_nvironmenta, , refection
Agency
Region 5
treet
Chicago, Illinois 60604
&EPA
Public Participation
In The Construction
Grants Program
905R80120
A Regional Assessment
-------
PREFACE
"Determining estimates of total project costs...for inclusion in the fact sheet
has been the cause for more arguments, meetings and ill feelings than any other
element of the new public participation regulations. Many feel it serves
absolutely no useful purpose and can cause more harm than good. "
-State Program Manager
"Low attendance at meetings is not necessarily bad public participation. The
dollar sign ($) must be disclosed to get people out. "
-Citizen
"According to the City Administrator3 the results of the interaction process
were not successful. The main reason was...that the cost-effective alternative
will be selected regardless of the sentiment of the public. Therefore, the
general feeling of the public was that they could not have a significant effect
on the final outcome of the facilities plan."
-State Program Manager
"Due to public input, the proposed (sewer) routing was changed resulting in a
savings of up to $500,000."
-Grantee
"The facilities plan does not reflect public input because there was no
significant public input to include... .Questions raised by the audiences at
public meetings were already being addressed. — "
-Consulting Engineer
"The number of sites looked at was increased based on preliminary discussions
and the first public meeting. "
-Consulting Engineer
"Most members of the (advisory) group feel they haven't had any real
influence on the facility planning process."
-Citizen
"A good working relationship exists between the city and consultants, however,
township residents historically have not wanted to communicate or participate
with the city to any degree. The CAC (Citizen's Advisory Committee) has aided
in 'breaking the ice' and helped to develop a 'logical' line of communications
between parties."
-Grantee
"The city tried to hide the meetings."
-Citizen
-------
SUMMARY
Two years have elaosed since the U.S. Snviroamental Protection
Agency promulgated regulations designed to increase public partici-
pation in the planning, design and construction of wastewater
treatment systems. Opinions as to their degrees of success are
widely divergent.
The ourpose of this assessment was to identify very specific
activities which are part of every public participation program,
the degree of success of these activities, specific reasons for
the activities' success or failure, and formulate recommendations
for program improvement based upon the data gathered for the
assessment. Of U.S. E?Vs ten (10) regions, only Region V has
attemoted an assessment of the effectiveness of public
participation. This region is comprised of the six midwestern
states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and
Minnesota.
The assessment sample, which consisted of 138 individuals
evenly distributed among 12 communities holding Step I facilities
planning grants for wastewater treatment studies, was nearly
divided into thirds concerning the overall effectiveness of the
public participation program.
Thirty percent (30%) of the total sample felt that
they had no real influence in the decision-making process. An
equal percentage expressed the opinion that they most certainly
did exert substantial influence on the project. The remaining
40% of the sample did not express a strong conviction either way
Dossibly because in some instances, the facilities plan had not
reached the stage conducive to substantial public input such as
reviewing and discussing identified alternatives.
Except for extremely small communities (pop. under 500),
there did not seem to be any direct correlation between the
effectiveness of the public participation program and the size
of the community. Likewise, community size did not significantly
alter the percentage of the grant monies spent on public partici-
oation.
The assessment succeeded in surfacing several problem areas
which were previously not apparent. These areas included the
inadequacy of oroject mailing lists, inadequacies of public
particioation workplans, inadequacies of public meetings/hearings,
inadequacies of advisory groups, and some public conception
of their inability to exercise any real influence on the
ii
-------
facilities planning process.
No one refuted the desirability of public participation in the
facilities planning process, only the degree. The concept of whether
or not public participation is even possible within the framework of
the facilities planning regulations which stipulate that the most
cost-effective alternative had to be selected was raised.
This graphically illustrates the public's confusion regarding
"cost-effective" and "least cost" alternatives. Often, the public
erroneously oerceives these terms as being identical. They are
not. '"Jhile "least cost" means bottom line lowest dollar figure,
"cost-effective" includes non-monetary considerations such as
environmental effects, reliability and flexibility, implementation
capability, resource use and energy consumption, and public
acceptance.
