EPA Stakeholder Engagement Guide

EPA Stakeholder Engagement Guide is sponsored by State of North Dakota. Final Report Guidelines for Assessment Projects <span class="tit

# Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed # 2nd edition Getting in Step: # Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503T) This publication is an update of the original publication prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under contract 68-C- 99-249 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and printed by Terrene Institute in 2000.

It is a com - panion guide to Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and available through EPA’s Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox (www. epa. gov/nps/toolbox ).

For copies of this guide, contact: National Service Center for Environmental Publications Website: www. epa. gov/ncepihom or visit EPA’s Nonpoint Source website at www.

epa. gov/nps EPA does not endorse any product, service or enterprise. Any mention of a product, publication, report, entity or enterprise is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement by EPA or the U.S. government.

Contents Introduction: The Importance of Stakeholders in Watershed Protection 1 Why involve stakeholders? 3 Each stakeholder group is unique!

5 Section 1: Stakeholders and Watershed Management 7 Using a watershed approach 7 Involving the stakeholder group throughout the watershed planning process 10 Section 2: Getting Started 17 Identifying driving forces 17 Defining internal goals and objectives 19 Developing a framework for stakeholder involvement 21 Section 3: Building Your Stakeholder Group 25 Researching key interest groups 26 Conducting outreach to recruit stakeholders 31 Inviting the stakeholders to participate 34 Hosting productive meetings 35 Conducting the first meeting 38 Building a stakeholder operating plan 42 Using outreach to engage and educate stakeholders 42 Section 4: Keeping the Ball Rolling 45 Top 12 tips to move the process forward 45 Using technology to share and collaborate 49 Making decisions by consensus 51 Using stakeholders for community outreach 60 Section 5: Beyond the Stakeholder Group 65 Responsibility of government agencies 65 Establishing independent watershed management groups 66 Types of organizations 67 Stakeholder involvement and communication 73 Facilitation and meeting management 77 Other resources and websites 77 Appendix: Building Blocks of Outreach 81 Step 1: Define the driving forces, goals and objectives 82 Step 2: Identify and analyze the target audience 82 Step 3: Create the message 83 Step 4: Package the message 84 Step 5: Distribute the message 85 Step 6: Evaluate the outreach campaign 86 1 # Stakeholders in Watershed Government agencies are eager to work with partners to help restore and protect America’s watersheds.

National environmental groups acknowledge the power of activating and motivating people and institutions. The business community has begun to embrace open, inclusive, performance-based environmental management systems to save money and improve performance.

No matter what you call it—cooperative resource management, civic environmentalism, a watershed partnership, place-based management, or environmental democracy—involving stakeholders in protecting natural resources is here to stay. Local residents are tired of talk and want action. Stakeholder involvement in watershed issues has gained momen - tum in recent years because of the nature of water quality problems in our country.

Forty years ago, most water quality problems were linked to discharges from factories and wastewater treatment plants. Today, however, about 40 percent of our nation’s waters do not meet their water quality goals because of runoff from streets, farms, mines, yards, parking lots and other nonpoint sources of pollution. Solving these problems requires the commitment and participation of stake - holders throughout our communities.

Stakeholder involvement is more than just holding a public hearing or seeking public comment on a new regulation. Effective stake - holder involvement provides a method for identifying public con - cerns and values, developing consensus among affected parties, and producing efficient and effective solutions through an open, inclusive process.

Managing that process requires some attention to the logis - tics and synergies of creating and operating a team of diverse people ## What’s in the Introduction? ## • Purpose of this guide ## • Why involve stakeholders? ## • Each stakeholder group is unique!

## Successful watershed management involves—and benefits—everyone.

A stakeholder is a person (or group) who is responsible for making or implementing a management action, who will be significantly affected by the action, or who can aid or prevent its implementation For the purposes of this guide, engaging and involving stakeholders means recruiting stakeholder group members and using their strengths and knowledge through an active stakeholder committee, group or board Introduction 2 This guide is intended for federal, state, tribal and local agency per - sonnel, as well as nongovernmental organizations, that are involved in watershed management activities and are building a stakeholder group.

