Engaging the American People

A Review of EPA’s Public Participation

Policy and Regulations

with Recommendations for Action

Prepared for the EPA Administrator

by

the EPA Public Participation Policy

Review Workgroup

December 2000

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Policy, Economics

and Innovation

Washington DC 20460

EPA 240-R-00-005

December 2000

www.epa.gov/stakeholders
“In all its programs, EPA must provide for the most extensive public participation

possible in decision-making. This requires that we remain open to all points of

view and take affirmative steps to solicit input from those who will be affected by

decisions. Our willingness to remain open to new ideas from our constituents,

and to incorporate them where appropriate, is absolutely essential to the

execution of our mission. At the same time, we must not accord privileged

status to any special interest, nor accept any recommendation or proposal

without careful, critical examination.”

Carol M. Browner, August 1993 memo to all employees
i

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

Engaging the American People

A Review of EPA’s Public Participation

Policy and Regulations with Recommendations

for Action

Prepared for the EPA Administrator by

the EPA Public Participation Policy Review

Workgroup
ii

Engaging the American People

“Democracy is not a matter of entertainment, it’s a matter of engagement.”

John Hebers and James McCartney in American Journalism Review
iii

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. v

EPA’s Public Participation Terminology ............................................................................... vii

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. The Review Process ......................................................................................................... 3

3. Summary of Workgroup Activities .................................................................................. 4

3.1 Evaluation of the 1981 Public Participation Policy and Part 25 Regulations ................. 4

3.2 Inventory and Cross-walk Review of Statutes, Regulations,

Executive Orders, and EPA Policies Concerning Public Participation ......................... 5

3.3 Summary Analysis of Public Comments ....................................................................10

3.4 Review of Sample Public Participation Experiences and “Lessons Learned” ...............12

4. Overall Conclusions .........................................................................................................18

5. Overall Recommendations..............................................................................................18

5.1 Short-term Recommendations (3-12 months) .............................................................18

5.2 Long-term Recommendation (1-3 years) .....................................................................22

6. Suggested Actions for Implementing Recommendations ............................................25

Appendices

Appendix A: Charts of Public Participation Requirements in Key Agency Programs

Table A-1: Public Participation Requirements for Air Programs

Table A-2: Public Participation Requirements for Statutes Affecting Programs of the

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

Table A-3: Public Participation Requirements by Associated Regulations Affecting

Programs of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

Table A-4: Public Participation Requirements Affecting the Superfund Program

Table A-5: Public Participation Requirements by Policies Issued by the Office of

Regulatory Enforcement in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance

Table A-6: Public Participation Requirements by Policies Issued by the Office of

Federal Activities in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Appendix B: List of Commenters

Appendix C: List of Public Participation Policy Workgroup Members

Appendix D: Existing Public Participation Policy and Regulations

Appendix D-1: EPA’s 1981 Policy on Public Participation

Appendix D-2: Title 40 Part 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations
iv

Engaging the American People

“Thomas Jefferson once pointed out that if the people appeared not enlightened enough to exercise

their control of government, the solution was not to take away the control but to “inform their

discretion by education.” The cooperative processes that are springing up around the country are

doing just that, giving to large numbers of citizens a new comprehension of the complexity involved in

government decisions, out of which has got to come a heightened appreciation of, and tolerance for,

the necessary work of government. If these processes work, if they spread, if they become an

indispensable part of government at all levels, we may take it as a sign that we, as a people, have

moved up a grade in democracy’s school. It holds out the hope that, eventually, the United States will

be ready for self-government.”

William Doyle Ruckelshaus, “Restoring Public Trust in Government: A Prescription for Restoration”

(November 15, 1996, Webb Lecture, National Association of Public Administration)
v

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Engaging the American People is the product of

a cross-program EPA Workgroup, and creates

the framework for a Strategic Plan for Public

Participation. The Workgroup evaluated existing

public participation practices and policies and

provided recommendations.

In October 1999 EPA formed the Public

Participation Policy Review Workgroup to

evaluate the Agency’s public participation

policies and regulations in light of current

practices, relevant statutes, regulations, and

Executive Orders. The Workgroup consisted of

individuals representing major EPA program

offices and regions. The Workgroup chose to

conduct four primary activities:

1. Evaluate the Agency’s 1981 Public

Participation Policy and the 40 CFR Part 25

Regulations;

2. Conduct a cross-walk analysis of Agency

statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and

relevant policies;

3. Request and evaluate public comment on the

need for and interest in revising/updating the

1981 Policy; and

4. Review Agency practices and activities that

have occurred in the last 20 years to identify

successful practices, new techniques, and

new technologies that the Agency may want

to follow formally in a new or revised Policy.

Based on its review, the Workgroup reached five

conclusions:

1. The 1981 Policy and Part 25 Regulations are

still valid but do not incorporate new statutes

or public participation innovations.

2. The 1981 Policy and the Part 25 Regulations

have not been adequately publicized

internally or externally; EPA and its coregulators have not consistently implemented

them. Across the Agency and among coregulators there are opportunities to improve

consistency.

3. New participation techniques and information

technologies provide the Agency with

opportunities to involve the public and

challenges to reach both those who have and

those who lack Internet access.

4. Few centralized tools or resources are

available to aid EPA staff and Agency

partners in engaging the public.

5. Streamlining decision-making should not

preclude meaningful public participation.

These conclusions led to the following five

recommendations:

Short-term: 3-12 months:

1a. Revise the 1981 Public Participation

Policy to reflect the additional statutes

EPA now administers, technological

changes, and procedural advances since

1981.

b. Have EPA Administrator: issue a draft

version of the Policy for comment and

send a memo to EPA senior managers

and staff reaffirming the importance of

the new Policy, Part 25 Regulations, and

other statutory and regulatory public

participation requirements, and directing

that they:

• give increased attention to

implementing and enforcing

associated procedures and

requirements;

• use the Draft 2000 Policy as guidance

pending final action following public

review and comment;

• ensure that the Part 25 Regulations

and other statutory and regulatory

public participation requirements are

being fully implemented;

• measure progress; and

• evaluate the effectiveness of public

participation programs.

2. Enhance EPA’s Regulatory Agenda as

posted on the Agency’s web site; explore

ways to make the Regulatory Agenda a

better tool for public participation; provide an

E
vi

Engaging the American People

Internet gateway to public participation

information useful to EPA’s regulatory

partners and potential and current

stakeholders; develop tools to help overcome

barriers to the use of computer technology in

under-served communities.

3. Develop database and list tools:

a. Develop a prototype stakeholder

database for Agency use;

b. Maintain a centralized, shareable “key

national stakeholders” database for

Agency use;

c. Explore options for developing a secure,

Web-facilitated process for qualified

stakeholders to “sign-up” for the

centralized list; and

d. Streamline process for centralized signon to Agency listserves.

4. Issue and promote the “Public Involvement in

Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide”

and the “Better Decisions Through

Consultation and Collaboration Manual”;

provide and promote training to support them

and to better prepare communities to

participate in environmental decision-making.

Long-term: 1-3 years:

5. The Administrator should charge the

Reinvention Action Council, through a crossagency workgroup, with developing a

Strategic Plan in 2001. That Plan should be

designed to:

a. Ensure full implementation of the revised

Public Involvement Policy;

b. Enhance Agency-wide public

participation;

c. Track and report progress to the Agency

and to the public; and

d. Ensure that actions recommended in

this strategy are consistent with, and

complement, the Public Access

Strategy.

The Strategic Plan should reflect progress in five

critical activities:

• Build public participation skills in EPA staff,

co-regulators and stakeholders through

training, greater access to and wider

distribution of existing and new materials on

public participation and decision-making,

with particular emphasis on core processes

such as permitting.

• Improve public participation in delegated

programs, with particular emphasis on core

processes such as permitting, through work

in program offices, and with states, tribes

and other co-regulators.

• Decide whether to update/modernize the Part

25 Regulations or repeal them and rely on

other program related regulations and the

2000 Policy.

• Coordinate dissemination of equipment and

training to enable under-served communities

to have access to, and receive benefits from,

EPA web-based information.

• Using the Public Access Strategy (in

development at release of this document) as

a guide, enhance public participation through

public access to environmental information.
vii

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

EPA’s Public Participation Terminology

In the course of their review of the Agency’s

public participation practices, EPA Public

Participation Policy Review Workgroup

developed the following definition of public

participation, viewed as a progression of actions

involving the public.

“Public participation” encompasses the full

range of actions that EPA uses to engage the

American people in the Agency’s work.

Every person living in the United States is a

potential customer

of the Agency, and

all are ultimate

beneficiaries of our

actions to protect

public health and

the environment.

Only those who

are dependent on

the Agency for or

choose to use our

products, services

and processes are

direct customers

of the Agency.

Some of these direct customers are

stakeholders, people who have a strong interest

in the Agency’s work and policies.

Stakeholders may interact with EPA on behalf of

another person or group, and may seek to

influence the Agency’s future direction.

Some stakeholders are also affected parties,

individuals or groups who feel the impact of EPA

policies or decisions.

Public participation, as EPA envisions it, is a

progression. It starts with outreach and

information exchange, and progresses through

collaboration and recommendation to agreement

and decision-making. The process begins when

people seek information from EPA about a topic

or issue, or when they receive information from

EPA because the Agency identifies them as a

potentially affected party. EPA’s outreach

activities serve and engage these people.

Information exchange is the next step. Here,

EPA staff and management and members of the

public share data, options, issues and ideas.

In the next step of the progression, individuals

and groups collaborate with each other and the

Agency to provide EPA with recommendations

for action. Some continue on to engage with

EPA management in reaching agreement by

consensus. Access to information is crucial

throughout the progression. As individuals and

groups move through the steps in the

progression, they seek more detailed

information, increased

access to decision

makers, and more

influence on the

ultimate decisions.

Not everyone will

choose to be an

active participant in

policy or regulatory

decisions of the

Agency. EPA’s goal

is to provide

opportunities for

people to engage at

every point along the

progression.

Individuals and groups decide for themselves

whether, when and how to participate.

For the individual or group who takes part in the

outreach phase of the progression, EPA

provides or makes information available through:

hot lines, web sites, newsletters, e-mail list

servers, distribution lists, Federal Register

notices, exhibits, documents, electronic bulletin

boards, fact sheets, brochures, briefings, formal

public meetings, news releases, radio or

television public service announcements, news

conferences and press kits, visitor centers,

libraries, cooperating organizations, and more.

The purpose of information exchange activities

is to build and share a broad set of knowledge of

all interested parties’ interests and needs.

Examples of information exchange activities
viii

Engaging the American People

include: workshops, forums, small interactive

public meetings, round tables, focus groups,

question and answer sessions, and availability/

listening sessions; surveys, polls, interviews and

door-to-door canvassing; joint fact finding; online dialogues; and interactive radio and

television talk shows.

