810R76101
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
6-76-02
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HANDBOOK
FOR
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUNE 1976
-------
PREFACE
This handbook is one of a series designed to provide State and
areawide agencies with assistance in carrying out water quality planning
and implementation. Designation, Grant Application and Work Plan, Cost
Analysis, Interim Outputs, Management Agencies, and State Continuing
Planning Process handbooks have already been published. This handbook
serves as a supplement to 40 CFR, Parts 105, 130 and 131 which describe
agency responsibility for obtaining public participation in water pollu-
tion control efforts . It also expands on the public participation chapter
of the Draft Guidelines for State and Areawide Water Quality Management
Program Development (February, 1976) -.
The purpose of this handbook is to explain more fully the sec-
tions of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments which pertain to
public participation. Regulations, guidelines, and policies are repeated
and referenced, and realistic examples of ways to obtain meaningful par-
ticipation are provided. The principles of and requirements for maintain-
ing an effective public participation program, within broad planning
phases, are described. The model program section delineates a program
structure, and describes a variety of methods for encouraging productive
public participation.
Other EPA reference documents and previously published handbooks
dealing in part with public participation in the Water Quality Management
process include:
• 40 CFR, Part 105, Public Participation in Water Pollution
Control
• 40 CFR, Part 130, Policies and Procedures for the State
Continuing Planning Process
• 40 CFR, Part 131, Preparation of Water Quality Management
Plans
• Cost Analysis Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste Treat-
ment Management Planning, Federal Assistance Applications
(May, 1975)
Management Agencies Handbook for Sec^on 208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management (September, 1975)
Revised Area and Agency Designation Handbook for Section
208 Areawide Water Quality Management Planning (November,
1975)
-------
• Revised Grant Application and Work Plan Handbook for Section
208 Areawide Water Quality Management (December, 1975)
• State Continuing Planning Process Handbook (December, 1975)
• Draft Guidelines for State and Areawide Water Quality
Management Program Development (February, 1976)
This handbook was prepared under Contract No. 68-01-3195 by
Susan F. Vogt, Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. with contributions
from Professor Gene Willeke of the Georgia Institute of Technology and
the direction and support of James W. Meek and the Areawide Management
Branch and James Lund and the Planning Assistance and Policy Branch.
Mark A. Pisano
Director, Water Planning Division
Washington, D.C.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
INTRODUCTION 1
I. REQUIREMENTS AND PRINCIPLES 3
A. Eight Requirements 3
B. Principles 6
II. MAJOR PHASES 9
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE STATE LEVEL 21
A. Purpose 21
B. State Water Quality Program 22
C. Major Methods to Achieve Public Participation 25
D. Benefits of Public Participation 29
IV. MODEL PROGRAM DESIGN 30
A. Organization 30
B. Funding 35
C. Information Dissemination 40
D. Consultation 50
E. Obstacles to Public Involvement 74
F. Evaluation 75
APPENDIX
111
-------
NOTE
This document is not a replacement to the Act, the Regulations,
or official EPA Policy Statements. It is a supplement to these docu-
ments, showing hypothetical examples to assist State and areawide agen-
cies in responding to water quality management program requirements.
The examples in this handbook do not constitute a uniform National EPA
standard of acceptability. Any clarification and specific conditions
applicable to a designated area should be discussed with the EPA
Regional Offices.
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
One of the major expectations of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments is that the public will play a key decision-making
xrole in all water pollution control activities. The "public" includes
all interested or affected parties - State and local elected officials
and their key civil servants, businesses, unions, neighborhood groups,
developers, environmentalists, and others.
Section 101(e) of the Act states that "public participation ...
shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted" at Federal, State and
local levels. The purpose of public participation in the water quality
management process is to aid public education, create a plan sensitive
to local needs and values, and build support for plan implementation.
Several water quality management planning activities may occur
simultaneously within a region. State and Areawide Water Quality
Management (Sections 208 and 303) might well coincide with State Program
Planning (Grants for Pollution Control Programs, Section 106), Facilities
Planning (Grants for Construction of Treatment Works, Section 201),
Water Resource planning (Section 209), and/or the Continuing Planning
Process (Section 303(e)). Implementation may also be simultaneous,
as with the management provisions of Areawide Waste Treatment Management
(Section 208) and the issuance of permits, under National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (Section 402).
The essence of the water quality management process is decentral-
ized decision making - by citizens to influence planners, and by elected
officials responding to electorates. Publics must be identified early
and be urged to take active roles in the process to assure that fair
and practical decisions are made. Local expressions of needs and values
should be respected and should affect how planners study water pollution,
as well as which strategies for cleaning up the water can be considered.
Public input into water quality decision-making means that impacts will
be better assessed, implementation will be feasible, and the costs and
benefits to the various publics will be more palatable. Local elected
officials are influenced by constituent pressure. If citizens have
been able to influence decisions throughout the process, they will be
more likely to accept those decisions and urge local officials to support
the best implementable plan.
This handbook provides additional guidance to State and areawide
agencies on how to more effectively assist, encourage, and provide for
productive public participation. It is divided into four parts (1)
Requirements and Principles for Public Participation; (2) Major Phases;
(3) Public Participation at the State level; and (4) Model Program Design.
-1-
-------
The principles established in the Draft Guidelines for State and
Areawide Water Quality Management Program Development clearly emphasize
that agencies must go beyond minimum requirements if the purposes of
public participation are to be served. An agency involved in a public
participation program must identify publics, recognize the increasing
level of participation over time, respond to citizen input, and be wary
of common obstacles in obtaining productive participation. The Model
Program Design in this handbook describes in detail many methods of
facilitating an effective participation program. It is intended to be
modified, expanded, and adapted to local preferences and conditions.
References are provided at the end of this handbook.
-2-
-------
In the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,
Congress provided for a State and areawide water quality management
process to deal with complex water pollution problems. Section 101(e)
of those amendments established citizen participation as an integral
part of that process. That section requires State and areawide agencies
to encourage, as well as provide for and assist citizens to participate
in making decisions which will help solve water pollution problems.
While the particular emphases of a public participation program are
left to local discretion, regulations (40 CFR 105) specify that at
least eight requirements be met in order to carry out the letter of
Section 101(e). It is important to emphasize that only by going beyond
these minimum requirements can the spirit and intent of Section 101(e)
be captured. The eight requirements and some recommendations for
meeting them are:
1. Informational Materials and Access to Them - Technical and
procedural information must be continuously available to
citizens at the earliest opportunity. This requirement
includes summarizing or interpreting complex data and
making it understandable to the public and the media.
The requirement may be met by mailing to the public news-
letters, brochures, etc., by meeting the public through
briefings, exhibits, meetings, etc, and by setting up
depositories. Several depositories should be established,
scattered throughout the area, conveniently located, open
during evenings and weekends, and have low cost copying
facilities. They should contain draft as well as final
documents and reports of citizen comments and participa-
tion. Assistance in locating documents in the depository
should be provided.
Citizens can make productive and informed input into the
decision-making process only if they are given enough
time to study background reports and relevant data.
Drafts of reports and studies and other important infor-
mation should be as available to citizens as they are
to planners.
2. Assisting the Public - Assistance to public groups for
citizen education and/or training, must be promptly
provided. The public must be assisted in finding ways
to participate effectively. This requires allocating
technical staff time to meet special needs, as well as
assigning staff to be responsible for the public parti-
cipation program. To fulfill this requirement adequately,
agency staff must be willing and flexible enough to in-
terrupt their scheduled work and meet public needs promptly.
-3-
-------
3. Consultation - Early exchange of views with affected or
interested citizens before decisions are made is mandated.
Advisory committee(s), briefings, workshops, and issue
committees are some of the vehicles for consultation.
The goal is to establish a. dialogue utilizing input from
citizens throughout the process. Citizens should not be
reacting to a final plan, but making decisions which
help create it.
4. Notification - An up-to-date list of interested or affected
persons and organizations must be kept. Newsletters or
bulletins must be mailed regularly to them and they must
receive early notification of key developments in the plan-
ning and decision-making process. Public notice of meetings
will reach non-participating citizens only if it appears
in a well read section of the newspaper, is inserted in the
water bill, advertised on public transit, or through radio
and TV spots.
5. Enforcement - There must be procedures to ensure that infor-
mation and evidence from citizens gets proper consideration.
This requirement can be met by keeping records of specific
citizen input and the agency response to it. When citizens
raise significant points, the agency must describe actions
taken to investigate those points. An updated summary of
citizen input and agency response should be regularly pub-
lished and is one way of meeting the requirement.
The public should also be encouraged to report violations
of water pollution laws, and reports should be investigated
quickly by the agency. Newsletters or exhibits can educate
the public to recognize violations and tell how to report
them.
6. Legal Proceedings - The agency must provide full and open
information about legal proceedings. Citizens should under-
stand litigation and its ramifications. An individual's
right to publicly comment before legal action is taken
against dischargers should be made known. Presenting
information about current and possible legal action through
newsletters, briefings, exhibits or public meetings helps
satisfy this requirement. Meetings and files should also be
kept open to all interested groups and individuals.
Public Hearings - Hearings are supplementary and not the
major vehicle for citizen participation. However, public
hearings must be provided to give the public a formal
opportunity to be heard prior to decision-making. Testimony
at the hearing should be evaluated and weighed, along with
previous citizen input before moving to the next planning
or implementation step.
-------
Hearing notices should be advertised and mailed out at
least 30 days in advance. Locations and times should take
into consideration travel hardship, availability of public
transportation, and should facilitate attendence of a cross-
section of interested or affected publics. Notice of the
hearing should include the agenda, rules about statements,
and should give procedures for obtaining fact sheets, reports
or documents to be discussed at the hearing. More complete
guidelines for hearings are listed in 40 CFR 105, Section
105.7. The spirit of this requirement can best be met if
hearings are conducive to obtaining testimony from a wide
variety of publics.
8. Advisory Committees
Designated Area - Agencies must establish an Areawide
Policy Advisory Committee. Membership must include re-
presentatives of appropriate State agencies and the general
public. In accordance with Section 304 (j), representatives
of the Departments of Army, Agriculture, and Interior must
be invited to participate in order to better coordinate all
water quality programs. An effort should be made to in-
clude representatives of agencies responsible for other
environmental programs being conducted in the area.
The Policy Advisory Committee's function is to give
guidance to agency staffs throughout planning and
implementation and to provide a continuing structure for
citizen input. The areawide agency may also create
Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees in order to
focus on specific substantive issues. Close coordination
among the committees and with the agency is imperative.
Agency staff should serve on each committee to assure
a two way flow of information and a good mix of technical
and citizen perspectives. All committees should be kept
to a workable size. The Policy Advisory Committee might
serve as a steering committee to coordinate efforts of
all sub-committees.
State - Agencies must also establish a Policy Advisory
Committee to regularly advise agency staffs during de-
velopment and implementation of the plan. This committee
should consider broad policy matters, including the plan's
potential fiscal, economic, and social impacts. It is
strongly recommended that Policy Advisory Committees be
established for each nondesignated planning area.
-5-
-------
Policy advisory committees must include a majority re-
presentation of locally elected officials (except where
the Regional Administrator agrees to a lesser percentage,
and provided the affected local jurisdictions do not
substantially disagree). Membership must also include re-
presentatives of appropriate State agencies, interested
organizations, and Federal agencies (especially Federal
land managing agencies where Federal lands constitute a
significant part of the planning area). The use of exist-
ing advisory committees is recommended.
Section 101(e) of the 1972 Act requires that EPA, the States,
and designated areawide agencies provide for, encourage, and assist public
participation. The regulations (40 CFR 105) set basic requirements,
but only by applying some equally important principles to the requirements
can the spirit of the law be met.
1. Agency Initiative
The agency must want the public to be involved in an
active program. This will require the agency to take the
initiative in encouraging citizen participation. Agency
staff must assume an open attitude, willing to put forth
preliminary estimates concerning impacts, effects, feasi-
bility, etc. Too often, by the time final reports are
issued or data is verified, decisions have been made.
Although planners and technicians feel uncomfortable
making public their educated guesses, it is the only way
citizens can enter the decision-making process and have
an effect on decisions to be made.
2. Target Key Groups
The agency must seek out important publics. Elected State
and local officials and their key civil servants, as well
as representatives of State and Federal agencies should
be involved. They have valuable contacts with non-
participating citizens, and have useful knowledge to
contribute to the water quality management process. The
agency should make citizens aware of who these elected
and governmental representatives are, so they can be
easily contacted. If these officials are involved in
continuous decision-making, then approval and support for
feasible strategies to clean up water will occur more readily.
-6-
-------
Potentially affected groups must be sought out, and continu-
ously informed of the choices and impacts involved in
various alternatives. Their viewpoints, needs and values
must help shape decisions about policies, plans, and pro-
grams. This is equally as important during implementation, when
a program may face revision, as during the planning process.
Special interest groups, even if hostile or initially
unwilling, must be encouraged, to participate in decision-
making. This is the only way decisions can be made which
will be supported by the community and local officials,
and which can be implemented. However, a special interest
group should not be allowed to dominate participation, no
matter how responsible or productive its input.
3. Staff and Funding
If the intent of Section 101(e) is to be realized, broad
staff responsibility must be assigned and adequate funding
allocated. Public participation must be a continuing
activity, integral to the process, not an add-on effort
conducted parallel to or independent of other activities.
Thus, all technical people should be involved with the public
throughout the process. This may require training the agency
staff in writing, speaking, and other communication skills.
Because of the demanding public participation requirements
of PL 92-500, there should be at least one staff member
responsible for day-to-day activities. This person(s)
should be clearly identified and advertised so that citizens
have a starting point when contacting the agency. This
person(s) must be familiar with the activities of other
agency staff and consultants so that members of the public
can be immediately referred to the appropriate staff member.
Adequate funds to carry out the public participation
program should be included in both planning and imple-
mentation budgets.
4. Two Way Communication
In the water quality management process, information
must be given and received by both the agency staff and
the public. Staff members must give out information in
terms people can understand. Reports should be summarized
and contain the information people want to know and can
use in the decision-making process. Information to different
groups might emphasize different areas according to that
group's needs and concerns. All information should be
easily available to the public.
-7-
-------
Citizens should be able to question and understand the
basic study assumptions (i.e., growth and population
projections). They should have all preliminary estimates
about possible effects of various alternatives (i.e., to
whom, how much, what cost). And the public should under-
stand and be able to affect all phases of the program, in-
cluding those most directly related to implementation (i.e.,
timing, costs, responsibilities etc.).
The technical people at the agency must study and be able
to understand the problems, needs, and concerns of different
groups and areas. The need for identifying public values
and priorities is constant, and that process should go on
throughout planning and implementation.
Whenever information is exchanged it must be a two way
process. The public needs to hear and to give information.
And agency staff need to listen as well as talk. When
citizens are initiating ideas and influencing decisions
about how a water "quality program should operate and
when planners are listening and modifying that program,
then the public participation effort begins to be successful.
