xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Program Operations (WH-547)
Washington DC 20460
EPA-430/9-79-005
February 1979
Municipal Wastewater
Management
Public Involvement
Activities Guide
FRD-7
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT:
Public Involvement Activities Guide
Edited by
Clem L. Rastatter
The Conservation Foundation
Washington, B.C.
Project Officers
John Hammond
Larry McBennett
January 1979
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Facility Requirements Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
The research for this book was financed with federal
funds from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Grant No. T-900-7050. This report has been
reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
The Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
William K. Reilly, President
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part I of this book is adapted from manuscript prepared
by: John S. Banta, Barbara Reid Alexander, Robert T. Dennis,
Elizabeth Haskell, and Marissa T. Roche. Portions of
Part II of this book were adapted from original manuscript
by Char White.
Many thanks to Stuart A. Rohrer for his editing assistance.
iii
-------
FOREWORD
This handbook was prepared by The Conservation
Foundation for use in a training program to acquaint
citizen leaders with the important decisions that are
made in planning for the management of municipal waste-
water. The training program was designed to:
• identify the key decisions throughout the planning
process that are critical to the outcome of that
process and to the future of the community;
• identify and analyze the environmental, economic,
and social considerations that affect these impor-
tant decisions;
• facilitate citizen input to those decisions by
stripping the process of technical jargon, and
helping the reader understand the community
judgments that must be made; and
• help citizens understand the legal tools and
participatory techniques that will facilitate
their involvement in the planning process.
The Environmental Protection Agency and The Conser-
vation Foundation initiated this training program in the
belief that the impacts of constructing a community sewage
treatment facility may have profound long-term environmental,
economic, and social consequences. We felt that community
involvement in planning for sewage treatment facilities
would result in cleaner water at lower ultimate cost.
Only careful public scrutiny can ensure:
• that sewage treatment planning meets the present
and future needs of the community;
• that all the relevant environmental, economic, and
political data necessary to ensure effective implemen-
tation emerge;
• that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate
negative impacts; and
• that a community develops a commitment to continued
oversight of the operation and maintenance of the
facility.
The book that follows is divided into two parts.
The first part—the Facilities Planning Process—is essen-
tially a summary of a larger and more detailed handbook
-------
entitled Municipal Wastewater Management: Citizens Guide
to Facilities Planning. The summary of the""handbook has
been included in the Public Involvement Activities Guide
as a "short-course" to the facilities planning process.
As you get more deeply involved in planning for a municipal
wastewater treatment facility, you may wish to obtain a
copy of the more detailed handbook. You may order a copy
from:
General Services Administration
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
The second part of this book is designed to provide
guidance to the public involvement opportunities of the
facilities planning process. In addition to describing
the regulatory and legal framework for public participation,
the second part of the book describes some of the basic
tools of public participation.
The two parts of this book—taken together—are
designed to assist your involvement in the facilities
planning process by highlighting key decision points
appropriate for citizen focus as well as appropriate
techniques for affecting those decisions. We hope that
local governments and citizen leaders in communities
beginning the process of municipal sewage treatment
planning will be able to use this book to assist them
in designing an approrpiate public participation program
for their community.
Clem L. Rastatter
Project Director
The Conservation Foundation
January 1979
vi
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FORWARD V
PART I: FACILITIES PLANNING 5
I. THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS:
AN OVERVIEW 5
Federal Goals and Strategies 5
Goals of the Municipal Facilities Program . . 8
Other Planning Programs of the Clean
Water Act 9
Other Federal Laws and Regulations 11
II. SEWAGE TREATMENT IN A COMMUNITY CONTEXT .... 11
A Sample Planning Case 12
Direct and Secondary Impacts 15
Long-Term Responsibilities 16
III. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF SEWAGE TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT 16
What are the federal responsibilities in
the Construction Grants Program? Who are
the federal actors 16
What are the state responsibilities in
the Construction Grants Program? Who
are the state actors? 17
What is the local role in the facility
planning process? Who are the local
actors? 18
How does Section 208 planning relate to the
ongoing facility planning process? 19
How is the sewage treatment program meeting
congressional goals and objectives for it? . 19
IV. BACKGROUND TO FACILITIES PLANNING 20
What federal policies implement the
Construction Grants Program? 21
What are the earliest opportunities to
influence the direction of the Step 1 Plan? . 25
-------
Page
V. THE FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS 28
What are themajor steps of the facilities
planning process? 28
What are the important issues for public
involvement in assessing the current
situation? 28
What are the important issues for public
involvement in assessing the future
situation? 31
What geographic area will the facility serve? . 32
Small-Scale Service Area Options 33
What range of alternatives might be evaluated
during the facilities planning process? .... 34
Evaluating Monetary Costs of Alternatives ... 35
Evaluating Nonmonetary Considerations 37
Financing the Selected Alternatives 38
VII. MITIGATING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACTS OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 39
How are the appropriate mitigation measures
chosen? 40
What is the role of EPA? 42
PART II: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN FACILITIES PLANNING . . 45
What are the broad requirements for public
involvement under the Clean Water Act? .... 45
What's in it for you? Why get involved? ... 45
Which major federal regulations give you
access to the facilities planning process? . . 47
How will public participation Regulations be
enforced? Who will enforce them? 56
How will these regulations affect what
happens in your community? 57
How should a public participation program be
developed? What will be its major components? 58
What are the public participation tools? ... 62
-------
Page
Education/Information Mechanisms 63
Reactive/Interactive/Dialogue Mechanisms . 68
Training Mechanisms 75
What problems might be encountered in the
implementation of public participation
requirements? 81
What are the rewards of public involvement
in the facilities planning process? 84
REFERENCES 86
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Federal Regulations 87
APPENDIX B 91
Table 2
FACILITY PLANNING
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANNING.
GUIDE
Tables 3-8
MODEL PLAN OF STUDY OUTLINES
MODEL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WORKPLANS
APPENDIX C - Glossary 117
-------
PART I
FACILITIES PLANNING
I. THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS: AN OVERVIEW
Controlling water pollution in this country's 78,267
square miles of lakes, rivers and streams is an enormous under-
taking; meeting community wastewater treatment needs is a major
part of that job. There are now 12,800 treatment plants operating
in the United States, and another 6,200 under construction or
planned. Over half of them fail to meet water quality standards.
Solving this problem involves an immense planning job, huge outlays
of money, coordination between federal, state and local governments
and the active participation of concerned citizens.
For individual communities, planning for proper municipal
waste treatment means making decisions that will affect the face
and shape of the area for years to come. Public participation is
therefore essential to preserve a community's values and goals.
Yet the decisions made in planning are complex, complicated by
technical jargon, and often difficult for concerned citizens to
understand. This manual provides a citizen's guide to the process
of planning for municipal wastewater management.
Federal Goals and Strategies
The current federal effort to clean up the nation's waters
began in 1972 when Congress, by passing the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments, took the unprecedented step of deciding that
the nation's water could no longer be an integral part of waste
treatment. The Senate noted: "Pollution continues because of tech-
nological limits, not because of any inherent right to use the
nation's waterways for the purpose of disposing of waste."
Five years later, after sometimes controversial experience,
the law was modified by the 1977 Clean Water Act. The two laws
are collectively known as the Clean Water Act; the Act's ultimate
goal is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into any surface
waters by 1985. More immediately, by July, 1983, it seeks to
achieve where possible "fishable and swimmable waters," ". . .an
interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, wildlife and shellfish and provides for recre-
ation in and on the water."
The Congress also recognized the enormous expense of cleaning
up the nation's waters. The Act attempts to balance water quality
goals against the cost of achieving them.
Along with these new water quality goals came fundamental
changes in strategies for controlling or eliminating pollution.
The 1972 Act set as its primary goal the protection of aquatic
-------
ecosystems. As a central strategy, it established a new set
of standards (called effluent limitations) to control pollution
at its source—either point sources (direct discharges from pipes)
or nonpoint sources (the more diffuse discharges such as runoff
from agriculture or construction). This source control strategy
is designed not only to be enforceable but also to impose more
equitable and uniform requirements on similar polluters located in
different places. A paper mill on a comparatively clean river
must control its pollution to the same degree as a mill on a
dirty river, for example. Thus, the clean river will be pre-
served and the dirty one cleaned up. This strategy also elim-
nates the incentive for polluters to locate their plants in
areas with weak regulations.
Each state's particular standards play a significant,
though secondary, role. Standards based on use (swimming,
drinking, industrial use) have been established for all surface
water; when the uniform national source controls fail to meet these
standards, more stringent controls based on water quality standards
are to be imposed on a case-by-case basis.
The 1972 legislation also brought about a major institu-
tional change—a significant boost in federal authority, exercised
by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In general:
• state water quality agencies establish all surface
water quality standards, subject to EPA approval;
• EPA establishes uniform national source controls for
both industrial and municipal dischargers; and
• EPA regulations interpret the federal law and the
federal/state relationship in implementing the law.
The 1977 Clean Water Act builds on the basic strategy of
source control, but gives a new priority to state water quality
standards. It also grants a number of variances from previously
specified tight deadlines.
The Act sets effluent limitation requirements—and deadlines
for reaching them—for industrial and municipal point source dis-
charges. Communities with publicly-owned sewage treatment works
(POTW) were directed to achieve a level of wastewater treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment (see Glossary) by July 1, 1977
(unless they were subject to certain delays beyond their control,
such as lack of availability of federal funds). They must achieve
a level of treatment called Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Technology (BPWTT) by July 1, 1983. (EPA defines BPWTT as the
equivalent of secondary treatment or whatever more stringent
treatment level might be necessary to meet water quality standards.)
-------
Enforcement
The Clean Water Act requirements are backed up by
significant financial and legal penalties, and are enforced on
industrial and municipal dischargers through permits issued under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The
NPDES permits set the effluent limit for point source discharge
by individual dischargers. These permits are issued and enforced
by either an EPA Regional Office or by a state water quality
agency (if EPA delegates authority to that state).
Federal Assistance to Communities
When it imposed these requirements and potential penalties,
the Congress recognized the financial problems that municipal
dischargers would have in meeting them. To provide incentives,
therefore, the Clean Water Act offers federal money to cover 75
percent of the cost of constructing publicly-owned sewage treatment
works.
(In fact, Congress clearly tied the regulatory requirements
to the availability of these funds. Communities that have not met
the 1977 deadline for secondary treatment of municipal discharges
may receive a variance—until 1983—if one reason for noncompliance
is a lack of federal money.)
Taken together, the two major sections of the current water
quality laws that concern municipal wastewater are frequently called
the municipal facilities program. The first of these is the NPDES
permit system; the second is the federal Construction Grants Program
for treatment works. This program awards federal grants in three
steps:
Step 1 - the facilities planning phase, when most major
decisions leading toward construction of
publicly-owned treatment works are made;
Step 2 - the design and specifications for the facility; and
Step 3 - actual construction.
Plans completed under a Step 1 grant are also called Facilities
Plans or 201 Plans (taking their name from the section of the Clean
Water Act that establishes the conditions for planning municipal
waste treatment facilities).
EPA recognizes that because of the huge federal outlays
involved, the municipal facilities program runs inherent public
policy risks similar to those encountered in the construction of
highways:
• that large amounts of available federal money would reduce
incentives for cost-effectiveness;
-------
• that the presence of federal money would discourage
local initiative and local spending;
• that inflated cost figures and fraud would siphon off
significant parts of the available funds; and
• that environmental impacts brought about by this
public works project—especially those relating to the
location of the facility—would in many cases create
worse problems than those the project was designed to
solve.
EPA therefore imposes strict conditions on grant awards,
ranging from requirements for cost-effectiveness and community
financing to requirements that alternative waste treatment methods
be fully evaluated and that environmental impacts receive substan-
tial public scrutiny.
Public Participation
Planning requirements for the Construction Grants Program
include broad-based procedures for public participation. These
are described in Section 101(e) of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments:
Public participation in the development, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent
limitation, plan, or program established by the EPA
Administrator or any State under this Act shall be
provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Adminis-
trator and the States. The Administrator, in cooperation
with the States, shall develop and publish regulations
specifying minimum guidelines for public participation
in such processes.
Community planners should be particularly aware that planning
decisions made in the course of constructing a waste treatment sys-
tem can have long-lasting social, economic and political repercussions
on each community. Public participation is crucial.
Goals of the Municipal Facilities Program
The goals of the municipal facilities program are found in
Section 201 of Title II of the Clean Water Act. To meet the condi-
tions for federal funding, waste treatment must:
1. provide for evaluation of alternatives in order to apply
the "best practicable waste treatment technology" (BPWTT)
before any discharge into receiving waters, including the
options of reclaiming and recycling of water, confining
disposal of pollutants so they will not migrate to cause
water or other environmental pollution, and considering
advanced waste treatment techniques.
-------
2. be pursued on an areawide basis as far as possible, and
must provide for the control of all point and nonpoint
sources of pollution;
3. encourage revenue-producing facilities that rely on
recycling wastewater, confinement and containment of
pollutants not recycled, and disposal of sludge in an
environmentally acceptable way;
4. encourage the combination of open space and recreational
uses with waste treatment goals;
5. encourage techniques to reduce energy requirements;
6. After September 1978, planners for all projects are required
to evaluate "innovative and alternative" waste treatment
management techniques; and to analyze potential recreation
and open space opportunities.
Other Planning Programs of the Clean Water Act
Ideally, the planning requirements of the Clean Water Act
should provide a framework for decision making under the entire
Act. These requirements, spelled out in Sections 106, 201, 208
and 303 of the Act, are intended to bring the following results:
1. achieving the 1983 water quality goal of fishable and
swimmable waters;
2. determining the information from which NPDES permits can
be issued to impose discharge standards stricter than
the uniform national effluent standards where necessary
to meet a state's water quality standards;
3. a management plan to control pollution from all point and
nonpoint sources; and
4. a process to ensure that federal construction grants are
spent to build the most cost-effective treatment works.
Planning under Section 208 is conducted on an area-wide
basis within states in regions designated by the governor, or,
in nondesignated areas, on a statewide bases. These plans must
address all 'point and nonpoint sources of pollution within the
areas in order to achieve fishable and swimmable water by 1983.
Planners are empowered to control pollution by limits on dis-
charge, by regulating the location of potential pollution-causing
activities, or by a combination of both methods.
One unusual aspect of 208 planning is that it must iden-
tify the measures needed to carry out the final plan and must
recommend appropriate state, regional or local agencies to carry
them out. This implementation strategy is a crucial element;
many past efforts have failed for lack of one. The 208 plan
-------
also is designed to be at least partially self-implementing:
no permits or construction grants are to be issued unless they
are consistent with it.
303(e) planning, conducted solely by the state (unless
subcontracted to a local agency), concentrates on the water quality
of entire river basins. It determines what discharges will be
allowed along particular rivers, streams and lakes. Bodies of
water classified either as effluent-limited (where uniform national
discharge limits are enough to meet state water quality standards)
or water-quality limited (where stricter limits are needed to
meet state standards). The resulting discharge limits are
written into the NPDES permits for dischargers along river
basins and must be incorporated in local planning. These river
basin plans must also decide how to prevent water of high
quality from being degraded, how water quality standards can be
revised and which stream segments should receive priority
attention.
The planning required under Sections 208 and 303(e) are
intended to work together to bring about a water quality manage-
ment plan in each state. These plans should then form the
framework for the individual Facilities Plans.
Strategies for Better Implementation
Unfortunately, these various planning requirements have
been controversial, generating conflict between Congress and EPA
and causing confusion and lack of coordination in state water
quality agencies. Proposed new water quality management regula-
tions published in the Federal Register on September 12, 1978,
attack this problem and herald a new era in water quality
management planning.
Under these regulations, a formal State/EPA Agreement
designed to integrate the various planning elements of EPA1s
environmental laws would become the central management tool of
a newly unified Water Quality Management Program. The water
quality management portion of the State/EPA Agreement would
cover many programs for which EPA provides state water quality
agencies with financial assistance—including areawide and
basin planning programs, permit programs and Construction
Grant Management Programs.
The proposed regulations renew emphasis on yearly program
targets and on implementation of Water Quality Management Plans.
Proposed sanctions for lack of implementation include withdrawal
and possible recovery of federal grants.
Details about facilities planning decisions made during
water quality management planning are discussed in other sections
of this handbook. These decisions are:
• priority funding;
10
-------
• effluent limitations;
• boundaries of facilities planning areas; and
• population projections.
Generally, no grants for treatment plants are to be
given unless the plans are consistent with an approved Water
Quality Management Plan.
Other Federal Laws and Regulations
Executive Orders and federal laws other than the Clean
Water Act also play an important role in facility location and
design decisions. These include:
• the Wetland Executive Order
• the Floodplain Executive Order
• the Archeological and Historic Preservation Statutes
• the Endangered Species Act
• the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• the Coastal Zone Management Act
• the Safe Drinking Water Act
• the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• the Rivers and Harbors Act (dredge and fill)
In most but not all cases, the requirements of these acts
and orders must be met during the facility planning process or
the process is vulnerable to legal challenge in the courts.
The Environmental Impact Statement process is the general vehicle
for communicating findings or conclusions about these pro-
visions; in some cases, there are supplementary procedures that
involve other agencies and may provide additional opportunities
for public participation.
II. SEWAGE TREATMENT IN A COMMUNITY CONTEXT
Most existing wastewater treatment facilities or disposal
processes in U. S. communities have failed to meet the standards
of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
The states or EPA have instructed many public authorities to
improve the quality of their existing treatment process or to
build new plants.
11
-------
The key issues to consider as a community plans for new
or replacement wastewater facilities are:
• Disposal of solid waste (sludge) generated by improved
secondary and advanced treatment;
• Appropriateness of facilities to rapidly changing short
and long-term needs in a community;
• The long-term reliability factor—especially the opera-
tion and maintenance needs and costs that the community
must support.
• Location, cost and quantity of new housing available in
a community;
• Conservation of prime agricultural land;
• Minimizing flood hazard risks and protecting wetlands
and other environmentally sensitive lands;
• Protection of community water supplies, particularly from
toxic chemicals and heavy metal contamination; and
• Control and planning of future industrial and commercial
growth for best use of land and to avoid damaging
existing resources.
How a community resolves these issues will depend on the choices
it makes about such questions as facility location, type of
treatment process, plant capacity, service area and water reuse.
These choices depend heavily both on topographic features (slopes,
watershed boundaries and soils) and on political decisions that
control future patterns of community growth, often referred to as
land-use parameters. The following brief example illustrates the
most basic issues.
A Sample Planning Case
Two riverside towns (X and Y) each have existing developed
areas serviced by separate sewage treatment plants. (See illus-
tration.) Located about 15 miles apart, each town is in a sepa-
rate watershed. Local streams are valued for their high water
quality. But Town X, which is upriver from Town Y, has discovered
that the quality of the water in its smaller stream is declining
because of subdivisions in the hills of its watershed. Unfor-
tunately, these subdivisions are actually within the political
jurisdiction of Town Y, which has roughly the same population as
X but is much larger in area.
The state orders construction of a new sewage treatment
facility for these subdivisions, both to serve existing housing
and to permit new housing construciton to proceed. Towns X and
Y must also improve the secondary treatment capacity of their
12
-------
existing plants to obtain state discharge permits.
enforcement action.
EPA threatens
These two communities face a number of choices:
Option 1) Town Y can build additions to its sewage treatment
facility to serve the new subdivisions. (They have to
improve the plant to achieve current secondary treatment
standards anyway.) This will require a force main
(pressurized sewer) to move the sewage from one watershed
to another. It will also require a long and expensive
interceptor (trunk) sewer to run to the remote sub-
divisions, which are actually bedroom suburbs of Town
X. The interceptor will cross farms and environmentally
sensitive lands served by good roads, and demands
for subsequent subdivision and development of these
areas are likely if the sewer line is put in.
Option 2) Town X can provide service to the new subdivisions.
Because the service will remain within a watershed,
gravity mains could provide more inexpensive ser-
vice, and the shorter distance would also reduce the
capital costs for providing the new service. The open
land between Town Y and its remote subdivisions would
not be serviced with sewers, making new development
there unlikely. Political agreement between Town
X and Y would be required.
Option 3) The two communities together could build a new regional
sewage plant that would be served by a gravity interceptor
running along the river. Each of the smaller watersheds
could be served by gravity trunk sewers. If the open
land between Towns X and Y were needed for development
at some time in the future, another trunk could be
added to serve this area. Substantial economies of
scale might be realized. However, construction of
the regional plant might generate subtle pressure
for the development of the open agricultural and environ-
mentally sensitive lands between towns as the two
communities sought formulas to recoup the large initial
capital costs. (One technique communities often use
to recover treatment plant costs that EPA does not
reimburse is to service large areas for new con-
struction and to shift costs to the incoming residents
as rapidly as possible.)
Option 4) Town Y could recommend that a small new on-site system be
built just to serve the subdivisions. This solution, plus
modification of the two existing treatment facilities to
meet secondary treatment standards and to provide for some
new growth in the already built up areas in Towns X and Y,
may in fact solve the immediate pollution problem at the
13
-------
SEWAGE TREATMENT OPTIONS: TOWNS X AND Y
force main
New Trunk
Sewer
ption 1)
Prime Farmland
, NEW
I SUBDIVISIONS
New Trunk
Sewer
(Option 2)
Existin
Treatmen
Plant
Boundary between
Townsr X and Y /
Wetlandsl/Floodplain
New
Regional
Intercepto
(Option 3)
Other Options:
Land treatment;
agricultural reuse.
Retain existing plants
Small plant for new sub-
divisions, perhaps with
innovative technology.
Other combinations of more
limited expansion.
Existing
Treatment Plant
New Regional
Treatment P]
(Option 3)
-------
least cost. Two problems emerge with this strategy/
however. Unless the communities adopt more stringent
land-use policies in the future than they have in the
past, orderly growth near existing communities may not
be possible. New subdivisions creating new pollution
problems may continue to be built at some distance from
the towns as a consequence. If the communities were to
decide in the future that they wanted to expand, they
might have to assume the construction costs for the large
sewage treatment plant necessary to accommodate greater
new growth than planned for, since there is no assurance
that federal funds will be available for such purposes
in the future.
Direct and Secondary Impacts
These kinds of decisions facing communities and the
conflicts that lie behind them are generally evaluated in terms
of the direct (or primary) and secondary impacts associated with
various alternatives. Many direct impacts of facility location
and construction are straightforward and short-term—traffic
disruption, temporary erosion and construction noise, for
example—and can be minimized if the contractor follows accepted
methods (for example, by staggering hours of operation).
Direct impacts may also include:
• Land Use
Wildlife relocation; habitat destruction
Loss of environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands,
floodplains, endangered species habitat, etc.)
Conflicts with adjacent uses
Erosion
Loss of agricultural land
Archeological losses
Growth in population
• Aesthetic
Visual, noise, dust, odor, loss of open land
• Mechanical
Traffic
Disruption of commercial/residential activity
Energy consumption
Employee commuting, housing
• Risks
Adjacent property value changes
Floods
Seismic activity
Safety hazards associated with construction; water pollution
15
-------
Secondary impacts can be more subtle and long-lasting—
impacts arising from changes in community land use and population
growth due to facility construction and new sewer service. Facility
construction may be the most important or simply one of many causes.
They may include environmental disruption and increased costs of
housing and services.
Some secondary impacts are addressed by specific provisions
in state and federal laws.
Long-Term Responsibilities
When the facility construction is completed, the community
must make sure that its facility,is operated and maintained well
enough to meet design standards and the effluent limitations of
its NPDES permit. Enforcement actions for violations of permit
conditions may bring substantial civil fines and/or criminal
penalties.
Many past systems built primarily with federal funds have
not operated to design capacity. Complex, high technology systems
sometimes were designed for communities with neither the money
nor the know-how to operate them.
The Clean Water Act deals with this problem in two ways.