The guide can also help private organizations interested in recruiting stakeholders and involving stakeholders in local or regional Stakeholder groups are formal or informal assemblies that represent a variety of interests and points of view within a watershed.

Although not every single interested party needs to be a member of the board (it’s important to keep the size of the group manageable and efficient), you should make sure all the key groups in the watershed are represented. For example, there might be three farmer organizations in a watershed, but it might not be necessary to include representatives from all three in the stakeholder group.

Instead, the participation of one, well- respected farmer from the community might be adequate. Section 2 describes how to identify the driving forces and goals within your watershed and how to organize and build the stakehold - er group. After identifying the key members that should participate in the stakeholder group, you need to get them to make an initial participation commitment.

Once they’ve made this commitment, the group members need to be engaged and their interest and enthusi - asm sustained. They must be provided with the pertinent materials needed to spread your watershed messages to your constituents and beyond. An organized and well-run outreach plan will make these tasks more productive and easier to implement.

Outreach informa - tion pertaining to generating interest, engaging stakeholders, and properly equipping them is presented throughout this guide. The purpose of this guide is to provide the tools needed to effectively engage stakeholder groups and use such groups to communicate with others to restore and maintain healthy environmental conditions through community support and cooperative action.

This stakeholder guide serves as a companion to EPA’s Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns which is available at www epa gov/nps/toolbox . The outreach guide provides advice on how watershed groups, local governments, and others can maximize the effectiveness of public outreach campaigns to reduce nonpoint source pollution and protect the lakes, rivers, streams, and coasts.

The appendix at the end of this stakeholder guide provides a summa - ry of the six steps for developing and conducting outreach campaigns (which are covered in detail in the outreach guide).

## Coalfield “bucket brigade” The Little Toby Creek watershed in Pennsylvania benefits from “bucket brigade” remediation projects that add granular limestone to streams heavily impacted by acid drainage from abandoned coal mines The limestone adds alkalinity as it tumbles downstream and dissolves, reducing acidity and raising stream pH to healthier levels The projects are both low-tech remediation activities and social outings, and they achieve results that provide an important sense of making a difference in the watershed ## Stakeholder involvement enhances communication, cooperation and shared responsibility.

Introduction 3 This guide is meant to provide real-world information that you can apply to your situation. It has six sections. Each section builds on the previous one, but you may skip around to any topic.

References to related information are indicated with a . The last section includes resource information, case studies, web - sites, and other how-to guides related to watershed protection. Case studies are included throughout the guide to highlight success stories that may help you move forward in your own watershed.

Wherever possible, a contact and website are provided. # Why involve stakeholders? If you’re responsible for developing and implementing a watershed management program, you need support from relevant stakehold - ers—those who will make decisions, those who will be affected by them, and those who can stop the process if they disagree.

## Giving disadvantaged communities a voice in watershed planning in California Nearly 70% of the cities and communities in the Santa Ana watershed in Southern California are considered disadvantaged or contain disadvantaged communities as defined by the state That translates into more than one- fourth of the watershed population When the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) set out to develop its 2009 Integrated Watershed Plan ( www sawpa org/ owow/the-plan/ ), it became apparent that to fulfill the goal of direct involvement of the environmental justice community, it would be necessary to go to communities in disadvantaged census tracts and engage the residents directly Several environmental justice issues in watershed, including the following, were identified early in the process: ## • Localized groundwater contamination from industrial operations and leaking septic systems was present ## • Small water companies in low-income communities lack the resources to upgrade their infrastructure and provide up-to-date treatment technologies for waste ## • Language barriers, a reliance on word-of-mouth communication, and low educational levels limit the ability to provide reliable, factual information that is easy to understand by members of disadvantaged SAWPA knew that these issues would be important to address in the watershed plan However, to get an even better understanding of the concerns of the residents of minority or low-income communities, the Authority conducted a series of one-on-one interviews and community group meetings (in English and Spanish) over a period of two months in 2008 In these sessions, SAWPA learned that there is widespread fear among these communities that their drinking water is contaminated In fact, residents of these communities are so fearful of the quality of their water that they consistently buy large, expensive bottles of water for drinking and cooking Therefore, in addition to addressing previously known environmental justice concerns, SAWPA learned through this inclusive process that it also needs to address issues involving the perception of unsafe water where water supplies are clearly safe for public consumption so that families can make informed decisions Spending scarce funds to protect themselves from a perceived risk is a key environmental justice issue Introduction 4 Over the past 30 years, watershed managers have found a lot to like about involving interested parties in their work.

