DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, RISK COMMUNICATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS
Creighton works collaboratively with clients, or parties to disputes, to develop public participation, risk communication or dispute resolution plans appropriate to the specific circumstances. Creighton will assist with implementation of the plan by providing services such as design and facilitation of meetings, workshops, or negotiation sessions; preparing meeting summaries; preparing public information materials; and overseeing implementation of the program.
|
|
Lists of projects by subject matter area or type of client:
Water resources development and management
Utility industry experience
Community and land use planning
Environmental cleanup
|
|
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGMENT
Creighton has more than 30 years experience with public involvement on water-related issues. Among the numerous projects on which he has worked are:
American Water Resources Association National Dialogue: Co-facilitated two national dialogues on water issues.
World Water Forum 3: Co-facilitated the Ministerial Dialogue at World Water Forum 3, Kyoto, Japan.
Corps of Engineers National Listening Sessions: Facilitated a series of national listening sessions on the water challenges facing the nation.
Santa Clara Valley Water District: Currently handling the public participation component of a major feasibility study on future use of recycled wastewater for urban water supply.
Egyptian Ministry of Water & Irrigation: Conducted training on public participation for senior managers, assisted with the development of the agency's first public participation pilot program, provided materials for an agency guide on public participation.
Collaborative Planning: Analyzing institutional barriers to use of collaborative planning by Army Corps of Engineers' planners
Computer-Aided Negotiation: Process consultation on computer-aided collaborative planning and negotiation under contract to Army Corps Institute for Water Resources.
Corps of Engineers Alternative Dispute Resolution Program: For nearly ten years, Creighton & Creighton, Inc. was the prime contractor on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternative Dispute Resolution Program. This program received the Hammer Award from the Secretary of Defense, and was singled out by Vice President Gore as an outstanding example of reinventing government. Altogether the team out more than 100 projects. Recent projects completed by Creighton included preparing guides on "partnering" for both the Corps' Civil Works Mission and the Department of Defense Environmental Mission; prepared a study on the use of mediation to resolve allegations of racial or sexual discrimination; conducting a study on unsuccessful uses of partnering; editing a series of pamphlets on various alternative dispute resolution techniques; developing a Ten Year Reader on public involvement and dispute resolution; writing a manual on public involvement for environmental coordinators on Army installations; and preparing a "Strategic Directions" guide for the Office of Strategic Directions at Corps HQ. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
Since expiration of the Corps ADR program contract, Creighton has conducted a series of listening sessions nationally for the Corps, as well as conducted public meetings on the Corps' nationwide permits (404 program).
Columbia River System Operations Review (SOR): Completed three distinct tasks including: (1) Developed the overall public involvement strategy for this three-agency (Bureau of Reclamation, Corps or Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration) analysis of the total operation of the Columbia River System; (2) Wrote a draft technical appendix describing alternative future decision making institutions for Columbia River operations decisions. (Bonneville Power Administration, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation); and (3) Participated in a team identifying the social impacts associated with alternative operations strategies.
Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Study: Served on a peer review panel reviewing the adequacy of studies of the impacts to the Columbia River from operation of the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility (U.S. Department of Energy).
Central Valley Programmatic Environmental Impact Study: Conducted an assessment of the probable social impacts associated with implementation of provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which involves a redistribution of irrigation water to endangered species protection (Bureau of Reclamation/Fish & Wildlife Service).
Central Arizona Water Control Study: This study looked at the very
controversial Orme Dam and a number of alternatives. We developed the original public involvement plan and supervised a professional team of about five who conducted the public involvement program. We also was involved in planning all the meetings of the Governor's Advisory Committee, and assisted the citizen Chairman of the committee in conducting the meetings. The outcome of this program was a community consensus on an alternative to Orme Dam. (Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers)
Four County Total Water Management Study - Bureau of Reclamation: Developed an alternative futures planning study process which was used for this study of total water supplies in Napa, Yolo, Solano, and Lake Counties. Later developed a guide on Alternative Futures Planning processes for the Bureau of Reclamation, based on this demonstration study. (Bureau of Reclamation). This scenario development process has been used on numerous planning projects included land use, forest management, energy supply, and others.
Public Involvement Manual and Policy - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Conducted an agency-wide appraisal of the Bureau's public involvement efforts, and based on this wrote the Bureau's Public Involvement Manual, and the first several drafts of the Bureau's public involvement policy.
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Study: Facilitated a process to get needed information and decisions from a six-agency team to write the first draft of an alternatives report on behalf of the team. This project involved removal or toxics from irrigation water throughout the entire west side of the San Joaquin Valley of California (Bureau of Reclamation).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -North Pacific Division: Conducted an appraisal of the manner in which the North Pacific Division (Portland, OR) communicates with the public -- following a major controversy over endangered species in the Columbia River -- and developed a public involvement strategy for NPD.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project: Creighton assisted with designing and conducting the public involvement on Phase II of the YRBWEP study for the Boise Office of the Bureau. He also worked intimately with the team to develop an innovative approach to non-structural alternatives, including conducting an analysis of the institutional barriers to developing a trust fund to purchase water conservation.