Based upon the data which was gathered for this assessment,
public participation has been beneficial to Region v^'s
Construction Grants Program. The degree to which it has benefited
the local oeople, the planners and the co.irnu.iity officials is
directly oroportional to the willingness of the above individuals
to approach the facilities planning process open-mindedly and
to work together for the common good.
iii
-------
METHODOLOGY
The "sample" for this assessment consisted of 138 individuals
(110 local citizens, 10 consulting engineers, 10 local officials,
and 8 state program managers). With the exception of state program
managers, the sample was divided evenly among twelve (12) communities
who were recioients of a U.S. SP?^ Step 1 grant to study problems and
solutions to their wastewater treatment requirements.
U.S. EPVs Construction Grants Program consists of three
distinct stages beginning with Step 1, described above, Step 2, the
design of wastewater treatment facilities, and ending with Step 3
the actual construction of the facilities. Only Step 1 grants require
that a public oarticipation program be implemented.
These twelve communities were selected as representative of Step 1,
facilities planning grants in Region V. Small, rural communities
(pop. 250) and large, metropolitan areas (pop. 134,000) were included.
The majority of the selected communities were a mixture of rural/light
industrial and had a population of approximately 3,500 people. More
than half of Region V's Step 1 grants are awarded to similar communities.
Each of the six states which comprise Region tf assisted in the
develooment of the criteria which were applied against the twelve
communities. The criteria were designed to identify, both quantita-
tively and qualitatively, specific public participation activities which
were successful or unsuccessful and the reason why.
To insure that data on each community's public participation program
was collected uniformly, a standardized format (site report) was devised
based uoon the criteria previously developed. State public participation
coordinators in Region V's delegated states (Wisconsin, Illinois, 'Michigan
and Minnesota) utilized this site report format during the data collection
phase of the assessment. Data was collected via personal interviews or
teleohone contact with consulting engineers, community officials and
local citizens in the twelve communities.
The comoleted site reports were forwarded to the Region V Water
Division Public Participation Coordinator who prepared the draft assess-
ment. Each state oublic oarticipation coordinator reviewed the draft
and offered additional comments upon it and the recommendations contained
there-in.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE l
SUMMARY ii
METHODOLOGY iv
INTRODUCTION 1
1. OUTREACH 2
2. INTERACTION 5
3. FOLLOW-UP 7
4. IMPACT ON DECISIONS 8
RECOMMENDATIONS 9
APPENDIX 11
-------
INTRODUCTION
On February 16, 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
published final regulations governing public participation in
the Construction Grants Program under the Clean Water Act. It
was intended that these regulations would lead to better deci-
sions, more satisfactory opportunities for citizens to encourage
economy in government, and greater public confidence in govern-
ment because decisions would be made with participation oy
interested citizens. The regulations were also intended to
encourage better relations among units of goverament which often
find themselves in a dual role of participating in programs of
other agencies as well as administering participation programs
of their own.
To what extent have the public participation regulations
affected the facility planning process?
To answer this question, the Water Division, U.S. EPA
Region V, initiated an assessment of public participation in the
Construction Grants program. The assessment focused on four
major areas of public participation:
o outreach (to include completing federal requirements);
o interaction;
o follow-up; and,
o impact on decisions.
Region V, in conjunction with Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and
Michigan, developed criteria to measure effectiveness in each of
the above areas.
Region V phased-in the new public participation regulations
over a six month period. This gradual changeover provided all involved
parties with the opportunity to develop specific guidelines regarding
the orogram. The initial confusion as to what specifically was
required of the grantee has been resolved. Some grants comprising
this samole were awarded during the phasing-in period while others
were awarded well after the regulations were in full effect in
Region V. This explains wide variances found in the public participation
workolans and budgets.
Preliminary data from this assessment were reviewed by a panel
composed of Region V's Public Participation Cooidinator, Water
Division, and state Public Participation Coordinators lesponsible
for monitoring the Construction Giants program within their State.
-------
1. OUTREACH
"The public participation workplan represented a very sincere effort- to not only
meet the regulations but to do what community officials felt was best for their
community."
-State Program Manager
"The (public participation) workplans... appeared to be more of a 'square-filling'
process than a sincere effort. "
-State Program Manager
Three specific areas were considered in assessing public participa-
tion outreach activities. These areas were:
a) the generation of comprehensive mailing lists;
b) the timeliness and quality of workplans and fact sheets; and,
c) overall costs associated with the public participation
orogram.
Mailing Lists; As might be expected, the size (number of addresses)
of the mailing lists prepared by the grantees/consultants differed
significantly. However, Region V expected that an average percentage of
affected individuals living in the study area would exist on each
mailing list. This was not the case.