First, it requires communities to develop a detailed operation
and maintenance plan before construction is complete. Second,
communities must design a system of user charges to pay long-term
operation and maintenance costs.
The community is also responsible for any future expansion.
The completed treatment facility should have a reserve capacity
to handle 20 years of anticipated future expansion. If the popu-
lation projections are accurate, the community will want to start
actively planning expansion after 10 of these 20 years have elapsed.
Federal funds may not be available for any future expansions.
III. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF SEWAGE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT
What are the federal responsibilities in the Construction Grants
Program? Who are the federal actors?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers
the Clean Water Act, plays the preeminent role in the Construction
Grants Program: it writes regulations and guidelines that interpret
the law and awards the grants. SPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
takes primary responsibility for interpreting the law, while EPA's
10 Regional Offices throughout the country have primary authority
to award Step 1, 2 or 3 grants.
EPA publishes three major kinds of documents that direct
and guide EPA personnel, state agencies and local applicants in
16
-------
implementation of the Construction Grants Program.
1) Regulations having the force of law are proposed for public
comment and then issue in final form (generally after a
60-day comment period) in the Federal Register, which is
published daily by the Superintendent of Documents, Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, B.C. ($50 for annual sub-
scription) . EPA regulations also appear under Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), an annual compilation
of all federal regulations in final form.
2) Program Requirements Memoranda (PRM's) interpret significant
issues raised by regulations. They do not have the force of
law, but are generally considered to be more specifically
instructive than are guidelines.
3) Guidelines, giving advice on the general procedures, methods,
and material to implement regulations. They do not have the
force of law.
What are the state responsibilities in the Construction Grants
Program? Who are the state actors?
The state water pollution control agency has a powerful role
in the sewage treatment program. The state agency develops a Prior-
ity List each year that determines which community receives how
much federal money to solve its waste treatment needs. The state
also determines the facilities planning boundaries and establishes
the water quality standards applicable to specific waters. Each
state must approve applications for facilities planning grants
before they can be submitted to EPA, and also reviews and approves
the completed Facilities Plan prior to EPA's review. In addition,
the state will have an increasing role in developing population
projections for individual facilities planning areas.
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 call for a further
increase in state involvement in the Construction Grants Program
through the provision of Construction Management Assistance Grants
(CMAG). These grants, which come out of the construction grants
funds allotted to each state, allow the state to assume responsi-
bility for certification that all federal requirements are met
prior to the actual grant award.
Most states currently have some sort of delegation agreement
with EPA that allows them to certify that ongoing construction
is proceeding properly and that the Operations and Maintenance
Manual prepared for each facility has been properly done. Many
states are anxious to assume responsibility for the entire program.
Some functions remain with EPA arfd cannot be delegated
to the states: determination of the necessity for and preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement and the actual award of funds
for any Step 1, 2, or 3 grant.
17
-------
Once the delegation agreement is completed, the Construc-
tion Management Assistance Grant (CMAG) may be awarded. Both the
completed agreement and the CMAG may be amended and extended at
any time.
Public Involvement
Newly issued EPA regulations require public involvement
during the negotiation of delegation agreements and any substan-
tial amendments to them. Actual copies of draft delegation agree-
ments (and substantial amendments) and fact sheets are to be dis-
tributed 45 days before approval, and if there is significant
public controversy a hearing must be held. The public is spe-
cifically asked to consider whether the state program is ade-
quate to handle the proposed delegations.
Members of the public should be particularly alert to the
provisions made in any delegation agreement for assuring compli-
ance with the public participation requirements of the Clean Water
Act. Once a delegation has been made, it will be politically
difficult for EPA to retract it.
What is the local role in the facility planning process?
Who are the local actors?
The local recipient of a Step 1 grant is responsible for
preparing the Facilities Plan and for making the important deci-
sions concerning the community's future required by the Act.
The official grant applicant may be the town officials
(selectman, mayor, town council) or the trustees or commissioners
of a special sewer or sanitary district established for this pro-
gram. Because local officials tend to be inexperienced in sewage
treatment questions, they usually hire an engineering consultant
for actual preparation of the Facilities Plan. In many instances,
important political decisions are delegated to the engineer.
Although often buried in technical jargon, the issues raised by
the facilities planning process affect the future and shape of
communities. Unraveling the value-laden political judgments from
the mass of technical materials is an important role for citizen
participants in the facilities planning process.
Concerned members of the public should become involved as
early as possible in facilities planning. In the past, public
participation often has come late in the process, in response to
a controversial plan recommendation. Massive controversies then
ensue, often requiring years of negotiation, new plans and wasted
expenditures of public funds. Development of a public participa-
tion program as part of the grant application for the planning
funds may save a good deal of time and, ultimately, money.
18
-------
How does Section 208 planning relate to the on-going facility
planning process?
Congress intended Section 208 to be the keystone of clean
water planning. It was to bring about integrated areawide and
statewide management plans that would provide the framework for
the more local decisions of the Facilities Plan. Yet historically
the reverse has been the case: the Step 1 facilities planning
effort funded under Section 201 has provided much of the framework
for the broader water quality management planning of Section 208.
Factors associated with 201 planning—local constituencies more
powerful than regional ones, more detailed federal requirements,
more emphasis and funding for Step 1 planning—have combined to
move facilities planning ahead of 208 planning in most localities
and to set many planning decisions in concrete before other options
can be thoroughly evaluated. Serious 208 planning, however,
is now underway in most states; a major problem lies ahead in
trying to coordinate the 201 and 208 planning efforts.
You should be aware of the status of 208 planning in your
area especially if you live in a region that is under the juris-
diction of an areawide agency. If final 208 decisions have been
made and final approval given, your facilities planning may be
constrained in important areas by the approved 208 plan. Such
critical issues as population projections, service areas and re-
commended waste treatment alternatives and locations may have
been already decided. If so, you should examine how these deci-
sions were reached. If you are unhappy about them, you will have
to seek an amendment to the 208 plan, in addition to working through
the facilities planning process.
How is the sewage treatment program meeting congressional goals
and objectives for it?
The Construction Grants Program is the largest public works
program since the federal aid-to-highways program. Over $19 billion
has been obligated by the federal government for the planning and
construction of treatment works since the passage of the Clean
Water Act in 1972. More than 100 grants are awarded every month;
more than 6,000 Step 1 grants have been awarded so far, totalling
over $500 million; and more than 670 Step 3 projects have been
completed. Most of the grant money has been awarded to communities
with populations over 10,000; over one-third of it to cities with
a population greater than 500,000. *
However, two-thirds of the 12,800 treatment plans currently
in operation nationwide do not meet the secondary treatment require-
ments of the Act. More than half of these facilities require treat-
ment stricter than secondary to meet their state water quality stan-
dards.
* These figures are derived from a FACTSHEET issued by the EPA
Construction Grants Program in August 1978.
19
-------
Basic Political Conflicts
Two continuing and related tensions accompany implemen-
tation of the Construction Grants Program at all levels of
government. The first is the continuing tension between
facilities planning—intended to find ecological solutions to
environmental problems—and the construction grants that are
the basis of a huge public works program.
Recognizing possible employment opportunities, and faced
with meeting strict regulatory deadlines, the major institutional
actors—Congress, the states, the sewage treatment industry and
EPA—have put great priority on speeding up the rate of obliga-
tions to the Contruction Grants Program. Observers of the pro-
gram have noted that the political necessity of moving money
quickly has higher priority than ensuring the value of the plan-
ning. Attempts to upgrade quality, if they could cause delays
in the rate of obligations, are discouraged.
The second major tension of the program has involved its
management at the local level.
Since 75 percent of the planning and construction funds
come from the federal government (and perhaps an additional 5-15
percent from state government) local communities have little in-
centive to worry much about facilities planning. The community's
future cost of maintaining and operating the system may at first
seem obscure and remote.
Furthermore, since the recipient of the construction
grant is frequently a group of lay people—county councilmen,
town selectmen—who have no experience with wastewater management,
the job is typically turned over completely to a consulting
engineering firm.
The vast majority of consulting engineers who design
publicly-owned waste treatment works are people of competence
and integrity; however, they are only human. Like everyone else
their competence for a particular project may be affected by
their training, their past experiences and their future interests.
Relevant facilities planning requires the involvement of informed
layment from within the community (both inside and outside of
government) who are sensitive to the present and future needs
of their community.
IV. BACKGROUND TO FACILITIES PLANNING
The basic purpose of the three-step construction grants
process is to assure that facilities built with federal funds
are both environmentally sound and cost-effective. The Step 1
plan provides opportunity for local, state, and federal review of
the planning process at a key point along the road to final con-
20
-------
struction. It also allows mid-course correction, and offers
assurance to both the affected community and the federal
officials responsible for grant disbursement that the facility
being planned will be a sound one.
What federal policies implement the Construction Grants
Program?*
Special Environmental Considerations
As noted earlier, wastewater treatment facilities
are subject to all federal laws relating to protection of
the environment, governing disposal of solid wastes, and
promoting wise land and resources use (the Clean Air Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, etc.).
Floodplains Management and Wetlands Protection
To implement the requirements of a recent Executive
Order on floodplains and wetlands (11988 May 24, 1977), EPA
has established its policy and guidance for protection of
floodplains or wetlands.
If there is no practicable alternative to locating in or
affecting the floodplains or wetlands, EPA must consider oppor-
tunities to minimize adverse impacts on them and to restore and
preserve their natural and beneficial values. Once the agency
has made a decision on the most desirable alternative, it must
notify the public and also produce a statement of finding that
explains its decision.
Significant Agricultural Lands
EPA policy concerning protection of significant agricul-
tural lands requires, among other things, that specific project
decisions involved in the planning, design, and construction of
sewer interceptors and treatment facilities must consider farm-
land protection. If it is necessary to construct sewers on prime
agricultural land, appropriate measures to protect that land for
agricultural purposes are to be taken.
Small-Scale, Innovative and Alternative Systems
Concern over the large number of expensive conventional,
centralized secondary treatment and discharge facilities in the
U.S. led Congress to put new emphasis on nonconventional systems
in the 1977 Clean Water Act. Several provisions of the Act can
be expected to have a significant impact on the type of treat-
ment systems that are funded.
* This discussion is limited to the most important policies.
Other policies (and more detail) are discussed in the
companion volume to this book entitled: Municipal Wastewater
Management; Citizens Guide to Facility Planning.
21
-------
First, after September 30, 1978, no construction grants
may be awarded unless "innovative and alternative" systems
that provide for the "reclaiming and reuse of water, otherwise
eliminate the discharge of pollutants and utilize recycling
techniques, land treatment, new or improved methods of waste
treatment management for municipal and industrial waste . . .
and the confined disposal of pullutants. . ." have been studied.
(See definition below.)
Second, a special reserve fund is to be set aside for
bonus grants to be allotted for construction of innovative and
alternative treatment systems. This bonus raises the federal
share of the approved treatment works from 75 to 85 percent.
Another special provision allows that, when comparing
the life-cycle costs of different treatment systems, a so-called
innovative and alternative system may exceed the costs of a
conventional system by as much as 15 percent and still be eligible
for federal funding.
As additional incentives for innovative and alternative
technologies, states may include them as a criterion for
priority funding. Communities that invest in approved innovative
systems that fail may find that 100 percent of their investment
is protected by federal guarantees if the failure occurs during
the first two years of operation.
EPA guidelines published on September 27, 1978, attempt
to define innovative and alternative technology. Essentially,
alternative technology is a treatment method other than a centralized
conventional treatment and discharge system using biological and
physical/chemical unit processes. Innovative systems are systems
that have not "been fully proven under the circumstances of their
contemplated use and represent a significant advancement over
the state of the art in terms of meeting the national goals. . ."
Criteria that the regional administrator must use in reaching a
determination of innovation include:
• cost of 15 percent less than the most cost-effective other
alternatives;
• reduction by 20 percent of net energy requirements for
alternatives;
• improvements in operational reliability;
• better toxic materials management;
• increased environmental benefits; and
• improved joint municipal industrial management and treatment.
22
-------
The guidelines for the funding of innovative and alternative
systems are flexible. The decision concerning whether a system
is innovative or alternative must be made by the EPA regional
office (or by the state in the case of a delegated program)
on a case-by-case basis.
Special Attention to the Concerns of Small Communities
During the 1977 debates over the Clean Water Act,
Congress paid particular attention to the problems of small
communities in meeting goals for municipal facilities. Communities
with populations under 25,000 and a planned facility costing
less than $2 million ($3 million in states with unusually high
construction costs) may submit a combined application for Step
2 and 3 in order to speed up construction, cut administrative
costs and reduce the inflation of construction costs caused
by delays. In addition, EPA is authorized to provide direct
technical assistance to small communities with qualified
innovative and alternative systems.
Individual Systems
For the first time, individual systems such as septic
fields are eligible for federal grants under certain conditions.
These small systems are considered alternative to conven-
tional treatment under the definition of "innovative and alter-
native." EPA has ruled that these individual systems are eligible
for a bonus grant from the innovative and alternative "set-aside"
as well as for the 75 percent federal funding available through a
special reserve set aside for alternative systems for small com-
munities. Since states with populations that are 25 percent or
more rural must set aside 4 percent of their annual alternative
systems allotment for small communities, that alone should provide
some special incentives for funding individual systems. Individual
systems are not eligible for the 15 percent cost preference in
the cost-effectiveness analysis.
What Costs are Eligible for Federal Funds?
The entire facilities planning process and subsequent parts
of Step 2 are directed toward answering this complex question. As
a general rule, the 75 percent federal share can pay for all
reasonable Step 1 costs—engineering data, analysis of alternatives,
environmental assessment, public participation activities and
recreational planning—of a facility that is appropriately eligible
on the state Priority List. These costs are outlined and approved
in a proposal called a Plan of Study submitted to the state water
pollution control agency and EPA before the grant award.
The budget for Step 1 planning is negotiated on a case-by-
case basis before the grant is awarded.
23
-------
Each state is required to reserve 5 percent of its annual
allocation for possible increases to ongoing grants, which may
be awarded while Step 1 planning is underway. The vehicle used
for this increase is a grant amendment that is first submitted
and approved by the state agency and then sent to the EPA
Regional Office.
Funding eligibility for Step 2 (the design phase) and Step
3 (actual construction) is largely determined by the outcome of
Step 1. Federal funds will pay for design and construction of
the least expensive treatment alternative that meets required
effluent limitations without overriding environmental and social
impacts. A number of quite specific requirements (described in
Section V) establish the parameters of the so-called cost-
effectiveness analysis, which results in the selection of a
preferred alternative, its technology, its size and its service
area.
The federal government will not pay for: (1) a facility
that is larger than necessary for anticipated present and future
wastewater flows, as determined by established procedures; (2) a
facility designed solely to meet community expansion needs rather
than existing water quality needs; and (3) ongoing administrative
activities of local government. Grant funds may be used, however,
to pay the expenses of staff who are actually producing work for
Steps 1, 2, or 3 (i.e., the cost of a grantee construction crew
may be eligible for federal funding).
Community leaders planning for sewage treatment now should
always keep the next step in mind: The community should either
be determining limits to its growth or be thinking ahead toward
another round of facility planning and construction.
Some special cost eligibility considerations are worth
paying attention to here.
1) The treatment facility must be constructed to treat
primarily domestic waste.
2) Advanced treatment (beyond secondary) will receive
intense scrutiny from EPA, particularly when the
incremental costs of the advanced treatment exceed
secondary treatment costs by $1 million (or by 25
percent in the case of innovative and alternative
systems).
3) Interceptor sewers are generally eligible if part
of a cost-effective system. Generally, collector
sewers to serve new communities built after 1972 are
not eligible.
4) The cost of land is only eligible if it is used for
wastewater storage prior to land treatment, or the
24
-------
land is an integral part of the treatment system.
(In the case of individual systems, land is not
eligible at all.)
5) Multiple purpose projects are currently eligible for
federal funding only to the extent of the most cost
effective alternative designed for water quality only
purposes. (This policy is currently undergoing review.)
What are the earliest opportunities to influence the direction of
the Step 1 Plan?
Decisions Made by Nonlocal Actors
Before a community begins facilities planning, a number of
constraining decisions may have been made through the statewide
water quality management process: amount of allowable discharge,
boundaries of the facilities planning area, population projections.
These decisions are to be made by state agencies or by designated
areawide waste treatment management agencies. In fact, according
to new EPA regulations these critical decisions must appear in
approved Water Quality Management plans. After October 1, 1979,
EPA will generally not approve grants for Step 1 planning unless
the related information is available in an approved WQM plan.
Establishing Effluent Limitations
The municipal effluent limitation is the specified amount
of pollution a community may discharge into surface waters.
Effluent limitations are essentially derived from three
sources. First, all municipal dischargers must meet a national
minimum standard of discharge that is defined as the discharge
level that can be expected from a well operated secondary treat-
ment facility.
Second, if meeting the national minimum is not enough to
meet state water quality standards, a stricter standard may be
established.
Third, if a facility discharges into marine waters, the
EPA Administrator may, under certain conditions specified in
the 1977 Amendments, allow a variance from secondary discharge
requirements.
Establishing Planning Boundaries
The state's water quality agency will usually determine the
planning area for Step 1 grants in consultation with local offi-
cials or in the contents of a completed WQM plan. A completed
WQM plan must assign an agency to manage planning and construc-
tion of waste treatment facilities. The assignment may go to an
25
-------
areawide agency, or the authority may be delegated to the
individual jurisdictions in the area.
In the absence of a completed WQM plan, the state water
quality agency has authority to establish the local 201 planning
boundaries. The boundaries must include the sources of the pollu-
tion problem itself; how much other area is also included may
directly influence the contents of the Facilities Plan itself.
EPA regulations and guidelines offer some guidance to those
who draw these planning boundaries. First, the geographic area
must be large enough to assess all potential environmental impacts
of any treatment alternative chosen. Planning area boundaries are
discussed in Section V. Yet, the establishment of planning boun-
daries before the facilities planning process begins may in fact
establish the basic parameters of service area determinations.
The Statewide Disaggregation of Population Projections
As is explained in later discussions regarding population
projections, the states are responsible for breaking down state-
wide population projections into projections for individual faci-
lities planning areas.
The Priority System
EPA will not award a Step 1, 2, or 3 grant unless a state
certifies that the proposed project is entitled to priority for
federal funds in accordance with an EPA-approved state priority
system and the state Priority List. Within certain constraints,
therefore, the state controls the timing and amount of federal
funds awarded for the facility planning process.
EPA reviews the criteria and method of application used
in developing the state Priority List. The state must determine
its water pollution control needs according to categories that
are related to the water pollution goals of the Clean Water Act,
but can assign any weight it chooses to the various categories
when it ranks them.
A public hearing must be held annually prior to the
finalization of the state Priority List. EPA reviews the list
to make sure that the criteria adopted by the state have been
consistently applied and that neither political nor economic
factors have entered into selection of projects. EPA may only
interfere in a Priority List if an individual project fails to
meet the enforceable goals of the Act. An exception to this
EPA review is in the case of so-called "pipe projects." Twenty-
five percent of a state's construction grant allotment may be
set aside for such pipe projects as new interceptors, sewer
rehabilitation, etc. As long as these projects are otherwise
eligible for construction grant funds, EPA will not review
them to see they meet the enforceable goals of the Act.
26
-------
The Act requires a number of "reserves" or "set asides"
from each state's allotment, all designed to serve specific
national goals. Of the two most significant reserves, one en-
courages "innovative and alternative" treatment systems, and the
other focuses more federal funds on smaller communities.
. A state with a rural population of 25 percent or more must
set aside 4 percent of its allotment for small rural communities
and other less-populated areas for alternative to conventional
sewage treatment works. "Non-rural" states may request up to
4 percent of their allotment for the same purpose.
Treatment works using "innovative or alternative" tech-
niques and processes are allowed an increase in the federal share
of total costs from 75 to 85 percent. A state must set aside 2
percent of its allotted funds for these projects. (By 1981 that
"set aside" will be 3 percent of the allotment.) One-half percent
of the 2 percent allotment must be used only for innovative projects,
The Grant Application
The public body applicant (the grantee) makes a number of
critically important decisions before and during a Step 1 grant
application. The procedure:
1) A local government official is designated to act for
the applicant;
2) Pre-application conferences with EPA and the states
sometimes result in:
a) initial alternatives to be examined and initial
direction of the Facilities Plan;
b) suggested names of consulting engineers who might
be hired by the grantee;
3) Subagreements with the potential consulting engineer
are frequently drawn up before the grant aplication.
The engineer will then proceed to work on the required
Plan of Study;
4) A Plan of Study, submitted as part of the grant
application, describes problem areas, the scope of
the planning effort and the work schedule. Eventually,
the Plan will be made part of the grant agreement; its
work schedule and cost estimates will be used to deter-
mine a formal grant payment schedule. The proposed
public participation program, its budget and schedule
will also be outlined.
27
-------
V. THE FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS
What are the major steps of the facilities planning process?
The fundamental decisions of the facilities planning
process are usually made at formal "step," or decision points.
Wastewater management officials and consulting engineers generally
refer to the following major steps:
• the Plan of Study/grant application
• assessment of the current situation
• assessment of the future situation
• identification of alternatives
• cost/effectiveness analysis
• environmental assessment/Environmental Impact Statement
• selection of recommended alternative
The facilities planning process is in fact, much more
complex than a series of seven linear steps. (The 201 Public
Participation Guide in Appendix breaks the Step 1 process into
26 decision points.) On their surface the steps appear logical
and linear; in fact they bear a somewhat circular relationship
to each other. Information gathered and decisions made must
be constantly reevaluated as new information becomes available.
Table 1 below is a much simplified description of the
major decisions in which citizens will want to get involved during
the Step I process.
What are the Important Issues for Public Involvement in Assessing
the Current Situation?
This decision point is not just a straightforward data-
gathering exercise: it is in fact a critical step for public in-
volvement. Information not gathered, or misinterpreted, may sub-
stantially affect the outcome of the facilities planning process.
The infiltration/inflow analysis (I/I), one of the first
steps of facilities planning, is a preliminary engineering eval-
uation of the sewer system to find out how much of the total
wastewater flow comes from excessive infiltration into the sewer
system from leaky pipes or excessive inflow from various kinds
of storm drains. If excessive I/I is found, a more extensive
study of the sewer system will be made to determine how much
rehabilitation of pipes and drains can cost-effectively replace
the need for extra treatment plant capacity.
28
-------
TABLE 1
MAJOR FACILITIES PLANNING DECISIONS
DECISION POINT
Assess the Current Situation
Assess the Future Situation
to
Identify Alternatives
a)
b)
ISSUES
gather information on plan-
ning area:
institutions
population
environment
water quality
other environmental
conditions
gather data on:
existing wastewater flows
existing treatment systems
infiltration/inflow analysis
performance of existing systems
QUESTIONS
What are our water quality
problems?
Are the existing facilities
adequate?
What unique resources does
our community have that
are worth protecting?
a) land use
b) demographic and economic
projections
c) future flow and wasteloads
d) future environment without
treatment project
a) biological or physical/
chemical treatment and
discharge to receiving
water
b) reuse/recycling systems
c) land application systems
d) revenue generating appli-
cations
e) on-site and nonconventional
systems
f) sludge and residual disposal
alternatives
How much growth is projected to
occur?
Are projections consistent with
community goals/land-use plans?
Are wastewater flow projections
accurate?
Is a new treatment facility
necessary to preserve environ-
mental quality of community?
Is a full range of alternatives
being considered including
smaller scale, low technology
options as well as centralized
high technology ones?
Is land treatment being seriously
considered?
Are there opportunities to recycle
or reuse treated wastewater?
How much treatment capacity is
required?
-------
DECISION POINT
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
u>
o
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
Select Alternative
TABLE 1 cont'd.
ISSUES
a) establish present worth of
alternatives (monetary
value of capital costs
plus O&M costs over life of
of project.