Water Reliability Conference - California Urban Water Agencies: Assisted with the design of this conference on water reliability, and also served as Conference Coordinator. (California Urban Water Agencies).
Smaller projects include:
Crane Valley Hydropower Relicensing: Facilitated public meetings as part of PG&E's relicensing process for hydropower operations of an artificial lake in the Sierra Foothills. (Pacific Gas & Electric).
American Falls Management Plan: Advised on the overall public involvement plan for development of a land use management plan around Cascade reservoir, and facilitated public meetings as part of that process. (US Bureau of Reclamation)
Cascade Reservoir Management Plan: Advised on the overall public involvement plan for development of a land use management plan around Cascade reservoir, and facilitated public meetings as part of that process. (Bureau of Reclamation)
American Water Works Association: Conducted annual training programs on public participation for water districts throughout the U.S.
Colorado River Floodway Task Force: Assisted the Bureau of Reclamation's Lower Colorado Region with the design and facilitation of a fifty member task force appointed by Congress to determine the floodway for the Colorado River. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Columbia River Smoltification Conference: Designed and conducted a conference at which fisheries experts representing many different agencies developed research priorities for studies of fisheries on the Columbia River (Bonneville Power Administration).
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies: Provided public involvement guidance to the study, facilitated the first series of constituent meetings which will be held for this study, and facilitated a meeting of inter-agency fish and wildlife experts. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Calvaras-Stanislaus Conjunctive Use Study: Facilitated meetings with more than twenty water agencies. (Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources).
USCID Toxics Task Force: Facilitated a workshop by a task force of experts developing recommendations for a proactive program to be taken by agriculture to address toxics issues. Prepared a report summarizing these recommendations, and presented the recommendations to the USCID annual conference. (U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage)
USCID Selenium Conference: Served as a "summarizer," preparing a brief verbal summary after each plenary session of this conference on selenium problems in the San Joaquin Valley. Also prepared a written summary of the conference. (USCID)
Bureau of Reclamation - Toxics Discharge Protocol: In association with a toxicologist, worked with numerous state and federal agencies to develop a research protocol identifying the research to be conducted before permits would be granted to discharge toxics into receiving waters. (Bureau of Reclamation).
Delta Environmental Advisory Committee - California Department of Water Resources - Assisted in designing and facilitating a retreat involving leaders of virtually all interest groups involved in Sacramento Delta water issues. (California DWR)
Other projects: Conducted public meetings or assisted with public involvement design on the following projects:
- Touchet Dam (Bureau of Reclamation)
- Central Valley Project Reanalysis (Bureau of Reclamation)
- Oahe Project (Bureau of Reclamation)
- San Luis Drain (Bureau of Reclamation)
- Ventura Waste Water Study (Bureau of Reclamation)
- Dickey - Lincoln Dam (Corps of Engineers)
- San Pedro Creek Flood Control Study (Corps of Engineers)
- Southern Nevada Water Project (Bureau of Reclamation)
- Hoover Dam Modifications (Bureau of Reclamation)
Top
UTILITY INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE
Transmission Line & Pipeline Siting/Substations
- American Transmission Company: Preparing a guide summarizing ATC's approach to public involvement during siting of transmission lines in Wisconsin and Michigan; developing a public participation training course for ATC employees.
- Conducted an assessment on Pennsylvania Power & Light's current siting procedures and recommended an improved siting/public involvement approach.
- Facilitated discussions between Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and neighbors of a potential substation site (Calero Substation).
- Facilitated a process of discussion/problem solving between PG&E and neighbors of alternative substation sites (Vasona Substation).
- Designed and conducted public involvement activities in connection with the following transmission line or pipeline siting projects:
- Tri-County Transmission Project, Pacific Gas & Electric.
- Pipeline 2000, San Diego Gas & Electric.
- Los Banos/Gates 500 kV transmission line; Pacific Gas & Electric.
- California - Oregon (3rd Intertie) 500 kV; Transmission Agency of Northern California.
- Vineyard 230 kV transmission line; Pacific Gas & Electric.
- CIP-Waiau 230 kV transmission line; Hawaii Electric Co.
- Juno Beach, 230 kV; Florida Power & Light.
- Vallejo 230 kV Upgrade; Pacific Gas & Electric.
- San Bruno Mt. Gas and Electric Transmission Line Rebuilds; Pacific Gas & Electric.
- North Fresno 230 kV Transmission Line; Pacific Gas & Electric.
- Northern Tier Pipeline (42 inch crude-oil pipeline); Northern Tier Pipeline Company.
- BC Intertie, 230 kV transmission line, Puget Sound Power & Light.
- Lompoc Substation, siting of substation and related transmission lines, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
- Novelty Hill Substation, siting of substation and related transmission lines, Puget Sound Power & Light.
- CPCo/PSI Transmission Line, PSI Energy.
- Line 57C Pipeline Project, gas pipeline and compressor station, Pacific Gas & Electric.
- Maalaea/Naalea and Maalaea/Lahaina 69 kV transmission lines, Maui Electric Company.