Recommendation activities consist of

stakeholders either individually or collectively

urging specific actions for the Agency to pursue.

Stakeholders can submit recommendations

through formal written comments or through

collaboration, which involves a smaller number

of individuals who work with each other and with

Agency staff to reach consensus on a set of

recommendations. Though recommendations

are made to EPA (many times through an

advisory committee established under the

Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA]), EPA

is not bound to implement them nor are the

parties necessarily bound to accept them.

Examples of recommendation activities stem

from most FACA committees, external technical

committees such as committees of the

American Society for Testing and Materials, and

many citizens advisory groups or citizens

advisory panels.

Agreement activities involve EPA management

and stakeholder representatives actually

reaching an agreement by consensus to which

all parties agree. Examples of agreement

activities include negotiated rulemaking

committee efforts, settlement agreements,

mediated agreements, and memoranda of

understanding. Many enforcement activities

also result in agreements such as consent

orders and consent decrees. In some cases,

parties other than those involved in the

enforcement action may have an opportunity to

provide input to these types of agreements.

Successful agreement or recommendation

processes occur only with significant information

access, exchange and outreach. Progressing to

a recommendation process or agreement

process is not necessary, practical or affordable

in all decision-making processes. The

importance of access to information and

decision makers increases from one level of the

progression to the next.

Another way to look at the levels of engagement

is to outline the purpose of the person or group

that chooses to participate and that of the

Agency at each level (with credit to Sherry

Arnstein for her 1969 concept “the ladder of

participation”).
1

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

INTRODUCTION

In September 1994 EPA identified the American

people as our primary customer and issued the

following policy statement: “We are committed

to providing the best customer service possible.

We aim to achieve this through increased public

participation, increased access to information,

and more effectively responding to customer

needs.” In “Putting Customers First: EPA’s

Customer Service Plan” (EPA publication

number 230-B-95-004), the Agency adopted

three principles as the foundation for implementing its policy:

• Encourage Public Participation: Increase

customer involvement in EPA’s policy and

decision-making processes. Improve our

understanding of what motivates customers

and how we can best provide the environmental products, services and information they

value. Use public roundtables, focus groups,

and formal surveys to listen to what our

customers think about the quality and value

of the products and services we provide.

• Provide Access to Information: [Recognizing

budgetary constraints] Make sure our

customers can obtain the kinds of information they need. Provide our customers with

reliable environmental information to make a

wider variety of decisions – including regulatory, investment and health decisions.

• Respond to our Customers’ Needs: Make

timely, appropriate changes to our products,

services and processes to respond to the

comments and suggestions of our customers, without compromising environmental

outcomes.

The link is clear: Only when we listen to the

American people – our primary customers – and

understand what they tell us, can we engage

them in environmental decision-making and

thereby better accomplish our mission.

One way EPA listens to the American people is

through public participation. Active public

participation in EPA decision-making processes

is critical to ensuring that the Agency bases its

decisions on the most pertinent information and

creates workable long-term solutions for affected

communities, industries, public health and the

environment.

EPA will continue to seek the public’s input as

we adapt our systems of environmental

protection to the needs of the 21st century.

Though traditional command and control

approaches still have their place, the issues are

getting ever more complex (e.g., cross-media

and cross-border issues, runoff, global warming,

environmental justice). While enforcement

remains an important and vital tool, full and

meaningful public participation can also help

achieve environmental objectives through both

regulatory and voluntary means.

To engage the public in this new century, EPA

will need to reach out to a more diverse society,

enhance participation practices, and work

closely with our co-regulators. EPA must

strengthen and build partnerships in order to

increase focus on the equity of environmental

burdens. By using more collaborative processes we can form new partnerships and

enable stakeholder groups and the public to

leverage expertise and resources. EPA has

delegated many programs to tribes, states and

local governments, so we rely on these partners

to deliver our programs, including public

participation, and we rely on the public to

participate in their decision processes.

EPA recognized the importance of public

participation in our decisions, policies and

procedures as early as 1979, when we

promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 251

(referred to in this document as Part 25

Regulations) governing public participation in the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA then

began developing a public participation policy

which was first published for comment in the

Federal Register in April 1980.

1

1The 40 CFR part 25 (Code of Federal Regulations), initially proposed in 1979, provide public participation requirements and

suggestions for EPA in implementing water and waste management programs under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking

Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
2

Engaging the American People

The Agency actively sought public input on the

public participation policy, sending copies of the

policy to a nationwide list of diverse interest

groups, individuals and the media. EPA regions

also distributed the policy extensively to their

constituent lists and the Agency held ten public

meetings. On January 19, 1981, we issued the

EPA’s Public Participation Policy2 (referred to in

this document as the 1981 Policy). Plans to

publicize and implement the 1981 Policy,

including training EPA staff and staff of our

regulatory partners, were not carried out

following the transition to a new administration.

Even though the 1981 Policy was not emphasized, the Agency and its co-regulators (state,

local, and tribal governments) implemented the

spirit and intent of the Part 25 Regulations to

varying degrees. During the intervening years,

knowledge of the 1981 Policy diminished

externally and even within the Agency until

1999.

In July 1999, the EPA Innovations Task Force

issued “Aiming for Excellence: Actions to

Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate

Environmental Progress (EPA 100-R-99-006).”

In this report, EPA pledged to evaluate its public

participation policies and regulations in light of

current practices, relevant statutes, regulations,

and Executive Orders.

In October 1999, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s Office of Policy and

Reinvention formed a cross-agency Public

Participation Policy Review Workgroup

(hereafter referred to as the Workgroup). The

Workgroup’s task was to support implementation of Action 9 of the Action Plan in “Aiming for

Excellence.”

Action 9 states: “Build leadership capacity in

communities to participate in local environmental problem solving.” Task 5 of Action 9, reads:

“Evaluate and update EPA’s public participation

requirements. We will assess how well our

regulations and policies ensure public participation in decision-making. We will report on what

we find and develop an action plan to upgrade

requirements and fill gaps.”

The Workgroup’s assessment focused on

reviewing EPA’s 1981 Policy on Public

Participation and the Part 25 regulations. These

documents have been the basis for many of

EPA’s public participation requirements and

therefore were crucial to evaluating and updating

EPA’s public participation requirements. Since

the Agency has significantly changed since the

early 1980s, the Workgroup also compared

many of the numerous statutes and regulations

enacted or revised in the last two decades.

Engaging the American People is the resulting

report from the Workgroup. In addition to the

review of existing public participation mechanisms, it contains recommendations for further

actions to enhance public participation in the

Agency’s decisions.

The field of public participation, in its infancy in

1981, has greatly expanded in activities and

techniques. Many academic studies and realworld experiences demonstrate the value of

engaging and collaborating with the public and

segments of it. Studies and experience of the

past twenty years show that a “one size fits all”

approach to public participation can limit the

ability of many groups to participate fully in the

decision-making process. For public participation to be meaningful, we must recognize and

address differences among knowledge, cultures,

experience, and technical and financial

resources.

According to most experts, the “information”

revolution is still in its early stages. EPA can

take advantage of this technology to increase

public participation and information access and

enhance the role of the public in Agency actions

and decision-making. For example, through the

Internet EPA can provide very timely information

to the public. The Internet can also enable the

Agency to obtain information and opinions

related to programs and policies. In the future,

more citizens will use the Internet and other

electronic communications (e.g., Envirofax,

public access television, Web-TV, etc.) to

interact on both a professional and personal

level.

2

 46 FR, page 5736, January 19, 1981.
3

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

Though EPA will continue to identify methods for

using such technologies, the Agency also must

recognize that for nearly half the population

Internet access is limited. Even as these

advances create new opportunities to obtain

information and data for those with access to

the technology, many communities have neither

the equipment nor the training to take advantage

of it. Unless EPA, in conjunction with other

federal, state and private sector partners, takes

proactive steps to increase access to training

and the new technology, these communities will

fall further behind in the capacity to participate in

decision-making processes just as others

become more fully involved. The “digital divide”

that separates those with Internet access from

those without it could widen, and environmental

and health consequences could follow. Such

opportunities and needs did not exist in the

early 1980s, when personal computers were just

coming into use. EPA’s Public Access Strategy

will address this topic.

The Workgroup considered these societal

changes and influences in their effort to identify

methods for enhancing public participation.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

The Workgroup completed the following

activities, which are described in more detail in

section 3 of this report:

• Activity 1: Review, analyze, and compare the 1981 Public Participation Policy

and the 40 C.F.R. Part 25 Regulations:

1. determine the applicability of the 1981

Policy and the Part 25 Regulations;

2. identify areas that could be clarified or

expanded; and

3. determine if the Policy and Regulations

need to be updated.

• Activity 2: Inventory and conduct a crosswalk review of all statutes, regulations,

Executive Orders, and relevant policies

that influence EPA actions to identify

public participation requirements,

recommendations, and obligations:

1. identify requirements that are different

from those established in the 1981

Policy and the Part 25 Regulations; and

2. identify similarities and differences

among the varying statutes, regulations,

Executive Orders, and policies; and

assess how these similarities and

differences affect the ability of the

Agency to involve the public.

• Activity 3: Solicit and analyze public

comments on the 1981 Policy to:

1. identify opinions from the public about

what is working and public concerns

regarding participation in EPA decisionmaking;

2. gather new and innovative ideas to

assist the Agency in improving methods

for engaging the public; and

3. enable the public to provide input on

2

Significant change has occurred both within the Agency and within the country in the nearly two

decades since 1981. Specifically, two key factors drove the changes: 1) new statutes and

regulations; and 2) an increased awareness and understanding of the processes associated with

engaging the public. For example, in the nearly 20 years since the 1981 Policy, EPA has

acquired a better understanding of matters associated with environmental justice; of the distinct

nuances associated with protecting children’s health as compared with adults’ health; and of the

need to recognize and value other differences associated with culture, economic, and educational

factors. In addition, new statutes and executive orders have emphasized EPA’s working

relationship with state, local, and tribal governments, as well as with small businesses.

Furthermore, since 1979 most programs have adopted more specific and extensive public

participation practices for major functions such as permitting, and these, rather than the Part 25

Regulations, now govern Agency activity.
4

Engaging the American People

policy that will directly affect their

relationship with the Agency.

• Activity 4: Examine sample public

participation experiences and lessons

learned from them to capture EPA’s

“successful practices” and innovative methods that may support the Workgroup’s

efforts.

• Activity 5: Compare information generated and evaluated during the first four

activities and identify opportunities for

improvements and, based on this comparison, develop a series of recommendations and an action plan for the

Administrator’s consideration.

SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP

ACTIVITIES

The following sections describe each of the

Workgroup’s activities in more detail.

