United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A 1071
Washington DC 20460
1979
OPA 149 9
>EPA
Environmental Planning
For The '80s
y Public indignation and Congres-
ouglas sional concern about environmental
rOStie problems grew stronger during the
1960's. Existing federal air and wa-
ter pollution laws were strength-
ened several times. Nevertheless,
most people believed that environ-
mental problems could be solved
through direct and discrete govern-
ment actions while the rest of soci-
ety continued business as usual.
It was not until the 1970's that we
began to understand that solving
environmental problems was more
complex than simply placing "stop-
pers" on the main stacks and out-
falls of industries and municipali-
ties. We were finally ready to face
the fact that urban and rural en-
vironmental problems cannot be
separated, and stem from the ran-
dom use and misuse of science and
technology, from the way cities are
built, from the way our transporta-
tion needs are met, from the way we
extract resources, manufacture and
distribute goods, dispose of wastes,
—and significantly—from the way
we think, about our relationship to
the planet we inhabit.
This awakening produced far-
reaching changes in our attitudes,
habits, and institutions. Congress
has greatly strengthened air and
water pollution laws and has en-
acted major new laws to get to the
v root of environmental and related
public health problems. These more
" recent laws and amendments reflect
a new awareness of the fact that the
manner in which our society con-
ducts its private and public business
—has far-reaching health, econom-
ic, and social implications and bears
fundamentally on the essential in-
tegrity of ecological systems.
With this legislation in place, I
I believe we are now on the threshold
of a new era in environmental pro-
tection. It will be an era in which
the after-the-fact attempt at cor-
rective action, which has character-
ized our approach to environmental
problems in the past, will give way
to an emerging imperative for be-
fore-the-fact techniques of resource
management and public health pro-
tection. We need new interaction,
communication, and cooperation
among all levels of government
which will require a level of effec-
tive planning effort far beyond any-
thing we have seen.
Since becoming Administrator
of the Environmental Protection
Agency, I have encouraged unity in
our environmental program efforts
in general and in our planning ef-
forts in particular. I have also been
aware that in our zeal to address
environmental concerns we must
take care not to inhibit or deflect
the intent of the separate environ-
mental laws we implement. Many
environmental problems are quite
discretely different from others.
For example, air pollution problems
cannot be solved in precisely the
same way as water pollution prob-
lems. But it is equally important to
keep in mind that most environ-
mental problems do overlap and ulti-
mately merge with one another.
Practical experience reminds us
that certain proposed solutions to
one problem may intensify another:
Solutions to air pollution can in-
crease solid waste problems, solu-
tions to solid waste problems can
create drinking water problems, and
on and on.
To keep two apparently opposing
ideas in mind and to continue func-
tioning effectively is not easy for
individuals or for institutions.
Careful and creative planning ef-
forts are needed to implement our
individual laws and deal efficiently
and comprehensively with the real
world. These efforts take several
forms and are intended to curtail
inefficiency, encourage cooperation,
decrease paperwork, generate com-
mon sense solutions to common
problems, and release creative ener-
gies. The initiatives *hat we have
taken include: regulatory reform,
interagency coordination, the Car-
ter administration's urban policy,
and program integration.
Streamlining implementation. One ma-
jor reform that may ultimately re-
shape the nature of environmental
planning is the proposed Integrated
Environmental Assistance Act. This
act, recently submitted to Congress,
would enable states to draw up inte-
grated plans for two or more en-
vironmental programs. For exam-
ple, a state could combine the sepa-
rate planning processes for its air
and water programs.
The act would simplify the task
of applying for federal environmen-
tal grants (all EPA grant programs
except those for wastewater treat-
ment facilities could be integrated).
It would permit the transfer of up
to 20 percent of funds among pro-
grams and provide a supplementary
$25 million as an incentive to inno-
vation in state and local environ-
mental programs. Most important,
while maintaining continuity and
current funding levels in our exist-
ing programs, the act would give
states the ability to concentrate re-
sources on their most pressing en-
vironmental problems.