- Facilitated negotiations regarding access to the Bonneville Power Administration's Transmission System between the Northwest and Southwest; Bonneville Power Administration.
- Southern California Edison: Public participation consulting an six transmission line and substation projects in Southern California.
Electromagnetic Fields/Risk Communication
- Author of two manuals, Understanding EMF and Communicating with your Customers About EMF , for the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association.
- Author (with Robert S. Banks Associates) of Sourcebook for Utility Communications on EMF, published by the Electric Power Research Institute.
- Developed, with the assistance of Robert S. Banks Associates, a handbook, training program, and videos on how utilities should to relate to the public on EMF issues. This training package won two top honors for Excellence in Education from the American Society of Association Executives, and another top award for Educational Curriculum/Coordinated Series of Seminars from the Tennessee Society of Association Executives. Tennessee Valley Public Power Association.
- Instructor, Pre-Conference Workshop on Risk Communication, March 1995, Philadelphia, PA. American Public Power Association.
- Conducted an assessment of how to communicate with the public on siting of powerlines in the era of EMF, Pennsylvania Power & Light.
- Designed public participation programs on more than 10 transmission line projects involving EMF issues. Clients include Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Hawaii Electric, Platte River Power Authority, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Tennessee Valley Authority, Puget Power & Light, PSI Energy.
- Co-instructor at EEI/EPRI EMF Risk Communication Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA, 1989. Prepared case studies used during the training course. Edison Electric Institute/Electric Power Research Institute.
- Risk Communication and Public Involvement Training, BC Hydro, 1989, 1990, 1991.
- Instructor for several EPRI Risk Communication Training Courses, 1991.
- Assisted in preparing utility industry presentations to the Florida State Scientific Advisory Committee which recommended EMF standards; Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group.
- Assisted in preparing company presentations on EMF to Douglas County Commissioners; Public Service of Colorado.
- Conducted a pre-conference all-day seminar on Risk Communication and was a major speaker at the Electric Power Research Institute's 1992 EMF Science Conference.
- Conducted two all-day training courses for Illinois Power's EMF team and staff who handle direct contact with the public on the issue.
- Invited speaker at numerous conferences and workshops including:
-- Presentation to Cell Siting National Task Force, Bellevue, WA, McCaw Cellular.
-- Presentation to National Summit on Cell Siting, Dallas Texas, McCaw Cellular. EEI EMF Task Force, San Francisco, 1994, Edison Electric Institute.
-- EEI/APPA/NRECA 1994 Annual EMF Conferences, Washington D.C. Edison Electric Institute/American Public Power Association/National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association.
-- EEI/APPA/NRECA 1993 Annual EMF Conferences, Washington D.C. Edison Electric Institute/American Public Power Association/National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association.
-- 1992 EMF Workshop, Pacific Coast Electrical Association.
-- Annual meeting, Northwest Public Power Association.
-- International Utility Symposium, Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields: Research, Communication, and Regulation, Toronto, 1986; Ontario Hydro.
-- Electric and Magnetic Fields Communication Workshop, San Diego, 1989; Western Systems Coordinating Council.
-- Electric Utility Planning Council (Alberta, Canada) Annual Meeting, EMF and Public Participation, October 1989.
-- EEI Consumer Affairs Section Annual Conference, October 1990.
-- EPRI Utility Seminar: New EMF Epidemiologic Results and their Implications, Communicators Workshop, October 1990.
-- EMF Update and Communications Conference, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 1990.
-- EMF - Preparing for the Issues, Northwest Public Power Association, 1991.
Public Participation Training for the Utility Industry
- American Transmission Company: Developing an in-house public involvement training program for ATC employees.
- Conducted public participation training for utilities and utility regulators including:
-- BC Hydro
-- Bonneville Power Administration.
-- Central Power & Light.
-- Pennsylvania Power & Light
-- Rochester Gas & Electric
-- New York State Public Utilities Commission
-- Niagara Mohawk
-- Ontario Hydro.
- Conducted four sessions (Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Denver) of EEI's Public Involvement Training Course; Edison Electric Institute.
- Conducted EEI's Building Consensus through Participation and Negotiation training course (San Francisco); Edison Electric Institute.
- Conducted seminars on public participation for engineering managers of APPA member utilities; American Public Power Association.
- Conducted pre-conference training session on public participation for board members of APPA member utilities; American Public Power Association.
- Conducted public participation workshop for customer service division of the Canadian Electrical Association.
Public Participation Manuals, Videos & Guides
- American Participation Manuals: Developing a guide on ATC's approach to public involvement in transmission line siting
- Prepared Bonneville Power Administration's Public Involvement Guide; Bonneville Power Administration.
- Developed EEI's Public Participation Manual; Edison Electric Institute. (thtee editions)
- Led team which developed EEI's Building Consensus through Participation and Negotiation workbook; Edison Electric Institute.
- Scripted Conflict Resolution videotape produced by Pennsylvania Power & Light in association with Pennsylvania League of Women Voters and Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Clubs; Pennsylvania Power & Light.