3.1 Activity 1: Evaluation of the 1981 Public

Participation Policy and the Part 25

Regulations

Purpose of the 1981 Policy:

 “To strengthen EPA’s commitment to public

participation and to establish uniform

procedures for participation by the public in

EPA’s decision-making process. This in turn

will assist EPA in carrying out its mission by

giving a better understanding of the public’s

viewpoints, concerns and preferences. It

should also make the Agency’s decisions

more acceptable to those who are most

concerned and affected by them.”

EPA designed its 1981 Policy

to provide public officials who

manage and conduct EPA

programs with guidance and

direction on reasonable and

effective means to involve the

public in program decisions. It

is important to recognize that

the 1981 document is a policy, and as such, it

does not impose any binding legal requirements

or establish any rights under law.

The 1981 Policy also provides a process for

engaging the public by identifying five “procedures,” or activities, for EPA, states or tribes3

 to

follow when making decisions or implementing

EPA programs that impact the public. These

five procedures are:

• Identification — Determining who needs to or

should be informed, interested, or affected by

a forthcoming action and performing associated actions;

• Outreach — Conducting activities to provide

information to the public;

• Dialogue — Ensuring opportunities for the

public to provide input, comment, ideas,

opinions, and information and to obtain

feedback and information from the Agency on

a forthcoming action, decision, or other

matter that may have an impact;

• Assimilation — Ensuring that public concerns and opinions have an impact on the

decisions made by the Agency; and

• Feedback — Providing explanations of

decisions and how the Agency (or delegated

program organization) used public input in

the decision-making process.

The 1981 Policy assigns responsibility for its

implementation to EPA managers in headquarters and regions. The Policy also suggests (but

does not require) that the Agency (or states or

tribes, in implementing an EPA program)

develop public participation work plans for each

activity identified under the scope of the Policy.

For the most part, the Policy remains applicable

today (see Activity 3).

3

 “Public participation lies at the heart of the Agency’s

credibility with the public. It affords the best tested recipe

for citizens to influence government decisions that affect

their lives and pocketbooks.”

Responsiveness Summary and Preamble on Public

Participation Policy,

Federal Register Notice, January 19, 1981

3

 While the 1981 Policy does not specifically mention tribes, it mentions delegated programs. Tribes are now eligible for delegated programs.
5

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

Purpose of the 1979 Part 25 Regulations

EPA promulgated Part 25 to provide the basic

requirements and recommendations for public

participation in programs under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Clean

Water Act (CWA). Today they also form the

foundations that program offices use to

implement programs under other statutes. Part

25 specifies the objectives that should be

achieved through public participation:

1. To ensure that the public has the

opportunity to understand official programs and proposed actions, and that

the government fully considers the

public’s concerns;

2. To ensure that the government does not

make any significant decision on any

activity covered by Part 25 Regulations

without consulting interested and

affected segments of the public;

3. To ensure that government action is as

responsive as possible to public concerns;

4. To encourage public participation in

implementing environmental statutes;

5. To keep the public informed about

significant issues and proposed project

or program changes as they arise;

6. To foster a spirit of openness and mutual

trust among EPA, states, tribal, and

local agencies and the public; and

(7) To use all feasible means to create

opportunities for public participation, and

to stimulate and support participation.

Part 25 covers procedures that the Agency (or

state, tribe, etc.) should or must follow. Like the

1981 Policy, these procedures include matters

associated with information, notification,

consultation responsibilities, public hearings,

public meetings, advisory committees,

responsiveness summaries, permit enforcement,

rulemakings, and work elements in financial

assistance agreements.

In its review, the Workgroup found that most

EPA programs have developed their own

regulations for public participation in their

activities and decisions. These program-specific

regulations and procedures are generally used in

the place of Part 25.

3.2 Activity 2: Inventory and Cross-walk

Review of Statutes, Regulations,

Executive Orders, and EPA Policies

Concerning Public Participation

EPA made a conscious effort to ensure

compatibility between the 1981 Policy and the

Part 25 Regulations, and, if there were

inconsistencies between the two, the Part 25

Regulations were to prevail. Based on its

review, the Workgroup generally agreed that

essential aspects of the 1981 Policy and the

Part 25 Regulations are consistent and

summarized them in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1:

Similarities Between 1981 Policy and Part 25 Regulations

Under both the 1981 Policy and the Part 25 Regulation the Agency is to:

• Provide for and encourage public participation programs;

• Notify the public of upcoming meetings or hearings, generally at least 30 days prior to

the meeting;

• Establish processes for convening advisory groups when necessary to provide a forum

for the public to assist in providing recommendations to EPA;

• Prepare Responsiveness Summaries to provide feedback to the public on comments

received on specific issues or activities;

• Prepare public participation work plans that summarize how the Agency will provide for

public involvement; and

• Provide for the evaluation by EPA of its compliance with public participation programs.
6

Engaging the American People

In addition to reviewing the 1981 Policy and the

Part 25 Regulations, the Workgroup also

conducted a cross-walk analysis of statutes,

regulations, Executive Orders, and other relevant

policies concerning public participation. The

Workgroup reviewed twenty-two separate Acts

and their corresponding regulations, and

analyzed six Executive Orders to identify public

participation requirements. Exhibit 2 presents a

list of those statutes and Executive Orders. The

list is not comprehensive.

 Based on their review of the statutes and

executive orders, the Workgroup identified six

general categories of notice and public

participation activities:

• Public Notification Providing information to

the public about a decision or action that will

be or has been made or performed;

• Public Comment Providing methods to

enable the public to provide opinions, information, or positions;

Exhibit 2

List of Statutes (and Corresponding Regulations) and Executive Orders

Reviewed for Public Participation Implications*

Statutes and Corresponding Regulations

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996)

Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) (1996)

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA)

Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA)

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990)

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)

 Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980)

as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (1986)

Clean Water Act (CWA) (1977)

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976)

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (1973)

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972)

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (1972)

Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970)

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) (1970)

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (1966)

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (1946)

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (1938)

Executive Orders

12856: Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution

Prevention Requirements

12862: Setting Customer Service Standards

12866: Regulatory and Planning Review

12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Process

12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations

13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

* This list is not comprehensive; it merely notes the items reviewed.
7

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

• Public Meetings Providing the public the

opportunity to meet with EPA, state, tribal,

local, or other officials to discuss issues;

raise questions, opinions and positions;

provide input into the decision-making

process; and request information and

explanations;

• Public Access to Information Providing

information through a wide range of media,

such as through dockets, reports, outreach

materials, and electronic media (via CDROM, Internet, etc.);

• Advisory Groups Requiring or recommending the establishment of advisory groups; and

• Public Assistance/Other Providing access

to grants, funding, technical/expert advice or

the ability to take civil/legal or alternative

dispute resolution actions based on EPA’s

decisions.

While specifics varied, virtually all of the

reviewed documents required or recommended

the above actions. For example, of the 22

statutes reviewed, 18 had some requirement to

provide public notification, although the

acceptable forms of notification varied.

Likewise, 16 statutes provided for public

comment, though the minimum number of days

varied from one regulation to another.

The Workgroup recognizes that other statutes

and Executive Orders also need to be reviewed,

either because of changes since the initial

review (e.g., Executive Order 12875 has been

replaced by Executive Order 13132: Federalism), or because they were not part of the initial

list of items for review. This inventory and

review should continue.

Over the past 20 years, EPA’s Administrators

have underscored the need for public participation. Administrator Carol M. Browner’s August

1993 memo to all employees stressed the

increasing importance of public participation in

rulemaking efforts. This memo encouraged staff

to solicit views from the broadest possible

spectrum of interested parties in arriving at final

rules and urged that all interests have equal

opportunity to meet with EPA. The memo

noted that: “In rulemaking proceedings under the

Administrative Procedures Act, the basis for

decisions must appear in the public record.

Therefore, after a rule is proposed, be certain

that: 1) All written comments received from

people outside the Agency (whether during or

after the comment period) are entered in the

public record of the rulemaking; and, 2) A brief

memorandum summarizing any significant new

data or information likely to affect the final

decision that is received during a meeting or

other conversation is placed in the public

record.”

Appendix A describes the extensive required

and voluntary actions the Agency performs to

involve the public in its decision and rulemaking

processes. Since rulemaking is a central

function of the Agency, Exhibit 3 contains

summaries of the most important statutes and

executive orders affecting public participation.

In 1998 Ellen Levin, a graduate student from

the University of Wisconsin working as an

intern for the Consensus and Dispute

Resolution Program of the Office of Policy,

conducted a study of the use of stakeholder

participation processes used in rulemaking at

EPA. Using the Regulatory Agenda as a

source of rules under development or recently

proposed, Ms. Levin interviewed more than 70

chairs of rulemaking workgroups and classified

the activities conducted into one or more of the

following categories: outreach, information

exchange, advisory recommendations or

negotiations. She found that more than 90% of

rulewriters conducted significant outreach

activities such as distributing fact sheets,

providing information on web sites, and making

presentations. More than 70% conducted

additional information exchange activities such

as workshops, joint fact finding, conference

calls and public meetings. Most of these

activities were conducted significantly prior to

publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule

which initiates a mandatory formal notice and

comment period. She also found that the use

of a stakeholder involvement process to build

consensus recommendations or agreements

was much less frequent.
8

Engaging the American People

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) governs the establishment of and procedures for

advisory committees that provide advice or recommendations to the federal government. When EPA

establishes or utilizes a committee for advice or recommendations, the Agency must charter the

committee with approval from the Office of Management and Budget, notify the public of meetings via

a notice in the Federal Register, allow public participation in the meetings, appoint public representatives on FACA committees, and allow the public access to all committee documents and reports.

[Note: Several exemptions are applicable. For example, when the Agency seeks the advice of

individual meeting participants without seeking consensus, the gathering is not subject to FACA.]

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), generally requires agencies to assess the impacts on small entities,

including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, of rules

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements. For rules that may impose significant

economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), agencies must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis of the potential adverse economic impacts on small entities, participate

in a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (a proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity

Compliance Guide (a final rule stage). For rules that may impose a SISNOSE, public participation

requirements include: opportunity for public comment on the agency’s initial regulatory flexibility

analysis; opportunity for participation by small entities through the reasonable use of techniques

including, among other things, open conferences, public hearings, and solicitation and receipt of

comments over computer networks; and solicitation of advice and recommendations from small entity

representatives identified by the agency after consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires agencies to assess the

effects on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector of rules subject to notice and

comment rulemaking requirements. Public participation requirements include: for rules containing

significant federal intergovernmental mandates, agencies must develop an effective process to allow

elected officers of state, local and tribal governments (or their designated, authorized employees) to

provide meaningful and timely input in the development of the regulatory proposal; and for rules that

may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, agencies must develop a small government

agency plan that provides for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory

proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with regulatory requirements.