Written agreements between
EPA and the states represent
another promising step toward cre-
ative solutions. These agreements
are a flexible mechanism for the
states and EPA to set environmen-
tal priorities and tailor specific ac-
tions to each state's needs. The
agreements should offer several im-
portant benefits, including the op-
portunity for greater state initia-
tive, improved management, and the
integration of individual program
efforts. Begun this fiscal year 1979,
the agreements cover the various
programs under the Clean Water
Act. In 1980, programs carried out
under the Safe Drinking Water and
Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery acts will be included. Following
-------
that we will add profr|ms ^con-
ducted under the Clean Air Act.
Thirty-one states had signed agree-
ments by the end of March 1979. -
We have also reduced or elimi-
nated overlap among EPA's plan-
ning requirements. For example, we
have eliminated 54 of the steps pre-
viously required in water quality
management planning. We discov-
ered that planners had been asked
to cover the same ground two or
three times! This example alone
strongly suggests that there will be
numerous opportunities for curtail-
ing duplication as more programs
are integrated.
Combining federal efforts. The early
transportation control plans re-
quired under the Clean Air Act
did not take sufficient account of
the well-established transportation
planning processes of state and lo-
cal agencies, nor of the fact that
not all state and local agencies had
sufficient resources or time to carry
out the required planning.
Underlying both issues was the
fact that state and local agencies
were confronted with uncoordinated
transportation planning require-
ments from two federal agencies.
Last June, EPA and the Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) pub-
lished guidelines for an integrated
transportation-air quality pk.nning
process and agreed to joint review
of plans and planning programs of
mutual concern.
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act
amendments provide state and local
agencies with the opportunity, both
in terms of additional time and
funding, to develop local air quality
implementation plans. They require
control of virtually all types of sig-
nificant emission sources. A critical
element involves reducing trans-
portation-caused pollution in major
metropolitan areas. Rather ' than
creating an additional planning
process, we rely on existing DOT
programs. Because of the impor-
tance of this program to continued
economic development in major
metropolitan areas, funds to assist
local governments were requested
in the President's urban policy mes-
sage.
The program to insure that air
quality needs are fully considered in
transportation planning will be
jointly administered by DOT and
EPA. We will disburse funds of up
to $50 million to designated local
agencies through the existing Ur-
ban Mass Transit Administration
(UMTA) Section 9 grant program
in coordination with the "3C" trans-
Douglas Costle is Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
portation planning process. The
grants are targeted at urban areas
of greater than 200,000 population.
Those with over one million people
will receive emphasis because of
heightened pollution levels, greater
exposure rates, and more complex
problems. The first of the grants,
$129,050 for the Portland, Oregon,
Metropolitan Service District, was
announced in February.
Another EPA initiative of great
interest to planners is our commit-
ment to help recipients of water
cleanup grants capture the public
recreation benefits that wastewater
treatment facilities can provide. To
achieve this we are coordinating
EPA step 1 construction grants and
208 planning processes with those
We have eliminated 54 of
the steps previously
required in water quality
management planning.
of the Department of the Interior's
State Comprehensive Outdoor Rec-
reation Plans. This collaboration
should encourage community in-
volvement in coordinating water
cleanup with recreation acquisition
and shoreland protection, obtain
multiple use of wastewater treat-
ment facilities, and expand recrea-
tion and open space opportunities
through "greenway" concepts.
We have also arranged with HUD
to coordinate environmental plan-
ning with land use plans developed
under the Comprehensive Planning
("701") Program. Among other
things, the two agencies have
agreed to encourage the use of uni-
form data bases as well as common
analytical techniques and criteria
in establishing guidelines for their
planning program.
Urban Initiatives. In EPA we are im-
proving our existing programs and
developing new ones in support of
the President's urban policy mes-
sage. We want to make sure that the
wastewater treatment program does
not encourage wasteful sprawl. And
we are reviewing our efforts to al-
low economic growth in areas that
violate national air quality stand-
ards.
As the wastewater treatment pro-
gram hasi matured, EPA has learn-
ed how construction of new treat-
ment plants and placement of new
interceptor sewer lines can influ-
ence development patterns. Plants
designed with a large margin for
growth may serve as an inducement
to suburban sprawl, and intercep-
tors that penetrate rural or lightly
developed areas can open them up
for intensive development.