1) service area
2) service life
3) staging construction
b) develop water conservation
program
c) institutional arrangements
for implementation
d) environmental impact assess-
ment for each alternative
e) recreational use assessment
for each alternative
f) energy consumption assessment
a) gather additional information
on primary and secondary
environmental impacts.
b) prepare draft impact statement
and seek public and govern-
mental review of draft EIS.
a) develop measures to mitigate
primary and secondary
environmental impacts
b) select site
QUESTIONS
What sewage treatment alternative
has the least monetary cost
without overriding environ-
mental and social consider-
ations?
Are the environmental impacts
identified in the environ-
mental assessment significant
enough to warrant a full scale
EIS?
-------
Other important questions to ask during the "current
situation" assessment concerns the accuracy of the data-
gathering.
Have current water quality problems been sufficiently and
accurately identified? Are the sources of current wastewater
flows known? How well are the existing treatment facilities
operated? Have existing population and land use data been properly
assessed? Have all environmentally sensitive areas been identified?
What are the important issues for public involvement in assessing
the future situation?
How big should a new facility be?
Determining facility size is in part a technical job, based
on average-to-peak flow ratios, land slopes, and the like. It is
also subject to federal policies limiting grant payments for
"reserve" (growth) capacity. The facility should be large enough
to last 20 years from its first day of operation.
There are three variables governing facility size that the
community can influence: population projections; per-capita waste-
water flow calculations; and amount and type of industrial discharge
into municipal facilities.
A summary of EPA policies on facility size:
• Population projections for facilities planning areas are
generally to be developed by the state from the projec-
tions of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department
of Commerce. A state's own projections may be used if they
are not more than 5 percent greater than BEA's, or if they
are approved by the EPA Regional Administrator.
• Wastewater flows are to b estimated from existing water
use records, preferably; or by using a specified gallons-
per-capita-per-day allowance.
• No allowance is permitted for increased per-capita water
use. Quite the opposite. Cost-effective water conser-
vation measures must be included in the wastewater manage-
ment solution, and the size of the treatment facility should
be based on the reduced per-capita flows expected. Public
education, pricing policies, and regulatory measures also
must be evaluated and included, as appropriate.
• Industrial flows are to be calculated by adding present
industrial flows treated in the municipal plant, docu-
mented future flows, and an allowance for unforeseen
industrial growth.
31
-------
Assessing Future Land Uses
A community's assessment of its future land uses will
partly determine capacity, location and service area of the re-
commended treatment plant. Local and regional land use and de-
velopment plans provide a framework for facility planning, as
does the 208 planning process. Facilities Plans must conform
to the Water Quality Management Plans developed under Section
208.
Yet the water quality management process is not a static
process. In fact, Water Quality Management Plans must be re-
evaluated yearly through a formal continuous planning process.
Citizens should have ample opportunity to obtain amendment of a
WQM plan if desirable.
The Sewer Issue
New sewers may stimulate new development and generate
new wastewater loads. At the very least, if they do not sti-
mulate growth, they direct the location of that growth.
EPA policies on sewers briefly summarized:
• collectors will only be funded when they involve
replacement or rehabilitiation of an existing
system, or when they are for a community in
existence before 1972;
• interceptors are to be designed for a 20-year
period, unless a period of not more than 40
years is demonstrated to be consistent with
approved water quality and land use plans and
will reduce overall environmental impacts.
• interceptor routes may not extend into undevel-
oped lands, prime agricultural lands and environ-
mentally sensitive areas unless they are demon-
strably necessary to alleviate existing problems.
If they are determined to be necessary, appro-
priate measures to mitigate impacts are to be
part of the grant conditions and included in
the NPDES permit.
What geographic area will the facility serve?
The service area question is essentially this: Is it
more effective to link a number of wastewater service areas
together into a single large service area with a set of sewers,
feeding a single central treatment facility (a system which
will likely support additional population and industrial growth);
or to establish a number of smaller service areas which are
interconnected to a lesser degree or not at all? The answer
will determine much about the future size and shape of the
community.
32
-------
Small-Scale Service Area Options
Cost-effectiveness is a controlling federal criterion for
service area and treatment mode decision-making. Thus, a com-
munity might well be forced to select centralized treatment even
though it would prefer individual systems.
The smallest-scale wastewater facility service area is the
individual septic system, compost toilet or similar "innovative"
system. The 1977 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act now recognize these individual facilities as a valid option
under the Construction Grants Program.
If individual systems are not a viable option, then atten-
tion must shift to some sort of centralized treatment facility
served by sewers. Should the community's identified water problems
be limited to a few scattered neighborhoods, the community might
seek to locate small "package plant" facilities in each neighbor-
hood not interconnected by development-stimulating trunk sewers.
"Package plants"—essentially delivered by the manufacturer
in ready-to-plug-in-and-operate condition—can deliver high quality
effluent. But either a trained operator should be present at all
times, or the plants should be monitored and supervised under a
system that assures quick response to any malfunction. In past
years, many a package plant has become just one more community
headache. Some rural communities have favored growth-restricting,
low-technology central treatment facilities, such as stabilization
ponds or land application systems, serving small areas.
The Clean Water Act sets aside 4 percent of the construction
grant allotment to states with a rural population of 25 percent
or greater "only for alternatives to conventional sewage treatment
works for municipalities having a population of 3,500 or less,
or for the highly dispersed sections of larger municipalities."
In other words, as in the case of individual systems, Congress
recognizes that some communities will prefer to think small.
The Regional Service Area
Large metropolitan wastewater treatment facilities have
long been in vogue for economic reasons—more treatment capability
can be provided per dollar, in terms of capital outlay, operation
and maintenance. Since 1965, water quality policymakers have
favored regional systems for other reasons, too: more professional
operation, higher standards of treatment, fewer effluent outfalls
which can be sited to incur minimal environmental damage.
A community that selects a regional service area for its
new facilities probably will derive three major practical benefits.
First, the Clean Water Act gives high priority to regional water
quality planning, meaning that both the state water quality agency
and EPA are likely to look kindly upon a regional facilities plan.
Second, a project designed to solve water quality problems of
33
-------
regional scope will probably draw a higher priority rating from
the state than the smaller project. Third, depending on what
service alternatives are studied, a regional plan may be most
likely to meet federal cost-effective criteria.
A central question is: How big a region? Enough
serious disadvantages to large regional facilities have
become apparent that regional solutions may have less appeal
in the years ahead. By their nature, they tend to rely heavily
on technology. Costs of building high technology-based plants
are escalating rapidly, and may reach exorbitant levels when
"advanced waste treatment" (extremely high levels of pollutant
removal) is required to meet effluent standards). And, for a
variety of reasons, the time lapse between planning and actual
operation of large regional facilities ("construction time")
may cause difficulties for the communities being served.
Furthermore, regional treatment plants collect the
wastewater they treat through a network of interceptor or major
trunk sewers. Development generally follows those sewers,
particularly where they cross open land, sometimes bringing
unwanted patterns of suburban sprawl.
Finally, regional facilities usually serve more than one
political jurisdiction, and therefore require interjurisdictional
agreements and flow allocations that can be difficult to negotiate
and achieve.
What Range of Alternatives Might be Evaluated During the Facilities
Planning Process?
Given all the criteria, standards, and policies that a
community must deal with—secondary treatment, effluent controls,
water quality standards, cost-effectiveness policy—the community
may find that its range of facility options is severely limited.
Indeed, those options may depend on the community's influence over
facility service area and facility sizing decisions. As the number
of variables is reduced, the selection of treatment process may
become and more an engineering and economic decision.
Technical possibilities for wastewater treatment are
numerous and may be combined in a variety of ways, depending
on the imagination of the designing engineer. Advantages and
disadvantages of each must be determined in large part for each
community on the basis of population, population distribution,
land values, geology, climate, and similar factors.
The option of no facility; Are new facilities required?
The first step in facility planning is to determine whether
new wastewater treatment facilities are in fact required—or exist-
ing facilities can somehow be made to make do. In some communities,
identified problems might be corrected by repairs or improvements in
the existing system or by modifying the treatment process now in use,
34
-------
Traditional, centralized physical/biological/chemical
treatment and treatment and discharge to waters
An adequate central treatment and disposal facility
usually provides secondary treatment to remove about 85 percent
of the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (ss).
In some situations, advanced waste treatment is needed to remove
more BOD, significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, chemicals
and heavy metals, and all pathogenic bacteria. Facilities for
collection, treatment, discharge, and sludge handling will be
included in this option.
Centralized collection, treatment, and land application of
effluent, rather than discharge to a waterway
Land application is usually an alternative to constructing
an advanced wastewater system, but in some instances may substitute
for secondary treatment. Treated effluent is considered a resource
and applied to soil and vegetation for crop and soil nourishment
and groundwater replenishment. Land application systems include
spray irrigation and infiltration-percolation systems, in which
nearly all effluent is absorbed into the soil, and overland
flow methods, in which wastewater is sprayed over the upper
edges of sloping terrain and flows downhill, filtering through
grass and other vegetation.
Waste treatment and reuse of purified waters.
This alternative also considers treated effluents to be
valuable resources. After the cleaning process, waters and
pollutants are reused in industry, utilities, and agriculture,
and for recreation, municipal supplies, and groundwater recharge.
On-sitewastetreatment and disposal.
Septic tanks, cesspools, and other subsurface disposal systems
can be used for one or more residences, small commercial establish-
ments, or even small towns and highly dispersed sections of larger
cities. Public or central management may be needed to ensure
proper maintenance and operation of such facilities.
The most cost-effective wastewater treatment solution
for a given area or community is the option with the lowest
monetary costs over a 20-year planning period, without overriding
adverse nonmonetary costs, that meets all federal, state and
local requirements, or subsurface disposal requirements.
Evaluating Monetary Costs of Alternatives
Monetary costs include all capital construction costs
(for treatment plants, interceptors, sewers, discharge or reuse
facilities and sludge-handling equipment, land, administrative,
legal, and interest charges during construction, etc.) and all
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (labor, chemicals, energy,
35
-------
routine replacement of equipment, etc.). Offsetting revenues,
such as those from sale of sludge and reclaimed waters, are
calculated as financial benefits.
The cost considerations for three major wastewater
management alternatives are discussed below. Treatment and
reuse systems are not discussed directly since these systems
will often use some combination of the first two options. The
major difference, of course, will be the revenue value of reused
wastewater.
The cost considerations of improvements of existing
facilities are too complex to generalize. The basic questions
of sizing and service area discussed below will obviously affect
costs. In the case of excessive infiltration/inflow, a sewer
system evaluation will determine cost-effective sewer rehabil-
itation measures. Another part of the cost-effectiveness analysis
will also recommend measures to reduce wastewater flows and
conserve water.
Cost considerations vary for central treatment, land
application and on-site facilities.
(1) Centralized physical/biological/chemical treatment costs.
Wherever collection of wastewater and central treatment is included
in an alternative--as in treatment and disposal, treatment and land
application, or treatment and reuse—five major factors will affect
the monetary costs of the system: (a) type of treatment technology
selected, (b) the volume and makeup of incoming raw wastes, (c) size
of the treatment facility, (d) service area, and (e) staging of con-
struction. Site conditions for the treatment works, prescribed
effluent limitations and reliability requirements (i.e. extra backup
facilities required if there is a fresh-water intake downstream)
may also contribute to monetary costs.
A centralized treatment system includes the treatment plant;
interceptors and trunk sewers, if separate populated areas are
linked; pumping stations and force mains (which move wastewater
by pressure rather than gravity) used for connections between
natural drainage basins; and the local sewer facility, which
includes house connections, laterals, and submains. Of the total
cost of a gravity flow sewerage system, lateral sewers ususally
account for between 30 and 60 percent, larger pipes between
20 and 40 percent, and treatment plants between 20 and 40 percent.
The most cost-effective system will optimize the costs
and performance of treatment plants, sewers, package plants
and on-site disposal to produce the best overall system for
a region. For example, potential economies of scale in plant
construction and operation must be weighed against the rising
costs of linking up separate populated areas by interceptors
and force mains to create regional system.
36
-------
(2) Land Application Costs. The monetary costs of
disposing of treated effluent on land include the costs of
conventional primary or secondary treatment, whichever is
required, as well as the cost of land, facilities to transport
and store wastewater, spray irrigation equipment or other land
application devices, and underdrains to recover renovated water.
Land treatment offers many cost advantages. A very
advanced degree of treatment is possible without generating any
chemical sludges or using chemicals or activated carbon. Recycled
water, nutrients and crops grown in the treatment area have market
value. Large open space areas are preserved with potential for
multiple recreation use during the nonirrigation season. Land
appreciates in value and represents a future resource to the
community. Operating costs can be less than for other teriary
processes. If land application can be a substitute for secondary
treatment, there could be substantial cost-savings.
There are disadvantages, however. Large land areas
are required, ranging from 100 to 600 acres per mgd of capacity.
In addition, large ponds and other storage facilities are needed
to store effluent when the grounds are frozen.
(3) On-Site Facility Costs. The cost of on-site
waste disposal facilities—septic tanks, various means of
upgrading septic tanks, mounds, and other facilities, as well
as holding tanks—figures in the cost-effectiveness analysis
when a community must decide whether or not to include outlying
sites in a sewage service area. (The funding of individual systems
is now eligible for federal funds under certain circumstances,
as described earlier.) The question often is: Is it cheaper
for a source to use on-site disposal, or be sewered?
In addition to costs, the effectiveness of the on-site
system must be calculated. Soil conditions are a key factor in
costs of on-site disposal. If soils are not conducive to good
subsurface disposal, on-site disposal costs go up. Sewer service
may be appropriate even if more expensive than on-site, because of
improved ground water quality and elimination of system failure.
Typically, septic tank costs include the tank, houseline, distri-
bution box, absorption field, operation and maintenance (pumping
and inspection) and cost of financing. Per capita costs could be
low, such as $60 per year, or as high as $150 a year, depending on
system needs.
Evaluating Nonmonetary Considerations
After monetary costs have been calculated for each
major waste management alternative, nonmonetary factors of
each are expressed quantitatively, if possible, or more likely,
described qualitatively, and weighed against monetary costs.
Monetary costs are the most important aspect of cost-effectiveness
calculations and will determine a waste treatment choice unless
the nonmonetary factors have major consequences. Nonmonetary
factors include:
37
-------
Primary and secondary environmental effects. Primary
effects are those directly related to location, construction,
and operation of the project. Negative effects might include
impacts on ground and surface waters, air pollution from in-
cinerated sludges, odors, loss of open space, noise, and ero-
sion. Primary beneficial environmental effects include re-
charged groundwaters from land application, restored soils,
and irrigation water from parks. Secondary effects are in-
direct or induced changes in population, economic growth,
and land use, and the environmental effects resulting from
those changes. For example, unwanted development pressures
from locating interceptors in open areas or including less-
developed areas in a service district, may result in air
pollution from induced traffic to new suburbs or shopping
centers, excess energy consumption, and water pollution
from urban runoff in newly paved areas.
Reliability and flexibility. A reliable system is one
that meets its design efficiency with the anticipated O&M costs
and effort. A flexible system has the capability to change to
meet future needs—to expand the size of the treatment system,
extend sewers to needed areas, upgrade the level of pollutant
removal, or switch to wastewater reclamation and reuse.
Implementation factors. A system likely to be approved
by local, state, and federal governments, adequately financed,
and meeting all legal requirements has the greatest chance of
being carried out. Local politics, the amount local funding
required, prevailing state and local public health, water rights,
water supply, and land-use laws are key implementation factors.
Financing the Selected Alternatives
EPA has a great deal to say about how each alternative
treatment will be financed and the local attractiveness of each.
It provides federal grants to finance:
• 75 percent of construction costs of the most cost-
effective wastewater treatment system, but no O&M
costs.
• 85 percent of construction costs of an innovative or
alternative wastewater treatment system, if it is not
more than 15 percent more expensive than the most co£t-
effective solution. Land application, wastewater re-
clamation and reuse and other resource recycling tech-
niques, cost-saving, and efficiency-increasing tech-
nology are included in this definition.
• privately owned individual systems for one or more
homes and commercial establishments, if the grant is
applied for by a public body that certifies public
38
-------
ownership is not feasible and promises that the treat-
ment works will be properly operated and maintained.
• in states where the population is at least 25
percent rural, 4 percent of a state's allocation
of federal construction dollars is to be set aside
for alternatives to conventional sewage treatment
works for municipalities with less than 3,500 people.
The remaining construction costs and O&M costs must .be
financed by state and local governments. Federal law requires that
user charges be assessed against all users of a federally funded
system to ensure that all users pay their proportionate share of
O&M costs. Additionally, industrial users must pay their share
of construction costs, although Congress has put this industrial
cost recovery provision into abeyance for 18 months while EPA
studies the efficiency and need for such industrial charges.
VII. MITIGATING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACTS OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
Construction of sewage treatment facilities most often
brings two types of impacts--primary and secondary—which can
be both positive and negative. Some negative impacts are in-
evitable, but most can be avoided or mitigated if recognized
early enough in the facilities planning process. Federal law
requires grant applicants to identify negative impacts and
make efforts to mitigate them.
Primary impacts are those that can be attributed directly
to the development of the proposed facility. They include:
environmental impacts associated with construction (erosion,
sedimentation, noise); economic impacts associated with con-
structing and operating the facility (capitalization, O&M costs,
user charges, etc.); and social impacts, such as traffic disrup-
tion during construction or decline in the property value of
land adjacent to plant.
Secondary impacts are those resulting from indirect or
induced changes in community land-use patterns, population
growth, and subsequent environmental quality. They are often
long-term and far more difficult to identify. Whereas primary
impacts are directly related to the construction process and
specific construction activities, secondary impacts result from
the placement, sizing, and staging of interceptor sewers and the
provision of reserve capacity in them.
Consideration of primary and secondary impacts and miti-
gating measures during the planning and construction of sewage
treatment facilities is required by federal law, specifically
the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Section
39
-------
511(c)(l)), which provides that the National Environmental Policy
Act requirements for Environmental Impact Statements apply to
the Construction Grants Program.
Other federal environmental laws administered by EPA
and other agencies (i.e., Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act)
also apply to the Construction Grants Program. These laws re-
quire EPA to make sure that proper steps are taken to mitigate
adverse impacts on specific natural and cultural resources such
as floodplains, aquifers and water recharge areas, and archae-
ologic or historic sites.
How are the appropriate mitigation measures chosen?
There are usually several possible ways to mitigate a
particular primary or secondary impact. It is important to
select the mitigation measures that best meet a community's
particular needs. Several key questions should be asked in
the process:
1) What mitigating techniques are available?
Primary Impacts
Noise, odor, erosion, and sedimentation are generally
short-term impacts and relatively easy to identify and mitigate.
The first step in mitigating these primary impacts involves
careful site selection and design based on a detailed inventory
of site topography and geology, compact site planning, odor and
aerosol sources, noise sources, and maintenance and access
requirements, among others.
Careful control over construction activities is the
second step—careful timing of construction activities,
immediate restoration of disturbed areas, and the periodic
wetting of unpaved surface to minimize dust, for example.
A third mitigating step includes operating procedures
such as noise control measures within the plant and adequate
treatment and disposal of sludge to minimize odor.
Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts related specifically to the construc-
tion of sewage treatment and collection facilities tend to be
long-term consequences that are usually difficult to predict.
In fact, distinguishing future community changes specifically
induced by the construction of a particular facility from those
changes that would have occurred naturally over time often in-
volves more soothsaying ability than technical skills. Also,
because efforts to control secondary impacts have been initiated
only in recent years, little documented experience is yet avail-
40
-------
able to indicate how effective any proposed mitigation measure
can be in the long run.
EPA has identified a range of possibilities for miti-
gating secondary impacts. The list includes:
• Phasing and orderly expansion of sewer service.
• Project changes (reduction in plant capacity).
• Improved land-use planning.
• Better coordination of planning among communities
affected by the project.
• Sewer use restrictions.
• Modification or adoption of environmental programs
or plans (i.e., state air quality maintenance plans).
• Improved land-management controls to protect water
quality (i.e., erosion control or floodplain manage-
ment ordinances).
2) Howfeasibly can these measures be implemented?
In many cases, primary impacts can be handled routinely
by the facility design or construction contractor through
careful site design or environmentally sound construction prac-
tices. Secondary impacts, on the other hand, often can be miti-
gated only by enforcement of land-use regulations or management
practices. It is therefore important for a community to assess
the political feasibility of adopting or modifying land-use con-
trols.
In situations where state or local land-use controls,
such as floodplain ordinances, Air Quality Maintenance Plans, 208
Water Quality Management Plans, or comprehensive growth-management
plans are in effect, it may be relatively easy to initiate control
of secondary impacts simply by enforcing existing ordinances. But
in situations where adequate 'land-use controls do not exist (which
is more often the case), a community may have to adopt new measures
to successfully mitigate secondary impacts; if the community resists
the concept of land-use controls, this can be difficult.
Timing is a key element in successful implementation of
mitigation measures. Impacts should be identified very early in
the planning process and a range of mitigation techniques should
be considered. For obvious reasons, once considerable time and
money have been invested in the development of a Facilities Plan,
it becomes increasingly difficult to make design changes.
41
-------
Another consideration affecting the feasibility of
given mitigation measures is the implementation costs to
the community. Some mitigating measures, such as reduction
in facility size or service area, may actually result in
decreased project costs. Others may increase the total cost
of the project by a relatively small margin or have no cost
effect at all; siting the facility to use prevailing winds
as a natural odor control, for example, or using existing
trees on site as a natural screen. Of, if the additional
costs for a particular mitigating measure are significant
(i.e., costs for extending outfall an extra 100 yards),
they may be considered eligible for a federal grant; hence,
the community share of these costs would be minimized.
However, some mitigating measures (for example, acquiring
environmentally sensitive areas to adequately-regulate future
development) may require community expenditures that are not
covered under the construction grant. Communities are often
unwilling or unable to finance significant additional costs and
most often will seek a less costly alternative.
3) Who has responsibility for implementation?
An equally important consideration is who will have
ultimate responsibility for implementing various mitigation
measures. In most situations, a number of government agencies,
organizations, and individuals may be involved; it is there-
fore important that their respective roles be identified and
that the wastewater management agency have the capacity to
coordinate these independent efforts to ensure that the
variety of potential impacts is successfully mitigated.
4) What authority and capabilities are available to ensure
implementation?
Among other requirements, the Step 1 plan must show that
those designated to implement the plan have the necessary legal,
financial, institutional, and managerial authority and resources
to ensure construction, operation, and maintenance. This means
that the plan must demonstrate that the authorities identified
to implement specific mitigation measures have the necessary
qualifications to do.
What is the Role of EPA?
EPA has the ultimate responsibility and authority for
ensuring that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.
No grant is to be issued unless EPA is satisfied that the
proposed facilities plan has addressed any and all contro-
versial environmental issues. EPA has developed a series of
regulations and guidelines that amplifies the agency's policy
on mitigating secondary impacts of sewage treatment facilities.
42
-------
The EPA Regional Office has responsibility for ensuring
that potential primary and secondary impacts are considered
by the grantee from the outset of the facilities planning
process. If the potential impacts appear significant and
adverse, EPA may require that a full EIS (rather than an
environmental assessment) be prepared to accompany the Step 1
plan. The Step 1 plan must then include adequate measures
to mitigate the projected impacts.
In some cases, the EPA Regional Office may choose to
condition a Step 2 or Step 3 grant on the stipulation that
specific mitigating measures be adopted by the communities
involved. Grant conditioning, however, may not always be the
best solution. Although some communities may use EPA inter-
vention as a convenient scapegoat to justify passage of
necessary land-use controls, other may resent federal inter-
vention into what they consider "home rule" decisions and be
uncooperative.
