905R80139
5464 DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Integral Component of the Cost-Effective
Analysis Portion of a Facilities Plan
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 environmental 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 integrate 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.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the EPA
is responsible for preparing environmental impact statements on facilities
plans and resultant wastewater treatment projects that significantly affect
the environment. To carry out this task, EPA requires that environmental
assessments be prepared for all plans and projects prior to submittal. These
assessments are to provide data and information needed for EPA to develop the
required environmental impact statements. If prop erly prepared, the facilities
plan is, in fact, the environmental assessment.
At the heart of environmental assessment is the need to take a broad view of
the environment, encompassing physical/chemical, ecological, aesthetic, and
social factors. Another key point is the necessity to consider and evaluate
complete packages of feasible alternatives for meeting stated water quality
goals. Evaluation of alternatives is essential in the planning process to
identify the most environmentally acceptable plan. It is not the intent of
NEPA that alternatives be screened solely on the basis of environmental impact,
but simply to insure that environmental amenities are given due consideration
along with technical considerations, costs, and public desires.
-------
-------
-2-
It is extremely important to recognize the purpose of the attached guidance.
First of all, it is based on existing regulations and requirements and is
not meant to be v.JLewed as "still another requirement". We have been asked,
by several states and other groups, to prepare a guidance document for the
use of consultants who are attempting to prepare environmental assessments.
In this document we have elaborated on the regulations and already existing
guidance to indicate the type of document which we feel will satisfy the
regulations. Secondly, this guidance is of a. general nature and therefore
very comprehensive. It is definitely unnecessary to address each item for
every facilities plan. The depth of detail and scope of the assessment will
vary greatly from case to case. Large complex projects will probably require
more than is contained in this guidance, such as a very detailed consideration
of sludge handling alternatives. In many cases it will be possible to
perform a much more simplified facilities plan as is pointed out on page 13
of our Guidance for Facilities Planning, January 1974. In any case where there
is some question concerning the scope of the cost-effective analysis and
environmental assessment, please contact your State water pollution control
Agency or the Planning Branch of USEPA.
References:
1. Guidance for Facilities Planning - January 1974
a. Chapter 4 - Monetary Cost Evaluation - Appendix (present
worth and annual equival ent cost).
b. Chapter 5 - Environmental Evaluation
c. Chapter 6 - Plan Selection & Alternatives
2. Manual for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements - July 1974
3. 40 CFR Part 6 - Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements - Interim
Rules and Regulations - January 17, 1973.
4. 40 CFR Part 6 - Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements - Pro-
posed Rules and Regulations - July 17, 1974.
5. 40 CFR Part 35 - Construction Grants for Waste Treatment Works -
Rules and Regulations - February 11, 1974.
6. 40 CFR Part 105 - Public Participation in Water Pollution Control -
Minimum Guidelines - August 23, 1973.
-------
I. Background
A. Description of the facilities planning area
1. Maps showing the planning area and the basis for its
delineation should be presented.
2. Significant topographic and hydrologic characteristics
of the area should be discussed, including low flow
information on streams in area.
3. All relevant treatment works and other structural
alternatives should also be specifically located.
4. Water quality characteristics of the region, including:
a. Condition of the surface waters and the water
quality standards for these waters
b. Septic tank problems
c. Groundwater contamination
B. Present wastewater collection and treatment system(s)
1. History, condition and other characteristics of the collection
systems, including:
a. Presence and location of bypasses
b. Surcharging problems (including basement backups)
c. Peak flow rates experienced
(This section might simply reference the Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis and Sewer System Evaluation Survey which has been
done for each community involved, if appropriate, or a
summarization of basic information contained in these
documents might be presented).
2. Basic description of the present treatment plant(s), including:
a. History
b. Present condition
c. Levels of treatment presently obtained
d. Significant industries in the area and the nature
and quantity of their wastes.
C. Estimates of future wastewater loadings and flows based on population
projections and industrial wastewater characteristics for industries
which might be expected to come into the municipal system.
D. The conditions contained in the permit issued under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the status of enforcement
orders, if appropriate.
-------
-2-
E. Water quality and water quantity objectives in the area other than
solution of the preceding problems. Examples of additional
objectives and goals are:
1. Streamflow augmentation for enhancing water supplies
downstream, stream fisheries, recreation or aesthetic
values.
2. Preservation or development of recreation areas, wetlands
or attractive open spaces.
3. Preservation or enhancement of high quality waters with
recreational, fish and wildlife or aesthetic values.
4. Groundwater recharge for augmenting water supply
5. Alleviation of groundwater pollution.
6. Reuse of treated wastewater such as recycling of nutrients in
treated wastewater.
F. Other relevant or interacting programs in the area, both governmental
and private.
II. The Environment Without the Proposed Action
A. General
The social, economic and environmental setting of the area of the
proposed action is important for the decision maker and the public.
The environmental setting is the starting point from which forecasts
of the environmental impact of the proposed action must be made.
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.
