WATER DIVISION
REGION FIVE
UNITED STATES 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. EPA-905/2-77-004
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 OCTOBER, 1977
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
WORKS PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J>
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Ftoar
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
S1 UNITED STATES
\ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
g ^^^^7 O REGION V
"%. ^bw|v^^ -^ 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
^f-. ,c$~ CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
<\t°
November 1, 1977
TO: APPLICANTS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
GRANTS AND THEIR CONSULTANTS
This Environmental Assessment Guidance is a reprint of the Guidance dated
/ February 1977 with only minor revisions. It is offered to assist you in
preparing facility plans for construction of municipal sewage treatment
works. It is meant as a guide to integrating environmental, social and
economic evaluation into the facility planning process.
> In using this guidance it should be realized that it is of a general
nature. Since projects vary so greatly in size and scope, the detail
and scope of evaluation will vary from case to case.
1
"^ It should also be recognized that this guidance is a working document.
^ Any suggested changes or comments related to it are welcomed so that the
P\ environmental assessment process can be continually refined and improved.
<~ Comments and suggestions can be returned to us on the franked fold-up
card to be found on the following page. The card may also be used to
request additional copies of the guidance.
Sincerely yours,
larles H. Sutfin
Director, Water Division
-------
NAME OF RESPONDENT:
ADDRESS:
I wish to receive (No.) additional copies of the
environmental assessment guidance.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO THE GUIDANCE:
FOLDHERE
-------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 606O4
FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA-335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $3OO
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Attn: Ms. Cindy Wakat
Water Division, Planning Branch
E.I.S. Preparation Section
3S3H 31dVlS
-------
REGION V
GUIDELINES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. Description of Project Background 3
A. Project History 3
B. Existing Problem and Proposed Solution 3
C. Issues Identified by EPA and Others 4
III. Inventory of the Existing Environment 5
A. Natural Environment 5
B. Man-made Environment 8
C. Other Projects, Programs and Efforts 11
D. Documentation H
IV. Development of Alternatives 13
A. General 13
B. Steps in Development of Alternatives 13
C. Considerations in Developing Alternatives 13
D. Detailed Evaluation of Those Alternatives Remaining
After the Preliminary Screening 18
V. Evaluation of Environmental Impact 19
A. General 19
B. Categories of Effects 19
VI. Federal/State Agency and Public Participation 22
APPENDICES
-------
REGION V
WATER DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GUIDANCE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION
I. Introduction
This guidance is offered as a framework for integrating environmental,
social, and economic evaluation into the facilities planning process.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the EPA
is responsible for preparing EIS's on facilities plans and resultant
wastewater treatment projects that significantly affect the environ-
ment. It is clearly the intent of NEPA that "statements serve as the
means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions
rather than a justification for decisions already made". It is not,
however, the intent of NEPA that alternatives be screened solely on
the basis of environmental impact, but simply to insure that environ-
mental amenities are considered along with technical considerations,
costs, and public desires.
To insure that the intent of NEPA is met, environmental, social, and
economic evaluation must be viewed as an integral part of the facilities
planning process. As such it should be performed throughout the process
rather than after selection of a plan. This evaluation is an integral
part of the cost-effective analysis portion of facilities planning.
A cost-effective analysis can be defined as a systematic comparison of
alternative ways of dealing with a wastewater treatment and disposal
problem in order to identify the solution which will minimize total
costs to society over time. These costs include monetary and environ-
mental as well as other non-monetary costs.
Cost-effectiveness is the central thrust of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL92-500). It is an attempt to inte-
grate all important considerations early in the decision-making process
and to meet the detailed requirements of the law in an efficient manner.
The cost-effectiveness analysis should be prepared so as to:
1. Provide the rationale for selecting a particular course of
action from among alternatives evaluated. It is essential
that a logical decision making process be followed and the
factors governing selection be spelled out in the analysis.
2. Provide a document for evaluation by the general public.
In part, this means that unnecessary technical detail, technical
jargon and acronyms should be avoided.
If properly prepared using cost-effective analysis (including
environmental, social, and economic evaluation), the facilities plan
should provide the data and information necessary for EPA to prepare
an environmental impact statement if required.
-------
In using the attached guidance it should be realized that this guidance
is of a general nature. The depth of detail and scope of the evaluation
presented in the facilities plan will vary greatly from case to case.
It is unnecessary to address an item covered in this guidance if it is
clearly irrelevant to the type of project under consideration. Large
complex projects will probably require more than is contained in this
guidance. In any case, where there is some question concerning the
scope of the evaluation, please contact your State water pollution
control agency or the Planning Branch of the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
In addition to the environmental considerations contained throughout
the facility plan, the facility plan should contain a summary of en-
vironmental considerations. The summary should include references to
other portions of the plan where these considerations are discussed
in more detail.
The following are the major topics to be discussed in the summary:
a. Description of the existing environment without the project.
b. Description of the future environment without the project.
c. Evaluation of alternatives.
d. Environmental impacts of the proposed action, including steps
to minimize adverse effects.
-2-
-------
11• Description of Project Background
This information should be summarized within the facilities plan so
that it can be easily extracted for use if an EIS is required.
A. Project History
1. Briefly describe the study area in relation to the land uses,
water qualify and water quantity objectives in the region. Examples
of objectives and goals are:
a. preserving or developing recreation areas, preserving
wetlands, floodplains, or attractive open spaces;
b. preserving or enhancing high quality waters with recrea-
tional, fishery, aesthetic or water supply values;
c. implemementing groundwater recharge plans for augmenting
water supply and preventing salt water intrusion;
d. alleviating groundwater pollution;
e. reusing treated wastewater, such as recycling nutrients
in treated wastewater; and
f. facilitating implementation of good planning and land use
objectives by allowing considerations other than wastewater
disposal to be the major development constraints.
2. To minimize the narrative, a map of the general area in which
the proposed action would be implemented should be provided. The map
should include river systems, drainage basins, major surface and
groundwaters, existing interceptors and collectors, pumping stations
and force mains, treatment facilities, effluent disposal and sludge
disposal sites. Summarize the description of capacities of these
facilities. Outline existing nonstructural actions contributing to
attainment of water quality objectives, such as environmental zoning,
urban runoff controls, erosion and sedimentation ordinances, water and
sewer rate land use controls, and active public participation in
decision making.
B. Existing Problem and Proposed Solution
A summary of the major water quality and water quantity problems in
the study area should include even those problems which the EPA action
will not completely solve. Summarize or reference existing water quality
standards or effluent limitations.
Briefly describe both structural and nonstructural actions to solve
the water quality problems discussed above.
Briefly describe the origin of the grant application, its priority
determination and state certification. Identify grantees and their
-3-
-------
consultants for facilities planning. Identification should include
the grant administration digital identification number as shown in
Chapter 12, Part I, "Grants Administration Manual".
List the total anticipated cost, the amount eligible for a grant
under Section 201(g)(l), Public Law 92-500, and the Federal and state
dollar contributions each will pay if a proposed action is recommended
and approved.
C. Issues Identified by EPA and Others
Briefly state the issues identified by EPA, Other Federal agencies,
regional or local agencies, citizens groups and environmentalists
related to any proposed structural or nonstructural solutions to the
water quality problems discussed above.
-4-
-------
1*I• Inventory of the Existing Environment
Inventorying the existing environmental conditions in the area of
the proposed action is important for the decisionmaker and the public.
The environmental setting is the starting point for goal and problem
identification and is the basis for the analysis and comparison of
alternatives. While the focus should be on the immediate area of the
proposed actions, where appropriate, parts of the surrounding area
should also be included to avoid the risk of overlooking any important
interbasin or regional impacts.
Through charts, tables, maps, and narration the plan should describe
and graphically locate the area's natural and man-made features,
especially any unique or environmentally sensitive areas. The nar-
rative should be concise. Only those characteristics of the social,
economic, and environmental setting which are most important in
relationship to the alternatives should be discussed in any detail,
and those which are not as relevant should be summarized in the
narrative or included in summary tables to indicate they were not
overlooked.
A. Natural Environment
The facilities plan should present a description of the physical-
chemical, and biological conditions in the project area. Terrestrial,
aquatic, and atmospheric environments should be covered. Special
emphasis should be placed on describing land-water interfaces such
as wetlands, beaches, and stream banks. These areas are very sen-
sitive to alterations by wastewater treatment projects.
1. Atmosphere
a. Climate
Describe the climatic conditions for the general area of the pro-
posed actions including temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind
direction, and velocity. List any specific adverse weather conditions
and their frequency. Also describe any topographic features that
influence the weather.
b. Air Quality
To the extent pertinent, discuss the major factors affecting air
quality and the current and anticipated future air quality in the
project area. Identify and reference any air implementation plan
for the area.
c. Noise
If available, identify the ambient noise levels in the project area
in decibels (scale A). This would be especially applicable whenever
a proposed site is located in close proximity to a residential area.
-5-
-------
d. Odor
Identifying any major odor producers in the project area.
Generally indicate the degree of effect on existing communities.
2. Land
a. Physical and Chemical
1) Topography
Describe the topography of the area of the proposed
actions delineating the major and minor drainage basins
along with their characteristics — area, slope, eleva-
tion, natural and artificial drainage nets, erosion, and
deposition.
2) Geology
Describe geologic structures or formations that have a
direct influence on either groundwater or surface water
resources. Areas where adverse soil or subsoil conditions
may be encountered during construction should be illustrated
and briefly described.
3) Soils
Identify soil types in the project area and their perme-
ability, erosion potential, expansion, compaction and other
characteristics in the study area which could affect or be
affected by the project alternatives. Attention should be
given to identifying suitability for septic tank use, land
disposal, or treatment of effluents, road and building con-
struction, landfills, and sludge disposal.
b. Biota
1) Plants - Habitat
Identify the location and general types of vegetative
communities existing in the project area. One method of
identifying communities is by use of assigned numbers and
verbal description of composition found in the manual,
Forest Cover Types of North America, published by the
Society of American Foresters. Another way is to describe
vegetation in terms of the various habitat types and quality
available for wildlife use in the study area and to relate
this discussion to the total habitat available in the region,
The intent is to inventory vegetation in such a way that
impacts of the project alternatives can be determined.
-6-
-------
2) Animals - Wildlife Uses of Habitat
Discuss general types of vertebrate species in the study
area; their use of habitat for breeding, feeding and cover;
and an interpretation of their ecological significance. When
possible, list vertebrates present in the project area. The
intent is to describe the animal population in the manner
which will make it easiest to determine project impact on
them. Species lists alone with no interpretation of ecological
significance are not very useful in assessing project impact
on them. It is especially important to note any species on
a Federal or State rare and endangered species list and those
with direct economic or sport value. Appendix A provides
addresses of state contacts for endangered and threatened
species. It also provides lists of (proposed or implemented)
endangered and threatened animals and plants of the United
States occurring within Region V and gives their common names
and descriptions of their habitats.
3. Water
a. Physical and Chemical
1) General
Using maps and narrative, describe the location of surface
water bodies and groundwater aquifers in the facilities plan-
ning area. Watershed areas and aquifer recharge areas should
be prominently displayed.
2) Water Quality and Quantity
Problems. Identify existing and potential water quality
and quantity problems in the study area, specifically the
relevant point and nonpoint sources of pollution, such as
industry, municipalities, combined sewers, septic tanks,
storm water runoff, agriculture, silviculture, aquaculture,
mines or mine drainage and salt water intrusion. Identify
violations of water quality standards. Indicate which sources
will be served in the study area.
Uses. Describe the type and extent of existing and future
surface and groundwater uses. Identify points where water is
withdrawn for drinking, agricultural or industrial uses; in-
clude volumes withdrawn and points of return for both surface
and groundwaters. If reuse or reclamation of water is practical
in the study area, this should be discussed. Regulatory and
administrative procedures in force to reduce water consumption
(thereby reducing waste volume) should be summarized.
Management. Discuss all areawide or basin water quality
management plans in force in the study area, court ordered
allotments or interstate agreements involving water quality/
quantity in the study area. Identify any permits or orders
-7-
-------
on specific water resources issued by state or local water pollution
control agencies for maintaining or improving water quality,
Flood Hazards,
Discuss designated flood risk areas in the study area; indicate the
25, 50 and 100-year flood levels for the area, Identify any ongoing
or proposed Corps of Engineers or Soil Conservation Service projects
in any study area floodplain,
b. Biota
1) Plants
Generally describe significant aquatic vegetation including rooted
aquatics, floating vascular plants, concentrations of filamentous green
or bluegreen algae, and any plants significantly affecting the water's
taste or clarity in the facilities planning area. Give an interpretation
of their ecological significance.
Include information from the latest appropriate water quality survey
prepared by the State water quality control agency. Include any availa-
ble information describing the abundance and diversity of aquatic
autotrophs,
2) Wetlands and Water/Land Interfaces
Identify beaches, estuaries, stream banks, lake shores, marshlands
and other wetlands in the study area. Discuss any tidal effects, effects
of dissipating wave energy, dune migration, salinity changes causing
siltation, effects of erosion and inundation or other physical systems
or actions at work in the study area. Map flood hazard areas by showing
annual, 5, 50 and 100-year floodplains, based on information available
from HUD regional offices,
3) Sensitive Natural Areas
Identify and show on a map or a map with overlays any of the
following located in the planning area: surface waters, marshland and
wetlands, floodplains or flood-retention areas, groundwater recharge
areas, steeply sloping (over 25 per cent) lands, forests and woodlands,
prime agricultural lands, habitats of rare and endangered species,
estuaries, and sensitive geologic areas, (Appendix A provides State
and Federal lists of rare and endangered species within Region V,) A
narrative description of these should be included. Interactions between
identified areas should receive attention in this section,
B, Man-Made Environment
This section should present a description of the major man-made elements in
the project area. Population, economics, land use, agricultural, archeologi-
cal, cultural, historical, and recreational resources, transportation,
-8-
-------
resource energy uses, water programs, and other projects, programs and efforts
should all be discussed in a level of detail appropriate to the facilities
plan.