We recently issued guidelines for
the sewage treatment program de-
signed to confront these tacit in-
ducements for growth while still al-
lowing well managed development.
Among other things, the guidelines:
• preclude federal funding of
wastewater treatment capacity be-
yond that determined to be cost
effective;
• require states to disaggregate
population projections based on
state population figures which are
consistent with those developed by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis
forecasts (Department of Com-
merce) ;
• call for strong emphasis on wa-
ter conservation;
• discourage the use of costly and
highly centralized treatment tech-
nologies where more cost-effective
alternatives such as land applica-
tion or treatment can do the job;
• discourage federal funding of
interceptor lines into undeveloped
areas, except where the lines are
needed to deal with existing pollu-
tion problems.
These guidelines mean that funds
for wastewater treatment will in-
creasingly be spent where the need
is greatest. For the most part, that
means urban areas, and especially
the urban core.
EPA has long recognized that ur-
ban areas bear a special burden in
dealing with air quality issues.
-------
Many urban areas have the most
serious pollution problems. They
also have disproportionately high
unemployment and thus need to pro-
mote economic growth. To keep the
need for economic growth from con-
flicting with the need for clean air,
the agency established an emissions
offset policy. Under this policy, an
area can bring in new industry so
long as pollution from existing
sources is cut back by more than
the amount the new plant will emit.
Congress endorsed this policy when
amending the Clean Air Act in 1977.
Since then, EPA has expanded the
opportunities connected with off-
sets. We now allow areas to "bank"
emissions reductions. They can now
build up credit for the pollution
cutbacks stemming from reducing
industrial emissions or auto pollu-
tion, and then draw on this credit
when new industries come to the
area or when existing industries
want to expand.
From a planning perspective, one
major benefit of banking is that it
eliminates a major element of un-
certainty. Under the original off-
set policy there was always the dan-
ger that required offsets could not
be found when it came time to site
a new plant. With banking, plan-
ners will know what air resources
are available in much the same way
that they now know what land, wa-
ter, and energy resources are avail-
able.
A proposed urban assistance pro-
gram will provide added support for
cities to develop and test such ap-
proaches for achieving both eco-
nomic development and clean air
goals. The Air Quality Technical
Assistance Demonstration Program
is sponsored by four federal agen-
cies: Commerce (Economic De-
velopment Administration), HUD,
DOT, and EPA. Eight cities are re-
ceiving a total of $3.6 million in
grants. The recipients are: Phila-
delphia; Chicago; Boston; Bridge-
port/ Waterbury, Conn.; Buffalo/
Erie County; Portland, Oregon;
Elizabeth, N.J.; and Minneapolis/
St. Paul. Emissions banking pro-
grams are among the initiatives
that these cities have included in
their proposals.
Rural initiatives. New efforts much
like those providing a new level of
coherence and direction to policies
affecting cities, are also focusing on
the special needs and concerns of
rural areas.
EPA has signed a far-reaching
agreement on rural development
with the Farmers Home Adminis-
tration, the Economic Development
Administration, the Community
Services Administration, and the
Labor Department.
The agencies have agreed to en-
courage the use of innovative and
alternative forms of technology
suited to the needs of small com-
munities. EPA's wastewater treat-
ment program is a prime example.
The 1977 Clean Water Act Amend-
ments now permit us to fund even
those treatment projects that in-
clude individual septic systems, if
they are the best and most economi-
cal way to deal with a community's
treatment needs. This will keep
wastewater treatment projects from
imposing a heavy financial burden
on smaller municipalities.
In another action of significance
to rural areas, EPA has taken steps
to insure that its programs will not
accelerate the rapid conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses.
Under EPA's agricultural lands
policy, all major agency program de-
cisions that may lead to the perma-
nent conversion of environmentally
significant agricultural land—deci-
sions, for example, on the funding
of sewer lines across or into such
Urban areas bear a special
burden in dealing with air
quality issues.
land—must be examined in the light
of their potential impact. Where
there is the likelihood that environ-
mentally significant farmland will
be lost, we will reexamine our origi-
nal decision and seek alternatives.
