers keep the network
of state project directors apprised of each other's
experiences.
In order to be eligible for funding, projects
must meet certain criteria:
•participation of key governmental and non-
governmental stakeholders
•extensive public involvement
•analysis of human health, ecosystem health
|nd quality of life risks
|ranking of environmental risks
•development of risk management strategies
Comparative Risk is not a stand alone tool.
but rather one of many topis available for envi-
ronmental planning. Comparative Risk is more
than assessing risks; it is part of an overall
environmental priority-setting process, which
includes setting measurable goals and measures
of success (environmental indicators); improv-
ing geographic targeting; making and measur-
ing progress in terms of risk reduction and
environmental improvement thinking about
future risks: and feeding into strategic planning
and budgeting decisions.
Project participants consistently claim that
providing a formal mechanism for broad partici-
pation, encouraging consistency, and making
choices more transparent are the overwhelming
benefits resulting from Comparative Risk
projects. Other specific outcomes of Compara-
tive Risk projects to date include new legislation
for Washington state, new plans and programs
for Vermont, budget planning changes for Colo-
rado, improved intergovernmental relations for
Khio, and changes in decision-making processes
PDF Louisiana.
What is Comparative Risk?
The Regional and State Planning Division's Comparative Risk process,
a technical assistance program, is a cross-media problem assessment and
planning effort that can be applied at the federal, state, local or watershed
level. The Comparative Risk process brings together diverse stakeholders to
reach consensus on which environmental problems pose the most risk to
human health, ecosystem health and quality of life; and to develop consensus
on an action plan to reduce those risks.
The US EPA performed a national Comparative Risk analysis in 1987
("Unfinished Business") which was reviewed, supported and enhanced by
the EPA Science Advisory Board in 1990 ("Reducing Risk"). The current
Comparative Risk methodology has been developed in partnership with
various states, tribes and localities to meet individual project needs.
Status of Comparative Risk Projects
•
Projects are designed to:
•promote consensus on an environmental agenda;
•promote coordination across agencies that impact environmental policy;
•promote public inclusion in environmental priority-setung;
•identify the full range of environmental problems;
•assemble what is known and not known about the risks to health, ecology
and quality of life associated with each environmental problem;
•develop criteria for ranking risks
through a public process;
•rank risks to human health, eco-
system health and quality of life;
•develop a set of environmental
priorities through apublic process;
•develop strategies for addressing
environmental priorities.
(over)
For more information, contact
Deboru Martin, Director
Regional and State Planning Division
(202)260-2699
fax (202) 260-2704
Martin.Debora^ epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.. . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
COMPONENTS OF COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECTS
CREATING A STRONG FOUNDATION
The comparative risk process should be viewed as a whole, from
data collection, analysts, and risk ranking to developing an action
plan and implementing new strategies for reducing risk. Each
comparative nsk project is challenged to own the process, deter-
mine in advance how the information and rankings will be used, and
determine how change can be initiated. The process is very labor
intensive and politically charged. Because the investment of time
and money is substantial, careful planning for the whole process is
essential.
POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS OF A
COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT TEAM
•Governor's office 'State Agencies
•Legislators "Depu of Environmental
•Academics Protection/Quality
•Major business interests "Health Department
•Environmental advocates —Natural Resources Dept.
•Reporters/media -Fish and WDdlife
•Chamber of Commerce ••Energy Department
•Minorities ••Education Department
•Farmers/dairymen/ranchers "Agriculture
^•Tribes "Land Use Commission ^J
GENERAL ANALYTICAL ISSUES
There is no single "correct" way to conduct a comparative nsk
project. Man-, ipproaches are workable, and each project should
choose an approach that is uniquely adapted to its own political,
institutional, and natural environments. However, regardless of
which approach is taken, there are a number of important analytical
issues and ground rules that should be resolved before beginning a
comparative risk project. These include defining the organizational
scope and analytical goals of the project, identifying the problem
areas to be analyzed, determining the temporal and geographic
scales for the analysis, and establishing methods and procedures for
ranking problem areas according to the risks they pose. Projects
should strive to address environmental equity issues throughout the
project.
RISK ANALYSIS
In comparative risk projects, risk assessments are performed on the
risks that exist, given the efforts of public and private organizations
to eliminate or prevent them. This "residual" risk approach pro-
vides environmental program managers with a view of their unfin-
ished business and can help them set priorities for further risk
reduction or prevention efforts. Envi-
ronmental problems can pose risk to
humans and ecosystems; they can also
degrade the quality of life. Each type
of risk is distinct and important For
example, non-poini source pollution
not only causes damage to ecosys-
lems, h also causes large losses in
recreaoonal opportunities. Likewise,
human or ecological risks from the
accidental release of an oil tanker or a
nuclear power plant can be calculated.
but only a quality of life assessment
PHASE I
COMPARATIVE RISK
ASSESSMENT
•DEVELOP comprehensive
problem lisi
•COLLECT scientific and
public values dau
•FORM project teams with
diverse membership
•ANALYZE dau. document
assumptions and unceruuimes
•DO relative nsk rankings
Across problem areas
can detect the impact on a community s peace of mind.
Thus, it is important to look at environmental problems
from each of these perspectives: human health nsk,
ecological nsks, and risks to quality of life.
The aim of the risk assessment process is to evaluate and
rank the relative magnitude of risks associated with prob-
lem areas on the basis of the best available scientific
information and judgment. The risk-based rankings then
serve as a key input to the risk management process in
which a number of relevant non-risk factors (e.g., control-
lability of risks, legal mandates, public opinion, costs,
etc.) are integrated with the risk rankings to set environ-
mental priorities and select appropriate risk management
strategies.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Risk management is a decision-making process in which
the rankings from the risk assessment process are inte-
grated with economic, technical, social and political con-
siderations to generate a prioritized set of risk-reduction or
prevention strategies that will achieveenvironmental goals.
Whereas risk assessment asks how bad is the problem, risk
management asks what can and should be done about it.
One of the most important as- ^ ^
pec is of nsk management is
the integration of the concerns
and values of the public, other
agencies, public interest
groups, and the regulated com-
munity to set .clear goals for
the environment, specific cri-
tena for evaluating strategies,
and an open process for se-
lecting risk management pri-
onties to implement.
IMPLEMENTATION
AND EVALUATION
Once risk management strate-
gies are selected, they must be
implemented and monitored
over time to ensure that envi-
ronmental conditions are
changing in the direction of the environmental goals that
have been established. The effectiveness of risk manage-
ment strategies can be monitored and evaluated in terms of
progress made toward goals using environmental indica-
tors, such as a reduction in the ambient concentration of a
certain pollutant or an increase in the biological diversity
of a given ecosystem. Implementation is more likely to
succeed if the strategies are part of an overall strategic plan
that firmly ties environmental policies to budgets and
meaningful, measurable results. Monitoring the actual
results of the strategies will help environmental managers
and the public know if their efforts are working or if they
need to be adjusted and revised.
PHASE II
COMPARATIVE RISK
MANAGEMENT,
IMPLEMENTATION AND
EVALUATION
•REVIEW relative nsk rankings
from Phase I
•PRIORITIZE problem areas to
address
•CONSIDER "non-risk" faciors
e.g.. available technological and
political feasibility
•DEVELOP concrete strategics
for addressing pnonues
•IMPLEMENT nsk manage-
ment strategies
•MONITOR implementation to
determine environmental
progress
•REEVALUATE and revise
strategies and implementation
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . .
promonn! environmeniat planmns
SEPTEMBER
-------
•s
Regional and State Planning Division
. . . promoting environmental planning
The Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data (OSPED) is structured to
assist EPA and its partners to develop and adopt strategies to protect the environment which are
based on sound information and which are effective and efficient. The mission of each div ision is
described below, with the Regional and State Planning Division highlighted in this fact sheet.
The REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION'S (RSPD) goals are to:
•support and promote integrated environmental planning at the regional, state, local and tribal levels,
including environmental futures, environmental goal setting, comparative risk analysis, environmental
strategy development, public involvement and environmental indicator development;
•provide direct technical assistance and financial support to state, local and tribal governments to help them
perform integrated environmental planning; and
•link findings from this work to national environmental policymaking.
RSPD accomplishes these goals by sponsoring Comparative Risk projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DIVISION
•develop and guide agency-wide efforts to
identify important environmental information
needs; develop and implement plans for ac-
quiring data to meet those needs,
•develop and demonstrate innovative tools for
acquiring and using environmental informa-
tion and indicators.
•provide improved public access for environ-
mental data.
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS
•provide expert statistical and data manage-
ment support for OSPED, OPPE, EPA and
other environmental stakeholders.
•provide a focal point for Agency statistical
policy, methods research, specialized analyti-
cal procedures and training.
I-or more information, contact
Debora Marlin, Dirt'clor
Regional and State Planning Division
(202)26()-26W
fax < 202) 2A«-27(U
Martin.I)fhora(nepamail.epa.^ov
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Renewal & Natural
Resources SlaTf
IVlci Kuch. Dil.
Assistant Administrator
David (Gardiner
2111
Deputy Assistant
Administrator
Rob Wolcotl (Acting)
I
Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation
10/1/95
Office of Policy
Development
Maryann Froehlich, OD
Alex Crislofaio, DOD
2f2l
Office of Regulatory
Management and
Information
Tom Kelly, OD
2131
Mulli Media &
Strategic Analysis
Divirvion
Dwiglil Atkinson, Dir
2123
Regulatory
Management
Division
Paul Lapsley, Dir.
2136
Energy &
Transportation Sectors
Divison
Micliarl Shelby. Dir.
2126
J.
Regulatory
Information Division
Joe Rcl/.er, Dir.
2137
Urban & Economic
Development Division
Married Trcgoning.
l»r.
2127
J_
Industry Strategies
Division
Dan Fforino. Dir.
2128
JL
Kmerging Sectors &
Strategies Division
Jnn Kesslcr. Act. Dir.
2129
Office of Strategic Planning
and Environmental Data
Derry Allen, OD
Art Koines, DOD
Jim Morant, AOD
2161
Regional and State
Planning Division
Debora Martin, Dir.
2165
Environmental
Information Division
Vacant
2164
Center for
Environmental Statistics
Phil Ross, Dir.
2163
Office of Economy &
Environment
AI McGarlland, Ol)
vacant, DOD
2171
Economy &
Environment Division
Hrett Snydcr, Dir.
2172
Policy & Technology
Innovations Division
Connie Sasala. Act.
Dir.
2173
Climate & Policy
Assessment Division
Joel Scheraga. Dir.
2174
Climate Policy &
Programs Division
lane Lcggel Emil,
Dir
2175
Office of Sustainable
Ecosystems &
Communities
Wendy Cleland Hamnelt,
OD
John Wilson. AOD
2181
Office ol ftogrammaiu-
Suppott & K'-SOIIUI-S
MaiiHgenienI
Parn Stirling. Ol)
2191
Group I
Len Reckenstein
2182
Program
AdimruslMlion
Support & Resources
Management
M;uy 1'iec. Dir
ii'Jl
Group 2
Kill Painter
2183
Group 3
Angela Nti^cm
2IK4
Page 2
US EPA. OPPfc
401 M SI SW
Wiatilnglon. OC ?OJ6O
SO? 260 4m
mat radM ate nckntod
in the mgaiuiaiional ctimi
-------
EPAfs Comparative Risk Projects
Risk Communication and Public Participation
%
WHAT IS RISK
COMMUNICATION?
The traditional definition of risk communication
is: the transmission of information about health
and environmental risks, their significance, and
the policies aimed at managing them. Risk
communication can be in the form of warning
labels on consumer products or it can be in the
form of dialogues among government officials,
industry representatives, and the public on top-
ics such as toxic waste, hazards in public build-
ings, and accidents involving release of hazard-
ous substances into the environment.
Major risk communication goals for govern-
mental and private sector entities include:
• taking responsibility for understanding risks
and holding a dialogue about those risks with
an audience so that the audience can make an
informed decision about how to deal with the
risk(s):
• promoting credibility and trust between the
public, government, and industry officials
about the nature and management of risks;
• making complex technical data and policy
information more accessible and easily un-
derstood to a wide range of audiences; and
• providing information on risk to the media to
reinforce accurate and unbiased reporting.
WHY INVOLVE THE PUBLIC
One of the measures of an effective comparative risk
project is the extent to which the public is effectively
engaged. There are a number of reasons for involving ihe
public. First of all, project participants need to understand
public values in order to rartk environmental problems
wisely. Second, projects need the commitment of estab-
lished constituencies in order to bring about change.
Third, projects need public involvement in order to build
the capacity to make improved environmental decisions.
And last, as Paul Templet, then of the Louisiana DEQ said.