1, Land Uses
a. Existing Land Uses
Discuss existing land uses, such as residential, commerical and public
services, industrial, cluster housing, strip development, extractive (mining,
etc.), transportation, communications and utilities, institutional, open
space and recreation, agricultural, water supply, archaeological, historic
sites and other points of interest in the area of the proposed interceptors
or treatment plant. Describe the extent and effectiveness of current land
use planning by all levels use controls in effect.
b. Proposed Land Uses
For those categories listed above, discuss land uses proposed by local,
state, national or regional governmental agencies in the areas of the proposed
interceptors or treatment plants. Describe development trends for the indus-
trial, agricultural, commercial, residential and recreational areas, especially
those near or adjoining bodies of water; focus on any aspects of those trends
which might threaten air or water quality or bring about other environmental
problems, especially when interceptors or collectors are being proposed to
service undeveloped land or run through undeveloped areas.
2, Demography and Economics
a. Existing Conditions
Discuss population characteristics from the last decennial census and
any updated data available. Figures on employment and unemployment should
be discussed with breakdowns by type of industry as used in census data.
For added perspective, these data should be compared with state and national
averages. Identify the major economic revenue producers of the study area.
Discuss the most important of these, showing the basic money flow systems.
Discuss any major economic problems which might affect growth in the study
area,
b. Projected 5, 10 and 20-year Growth
Discuss projected trends related to total population and employment in
the region and study area. The rates of growth for the region contained
in reports for the Water Resources Council by the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Department of Commerce and the Economic Research Service, Department of
Agriculture (the OBERS projections) should be used. The reasons for using
a different forecasting system and the reasons for using a particular projec-
tion should be stated briefly.
If the projections used in the plan differ more than 10 percent from the
OBERS projections, the reasons for using the figures should be stated.
Discuss the relationship of local projections to relevant state and
-9-
-------
national population and economic trends. Identify additional places of
employment for the projected increases in study area population; discuss
probable trends for the area's principal revenue producers and the local
economy as a whole, Relate these trends to the future population projec-
tions discussed above and projected state and national economic conditions,
3, Cultural, Historical, Archeological Recreational Resources and
Agricultural Resources
a. National Register Properties
Specifically identify properties located within the general project
area that are included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, To identify included properties, consult
the National Register and monthly supplements. To identify eligible
properties, apply National Register criteria with the consultation of
the State Historic Preservation Officer and local historical societies,
b, Archeological Sites
Due to the general unfamiliarity of most grant applicants with the
procedures necessary to comply with applicable historic and archeological
preservation legislation we have included a detailed discussion of this
process in Appendix B,
c, Recreational Facilities
Describe the types, locations, and capacities of all park lands and
other outdoor recreational facilities in the area, Indicate plans for
future expansion of existing sites as well as new developments,
d, Agricultural Resources-Prime and Unique Farmland
In keeping with the Federal policy established by the National
Environmental Policy Act, a consideration of the area's highly productive
farmlands should be included in inventorying potentially impacted environ-
mental elements, The categories of productive land identified by the
Federal government are "prime" and "unique", "Prime" farmlands are those
whose value derives from their general advantage as cropland due to soil
and water conditions, "Unique" farmlands are those whose value derives
from their particular advantage for growing specialty crops, The Soil
Conservation Service is initiating a mapping program for the prime and
unique farmlands of each state, Refer to Appendix E for information on
the program for each state and the appropriate Soil Conservation Service
contacts within each state for this program,
4, Resource Use
Identify present and projected amounts of electric power, natural gas,
heating oil, and other power sources used in the area, Indicate future
construction plans of relevant utility companies for the area, Identify
any major natural resource users in the project area, Describe the type,
-10-
-------
quantity and quality of energy resources produced or extracted in the project
area*
C, Other Projects, Programs and Efforts
Describe any additional Federal, State, regional, or local projects and programs
existing or planned which have or will have an impact (social, economic, or
environmental) on the area. Relate any interaction between these projects and
the attainment of project objectives. Include a description of relevant State
and local laws such as water and air pollution control laws, wildlife conser-
vation laws, noise and odor control ordinances, subdivision regulations, erosion
control and urban runoff ordinances, and floodplain development control ordinances,
D, Documentation
Sources of information used to describe the existing environment and to assess
future environmental impacts should be documented. These sources should include
local, regional, State and Federal Agencies with responsibility or interest
in impacts to aspects of the natural and man-made environment discussed above,
In particular, the following agencies must be consulted,
1, Local and regional land use planning agencies for assessments of land
use trends and population projections, especially those affecting size, timing,
and location of facilities, and the planning activities funded under Section
701 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383),
2, The State coastal zone management agency and the appropriate office
of the Department of Commerce, if coastal zones or coastal waters as defined
in Title III of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583)
may be affected,
3, The HUD Regional Office if the action may involve a flood-risk area
identified under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234),
4, Appropriate State officials and the Secretary of the Interior where
national forest lands may be involved, and with the Secretary of Agriculture
if the action may affect portions of rivers designated wild and scenic or being
considered for this designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public
Law 90-542),
5, The Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce if any
threatened or endangered species defined under Section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) are identified in the project area,
6, The U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior), the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce), the
U,S, Army Corps of Engineers, and the head of the agency administering the
wildlife resources of the particular state in which the action will take place
if a wetland may be affected,
7, The State Historic Preservation Officer to meet the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive
Order 11594, and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974,
-11-
-------
8* The State offices of the United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service for information related to "prime" and "unique"
farmland (See Appendix E),
-12-
-------
IV. Development of Alternatives
A. General
1. Alternative waste management techniques will be evaluated
based on the Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT)
or, as applicable, more stringent criteria required to meet water
quality standards.
2. Both the development and comparison of alternatives should
be presented in a clear and concise manner so the public can follow
the logic of the decision-making process.
3. One alternative which should always be included is that of
"no action" -- allowing the existing wastewater treatment works or
septic tanks to continue in use — so that the public will under-
stand the environmental implication of allowing the existing situa-
tion to continue.
B. Steps in Development of Alternatives
The development of feasible alternative systems requires four major
steps. First, major subsystems and possible subsystems alternatives
should be identified. Secondly, the objectives of the project must
be examined and subsequent alternatives incapable of meeting these
objectives eliminated. Thirdly, identified constraints to these
alternatives are applied to reduce the number of subsystems con-
sidered. And finally, the remaining subsystems' interactions are
evaluated to further limit feasible alternatives.
Each subsystem has several alternatives as input to the final
solution of the water quality problem and to progress toward other
specific objectives and goals. The facilities plan should include
a narrative discussion of these alternatives as well as a summary
table or display of the major points in the narrative. Tables 1
and 2 are examples of alternatives summaries. Constraints may well
limit or require the rejection of one or more of the available
alternatives. A brief discussion should establish the reason for
rejection. Appendix C entitled "Locally Sensitized Alternative
Analysis" is offered as an example of a type of evaluation pro-
cedure which may be used in analyzing alternatives.
C. Considerations in Developing Alternatives
1. Analysis of Joint Treatment or Regionalization Questions
(Regional questions may have already been resolved by existing
approved plans. If this is the case, summarization of important
conclusions and proper referencing of these regional plans may
suffice).
a. Identification and assessment of feasible treatment works
and interceptor combinations within the planning area. (It should
be noted that certain simplifying assumptions must be made for
-13-
-------
purposes of this analysis, e.g., treatment processes. These sim-
plifying assumptions must be clearly spelled out).
1) Monetary costs of the feasible combinations should be
assessed in terms of the "total present worth" of the
entire system.
2) Significant environmental effects resulting from the
implementation of each of the feasible combinations
should be presented. Particular attention should be
paid to differences in impact between the proposed
combinations. Unique regional problems to be addressed
are:
a) Effects of interceptor locations on land use within
and between urban areas.
b) Effects of alternative combinations on stream flows
in the region.
3) Other non-monetary costs should be evaluated, including:
a) Possible site limitations — is area available for
future expansion or additions?
b) Possible differences in operation and maintenance
capability and reliability.
b. Based on information contained in 1, a recommendation for a
specific treatment configuration should be made. This recommendation
should include:
1) A map of the regional area with specific service areas
for each proposed treatment plant delineated, and
2) A specific statement which identifies the political units
lying within the service area of each proposed plant.
2. Consideration of Non-Structural Alternatives
There are both structural and non-structural alternatives for the
solution of water quality problems. Structural alternatives are
related to the construction of new, or the upgrading of existing,
wastewater treatment works. Non-structural alternatives include:
Improved operation and maintenance techniques
Flow and waste reduction measures, such as industrial reuse
and recycling
Land use and development controls and management practices
Non-point sources controls, e.g., urban or agricultural runoff
ordinances: erosion and sedimentation ordinances
-14-
-------
Institutional arrangements, e.g., combination of facilities,
wastewater discharges, etc.
Negative or no growth policy
Educational programs for decreased water use and wastewater
generation
Water and sewer rate structure alterations.
Past approaches have been weighed heavily toward structural solutions
to problems. In the future equal consideration should be given to
the non-structural approach — by investigating what optimum mix
might bring the best alternative solution.
The previously identified non-structural alternatives should be
evaluated along with structural. This discussion should include
evaluation of those measures already taken, proposed to be taken,
and constraints on the system which eliminates other non-structural
measures. If non-structural alternatives are part of the strategy,
the degree to which the effectiveness of structural alternatives is
increased should be noted. If none are used, the possible benefits
that could be realized should be noted.
3. Analysis of Alternative Treatment Systems (including structural
and non-structural measures) within a Specific Service Area
a. The effect which "no action" would have on communities in-
volved must be addressed. It is not sufficient just to indicate
that the communities involved are under orders. The analysis must
examine potential effects on:
1) Surface water quality.
2) Land use - examine restrictions on land use which might
be imposed by "no action".
3) Groundwater quality - examination of limitations in
utilizing private septic systems.
4) Socio-economic character of communities.
a) Health hazards
b) Industrial development;
b. Preliminary alternative systems featuring at least one tech-
nique under each of the three categories below (treatment and discharge,
wastewater reuse, and land application) will be developed and screened.
A detailed proposal will be prepared for each unless adequate justifi-
cation for eliminating a technique during the preliminary screening
process is presented.
-15-
-------
1) Treatment and discharge to surface waters
a) Biological treatment
b) Physical-chemical treatment
c) Systems combining the above techniques
2) Treatment and wastewater reuse
a) Industrial processes
b) Groundwater recharge for water supply enhancement
c) Surface water supply enhancement
d) Recreation lakes
e) Land reclamation
3) Land application — the application of wastewater effluents
on the land involves the recycling of most of the organic
matter and nutrients by biological action in the soil plus
plant growth for the breakdown and disposal of nutrients.
Land application techniques include:
a) Irrigation including spray, ridge and furrow, and
flooding
b) Overland flow
c) Infiltration percolation
4. Project Objectives Screening
Following identification of potential system alternatives an initial
screening should be made to eliminate those alternatives which are
incapable of meeting project objectives. Examples of this might be:
a. Certain treatment processes do not meet water quality
objectives;
b. Interceptor systems failing to service major pollutant
generators;
c. Outfall locations requiring treatment levels beyond that
available.
5. Analysis of Constraints
Limiting factors, assumptions, or conditions that affect the scope
of alternatives considered or analyses performed should be applied to
the alternatives already developed to further reduce the number con-
-16-
-------
sidered. These constraints may be sufficient reason to reject a
large number of alternatives outright, eliminate a portion of the
analysis without further consideration, or they may reflect on the
effectiveness or scope of available alternatives. Examples of such
constraints include:
a. The proposed treatment works is intended to demonstrate a
particular technology (example: nitrogen removal);
b. Capital, maintenance and operation cost may preclude some
alternatives (example: the level of bonded indebtedness for a
community may limit the funds available; the tax base may not allow
enough extra cash for O&M);
c. Statutory and administrative controls on residential and
commercial development in the area may preclude any effective system
alternative (example: zoning variances which allow development of
formerly designated open areas, or withdrawal of zoning classifi-
cation to allow a more dense population configuration);
d. The work is limited in scope and only a partial analysis
is necessary (example: modification of an existing facility);
e. The alternative may encourage undesirable growth in certain
heretofore unserviced areas.
6. Subsystem Interaction
Interactions between various alternative subsystems may further
restrict the number of viable system alternatives. Possible combin-
ations of subsystems must be evaluated to determine which systems
are capable of meeting project objectives realizing previously
identified constraints.
As an example, an objective of prevention of groundwater depletion
might be adopted which limits treated effluent disposal to the recla-
mation of wastewater effluent for groundwater recharge. This in turn
will affect the degree of wastewater treatment that must be used and
represents a subsystem interaction. Since the degree of treatment
may well necessitate an advanced waste treatment process, large volumes
of sludge may result. This in turn limits the sludge disposal method
available and represents another subsystem interaction. The community
may have difficulty meeting the O&M costs, which may place limits on
the number of advanced waste treatment processes that can be used.
In many instances, the interaction of subsystems will be such as
to place constraints on the selection process. Another example might
be that the optimum network of interceptors depends largely on the
gravity drainage pattern of the service area. Once the position of
this network is established, certain constraints (physical and
economic) are placed on the location alternatives for the treatment
subsystem. This location decision at the subsystem level may also
substantially affect both effluent and sludge disposal alternatives.
For example, a river outfall might well determine the degree of
treatment prior to the discharge of the effluent. This, in effect,
-17-
-------
limits the total available choices in the selection of subsystems.
The same interactions occur with regard to degree of treatment and
disposal alternatives.
D. Detailed Evaluation of those Alternatives Remaining after the
Preliminary Screening
These remaining alternatives should then be evaluated on the basis of:
1. Calculation of "total present worth" for each alternative
and subsystem component including the possibility of phased additions,
where appropriate (For cases where there is a projected development
of more than 2% the possibility of phased additions should definitely
be a consideration.);
2. Contributions to water quality goals and objectives;
3. Significant environmental effects, both positive and negative,
of each alternative including a discussion of future development
impacts (A more detailed presentation of impact analysis follows
in the next chapter.);
4. Operability, reliability and flexibility of each alternative
and any subsystem included in each alternative.
-18-
-------
V. Evaluation of Environmental Impact
A. General
The beneficial and detrimental environmental effects of the project
alternatives should be evaluated in planning the project and should
be discussed in detail in the facilities plan. The natural and
man-made factors inventoried in initial planning of the project
may be affected by implementing the alternatives. Therefore, the
analysis of project impacts should be organized to systematically
consider the impacts on those existing environmental factors pre-
viously inventoried. By using the same categories inventoried a
direct comparison can be made of the situation with and without
the proposed project.
