NACEPT

Sh*pmg the N*lon» £rwrof»mo*t*l Policy

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Teleconference

Call-in Number: 866-299-3188, Conference Code: 2022330068#

Tuesday, November 28, 2017
12:00-4:00 p.m. EST

Meeting Summary

Welcome, Introductions and Overview of the Agenda

Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the National Advisor}' Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT or Council), Federal Advisor}! Committee Management Division
(FACMD), Office of Resources, Operations and Management (OROM), Office of Administration and
Resources Management (OARM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): and William Ross, Jr.,
NACEPT Chair, Council Member, Gillings School of Global Public Health Advisory Council, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Mr. Eugene Green (NACEPT DFO, EPA) welcomed the NACEPT members, explained that the
teleconference was being recorded for meeting summary purposes, and called the roll. A list of meeting
participants is provided in Appendix A.

Mr. William Ross, Jr. (NACEPT Chair, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) also extended
his welcome to the NACEPT members and other participants. He thanked the group leaders for their
leadership and the members for their efforts in drafting NACEPT"s second report on citizen science. He
provided an overview of the agenda, which includes a discussion on the report, included as Appendix B.

The official certification of the minutes by the Chair is included as Appendix C.

Public Comments

Eugene Green, NACEPT DFO, FACMD, OROM, OARM, EPA
Mr. Green called for public comments; none were offered.

EPA Citizen Science Updates

Jay Benforado, Chief Innovation Officer, Office of Research and Development (ORD), EPA

Although EPA's full policy team is not in place following the administration change, Mr. Jay Benforado
has received requests for information about citizen science from the new EPA Administrator. NACEPT" s
first report on citizen science was provided to the transition team.

EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has initiated an audit of citizen science at EPA. In addition
to keeping abreast of various policy directions and performing investigations of fraud and abuse, the
office also helps the Agency to position itself for the future. OIG has identified citizen science as an
important area based on NACEPT" s first report, the passing of the Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science
Act of 2016, and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on the topic. The audit is a
cooperative effort that began within the last month, Mr. Benforado is the lead for representing the
Agency. Staff are engaged in the effort and have briefed senior management.

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

1

-------
One strategic objective in President Donald Trump's draft strategic plan is to provide additional platforms
for public engagement. OIG envisions citizen science as fitting into that strategic objective. The scope of
OIG's effort is broad and will determine whether EPA has developed controls on how to manage the use
of citizen science data and results to meet the Agency's mission. The scope includes citizen science
projects funded and supported by EPA and citizen science without direct EPA funding that may produce
data with which the Agency may engage.

OIG has begun examining EPA's citizen science website and is attempting to understand NACEPT's
spectrum of citizen science uses. The goal is to bring more clarity and characterize how citizen science
data contribute to work at the Agency. The plan is to question EPA staff about how citizen science may
be able to be integrated into existing work. To inform its work, OIG also asked for existing guidance
documents about how the Agency regularizes the use of citizen science. Multiple guidance documents
exist about how normal science requirements apply to citizen science, but very little guidance exists that
relates directly to citizen science itself per se. Scoping is expected to take 90 days from the October
announcement, with a year-long study to be announced in early 2018.

Mr. Ross asked whether NACEPT members may be interviewed by OIG. Mr. Benforado explained that
OIG considers the NACEPT report as the definitive statement regarding EPA and citizen science. Some
of the NACEPT members' names have been provided to OIG, and these members have been informed,
but OIG may contact any of the NACEPT members.

Ms. Bridgett Luther (Code Blue Innovations) asked about the driver for OIG's interest in this topic. Mr.
Benforado explained that OIG indicated that the office had been considering this topic for 2 to 3 years,
and the NACEPT report, recent legislation, and the two GAO reports about the value of citizen science
and open innovation tools for government work prompted the office to focus on it at this time. OIG would
like EPA to be more proactive and less reactive to the recommendations NACEPT made in its first report.

Dr. Emmanuel (Cris) Liban (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) asked whether
the OIG effort would affect the Council's current work. Mr. Benforado did not think that it would because
the timing will not synchronize. OIG will be starting its study early next year; NACEPT's second citizen
science report should inform the OIG study, but the reverse will not be true. OIG would like to identify
the barriers and determine what is limiting EPA in using citizen science data. Dr. Liban noted the
importance of determining NACEPT's role following the issuance of the second report. Mr. Benforado
thought that NACEPT could help to inform the audit.

Ms. Barbara Jean Horn (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) indicated that she had not been contacted yet.
Mr. Benforado responded that OIG still is scoping the issue and will not begin the interview process for a
few more months.