-8-
-------
According to the provisions of PL 92-500, public participation
must be assisted and encouraged during the development and implementation
of 'programs to improve water quality. Throughout the water quality
management process, citizens should take an active role, educating planners
about community goals, initiating ideas, evaluating alternatives, helping
to develop a feasible and fair plan of action, and watchdogging its
implementation. States and/or area agency staff must respect citizen
contribution and support such an active role.
Broad but distinct phases in the water quality management process
can be identified." By focusing on these phases, agencies can identify
short term public participation goals, and can better structure their
program to achieve those goals. For each phase the staff should accom-
plish the following -five tasks:
1. Identify objectives and decisions to be made
2. Define information needs for the public and planners
3. Identify key citizens and groups
4. Select productive methods for information exchange
5. Assure public impact on the decision-making process, and
give evidence of citizen impact.
The phases in the water quality management process are: establish-
ment of goals and objectives, design of alternatives, impact assessment,
recommendation and acceptance of final plan, implementation and plan
revision. These phases are presented below. For each phase, the five
tasks listed above are discussed.
Identify Objectives and Decisions to be made. The objective
of this phase is to open channels of communication with the
public in general, and to specifically seek out individuals
and groups with special knowledge and/or decision-making
power.
Basic decisions about the water quality study and its
scope will be made early. Planners will need to decide
such things as: which population and growth projections
to use, what tasks must be given to consultants, how plan-
ning funds will be allocated, which agency(ies) might be
selected to manage the approved plan, if a new agency
could be created for implementation responsibility, and
many more.
-9-
-------
2. Define Information Needs. During this first phase, planners
need to understand the values, preferences, and concerns
of the citizens, and where water quality stands among them
while citizens need to understand the scope and potential
impact of the planning effort.
Assessing the values and concerns of key individuals,
and affected interested or powerful groups will enable
the first step toward devising a plan which is support-
able, approvable, and implementable. Values and con-
cerns may be expressed in many ways - "The water smells",
"We want camping facilities", "Taxes are too high",
"Unemployment is a problem", "A land use bill failed
last year", "We want to be able to fish again", "What
are the Feds trying to control now". The public must
feel free to express its values. Planners must be
willing and able to listen.
The public needs to have PL 92-500 summarized in relevant
understandable terms. Possible effects on citizen life-
styles and local government responsibilities should be
stressed as well as ways in which improving water quality
might achieve other community goals. Citizens need to
be aware of the regional nature of water quality management -
that water quality programs will often need to cross political
jurisdictions to attain more effective and lasting solutions.
Finally, citizens must be convinced that this is "bottom
up" planning and implementation, that their input is im-
portant and will affect the ultimate water quality manage-
ment program.
3_ Identify Key Citizens and Groups. This first phase must
open the channels of communication between agency staff
and as many publics as possible. The range and richness
of input received during this phase will be determined by
how many publics are encouraged to participate, and how
free they feel to express their values. By traveling to
and communicating with many publics, planners will also
learn how the community organizes for action, where the
traditionally non-participating publics are, and who the
key leaders are.
However, some citizens are especially important to contact.
These include elected officials who must themselves assess
constituent values and preferences for election purposes,
local government civil servants who make water related
decisions, the influential community leaders who represent
potentially affected citizens, business, environmental or
special interest groups whose support or opposition could
affect a plan's approval, and those potentially responsible
for implementation.
-10-
-------
4. Select methods for Information Exchange. Agency staff
should use a variety of methods for increasing public
understanding of PL 92-500 and the potential impacts of
its water quality management program. In addition to
meetings, such things as newsletters, briefings, exhibits,
and, media coverage can be effectively used to increase
public understanding.
Values and preferences will be most openly expressed in
interviews or small meetings, structured to encourage
discussion and share ideas. The acceptance of citizen
values, and the openness which the agency shows at this
stage will influence all future interactions.
Questionnaires or checklists for rating traditional values
(open space, -recreation, economic growth, clean water, etc.)
can be useful in ascertaining public preferences. Also,
it is helpful for agency staff to hypothesize about deci-
sions which might be made or situations which might occur
due to the effort to clean up water, (i.e., rezoning to
discourage intense development, construction of new storm
sewer system with concomitant disruption of roads, or
limiting the area's mining industry etc.). As citizens
react to these "straw men possibilities", their values
will be expressed. Public interest will be sparked and
participation increased as long as these possible out-
comes are clearly understood to be hypothetical and not
expressions of fixed agency intent.
5_ Assure Public Impact on Decision-Making. Citizens must
be able to see that their values and strong preferences
are taken into account and can already affect options
considered for water quality management. The agency can
show that they have allocated funds, set meeting agendas,
made extra efforts to obtain citizen viewpoints, structured
committees and commissioned studies according to citizen .
direction.
-11-
-------
Identify Objectives and Decisions to be made. As this phase
of planning begins, the emphasis shifts from defining goals,
values, problems and roles, to the formulation and preliminary
testing of alternative suggestions. Decision-making during
this phase will include eliminating options which are clearly
unacceptable to the public, eliminating those which local
decision-makers or agency staff feel are impractical, com-
bining subplans or ideas into workable alternatives for
further consideration, and selecting areas for in depth
public education (i.e., best management practices for forestry,
the need for a regulatory program, etc.).
Define Information Needs. AS alternative suggestions
emerge, the public needs to know in rough terms the probable
effects which would accompany each. They need to learn
more about the technical aspects of various approaches.
Planners need to learn which suggestions are unacceptable
or infeasible, what biases exist among local decision-
makers, and how local political realities will impact
water quality management.
The planning agency's responsibility is to help the public
compare alternatives. This requires preliminary but
fair cost an*, impact estimates. Management concerns
(alternativ methods of financing, environmental effect,
technical feasibility, etc.) are also of interest and
relevance to the public. For instance, in evaluating the
best management practices for a nonpoint source of pollution,
the public should understand a management agency's re-
gulatory position, its ability to provide technical
assistance, and which fiscal programs it can offer as
incentives to the impacted public.
Identify Key Publics. It is especially important to contact
and involve key citizens and State and local politicians and
bureaucrats during this phase. They will give critical feed-
back about the feasibility and/or political acceptability of
alternative suggestions. In obtaining those suggestions,
however, a wide spectrum of individual and group points of
view must be sought. At this point, while alternatives are
incomplete and fluid, planners can best incorporate new ideas
from citizens, and understand which aspects of potential alter-
natives are unacceptable. This input must be received before
alternatives become comprehensive and finalized for comparison
during the impact assessment phase.
-12-
-------
Select Methods for Information Exchange. Agency staff must
encourage situations where citizens feel comfortable in
offering or reacting to suggestions. This may mean going
to meetings of citizens associations, chambers of commerce,
county councils etc." Or, it may mean in depth conversations
with an elected official, influential local civil servant
or community leaders. It is important to have some meetings
include several interest groups during this phase. Understand-
ing and respect for different points of view among the publics
and the agencies will lay the groundwork for the negotiation
and compromise which must follow later.
Public education can happen through newsletters, exhibits,
talks, workshops etc. Field trips can show examples of
land management practices for forestry, mining and agricul-
ture, as well as the workings of a sewage treatment plan.
Assure Public Impact on Decision-Making. The alternatives
at this stage should be fluid, able to incorporate citizen
input in an obvious way. First, all citizen suggestions
should be considered equally. Local decision-makers and
key community leaders (perhaps as part of an Advisory
Committee) should be actively involved in combining sub-
plans into viable regional alternatives. A report from
them to citizens at large could explain why some suggestions
were not taken and others were. Finally, a public meeting
or hearing should be held to give a formal opportunity
for input before two or three alternatives are chosen for
detailed impact assessment.
-13-
-------
C* • ii&pact .&8S6»sw8«t. c*£ Major
Identify Objectives and Decisions to be made. Assessing
regional impacts of the selected alternative plans requires
public deliberation over their relative merits and drawbacks.
The first objective of this phase is to receive citizen
input as to how each plan reflects public preferences,
impacts various groups, and can be best implemented. Other
objectives are to foster citizen awareness of the need for
negotiation, compromise, and trade-offs, and to focus
citizen education according to the proposed alternatives .
Decision-making in this phase will include such things as
finalizing procedures for ascertaining social impacts,
modifying the alternatives, further detailing various manage-
ment structures, and weighting the preferences of citizens,
officials, and special interest groups.
Define Information Needs . Citizens will need as much under-
standable information about the effects of these alterna-
tives as is possible in order to make an informed judgement.
Agency staff need as much information as possible about pre-
ferences in order to devise an implementable plan which
can be supported.
During this phase, the requirements of providing citizens
with understandable, complete, and easily accessible in-
formation must be rigorously met. Possible energy and
resource demands of various alternatives should be considered
as well as long-range effects, irreversible impacts, and
induced impact. Furthermore, each alternative should show
which dischargers (i.e., construction firms, agricultural
interests, mine owners) would face possible legal action.
As impacts are further defined, and planners modify their
assessments, the impact studies should be updated.
Citizens must have the data to judge for themselves which
alternative is — or can be modified to become — the most
acceptable. Suggested changes to an alternative should be
carefully considered, especially those which would make
it more acceptable, even if cost or ideal effectiveness
is compromised. If one alternative precipitates suggested
changes from several groups , it should be considered less
acceptable to the public, and less desirable as a final plan.
-14-
-------
3. Identify Key Publics. Publics to be given special attention
during this phase include those directly affected, (i.e.,
those who live hear a proposed sewage treatment plant, who
must implement a costly solution to their nonpoint pollution,
or whose streets will be torn up while a new storm water
runoff system is laid), as well as those responsible for
financing construction, operations, monitoring and enforce-
ment. New publics who discover they might be affected,
are likely to emerge in this phase, and should be incor-
porated into the public participation program by including
them in the mailing list, notifying them of meetings, and
sending them back issues of the newsletters.
Groups or individuals who seem adamantly opposed to all of
the alternatives, and who might lobby against local acceptance
of a final plan, should be encouraged to make their objec-
tions public, and to work with other groups in creating
an acceptable alternative. Agencies, individuals, or
groups who might be responsible for implementation should
be involved supplying data, and listening to citizen ex-
pressions of acceptability. This will prepare them for
taking over the responsibility of citizen participation
after the final plan is accepted.
4. Select Methods for Information Exchange. The best method
of obtaining useful citizen input at this stage is through
small and moderate-sized meetings. A briefing or meeting
with one special interest group provides an opportunity for
off-the-record comments (i.e., insights about other groups,
possible inducements for accepting an alternative, potential
problems of particular enforcement or monitoring) which
would not be made in public. Small meetings also provide
a chance for planners and implementors to assess the unani-
mity of preference within the group for one or another
alternative, rather than relying solely on a spokesman.
Larger meetings, representing several publics, enables
planners to get a variety of inputs at one meeting. It
also helps citizens become better informed about each
other's points of view, values, and needs, laying the ground-
work for productive negotiation and compromise.
Drafts of impact assessments with accompanying technical
back-up, should be available in depositories, summarized
in the newsletter, and presented at meetings. Understand-
able summaries of this information should be sent to local
officials and other decision-makers who might not have time
to go to depositories. Potential impacts should be made
public as they evolve, as data is being collected, and be-
fore a final report is written.
-15-
-------
Media coverage through newspapers, newsletters, or special
booklets can focus on a subject, broadening public knowledge
about the technical aspects or complicated ramifications of
an alternative. This will enable the public to make more
informed comparisons of alternatives.
Assure Public Impact on Decision-Making. Citizens should
be encouraged to challenge data or an impact assessment if
they think it's incorrect or incomplete. The agency(ies)
should be willing to undertake further assessment and should
involve the objecting individual or group. For instance,
if the agency's study of a proposed pretreatment ordinance
is challenged, the group objecting, and the agency(ies)
potentially responsible for implementing the ordinance
should meet with the agency staff. After becoming familiar
with the specifics of the objection and reviewing the
agency(ies)'s study, the groups should reconsider the ori-
ginal study. This may be time-consuming, but will produce
a better plan and reduce the possibility of opposition
from that group.
A public hearing should be held at the conclusion of this
phase to receive formal citizen input prior to recommending
a final plan. A brochure defining the alternatives helps
prepare citizens to make knowledgeable and productive comment.
While it is crucial to set up the hearing in such a way as
to get a variety of informed opinions, it should not con-
stitute the entire bank of citizen expression upon which
final decisions are based. The months of working participa-
tion and citizen involvement should be considered as well as
that input given formally on one night.
-16-
-------
an<3 A-oceptance of the
1 . Identify Objectives and Decisions to be made. The primary
objective now is to arrange the details of the recommended
plan so as to make it equitable, effective, and acceptable
to most citizens. At the beginning of this phase the
agency staffs must decide which alternative to recommend
for approval. At the end, local elected officials, and
finally the Governor, must decide whether to accept that
recommendation. Between these two events, many decisions
will be made modifying and adapting the plan to a final
and most acceptable form.
2. Define Information Needs . In arranging the details of the
final plan prior to local acceptance, citizens will have
to be knowledgeable about the mechanics and implications
of the plan. They will want to know exactly who and what
will benefit as well as who and what will be adversely
affected. Means for mitigating those adverse effects should
be worked out. For instance, if construction is to be under-
taken, local residents might be given first crack at con-
struction jobs. If leaking septic systems are to be abandoned,
financial assistance might be arranged to mitigate the
expense of sewer hookup. If sludge is to be burned, extra
equipment to reduce anticipated odor problems might be
specified.
The legal requirements of keeping citizens informed, ask-
ing for and reacting to public input, and keeping the mail-
ing list updated, should be met during this phase as they
have before. Possible legal action stemming from this plan
should be described. Agency staffs will need to know
which modifications to the final plan will satisfy the most
publics, are fair, and will lead to more broadly based support.
3. Identify Key Publics. The publics which should be targeted
for consultation about possible modifications include those
most affected, those most responsible for the particular
implementation, those who strongly preferred another alter-
native, and those who strongly support the alternative se-
lected. Since the atmosphere at this point should be one
of negotiation, trade-off, and compromise, meetings should
include groups with different interests and opinions, and
should be structured to allow maximum discussion.
-17-
-------
As the approval time nears, a special effort must be made
to make local officials aware of citizen comments and con-
tributions throughout the process. Not everyone will be
pleased with the results, but most should feel that they've
had a chance to participate and have been taken seriously.
The inevitable opposition, relayed directly to local
officials, will be weighed against the evidence of con-
stituent participation. If the planning effort has been
open and conducive to citizen input, local values and
suggestions will be incorporated and evident in the final
plan. Official approval will then be more likely.
4. Select Methods for Information Exchange. The negotiation,
compromise, and modification necessary during this phase
is best undertaken at small and moderate sized meetings
with several interests present. For one group to feel that
the final changes are fair they must be able to understand
the values and problems of many other groups. Meeting with
just one group, however, also serves a purpose. They will
feel more comfortable airing concerns, and suggesting
changes. Misconceptions can be corrected.