The importance of using maps to illustrate topics is stressed—
especially where environmentally sensitive areas are concerned.
The narrative should be concise, not exhaustive. Only those
characteristics of the social and environmental setting which are
most important in relationship to the proposed action should be
discussed in any detail, and those which are not particularly
relevant should be omitted.
-------
-3-
B. Detailed description of the study area
1. Climate
Describe the climatic conditions for the general area
of the proposed actions including temperature, precipitation,
humidity, wind direction and velocity. List any specific
adverse weather conditions and their frequency.
2. Topography
Describe the topograpy of the area of the proposed actions
delineating the major and minor drainage basins along with
their characteristics—area, slope, elevation, natural and
artificial drainage nets, erosion, and deposition.
3. Geology
Geologic structures or formations that have a direct influence
on either groundwater of surface water resources should be
specifically mentioned.
4. Soils
Identify soil types and their permeability, erosion potential,
expansion, compaction and other characteristics in the
appropriate areas. This section should be much more detailed
when land application is being considered.
5. Hydrology
a. Water quality
1. Describe the existing surface and groundwater
quality using physical, chemical and biological
parameters.
2. Describe the existing surface and groundwater
quantity and its relation to water uses and objectives.
3. Regulatory and administrative procedures in force
to reduce water consumption should be noted if
significant.
4. Address specifically relevant non-point sources
of pollution if they will impact the solution of
the point source problem or the selection of a
particular alternative.
-------
-4-
b. Water Quality Management
1. Describe or reference all pertinent areawide
or basin water quality management plans.
2. Indicate the 25, 50 and 100 year flood levels
for the area. Identify any Corps of Engineer
flood-plain plan or proposed project.
6. Biology
a. Indicate those species in the area which have been designated
rare or endangered, either at the State level or nationally.
A list of endangered animal species generally found
in Region V is attached. A similar list of plant species
is being developed.
b. Describe wildlife habitat or portions thereof which might
be affected by the project.
7. 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 the air implemen-
tation plan for the area.
8. Land Use
a. If available, include a map of existing land uses such
as residential, commercial and services, industrial,
cluster housing, strip development, mining, transportation,
institutional, open space and outdoor recreation, agri-
cultural, forest land, water, archaeological, historical
and other points of interest in the area of any proposed
interceptors.
b. If available , include a map of land uses, both private
and public, for those categories listed above, which are
currently being proposed by local, State, national or
regional governments in the areas of any proposed inter-
ceptors .
c. Describe the extent and effectiveness of current land
use planning by all levels of government.
d. Describe the administrative and regulatory land use
controls now in effect.
-------
-5-
e. Describe development trends for the industrial, agri-
cultural, commercial, residential, and recreational
sectors—especially those near or around bodies of water.
f. Describe any aspects of these trends which might threaten
air or water quality or bring about other environmental
problems.
9. Aesthetics
Describe the areas general aesthetic quality, including noise,
and the overall "composition" of the area.
10. Population Projections and Economics
Designate the current and projected population levels (5, 10,and
20 years). The reasons for using a particular projection or
forecast should be stated briefly. This information may be in
the Infiltration/Inflow Analysis and could simply be referenced
here.
C. Identification of Significant Environmentally Sensitive Areas
1. Identify and show on a map any areas which may be significantly
impacted by the proposed action, and which are not described
elsewhere in this Chapter.
2. Somaexamples of environmentally sensitive areas include:
a. Surface waters,
b. marshland and wetlands,
c. flood plains or flood-retention areas,
d. groundwater recharge areas,
e. steeply sloping lands,
f. forests and woodlands,
g. prime agricultural lands,
h. habitats of rare and endangered species,
i. public outdoor recreation areas,
-------
-6-
j. sensitive geologic areas, and
k. archeological and historic sites
III. 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
understand the environmental implication of allowing the status
quo to continue.
B. 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).
1. 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
purposes of this analysis, e.g., treatment processes. These
simplifying assumptions must be clearly spelled out).
a. Monetary costs of the feasible combinations should
be assessed in terms of the "total present worth" of
the entire system.
b. 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:
1. effects of interceptor locations on land use
within and between urban areas.
-------
-7-
2. Effects of alternative combinations on stream
flows in the region.
c. Other non-monetary costs should be evaluated, including:
1. Possible site limitations—is area available for
future expansion or additions?
2. Possible differences in operation and maintenance
capability and reliability.
2. Based on information contained in 1, a recommendation for a
specific treatment configuration should be made. This re-
commendation should include:
a. A map of the regional area with specific service areas for
each proposed treatment plant delineated, and
b. A specific statement which identifies the political units
lying within the service area of each proposed plant.
C. Analysis of Alternative Treatment Systems Within a Specific Service Area
1. The effect which "no action" would have on communities involved
must be addressed. It is not sufficient just to indicate that
the communities involved are under orders. The statement must
examine potential effects on:
a. Surface water quality
b. Land use - examine restrictions on land use which might
be imposed by "no action".
c. Groundwater quality - examination of limitations in
utilizing private septic systems.
d. Socio-economic character of communities.