Mr. Benforado reported that skepticism of citizen science data quality is a barrier to EPA, states and tribes
using these data. During a meeting, approximately 100 stakeholders in New England requested more
guidance on data quality and how to develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan. In response, EPA's Office
of Environmental Information and Region 1 determined that it would be beneficial to develop guidelines.
The resulting workgroup took 6 months to create a plain language handbook that explains to external
organizations how to perform quality assurance (QA). Currently, states and tribes are providing input on
the handbook, the goal of which is to provide citizen scientists with tools and procedures so that they
know what kind of QA meets the intended use of their data and how to document QA. This information
must be accessible for citizen scientists who do not have QA experience. After these government partners
have provided their input, the handbook will undergo a limited review—which will include NACEPT
members—that has a cross-section of various areas of expertise to ensure many perspectives are
represented.

2

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Mr. Benforado plans to send a request to determine which members have the time to review the 10- to
15-page handbook, which also includes 24 templates and several examples.

Ms. Shannon Dosemagen (Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Sciences) asked whether the
handbook would be released prior to the next NACEPT report, as it would be helpful to be able to
reference the handbook in the report. Mr. Benforado explained that the goal is to release the final draft in
February 2018, so it should be possible to reference the handbook in the second NACEPT report.

The following NACEPT members volunteered to review the handbook: Ms. Horn, Ms. Dosemagen,
Dr. Graciela Ramirez-Toro (InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico), Ms. Laureen Boles (New Jersey
Environmental Justice Alliance), Mr. Jeffrey Mears (Oneida Nation) and Mr. Robert Kerr (Pure
Strategies, Inc.). Ms. Luther asked to be contacted and will determine then if she is available to provide a
review. Mr. Benforado explained that he will include the timeline when he sends the document. Members
can provide a general review summarized in two to three sentences about how to make the document
stronger and accessible to citizen science organizations. Alternatively, they can provide an in-depth
review. In response to a question from Mr. Kerr, Mr. Benforado thought that the review might occur as
early as mid-December.

Dr. Alison Parker (ORD, EPA) explained that Harvard Law School's Emmett Environmental Law and
Policy Clinic recently had released a manual for citizen scientists, which is helpful for citizen science
organizations and citizen scientists to plan and design projects and consider potential issues and relevant
and potentially relevant laws. The appendix includes a state-by-state guide to laws relevant to citizen
scientists. A coordinating workshop was held at Harvard University. NACEPT's first report on citizen
science is referenced heavily in the manual and was discussed extensively at the workshop. Mr. Bob
Perciasepe, the former EPA Deputy Administrator who initiated and promoted citizen science efforts at
EPA, spoke at the workshop and praised the NACEPT report; at the meeting he had noted that the
spectrum developed by NACEPT is a useful way to think of citizen science data.

Presentation Overview of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe: Economic
and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Council Member, Gillings School of Global Public Health Advisory
Council, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Council Members

Mr. Ross presented about NACEPT's first report on citizen science at the 2017 Economic and
Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, Austria, in October 2017. At the meeting, he directed the audience's attention
to the title of the report and explained that NACEPT had intended the title to be unusual and intriguing
because of what the Council had discovered about citizen science during the research and writing of the
report. He told the audience that NACEPT had discovered three important things about citizen science:

1.	It is a universe of stories of people participating in science in ways that are voluntary and
meaningful and that bring change.

2.	The universe of citizen science is a rapidly expanding universe, driven in part by emerging
technologies that allow the public, in the words of Dr. Caren Cooper, to take the pulse of the
planet or to create the infrastructure for community-based problem solving.

3.	The magic about the way citizen science connects citizens and science and about the way it could
connect agencies and the public is not being tapped to the extent it could and needs to be tapped
by agencies like EPA.

Mr. Kerr asked whether other presenters at the meeting spoke about citizen science. Mr. Ross explained
that his panel was devoted to promoting good governance in the environmental field, and the other
presenters focused on fighting environmental crimes. He was the only one to speak specifically about

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

3

-------
citizen science, but many people approached him during breaks to learn more about the topic, and he
hopes that they will stay in touch. In early December, OSCE's Ministerial Council will meet and obtain
input derived from the various implementation meetings; it will be interesting to see if citizen science is
mentioned in the year-end report and the recommendations of OSCE's leadership council.

Mr. Benforado noted that an upcoming United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) meeting in
Nairobi, Kenya—which EPA staff are slated to attend—will include a session on citizen science. He
explained that Dr. Anne Bowser of the Wilson Center has been helping connect the (U.S.) Citizen Science
Association with its European and Australian counterparts. An African citizen science association may be
established. Ms. Dosemagen provided additional details about the meeting, explaining that this is the first
citizen science delegation to the UNEP, and the delegation includes representatives from the American,
European and Australian citizen science associations. She is looking forward to writing a report about her
experiences after the meeting. Mr. Benforado added that Dr. Gayle Hagler, who works on air sensors at
EPA's Research Triangle Park facility, is presenting at the meeting, and her first slide is the cover of the
first NACEPT citizen science report.