All groups should be made aware of meetings, workshops,
etc. where modifications will be dicussed. If a group
feels shut out at this point, its opposition will be auto-
matic.
5. Assure Public Impact on Decision-Making. Even at this stage,
the plan should be open to modification and change. Con-
sidering citizen comments, planners and implementors should
investigate the attainment of additional benefits, and attempt
to further minimize undesirable social, economic, or environ-
mental impacts, even if it means increasing expenditure.
A final plan, incorporating changes suggested by the public
will be difficult to oppose. The water quality management pro-
gram then will be something the public can live with, which
will work according to the local implementation system, and -
most importantly - will clean up the water.
-18-
-------
1. Identify Objectives and Decisions to be made. The main ob-
jective of this final but continuing phase is to get the
water quality management program implemented. The Governor
will have designated an agency(ies) responsible for implemen-
tation. Staff of the management agency(ies) will be making
decisions regarding such things as timing and fiscal arrange-
ments consistant with the approved plan. Other implementa-
tion activities might include such things as further design
of the regulatory program, construction of treatment works,
urban storm water management and effecting zoning changes.
A second objective is to assure that the original plan
remains relevant and workable within changing conditions.
To do this the plan will require continuous updating.
In most if not all cases, the continuous updating of the
plan will be the responsibility of the originally designated
agency. The required annual certification by the Governor
is a time when decisions will be made about necessary
revisions.
Define Information Needs. Citizens need to know if any
unforseen problems arise regarding implementation of the
water quality management program which necessitate changes.
If so, agency staff will need to assess public acceptance
of those changes. Citizens should be made fully aware of
the plan's annual certification by elected officials.
There should be provisions for performance assessment,
plan revision and updating. Generalized contingency
measures should be publicly described in case the original
course of action becomes infeasible or inadvisable in light
of changed conditions. Summaries of progress toward the
water quality goals, and evaluations of how effective and
on schedule the plan has been to date should be mailed out
and put into depositories. Comments, data, and reports
should be available so that citizens can themselves evaluate
the progress made under the plan. The name of an individual
in the continuing planning agency should be included so that
citizens can easily make their opinions known.
Identify Key Publics. During this phase, the key publics
to remain in touch with are those responsible for or af-
fected by actual implementation. Data and experience gained
during planning might well be of use to implementors. If
the plan must be revised in any major way citizens who pre-
viously participated as well as those who might be affected
should be consulted and encouraged to become involved again.
-19-
-------
4. Select Methods for Information Exchange. The procudure for
re-activating a structured program of public participation
should be known and available to both citizens and staff
of the continuing planning agency. This will insure that,
over time, the plan for achieving water quality within a
designated region, will continue to adapt to local needs
and changing conditions. Reusing the mailing list is a
good way to let the public know when review and certification
is about to take place. Since it is likely that participation
will have waned by this time as public interest shifted to
other issues, a direct personal contact, such as a telephone
call, is advised if major revision is anticipated.
Assure Public Impact on Decision-Making. Public parti-
cipation should be "assisted, provided for and encouraged"
during implementation and plan revision just as it was
during planning. The staff of the continuing planning
agency must be willing to allow citizens an active role as
part of the continuing decision-making process. The
staff of management agencies must also be willing to com-
municate with citizens. In many cases, citizens will be
able to provide ideas and information which will aid in
the implementation of the water quality program.
-20-
-------
Section 101(e) of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments states that public participation must be provided for, assisted,
and encouraged in the development, revision, and enforcement of any water
quality management plan or program. This section actively applies to all
elements of the State water quality management program. Requirements
and principles pertaining to public participation, as contained in 40
CPR 105 of the Act, are described in Section I of this handbook.
The purpose of an active Statewide public participation program
is to build broad citizen and legislative support for the overall water
quality management effort. In fact, the ultimate success of a State
water quality program depends on this support from key groups of citizens
and affected units of State and local governments.
These key "publics" include local elected officials, appointed
officials who make water quality related decisions, those groups or in-
dividuals who express a special interest, groups whose support or opposi-
tion could affect a plan's approval, and citizens who would bear the
brunt of implementation impacts. These groups (and others) must be able
to influence policy decisions about water quality. It is the responsibility
of the State agency to help citizens become informed about water quality
managenent in their State, so that citizen input can be influential at the
policy level. Only if plans can be tailored to the values, needs, politi-
cal realities, and specific conditions of a State or locality will they
be feasible to implement. Only if decisions reflect public concerns and
input will the plans be acceptable.
-21-
-------
The State is responsible for carrying out public participation re-
quirements in the nondesignated areas and overseeing public participation
programs throughout the State. Certain planning activities will be dele-
gated by the State water quality management agency to local municipalities,
other State, or Federal agencies. In these cases, public participation
responsibilities may also be delegated. For example, if the State water
quality management agency delegates an analysis of the water quality im-
pact of silvacultural activities to another appropriate State agency, that
agency should encourage active public participation in its analysis.
Dividing responsibilities, however, can leave no agency accountable
to the public. Therefore, one agency in each planning area — either the
State in the nondesignated areas, or the areawide agency in the designated
areas, should assume overall responsibility for overseeing and encouraging
public participation in all water quality efforts. Points of contact
with that agency should be advertised. At least one person should be
assigned to answer or refer citizen questions.
There are two major and closely related parts to a State Water
Quality Program. The continuing planning process is the State's overall
management and decision-making framework for water quality programs. The
Annual State Program sets forth both long and short range strategies to
solve the State's water quality problems.
1. Continuing Planning Process
The public should be encouraged to take an active role in the review
and revision of the continuing planning process. The State must seek
public reaction to any annual revisions by holding public meetings or
hearings. This must be done before revisions are submitted to EPA for
approval. Major elements of the continuing planning process for which
public input should be actively sought include the following:
• The State Strategy - This strategy is the foundation and
background for the Annual State Program. It's purpose
is to identify Statewide water quality problem areas, pri-
oritize the control of those problems, schedule broad cor-
rective measures over a 5 year period, and generally pro-
ject resources needed to accomplish the tasks. Decisions
and evaluations will be made about long term resource al-
location during the preparation of the State strategy.
Options for future priorities and schedules may be narrowed
in the process. These basic decisions and choices must
not be made without public input. A State level public
participation program should assist and encourage citizens,
interest groups, and State, local, and regional government
officials to take active roles in developing the State
strategy.
-22-
-------
The State/EPA Agreement - This element of the continuing
planning process is especially important to the public
since it sets forth the timing and level of detail of the
water quality management tasks which the State will under-
take. It is, in effect, the work plan for the State water
quality management effort. Interested citizens and local
government officials must be partners in the development of
this work plan. Besides timing and level of detail, specific
public involvement programs to be followed will be decided
during formulation of the State/EPA Agreement. Citizens
may have strong opinions about these issues. They should
be included in the decision-making process.
State Water Quality Management Effort - The State is respon-
sible for the entire State water quality management effort,
including plans prepared by designated areawide agencies,
plans prepared by the State, and activities delegated to
State, local or Federal agencies. A program for public
involvement must be an integral part of the State water
quality management process, and should outline specific
methods for obtaining public participation at each step.
An important element of the State water quality management
program is the review of water quality standards. At
least once every three years, the standards are reviewed
and, if appropriate, revisions to the standards are adopted
by the State. The State is required to hold public hearings
during the review and revision process. Since the standards
help establish water quality goals, citizens should be given
full opportunity to participate in the review and revision
process. To ensure an active citizen role in setting water
quality standards, other participation opportunities such
as workshops and meetings should be provided to supplement
the required public hearings.
In nondesignated areas, the State should structure public
participation activities to do the following:
Increase public understanding of the water quality
management process.
Encourage citizens and State and local officials
to participate in water quality decision-making
so that plans will reflect the needs, values,
and political realities of the area, and
Build support for implementation of the final
approved plan.
The State water quality management effort must be evaluated
by the State and EPA. One of the three main evaluation
criteria is a proposed plan's acceptability to the general
public and elected officials. If these groups have been
active in the decision-making process, the Plan's acceptability
will be enhanced.
-23-
-------
2. Annual State Program
The Annual State 106 Program is a place where public input can
have a tangible impact, since the most important part of this Program in-
cludes allocation of resources to solve water quality problems. If the
public is not able to affect decisions about how State time and money
are spent, their hours spent helping to make planning and policy decisions
could be wasted.
The Annual State Program will have at least five parts:
• A summary of water quality problem areas in the State.
• A description of individual State program elements (i.e.,
management of municipal facilities, permits, compliance
schedules, planning, public participation, etc.).
• A five year projection of resources needed to conduct the
State program-as estimated in the State Strategy . This
projection will provide a basis for continuous water quality
program planning and budget justification. It will include
general financial and man-year resource requirements for
each year of the five year cycle.
• A table showing projected outputs for each program element
during the next fiscal year.
• A detailed resource summary sheet showing specific financial
and man-year allocations for each program element during
the next fiscal year.
The preliminary State Program will be submitted by the State to
EPA on May 1, along with the State Strategy and any revisions to the con-
tinuing planning process. These will be considered and modified, with
a final State Program worked out by September 1. Active citizen involve-
ment in the modification process should take place during this time.
If public input into the Annual State Program is to be useful and
realistic, then citizens must be informed about past and current State
efforts to improve water quality. The State's annual water quality in-
ventory, the 305(b) report, gives a basin by basin analysis of current
water quality assessment and water quality trends. As such, it is an ideal
background document for citizen education. Since this report is often
lengthy and highly technical, State agency staff should produce a fif-
teen to twenty page summary written for the public in lay terms.
During the four month review and revision period for the Annual
State Program, certain key groups or individuals should be sought out
for input. These should include State and local elected officials,
appointed officials who make water quality related decisions, and those
groups or individuals who express a special interest.
-24-
-------
Ae)|$4$ft fifcilo
Two major formal mechanisms for assuring public input are required
by the Act — a Policy Advisory Committee and public meetings or hearings.
Other methods are described in detail in Section IV of this handbook.
1. Public Meetings or Hearings
Public meetings or hearings provide an opportunity for citizens to
state their views. Meetings and hearings should be held before decisions
are made so that citizen input can be incorporated. However, they cannot
by themselves satisfy the mandate of Section 101(e) and 40 CFR 35.564
to encourage active citizen participation in decision-making.
Hearings or meetings must be held whenever there is sufficient
public interest in a matter, and also at key points in the planning cycle.
For instance, the State Continuing Planning Process design must be reviewed
by citizens before revisions are submitted to EPA for approval. As part
of the Continuing Planning Process, the State/EPA Agreement on timing
and level of detail should also be open for citizen comment and modifica-
tion.
When a State Water Quality Management Program has been devised,
after an active program of public involvement, a public meeting or hearing
must be held. This enables citizens to state their views one last time
before the Plan goes to the Governor and EPA for approval. According to
40 CFR 35.562(b), modifications made on the basis of public testimony, must
still be possible.
A special opportunity exists for the public to influence the
Annual State Strategy. As part of the Annual State Program, the Strategy
is open to review and revision between May and September of each year.
A public meeting or hearing during this time would encourage citizens
and local officials to review this important section of the State Program.
-25-
-------
2. Policy Advisory Committee(s)
Requirements and specifications for Policy Advisory Committees at
the State level are set forth in 40 CFR 130.16(c). These are summarized
in Section I of this handbook. It is strongly recommended that policy
advisory committees be set-up for each State planning area, or group of areas.
Advisory committees or special task forces may be helpful in particular
water quality problem areas such as silviculture, urban storm water,
mining etc. In all cases the use of existing advisory committees is re-
commended. This provides stability and continuity for public input
during the continuing planning process. Committees can be a primary
vehicle for obtaining citizen input, but should not be the only vehicle.
Input from the advisory committees should be received and coordinated by
the lead State agency responsible for the State Water Quality Management
Plan.
The purpose of advisory committees in the State is to
critique and aid planners in determining the best, fairest and most
practical means of dealing with water quality problems. A major func-
tion for advisory committees members is informing and motivating the
groups they represent to participate in the water quality management
process. Recommendations made by an advisory committee should be re-
sponded to and considered for incorporation into the State Water Quality
Management Plan.
Advisory committee membership should include balanced represen-
tation of key individuals and groups. Chairpersons or members of key
State legislative committees (i.e., Budget, Public Works, etc.) should
be included. Powerful State level private interest groups cannot be
allowed to dominate the public input. If advisory committees are allowed
to take active roles in the decision-making process, a final State Water
Quality Management Plan, acceptable to the majority of State citizens,
will be more likely.
-26-
-------
Advisory Committee Structure
GOVERNOR
Policy Advi-
sory Committee
AREA A
DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
(Lead State Agency)
•x
X1
N
s
STATE LEGISLATURE
^
f
1 1
Policy Advi- Policy Advi-
sory Committee sory Committee
AREA B AREA C
Policy Advi-
sory Committee
AREA D
Policy 1
sory Cor
AREA I
«**?
STATE OF WATCHUNG
-27-
continued .
-------
Committee Membership
Policy Advisory Committee, Area A
1. Mayor, Beverley - -
2. City Councilwoman, Snowden
3. County Councilman, Zeigler County
4. Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Kielman County
5. Staff member, Planning Board (representing Town Council, Beverley)
6. Town Manager, Fradensville (representing Mayor)
7. City Attorney General Dealph
8. County Councilmember, Middlesex County
9. City Councilmember,. Dealph
0. Representative, Ziegler County Board of Supervisors
1. Administrative Aide (representing County Executive, Middlesex County)
2. Deputy Director, Department of Planning, Middlesex County Public Schools
(representing elected School Board)
3. Town Councilwoman, Fradensville
4. Representative, Snowden Mayor
5. Representative, Middlesex County Delegate to State House of Delegates
6. Representative Federal Bureau Land Management
7. Deputy Director State Department of Health
8. Member State Budget Committee, State Legislature
9. Representative, League of Women Voters
0. Vice President, Association of Manufacturers
1. Representative, Trout Unlimited
2. Representative, Sierra Club
3. Manager, Stanfield Chemical Company
4. Representative, Homebuilders Association
5. Representative, American Forestry Association
6. President, Beverley Citizens Association
7. Kielman County/Municipal Engineer
:8. Representative, Farm Bureau
-28-
4
-------
Water quality planning is just one aspect of planning. The public
decision to invest in improving water quality will affect other aspects
of community life. For instance, building a large waste treatment facility
may encourage more development, necessitate more roads and more public
services such as schools. Public participation programs help citizens and
State and local officials understand these interrelationships. If the
public actively participates in trade-off decisions, they will be more
likely to support those decisions and accept the impacts. An informed
and involved citizenry will then be more likely to support other areas of
State planning.
To achieve the 1983 goals, regulatory controls will undoubtedly
have to be used. This may involve such things as land use controls,
issuing permits and licenses, setting standards, and imposing fiscal
policies such as metering or increasing taxes. An active State public
participation program can educate citizens and build support for one or
more of these controls. Without citizen support, such regulatory con-
trols may be viewed as politically unacceptable, and a potentially ef-
fective State program may not be approved.
