Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2003-0005-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-06-05T04:00Z

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
i
i
i
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
1
The
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
cross­
Agency
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