Facing challenges. As a nation, we
are now more sophisticated about
environmental planning than we
were in the early 1970's. Environ-
mental planning requirements often
posed a special challenge to the tra-
ditional concerns and expertise of
the planning community. We have
all gone through a painful period of
transition while old ways of ap-
proaching problems, too often with
little concern for the environment,
have evolved to reflect a broader
concern for the environmental
soundness of our communities. A
particularly good example is the
effort over the last five years to
integrate air quality considerations
into transportation planning. Some
members of the transportation plan-
ning community were not accus-
tomed to dealing with some of the
mass transportation considerations
needed.to reduce air pollution. In
the past year I think we have made
tremendous progress in overcom-
ing these problems.
In other areas there are now leg-
islated standards, technical support,
and financial incentives to encour-
age environmental planning. The
Safe Drinking Water Act supports
local action to protect sole source
aquifer drinking water supplies,
just as the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Clean Water
Act's dredge and fill permit pro-
gram support local wetland protec-
tion programs.
Environmental problems will con-
tinually pose new challenges to plan-
ners in areas that have heretofore
been neglected. The tragedies of
Buffalo's "Love Canal" and Louis-
ville's "Valley of the Drums" are
current reminders. Many other
areas face health problems of crisis
proportions because of improper
hazardous waste disposal.
As we approach a new decade,
planners face new challenges, par-
ticularly in the area of growth and
environmental management. We
must develop new tools to address
problems of scarce environmental
resources. In EPA we are already
encouraging increased use of mar-
ket mechanisms to supplement the
traditional regulatory process. But
planning techniques must still be
developed for making decisions
about allocation rules where mar-
kets are not feasible or desirable.
And we need to fashion general
rules under which the markets can
serve to maintain environmental
standards while preserving econom-
ic incentives.
Planners must address these chal-
lenges. Our society can have both
environmental quality and economic
development, without falling prey
to the assumption that we can have
only one or the other. The truth is,
if we choose one and neglect the
other, we will surely achieve neither.
More Information. For more informa-
tion on EPA's programs, contact:
Public Information Cen|tcr, JPJM2UJ5
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
212/755-0707; O
Reprinted from Practicing
Planner magazine, June 197!-),
Volume 9, Number 2, a pub-
lication of the American
Planning Association.
-------
EPA is charged by Congri- , 'lion's land air and water systems Under a mandate of nation,
vironmental laws focused on air and //ate. ality solid waste management and the control of toxic substar
pesticides, noise and radiation the Agency jtnvf.-s to formulate and implement actions which lead to a comp
balance between human acivities and the ability of natural systems to support and nuture life
If you have suggestions, questions,
or requests for further information
they may be directed to your near-
est EPA Regional public information
office
EPA Region 1 « JFK Federal Bldg
Boston MA 02203 Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
617-223 7210
EPA Region 2 • 26 Federal Plaza
New York NY 10007 New Jersey,
New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands
212 264 2525
EPA Region 3 «6th and Walnut
Streets Philadelphia PA 19106
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
215597-9814
EPA Region 4 . 345 Courtland
Street NE Atlanta GA 30308
Alabama, Georgia Florida, Missis-
sippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky
404 881 4727
EPA Region 5 • 230 S Dearborn
Chicago IL 60604 Illinois Indiana,
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota
312 353 2000
EPA Region 6 «1201 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75270 Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New
Mexico
214-767-2600
EPA Region 7 . 324 East 11 th
Street Kansas City MO 64106
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
816 374-5493
EPA Region 8 • 1860 Linc<
Street Denver CO 80295
Colorado, Utah, Wyoming,
Montana, North Dakota, SOL
Dakota
303 837 3895
EPA Region 9 • 21 5 Fremo
Street San Francisco CA J
Arizona, California, Nevada,
Guam, American Samoa, Tru
Territories of the Pacific
41 5 556-2320
EPA Region 10 • 1 200 Six1
Avenue Seattle WA 981 01
Idaho, Oregon, Washington
206-442-1220
c
o
• a.
n
------- |