1. Health hazards
2. Industrial development
2. Preliminary alternative systems featuring at least one technique
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 justification for eliminating a technique during the
preliminary screening process is presented.
-------
-8-
a. Treatment and discharge to surface waters
1. Biological treatment
2. Physical-chemical treatment
3. Systems combining the above techniques
b. Treatment and wastewater reuse
1. Industrial processes
2. Groundwater recharge for water supply enhancement
3. Surface water supply enhancement
4. Recreation lakes
5. Land reclamation
c. 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:
1. Irrigation including spray, ridge and furrow, and
flood.
2. Overland flow
3. Infiltration - percolation
d. Any facilities plan must consider the optimization of the
performance efficiency of any existing facilities as an
alternative to or integral part of any additional treatment
facilities.
e. Flow and waste reduction measures, including rehabilitation
of existing sewers as demonstrated to be cost-effective
through the Sewer System Evaluation Survey, should also be
discussed. These components of the Facilities Plan can
simply be referenced. Other flow and waste reduction
measures include:
-------
-9-
1. Household water saving devices
2. Water meters
3. Water pricing
4. Land use and development regulations
5. Industrial reuse and recycling
This section should contain a discussion of limiting factors,
assumptions, or conditions that affect the scope of alter-
natives considered or analyses performed. 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.
D. Detailed evaluation of those alternatives which appear most
feasible
1. A comprehensive evaluation must be made of the major
environmental effects which will be common to all alterna-
tives selected for detailed evaluation. This statement
must, among other things, address the following specific
questions.
a. Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should
any one of the proposals be implemented.
b. The relationship between local short-term uses of
the environment and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity.
c. Irreversible and irretrievalbe commitments of
resources which would be involved if any of the
alternatives selected for full evaluation were
implemented.
2. Analysis of the differing impacts of each alternative
selected for full evaluation.
a. Calculation of "total present worth" for each
alternative, including the possibility of phased
additions, where appropriate.
-------
-10-
b. A careful delineation of the unique environmental
effects, both adverse and beneficial, of the
alternatives in question. Specific attention should
be given to sludge disposal questions, where
appropriate, including the exact location of any
disposal sites.
c. An examination of other non-monetary effects of
each alternative. Specifically:
1. Flexibility of system
a. Ease of moving to higher levels of
treatment, if necessary.
b. Ease of accomodating unforeseen changes
in service area or growth rates.
2. Reliability of the alternative treatment
system in handling variations in quantity
and quality of wastewater flow.
3. Operability of the alternative system in
light of the manpower which will be available
for operation and maintenance over the life
of the facilities.
4. Any greater than typical energy requirements
of a particular treatment alternative.
5. Any other non-monetary effects associated
with a particular alternative.
3. A list of any permits or other formal approvals which
would be needed for the implementation of a particular
alternative.
IV. Selection and Description of a Proposed Alternative
A. Plan Selection
1. A number of comparative analysis should be conducted
during the systematic development of system alternatives.
2. All comparisons should be discussed in narrative form
and displayed in a summary chart. The major reasons
for acceptance or rejection of an alternative should be
stated in each case. This selection must be based on a
-------
-11-
careful evaluation of all costs involved: monetary,
environmental and other non-monetary costs. An overall
minimization of costs, both monetary and non-monetary,
must be sought.
3. The concept of centralized vs. decentralized systems is
receiving increased attention in current system proposals.
When evaluated on the cost of the facilites 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 open up many new areas for development,
or more rapid growth. The final screening should speci-
fically speak to these environmental implications of each
system.
B. Description of Proposed Action
1. A brief summary of the selected alternative and its
environmental implications shall be provided.
2. Any mitigative actions necessary to alleviate adverse
environmental impacts shall be set forth in this section.
V. Public Participation
A. A public hearing will be held to explain the alternative
proposals and obtain the views of all concerned interests.
Reflecting inputs from the public, each alternative proposal
will be reviewed with respect to environmental effects,
monetary costs, plan implementation capability, resources
and energy use, reliability and public acceptance. Based on
consideration of each of these factors, the alternative
proposals will be ranked and a plan selected for implementation.
B. In the final cost-effectiveness analysis, the various efforts
at involving the public, including the mandatory public
hearing, must be presented. A discussion of how the signi-
ficant issues raised by the public were incorporated into
the decision making process must be included. In other words,
the draft material presented at the public hearing must be
modified to account for significant issues raised by the
public.
-------
-------
Rare & Endangered Animal Species - Region V
Fish
Salmoniformes
Longjaw Cisco Coregonus alpenae
Perciformes
Blue Pike Stizostedion vitreum glaucum
Birds
Falconiformes
Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius
Passeriformes
Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii
Mammals
Chiroptera
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis
Carnivora
Eastern Timber Wolf Canis lupus lycaon
Source: U. S. List of Endangered Fauna, U. S. Dept. of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1974
------- |