In fact, the conditioning of grants on the adoption
of land-use measures raises a series of legal and political
questions about how far EPA can go in controlling what are
basically local land-use decisions. Also, if not properly
instituted, grant conditions can create a considerable admin-
istrative burden within EPA Regional Offices responsible for
overseeing local adherence to the conditions. Consequently,
most grant conditions that have been imposed have been written
in ways that reinforce existing state or local legislation,
leaving the adminstrative responsibilities with the local
government involved.
43
-------
PART II
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN FACILITIES PLANNING
What Are the Broad Requirements for Public Involvement Under
the Clean Water Act?
Recognizing the federal environmental programs would
need strong grass-roots support to be effective, the 1972
version of the Clean Water Act contained a broad directive
for public involvement at all levels of water quality decision
making. These requirements are found in Section 101(e):
Public participation in the development,
revision, and enforcement of any regula-
tion, standard, effluent limitation, plan,
or program established by the Administrator
(of the Environmental Protection Agency) or
any State under this Act shall be provided
for, encouraged, and assisted by the
Administrator and the States. The Admin-
istrator, in cooperation with the States,
shall develop and publish regulations
specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation in such processes.
What's In It For You? Why Get Involved?
Let's face it: A sewage plant lacks the public appeal
of a new park, town hall, or highway. The average citizen
has little, if any, interest in sewage treatment processes
and problems, unless they pose some personal threat to him,
his family, or his community. A foul-smelling treatment
plant in the neighborhood, sewage seeping up in the street,
or escalating treatment costs will grab his attention. But
not planning. But when you get right down to it, waste-
water facilities are essential to a community. They can
significantly enhance or degrade its environment, depending
on how well they are planned.
Good planning means more than just professional
competence. It means considering a community's character,
its environmental and social values, and the attitudes and
desires of its citizens. These qualities can only be
incorporated through concerted efforts to involve the
public in all phases of the planning process.
Public participation makes good sense for several
reasons. Open discussion and citizen input can help planners
develop plans that reflect community values and concerns.
Controversies can be identified early and resolved through
compromise and open airing of the issues. Citizens get a
chance to have a "say" in how federal and local monies are
45
-------
being spent in their communities. And public involvement in
community issues gives participants a stake in the project's
long-term benefits.
Incorporating public values
Local residents often have a more intemate under-
standing of particular community problems than the staff
or consultants working on a project. Their information
is pertinent and up-to-date; they know the community's
values, concerns, and goals; and since they will be living
in the area long after a project is completed, they are in
the best position to decide the future of their community.
Better plans
Public discussion and advice can help the consulting
engineer to fine-tune a facility plan to fit the community's
special circumstances. Alternative technologies and facility
locations must be explored and their ramifications discussed
and understood. Citizens can work with the professionals to
identify the range of issues that must be considered and can
alert the engineers to impacts of special concern.
Assuring reasonable costs
Virtually all wastewater treatment facilities are
planned and constructed with public money, and therefore
the public has the right and even the responsibility to
participate in determining how that money is spent.
Increasingly, people want to have a say in how federal
dollars will be used in their communities. Across the
country, communities have sometimes been wary of accepting
federal or state funds for fear of hidden secondary costs.
Because it emphasizes public participation, the water pollu-
tion control program can foster a working partnership
between the public and government so long as attitudes of
open planning and mutual problem solving prevail.
Added community benefits
The real payoff of that partnership may come in the form
of long-term community benefits. Citizens who participate in
planning a project will develop a sense of continuing respon-
sibility for it. They will be the ones who will walk the
extra mile to secure added benefits—shorelilne protection,
swimming, boating, biking, and so on—that make the difference
between an ordinary project and an outstanding one.
46
-------
Voter support
Most communities will need voter authorization for
municipal or pollution control bonds to pay the local share
of project costs. Voters who have taken part in planning
and who feel they've had a chance to influence the decision-
making process will most likely support local financing plans
and encourage their friends, neighbors, and community organ-
izations to do the same. People attending public hearings
to learn about the project for the first time as a bond elec-
tion approaches will probably not be so easily convinced.
Resolution of controversies
Controversial issues are bound to crop up in facili-
ties planning, particularly in large-scale projects. It is
far better to debate these issues publicly early in the plan-
ning stages so that reasonable compromises can be worked out;
when the public is kept in the dark, disagreement often erupts
too late to make changes in the project without additional ex-
penditures or delays. The engineering consultant who is in
touch with community opinion will be able to foresee contro-
versy and can spend more time working with residents to find
acceptable alternatives.
Which Major Federal Regulations Give You Access to the
Facilities Planning Process?
The requirements governing public participation in
facilities planning are principally derived from two sets of
federal regulations—40 CFR Part 25, "Public participation in
programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, The
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act," and 40 CFR
Subpart E, Part 35.917-l(g) and 35.917-5.* These regulations
differ both in breadth and specificity. They can be valuable
tools for you during the facilities planning process, particu-
larly if you meet resistance from "official" participants. (See
"What Problems Might Be Encountered in Implementation of Public
Participation Requirements?" at the end of this chapter.)
These EPA regulations attempt to provide an optimum
blend of general goals and objectives for public participation
(which can be met by any number of mechanisms selected by the
grantee) and more specific requirements. They adopt an active
(as opposed to passive) tone, exhorting public officials to
seek out and encourage involvement of various segments of the
public in decision-making. This activist approach is summa-
rized in the definition of public participation in Part 25:
The regulations upon which this discussion is based have
not yet been promulgated and are in final stages of appoval
at EPA. They should appear in final form in the Federal
Register in February.
47
-------
Public participation is that part of the
decision-making process through which
responsible officials become aware of public
attitudes by providing ample opportunity for
interested and affected parties to communicate
their views. Public participation includes
providing access to the decision-making process,
seeking input from and conducting dialogue with
the public, assimilating public viewpoints and
preferences, and demonstrating that those
viewpoints and preferences have been considered
by the decision-making official.
The general public participation requirements of Part
25 apply to:
• EPA activities such as rulemaking,
issuing permits and informational
materials, significant strategy and
policy guidance, and decisions to dele-
gate program activities to state control;
• Developing and implementing activi-
ties supported by EPA grants to state,
interstate and substate agencies; and
• State administration of certain programs
for which responsibility has been dele-
gated by EPA: the Construction Grants
Program, State Hazardous Waste Program,
NPDES Permit Program, Dredge and Fill
Permit Program.
Part 25's general public participation requirements
therefore govern all Construction Grants Program activities.
Specific additional requirements for public participa-
tion in facilities plans are found in 40 CFR Subpart E, Part
35.917-5,--Grants for Construction of Treatment Works.
Other requirements are found in specific program regula-
tions:
• 40 CFR Subpart E 35.915{d): state priority
system and project priority List;
• 40 CFR Subpart E, Part 35.928-1: approval of
Industrial Cost Recovery System;
48
-------
• 40 CFR Subpart E, Part 35.929-2(e): General
Requirements for all User Charge System;
• 40 CFR Subpart E, Part 35.940-1(t): Allowable
Project Costs;
• 40 CFR Subpart E, Appendix A, Part 8(3):
cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines;
• 40 CFR Subpart F, Part 35.1033: state
management assistance grants; and
• 40 CFR Subpart G, Part 35.1507-8, 1533:
grants for Water Quality Planning Management
and Implementation.
The requirements recognize essential differences in the
levels of participation to be expected for different kinds of
projects. They therefore set up two-tiered approach to public
involvement in facilities planning, specifying minimum require-
ments that virtually all construction grant recipients must meet
and some additional requirements to be met only by projects that
appear to justify a more intensive effort.
The Basic Public Participation Program
All Step 1 projects awarded after the date of promulga-
tion of these regulations must meet basic minimum requirements
for public involvement. Step 1 projects begun before that date
will proceed according to previously approved work plans. If
these old Step 1's come in for significant grant amendments,
however, or decide that an upgraded public participation program
would be useful, appropriate public participation requirements
may be negotiated.
The regulations describe a Basic Public Participation
Program (BPPP), which is the minimum standard for projects ex-
cept those that the EPA Regional Administrator determines in-
volve only minor upgradings of treatment works or minor sewer
rehabilitation. But even those minor projects are not exempted
from a required public hearing and public disclosure of costs.
Any exemptions from the BPPP must be decided in a public forum.
The Regional Administrator must issue a notice of intent to
waive public participation requirements and must allow 30 days
for public response that might indicate serious local issues
that should override the proposed waiver.
To meet the requirements of the basic program a grantee
must:
1. develop a public information program designed
to bring about public involvement from the earliest stages of
the decision-making process. This program must:
49
-------
• be a continuing program that provides
policy, technical information and assis-
tance, and that highlights significant
issues;
• include the creation of one or more
central collections of important reports,
studies, plans and other documents re-
lating to significant decisions or con-
troversial issues. These collections
should be housed in convenient locations
such as public libraries;
• include the development and maintenance
of a mailing list focused on the publics
that are or should be interested in the
facilities planning process.
2. A program for consulting the public that begins
with the selection of the professional consulting engineer and
the Plan of Study and continues throughout the facilities plan-
ning process. Grantees must provide for early consultation
preceded by timely distribution of information.
3. The Plan of Study submitted with the Step 1
grant application must contain an outline of the public
participation program that the grantee plans to follow
throughout Step 1 process--including:
• a description of the consultation and
information techniques to be used;
• the staff and resources to be devoted
to it;
• a schedule for proposed public partici-
partion activities; and
• a description of the publics that will
be targeted for involvement.
Because the Plan of Study must be submitted before the
Step 1 grant award and is not funded by EPA, a more extensive
(although still brief) public participation workplan must be
submitted to EPA no later than 45 days after the Step 1 grant
award. In this workplan, the staff and budget for public par-
ticipation are to be allocated to categories of activity;
specific consultation points where responsiveness summaries
(see below) will be prepared are to be noted; and the method
of coordinating the Section 208 public participation program
with the facilities planning program is to be described.
50
-------
4. To ensure public awareness of both the
project and the public participation opportunities, the
workplan and a fact sheet about the project are to be widely
distributed to interested groups and individuals. The fact
sheet should contain information describing the project, the
staff for the project (including the engineer and the grantee
staff contact) and any preliminary estimates that are avail-
able concerning additional per household costs for upgrading
sewer service in the community.
5. The grantee is specifically required to
"consult" with the public in the early stages when the grantee
and consultant begin assessing the current and future situa-
tions and screening alternatives (but before selecting the
actual alternatives to be evaluated during cost-effectiveness
analysis). A reponsiveness summary must be prepared and distrib-
uted after this public consultation.*
6. A public meeting must be held when the cost-
effectiveness analysis of the alternatives has been largely
completed, but before the alternative plan has actually been
selected. This consultation process must also be accompanied
by a responsiveness summary that is distributed to the public.
7. A public hearing is to be held in the community
to discuss the recommended alternatves prior to the adoption of
the facilities plan.
8. A final responsiveness summary and an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the public participation program are to
be included in the facilities plan that is submitted to EPA
(or the state) for final approval.
The Full-Scale Public Participation program (FSPP)
For complex projects of important community significance
that justify a more intensive public involvement effort, the
regulations outline a Full-Scale Public Participation (FSPP)
program comprised of all elements of the basic program plus
a few additional ones. The Regional Administrator must order
a full-scale public participation program under the following
conditions:
• when EPA prepares or requires the
preparation of and Environmental
Impact Statement;
A variety of consultative mechanism may be utilized to meet
this requirement—workshops, public meetings, task forces,
etc. Some of these mechanisms are described in the companion
volume to this book entitled Municipal Wastewater Management;
Citizens Guide to Facility Planning.
51
-------
• where advanced wastewater treatment
(AWT) is required to meet stringent,
effluent standards; (AWT will be defined
by EPA guidance. The currently accepted
definition is treatment requirements of
less than 10 milligrams of BOD per liter
plus nitrogen removal.);
• where the Regional Administrator determines
"that more active public participation in
decision-making is needed because of the
possibility of particularly significant
effects on matters of citizen concern, as
indicated by one or more of the following:"
- changes in land use and/or impacts
on environmentally sensitive areas;
- significant increases in treatment
capacity, amount of sewered area, or
construction of new treatment and con-
veyance systems;
- substantial increased total cost to the
community or to users;
- significant public controversy;
- significant impact on local population
or economic growth; and
- substantial opportunity for implementation
of innovative or alternative wastewater
treatment technologies or systems.
In addition to meeting the public participation require-
ments of the basic program, a grantee with a full-scale public
participation program in its community is required to:
1. Hire or designate a public participation
coordinator who will be responsible for carrying out the public
participation workplan throughout the facilities planning process.
The coordinator can be a member of the grantee staff, a staff
person hired by the grantee's consultant, or a representative of
a public interest group within the community. (For example, a
local civic leader with grass-roots ties throughout the commu-
nity may make an ideal public participation coordinator.)
2. Establish an advisory committee shortly after
acceptance of the Step 1 grant award. Regulatory requirements
establish the membership, responsibilities and resources of this
committee. These requirements were designed to ensure that the
advisory committee encourages the continued attention of a core
group of informed citizens—in a manner that complements other
52
-------
public participator! mechanisms—without becoming the sole mech-
anism for public involvement. Membership requirements also are
designed to ensure that people who do not normally have regular
access to the decision-making process be can singled out for
service on advisory committees.
Some of the most important requirements that apply to
advisory committees are:
• Affirmative action is required on the
part of the grantee to ensure a balanced
membership, consisting of substantially
equal proportions of private citizens,
representatives of public interest groups,
governmental officials, and citizens with
substantial economic interests. Private
citizen representatives should not have
any direct financial gain or loss at stake
greater than that of the average homeowner,
taxpayer, or consumer. The public interest
groups should be organizations acting out
of general concern for the area and should
not reflect the direct economic interests
of their membership.
• The grantee is required to designate (or have
his contractor designate) a staff contact
responsible for day-to-day liaison and
coordination between the advisory committee,
the grantee and the grantee's consultant.
This staff contact may or may not be the
public participation coordinator. In either
case, the staff contact must be located in
the project area, not based in another city.
The staff contact must be identified as a
budget item in the grant agreement.
• The grantee must establish an operating
budget and identify the professional and
clerical staff time that will be made
available to the advisory committee.
• Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses of advisory
committee participation will be reimbursed by
the grantee. The total dollar amount and the
actual items eligible for reimbursement will
be established by the grantee after negotiation
with the advisory committee.
• The advisory committee may on the request of
the grantee assume responsibility for the
overall public participation program. The
committee also will make written recommenda-
53
-------
tions to the grantee, as appropriate, on major
decisions or upon the request of the grantee.
• The advisory committee is reasonably indepen-
dent: it may select its own chairperson,
adopt its own rules, and schedule and conduct
its own meetings. These meetings are to be
open to the public.
• Advisory groups are urged to conduct public
participation activities in conjunction with
grantee, and to solicit outside advice. They
are encouraged to form subcommittees and ad hoc
groups or task forces in order to continually
expand committee membership and to draw on
other resources outside the membership.
Many other specific requirements that establish the
roles and responsibilities of advisory committees are spelled
out in the EPA general regulations on public participation
(Part 25). You should read them over if you want to understand
this critically important component of the full-scale program.
3. The full-scale public participation program
requires that a public meeting be held early in the facilities
planning process at the time when current and future situations
are being identified and initial alternatives are being screened.
(The basic public participation program simply requires an un-
specified "consultation" at this point.) After this meeting the
grantee is to prepare and distribute a responsiveness summary
(see below).
4. EPA has developed a technical training package
for advisory group members and local officials, which the grantee
should arrange to have provided to the advisory group early in
the facilities planning process.
Other public participation requirements applicable
to the basic and full-scale programs
Many other requirements apply to how public participation
programs are carried out; some address the important issues of
compliance and enforcement. To completely understand the public's
right to involvement, you must read carefully the relevant regu-
lations.* Some of the most important ones are listed here:
The regulations are listed in Appendix A. They may be
obtained from the Regional EPA office, or may be located
in the appropriate Federal Register volume in public
libraries, or by writing to the Government Printing Office
in Washington, D.C.
54
-------
1. Agencies are encouraged to provide free copies
of important documents to the public. When not available for
free, however, the charges for such documents should not exceed
prevailing commercial copying costs in that area. In other words
if you could go to a commercial copier and have a document copied
for $.25 a page, a local government grantee or his consultant
should not charge you $2 a page to copy that document. If you
come up against apparently excessive charges for copies of
information, you should request an explanation from the grantee
or consultant. If such explanation is not satisfactory, you
may wish to complain to the EPA Regional Administrator (or
the State Agency) regarding the adequacy of the grantee's public
involvement effort.
2. In an attempt to define what constitutes
adequate public notification of major decisions for which
an agency is seeking public input, Part 25 specifies that
responsible agencies must provide written notice to those
people who appear on the required mailing list or applicable
portions of that list, as well as to the media. To ensure
that notice of impending decisions is provided far enough
in advance to allow meaningful public response, such notice
is to be generally not less than 30 days (except in the case
of public hearings or meetings).
3. All public hearings on facilities plans (or
any other decision covered by Part 25) must meet certain
minimum requirements:
• notice mailed in time to be received
by potential participants 30 days prior
to the date of the hearing (except in
emergency situations possibly posing
imminent danger to public health);
• the notice is to contain information
on the issues to be discussed at the
hearing, and any tentative derminations
that have been made, as well as information
on the location of relevant documents;
• relevant documents must be available to
the public 30 days before the hearing;
• hearings must be held at times and
locations that will encourage public
attendance and involvement;
• time must be reserved for unscheduled
testimony during the hearing. Decision-
making agencies are encouraged to hold
a question-and-answer period before public
presentations begin at the hearing;
55
-------
• a complete hearing record is to be
prepared and made available at no more
than cost to anyone who requests them.
4. Public meetings requirements are somewhat less
formal than those of public hearings. They are subject to the
same notification requirements however. Meetings must also be
held in locations and at times that will encourage public in-
volvement. The notice requirement for public meetings is also
30 days.
5. Responsiveness summaries are a major tool
developed by EPA to assure not only that the public is asked
for its input, but that the asking agency in fact responds to
the input it receives. The responsiveness summaries, required
at specific points in the facilities planning process by regu-
lation (and when specified by the public participation work-
plan), will be used by the state agency and the EPA Regional
Office to determine the adequacy of the public involvement
effort. They must contain the following information:
• the public participation activity con-
ducted ;
• the issues on which the public was con-
sulted;
• a summary of the public views; and
• the Agency's specific responses to the
public views (modifications to the pro-
posed, action or explanation of why the
public views were rejected).
An evaluation of the public participation program must
be submitted by the grantee as part of the final responsiveness
summary at the conclusion of the facilities planning process
when the facilities plan is submitted to the state or to EPA
for approval. For full-scale programs that have an advisory
committee, a separate evaluation from the committee should
accompany the responsiveness summary.
How Will Public Participation Regulations Be Enforced? Who
Will Enforce Them?
Responsibility for ensuring compliance with public par-
ticipation regulations will fall to either the EPA Regional
Office or to the state water quality agency (in states where
tha-t agency has been delegated the management of the construc-
tion grants program). The reviewing agency must analyze the
public participation outline (a component of the Plan of
Study) before it ever awards the Step 1 grant to be certain
56
-------
that there is a reasonable expectation of meeting the public
participation requirements during the facilities planning
process. No grant is to be awarded unless EPA is satisfied
that these requirements have been met. Even in the case of
a delegated program, EPA still has the responsibility for
final award of the Step 1 grant. If you are concerned that
public participation will be inadequate in your community,
you will first make that case to the state agency, if it is
not responsive, you will wish to contact the EPA Regional
Administrator and make your point at that level.
EPA (or the state agency) is required to evaluate
grantee compliance with public participation requirements at
various stages when the Facilities Plan is in progress and
after it is completed. Using the workplan, responsiveness
summaries and other available information, the overseeing
agency must judge the adequacy of the public participation
effort. At a minimum, this evaluation must take place both
during a mid-project review that EPA conducts in conjunction
with its regular oversight activities, and at the end of the
facilities planning process. If EPA or the state determines
that public participation activities have not been adequate,
the reviewing agency is required to take whatever actions it
deems appropriate to mitigate the failures and prevent them
from being repeated in the future. The enforcement action
that EPA is required to take is fairly minimal—it must
simply impose more stringent requirements on the grantee
for the next funding cycle. But there are much more power-
ful enforcement actions available to EPA: it may terminate
or suspend the grant, withhold payments, and ask for its
money back. It will be up to you, the concerned citizen,
to see that appropriate enforcement actions beyond the mini-
mum are in fact taken.
How Will These Regulations Affect What Happens in Your
Community?
The federal regulations described above simply provide
a framework for the development of a public participation pro-
gram. In fact, given the number of institutional actors in-
volved, the only thing you can be certain the regulations will
accomplish is providing some minimum level of funding eligibil-
ity for public participation activities during the facilities
planning process.
The regulations will also establish a skeletal outline
of a public participation program for your community. How that
outline is fleshed out will be partly up to you and partly up
to the local government recipient of the Step 1 grant. You will
want to work with the grantee in your community to ensure that:
• the public participation program imaginatively
meets the needs of your community;
57
-------
• the significant publics in your community in
fact participate in the facilities planning
process;
• the publics that are asked to be involved are
sufficiently informed of the issues to partici-
pate effectively; and
• the views of the public are listened to and
responded to by the grantee and his consul-
tant.
How Should a Public Participation Program Be Developed?
What Will Be Its Major Components?
Designing a public participation program is (and should
be) the responsibility of the local government grantee, but the
informed citizen leader can be an invaluable resource. In fact,
EPA regulations require consultation with the public in program
development.
As noted earlier in this chapter, a grantee entering
the Step 1 planning process must provide a brief outline of
a public participation program in its Plan of Study. EPA
has emphasized the brevity of this outline because the devel-
opment of the Plan of Study is not eligible for construction
grant funds. Nonetheless, this early outline will be extremely
important since it provides the basis for funding of public
participation activities during the Step 1 process. It must
contain enough information to allow EPA or the state agency
to decide whether the proposed public participation program
is adequate. As the grantee is required to consult with the
public during the development of the Plan of Study, you may
have an opportunity to influence the course of the facilities
planning process at this point.
No later than 45 days after the Step 1 grant award,
a more detailed-though still brief—public participation
workplan must be submitted to the reviewing agency. The
local grantee is specifically directed to distribute the
workplan to interested groups. Although the brief outline
in the Plan of Study is subject to public consultation, the
workplan need only receive such scrutiny as is given by the
advisory committee.
If you believe that the public participation program
outlined and approved in the Plan of Study is inadequate, the
workplan developed after the Step 1 grant represents a second
chance. A revised program submitted as part of the workplan
may even provide the basis for a grant amendment to increase
the dollar resources spent on public participation in Step 1
planning.
58
-------
Tables 2 through 8 in Appendix B are designed to
help you to develop a Plan of Study outline and a workplan.
Table 2, a 201 Public Participation Planning Guide, divides
the important community issues of the construction grants
program into 26 separate decision points, beginning before
the Step 1 grant award and ending after the Step 3 grant
award. Issues to be resolved at each decision point are
briefly identified and discussed, public participation
requirements are listed, and optional, additional activities
are recommended.
Tables 3 through 8 provide model public participation
outlines (required during the Plan of Study) and workplans
(required 45 days after grant award) for both the basic and
the full-scale programs. You may wish to encourage the grantee
in your community to use some version of these model workplans
in its submissions to EPA. (Please note that these workplans
were designed for communities of roughly 5,000-10,000 people.
Your public participation workplan may vary considerably
depending upon the size of your community and the scope of
your project.)
When you become involved in developing the public
participation workplan, you will find that you must address
three decisions at the outset:
1. identifying major community issues to be
addressed during facilities planning, including among others:
• growth, land-use issues;
• sensitive environmental areas;
• costs to the community and per household;
and
• industrial discharge problems (pretreatment
needs, extra capacity needs, etc.).