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” generally requires each federal agency, to the

greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make achieving environmental justice part of its

mission by ensuring meaningful public participation of minority and low-income populations, including

identifying potential effects and mitigation measures, and improving accessibility of public meetings,

documents, and notices to affected communities.

Exhibit 3

Summaries of Administrative Statutes and Executive Orders Affecting

Public Participation in EPA Rulemaking
9

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,”

requires most federal agencies to develop and utilize an effective process that allows elected officials

and other representatives of Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input on

regulations, legislative comments, proposed legislation, and policies that have substantial direct

effects upon one or more Indian tribes, and to appoint a federal official to oversee the implementation

of that process.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” generally requires agencies to develop an accountable

process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local elected officials or their

representative national organizations in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism

implications. “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the

national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.”

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” says that wherever feasible,

agencies shall seek views of appropriate state, local, and tribal officials before imposing regulatory

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities. Each agency

shall assess the effects of federal regulations on state, local, and tribal governments, including

specifically the availability of resources to carry out those mandates, and seek to minimize those

burdens that uniquely or significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent with achieving

regulatory objectives. In addition, as appropriate, agencies shall seek to harmonize federal regulatory

actions with related state, local, and tribal regulatory and other governmental functions.

Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English

Proficiency” requires each federal agency to examine the services it provides, and then identify,

develop and implement a system by which limited-English-proficient persons can meaningfully

access those services consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the

agency. The order also requires that each federal agency draft guidance pursuant to Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance take

reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs and activities.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standardizes administrative procedures for all

government agencies. For actions subject to the APA’s informal rulemaking requirements (most EPA

rulemakings), the APA generally requires agencies to publish a general notice of proposed

rulemaking in the Federal Register, and to give interested persons an opportunity to participate

through submission of written data, views, or arguments. For actions subject to the APA’s formal

rulemaking or formal adjudication requirements, the APA prescribes additional procedures for agency

hearings, which include, among other things, requirements for notice and an opportunity for interested

parties to submit facts and arguments, proposed findings and conclusions, or exceptions to agency

decisions.
10

Engaging the American People

3.3 Activity 3: Summary Analysis of Public

Comments

On November 30, 1999, EPA published a

Federal Register notice requesting public

comment on the 1981 Public Participation

Policy. By January 13, 2000, the Workgroup

had received and reviewed 25 comments from

federal and local government organizations;

businesses; environmental, trade, policy, and

advocacy organizations; and private citizens.

Complete comments are available at the web

site [http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders].

Appendix B lists the commenters.

Several commenters stated that EPA, as a

whole, is a leader in the federal government in

supporting public participation. However,

comments overall suggest that there are varying

levels of implementation, compliance, and

resource provision for public participation

programs across the Agency and through

delegated programs. Some programs or

activities appear to be proactive in using

innovative approaches and techniques to engage

the public, focusing not only on what is required,

but also on what works for all involved. Others

meet only the baseline requirements established

in statutes, regulations, or policies. Comments

suggest that in some cases baseline requirements of the Policy and Regulations may not be

achieved. Commenters stated that the following

items in the 1981 Policy and the Part 25

Regulations are not implemented consistently:

early notice and participation of the public, use

of plain language or appropriate languages other

than English, stakeholder identification, and

adequate length of public comment periods.

The Federal Register notice requested

comments on two sets of questions. The first

set of questions asked: What changes need to

be made to the 1981 Policy on Public

Participation? What is working well, and how

does the experience of the past nineteen years

suggest the need for improvements in the

general procedures for involving the public in

EPA programs and decisions? Responses

focused on the following:

• Just Do It! - Several commenters stated that

while the 1981 Policy can be updated and

improved, it is basically sound and workable.

However, commenters urged EPA to improve

consistency in the implementation of the

1981 Policy at EPA national and regional

levels, and within programs delegated to

states, tribes and local government units.

Comments encouraged EPA to focus not just

on what is required, but what works for all

parties involved.

• Increase efforts to identify groups or

individuals interested in or affected by

an issue and who represent a balance of

views — Commenters suggested: make it

easier for individuals and organizations to be

placed on EPA contact lists; work with

county and city public health officials; use

cable TV and radio to distribute information

and reach interested groups and individuals;

post notices in newspapers and magazines,

and in supermarkets, malls, community

centers, churches, and laundromats if that is

where interested and/or affected people are

likely to see it.

• Provide notices and outreach materials

in plain language (“Plain English”) —

Distribute easy-to-understand materials in

other languages when appropriate.

• Listen for, seek to understand, and

involve special interest groups in issues

of critical importance to them — Specific

comments suggested that EPA involve the

animal welfare community in matters which

involve the potential use of animals in testing,

and include the National Association of

Home Builders on contact lists for water

issues. Animal protection organizations

suggested that EPA publish a notice of every

meeting held with people outside the Executive Branch of the federal government.

• Match the forum to the fuss — Help

Agency personnel learn to select the most

appropriate intensity of, and mechanisms for,

public participation in any specific circumstance. Early planning is vital. Public
11

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

hearings are often not good forums for

constructive dialogue.

• Incorporate Environmental Justice (EJ)

considerations in public participation

activities — Use the National Environmental

Justice Advisory Council Model Plan for

Public Participation (http://es.epa.gov/oeca/

oej/nejac/pdf/modelbk.pdf); fully implement

Executive Order #12898; present web site

data and materials in formats and languages

relevant to those at the local level; provide

resources for community technical assistance; and use Environmental Justice grants

for Clean Air Act Title V permitting.

• Inform and involve the public earlier —

Early involvement creates opportunities to

provide technical information, consider locally

relevant information, address key community

concerns, help build trust, and sometimes

broaden the range of options to be considered.

• Lengthen public comment periods —

Allow the public sufficient time to conduct

their own review of the issue and provide

comments to the Agency. [Note: Executive

Order 12866 requires 60 day comment

periods which EPA adheres to unless

statutory or other deadlines preclude such

notice.]

• Use the Internet — Develop electronic list

services; establish electronic mechanisms

for posting comments and ongoing bulletin

boards for on-line dialogue on permitting and

regulatory proposals; post Title V documents

relating to individual facilities; establish online dockets; and encourage/help public

libraries and community centers to get and

expand Internet access services, particularly

in rural, remote or low-income areas.

• Think in broad environmental concepts

(holistically) and act collaboratively –

Rather than just focusing on specific issues

(e.g., a facility’s effluent discharge permit),

the Agency should think broadly about the

environmental issues in an area (e.g., a

watershed) and how all stakeholders can

work together to reach consensus solutions,

whenever possible (e.g., plan together to

attain or exceed the water quality standards

for the watershed, and be accountable for the

results). One example: the National Governors’ Association’s “Enlibra: A New Shared

Doctrine for Environmental Management,”

which is a set of eight principles for collaborative environmental management.

• Advance the concept of stewardship —

Emphasize that environmental protection is

everyone’s job, from government organizations that set standards, to businesses and

citizens who make daily choices. (The EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Plan for Public Involvement in the Title V

(permitting) Program embodies this concept.)

• Evaluate EPA public participation policies and practices — The Environmental

Law Institute, Resources for the Future and

the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program

evaluate public participation programs. [Note:

In the Responsiveness Summary of the 1981

Policy, EPA committed to evaluating the

Policy for such matters as the effectiveness

of the requirements, public reaction, reporting

requirements, resource expenditures,

alternative methods and enforceability. EPA

did not perform such an evaluation of the

1981 Policy and does not regularly examine

the Agency’s public participation processes.]

The second set of Federal Register questions asked: How can we further engage the

public in the effort to revise the 1981 Policy

and other EPA regulations and policies which

may need to be updated in regard to public

participation? What are suggested elements

of a strategy to further engage the public in

updating requirements and filling gaps in

EPA’s regulations and policies concerning

public participation? While only a few of the

25 public comments addressed this question

directly, specific suggestions include:

• Hold focus groups — in each region or

state with members of the public who have

had experience working with the Agency.
12

Engaging the American People

• Allow oral comments — over a toll-free

line.

• Have trained local environmental analysts — available to collaborate with local

residents on interpreting scientific data and

environmental statutes and regulations.

• Establish public access ombudsmen in

each regional Office — to perform research

and assist those who inquire to the Agency

about participation processes.

• Use the National Association of County

and City Health Officials’ Protocol for

Assessing Community Excellence in

Environmental Health — to learn more

about a community’s environmental health

concerns and inform residents about opportunities for participation in EPA decisionmaking.

• Create a zip code data base — to enable

interested individuals and organizations to

learn about potential environmental actions

affecting their respective areas.

3.4 Activity 4: Review of Sample Public

Participation Experiences and

“Lessons Learned”

Summary of Review

The Workgroup examined existing public

participation practices across the Agency, and

found that in most EPA programs and projects,

the decision currently is how and when, not if, to

involve the public. The need to involve

stakeholders and the public to help address

today’s complex and controversial environmental

issues is growing increasingly apparent. When

EPA increases meaningful public participation

opportunities, the public can better leverage

expertise and resources to help the Agency and

its partners formulate solutions to environmental

problems.

The Workgroup found that for public participation

to be meaningful, the public needs to have an

opportunity to:

• obtain easily accessible, understandable

background information;

• review proposed actions both early in decision-making processes and at other critical

decision points when their input can be

useful;

• understand how the decision-making processes work;

• understand how their comments will be used

in the decision process;

• learn, after the decisions are made, how their

input was used; and

• understand their real potential to influence

decisions.

Public participation at EPA is no longer defined

as a single process. Most experts now see it

as a range of participation techniques, from

those that simply inform to those meant to

reach a joint agreement. In the course of

conducting its review of public participation

practices at EPA, the Workgroup identified four

categories of activities that should be used to

involve stakeholders in environmental decisionmaking: outreach, information exchange,

collaboration and recommendations, and

agreements. (See EPA’s Public Participation

Terminology, page vi.) These activities do not

stand alone. They are part of a communications

and participation progression that can and

should be used as a systematic approach to

accomplishing the Agency’s work.

EPA staff use outreach activities to identify

people who are interested or potentially affected

by the Agency’s actions and to keep them

informed about what we are planning, what we

are doing and why. Through information

exchange, EPA staff and management share

data, options, issues and ideas with the affected

public in an interactive way in order to gather

information and learn from them. Recommendation activities involve a smaller number of

stakeholder representatives who collaborate with

each other and with Agency staff to reach

consensus on a set of recommendations for

action. Through agreement activities, EPA

management works with stakeholder representatives to reach an agreement by consensus to

which all parties agree. Successful agreement
13

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

or recommendation processes occur only with

significant information access, exchange and

outreach. Progressing to a recommendation or

agreement process is not necessary, practical

or affordable for all decision-making processes.

The importance of access to information and to

decision makers increases from one level of the

progression ladder to the next.