Active public participation may have other benefits. Groups
such as the League of Women Voters are particularly effective at convin-
cing State legislatures to support water quality programs. This may
mean increased allocation of budget or passage of legislative measures.
If appointed State and local officials have been encouraged to partici-
pate in water quality decision-making, their support and commitment to
implementation will be enhanced.
A balanced and continuing Policy Advisory Committee, representing
many groups and interests, with citizens, and State and local officials
as members, can be a vehicle to reach many constituencies. Even after
a State Water Quality Management Plan is approved, a full scale public
participation program may have to continue especially when changing conditions
or political shifts in priorities force changes to the approved water
quality program. An established Policy Advisory Committee can provide
the valuable continuing link between technicians and citizens so necessary
to continuing effective water quality management in the State.
-29-
-------
While the water quality management process is complex and
technical, the benefits of citizen participation in that process are
very real. Advisory committee(s), the planning staff, the implement-
ing agency, and citizen working groups, if coordinated in an atmos-
phere conducive to open exchange of views, will together produce
high quality water resource management. This demands going beyond
the minimum required. Encouraging active citizen involvement requires
effort and imagination by both planners and implementors. There will
likely be delays and inefficiencies as the general public comes to
understand the implications and consequences of water quality management.
This chapter presents a wide variety of methods for obtaining
citizen input. Public participation activities should be planned in
advance, with budget allocated for the entire process. This long-
range program must assure that citizens of all interest groups have
the opportunity to participate. The program must also be flexible enough
to incorporate changes in the timetable, unexpected costs, and new methods
of factoring citizens into the decision-making process. The more involve-
ment which citizens are encouraged to have throughout the planning and
implementation phases, the better a final plan will fit regional needs,
and fewer will be the objections to it.
Each agency will organize and implement its public participation
program differently according to the talents or training of its staff,
the complexity of its study, and the special character of its citizenry.
Specific organization is up to the discretion of each agency, as long
as the requirements are met, the principles actively applied, and
channels established for citizens to contact both decision shapers
(planners) and decision-makers (government officials).
Staff, directly responsible for public involvement, must be
assigned as early as possible. Planning and operating an effective
program will require the full-time efforts of at least one person.
In addition, public participation responsibilities should be written
into the job descriptions of staff members responsible for planning
and implementation tasks. The designated person or people responsible
for public involvement must be clearly identified to citizens throughout
the process.
-30-
-------
Organizational Structure
• e.
Committee** g
Policy
Advisory
Committee*
»
) Cif-i!
Advisory Committee***
1
: Limitations
:andards
jnt Committee
Ltor Permits
c substances
:ate public
>rting effluent
Lations
Ltor Schedule
Compliance
1 1
****
Industrial
Land Use Study Waste
Committee Committee
•Population
Growth
Projections
•Efconomic
Development
Projections
.Land Use
-Reuse
of
Industrial
Wastewater
•Pretreatment
Alternatives
•Flow and Waste
Reduction
LPre treatment
1
Municipal
Waste
Committee
•Alternative
Methods Sewage
Treatment
-Sludge reuse
•Public Education
re wasting water
Lpermit
System
1
Nonpoint
Pollution
Committee
•Mining
•Construction
•Urban stomwater
•Regulatory
controls
Ordinances
* Composed of Federal Representatives (in compliance with '304(j)
agreement), State and local officials and 2 voting members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee.
** Federal Representatives and local individuals with technical expertise.
*** 7his Committee may wish to divide itself along the lines of major areas of
concern as illustrated.
**** All Committees relate areas of study to existing situation, the effect of
predicted growth, and the environmental impact of possible alternatives.
Community goals are kept in mind as well as the impact on affected publics.
-31-
-------
1.
Staff Assistance
Some planning agencies have assigned a person (or group of persons
on large studies) to be a regular liaison between citizens and the agency.
Others have either assigned staff members to act as advocate planners
for community groups or have allotted funds to employ consultants who act
as advocate planners. Such assistance may be needed on both procedural
and technical matters. Typical functions of such a team would be inter-
pretation of citizen concerns to the technical planning team and follow-
up on behalf of citizens to ensure that the concerns have been seriously
considered.
Ordinarily, staff assistance of this type is of most use in develop-
ing alternatives and in assessing the impacts of these alternatives.
Organizational arrangements embodying this concept are shown in
the accompanying examples.
Assistance to Communities
A. Community Assistance by Agency Staff
-Agency Director
Community Assistance/
Technical Liaison
Team
-7
Technical Divisions
of
Agency
B. Community Assistance by Consultants
Community Groups
\
N Direct
Consultant
-32-
-------
2. Identifying and Contacting Publics
The public is not a unitary mass of people. It is composed of
numerous subgroups, often overlapping each other, with each subgroup
having its own concerns and outlook. Thus, we talk in terms of publics
and seek to involve them in a way that maximizes the contribution of each,
at the appropriate times to deal with their concerns, and that conveys
information back to those publics. It is useful to regard all persons
outside the planning agency as publics. Local elected officials, organized
citizen groups, impacted individuals, businesses, professional societies,
labor unions, farm organizations, etc., are all examples of publics that
should be involved in the planning process. Obviously, a list of publics
must be prepared for each planning study.
Just as there are many publics, there are also various levels
and ways of participating. It is neither necessary nor desirable to
expect the same things from all. Some wish to be informed, some will
serve on advisory committees, some will come to workshops or testify at
public meetings. Elected officials and civil service employees of govern-
ment agencies have certain decision-making responsibilities that require
an active formal involvement.
As planning begins, when broad goals and objectives are being
set, public participation is likely to be limited. However, as issues
become more defined, concrete alternatives are proposed, impacts are
assessed, and different publics have more at stake in the outcome, parti-
cipation will increase. After selection of the plan, during implementation
and revision, public interest usually shifts to other more pressing issues,
and participation will decrease.
The accumulated information must allow late starters to become
aware of what has already been decided. They must also be satisfied
with the prior extent of participation and with the previous impact of
citizen input on decision-making. Otherwise, unnecessary time will be
expended rehashing previously settled issues. It is therefore important
to keep up-to-date depositories with clear summaries of committee reports,
citizen input, and agency studies. Lists of who has participated, when,
and what their input was, are helpful. Those should also be summarized
periodically in the newsletter.
A mailing or correspondence list is an essential part of establishing
and maintaining contact with the individuals who represent various public
segments. There are three basic approaches to developing these lists:
-33-
-------
Self-identification. Persons and groups make themselves
known to the agency. This may be facilitated by using name/
address/interest cards at public meetings, by providing a
telephone number to call (including a free WATS incoming
line, if necessary), and by wide advertisement of the agency
address, etc.
Third-party identification. A person or group is asked to
identify persons and groups that should be involved in the
study. This is an especially good function for an advisory
committee. It may also be accomplished by periodically
assembling persons knowledgable about both the region and the
study and asking for names and addresses of groups.
Staff identification. There are many approaches to doing
staff identification. Telephone directories, use of lists
from other studies in the region, discussion among staff
members, field investigations, map study, are all ways to
do the job. Some groups are identifiable as directly affected
by a proposed facility. Others are known from past ex-
perience to be interested.
Mailing lists are developed in the earliest stage of planning and
continually updated throughout the study. The first list would likely be
based on an existing list obtained from planning agencies in the region.
-34-
-------
Partial List Identified Publics and Individuals
Envj^rgnmental Croups
Kenneth Marshall
President, Area Audubon Society
Trade Association
Rufus Harris
Executive Director, Monroe Manu-
facturers Association
Cappie Morgan
Friends of Cabin John Creek
Richard Hallberg
Chairman, Cobb county Home-
builders Association
Labor^
Carl Matson
Executive Director, Area Labor
Council
Business Interests
David Reid
Manager, Tuna Packing Plant
Isobel Fishman
Public Relations Director,
B.L. Coal Mining Company
Farm^Grpups
Sandra Lewis
Government Affairs Chairman, Douglas
County Farm Bureau
Public Utilities
Theodore Donnatelli
Soil Conservation Service
Samuel Ferrucci
Wilton Electric and Power Company
Community Service Groups
Judith A. Ferries
President, County Teachers
Association
Diane Kellogg
Heritage Valley Homemaker
Association
Joyce Abbott
Architect, representing Hills
Citizen Association Mohican
Anna D. McGaffin.
Minister, Herman Grove Pres-
byterian Church
Professional Groups
Peter Bryant
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Robert Gambrill
Attorney-at-Law, Land Use and
Zoning
Special Purpose Groups
Carlos Perez
President, Taxpayers Association
Ed Norton
Chairman, American Institute
of Planners
Lydia Hawkins
Environmental Quality
Chairperson, League of
Women Voters
Elected officials
I,aura Johnston
Mayor, Glen Echo
William Greene
Delegate, Stat House of Delegates
Appointed Officials
Gcorgs Nix
A'sso. State Forestero
Wille Mae Jackson
American Public Health Association
Elizabeth Kielman
Chairwoman, Wayne City Council
Irving Wcinfatein
Monroe City Mir.acjer
-35-
-------
Adequate funding is a critical element in maintaining an effective
public involvement program. Keeping a budget in mind, the goal is to give
a wide range of interested and affected publics useful information so they
may provide input and help create a better plan. This effort should com-
mand about 10% of the total planning budget.
Achieving that goal may require reimbursing citizens for out-of-
pocket costs. In a large region, citizen representatives to the Advisory
Committee may have to take time off from work, travel long distances, or
pay for food and lodging just to attend scheduled meetings. Courses, some-
times taught by agency personnel, are offered at local vocational or tech-
nical schools which can greatly increase a citizen's working knowledge of
water quality management. However, the costs of attending such a course are
usually an obstacle. Agency consideration should be given to paying citi-
zen expenses, recognizing their valuable input donated over the course of
many non-paid hours.
By providing funds to support public participation in State and
areawide water quality management, State and areawide agencies can open
up the decision-making process to the citizens. Agencies which give only
lip service support to meaningful public involvement, which generally
view citizens as obstacles to efficient planning or are definsive about
their work, will not make good use of these funds. If, however, an
agency actively encourages citizens to participate as competent working
partners, their funds will purchase from the public, a higher level of
ingenuity, expertise and activity than has been affordable in the past.
-36-
-------
Budget
Total grant for 2-year study $1,200,000
Amount allocated Public Participation 120,000
Amount spent first year (approximately) 75,000
Amount allocated second year $ 45,000
A greater proportion of the total public participation budget
was spent during the first year due to the costs inherent in setting
up such a program. With mailing lists established, materials conceived
and produced, publics identified, and routine established, a second
year will be able to build upon the groundwork of the first.
The agency intends, during the second year, to hold two citizen
training programs. These will train and enable participating citizens
to go back to their non-participating counterparts with clear, non-
emotional, effective presentations of the final alternatives. It is
hoped that this training will substantially affect general understanding
of the plan, and contribute to citizen support of the process.
The budget in brief is as follows:
Total Amount
PERSONNEL
Agency Staff, Training, Consultants $50,255
NOTIFICATION
Lists, Notices, Mailing 3,105
INFORMATION
Newsletters, Brochures, Audio-Visual,
Tours, etc. 14,750
CONSULTATION
Meetings, Interviews, Conferences, etc. 5,500
ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC
Depositories, Out-of-Pocket Costs 1,475
TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT $75,085
An elaborated budget is also included on the following page
-37- continued....
-------
Budget Breakdown 1974-1975
Time Spent
Hours or %
12 Months
Amount
PERSONNEL
Staff
Deputy Project Director (Public Involve- 90%
merit specialist)
Program Administrator 20%
Senior Planner 15%
Graphics Staff (2 members) 40%
Secretarial staff (3) 40%
Planning Staff (4) 125 hrs.
Technical Staff (4) 65 hrs..
Student (2) 350 hrs.
Total Amount Spent
Consultants
Undertook Identification of publics,
mailing list, citizen requested
technical data, designed values
questionnaire
$47,500
1,500
2 courses: Public Meeting Techniques and
Conflict Resolution
- Involved 10 staff total
- 2 Consultants, Materials
Total Amount Spent
300 hrs.
60 hrs.
INFORMATIONAL COSTS
Brochures
Graphics Supplies and Printing, 2 editions,
8-10 pages each, 2000 copies each
Newsletter
Graphics Supplies and Printing, 10 editions,
6 pages, 1000 copies
600
1,250
Newspaper ads - production and placement
of spot announcements
Audio-Visual
Tape recorder for meetings, 5-minute auto-
mated slide show, photographs & graphics
for exhibit, Xerox machine rental 4 supplies,
rental 15 min. movie (6 times)
Exhibits
Construction, staff manning time
3 exhibits mounted (material reused for
briefings and meetings)
ramiliari?!ati.Qn Tours
Bus rental, supplemental material, includ-
ing tape cassettes, food for 3 tours
Supplies
Binding Machine for bulky Adv. Corom. P-eports,
easel for prr.scnUltions, tap**, paper, etc.
1'oLal Amount Fl-ont
2,000
9,000
400
500
-38-
continued
-------
Budget Breakdown 1974-1975
12 Months
Amount
$
CONSULTATION
WATS Lino $41,900
Rental of facilities. Materials, Refreshments,
Outside Speakers or Specialists 700
Materials, Mailing, Consultant in devising
format
In t e ry iewers^
S days face-to-face, 10 days telephone 600
Evaluation
Materials, consultant time in designing
format 1,000
Conferences
Advisory Committee, 3 conferences, 2 devising
brochures, 1 resolving conflicts;
Includes: retreat facility when not using
Agency, food, materials, etc.
Total Amount Spent
NOTIFICATION
Identification of Publics, Compile
Mailing List (Listed Above)
Mailing 10 newsletters (5000 copies @ .13 each) 650
4 brochures (5000 copies @ .45 each) 2,250
Committee reports to Advisory Committee 175
Advertisement public notice (3) _ 30
Total Amount Spent $ 3,105
ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC
Technical Staff Time (Listed elsewhere)
Consultants (Listed elsewhere)
Maintaining Depositories
Training personnel at Depository locations,
Copying material. Periodic staff review of
contents 700
Citizen Out-o f - Pocke t Co s t s
Attending Courses, 5 citizens at $75
por course 375
Travel, Food, Telephone _ 400
Total Amount Spent $ 1,475
-39-
-------
•£*
The public cannot productively participate in the water quality
management process if information about that process is either difficult
to obtain or too technical to understand. Conversely, if the public is
deluged with material, sorting through it to find a basis for opinions
will be impossibly time-consuming. Since the information generated in the
water quality management process is voluminous and highly technical, the
question becomes: What amount and type of information will enable
meaningful participation?
There are several sections to the answer. Agencies should allow
citizens open access to all information. Technical documents should be
translated into terms which are meaningful to citizens and their concerns.
Information should be published in a newsletter, and organized in the
depositories, in such a way as to allow a conceptual overview. This lays
an educational foundation for later phases when choices between technical
alternatives must be made. Finally, citizens should be provided with
information well ahead of a meeting date so as to allow adequate time for
review and understanding.
