Evaluating EPA Activities

[Eric Marsh <marsh.eric@epa.gov>]

Good Morning!  My name is Eric Marsh and I'm located in EPA's Evaluation Support Division.  I'm very excited to be serving as a Dialogue panelist today. The comments made on the previous days have been very robust.  I look forward to another rich discussion on this final day.  As part of my work, I'm supporting the EPA's Public Involvement Workgroup in the development of an EPA public participation evaluation plan.  This plan will be used to help EPA better gauge if it's following the right steps to involve the public in environmental decision making, the quality of the public involvement process, the effect the involvement process has on decision making and environmental outcomes, and how satisfied the public is with EPA's efforts. 

Published evaluations will draw attention to EPA's public involvement processes.  Many of you have already been giving examples of how you think our processes are flawed in specific instances.  I would like to hear more of your thoughts on what we can do to improve your ability to provide feedback to the Agency that will help us not only to evaluate our processes and involvement techniques but improve them based on that feedback. You've provided us with many ideas about how we can more effectively communicate and build opportunities for public involvement and build trust between EPA and the public.  We hear your ideas about how to make it easier for the public to tell EPA where improvements are needed, and encourage EPA to continue to improve its public involvement efforts.   

What I'd like you to tell me is how you would like to help evaluate our processes and techniques as we are using them in a rulemaking, issuing a permit, working on a Superfund site, developing a policy, etc.  For example, asking you what was good and bad about a meeting and the preparation/publicity for it can help make the next one better.  EPA does that, but not consistently.  Should we?  What other points in processes should we ask for your evaluation ideas and how?

Recognizing resource constraints placed upon EPA, what would you suggest EPA do to better assess, describe, and communicate (1) how well the Agency is working with the public and (2) how well the agency is meeting its public involvement commitments? 

As a start, in early 2001, EPA released a report entitled Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation at U.S. EPA 
( http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/pdf/sipp ).  
This report takes a broad look at the numerous lessons EPA has  learned from its work with the public since 1990.  In addition, EPA has begun consolidating public participation evaluations, case studies and reports together in one location and will soon make this available on EPA's Stakeholders website 
( http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/ ).  
Through use of this tool, you will be able to find out more about EPA's public involvement effectiveness in many different programs (Superfund, Brownfields, Watersheds, etc.).