Involving ## • Builds trust and support for the process and outcome ## • Shares the responsibility for decisions or actions ## • Creates solutions more likely to be adopted ## • Leads to better, more cost-effective solutions ## • Forges stronger working relationships ## • Enhances communication and coordination of resources ## • Helps to ensure that any environmental justice concerns are iden - It’s important to note that public involvement processes can greatly enhance watershed management efforts, but they can’t override laws and regulations enacted by elected officials and public agencies.

In fact, stakeholder group processes are used most often to support and complement legally required actions such as achieving water quality standards, protecting drinking water supplies, restoring habitat, and generally making the nation’s waters fishable and swimmable. Another important aspect of stakeholder involvement is utility.

If you convene a group and don’t somehow include their input in the process or product, they’ll likely wonder why they wasted their time.

Make sure that stakeholders’ contributions are recognized and are used in some manner to achieve the goals of the watershed program, and that stakeholders are informed about how their participation has In addition, a robust stakeholder involvement program can help to identify any potential environmental justice concerns that might be present in the watershed.

Including representatives from minority or low-income communities in the stakeholder group can help you to identify any such concerns early in the planning process. Then the watershed plan can include addressing situations in which certain groups are disproportionately affected by water quality problems. Introduction 5 # Each stakeholder group is unique!

This guide provides tools and tips for working effectively with stake - holders, but it is important to recognize that there is no “one-size- fits-all” approach.

Each stakeholder group is unique, and its makeup and operation will depend on several factors—the driving forces of the effort, the agencies’ internal goals, the geographic scale, the time frame needed for decision-making, the available budget, the willing - ness and availability of key stakeholders, the authority and respon - sibility to effect change and implement decisions, and the political climate.

Before a stakeholder group is formed, all of these factors must be considered to determine the best way to proceed. Sometimes, after you have completed an internal assessment of the driving forces and issues, you might determine that convening a stakeholder group is not the best approach to achieve your goals. It might make more sense to form a small technical workgroup and ## Too much too soon on the Santa Ynez?

Dense stands of willows along the banks of the Santa Ynez River in California’s Lompoc Valley impede stormwater flows from vegetable and flower farms, causing flooding and erosion of the riverbanks In 1994, a group of politicians, planners, and farmers approached the California Coastal Conservancy for help The Conservancy enlisted the well-respected Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, and launched a program to establish a watershed-wide plan to control flooding and deal with The Land Trust hired a project manager and professional facilitator and convened a stakeholder group composed of property rights advocates, environmentalists, farmers, and resource agency representatives to begin developing the plan Almost immediately, political currents, mistrust, and confusion threatened to derail the initiative Some landowners perceived the effort to move beyond the willow issue to address other concerns in the watershed as a direct attack on land and water rights The lack of motivation and a strong foundation—common issues, trust, broad support, acute problems requiring immediate attention—caused the process to unravel soon after it People were confused by and suspicious of the attempt to develop a comprehensive basin plan just to address the willow problem “Why are you doing this?