Four of the twelve mailing lists reportedly contained 100% of the
homes or businesses located in the planning area. These four communities
had populations of 3,000, 2,400, 1,800 and 250. Assuming three indivi-
duals to a family, each mailing consisted of approximately 1,000, 800,
600 and 80 addresses. These mailing lists were developed by utilizing
orooerty tax rolls, water/sewer bills if applicable and, in one instance,
by listing all the names in the phone book.
The second largest percentage of population on a mailing list was
1.6 percent. ^11 others were less than one percent. Several examples are:
t on List Area Population %_
20 3,240 .6
53 14,300 .4
20 4,700 .4
14 3,600 .3
26 134,000 .02
These lists were develooed in various ways. In some instances,
the City Clerk and/or Chamber of Commerce drew up a list of potentially
"interested" grouos. For the last example above (0.02%), the consultant
-------
chose the names of environmental groups while the city supplied
the names of sanitary district officials and town officials.
Less than 25% of the samples utilized local Water Quality Management
Planning Agency (203 Agency) mailing lists primarily because they "didn't
know it existed." Public interest groups were reportedly represented
on 60% of the mailing lists.
Workplans and Fact Sheets:
Main interests in this area were on the timeliness of public partici-
oation workplans; if the workplans were followed; and recurrent discrepancies
in the workplans and fact sheets.
Sixty oercent (60%) of the public participation workplans in the sample
were not submitted within 45-days after grant acceptance as called for in tne
regulations. On the average, these workplans were submitted 90 days late.
This combination of the "grace" period plus another 90 days meant that 4 1/2
months oassed from the date the grant was accepted to the date a public
participation workolan was received. Usually, no public participation
activities took place until an approved workolan was generated. These
aporoved workplans were executed in over 80% of the sample.
•Generally, the public considered news releases and fact sheets very
well prepared and informative, although in some areas, particularly in the
identification of local contacts and estimated cost for each alternative,
they were inadequate.
Usual discrepencies found in the workplans were:
1. inadequate schedule of public meetings and
responsiveness summaries;
2. selection/approval of advisory group members; and,
3. budget not broken down by task.
Budgets To date, no specific guidelines have been issued pertaining
to "appropriate"' expenditures for public participation in Step I grants.
Several U.S. EP\ regions have settled upon 10-15% as adequate for effective
oublic oarticioation. However, there are instances of exorbitant budgets
(25-50%) in each region. The majority of public participation budgets in
Region V are composed of 8-12% of the Step I grant.
Listed on the following page are approximate populations, amounts and
percentages of grant funds for public participation in light of the samples
used for this assessment:
-------
Population PP Budget % of Step I
10,000 $19,000 22%
3,200 $ 5,000 18%
4,700 $11,600 14%
14,000 $10,000 9%*
2,400 $ 3,400 8%
3,600 $ 3,000 7%*
1,800 $ 1,700 5%
134,000 $ 6,000 4%
173,700 ($64,700) 10.2%
* identified by the State as low, and not indicative of average budget
submitted.
-------
2. INTERACTION
"The grantee felt that there wasn't two-way dialogue3 rather the consultant just
gave out information."
-State Program Manager
"The consultant placed newspaper articles and sent flayers to the mailing list
(.02% of the study area) and the advisory group... additional interaction was
not encouraged. "
-State Program Manager
Public education and involvement along with the public's view of the
results of the interaction process and the formation/utilization/effectiveness
of citizen advisory groups form the basis of this section.
Public Education and Involvement:
Public meetings/hearings were the primary vehicles for educating and
involving the public. Ninety percent of the sample have held at least
two oublic meetings to date. Convenience (time and place) is a necessary
item for effective meetings or hearings. Most of these meetings (70%)
considered by the attendees as convenient were conducted in the early
evening (aoproximately 7:30 P.M.) at the village/town hall or local school
facility. Reasons why local citizens (20%) labeled meetings as inconvenient
were distance of the facility from affected outlying areas and too small
a facility.
^n effective public meeting/hearing necessitates adequately notifying
the intended audience. The notification requirements of 40 CFR 35 were met by
each grantee in this assessment. Public turnout at a meeting/hearing is, in
itself, not a valid indicator of public involvement. While there is a myriad
of reasons why an individual may not become involved, the choice to do so
must be afforded him/her.