"it's their environment and their money."
THE ROLE OF RISK COMMUNICATION IN
COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECTS
The ultimate reason fordoing a comparative nsk project is to bring
about change: to change the way we do business: to make better
environmental decisions; to achieve risk reduction/prevention. In
order to accomplish this, it will require communication with and
involvement of the public. Public participation is important be-
cause implementing project results may require individual behav-
ior changes (testing for radon, driving cars less), different laws
(such as the new air regulations in Washington state), in order to
achieve the desired vision for the state/locality/tribe. This kind of
change doesn't take place if the comparative risk study is an
internal, bureaucratic intellectual exercise. Rather, it results from
appropriate involvement of the public throughout the process:
• identifying where we are now (through a risk analysis of
environmental problem areas and a ranking of relative risks);
• determining where we want to be and how we will get there
(defining goals and strategies for risk management); and
• knowing when we've achieved success (environmental
indicators and other measures of success).
Risk communication is a tool for ensuring inclusiveness in the
process -- it gives many different (including nontradmonal > stake-
holders a voice.
THE RISK COMMUNICATION PLAN
Taking the time to prepare a risk communication plan will, m the
long run, save time, money, and help achieve the project goals.
There are several specific resources available to help prepare a plan
in detail from RSPD, GMI and WCED, but in general a good plan
should address who, why, how and what. The "how and what" (i.e.,
the specific techniques such as newsletters, county fai rs, roundtables.
etc.) are dependent on carefully articulating the who and why.
WHO: There is no one "public," but rather multitudes of interest
groups. Think about how you want to define "public" for the
purposes of your project. Will you need broad public support, or
are there specific groups for which you will need theirsuppon. buy-
in, or participation?
WHY: Most projects start off by saying "we want to have public
meetings." You first need to answer why. It is frequently a hard
question to answer,i
butcntical. Carefullyj
defining the goals of
the, public outreachl
effort will helpensureI
that you accomplish (
those goals.
lover)
For more information, contact
Regional and State Planning Division
Debra ttutenson (202) 260-2733
or Jim Cole (202) 260-4538
fax (202) 260-2704
(lUtenson.Dvbraffi'epamail.epa.gov
Colejame.s(a.epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
SEVEN CARDINAL RULES
The following is reprinted from EPA s pamphlet on the "Seven Cardinal
Rules of Risk Communication1!." While mx developed specifically with
comparative nsk projects in mind, the advice is particularly valuable
given the emphasis on public participation within the comparative nsk
process.
7 ACCETT AND INVOLVE THE PUBLIC AS A LEGITIMATE PARTNER
A basic tenet of risk communication in a democracy is thai
people and communities have a right to participate in decisions
that affect their lives, their property, and the things they value.
Guidelines: Demonstrate your respect for the public and under-
score the sincerity of your effort by involving the community
early, before important decisions are made. Involve all parties
that have an interest or a stake in the issue under consideration.
If you are a government employee, remember that you work for
the public. If you do not work for the government, the public still
holds you accountable.
Points to Consider: • The goal of risk communication in a
democracy should be to produce an informed public that is
involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented,
and collaborative; it should not be to diffuse public concerns or
replace action.
2 PLAN CAREFULLY AND EVALUATE YOUR EFFORTS
Risk communication will be successful only if carefully planned.
Guidelines: Begin with clear, explicit risk communication
objectives -such as providing information to the public, moti-
vating individuals to act. stimulating response to emergencies, or
contributing to the resolution of conflict. Evaluate the informa-
tion you have about the risk and know its strengths and weak-
nesses. Classify and segment the various groups in your audi-
ence. Aim your communications at specific subgroups in your
audience. Recruit spokespeople who are good at presentation
and interaction. Train your staff -- including '.echnical staff—in
communica Jon skills: reward outstanding performance. When-
ever possible, pretest your messages. Carefully evaluate your
efforts and learn from your mistakes.
Poims to Consider: • There is no such entity as "the public";
instead, there are many publics, each with its own interests.
needs, concerns, priorities, preferences, and organizations.
• Different risk communication goals, audiences, and media
require different risk communication strategies.
3 LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS
If you do not listen to people, you cannot expect them to listen
to you. Communication is a two-way activity.
Guidelines: Do not make assumptions about what people know,
think, or want done about risks. Take the time to find out what
people are thinking: use techniques such as interviews, focus
groups, and surveys. Let all pines that have an interestor a stake
in the issue be heard. Identify with your audience and try to put
yourself in their pi ace. Recognize people's emotions. Let people
know that you understand what they said, addressing their
concerns as well as yours. Recognize the "hidden agenda."
symbolic meanings, and broader economic or political consider-
ations that of ten underlie and complicate the task of risk commu-
nication.
Points to Consider: • People in the community are often more
concerned about such issues as mist, credibility, competence.
control, voluntanness, fairness, caring, and compassion than
about mortality statistics and the details of quantitative risk
assessment.
^ BE HONEST. FRANK AND OPEN
In communicating risk information, trust and credibility are your most'
precious assets.
Guidelines: State your credentials; but do not ask or expect to be trusted
by the public. If you do not know an answer or are uncertain, say so. Get
back to people with answers. Admit mistakes. Disclose risk information
as soon as possible (emphasizing any reservations about reliability;. Do not
minimize or exaggerate the level of risk. Speculate only with great caution.
If in doubL lean toward sharing more information, not less—or people may
think you are hiding something. Discuss data uncertainties, strengths and
weaknesses-including the ones identified by other credible sources. Iden-
tify worst-case estimates as such, and cite ranges of risk estimates when
appropriate.
Point to Consider: • Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once lost
they are almost impossible to regain completely.
C COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE WITH OTHER CREDIBLE SOURCES
Allies can be effective in helping you communicate risk information.
Guidelines: Take time to coordinate all inter-organizational and intra-
organizational commurucations. Devote effort and resources to the slow.
hard work of building bridges with other organizations. Use credible and
authoritative intermediaries. Consult with others to determine who is best
able to answer questions about risk. Try to issue communications jointly
with other trustworthy sources (for example, credible university scientists.
physicians, or trusted local officials).
Points to Consider: • Few things make risk communication more difficult
than conflicts or public disagreements with other credible sources.
fi MEET THE NEEDS OF THE MEDIA
The media are aprime transmitter of information on risk: they play a critical
role in setting agendas and in determining outcomes.
Guidelines: Be open with and accessible to reporters. Respect their
deadlines. Provide risk information tailored to the needs of each type oj
media (for example, graphics and other visual aids for television). PreparJ
in advance and provide background material on complex risk issues. Do
not hesitate to follow up on stories with praise or criticism, as warranted
Try' to establish long-term relationships of trust with specific editors and
reporters.
Points to Consider • The media are frequently more interested in politics
than in risk; more interested in simplicity than in complexity; more
interested in danger than in safety.
7 SPEAK CLEARLY AND WITH COMPASSION
Technical language and jargon are useful as professional shorthand. But
they are barriers to successful communication with the public.
Guidelines: Use simple, nontechnical language. Be sensitive to local
norms, such as speech and dress. Use vivid, concrete images that commu-
nicate on a personal level. Use examples and anecdotes that make technical
risk data come alive. Avoid distanL abstract, unfeeling language about
deaths, injuries, and illnesses. Acknowledge and respond (both in words
and with actions) lo emotions that people express--anxiery, fear, anger.
outrage, helplessness. Acknowledge and respond 10 the distinctions thai
the public views as important in evaluating risks, e.g.. voluntariness.
controllability, familiarity, dread, origin (natural or man-made), benefits.
fairness, and catastrophic potential. Use risk comparisons to help put risks
in perspective: but avoid comparisons that ignore distinctions that people
consider important Always try to include a discussion of actions that are
under way or can be taken. Tell people what you cannot do. Promise only
what you can do. and be sure to do what you promise.
Points to Consider: • Regardless of how well you communicate risk
information, some people will not be satisfied.
• Never let your efforts to inform people about risks prevent you fro
acknowledging-and saying-that any illness, injury, or death is a uaged1
• If people are sufficiently motivated, they are quite capable ofunderstan'
ing complex nsk information, even if they may not agree with you.
/
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER !996
-------
EPAfs Comparative Risk Projects
Public Involvement
What Does It Mean?
In the Comparative Risk context, public in-
volvement is a process for including the public: (1) as
stakeholders who, as a cross-section of the public, bring
to their role as Steering or Public Advisory Committee
members diverse perspectives, and (2) as concerned
citizens whose environmental values are surveyed by a
project and who comment in public meetings and focus
groups about the project and its products, such as the
Phase I technical reports. Stakeholders themselves
represent a good cross-section of the public: they repre-
sent community groups, state/local government agen-
cies, industry groups, and environmental organizations.
Why Do It?
Increas-
ingly, govern-
ment officials are
finding that they
make,better deci-
sions about envi-
ronmental policy
and programs and
that the public is
more likely to
support their de-
cisions if public-sector decisionmakers are informed
both by scientificAechnical data AND by information
from the public: (1) about its environmental values, and
(2) what it believes are risks to the environment. By
integrating a public involvement/participation compo-
nent into Comparative Risk projects, project sponsors
ensure that public decisionmakers receive input from
the public regarding its beliefs about the environment.
Therefore, public involvement is a vital pan of any
Comparative Risk project.
More specifically, public participation plans call
for the widespread dissemination of scientific and techni-
cal data collected by project technical committees. Those
data serve to educate the public, and ultimately can be used
by the public to make more informed choices about what
environmental policies and programs to support
How Is It Done?
Typically, a strategy encouraging public involve-
ment throughout a Comparative Risk project is managed
by the public sector agency sponsoring the project But
other project participants and volunteers engage in various
public outreach activities as well. Ways that projects have
created opporruni-
»^ ties for public in-
volvement include:
- Holding "Envi-
ronmental Sum-
mits": an effective
means of obtaining
public input on en-
vironmental issues
facing a state/com-
munity. At those
summits, the public has the opportunity to review scien-
tific/technical information collected by project technical
committees and then to rank risks posed by those environ-
mental problems targeted by the project for assessment.
Some projects hold follow-up summits and ask
the public to suggest strategies for addressing what the
project has ranked are the highest-risk problems. For
example, aa initial and follow-up summit sponsored by
the Washington State Comparative Risk project attracted
over 500 participants.
(over
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. .. .
promoting environmental planning
icPTEMBER Iv96
-------
Page 2
• Holding Regional Meetings: in large states, a-
single summit may be replaced or supplemented by smaller,
regional meetings. The format is very similar to that used
for a single small-state meeting: technical information is
provided to and reviewed by the public, which then
expresses its opinions about the most serious environ-
mental risks.
Holding a series of regional meetings within a
state effectively reaches out to a diverse audience, but
each regional presentation can be tailored to focus prima-
rily on those issues of major concern to that region. For
example, one of the Colorado project's meetings was held
in Denver, where meeting attendees were urban dwellers
concerned about urban air quality and transportation
issues. At one of the project's rural regional meetings,
ranchers and farmers focused on water quantity and
quality issues as well as on the environmental impacts of
ski area development and tourist sprawl.
-Using the Media: most projects have media
outreach programs:
(1) Television, radio, and the print media re-
ceive regular press releases from projects on their pro-
gress; projects cultivate working relationships with re-
porters whose articles appear in local and regional news-
papers, and, like the Maine project, write op-ed pieces
about the project to those papers. The Washington State
project used the media to publicize its Environmental
Summit; the Vermont project used major newspapers to
announce when the project would be discussed at town
meetings around the state.
(2) Newsletters are used to reach
out to interested members of the public
directly. For example, Ohio and Maine
Comparative Risk project newsletters are
regularly distributed to over 2.000 indi-
viduals on project mailing lists;
(3) Project staff and volunteers
hold press conferences, appear on local radio talk shows,
and tape public service announcements about projects.
For example, Ohio project staff have appeared on seven
radio talk shows, including a very successful call-in show.
•Teaming Uf> For CHttrMchr Comparative
Risk projects often team up with respected local organi-
zations to carry out public involvement activities. One
typical strategy followed by projects is to give presenta-
tions about the project at regularly-scheduled meetings
of community groups such as the PTA and service clubs.
Project participants often give speeches about
the project in their own community. For example, the
regional Case Western Reserve project for four counties
and the city of Cleveland, Ohio formed a partnership
with a local non-profit, the Federation for Community
Planning, which had been working in minority commu-
nities in the region for forty years. The Federation
coordinated outreach to and feedback from targeted
communities on the Comparative Risk project. As a
result, those communities participated in the project to a
much greaterextent than they would have without Federa-
tion involvement.