In narrative form the facilities plan should describe the environ-
mental impact of the strucutral and non-structural actions considered
as alternatives. In many cases the impact may be associated with a
single subsystem or non-structural action. If more than one sub-
system or action impacts a category, the cumulative impact should
be described. The assessment of impacts should be divided into
two parts. The first part should consider primary effects which are
directly related to the construction and operation of a facility.
The second part should consider project-induced impacts (secondary
impacts) within the project area. The primary and secondary impacts
discussed should be categorized as:
1. beneficial or adverse
2. short or long-term
3. reversible or irreversible.
B. Categories of Effects
1. Primary Effects
Examples of primary adverse, long-term, irreversible impa'cts from
construction and operation of a wastewater treatment works which
should be evaluated include:
a. destruction of historical, archeological, geological, cultural,
or recreational areas;
b. contamination of a groundwater aquifer from failure;
c. destruction of sensitive ecosystems (e.g., wetlands);
d. consumption of materials in construction and operation (e.g.
chemicals used in the treatment process);
e. eutrophication of a body of water;
-19-
-------
f. jeopardizing an endangered species;
g. displacement of population; and
h. operational accidents (e.g., chemical spills).
2. Secondary Effects
Examples of secondary adverse, long term, irreversible impacts
induced by a project which should be evaluated include:
a. Changes in the rate, density, or type of development, including
residential, commercial, industrial, or changes in the use of open
space, floodplains, prime agricultural land or other environmentally
sensitive categories of land;
b. Violations of air or water quality standards stemming from
secondary development; and
c. Damage to sensitive ecosystems (e.g., wetlands) or jeopardy
to endangered species, resulting from the secondary growth.
Appendix D is offered as assistance in analyzing project-induced
secondary impacts.
3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
List those adverse impacts identified under the discussion of
primary and secondary effects of alternatives or provide a summary
table of these impacts. This allows the independent reviewer to
quickly compare the alternatives on the basis of their most serious
environmental effects.
4. Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity
The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment
and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is often
one of trade-offs or a balancing of impacts over time. Sacrificing
short-term uses of a resource may result in long-term benefits.
However, opting for immediate gain may mean foregoing opportunities
for gain at some future time.
While there is no fixed timetable to distinguish the short-term
from the long-term, generally a local short-term use of the environment
is defined as a direct consequence of the project in its immediate
vicinity. Long-term effects are those which are the result, either
directly or indirectly, of the project and in most cases are con-
sidered to be permanent effects.
The local short-term uses of land in the study area are for the
proposed project, constructed as part of a wastewater treatment
system, and the commercial and residential development of open land
-20-
-------
induced by the project. Long-term productivity of the available habitat
and open land in the study area as a wildlife resource and as a land resource
for future agricultural or urban use will be affected by short-term land use
decisions.
A short-term decision has irmvediate and long-term effects. Irtnediate
temporary effects during construction of the project would be localized
disruption of traffic, increased noise levels and potential erosion of bare
soils. However, these impacts might be inconsequential compared with long-
term benefits for the water quality and q uantity in the study area. Long-term
effects would include changing the water quality of surface and groundwater
resources in the study area and developing new land uses in the study area.
Another long-term effect would be an overall decrease in the amount of open
land in the county or region for agriculture, recreation or commercial and
residential uses.
5. Irreversible and Irretrievable C cranitments of Resources
Summarize the commitirent of land, person-hours for design and construction,
energy, raw materials and funds required to implement each alternative. These
commitments should be quantified whenever possible.
6. Steps to Minimize Harm or Enhance the Environment
List any mitigative steps identified under the discussion of primary and
secondary effects of alternatives or provide a summary table of these measures.
An example of mitigative measures which could be taken is the case where an
interceptor or collection system routing is changed to avoid impacting on a
sensitive natural area such as a wetland. Appropriate measures to lessen adverse
impacts will vary with each project. Common sense, augmented by ingenuity, can
be used to select appropriate methods o f control.
7. Summary Table
In addition to the narrative, the environmental impacts occurring in each
environmental category should be displayed in a sumnary table.
-21-
-------
IV. Federal/State Agency and Public Participation
The participation of local, State, and Federal agencies, individual
citizens and interested environmental groups, in the preparation of
facilities plans is of the utmost importance. Their suggestions,
criticisms and objections should be given full consideration.
Any agency or public participation in the review of alternatives
through public hearings should be identified and briefly discussed.
If public hearings have not been held during preparation of the
facilities plan, this fact should also be noted.
The plan should contain a complete history of any public meetings
or hearings related to the proposed action. The history should
state the official title, time, date and place of the hearing and
the specific reason why it was held. A summary of the hearing
should be appended to the plan.
-22-
-------
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION RELATED TO
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
OF WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
-------
LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THOSE ON REVIEW STATUS, OCCURRING
WITHIN REGION V - TAKEN FROM THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
"THREATENED WILDLIFE OF THE UNITED STATES,"
1973 EDITION AND AMENDMENTS
-------
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES OCCURRING
WITHIN REGION V.
1. Common Name: Longjaw Cisco
Scientific Name: Coregonus alpenae
States Where Found Within Region V: MI, OH, IN, WI
Present Distribution: Greatly reduced numbers throughout Lakes Michigan and
Huron, and a very small population in the small deep hole in eastern Lake Erie
that was still present as late as 1948.
2. Common Name: Blue Pike
Scientific Name: Stizostedion vitreum qlaucum
States Where Found Within Region V: MI, OH, IN, WI
Present Distribution: Very uncommon in the deeper and cooler areas of Lake Erie
and possibly Lake Ontario.
3. Common Name: Arctic Peregrine Falcon
Scientific Name: Falco Peregrinus tudrius
States Where Found Within Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: Breeds in the treeless tundra area of Arctic Alaska,
Canada, and Western Greenland. Migrates south chiefly through eastern and
middle North America to gulf coast of United States, middle and South America
as far south as Argentina and Chile. Band recoveries indicate that southward
migration along the Atlantic coast may be chiefly from breeding areas in western
Greenland.
4. Common Name: American Peregrine Falcon
Scientific Name: Falco peregrinus anatum
States Where Found Within Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: Primarily western North America, but breeding range could
include part of eastern United States.
5. Common Name: Whooping Crane
Scientific Name: Grus americana
States Where Found Within Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: Breeds in Wood Buffalo National Park, central southern
Mackenzie, Canada. Winters on Gulf Coast of Texas, occasionally into Mexico.
A-la
-------
6. Common Name: Kirtland's Warbler
Scientific Name: Dendroica kirtlandii
States Where Found Within Region V: MI
Present Distribution: Breeds in the northern part of the lower peninsula of
Michigan from Lake Huron west to Kalkaska County and from Presque Isle County
south to Ogemaw County principally in watershed of the AuSable River. Nesting
habitat young jack pines with low brushy undergrowth. Winters in the Bahama
Islands. Recent records from Eleuthera, New Providence, and Grand Bahama,
5 in 1964. Winter habitat noted as pine woods, broad-leafed scrub, and
Australian pine (Casuarina).
7. Common Name: Indiana Bat
Scientific Name: Myotis soladis
States Where Found Within Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: Midwest and Eastern United States from the western
edge of Ozark region in Oklahoma to central Vermont, to southern Wisconsin, and
as far south as northern Florida. Distribution is associated with major caver-
nous limestone areas and areas just north of cave regions.
8. Common Name: Gray Bat
Scientific Name: Myotis grisescens
States Where Found Within Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: Certain kinds of caves in southern and central United
States. Distribution associated with major cavernous limestone areas.
9. Common Name: Eastern Cougar
Scientific Name: Felis concolor cougar
States Where Found Within Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: On the basis of reports of sightings, Wright (1971) says:
"...the range of the supposedly extinct eastern panther runs across
the Laurentians from central Ontario to the Atlantic coast of Cape
Breton Island, and between the Mississippi and the Atlantic south
to where it merges with the range of F. c. coryi."
10. Common Name: Eastern Timber Wolf
Scientific Name: Cam's lupus lycaon
States Where Found Within Region V: MN, WI, MI
Present Distribution: The Lake Superior region of Michigan and the International
border region of Minnesota; Isle Royale, Michigan; Ontario, Canada, north to James
Bay, eastward to Gulf of St. Lawrence.
A-lb
-------
11. Common Name: Scioto Madtom
Scientific Name: Naturus trautman
States Where Found Within Region V: OH
Present Distribution: In a riffle area in the lower portion of Big Darbey
Creek, tributary to the Scioto River, Pickaway County, Ohio.
12. Common Name: Sampson's Pearly Mussel
Scientific Name: Epioblasma Sampsoni
States Where Found Within Region V: IL, IN
Present Distribution: Wabash River in Illinois and Indiana.
13. Common Name: White Cat's Paw Pearly Mussel
Scientific Name: Epioblasma sulcata delicata
States Where Found in Region V: IN, MI, OH
Present Distribution: Detroit River, Michigan, Indiana, St. Joseph River,
Michigan, Ohio.
14. Common Name: Tubercled-blossom Pearly Mussel
Scientific Name: Epioblasma torulosa torulosa
States Where Found Within Region V: IL
Present Distribution: Lower Ohio River in Kentucky and Illinois, Notichucky
River in Tennessee, and Kanawha River in West Virginia.
15. Common Name: Higgins1 Eye Pearly Mussel
Scientific Name: Lampellis Higginsi
States Where Found in Region V: IL, MN, WI
Present Distribution: Mississippi River in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois;
Meramec River in Missouri; St. Croix River in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
16. Common Name: Pink Mucket Pearly Mussel
Scientific Name: Lampsilis orbiculata orbiculata
States Where Found in Region V: OH
Present Distribution: Green River, Kentucky; Kanawha River in West Virginia;
Tennessee River (Tenn. and Ala.); Muskingum River, Ohio
17. Common Name: Southern Bald Eagle
Scientific Name: Haiiacetus leucocephalus
States Where Found in Region V: Regional
Present Distribution: South of 40° Latitude
A-lc
-------
WILDLIFE SPECIES ON REVIEW STATUS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
Common Name
Freshwater Sponges:
Muscular sponge
Butterflies:
Mitchell's satyr
Dakota skipper
Freshwater Fishes:
Crystal darter
Eastern sand darter
Longhead darter
Freshwater Crustaceans;
Scud
Subtle cave scud
Scud
Mineis cave scud
Packard's cave scud
Scud
Scud
Birds:
Eastern Marten
Scientific Name
Anheteromeyenia biceps
Euptychia mitchellii
Ilesperia dakotae
Ammocryptera asprella
Ammocryptera pellucida
Percina macrocephala
Apocrangonyx lucifugus
Apocrangonyx subtil is
Crangonyx anomalus"
Crangonyx minor
Crangonyx packardi
Gammarus acherondites
Stygobromus putcalis
Martex americana arrvsricana
Known Distribution
Michigan
Indiana, Michigan
Minnesota
Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
Ohio
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana, Ohio
Indiana, Illinois
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota
New Hampshire, New York
Vermont, Wisconsin
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED PLANT SPECIES
OF THE UNITED STATES
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - ILLINOIS
Scientific Name
Aster chasei
Lespedeza leptostachva
Petalostemum foliosum
Iliamna renota
Isotria medeoloides
Rhus trilobata var. arenaria
> Asclepias Meadii
i
to
v Boltonia asteroides var. decurrens
Cyperus grayoides
Apios Priceana
Astragalus tennesseensis
Synandra hispidula
Platanthera flava
Platanthera leucophaea
Platanthera peramoena
Proposed Common Name or
Status Family*
T Aster family
E Bush clover
E Prairie clover
E Mallow family
E Small-whorled pogonia
T Fragrant sumac, lemon
sumac, polecat bush
E Milkweed, silk weed
T Aster family
E Umbrella sedge
E Wild bean
T Ground Plum
T Latniaceae
T Tubercled orchis1
T White-fringed orchis1
T Fringeless purple orchis1
Habitat*
Prairies
Rocky hills, glades, and river banks
Island in Kankakee River, 111., open woods,
gravels, shores
Dry woodland
Sandy dunes
Dry prairies
Gravelly shores and sandy thickets
Woods and thickets
Calcareous barrens and cedar glades
Wooded ravines1
Wet ^round1
Wet meadows1
Moist woods1
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES - OF THE UNITED STATES - ILLINOIS (cont.)
to
tr
Proposed
Scientific Name Status
Muhlenbergia curtisetosa T
Poa paludigena T
Asplenium kentuckiense T
Dodecatheon frenchii T
Cvpripedium candidum T
Thismia americana T
Plantago cordata T
Camion Name
or Family
Poaceae
Speargrass
Polypodiaceae
Shooting star
Small White ladyslipper
Burmaniaceae
Plaintain, heartleaf
Habitat*
Woodlands, thickets, dooryards, roadsides
Sphagnum bogs, tamarack-swamps, cold springheads
Rich woods and rocky ledges
Calcareous meadows, prairies, mossy glades
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - INDIANA
v
i
Scientific Name
Iliamna remota
Rhus trilobata var. arenaria
Asclepias Meadii
Lesquerella globosa
Platanthera flava
Platanthera leucophaea
Platanthera peramoena
Poa paludigena
Phlox bifida var. stellaria
Sullivantia Sullivantii
Cypripedium candidum
Proposed
Status
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Common Name
or Family*
Mallow family
Fragrant sumac, lemon sumac,
polecat bush
Milkweed, silkweed
Brassicaceae
Tubercled orchis1
White-fringed orchis
Fringeless purple orchis1
Speargrass
Polemoniaceae
Saxifragaceae
Small white ladyslipper
Habitat*
Open woods, gravel shores
Sandy dunes
Dry prairies, calcareous bluffs
Calcareous bluffs
Wet ground
Wet meadows
Moist woods
Sphagnum bogs, tamarack-swamps, cold springheads
Dry cliffs, bluffs, sandhills, dunes
Wet limestone and sandstone cliffs
Calcareous meadows, prairies, mossy glades
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - MICHIGAN
Proposed
Scientif ic Name Status Common N ame or Family*
Primula nvistassinica
Cypripedium candidum
Platanthera f lava
Platanthera leucophaea
Isotria medeoloides
Phyllitis scolopendrium'
var. Americana
Woodsia abbeae
Trollius laxus
Mimulus glabratus
var. Michiganensas
Iris lacustris
Cypripedium arietinum
Listera auriculata
T
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
Bird's-eye primrose
Small white ladyslipper
Tubercled orchis
White-fringed orchis-"-
Small whorled pogonia
Hart's-tongue fern
Polypodiaceae
Spreading globefoot
Scrophulariaceae
Iris family
Ram's head ladyslipper
Auricled twayblade
Habitat
Calcareous rocks, shores and meadows
Calcareous meadows, prairies, mossy glades
Wet ground
Wet meadows
Dry woodland
Crevices and cool slopes or sinkholes
of dolomite and other calcareous rock
2
Crevices of high cliffs
Rich meadows and swamps
Wet shores and springy places
Beaches, sandy woods and bogs near the Great
Lakes
Damp or mossy woods or bogs
Alluvial banks, calcareous silts or crevices,
alder thickets, and arbor-vitae swamps
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - MICHIGAN oont.