?V full 80% of the sample went beyond the minimal notification requirements
of 30 days orior to a public meeting. Radio talk shows, local news articles,
posters in high traffic areas and flyers mailed in conjunction with water
bills were some of the additional actions taken by grantees to inform affected
individuals about oarticipatory opportunities. For every instance of additional
notification efforts, the affected public was satisfied with tl • jo1 Jone.
The community identified earlier as having .02% (26 of over 130,OUC . .uividuals)
of the affected population on the mailing list sent a notice of eaen mooting
to those 26 individuals, but this procedure, according to one State program
manager was "not effective since it didn't attract environmental groups,
economic interest groups or the affected public." Of the approximately 15
individuals rando.nly querried in the community, none recalled seeing any
advertisements of the public meetings.
-------
Slide briefings were utilized extensively to present alternatives at
public meetings/hearings. Fact sheets and news articles were also identified
as major components of the public information/participation program.
Other mechanisms employed were presentations to civic groups,
questionaires, and tours of "proolem areas." Workshops, as an involvement
technique, were limited to 20% of the sample.
Local 208 Agencies, utilized by 50% of the grantees, , assisted in
such areas as land use, delineating service areas and reviewing the
draft facilities plan.
Interaction Results; Public opinion on the results of the interaction
process differed significantly among the communities involved in the
assessment. Vi equal percentage (30%) of the overall sample (general public
and consultants) identified interaction as either very good or very poor.
The remaining 40% were not far enough along in the facilities planning
process to allow a determination to be made concerning the interaction
activities. Interaction seemed more easily achievable in the smaller
communities but was by no means guaranteed there.
In one community of approximately 14,700 people, the interaction process
identified several additional problem areas for study and broadened the views of
citizens who had thought only sewers would alleviate their wastewater problem.
While maintaining good dialogue is an integral part of the interaction
orocess, 30% of the general public in the sample indicated that the flow of
information was strictly one-way and that any feedback was discouraged
or ignored by the grantees/consultants. .Another grantee described the
citizen advisory committee as a tremendous asset for interaction activity.
Advisory Grouos. Advisory groups were utilized in 30% of the Step 1
grants which Tiake up this assessment. The mayor or city manager selected
the membership after soliciting representatives of local governments and
specific interest groups. Media outlets such as newspapers and radio
were utilized by only one grantee to inform citizens about the opportunity
to oarticipate on an advisory group. Membership was "closed1' on some
advisory groups in the sense that the city/consultant hand-picked members
to the grouo. Whenever an advisory group is established, the membership
must be aooroved bv either the State or EP\ program manager. He/she is
required to validate that the membership meets the guidelines of 40 CFR 25.
This validation was not accomolished for any advisory group in the sample.
With one exception, the advisory groups received a minimum of one formal
training session conducted by either the consultant, or tne State.
Two of the three advisory groups in the sample felt they were exerting
a positive influence on the project, -\ctions by these advisory groups included
such things as hiring an outside consultant to verify costs projected by the
Step I olanners, evaluating and then proposing specific sites for facilities,
performing an independent growth analysis, and interfacing with tne community
to encourage additional involvement.
-------
3. FOLLOW-UP
"...the consultant explained their role, but didn't give the public a chance
to get involved. "
-Citizen
"The public had the opportunity to participate, but few actually
did. "
-Consulting Engineer
The oortion of the site report focusing on follow-up activities
attempted to ascertain the soirit in which the prior activities of outreach
and interaction were conducted by grantees, consultants and the general
public. Much of the material contained in this section of the site
reports reflects the public's impact on decision and is discussed in
the next section.
Responsiveness Summaries and additional public meetings were the
primary methods of following-up on citizen comments. However, the degree
of effort out into these activities by all concerned differed significantly.
Two individuals speaking about the "Question & Answer" portion of the
public meeting they attended had very different views. One felt that
the consultant was trying to take public concerns into account, within
reason, while the other believed that the consultant "acted kind of
disgusted" with the entire process.
It is orobably safe to assume that a great deal of individual bias
is involved in assessing effectiveness in this area. Those individuals
approaching this orocess open-mindedly can make a much better value
judgment than those suooorting a specific solution. If an individual's
preconceived solution matches the consultant's solution then the consultant
has "utilised oublic inout." If the solutions differ, then the consultant
"is ignoring oublic inout." It is imoossible to determine objectivity
of the individuals whose comments appear in the site reports.