Mr. Green reported that the first report has been translated into Spanish, and this version is expected to be
published within the next month.

Dr. Patricia Gallagher (Drexel University) reported that her colleague is teaching a course on citizen
science at her university. NACEPT's first report is part of the reading material for the course, and
Drs. Gallagher and Parker met with the class. The students were curious about the approach NACEPT
took in stating that environmental protection belongs to the public. Her colleague indicated that it was
helpful for students to learn about how these types of reports are developed.

Discussion on Initial Integrated Draft of NACEPT's Report on EPA and Citizen Science: Building
Collaborations and Partnerships

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Council Member, Gillings School of Global Public Health Advisory
Council, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Council Members

Dr. Parker explained that the final deadline for developing the next draft is mid-February 2018 so that the
final report can be released in April 2018. Mr. Green added that the teleconference to approve the second
report will occur in late February 2018; therefore, the draft must be completed with enough time to allow
Council members to review it before that teleconference. Mr. Benforado emphasized that these are firm
deadlines.

Mr. Green explained that the action items from this teleconference are being expedited and would be
available by the end of the week. Members then will work on the draft during the next 3 to 4 weeks. Any
quotes (and permission to use them) and acknowledgments must be gathered during this time. The core
editing team will have 3 to 4 weeks to incorporate the material into the next draft for additional comments
and feedback. Following the February teleconference, the core editing team and the contractor will have 2
to 3 weeks to incorporate any final changes or additional edits. The final report must be ready to be
transmitted to the EPA Administrator in mid- to late-April 2018. Several NACEPT members' terms end
in April, and the goal is to transmit the report before these terms end.

Ms. Dosemagen provided an overview of the current draft and how it was developed. In May of 2017,
NACEPT members assembled four workgroups to build on the research and recommendations from the
first NACEPT report on citizen science. Each workgroup represented core focus areas around which EPA
citizen science collaborations could take place. During the spring and summer of 2017, these workgroups
conducted extensive interviews and research into each focus area to provide top-level recommendations
and core thoughts to a core editing team that includes Ms. Dosemagen, Dr. Parker and Mr. Dan Bator
(ORD, EPA); Mr. Green, Mr. Benforado, Mr. Ross and Mr. Mark Joyce (FACMD, OROM, OARM,
EPA) also assist with editing.

4

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
After reviewing the deliverables from each of the workgroups, recommendations were consolidated into a
single draft report with an overall theme of investing in partnerships to move information to action. The
goal is to produce a more concise report than the first report. Four themes emerged during the research
and writing phases: (1) invest in partnerships to move citizen science from information to action;

(2)	support strong partnerships with state, tribal and local governments; (3) support strong partnerships
with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and (4) support strong partnerships in open technology.
Within these themes are nine recommendations that are tighter and more direct than those in the first
report.

Three options exist for how the report can be organized within the broader concept of information to
action and how partnerships can bring about action: (1) use the partnership elements of the first report's
case studies, (2) use the new case studies submitted during the interview process of the second report, or

(3)	examine the case studies and interview responses to generate concise thoughts about the needs and
challenges for moving information to action.

The introduction of the current draft provides a recent history of citizen science, including pertinent
reports. The next four sections of the report detail the nine recommendations:

Invest in partnerships to move citizen science from information to action:

1.	Leverage opportunities in legislation to bring citizen science into decisions.

2.	Build ethical principles to guide partner interactions.

3.	Understand the diversity of concerns, resource needs and circumstances of partner organizations.
Support strong partnerships with state, tribal and local governments:

4.	Identify and catalog local data needs and applications and determine the best way to engage the
public in the collection of needed data.

Support strong partnerships with NGOs:

5.	Empower EPA employees by establishing a clear policy and guidance.

6.	Explore the potential for special environmental projects to fund citizen science.

Support strong partnerships in open technology

7.	Increase efforts towards transparency, open licensing and accessibility in hardware, software,
data, models, publishing, grants and peer review.

8.	Maximize the added value of stakeholder involvement while prioritizing EPA's inherently
governmental role.

9.	Facilitate partnerships in technology development by training EPA employees on advanced
technologies.

Mr. Benforado commented that readers will benefit from having figures that frame the information.

Figure 1 can be read from right to left or left to right to provide a framing of the information. It is
important for EPA, states, tribes and others to have a framework for moving information to a decision or
action.