Scientific Name Proposed Common Name or Family* Habitat*
Status
Poa paludigena T Speargrass Sphagnum bogs and tamarack swamps
Potamogeton hillii T Pondweed Ponds, slow streams, borders of lakes
fo
m
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - MINNESOTA
NJ
Hi
Scientific Name
Lespedeza Leptostachya
Polemonium occidentale
var. lacustre
Woodsia abbeae
Erigeron pulchellus
var. Tolsteadii
Erythronium propullans
Cypripedium arietium
Listera auriculata
Proposed
Status
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
Common Name or Family*
Bush clover
Greek valerian, Jacob's
ladder
2
Woodsia
Robin's plantain
Dog ' s t ooth violet
Ram's head ladyslipper
Auricled twayblade
Platantherea flava T
Platanthera leucophaea T
Gymnocarpium heterosporum T
Cypripedium candidum T
Tubercled-orchis
White-fringed orchis^
Polypodiacede
Small white ladyslipper
Habitat*
Prairies
Arbor-vitae swamps, St. Louis
County, Minnesota
Crevices of high cliffs
Copses, open woods and meadows
Rich woods of flat bottomlands
Damp or mossy woods or bogs
Alluvial banks, calcareous
silts or crevices, alder thickets,
arbor-vitae swamps
Wet ground1
Wet meadows1
Calcareous meadows, prairies,
mossy glades
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - OHIO
Proposed
Scientific Name Status
Solidago shortii T
Calamagrostis insperata T
Trollius laxus T
Rhus trilobata var. T
arenaria
Oxypolis canbyi T
Apios Priceana T
Platanthera flava T
Platanthera leucophaea T
Platanthera peramoena T
Muhlenbergia curtisetosa T
Poa paludigena T
Polemonium reptans T
var. villosum
Common Name or Family*
Goldenrod
Poaceae
Spreading globeflower
Habitat*
Rocky slopes
Rich meadows and swamps
Fragrant sumac, lemon sumac Sandy dunes
polecat bush
Hog-fennel
Wild bean
Tubercled-orchis-1-
White-fringed orchis
Bogs
Woods and thickets
Wet ground1
Wet meadows
Fringeless purple orchis1 Moist woods
Poaceae
Speargrass
Woodlands, thickets, dooryards,
roadsides
Spaghum bogs and tamarack swamps
Greek valerian, Jacob's ladder Rich woods and and bottoms
-------
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - WISCONSIN
Proposed
Status
Scientific Name
Gnaphalium obtusifolium E
var. saxicola
Lespedeza leptostachya E
Woodsia abbeae T
Qxytropis campestris T
var. chartacea
Iris lacustris T
> Cypripedium arietinum T
Listera auriculata T
Platanthera flava T
Platanthera leuoophaea T
Poa paludigena T
Gymnocarpium heterosporum T
Cannon Name or Family*
Catfoot
Bush-clover
o
Woodsia^
Fabaceae
Iris Family
Rain's head ladyslipper
Auricled twayblade
Tubercled-orchis
White-fringed orchis
Speargrass
Polypodiaceae
Habitat*
Siliceous ledges and cliffs
Prairies
Crevices of high cliffs^
Beaches, sandy woods and bogs
near the Great Lakes
Damp or mossy woods or bogs
Alluvial banks, calcareous silts
or crevices, alder thickets and
arbor-vitae swamps
Wet ground
Wet meadows
Sphagnum bogs and tamarack swamps
-------
•Ivj
H-
PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANT SPECIES OF THE UNITED STATES - WISCONSIN oont.
Proposed
Scientific Name Status Common Name or Family* Habitat*
Aoonitum noveboracense E Monkshood, northernwild Rich woods, shaded ravines, and
var. quasiciliatum damp slopes
Cypripedium candidum Small vfaite ladyslipper Calcareous meadows, prairies,
mossy glades
*Coramon names and habitat taken from Grays Manual of Botany, Fernald, M. L. , eighth edition, copyright 1950
unless otherwise noted.
Flora of Illinois, Jones, G. N. , American Midland Naturalist Monograph Series, second edition, copyright 1950.
2A Flora of Northeastern Minnesota, Lakela, Olga, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
copyright 1965.
T = Threatened
E = Endangered
-------
BARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONTACTS WITHIN REGION V
FOR STATES AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
-------
RAKE AND ENDANGERED S PECIES CONTACTS
State of Illinois
Director
Illinois Department of Transportation
605 State Office Building
400 South Spring Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
State of Indiana
Director
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Division of Fish and Wildlife
608 State Office Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
State of Michigan
Howard A. Tanner, Director
Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 48926
State of Minnesota
Director
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Fish and Wildlife
301 Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, Minnesota 5515
State of Ohio
Chief
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio 43224
State of Wisconsin
Director
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities,Minnesota 55111
ATTN: Mr. C.E. Faulkner
Telephone 612/725-3500
3-a
-------
APPENDIX B
GUIDANCE FOR HISTORICAL AND
ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
-------
GUIDANCE FOR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REGION V WATER DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Revised October 1977
I. Relevant Laws
The following Federal statutes and regulations relate to the protection
of historic and archaeological sites and properties. These laws, and
the procedures required to implement them, must be taken into consid-
eration in the facilities planning /construction*grants process.
A. Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC Sec. 431).
B. Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC Sec. 461).
C. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 1976
(16 USC Sec. 470).
D. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16
USC Sec. 69).
E. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC Sec. 4321).
F. Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment," May 13, 1971 (36 F.R. 8921).
G. "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties," January 25, 1974, (36 C.F.R. Part 800).
H. Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements, Council on Environmental Quality, August 1,
1973 (40 CFR Part 1500).
I. Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements - Final
Regulations, USEPA, April 14, 1975 (40 CFR Part 6).
II. Policy
In the primary impact areas of a grant project EPA has the respon-
sibility to assure that grantees/applicants undertake appropriate
identification activities to determine the presence of cultural
properties (including architectural, historic and archaeological
properties) eligible for inclusion in the National Register. These
activities may include field surveys where necessary. Final decisions
on the necessity for survey work rests with EPA after the grantee/
applicant informs us of the State Historic Preservation Officer's
recommendation. Primary impact areas are those where ground will
be disturbed for the project, such as the plant site, pumping
station sites, access roads, and rights-of-way for interceptors.
Areas in which the wastewater treatment facilities will have direct
visual, odor, or aerosol effects may also be primary impact areas if
they are likely to contain cultural properties of a type which are
susceptible to such impacts and if the proposed project has been
designed so as to be exposed to view or will emit odors or aerosols.
In areas where there are likely to be primary effects on cul-
tural resources, grantees/applicants must identify in their facil-
ities plans all properties listed in the National Register of
Historic Places by consulting the latest issue of the National
Register, including monthly supplements (40 CFR 6.214 (a)). The
B-l
-------
-2-
current compilation is found in the Federal Register of February 1,
1977, (Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 21, pp. 6198-6362); supplements
are published in the Federal Register, usually on the first Tuesday
of £ach month.
The grantee/applicant must also identify in the facilities plan
all properties eligible for listing in the National Register within
the primary impact area. To do this, they shall consult with the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine the extent
and adequacy of existing information. Applicable criteria can be
found in 36 CFR 800.10.
If existing information is insufficient to identify affected
properties that may be eligible for the National Register, the SHPO
will recommend to EPA the level of survey work needed to identify
the presence of cultural resources. EPA's responsibility to conduct
or fund such surveys on primary impact areas shall be based on the
degree of probability with which cultural resources can be expected
to be found.
Intensive surveys should be conducted only when a sufficient
amount of information exists to indicate that there is a reasonably
high probability of discovering important cultural resources. In
areas where such inrormation does not exist, some or all of the
following usually will suffice to determine whether an intensive
survey is justified: a documentary search of reference materials
on the cultural resources of the area, a walk-over reconnaissance
survey for archaeological properties, and a "windshield" or photo-
graphic survey for historic and architectural properties. Cultural
resource surveys shall be conducted by appropriate personnel with
qualifications in the fields to be studied. When necessary, intensive
surveys may include ground testing for archaeological resources, or
the preparation of a comprehensive map locating historical and archi-
tectural resources. The information obtained from any necessary iden-
tification activities conducted shall provide the basis for determina-
tions of eligibility for listing in the National Register in accordance
with Part 800.4(a) of the Advisory Council procedures.
III. Implementation
The following procedures are set forth to comply with the above
laws and EPA policy, and should serve as a basis for discussion for
all interested parties. More specific and detailed procedures may
need to be developed on a State-by-State basis.
1. Early in the facilities planning process the grantee/appli-
cant should contact, or direct his consultant to contact, the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the purpose of
identifying all known historic, archaeological, and/or cultural
resources.
2. This initial screening should occur at the point where the
grantee/applicant is still examining several alternatives. A
B-2
-------
-3-
known historic/archaeological site may be a reason for not selecting a
particular alternative. If however, this alternative is then selected in
the final screening process, the established procedures (36 C.F.R. Part 800)
must be followed. A summary of these procedures can be 'found in Section V
below.
3. Once the final alternative plan is selected, the grantee/ applicant
should provide the SHPO with particular information on the selected plan.
This should include site location, surrounding land use, interceptor
routes, etc. Photographs of the area surrounding the site would be very
helpful.
4. Based on this information the SHPO would make a determination whether
or not a known or potential site would be affected by the proposed project.
If a known or potential site would be affected by the proposed project the
SHPO would make a recommendation that a preliminary reconnaissance survey
of the area was needed. This will generally involve a site inspection by a
qualified professional in the field.
5. The grantee/applicant shall retain qualified professionals in archeol-
ogy, history and architectural history to undertake required surveys. Such
professionals should be hired in consultation with the SHPO and State Water
Pollution Control Agency. An example of proposed professional qualifica-
tions from the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation National Park
Service, U.S. Department of Interior is attached in Appendix I.
6. If the SHPO determines that a preliminary survey is not necessary, he
would provide the grantee/applicant with a letter to this effect, which
should be included in the facilities plan/ environmental assessment.
7. If the SHPO determines that a preliminary survey is necessary, the
grantee/applicant must contact the EPA project officer through the State
Water Pollution Control Agency for approval to conduct such a survey unless
the need was defined in the grant agreement or sufficient funds budgeted
for the survey in the Plan of Study. Should the results of the survey be
negative, and satisfactory to the SHPO, he would provide a letter to this
effect, which the grantee/applicant would include in the facilities plan/
environmental assessment. The cost of this preliminary survey would be an
allowable Step 1 cost provided prior approval is obtained from the EPA
project officer.
8. Should the preliminary survey indicate that an intensive survey is
needed, the SHPO would provide the grantee/applicant and the State water
pollution control agency with the scope of the necessary additional work
and a cost estimate for its performance. In this sutmittal the SHPO
should discuss the likelihood of discovering significant archaeological or
cultural resources.
9. Work beyond the preliminary survey stage will require the specific
approval of the State and EPA, before additional costs are incurred. Pro-
posals for intensive surveys should be submitted by the State water pollu-
tion control agency to EPA with the State's recommendation. If approved,
any additional costs will also be allowable Step 1 costs.
B-3
-------
10. Should this additional work uncover significant archaeolog-
ical or cultural resources, the established procedures for deter-
mining the eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places shall be followed (36 C.F.R. Part 800). The fac-
ilities plan should demonstrate compliance with these procedures.
11. All facilities plans will be reviewed to be sure that appli-
cants have included evidence of contact with the SHPO.
IV. Relationship of Historic Preservation Procedures to NEPA
1. NEPA and the historic preservation laws establish independent
legal standards and procedures. The requirement of the latter
must be complied with regardless of whether an EIS must be prepared.
2. However, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regu-
lation, (36 CFR 800) and the Council on Environmental Quality
Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statments
(40 CFR Part 1500) direct that, where appropriate, NEPA review
and review under the historic statutes should be coordinated
and should be incorporated into a single set of documents.
3. Secondary impacts to known cultural resources will be
considered under the procedures of NEPA.
V. Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties
The Advisory Council regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800) apply whenever
a property included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places may be directly affected or if a signficant archae-
ological, historic or architectural resource is identified through the
process outlined in Section III. The procedures required by the regula-
tion are summarized as follows:
1. Identification of resources - The grantee/applicant shall
identify, in consultation with the SHPO, all properties located
within the area of the undertaking's potential environmental
impact that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register. Grantee/applicant will notify EPA if there
is some question of the eligibility of a certain property.
EPA will request a determination from the Secretary of the
Interior. The Secretary of Interior will make determinations
of eligibility and his opinion shall be conclusive for purposes
of these procedures.
2. Determination of effect - For each property identified above,
the EPA, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), shall apply the "Criteria of Effect" (36 CFR
800.8) to determine whether the undertaking has an effect upon
the property. If there is no effect, the undertaking may proceed.
3. Effect established - If an effect is established, the Federal
Agency and the SHPO shall apply the "Criteria of Adverse Effect"
(36 CFR 800.9) to determine whether the effect of the undertaking
is adverse. s-4
-------
-5-
4. Finding of no adverse effect - USEPA shall forward its written analysis
of no adverse effect and the SHPO's written views to the Advisory Council.
OSEPA's decision will follow the Advisory Council Guidelines, Appendix II.
A finding of no adverse effect must be reviewed by the Executive Director
of the Advisory Council. If he does not object to the finding within 45
days, the undertaking may proceed.
5. Finding of adverse effect - If there is a finding of adverse effect,
the USEPA shall request in writing the comments of the Advisory Council,
notify the SHPO of the request, prepare a preliminary case report, and
proceed with the consultation process (36 C.F.R. 800.5). Facilities plan
approval cannot occur during this process.