Deregulation
- Designed and facilitated a process for obtaining customer input into restructuring plans for the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.
- Prepared handouts summarizing the California Public Utilities Commission proposal for restructuring the electric utility industry, and coordinated a series of public meetings throughout the state.
Generation Facilities
- Designed and conducted public meetings on Crane Valley Hydropower Relicensing; Pacific Gas & Electric.
- Assessed probable public reaction to siting of a 50 mW coal-fired cogeneration plant; Cominco American.
- Designed and conducted public meetings regarding restart of construction on WPPSS 1 & 3 nuclear power plants; Bonneville Power Administration.
- Designed a public participation program for siting of a coal gasification plant; WyCoalGas (Panhandle Eastern, Ruhrgas, & Pacific Gas & Electric).
- Designed and conducted workshop with international fisheries experts to establish research priorities regarding fisheries on the Columbia River; Bonneville Power Administration.
- Developed an overall public participation strategy for a reevaluation of the operations of the entire Columbia River System, Bonneville Power Administration/US Army Corps of Engineers/US Bureau of Reclamation.
- Developed a public involvement strategy for a decision whether to switch to western coal in order to comply with the Clean Air Act, shutting down a company-owned coal mine, Associated Electric Cooperatives, Inc.
Rates
- Designed and conducted public meetings to evaluate alternative job-saving rates for the Northwest aluminum industry; Bonneville Power Administration.
- Assisted in established a citizen task force to review PURPA policies and standards (including rate structures); Salt River Project.
- Designed and conducted public meetings regarding new agricultural rates; Pacific Gas & Electric.
Power Sales Contracts
- Developed an "interest-based" negotiation process to re-negotiate all of the Bonneville Power Administration's power sales contracts. Bonneville Power Administration.
Nuclear Waste
- Played a key role in the team which developed a community partnering plan (voluntary siting process) for Pennsylvania's Low-Level Radioactive Waste disposal facility.
- Conducted a national series of public participation training courses and Executive Briefings for U.S. Department of Energy staff involved in cleanup of the nation's weapons complex.
- Advised on overall public involvement strategy for environmental restoration of the Hanford Site, Washington, including a re-write of the Tri-Party Agreement Community Relations Plan; Westinghouse Hanford Company.
- Conducted an assessment of US DOE's program for consulting with the states and affected tribes on siting of a nuclear waste repository; Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.
- Recommended conflict resolution mechanisms between US DOE, the states and tribes regarding the consultation process for siting of a nuclear waste repository; US General Accounting Office.
- Headed team which developed monitoring and mitigation plan for siting of a nuclear waste repository at Hanford, Washington; Washington State DOE.
Consumer Affairs
- Assisted with organization and training of a citizens advisory committee that reviewed consumer affairs policies; Arizona Public Service.
- Assisted in established a citizen task force to review PURPA policies and standards (including consumer affairs issues); Salt River Project.
Long-Range Planning
- Worked with company's environmental advisory committee to identify futures scenarios used to test ability of new corporate strategy to cope with all reasonably anticipated events; Pennsylvania Power & Light.
- Worked with task force of APPA members to identify futures scenarios for public power in America; American Public Power Association.
Energy Policy
- Facilitated the "electricity" section for the National Energy Consensus Experiment conducted by the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Project and the American Energy Assurance Council.
Top
COMMUNITY AND LAND USE PLANNING EXPERIENCE
Creighton has been involved in many projects involving community and land use planning, including:
- Worked with an advisory committee established by Klamath County, Oregon, to develop scenarios of future growth as part of developing a county land use plan
- Facilitated a series of public workshops as part of the revision of the City of Menlo Park's General Plan.
- Facilitated a task force of representatives of all neighborhoods in the City of Menlo Park, CA, to develop recommendations for limits on the size of remodeled homes in residential neighborhoods.
- Facilitated a committee appointed by the City Council, including representatives of the major business and residential interests concerned about the downtown neighborhood, to revise or develop new planning policies for the downtown area.
- Assisted with the design of workshops to help the City of Mountain View develop a neighborhood plan for a mixed-use neighborhood.
- Facilitating public meetings on the location of low-income housing for the City of Mountain View
- Creighton has also been involved in siting facilities requiring work with local planning departments including:
- Siting of numerous transmission lines and substations
- Siting of a large office building next to a residential neighborhood
- Doubling the size of a YMCA located in a residential neighborhood
- Siting a hazardous waste transfer facility for a company located adjoining a low-income community
- Conducted public participation training in every region of the U.S. Forest Service.
- Co-developed a simulation game to teach U.S. Forest Service planners to think in 100-year time frames.
- Worked with the staff of the Klamath National Forest to develop an "environmental" ethic.
- Conducted alternative futures planning training for Bureau of Land Management planners.
Top
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP EXPERIENCE
Some of Creighton's activities includes:
- For several years, facilitated monthly community involvement workshops covering all aspects of the base cleanup program at the former Fort Ord.
- Helped establish the public participation program for major programs at the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, including the overall community relations plan.
- Supported the U.S. Department of Energy cleanup program of former weapons complexes by conducting training at each DOE site, and assisting several sites with setting up advisory committees.