Ms. Luther noted that the material submitted by her workgroup had been shortened and wondered
whether additional material would be added. She also had questions about the recommendation regarding
ethical principles. Dr. Parker explained that the editing team had consolidated a good deal of information
and edited the material to streamline the report. If important items were excluded, they can be re-added.
The goal is to make this report more accessible. Mr. Bator added that once "information to action"
became the overarching theme, the contents of all of the workgroups were dispersed into all of the

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

5

-------
sections. Dr. Parker agreed that the content from each workgroup has been moved to different sections
than originally submitted.

Dr. Liban sits on other committees that make recommendations, and some recommendations languish
because they do not have a champion or available funding. He did not see information about
implementation of the recommendations in the current draft. Mr. Benforado responded that the basic
messages are sound, understandable and implementable. He thought that the basic framework of the
report—which provides an overview about investing in partnerships and then working closely with state,
tribal and local governments as an activity area, determining how to partner more effectively with NGOs,
and then partnering on technology development—will work inside the Agency. Dr. Liban reiterated that
recommendations need a champion. Citizen science organizations may have questions about next steps,
resources, implementation and so forth. Ms. Dosemagen stated that the editing team will keep this in
mind when performing the next edit and can think about providing action steps within each
recommendation. The first report was successful in demonstrating how the recommendations could be
applied practically. The recommendations can include a path forward instead of just explanations about
the recommendations. Dr. Liban agreed that this is what he would like to see.

Mr. Ross asked each Council member present to provide his or her thoughts on the current draft.

Everyone was complimentary about the draft; specific input follows.

Mr. Kerr had the same concerns as Dr. Liban, and he would like to see more focus on action steps. The
framework and objectives are clear but could be sharpened. For those who need to take action, it would be
useful to include a graph or diagram that provides a structure of what the approach could be. Action steps
are important to include, and case studies could be used to illustrate how to move forward. The diagrams
and case studies could be used in tandem to provide an understanding of how to implement citizen
science. A previous NACEPT report on pollution prevention was used extensively at the Agency, and
each section "spoke" to each group within the Agency. He reiterated that more details on how to make
citizen science happen at the Agency, including accompanying graphics, are needed in the report.

Mr. Matthew Howard (The Water Council) commented that, like Ms. Luther, he had noticed that a good
deal of content had been removed. He thought that the recommendations fell under three categories, those
aimed at EPA staff or program, those targeted to partnerships and stakeholders, and those addressing
technology or data issues. He will email his thoughts about how to organize the report under these
categories.

Ms. Boles noted that, in thinking about the report, she had considered the example of a neighborhood that
has identified a problem and might want to conduct citizen science but is not formally organized; how can
such a group get the attention of EPA and scientists?

Dr. Irasema Coronado (The University of Texas at El Paso) noted that she had sent her comments by
email. She thought that the report should use the term "data" rather than "information" because "data" has
more credibility when organizations want to share with EPA. She cited an example of the Agency
dismissing a community group's information about air quality. The report must address how to validate
community organizations.

Dr. Ramesh Chawla (Howard University) asked whether the report will be published to NACEPT's
website when it is complete. Mr. Green and Mr. Benforado explained that the report will be publicly
available on the EPA website when it is transmitted in April. Dr. Chawla commented that the report is
focused on EPA and asked whether there would be an effort to extract general information to make the
report less specific to EPA. Mr. Benforado noted that a good deal of cross-agency learning exists, but
NACEPT's charge was designed to be advise the EPA Administrator. Other agencies contribute to
environmental protection are interested in the report, but the report should not broadened to include them.

6

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Dr. Gallagher supported the idea of keeping the report sharp and crisp and agreed that the
recommendations need implementation and action steps added to them.

Ms. Horn noted that her comments are from the perspective of the charge in that this is advice specifically
to EPA. If the Agency accepts these recommendations, the scientists do not necessarily need to change;
rather, EPA needs to change its culture to be open to accepting citizen science data. EPA may need to
encourage its state, tribal and local partners to integrate citizen science into their work, as well. EPA
could incentivize this. Her view is that the report is less of a document to tell citizen science groups what
to do and more about telling EPA what actions the Agency could take to promote citizen science and use
of citizen science data. She thought that data and information are important, separate pieces and should
not be combined. She would like the report to include more takeaways; each recommendation should
include a summary takeaway (e.g., potential approaches) of three to four sentences. The recommendations
also should include language that relates back to the theme of information to action. Finally, each case
study should serve a purpose toward the theme and provide insight to where EPA may have a role.

Mr. James Joerke (Johnson County [Kansas] Department of Health and Environment) commented that, in
terms of the process, it might be beneficial for future reports to allow more cross-consultation among the
workgroups or even share workgroup drafts with each other.