- Public Values Assessment Tools: these are
a means for Comparative Risk projects to collect and!
aggregate data on public values concerns about envi-
ronmental risks. Several projects have conducted gen-
eral surveys of the public, while others have conducted
formal telephone polls or distributed and collected
completed informal ballots on environmental nsks at a
state fair. The Arizona Comparative Risk project used
a telephone poll to survey citizens state wide, and held
10 focus groups around the state, giving project staff,
participants, and Public Advisory Committee members
a much better understanding of public concerns aboui
environmental issues than they otherwise would have
had.
For mure information, contact
Debra (iiiU'nsnn
^ional and Slate Planning Division
< 2(12 > 260-2733
fax (202) 260-2704
REGIONAL AND STATTE PLANNING DIVISION .
nrnmntin? environmental nlannint
SEPTEMBER
-------
EPA?s Comparative Risk Projects
Comparative Risk on the Internet
Introduction
The Internet is quickly evolving as the premier tool for
gathering and disseminating information, including informa-
tion about environmental management. This communications
medium can be particularly useful for Comparative Risk projects,
both as a means for researching published reports and locating
databases containing information on specific environmental
issues related to Comparative Risk, and as a general environ-
mental management information clearinghouse.
Using the Internet as a
Data Source
There are many
ways to search for informa-
tion on the Internet. Most
browsers (e.g., Netscape,
Mosaic, WA"S, gopher...)
include search functions that
allow users lo input a few
key words and then return the addresses of relevant sites. If
these sites do not have the specific information a user is looking
for, it is likely that they will provide links to other sites with
information about the question at hand.
For example, a Comparative Risk project human health
technical committee that is gathering data about the toxicity of
a certain compound might search the on-line toxicology index
located at Emory University School of Medicine (hup://
www.cc.emory.edu/WHSCL/medweb.toxicology.html) where,
in addition to that School's own databases, there are more than
25 links to other toxicology sites. Or, a second starting point
might be the Center for Disease Control (CDC) National Center
for Health Statistics Home Page (http://www.cdc.gov/cdc.htm).
This CDC address contains CDC documents as well as links to
other health-related sites.
A Comparative Risk project ecological health tech-
nical committee that is gathering data about changes in the
amount of wetland acreage in a state or specific geographic area
might begin by examining the National Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wetlands Inventory (hup://
www.nwi.fws.gov). The Wetland Ecosystem Team Home
Page (http.Vwww.fish.washington.edu/people/asif/WET.html)
would also be a useful source of information for that technical
committee.
A quality of life technical committee searching for
demography data for-a particular state or community may
find them on the U.S. Census Bureau Gopher/HTTP server
(http://www.census.gov) or on the University of California
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory site (http://cedr.lbl.gov/
mdocs/LBL_census.html).
Using the Internet as an Information Clearinghouse
A Comparative Risk project director may choose to
set up his or her own server that publicizes project activiues
and serves as an on-line library that posts project documents
for public perusal. Using a project server, project participants
and other interested parties would have access to project
meeting minutes, technical reports, ranking criteria descrip-
tions, and ranking results.
A project director could also set up an Internet site
where project participants could electronically exchange in-
formation and ideas. Or, a quality of life technical committee
could set up an Internet site to electronically disseminate
public environmental values surveys and collect and store
survey data.
Caution
Although the number of people using the Internet is
growing exponentially, not all communities and members of
the public have ready or complete access to this new technol-
ogy. Project directors must continue to use traditional means
of written communication; i.e., use of the Internet can
supplement, but not replace, written communication and
public meetings. If project directors fail to use traditional
communications mechanisms, large segments of the public
that do not have access to the Internet could be excluded
inadvertently from full participation in a project.
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SEVERAL USEFUL
INTERNET SITES
For more information, contact
Stv\e Reach
Regional and State Planning Division
(202) 260-2781
fax (202) 260-2704
Keach.Steve(51epainail.epa.gov
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER
-------
Page 2
COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECTS
No Title Provided
Kentucky Outlook 2000: A Strategy for Kentucky's Third Century is a cooperative project between the Kentucky Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet and the Kentucky Long-Term ....
Comparative Environmental Risk
Environmental Priorities. Athens County, Ohio. 1. What is Comparative Risk? In a nutshell, comparative risk is
an environmental planning process which attempts to bridge the gap between ...
PS Enterprises Client—California EPA
California EPA Comparative Risk Project. In late 1993, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)
began a Comparative Risk Project that will help set California's environmental....
Houston Environmental Foresight
A regional consensus: Improving the Houston region environment. The Houston Environmental Foresight Committee
works to identify and recommend meaningful improvements to the Houston region ....
Maine Environmental Priorities Project Home Page
Welcome to the World Wide Web Site for the Maine Environmental Priorities Project. This site will provide periodic
news and information about the work of the Maine Environmental Priorities ....
U.S. EPA SITES
EPA Core Server
U.S. EPA Home Page
EPA Regional and State Planning Division Server
Gopher menu for access to comparative nsk. sustainable development, sector-based issues, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Environmental Indicators
Environmental data and information that may be useful for those who would like to develop and use "environmental
indicators."
SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity. Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment
for the Future
1996 Report of The President's Council on Sustainable Development
MISCELLANEOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
Econet
EcoNet serves organizations and individuals working for environmental preservation and sustainabiluy. EcoNei
builds coalitions and partnerships with individuals, activitist organizations and non-profit organizations to develop
their use of the electronic communications medium.
Right to Know Network
RTK NET provides free online access to quantitative databases and numerous text files and conferences on environ-
ment, housing and sustainable development
Environmental News Network
Daily and weekly environmental news from around the world
The Ecological Society of America (ESA)
ES A's WWW Home Page provides information on membership.annual meetings, ES A officers and staff, ES A acti viues.
the ESA Newsletter, environmental policy updates, and more
Select - The Environmental Remediation Manager
The Need. Close scrutiny of environmental cleanup efforts is becoming a focus of many action groups, ranging in
diversity from governmental advisory groups to local stakeholders. Given the large ....
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . . SEPTEMBER 1996
promoting environmental piannins
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
The Centers
Roles and Activities
The two Centers provide technical assistance to
states and localities on a range of integrated environmental
planning activities. More specifically, the Centers' staff
may independently or in collaboration with EPA staff
deliver training, provide ongoing advice to state and local
Comparative Risk projects (on-site or by telephone), de-
velop background and technical documents and analyses,
facilitate meetings, provide general project management
assistance, and share project information and experience
with Comparative Risk practitioners across the country.
The Green Mountain Institute for Environmental
Democracy (GMIED) also publishes a newsletter on Com-
parative Risk, and the Western Center for Environmental
Decision-Making (WCED) sponsors monthly tele-confer-
ences to discuss a range of environmental management
issues.
Each Center operates through a cooperative agree-
ment with the Regional and State Planning Division of the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. U.S. EPA.
States and localities do not bear any of the costs of
technical assistance provided by the Centers.
Boulder, CO
Montpcltof, VT
History
In 1990, when the number of state and local
Comparative Risk projects was about to increase from
four to nine, U.S. EPA recognized that it lacked suffi-
cient staff resources to meet current and new projects'
need for ongoing technical assistance. To meet that
increased demand for technical assistance, EPA devel-
oped cooperative agreements with GMIED and WCED,
both of which were headed up by former state and local
government employees who had developed Compara-
tive Risk expertise from having managed several of the
first Comparative Risk projects.
CONTACTS
Debora Martin. Director
Regional & State Planning Division
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
401 M Street, SW (mail code 2165)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2699 office: (202) 260-2704 fax
e-mail: martin.debora@epamail.epa.gov
Kate Kramer, Amy Stewart
Western Center for Environmental
Decision-Making (WCED; formerly the Western
Center for Comparative Risk, or WCCR)
P.O. Box 7576
Boulder. CO 80306
(303) 494-6393 office; (303) 499-8340 fax
e-mail: erckak @ aol.com
Ken Jones, Ed Delhagen, Chris Paterson,
Christine Mester, Sue Thomas, Jim Bernard
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental
Democracy (GMIED; formerly the Northeast
Center for Comparative Risk, or NCCR)
102 B. State Street
Mohtpelier, VT 05602
(802) 229-6070; (802) 229-6099 fax
e-mail- gmied@gmied.org
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION....
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPAfs Comparative Risk Projects
Environmental Justice
What is Environmental Justice?
Environmental Justice encompasses a broad
range of activities and programs that raise awareness
about and/or are intended to reduce the disproportion-
ate impact of environmental risks on certain popula-
tion groups. Environmental Justice efforts are de-
signed to ensure that environmental protection, in-
cluding enforcement, compliance, and policy formu-
lation, is fairly implemented for all groups in the
population regardless of their income, gender, color,
race, ethnicity, religion, age, or national origin.
What Environmental Justice Is Not
Environmental Justice does not prescribe the
re-distribution of pollution sources so that all commu-
nities bear a standard level of risk. Rather, its goal is
the development and implementation of strategies
designed to reduce environmental risk to all popula-
tions.
Environmental Justice and Comparative
Risk
Comparative Risk projects can be an effective
means of raising awareness of environmental justice
issues and developing strategies to address those
issues because: (1) during Phase I, data that is col-
lected and analyzed may depict the disproportionate
impact of environmental problems on particular com-
munities, especially low-income and/or minority com-
munities; (2) project participants are a cross-section of
the community/state and bring to the project diverse
perspectives that inform project choices and deci-
sions; (3) the Comparative Risk process acknowl-
edges limitations of the classical risk assessment model,
which does not sufficiently take into account econom-
ics, culture, and lifestyles that could result in certain
disproportionate exposure to risk experienced by cer-
tain populations; and (4) concrete strategies to reduce
environmental risks to all parts of the population are de-
signed and implemented. Each of these reasons is dis-
cussed in more detail below.
1. Data on Disproportionate Risks
During Comparative Risk projects' assessment
phase. Technical Committees collect and analyze public
environmental values as well as scientific and technical
data. Projects' consideration of public values data helps
ensure that the environmental values held by diverse parts
of communities are taken into account during the assess-
ment of environmental problem areas. Projects' use of
scientificAechnical data can spotlight low-income, minor-
ity, and other populations' exposure to disproportionately-
high environmental risks.
2. Broad Public Participation
Public involvement is a key element of the Com-
parative Risk process. To ensure broad public participation
in projects. Project Directors and Steering Committee mem-
bers make every effort to recruit a good cross-section of the
public for membership on Public Advisory and Technical
Committees.
One effective way of identifying potential Com-
parative Risk project participants from minority and/or
low-income populations is to refer to \hePeople of Color
Environmental Handbook. The. Handbook lists over 200
North American groups that are active in environmental
justice issues. Compiled by Robert D. Bullard of the
Environmental Resource Center at Clark Atlanta Univer-
sity, the Handbook is available from the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation's Publications Hot Line at (810) 766-
1766. The Handbook is also available on-line at
"gopher.igc.apc.org". Project Directors can also contact
local elected officials, community advisory panels, and
local ministers to get names of individuals who are
interested in being involved in community activities and
might want to work on the project.
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION... .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
3. Comparative Risk and Cultural/Lifestyle
Assumptions
In the data collectioriand analysis (assessment)
phase. Comparative Risk projects may go beyond tradi-
tional risk assessment by collecting and analyzing data
on environmental risks to sub-populations. Forexample,
risk assessors typically would not assume differential
fish consumption levels for the different segments of a
community's population because their goal would be to
aggregate consumption data for the entire population.
Those assessors would not, then, take into account cul-
tural traditions and/or income factors that influence cer-
tain parts of the population to consume more than the
average amount of fish, thereby failing to focus on data
that demonstrate higher-than-average exposure to con-
taminants in fish for those segments of the population.
In contrast, a Comparative Risk project, whose
goal is to identify the most serious environmental risks
to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life for all
segments of a community, and which has a diverse
membership representing a cross-section of the commu-
nity, might well focus on data depicting risks to one or
more segments of the population from higher-than-aver-
age fish consumption.
Another point: no methodology for accurately
quantifying the (1) synergistic effects of different com-
pounds, or (2) cumulative effects of contaminants has
yet been developed. As a result, risk assessors typically
do not build synergistic or cumulative effects into their
risk characterizations.
Comparative Risk projects, on the other hand,
often include stakeholders from groups of individuals in
the population that are likely to be at higher-than-
average risk from exposure to the synergistic or cumula-
tive effects of certain substances. By participating in
environmental problem area identification as well as in
data collection and analysis, those stakeholders have an
opportunity to identify problem areas that may result
from synergistic and/or cumulative effects. Those stake-
holders can also influence their project colleagues to
develop strategies for addressing those problem areas.