6. Consultation process - The consultation process shall involve the
grantee/applicant, the state agency, EPA, the SHPO, the Executive Director
of the Advisory Council, and, when appropriate, representatives of public
and private organizations. The consultation process shall include the con-
sideration of alternatives to avoid or mitigate adverse effects, and may
include an on-site inspection and a public information meeting.
7. Memorandum of Agreement - When the grantee/applicant, state agency, EPA,
the SHPO, and the Executive Director are able to unanimously agree on a plan
to either avoid or to mitigate the adverse effects, they shall execute a
Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging the avoidance or mitigation.
8. Failure to avoid or mitigate adverse effects - Upon the failure of the
parties to agree and execute a Memorandum of Agreement, the Executive
director shall request the Chairman of the Advisory Council to schedule the
undertaking for consideration at the next Council meeting.
9. Council meeting procedures - The Chairman of the Council shall institute
a 30-day review period for Memoranda of Agreement. The Chairman shall also
decide on requests for consideration of the undertaking by the Advisory
Council when no agreement has been reached. He may deny such a request if
no member of the Council objects within 15 days of his decision and the
project may proceed. If the Chairman grants the request, the undertaking
must be considered at a meeting of the Council no less than 60 days from
the date the request was received. The Executive Director must prepare a
case report on the undertaking for the consideration of the Council. Oral
statements shall also be made before the Council.
10. Comments of the Council - The Council shall issue and publish in the
Federal Register their comments on the proposed undertaking. Agency action
on the undertaking may then resume. However, the Federal agency must submit
a written report to the Council describing its actions taken with respect
to the undertaking subsequent to the Council's comments and their ultimate
effect on the property involved.
B-5
-------
Appendix I
APPENDIX C—PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
1. Basle professional Occupation Stand-
ards. It is essential that any project proposal
Identify suitably qualified key professional
personnel. Basic minimum qualiacatlons for
these types ol personnel who most often serve
as principal Investigators and key consult-
ants on contract projects are given below.
Agencies which undertake or evaluate Iden-
tification or data recovery projects using
their own employees should also Insure that
these qualifications are possessed by appro-
priate staff members in a manner consistent
with applicable Civil Service requirements-.
Professional personnel of the Department of
the Interior are available at all times to
consult with other Federal, State and local
agencies regarding the application of these
criteria in given Instances. For these services
agency officials should contact the Chief,
Office of Archeology and Historic Preserva-
tion, National Park Service, Department; of
the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. In the
following definitions, a month of professional
experience need not consist at a continuous
month of full-time work butsmay be made
wp of discontinuous periods of full-time or
part-time work adding up to the equivalent
of a month of full-time experience.
a. History. The minimum professional
qualifications in history are a graduate de-
gree in American history or a closely related
field; or a bachelor's degree in history or a
closely related field plus one of the following:
(a) At least two years of full-time experience
In research, writing, teaching, Interpretation,
or other demonstrable professional activity
with an academic institution, historical or-
ganization or agency, museum, or other pro-
fessional institution: or-(b) substantial con-
tribution through research and publication
to the-body of scholarly knowledge in the
field of history.
to. Archeology. The minimum professional
qualifications in archeology are (a) a gradu-
ate- degree in archeology, anthropology, or
closely related field, or equivalent training
accepted for accreditation purposes by the
Society of Professional Archeologlsts, (b)
demonstrated ability to carry research to
completion, usually evidenced by timely
completion of theses, research reports, or
almllar documents, and (c) at least 10
months of professional experience and/or
specialized training In archeologlcal field,
laboratory, or library research, administra-
tion, or management, including at least 4
months experience in archeological field re-
search and at least one year of experience
and/or* specialized training in the kind of
activity the Individual proposes to practice.
For example, persons supervising field arche-
ology, should have at least 1 year or its equiv-
alent in field experience and/or specialized
field training. Including at least six months
In a supervisory role. Persons engaged to do
archival or documentary research should
have had at least 1 year experience and/or
specialized training In such work. Arche-
ologists engaged In regional or agency plan-
ning or compliance with historic preservation
procedures should have had at least 1 year
of experience in work directly pertinent to
planning, compliance actions, etc.. and/or
specialized historic preservation or cultural
resource management training. A practi-
tioner of prehistoric archeology should have
had at least 1 year of experience or special-
ized training in research concerning arche-
ologlcal resources of the prehistoric period.
A practitioner of historic archeology should
have had at least 1 year of experience In re-
search concerning archeological resources of
the historic period. Experience in archeo-
loglcal research In the region where the proj-
ect will be undertaken Is usually desirable.
c. Architectural History. The minimum
professional q\ial!3catlons In architectural
history are a graduate degree in architectural
history, historic preservation, or closely re-
lated field, with course work In American
architectural history; or a bachelor's degree
in architectural history, with a concentration
In American architecture; or a bachelor's de-
gree in architectural history, historic preser-
vation, or closely related field plus one of
the following:
(1) At least two years full-time experience
In research, writing, or teaching in American
history or restoration architecture with an
academic Institution, historical organization
or agency, museum, or other professional In-
stitution; or
(2) Substantial contribution through re-
search and publication to the body of schol-
arly knowledge in the field of American
architectural history.
d. Architecture. The minimum professional
qualifications in architecture are a profes-
sional degree In architecture plus at least 2
years of full-time professional experience in
architecture; or a State license to practice
architecture.
e. Historical Architecture. The minimum
professional qualifications in historical archi-
tecture are a professional degree in architec-
ture or a State license to practice architec-
ture, plus one of the following:
(1) At least 1 year of graduate study In
architectural preservation, American archi-
tectural history, preservation planning or
closely related field and at least 1 year of
full-time professional experience on preser-
vation and restoration projects; or
(2) At least 2 years of full-time profes-
sional experience on preservation and resto-
ration projects. Experience on preservation
and restoration projects shall Include de-
tailed investigations of historic structures
preparation of historic structures research
reporta, and preparation of plans and speci-
fications for preservation projects
fron: 36 CFR, part 66, pp. 5382-5383
B-6
-------
Appendix II
Guidelines for Making "Adverse Eff-;t" and "No Adverse Effect" Determinations
for Archeological Resources in Accordance with 36 C.F.R. Part 800
Archeological properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the Nationa^
Register of Historic Places are generally nominated under National Register
Criterion "d" (36 C.F.R. Part 60.6) vhich states that a property may qualify
if it has "yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history." While disturbance of archeological properties should
be avoided, under certain circumstances, properties primarily significant
for the data they contain can be said to realize their significance when
this data is retrieved in an appropriate manner.
In such cases where a Federal undertaking (36 C.F.R. Part 800.3(c)) can
result in the recovery of data from an archeological property on or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the Agency Official
should take the following steps to decide whether a "no adverse effect"
determination can be made:
The Agency Official shall, in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), apply the criteria set forth in Part
I below. If these criteria are not met, the Agency Official shall
comply with the procedures set forth at 36 C.F.R. Part 800.4(e)
et seq. If the criteria are met, the Agency Official may issue a
determination of no adverse effect for any data recovery program
conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Part II
below. Documentation that the criteria and requirements set forth
in Parts I and II below have been met, along with the comments of
the SHPO, shall be forwarded to the Council for review in accordance
with 36 C.F.R. Part 800.4(d).
Part I; Criteria
1. The property is not a National Historic Landmark, a
National Historic Site in non-federal ownership, or
a property of national historical significance so
designated within the National Park System.
2. The SHPO has determined that in-place preservation of the
property is not necessary to fulfill purposes set forth
in the State Historic Preservation Plan.
3. The SHPO and the Agency Official agree that:
a. The property (including properties that
are subsidiary elements in a larger property
defined in Criterion 1) has minimal value
as an exhibit in place for public understanding
and enjoyment;
B-7
-------
b. Above and beyond its scientific value, the property is
not known to have historic or cultural significance to
a community, ethnic, or social group that would be
impaired by the retrieval of data;
c. Currently available technology is such that the
significant information contained in the property can
be retrieved.
4. Funds and time have been committed to adequately retrieve the
data.
Part II; Data Recovery Requirements
1. The data recovery will be conducted under the supervision of
an archeologist who meets the "Proposed Department of the
Interior Qualifications for the Supervisory Archeologist
(Field Work Projects)." (See Attachment //I.)
2. The data recovery will be conducted in accordance with "Professional
Standards for Data Recovery Programs." (See Attachment #2 )
3. A specified date has been set for completion and submission
of the final report to the Agency Official.
4. Plans have been made for disposition of the material recovered
after they have been analyzed for the final report. (See
Attachment #3.)
5. Regarding the status of the affected property, documentation
of the condition and significance of the property after data
recovery will be provided the Agency Official and SHPO for
forwarding to the National Register of Historic Places for
action to include nominations, boundary changes or removal of
National Register or eligiblility status, in accordance with
National Register procedures (36 C.F.R. Part 60.16 and 60.17).
B-8
-------
Attachment //I Proposed Department of the Interior Qualifications for
the Supervisory Ar'cheoloclst (Field Work Projects)
The minimum professional qualifications for the Supervisory Archeologist
are a graduate degree in archeology, anthropology, or a closely related
field, or equivalent training accepted for accreditation purposes by the
Society of Professional Archeologists, plus: (1) at least sixteen months of
professional experience or specialized training in archeology field, labora-
tory, or library research, including (a) at least four months of experience
in general North American archeology, and (b) at least six months of field
experience in a supervisory role; (2) a demonstrated ability to carry
research to completion, usually evidenced by timely completion of thesis,
research reports, or similar documents.
For work involving prehistoric archeology, the Supervisory Archeologist
should have had at least one year of experience in research concerning
archeological resources of the prehistoric period.
For work involving historic archeology, the Supervisory Archeologist
should have had at least one year of experience in research concerning
archeological resources of the historic period.
B-9
-------
Attachment #2 Professional Standards for Data Recovery Programs
1. The data recovery program should be conducted in accordance with
a professionally adequate recovery plan (research design):
a. The plan shall be prepared or approved by the
Supervisory Archeologist and shall reflect a
familiarity with previous relevant research;
b. The plan shall include a definite set of research
objectives, taking into account previous relevant
research, to be answered in analysis of the data
to be recovered;
c. The plan shall provide for recovery of a usable
sample of data on all significant research topics
that can reasonably be addressed using the property
or a justification for collecting data on a
smaller range of topics at the expense of others;
d. The plan shall specify and justify the methods
and techniques to be used for recovery of the
data contained in the property. (Methods destructive
of data or injurious to the natural features of the
property should not be employed if non-destructive
methods are feasible.)
2. The data recovery program should provide for adequate personnel,
facilities, and equipment to fully implement the recovery plan.
3. The data recovery program should insure that full, accurate and
intelligible records will be made and maintained of all field
observations and operations, including buu not limited to
excavation and recording techniques, stratigraphic and/or
associational relationships where appropriate, and significant
environmental relationships.
4. Particularly when a data recovery program is conducted upon a
potentially complex historic or prehistoric property (e.g., an
historic town site; a prehistoric site that may contain many
occupation layers, cemeteries, or architectural remains),
situations may arise or data be encountered that were not
anticipated in designing the program. Adequate provision should
be made for modification of the data recovery plan to cope
with unforeseen discoveries or other unexpected circumstances.
B-10
-------
The data recovery program should include provisions for
dissemination of the results of the program. Generally, the
final report should be made available to the SHPO, the State
archivist, the State archeologist, the Departmental Consulting
Archeologist of the Department of the Interior, and the
Chairman, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution.
Attachment ??3 Treatment of Recovered Materials
The recommended professional treatment of recovered materials is curation
and storage of the artifacts at an institution that can properly insure
their preservation and that will make them available for reserach and
public view. If such materials are not in Federal ownership, the consent
of the owner must be obtained, in accordance with applicable law, concerning
the disposition of the materials after completion of the report.
a-11
-------
APPENDIX C
LOCALLY SENSITIZED
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
-------
LOCALLY SENSITIZED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS*
As stated here and in the facilities planning guidelines no one
method is best for all situations. Certain procedures fit some
evaluation problems better than others. The following procedure
emphasizes community involvement in the decision making process.
It further separates economic considerations from environmental
and social considerations. Although there are interactions between
these topics, a final presentation of environmental costs and
benefits versus economic costs is often helpful.
This procedure requires the creation of a community advisory
group. This group will be utilized to identify alternatives, to
design the evaluation criteria by assigning relative weights for
each environmental and social category, and to evaluate each alter-
native according to this criteria. In this manner, the analytical
process may be adapted to local conditions and sensitivities.
Community Advisory Group
The success or failure of this process lies in the equitable
representation of all concerned persons in the project area. Certainly,
local governmental bodies should be represented. Often the persons
most knowledgeable of the project are city, county, and state
representatives. Officials of the Public Works Department, the
City Council, the County Commissioners, the local planning agencies,
and the state have the facts essential for a thorough understanding
of the project and the interactions with community development.
Secondly, and equally important, persons who will be most
affected by the project must be represented. Usually this group
will include citizens located in the project area close to areas
where major impacts or alterations are anticipated. These persons
often make themselves known by their own initiative. In some
cases, some effort may be required to identify who may be affected,
and locate the persons desiring to participate in the planning
process. Invited involvement early in the process may avoid
emotional reactive involvement later.
Thirdly, special interest groups should be included. Such
persons as environmental group representatives, local developers,
community club representatives, local academia, etc., can con-
tribute considerable information and help provide a focus for
complicated situations.
A working group, meeting weekly or bi-weekly, consisting of
10 to 20 persons is desirable. (From an accomplishment standpoint,
less than 20 is a more workable group but it may be difficult to
have adequate representation with less.) Regular meetings with
sufficient time between each will help maximize attendance and
allow participants time to reflect on the previous meetings and
allow the project leader time to compile previous data.
* Extracted from "Environmental Assessment Statements Guidelines
for Applicants" prepared by USEPA Region IV.
C-l
-------
Evaluation Criteria
Initially, the group must understand its purpose, that being to
sensitize the environmental analysis criteria to local conditions,
and then to evaluate each alternative according to this criteria.
In order to perform these tasks, the group must first under-
stand the general evaluation topics. The group leader is responsible
for providing this information. It should be in the form of the
background data (project objectives, project history, natural and
man-made environmental inventories, maps, etc.) already gathered
and compiled.