New and emerging technologies enable the

Agency to develop added ways to carry out the

public participation progression. Communications avenues such as Internet chat rooms,

virtual meetings, the use of E-mail and the

Internet were not available when the Agency

adopted the 1981 Policy. In addition, the field of

consensus and dispute resolution, often called

alternative dispute resolution (ADR), provides

new ways to engage the public in addressing

and resolving issues.

As a result of these new methods and

techniques, the Agency has enhanced public

participation opportunities. Some EPA offices

and programs use alternative dispute resolution

practices to expedite decisions and reduce the

costs of compliance. Other offices use chat

rooms, electronic message/bulletin boards, and

computer accessible databases to enable

citizens and stakeholders to provide input or

obtain information. Most offices provide for

electronic submissions of comments on

proposed rules. Some offices and programs

have tailored outreach programs to address

differences in culture, economics, age, and

education among target audiences.

Through its assessment of existing practices,

the Workgroup found that many of the Agency’s

public participation advances have not been

prompted by legislative changes. Instead, EPA

programs and regions had the necessary

flexibility to take actions, develop projects, and

make innovations to promote and encourage

public participation, thus enabling staff to work

more efficiently and effectively. Lessons learned

from the Agency’s experiences in customizing

public participation processes to meet the

needs of particular circumstances provide a

potential framework for enhancing the existing

Policy or for developing a new one.

Some Examples of Innovative Approaches

Negotiated Rulemaking — In 1983 EPA

piloted a procedure recommended by the

Administrative Conference of the U.S. called

“negotiated rulemaking” or “regulatory negotiation” - reg neg for short. During a reg neg, the

Agency establishes a Federal Advisory

Committee of interested and affected stakeholders who negotiate either the outline or the text of

a proposed rule. While such negotiations are

difficult and time consuming, EPA conducted

reg negs on 20 rules from 1983 to 2000. Most

of the committees were able to reach full or

substantial agreement on the outline or text of a

rule. EPA found that the rules resulting from

reg negs are more practical and implementable

and less likely to be challenged in court than

those developed through traditional means. The

U.S. Congress passed the Negotiated

Rulemaking Act in 1990 and renewed it

indefinitely in 1996. The Act is based heavily on

EPA’s experiences and procedures from the first

seven reg negs it conducted. More information

is available at [http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/

factsrn.htm].

Professional Facilitation of Stakeholder

Involvement Activities — The Agency obtains

professional facilitation and mediation support

for public participation, consensus building and

dispute resolution activities via contracts with

outside organizations. These include Superfund

support contracts and various program office

mission support contracts. Since 1986, a

series of contracts managed by the Consensus

and Dispute Resolution Program has been a

primary source of consensus and dispute

resolution assistance. Demand for these

services has grown exponentially. The first

contract in 1986 had four work assignments; the

third, which expired in 1999, had 206 over a fiveyear period. The current five-year contract has

a ceiling of more than $41 million. These figures

reflect the changes in EPA’s attitude about

stakeholder involvement over the past 20 years

- from very few activities to numerous activities

in every program and regional office.

Community-Based Environmental Protection

(CBEP) — Between 1995 and 2000, the Agency
14

Engaging the American People

built partnerships with more than 200 communities and their state and tribal government

partners to integrate approaches that protect

and restore local natural resources in ways that

help ensure long-term ecological, economic,

social, and human health benefits for ourselves

and future generations. CBEP’s goals are to:

• Achieve environmental results consistent

with EPA’s mission and base program goals,

as stated in EPA’s authorizing statutes and

Strategic Plan;

• Address environmental concerns not

amenable to traditional federal regulatory

approaches, such as urban sprawl, urban

and agricultural runoff, and loss of biological

diversity;

• Help communities develop the tools and

capacity necessary to be stewards of their

human and natural resources; and

• Coordinate and integrate EPA’s programs

and activities to increase the Agency’s

effectiveness in supporting sound community

environmental decision-making.

Additional information on CBEP is available

at [http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/].

The Common Sense Initiative — This was a

four-year experiment to address environmental

management by industrial sector rather than by

environmental medium (air, water, land). Using a

Federal Advisory Committee structure, EPA

brought together representatives from industry,

environmental, environmental justice and labor

organizations, and federal, state, and local

governments to address environmental issues

facing six industry sectors. The stakeholders

provided more than two dozen consensus

recommendations on industry-specific issues.

In response to concerns raised by the printing

sector subcommittee and other stakeholders,

the CSI Council formed a workgroup in

November 1997 to address concerns about

Agency-wide stakeholder involvement issues.

The resulting Report included three recommendations concerning needs to: develop common

understanding of the goals and roles of

stakeholder involvement processes: do early

planning of these processes, and build internal

and external capacity to participate effectively in

these processes. In response to these

recommendations, in December 1998, the

Agency developed a 20-point Action Plan for

Improving Stakeholder Involvement. The Agency

has made substantial progress in implementing

this plan. The two documents noted above, as

well as a progress report on the 20 action items,

are available at [http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders]. One of the action items was creating this

web site. Another action item notes the

development of program-specific tools such as

the Project XL Process Improvements that

provide the latest information regarding

stakeholder involvement in XL (Excellence and

Leadership) projects, and the “Constructive

Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice

for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers,

Communities, and Regulators” ([http://

www.epa.gov/stakeholders/pdf/resolve1.pdf];

EPA 745-B-99-008).

National Community Involvement Conference — Since 1998, EPA program offices

collaboratively organized and held the annual

conferences. These events enable community

involvement practitioners, managers, and

policymakers at EPA and partners in federal,

state, tribal, and local agencies to share their

successes and expertise in public participation

activities. Presentations emphasize the broad

range of EPA’s community involvement efforts.

Nationally recognized experts in such areas as

cross-cultural issues, conflict resolution and

negotiation skills, crisis communications, public

meeting planning and facilitation, media

relations, and other community and public

participation skills or approaches offer training.

Superfund Public Participation Support

The Superfund program has succeeded in

increasing public participation in cleanup

decision-making through a variety of techniques

and approaches. At 53 sites, EPA used

Community Advisory Groups (CAGs), which

provide community members with a forum for

learning about and assessing cleanup

alternatives and giving input to site managers.

Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) provide

money to community nonprofit groups so that
15

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

they can obtain technical assistance in

interpreting information about their Superfund

sites. This assistance enables the groups, and

the community as a whole, to participate more

effectively in site decision-making. EPA has

awarded 210 TAGs since the inception of this

program. The Technical Outreach Services to

Communities project has provided independent

university-based scientific and engineering

expertise to 115 communities dealing with

hazardous substance contamination questions.

Additional information about these Superfund

programs and resources is available at [http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/cag/resource.htm].

Increased Transparency of Stakeholder

Involvement in Pesticide Decisions — Based

on advice obtained from many outside groups

through the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory

Committee (TRAC) meetings held during 1998

and 1999, EPA created more opportunities for

information sharing and public involvement in its

development of risk assessments and risk

management decisions for the organophosphate

pesticides (OPs). By obtaining and including

real-world information from a variety of outside

interests and groups, EPA hopes to arrive at the

fairest and most informed decisions possible for

the OPs. To provide ample opportunity for public

participation in these reassessments, EPA

piloted a more extensive, inclusive, public review

and comment process. On March 15, 2000 (65

FR 14199), EPA proposed to expand the pilot by

establishing a similar public participation

process for pesticide tolerance reassessments

and reregistrations. This process should

increase the transparency of, and stakeholder

involvement in, the development of pesticide risk

assessments and risk management documents

and decisions. Additional information is

available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/

involve.htm].

Public Involvement in Permitting —

Stemming from the Second Generation of

Environmental Permitting Action Plan, the Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER) guided an Agency workgroup to

improve public participation in all the permitting

programs in the Agency. The first product is

“Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A

Reference Guide” ([http://www.epa.gov/permits/

publicguide.htm]; EPA 500-R-00-007) The

Guide, which describes the current permitting

processes and the opportunities for public

participation for all permitting programs, is an

excellent tool for the public, permitted facilities,

and the regulating agency (EPA/states/tribes/

local governments). The primary audience is the

state, tribal and local governments that are

permitting authorities. The Guide is intended to

be their toolkit of resources and best practices

in public involvement. The public and industry

will also be able to use this document as an

educational resource to help them fully

understand their opportunities for participation in

each permitting program.

The Model Plan for Public Participation of

the National Environmental Justice Advisory

Council (NEJAC) — The Council, a federal

advisory committee to EPA, developed a model

plan for conducting effective public meetings,

“The Model Plan for Public Participation,” ([http:/

/es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nejac/pdf/modelbk.pdf];

EPA publication number 300-K-96-003). Plan

principles now appear in various public

participation guidances and documents

including the RCRA Public Participation

Guidance and Project XL guidance. In addition,

the Agency used the Model Plan in preparation

and facilitation of meetings involving the use of

federal facilities. Further, state and tribal

agencies, industry, and community organizations have endorsed and use the Model Plan in

conducting public participation activities.

Recently, the International Association of Public

Participation endorsed the plan and encouraged

its members (over 1000 individuals and

organizations) to use it. The State of

Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality

modeled a public participation process after the

plan. The NEJAC also recently developed a

draft “Guide on Consultation and Collaboration

with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public

Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal

Citizens.” It explains how EPA, and other

environmental justice stakeholders, can more

effectively work with tribes and tribal communities to address their environmental justice
16

Engaging the American People

concerns. A final draft is expected to be

completed by December, 2000.

Federal Core Water Quality Standards in

Indian Country — The Office of Water (OW) is

considering establishing federal core water

quality standards in Indian country. OW

organized extensive outreach, held initial

discussions, and used formal consultation. OW

promoted meetings and met with different

groups to explain the rationale for these

standards, to explain what they might look like,

and to solicit initial reactions. This included

meetings with EPA’s Tribal Operations

Committee, tribal organizations such as the

National Tribal Environmental Committee, EPA

regional Tribal Operations Committees, and

regional meetings with tribes. Using their input,

OW drafted a concept paper which it used

during a formal three-month consultation period.

The process included the Regional Administrators’ sending a letter to each federallyrecognized tribe seeking each tribe’s reactions

to the proposal. Additionally, EPA regions

sponsored forums, meetings, and conference

calls with tribes in their regions to discuss the

standards and again solicit tribal feedback. OW

staff and senior managers participated in many

of the regional meetings. EPA had extensive

dialogue with over 200 tribes during the formal

consultation period. The ideas and concerns

expressed during this time are being considered

in EPA’s approach to setting federal water

quality core standards in Indian country.