” was a common refrain throughout the first few months The Conservancy and Land Trust believed that support for a basin plan existed, but that belief was based on early interviews with flood-impacted farmers and others who did not necessarily represent other important stakeholders in the watershed As the process unfolded, mistrust and suspicion grew People wanted to know why a plan was being developed if it was not required, and they questioned the authority of the Land Trust and Conservancy to “force” a plan on local residents Less than a year after the planning committee was convened, it was disbanded because of an inability to agree on the scope and objectives of the process Organizers noted that “a truly comprehensive approach to resource management must be allowed to evolve at its own pace, especially where most of the resources are on “The fatal flaw on the Santa Ynez was rushing the process and telling landowners, water districts and special interest groups that they were going to collaboratively develop a watershed plan,” said Carolyn Barr, project director for the Land Trust “We did not take the time to understand their interests and fears, and we tried to impose a process that was not appropriate for the place and time ” > (Excerpted from California Coast & Ocean , summer 1996) ## There is no “one size fits all” ## approach.

Introduction 6 proceed with your work, especially if the project is small and involves only a few outside parties. Launching a full-blown basin planning and management program to address a limited set of issues can backfire if the situation is not ripe for a broad-based, cooperative approach.

Building awareness and trust, conducting educational activities, engaging stakeholders, and convening a planning group take commitment, time and resources. Forcing the process can complicate things, as the case study on the Santa Ynez River demonstrates (see page 5). On the other hand, important partners and even potential critics should be included to make sure their concerns and interests are addressed early in the process.

There are common elements to be considered when working with stakeholders.

This guide provides tips and tools to increase the effec - tiveness of your efforts to involve and engage stakeholders in protect - ## Public participation leads to Stakeholders sometimes know more about what is happening in their watersheds than do state agencies, as was the case for Lake Yazoo in Mississippi In June 2004 the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality prepared a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Lake Yazoo using the only available data at the time, which was from 1979 The data described the lake as contaminated with phenols and hydrocarbons, noting that there were no nonpoint sources of pollution Many stakeholders were concerned that the TMDL would not be an effective tool in cleaning up Lake Yazoo because it was based on such outdated data In fact, two public commenters were aware of a ship-building yard in the watershed that had not been accounted for, and brought this information to light During the public comment period for the TMDL, these issues were raised and the state added the stormwater permits issued for the area to the TMDL as potential pollution sources As a direct result of public comments, the language of Lake Yazoo's TMDL now reflects the fact that nonpoint sources of pollution are “unknown” rather > Source: www rivernetwork org Whatever the reason for conducting watershed management activi - ties, stakeholders can help.

Inclusive processes increase awareness and understanding of issues and challenges, generate more data, help determine priorities, increase support for remediation pro - grams, and generally enhance the likelihood of success.

Stakeholder processes often provide the reality check for scientific efforts: They seek to synthesize ecological, technical, social, cultural, political and economic concerns through a process that helps to define what’s The move toward integrated, holistic watershed management has meant that more attention must be paid to factors beyond the water body itself—how land is used, what type of vegetative or other cover it has, and how it is managed.

Such an approach requires the involvement of landowners, developers, farmers, urban governments, homeowners, recreational groups and other constituents in the watershed if real progress is desired. # Using a watershed approach Organizations in both the public and private sectors have enthusiasti - cally embraced a watershed approach to protect and preserve the quality of surface water and groundwater.

This approach has devel - oped rapidly over the past 20 years at the federal, state and local levels. Many states now manage their water resources through river basin programs that consider all impacts in a drainage area rather than discrete programs to address point and nonpoint sources of ## • Using a watershed approach ## • Involving stakeholders throughout ## • Where are we now and where do ## • How do we get there?

## • How will we know that we’ve ## All types of stakeholders should be involved.

Public support and sufficient participation are essential for project success A high rate of participation is key in voluntary projects because nonpoint sources of pollution are —North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Section 1 8 A watershed approach is particularly helpful in addressing tribal, federal, state and local responsibilities under various Clean Water Act programs.