4. Phase II—Taking Action
Identifying and then ranking environmental
threats are major steps in Phase I of a Comparative Risk
project. During Phase II, projects develop strategies to
reduce risks from environmental problem areas. As in
Phase I, diverse stakeholders drawn from all segments of
the population are active in Phase II work. That level of
stakeholder involvement ensures that concerns about
disproportionate risks to certain segments of the commu-
nity receive attention, and that the project builds those
concerns into the final Phase II risk reduction strategies
that it recommends to policymakers.
Fur more information, contact
Debora Martin, Director
Regional and State Planning Division
(202) 260-2699
fax (202) 260-2704
Martin. Deborah epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION... .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Phase II: Assessment to Action
I
Strategies and Actions to Improve
Environmental Management
In the broadest sense. Phase II of Comparative
Risk projects includes: (1) setung priorities and reviewing
andselecong policy options to address the environmental
risks identified in Phase I: and (2) selecting, implementating,
and evaluating particular risk reduction efforts. Because
Phase II efforts address a range of environmental problem
areas, there is no one model for what Phase II should look
like. Nonetheless, the steps listed below are common to all
Phase n efforts.
Steps of Comparative Risk Management
• REVIEW relative risk rankings frorri Phase I assessment
• PRIORITIZE problem areas that risk management efforts
will address»
• CONSIDER "non-risk" factors such as available technol-
ogy and political feasibility
• DEVELOP concrete strategies for addressing priorities
• IMPLEMENT risk management strategies
• MONITOR implementation to determine environnmental
progress
• RE-EVALUATE and revise strategies and implementa-
tion efforts if necessary
How projects design and implement Phase II var-
ies depending on many factors, including those that can be
directly influenced by project participants (e.g., setting
project goals early on in the project planning process) and
those over which the project has little or no control (e.g., an
ever-changing political climate). Since those factors vary
from project to project and/or change over the life of any one
project, it is important that a Phase II plan be flexible enough
so that project members can seize positive opportunities for
change, even when those opportunities were not included in
the original Phase II plan.
It is important to begin planning for Phase II early
in the design of a Comparative Risk project, andtolink the
portion of the project plan that applies to Phase 1^ with the
assessment efforts in Phase I as well as with the original
goals laid out during project stan~Upt This will facilitate
project participants' capitalizing on the risk information,
partnerships, and momentum for change developed during
Phase I.
Successful Phase II Efforts: Some Examples
(1) The successful targeting of and public support for state
legislation requiring tougher clean air standards as proposed by
theWashington State Comparative Risk project (2) the influen-
tial role played by the Cleveland Comparative Risk project in
effecting improved regional transportation planning efforts; (3)
the development of strategies to reduce impacts on habitat from
construction activities by creating incentives for developers to
destroy less natural habitat by letting stand existing trees; strate-
gies were developed by a diverse group of 200 volunteer citizen
activists. Health Department staff, and interest group representa-
tives in Columbus, Ohio; (4) formation of a team that is develop-
ing options to address the cross-media, negative impact of toxics
on habitat preservation and sediment and water quality in the
Elizabeth River watershed (Virginia); the team was formed by the
Elizabeth River Comparative Risk project in collaboration with
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Questions Projects Should Ask About Phase EL
The questions posed below are among those that should
be considered during the planning for Phase II. It is important to
consider such questions early-on in the overall project design
process, as they may point to the particular type of data ihat a
project will need to collect and analyze in Phase I, what method-
ology to use in conducting the integrated risk ranking, and what
types of policy options or action strategies to plan for in Phase II.
There are no standard answers for these questions, and
initially, project participants may find it difficult to develop
satisfactory responses. Nonetheless, projects should raise these
questions early on and refer back to them not only throughout the
project planning process, but as they move through the assess-
ment phase and into Phase II.
Establishing Clear Goals
1. What are the goals of the project?
2. Do the original goals need to be modified or changed?
3. Do Phase II goals influence choices about data collection.
criteria selection, ranking methodology? If so, how?
4. What are the public involvement goals for the project?
Who Participates
I. Who should be involved in Phase II work- groups as action
and implementation efforts proceed?
2. How will the public be involved in the design, implementation,
and evaluation of Phase II implementation/risk reduction strate-
gies?
3. How can the project director keep volunteers and participants
motivated throughout the project?
foverl
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION....
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
froiect Design
1. How will Phase II be structured in terms of work groups,
expertise, and leadership?
2. Who will participate and what will their roles be?
3. What steps can be taken during Phase I to secure funds for
the action Phase?
4. Are there activities associated with risk management that
can be carried out in advance of assessment like:
- surveying the public about who should be responsible for
taking action,
- conducting inventories of current program effectiveness,
- collecting model legislation on environmental issues,
- networking with the legislature and the governor's office?
5. Are there other environmental planning initiatives that
the project could link up with such as:
- agency strategic planning initiatives (goals, budget, indica-
tors. National Environmental Performance Partnership
Agreements, etc.).
- intra-agency initiatives,
- inter-governmental planning initiatives (Federal grant ne-
gotiations),
- gubernatorial initiatives and press events?
Transitioning from Phase I to Phase II
1. How will P^ase I results influence and impact ongoing
environmental "planning and management initiatives (e.g.,
communication about environmental risks, developing in-
formation about public environmental values and percep-
tions, ranking risks, improving communication across envi-
ronmental agency staff, forming public-private partner-
ships)?
2. How in Phase II will the project make use of the products
developed and partnerships fostered during the assessment
phase, including: the new partnerships and collaborative
relationships formed across natural resource and planning
agencies; the technical reports produced by Human Health,
Ecology, and Quality of Life technical committees; public
values about and perceptions of environmental risk as indi-
cated by Phase I survey data; the inclusion of diverse
stakeholders in project design and decisionmaking; the
connections developed as the result of a robust public
participation effort; the results of the risk ranking?
Analyzing and Selecting Strategies
1. What environmental problem areas will be identified for
priority action and the development of action strategies?
2. What criteria will be used to select priority action areas
(e.g., public commitment to the need for action, feasibility,
highest potential for risk reduction)?
3. Who will develop critieria for prioritization and develop-
ment of action strategies?
4. Will action strategies include evaluation of the effective-
ness of current environmental management programs?
Creating 'Positive Environmental
1. What environmental management decisions does the project
want to influence?
2. Who are the key decisionmakers and audiences for the
project?
3. How will the project measure success and show progess for
action strategies?
4. Are benchmark or indicator data available to gauge changes
over time?
5. Who will ensure that project results continue to influence
environmental management decisions?
More to Come
EPA's Regional and State Planning Division (RSPD)
has formed a Risk Management Team that includes representa-
tives from each of two Centers: the Western Center for Environ-
mental Decision-Making (WCED), and the Green Mountain
Institute for Environmental Democracy (GMIED) and two RSPD
staff members. The Team's goal is to provide information about
Phase II activities, and develop Phase II products and services to
assist ComparativeRisk project managers.
As many state and local Comparative Risk projects begin
moving from assessment to action, the Team will provide project
managers and other project participants with Phase II information
on lessons learned, innovative risk reduction activities, and
implementation strategies. More Phase II articles will appear in
the Comparative RiskBulletin published bi-monthly by GMIED.
GMIED has also produced a useful paper enwitdThinking About
Risk Management: An Introduction with Case Studies to Policy
Tools. Analytic Criteria and Institutional Arrangements A more
detailed bibliography of Phase II literature is under development.
At the January, 1996 National Conference of Environ-
mental Management Practitioners, the Team sponsored a session
entitled From Assessment to Action: Effective Strategies far
Making the Transition (and Getting Results.1). The session sum-
mary.includingConfere nee proceedings, isavailable from GMIED.
It provides a useful and interesting summary of Phase II experi-
ences from around the country.
As you consider your project design and Phase II issues,
please call RSPD or Centers staff to discuss your project's goals
and general approach to action and implementation.
For more information, contact
Risk Management Team Leaders
Joanne Dea (202) 260- 01KO
or
Rebecca Dils (202) 260-1957
fa\ (2021260-2704
Dea Joan nc(n epamail.epa.gov
I)ils.Rebm-a(& epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPA?S Comparative Risk Projects
EPA's National Environmental Goals Project
UJ
O
Why Environmental Goals?
Over the past 24 years, EPA has focused on developing
programs that effectively implement the relevant statutes en-
acted by Congress. However, the most important measure of
effectiveness is not the amount of work underway (how many
regulations are promulgated or permits issued), but rather the
degree to which human health, ecosystem health, quality of life,
and pressures on the environment improve.
With this in mind, EPA's senior career leadership has,
over the past few years, been engaged in the National Environ-
mental Goals Project The project's main objective is todevelop
a detailed set of national environmental goals and companion
10-year objectives, or milestones, that will enable EPA to
determine whether we are, in fact, moving toward those goals.
Other recently-developed results-oriented initiatives
have given additional momentum to the goals project. One
initiative is the!993 Government Performance and Results Act,
which supports the concept of managing for results, and requires
each Federal agency to develop a strategic plan and annual
performance plans for major programs. Another related initia-
tive is the Clinton administration's Reinventing Government,
which requires each agency to develop accountability for re-
sults.
How Are the Goals Being Developed?
EPA's goals project is being developed with the in-
volvement of public- and private-sector stakeholders. The
Agency began the project by examining environmental goals set
by other Federal agencies, states, and countries. Staff conducted
research on past environmental trends. Staff also assessed the
implications of public and private behavior for meeting differ-
ent results targets. A group of senior staff then drafted a set of
long-range goals and milestones for the year 2005, keeping in
mind two criteria: (1) milestones should be measurable aspects
of environmental quality, and (2) the targets should be realistic.
In 1994, EPA discussed the environmental goal-set-
ting perspectives of business and agricultural interests, environ-
mental advocates, government officials, and the general public
at a series of roundtable meetings around the country. One
strong recommendation to come out of the roundtables was: the
goals should cover not only environmental results, but also
improvements in the process by which different levels of gov-
ernment and stakeholders make decisions.
In 1995, EPA asked government agencies and the 1994
roundtable participants to comment on a summary report of
proposed national goals. While virtually everyone encouraged
EPA to continue its pursuit of goals development, one dominant
message from reviewers was that more information was needed
to determine whether EPA's targets were realistic yet also
ambitious enough.
EPA then prepared a more detailed report explain-
ing the reasons for setting targets at particular levels and
how EPA plans to reach the targets. The more detailed
report also includes an overview of the costs and benefits of
environmental protection. This report will be circulated
widely for review and comment, first to government agen-
cies and then to the public.
How Will the Goals Be Used?
EPA hopes that the proposed goals will provide a
line of sight to the environmental outcomes most Americans
want. Working with states and other partners, EPA will use
the goals to update its strategic plan and formulate annual
plans. Budget requests to Congress will express resources
needed to fund one year's work toward the 10-year targets.
With Congressional support, the goals-focused plans are
intended to direct most of EPA's operations as well as
influence the activities of EPA's partners in environmental
protection. The plans will include development of environ-
mental indicator information for evaluating progress toward
the goals, and a report on progress to date in reaching the
goals. EPA and its partners may revise the 10-year mile-
stones as new information becomes available or as circum-
stances change.
The milestones will serve as an EPA management
tool that will offer more flexibility to the people who carry
out our programs than is now the case. With established
measurable outcomes, EPA will be less prescriptive about
how work is done and more attentive to actual environmen-
tal results. State and local governments will have flexibility
in choosing how to use the national goals.
The Goals Project and Comparative Risk
EPA's State and Regional Planning Division en-
courages Comparative Risk projects to build environmental
goals and other environmental planning tools like indicators
into their Phase II implementation plans. For example, the
Division recommended to several states beginning Phase il
work in FY 1996 that Phase II activity include developing
environmental goals for each activity that the projects will
recommend to policymakers for long-term implementation.
For more information, contact
Peter Truitt
Office of Strategic Planning
and Environmental Data
(202) 260-8214
fax (202) 260-4903
Truitt.E'etertflepamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION....
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPAfs Comparative Risk Projects
Environmental Indicators:
A Powerful Planning Tool
£
5
\
*
ul
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
AVAILABLE
Through cooperative agreements the
Agency has and will continue to pro-
vide a variety of technical assistance
services to states, regions and commu-
nities. These services include on-site
training on environmental indicators,
limited peer-to-peer travel, indicator
conferences, maintenance of a network
of indicator users, project summaries
and directories and an Internet home
page on state and national indicators
and databases. Also available are hard
copy products on selected indicator
review lists and catalog, survey of state
environmental planning tools in use
and a list of potential national indica-
tors for state use.
For more information, contact
OttoCiutenson
Regional and State Planning Division
(202) 260-4909
fax (202) 260-2704
(iutenson.Otto@epamail.epa.gov
WHAT ARE ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ?