Improved Federal Advisory Committee

Activities — The Office of Cooperative

Environmental Management (OCEM) provides

policy, oversight, and national program

management for EPA’s Federal Advisory

Committees (FACAs). EPA has 23 FACAs, with

38 subcommittees using 1,355 citizen

volunteers. These committees give EPA expert

advice and citizens’ perspectives in developing a

wide variety of environmental policies and

programs, and are an essential part of the

Agency’s public participation effort. OCEM has

been working to build the capacity of both the

Designated Federal Officials (DFOs) who run the

FACAs, and the general public. For the DFOs,

capacity building efforts include: a week of

public participation training; monthly meetings

with speakers addressing elements of public

participation; development of a directory of

contacts within and outside the Agency that will

find diverse committee members, and surveying

DFOs to find out their needs relative to public

participation. The major initiatives to help the

public prepare to be members of EPA’s FACAs

include: developing an OCEM website that is a

“one stop shop” for information on all EPA’s

federal advisory committees, and partnering with

the General Services Administration to include

extensive information on EPA’s FACAs to GSA’s

government-wide, web-based federal advisory

committee data base. Committees are

exchanging information with each other so they

can better advise the Agency.

Scientific Advisory Panel on the Federal

Insecticides, Fungicides and Rodenticides

Act (FIFRA) — The Panel provides independent

scientific advice regarding the impact on human

health and the environment of proposed

regulatory actions concerning pesticides and

pesticide-related issues. The Administrator

solicits from the Panel advice, evaluations, and

comments for operating guidelines to improve

the effectiveness and quality of staff scientific

analyses that are the bases for regulatory

decisions. The Administrator also asks the

panel to provide peer review of major scientific

studies.

Brownfields Initiative — EPA launched the

Brownfields Initiative to help state, local and

tribal governments, communities, and other

stakeholders work together to assess, clean up,

and reuse brownfields. Brownfields are

abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and

commercial facilities where real or perceived

environmental contamination complicates

expansion or redevelopment. EPA is building

partnerships with states, tribes, cities, and

community representatives, and among federal

agencies, to develop strategies for promoting

public participation and community involvement

in Brownfields revitalization projects. Additional

information is available at [http://www.epa.gov/

swerosps/bf/].
17

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

Environmental Monitoring for Public Access

and Community Tracking (EMPACT) — The

EMPACT Program specifically addresses the

lack of current and reliable local environmental

information that is available to people. EMPACT

helps communities provide their residents with

current and accurate information about local

environmental conditions. Local governmental

agencies are key partners in all EMPACT

projects, which also include partners from many

levels of government, the private sector and

academia. The 34 projects in 84 cities had over

225 partners as of January 2000. The program

funds projects that provide people with the local

environmental information they want, requires

local governmental agencies to be full partners

in every funded project, and requires projects to

develop and implement strategies for local

stakeholder participation in every project.

EMPACT also fosters public participation by

engaging local partners in all technical meetings

and by convening meetings specifically focused

on their needs. Additional information is

available at [http://www.epa.gov/empact/

index.htm].

Four recently initiated activities have the

potential to improve the Agency’s public

participation efforts:

Community Involvement University — The

EPA Superfund program is one of the Agency’s

programs that has regional staff who work

directly with citizens in communities. The

growing sophistication of communities around

Superfund sites challenges the skills of these

staff members every day. If they have difficulty

communicating and establishing positive

relationships with the communities, the fallout

can be very stressful for all concerned, affecting

not only a community’s views of EPA, but also

the cost and pace of clean-up. To develop a

more coordinated and comprehensive approach

to training community involvement staff

members, the Superfund program is establishing

“Community Involvement University” (CIU) to

provide EPA Superfund staff with meaningful,

professional training in the art and science of

working with communities. The curriculum will

include building and enhancing skills in such

areas as communications/outreach, organizing/

conducting/facilitating public meetings, dealing

with difficult people, establishing rapport,

working with diverse populations, negotiating,

and a variety of technical topics. This program

should ensure that community involvement staff

members nationwide have the same opportunities to develop and enhance their community

involvement related skills as they do to increase

their technical knowledge. The two skills sets

will enable them to better explain technical

issues to the public and should improve

participation opportunities for the public.

Science in Environmental Decision-Making

— Because members recognized the Agency’s

increased emphasis on stakeholder involvement

in decision-making, the Executive Committee of

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is

currently conducting a series of workshops to

learn how science can best be used in

stakeholder involvement processes. The Board

also is examining whether the Agency is

providing the infrastructure to support needed

science. The workshops feature reports on

recent uses of science in stakeholder processes

and structured discussions with Agency staff

and members of the public about how science is

actually reviewed and used in stakeholder

processes. Based on the workshops and their

experience, the SAB may provide the Administrator with a report identifying best practices and

research needs associated with the use of

science in stakeholder decision processes.

Community Risk Assessment Workshops —

The Office of Research and Development’s

Office of Science Policy continues to hold

workshops designed to bring together scientists,

community practitioners, and EPA risk

assessors to discuss complex multi-source

assessments conducted in community settings,

such as urban environments. The workshops

provide an opportunity (1) to develop a better

understanding of how community assessments

are different from traditional risk assessments;

(2) to identify existing Agency experience

through case studies and scientific tools and

databases that support community assessments; and (3) to preliminarily outline where
18

Engaging the American People

improvements could be made. Three workshops

have been conducted since March 1999. The

first examined Agency experiences to identify

and clarify community assessment issues, i.e.,

questions asked in a community. The second

workshop inventoried and evaluated existing

Agency tools and methodologies that might be

used to address the questions in community

assessments. The third explored focusing the

tools to serve communities and evaluated

potential Community Assessment products.

Based on information gathered in the workshops, the steering committee is now developing products to help integrate science to support

community risk assessments.

Information Products Bulletin (IPB) — In May

2000, a workgroup began developing a list of

upcoming significant information products in

development at EPA – the IPB. The workgroup

includes representatives from major program

offices, regions and the states. The workgroup’s

task is to ensure that EPA information products

are useful, that data are incorporated into these

products and those data are presented in an

appropriate context. The IPB will provide prepublication notification of information products,

and, in some cases, identify opportunities for

stakeholder involvement.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

After conducting its review, the Workgroup

developed five general conclusions:

1. The 1981 Policy and Part 25 Regulations are

still valid but do not incorporate new statutes

or public participation innovations

2. The 1981 Policy and the Part 25 Regulations

have not been adequately publicized internally or externally; EPA and its coimplementors have not consistently

implemented them. Across the Agency and

among co-implementors there are opportunities to improve consistency.

3. New participation techniques and information

technologies provide the Agency with

opportunities to involve the public and

challenges to reach both those who have and

those who lack Internet access.

4. Few centralized tools or resources are

available to aid EPA staff and Agency

partners in engaging the public.

5. Streamlining decision-making should not

preclude meaningful public participation.

These conclusions led to a series of recommendations which are the basis for a list of

suggested actions. The recommendations and

suggested actions are described in the following

two sections.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

The Workgroup identified five recommendations

for Agency consideration. Some of the

recommendations are resource-dependent.

With continued reductions in budgets, the

Agency will need to consider whether the

recommendations are viable within today’s fiscal

realities, and with the availability of management

and staff to design, implement, and manage

projects or programs. The conclusions listed

above and the recommendations provided below

do not have a “one-to-one” correlation. Several

recommendations address numerous issues/

observations listed in the conclusions. A

description of associated benefits follows each

recommendation.

5.1 Short-Term Recommendations

(3-12 months)

1a. Revise the 1981 Policy to reflect the

additional statutes EPA now

administers, technological changes,

and procedural advances.

The Policy should reference statutes and

recognize the new technological and participation techniques now available. It should also

address more explicitly the issue of “matching

the forum to the fuss” by incorporating the range

of public participation processes and stressing

the importance of early notification and good

4

5
19

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

planning for public participation programs. A

key element to making the Policy viable will be

to structure the text so that managers and

officials have the flexibility to encourage

stewardship, promote voluntary and incentivebased efforts, use reward-based compliance,

and encourage public participation during all

phases of a decision, from the beginning stages

to project close out.

1b. When issuing the Draft 2000 Public

Involvement Policy for comment, the

Administrator should direct that all

offices and regions begin immediately

to:

1. give increased attention to implementing

and enforcing associated procedures and

requirements;

2. use the Draft 2000 Policy as guidance

pending final action following public

review and comment;

3. ensure that the Part 25 Regulations, and

other statutory and regulatory public

participation requirements are being fully

implemented;

4, develop means to track and measure

progress; and

5. evaluate the effectiveness of public

participation activities.

EPA can enhance public participation by raising

awareness of the details within the Policy, Part

25 and other regulations, and making greater

efforts to ensure that the procedures contained

within these documents are followed. The EPA

as a whole, and each program office, needs to

establish performance measures for public

participation activities and evaluate performance.

They should also take additional steps, if

necessary, to assure compliance with

associated procedures and requirements.

The Administrator should underscore the

Policy’s importance by regularly highlighting

participation activities during senior staff

sessions. The Administrator’s 2000 Draft

Public Involvement Policy transmittal memo to

EPA senior managers and staff should:

• direct that each region and office with

programs requiring public participation

establish measures and evaluate performance against those measures at least

annually, beginning September 30, 2001;

• encourage National Program Managers to

include public participation measures in

Memoranda of Agreements with regions and

to discuss with regions how to encourage

delegated program officials (states, tribes

and local governments) to implement public

participation requirements;

• establish responsibility in the Office of

Policy, Economics and Innovation for gathering information and annually reporting

implementation of the Policy and Regulations

to the Deputy Administrator, beginning

October 31, 2001, to ensure tracking of the

public participation activities;

• be copied to all employees via electronic

mail.

Benefits: Having a revised Policy presents the

opportunity to stress the expectations for and

importance of public participation in future

environmental and public health decisions.

These actions would reinforce the Agency’s

commitment to public access and participation

and ongoing improvements, and enable the

Administrator to demonstrate a personal

investment in promoting effective public

participation. Successes can be documented

and applied to GPRA requirements.

Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation in cooperation with the General

Counsel’s Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Center and the public access organizations

within the Office of Environmental Information.

2. Enhance EPA’s Regulatory Agenda on

the Agency’s web site; explore ways

to improve it so it becomes a better

tool for public participation; provide

an Internet gateway to participation

information useful to EPA’s regulatory

partners and potential and current

stakeholders.

The Regulatory Agenda is the Agency’s primary

communications tool for informing the public
20

Engaging the American People

about regulations which are under development

in the near term. Some people feel it is a

difficult tool for citizens groups, small businesses and less Internet-knowledgeable

stakeholders to access and understand. The

entries in the Agenda do not inform the public

about what type of public participation the

Agency might be considering or when that

process would occur. The Office of Management and Budget controls the content and

format of the bulk of the Agenda which is now

posted on EPA’s web site in a searchable

format. [http://yosemite1.epa.gov/smallbus.nsf]

EPA prepares a preamble to part of the Federal

Regulatory Agenda. The Office of Policy,

Economics and Innovation can use the preamble

to explain to stakeholders how best to read and

understand the Regulatory Agenda. The

preamble should help the public understand how

to identify those rules that are likely to:

• have the most significant impact nationwide

(i.e., be most costly to implement);

• have the most significant impact on small

entities (i.e., impose a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities);

• impact specific industrial sectors in a direct

way; and

• impact state, local, and tribal governments.