Dr. Liban agreed with Ms. Horn's comments about the charge and the focus on Agency actions. He
reiterated the need for implementation steps to define roles and how to move the recommendations
forward. For example, the regions may have a significant role in implementation. Citizen science groups
should be able to use the report to inform how they work with EPA.

Ms. Luther did not have additional comments from those she shared earlier except to thank Dr. Ramirez-
Toro for her efforts in leading the workgroup during a major natural disaster in her area.

Dr. Ramirez-Toro thought that examples needed to be added to the recommendations. Headquarters'
programs and regions do not necessarily interact with communities in the same way, and examples of the
interactions would be helpful.

Mr. Mears agreed with many of the NACEPT members' comments. Making citizen science a central
tenant of EPA and empowering EPA staff is critical, as is integrating citizen science into existing laws
and programs. Citizen science is not a stand-alone program or project; it is a new way for EPA to meet its
mission. The Agency has recently spoken of "going back to basics" in accomplishing its mission, and
listening to citizens is getting back to the basics. In addition to advising EPA, he also considers how to
inform tribes and other organizations about how they can work with the Agency on citizen science. The
first step is advising EPA, and the next step is how to educate other organizations on how to work with
EPA.

Dr. Dale Medearis (Northern Virginia Regional Commission) and Mr. Donald Trahan (Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality) agreed with the previous members' comments and did not offer
any additional comments about the report.

After hearing from each of the members present on the teleconference, the group discussed how to move
forward in developing the next draft.

In terms of Ms. Luther's earlier questions on ethical principles, Mr. Benforado has seen other
organizations build principles that guide their citizen science work, so an ethics discussion could be
integrated into the report at that level. Ethical issues of citizen science is a topic that has always been
introduced in discussions about citizen science. Mr. Ross noted that at the NACEPT face-to-face meeting
in May, Mr. Omega Wilson (West End Revitalization Association) had provided several ethics examples.
Ms. Dosemagen commented that an inherent problem in citizen science is that many of the projects are
top-down, which can result in nonequitable relationships. Mr. Wilson had described a memorandum of

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

7

-------
understanding that guided the principles of relationships between communities and research institutions
and provided a structure for how equitable partnerships can exist. This type of an agreement could be
more widely implemented among citizen science projects and is an area to consider when providing
recommendations to EPA. Successful partnerships rely on balanced and strong ethical underpinnings.

Mr. Bator thought that the term "ethical" had evolved from language submitted in regard to "equitable"
partnerships. Ms. Luther expressed concern that the term "ethical" might have moral connotations, so the
term "equitable" might be the better term. She agreed that the concept is important, because establishing
equitable relationships is the baseline for citizen science. Dr. Coronado thought that the term "respectful"
would be appropriate. Many of the groups she works with feel disrespected by government agencies.
Ms. Horn thought that any relationship needs a set of boundaries, guidelines and principles; the term
"guiding principles" could be used. She noted that the terms "equal" and "equitable" are not the same,
and she also suggested providing examples of guiding principles, why they are needed, and how they
provide credibility and trust to establish a foundation.

Ms. Boles noted that one discussion at the May face-to-face meeting centered on the disconnect of the
conflicting views of scientists who see projects as research to be published, whereas the community sees
projects as opportunities for problem resolution. This led to the discussion in the report about equal and
equitable partnerships. Dr. Ramirez-Toro agreed with changing the word ethical and supported the
inclusion of case studies to illustrate the point.

Dr. Parker summarized that the Council members would like the term "ethical" changed, more
explanation added, and perhaps to include this recommendation in the third recommendation about the
diversity of concerns for organizations. The importance of the action side of "information to action" for
communities also needs to be emphasized. Mr. Ross liked the phrase "roadmap for collaboration."

Mr. Ross said that the intriguing title of the first report was part of the success, and he would like this
report to have a title that ties into the first one. The following titles have been suggested:

1.	Environmental Protection Belongs to the Public: Moving From Information to Action Through
Partnerships in Citizen Science

2.	Environmental Protection Belongs to the Public: Harnessing Information and Action Through
Partnerships in Citizen Science

3.	Partnering With the Public: Moving Information to Action Through Citizen Science

4.	Information to Action: Strengthening Citizen Science Partnerships for Environmental Protection

Mr. Ross preferred the first option and asked for opinions from the NACEPT members. Mr. Benforado
said that the title and messaging is important. His concern is that the first several words are too similar to
the first report's title, which could lead to confusion. His preference is the fourth option.