- Prepared a guide on stakeholder involvement in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Project XL Program, a program for developing innovative ideas for environmental cleanup.
- Wrote a guide on multi-agency "partnering" for environmental cleanup of U.S. Department of Defense installations.
- Conducted workshops and public meetings in support of the cleanup program for Kesterson Reservoir,
- Facilitated a workshop developing criteria regulating emission of toxics in bays and streams
- Design and facilitated a workshop bringing together key people in agriculture with environmental leaders to hammer out a proactive program for agriculture's handling of hazardous or toxic substances.
- Worked for several years with the team evaluating alternative agricultural drainage methods due to the selenium poisoning of migratory birds at Kesterson reservoir Ð work included both internal facilitation and public workshops.
- Designing and facilitating a workshop to set research priorities regarding fisheries production (smoltification issues) on the Columbia River for the Bonneville Power Administration.
- Facilitating a U.S. Fish & Wildlife workshop to review methodologies for assessing the cumulative impact of energy development upon fish and wildlife.
Example 1: INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
Do agency rules and procedures sometimes impede rather than support planners who want to conduct collaborative planning or public participation processes?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR) is asking that question, following an analysis of newly developed case studies on the use of collaborative planning in Corps' planning studies. In Corps' terminology, collaborative planning involves the Corps in shared decision-making with other federal, state, or local entities that have an interest in a proposed project or plan being prepared by the Corps. The multi-agency team is also responsible for conducting participation programs to get the involvement of the broader public as part of the decision-making process.
The case studies provided many excellent examples of cooperative planning. But in some cases these accomplishments occurred because of personal commitment not agency rules and procedures.
IWR has contracted with Jim Creighton to conduct a study to identify institutional barriers to collaborative planning and to develop plans for removing or minimizing these institutional barriers.
The study will start with a questionnaire sent to Corps' planners to identify barriers to cooperative planning/public participation. IWR and Creighton will then work with Corps' staff to develop plans for either eliminating or ameliorating the high-impact institutional barriers.
Top
Example 2: USING COMPUTER MODELING TO GET AGREEMENTS ON WATER ISSUES
For more than 15 years the Institute for Water Resources has been active in what it calls "shared-vision planning"--using computer modeling of water supplies and conditions to support efforts to reach agreements on water issues. Last year Congress funded the National Cooperative Modeling Demonstration Program and the Collaborative Planning and Management Demonstration Program. Under these programs IWR, working in cooperation with Sandia National Laboratories, will be working hard to demonstrate and reÞne the approach.
The goal is to augment and support efforts to reach decisions on water issues with the use of computer models that can provide real-time information on the capabilities of a particular water system. Groups of stakeholders can run "what if " scenarios that allow them to test the ability of the system to meet water demands under a variety of conditions.
When there is agreement on "the facts" of what the water system can and cannot do, it is easier to reach an agreement that meets the needs of all the stakeholders. In "shared-vision planning," the stakeholders are involved in developing the model itself. In that way, there's less chance that people will question the model when it produces an answer different from what they would like. With the factual issues out of the way, people can focus more directly on the values/interests discussion that remains.
Hal Cardwell, IWR's project manager, believes that in addition to the technical work that will be done under these programs, there is also a need to improve the understanding of how best to include stakeholders in the process.
IWR has retained Jim Creighton to advise on participatory process issues. Cardwell and Creighton, along with staff from Sandia, are providing support on two case studies. The Þrst is the development of a computer model that can be used in decision-making regarding operation of the reservoirs on the Willamette River in Oregon. The model will
also provide useful information for developing an ecosystem marketplace where water quality and water conservation credits can be traded. The second case will include development of a model of the James River in Virginia. The model will be used to support state water planning as well as the Corps' wetlands regulatory permit program.
Top
Example 3: NEW TRANSMISSION LINE DELIVERS WIND POWER
Jim Creighton is serving as public participation consultation on a major new transmission line project that will bring wind power generated in the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles into the Los Angeles Basin and then east to the "Inland Empire" (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, east of Los Angeles). The project will also strengthen electric reliability throughout the area.
The project will be built by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE is an investor-owned utility that serves most of the greater Los Angles area (except for the actual City of Los Angeles, which has a municipally-owned utility). Two areas in SCE's service area, the southern San Joaquin Valley and the "inland Empire -- San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, east of Los Angeles -- are among the fastest growing areas in the U.S.
A new California law requires California utilities to get 20% of their electricity from renewable sources of energy (e.g. wind, solar) by 2010. SCE already has one of the best track records for use of renewables, but the new transmission lines will push them past the 20% figure.
The new line will largely utilize existing rights-of-way, adding new lines on existing towers or replacing existing towers with larger towers then installing higher voltage lines. From a public participation of view this is both good news and bad news. The good news is that the impacts associated with using existing rights-of-way are much less than from building a line in a new right-of-way. The bad news is that opponents can claim that "you've already decided what to do, so you're just going to ignore our comments."
Creighton is also beginning work on is bundle of related projects including a 500 kV line and several substations to be built in the San Joaquin Valley. The time horizon for this project is a little further out than the Tehachapi project.