An indicator is analyzed information that provides a message in
a simplified manner about a complex condition or trend or
communicates a trend not readily detectable. Indicators should
quantify and simplify information or data making it more easily
understood. Environmental Indicators (El) describe and sum-
marize scientifically based information, usually metric, on envi-
ronmental status and trends. El's may be direct measures of
health or ecological effects, sometimes referred to as the state of
the environment; or indirect measures of emissions or environ-
men tal concentrations, sometimes referred to as pressures on the
environment. El's should not be confused with performance
measures, which generally do not describe actual results in the
real world but track activities such as numbers of permits issued
or training courses taught. El's do not necessarily replace
performance measures, but may be used in combination for a
comprehensive understanding of environmental phenomena.
A LONG HISTORY
Environmental indicators have been used since the late sixties
with the start of the environmental movement. The first popular
use was probably in 1969 when the National Wildlife Federation
published its first "National Index of Environmental Quality." In
1970 the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
published their "First Annual Report" which included the devel-
opment of indexes for a comprehensive national system of
environmental analysis. In the early 1970's Montana, North
Carolina, and Louisiana published reports on their environment
including indicators in some fashion. Canada has long used
environmental quality indexes.
More recently, in 1989 the US EPA Deputy Administrator
requested a report on the progress of Agency programs to devel-
oping environmental indicators and assessing the links between
that information and EPA's environmental goals and strategies.
Environmental indicators were brought to their greatest promi-
nence in May 1995 with the formalization of the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) that
sets forth environmental goals and measures of accountability in
terms of environmental results. (over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION....
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATOR
GUIDELINES
• El's are tools of accountability
that can be used to assess
progress toward a vision or goal
in an integrated planning frame-
work.
• El's should be based on iden-
tified environmental issues and
goals rather than available data.
• El's at any level of use are only
as good as the data quality on
which they are based. This does
not mean one must have ideal
data to get started; indicators are
an excellent tool to communi-
cate data gaps and insufficient
data collection methodologies.
• The "science of environmental
indicators" is the ability to choose
the best or most appropriate
indicator(s) to measure progress
toward a goal. It is essential that
the set of indicators monitored
overtime accurately accounts for
the attribute of concern. For ex-
ample, tracking only physical/
chemical properties of surface
waters alone may not be suffi-
cient to indicate good biological
water quality (assuming that is
the goal).
Page 2
USES GALORE
There is no one indicator or set of indicators that is right
for all situations. One must determine such things as
geographic scale (i.e., community or state level, etc.) and
the result to be communicated (i.e., the state of the
environment indicators may differ from those used to
monitor the success of a given management strategy).
Generally, environmental indicators are used either in a
decision-making context or as a public outreach tool to:
• show trends (changes) in the state of the environment
• show trends in human activities that impact the state of
the environment
• show relationships among environmental variables
• measure and communicate environmental achieve-
ment and progress toward a goal
• make strategic planning and budget decisions
• develop public relations and education programs
• communicate a message, theme or story clearly and
succinctly ("Process for Selecting Indicators and Sup-
porting Data," OPPE, USEPA, 1996 Draft).
Comparison of 1970 and 1994 EHICSMRS
Examples of
trend data used
as indicators
VS. EPA TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY
TOTAL RELEASES: AIR. WATER, UNDERGROUND.
LAND KOR BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
198?
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
I Z.MXOM
I ivfc0.au
Wtight in Pounds
SEPTEMBER 1996
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION
.... promoting environmental planning
-------
EPAfs Comparative Risk Projects
Futures Research
\
\
3
What is Futures Research?
Futures research can be defined as the use of
several kinds of analytic tools to project or forecast
trends and emerging issues that may affect the quality
of the environment in the future. The tools are used
to gather and analyze social, economic, and environ-
mental data to help environmental professionals an-
ticipate potential changes in the environment and
incorporate information about those changes into
environmental decisionmaking. The most commonly
used of those tools, Scanning, Lookout Panels,
Trends Research, and Scenario Building, are de-
scribed on the reverse side.
Why Do Futures Research?
Bringing human activities into harmony with
our planet's resources will mean expanding our re-
search horizons to help us better understand and
anticipate environmental protection needs. Environ-
mental planners have recently developed a new, an-
ticipatory approach which begins with a vision that
reflects public values and scientific data traditionally
collected on current problems and adds to that data
which is now collected on emerging environmental
problems.
Challenges and opportunities will continue to
unfold as we analyze the long-term environmental
impacts of current problems. Some long-term envi-
ronmental consequences stem directly from current
trends in driving forces such as demographic change
and economic activity, which have direct impacts on
water and waste treatment infrastructure, ecosystem
carrying capacity, biodiversity, pollution, and habitat
loss tolerances. Data on those impacts can be extrapo-
lated to scenarios for future environmental conditions.
While emerging problems may not pose much of
a current threat, some have the potential to develop into
serious risks if left unaddressed. The recently-developed,
anticipatory model for futures research helps us identify
and better understand these developing problems before
they become full-blown, and enables us to develop strate-
gies and solutions to reduce or prevent their projected
impacts and consequences.
Carrying out futures research gives us the capabil-
ity to monitor driving forces for changes that bring us closer
to the capacity limits of infrastructure and habitat loss
tolerances and to be alert to technological innovations that
exacerbate the nature of current problems, create new
threats, or offer new ways to avoid or mitigate environmen-
tal hazard.
Comparative Risk and Futures Research
In Comparative Risk projects, futures scenarios
that include projections about the impact of driving forces
such as population and economic growth can significantly
inform projects' understanding of the future course of
current environmental problem areas. Opportunities for
implementation of pollution prevention strategies and other
anticipatory risk management options can in many cases
become apparent with the inclusion of such scenarios.
Several early Comparative Risk projects used fu-
tures tools: Washington 2010, Colorado Environment 2000,
and Louisiana Environmental Action Plan 2000 began with
a vision for a desired future, added caveats about emerging
and longer-term problems, considered trends, exami ned the
requirements of sustainabiliry, and otherwise attempted to
anticipate changes in environmental conditions and lay out
possible and necessary responses over time.
Currently, the Comparative Risk project for
Charlottesville, Virginia and the surrounding area has an
ambitious plan to identify barriers to their goals for a
sustainable community and address them with practical
strategies. Another Comparative Risk project, Kentucky
Outlook 2000, is building various futures scenarios of
environmental "hotspots" in which hypothetical alternative
risk reduction strategies are applied.
(over
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.. . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
r }
FOUR TOOLS FOR CONDUCTING FUTURES RESEARCH^
FOCUS GROUP AND ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSIONS
These are forums sponsored by environ-
mental planners during which specific sci-
entific and technological developments and
public environmental values are discussed.
The idea behind such efforts is to step back
from dealing with day-to-day issues and
consider long- term environmental planning
approaches.
V J
SCANNING, EARLY-WARNING/
LOOKOUT PANELS
This tool offers a window on emerging
threats and opportunities. In a scanning exer-
cise, a group of people monitors media re-
ports and other sources to identify changes in
cultural, economic, and social trends that
could affect future environmental conditions.
A Lookout Panel is typically a specific
group designated to monitor professional jour-
nals and other sources for new research and
technological activities that point to emerg-
ing environmental threats and/or solutions to
environmental problems.
V J
.
SCENARIO PLANNING
This tool creates a "picture" of the future
given a specific direction in one or more key
driving forces; may help project members
anticipate a range of potential environmental
problems by making them aware of the inter-
actions among the social, economic, and cul-
tural factors that will shape future threats.
This picture will help the the project prepare
for challenges and help identify opportunities
to protect against them.
^ J
TRENDS ANALYSIS
This tool provides information on existing
problem areas and driving forces,- examines
historical data, and supplies background in-
formation for forecasting. For example, state
transportation boards and utilities often moni-
tor patterns of road, energy, and water and
sewer use to develop long-term projections
about and predict necessary changes in util-
ity infrastructure. When selecting risk man-
agement options, a Comparative Risk project
could use these projections to design pollu-
tion prevention programs that would avoid
predicted risks.
V J
J
HH
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . . .
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Planning for Sustainability
\
ul
O
What is Planning for Sustainability?
In 1987 the World Commission on Environ-
ment and Development (B runtland Commission)
issued a report that defined sustainable devel-
opment as "meeting the needsof the present
generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet
their own needs."
The same definition
was adopted by the
President's Council on
Sustainable Devel-
opment (PCSD),
a group of Fed-
eral agency
heads, top industry
executives, and envi-
ronmental group leaders
appointed by President Clinton
in 1993 to advise him about "inte-
grating the economy, equity, and en-
vironment into national policy."
First Steps in Sustainability Planning
The first task for planners who seek envi-
ronmental susiainability is to ask. what the community
they work in wishes to sustain. The resulting spectrum
of public values may range from wilderness area pro-
tection and biodiversity to job creation and the avail-
ability of mass transportation, to name a few. Once the
question of what to sustain is resolved, planners will
have to ask how the government, economy, and society
must develop and change to support the quality of life
and environment that is desired. Researching potential
answers to this question will sometimes offer the plan-
ners and decisionmakers ideas for new synergistic
relationships between short-term and long-term social,
environmental, and economic elements. A first step in
this research is to define barriers to Sustainability.
Comparative Risk offers a process for analyzing bar-
riers to Sustainability.
Comparative Risk and Sustainability
Comparative Risk is a tool that planners,
policymakers, and representatives of diverse seg-
ments of the population of states and communi-
ties use to identify and analyze the causes,
distribution, and extent of damage (i.e.,
risk) associated with the most serious
environmental threats to human
health, ecosystems, and quality
of life. From an environ-
mental Sustainability
planning perspective,
these same threats
may be regarded as
barriers to a state/
community's desired
level of Sustainability. Us-
ing a working definition of
Sustainability programs which
defines them as those which "re-
structure human activities so that natu-
ral resources are not depleted and environ-
mental quality remains unimpaired," Com-
parative Risk practitioners can integrate
Sustainability planning into Comparative Risk project
activities.
Comparative Risk projects that want to plan for
Sustainability should consider the following steps :
1) Develop a community vision for a sustainable envi-
ronment.
2) Develop goals for Sustainability in economic, social,
and environmental sectors and identify opportunities for
and challenges to attaining those goals.
3) Use comparative risk analysis to help understand the
impacts on health, ecology, and quality of life from envi-
ronmental problems that have been identified as barriers to
Sustainability.
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION... .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
4) Once problem areas have been analyzed and priorities
have been set, risk reduction strategies may be identified
that balance environmental/ecnomic relationships and the
distribution of costs and environmental benefits with the
kind of future people want.
5) Futures research techniques, including analyses of
trends in driving forces such as demographics and overall
economic conditions, may offer a window on the long-
term direction of environmental problems and the viabil-
ity of risk reduction strategies.
6) Buy-in from every sector of the community is neces-
sary throughout the project, from defining sustainability
to making it a reality.
7) Careful monitoring of environmental and economic
trends will ensure that strategies remain appropriate and
continue to bring the community closer to sustainability.
Advantages of Public Involvement
Involving the public in sustainability planning
will help to ensure broad support; for example,
• public understanding of environmental and eco-
nomic processes can create grass-roots pressure for change
and become the driving force that moves consumer and
commercial activity closer to sustainability;
•public involvement helps dispel misconceptions
about relationships between economic activities and envi-
ronmental quality (good environmental quality doesn't call
for drastic reductions in numbers of jobs or diminished
lifestyles).
• in their roles as project participants and decision-
makers, community members learning about sustainability
as part of the Comparative Risk process are inclined to
hold government, commercial, and other individuals ac-
countable to the community's environmental vision and
goals.
More on the PCSD
The President's Council on Sustainable Devel-
opment recently completed a report detailing opportu-
nities for the United States to move closer to
sustainability. That report includes 10 goals for a
sustainable future and makes 154 recommendations for
specific actions to be taken that would improve eco-
nomic and regulatory policy, natural resources manage-
ment, education, and international policy.
The U.S. EPA has already instituted several
successful programs in support of that report's recom-
mendations. Recommended activities are planned or
are already underway in several other Federal agencies
as well. One common theme of many strategies in-
tended to implement PCSD goals is a reliance on
cooperation and mutually-beneficial relationships be-
tween government, the regulated community, and/or
environmental groups. For more information dn the
PCSD, write to:
PCSD
730 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
e-mail: pcsd@igc.apc.org
For more information, contact
Steve Reach
Regional and State Planning Division
(202) 260-27H1
fax (202) 260-2704
Keach.Steve(&epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION... .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER I(>1>6
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Integrated Environmental Planning
USB
There are many frameworks for thinking about
how to tie together environmental planning, resource
allocation, and monitoring into an integrated process.
There are also many tools that can be used in integrated
environmental planning.