While it is necessary to raise the level of public awareness,
announce schedules and provide data, public information should not be
confused with public participation. Consultation and exchanging views
are essential. Relevant information is simply the catalyst to knowledge-
able and meaningful participation of citizens. There are a variety of
ways to disseminate information:
1. Depositories
Depositories for reports and technical information should be es-
tablished and open to the public. Aside from fulfilling a major legal
requirement, this collection of background material will enable the public
to become better informed and more productive in the decision-making process.
To provide depositories which are "easily accessible to interested
or affected persons", location, convenience and cost must be considered.
Spreading the depositories throughout the region, and placing them in
various types of facilities (libraries, schools, government buildings,
community centers) makes them readily available to all citizens.
Convenience relates to. a citizen's available time. Some people
find free time at noon, some in the evening, and others during the weekend.
The hours of depository availability should be coordinated to provide a
good selection in each area. The agency should try to avoid the situ-
ation where the depository is locked up when the office closes while
the building itself remains open.
-40-
-------
The cost of copying facilities at depositories is important.
Since citizens don't always have time to study complex data on location,
low or no cost copying facilities should be available.
Information is even more accessible if people in the depository
locations are familiar with the files and can provide assistance in finding
materials. However, finding the correct information is not helpful if the
citizen then cannot understand it. An accompanying text or summary should
be provided with a description of technical data, its implications, and
its relevance to regional water quality problems.
Depositories should be regularly updated so that the latest ma-
terial, even if in draft form, reaches the citizen with time for proper
consideration. While each region will have documents particular to its
set of problems, some material can be suggested for inclusion in a deposi-
tory, and are listed in the accompanying example.
-41-
-------
Sample of Data in Depositories
All reports emanating from study groups are considered
project records and placed in depository. Each is as-
signed a sequential number. Report with number ATL208-
7-18-75-5 is the 5th report assigned a number on July
18, 1975.
Within two days after each public involvement activity,
the public involvement specialist either:
a. Receives written summary from person or persons
in charge of and present at the activity; or
b. Interviews person in charge and obtains informa-
tion to write summary of pertinent information.
Approved minutes of Policy Advisory Committee meetings.
Grant Application plus interpretive text.
Efficiency analysis of regional wastewater facilities
and future flow capacity.
Information on discharges through NPDES.
Up-to-date list of subcontracts let to consultants and
public agencies.
Compliance schedule reports for reducing industrial
effluent discharge.
Inventory of land use related to water quality including
solid waste disposal sites, flood plain survey, soil
series classification, septic tank areas, zoning laws
and other regulatory measures.
Projections of population, economics, and land use over
20 year period.
Draft studies and final report on each of the alter-
natives .
Detailed technical checkout and impact assessment for
the three most acceptable alternatives.
Up-to-date summary of citizen comments and evaluations
from a general survey, meetings, telephone calls, com-
ment cards, briefings, letters, etc.
-42- ;;i; continued....
-------
Sample of Data in Depositories
Photographic records. Copies of slides and prints
from field trips are kept at the planning agency de-
pository only. These materials are useful in preparing
slide presentations and exhibits.
List of citizen identified community values and goals
ranked according to priority.
Prior plans relating to Water Quality or Water Resources
(Level B, Phase I State Water Quality Management Plans,
201 Facilities Plans).
Depositories (Partial List)
Agency Office
Hours: Mon.-Fri., 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Free copy machine, telephone
Three public libraries
Hours: Mon.-Fri., 9 a.m. - 9 p.m., Sat., 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Coin operated copier, telephone
Institute of Technology library
Hours: Mon.-Sat., 9 a.m. - 11 p.m., Sun., 12 noon-8 p.m.
City Hall, City Manager's Office
Hours: Mon.-Fri., 8 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Paid copy service, telephone
Two community resource centers
Hours: Mon.-Fri., 10 a.m. - 5 p.m.
No copy facilities, telephone
-43-
-------
i
C>' Informatloti
2. Newsletter
A low-cost, regular newsletter serves as a constant reminder to
the public of water quality issues. Through the newsletter, information
about the State and areawide water quality management program is dissemi-
nated to many publics, both participating and not. Included are: elected
and appointed officials, government agencies, environmental and other
public interest groups, schools and libraries, utilities, appropriate
professional, business, and labor organizations, civic associations,
consumer groups, media, committee members, consultants, clubs, and other
individuals or groups on the mailing list.
The newsletter should at least -
• Facilitate and encourage public participation by
advertising its opportunities and relevance;
• Educate the public about the complex problems of
water quality management;
• Create an awareness of and support for the planning
process needed in the acceptance and implementation
of the final plan.
To increase public awareness of water quality management, the
newsletter should include: a calendar of meetings, clear identification
of the public involvement contact person for obtaining speakers, slide
shows, and information reports on citizen involvement - who is partici-
pating in workshops and committees, what citizen input has been given and
how it has been used. Publication of both supportive and critical letters
to the editor is indicative of an open non-defensive attitude.
Theme articles should help the public make informed decisions and
evaluations. For instance, a cost/benefit analysis, plus an understandable
but technical description of a proposed industrial pretreatment facility,
should enable citizens to better weigh that alternative against others.
Space should be given to relevant parties (in this case, industry) for
their points of view.
-44-
-------
Newsletter
A 6-page (Il"xl7" folded once with U"x8V insert) monthly
newsletter is mailed on the 3rd Wednesday of each month. Circulation:
5000 (75 outside the region).
Contents:
• Calendar of meetings.
• Theme Article - in depth discussion of various topics.
- Citizen requested study of area lake re: current and
potential recreation and tourism, current water analysis,
projected property values and industrial growth, how
development will affect water quality.
- Nonpoint sources of pollution and how they affect
regional water quality.
- Stream Classification, how evaluated and when. Classi-
fications of area streams and projections re: 1983
goals.-
- Early description of each alternative being considered
in the planning process.
- Explanation of State and areawide water quality manage-
ment. Who has what responsibilities, how they fit to-
gether, who make the final decisions, and how the
public can be involved and affect decision-makers.
• Pre-addressed clip-out card for self-identification and
comments.
• Letters to editor.
• Identification of staff responsible for public involve-
ment.
• Public Involvement report.
• "Technically Speaking", a definition of terms and "jargon".
• "Need-a-Speaker?" and 15-minute slide show advertised.
• Contract awards to consultants for studies.
-45"- continued. .. .
-------
Newsletter
Agency personnel write-ups (biographies).
Committee, workshop and seminar reports.
List of depositories, times they are open and map
of locations.
Partial but representative list of types of documents
and data found in depositories.
Advertisement of familiarization tours.
Hand drawn graphics.
-46-
-------
3. Brochure
In considering the production of a brochure, an agency should be
careful of the cost. Expensive "professional" brochures can give the
impression of a public relations campaign, and might not be read. It is
better to think of publishing several brochures which are short and treated
as working documents. Diagrams and maps can be drawn freehand, saving
expensive set-up and layout costs. Offset printing is fine.
Text and supporting data should be brief, understandable, and
include all relevant data. For instance, the brochure might be describ-
ing an alternative plan, selected for detailed impact assessment, which
involves moderating the effect of nonpoint agricultural pollution. Data
regarding such things as stream analysis near source and best management
practices (soil tilling techniques, feed lot organization, analysis of
fertilizers) should be included. While citizens need technical data to
form opinions, they must also be able to understand that data. The
services of an interpretive writer might be purchased to assure adequate
translation of complex concepts into lay terms.
Brochures are most effective at key points in the planning
cycle — the beginning, as goals are being set, when final alternatives
are being selected for impact assessment, and as planning concludes.
At these points, a brochure can stimulate interest and prepare citizens
for a public meeting. The name and address of the person responsible for
public involvement, the WATS number, and a tear-out card for self-identi-
fication and comments should be prominantly displayed. One page should
list groups and individuals who helped compile the brochure. This identi-
fies the participating publics and also those who are not. Citizen and
agency activity and input should be summarized. In addition to being
mailed, the brochure should be distributed at briefings and available to
citizens who attend the public meeting.
The first brochure should be printed immediately describing the
goals of the 1972 Act, the schedule and process of planning and imple-
mentation, and encouraging citizen involvement. It should make clear
that this is the time to express personal and community goals and to con-
sider water quality among them. The design of an Alternatives brochure
is depicted in the example. The Impact Assessment and Recommendation of
Final Plan brochures could follow similar formats.
-47-
-------
Brochure
A brochure is published just prior to a large public meeting
at the end of the Design of Alternative phase. It is designed jointly
by the staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee, taking into account
citizen input from letters, telephone calls, workshops and meetings.
The function of this brochure is to describe clearly each alternative,
compare it to other alternatives, show its impacts, and list pre-
viously stated public comments.
Three alternatives have been selected out of the seven .ori-
ginally set-up by the agency for consideration. One additional alter-
native, suggested by a councilwoman is added. The public meeting will
influence which alternatives get detailed technical checkout for impact
assessment. Because the brochure will be used as a working document
at the meeting, space is left on all pages for comments.
There is a general table in the beginning highlighting the
differing elements in the four alternatives. This table also compares
the alternatives with respect to citizen expressed goals and impacts-
KEY
ctainrr.ent Goal or Nega-
npact
te Attainment Goal or
te Impact
tainmcnt Goal or
ict
< M rO Tl U "L,
vj. ^i ^ <--
r- fl» Q <1J >H
CT. > f -0 2
H H J2 Q O O
a *J £ >- >-J a
• GO
CITIZEN GOALS
Improve Immediate water
quality
Meet 1983 goal
Increase open space
Encourage future growth
(population and economic
development)
Recycle waste
IMPACTS
Cost to consumer
Dtility rates
Bond issues
Neighborhood disruption
Cost to industry
Increased noise, axr,
visual pollution
ternative 1
ewage treatment plant
982, Area A
m until 1982, Area A
ations for industrial
acilities. Area B
< -H 3
? O M a* AJ
o> in o o> c
C 3 4J k 01
3 E3
4J h H O« JJ
0 O O JJ «
S i« E (0 41
t-4 -H U
jj c M T; 4J
n ai a QJ o>
o o o> B a
U M n
0
•
O
•
0
•
0
•
0
ternative 2
r Moratorium
o encourage satelite
urban areas
al wastewater
, seeding , sodding
i new development
< s -a M c -H
01 D1 C -P --<
w c 3 to TJ n
M O 3 «J C
0) C W 13 M O
JJ O (t C Cn -H
•H N -H 4->
C 0) 0) OS
•H a w D* -H m M j
a) c -P 3 o tri
C X CJ W
0) ^i .Q 13 [fl
4^ E a « 3 h
(0 Oi 0) rH -C
w AJ c e to
rt m -H M «o
aj w o a w «
w at DM
O
0
o
0
•
•
•
O
0
-48-
continued.
-------
Brochure
"' ' ' ICftNnilrM
The main body of the brochure is devoted to a detailed descrip-
tion of each alternative, using a map or sketch if necessary. Facing
the description is a page divided into two columns — pro and con argu-
ments. The opinions printed carry the name of the individual or group
espousing that position. Giving credit recognizes participation and
makes opinions public. The publicity tends to reduce emotional state-
ments and lessens conflict between groups.
ALTERNATIVE 1
\ West S ^
S/&V [D] Darby/ FARMLAND
^L^^"
Vx^r?-— *M___
.x-srK IT^^fe^
-^^
**\ [fl^^^^V. PAEK LAND
A - Site Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant
B - Proposed Pretreatment Facilities Area
C - Existing Sewage Treatment Plant
D - Proposed Wildlife Refuge (Alternative 3)
E - Existing Farmland
F - Proposed Landfill Site
Alternative 1 selects A for new sewage treatment
plant, construction begun immediately. Use date
1982.
Operating energy produced by burning combustible
waste .
Immediate sewer moratorium all areas except E.
Immediate steps to mandate construction of
industrial pretreatment facilities in Area B.
Public education campaign to halt unauthorized
dumping. Plan trash separation at landfill
site F.
Adoption of local sediment control ordinances.
Localities agree to tie zoning ordinances to
plan .
Passage of law to increase State assistance.
Existing general purpose governments and
special purpose sewage agencies designated
management agencies.
Public Cost - 15 million (Federal + local) .
Private Cost - 5 million.
COMMENTS
1. Will have greatest impact
meeting 1983 goals
- Isaac Walton League
- Darby City Council
- Sierra Club
2. Will encourage balanced
future development.
Taxes from Area E help
amortize bonds for new
sewage plant.
- Board of Real Estate
Agencies
3 . Burning waste saves
cost of fuel. Care
taken to assure no air
pollution
- Ted Baer, President,
Society of Professional
Engineers
4 . Cost to consumer high-
increased taxes, no
new urban housing
Cost to industry high
- Chamber of Commerce
5. Industries may close
due to high cost of
pretreatment .
Possible job loss.
- AFL/CIO Chapter
6. (etc.)
-49-
-------
4. Briefings and Speeches
Briefings should be called when the staff wishes to give an up-to-
date agency action report to a particular group. On a regular basis (monthly
or bi-monthly) briefings should give background material on issues to the
press, coordinate antipollution efforts with local, planning agencies, and
inform elected officials and governmental agencies. The latest technical
reports should be available (land use projections, cost-effectiveness studies
of expanded sewage facilities, legal effect and technical requirements of
possible zoning ordinances, impact assessments, etc.) and the staff should
describe in detail what use has been made of them. The public participation
program should be described and reports given of how citizen input has been
used. Briefings are more lively and productive than a printed report since
there is always an opportunity for dialogue.
The agency should hold additional briefings if citizens seem mis-
informed or if there is citizen agitation on issues. Careful briefings,
conducted with an open non-denfensive attitude can clear up misconceptions,
thwart rumors, and foster an attitude of cooperation between groups.
In addition, the agency might learn something about public values not be-
fore taken into account. All citizen comments should be recorded and
copies given to appropriate staff members.
Briefings enable the agency to spend extra time with those citizens
and organizations most potentially responsible for financing, construction,
operations, oversight, local ordinances and regulations. Elected officials
should be frequently briefed and encouraged to participate in the process.
The required local approval will be encouraged if officials are involved
and aware of their constituents' role in the planning. During the plan
implementation and revision, briefings can help stimulate citizen action
to change zoning, pass referenda, raise revenues and foster progress toward
the 1983 goal.
Briefings give information about the planning process and outputs,
while speeches are more topic oriented. Agencies should maintain and
vigorously advertise their speaker bureaus since organizations and meetings
often are looking for interesting speakers. Besides informing the public,
a good speaker can spark interest and precipitate involvement.
-50-
-------
Summary of Briefings and Speeches
• All State and local elected officials and government
agencies invited to a monthly briefing at 1:00 p.m.