The following table may then be used for evaluating both
primary and secondary effects. Changes, additions or other alter-
ations to this table may become desirable and should be made where
appropriate.
C-2
-------
H'
ft
n>
i-t
s
CD
rt
n>
H-
0)
(D
>-t
rt
n>
l-t
3
W
rr
H-
m
0)
rt
H-
n
8s
rt
H-
00
(U
O
rt
O
O
(to
ft
Air Quality
Noise
Odor
Topography
Geology
Soils
g to
H-H-
o n
CD
MM
Plants
Animals
O
H-
H-O
O I
\
Physical-
Chemical
Biological
0) 3 C» P
O rt3 rt
(6 fl> &.(D
H *1
I 1
Quantity
Quality
Plants
Animals
Land Use
Arch., Hist., Cult.,
Recreational
Transportation
Materials
Energy
(Bo
(D
Water Programs
O.
ft
ft)
9
Community Services
and Facilities
Taxes and Capital
Budgeting
Federal
*
hh O 31
O 00 (D
>-( H H
State
C-3
Regional
Local
Primary
CO H
-. o
(_l.
tu ID
3 O
cu rt
CO
o
o
n
(D
-------
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Man-Made Environment
Natural Environment
Weighting Factor
U
-------
The citizens group then assigns weights for the various
categories listed in the evaluation table according to their
preception of its relative importance. One method to
accomplish this task is to initially specify the percent
importance to the major headings. Secondly, assign a
percent importance, adding in each case to 100%, to the next
lower heading. Multiply the major topic percent by the next
lower percent to obtain the total percent importance. This
process is continued until weights are assigned to all
topics. A partial example of this procedure follows:
1. Assign weights to major headings
Primary 60%
Secondary ±0%
Total 100%
2. Divide percentage assigned to major headings among
next lower headings
Natural Environment 30%
Man-Made Environment 30%
Total Primary 6056
3. Divide percentage assigned to subheadings among next
lower headings
Atmosphere 1%
Land 855
Land/Water Interface 7%
Water 8%
Total Natural Environment 30/5
4. Continue this process until the weights have been
assigned to all the lowest divisions. The assigned
weights on the included tally sheet should total
100%.
C-5
-------
c. Alternatives Evaluation
The first task associated with evaluating specific
alternatives according to the proceeding criteria is to
identify all viable alternatives. The grant applicant
should present the detailed descriptions of alternatives
already identified as worthy of consideration and the logic
leading to preliminary elimination of other possible
alternatives. This presentation should be followed by
receiving suggestions for additional alternatives to be
evaluated. A simple majority vote might be used to include
or not include an alternative. In some cases, alternatives
which do not fully meet project objectives may be evaluated.
For example, the "no action" alternative or alternatives in
which technology does not allow attainment of objectives.
Generally, cost evaluations, resource utilization, and
reliability determinations will be developed by the grant
applicant or its agent. Resource utilization, such as
energy, chemicals, construction materials and land
commitments for both construction and operation for each
alternative should be made available to the study group as
well as the relative reliability of each alternative. It is
essential that prior to performing the evaluations, the
group have a thorough understanding of facilities locations,
interceptor sizes and locations, service area, design flows,
estimated effluent quality, effluent disposal methods and
discharge locations, sludge disposal areas, air emmissions,
noise and odor production/ and other pertinent necessary for
analyzing the effects of each alternative.
Following familiarization with an alternative and its
effects on each category in the evaluation criteria, the
relative beneficial or adverse effect is quantified as:
Highly Unfavorable = -3
Moderately Unfavorable = -2
Unfavorable = -1
Neutral = 0
Favorable = +1
Moderately Favorable = +2
Highly Favorable = +3
C-6
-------
A rating is placed on each category for each
alternative. This rating is then multiplied by the category
weighting factor and the resultant scores for each criteria
added to obtain the overall environmental rating for that
alternative.
The alternative with the highest score is not
necessarily required to be the chosen alternative, although
reasons for not choosing the most environmentally sound
project must be fully explained. Costs may be one
overriding reason for choosing an alternative not having the
highest score.
The applicant1s consultant may wish to have the
assessment statement project team evaluate the various
alternatives. Persons with specific expertise, such as
Sanitary Engineering, Urban Planning, Economics, Biology,
Physical Science, etc., can give a technical evaluation
irrespective of local sensitivities.
d. Alternatives Cost Evaluation
As previously stated, cost evaluations should be
prepared and presented in the assessment. A final
comparison between environmental ranking and cost ranking
will allow a rapid determination of the costs associated
with avoiding certain adverse impacts and with achieving
certain additional benefits.
As in the facilities planning alternative evaluation
methodology, capital costs and operating costs should be
quantified in terms of total costs and average annual costs.
Costs borne by private concerns should be indicated and the
relationship to total costs discussed. For more detail see
the facilities planning guidelines and the methodology in
the preceding section.
D. Summary
The amount of detail indicated in the preceding two
methodologies may be more detailed than necessary for some
smaller or non-complex projects.
C-7
-------
In all assessment statements though, certain topics
should be addressed and evaluated among the alternatives.
They are:
(a) the degree to which each selected
alternative will solve the identified problems and meet the
other objectives stated in Chapter I (any differences in
meeting compliance timetables should be included);
(b) capital, maintenance and operating cost;
(c) adverse environmental effects - for
collectors and interceptors include a specific statement on
whether development of any area will be encouraged; for a
wastewater treatment facility include a statement about the
compatibility of the selected site with its current and
future surroundings and what v/ill be done to reduce
incompatibility;
(d) other undesirable aspects;
(e) most desirable aspects;
(f) if rejected, the major reasons for
rejection;
(g) if accepted, the major reason for
acceptance.
When there is no perceptible difference between
alternatives during the comparison process, a statement to
that effect is sufficient. At the completion of each major
group of comparisons, the alternative(s) selected as optimum
and the reasons for selecting it should be summarized.
If a system contains a subsystem component designed for
a period less than the life of the entire facility, at which
time it will be replaced or upgraded, the comparative
analysis should reflect this. The discussion should also
emphasize those alternative systems that appear promising in
terms of environmental protection. Different designs for
systems that are essentially identical with respect to
environmental effects should be considered only if their
costs are appreciably different. The discussion should also
include alternatives which provide levels of environmental
C-8
-------
protection above thoso required ot Hie proposed facility
when, although not necessarily economically attractive, they
are practicable on technological grounds.
There are, of course, limitations on the extent to which
an Assessment Statement can evaluate all of the social and
economic benefits and costs of the construction and
operation of a wastewater treatment facility that may have a
design life of 20-25 years — so common sense should
prevail.
The concept of centralized vs. decentralized systems is
receiving increased attention in current system proposals.
When evaluated on the cost of the facilities alone, the
analyses often neglect to discuss adequately the
residential, commercial and industrial development that a
centralized project can induce. Their vast network of
collectors and interceptors often opens up many new areas
for development, or more rapid growth. The comparative
analysis should specifically speak to the environmental
implications of each approach.
C-9
-------
APPENDIX D
SECONDARY IMPACTS EVALUATION
-------
Introduction to Appendix D
This appendix includes excerpts from a report entitled
"Secondary Impact of Regional Sewerage Systems", Vol. 1,
June 1975 prepared by the State of New Jersey Department
of Community Affairs, Division of State and Regional Plan-
ning under a grant from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the Urban Planning
Assistance Program authorized by section 701 of the Housing
Act of 1954, as amended. This information is offered as
assistance in evaluating the secondary impacts resulting
from the construction of sewerage systems. Some of the
information presented relates directly to the State of New
Jersey. However, most of the information is of a general
nature. The manner in which it can be applied in evaluating
the secondary impact of a particular project depends on the
nature and scope of that project.
D-l
-------
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The following research project was jointly conceived by the Division of Water
Resources (DWR), Department of Environmental Protection and the Division of
State and Regional Planning (DSRP), Department of Community Affairs. It began
on July 1, 1973, and was financed, in part, by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development as part of the DSRP Annual 701 Grant Award.
The purpose of the assignment was to examine through analysis of actual case
studies in New Jersey the secondary or long-range effects stemming from the con-
struction of large sewerage systems. To the extent possible, these effects would be
identified, described and measured so that they could be properly addressed in the
water quality planning and management process.
The DSRP obtained the consulting services of the project team responsible for the
report Water Quality Management: New Jersey's Vanishing Options.^ Thus, by com-
bining their intimate knowledge of the Federal and State water quality program and
the knowledge and experience of New Jersey's growth and development of the state
planning agency, a unique research capability and understanding resulted which prob-
ably could not have been reproduced singularly or under other combinations which
excluded either one group or the other.
The need for this study in New Jersey arose from the concern that new regional
sewerage facilities may be spawning rapid population growth and that such growth
is most often unplanned resulting in adverse impacts on water quality and the total
physical environment, as well as on the fiscal resources of municipalities. For ex-
ample, it has been documented in Fairfax County, Virginia,2 that rapid growth in
an area newly served by sewers resulted in a dramatic increase in the rate of
growth and considerable run-off and sedimentation which soon had the effect of
making the water quality in streams and reservoirs worse than it was before the
new sewerage system was installed. In other words, if sewerage systems are not
carefully planned with the impacts of growth in mind, the remedy can be more
damaging than the disease.
1. Dunka, John K. and Westwater, James D., Water Quality Management: New Jersey's
Vanishing Options, County and Municipal Government Study Commission, Trenton,
June, 1973.
2. "Suburban Growth - A Case Study," Population Bulletin. (Population Reference Bureau,
Inc., Washington, D.C. 1972).
D-2
-------
Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts of sewerage systems can be viewed in a number of ways. Several
years ago Congress addressed secondary impacts in the National Environmental Policy
Act3 and the Council on Environmental Policy subsequently noted that:
Many Federal actions, in particular those that involve the construction or licensing of infra-
structure investments (e.g., highways, airports, sewer systems, water resource projects, etc.),
stimulate or induce secondary effects in the form of associated investments and changed
patterns of social and economic activities. Such secondary effects through their impacts on
existing community facilities and activities, or through changes in natural conditions, may
often be more substantial than the primary effects of the original action itself.
Federal statutes now require secondary impacts to be analyzed where Federal monies
are supporting infrastructure development. Figure 1 portrays some of the potential
secondary impacts of regional sewerage systems.
In requesting this study, a special concern of DWR officials was to find ways to
make certain that sewerage facilities, designed to control existing water pollution
problems, would not appropriately be oversized. The pressures are great for building
excess capacity into the new systems. Builders are keenly aware of a need for large
capacity sewage treatment systems, as are local officials seeking ratables. With nearly
100 municipalities in the state under building bans, the demands for expanding or
improving treatment are increasing. Ways must be found to fund sewerage facilities
construction which, as a side-effect, do not result in windfall profits at the public
expense by way of increased land values. At this point, however, with a conspicuous
lack of commonly held and enforceable land use policies at both the State and local
level, and with 208 and 303e planning programs now being utilized, efforts to evalu-
ate and control the size and impact of regional sewerage systems must be directed
through the construction grants program. It is apparent that secondary effects can be
minimized through careful planning, review and management of Federal and State
grants-in-aid.
The key to understanding and utilizing this document is to recognize that it is the
construction grants program that implements planning decisions. Because of the way
Federal policies are articulated in the National Environmental Policy Act and in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,5 actions to deal with
secondary impacts must be made in terms of the construction grants program. If a
project is built without using Federal funds, there is no Federal requirement to
analyze secondary impacts. It is the grant, not the project itself, that enables the
Federal government to require analysis of secondary impacts and to modify the proj-
ect if necessary. An exception to the above is the. requirement under NPDES for an
analysis of the secondary impacts for all new facilities discharging into waterways, re-
gardless of the nature of funding. Though neither the states nor EPA has as yet exer-
cised this authority, they do reserve the right to do so.
3. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C., Section 4321 et seq.
4. Council on Environmental Quality, "Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements," Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 147, Part II, August 1, 1973.
5. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92 - 500, 92nd
Congress, S.2770, October 18, 1972.
D-3
-------
FIGURE 1
Increased
School
Taxes
Wasteful
Consumption
of Energy
Accelerated
Development
Traffic
Congestion
Disappearance
of Prime
Farm Land
Non-Point
Water Pollution
POSSIBLE
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Fiscal
Instability
Increased Surface
Run-Off and
Flooding
Windfall
Land
Profits
Threatened and
Diminished
Water Supply
Direct Water
Pollution from
Inadequate
Wastewater
Treatment
Facilities
Sedimentation
and
Erosion
Increased
Housing
Cost
u-4
-------
The massive amounts of Federal money available for sewer construction in New Jersey
are significant to this study. Figure 2 shows the recent history of Federal funding for
sewerage facilities construction in New Jersey as compared with Federal highway
funding. The figure indicates that sewerage facilities construction funding for New
Jersey in FY 1975 is $253,000,000, while highway funding is $158,000,000. The
dollar amounts for sewerage facilities construction seem even more staggering when
one realizes they would have been almost double that shown for Fiscal Year 1974
and Fiscal Year 1975 if it had not been for a presidential impoundment of funds.
The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively released all of the impounded funds, so it
appears that annual funding for sewerage facilities construction in New Jersey will
continue to increase. The State has estimated that it will need more than $12 billion
for total clean-up by 19906 and that annual expenditures could go up to $500 million.7
On the policy side, this report is designed to encourage discussion of current grants
management policies and procedures. All of these recommendations were made with
the foremost goal of assisting in eliminating the considerable backlog of water pollu-
tion problems in New Jersey. These recommendations aim to link land use planning
considerations more closely to the issuance of construction grants.
On the program management side, the report recommends formalized planning proce-
dures, guidelines for analyzing secondary impacts, and criteria for developing the State
Priority List. It is a purpose of this report to assist in promoting their consideration.
The Report
First the report discusses secondary impacts in some detail. Three case studies are
discussed in Chapter 2, primarily to examine the relationship between sewerage facili-
ties and development patterns in New jersey. It is shown that the availability of
sewerage facilities is one of the most important factors in locating residential, com-
mercial, and industrial developments. It is this fact that leads DSRP to believe that
more comprehensive approaches should be utilized in dealing with secondary impacts
and planning for sewerage systems.
Chapter 3 reviews both the Federal and State water quality management programs,
which define, in large part, what actions municipalities may take regarding sewers.