For example, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pro - gram requires cleanup plans for waters that don’t meet the minimum water quality criteria associated with the designated use of the water body, such as swimming or fishing. Development of a TMDL involves identifying the pollutant(s) that exceed water quality criteria, assess - ing the sources (point and nonpoint) of those pollutants and develop - ing target reduction levels.

The next logical steps are to develop and carry out an implementation plan with selected actions designed to lower pollutant loads so the water body meets the minimum water EPA requires that states subject TMDL pollutant loads and reduc - tion target calculations to public review and recommends public participation to implement load allocations for nonpoint sources.

For example, a TMDL for sediment might include an analysis of sedi - ment loads from construction sites, timber harvest activities, row crop farming, and stream bank erosion caused by increased flows. These analyses—and any plan to address sediment loads—would benefit greatly from the involvement of construction contractors, loggers, farmers and stormwater managers in the affected watershed.

Their intimate knowledge of the activities and land management practices contributing to sediment loads and their participation in developing remediation actions designed to reduce them significantly enhances the scientific and technical validity of the loading analysis and increases the likelihood that appropriate control measures will be Clean Water Act regulations to prevent the degradation of cleaner waters also require public participation.

Under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 131. 12, antidegradation pro - grams must include a policy for ensuring that waters which meet or surpass minimum water quality criteria are protected from degrada - tion and must also include a method for implementing that policy.

Public participation and intergovernmental coordination are specifi - cally required when considering proposals (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, section 404 permits) that would lower the quality of waters already meeting the criteria for their designated uses.

Engaging and involving the public in refining and implementing antidegradation policies can help to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a state antidegradation program. For ## A cyclical, iterative process continues to improve the management plan.

Section 1 9 example, West Virginia’s antidegradation implementation procedure allows for public notice and comment regarding reviews, findings, and decisions and outlines a nomination process for “any interested party” to request higher protection levels for state water bodies. In addition to Clean Water Act requirements for public participation, other federal and state laws have specific public notice and involve - ment requirements.

For example, the Safe Drinking Water Act, which provides for the control of contaminants in public water systems, requires adequate public notices, public comment periods and pub - lic hearings for major permit modifications, revocations, reissuances and terminations. Other laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, also have similar public involvement requirements.

For more information on the public par - ticipation activities required for environmental permitting decisions, refer to Public Involvement in Environmental Permits (http://www epa gov/osw/hazard/tsd/permit/epmt/publicguide pdf ). That publication also contains details on how to conduct public meetings and hear - ings, produce public notices, respond to comments and much more.

Clearly, engaging and involving stakeholders benefits both regulatory and non-regulatory actions to restore and protect America’s waters. Synthesizing perspectives, policies, priorities and resources through a watershed approach blends science, technology and statutory responsibilities with social, economic and cultural considerations.

In 2008 EPA released the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (Watershed Handbook) , which provides comprehensive information on all aspects of watershed planning. The next several pages of this guide describe the watershed planning process and highlight key areas where stakeholder involve - ment is critical in the process.

All watershed planning efforts follow a similar path from identifying the problems to, ultimately, implement - ing actions to achieve the established goals. Many groups find that informal scoping and information collection prior to plan develop - ment provides valuable input during the early phase of planning.

Scoping activities include pre-planning data review and discussions with stakeholders that can help to define the planning area, identify other stakeholders, and help to solicit opinions and advice on how to proceed before launching into the plan development process.

> You can download EPA’s Handbook for > Developing Watershed Plans to Restore > and Protect Our Waters at www epa gov/ > Another great resource is EPA’s Watershed > Plan Builder—an online tool at http://java > epa gov/wsplanner that walks you through > a series of pages where you can input > information about your watershed The end > product is a customized outline that can be > used to develop a watershed management Steps in the watershed planning process In the Watershed Handbook , the watershed planning process is pre - sented in the following major steps: 2.

Characterize the watershed to identify problems. 3. Set goals and identify solutions.

4. Design an implementation program. 5.

Implement the watershed plan. 6. Measure progress and make adjustments.