2. identifying the publics in your community that
should be particularly targeted for public involvement; and
3. identifying appropriate mechanisms for your
community in developing a public participation program.
When these initial decisions are made, the key issues
remaining will involve setting up opportunities for public
participation in your community. The factors that affect
these opportunities will be:
1. identfying appropriate staff and budget
resources to ensure that public participation activities
take place;
59
-------
2. identifying and scheduling of decision points
where it will be most appropriate to seek public involvement
in the decision-making process;
3. identifying and developing information,
materials and training opportunities to facilitate public
involvement.
The important facilities planning issues you are likely
to encounter in your community are discussed throughout this
manual (Please refer to Table 2 for a further discussion of
the issues and their relationship to the public participation
program. )
Two other major decisions determine the scope of the
Step 1 public participation program—identifying the public
and identifying the mechanisms to reach these publics.
Who is the public?
Government officials who grapple with the requirements
of 101(e)—or other mandates for public participation—often
begin with the question, "How do I identify the public?"
It can be argued that there are four publics: (a) the
general public, popularly known as "the man in the street";
(b) the organized public, whose citizen activities are chan-
neled through organizations; (c) the representative public,
made up of elected and appointed officials; and (d) the
economically concerned public—those individuals and insti-
tutions whose interests may be affected, adversely or favor-
ably, by water quality policies and decisions.
Each of these publics obviously has a right to express
itself on all issues, and their input should be sought at
appropriate times. The organized public, however, has already
demonstrated its interest in the issues and its determination
to be heard. All public participation programs should seek
ways to involve organized publics that have particular power
and interests in the community and that are likely to be
affected by the results of the facilities planning process.
As you develop a Step 1 public participation program,
you should also be particularly attuned to ways that facili-
ties planning issues touch the interests of publics in your
community not normally involved in water quality issues.
Major new treatment facilities or extensive expansion
of interceptor sewers will affect all segments of a community
in some manner. Certainly the local share of financing and
operating and maintaining the facilities will be borne by the
community as a whole. Some segments of the public, however,
60
-------
may be more affected than others depending on the proposed
project.
Extending interceptor sewers into an agricultural area
will certainly concern farmers and ranchers. Pressure for new
residential and commercial growth may push up land values,
forcing farmlands out of production because of higher taxes.
When facility planning contemplates service to rural areas
and/or expansion of interceptors through agricultural or ranch
lands, farmers, ranchers, and rural organizations like the Farm
Bureau should be informed of the planning and encouraged to
participate in evaluating alternatives and potential mitigation
measures.
Expanding interceptor lines to rural areas may also
contribute to deterioration of the inner city as residents,
businesses, and service organizations relocate in the new
suburbs. Low income and ethnic populations that are unable
or unwilling to move may be forced to cope with dwindling
services and inferior living conditions as city resources are
redirected to developing suburban areas. Inner-city jobs may
also be affected as businesses shift to the suburbs; inner-
city residents may have to commute long distances to their
jobs. Neighborhood organizations, labor unions, and ethnic
groups who will likely be affected by such a population shift
should be involved in any facility planning that may induce
significant new suburban growth.
Potential, deterioration of environmental quality
will concern many community organizations and may have signifi-
cant impact on specific segments of the public. Potential
air quality deterioration, for example, will have special con-
sequences for the elderly and the chronically ill. Environ-
mental and public health organizations should be involved in
resolving these issues, as well as any solid waste problems
generated by sludge disposal or degradation of underground
water supplies or wetlands.
Environmentalists will also be worried about potential
destruction of natural areas, animal habitats or biological
systems. Bird watchers and nature photographers may want to
participate in decisions that affect natural areas, while sport
fishermen will have a stake in preserving aquatic life. Pro-
fessional fishermen will have concerns about potential water
quality deterioration caused by increased urban and construc-
tion runoff.
Aesthetic deterioration that could occur in the vicinity
of the treatment facilities themselves will be of special con-
cern to nearby property owners, neighborhoods, and to civic
and business associations in the area. Early involvement of
these groups as well as beautification, parks and recreation
organizations may eliminate controversies over location of
the facility and provide for mitigation of site and odor
problems.
61
-------
What Are the Public Participation Tools?
Public participation can cover a wide range of activities
designed to inform and involve the public. Most of the mechanisms
of public participation fit into one of three categories, as indi-
cated by the chart below:
Education/Information Review/Reaction Interaction/Dialogue*
Newspaper Articles Public Hearings Workshops
Radio and TV Programs Survey Special Task Forces
Speechs and Questionnaries Interviews
Presentations Public Inquiries Advisory Boards
Field Trips Public Meetings Informal Contacts
Exhibits Study Group
School Programs Discussions
Films Seminars
Brochures
Newsletters
Reports
Letters
Conferences
Some of these mechanisms (workshops, newsletters, coalitions)
can be initiated by either citizens or by public officials. Others,
however, (public meetings and hearings) remain exclusively with the
powers of public officials.
Obviously, different mechanisms are used for different
publics. For example, an information program aimed at the
general public should be designed to:
a. Generate interest;
b. Provide enough information on the legal and regulatory
framework to enhance public understanding;
c. Provide access to planning documents and other
relevant information;
d. Provide information on opportunities for public
participation; and
e. Elicit reaction to potential decisions.
Katharine P. Warner, "Public Participation in Water Resources
Planning," University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1971.
62
-------
In a program for the general public, these points
are listed correctly in descending order of priority. An
information program aimed at the organized public, however,
would give its greatest emphasis to the last three purposes
and, ideally would include an additional purpose:
f. Provide technical assistance for citizens
groups seeking to effect community goals and
to explore different ways to meet those goals.
Many citizens organizations are knowledgeable about
interpretating statistics, computerized data, and highly
sophisticated reports. Such groups should be given opportunities
to respond to the most up-to-date information about a given
program. A program that makes information public should be
more than merely a device to communicate decisions already made.
As you design a public participation program that fits
withint the framework of EPA regulations, be creative in your
interpretation of these regulations. Certain parts of the regula-
tions may be more flexible than is initially apparent. For example,
both the basic and full-scale public participation programs require
public meetings to consider the issues raised at specific decision
points. A public meeting, however, is simply a gathering of indi-
viduals to interact face-to-face. There are many different kinds
of public meetings. As well as different kinds of institutional
settings under which the meetings are sponsored.
Even the apparently rigid structure and roles of advisory
committees specified by regulation sometimes lend themselves to
flexible interpretation.
Education/Information Mechanisms
The educational tools designed to promote the quality of
public understanding of issues have a special role to play in
the Facilities Planning process. These tools must deal with the
informational needs of both the most and the least sophisticated
publics in your community. These tools will be used to:
• familiarize the public with the nature of the water
quality problem being addressed during the Facilities
Planning Process;
• apprise the public of key issues that may be of community
concern;
• apprise the public of opportunities for input into key
issues; and
• provide detailed information in lay language on the
technical and political aspects of wastewater management.
63
-------
The use of informational tools will be essential to the
conduct of any public participation program—whether conducted
by a local government entity or by a citizen organization. These
informational mechanisms cannot be the end of the public participa-
tion program, however. Meaningful public involvement will require
the use of reactive and interactive mechanisms as well.
Public Participation Outline or Workplan
New public participation regulations require the development
of a public participation outline to be submitted with the Plan of
Study at the time of grant application. This outline will set
forth budget and staff responsibility as well as a schedule of
proposed activities. The outline will be revised in the form of
a more detailed workplan after the grant award has been made. In
this workplan resources will be directly related to activities,
specific responsiveness summaries will be identified, and coor-
dinating mechanisms between 208 and 201 planning will be noted.
The public participation outline and workplan must not
only be thought of as a planning tool, but should also be viewed
as a public involvement tool. One of the most difficult tasks of
the public participation professional is to make certain that the
level of participation is relevant to the interests and needs of
the community and the proposed project. If the development of
the public participation outline or workplan is viewed as an
opportunity to obtain public input into the scope of the overall
effort, it can be a useful technique for assuring relevance.
In addition, the public participation outline or workplan
can be a useful public information device. If presented in a clear
and concise format it can apprise potential public participants of:
• issues that have been singled out for particular attention;
• participation opportunities;
• important project staff contacts.
Mailing lists
The development of a comprehensive mailing list of all
organizations and individuals likely to be interested in or affected
by facilities planning should be one of the first steps in a 201
Public Participation Program. It will be required by the new public
participation regulations. The list should include pubic officials,
business and civic groups, public interest and environmental organ-
izations, and representatives from outside the planning area such as
downstream residents who may have an interest in the project. The
list should be supplemented throughout the planning process as more
people become aware of the project, attend meetings, and ask for
information. The mailing list will be useful for distributing news-
letters, fact sheets and other information materials and meeting
64
-------
and hearing announcements, and for conducting surveys or
widespread public consultation activities. Citizen groups
should be involved in developing such a mailing list, both
for themselves and for the use of governmental agencies
with public participation responsibility.
News Media
Newspapers, local magazines, and radio and television
stations reach the general public and help to stimulate in-
terest in the project. They should be kept informed of all
items of general interest. Key issues should be clarified
and made interesting to news editors and environmental re-
porters through news briefings and special media events, such
as a visit to a discharge point causing pollution problems.
Except when used to support in-depth feature stories,
the background material prepared for news items should be
brief and nontechnical. When technical or complicated in-
formation is to be included in an interview or media event,
it should always be concisely stated in a fact sheet and
included with a brochure and/or background materials in
a press kit. Press kits should be prepared for all events
that you hope will be covered by the media.
In order to use the media effectively you should
consider undertaking the following activities, early in
the Facilities Planning Process:
1) Visit media offices at the beginning of the process.
(a) identify key personnel responsible for covering
stories that might be related to the project.
(b) learn media requirements for stories—dead-
lines, filming requirements, requirements for
public announcements.
2) Hold background briefing for media personnel iden-
tified. Learn from media personnel what kinds of
issues are likely to receive media attention.
3) Develop a media plan which will anticipate media
coverage for various aspects and stages of the
planning process. The plan should include:
o news releases about specific aspects of the
planning process, such as hearings, appointment
of advisory groups, and workshops. In order to
ensure arrival at the appropriate desk, these
should always be hand delivered.
65
-------
public service announceents (PSA's) for radio and
television stations to publicize meetings and hear-
ings or to call attention to some aspect of the plan,
such as selection of alternatives. Radio stations
will usually prepare PSA's from written copy sent
to them. Television stations may request someone
to appear in the PSA, or they may want to film on
location. It is always best to handle these
arrangements in person.
participation in radio and television talk shows.
Make sure the individuals who appear are able to
respond to a wide range of questions in an infor-
mative and congenial manner.
Publications
Publications may consist of such things as published
versions of draft components of the Facilities Plan, draft and
final Environmental Impact Statements, or of a variety of short
brochures, flyers, fact sheets or bulletins designed to facil-
itate public input to the Facility Plan. These publications
may be stored in depositories, handed out at meetings, enclosed
with mailings, and supplied to the media.
• Flyers: A flyer should be very brief—one or two pages,
perhaps include a picture or two. It might explain the
purpose of the facilities planning process and give the
name, address, and phone number of the consulting -engi-
neer and/or the public official in charge of the plan-
ning.
• Brochures; A brochure is a brief booklet which may, for
example, describe the need for the project, refer to
federal and state laws and regulations, detail various
stepsin the planning process, and provide background
information for new advisory committee members, govern-
ment officials, newsmen, and other interested persons.
A summary of the draft Facility Plan might be distri-
buted as a brochure, prior to the final public meeting.
• Fact Sheets; Probably one of the most useful publications
will be the fact sheets, each on a single issue of concern
in the project, such as population projections, user
charges, treatment methods, secondary impacts of growth,
etc. Fact sheets might also be used to outline the con-
sequences of alternative approaches and draw upon the
experience of other communities where appropriate.
• Technical Bulletins; It might prove advisable to prepare
one or more detailed publications about the technical
aspects of the plan, such as waste-load allocation, for
distribution to advisory committee members and other
specialized interests.
66
-------
Both the community leader and the grantee developing
publications will want to be aware of the many publications
already developed by EPA, by your state agency, and by others
(such as those developed for The Conservation Foundation's
training program). Preparation of publications can be costly.
Use should be made of existing general materials whenever
possible, with new publications focusing on the specific
community situation. The EPA Office of Public Awareness
may be able to help you locate appropriate materials.
Newsletters
A newsletter should be published at regular intervals
and mailed to persons and organizations on the project's mailing
list (or on a list compiled by community leaders). For maximum
utilization, the newsletter might be designed as a slip sheet
that can be distributed with organizational mailings.
A newsletter is usually started early in the planning
stages and continued throughout the planning process. It is
an excellent way of reporting a variety of news to those either
are interested in or whom may become interested in the Facility
Planing.
Some of the types of articles and information appropriate
to newsletters include: general water resource and water quality
news; feature articles explaining alternative plans and technol-
ogies; summaries of relevant workshops and meetings, hearings,
meetings and workshop notices; responsiveness summaries; reports
or recommendations of an citizens advisory committee; and letters
to the editor.
Information Depositories
The local governmental agency is required by regulation to
maintain a central information file or depository which includes
significant project documents. Ideally these depositories should:
(a) be in buildings (such as libraries) whose hours
open facilitate community use;
(b) have copying machines on the premises;
(c) in larger communities be in a number of locations;
(d) for more complex projects have staff support
(perhaps volunteer) to assist any search for
materials.
Speaches
A number of forums can be selected for speeches
and audiovisual presentations on the facility planning
project. Appropriate forums include service clubs, regular
meetings of civic groups, churches, environmental organizations,
67
-------
chambers of commerce, and educational institutions. A speakers'
bureau including authorities on several aspects of the planning
process should be organized. The consulting engineer, members
of his technical staff, advisory committee members, and
other community leaders knowledgeable about the planning
should be invited to participate.
Speakers should possess effective speaking ability and
be able to tailor their remarks to the interests of the groups
to be addressed. Presentations should be prepared on a variety
of topics, and then be used as a basis for individual talks.
Handouts, slide shows, and exhibits will assist in making a
speaker's presentation more interesting and understandable.
Exhibits
Exhibits are visual displays which may be as simple
as maps, charts, and diagrams or as sophisticated as a walk-
through maze which allows the participant to make alternative
selections regarding the future growth and character of his
community. Simple exhibits may be used in conjunction with
public meetings, hearings, speeches, or seminars. More sophis-
ticated displays may be stationed in public buildings or
shopping malls where they can reach large numbers of people
Large exhibits should be designed to both provide information
and receive public input. They are best managed if con-
structed so they do not require an attendant.
Reactive/Interactive/Dialogue Mechanisms
Most of the mechanisms described below can be considered
reactive or interactive depending on how the information obtained
will be used: Will the mechanism be used simply to obtain public
response to an agency decision (Reactive) or also to allow an agency
to respond to considerations posed by the public (Interactive)?
Functional two-way communication can help keep officials
in constant touch with the needs and expectations of the public.
Basic organizational and administrative techniques, such as those
discussed below, can provide the framework for public involvement.
Public Participation Coordinator
For effective implementation a comprehensive public partici-
pation program will require a public participation specialist. Few
engineering consultant firms or municipalities currently have the
necessary expertise within their existing staffs to undertake
this function.
A public participation specialist should have expertise
working with community action groups, either in a paid or volun-
tary capacity. He or she should also possess communications skills
—know how to work with the media, prepare publications, run work-
shops, organize meetings, and work with the public effectively.
68
-------
The 3ob of the public participation coordinator
is to facilitate public involvement in the facilities plan.
In facilitating this involvement, the public participation
coordinator will need to understand how best to contact
the publics in the community in which he or she is working,
as well as what issues will be important those publics? Who
should be called in order to obtain a certain level of
citizen input at a particular decision point? What kind
of information will be needed by the publics in the community
in order to participate effectively in key decisions?
A public participation coordinator is required in the
Full Scale Public Participation Program (PSPPP) described
earlier in this book. Although not required in the Basic
Public Participation Program (BPPP), these communities may
also wish to hire such a public participation specialist.
Several options should be considered in providing for
a specialist:
• He/she might be hired directly by the engin-
eering consultant. This will assure a close
tie with the technical and planning
-------
Consultations
The word consultations means the act of seeking
advice and exchanging views. A variety of formal and informal
mechanisms can be utilized to fulfill the consultation require-
ments of public participation regulations. Some of these
mechanisms are:
Informal consultations
Face-to-face interviews or conferences, are useful both for
transmitting information and for receiving pubic input. Consul-
tations will be needed throughout the planning process, but par-
ticularly in its early stages. Interested citizens and organ-
izations should initiate discussions with governmental decision
makers when they have information to offer, or issues to be re-
solved.
Consultations initiated by citizen organizations often will
be most useful if arranged on an ad hoc basis covering specific
issues of concern to that organization. Such activities will often
be particularly well-received by a governmental agency when they
involve a number of different organizations representing a variety
of interests. On the other hand, effective advocacy of a par-
ticular position may require that the organizations requesting
the consultation come from similar interests.
Task Forces
A task force is usually a small group of people, including
some with special expertise, which is assigned to research or
resolve a specific problem in a limited time frame. Task forces
may look at problems which are generally outside the purview of
civil or sanitary engineering studies, such as secondary impacts
of growth and related air pollution problems.
Frequently the work of a task force will require some
understanding of technical issues relating to the facilities
planning process. With appropriate assistance from staff in-
volved in the planning for municipal wastewater management,
citizens' organizations are often able to study problems and
arrive at creative solutions that might not otherwise be con-
sidered to be politically acceptable.
The problem to be considered by a task force should be
clearly defined before its members commence work. A work schedule
should be prepared, and a fair cross-section of knowledgeable per-
sons representative of a range of viewpoints should be selected to
serve. Task force members should be furnished with sufficient back-
ground information to enable them to thoroughly understand the
problem at hand and to deal with it in a short period of time. One
person (either on the Task Force or serving as staff to the task
70
-------
force) should be appointed to formally summarize the results,
including any missing data or unresolved issues.
Workshops
A workshop is a small group meeting at which all partici-
pants have some familiarity with the topic to be discussed and
are afforded the opportunity to comment in considerable detail.
Such meetings are particularly useful in the middle stages of the
planning process when the basic facts are known, but the alterna-
tive proposals have yet to be thoroughly examined. Workshops re-
quire substantial preparation time to be successful, but offer
one of the most useful ways to explore in depth what people
think about the ramifications of the facility plan.
In order to ensure a successful workshop, the organizer
should undertake the following preparations:
• succinct definition of the objectives of the
workshop. What are participants expected to
accomplish;
• preparation or identification of materials to
be distributed to participants before the work-
shop that will facilitate discussion during the
workshop;
• a briefing of speakers and resource people on
what their roles are to be and what information
they will present;
• attention to the administrative details of the
workship to minimize confusion and maximize the
comfort of participants (i.e., Will the workshop
take place over a meal time? Will meals be pro-
vided? If not, where can participants go to
quickly grab a bite to eat? etc.)
Surveys
Several kinds of surveys can be used in planning sewerage
treatment systems. A technical survey might be designed to elicit
information from those with technical knowledge, such as agencies
and corporations which are discharging pollution into the waterways,
A general survey designed to gauge public opinion and pinpoint
community values and goals might be circulated before selection
of alternatives in order to determine public response to such
alternatives as voluntary or mandatory flow-reduction programs.
Or residents might be asked to respond to questions regarding
the condition, problems, etc. of their on-site disposal systems.
Data collection through surveys can be very useful.
71
-------
In the Buffalo, New York 208 plan for example, a survey revealed
a depth of public support for improved water quality that led to
stronger implementation recomendations than the decision makers
would have otherwise supported.
Surveys can also be expensive and time consuming. Those
planning to conduct a survey should consider using academic
resources as a source of volunteer assistance. For example,
university students may be available to help in the preparation
of a survey including pre-testing that survey. High school
classes, or scouting groups might be willing to help distribute
a survey and compile resulting data.
Citizen Advisory Committee
A formally constituted Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC)
has the potential for serving as an institutionalized consultation
mechanism with the ability to provide continuous input to each
stage of the planning process. If properly balanced and adequately
staffed (representing a broad base of community interests), a CAC
may ensure that important knowledgeable interests in the community
will have continuing input into the planning process.
Citizens' advisory committees have been utilized in
various environmental programs throughout the years, and
they have been the subject of considerable well-founded
criticisms. The criticisms leveled at CAC's have basically
fallen into the following three categories.
• Their membership is often dominated by interests
with an economic stake in the issues under con-
sideration. While CAC's may be designed as a means
for regularizing and institutionalizing the input
of those with limited access to the decision-making
process, they frequently do not achieve those goals.
• A CAC may become a barrier to public participation
if it is viewed by the sponsoring agency as the
whole public participation program. If the local
government only consults with the CAC, then the
decision maker simply receives the thoughts of
another group of people who may or may not represent
the general public.
• A CAC may be ineffective if their role is poorly
defined, or staff support is inadequate regardless
of whether or not it is appropriately constituted.
Citizen Advisory Committees are required as part of the
Full Scale Public Participation Program. They are not required
for the Basic Program, but may be suggested. Citizen organizations
should be carefull not to blindly promote a CAC as a key activity of
72
-------
a public participation program, if CAC's are selected as
a public participation method be sure to give equal attention
to the makeup of the committee, functions of the committee,
and its staff support.
EPA 's public participation regulations (mentioned earlier)
contain the following guidelines for the formation of a CAC:
• The CAC membership should be comprised of sub-
stantially equal representation from four in-
terests: private citizens; public interest
groups; governmental officials; and economic
interests.
• Notice of intent to form an advisory committee
should be circulated widely in the community so
that those wishing to serve on such a committee
may have an opportunity to do so.
• The tasks of the CAC should be clearly defined,
including its role relative to other public
participation mechanisms. In this way, the CAC
can maintain its contacts and credibility outside
the CAC;
• The CAC work should be supported by adequate staff
and budget.
• Certain expenses of the CAC will be reimbursable.
Although EPA regulations may at first appear to set a
pretty rigid structure for advisory committees, these committees
may be expected to vary considerably. A number of questions will
have to be carefully resolved within the community as the advisory
committee is being formulated.
• membership (what economic interests are represented?
What types of local government officials, public in-
terest representatives?)
• size (will the advisory committee have 10 members or
30 members?)
• role and responsibilities (will the advisory committee
have some responsibility for the execution of the
public involvement program? To what degree will the
advisory committee periodically expand its membership
through ad hoc task forces?)
The CAC should be appointed in the early stages of the plan-
ning process. It will establish a necessary communication link be-
tween the consulting engineer and the public; provide a valuable
73
-------
forum for reconciling varying viewpoints; analyze, review and make
recommendations; and reflect community values and goals during the
planning stages. The CAC may also assist in the development of a
public participation workplan, advise on politics, and participate
in public meetings, workshops, and seminars.
It is important that the committee's role be established
early in the planning-process. To be fully effective, the committee
must have direct input into all major decisions affecting the plan.
Their value will be greatly reduced if they become only a reactive
panel. All CAC activities should be funded in the Step 1 grant,
and adequate staffing should be provided.
Public Meetings
Public meetings afford an opportunity to introduce and
stimulate interest in the wastewater treatment planning. They
also afford the chance to clarify issues and give concerned citi-
zens a forum in which to present their questions and air varying
points of view.
Meetings should be scheduled throughout the planning
process to provide information as well as receive citizen's
opinions. They provide a valuable opportunity to explore the
environmental, social, economic, legal, and political ramifica-
tions of various alternatives considered during the planning
stages.
The new public participation regulations require public
meetings at specific stages in the facilities planning proces.
These meetings can take a variety of forms, for example:
• meetings designed to accomplish a task;
• meetings designed to identify and negotiate
conflicts;
• open forums simply intended to air a variety
of viewpoints; and
• large mass meetings to present basic information.