Dr. Coronado reiterated that she thought "information" should be changed to "data." Mr. Ross noted that
information includes data, so being specific could lose some context, and using both terms would be
wordy. Ms. Horn did not support the use of the term "data" to replace "information." Information is more
encompassing. Dr. Coronado cited examples of community groups contacting federal agencies with
information, and the agencies always respond with, "Where are the data?" The term "information" is
general, whereas the term "data" is more specific, and the government will not act without data.
Ms. Dosemagen explained that she tends to use both terms together. Data are important for government
action, but information is where context is derived; it can be visual, narrative (story telling) or based on
experience. She suggested using both terms, even if that makes the title longer. A NACEPT member
suggested using "information to data to action."

8

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Ms. Horn noted that data are turned into information to effect an action or result. Some data never are
used because the data are not translated into information. They are different and related, and it is about the
workflow between them. Using all three terms may lengthen the title, but NACEPT would be honoring
the value of all of them. She supported connecting the title to the original report while understanding
Mr. Benforado's point about the possible confusion. She suggested labeling the report as part of a series
so that it is obvious that more than one exists.

Dr. Parker noted that the phrase "information to action" is a good catch phrase for the report. The title
could use this phrase, but the text could always use "data to information to action." Ms. Horn noted the
need to explain this framework early in the report. Mr. Benforado commented that data and information
are considered separate by experts, and this distinction could be made in the opening paragraph rather
than in the title.

Dr. Chawla stated that when he hears "information," he thinks in more general terms, whereas the term
"data" is more specific to him. The terms are very different, and the preference in scientific literature is to
use the term "data" rather than "information," which does not have as much of a scientific basis behind it.

Mr. Ross asked the NACEPT members to consider the potential titles for a future discussion through
email after more information has been gathered and the next draft is complete.

Mr. Benforado provided his reactions to the feedback provided by the members, which he thought had
some commonality. The editing team will need to consider the feasibility of organizing the report within
the three categories that were suggested by Mr. Howard. The first three recommendations are different
from the remaining six in that they are overarching. In terms of messaging, the report needs to be made
accessible for policy and decision makers. He asked the NACEPT members to consider short quotes (one
sentence) and figures that provide the messaging in a concise manner. The quotes currently in the draft
are too long. The case studies are important, but a number of the current case studies are not relevant to
EPA. It is important that the case studies amplify the thoughts in the report. Mr. Benforado commented
that the recommendations are good, but they do not "sing" yet and need to be reworded. For example, he
was unsure that Recommendation 4 was the right recommendation for that category. Recommendation 6
is important but may not resonate with the current EPA Administrator. Recommendation 7 is dense.
Recommendation 8 is not worded clearly. He suggested sharpening the recommendations.

Dr. Parker explained that the editing team had questions for the NACEPT members about certain areas of
the report. First, the Council needs to determine whether any of the recommendations will be cut from the
report. The second question is whether NACEPT would like to aim for a shorter report with less
explanatory text than is in the current draft or add more explanatory text.

Dr. Chawla noted the importance of defining the target audience for the report. Scientific personnel may
appreciate a more in-depth report, whereas policy makers might prefer a more concise report. Mr. Ross
explained that EPA is the first audience for the report given the charge, but the report will be read by a
diverse audience. Shorter is better than longer when reaching a broad audience. Dr. Chawla suggested that
the report itself be concise, but hyperlinks be added for those who would like more information.
Ms. Luther supported the idea of a shorter report, but she thought that Recommendation 7 needed more
explanation. The report will be more widely distributed if it is easier to read. The reports included in the
current draft could be summarized in a paragraph, and the reports themselves placed at the back.

Ms. Horn supported the second report being shorter than the first report, but the first question to consider
is whether the report contains the right content. Each point should be concise and clear as possible. The
right examples and the right recommendations will allow the report to be succinct. Dr. Gallagher agreed.
She reread the first report recently and found it daunting. She thought that most of the individuals whom
she interviewed only had read the executive summary.

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

9

-------
Dr. Parker asked the NACEPT members how they wanted to incorporate the case studies into the report.
Mr. Ross supported using new case studies unless an important "teachable moment" came out of any of
the case studies included in the first report. Dr. Parker noted that Ms. Horn's point about the case studies
needing to have a purpose supports the third option, which is to select a short piece of a particular case
study and link it to text or a concept in the report. Ms. Horn thought that it would be beneficial to use case
studies within the recommendations as examples of how EPA can implement the Council's
recommendations. Mr. Ross agreed with the current approach of connecting the case studies to Figure 1.
Powerful case studies will help the figure to provide insight. Dr. Parker noted that Mr. David Rejeski
(Environmental Law Institute) had developed the figure, and she could follow up with him to determine
whether he had specific case studies in mind when he created the figure. Mr. Benforado agreed with
Mr. Ross' suggestion and thought that the case studies could illustrate the concepts included in the figure.
He was concerned, however, about the time that this would take. Ms. Horn commented that it would take
less time if just a few sentences of each case study are used instead of trying to build an entire story.
Dr. Parker agreed that this was the crux of the third option. A participant commented that connecting
abbreviated case studies with Figure 1 would allow the line (path) to be reflective of how a specific group
took information to action. Dr. Gallagher supported this idea and noted that case studies could be further
described in an appendix.