The major elements of integrated environ-
mental planning listed below and an accompanying
diagram provide one vision of how to proceed given
the luxury of starting with a clean slate. The elements
suggest a process for those who are thinking about
how their work in various areas might connect to
larger goals for the places they live in.
1) Finding consensus on a public vision;
2) Setting goals for a healthy, ecologically-diverse
environment, now and in the future;
3) Identifying barriers to those goals (developing a
list of environmental problem areas);
4) Understanding the relative risks posed by each problem
area (analyzing, comparing, and ranking environmental
problem areas);
5) Building strategies for cooperation and providing
incentives to achieve environmental goals;
6) Understanding trends that may affect future environ-
mental conditions;
1) Developing and measuring indicators of environmen-
tal conditions;
8) Monitoring progress towards environmental goals;
9) Changing strategies as needed; and
10) Keeping the public and regulated community in-
formed and involved.
EPA's Regional and State Planning Division of-
fers technical advice on combining environmental goals,
comparative risk, futures research, risk management, and
indicators into a planning process with substantial public
involvement.
Integrated Environmental Planning
Vision for Environmental Quality
Monitor Success in Reducing Risks
and Attaining Environmental-Goals
Change Risk Reduction Strategies
as Needed to Meet Goals
Alternative Scenarios for Different
Sets of Future Conditions
c^
Futures information:
Trends in driving forces such as economic
development and demographic change
Measurable Goals for
Environmental Quality
Comparative Risk Analysis:
Identify Problem Areas
Analyze risks to Health, Ecology,
and Quality of Life
Indicators of Environmental
Conditions
Risk Reduction Strategies
•(• . •
For more information, contact
Dt-bora Martin (202) 260-2699, or
Steve Keach (202) 260-2781
Regional and State Planning Division
fax (202) 260-2704
Martin. Debora(&epamail.epa.gov
Keach.Steve@epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. ...
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPA!s Comparative Risk Projects |
Project Director Checklist \
THE BASICS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
A COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT
Note that planning and implementation are ongoing, and that Comparative Risk projects are non-linear processes. Project
directors arc often involved in project planning and implementation concurrently.
PLANNING FOR THE PROJECT
D 1. Assemble basic materials on Comparative Risk, including:
a. EPA's Environmental Planning Information Packet
b. EPA's A Guidebook to Comparative Risk, including Appendices
c. Several C.R. project final reports
d. A Practitioner's Guide to Comparative Risk
c. -4 Comparative Risk Bulletin , published by the Green Mounuiin Institute for Environmental Democracy
(GMIED) a/
f. EPA Cooperative Agreement Application Package guidance and application forms
D 2. Talk with EPA Regional and State Planning Division (RSPD), GMIED, and Western Center for Environmental
Decision-Making (WCED) staff about project planning and start-upb/
D 3. Talk with several Comparative Risk project directors/participate in Comparative Risk Links Network callscy
D 4. Talk with EPA Regional staff about Comparative Risk and potential scope of project
D 5. Prepare Comparative Risk Qs and As for marketing and educational use
D 6. Educate potential stakeholders about and market Comparative Risk
D 7. Identify as a major goal extensive public involvement in the project
Q 8. Identify top-level state/local dccisionmakers who will support the project and the potential changes that it might
propose
D 9. Identify the state/local agency that will formally apply for Cooperative Agreement funding from EPA
D 10. Identify additional sources of project funding
D 11. Network with governmental, industry, citi/en, environmental advocacy groups to begin identifying potential Public
Advisory Committee (PAC) and Steering Committee representatives
D 12. Network with minority communities to identify minority stakeholders who could serve on the PAC and Steering
Committees
D 13. Develop public participation plan that lays out strategy for public involvement over the life of the project
fj 14. Provide draft Statement of Work (part of formal application for funding) to EPA Project Officer and Regional Office
contact for review and comment
D 15. Prepare final application forms and submit to EPA
PHASE ONE
n 1- Meet with Steering and Public Advisory Committees to discuss:
a. Broad project plan
b. Project Kickoff event
c. Committee meeting dates for the first year of project
D 2. Hold Project Kickoff event
a/Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy (GMIED) in Vermont; formerly called the Northeast Center for
Comparative Risk (NCCR).
b/ GMIED and WCED (formerly the Western Center for Comparative Risk, or WCCR, in Boulder, Colorado arc non-profit
organizations funded by EPA 10 provide technical assistance lo statc/local/iribal Comparative Risk projects.
c/ Comparative Risk Links Network is made up of all Comparative Risk project directors who talk monthly via a conference
call with the Centers and EPA RSPD staff. . .
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION SEPTEMBER 1996
promoting environmental planning
-------
Page 2
D 3. Develop detailed project plan, including goals, milestones, timetable for the entire project
D 4. Consult with EPA Project Officer, Regional contact, GM1EDAVCED staff on an ongoing basis
D 5. Implement plan for public involvement; i.e., educate project members and the public about Comparative Risk, public
environmental values, [he benefits of community involvement; develop and implement Comparative Risk project
marketing strategy to include such items as regularly-published newsletters and TV bulletins, public roundtablc
discussions, gubernatorial press conferences, etc.)
D 6. Develop list of environmental problem areas and eaicgori/.c problem areas in one or more of the following groups:
(1) Human Health, (2) Ecology, (3) Quality of Life (Socio-economic or Social Welfare, Aesthetic, Cultural)
D 7. Form Technical Committees
D 8. Provide model technical reports from other Comparative Risk projects and other guidance materials to Technical
Committees
D 9. Develop methodologies for scientific/technical data collection and analysis, including collection and analysis of public
environmental values data
D 10. Develop risk ranking criteria
D 11. Implement scientific/technical data and public values data collection and analysis efforts
D 12. Provide Quarterly Reports to EPA Project Officer in hard eopy/elccironicallyajid on floppy disk on a quarterly basis
over the life of the project
D 13. Hold regular meetings of PAC
D 14. Create a Home Page on the World Wide Web to give all interested parties electronic access to project information and
technical data
D 15. Review on an ongoing basis the progress of data collection and analysis
D 16. Develop risk ranking methodology options
CI 17. Review funding status: if necessary, identify additional sources of funding to support Phase 1 and Phase 11 activities
D 18. Develop preliminary Phase 11 (Comparative Risk Management and Evaluation) plan and timetable
D 19. PAC reviews ranking methodology options and selects one for use by the project
D 20. Technical Work Groups present analyses of data to PAC, making explicit the uncertainties and assumptions underlying
the data
D 21. On an ongoing basis. Project Director reviews project documentation for completeness and accuracy
D 22. Schedule and carry out three risk rankings of problem areas, one for each of the three categories of risk
D 23. Revisit original problem area definitions: if necessary, revise definitions to relied Technical Committee definitions:
make available to all project participants revised definitions before conducting integrated risk ranking
D 24. Schedule and carry out the integrated risk ranking
D 25. Prepare and release to the sponsoring agency and to the public a Phase 1 final report
D 26. Develop recommendations for priority setting on the basis of rankings and PAC discussions
D 27. Market the final report and the major activities that are planned for Phase II
PHASE TWO
D 1. Review risk ranking and priority setting recommendations from Phase 1
D 2. Finali/.e Phase II plan and timetable
D 3. Review level of public involvement in this phase: if necessary, recruit new stakeholders to ensure continued extensive
and diverse public participation
D 4. Develop environmental goals and indicators dial svould measure the success of ihosc goals in lenns of cm iromnenial
outcomes
D 5. Establish sialc/local/tribal environmental priorities
D 6. Review current environmental statutes, policies, and programs; establish whether ihev would effectively enable ihe
statc/localiiy/tribc to meet the project's recommended priorities and environmental goals and whether current
programs' environmental outcomes can be measured
D 7. Involve public dccisionmakers in appropriate agencies in discussion ol current policies and programs
D 8. Develop and analy/c a set of proposed strategies and policy tools that would implement project priorities and goals:
consider non-risk factors such as political and technological feasibility ol strategies and tools
D (). Hold wcll-pubhci/cd public discussions about alternative Phase II strategies
D 10. Develop concrete strategics, including demonstrations or pilots, for addressing priorities, directly linking them to
environmental goals and indicators
D 11. Prepare a final project report
D 12. Release final report to the public via a senior policymaker pres.s conference and extensive news coverage
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . . . SEPTEMBER
/>r(nnoiinx environmental planning
-------
•tf
EPA?s Comparative Risk Projects * *-* r.
Ezg/z/ Questions State/Local Environmental Directors Should \
N
and Answer Before Undertaking a Comparative Risk Project
*> MM •«£
5 ^'sJBIrl' o
Q \\i/y <
7. Why do we want to do a Comparative Risk project?
Clearly articulating what you want a Comparative Risk project to accomplish is critical to carrying out an effective
project. Project goals should be developed at start-up and re- visited periodically. Project activities that lead to achievement of
those goals should be developed and evaluated on the basis of how effectively they will enable you to meet your goals. Over the
life of a project, some goals may have to be re-defined, enhanced, or scaled down depending on the project's progress. Continual
re-visiting of original project goals will keep project participants focused on your project's core objectives.
Questions about project goals that you should ask yourself and be able to respond to regarding why you are implementing
a project include:
- Administrative: Is there an administrative impetus for carry ing out a project? For example, do impending budget
cuts or a need to set priorities for Performance Partnership Agreements make it critical to set environmental
management priorities, and if so, will a Comparative Risk project help you set those priorities?
- Political: Are there political reasons for doing a Comparative Risk project (e.g., the recent election of a new
governor who is interested in developing better ways to do environmental management and who supports
doing a Comparative Risk project)?
- Programmatic: Are your natural resources/environmental protection/planning agencies at a point in their
evolution when they are looking for new ideas and new direction, or for validation that current programs
adequately address environmental risks?
Organizational: Does the agency need broader public support for environmental management strategies than it
now receives? If so, would a Comparative Risk project, which would likely include participants from the
general public, the legislature, other state agencies, help develop that support? Would a Comparative Risk
project result in increased contact and cooperation with other governmental entities, thereby improving the
state's/locality's capacity to do more collaborative environmental management?
Process: Does the agency need to build new or better relationships with the public, the legislature, other
agencies? If so, would a Comparative Risk project result in increased contact and cooperation with other
governmental entities and institutionalize those enhanced relationships for the long-term?
Behavioral: Does the agency want to encourage a change in environmental behavior through increased
public involvement and education which could result from a Comparative Risk project?
2. How will the Comparative Risk project be structured?
Typically, one state agency supports key project staff, which at a minimum consists of one full-lime project director.
Many projects have a small policy advisory board (sometimes referred to as a Steering Committee) that may be made up of state
agency as well as other state/community representatives and that provides guidance to the project director.
Several technical committees, often broken down by human health, ecological, and quality of life environmental problem
areas, are formed by project members. The committees recruit volunteers to help project members gather and evaluate data on
and prepare technical reports about the targeted environmental problem areas. The reports are used by project participants, or
some subset of participants such as a Public Advisory Committee, to help determine the magnitude of risk to the state/community
posed by each problem area.
No two project structures are exactly the same, and the project should develop an organizational structure that it expects
will best help it achieve its goals.
3. What is our desired Comparative Risk outcome?
All Comparative Risk projects produce technical documents, including data and analyses, about the risks posed by
environmental problem areas that were identified at the project's inception as the focus of project concern. The documents also
include data on public perceptions about environmental risks. The data and analyses are used by projects to rank the risks from
environmental problem areas and to inform project participants as they develop risk management recommendations.
Projects differ on what their desired outcome is. Some projects decide up front that they want to recommend changes
in the way environmental management is carried out by recommending that new legislation be adopted. Or, projects may decide
lhat their primary desired outcome is to influence the-selting of new priorities through the budget process. Another outcome may
be the increased integration and institutionalization of long-term, cross agency environmental policy and planning activity.
_ __ (over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.. . . SEPTEMBER 1996
promoting environmental planning
-------
Page 2
4. Who are the key audiences for our project?
Comparative Risk project directors have found that the most efficient and effective means of outreach to the public is
to identify major subsets of the public that have a fundamental interest or slake in environmental management issues, invite
representatives of those groups to participate in the project, and reach out on a continuing basis to the public by means of a well-
designed and implemented public involvement and communications strategy.
Project directors have found it especially important to target for project participation (1) representatives of groups who
would be affected, or perceive they would be affected, by changes in the state's/locality's environmental management; (2) those
with expertise in environmental management policies and programs who can make conceptual and practical contributions to the
project; (3) those who are in a position in the community, in industry, within state/local government to facilitate changes in
environmental management that could result from project recommendations; (4) those who traditionally may have been excluded
from participation in environmental policy and program forums, but whose concerns about environmental policy issues can
appropriately be considered in the context of a Comparative Risk project.