• Quarterly briefing for local governments in adjoining
region re: pollution control
• "Brown Bag" lunch time briefing on first Tuesday every
month for interested citizens. After 20 minute pre-
sentation, informal discussion takes place
• Specially called Briefings include:
Two evenings during assessment of Goals and
Objectives (Civic Association and PTA)
Five (three in evening) to discuss alternatives
(Real Estate Board, AFL-CIO Chapter, Sierra Club,
Regional Tourism and Recreation Association,
Isaac Walton League)
One on impact assessment (Area Chamber of Commerce)
Four to discuss final plan (County House of
Delegates, City Council, County Executive's
Office, State Legislative Public Works Committee)
• Ten speeches given at request of groups, 4 luncheon
speakers, 3 keynote speakers in evening, and 3 program
initiators for groups. Speech titles included:
"Water Quality and Rate of Growth"
"At What Price Clean Water"
"Pollution and Farming"
"Revising Water Quality Standards"
-51-
-------
';, ^J''*'*
The media — radio, newspapers, and TV — are used to get infor-
mation out to a large general audience to spark interest and motivate
participation. By exposure to information prepared by the agency staff,
the public can more clearly understand the planning goals and process as
well as the ramifications of present water quality. Media use is the best
way to convince the most people that the water quality management process
will affect them and that they should get involved.
A media calendar should be established at the beginning of the
planning process. After dividing the region into equally covered media
areas, water quality topics pertinent to the region and to the scope of
the study are selected. These topics are timed for area media release on
a calendar schedule, in order to achieve a well-balanced presentation of
issues throughout the region.
Training for agency staff in how to use media effectively is
valuable and sometimes offered by the local media itself. Here are some
tips for using media well.
• Don't rely on listing public notices in the classified
section. Buy space in the news section.
• If a newspaper is deluged with press releases, they will
all be ignored. Select important topics, issue a release,
and follow-up with a personal contact with a reporter,
to encourage a story.
• Keep the media budget flexible to allow for coverage
of unexpected "hot" issues.
• In all media releases list the incoming WATS number and/or
the name and address of the person responsible for public
involvement to encourage citizen feedback.
• Invite media representatives on all field trips.
-53-
-------
Summary of Media
• Set up Media Calendar
1. Analyzed market areas, number and type of readers,
viewers, or listeners of all area newspapers,
radio and TV stations. Selected manageable number
with broad coverage.
2. Obtained address, phone number, territorial coverage
of all selected daily and weekly newspapers. Keep
names of news and feature editors on file as well
as their deadlines.
3. Obtained address, phone number, format, audience
size and characteristics, and territory of all
selected radio and TV stations. Keep names of news
analyst, special events editor, program director
on file.
4. This region breaks down into 4 major areas with a
good balance of radio, TV and newspaper coverage
in each one. Topics the agency wants to cover
include municipal wastewater flow and treatment
industrial wastewater flow and treatment, other
point sources, nonpoint sources, and storm sewer
discharges.
Area 3 has a major problem with urban storm water overflow,
posing a future health hazard. In-depth media coverage of the subject
is planned there beginning as soon as goals and objectives are set.
All alternatives are described; for instance, banning overnight city
parking so as to allow street cleaning, passing strict pet control
laws, and increasing taxes to pay for an expensive storage system
for peak loads. While storm sewer discharges are a pressing issue,
the media calendar for Area 3 schedules coverage of all the topics
in order to give residents there a balanced picture, and more data
upon which to select regional alternatives.
• Feature story in Weekly Journal on nonpoint run off from
farms.
• Project director appeared on radio talk show during
evening commuter hours. Subject: commuter tax to buy
new street cleaning equipment.
• Reporters for local papers invited and usually attend
Advisory Comma.ttee meetings. Frequently meetings re-
ported in the press, Minutes of meetings sent to
reporters.
continued....
-54-
-------
Summary of Media
• Monthly briefings held for all media with half the time
allotted for questions. News conferences scheduled as
needed.
• Area 1 TV station expressed interest in undertaking
documentary on landfill run off. Requests agency help.
• Area 4 radio station scheduled panel discussion of State
and area water quality management process, emphasizing
the public participation program. A WATS line provided
opportunity for public comments.
• Designed and executed project logo used as tag on all
public service TV announcements.
• Prepared 30 second public service spot for radio.
30 SECOND RADIO SPOT
The good life is brought to you by ...
water. That's right water ... we wash with it,
swim in it, bathe in it, float in it, boat on it,
drink it, sprinkle it, irrigate our crops and
navigate our streams ... and never give it a
second thought.
But we can't just go on taking water for
granted. You can help decide the future of water
resources in this area.
For information call ...
• Media representatives invited on familiarization tour
of outdated sewage treatment plant. Extensive news-
paper coverage and film clip shown on 6:00 p.m. TV news.
• The agency subscribes to a clipping service for all
area newspapers. Editorials, reports, letters to the
editor, and items about the water quality management
process are clipped, as well as articles on related
issues. Those have included reports of citizen parti-
cipation in efforts to improve air quality, proposed
zoning changes in the county, and editorials dealing
with adverse environmental effects of a local abandoned
strip mine.
-55-
-------
6. Exhibits
Most citizens will not seek involvement in the public participation
program, even to the extent of getting on a mailing list. The opinions
and values of these same citizens, however, will surface in opposition to
a final plan which they may misunderstand or deem inequitable. Therefore,
it is important for the agency to check back with the non-participating
public at key points in the planning and implementation process. Bringing
information to the citizens in the visual way of exhibits, at locations
which are frequented by large groups of people, provides for ad hoc public
participation and may even encourage citizens to take a more active role.
Exhibits provide an opportunity to inform citizens about the nature
and purpose of the Federal Water Pollution Act, and its relevance to the
particular region. Citizen involvement can be stressed with specific ways
to become involved suggested. Cards to fill out to get on the mailing list
should be available; the WATS number and name of person responsible for
public involvement should be clearly identified. Committee meeting
schedules are listed.
Agency staff should be present to hand out brochures and news-
letters, offer use of the speakers bureau, answer questions, and recieve
citizen input. A short questionnaire might be used asking for opinions
concerning community priorities, most pressing pollution problems, or
impact of possible alternatives.
If the budget allows, 3 or 4 exhibits can be organized by agency
staff and citizens. In the beginning, awareness of existing water quality
problems can be heightened through exhibit graphics. Slide shows or photo-
graphs can show land fill run-off, debris from sewer overflows, construction
site erosion and industrial scum. Heat sensitive aerial photographs depict
the density of land use development as well as thermal pollution. Maps can
identify areas of poorest water quality. The accompanying example describes
an exhibit during the Design of Alternatives stage. After a detailed final
plan is selected, understanding can be greatly increased by taking an in-
formational exhibit into the area(s) most affected. Misconceptions can be
erased, benefits described, and opposition reduced.
Meeting citizens through exhibits provides a check for the agency
that all opinions are being adequately represented through the partici-
pating publics. Citizens who normally might not be involved become more
informed about water quality, and their concerns can be taken into account.
-56-
-------
Exhibit
Two weeks in the summer are set up as "Water Quality Weeks".
Press releases to local newspapers throughout the region, and public
service announcements on the radio advertise the event in advance.
Agency staff, including the person(s) responsible for public involve-
ment are assigned to compile information and graphics for an exhibit,
to arrange for locations where it can be set-up, and to travel with it.
A substantial amount of staff time should be spent on developing active
citizen involvement in preparing successful illustrations of the issues.
It is close to the time when alternative plans must be narrowed
down to two or three for more detailed study (end of Design of
Alternatives phase). Locations for the exhibit are chosen where
impacts might be most keenly felt i.e., areas where a sewer moratorium
might be enforced, an area where septic tanks might be banned and hook-
up to an expanded sewer line mandated, areas where businesses might
have to make radical discharge changes or construct a pretreatment
facility, or an area where a new sewage treatment plant might be built.
During the two weeks, the exhibit is set up at four shopping
malls, advertised on the malls' entrance signs, and manned during days,
evening shopping hours and weekends. It also travels to a county fair,
the lobbies of two town halls, a community center, and to the Student
Union of the State University. There, the exhibit coincides with a
summer school course on "Environmental Resource Planning" and is the
focus of a day long seminar.
The exhibit space is divided into three categories according
to possible future growth — slow growth (population, industry,
tourism, facility needs), growth at the current rate, and intensified
growth. A large map in each section is colored to show development
in the year 2000. Growth statistics are translated into wastewater
loads and flows. Below each map are described three alternative ways
to assure swimmable and fishable water with that amount of growth.
Arrows to the map and clearly written text describe the measures
(best management practice for nonpoint sources, zoning changes,
increased waste treatment facilities etc.) to be considered. Citizen
reaction sheets have been printed to allow for pro and con reactions
to each plan, to suggest other alternatives, and to evaluate the
growth predictions. The staff take care to explain that these sheets
are not votes, but expressions of opinion which will be taken into
account.
The date of the public meeting to receive additional citizen
input is announced, and names are taken for inclusion on the mailing
list. Brochures describing the 7 alternatives are available for
citizens to take back to community groups.
-57-
-------
7. Familiarization Tour
Field trips enable a group of citizens to become familiar with
and understand the nature of specific problems. They are especially
useful at the beginning of the planning process. This is when the public
needs to fully understand the problems in order to set goals and objectives.
Agency staff should accompany the tour both to answer questions and to
listen to citizen reaction. Familiarization tours provide an opportunity
for the implementation agency to be involved with the public participation
program. Media representatives are always invited.
Usually 3 or 4 tours over the course of the study, will cover the
major problem areas. However, if the planning region is large, similar
tours should be arranged in different areas so that affected publics are
made aware of their local problems. If the problems are very complex,
staff should select critical areas for tours rather than attempt coverage
of every pollution source. If the general public is disorganized or un-
aware of pollution problems and in need of basic information, the tours
should be educational surveys.
A more specifically selected or sophisticated public will want
technical information as well as visual awareness. Supplemental written
material should be distributed at the beginning of the tour, and be
available at a later date.
Familiarization tours have benefits for the planning process.
Participants get immediate exposure to water pollution problems without
the filter of someone else's written interpretation, and go back to their
groups or constituents with a vivid sense of the problem. The tour groups
can be focused on specific problems with immediate opportunity for questions
and feedback and without getting side-tracked. Tours also provide an in-
formal atmosphere where rapport can be established between the agency staff
and the different participating publics.
-58-
-------
Show Me Nonpoint Pollution
One agency successfully operates a "Show Me Nonpoint Pollution"
tour for elected officials, administrators of various agencies, citizens,
and the news media. Upon arrival at local headquarters, the participants
find coffee available, and models of various terrain conditions to examine.
They are welcomed and an introductory briefing is held. The WQM process
is explained, especially its relationship to other agency operations.
The tour is discussed and a slide show illustrates what will be viewed
during the tour. The participants then board busses including two agency
representatives for each bus.
During the morning session, urban and industrial sources of non-
point pollution are emphasized. The first stop at a housing development
under construction allows participants to personally view soil erosion and
careless spillage of materials. Best management practices — sediment
trapping, stage grading, seeding and sodding procecures, and structural
measures — are explained and demonstrated. The particular problem of
ground water instrusion from septic tanks (which these houses will not have)
is discussed.
Next, the tour stops at a municipal wastewater facility. The plant
manager conducts a 45 minute tour, answering questions and familiarizing
participants with the concepts of combined sewers, sludge, and waste load
allocations. Industrial wastewater and pretreatment methods are dis-
cussed as they relate to local conditions. The often ignored polluting
impact of storm water runoff is particularly emphasized.
The bus then moves to a roadside park where box lunches are
provided. Agency staff members answer questions and continue the dis-
cussion of nonpoint pollution.
After lunch, the tour continues away from the city. An abandoned
mine upstream from the metropolitan area, exemplifies a different non-
point source of pollution. A short walk brings the participants to a
nearby tributary. The effect of the mine's runoff on that stream's water
quality can be easily seen.
Back on the bus, during the drive home, agency staff discuss
specific water quality management programs. Again the relationship
between 208 and the 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimiantion System
Permit Program, the Clean Air Act, HUD 701, and other legislation is
explained. Methods of becoming involved in the agency's areawide water
quality management process are discussed. The need for and value of in-
put from citizens and local officials is emphasized.
Tour time including the briefing is only 6% hours, and the impact
is substantial.
-59-
-------
In the State and local water quality management process, citizens
cannot be simply recipients of information. The 1972 Act intends that they
be part of the decision-making process. The agency staff must take the ini-
tiative in asking for advice or opinions and should consult with the public
about upcoming decisions. When citizens and officials are consulted about
costs, benefits and impacts, and when they consult with the agency staff
about technical data, feasibility, and procedures, balanced and practical
water quality management can then occur.
1. Using Citizen Input
The first step in consultation is ensuring that citizen views reach
the planners. Not only does this mean providing opportunities for input,
but it also means recording the comments and getting citizen suggestions
passed on in a usable form to the appropriate staff member. Examples of cit-
izen input include comment cards filled out at public meetings and workshops,
telephone call records, correspondence, letters to the editor of newspapers,
meeting summaries, minutes of advisory committee meetings, etc.
At least three things need to be done with citizen input. First,
the comments must be written down. Second, a response must be made. In the
case of telephone calls, the response may be immediate and oral, unless
questions are raised that require follow-up correspondence. In general,
whenever questions are posed, whether in public meetings or in correspondence,
some kind of written response to the questioner must be made. Third, a com-
munication to the general public must be made that summarizes inputs received
and the disposition of those inputs. That disposition should contain both
an answer to the issues raised and what the agency is doing with that issue.
The communication to the public could be made through project newsletters
and brochures, and in reports summarizing public input for the depositories
and for public meetings and hearings.
A common complaint about citizen input is that the persons providing
the input have special interests. Ordinarily, those citizens who speak up
are most affected by or interested in the water quality management planning
process, and should be expected to make issue-oriented comments. If the
agency feels some segment of the public is not being adequately represented
in citizen comments, it may wish to take steps to encourage those segments
to participate or to assign staff to represent the interests of those segments.
Since it is important to answer citizen questions quickly, staff
should not' wait until firm, fully analyzed positions are taken by the agency
before making a response. Rather, agency staff will need to be able to
make tentative responses based on what is known and decided up to that point,
with the proviso that those tentative responses may need to be changed later
on.
-60-
-------
Receiving and Responding to Citizen Input
• The agency has established an incoming WATS telephone line
covering a territory about twice as large as the planning
area. The phone number is carried in the newsletter and
all other project brochures and news releases. During
working hours, an incoming query is referred to the
public involvement specialist or the deputy study manager.
If answer cannot be given, the call is returned within 48
hours. If incoming call is a comment, it is recorded, typed
up, and passed on to an appropriate member of planning or
implementation team. During non-working hours, a telephone
answering device is used to record name, telephone number,
and nature of query. Call is returned the next day.