Mr. Mears commented that he often cites the 118-year-old National Audubon Society Christmas Bird
Count as a successful example of citizen science. Prior to the bird count, as many birds as possible were
shot on Christmas. Not only is the Christmas Bird Count an example of a successful long-term project, it
is an example of successfully changing the paradigm. This is an important concept.

Dr. Parker asked the NACEPT members what additional material is needed. Ms. Boles responded that she
may be able obtain additional information from Mr. Wilson, as she plans to hear him speak that week, to
strengthen Recommendation 2. Dr. Parker added that some information could be obtained from the
recently released National Environmental Justice Advisory Council report. Mr. Chawla commented that,
from a community group perspective, with a title that includes the language "information to action," he
would expect a step-by-step approach to engaging in a successful citizen science project. He wondered
whether the report accomplished this. Dr. Parker noted that the primary target is for EPA to take
information to action; community groups are the secondary audience. The report probably does not have
enough content for the secondary audience, but this is outside the scope of the charge. Mr. Benforado
agreed. The report is meant to help the Agency determine its role in supporting information to action.

This should be explained clearly in the opening of the report. In response to Mr. Chawla's comment,
Ms. Boles suggested a combination of the first and fourth titles— Strengthening Citizen Science
Partnerships With EPA: Moving From Information to Action.

Dr. Parker asked the Council members to consider how to present information visually. A contractor is
available to help design figures for the report. Ms. Horn thought that it would be beneficial to illustrate
partnerships graphically, allowing readers to visualize potential partnerships with EPA. NACEPT
members also will be asked to supply photographs, as in the last report, to illustrate the text.

Dr. Coronado asked about the quality needed for photographs and whether mobile phone pictures would
be acceptable. Dr. Parker thought that if the phone is set at a high enough resolution, these pictures would
be acceptable. Permission also will be needed. Included in the materials for this teleconference is a
document with information about images and copyrights; members should refer to this document.

Mr. Bator explained that the report is intended to be a stand-alone report, so duplicative language from
the first report could be removed to help streamline this report. He asked whether any of the NACEPT
members had noticed any repetitive language. Mr. Ross thought that the report is a good follow-on to the
first report, and any less explanation would leave a gap.

10

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Action Items and Next Steps

William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Council Member, Gillings School of Global Public Health Advisory
Council, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Council Members

Mr. Green explained that the editing team will be meeting with the contractor the following week to
discuss the layout and visual aspects of the report. Any photographs that were submitted for the previous
report but not used can be resubmitted for consideration for this report.

The contractor will be providing a brief summary of comments and action items from this call to
Mr. Green by the end of the week so that the editing team and NACEPT members can refer to this
information when moving forward on the next draft.

NACEPT members who have additional comments that they did not share during the teleconference will
email them to Ms. Dosemagen and Mr. Green by December 1. Council members will provide any
additional material for the report no later than December 22, particularly in terms of case studies that
apply to Figure 1. Workgroup leads will be the primary point of contact for the editing team and will
share any information with their workgroups.

Mr. Green will poll the members about their availability for the February teleconference to approve the
report.

Mr. Benforado encouraged NACEPT to be strategic about its recommendations and ensure that they are
streamlined. The message should be targeted to how EPA can increase the value and use of citizen
science.

Adjournment

Mr. Green and Mr. Benforado thanked the NACEPT members for their work on the report. Mr. Ross
thanked the workgroup leads, editing team, EPA colleagues and contract support. Mr. Ross adjourned the
meeting at 3:15 p.m. EST.

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

11

-------
Action Items

•	Mr. Benforado will send an email to the NACEPT members about the review of the Quality
Assurance Handbook for Citizen Science when it is ready for their review.

•	Mr. Howard will email his thoughts about how to organize the report under the three categories
he identified while reading the report—those aimed at EPA staff or program, those targeted to
partnerships and stakeholders, and those addressing technology or data issues.

•	Dr. Parker will follow up with Mr. Rejeski to determine whether he had specific case studies in
mind when he created Figure 1.

•	Ms. Boles will seek input from Mr. Wilson to strengthen Recommendation 2.

•	Mr. Green will poll the members about their availability for the February teleconference to
approve the report.

•	NACEPT members will:

o Consider potential title options for the second report,
o Consider how to present information visually in the report.

o Provide photographs (with appropriate permission) for the report.

o Send any additional comments via email that they did not share during the teleconference to
Ms. Dosemagen and Mr. Green no later than December 1.

o Provide any additional material for the report no later than December 22.

o Identify case studies that relate to Figure 1 no later than December 22.