5. What is our public participation plan?
Developing a well-designed public participation plan is key to implementing an effective Comparative Risk project.
Defining the goals of the plan and laying out how the plan will help achieve overall project goals and fit into the broader project
context are the major first steps of plan design.
As Question 4 indicates, a major aspect of public participation is identifying key audiences and deciding how you will
involve them and/or interact with them throughout the life of the project. Note that communications about the project with the
public should be consistent, even-handed, and interesting.
As part of your overall public participation strategy, you will have to decide how you want to obtain and use information
you gather from the public. For example, will input from the public on the technical reports be used by project members during
their overall assessment of environmental problem area risks? If so, how will the input be made available to project members,
and how significant a role will it play in development of project recommendations? To keep public expectations in line with project
implementation strategy, you'll need to communicate how and to what extent public input will be worthwhile to those who, for
example, take time to come to public meetings or comment on project documents.
6. What are the barriers to a successful Comparative Risk project? How can we plan for success?
Implementation of a Comparative Risk project is complex, and will ultimately involve such issues as: (1) management
of conflict about difficult technical data, interpersonal/group dynamics; (2) attacks on the project in the media; and (3) political
controversies that arise during an election season. By gathering information from other projects and trying 10 anticipate early on
potential barriers to your own project's success, you will be better able to realistically approach and plan management of obstacles
to the project's success.
7. Do we have the resources to do an excellent project?
Funding from EPA is intended as project seed money and is not intended to completely support a full-scale project. Most
state agencies provide financial or in-kind contributions such as staff time and office space to projects. The total cost of past and
ongoing projects has ranged from 870,000 plus in-kind contributions for a local project to over 5400,000 plus in-kind contributions
for a state project. One state project estimated that nearly S1 million in staff time was spent completing just the technical analysis
portional of its project.
Given the potential cost that a state/locality may incur over the life of a project, project sponsors should develop a
fundraising strategy for obtaining sufficient resources to support a high-quality project.
8. Are we on the right course toward success?
Evaluation of project activities should occur throughout the project, and mid-course corrections should always be an
option. One simple way to assess a project's status is to periodically ask project team participants if they believe the project is
going well and what they think could be changed to make it better. Other ongoing evaluation approaches include asking project
participants for periodic written evaluations, prc-tcsting project material with a pilot group prior to making them available to all
project participants; periodically assessing whether project activities arc moving the project toward the goals developed during
project start-up; documenting aspects of project success and failure which can be referred to if necessary in the future.
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.... SEPTEMBER 19%
promoting environmental planning
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Fundraising Tips
S7-4,,
\
Foundation and Corporate Fundraising
Comprehensive Comparative Risk projects
that undertake the full range of technical analysis, data
gathering, and public participation activities exceed
the $50K-$100K that EPA traditionally provides
along with in-kind technical assistance. Raising the
rcm aining necessary capital often requires that a project
search for additional sources of funding.
Projects initiated by state agencies, munici-
palities, or tribal governments typically receive addi-
tional funding and staff support from those public-
sector end tics. And, Federal agencies other than EPA
that have a stake in the outcome of new approaches to
environmental management may also provide funding
to projects.
Foundations and corporations are another po-
tential source of support for Comparative Risk projects.
That support is mutually beneficial, because these
entities enhance the credibility and outreach of projects
and provide an entree to state and community
networks that may otherwise have been unknown or
were not easily accessible to project staff. And
supporting Comparative Risk projects gives a founda-
tion and corporate sponsor the opportunity to meet its
institutions' philanthropic goals.
Foundations: Key Information
Foundations often have small service areas
(regions, states, counties, municipalities) to which
they provide grants or loans. While foundations
generally have broadly-stated goals for the types of
activities they want to support, such as "to reduce
poverty, enhance education, and promote a better
learning environment," they actually support a very
limited category of activities. For example, the foun-
dation with broad-based goals cited above in fact
currently limits its grants to supporting the establish-
ment of community day care centers.
Foundations provide funding for what they
consider to be unmet needs. They target their overall
mission to a specific set of issues, and are very unlikely
to fund projects that do not fall within that'overall
mission. They need to be convinced that their contribu-
tion to an activity or project would facilitate a unique and
novel approach to solving a problem, and that alternative
funding is not readily available.
At the same time, foundations are much more
willing to contribute to a project that has already received
partial funding from another source. Foundations arc
often impressed and are more inclined to support a
project when they learn that EPA is providing it with
substantial funding and technical assistance and that the
state or local government also is providing the project
with funding and in-kind support.
Forexample, a leading scientist who worked on
the plan for the Elizabeth River project in Virginia
indicated that EPA funding was forthcoming when he
talked with a major foundation interested in Virginia
environmental issues. As a result, that project received
significant funding from the endowment.
A large number of foundations are especially
interested in activities that increase or foster public
participation. Foundations may also be interested in the
extent to which a project has potential to educate the
public to support or participate in an informed
decisionmaking process.
Foundations generally have staff who screen
inquiries, work with applicants to ensure the completion
of adequately-prepared applications, and make recom-
mendations to a Foundation Board on the merits
of each application. Meeting periodically (anywhere
from monthly to annually), Foundation Boards set policy
about the kind of projects the foundations will sponsor
during a given time period, and approve grams that fit
with the foundations' overall philanthropic goals.
For more information, contact
Rodges Ankrah
Regional and State Planning Division
(202) 260-9840
fax (202) 260-2704
Ankrah.Rodges@epamail.epa.gov
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION....
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
Corporations: Key Information
Corporations are sometimes willing to contrib-
ute 10 Comparative Risk projects. The key factors
influencing corporate involvement are whether they be-
lieve they have a vested interest in the process and results
of a project, whether their views and concerns would be
addressed by the project, and whether they believe their
contribution would be publicly acknowledged. Among
specific incentives for corporate involvement are: 1)
enhanced, collaborative working relationships with gov-
ernment agencies and other groups in the community, and
2) clear contributions to the quality of life in the commu-
nities where they are located.
Both the Elizabeth River and Houston projects
received funding from corporations that was used to
defray a variety of project costs. In both cases, project
stakeholders whose networks in the community gave
them access to corporations were the means of outreach
to corporate donors.
Though some may have a concern that substan-
tial corporate involvement could leave a project vulner-
able to criticism of bias towards corporate contributors,
careful accounting and allocation of corporate resources
provided to projects can mitigate this concern.
Partnering With Other Entities
A Comparative Risk project involves making
connections and working jointly with a wide range of
organizations in the community. The project manager
should consider enlisting the support of a range of public
sector agencies such as state commissions, Councils of
Govemmcnl, and uliiity districts.
Environmental groups can play an instrumental
role in obtaining and suggesting the appropriate use of
foundation and corporate funding. Some environmental
organizations may themselves provide funding or in-
kind contributions, including meeting facilities or ve-
hicles for travel to public meetings. Or, like foundations
and corporations, these groups may prefer to fund spe-
cific aspects of a Comparative Risk project such as
public outreach or printing costs.
Resources
The Directory of Environmental Grantmaking
Foundations (located in public library Refer-
ence Sections)
The Foundation Center
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 938
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202)331-1400
Environmental Grantmaker's Association
1290 Avenue of the Americas
Suite 3450
New York, New York 10104
(212)373-4260
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
EPA Office of the Comptroller
401 M Street, S.W. (Mail Codc-3304)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)260-1020
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER I99f>
-------
,EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Volunteers in Comparative Risk Projects
\
ul
O
Volunteers-The Backbone of Projects
Comparative Risk project directors rely
heavily on project volunteers to carry out many of the
tasks involved in Comparative Risk project imple-
mentation. Volunteers are essential to all projects
because project funding is limited and does not gener-
ally cover human resource costs beyond those of a
project director and sometimes one staffer.
Volunteers who participate in Comparative
Risk projects bring a rich mix of perspectives and
experiences to projects. A typical volunteer pool
includes scientists, academics, business and industry
representatives, environmental organization repre-
sentatives, and community and citizen activists. These
individuals invest considerable personal time and ef-
fort in project tasks, and, as a result, develop a strong
sense of commitment to the project. This commitment
is critical to maintaining momentum when challenges
to projects, such as changes in political or project
leadership or funding reductions, arise.
Typical Volunteer Activities
Project tasks in which volunteers are heavily
involved include: gathering data for and writing
Human Health, Ecological Health, and Quality of Life
technical reports about targeted environmental prob-
lem areas; developing and distributing survey instru-
ments; collecting and analyzing survey data depicting
the results of public opinion polls and surveys regarding
the public's environmental values and perceptions of risk.
The technical report and public values data collected and
analyzed by volunteers are used by project Public Advi-
sory Committees to help characterize and rank risks
associated with environmental problems and then develop
Phase II action proposals for decisionmakers.
Finding and Keeping Volunteers
Since project directors often rely on volunteers to
do a considerable amount of project work, directors need to
develop a strong pool of prospective volunteers with the
skills and time available to commit to the project. The
following useful tips are drawn from the experience of
several Comparative Risk projects that have relied on
volunteers to do much of the project's work.
Recruitment and Retention Tips
• Know your project's needs and the types of
individuals who would best meet those needs: use that
information to identify sources of volunteers who are well-
suited to carry out project tasks.
• Tap "big names" for service on the project's
Steering Committee: prominent, highly-visible individu-
als with well-established reputations in the state or commu-
nity may not have the time to carry out detailed technical
risk analyses or other time-consuming project tasks; they
can be tapped instead for service on the project's Steering
Committee.
• Look for committed volunteer "workers":
search out those who seek to serve the community at large
and have the time to commit to service on one or more
project committees.
• Tap into the knowledge base of previous or on-
going projects; contact the Green Mountain Institute for
Environmental Democracy at (802) 229-6070, or the West-
ern Center for Environmental Decision-Making at (303)
494-6393 to learn more about how volunteers work in
projects.
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION....
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
• Recruit volunteers at project Kick-Off meet-
ings, which is where many project directors identify
potential participants. Other recruitment avenues in-
clude:
- \vord-of-mouth in environmental or health
agencies;
- postings at local academic institutions, on
library bulletin boards and state and local gov-
ernment office bulletin boards;
- project director attendance at regular meet-
ings of potential stakeholder groups;
- placement of articles describing the project in
stakeholder newsletters;
- placement of articles about the project, along
with a contact telephone number, in local news-
papers.
• Seek training in volunteer management:
numerous consulting groups provide inexpensive train-
ing to non-profit groups who recruit and manage volun-
teers.
• Identify a clear set of project goals: lei
volunteers know how their efforts help the project reach
its goals.
• Tell volunteers what's in it for them: let
volunteers know how their participation in the project
will furthcrcducatc them about environmental issues and
provide them with opportunities to influence policymakers
and to network.
• Be clear with volunteers about what you
expect from them; for example, be sure they understand
how much time they may have to invest in data collection
and analysis, technical report writing, final ranking, re-
port preparation.
• Leave the door open so that volunteers can
communicate their concerns and articulate what they
need from you.
• Provide model material to volunteers to
guide their work (e.g., copies of well-done technical
reports or
public opinion surveys from other projects).
• Treat your volunteers well: provide food,
refreshments, and a comfortable environment whenever
possible.
• Seek work products early: allow time for re-
working of products, and provide early feedback to avoid
subsequent delays.
• Have a fall-back plan: unforeseen circum-
stances occasionally dictate changes in plans that can
leave a project manager without a necessary product.
Prepare in advance for this possibility.
• Seek regular input from your volunteers,
not only about substantive issues, but also about the
Comparative Risk process. Follow-up to let them know
how their input has been used.
• Regularly remind volunteers about the
value of the process and product. Frequently commu-
nicate an optimistic vision of where the project is going.
• Not all volunteers are the same: some
individuals receive release time from work during which
they can participate in a project, while others participate
without employer support at their own expense and on
their own time. Understanding the differences in volun-
teers may help you meet all their needs as well as adjust
your expectations about how much time and effort each
volunteer can put into a project.
• Recogni/e that there will be attrition in the
volunteer ranks: develop and maintain a pool from
which new volunteers can be drawn.
• Be sure to thank all volunteers for their
efforts and, if they leave the project before it's com-
pleted, talk with them about why they arc leaving. Their
feedback may assist you in the work you do with other
volunteers.
State and local projects in which volunteers have
played a major role include:
-Ari/ona
- California
- Colorado
- Florida
- Maine
- Mississippi
- Texas
- Washington Stale
- Wisconsin Tribes
- Elix.abcth River Watershed (Virginia)
- Houston
- Seattle
For more information, contact
Joanne Dea
Regional and State Planning Division
(202) 260-0180
fax (202) 260-2704
Deajoanne@epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
The National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) and
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs)
The Changing Nature of Environmental
Protection
As resources for all Federal programs become
more scarce, and as environmental problems in par-
ticular become more complex and diffuse. EPA and
the states increasingly need to collaborate in order to
distribute the work in a way that jointly recogni/.cs
national goals, state, tribal and local needs, and the
respective capabilities of Federal, state, and tribal
participants.