Top
Example 4: TRANSMISSION COMPANY DEFINES ITS APPROACH TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
American Transmission Company (ATC) was the first investor-owned transmission-only utility in the United States. It was formed out of the transmission assets of utilities in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Since ATC's only business is to build and operate transmission lines and substations, the ability to site these projects successfully is critical to its success. Historically there has been considerable public opposition to virtually all transmission projects within Wisconsin. Looking at this track record, and getting bumped about a bit on its first projects, ATC developed an approach to public involvement that is very intensive and is conducted well in advance of filing its application with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. As a result, ATC has been highly successful in siting its projects.
Recently ATC retained Jim Creighton to develop a public participation guide that will teach the ATC way of conducting public involvement. Creighton is also helping develop a training course that will be taught in-house to ATC employees. ATC's approach includes four rounds of open houses prior to preparing its siting application. These open houses involve many ATC employees outside of the group responsible for public involvement activities as subject-matter experts. The training course will give these employees an understanding of the basic philosophy and techniques used by ATC. ATC also has a large slate of future projects, so the training and guide will also be used to prepare new employees that ATC will be hiring.
Top
Example 5: FORT ORD CLEANUP PROGRAM
When the Army Corps of Engineers approached Creighton & Creighton, it had two problems at Fort Ord in Monterey, California, that needed cleaning-up: (1) cleaning up unexploded ordnance and chemical spills after more than 50 years of operation as an Army training center; and (2) cleaning up the community involvement mess when a citizen-advisory committee became so dysfunctional that the Army decided to disband the committee.
For many years Fort Ord was a major Army training center. Early in the 1990s the installation was closed, and the Army began the process of cleaning up the site so that it could be transferred to other uses. Some of the land has been turned over for a new campus belonging to the University of California, and other property has been turned over to the Bureau of Land Management for habitat management. Other portions have been turned over to the community for development, or will be turned over once cleanup has been concluded. These developments include hotels, golf courses, housing, and other economic development projects.
Under Army guidance Fort Ord set up a citizen-advisory committee to participate in overseeing the cleanup program. But by 1995 the advisory committee was already having problems. Observers claim that the committee seemed so wrapped up in procedural issues and personal antagonisms that it spent little time discussing the actual cleanup program.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the federal environmental regulator for the site, provided the services of a facilitator who was very credible in the environmental community. But after working with the committee for awhile, this consultant concluded that the committee was so dysfunctional that the only solution was to disband it.
EPA then provided still another dispute-resolution firm to work with the committee; but after a number of meetings, there still seemed to be little progress. The Army decided to disband the advisory committee. The U.S. EPA, as well as California EPAÑthe state regulatorÑreluctantly accepted the decision with the understanding that the Army would conduct an equivalent program to give the community the opportunity to participate in Fort Ord decisions.
Jim Creighton was retained by the Corps of Engineers to assist with developing a new program. Creighton submitted a number of recommendations to the three agencies. Based on these recommendations, the Army set up a series of monthly community involvement workshops to replace the advisory board as a forum for community concerns, and hired Creighton to act facilitator of these workshops. The Army made a number of other changes in the program including creating a web page where all documents were available for open access. Minutes of all agency decision-making meetings were made available to the public and posted on the web site. Topics at community workshops were selected to ensure the public has the opportunity to comment before decisions have been made. Creighton facilitated monthly community involvement meetings at Fort Ord for several years, but handed-off that responsibility to another facilitator in 2001.
In 2001, the focus shifted to the issue of prescribed burns. Before cleanup workers can safely enter former training ranges to clean up unexploded ordnance and explosives, they must first clear a canopy of vegetation that prevents workers from seeing where they are walking and prevents the use of equipment that senses the presence of metal. But clearing the vegetation by hand or with mechnical equipment is also dangerous. So the Army proposed the use of prescribed burns to clear the vegtation.
The Army conducted prescribed burns until 1998, when a lawsuit from a local air quality district, coupled with public outcry, resulted in a suspension of burns. But with future cleanup coming to a halt until the vegetation can be cleared, the Army asked Jim Creighton to develop a public participation plan that would permit open community discussion of the issue, and provide a basis upon which the agencies could reach a decision.
The program included five community bulletins mailed directly to each of the 50,000 residents in the area, two symposia targeted at community leaders and officials, as well as public comment meetings. Creighton oversaw the program, working with representatives of the Army, DTSC and EPA, and personally drafted the community bulletins on behalf of the interagency team.
In 2002, after two years of studies and a major community relations program, the agencies concluded that prescribed burns were the only viable solution. The agencies agreed that the Army would set up a voluntary relocation program that would pay for people to relocate for several days while smoke would be in the air.
The Army recognized that the relocation program would be a substantial effort, and asked Jim Creighton to develop the plan for the Voluntary Relocation Program. Creighton and the Fort Ord Cleanup Program Community Relations Officer oversaw the implementation of the program, including a substantial community information program to inform the community about the relocation program.