Public meetings also may be sponsored in different insti-
tutional frameworks. For example:
• the advisory committee in a full-scale public
participation program may hold a working public
meeting designed to broaden input from other
publics on specific issues;
• the grantee may hire the local chapter of the
League of Women Voters to sponsor an open forum
on specific issues;
74
-------
an already scheduled town meeting may focus its
attention on facilities planning issues needing
resolution. ^
resolution.
.u .C?u'S should n?rmally play a role in formal public meetings
so that they can receive input from the public and affectively
advocate legitimate public interest.
Charettes
One of the more sophisticated and creative consultative
mechanisms, charette is an intensive brainstorming session in
which a number of people representing different interests get
together to define problems and come up with solutions. It may
last anywhere from a couple of hours to a few days, and parti-
cipants are given no food or sleep. In its description, citizen
Participation Techniques, the Institute for Participatory Plan-
ning (Laramie, Wyoming) list the following characteristics of
a successful charette:
• Problems can serve as a catalyst problem to focus
peoples' attention and facilitate discussion;
• There should be large and small meeting rooms
if more than a few people are involved. Most
of the work will be done in small groups;
• all kinds of materials should to be available,
particularly roles of paper and magic markers;
• all food should be brought in. Some breaks
for "cat naps" should be made available;
• consulting engineers, environmental specialists
and other technicians should be sprinkled among the
lay people to facilitate meaningful discussion.
Training Mechanisms
Three of the most common training mechanisms are:
Seminars
Seminars as described here are essentially training
exercises designed to assist a small group in the legal re-
quirements for and the steps in the process of wastewater
facility planning. They may be repeated several times with
different audiences and may be planned by concerned citizens,
by local government or by the consulting engineering firm. The
purpose of the seminar is to convey necessary information early
in the planning stages, so that citizens who will continue to be
involved will be knowledgeable about the issues and able to par-
ticipate more effectively. Seminars or training sessions should
75
-------
be held by the local government grantee or the consultant for
advisory committee members, the public participation specialist
or coordinator, task forces, local government staff, and others
active in the planning process.
Conferences
Conferences involve the presentation of information
to a medium to large audience in a manner that facilitates the
group's understanding of issues that need resolution. Con-
ferences may combine techniques common to public meetings,
workshops and seminars. The key ingredient, however, is a
formal learning experience that will assist audience partici-
pants in understanding the issues that must be resolved before
decisions can be made.
Simulation and Games
One of the most sophisticated public involvement mech-
anisms is the simulation of actual planning situations as a
technique for mediating conflict and for training citizen
participants and planners with differing points of view.
A central goal of public participation programs under
201 is to create forums for the development of a consensus on
the single best solution to the community's wastewater problem.
Creating a consensus for whatever solution emerges from the plan-
ning process requires a highly complex interplay of political
forces. Sometimes it is possible to stimulate these inter-
actions in a less-charged atmosphere by developing a "let's
pretend" situation which has been highly simplified to permit
acting out the interplay of forces.
The simulation will often require the hiring of a
specialist to develop the game and conduct the activities.
Building a Coalition
One of the most effective ways citizen organizations
can utilize the mechanisms described above is to build a broad-
based coalition within their community to affect the facilities
planning decision-making process. An organization's various
efforts to affect the decision-making process will be viewed
more favorably by the general public and by the local government
grantee if it is evident that a broad-base of community support
is involved.
Whether you decide to hold a workshop or seminar or
to establish a task force, you will wish to consider expanding
the number of organizations and individuals involved in such an
activity. Building such a coalition will involve informal meetings
with a number of different interests in order to establish common
points of concern.
76
-------
i C0alltl0n mav not n«n that all organizations
H -M V** ? ^^ m°St °f the P°ssible Positions vis-a-vis
the facilities planning process, it may simply mean that the
organizations forming the coalition agree to disagree on certain
issues, have identified certain issues they have in common, and
share the objective to regularly communicate with the decision-
making body.
Public Hearings
Although a public hearing is a consultative mechanism,
its formality and legal requirements have caused us to list it
as a separate type of mechanism.
A whole list of legal requirements must be met in conduc-
ting almost any public hearing under the Clean Water Act. These
requirements are described earlier in this chapter. Anyone in-
volved in either designing or participating in a public involve-
ment program will wish to be cognizant of those requirements.
Public hearings are normally a reactive mechanism and are
meant to give individuals and organizations a formal opportunity to
express their opinions on an issue immediately prior to decision
making. Although in theory most public hearings are scheduled just
before decision making, in reality they usually take place after
the staff has completed its work and has arrived at a tentative
conclusion. All too often the burden is on the public to prove
that a different conclusion is warranted.
Public hearings have been criticized not only because
of the heavy burden of proof on the public to change an agency
course, but' also because the manner in which they are handled
often discourages rather than encourages citizen input. Many of
the legal requirements (such as notice periods, requirements for
Fact Sheets, etc.) described earlier were designed to respond
to these criticisms.
Officials responsible for public hearings may wish
to consider holding one earlier in the decision making process
than is required by regulation. (This would mean a second public
hearing, as you would not be relieved of the existing public
hearing required before adoption of a Facility Plan.). This
approach would give officials the opportunity to better consider
and respond to public input before finalizing recommendations.
Creative Use of Existing Institutions In Implementing
Public Involvement Tools
In addition to the tools for public involvement in the
facilities planning process discussed in preceding sections, there
will be a number of opportunities for affecting Facility Plans
outside the formal planning process. We cannot hope to describe
77
-------
the range of opportunities available because they will vary
enormously depending upon the institutional structure of your
community and you community's relationship to other state and
regional governments.
In constructing a public participation program, you should
examine the various governmental and nongovernmental tools for
decision making that exist in your community and tailor your pro-
gram to make maximum use of these tools.
Town Meetings
New England towns and villages annually hold town
meetings in the spring to approve the yearly budget and specific
actions or programs to be undertaken by the Town Council or Board
of Selectmen. The local financing share for facilities planning,
engineering design, and construction must be approved by community
members at the town meetings. User charges and local bond issues
might also be considered at such a time.
For example, in a town meeting citizens might attach
a rider to the budget allocation for the local financing share
requiring a public participation work plan as part of the Step
1 grant application. During a town meeting a sewer commission
might be directed to consider land treatment or other low-technology
systems in developing their Plan of Study, or limitations might
be placed on the selection of the location for a treatment facility.
Citizens who wish to be involved in facilities planning
will wish to participate in all town meetings in which facilities
planning is on the agenda. In addition, if facilities planning
is not on the agenda, local decision makers might be responsive
to requests that it be added. A New England town meeting may offer
a unique opportunity to reach a broader constituency in the community
than is possible at other times.
Conservation Commissions
Conservation Commissions, like town meetings, are
unique to the northeast and may significantly influence 201
planning. Commissioners have the authority to review Facility
Plan proposals and environmental impact statements (if an EIS
is prepared) and to assess the natural resource implications of
the proposed project. They will probably also have a wealth of
data available to assist citizens in making their own determinations
regarding the environmental impact of a proposed treatment facility
Planning Boards and Commissions
Many communities will have some type of planning and/or
78
-------
zoning board or commission to develop -and/or approve economic
development plans, land-use plans, or individual requests for
zoning. These agencies will be involved in reviewing Facility
Plans to determine whether the treatment plant and interceptor
sewer capacity and location are consistent with local plans.
Planning boards and commissions frequently have regular
meetings which are open to citizens. In such meetings, citizens
may raise questions about the implications of certain aspects of
the facilities planning process.
Such boards and commissions may not have much power or
authority in a community. Concerned citizens however, can exert
considerable influence to insure better coordination between the
Planning Commission and those planning for sewage treatment, thus
making Facilities Planning more responsive to broader planning
concerns.
Regional Planning Agencies
Most areas of the country now have regional planning
agencies of some kind. These agencies usually have the respon-
sibility for conducting an initial review (known as A-95 Review)
of Facility Plans to assure consistency with other local and
regional plans and to assess environmental impacts. The A-95
Review Process provides regional planning agencies with the
opportunity to review and comment on upcoming projects, but
the recommendations generally are not legally binding. The
201 Plan of Study and grant application, as well as the Facility
Plan and Step 2 and Step 3 grant applications, must be reviewed
and commented on by the regional planning agency prior to sub-
mission to EPA. The agency, when submitting its A-95 review,
may simply approve or disapprove a particular project or may
qualify its approval based on specific project changes. If an
inconsistency with local plans exists or if special environ-
mental problems are known, this should be brought to the atten-
tion of the agency when the grant application is being reviewed.
Certain planning agencies may exercise additional authority.
The California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, for instance, has
permitting authority under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Facility Plans are reviewed for compliance with land-use plans, con-
sistency with population projections, and analysis of secondary en-
vironmental impacts before a permit may be issued. Projects which
plan for an excess capacity or which may degrade air or water quality
may not be approved.
Freauently an existing regional planning agency is
in fart the aaency responsible for conducting 208 planning.
Since Facility Plans must be consistent with 208 plans, these
agencies may have real influence over what happens during the
79
-------
facilities planning process. Early in your involvement
in the facilities planning process, you will wish to examine
how decision making may be constrained by an approved 208 plan.
If you feel that significant decisions have been made without
public involvement, or that certain decisions may have environ-
mental and/or social consequences not adequately considered,
you may wish to find out what provisions have been made for
amending the 208 plan through the formal continuous planning
process.
In many instances, there will be a number of public
participation mechanisms already in use by a regional planning
agency. Using these existing mechanisms may be an efficient way
to approach development of a public participation program for
the facilities planning process. For example, a regional planning
agency responsible for 208 planning may already have a citizens'
advisory committee. Perhaps the CAC for the facilities planning
process should be a subcommittee of that citizens advisory
committee, including membership from the larger 208 CAC.
The regional planning agency with responsibility for 208
planning may have staff members experienced in public participation.
Since 208 planning and facilities planning are so closely linked,
arrangements may effectively be made to allow the facilities planning
process to make use of these already experienced public participation
specialists.
A number of other regional public participation mechanisms, such
as regular newsletters or other bulletins, and regularly scheduled pub-
lic meetings, may also provide useful opportunities for public involve-
ment in the facilities planning process.
Cable Television
In a number of communities around the country, local cable
TV stations have sponsored regular public-service programs produced
in the community and dealing with issues of special local interest and
concern. Local groups could develop programs focusing on the facili-
ties planning process and, for instance, discuss the water-quality
problems being addressed by the facilities planning process and
present controversial issues.
Several communities are experimenting with the use of a
two-way capability that will allow cable TV viewers to transmit
back to local stations, offering a feed-back opportunity not
normally associated with television. In facilities planning
areas with a scattered rural population, this two-way capability
may significantly add to the usefulness of a public meeting if
it is transmitted on TV.
The two-way capability of cable TV is still in the
experimental stage, and may not be widely available to you.
80
-------
^C«nY,™?-natfdiPUbli° service Programming, however, is not
at all experimental and may be a useful mechanism to foster
broader public involvement in facilities planning.
What Problems Might Be Encountered in the Implementation of
Public Participation Requirements?
A historical perspective
The development of the public participation regulations
described in this chapter was begun by EPA in October 1977 at
the request of five national environmental organizations—The
Conservation Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Institute for Public
Interest Representation (Georgetown University Law Center). In
a June 21, 1977 memorandum to EPA Administrator Douglas Costle,
these organizations stated:
Despite both the emphatic language of
101(e) and the apparent recognition by
EPA of the significance of public par-
ticipation, EPA has yet to issue regu-
lations that fulfill the promising and
exacting public participation require-
ments of the [Clean Water] Act.
Agreeing that the public participation efforts of EPA
and of implementing agencies at the state and local level had
been deficient, Thomas Jorling, Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, began the effort to
rewrite the rules for public involvement.
Between 1972 and the end of 1978, the public partici-
pation requirements were initiated primarily by a few forward-
looking administrators with appropriate implementation authority
The rules of the game were vague indeed. Regulations issued on
August 23, 1973, (40 CFR, Part 105) were in fact performance
standards that set limited goals and objectives to be met by a
public involvement program but virtually no requirements.
(For example, implementing agencies were to develop an
information program, a program of early consultation with
various publics, etc.). Program regulations—which were to
provide specific requirements—usually referred back to Part
105 and failed to specify any other public participation re-
quirements other than an occasional public hearing.
Even the few requirements that did exist (i.e., a
iL^a^u^^fp-ic
81
-------
In fact, even the eligibility of public participation programs
for construction grants funding has been the subject of some
confusion. With no clear-cut regulatory directive declaring
public involvement to be grant-eligible, some EPA regions and
states determined that some public participation activities
were not grant eligible.
The new Part 25 regulations (replacing Part 105) are
surprisingly similar in approach to the old regulations. They
consist mostly of performance standards and leave to the imple-
menting agency or to the specific program regulations the mech-
anisms and timing of the public involvement program. There are,
however, significant differences:
1. New Part 25 pays a great deal of attention to
criteria for judging the adequacy of public involvement. The
goals and objectives of public participation are clearly stated.
2. Although specific public involvement techniques
are not required by Part 25, when they are required in program
regulations they must be carried out in a specific manner. For
example, public meetings must take place on 30-day notice, ad-
visory committee membership must be equally balanced among pri-
vate citizens, public interest groups, government officials and
economic interests, etc.
3. The reasonable costs of public participation
activities are clearly stated to be grant-eligible items.
4. All grant programs must outline an adequate
public participation work element (in the case of the Construc-
tion Grants Program, the Plan of Study outline fills this re-
quirement) before receiving the grant award.
5. Responsiveness summaries required periodically
throughout the facilities planning process will assist EPA
oversight responsibilities regarding the adequacy of the public
participation effort.
6. The EPA has obligated itself to provide
technical assistance and training to advisory committees
formed to participate in the facilities planning process.
7. Simply by revising the regulations, EPA
has signaled a change. The agency has effectively said
—to the public and to implementing institutions—that
public participation efforts under old regulations were
not successful, and that public participation programs
will be taken far more seriously in the future.
Institutional resistance
It is perhaps for this last reason that proposed
82
-------
public participation regulations—which took such modest
steps toward changing the rules—evoked such controversy
at all levels of government. Some EPA Regional Offices,
and many state agencies and local governments submitted
comments on the proposed regulations that decried any
specific requirements for the development of a public
participation program.
Some of their objections were:
• the limited financial and staff resources
available to oversee and/or implement the
regulations;
• the large number of federal regulations that
local and state governments already have to
deal with in the Construction Grants Program;
and
• a feeling that the specific requirements of
the regulations would be insensitive to local
institutions, problems and opportunities.
Other reasons for institutional resistance to public
involvement in facilities planning may be:
• a lack of understanding on the part of the
engineers who have run the program that there
are political and social value judgments in-
volved in the technical decisions that lead to
the selection of a waste treatment management
alternative;
• a lack of understanding of how to interpret
public participation regulations on the part
of those charged with interpreting them.
Encouraging effective public involvement
is a specialized skill in the same way that
engineering a treatment facility is a specialized
skill. At this point the people who are charged
with implementing public involvement programs are
largely the same people who are engineering the
facilities. The development of creative and mean-
ingful public involvement programs will probably
require hiring public participation specialists.
The development of a meaningful public involvement program
in your community may well require perseverance on the part of
informed citizens. You will want to work closely with the local
government grantee and with the consulting engineer to ensure
that public involvement programs:
• closely track the decision-making process to
ensure maximum input without causing substan-
tial delays;
83
-------
• identify important community issues at early
stages in the decision-making process; and
• target the important affected and interested
publics in your community.
Local apathy
A final problem you might incur in developing a public
involvement program is lack of interest among the various publics
in your community. This apathy may be caused by one of three
conditions:
• lack of understanding of how the facilities
planning process touches the lives of the
people in the community;
• the proposed project may be only one of
a number of important issues currently
drawing on the volunteer time of people
in the communty; and
• the proposed project may have truly
minimum impact on the community.
It is important to remember that different projects and
activities generate different levels of interest in the community,
In some cases, no matter what your efforts, there is no way you
will be able to turn out 300 people for a public meeting on a
minor sewer rehabilitation project, for example.
In many cases, however, you will be able to actively
encourage public involvement by pointing out to various groups
how their interests coincide with or are affected by the
facilities planning process (see "Who is the Public?" in this
chapter).
What Are the Rewards of Public Involvement in the Facilities
Planning Process?
It is important to remember that the ultimate purpose of
public involvement in facilities planning is cleaner water at
a lower environmental, economic and social cost. Only careful
public scrutiny can ensure:
• that the Facilities Plan meets the present
and future needs of the community;
• that all the relevant environmental,
economic and political data necesary to
ensure effective implementation emerges;
84
-------
that appropriate measures are taken
to mitigate negative impacts; and
that a community develops a committment
to continued oversight of the operation
and maintenance of the facility.
85
-------
REFERENCES
A number of sources contain further descriptions
of public participation tools. Three sources have been
particularly useful in the preparation of this book:
1. A Manual for Communities on Public Participation in
Planning for Wastewater Treatment, Draft Publication,
EPA Region I, 1977.
2. Institute for Participatory Planning/ Citizen
Participation Handbook for Public Officials and
Other Professionals Serving the Public, Chapter V,
"Citizen Participation Techniques," Third Edition,
1978, Box 4068, Laramie, Wyoming.
3. Warner, Katherine, Public Participation in Water
Resources Planning, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1977.
86
-------
APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX A
Principal Federal Regulations and Guidelines
Construction Grants Program
Regulation
Purpose
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works, 40 CFR
Part 35, Supart E [Grants
for construction of
Treatment Works, 43 Fed.
Reg. 44022-44099,
Sept. 27, 1978.]
Public participation in
the Construction Grants
Program [Cleared by the
Agency, but not yet pub-
lished as we go to print.
When published, these regu-
lations will amend Part 35.
These requirements should be
promulgated in late January
or early February, 1979.]
State and Local
Assistance 35 CFR
Subpart F. State
Management Assistance
Grants [43 Fed. Reg_.
42251, Sept. 20, 1978.]
Secondary Treatment
Information, 40 CFR
Part 133, [38 Fed. _
22298, Aug. 17, 1973,
Amended on Oct. 7, 1977.]
Water Quality Management,
40 CFR, Subpart G [proposed
on Sept. 12, 1978, 43 Fed..
Reg., 40742-40757. Not yet
promulgated in final as this
book goes to print.]
Preparation of Environ-
mental impact Statements,
' 50 CFR Part 6, [40 Fed_.
Reg. 16811-6827,
Apr. 14, 1975.]
Comprehensive regulations for con-
struction grants program. Describes
conditions that must be met prior
to award of federal funds; minimum
content of facilities plan, require-
ments for cost-effectiveness and
analysis, funding innovative and
alternative system and individual
systems, state priority lists and
set-aside funds, requirements for
architectural and engineering
subagreements, and the specific
public participation requirements
applicable to the Construction
Grants Program.
Implements Section 205(g), providing
funds to states for management
of Construction Grants Program.
Defines effluent limitations for
the minimum national requirement
of secondary treatment.
Defines contents of State/EPA
Agreement regarding water quality
management requirements of Sections
106, 208, 303 and 201(g).
When and how to prepare an
Environmental impact Statement
for waste treatment facilities.
89
-------
Public Participation Describes general requirements for
in Water Pollution Control, pubic participation for all EPA
40 CFR Part 25. [These water programs. Reg.
regulations have not yet
been promulgated in the
Federal Register.]
EPA also publishes guidelines, which are not compiled
in any official way and do not have the force of law. They give
advice on desirable procedures and efficient methods and criteria.
Four of these documents have important impacts on the Construction
Grants Program:
Guidelines Purpose
Guidance for Preparing Suggested topics, outline and data
a Facility Plan Revised, necessary for a facility plan.
May 1975, Municipal Now being revised.
Construction Division,
Office of Water Programs,
EPA, Washington, D.C.
20460
Model Facility Plan
for a Small Community,
Sept. 1975.
Guidelines for State and Details on the contents of a
Areawide Water Quality 208 plan.
Management Program Now being revised.
Development, Nov. 1976.
Alternative Waste Defines the acceptable options
Management for achieving BPWTT.
Techniques for Best
Practicable Waste
treatment, MCD-13,
Oct. 1975.
Many other guidelines cover technical aspects of the
waste treatment program and contain valuable information on
alternative waste treatment management systems. They are all
available from your EPA Regional Office.
90
-------
APPENDIX
B
-------
Decision Poinrs
1. State delineation
of facility plan-
ning areas.
2.
Criteria for state
priority list.
Table 2
FACILITY PLANNING
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANNING GUIDE
Public Participation
Requirements *
Only as incorporated a)
statewide water quality
management planning
public participation
requirements. No
action specifically b)
required here.
c)
a) Factsheet
b) Public hearing (with
30 days' notice)
c)
Responsiveness summary
submitted to EPA.
a)
b)
c)
Issues to be
Resolved
Are boundaries suf-
ificent to assess
potential environ-
mental impacts?
Do they allow for
maximum treatment
options?
What are the politi-
cal and institution-
al implications?
Do criteria re-
late to national
and state water
pollution goals?
Are major pollution
problems given pri-
ority?
Are rural pollution
problems being ad-
dressed?
d) How are priorities
established within
"set asides."
Recommended Public
Participation
a) Fact sheets stating
criteria for bound-
ary determination.
b) Public notification
through media, press
and direct mail to
citizens and agen-
cies known to be
interested.
c) Public meeting if
controversy is known
to exist.
a) Active solicitation
of public review
and comment through
direct mail.
b) Several public
meetings held
before hearing.
c) Circulation of
Responsiveness
Summary to hearing
d) Summary of agency
response to citizen
input.
e) Are innovative and
alternative systems given
given high priority?
Discussion
Planning boundaries will be
determined by completed
208 plan or state water
pollution control agency.
They must include source
of pollution and an area
large enough to analyze
environmental impacts of
treatment options.
The 1977 Clean Water Amend-
ments require states to
develop new criteria. Citi-
zens should ask their states
to put them on the required
mailing list that will ensure
their receipt of factsheets
describing changes in prior
ity ranking and rating sys-
tems -
vo
CJ
The public participation regulations on which this table is based are in the process of final approval at EPA
before promulgation. These regulations are likely to be published in the Federal Register sometime in February.
(See text for additional citation.)
-------
3.
Decision Points
State priority
list.
Public Participation
Requirements
a) Circulate statewide a)
information about
priority list (or any
major revision thereto).
b)
b) 30-day advance notice
before public hearing
Issues to be
Resoloved
Does list relate to
established cri-
teria?
Are innovative solu-
tions fully funded?
Recommended Public
Participation
4. Preapplication
Conference.
None.
5. Selection of
engineer.
None.
a)
b)
c)
d)
a)
b)
c)
a)
b)
c)
Responsibilities of
state and local
governments.
Time schedule.
Explanation of pro-
cess and require-
ments .
Does engineer have a)
experience with inno-
vative treatment
systems?
Has he included public
participation in pre-
viously completed
201 projects? b)
Does he have staff
capability to under-
take all phases of
201 planning?
Fact sheets which
cate the nature of pol-
lution problem and the
scope of the proposed
project.
Direct mailings to
groups and individuals
known to be interested.
Public notification of
hearing thru press ,
media and mailings.
Summary of agency re-
sponsiveness .
Establish a Citizens'
Advisory Committee.
If CAC is established,
Advisory Committee
interview with engineer
candidates; or, if no
CAC yet, establish an
Engineer Selection
Committee
Distribute information
about candidates and
their previous exper-
ience.
Discussion
States are only required
to give 30 days notice
of hearing. Standard
practice is to provide
notification with pro-
ject name, number and
amount only. Citizens
should pressure states
to provide sufficent
information to make hear-
ings and comments mean-
ingful.
This conference takes
place between EPA, state
and grantee (local offi-
cial) , and consulting
engineer, if hired. Fund-
ing application will
commence after this confer-
ence.