Descriptions
The National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) and Performance Part-
nership Grants (PPG) arc both lools lor developing a
new relationship between the diHerein governmental
entities. NEPPS is the result of discussions between
EPA and the states, and has as a central feature reform
of EPA's oversight of state and tribal programs. This
new approach received its formal unveiling on May
17, 1995, when slate leaders and EPA Administrator
Carol Browncrsigncdanagreementembodyingajoinl
commitment to reforming oversight and adopting a
framework for change. The document was endorsed
by a broad range of stale commissioners and senior
EPA managers.
Under this new system, EPA's locus would
change from a cominanci-and-control based relation-
ship lo one lhai is broadly diagnostic. The change in
focus would also mean that EPA would concentrate
more on providing technical support and would base
program evaluations less on activities and more on
changes in regional and national status and trends.
Specific features that are viewed as important pans of
NEPPS include:
• Increased use of environmental goals and
indicators
• New approaches 10 program assessments by
stales that include siaic self assessments
• Environmental Performance Agreements be-
iwcen EPA and the states
• Differential oversight based on state capabilities
and past performance
• Integral public outreach and involvement
• Joint EPA-Siaic system evaluation
• The potential for some individual, advanced stale
programs to be designated as Performance Lead-
ership Programs
EPA and Native American tribes and Alaskan Vil-
lages are working on a similar, bui separate, change in
relationships. A Tribal EPA Agreement (TEA) is the result
of a dialogue between EPA and a specific tribe. The
agreements are formulated wiih ihc aim ol clearly defining
with each tribe mulual expectations and respective roles and
responsibilities forenvironmenial protection . Each TEA is
targeted to meet individual tribal needs as well as to fulfill
EPA's Federal trust and treaty responsibilities 10 tribes.
IM'Ci.s are another tool for implementing the new
framework. PPGs combine two or more categorical grants
into single grants. Their main advantage is that the new
single grant can be allocated with more flexibility to address
the same range of issues than can individual categorical
grants.
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
PURC 2
PPGs can be used 10 achieve four different levels
of flexibility. They can be used lo simplify adminisirali vc
and reporting requirements while maintaining separate
categorical grams. They may also be used to consolidate
several grants into a single grant, and may be integrated
with Performance Partnership Agreements.
At this time, the list of grants that may be pan of
a PPG include, but are not limited 10, the following:
Air pollution control (CAA section 105);
Water pollution control (CWA section 106):
Nonpoini source management (CWA section 319):
4. Water quality cooperative agreements (CWA section
104(b)(3));
5. Wetlands program development (CWA section
104(b)(3)):
6. Public water system supervision (SDVVA sections
1443(a) and 1451(a)(3)K
7. Underground water source protection (SDWA sec-
lion 1443(b));
8. Haxardous waste management (Solid Waste Disposal
Act section 301 l(aj);
9. Underground storage tank (Solid Wasic Disposal
Action section 2()()7(f)(2));
10. Radon assessment and mitigation (TSCA section
306);
11. Lead-based paint activities (TSCA section 4()4(g));
12. Toxics compliance and monitoring (TSCA section
28);
13. Pollution prevention incentives for Slates (PPA
sccton 6605);
14. Pesticide enforcement (FIFRA section 23(a)(l));
15. Pesticide applicator certification and training/pesti-
cide program (FIFRA section 23(a)(2)), and
16. General Assistance Grants to Indian Tribes (Indian
Environmental General Assistance Program Act of
1992); only eligible tribes can propose including
these funds in a PPG application.
Once these grants have been incorporated into a
PPG, the funds may be used to address those seis of
activities or issues that are allowed by the original grains.
For exam pie, if water and sol id waste funds are combined,
and the solid gram stipulations allowed use of resources
lor public outreach, funds that originally would have been
prevented from this use under the watergrant may be used
for groundwater Icachate protection or similar outreach
efforts.
LINK TO COMPARATIVE RISK
When viewed in the context of integrated envi-
ronmental rnanagmcm (which may include tools such as
goal-selling, strategic planning, and rclcvani measuring
systems), the Comparative Risk process can be used by
states, tribes, and communities during their process of
determining which programs they want lo have increased
flexibility. Comparative Risk provides several addi-
tional benefits, including:
- The risk assessment portion of a Comparative
Risk project provides a methodology for looking at risks
across a wide range of areas of concern (projects often
analy/.c environmental issues in terms of their risks to
human health, ecosystem health, and quality of life).
- When combined with other information about
program performance. Comparative Risk may helpsiaies
establish funding priorities. It also can be used lo build
government, stakeholder, and public consensus about
what the environmental protection priorities should be.
- The Comparative Risk process can make ex-
plicit the available scientific knowledge, ihc accompa-
nying uncertainties, and public values in an understand-
able formal thai is both representative of stale iribal
concerns and understandable to EPA and otheragencics j
-The Comparative Risk process can be a mecha-
nism for states, tribes, and localities to meaningfully
involve the general public in systematically comparing
environmental problems in their jurisdiction and then
translate them into feasible priorities lor action.
- The Comparative Risk process can lay the
groundwork fordevclopinga system to set environmen-
tal goals and track measurable environmental results. It
can contribute to the building of a new relationship
between EPA and states, tribes, and localities which is
based on EPA's shift away from oversight and toward
facilitation.
For more information, contact
Hodges Ankrah (202) 260-9840
or Joanne Dea (202) 260-0180
Regional and State Planning Division
fax (202) 260-2704
Ankrah.Rodges@epamail.epa.gov
Deajoanne@epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION. . . .
nroinfiiim;
SEPTEMBER IWf>
-------
EPA!s Comparative Risk Projects
Phase I Principles
JEROME TINIANOW, Steering Committee Chair for the Columbus, Ohio Comparative Risk project,
developed the following list of Principles for effective implementation of the assessment (Phase I) portion of
a community-based Comparative Risk project. Mr. Tinianow developed the list following the completion of
Phase I. The Principles are based on the experience of a community-based project, but they are also applicable
to regional and state projects.
1. The J imitations of risk assessment should be publicly acknowledged at the outset of the project and throughout
its duration.
2. The community undertaking the project should expressly acknowledge its obligation to shoulder its fair share
of the burden for reducing local, regional, national, and global risks.
3. Specific roles of project participants may differ, but membership in the project should be open to all. There
should be no "quotas" used to select committee members.
4. All participants in the project should serve in an individual, not a representative, capacity.
5. All participants in the project should agree at the outset that everything (i.e., any environmental risk and any
existing risk reduction program) could be subject to assessment during the project.
6. The project should focus not only on risks to human health, but also on risks to ecosystem health and to quality
of life.
7. Environmental Justice considerations should be incorporated throughout the project provided that the term
"Environmental Justice" is clearly defined and agreed upon by project members.
8. Risk assessment should not be confused with cost-benefit analysis. The degree of threat posed by a risk is
not the same as the costs and benefits of preventing or reducing it.
9. Risk ranking should not be confused with priority-setting. Risk ranking is a tool to be used in priority-setting.
10. Each risk ranking level should be clearly de-
fined in the risk ranking report.
11. Risks should be ranked "as currently regu-
lated." For example a "low" ranking means
the risk is low assuming current regulatory
regimes remain in place. Itdoes not imply that
current regulations should be reduced/elimi-
nated. Replacement of current regulation with
an alternative approach should be considered
only if the resulting level of risk under the
alternative approach is no greater than it is
currently, and the current level of risk reduc-
tion is not decreased. Current regulations can
be replaced, but for "low" risks current regu-
lations should only be replaced with some
thing that maintains the current level of risk
reduction.
12. A strategic plan should be prepared for the
reduction of each risk assessed in the project,
regardless of its ranking.
13. Every aspect of the project's operations should be open to the public.
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
EPA's Comparative Risk Projects
Training Tips for Projects
^
D
o
The Role of Training and Presentation in
Projects
Conducting training and, especially, giving pre-
sentations about any aspect of a Comparative Risk project
arc major activities of all projecvs. and can be key to
project effectiveness. Training and presentations are two
of the single most important means of communication
among project participants and between project partici-
pants, the public and policymakers. They also provide
unique educational, recruitment, motivational, analytic,
and marketing opportunities for project staff and partici-
pants.
For example, over the life of a project, staff and
participants may find themselves needing to: (1) train a
diverse audience whose members have varying levels of
knowledge about Comparative Risk; (2) describe project
activities to the public; (3) present scientific data and
analyses to a diverse audience, including project partici-
pants and members of the public who have little or no
scientific or technical background; (4) educate potential
foundation and corporate donors about Comparative
Risk; (5) brief the media about the status and results of
the project.
Training Tips
It may be helpful to consider the following as
you plan Comparative Risk training sessions:
• Identify the purpose of the training. When project
directors train new project members, the purpose of the
training is to bring newcomers up-to-speed about the
process and substance of Comparative Risk so they can
quickly become active and effective project participants.
• Know the audience. Since Comparative Risk projects
bring together stakeholders with diverse backgrounds,
education, and professional experience, the trainerneeds
to decide what level of complexity and detail is appropri-
ate for different types of audiences, which could 'range
from new stakeholders who know little about Compara-
tive Risk to a group of scientists who are collecting and
analyzing data for project technical reports, or a mix of
scientists and non-scientists who have varying levels of
knowl-edge about traditional and comparative risk as-
sessment.
• Consider that adults learn differently than younger
people. For example, adults solve immediate problems
and make immediate application of training material.
Adults also rely increasingly on priorknowledgc and ex-
perience, and somclimcs lack confidence that they can
take risks with what they've just learned. Familiari/e
yourself with the principles of adult learning before you
design and present the training.
• Have available binders/reading material about
Comparative Risk that trainees can write in and
refer to after the training.
• Be prepared not to use visual aids, so that if an over-
head projcctororscrecn is unavailable orbrokcn, you can
still proceed with the session.
• Some rules of thumb for visual aids are:
- slides are used to create visual information (like
chart and graphs) and to provide visual commen-
tary or enhance a concept by transforming ii into
an image
- each slide should contain no more than six lines
of text with six words per line
- overheads arc easily read six feet away if the lype
font is 24 pt. or larger
- slides are easily read at arm's length
- flipchart lettering should be one inch tall for
every 15 feet from the back row
• Have an agenda to avoid surprises, but continually
ask trainees what they want; be flexible by making
adjustments to your agenda.
(over)
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION.. . .
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
Page 2
• An effective training session is broken into
several well-planned segments; tips on the begin-
ning and ending sections include:
1. Use an ice breaker to get people involved.
Set the tone by letting them know why the session is
being held. State your objectives. Let the audience
know what's in it for them. Give them a preview of
the material to come.
2. Have the trainees summarize the top five
points made during the training session. Discuss what
they can take away from the session and apply to their
Comparative Risk project. Ask them what they liked
most about the session. Link this segment back to the
introductory segment. Provide a closing opportunity
for comments and questions. Always have a specific
closing, such as a quotation, that is your "hook".
Rehearse that closing so that it will be memorable.
• Evaluation. Give each person an evaluation sheet
to be completed before they leave. Ask forcommcnts
on stssion content and presentation.
• Set the tone. Remember, an introductory' training session
on Comparative Risk is one of the beginning activities of
at least a two-year relationship for all who arc involved in
the project; your tone should be one of high energy and
enthusiasm.
• Five-minute version for top management. Be pre-
pared to give a five-minute version of your presentation in
case a Steering Committee member who has limited time
wants to learn the essence of what you are presenting.
• Turn disaster into an advantage. Remember that if
things fall apart, i.e., if people seem confused, bored, or
distracted, yoursession can still have a lasting impact. Take
advantage of confusion to clarify major points. Prepare
yourself to answer questions on the full range of topics
covered in the session, and to refer trainees to additional
material and/or sources of information. Practice, practice
before giving the training.
• Invite the Regional representative. Extend an invita
lion to all training sessions to the EPA Regional rcprcsci
tativc with whom you've worked 10 develop the Compara-
tive Risk project workplan.
I-oi more information, contact
Debra Gutenson (202) 260-2731,
or Marilyn Katz (202) 260-7554
Regional and State Planning Division
fax (202) 260-2704
Gutenson.Debra@epamail.epa.gov
Katz.Marilyn@epamail.epa.gov
REGIONAL AND STATE PLANNING DIVISION
promoting environmental planning
SEPTEMBER 19'
------- |