The preamble can note that annually the

Regulatory Agenda includes the Agency’s

Regulatory Plan which provides more detail

regarding economically significant (i.e., rules

anticipated to have an annual impact in excess

of $100 million) and other priority rules, including

a discussion of risks, alternatives under

consideration, and the costs and benefits of the

rules in the Plan. This action could also provide

better opportunity for early resource planning

and research on the part of stakeholder groups.

Those exploring how they might become

involved in environmental decision-making in

EPA programs, state or local decisions have no

centralized place to start their search.

Enhancing the [http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders] website to become a gateway to participation related information would serve the public’s

need for a road map to point them to appropriate

opportunities and contacts for the specific

issues of interest.

Benefits: These improvements would make it

easier for the public to understand the rules

under development and which of those rules are

the most significant or important to them. The

public could then communicate with the program

contacts to obtain information about specific

rules and to identify appropriate opportunities for

involvement. These actions would demonstrate

EPA’s leadership and initiative in providing useful

information to the interested and directly

affected public. A well-publicized Internet

gateway site to environmental and public health

data and information and participation tools of

federal, state and tribal agencies would enhance

stakeholders’ ability to participate in related

decisions.

Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation.

3. Develop database and list tools: a)

create a prototype stakeholder

database for Agency use; b) maintain

a centralized, shareable “key national

stakeholders” database for Agency

use; c) explore options for developing

a secure, Web-facilitated process for

qualified stakeholders to “sign-up” for

the centralized list; d) develop process

for centralized sign on to Agency

listserves.

a. Create a prototype stakeholder database

for Agency use - A frequent complaint of

commenters was that the Agency does

not have a centralized means of

accessing key national stakeholders for

a variety of public participation efforts.

Agency technical staff have limited time,

expertise and resources for identifying

stakeholders without such a list. A

centralized database that can be

accessed Agency-wide is a proposed

solution. Access to the database could

be limited to ensure compliance with the

Privacy Act and related concerns. The

Office of Communications, Education
21

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

and Media Relations (OCEMR) is

currently developing such a database.

b. Maintain a centralized, shareable “key

national stakeholders” database for

Agency use - OCEMR, which

incorporates public liaison functions for

the Office of the Administrator, is the

appropriate organization to maintain and

assure appropriate internal access to a

centralized national key stakeholder

database. At the same time, each

program office and region will need to

continue to maintain the specialized lists

of stakeholders and contacts appropriate

to their functions and responsibilities.

However, to facilitate list sharing and

merging on a case by case basis, list

owners would be encouraged to use the

database program developed centrally.

c. Explore options for developing a secure,

Web-facilitated process for qualified

stakeholders to “sign-up” for centralized

list - To ensure that the Agency’s

stakeholder lists are current, broad and

inclusive, EPA should provide an

opportunity on EPA’s website for

organizations to sign-up. For example,

on the website applicants might see a

note informing them that inclusion on the

list is not automatic-- there will be a

verification process after sign-up to

ensure that the information provided is

complete and correct and to ensure that

the organization represented by this

individual is a stakeholder in the issues

indicated. It may also be possible to

enable organizations to access their

information for “updating” purposes. If an

appropriate process can be established,

the list could include self-identified

stakeholders who might otherwise be

overlooked. Those listed could share

some of the burden for keeping the list

current.

d. Streamline process for centralized sign

on to Agency listserves - The Agency

maintains an impressive array of

newsletters and listserves on a host of

critical topics. To ensure that all

appropriate parties know about these

information venues, they will be

prominently listed on the Agency Web

pages with a clear and simple

explanation or form for applying to

receive the desired information.

Benefits: Agency personnel would be able to

quickly identify stakeholder organizations to

inform, contact or involve in Agency grants,

projects, decisions or actions. Centralized lists

could enable staff to speed participation process

planning. Stakeholder organizations would more

easily find the information and opportunities for

participation that they desire and be able to

register their interest(s) easily in one place online.

Lead Office: Website content and database

maintenance: Office of Communications,

Education and Media Relations; List Serve &

Newsletters updates in all appropriate program/

regions with list serves.

4. Issue and promote “Public

Involvement in Environmental Permits:

A Reference Guide” and The “Better

Decisions Through Consultation and

Collaboration Manual;” provide and

promote training to support them and

to better prepare communities to

participate in environmental decisionmaking.

Commenters and EPA Workgroup members

noted the need for consistency in implementing

the 2000 Policy and Part 25 Regulations. These

new tools should be widely distributed, shared

on the Internet, and used as the basis for

training both staff and delegated program

partners. They can then move EPA and its

program partners toward more consistent

processes and clearer understanding of what is

required and what is optional in public participation. Establishing a train-the-trainer effort to

share the information in the two new manuals

could speed delivery to staff across the Agency,

and simplify delivery to delegated programs’

staff.
22

Engaging the American People

Benefits: EPA staff and delegated program

partners would understand that a wide array of

options is available for involving the public, know

more about how to “match the forum to the

fuss,” and know when public participation is

required and when it is not. The training would

enhance the Agency’s (and partners’) capabilities, timeliness, effectiveness, and efficiency

when engaging the public. Stakeholders and

the public at large would have more consistent

opportunities to participate nationwide.

Lead Offices: Office of the General Counsel’s

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center/Office

of Policy, Economics and Innovation, in

cooperation with permits staff in all media

programs and regions.

5.2 Long-Term Recommendations

(1-3 years)

5 . The Administrator should charge the

Reinvention Action Council (RAC),

through a cross-agency workgroup,

with developing a Strategic Plan in

2001, and leading its implementation.

That Plan should be designed to:

• ensure full implementation of the revised

Public Involvement Policy;

• enhance Agency-wide public

participation;

• track and report progress to the Agency

and to the public; and

• ensure that actions recommended in this

strategy are consistent with and

complement the Agency’s Public Access

Strategy.

This document provides suggested actions that

the group should consider and recommendations that the group’s Plan should carry out.

Benefits: Having an in-place infrastructure that

encourages and supports effective public access

to and participation in the Agency’s decisionmaking processes will build and reinforce public

trust in those decisions. It will also reduce time,

staff and budget resources needed to resolve

confusion, complaints, disputes and litigation.

Lead Office: Supporting the RAC’s workgroup –

Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation

Additional Information for the RAC’s Workgroup:

a. During development of the Strategic Plan for

Public Participation, specific and critical

cross-agency services and program-based

activities will continue as resources allow.

The status of the following activities should

be reflected in the Plan:

1. maintaining and promoting Agency-wide

access to a network of trained neutral

parties to assist in dispute resolution

and public participation facilitation (Office

of the General Counsel’s Conflict

Prevention and Resolution Center lead);

2. building and implementing a coordinated

program for EPA and delegated program

staff development in public participation

awareness, tools and techniques, using

current training services and materials

and, if required, developing new materials

and enlisting new services;

3. continuing support for research and pilot

testing of innovative participation

techniques and sharing results of such

research (Office of Policy, Economics

and Innovation lead);

4. developing or expanding mechanisms

and using technology to build the

capacity of organizations, individuals and

communities (particularly low income

and minority) to effectively participate in

EPA decision-making processes (Office

of Environmental Justice lead);

5. establishing and maintaining

mechanisms for EPA staff to share

participation information, success

stories, training opportunities, research

on new or improved techniques and

generally provide assistance to one

another;
23

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

6. implementing current and planned public

participation activities; and

7. supporting implementation of the Public

Access Strategy.

b. The RAC’s cross-agency workgroup

developing the Strategic Plan for Public

Participation should ensure that the Plan

addresses continuing actions to:

1. Build capacity in public participation

skills in EPA staff, co-regulators and

stakeholders through training, greater

access and wider distribution of existing

and new materials on public participation

and decision-making.

While the RAC’s workgroup develops the

Strategic Plan, all practicable internal and

external capacity building activities should

continue. Ideally, specific public participation

skills training can be offered widely to EPA and

co-regulators’ staff. The Agency and its

partners would learn how to work more

effectively with the public and use public input to

promote environmental well-being and equity.

However, since resources are scarce for this

type of activity, the RAC’s workgroup should

work with the originating offices to promote and

distribute existing and newly developed training

materials (such as the “Public Involvement in

Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide” the

“Better Decisions Through Consultation and

Collaboration Manual,” and “The Constructive

Engagement Resource Guide”), case studies,

lessons learned, guidances and resource

materials to Agency training programs (the

National Enforcement Training Institute, the

Watershed Academy, Community Involvement

University, the Environmental Justice Training

Collaborative, and other EPA and co-regulator

training programs) and to EPA, state, local and

tribal partners. The RAC’s workgroup can work

across EPA to help promote and coordinate

training offerings and to improve access to these

informational materials within EPA, its coregulators and stakeholders. In 1999 the Office

of Policy and Reinvention established a

“Stakeholders” page on EPA’s Internet and

Intranet sites to provide information to Agency

employees and the public. These sites can be

used to provide all available training materials

directly or through links to other sites. (also see

recommendation 3).

To expand individual and community capacity,

EPA could assist local libraries and others

serving rural, remote, or low-income communities by providing expanded access to EPA webbased materials and publicizing the

stakeholders website. In September 2000,

EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation sponsored an online dialogue to

examine whether and how partnerships with

libraries might serve to improve communities’

and individuals’ access to and use of web-based

environmental information for related decisionmaking. The “conversations “ that occurred

during this event will remain accessible at [http:/

/www.network-democracy.org/epa] and the

results will be shared across the Agency.

Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation in cooperation with the Office of the

General Counsel’s Conflict Prevention and

Resolution Center, Office of Environmental

Justice, and the Office of Environmental

Information.

2. Work in program offices, and with

states, tribes and other co-regulators to

improve public participation in delegated

programs, with particular emphasis on

core processes such as permitting.

As the RAC’s workgroup develops the Strategic

Plan, EPA media programs should urge and

assist delegated programs to implement public

participation requirements of the Agency

consistently. Better coordination and a more

consistently applied policy will result in acrossthe-board improvements in environmental

decision-making as a result of good public

participation. EPA must continue to identify

methods and opportunities for enhancing

participation and ensuring greater consistency

among those managing Agency programs.

Release of “Public Involvement in Environmental
24

Engaging the American People

Permits: A Reference Guide” late in the summer

of 2000 provided an opportunity to develop pilot

projects involving states, tribes, and local

governments with delegated permitting authority

in efforts to improve public participation.