Less than 10% of the grantees indicated that public participation
activities would continue after the comoletion of Step 1 planning activity.
The main reasons given for contining these activities were the inconvience
of extensive construction activities within the community and the necessity
of obtaining easements from all property owners.
-------
4. IMPACT ON DECISIONS
"The public feels that the process (public participation) has been effective with
respect to treatment plant site location. Cost reductions have been realized by
not performing engineering studies and cost-effectiveness evaluations for several
sites which would not be socially acceptable."
-Grantee
"It is the opinion of the City Administrator and the consultant that the
facilities planning regulations inhibit the public's role in the decision-
making process to such a degree that the public can only react to requirements
of the program."
-State Program Manager
This portion of the assessment was designed to demonstrate specific
decisions influenced wholly, or in part by public input generated through
the public participation program. It is the "bottom line" of the entire
process. As previously mentioned, individual objectivity is necessary to
provide an accurate analysis of whatever impact has been identified.
This section of the individual site reports contained several apparent
contradictions. For instance, one site report indicated that the public
had no effect on the decision-making process. That same site report
later stated public input resulted in a $500,000 savings by rerouting
proposed sewer lines.
Most public impact on decisions was reflected in locating sites for
orooosed treatment facilities. Approximately 70% of the site reports
indicated that the oublic, to some degree, had a direct influence on the
facilities olan primarily in this area. Sites identified by local
citizens as totally unacceptable were eliminated from any further
consideration thus allowing additional time and resources for evaluating
implementable alternatives. In several instances, additional alternatives
for consideration were identified through public input.
While the majority of grantees and consultants felt that the people
exerted some real influence on the facilities plan, that feeling was
not shared by the oeoole in 30% of the sample. An additional 10%
(grantees/consultants) of the sample listed the non-controversial nature
of the planning or public apathy as reasons for the lack of public input.
One grantee questioned the entire public participation process. Since
the law allows only the most cost-effective alternative to be funded,
the grantee did not see how public participation could affect the process.
This belief was not reflected elsewhere in the sample. The grantees
realized that when the facilities plan was finalized, it has to be
implementable in the community and that public input during the
planning process would make this possible.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based primarily upon data contained in this assessment and
also upon personal experiences, public participation coordinators
in Region V have identified several program areas where improvement
is warranted. These are:
Mailing Lists
People residing in a project area have the right to be informed
about the effect of the project upon theTi and their neighborhood.
There is no guarantee that information sent to "representatives of
grass roots organizations" is passed on to organization meters in
a timely or factual manner. Additionally, people and organizations
placed unasked on a -nailing list may discard information mailed
to them. In either case, money is wasted.
Some form of overt action on the part of the individual/organi-
zation should be required when compiling a mailing list, thus
insuring only truely interested parties are receiving project
information. The are two simple methods of doing this:
a. Communities of less than 3,500 population. There would be
approximately 1,000 addresses in this size community. Utilizing
property records or voter registrations already availaole to local
officials (or sewer/water bills if applicable) will identify 90%
of these addresses. A. fact sheet briefly outlining the project
should initially be sent to everyone on the list. One portion
of this fact sheet should contain a clip-out to be returned to
the grantee/consultant if that individual wished to receive any
further mailings about the project. This practice allows the vast
majority of individuals in the planning area the opportunity of
personally deciding whether or not they wished to receive project-
related information. The project mailing list is then composed of
only those individuals who responded to the initial fact sheet.
b. Communities over 3,500 population. The method used here
is similar to the one described above exceot that the fact sheet
(and clip-out oortion) can appear as a large display ad (1/4 to
1/2 page) in the local newspaper. Individual readers return the
clip-out if they wish future project information. This procedure
has been used successfully in establishing mailing lists for
environmental imoact statements.
The success of both of the above methods depends to a great
deal uoon a well conceived and well designed mailer/display ad
intended first, to get the reader's attention and second, to
motivate hLVher to become involved in the facilities planning
-------
APPENDIX
Consultants
Grantees
Local Citizens
State Staffs
Assessment Sample
(N = 138)
7%
7%
80%
6%
100%
10
10
110
8
138
11
------- |