Six months after beginning the study, an ombudsperson was
appointed. This action was taken in response to a request
from the Citizens Advisory Committee. The ombudsperson,
Mary Wilson, is former president of the League of Women
Voters. She serves without pay, but receives reimbursement
for expenses. She investigates any complaint forwarded to
her, reports on the disposition of the case, and seeks to
resolve the problem. Five such complaints have been re-
ceived in the first four months since the position was
established. Three concerned access to information. One
of the depositories had an early policy against removing
documents from library so that copies could be made on a
copying machine in an adjacent building. This policy was
revised. In the other two cases, information thought to
be available did not exist. Two complaints concerned mem-
bership on the advisory committee. All were resolved to the
satisfaction of both the complainant and the agency.
-61-
-------
2. Meetings
Consultation may be undertaken on a one-to-one basis, as in inter-
views. Usually, however, exchange of information and opinions happens in
groups. Meetings of some kind are the most common public participation
activity. Merely bringing people together doesn't guarantee a useful, ef-
fective meeting. In general, there needs to be a realistic expectation of
what is to be accomplished at the meeting, an agenda, and some means for
handling the group.
The first two points are straightforward, though often neglected.
More will be gained from a meeting if the organizers set objectives about
what is to be covered and how far afield they're willing to let the dis-
cussion roam. For instance, if the meeting's subject is Urban Storm Water
Run-Off, discussion should be expected about structural alternatives (in-
creased treatment facilities, peak load storage, etc.) However, a lengthy
debate about what type of anti-litter campaign to employ would not be pro-
ductive. An agenda helps planners set objectives and stick to a meeting schedule.
The third factor in running effective meetings, finding a way to
handle a group, is more difficult. One approach to handling a group meeting
is explained here, both as a technique to be used as is, and bring out some
principles of group behavior.
Details are very important in having a successful meeting. The
time, place, meeting rooms, and other arrangements cannot be left to chance.
-62-
-------
One Technique for an Effective Meeting
People tend to generate more ideas when they work independently.
On the other hand,'they tend to make better decisions when they work to-
gether and engage in discussion. To capitalize on these two observations,
a meeting may be organized as follows:
• Explain to the group the purpose of the meeting and the
expected outcome.'
• Ask each person, working silently and alone, to write down
his ideas on paper (preferably on cards, one idea per card
or page).
• Going around the room, ask each person to give one of the
ideas he or she has written down. As it is given, the leader/
recorder writes it on a flip chart pad in view of the entire
group. This process is continued until all ideas are listed.
• Clarify the meaning of any listed ideas by discussion.
• Discuss the listed ideas for usefulness and relevance to the
purpose of the meeting.
• If it is desired to get priority ranking among the ideas, ask
each person to assign ranks for each idea and write them
down.
• Tabulate and report the rankings to the group.
• Keep the flip chart sheets as part of the record of public
input.
-63-
-------
3. Advisory Committee(s)
Advisory committees should perform several functions in a citizen
participation program. Members of ongoing committees can become more fully
informed than most citizens on the planning process as it develops. They
can assist irr suggesting who is likely to be affected by or should be in-
volved in water quality,management planning. Committee members are often
able to provide information relevant to planning. They are a bridge to and
are advocates of the interests of their constituencies. As such, a major
function of each advisory committee member is to motivate his or her con-
stituency to discuss, study, or otherwise get involved in the water quality
management process.
There are a number of problems with advisory committees. Some of
those problems and ways of dealing with them are:
• Who shall serve on the committee? Regulations require that
State Policy Advisory Committees contain a majority of elected officials.
On technical committees, the choice of people is not usually too difficult;
those who have competence and are respected professionals and who have no
conflicts of interest are chosen. For other committees, the "who" question
is addressed initially by defining the interests that should be represented,
such as agriculture, local industry, local government, recreation, environ-
mental, downstream, etc. Existing committees should be used whenever pos-
sible .
• The committee may be too large and not function well. One
solution is to use an executive committee. Another approach is to avoid use
of large committees. A third is to use subcommittees.
• Committees may not understand their role or, alternatively, may
understand the role differently than does the agency. The solution is to
set ground rules and clearly state roles early. No committee should be
appointed without understanding its role and being prepared to follow through
with that role.
• Committee members might not communicate with their constituen-
cies. One solution is for the Agency staff to ask members for opportunities
to speak with committees or mass meetings of that constituency.
• Committees may become too specialized and isolated with little
or no communication among themselves and with agency staff members. The sol-
ution is to establish procedures (reports, a steering committee etc.) for
regular communication. Be sure planners and potential implementors serve as
members of all committees, and have committee reports be part of agency sta£f
meetings.
-64-
-------
Committees
Areawide Policy Advisory Committee
This committee is composed of the four Chief Executives of the involved jurisdictions.
They receive advice from the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Citizens Advisory
Committee, as well as the Planning and Management Agencies. They will approve, modify,
Or reject the final plan. Representatives of the Army, Agriculture, and Interior are
«x officio members, and may or may not serve.
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee provides expertise in various technical aspects of the'
study. It advises the planning and implementation agencies and the Areawide Policy
Advisory Committee as well as providing technical assistance to the Citizens Advisory
Committee. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee may also serve on a Citizen
Advisory Committee dealing with their area of expertise. A partial list of members includes:
Walter Dence
President, State Society
Of Professional Engineers
Barry S. Ferries
President,
Bankers Association
Inez Bodriquez
Biologist
Warner Laboratories
Elizabeth A. Haley
State Planning Director
Benjamin Green
Director, County Department
of Public Works
Donn Springer
Asst. Director, State
Geological Survey
Joshua Finkelstein
American Forestry Asso.
Brenda Eddy
Executive Director,
Bi-County Chamber of
Commerce
Citizens Advisory Committee
The Citizens Advisory Committee coordinates citizen sub-committees and advises the Plan-
ing and Management Agencies, as well as the Areawide Policy Advisory Committee on
citizen ideas, suggestions and preferences. Since this is the most active committee,
some local elected officials serve here, so as to keep more in touch with citizen
participation. A partial list of members includes:
Donald Fisher
City Mayor
Mary Wetzel
Deputy Director,
City Urban League
Emily Smith
State President,
League of Women Voters
Paul Sanchez
County Services Association
Rev. Donald Brown
Director, Fair
Bousing Commission
Joseph Higdon
Council of Governments
Karen Loveland
WZIP-TV News
Judith Toth
State House of Delegates
Edmund Frost
State Executive Director
Conservation Association
Erika Rogala
Deputy Director
Recreation Planning Commission
-65-
-------
4. Ad Hoc Committees and Task Forces
Committees may be permanent and broadly representative like the
Citizens' Advisory Committee. They may also be established to deal with an
issue or group of issues. On a one or two time basis during the Impact
Assessment Phase for instance, a committee may attempt to resolve conflicts
by bringing different points of view together and encouraging negotiation and
compromise. Public education about particular topics (nonpoint pollution,
implementation procedures, finance) may be the reason for forming a committee.
These committees may meet regularly for the duration of the study or, more
likely, they will meet for just part of it.
Committees can be small (2-10 people) to allow for the discussion
necessary in conflict resolution or consultant selection. While an agenda
for a small committee meeting should be prepared, it should also be flexible
to maximize opportunities for discussion.
Committees which are formed to investigate an issue, or to receive
a balanced input of citizens views on a topic, are usually of moderate size
(10-50 people). In this size meeting, discussion is more limited, and a
meeting agenda is necessary if the work at hand is to be done.
The agency requests members to participate on committees, trying to
maintain a balance of viewpoints and special interests. However, a citizen
request for membership is always granted, and no one individual or group is
excluded.
-66-
-------
5. Workshops
A workshop is a learning and dicussion meeting, usually part of a
series. The time, place, and topic(s) to be discussed should be advertised
in the newsletters, the media, and by mailing a notice of scheduled work-
shops to the mailing list. It is open to all citizens, but there is no
effort to achieve attendance of publics representing all points of view.
Usually, a workshop is focused on a few topics. It is not a meeting at which
agency decisions are to be made. Information is given, there is substantial
discussion, usually in small groups, summaries of the issues and points
raised in discussion are prepared, and points requiring further analysis are
delineated. Workshops may be used at any stage of planning.
Workshop Agenda
Water Quality Management Alternatives
7:00 p.m. Exhibits—Cafetorium
7:30 Description of alternatives—George Venice, Planning
Director, Norwalk COG
7:50 Workshop Procedures—Nancy Bartlett, Norwalk LWV
8:00 Small group discussions—classrooms
9:30 Reconvene in Cafetorium for group reports—Nancy Bartlett,
Moderator
Notes: Please look at the exhibits in the Cafetorium. They include maps
of service areas and treatment facilities for each of the 6 alter-
natives. Write any comments you have either on the comment cards
in the exhibit area or directly on the plastic map overlays.
Staff members of the.Norwalk COG will be there to discuss these
alternatives with you. The next workshop will be two weeks from
tonight, same place. Nonpoint sources of pollution will be con-
sidered at that workshop.
-67-
-------
6. Seminars
The seminar is a useful mechanism for discussion of issues by
agency or elected officials and by non-agency experts, such as economists,
biologists, engineers, planners, etc. The seminar is rather sharply fo-
cused on some issue or set of issues. It may be sponsored either by the
agency or some other organization, such as a university or professional
society or group such as the League of Women Voters. Presentations are
made by one or more of the officials and experts. These presentations may
then be critiqued and discussed by one or more other experts and opened for
discussion to all attendees.
Seminar Agenda
Pollution from Nonpoint Sources in the Warwick Metro Area
Seminar jointly sponsored by the Warwick Metropolitan
Planning Commission and Central State University
Welcome — Joshua Zinner, Chairman, Warwick MPC
Introduction — Marian Council, Professor of Regional Planning, CSU
Topic — Nature, Magnitude, and Impact of Nonpoint Source Pollutants,
Bradley Johnston, Planning Director, Warwick MPC
Discussion Panel — Edward Chen, Ag Experiment Station, CSU
Rudy Marginot, County Engineer, Steuben County
Ronald Winkel, Winkel & Associates, Consulting
Engineers;
Topic — Economics of Nonpoint Source Control
Judith Sperry, Dept. of Economics, CSU
Discussion Panel — Franklin Prather, Prather & Sons, Developers,
Nicholas Sage, Clementine Mining Co.
Elizabeth Darmstaeder, Warwick League of Women Voters
Topic — Metro Water Quality Management Planning Process
Andrew McGaffin, Executive Director, Warwick MPC
Lunch
Topic — Legal and Political Aspects of Nonpoint Source Control
Professor Stephen Lewis, College of Law, CSU
Discussion Panel — Thomas Colosi, City Attorney, Warwick
Steven Dealph, State Senator, District 48, Warwick
Kathy Richardson, Coalition for Environmental Quality
Topic — Tentative Alternatives for Control of Nonpoint Source Pollu-
tants
Caroline Tuchs, Director Environmental Alternatives, Warwick MPC
Seminar Summary — Joshua Zinner, Chairman, Warwick MPC
-68-
-------
7. Public Meetings and Hearings
Public meetings and hearings are usually held to meet legal require-
ments. A hearing is more formal; only the moderator or staff asks questions.
A public meeting allows questions from the floor and some dialogue. Both
are structured to obtain on-the-record statements from citizens, citizen
groups, elected officials, appointed officials, and representatives of other
agencies about an issue before a final decision is made. Both should be
heavily advertised to attract large audiences.
While there are limitations on what can be expected from public
meetings and hearings, they perform a valuable function in allowing oppor-
tunity for anyone to make a statement for the record. There should be few
if any surprises. If the agency has been doing a good job of public involve-
ment prior to the meetings, it should be aware of the positions of each
public segment.
One cannot expect to get discussion at public meeting unless it is
very carefully provided for. Usually, there are a relatively small number
of statements even when there is a very large attendance. Statements are
frequently short, especially when attendance is large. A public meeting is
not the place to cover new ground. There isn't time and there isn't a good
opportunity for dialogue.
Despite the legal status of the hearing, agencies have rarely been
bound to abide by the statements made at a hearing. The conflicts of testi-
mony would likely preclude such a requirement. However, the agency is bound
to take into consideration the statements made at a public meeting or hearing
in making subsequent decisions. Moreover, the agency should publicly say
what the disposition of those statements was and how they entered into agency
decisions. The input made by citizens prior to the public hearing should
also be considered when decisions are being made.
Some common pitfalls to avoid in structuring public hearings, and
ways to deal with them are given here.
• Too few people get to speak and the meeting takes a long time.
Solution: Break up the meeting into smaller groups, each with
its own leader and recorder. This multiplies the number of
people who can speak, increases the possible length of state-
ment, and shortens the meeting.
• The proponents or opponents of some alternatives get to make
their case early and the other sides have to wait a long time.
Solution: Schedule the presentations, according to desired
presentation time so that persons do not have to be present
for the entire meeting. Also, randomize the presentations to
some extent so that each side can make part of its case early.
-69-
-------
The opening presentation is too long. Citizens get little
time to be heard.
Solution: Shorten the presentation. After all, the meeting
is being held to hear citizens. Also, one may prepare ex-
hibits that are open before the meeting and have agency staff
there to explain points. Another approach is to precede the
meeting or hearing with briefings held a week or so before the
public meeting. That briefing series is entirely for the
purpose of explaining material to be considered at the public
meeting.
Citizens don't believe the agency will use the statements.
Solution: Promise and deliver replies to statements and
questions raised at the public meeting and tell how it affected
decisions.
Public Hearing
This public meeting is scheduled at the end of the Impact Assessment
Phase. Exhibits are set up with maps, projections, photographs, and des-
criptions of each of three regional alternatives. There also is a simpli-
fied description of the goals and legal requirements of the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Act Amendments.
Following this meeting there will be a decision made on which plan
to recommend for acceptance by local officials and governmental representa-
tives. In order to hear as many testifiers as possible, four rooms have
been equipped to receive testimony simultaneously.
AGENDA
6:30 p.m. Exhibits
7:30 Moderator — President, League of Women Voters, or
Chairman, Regional Planning Commission
7:40 Opening statement (Purpose, explanation of progress to
date)
Planning director of agency
7:55 Divide into 4 groups — Rooms A, B, C, D
8-10 p.m. Statements made in groups, each of which has trained
agency staff person and a statement and discussion
recorder
-70-
-------
8. Delphi Panels
The Delphi Panel is a group of experts selected to reach consensus
on a problem through the completion of a series of questionnaires. These
experts may either be technical experts, or persons knowledgeable about the
interests of some segment of the public. There might be four questionnaires
in the series: the first to explore the problem, the second to seek under-
standing and clarity, the third to explore disagreements, and the fourth
to resolve the disagreements. The first questionnaire is mailed; responses
are received, and the results are analyzed and reported in the second ques-
tionnaire. Panel members are asked to answer the questions again in light
of the responses from others. The process is repeated two more times. Par-
ticipants are given the opportunity to support their responses, and the
results are reported. Experience with the Delphi Panel has shown that a
remarkable degree of consensus can be reached from very diverse interests.
Delphi Panels might be used to develop goals and objectives for a
study. They might be used to assess the likely success of proposed imple-
mentation strategies (management plans) or to assess the impacts of some
alternative.