The selection of a consult-
ing engineer is a critical
decision. It may deter-
mine the alternatives
selected for study, the
extent of the environmental
assessment, and whether
any public participation
takes place. Some engi-
neers may have experience
with only one or two sys-
tems and be reluctant to
consider others. Others
will consider public input a
nuisance rather than a help.
EPA regulations encourage
the grantee to consult with
the public at this point.
vo
-------
Decision Points
6. Plan of Study.
(POS)
Public Participation
Requirements
Notify and consult
with public.
Develop brief outline
of public participa-
tion program.
7.
A-95 Review of
POS
Clearinghouse
comments
8.
State review of
POS.
Review adequacy of
public participation
outline in P.O.S.
Issues to be
Resolved
a) Nature and scope of
201 plan.
b) Schedule for comple-
tion of tasks.
c) Itemized costs.
d) Plan for public par-
ticipation including
staff, preliminary
budget and schedule.
a) Consistency with ex-
isting regional and
local plans.
b) Is public partici-
pation adequately
provided for?
a) Adequacy of plan-
ning area.
b) Proper scope of
tasks.
c) Reasonable cost
estimates.
Recommended Public
Participation
a) CAC, if established
should review POS and
make recommendations
for public participa-
tion.
b) Notify groups and
individuals known to
be interested.
c) Responsiveness summary
a) Citizen should be
invited to appear before
A-95 committee to make
recommendations if POS
inadequate and/or write
letter to clearinghouse
for consideration prior
to meeting date.
b) Comments and recommenda-
tions of public for^-
warded to the EPA
regional office.
c) Citizens should contact
the press regarding any
request coverage of the
issues.
a) Citizens should notify
state agency of inade-
quacies in plan by
letter or appointment
if possible.
b) Request a response indi-
cating how your recom-
mendations have been
considered.
Discussion
The POS is not currently
funded, so officials may
be reluctant to establish
any formal mechanism, but
an effort should be made
to see that at the very
least some informal
public input occurs, and
that public participation
activities are scheduled
with sufficient funding.
A responsiveness summary
although not required may
be useful at this point.
The A-95 review is usual
conducted by COG or Re-
gional Planning Council.
The POS may be considered
by a sub-committee with
geographic representation
or only by a policy com-
mittee. The meetings are
open to the public and
usually time is provided
for citizen comment if
requested.
It is always best to meet
personally with state and
local officials if possi-
ble. Take along someone
with technical expertise
if your discussion will
include topics of a tech-
nical nature.
vo
U1
-------
Decision Points
8. State review
of POS
cont'd.
9. EPA review
Of POS
(May principally
be State Review
in the case of
of a delegated
program)
Public Participation
Requirements
d)
a) Review ade- a)
quacy of public
participation
work element in
POS
b) Determine whether b)
public participa-
tion program should
be Basic or Full
Scale.
Issues to be
Resolved
Is the public par-
ticipation work ele-
ment in the plan ade-
quate to ensure that
public involvement
policies and objec-
are met?
Compliance with
application require-
ments, 208 and basin
plans and priority
list.
Is public participa-
tion adequately pro-
vided for?
Recommended Public
Participation
c) Ask that known in-
terest groups, in-
dividuals and the
press be notified
of their decision
and its basis.
a) Make known any objec-
tions to POS to EPA
project officer.
b) Include information re-
garding any special
pollution, land use,
growth or social or
economic problems
which have not been
included in POS.
Discussion
Use the media to publi-
cize the controversy
only after you have
determined differences
cannot be resolved thru
discussions and nego-
tiations.
If the POS has not been
available for review,
recommendations to each
agency should always in-
clude information regard-
ing issues, desirable
public participation
activities, alternative
system, etc.
10.
Award of Step
I grant.
c) How will the Faci-
lities Planning
Process be coor-
dinated with 208
planning?
a) Hire public parti-
cipation coor-
dinator*
a)
b) Grantee informs b)
public of oppor-
tunities to serve
on Citizens Ad-
visory Committee
(CAC)*
c) Establish CAC*
Did agency respond
to issues received?
Will a comprehen-
sive public parti-
cipation be imple-
mented? Will a
grant amendment be
necessary to en-
sure an adequate
public participa-
tion program?
a) Contact consulting
engineer to discuss
scheduled planning.
b) Request that CAC be
established if not
done to date.
c) Discuss public par-
ticipation program,
how it will operate,
staffing and budget,
public participation
specialist.
Under current EPA require
ments, any public parti-
cipation work plan and
funding allocation if
it is to be considered
must be a part of the
POS. Proposed regula-
lations would allow the
grantee up to 45 days
after the grant award
to develop the plan.
Even without the pro-
posed regulations, if
funding for a public
participation program
is inadequate or absent
a grant amendment may
be sought.
10
CTl
* Required only in the Full-Scale Public Participation Program
-------
10.
Decision Points
Award of Step
I grant.
cont'd.
11.
Infiltration/
inflow Analysis
Public Participation
^ Requirements
d) Develop mailing
list of inter-
ested and
affected indi-
viduals.
e) Establish staff
contact for CAC
(May be public
participation
coordinator)
f) Within 45 days
after award of
Step I grant sub-
mit Public Parici-
cipation Work Plan
(PPWP) to EPA
g) Distribute to
mailing list:
1) copy of PPWP
2) fact sheet on
project
h) Develop and Insti-
tute a public in-
formation program
i) Establish informa-
ation depository
j) Train CAC members*
None
Issues to be
Resolved
c) Have the appropriate
issues for public
involvement been
identified?
d) What kinds of infor-
mation will facili-
tate public involve-
ment?
Recommended Public
Participation
Discussion
VO
-J
a) What parts of the
system need rehabi-
litation because of
groundwater leakage?
b) Might rehabilita-
tion take the place
of new sewage treat-
ment capacity?
a) CAC review and com-
ment.
b) Keep public aware of
progress and results
with regulat mailings
of newsletters and
informational materials-
This step only applies
to projects with exist-
int sewers.
* Required only in the Full—Scale Public Participation Program
-------
Decision Points
12. Assess current
situation.
13.
Environmental
Assessment
Public Participation
Requirements
a) Consult with
public after 30
days notice
a)
b) Hold a public meet-
ing*
c) Prepare and distri-
bute Responsiveness
Summary
(these requirements b)
must take place no
later than Decision
#15)
c)
(See #12)
a)
Issues to be
Resolved
To what degree will a)
measures such as sewer
system rehabilitation
—water conservation
and flow reduction
programs—and better
O&M of existing faci- b)
lities obviate the
need for new treat-
ment plant capacity?
Have current water c)
quality problems,
environmental con-
ditions, population
and land use data
been properly assessed?
Are there existing
measurements on
current wastewater
flows? Are the
soprces of these
flows known?
d)
Recommended Public
Participation
A public participation
specialist should be
hired to carry out
public participation
work plans.
CAC should review
and comment on assess-
ment or individual
consultations sought.
Extensive mailing list
of interested indivi-
duals and groups
should be prepared by
an engineer.
Citizens task forces
might be formed at a
public meeting to
assist in assessing
1) current and future
situations
2) sensitive environ-
mental and social
concerns.
Have all environmen-
tally sensitive area
within planning
boundaries been
adequately consi-
dered?
See recommended participa-
tion in steps 12, 13, 14,
15 and 16.
Discussion
When a CAC is not
established for develop-
ment of the Facility
Plan, other consultation
methods should be pursued
at each decision point,
indicating CAC review or
action.
The Environmental assess-
ment is an analysis of tie
current environmental sit
uation and any changes
likely to take place'as
a result of each of the
major alternatives under
consideration. It starts
during the assessment of
current situation, gen-
erally is conducted by
vo
oo
* Required only in the Full-Scale public participation program
-------
13.
Decision Points
Environmental
Assessment
cont'd.
Public Participation
Requirements
14.
Decision to
"Piggy-back" an
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS)
(See #12)
15.
Assess future
situation.
b)
c)
a)
(See #12)
a) Mid-Project*
Evaluation by EPA
(or State) of com-
pliance with public
participation re-
quirements.
a)
Issues to be
Resolved
Have the primary
and secondary en-
vironmental impacts
of all the major
alternatives been
adequately considered?
Will a full scale
environmental impact
statement be necessary?
To what degree is there
sufficient knowledge of
environmental quality
problems to decide to
do the EIS concurrently
with the environmental
assessment?
Are land-use projec- a)
tions consistent with
local planning and/or
other community goals? b)
Do existing land-use
plans call for intru-
sion into environ-
mentally sensitive c)
areas such as flood-
plains or wetlands?
Recommended Public
Participation
CAC reviews and makes
recommendations.
Workshop or public
meetings to discuss
issues.
Fact sheets should be
prepared and dissem-
inated.
Discussion
the consultant, and con-
tinues right up until the
time of consultant recom-
mendation. If the deci-
sion is made to expand
the analysis to a full
environmental impact
statement, the informa-
tion gathered in the
assessment will be the
basis for the EIS.
If the environmental im-
pacts are known to be
significant early in the
planning process, the EIS
may be prepared in con-
junction with the prepar-
ation of the plan. This
is called "piggy-backing."
If this occurs, a more
extensive public parti-
cipation program should
be undertaken which
focuses on the environ-
mental impacts.
If a public participation
specialist is not hired
or the public participa-
tion elements contracted
to a qualified firm or
organization, it will be
necessary for interested
community groups to con-
tinually pressure for the
opportunity for public
input, particularly when
major issues or contro-
versies are involved.
vo
vo
* Not required at this time necessarily, but at a "mid project" point.
-------
15.
Decision Points
Assess future
situation
cont'd.
Public Participation
Requirements
16.
Cost Effective-
ness analysis
a) After 30 days
notice, public
meeting
b) Responsiveness
summary
Issues to be
Resolved
b) Are population d)
projections con-
sistent with BEA*
projections or with
significant new
growth being planned
for?
c) Are planned future
industrial flows
adequately documented?
Are they consistent
with community plans?
a) Is the planning a)
period reasonable?
Recommended Public
Participation
Interest newspaper
in doing feature
article.
Discussion
b) Are the maximum
number of alterna-
tives being con-
sidered?
b)
c) To what degree are
flow and waste level
forecasts accurate? c)
Does the facilities
plan contemplate an
aggressive Flow
Reduction program? d)
d) Has appropriate atten-
tion been paid to the
phasing or staging of
treatment works in
order to provide for
cost-effective treat-
ment in a manner that
helps control and
manage growth.
CAC review of impor-
tant decision points
and recommendations
on.same.
Public meetings and
workshops, including
CAC grantee and con-
sultant participation.
Fact sheet and other
information dissemin-
ated.
On large projects
public may need to
be reached through
neighborhood meet-
ings, telephone
committees.
Public scrutiny of alter-
natives prior to the en-
gineers' preliminary
selection of an alterna-
tive is very important.
The cos't effectiveness
analysis weighs both
monetary and nonmonetary
factors in the various
alternatives. Concerned
citizens will wish to be
involved in the value
judgment implicit in that
weighing process before
decisions are made. If
the alternatives can be
agreed upon before the
public hearing, the plan
is more likely to be
completed on time at the
least expense.
O
O
* BEA - Bureau of Economic Affairs
-------
16.
Decision Points
Cost Effective-
ness analysis
cont'd.
Public Participation
Requirements
Issues to be
Resolved
17.
Sewer System None.
Evaluation Survey
Survey
18.
Historical and
Archeologica1
investigations.
None.
e) Which alternative e)
has tlje least mone-
tary cbst and en-
vironmental cost
and is most' com-
patible with com-
munity goals? Will
overriding environ- f)
mental and social
costs point to the
selection of a par-
ticular alternative,
even if that alter-
native has the higher
monetary costs?
f) Are all the social and
environmental costs
considered in the cost
effectiveness analysis?
a) What are the needed a)
corrective actions
for sewer system
rehabilitation, and b)
what will be the
specified cost?
b) What parts of the
system need rehabi-
litation because of
groundwater and storm-
water leakage?
c) Might rehabilitation
take the place of new
sewage treatment capacity?
a) Are historic or archeo-a)
logical sites affected
by the alternatives
chosen?
b)
Recommended Public
Participation
Encourage the use of
speakers bureau, mul-
timedia presentations,
community options dis-
play at organizational
meetings.
Request that special task
forces be set up if major
issues need more concen-
trated scrutiny.
Discussion
Brief CAC on progress
of evaluation.
Keep public aware of
progress through mail-
ings of newsletters
and informational
material.
Submit recommendations
if sites are known in
the area.
CAC review and comment,
if any sites determined
to be in planning area.
This Evaluation is large-
ly on the engineering
study that will be con-
ducted by the consultant.
It may, nonetheless, in-
volve substantial cost
to the community, and
the public should be
kept apprised of results.
This step only applies
to projects with exist-
ing sewers.
These comments would best
be presented before or at
public hearing, if
possible.
-------
19.
Decision Points
Selection of
Alternative
20.
A-95 review of
Facility Plan
21.
State review of
Facility Plan.
Public Participation
Requirements
a) 30 days notice
before public
hearing.
b) Final respon-
siveness summary
with evaluation
by grantee of
effectiveness of
public partici-
pation program.
a)
b)
Clearinghouse
comment.
(See #22 below)
a)
b)
a)
Issues to be
Resolved
Is the selected
alternative the
most cost-effec-
tive alternative
to meet community
needs?
To what degree
have the environ-
mental sociaO. and
economic impacts
of the recommended
alternatives been
mitigated?
Recommended Public
Participation
a) Request question/answer
period before public
hearing opens.
b) Considering scheduling
public hearing in
evening or on weekend
to ensure adequate
public attendance.
c) Request distribution
of Responsiveness
summary to all who
attend hearing.
d) Evaluation by
Advisory Committee
of Effectiveness of
public participation
program.
Is plan in accord a)
with all areawide
plans?
Will the alternative
selected eliminate
the problem?
Does plan comply with a)
basin and 208 planning?
Request to be heard
during review if plan
is felt to be inade-
quate or public input
has not been adequate
ly considered.
Present comments to
state agency if in
disagreement with
selection of alter-
native.
b) Ask state to notify public
of certification or refusal
of plan and the basis for
its action.
Discussion
If there has been mean-
ingful public involvement
throughout the Facilities
Planning process (inclu-
ding agency responsive-
ness to public concerns,
much of the hearing tes-
timony may focus on miti-
gating unavoidable im-
pacts. In fact, if a
comprehensive and well
thought out public in-
volvement program has
taken place, the public
hearing may surface no
new issues, and may not
be well attended.
The clearinghouse cannot
approve or disapprove a
plan, but rather gives
favorable or unfavorable
comments which are then
considered by EPA. The
comments can have a sig-
nificant impact on
whether a plan is
approved, however.
o
NJ
-------
22.
23.
Discussion Points
EPA review of
Facility Plan
(May be princi-
pally state re-
view in case of
delegated pro-
gram)
Environmental
Impact Statement
24.
EPA Award of
Step 2 grant.
Public Participation
Requirements
a) Evaluation of
adequacy of
public parti-
cipation pro-
gram.
b) If public par-
ticipation found
inadequate recom-
mended remedial
actions.
Public hearing.
Issues to be
Resolved
a) Is the alternative
cost effective?
b) Have all require-
ments been met?
c) Has adequate public
participation
occurred?
d) Should an environ-
mental impact state-
ment be prepared?
a) Have all possible
alternatives inclu-
ding "no action" re-
ceived adequate con-
sideration?
b) Have environmental
impacts of all options
been adequately
assessed?
c) Can negative impacts
of recommended alter-
natives be mitigated?
a)
b)
a)
b)
c)
d)
(Award contingent on Step
1 approval.)
a) Consultation with
public regarding
necessity of addi
tional public par- a) User charge system
ticipation.
b) Public participa-
tion workplan if
additional PP
deemed necessary
b) Industrial cost
recovery (ICR) system.
a)
b)
c)
c) Inform public of
financial impact of
user charge system.
Recommended Public
Participation
Make known any comments
or views not expressed
in foreworded Facility
Plan.
Request agency notifi-
cation of determina-
tion of plan.
CAC involvement in
weighing environmental
factors and determining
alternatives.
Widespread dissemina-
tion of information.
Workshop and meetings to
discuss impacts, alter-
natives.
Solicit widespread par-
ticipation in hearings.
CAC should continue to
function as needed
throughout Step 2.
They should especially
be involved in deter-
mining a user charge
Information should be
disseminated and a
public hearing should
be held if the costs
are high or contro-
versy arises.
Discussion
If you are dissatisfied
with any part of the
Facilities Planning Pro-
cess, this may be your
last realistic oppor-
tunity for appeal. If
substantial parts of
the Facilities Planning
Process have been dele-
gated to a state agency,
that agency will be your
first avenue of appeal.
No Facility Plan may
proceed until environ-
mental issues have been
satisfactorily resolved
when an EIS is prepared
by EPA.
An equitable user charge
system must be included
in the planning. In
addition, industrial
users must pay their
share of construction
costs directly attribu-
table to control of their
pollutant discharge. A
proposal for these charge
systems must accompany
the Step 2 application.
Detailed engineering
plans and specifications
will be developed during
this stage.
-------
Decision Points
24. EPA Award of
Step 2 grant
cont'd.
25. Step 3 grant
award.
Public Participation
Requirements
d) Consult with public
prior to adoption
of user charge and
Industrial cost
Recovery system.
Issues to be
Resolved
None.
a) Any primary impacts a)
of construction such
as noise, soil erosion,
air pollution, runoff, b)
Recommended Public
Participation
CAC should continue
to function as needed.
Periodic information
on progress, user
charge/ICR ordinances,
or implementation
should be disseminated.
Discussion
The construction phase
may create controversy
because of primary im-
pacts on adjacent pro-
perty or because some
members of the public
may not be aware of the
project until construc-
tion starts. Implemen-
tation of user charge
and ICR must be com-
pleted by the time 80%
of construction is com-
pleted.
-------
Table
MODEL
PLAN OF STUDY OUTLINE
DECISION POINT
Grant Award
TECHNIQUE
BASIC PROGRAM (town of 10,000)
SCHEDULE
STAFF SUPPORT
TARGET AUDIENCE
Select Engineer
Information Program
Public Participation
workplan
Development of Plan
Assessment of present
and future situation
Consideration of
Alternatives
Submission of Final
Plan to town
Public notice
Identify public liaison on grantee/
consultant staff2
Public notice to media and mailing
list of depository and materials
available
Identify key interests and develop
project mailing list2
Deposit key documents in town library
Develop detailed public participation
workplan w/informal public input3
Develop and distribute public partici-
partion workplan and first factsheet
which identifies engineer and describes
project
wk. 1
wk. 2
Interview 208 PAC members3
Interview key local officials and citizens3
Newspaper article in local paper
- Develop and distribute citizen survey3
- Attend various local group meetings3
- Compile results of survey3
- Agency responsiveness summary2
wks. 6-7
wks. 3-4
wk. 5
mos. 2-6
- Develop and distribute factsheets3
- Notice of public meeting2
- Public meeting1
Prepare article for local newspaper
Agency responsiveness summary 2
Distribute factsheet 3
Notice of public hearing
Public hearing *
Agency responsiveness summary 2
mos. 7-9
mo. 10
Grantee
Grantee and/or
consultant
Consultant, Key citizen leaders who
express interest in
Public liaison participating
on grantee or Mailing List
consultant staff
Consultant
Consultant
Public liaison
Consultant
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison,
consultant,
grantee
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Consultant,
grantee
208 PAC members
Public health officer,
town engineer, town
planner, regional plan
ners, conservation com-
mission members, repre
sentative of local in-
dustry, chamber of com-
merce, etc.
Hailing list
PTA, JC's, Grange, LWV
Available to general
public, prepared for
EPA
Mailing list
Mailing list
General public
General public
General public
Mailing list
Mailing list
General public
O
Ul
Town Approval State/
EPA Review and EIS
Dec ision
- Final responsiveness summary 1
mo. 11
Note: 1Required by proposed Part 35
2Required by proposed Part 25
3Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35
-------
Table 4
MODEL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKPLAN
BASIC PROGRAM (town of 10,000)
DECISION POINT
1. Step 1 grant award
2. Assessment of
present and
future situation
TECHNIQUE
SCHEDULE
wks. 1-6
wks. 9-10
wks. 11-12
wk. 13
Hire public liaison f
Develop nailing list
Develop Public Participation Horkplan
Distribute PPWP and Pact sheet
Interview 208 PftC and/or CAC members 3
- their views on areawide and local water
quality problems and key issuss which
should be addressed, population projections
- their experience w/public participation
key citizens who should be contacted
Interview key local officials and citizens 3
- identify major water quality problems/
issues
- identify community goals and objectives
Publish article in local newspaper which:
- describes current situation and status of
Facility Planning Process
- summarizes attitude of town officials and
key citizens on local water quality problems
- highlights the importance -of public input and
describes scheduled public participation
activities
- identifies staff contacts
Develop and distribute citizen survey wks. 13-14
Based on data collected during previous
interviews, survey will seek to refine
community goals, identify level of
knowledge and preferences concerning
water quality
Compile results of survey 3 wks. 15-16
Attend various local group meetings3 wks. 17-20
Get on the agenda of various civic
aroups' weekly/monthly meetinas. Present
overview of community water quality problems,
answer questions, explain results of citizen
survey, seek to further refine community goals
and objectives
Prepare agency responsiveness summary wk. 22
- summarizes results of citizen survey and
other public consultation efforts.
- outlines grantee's response to citizen input
- placed on file at local libraries. Town Hall
Public liaison
Consultant
Consultant
Public liaison
TARGET AUDIENCE
General public
Members of 208 PAC and
CAC
Public health officer
Town engineers.
Planners
Conservation Commis-
sion members
Industrial discharges
Chamber of Commerce
General public
O
CTl
Public liaison on
consultant or
grantee's staff
Public liaison
Consultant/public
liaison
All registered voters
Public liaison
PTA, JC's, Grange,
League of Women
Voters. Sierra Club
EPA
Note: ^Required by proposed Part 35
Required by proposed Part 25
3Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35
-------
Table 4 cont'd.
DECISION POINT
3. Consideration of
Alternatives
4. Submission of
Final Plan to town
5. Town approval and
submission to
state and EPA
TECHNIQUE SCHEDULE
Develop factsheets which describe various wk. 26
alternatives being considered and outline
the costs and environmental impacts of each 3
Distribute factsheets which also include wk. 28
notice of upcoming public meeting *
Informal public meeting to discuss various wk. 32
alternatives, answer questions, identify
options which may require further study ^
Prepare local newspaper article which de- wk. 33
scribes public meeting and decisions made 3
Prepare agency responsiveness summary 2 wk. 34
Distribute factsheet which highlights the wk. 40
major elements of the proposed plan and
rationale for the selection 3
Notice of public hearing in local newspaper wk. 41
and sent to all on mailing list 2
Conduct public hearing to present final plan wk. 46
along with the draft EIS (if required) for
their approval to community.
Allow for additional citizen comments.
If previous public participation efforts
have been successful, however, no signifi-
cant new issues should be raised at this
• time, *
Public notice wk. 47
Prepare final Responsiveness Summary1 wk. 48
Place on file at local libraries. Town
Hall
STAFF
.SUPPORT
Public liaison
Public liaison
Consultant, pub-
lic liaison,
grantee
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison,
consultant,
grantee
Public liaison
Public liaison
.TARGET AUDIENCE
Mailing list
Mailing list
General public
General public
EPA
Mailing list
General public, mailing
list
General public
General public
EPA
Note: * Required by proposed Part 35
2 Required by proposed Part 25
3 Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35
-------
BUDGET
BASIC PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
Salaries
Public Liaison
Consultant Staff
Secretary
Travel
$.15/mile - approx. 1,000 miles
Printing
Postage
Phone
TOTAL
Notes:
1. No actual dollar amounts are listed here as those amounts
will vary depending upon a number of variables, such as:
a. size of community and resulting mailing list,
travel costs, etc.
b. whether printed material is mimeographed, photo-
copied or printed; and
c. whether community volunteer assistance is utilized
(for example, the survey outlined in the Plan of
Study could be distributed by local high school
students).