Creighton worked with the agencies to develop a "community bulletin" that was distributed to 50,000 households in Monterey County to publicize the availability of the relocation program. The Army placed advertisements in newspapers and issued media releases to newspapers, radio and television stations. The Army also distributed relocation guides through community groups, recreation facilities, school districts, labor unions and handicapped groups, and conducted public sign-up meetings. Representatives from the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Creighton, and Army representatives also conducted briefings for physicians as part of Grand Rounds at local hospitals.
More than 205 families relocated on November 19th, expecting the burn to occur on November 20th. But late on the 19th the Army concluded that the weather conditions had not developed exactly as hoped to minimize smoke, and cancelled the fire. As a result, the Army had to broadcast an "all clear" to all the people who relocated, with the Army picking up the tab for lodging, meals and transportation for the shortened relocation.
In 2003 the Army asked Creighton to actually manage the relocation program. The program again included a substantial public information program to let people know about the planned prescribed burn and relocation program. This included mailing two community bulletins to more than 50,000 homes each.
The Army conducted a prescribed burn in October 2003. 493 families relocated during this period. The relocation period was extended by two days when the fire escaped the primary containment lines and burned a much larger area than had been planned. The relocation program went smoothly, but the escaped fire led to major political controversy in the community.
The Army conducted a large public meeting at which community members could express their unhappiness with the amount of smoke generated by the fire, and Creighton facilitated several meetings with local fire chiefs to identify ways to control fires in the future. Based on these deliberations, Creighton prepared a new community bulletin discussing how the Army would control fires in the future, to avoid another escaped fire.
The Army did not conduct a prescribed burn in 2004, but a prescribed burn is planned for 2005. Jim Creighton will manage the relocation program if and when another burn occurs.
Top
Example 6: VOLUNTARY SITING PROCESS
One of the key principles of risk communication is that people's perception of risk diminishes significantly when a risk is accepted voluntarily, but increases dramatically when a risk is imposed. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection decided to follow this principle when it decided to search for a community that would volunteer to act as a host of a low-level radioactive waste-disposal facility. The State decided to adopt this approach after spending $50 million in technical studies only to realize that this process might still not result in an approved site. One value of the studies, though, was that it did identify geologically acceptable areas for a repository. Only communities in these areas would be invited to volunteer.
Jim Creighton worked with Chem Nuclear Systems, the firm hired by the State to site, build, and operate the facility. Creighton drafted a voluntary relocation plan that outlined how Chem Nuclear and the State would work with local communities while they decided whether they wanted to volunteer to host the facility. As part of the plan, communities who wanted to be considered as potential hosts understood that they would not be selected unless the community held election in which it decided it wanted the facility. This plan was approved, and Creighton worked with Chem Nuclear staff who prepared the final document, called a Community Partnering Plan.
Chem Nuclear continued to work with local community for about a year, and there were several communities willing to discuss being the host. However, with an election looming, the Governor decided that the amount of low level radioactive waste being generated was less than anticipated and could be accommodated by shipping the waste to an existing repository in another state. As a result, there is no final answer on whether the voluntary siting process would have proved successful.
Top
Example 7: REVITALIZING A DOWNTOWN
Think for a minute about the downtown of the community in which you live. If you are like most people, there are parts of the downtown you know very well. Maybe you go there almost daily. There are other parts of the downtown you barely know. You may go through them, but only to get where you are really going. But if you were going to develop a plan for the entire downtown, you'd need an intimate knowledge of is parts.
That's the challenge that faced the City of Mountain View, CA, Community Development Department. The City Council established a citizen task force to help the Department develop a new Downtown Plan. Members of the committee included representatives of all the various community interests and neighborhoods concerned with downtown issues.
Although all the various interests were present, few members knew all aspects of the downtown. How could you get a committee of nearly 20 members up to speed in a hurry? The City retained Creighton to help get the committee up and running. He designed a "CityWalk" as a way of getting all of the committee members to re-experience the downtown as if it were a new experience. Each committee members committed to complete a downtown walk, either individually or in a small group, that would cover the entire downtown area.
Creighton, working with Mountain View Community Development Department staff, developed a guide for the walk that directed participants to go to assigned locations, interact with activities going on in that location, then record their experiences in a workbook. The instructions directed participants to locations where there were issues the committee might want to address. Committee members then participated in a debriefing workshop during which they identified the key issues they wanted to address during the preparation of the Downtown Plan.
Over a series of subsequent meetings facilitated by Creighton, the Committee defined a new vision for the downtown, developed a work plan for submission to the City Council, and selected officers. Creighton then passed on the facilitation role to the new chairperson.
The plan developed by the Committee was adopted by the City of Mountain View. Mountain View's downtown is now thriving, and considered a model by many other cities.
Top
Example 8: SITING A MAJOR OFFICE BUILDING
In the mid-90s Hewlett Packard (HP) decided to phase-out its manufacturing facility at 395 Page Mill Road in Palo Alto and build a new office building on the site. HP discussed its plan with the City of Palo Alto Planning Director who suggested that HP needed to work with neighbors to reduce potential controversy since the property is surrounded on two sides by a residential neighborhood. Jim Creighton was selected to work with an HP team to develop a community liaison plan. The team implemented a strategy that included a series of workshops with immediate neighbors, meetings with the Boards of nearby Homeowner's Associations, and a newsletter sent to community leaders.