Delphi Panels can be composed of as many as 100 people. They remain
anonymous and may be expected, therefore, to give more frank opinions. This
also prevents personality dominance such as frequently occurs in conferences
and allows each panel member to work out his answers to the questions inde-
pendently .
A word of caution is necessary. A Delphi Panel is not a group rep-
resentative of the entire citizenry. The findings and consensus from a
Delphi panel should not therefore be taken as the last word on the subject.
It should be treated as an additional analysis, useful for clarifying and
diagnosing a problem.
Delphi Panels are appropriate when
• The participants are busy and frequently cannot attend meet-
ings (they complete the questionnaires at their leisure).
• The study has limited funds (planner time is involved in pre-
paring, analyzing, and distributing questionnaires, but not
in travel and meetings).
• The planner is not under tight time pressures (completion of
the series of questionnaires may take up to six months).
• There is a history of ineffective communication and alienation
among the participants.
-71-
-------
9.
Interviews
Interviews are used to communicate in-depth with a small number of
individuals. Interviewees would normally correspond with the identified
publics. Such communication in-depth is often necessary to fully understand
the needs and desires of a group and to understand how that group is affected
by some aspect of the water quality management plan.
Ordinarily, an interview would be conducted according to a plan.
The plan would indicate the general range of topics on which discussion is
desired. The interviewee usually will add other topics he or she feels
are relevant to the discussion.
— LMNNHinuL
Interviews
These topics are being used for lengthy interviews. The last one
is diagrammed to show those areas ( ) initiated by the interviewee.
(Vice President, local chapter, Sierra Club)
• What are the issues that should be addressed in water quality
management planning?
• HOW should water quality facilities be financed?
• How should the management agencies be structured?
• How is your constituency being affected by poor water
quality?
» 0 How do you feel about the following three alternatives for
the disposal of sludge in this area?
, SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
faf For ^"fbr
/•Strip nine Agricultural Soil Urban Parkland
/Reclamation Conditioning Fertilization
Ifcost oj No homeowners Would safely What would it / \
transport- nearby so no return cost to make / \
ing sludge objections to nutrients to sludge non- Can see no would this use
is too smell the land toxic and safe objection enough to make
high, tax- to use? a difference?
payers
will
object. Nearby
homeowners
would object '
Would encourage to the smell .
vegetation growth ^ not burn it? Even though sludge
dJiJ lessen elusion — ' is a problem, my
and runoff problems organization wi 11
My organization resist attempts to
would favor use change commitment
of methane gas of upgrading sowage
produced by waste plant for treatment
products as fuel. above secondary
1 level
!
Must be careful What about a public
of air pollution. education campaign
to reduce water con-
sumption?
-72-
-------
10. Surveys
Surveys are useful tools to obtain information, but must be used
carefully and sparingly. Two kinds of situations provide appropriate con-
ditions for using a survey. Early in a study, when it is desired to assess
general public attitudes and opinions about broad issues, a survey can be
used to accurately and quickly perform such an assessment. Great precision
is not needed in such a survey; thus, sample sizes can be small. Another
favorable situation arises when a very specific question has been identified
for which an assessment of public opinion is desired, and for which there is
some reason to consider the public well-informed on the issue. From a public
attitude/opinion standpoint, these are perhaps the only two situations where
surveys can be profitably used. If information is desired on, e.g., recre-
ation behavior or other behavioral information, a survey can be used at any
time and will be the most reliable and inexpensive way to obtain the infor-
mation.
Design and execution of a survey is a task for someone trained and
experienced in doing it. If such persons are not on the staff, the design
and supervision should be done by someone outside the agency. A poorly ex-
ecuted survey is of little use and can be counter-productive. The three gen-
eral survey approaches are face-to-face interviewing (usually the best and
most expensive), telephone interviewing (good for short interview and much
less expensive), and mail surveys (difficult to do well, but useful and
inexpensive).
-73-
-------
Various situations can occur in the planning and implementation
process which will limit effective public involvement and hinder the at-
mosphere of open dialogue.
• Citizens believe their input won't be considered in making
decisions or that decisions have already been made.
Solution: Promise and deliver replies to input. Publish
reports of input in newsletter and include specific agency
response. When possible, show how citizen input affected
decisions. Keep updated report of citizen participation in
depositories.
• Agency staff are reluctant to make all planning data and
draft reports available to the public.
Solution: Stress agency attitude of openness and encourage
staff to regard citizens as working partners. It is easier to
amend a draft study following citizen input than to change a
final report. Just as the agency hopes to encourage compro-
mise among citizen groups, so must agency staff be open to
criticism and able to change positions.
• Reports and data are so technical that citizens lose interest
and stop participating.
Solution: Assess public technical sophistication by reading
local newspapers. Have agency reports read by newspaper edi-
tor or uninvolved citizens to make sure they're understandable.
Hire interpretive writer or train agency staff member to write
comprehensive summaries of technical data.
• Agency staff feel they are "wasting time" in dealing with the
public, and that the time schedule should not be delayed.
Solution: Stress mandate to encourage, assist and provide for
public participation. Train staff in effective communication
skills.
• Money for public participation runs out before study is com-
pleted.
Solution: Provide adequate (10% of total planning budget)
funds and schedule expenditures. More money should be allocated
for the beginning when the program is set up and for later
phases when the most publics are involved.
-74-
-------
Citizens are frustrated by not knowing whom to contact or by
being shuffled from person to person at the agency.
Solution: Clearly designate at least one individual to be
responsible for the public involvement program. This person
should be knowledgeable about the entire study. Make sure all
staff members are aware of the value of citizen participation
and are willing to spend time answering citizen questions.
One group monopolizes agency time. Other groups are intimi-
dated or feel closed out of the decision-making process.
Solution: Notify all interested or affected publics of meetings,
committees, and other opportunities to participate. Follow up
with personal contact to encourage participation. Assign staff
to look out for non-participating public interests. Train staff
in group management skills.
Agency reluctance to include strenuous opponent in the plan-
ning process.
Solution: Include the opponent, giving him/her public credit
for input. Opponents are much more liable to subvert the
process and unduly influence decision-makers when they're not
part of the planning effort. The opponent may be overempha-
sizing, but accurately stating a wider viewpoint of which the
agency should be aware.
Public participation isn't happening, despite agency efforts.
Solution: Conduct full scale study of the program including
staff and citizen evaluation. Hire outside consultant to
identify problem areas.
-75-
-------
The amount and quality of public participation during the formula-
tion of a regional plan must be reviewed and evaluated before state certi-
fication is given. The approving officials may reject the plan, suspend
action, or require further public input if the degree of participation is
found to be inadequate. In order to avoid jeopardizing approval of the
final plan in this manner, monitoring and evaluation should be integral parts
of the entire planning and implementation process. Evaluation should be un-
dertaken by the agency staff, by the public, and, if necessary, by outside
consultants on a continuing basis. Changes and adjustments to the public
participation program can then be made to provide for and encourage a more
active citizen role.
1. Agency Evaluation
Agency staff should set aside specific times for evaluation of the
public participation program, but also should be ready to review the program
whenever problems arise. One appropriate time for evaluation is at the end
of each planning phase, when the staff can review what has taken place, and
set goals for the next phase. While numbers, such as how many names are on
the mailing list and how many people come to meetings, are not adequate yard-
sticks to evaluate public participation, they are one indication of public
interest and agency effectiveness. A better method of evaluation is to pose
questions and answer them completely. Each agency will likely have its own
questions. Some of them might be similar to those below.
• Were the public participation objectives for the phase just
past fully attained? If not, why not? Can they be attained
during the next phase? Are the objectives for the next phase
demanding but realistic?
• Has the agency provided information to the public which is
understandable, complete and accessible? Has the information
received from the public been useful? What type of input is
needed now? How have citizen comments influenced planning
alternatives and tentative decisions?
• Which publics have been participating? Are there others which
ought to be and are not? Are certain publics assuming a dom-
inant role? Are citizens initiating contact with the agency?
Are contacts generally negative? Or productive?
• In public hearings, how many different groups come to testify?
Does the testimony generally agree with input from the partici-
pating, public? Or is new information given there for the first
time?
-76-
-------
This type of periodic assessment is critical to the success of a
public participation program, which might otherwise slip into inactivity or
superficiality. If deficiencies are found, corrective steps should be taken.
Only then can the final plan reflect local preferences, be supported by cit-
izens, and will the standards for public participation be met, facilitating
local approval.
2. Public Evaluation
The public should be asked to evaluate the participation program.
Participating publics have the most complete knowledge of how encouraged to
participate they feel, and how easy that participation is made to be. Ongoing
committees, such as the Citizens Advisory Committee should undertake periodic
evaluation, similar to that described for the agency. Ad Hoc committees or
workshops should distribute cards requesting evaluation of public involvement
to date. Participants might be asked: Do you have difficulty understanding
the information provided to you? Is it easy to obtain? Are the established
ways of participating convenient and effective? Are there publics being left
out? How could they be encouraged to participate? Has the agency been re-
sponsive to citizen input? Do you feel that citizens can affect the final
decisions?
These evaluation cards can also be mailed out, enclosed in the news-
letter, or distributed at exhibits and briefings. More formal evaluation in
the form of a survey might be undertaken either by the agency staff or an
outside specialist.
3. Outside Evaluation
Analysis of the media coverage given to the water quality management
process will provide a form of outside evaluation. While specific questions
have not been asked or answered, editorials, articles and letters to the
editor provide clues as to how the wider public is'evaluating the participa-
tion program. Discontented publics can be identified and brought into
the process. Previously unexpressed community values may become media
issues, and indicate a lack of effort in obtaining or supporting all points
of view. Unresponsiveness to citizen input will not go unnoticed by the
media. It is helpful to maintain a thorough collection of all relevant
topics covered by the media, and much can be learned from their analysis.
If the public participation program is not going well — apathy
exists, hostile contacts are numerous, conflicts are impossible to resolve,
outside consultants may be needed to evaluate the situation. Consultants
have special expertise in designing surveys, analyzing program character-
istics, and providing a neutral point of view.
-77-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bishop, Bruce A. Structuring Communications Programs For Public Participa-
tion in Water Resources Planning. Utah State Univ., Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering/ Logan, Utah, and U.S. Army
Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
May 1975. (NTIS AA - A012 280)
This report describes communication in water resources planning as the ex-
change of values information from the public and factual information from
the planners. Techniques and methods for communication with the public
are examined such as public meetings, community contacts, briefings, work-
shops, advisory committees, "show-me" tours, exhibits and more. There is
a detailed chapter on the use of mass media. The report concludes with
several examples of public participation programs which relate to environ-
mental impact assessment and water quality management.
Brinch, Jeannette, Uses of Media; The Distribution System. The Conserva-
tion Foundation, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, 1975.
This paper gives a general review of the use of newsletters, newspapers,
information brochures, radio, cable, public and commercial television,
films, slides, and tapes to inform and motivate citizens to get involved
in governmental decision-making. Examples of water related programs which
have used media effectively are given. The evaluation of media effective-
ness is emphasized.
Creighton, James L. The Use of Values; Public Participation in the Plan-
ning Process Synergy Consultation Services, 21341 Columbia Ave.:
Cupertino, Calif., 95014.
Since a goal of public participation is to ensure that the full range of
public values be incorporated in the planning process, planners must learn
to recognize and deal with emotional value-laden contribution from the
public. This paper explains the techniques of developing alternatives
based on all major values positions held by the public. This approach en-
sures that the planner is not an advocate for some groups, and an adver-
sary of others. It is also a clear communication to the public that the
agency is responsive and accountable to all the publics.
Creighton, James L. Designing a Public Involvement Program Synergy
Consulting Services, 21341 Columbia Ave.: Cupertino, Calif., 95014.
This four page paper describes "seven basic planning phases, For each it
lists tasks for planners, possible techniques to use, and the scope and
nature of public involvement.
Appendix
-------
Hanchey, James R. Public Involvement in The Corps of Engineers Planning
Process. U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources,
Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 22060 (NTIS AD A017 946)
The approach to public involvement program development suggested in this
report relies on the concept that planning should consist of several se-
quential stages, each with definable decision points, and that explicit con-
sideration of public viewpoints must be undertaken before decisions are made.
Two chapters are especially useful; using meetings to obtain public input,
and how to establish effective public information and education programs.
Old Colony Planning Council, Citizen Involvement in OCPC 208 Planning. A
Progress Report. OCPC 232 Main Street, Brockton, Mass. 02401
Apr. "76.
This very detailed progress report discusses the OCPC public participation
program to date. Fifteen mechanisms used by OCPC to get the public involved
are explained including citizen committees, discussions with town/city of-
ficials, technical assistance to town governments, involvement of local
schools, visits to problem areas with local citizens and others. Obstacles
to 208 public participation, significant local issues and areawide problems
as well as staff response to them are analyzed. Finally, the OCPC 208
public participation program is evaluated against its stated objectives.
Ragan, James F., Public Participation in Water Resources Planning; An
Evaluation of the Programs of ISS Corps of Engineers Districts,
U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Kingman Building,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 (NTIS AD A019 966).
This report examines the public involvement programs of fifteen Army Corps
of Engineers field offices. First, the programs are described, and two are
used as detailed case studies. The bulk of the report divides planning into
five basic stages, gives guidance as to what could be done to involve the
public at each stage, and finally describes what is being done by the Corps.
An interesting last chapter describes the constraints on effective public
participation both from the bureaucratic system, and from citizens themselves.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Guide to Public Involvement
in Decision-Making, Inform and Involve, 12th and Independence, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250 April 1974.
This booklet is written in a direct style and contains some especially use-
ful sections. "Guides to Successful Public Involvement" stresses attitudes
which planners must adopt if an atmosphere of cooperation with the public is
to be established. "Analysis of Public Comments" o,utlines various methods of
assembling and summarizing information from the public so that it is useful
to the agency staff. Other sections include "Techniques for Obtaining Public
Involvement", "Planning the Public Involvement Process", "Development of Al-
ternatives" and "Evaluation".
-------
Warner, Katharine P., Public Participation in Water Resources Planning;
A State of the Arts Study of Public Participation in the Water
Resources Planning Sector, Michigan Univ. Environmental Simula-
tion Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and US Natl Water Commission,
Arlington, VA. July 1971. (NTIS PB204 245)
The Report reviews public participation activities and procedures utilized
in governmental planning studies, particularly those dealing with water
resources. Key dimensions include: identification of the public; func-
tions and objectives for participatory activities; mechanisms for securing
public involvement, and timing of participation within the planning process.
A model for a participatory planning process is also proposed. A series of
recommendations for agency program and institutional arrangement changes are
included in the final chapter.
Willeke, Gene E. , "Identification of Publics in Water Resources Planning",
Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division,
Vol. 102, #WRI, April 1976, pp. 137-150.
This paper focuses on the identification of publics throughout the water
quality management process. Some categories of publics are suggested,
techniques for uncovering others are described, and the importance of reach-
ing all groups is stressed.
NTIS address:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
------- |