Stakeholder involvement is not conducted in a parallel course with watershed management but rather is woven throughout to strengthen the end result. Keep in mind that the overall process is iterative or cyclical, not linear, so it can be initiated at any phase. Recognize also that you might not conduct every activity in each phase.

Some activities can be skipped with sufficient justification. It helps to know, however, what you’re skipping and why in case those issues need to be addressed during later iterations of the cycle. # Involving the stakeholder group throughout # the watershed planning process The stakeholder group needs to be involved at each stage of the watershed planning process.

Their knowledge of local social, eco - nomic, political and ecological conditions provides the yardstick against which proposed solutions must be measured. Also, the goals, problems and remediation strategies generated by stakeholders clari - fy what’s desirable and achievable.

Weaving stakeholder input, legal requirements, and resource protection strategies into an integrated tapestry for managing surface water and groundwater resources is what the watershed approach is all about. The following questions will lead you through the watershed approach, highlighting where stakeholders are critical to the ## • Where are we now and where do we want to go? ## • How do we get there?

## • How will we know that we’ve arrived? ## Both the knowledge and needs of stakeholders provide a yardstick to measure solutions. Section 1 11 1.

Where are we now and where do we want to go? Asking this question helps to guide your assessment of current condi - tions and define the problems you want to address, which typically include meeting water quality standards for waters that are impaired, improving the quality of threatened waters, and protecting high quality waters.

Stakeholders need to be brought in at this phase to review waterbody use designations, numeric and narrative water quality criteria, and consider other issues that might warrant atten - tion. For example, stakeholders might be aware of localized flooding, old dump sites, popular recreational areas, and other aspects of the watershed not captured in monitoring or other reports.

They can also help to identify social and environmental concerns in the watershed, assist with gathering data, initiate public outreach, build support for the planning effort, and create a vision for the future. At this stage, it is important to carefully consider the composition of your stakeholder group, to ensure maximum effectiveness.

For example, if the watershed under study is mostly agricultural, involv - ing farmers and/or the local conservation district will help to engage an important constituency early in the process. Stakeholders might need some orientation regarding water quality standards, watershed assessment, identification of impairments and threats, and relevant management practices. Some stakeholders might be a bit reluctant to participate at first.

However, as the process unfolds they can provide key input on how to approach challenges identified in the watershed assessment or scoping study. Agricultural producers also represent an important constituency that can often help to leverage resources needed later for BMP cost share funding and implementation. Be as strategic as possible when developing your initial stakeholder group.

If issues are likely to be controversial, involving a small group of key people in some small, early discussions can help to identify important issues, barriers, opportunities, and resources vital to the success of the planning effort.

As the planning process proceeds, additional stakeholders can be brought in as needed, to supplement This question identifies specific activities that will be conducted to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the previous phase. The stakeholder group will assist with identifying the strategies to be implemented, often taking the lead on the actions.

Stakeholders efforts in the future through grants, in-kind services, education and Planning and implementation— The issue is not whether to plan but rather how to develop plans that lead to action. The most effective plans contain a comprehensive analysis of existing conditions and ecological, social, economic, cultural and political issues.

However, they focus mostly on identifying, prioritizing and targeting problems ## Watershed planning checklist Where are we now and where do we  Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by the plan  Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the appropriate water quality standards and designated uses  Identify the causes and sources that need to be controlled to achieve the  Estimate the pollutant loads entering  Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the water ## Watershed planning checklist  Identify critical areas in which management measures are needed  Identify the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the  Prepare an information/education component that identifies the education and outreach activities needed to implement the watershed  Develop a schedule for implementing  Specify what steps will be taken, and by whom, if progress has not been  Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, information and education activities,  Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures Section 1 12 and generating possible solutions based on real-world conditions.

Watershed plans must be understandable to the public and lead to strategic actions that improve water quality and habitat. The plans should be viewed as management tools rather than merely as techni - The issue of scale— The scale of the planning/management program greatly influences how it will unfold. Efforts to manage smaller water - sheds (less than 100 square miles) can be as