Because the construction grants program is of such magnitude (see Figure 2) sewer-
age facilities can be viewed not only as a means of cleaning up the State's waters,
but also as a major tool for influencing growth configurations. However, this huge
grants program must be utilized by all levels of government to insure that it will
be more a land and environmental management tool rather than just a public works
program.
6. Walter H. Waggoner, "$12 Billion Price Is Put on Jersey Water Clean-Up," The New York
Times, Sunday, September 18, 1974. New Jersey Section.
7. Commissioner Bardin quoted in "Sewage Project Boon to Building Trade." The New York
'Times, Sunday, October 27, 1974. New Jersey Section.
D-5
-------
FIGURE 2
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL SEWERAGE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
AND HIGHWAY TRUST FUND MONIES FOR NEW JERSEY
$253 MILLIONS
$158 MILLIONS
Fiscal Year 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Sewerage Facilities Construction Grants
Highway Trust Fund Monies ••••••
D-b
-------
In Chapter 4, the problems emanating from the water quality management programs
are identified, especially those that could result in adverse secondary impacts. To
enable the reader to view those problems as they manifest themselves in a specific
situation, a case study was conducted in Ocean County. It points up the conflicts
that arise when project engineers attempt to distinguish between reasonable capacity
for future growth and the oversizing of facilities. This section also discusses with
considerable emphasis on the construction grants program the underlying causes that
force these issues to surface.
Three ways of managing and controlling negative secondary impacts are posited in
Chapter 5. First, improved planning procedures and requirements are detailed. Then
the administration of the State and Federal construction grants program is viewed
as probably the single most powerful tool for achieving resource management goals.
Finally, the strengthening of regulatory controls is offered as another course of action.
Chapter 6 details the conclusions and presents specific recommendations to the Divi-
sion of Water Resources. Detailed discussions of case studies and guidelines for evalu-
ating secondary impacts are in the Appendix to the report. In conjunction with its
overall recommendations, the report suggests a methodology for evaluating secondary
impacts which will provide the tools needed to better control negative secondary
impacts, improve the construction grants program, and enhance New Jersey's environ-
ment.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESEARCH
The following conclusions offer a summary of the report's research effort. After the
general conclusions that give an indication of how powerful a growth tool sewers
have become, conclusions about secondary impacts and the factors conducive to their
occurrence are spelled out. In combination, these conclusions identify the nature and
degree of the problems emanating from the expenditure of large sums for sewerage
facilities in the absence of a definitive State land use program.
Conclusions: General
• Today, outside of the general economy, sewers are the critical ingredient and the
guiding force for growth in New Jersey. As the cost of land and construction
rises, more townhouses and multi-family units will be built in proportion to single
family homes. Sewers are essential for this higher density construction. As a result,
the role of sewers as a growth determinant will become even stronger in the
future.
• The Federal construction grants program for water pollution control is proving to
be a powerful stimulus to growth in the less developed areas of the state.
• The current program contains funding or proposals to fund projects in developing
areas, some of which include excess capacity, e.g., Gloucester and Ocean Counties
and the Wallkill, Rockaway, Pequannock and Wanaque basins.
• Population projects, elusive, inconsistent, and undependable, are the anchor to
which sewerage design and investment are usually tied.
D-7
-------
• Under the current State Priority System, the protection of waters classified high
quality is heavily weighted. High quality waters are found throughout the State,
but particularly in the less developed areas, where they also serve as sources of
water supply or are valuable for recreation. Construction grants money should be
limited in these areas where secondary impacts are likely to be most severe.
• While excess future capacity is being built into some of the facilities which are
funded each year, severe water quality problems persist in many other areas of
the State.
• Rural areas have not been considered a high priority resource and as a result
development is taking place in these areas, thereby generating the need for services
to be extended across intermediate vacant land.
• The State of New Jersey at this time has no official policies toward growth nor
any established land use program. Because of this, actions taken by Federal and
State agencies to clean up the waters cannot be carried out within a framework
of commonly agreed upon land use objectives. Furthermore, in most cases munici-
pal planning and zoning controls have not stood up against the pressures created
by newly available sewer capacity. Few municipalities have carried out the neces-
sary environmental, fiscal, and social analyses to determine the optimum pattern
of development, population limits, and timing for their own growth. Until there
are some established land use policies to guide growth in the state or until re-
source capacity studies can effectively be tied to local planning for growth, land
use planning will be done either via the back door by agencies building public
facilities or not at all. This does, indeed, put a large burden of responsibility upon
those agencies building major public facilities like sewers.
Conclusions: Local Attitudes
• Pressure for continued economic and physical growth has been a fact of life in
New Jersey government, and sewerage facilities are perceived as a primary ingredi-
ent to such growth.
• Federal grant programs are viewed as windfall, one-shot endeavors by local officals.
It has been their judgment that as much aid as possible should be obtained for
the municipality, while still being able to meet the debt service payment on the
local share costs while the opportunity lasts.
• The current policy of 90% grants for sewerage facilities virtually removes local
incentive to control costs or to associate the size and cost of a project with
actual current sewerage needs and the development future of the community.
• Engineering consultants normally advise the •'local authority that it is better to
build all at once for maximum capacity than to carry out the construction in
stages.
• Population growth stimulated by new overextended sewerage system implies
increased municipal service costs, yet future service costs are not analyzed to
enable local officials and the community to understand the fiscal impact of new
development fostered by sewerage systems.
• In most of the cases reviewed, the local planning process is not sufficiently de-
veloped to utilize sewerage planning as a device to carry out comprehensive plans.
D-8
-------
• As soon as a project with excess capacity is on line, a primary goal of the local
operating agency is to attract as many users as possible, often in conflict with the
stated goals of available master plans to control and manage growth.
Conclusions: State Perspective
• By mid-year 1974, the Department of Environmental Protection began to address
the responsibility of managing the total amount of dollars available from Federal
and State sources and to spread it as far as possible to resolve water quality
problems throughout New Jersey.
• New Jersey's construction grants priority list is developed annually to facilitate the
distribution of Federal and State grants, but its changing criteria are due to chang-
ing Federal requirements, thus compounding the problems of aligning planning
policy with the awarding of grants.
• Absence of current detailed written guidelines from the State leaves the sewer
planning process largely to engineering consultants for interpretation and implemen-
tation.
• The lack of uniform guidelines for the analysis of secondary impacts results in
inadequacy to reckon with long-term impacts of sewerage facilities despite require-
ments of the National Environmental Policy Act.
• The size of the proposed system is often not related to the scope of the problems
to be resolved. The desires of municipal officials and their consultants for maximum
capacity systems, rather than State policy, become the guiding force in developing
sewer plans.
• The proliferation of package treatment plants, which are often poorly located and
even more often poorly operated, is literally a "foot in the door" to a consoli-
dated sewerage system and its attendant secondary impacts.
• The expenditure of vast amounts of public funds has resulted in windfall benefits
to landowners in the form of increases in property value. At the same time, the
public does not recoupe this unearned increment of value obtained at its expense.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Two overriding themes have predominated in the formulation of recommendations in
this report. First, how should limited Federal and State funds be utilized to accom-
plish the overall goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972? Second, how can improved planning and analysis of secondary impacts assist
in achieving the goals of the Federal Act, while reducing overspending on single
projects?
Recommendations: General
• The State of New Jersey should regulate investment in sewerage systems to insure
that the considerable sums it controls are used first to eliminate the tremendous
number of water quality problems across the State and only secondly to provide
extra capacity for future populations.
D-9
-------
• The State should incorporate in its annual Water Pollution Control Plan (1) an
articulation of overall State construction grant program goals and objectives (2) a
programming of how and when various types of water pollution problems will be
considered for solution, and (3) an association of the total dollars available to the
problems at hand.
• The funding of large amounts of excess capacity should be discouraged, because
such excess capacity is a powerful stimulus to growth, and uncontrolled growth
brings with it a host of new problems, particularly ones affecting water quality.
• The objectives of each regional sewerage project should be defined in the early
planning stages and the scope of the solutions carefully related to the scope of
the problems.
• Rural areas in New Jersey should be considered a highly valued resource and pro-
jected from extensive sewerage systems where need for service is not demonstrable.
• In the absence of a State land use program, the best course of action is to keep
development options open for the future as much as possible, rather than locking
the State into configurations dominated by sewerage plans. This could be done by
concentrating investment on the severe problems in already built up areas and only
investing in minimum essential capacity in those developing areas where problems
exist and headwaters or recreational waters must be protected. A further step in
carrying out this course of action should be increased enforcement of the regulatory
power of the DEP in dealing with septic systems and package treatment plants.
• Devices to either more equitably distribute the increased development capacity cre-
ated by the construction of the system, or to enable the public to recapture the
unearned increment of value accruing to property owners within a service area, or
both, should be explored.
Recommendations: Construction Grants Program
The Priority System
• See that the goals of the State are reflected in the priority system.
• Set the priority list in rank order so that it reflects the relative importance of
the criteria.
• Establish a fund for Step 1 projects and a separate fund for Step 2 projects.
• If permitted, separate lists should be created to include:
— Segmented projects from previous years
— Treatment plants, pump stations and i'nterceptors
— Other projects, such as collection systems and separation of combined
systems
— Step 1 projects
— Step 2 projects.
• If separate lists are not permitted, a "multipler" (or weighting factor) should be
introduced into the priority system which would in effect separate segmented
projects, treatment plants and other projects from one another. The regulations
clearly permit Step 1 and Step 2 projects to be set aside.
D-10
-------
• Allow flexibility for crisis situations which emerge, without suggesting that
all projects will be funded.
• Establish a formal procedure whereby the State may review a project at each
stage of the facility planning process and exercise the option to modify the scope
of a project at any time prior to certification to the Environmental Protection
Agency.
• Include only those elements of the project which are considered to be essential.
Do not enter projects on the list until they have successfully passed a review or
eligibility conference where the applicant and the State have agreed upon the scope
to be included.
• Provide only for the most immediate needs in areas with demonstrated high growth
potential. Allow for modest additional capacity at treatment plants and minimize
the expenditure for large interceptors in regions where the ultimate capacity in the
region is uncertain. Do not build some interceptors until the need is clear in
order to prevent overextending systems.
• Spend dollars as soon as possible. Spending should be contrasted to the mere act
of obligating monies to applicants, which may not be spent for several months or
even years. As of mid-year 1974 this has begun through segmenting of the projects.
• Separate projects into stages or segments which coincide with a phased construction
program. Establish an approach to scheduling the construction, and reserve this ap-
proach only for the largest projects, say those greater than $10 million. This has
been initiated as of mid-year 1974.
• Assure funding of segmented projects in subsequent fiscal years by establishing a
premium class of those projects which would be funded prior to new projects.
Allow the option that certain projects would not be permitted this favorable con-
sideration.
Facilities Planning
• Prepare a written guidance document which would explain in detail the standards
and procedures for local performance of facilities planning requirements consoli-
dating and unifying existing State and Federal guideline documents.
Secondary Impacts
• Establish special procedures and guidelines for the analysis of secondary impacts.
(See Appendix 1)
• Specify procedures by which elements of secondary impact analysis, where appro-
priate, can be brought into the planning process at an early stage rather than
after major decisions have been made and the Environmental Assessment Statement
is being prepared. A broad-based environmental review procedure should be considered.
Funding
• Establish a policy whereby the State would establish criteria for the amount of
state aid to be granted (up to a maximum of 15%) which would favor dire need
projects and which would disfavor the oversizing of new and expanded systems.
D-ll
-------
• Permit State and Federal governments to fund only essential capacity.
• Reduce initial expenditures by shortening the design life of wastewater transmission
and treatment facilities.
Recommendations: Regulatory Controls
• Improve the basis for review and approval of package treatment plants. Land
disposal technology should be utilized where possible.
• Establish a formal policy favoring operation of such facilities by governmental
units, and minimize the creation and continuance of these franchises.
D-12
-------
APPENDIX I
EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD FOR EVALUATING
SECONDARY IMPACTS OF REGIONAL SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
The purpose of investigating the seven categories in these guidelines in the order suggested is to
gain an understanding of the growth-induced impacts which may result from each of the alterna-
tive systems which have been proposed. It is necessary to determine the probable rate and pattern
of growth in the service area which will result from each alternative and then to analyze the im-
pacts of that growth. Following is a summary of the rationale behind the guidelines.
SECTION I
Determine pressure for development. To get an indication of the amount of pressure for develop-
ment in the area, determine what development has occurred since 1960 and what is happening
now. Separate by type of land use. This will help to determine whether or not there will be a
high rate of growth once the sewers are in. Trends should be adjusted for short-term influences.
SECTION II
Measure vacant, developable land. To get an idea of how much growth could occur, determine
how much vacant, developable land there is. Also indicate natural and physical limitations of the
land for development.
SECTION III
Compare proposal with existing plans. To see if the proposed project conflicts in any way with
existing plans, compare a map of the service area showing the location of the proposed system
with plans and future land use plans of municipalities, counties and the State, including plans for
highways, parks, reservoirs, and environmentally critical areas. (Include such agencies as the New
Jersey Highway and Turnpike Authorities and the Atlantic City Expressway.)
SECTION IV
Evaluate municipal attitude toward growth. The level of land use planning in an area will be
decisive in determining potential secondary impacts so it is necessary to evaluate the quality of
the planning effort which is being carried out in each municipality. A checklist of indicators is
given with which to measure the degree of commitment to basic planning objectives.
SECTION V
Estimate growth. While it is difficult to estimate growth when counties and municipalities have
tended to simply accommodate growth as it comes along rather than setting limits and specifying
timed stages for development, this task must be carried out in as enlightened a manner as possible.
It is necessary to estimate the amount and pattern of growth which will occur in the ten years
after construction. This estimate will be based mainly on previously gathered information, such as
the amount of vacant, developable land, municipal policies and attitudes, the pressures for develop-
ment in the area, and the development trends, e.g., RUDs.
SECTION VI
Measure impact. All the previous steps lead up to this one, which should be considered the heart
of the analysis. Using the estimates of the pattern and rate of growth above, describe the potential
impacts of this growth on the individual municipalities and the region.