2. The budget need deal only with those expenses directly
attributable to public participation. The public
participation and information responsibilities normally
required of the consultant and the grantee need not
be separately budgeted.
3. The Plan of Study Outline submitted prior to grant award
contains a"fair amount of detail on activities that
take place during the first 45 days of the grant. After
the first 45 days, a revised workplan will provide
additional detail on the remainder of grant activities.
108
-------
Table 6
MODEL
PLAN OF STUDY
DECISION POINT
Award of Step 1 Grant
1. Engineer selection
TECHNIQUE
PULL SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
SCHEDULE
a) public notice
b) informal meeting w/key interests
STAFF
SUPPORT
wk. 1
grantee
TARGET AUDIENCE
Range of community interest
that will ultimately be
on advisory committee
environmental
civic
business
labor
Initiate prelim-
inary stages of
public participa-
tion plan of study
(work element of)
a) grantee hire
coordinator
public participation
b) consulting firm designates public liaison2
c) begin to develop mailing list2
d) deposit key documents in town library
e) public notice regarding availability of
documents
f) establish citizen advisory committee^-
1) notice to mailing list and media
of opportunity to become member
2) notice to mailing list and media
of finally selected members.
g) public notice w/factsheet of first CAC
meeting to review public participation
wOrkplan. Factsheet will describe project.
Notice will include list of advisory com-
mittee and engineer.3
h) train advisory committee members and
grantee in one-day workshop. Purpose
will be to briefly review town's water
quality problems, need for action, role
of CACf types of conflicts and tradeoffs
likely. Establish goals of CAC. Workshop
run by grantee and consulting engineer.
3. R«vi«w public parti- a) Public CAC meeting to review public partici-
cipation work element. pation workplan3
Develop public par-
wk. 2
wk. 2
wks. 1-3
wks. 1-3
wk. 3
grantee
consultant
grantee
grantee
public part.
coor.
grantee
wk. 3
wk. 6
ticipation workplan
b)
Revised public participation workplan
sent to EPA1
wk. 5
wks. 6-7
public part.
coor.
grantee
Grantee,
public part.
coor .
public part.
coor.
Volunteer community leader
w/organizational skills
and knowledge of water
quality
Ali those private and public
interests with a. potential
interest in the Facility
Plan. Some of the list
will be obtained from the
208 agency.
Hailing list media
Members of local organiza-
tions such as:
League of Women Voters
Chamber of Commerce
Sierra Club
Tax Payers Association
Local Union
Minority Group
Mailing list
Newspapers
CAC members, engineer,
town officials, state
officials
Bread range of community
interests, CAC, consul-
ting engineer, grantee
representative
O
vo
Note: ^Required by proposed Part 35
2Required by proposed Part 25
3Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35
-------
Table 6 cont'd.
DECISION POINT
Development of Facility
Plan
1. Assess current
situation
2. Assess future
situation
3. Consideration of
alternatives
Cost-Effective-
ness analysis
4. Engineer's .Recom-
mendation on Pre-
ferred Alternative
5. Town Approval
6. Application for
Step 2 Grant
TECHNIQUE
a) begin monthly newsletter3
b) informal consultation/interviews3
c) joint 201-208 staff and CAC meeting3
a) field trip3
b) speakers bureau3
c) series of workshops on special issues3
1) Sensitive Environmental Areas
2) Residential and Industrial Growth
d) public meeting1
e) agency responsiveness summary1
a) factsheet on alternatives2
b) speakers bureau continues3
c) CAC mid-study briefing3
d) public meeting^
e) agency responsiveness summary1
a) public hearing notice2
b) prepare and mail factsheet 30 days2
days in advance
c) hearing on recommended alternative and
EIS 1
a) agency responsiveness summary distri-
buted to hearing participants 2
b) final responsiveness study submitted
to EPA with Facility Plan l
c) public notice of final decision 3
a) CAC meeting to develop public par-
ticipation plan for Step 2 and 3
SCHEDULE
mos. 2-4
mos. 3-6
mos. 7-8
mo. 9
STAFF
SUPPORT
public participation
coordinator
public participation
coordinator, consult-
ant's public liaison
public participation
coordinator, grantee
rep., consultant
staff and public
liaison
public part. coor.
CAC, consulting
engineer, grantee
rep.
public part, coor.,
consultant, public
liaison
CAC, public part.
coor., consultant
liaison, grantee rep.
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
as previously
described
consulting engineer
staff
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
grantee, puDiic
part. coor.
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
TARGET AUDIENCE
General public
Key officials, selected
citizen leaders and
special interests
201-208 staff and key
advisory committees
General public
General public
Public and civic interest
group
General public and
special interests
EPA, state participants
in meeting
General public
CAC, grantee, public
groups
General public
EPA, participants in
meeting
General public
Mailing list, civic
organizations, local
government
ueneraj. puDJLic
EPA, state, hearing
participants
CAC members, grantee
rep.
Note: Required by proposed Part 35
Required by proposed Part 25
Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35
-------
Table 7
MODEL
DECISION POINT
Development of Facility
Plan
1. Assess current
Situation
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKPLAN
FULL SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
TECHNIQUE SCHEDULE
mos. 2-4
a) "Clean Water News", Vol. 1 3 monthly news- wk. 8
letter to be mailed throughout the Step 1
process. The first newsletter will:
- describe what is known concerning the
current situation
- describe additional information being
sought by consultant
- outline the project schedule including
public participation activities
- identify staff contacts and CAC members
- solicit comments and feedback from public
with brief tear out questionnaire
b) consultations with key publics
i. informal interviews w/selected wks. 8-12
individuals w/knowledge of com-
munity situation 3
ii. CAC meeting. This will be an open wk. 10
meeting announced in Vol. I of the
newsletter and will center around the
key questions that should be asked
during the assessment of the current
situation.3
Lii. Joint meeting with some 208-201 staff wk. 11
and 208-201 CAC to discuss implica-
tions of 208 plan for 201 study.
Appoint permanent staff and CAC
liaison^
"Clean Water News", Vol. 2 3 Wk. 12
- summarize preliminary findings of
assessment
- identify key areas of social/economic/
environmental conflict to be affected
by Facilities Plan
- notice of field trip to problem areas
STAFF
SUPPORT
public part. coor.
TARGET AUDIENCE
All interested persons
from the region
CACr consulting engineer
grantee representative
Use 208 mailing list
c)
public part. coor.
consultant, public
liaison
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
grantee rep. con-
sultant staff and
public liaison
public part. coor.
Public health officer
Town engineers
Industrial dischargers
Conservation Commission
members
Other knowledgeable
citizen leaders
Citizens Advisory Commit-
tee and interested
members of general
public
Engineers, grantee rep-
presentative, key CAC
members
General public
Notf>: 1 Required by proposed part 35
2 Required by proposed part 25
3 Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35
-------
Table 7 cont'd.
DECISION POINT
2. Assess future
situation
TECHNIQUE
3. Consideration of
Alternatives
Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
a) field trip focusing on areas of future
conflict3
b) Speaker's Bureau: public coordinator's
office and CAC speak at numerous scheduled
civic meetings regarding the issues involved
in the facilities planning process 3
SCHEDULE
mos. 3-6
wk. 16
wks. 12-24
c) send out notice of public meeting with
factsheet 2
Water News", Vol. 3 3
issues in future assessment study
d) "Clean
- key
— what existing land-use plans and popu-
lations projections mean for Facility
Plan
- what does the 208 plan say about the
future?
- preliminary ideitification of treatment
alternatives
- notice of public meeting
e) series of special interest workshops to
discuss key issues and alternatives3
f) public meeting with CAC*
— establish working Task Forces as sub-
committees of CAC to work w/consulting
engineer in resolving critical issues
and in monitoring the engineer's
analysis of treatment alternatives
g)
h)
agency responsiveness summary •*-
Clean Water News, Vol. 4 3
- summarize results of public meeting
- describe agency responsiveness summary
a) Clean Water News, Vol. 5, 3 This news-
letter would include a factsheet presen-
tation on the major alternatives being
considered. The factsheet will describe:
- major environmental social and econ-
omic impacts and implications for
community development
b) public meeting notice
c) speakers bureau continues. focus on
alternatives
d) CAC and Task Force meet with consulting
engineer for mid-study briefing on alter—
natives 3
e) public meeting to solicit comments an
questions on alternatives, and to present
preliminary EIS study *
f) agency responsiveness summary
wk. 14
wk. 16
wks. 14 -16
wk. 19
wk. 20
wk. 20
mos. 6-9
wk. 24
wk. 26
wk. 28
wk. 31
STAFF
SUPPORT
public part. coor.
public part. coor.,
grantee rep.,
consultant liaison,
CAC
TARGET AUDIENCE
CAC, grantee, consultant
general public
General public, civic
groups, i.e., PTA,
Rotary, garden clubs,
environmental groups,
round table, etc.
public part. coor. Mailing list, general
public, CAC
public part. coor.
public part. coor.,
grantee rep., con-
sultant liaison
public part. coor.,
grantee rep., con-
sultant liaison
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
Civic groups
General public,
special interests
EPA, state
General public
General public
public part, coor.,
grantee rep., con-
sultant liaison, CAC
consulting engineer,
public part. coor.
public part. coor.,
grantee, consult-
ant
General public, CAC,
grantee
EPA
-------
Table 7 cont'd.
DECISION POINT
4. Engineer submits
recommendation of
preferred alterna-
tive to town
officials (mo. 11)
TECHNIQUE SCHEDULE
a) notice of public hearing received 30 wk. **•
days in advance"
b) factsheet summarizing final recommenda- wk. 41
tions and notifying of upcoming hearing 2
c) public hearing (possibly town meeting) on wk. 46
recommendations and draft EIS 1
STAFF
SUPPORT
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
grantee
TARGET AUDIENCE
Newspapers, mailing list
general public
General public, mailing
list
5. Town approval of
Facility Plan and
submission to State
and EPA
6. Application for
Step 2 Grant
a) notify public-*
- prepare agency final Responsiveness
Summary •*•
- place on file at easily accessible loca--
tions around town (public library, town
hall), mail copies of agency responsive-
ness summary to hearing participants
a) consultation with CAC to determine future
role and develop public participation
program for Steps 2 and 3 3
b) public notice and factsheet
mo. 12
wk. 46
wk. 47-48
public part. coor.
public part. coor.
General public
EPA
State agency
General public
CAC
CO
-------
Table 8
BUDGET
PULL SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM,
Salaries
Public Participation Coordinator
Assistanc Public Participation Coordinator
Secretary
Consultant Liaison
Advisory Committee Budget
Travel
Clerical Support
Technical assistance
Staff Travel
Printing
Postage
Phone
TOTAL
Notes:
1. No actual dollar amounts are listed here as those amounts
will vary depending upon a number of variable, such as:
a. size of community and resulting mailing list,
travel costs, etc.
b. whether printed material is mimeographed, photo-
copied or printed; and
c. whether community volu teer assistance is utilized
(for example, the survey outlined in the Plan of
Study could be distributed by local high school
students).
2. The budget need deal only with those expenses directly
arrtibutable to public participation. The public
participation and information responsibilities normally
required fo the consultant and the grantee need not be
separately budgeted.
114
-------
Table 8 cont'd.
3. The Plan of Study Outline submitted prior to grant award
contains a fair amount of detail on activities that
take place during the first 45 days of the grant. After
the first 45 days, a revised workplan will provide
additional detail on the remainder of the grant activities,
4. The cost of the public participation coordinator will
vary depending upon the institutional attachments and
background of that coordinator. For example, the
coordinator could be:
a. on the consulting engineer's staff;
b. on the grantee's staff;
c. a representative of a public interest group; or
d. a private citizen with background and experience
in public participation programs.
115
-------
APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
Activated Sludge - Sludge that has been aerated and
subjected to bacterial action, used to remove organic
matter in raw sewage during secondary waste treatment.
Activated Sludge Process - The process of using biologically
active sewage sludge to hasten breakdown of organic matter
in raw sewage during secondary waste treatment.
Advanced Waste Treatment/Tertiary Treatment - Treatment
beyond secondary or biological stage required to meet
strict quality standards. Depending on the process
selected, advanced or tertiary treatment can provide
additional removal of standard organic pollutants,
suspended solids, inorganic ions or nutrients such
as phosphrous and nitrogen. Advanced treatment is
the "polishing stage" of wastewater treatment and
generally produces a high quality effluent.
Ad Valorem tax - A value added tax such as a property tax.
Advanced waste treatment/tertiary treatment - Provides
additional treatment above secondary treatment in order
to provide additional removal of standard organic
pollutants or to remove one or more specific organic
compounds or inorganic ions from the stream. A number
of processes may be involved depending on the pollutants
to be removed.
Ambient Water Quality - Quality of the receiving waters into
which effluent is discharged.
Average Flow - The average quantity of effluent which
enters the treatment system over a given time period.
Usually expressed as average daily flow.
Best Available Technology (BAT) - The degree of pollutant
removal possible by application of the highest level
of technology economically achievable. BAT standards are
required for all toxic and nonconventional pollutants by
July 1, 1984, unless a variance is obtained.
Best Practicable Technology (BPT) - The degree of pollutant
removal achievable by application of the best average
technology economically and technically practicable for
a given industry. BPT standards are required of all
industries by July 1, 1977, except where variances have
been granted by EPA.
119
-------
Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) - The
degree of pollutant removal required of all publicly
owned treatment works in 1983. Defined by EPA as the
equivalent of secondary treatment or whatever other
treatment is required to meet water quality standards,
BPWTT should involve reclaiming and recycling of water
and confined disposal of pollutants so they will not
migrate to cause water or other environmental pollution
as well as consideration of advanced waste treatment
techniques.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - The quantity of oxygen
used in the aerobic decomposition of organic matter,
usually expressed in parts per million. The degree of
BOD removal is used as a measure in determining the
efficiency of a sewage treatment plant as well as in
measuring stream water quality.
Cesspool - Large porous cistern into which residential
wastewater flows. Solids remain in the cistern while
the effluent, a liquid portion, seeps out through the
walls into surrounding ground. Because little biological
action takes place in the cesspool, the solids must be
removed by frequent pumping.
Chemical Oxygen emand (COD) - A measure of the amount of
oxygen required to oxidize organic and oxidizable
inorganic compounds in water. The COD test, like the
BOD test, is used to determine the degree of pollution
in an effluent.
Chlorination - The application of chlorine to drinking
water, sewage, or industrial waste for disinfection
or oxidation of undesirable compounds.
Coliform Bacteria - A class of bacteria that live in the
human intestines. They are always present in raw sewage.
Their presence provides positive evidence of pollution
and the possible presence of the pathogenic bacteria.
Combined Sewers - A sewerage system that carries both
sanitary sewage and storm water runoff. During dry weather
combined sewers carry all wastewater to the treatment plant.
During a storm only part of the flow is intercepted because
of plant overloading; the remainder goes untreated to the
receiving stream.
Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines - Developed by EPA to aid
grantees in the selection of the waste treatment management
system component which will result in the minimum total
resources cost over a fixed period of time to meet federal,
state and local requirements.
120
-------
Design Flow - The average quantity of wastewater which a
treatment facility is designed to handle, usually
expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD).
Design Period - Time span over which wastewater treatment
facilities are expected to be operating; period over
which facility costs are amortized.
Effluent - (1) A liquid which flows out of a containing
space. (2) Sewage, water or other liquid, partially
or completely treated, or in its natural state, flowing
out of a reservoir, basin or treatment plant; or part thereof,
Effluent Limitations - The maximum amount of a pollutant
that a point source may discharge into a water body.
They may allow some or no discharge at all, depending
on the specific pollutant to be controlled and the
water quality standards established for the receiving
-waters.
Effluent Limited - Stream segments which meet and will
continue to meet water quality standards once the
national uniform point source controls are applied.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - A preliminary
evaluation of the potential environmental impacts
(positive and negative) of a proposed federally
funded sewage treatment project. It should be
submitted ss part of the Facilities Plan.
Environmental Impact Statement (BIS) - A detailed analysis
ofthe potential environmental impacts of a proposed
project required when the EPA Regional Administrator
determines that a project is highly controversial or
may have significant adverse environmental 'effects.
Facility Plan - Preliminary plan developed during the
first step (Step 1) of the Three Step Construction Program.
The plan, based on an evaluation of various treatment
alternatives, must be both cost-effective and politically
acceptable.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria - A group of organisms common to the
intestinal tracts of man and of animals. The presence of
fecal coliform bacteria in water is an indicator of pollu-
tion and of potentially dangerous bacterial contamination.
Force Mains - Pipes used to remove wastewater under pressure
against the force of gravity, allowing for the transfer of
sewage between natural drainage basins or for conveyance of
wastewater at minimal slopes over relatively long distances.
121
-------
Grant-Eligible - Refers to costs of planning and constructing
a treatment facility which may receive federal funds under
the EPA Construction Grants program.
House connection (or house laterals) - This is the point of
contact between the user and the treatment system.
Industrial Cost Recovery - A provision in the 1972 FWPCA
which requires industries to pay back to the federal
government the extra capital costs that their discharges
impose on municipal treatment plants. (The 1977 Clean
Water Act established an 18-month moratorium on Industrial
Cost Recovery.)
Infiltration/Inflow - Total quantity of water entering a
sewer system. Infiltration means entry through such
sources as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or
manhole walls. Inflow signifies discharge into the sewer
system through service connections from such sources as
area or foundation drainage, springs and swamps, storm
waters, street wash waters, or sewers.
Interceptor - Any pipe regardless of size that carries
wastewater directly to the treatment plant. Generally,
they are the largest pipes in the collection system.
Lateral - The pipe to which individual houses and business
establishments attach. If one considers the analogy of
tree, the laterals represent the twigs.
Main/Submain - The word main is frequently used loosely to
indicate a large pipe which is not a lateral and not an
interceptor. It frequently forms one of the larger
branches of a complex collection system.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The effluent discharge permit system establishes under
the 1972 FWPCA which places conditions on the type and
concentration of pollutants permitted in the effluent;
and schedules for achieving compliance.
Non-Point Source Pollutants - Pollutions which do not enter
the water, from any discernable, confined and discrete
conveyance but rather wash off, run off or seep from
broad areas of land.
Packaged Treatment Plant - A small treatment plant which is
partially or completely preassembled by a manufacturer
and shipped to a designated location. They are available
in a range of sizes from units designed to serve a single
dwelling to modular units capable of handling one million
gallons per day (MGD)
122
-------
Peak flow - The maximum volume of effluent expected to
enter a treatment system over a given time period.
Treatment systems are designed based on an estimate
of the rate of peak flow to average flow for different
segments of the system.
Plan of Study - An initial brief description of the scope,
schedule and costs of a proposed facility plan. It must
be prepared by the grantee and approved by the State and
EPA before a Step I grant can be approved.
Point source pollutants - Those that enter the water from
any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance such
as a sewer pipe, culvert, tunnel or other channel or
conduct.
Pretreatment - In wastewater treatment, any process used
to reduce pollution load before the wastewater is
introduced into a main sewer system or delivered to
a treatment plant for substantial reduction of the
pollution load.
Pressure main - Some systems rely entirely on forced
pumpingfas opposed to gravity flow) of sewage, to
enable use of smaller pipes and simplify design and
construction in difficult terrain.
Primary impacts - Those which can be attributed directly
to a proposed action.
Primary Treatment - The first stage in wastewater treatment
in which substantially•all floating or settleable solids
are mechanically removed by screening and sedimentation.
The process generally removes 30-35 percent of total
organic pollutants.
Prioritylist - A list developed by the state Water
Quality Agency of proposed waste water treatment projects
in the state. Projects are ranked according to their
priority relative to the state's overall water quality
management strategy and Federal Construction Grant
funding is distributed accordingly.
Reserve capacity - Treatment system capacity which exceeds
that required to meet projected community needs for a
given time period. The law requires that treatment
facilities be designed to include "sufficient" reserve
capacity to service future growth. However, EPA will
not fund excessive reserve capacity. The actual amount
of reserve capacity funded by the Federal grant, must be
approved by the Regional Administrator.
123
-------
Sanitary Sewers - Sewers that carry only domestic or
commercial sewage. Storm water runoff is carried in a
in a separate system. See sewer.
Secondary impacts - Those resulting from indirect or induced
changes in community land 'use patterns, population and
economic growth, and environmental quality resulting
from induced growth.
Secondary Treatment - Wastewater treatment beyond the
primary stage, utilizing bacteria to consume the
organic pollutants. A number of processes may
be used to achieve what EPA defines as acceptable
secondary treatment standards—85-90 percent removal
of total organic pollutants and suspended solids.
Septic Tank - The most popular on-site treatment technique
relies on a collection tank which receives waste from the
home and provides a period of settling, during which a
significant portion of suspended solids settle out and
are gradually decomposed by bacterial action at the
bottom of the tank. The remaining sewage is discharged
into a drain field composed of lengths of porous or
perforated pipe placed at shallow depths. A well designed
and maintained system will provide ecologically sound
treatment.
Service Area - The area which will be serviced by a wastewater
treatment system.
Sewage - Sewage refers to the wastewater flow from residential,
commercial, and industrial establishments which flows
through the pipes to a treatment plant.
Sewerage - Sewerage refers to the system of severs, physical
facilities employed to transport, treat, and discharge
sewage.
Sewer - Sewer refers to the pipe, conduit, or other physical
facility used to carry off wastewater.
Sewer or Sanitary District - A sewer district is either a
semiautonomous governmental unit whose purpose is the
provision of sewerage or a special assessment district
within which sewerage facilities are provided to residents.
Sludge - The accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage
or industrial wastes, raw or treated, in tanks or basins,
and containing more or less water forming a semi-liquid mass,
Storm Sewer - A conduit that collects and transports rain
and snow runoff back to the ground water. In a separate
sewerage system, storm sewers are entirely separate from
those carrying domestic and commercial wastewater.
124
-------
Suspended Solids (SS) - Small particles of solid pollutants
xn sewage that contribute to turbidity and that resist
separation by conventional means. The examination of
suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the two
main determinations for water quality performed as wastewater
treatment.
Tertiary Treatment - (see Advanced Treatment)
Trickling Filter - A device for the biological or secondary
treatment of wastewater consisting of a bed or rocks or
stones that support bacterial growth. Sewage is trickled
over the bed enabling the bacteria to breakdown organic
wastes.
User charges - Fees levied upon users of a wastewater
treatment system based upon the volume and characteristics
of the waste.
Waste load allocations - Distribution of the total "pollutant
load" permitted on a particular water body among the
various discharges to that water body. (required by section
303 of the Clean Water Act. The "pollutant load" for a
particular water body is determined by the water quality
standards established for that water body. Waste load
allocations are applied in situations where stream segments
are classified as water quality limited. They will generally
result in imposition of stricter effluent limitations on
discharges to a particular stream segment than secondary
treatment.
Water quality criteria - The levels of pollutants that affect the
suitability of water for a given use. Generally, water use
classification includes: public water supply; recreation;
propagation of fish and other aquatic life; agricultural
use and industrial use.
Water quality limited - Stream segments which will not
meet water quality standards with the application
of uniform point source controls. Additional pollution
control measures for industrial and municipal discharges
will be required if water quality standards are to be
achieved.
Water quality standard - A plan for water quality management
containing four major elements: the use (recreation,
drinking water, fish and wildlife propagation, industrial
or agricultural) to be made of the water; criteria to
protect those uses; implementation plans (for needed
industrial-municipal waste treatmsnt improvements) and
enforcement plans, and an anti-degradation statement
to protect existing high quality waters.
125 u.s. GOVERNMENT PRIHTIHC OFFICE: 1979 - 681-610/96 MCIOS HO. 8
------- |