12

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Appendix A

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)

Meeting Participants

NACEPT Members

Ms. Laureen M. Boles

State Director

New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
Trenton, NJ

Dr. Ramesh C. Chawla

Professor/Chair of Chemical Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
College of Engineering, Architecture

and Computer Sciences
Howard University
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Irasema Coronado

Professor

Department of Political Science
University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX

Ms. Shannon Dosemagen (Acting NACEPT

Vice Chair)

President/Executive Director
Public Laboratory for Open Technology and

Sciences
New Orleans, LA

Dr. Patricia M. Gallagher

Associate Professor

Provost's Fellow in Sustainability

Department of Civil, Architectural and

Environmental Engineering
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA

Ms. Barbara Jean Horn

Water Quality Resource Specialist
Water Unit

Department of Natural Resources
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Durango, CO

Mr. Matthew C. Howard

Director

Alliance for Water Stewardship, North America
The Water Council
Milwaukee, WI

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

Mr. James Joerke

Deputy Director

Johnson County (Kansas) Department of Health

and Environment
Olathe, KS

Mr. Robert Kerr

Co-Founder and Principal
Pure Strategies, Inc.

Reston, VA

Dr. Emmanuel Crisanto (Cris) C.B. Liban

Executive Officer

Environmental Compliance and Sustainability
Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority
Los Angeles, CA

Ms. Bridgett Luther

Senior Vice President of Sustainability
Code Blue Innovations
San Francisco, CA

Mr. Jeffrey M. Mears

Environmental Area Manager
Environmental Health and Safety Division
Oneida Nation
Oneida, WI

Dr. Dale G. Medearis

Senior Environmental Planner
Environmental and Planning Services
Northern Virginia Regional Commission
Fairfax, VA

Dr. Graciela I. Ramirez-Toro

Institutional Director

Center for Environmental Education,

Conservation and Research
InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico
San German, PR

Mr. William G. Ross (NACEPT Chair)
Council Member

Gillings School of Global Public Health

Advisory Council
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC

13

-------
Mr. Donald Trahan

Attorney

Senior Environmental Specialist
Office of the Secretary

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, LA

NACEPT Designated Federal Officer
Mr. Eugene Green

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources, Operations and

Management
Office of Administration and Resources

Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (1601M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2432
Email: green.eugene@epa.gov

EPA Participants

Mr. Dan Bator

ASPPH Research Fellow
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
William Jefferson Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7362
Email: bator.daniel@epa.gov

Mr. Jay Benforado

Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (8101R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202) 564-3262
Email: benforado.jay@epa.gov

Ms. Emily Hall

Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (8101R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Email: hall.emily@epa.gov

Dr. Alison Parker

ORISE Research Fellow

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Email: parker.alison@epa.gov

Other Participants

Lisa Fuhrmann

Earthjustice
Washington, D.C.

Contractor Support

Kristen LeBaron

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Phone: (301) 670-4990
Email: klebaron@scgcorp.com

Maria Osvald

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Phone: (301) 670-4990
Email: mosvald@scgcorp.com

14

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Appendix B
Agenda for the November 28, 2017 NACEPT Meeting

NACEPT

Shaping the Nation's Environmental Policy

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Agenda

Tuesday, November 28, 2017
12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. EST

U.S. EPA William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1132
1201 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Call-in Number: 866-299-3188, Conference Code: 2022330068#

12:00 p.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Agenda

Eugene Green

NACEPT Designated Federal Officer

Bill Ross
NACEPT Chair

12:15 p.m. Public Comments

12:30 p.m. EPA Citizen Science Updates

•	Announcement of Citizen Science Audit From EPA's Office of Inspector General

•	Quality Assurance Handbook for Citizen Science

Jay Benforado

EPA Chief Innovation Officer

12:50 p.m. Presentation Overview of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in
Europe: Economic and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting

Bill Ross
NACEPT Chair

1:00 p.m. Discussion on Initial Integrated Draft of NACEPT's Report on EPA and Citizen
Science: Building Collaborations and Partnerships

Bill Ross
NACEPT Chair

Council Members

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

15

-------
3:30 p.m. Action Items and Next Steps

Bill Ross
NACEPT Chair

Council Members

4:00 p.m. Adjournment

16

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

-------
Appendix C
Chair Certification of Minutes

I, William G. Ross, Jr., Chair of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT), certify that this is the final version of the complete minutes for the teleconference held on
November 28, 2017, and that the minutes accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of the meeting.



s

v/ f

Januarv 9.2018

William G. Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair

Date

NACEPT Meeting Summary, November 28, 2017

17

-------