SECTION VII
Weigh alternatives. This section should be a thorough evaluation of the alternative proposals in
terms of the long-range impacts discussed in the previous section. If possible it should conclude
with a recommended project proposal which would have the least adverse impact while adequately
solving the current water quality problems of the area. The possibility that all alternatives repre-
sent too large a solution to existing problems should not be ignored.
b-13
-------
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING SECONDARY IMPACTS
OF REGIONAL SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
The environmental assessment which accompanies each facilities plan must include a discussion of
the secondary impacts of the proposed facility. According to federal regulations, secondary impacts
include changes in the intensity and distribution of the population, and changes in the human use
of the land. Because secondary impacts are a measure of long-range and lasting effects of a project,
analysis of secondary impact should be at least as lengthly and detailed as that for primary impacts.
The following guidelines are offered to assist in addressing this question.
1. Growth Experience of the Service Area
A. Describe the growth experience of each municipality and the whole study area since
1960, including changes in size of population, types of residential development, types
of industrial and commercial development, and changes in other major uses of land,
such as farming. Map this information.
B. How does this growth experience in the service area compare with the rest of the
county and with the state as a whole in terms of population, employment, building
permits granted, industrial development?
C. Rank in order of importance the major factors influencing growth in the area and give
rationale behind choices; for example:
proximity to metropolitan areas
accessibility — highways, public transport
natural resources — water supply, aquifers, prime farmlands
natural features - mountains, streams, ocean
inexpensive land
buildable land
public facilities
etc.
D. Determine the degree of development activity in each municipality in the sewer service
area by showing how much development by type — commercial, single family residential,
apartments, PUDs, industrial, etc., has been approved in the past two years. Look also
outside the specific service area for indications of development pressure in the region
including planned capital facilities.
1. Based on recently proposed subdivisions and building permit applications,
estimate the amount of residential development that is likely to be con-
structed in the next few years. Determine the number of potential dwelling
units which will probably be built without the proposed project.
2. Indicate lands which are known to be held by speculators and developers. In
New Jersey a copy of every deed recorded with the County Clerk's Office is
sent back to the municipality. So information relating to changes in ownership
should be available at municipal offices. The county agricultural agent will be a
useful source of information in this regard.
II. Existing Land Use
A. On map or photo quad of the service area at U.S.G.S. scale, map publicly owned
lands, floodplains, wetlands, etc.
B. Map undeveloped lands and determine the number of vacant acres. Subtract publicly
owned lands, floodplains, wetlands, slopes exceeding 15%, etc. to determine the number
of vacant, developable acres in each municipality and in service area.
D-14
-------
C. List any major deterrents to growth, both natural and other, e.g., lack of water supply,
lack of sewers, bad drainage, difficult terrain, stream loading limitations, etc.
(This information will have already been obtained for the inventory of natural resources
required in the preparation of a facilities plan.)
D. At same scale as above, preferably as an overlay, map current zoned densities, taking
these from each municipality's zoning map and ordinance. Deduce from this current
zoned capacity of the service area.
III. Relationship to Future Plans
A. Study future land use plans where they exist of each municipality in the service area.
Indicate the status of these plans. Are they official, adopted plans? When were they
prepared and adopted? If no plans exist, review the zoning ordinance. If neither exists,
so note.
B. Describe all other applicable planning for the service area, including regional and county
future land use plans, state highway plans, state open space plans, plans for environment-
ally critical areas, i.e., floodplains, wetlands, coastal zones, etc. Confer particularly with
county planners for this overview. Are local plans consistent with these county, regional
and State plans? Point out major discrepancies. Separate planned expenditures from
general plans.
C. How does the provision of the proposed facility relate to the above plans? Does it
propose sewers in areas designated for conservation, open space, recreation or in environ-
mentally critical areas? Where conflicts exist, how is the system designed to deal with
them?
IV. Status of Planning in Each Municipality
A. What is the attitude toward growth in each of the participating municipalities? Determine
this by examining municipal records, interviewing public officials, planning consultants,
citizens, and reviewing area newspapers.
B. How much has each municipality in the service area spent on planning in each of the
last five years? Show the relationship between the amount of vacant, developable land
they have and the amount of money they spend for planning.
C. Describe the degree to which each municipality has dealt with the following checklist
of basic planning elements:
1. Inventory of natural resources, including geology, soils, topography, water quality,
water supply.
2. Open Space Needs Study and Open Space Plan.
3. Housing Needs Study and Housing Plan.
4. Collector Sewer Master Plan.
5. Adopted Master Plan which encompasses the above elements.
6. Provisions in zoning ordinance providing for "timing of development," clustering,
PUD and PURD.
7. A six-year capital program.
8. Describe municipalities' current debt status and capacity.
D. Evaluate the consistency of the municipalities' land use ordinances and their plan.
(Note inconsistencies in terms of impact on system design.)
E. Examine the records of the Zoning Boards of Adjustment for the past five (5) years
in the service area.
D-15
-------
1. What is the frequency of use or "d" variances?
2. To what extent are they a departure from the plans and adopted land use regula-
tions; note especially:
a. changes in density
b. marked changes in type of use
c. marked changes in waste discharge characteristics of permitted uses
3. Discuss the potential impact on system design where significant Zoning Board
activity has been occurring.
V. Estimating Growth
The Environmental Assessment must take into account the assumption that putting through
sewer interceptors will stimulate pressures for development. The growth which will follow
the construction of the project must be estimated in order to deduce the potential impacts
on natural resources, public services, fiscal policy and the character of the area.
A. For each alternative indicate on a map of the service area (no smaller than U.S.G.S.
scale) the location and size of proposed sewer lines and treatment plants. Aerial
photographs available at U.S.G.S. scale, 24,000:1, is a useful base on which to lay
out proposed systems.
In light of municipal policies, proposed developments, and amount of development
pressure discussed above and with careful analysis of the vacant, developable land
which will be served by the proposed system, estimate the population which will
occur in the service area within the 10 years following the construction of the pro-
posed project. This could be a range rather than a single figure. It will be necessary
to estimate the spatial pattern, density and general housing types which will probably
occur. Where assumptions are made, they should be clearly stated and justified.
B. For purposes of comparison, also estimate an ultimate population for the service area
based on the design size of the pipes, assuming full capacity use. Evaluate the engineer's
assumptions about per capita use and peak flows as well as his methods for computing
pipe sizes.
C. Under current state and local policies toward zoning, floodplains, critical areas, septic
tanks and package treatment, what growth would occur if the project were not con-
structed using the 10 year time frame.
VI. Measuring Potential Impact of the Proposed Facility (and Alternatives).
Using growth estimates from Section V. A., determine the potential impacts of development
on: regional economic patterns, transportation, local sewer collector systems, health services,
solid waste disposal, schools, municipal fiscal structure, air quality, water supply, flooding,
water quality downstream effects and the character of the region.
A. The impact of each of these should be analyzed for each municipality in the service
area using referenced standards.
1. Regional economic patterns. What will be the impact (positive and negative) of
growth on the following economic activities: agriculture, industrial development,
retail business and services? This analysis should include geographic as well as
measured aspects.
2. Transportation. How many additional cars for residents, commuting-in traffic and
service vehicles will be generated? What new roads and road widenings will be
necessary to serve this additional traffic? Estimated pattern of development under
Section V.A. of these Guidelines will be useful here. Approximate costs. How will
the burden be divided up between federal, state, county and local government?
D-16
-------
Will a public transportation system be possible within the region if it doesn't
exist now?
3. Local sewer collector systems. How much sewerage will have to be constructed
by each municipality? Estimate costs. Add costs of local system to costs of
regional system to produce estimated total cost to users 10 years after construc-
tion of regional project. Is the cost high enough to create pressure for more
users?
4. Health Services. Estimate demand for hospital beds, nursing home beds, and other
services as identified by the State Comprehensive Health Planning Agency.
5. Solid waste disposal. Estimate the amount of solid waste (tons per month) which
will have to be collected and disposed of. Are there plans for dealing with this?
Have sites been chosen? What will be approximate yearly costs for facilities and
operations? Are there available approved disposal areas in the area?
6. Schools. How many additional school children can be anticipated? Using the
estimated number of additional housing units in V.A. and accepted standards for
the number of school children per unit.^ Based on current cost per school child
per year in each municipality, estimate future annual operating and construction
costs. Relate the latter to debt section below.
7. Municipal fiscal structure. What are the anticipated effects of increased population
on the fiscal position and tax rates of each municipality. Indicate whether or not
there might be an increased financial burden on residents and if so, to what de-
gree. (Again, it may be necessary to discuss this in terms of a range of possibili-
ties.) 2 What are the capabilities of the towns with respect to their current and
future debt capacity characteristics?
8. Clean air. What is existing air quality in the region based on current readings for
particulates, photo chemical oxidants and sulphur oxides? With anticipated growth
what would be the projected amount of deterioration in air quality in regard to
these three parameters? Is this within the bounds of the EPA air quality incre-
ment standards?
9. Water supply. What are the current sources of potable water and what is the
adequacy of such sources for meeting estimated future population needs? Deter-
mine what other sources might be available, how they might be brought into
use and the approximate cost involved. Is depletion of streams or wastewater
loading a concern in planning for future water supply?
10. Flooding. To what extent will the amount and speed of run-off be increased by
estimated changes in land use, and what effect will this increased run-off have
on frequency and magnitude of floods for 25-year storm, for 50-year storm?3
11. Water quality. What are the anticipated effects on stream quality and underground
water quality of the run-off and increased wasteload resulting from the estimated
development?
12. Character of the region. Would there be any significant changes in the appearance
or functioning of the region which should be documented?
B. What are the most significant problems which can be foreseen as the result of the
above described impacts of growth? Describe them at length.
1. See Explanatory Notes at end of guidelines.
2. See Explanatory Notes at end of guidelines.
3. See Explanatory Notes at end of guidelines.
D-17
-------
C. Is the design and construction schedule of the proposed facility compatible with phasing
of growth in the individual municipalities and in the region, or will large areas be opened
up all at once?
VII. Weighing Alternatives
A. Which of the alternative proposals best minimizes adverse secondary impacts while
providing an adequate solution to the water quality problems of the area?
B. It is possible that each of the proposed alternatives represents too large a solution
in relation to existing problems, thus threatening the area with unnecessary secondary
impacts. If this is the case, indicate ways in which you feel the project might be
revised, scaled down or staged and still solve the water quality problems of the area.
VII. Qualifications of Consultants
A. It is apparent that preparation of an analysis of secondary impacts should be a team
effort. Identify persons who prepared the statement and their qualifications in the
fields of planning, traffic engineering, economics, hydrology, sanitary engineering, etc.
D-18
-------
EXPLANATORY NOTES
1. The following steps are suggested:
a. Estimate number of additional housing units. (See Section V., A.)
b. New development will have considerably more multi-family units than has been true up
to this time, so make assumptions within the following ranges.
25% - 30% single family
35% - 40% townhouses
30% - 40% apartments
c. The following coefficients for average number of school children in the different types
of units are found in the County and Municipal Government Study Commission study.
.3 — apartments
.7 — townhouses
1.5 — single family
d. Multiplying these coefficients by the numbers of different types of units, one can
arrive at a general estimate of the number of additional school children.
See also Evaluating the Fiscal Impact of the Planned Unit Development, published by the
Division of State and Regional Planning, 1974.
2. In a general description of simplified fiscal impact analysis Real Estate Research
Corporation of Chicago suggests the following methodology.
"The purpose of a fiscal impact study is to demonstrate the positive and negative impacts
a given development or developments will have on a community, measured as the difference
between revenues generated and the costs of services and facilities required.
The basic approach is to determine the average per capita municipal costs to serve anticipated
residents of a proposed development or developments or in the case of schools, operation and
capital cost per student to accommodate anticipated new students. This is then compared to
property tax anticipated from the proposed construction."
3. Several methodologies have been developed for measuring anticipated increases in
run-off in urbanizing areas. A very adequate one is described in:
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Central Technical Unit. Hydrology Technical
Notes 1 and 20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
December, 1973. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania.
D-19
-------
APPENDIX E
PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS PROGRAM
-------
ILLINOIS
Illinois is adding some additional State categories to the Federal Prime
and Unique classifications. Ten counties will be studied this year. Contact
the SCS office for Illinois (see address below) for more information.
Interested persons can have their names put on a mailing list to receive
maps as they are published.
SCS Contact:
DANIEL E. HOLMES
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
FEDERAL BUILDING
200 W. CHURCH STREET
P.O. BOX 678
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
958-9147 (FTS) 217-356-3785 (COMMERCIAL)
INDIANA
Indiana is using only the Federal Prime and Unique classifications. Surveys
are underway in several counties. Contact the SCS State Office for assistance.
SCS Contact;
CLETUS J. GILLMAN
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
ATKINSON SQUARE - WEST
SUITE 2200
5610 CRAWFORDSVILLE ROAD
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46224
331-6515 (FTS) 317-269-6515 (COMMERCIAL)
MICHIGAN
Michigan is also studying non-agricultural lands. Work has begun on eight
counties. A statewide map will be available based on past surveys. Contact
the local (county) Soil Conservation Service office or the State office for
more information.
SCS Contact
ARTHUR H. CRATTY
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
1405 HARRISON ROAD
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823
374-4242 (FTS) 517-372-1910 ext. 242 (COMMERCIAL)
E-l
-------
MINNESOTA
Federal definitions for "prime", "good", "unique" and other lands are being
used; the additional categories of "marginal" and "sub-marginal" are under
consideration. Ten counties in the southeast part of the State are
being worked on; five additional counties are proceeding on a trial basis.
Contact the State Soil Conservation Service Office for assistance.
SCS Contact;
HARRY M. MAJOR
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
200 FEDERAL BUILDING AND U.S. COURTHOUSE
316 NORTH ROBERT STREET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 725-7675 (FTS and COMMERCIAL)
OHIO
Additional local categories are under consideration. Six counties are
being studied this year. The focus is on those with rapidly expanding
populations, including Clermont, Montgomery, Lucas, and Delaware. Contact
the State Soil Conservation Service Office for information.
SCS Contact;
ROBERT E. QUILLIAM
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
311 OLD FEDERAL BUILDING
3rd and STATE STREETS
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
943-6785 (FTS) 614-469-8765 (COMMERCIAL)
WISCONSIN
Forage lands, important to Wisconsin's dairy industry, will be added to
the Federal categories. Survey work is beginning. Contact the local
Soil Conservation Service Office which is usually located at the county
seat, for additional information.
SCS Contact;
JEROME C. HTTRY
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
4601 Hammersley Road
P.O. BOX 4248
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53711
364-5351 (FTS) 608-252-5351 (COMMERCIAL)
E-2
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977—752-110
------- |