Because the building conformed with existing zoning, HP needed only to obtain Architectural Review Board approval. But everybody knew that if the project got controversial, it would end up in front of the City Council.
Creighton worked with HP to prepare a communications brochure containing a summary of everything that was known about the site -- the site's history as a manufacturing center, a summary of a community workshop that had occurred two years before, Hewlett-Packard's conceptual plans for the site (at the "bubble diagram" stage), and Hewlett-Packard's desire to solicit community feedback. Following door-to-door visits to neighbors by Creighton and HP Real Estate staff, this brochure was mailed to all resident within a 300 foot radius, a number of neighborhood associations, City Planning staff, City Council members, Architectural Review Board members and other influential city leaders.
Hewlett Packard then conducted a series of three on-site neighborhood meetings, facilitated by Creighton. The meetings were active, even challenging. The major concerns of neighbors were to minimize any traffic impact upon the neighborhood; keep all entrances/exits on major streets away from the residences; increase the amount of landscape buffer, particularly at those places where people looking down the street will see the site; avoid a monolithic look ("Don't build a fortress"); and take into account the view down the streets towards the site. Other concerns included site security, and protecting the neighborhood from light and noise. Hewlett-Packard reviewed the comments from the public meeting, and made significant modifications in its plans to accommodate the neighbor's concerns.
Hewlett-Packard prepared a second mailing which summarized its understanding of what the neighbors had told it, outlined its response to these concerns, and invited people to a second community meeting. These materials were also sent to City staff and Architectural Review Board members.
At the second neighborhood meeting, Hewlett Packard staff presented the design changes they proposed based on comments at the first meeting. The neighbors were very pleased with the changes. Hewlett Packard present three alternative sites.
Hewlett-Packard reviewed the comments from the neighborhood meeting and chose the site plan that was preferred by the neighbors. Hewlett-Packard then had its architects begin working on the architectural options for the building, and on a more detailed landscaping plan.
The third meeting was held in one of the neighbors' home. By this time the number of attendees had dropped to about eight, but those who attended said the lower attendance was because most of the neighbors were satisfied that Hewlett-Packard had responded to their concerns. The comments focused on two exterior design options for the building. Both options seemed generally acceptable to the neighbors.
Hewlett-Packard developed final plans for development of the site and submitted them to the City's Architectural Review Board. These plans included all the commitments Hewlett-Packard made to the neighbors.
The Architectural Review Board in Palo Alto consists of five appointed members who are concerned with the architectural character of buildings built in the City, as well as their relationship to the site and surrounding uses. Several of the Board members are architects, with strong opinions about both design and planning issues. So long as the project remained relatively non-controversial, the Architectural Review Board would be the decision maker. But if it became controversial, the City Council could decide to review the Board's decision, at which point the project would likely become a community-wide controversy. The City was responsible for notifying neighbors and community leaders about the Architectural Review Board hearing.
The Hewlett-Packard team was holding its breath. Everything had gone well until now, with Hewlett-Packard able to respond to the concerns of neighbors. But had its assessment of neighbors' response been unduly positive? One positive sign was that the major community newspaper ran a story with the title, "Residents Pleased with HP's Page Mill Plans." The newspaper story quoted a local resident, an activist on development issues, who said: "They bent over backwards to address people's concerns. I gave them my thoughts, and each time they were responsive."
The members of the Architectural Review Board made very minor comments about the building design, most of which Hewlett-Packard's architects found useful and were able to incorporate into subsequent design drawings. Mostly the Architectural Review Board members commented favorably on Hewlett-Packard's efforts to work with the public.
When the time came for public comments, no one from the neighborhood spoke out, nor did any representatives of activist groups. Hewlett-Packard chose to interpret this positively, but it seemed a little anti-climactic after all the hard work.
It was too good to be true. Several weeks later the City Planning Department called Hewlett-Packard and told them that a mistake had been made and the announcement of the Architectural Review Board meeting had not been sent to neighbors and other interested parties, as required. The only way to fulfill legal requirements was to hold the meeting again, after proper notification to neighbors and other interested people.
The second time, 4-5 neighbors did show up. Hewlett-Packard went through its presentation again (which by now included some of the suggestions made during the previous Architectural Review Board meeting). When the time for public comment came, the neighbors did speak out -- in favor of the project. The project was unanimously approved by the Architectural Review Board. This time the Hewlett-Packard team's sigh of relief was both genuine and lasting.
The result was that Hewlett Packard successfully sited and built a 215,000 square foot office complex across the street from residential neighbors, in a community where development issues are highly charged. Construction of the building is now finished. Late in 1999 Hewlett-Packard spun off several of its divisions, including its scientific instrumentation division, to create Agilent Technologies. The newly completed 395 Page Mill office building now serves as the international headquarters offices of Agilent Technologies.
Top
|
|
|
 |
