RE: Types of Techniques

[Barry Zalph <bzalph@co.jefferson.ky.us>]

Thanks to Jim Creighton for his helpful distinctions among the collaborative roles available to EPA and stakeholders. Jim wrote:

____________________
On the "role of the public" dimension,there are three basic levels:
Information Exchange:

Recommendations:
Agreements:

On the "EPA's Role" dimension, EPA plays three different roles. These include:
Decision Maker: In most permit decisions, EPA is the decisionmaker. The same is true for national policy decisons.
Partner:
Capacity Builder:
{end of quotation}
________________________________________________________

I wonder about situations in which EPA must approve or disapprove a permit or plan. Various interests within the affected community make their respective cases and use the means at their disposal to alter (or thwart) the plan. If I understand correctly, in many such cases EPA takes no role in the local or regional efforts to develop or review the plan. Only at clearly defined points in the planning process does EPA weigh in on the acceptability of the plan.

Given that EPA remains the final decision-maker, does it make sense for EPA to encourage or even convene some collaborative PIP to help reduce disagreement among the various stakeholders as they craft the plan that EPA must eventually approve or disapprove? This might reduce the number and seriousness of issues of concern to EPA not adequately addressed in the plan. It might also reduce the hew & cry arising from EPA's eventual yea-or-nay decision.

Three (at least) challenges face this approach. First, the participants must understand that their reaching an agreement does not require that EPA will accept any or all of it. Second, local political and economic leaders accustomed to making plans behind closed doors and then defending them in traditional "public comment" processes will need much encouragement to participate in good faith. Finally, all of the caveats raised in the past 3 days of this dialogue apply regarding identifying and substantively involving the affected communities.

Pardon me if this idea shows some basic misunderstandings about EPA's roles in environmental decision-making. If so, I'll be happy to receive your educational correctives (on- or off-list). Thanks!