The Permitting Action Plan commits the Agency

to evaluating public participation procedures

related to permits, and to assessing the need for

changes in related policies, procedures, rules

and statutes. Pilot projects with partners in

permitting would inform the assessment/

evaluation. The Agency needs to identify and

use performance measures which encourage

collaboration with the public. The Offices of

Intergovernmental Activities, General Counsel

and Inspector General, as well as representatives of delegated programs should participate in

methods and measures development and

piloting. To enhance accountability for public

participation, EPA should share the agreed-upon

performance measures with all programs,

regions, co-regulators and the public. Such

efforts will need funding and will require strong

management support to gain and retain the

cooperation of co-regulators to fully implement

public participation.

Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation with the Office of The General

Counsel’s Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Center and the Office of Regional Operations.

3. Determine whether to update/modernize

Part 25 Regulations or repeal them and

rely on the 2000 Policy.

The Part 25 Regulations are procedures, not

regulations in the true sense. New statutes and

changes to existing statutes have been adopted

since EPA issued Part 25 in 1979. Today, many

programs rely on other program-specific public

participation rules for many of their activities.

Likewise, new procedures, programs, and tools

have become available to the Agency that may

need to be captured as requirements or

suggested actions to create a consistent but

flexible process for engaging the public across

all EPA programs. The RAC’s workgroup and

Regulatory Steering Committee should jointly

determine whether having the 2000 Policy and

new capacity building efforts in place will

preclude need for Part 25 revision. (The “Next

Generation in Permitting” action plan commits

the Agency to such an evaluation of procedures,

policies, rules and statues related to permits.)

If the workgroup and Committee determine that

revision is necessary, they should work to obtain

the staff and funds necessary to support a

workgroup charged with thoroughly reviewing the

regulations and determining whether each of the

statutes since 1979 should be covered by the

Part 25 Regulations. Based on these more

detailed analyses, the Agency may conclude

that other regulations and policies should be

revised or amended, as necessary and

appropriate, to provide consistency with the Part

25 Regulations. The status and schedule for

Part 25 related actions should be reflected in the

Strategic Plan.

Lead Office: Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation in cooperation with the Office of the

General Counsel and its Conflict Prevention and

Resolution Center.

4. Coordinate dissemination of equipment

and training to enable under-served

communities to have access to, and

receive benefits from, EPA web-based

information.

If EPA develops and continues to extend webbased information technology and capacity to

participate without addressing technology

deficits in low-income and/or minority communities, then these communities will find themselves at an even greater information

disadvantage while others move ahead.

Increasing the availability of equipment, on-line

and other training, and information to stakeholders would leverage existing Agency and other

federal resources, improve opportunities for

communities to participate in the decisionmaking process, and help close the digital

divide. The workgroup may be able to explore

new means to coordinate the process of

surplussing equipment to schools and libraries.

Further, the workgroup may be able to build on
25

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

the efforts of the Environmental Justice Training

Collaborative (EJTC), a national network of EPA

staff working in partnership with stakeholders to

develop environmental justice education tools,

meet critical information needs, and facilitate

dialogue to advance environmental justice.

During the Strategy development process, it

may be possible to explore means to develop

and establish a program of volunteer assistance

by EPA computer-literate employees. These

employees could volunteer to provide training in

the use of surplussed computers, EPA webbased materials, and other environmental/public

participation-focused software in libraries and

schools in low income and/or minority

communities and for tribes. Another option

would be to seek private sector partners that

develop, distribute or maintain computer

hardware and software systems to work with

such communities and tribes.

Lead Office: Office of Environmental Justice with

the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation.

5. Through the Public Access Strategy

(once released), improve public access

to environmental information and

enhance public participation.

 In the Public Access Strategy, the Agency will

be defining approaches for identifying stakeholders and gathering feedback from them as crucial

elements of public access. The Strategy will

identify major issues associated with impediments to timely and open public access (e.g.,

data security and confidentiality, data quality,

technology capabilities and the “digital divide”)

and guide the Agency in approaching these

issues. Outlined within the Strategy will be the

internal roles and responsibilities on public

access and methods for coordinating crossAgency efforts. Implementing the Public

Access Strategy will be an important Agencywide effort requiring cooperation and leveraging

of available resources. A clear and innovative

Public Access Strategy will be a strong

foundation on which to build the Public

Participation Strategy recommended in this

report.

Lead Office: Office of Environmental Information.

SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

To ensure coordinated action and the ability to

leverage that action across the Agency, it is

critical that the Administrator charge the

Reinvention Action Council, through a crossagency workgroup, with developing a Strategic

Plan for Public Participation. Through that group

the following specific actions should be

considered for inclusion in the Strategic Plan:

a. building and implementing a coordinated

program for staff development in public

participation awareness, tools and

techniques, using current training outlets

(NETI, Watershed Academy, Learning

Institute) and materials (“Better Decisions

Through Consultation and Collaboration

Manual,” “ Public Involvement in

Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide,”

“The Constructive Engagement Resource

Guide,” Suggested Actions in Report to the

Administrator on Public Participation, fact

sheets/tips, etc) and, if required, developing

new outlets and materials;

b. making such staff development training

available to delegated program partners;

c. providing clarification for staff and the

American people on when public participation

in EPA decision-making is a requirement and

when it is at the Agency’s discretion

(completion of summaries of all statutes,

regulations, executive orders, and associated

materials – OGC lead);

d. providing clarification for state, tribal and

local government partners and the American

people on when public participation in EPA’s

delegated programs’ decision-making is a

requirement and when it is at the partners’

discretion (OGC lead);

e. if necessary after revising the Policy and

expanding training in its implementation,

6
26

Engaging the American People

coordinating revision of the Part 25

Regulations to reflect technology

improvements, the enhancement of

participation tools and programs, and the

expansion of EPA’s regulatory authority

(OGC/OPEI led workgroup);

f. advocating the benefits of early, clearly

defined, and easily accessed participation

opportunities for stakeholders and interested

citizens (OPEI lead);

g. establishing and maintaining a network of

internal and external public participation

practitioners and delegated program partners

through:

1. centrally updating internal and external

network lists on a continuing basis

(OCEMR and OGC/CPRC leads);

2. convening annual meetings of the

network, with rotating lead responsibility,

through the EPA Community Involvement

Conference;

3. documenting successful practices and

procedures, and sharing them through

the Stakeholder web site;

4. sharing participation tools developed in

any EPA program with all programs

through the EPA Intranet and, as

appropriate, the Internet (OGC-CPRC/

OPEI lead);

h. maintaining and promoting appropriate

Agency-wide access to a network of trained

neutral parties to assist in dispute resolution

and early involvement facilitation through a

contract (OGC-CPRC);

i. maintaining for internal use, a centralized

and searchable database of organizations

and individuals involved in EPA public

participation activities (OPEI/OCEMR/OGC

lead);

j. continuing to support testing of innovative

participation techniques and sharing results

of such research (OPEI lead);

k. establishing a public participation innovations

award to be given at the National Awards

Ceremony only when an office or region

meets rigid criteria;

l. developing a plain language handbook to

serve as a road map for the public on how to

participate in EPA decision-making, including

statutory and regulatory provisions that

specifically address public participation, as

well as the various other ways in which

someone could get involved in an Agency

decision-making process;

m.developing a public participation “tool-kit” to

help ensure full implementation and

compliance of the Public Involvement Policy,

Part 25 Regulations and other requirements

for EPA staff and co-regulators;

n. developing or expanding mechanisms to

build the capacity of organizations,

individuals and communities to effectively

participate in EPA decision-making

processes through:

1. cataloging and sharing both internally

and externally the in-place mechanisms

(EMPACT, TAG model, XL communities

model, CBEP, tribal multimedia grants,

sustainable development, National

Estuary Programs, etc.) and funding for

capacity building;

2. ensuring that criteria and processes for

obtaining technical assistance or funding

are in plain language and made available

in a variety of formats (electronic, fax,

print by written or toll-free telephone

request);

3. increasing opportunities for low-income

and/or minority communities and tribes

to benefit from EPA web-based

information by:

• exploring ways to surplus equipment

so that one-half of all EPA

deaccessioned computers (meeting

set specifications) can be serviced,

donated, and delivered to schools/

libraries or nonprofit organizations that

serve such communities and tribes;

• enabling the Office of Environmental

Justice to coordinate with other federal
27

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup

agencies, including the Departments of

Agriculture, Interior, Commerce and

Education, and private entities to

provide Internet access to communities

and tribes and to enhance participation

in environmental decision-making;

• encouraging EPA program and regional office staff who are computerliterate to volunteer to provide and/or

develop appropriate training in the use

of computers, EPA web-based material, and other environment/public

participation focused software and

curricula in libraries and schools in low

income and/or minority communities

and tribes; and

• assisting in the development of

partnership agreements with leading

private sector software and computing

equipment companies for providing

technical assistance to enhance

training and equipment surplussing and

maintenance.

4. providing written summaries of

participation options and making them

available on the web site, through

partners, public libraries and direct

requests, and in other languages, when

appropriate (e.g., in linguistically isolated

populations, neighborhoods where

English is not the dominant language, or

when there is an imminent health or

environmental hazard.);

5. providing communities with tools to

assess their own environmental and

public health needs, and to access and

analyze EPA decision-making processes

to determine those which may assist

them and how to effectively participate in

those processes;

6. establishing a national award to be given

to an organization or community for

effective public participation that makes

a difference in EPA decision-making

(criteria to be developed);

7. highlighting results of an on-line dialog

with librarians, community organizations

and others to determine the potential for

libraries to become partners in

information provision on environmental

decision-making (OPEI lead - September

18-29, 2000);

8. supporting pilot projects in communities

that wish to test the EPA-libraries

partnership envisioned in (7) (OPEI lead)

o. compiling and reviewing past evaluations of

EPA initiatives that have included significant

public participation/stakeholder involvement

components to determine:

1. what the Agency has been doing

effectively;

2. what the Agency should be doing more

of; and

3. the special issues various program

offices should consider before developing

or revising public participation/

stakeholder involvement initiatives.

p. enhancing the Stakeholder website so it will

become a gateway to information that can

assist individuals and organizations to

participate in environmental decision-making

by providing links to:

1. EPA program and information resource

sites;

2. glossaries of environmental terminology;

3. data sites with local information (such

as TRI, Airlinks, Surf Your Watershed);

4. state environmental and health

agencies;

5. other federal sites with data or

information;

6. Federal Register Notices and Regulatory

Agenda;

7. EPA and other environmental education

materials;

8. federal government’s local governments

gateway and nonprofit gateway.

q. review and evaluate the effects of

streamlining and reinvention efforts on public

participation.
28

Engaging the American People

”The challenge for watershed planning efforts and community

based environmental protection is to invigorate local support by

addressing local problems, but doing so in a coordinated manner

that enhances mutual benefits and makes progress on regional

problems.”

Thomas Webler, Social and Environmental Research Institute